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:20240620T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240620T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064349 CREATED:20240119T035654Z LAST-MODIFIED:20260417T001635Z UID:10000099-1718888400-1718902800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 20\, 2024 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location – Note room correction as of June 18Metro Center375 Beale Street\, Board Room (previously noticed for Temazcal Room)San Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building: 575 Administration Dr.\, Rm 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\nRichmond City Council Office: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, Richmond\, CA 94804\nSouth San Francisco City Hall: 400 Grand Ave.\, 2nd Floor Mayor’s Office\, South San Francisco\, CA 94080\n715 P Street\, 20th Fl\, “Trestles” Conf. Rm.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n1084 Clarendon Cres\, Oakland\, CA 94610\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave\, 15th Fl\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nOffice of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530 (510) 942-2220\nMarin County Civic Center: 3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Ste. 326\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540\n550 White Oak Dr.\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95409\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/89218927634?pwd=kvqpZrDiA7uoYLcfKI0Z_5FLkcylZQ.MIEgBAAX7rDilulJ \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID892 1892 7634 \nPasscode394882 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \n\n\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for June 6\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nProposed Adoption of Revised Stipulated Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. 2022.001.01 (224 Sea Cliff Ave\, SF)Section V.D of CCD No. 2022.001.00 requires the purchaser of 224 Sea Cliff Avenue in San Francisco to work with BCDC staff and present a stipulated CCD for Commission adoption without civil administrative liability. Staff proposes that the Commission adopt revised stipulated CCD No. 2022.001.01\, the terms of which have been agreed to by the respondent (new owner) and BCDC staff.(Michael Ng) [415/352-3610; michael.ng@bcdc.ca.gov]Recommended Enforcement Decision  // Presentation\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Bay Sand Budget\, Transport\, and Provenance Studies and Potential Effects of Sand MiningAs required by Commission permits for sand mining in Central and Suisun Bay in 2015\, the studies on the Bay’s sand budget\, transport patterns\, provenance\, and potential effects of mining are complete. A Commission selected Independent Science Panel has reviewed the studies\, deliberated on them\, and made findings regarding this new information and the potential effects of mining on this part of the Bay sediment system. The sand mining companies\, Martin-Marietta and Lind Marine will provide a short presentation on mining activities and staff will provide a presentation on the findings report. The report and several appendices were mailed to the Commission on June 7\, 2024\, for its review.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]San Francisco Bay Sand Budget\, Transport\, Provenance\, and Bathymetric Change Studies and Potential Physical Effects of Sand Mining ActivitiesAppendix A // Appendix B // Appendix C // Appendix D // Appendix E // Appendix F // Appendix G // Appendix HStaff presentation // Presentation\nBriefing on Sediment Management Workshops and Action PlanCommission staff will provide a briefing on the Sediment for Wetland Adaptation Project\, a coordination effort and potential Bay Plan Amendment\, to increase the availability and use of Bay sediment\, fluvial sediment\, and construction soils to restore and adapt wetlands to rising sea levels. Working with its partners—US Environmental Protection Agency\, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board\, State Coastal Conservancy\, San Francisco Bay Joint Venture\, and San Francisco Estuary Institute—the Commission hosted a two-day in-person workshop on January 23rd and February 13th\, 2024\, to review and discuss potential changes to sediment management and an implementation action plan with partners and stakeholders who investigate\, collect\, manage\, use\, dispose\, and regulate sediment\, and manage and restore wetlands around San Francisco Bay. The Commission will receive an update on the outcomes of the workshop and a preview of the action plan.(Maya McInerney) [415/352-3646; maya.mcinerney@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Delta AdaptsDelta Stewardship Council staff members Jeff Henderson\, Planning Director\, and Morgan Chow\, Program Manager\, will present on the Delta Adapts Adaptation Strategy. Delta Adapts is a climate change adaptation study for the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh the includes strategies to improve the resilience of the region to climate change hazards including sea level rise.(Cory Copeland) [415/352-3644; cory.copeland@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n \nThis report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \nThere have been no administrative permit applications filed. \nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Water Resources1416 9th StreetSacramento\, CA 95814 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.004.00-RWP-1\n \n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay and Shoreline Band\, at three exterior levees at Chipps Island\, within the eastern Suisun Marsh\, in unincorporated Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay and Shoreline Band: \nRepair three exterior breaches to exterior levees: \n\nBreach 1: Place approximately 30 linear feet of sheet pile and 216 square feet (21 cubic yards) of soil (to be removed late 2025);\nBreach 2: Place approximately 30 linear feet of sheet pile and 216 square feet (21 cubic yards) of soil (sheet pile to be removed late 2024; soil as permanent repair); and\,\nBreach 3: Place a water filled cofferdam over approximately 1\,170 square feet of the existing levee (to be removed late 2025).\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nKarl Johannsmeier5 Blanding LaneBelvedere\, CA 94920 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2022.009.00-RWP-4 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band\, at 5 Blanding Lane\, in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConstruct an approximately 11-foot-long and 5-foot-tall steel mesh fence (after-the-fact). \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Alameda Public Works Department950 West Mall Square\, Room 110Alameda\, CA 94501 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.006.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nAlameda West Lagoon System Outfall\, which perpendicularly intersects Bayview Drive starting from the Bayview Weir in Lagoon 5\, in the City and County of Alameda. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct culvert and outfall maintenance\, including removal of: \n\nApproximately 31 cubic yards of rip-rap and sediment from the box culvert;\n98 cubic yards of rip-rap and sediment from the concrete channel;\n110 cubic yards of unembedded rip-rap from areas adjacent to the concrete channel (approximately 1\,917 square feet);\nShaping the boundary between the end of the concrete channel and the natural substrate channel it leads to a 5:1 slope for a gradual transition to existing ground;\nReplacing the metal culvert gate at the end of the RCB; and\nDewatering and transportation of all dredged material to an upland landfill site such as the Recology Hay Road Landfill.Contact: Rose An; 415/352-3654 or rose.an@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nRichardson Bay Regional Agency \n3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Room 308San Rafael\, CA 94903 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.002.00-RWP 3 \n\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Richardson Bay in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the bay: \n\nAffix habitat protection signage to nine existing pilings; and\nDeploy four new galvanized steel Helix anchors for demarcating anchorage areas that weight 7.7 pounds and measure 31.5 inches tall and 6 inches in diameter\, or equivalent.\n\nContact: Julie Garren; 415/352- 3624 or julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Approved 6.20.2024 Commission Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting recording & transcript\n \n \n \n\nMeeting transcript\n\nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. \nWELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION \nAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. AND \nWELCOME TO OUR HYBRID\, BUT \nTODAY\, ALMOST FULLY VIRTUAL BCDC \nCOMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS \nREBECCA EISEN\, I AM THE VICE \nCHAIR OF BCDC\, I AM CHAIRING \nTHIS MEETING BECAUSE CHAIR \nWASSERMAN IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, BUT \nNECESSARILY ABSENT TODAY. \nI AM GRATEFUL TO SEE \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON PETERS ON \nMY SCREEN BECAUSE SHE HAS AGREED \nTO BE OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY IN \nTHE EVENT WE HAVE AN INTERNET \nPROBLEM. SO I’M HOPEFUL WILL \nNOT HAPPEN. OUR FIRST ORDER IS \nTO CALL THE ROLL AND SIERRA IS \nGOING TO HELP ME OUT HERE \nBECAUSE I CAN’T SEE ALL OF YOU \nON MY SCREEN AT ONCE SO SHE’S \nGOING TO LET ME KNOW IF YOUR \nHAND IS RAISED OR IF YOU WANT TO \nSPEAK. \nFOR NOW\, PLEASE BE SURE YOUR \nCAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE \nMEETING\, AND UNMUTE YOURSELF FOR \nTHE ROLL CALL. AND THEN ONCE \nYOU HAVE RESPONDED\, MUTE \nYOURSELVES ONCE AGAIN. \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? BUELL AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKERLY? COMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GILLMOR? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER EISEN. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OH\, \nAPOLOGIES\, VICE CHAIR EISEN. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI HAVE A TOTAL 16 PRESENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM \nPRESENT. SO WE ARE DULY CONS \nCONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \nBUSINESS. \nNEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. IF ANYONE WANTS TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY \nMATTER ON WHICH THE COMMISSION \nEITHER HAS NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC \nHEARING OR IS IN THE ON TODAY’S \nAGENDA\, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES \nTO DO SO. SIERRA\, ARE THERE ANY \nINDIVIDUALS IN THE BUILDING WHO \nWISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THERE \nIS NO ONE PRESENT IN THE \nBUILDING\, BUT THERE IS A HAND \nRAISED ONLINE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. YOU MAY CALL ON THEM. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMR. BRUCE BEYERT. YOU MAY \nUNMUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES \nWE CAN. \n>>SPEAKER: MY NAME IS BRUCE \nBEYERT TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND \nACTION COMMITTEE I’M HERE TO \nANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED \nAFTER THE BRIEFING LAST MONTH ON \nTHE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \nPILOT PROGRAM THE QUESTION ASKED \nABOUT HOW USAGE OF BAY TRAIL \nACROSS RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL \nBRIDGE COMPARED WITH OTHER BAY \nAREA BRIDGES. THE BAY TRAIL \nTRAVERSETRAVERSES BENICIA \nSTRAITS RICHMOND CENTER FAIR \nBRIDGE OF COURSE THE BAY BRIDGE \nEAST SPAN AS WELL AS THE \nDUMBARTON BRIDGE. \nUC BERKELEY’S PARTNER FOR \nADVANCED TRANSPORTATION \nTECHNOLOGY IN THE REPORT SAID \nTHE FOLLOWING IN THE MOST RECENT \nPEAK SEASON BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON \nTHE BRIDGE WAS HIGHEST OF ALL \nSTATE OWNED TOLL PASS INCLUDING \nSAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND BAY \nBRIDGE. TO BE — END OF QUOTE \n— TO BE MORE SPECIFIC\, DURING \nTHE LAST 45 DAYS\, \nWEEKEND BICYCLE TRIPS ON THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WERE \n324 PER DAY VERSUS 206 ON THE \nBAY BRIDGE. ON WEEKDAYS\, \nBICYCLE TRIPS AVERAGE 132 ACROSS \nTHE RSR BRIDGE\, VERSUS 128 ON \nTHE BAY BRIDGE. PEDESTRIAN \nUSAGE IS VERY LOW ON THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \nBECAUSE THE PILOT WAS DESIGNED \nFOR TRANSPORTATION\, THAT IS \nBICYCLISTS AND NOT FOR \nRECREATION AND TO BE PEDESTRIAN \nFRIENDLY. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE \nARE NO RESTROOMS ON EITHER END \nOF THE BRIDGE AND THERE ARE ONLY \nA HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES. \nTHIS CONTRASTS DRAMATICALLY WITH \nTHE BAY BRIDGE WHICH HAS A VERY \nLARGE USER FRIENDLY PARKING AREA \nWITH RESTROOMS AT THE BRIDGE \nYARD IN OAKLAND. OF COURSE\, \nNONE OF THE STATE OWNED BRIDGES \nCAN COMPARE WITH THE ICONIC \nGOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WHICH IS \nINTERNATIONAL TOURIST \nDESTINATION AND LITERALLY \nCRAWLING WITH PEOPLE ON FOOT AND \nBICYCLE. SO THE BAY BRIDGE IS \nMOST HEAVILY USED BY BICYCLES OF \nALL STATE OWNED BRIDGES. \nFINALLY CALTRANS LAST MONTH IN \nAPRIL ACTUALLY FILED REQUEST TO \nEXTEND RICHMOND CENTERVILLE \nBRIDGE PILOT AND TRACK SUPPORT \nAND ASK TO BE EXTENDED \nADMINISTRATIVELY TO THE END OF \n2025 AS THE BAY AREA TOLL \nAUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED THIS \nWILL CLEAR THE DECKS THE \nEXTENSION WILL BE SETTLED AND \nYOU WILL BE IN GOOD POSITION TO \nADDRESS THE PROPOSAL COMING \nLATER TO SHUT DOWN THE BAY TRAIL \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE FOUR \nDAYS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR BREAK \nDOWN LANE FOR AUTOMOBILES WHICH \nOF COURSE I THINK IS A TERRIBLE \nIDEA. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nFURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THAT \nCONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC \nCOMMENT ABOUT ANY ITEM THAT IS \nON OUR AGENDA WHEN WE ARE \nCONSIDERING THAT ITEM. \nA FEW THINGS FOR THE CHAIR \nREPORT\, WE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY \nVIRTUAL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE \nFIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE \nMETRO CENTER. BUT OUR STAFF \nTELLS US THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION \nIS ON SCHEDULE. AND IF THAT \nREMAINS THE CASE\, WE CAN HOPE \nAND EXPECT THAT WE WILL REGAIN \nUSE OF BOTH THE BOARDROOM AND \nTHE YERBA BUENA ROOM FOR OUR \nMEETING NEXT MONTH\, WHICH WILL \nBE ON JULY 18TH\, AS ONE OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS NOTED\, WE WILL NOT \nHAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH. OUR \nSTAFF WILL KEEP US INFORMED \nREGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE \nCONSTRUCTION\, AS THEY START \nPLANNING FOR THAT MEETING. \nTODAY IS THE FIRST MEETING WHERE \nWE WILL CONSIDER A CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AND I KNOW MOST OF \nTHE COMMISSIONERS ARE FAMILIAR \nWITH CONSENT CALENDARS FROM THE \nVARIOUS BOARDS THEY HAVE SAT \nON. \nIDEALLY\, A CONSENT CALENDAR \nHELPS US TO CUT THROUGH RED TAPE \nREGARDING NON-CONTROVERSIAL \nMATTERS\, AND GIVES US MORE TIME \nTO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND \nTO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND OUR \nPRESENTATIONS. \nSO\, WE’RE GOING TO GIVE IT A TRY \nAND SEE HOW THAT GOES. \nWE WILL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHEN WE \nGET TO IT\, IN A MINUTE\, AND WE \nWILL ALSO NEED TO TAKE A ROLL \nYOU CALL VOTE TO MAKE SURE WE \nHAVE A MAJORITY VOTE APPROVING \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE \nRISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP \nIS GOING TO BE MEETING AT THE \nSAME DAY AT OUR NEXT MEETING\, \nJULY 18TH\, BUT IN THE MORNING. \nSO WILL THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORKING GROUP. THOSE \nMEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE \nSCHEDULED BACK TO BACK\, SO THAT \nEVERYBODY CAN ATTEND ALL OF \nTHEM. AND THEY WILL BE LISTED \nON OUR BRAND-NEW \nWEB SITE’S BRAND-NEW CALENDAR\, \nAND LARRY IS GOING TO TELL US \nABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO HIS \nREPORT. FINALLY\, AS I SAID\, OUR \nNEXT MEETING WILL BE JULY 18TH. \nI DO HOPE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A \nSAFE AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY\, IT \nSOUNDS LIKE PAT HAS WONDERFUL \n4TH OF JULY PLANS. \nAT OUR MEETING ON MAY 18TH WE \nMAY TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING \nMATTERS\, ONE\, A PUBLIC HEARING \nAND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE \nRESTORATION OF CHIPPS ISLAND\, \nWHICH IS IN THE DELTA. A \nBRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED \nORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN \nFOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISORS\, AND\, FINALLY\, AN \nUPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF BCDC’S \nENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE \nPROGRAMS. \nEX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IF A \nCOMMISSIONER HAS INADVERTENTLY \nFORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE OUR STAFF \nTO WITH EX PARTE WRITTEN OR ORAL \nEXPERT COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY \nREPORT ON THEM AT THIS POINT BY \nRAISING YOUR HAND. PLEASE \nREMEMBER YOUR WRITTEN REPORT \nSHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH FOR \nTHE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE \nCONVERSATION’S MAIN TOPICS BUT \nYOUR ORAL REPORT SHOULD NOT BE \nLONGER THAN TWO MINUTES. SIERRA \nIS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO \nHAS RAISED HIS OR HER HAND? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON\, OR VIRTUALLY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGREAT. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS \nUS TO OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nREPORT. LARRY? \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nCHAIR EISEN. SUMMER TIME AND AS \nTHE GEFSH WIN BROTHERS WROTE \nLIVING IS EASY TODAY IS SUMMER \nSOLSTICE LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR \nIF YOU PLAN TO GO TO THE BEACH \nTHIS WEEKEND JUST REMEMBER IN \nJULY 1975 JAWS WAS RELEASED WITH \nSTAR WARS BELIEVING RELEASED \nMEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND THREE YEARS \nLATER THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WAS \nFOREVER CHANGED. SUMMER TIME \nISN’T JUST A TIME TO HANG OWL \nWE’RE WORKING HARD IN SHORELINE \nPLAN GUIDELINES DISCUSSIONS \nENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PERMIT \nREQUESTS AND BUDGET NEWS AFTER \nALL THAT HARD WORK WE’LL BE \nREADY FOR ICE CREAM. THERE IS \nONLY ONE STAFFING ANNOUNCEMENT \nTO BE MADE TODAY. TODAY IS \nSTEVE GOLDBECK’S FINAL STAFF \nMEETING AS A FULL-TIME PERMANENT \nSTATE EMPLOYEE. STEVE JOINED \nBCDC AS A VOLUNTEER 38 YEARS AGO \nAND WAS HIRED A YEAR LATER AS A \nCOASTAL PLANNER. AMONG HIS MANY \nROLES AT BCDC HE WROTE THE \nCOMMISSION’S FIRST WATER QUALITY \nPOLICIES AND A FEW YEARS LATER \nWAS PRINCIPLE STAFF MEMBER IN \nCHARGE OF FIRST CREATING AND \nTHEN IMPROVING BCDC’S DREDGING \nAND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM. \nINITIATED AND LED THE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE STUDIES WHICH WAS START OF \nTHE REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM IN THE BAY AREA AND \nESTABLISHED THE LONG-TERM \nMANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROGRAM HOW \nTO MANAGE DREDGE MATERIALS. HE \nHAD A CENTRAL ROLE IN BCDC’S \nEFFORTS TO RESTORE BAYLANDS \nTIDAL WETLANDS HAMILTON TIDAL \nACTION AND WAS THE MOVE ERR \nBEHIND CREATING DREDGED \nMATERIALS MANAGEMENT OFFICE. \nOTHER EFFORTS WAS AWARDED ROGER \nJONES AWARD EXCELLENCE COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT AND RECEIVED \nCOMMENDATION FROM PRESIDENT AL \nGORE’S PART OF VP NATIONAL \nAWARD FOR BETTERING GOVERNMENT \nPROGRAM. WE HAVE ASKED STEVE TO \nCOME BACK AS A RETIRED \nAFTER A RESTFUL PERIOD AWAY \nFROM US. \nCRUCIAL IN TRAINING AND \nMENTORING STAFF TEN YEARS IN \n2024 AND EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO HAS \nSTARTED WORKING ON CREATING \nTRAINING PROGRAM FOR OUR STAFF. \nHE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS \nPARTNER. HE AND BRAD McCRAY \nBROUGHT ME UP DURING MY FIRST \nYEARS WHEN I KNEW LITTLE ABOUT \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. HE \nKNEW QUICKLY HOW I INTEND TO \nWORK WHICH IS MOST DIFFICULT \nTOING IF OUT WHEN YOU GET A NEW \nBOSS. HE CREATED GREAT INTRO TO \nANY DISCUSSION THAT GOES LIKE \nTHIS\, QUOTE\, LARRY\, WE HAVE AN \nISSUE\, BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING \nYET.” WE SHALL MISS STEVE \nWANDERING AROUND THE OFFICE \nSCOPING OUT PROJECTS \nPROOFREADING REPORTS AND \nEVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE DOES BUT \nAT LEAVE THE WE’LL HAVE HIM AS A \nRETIRED ANUITANT FOR A WHILE AND \nI CAN ASSURE HIM WE KNOW HIS \nTELEPHONE NUMBER WHEN WE NEED \nADVICE. STAFF HAD A BUR TOW \nLUNCH WITH SOME GREAT CAKE \nBEFORE TAO TODAY’S MEETING. WE \nHOPE STEVE WILL CONTRIBUTE SOME \nOF HIS GREAT RED WINE FOR THAT \nOCCASION. STEVE I AM SURE YOU \nWOULD LIKE TO SAY JUST A FEW \nWORDS? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: THANK YOU\, \nLARRY. I HAVE A 20 MINUTE \nPOWERPOINT AND THEN A 10 MINUTE \nMOVIE TO SHOW. NO. I CALL BCDC \nTHE JOB \nTHATLLED MY CAREER IT’S BEEN \nINTERESTING AND NEVER GOT \nBORING. WELL\, MAYBE THERE WAS A \nMEETING OR TWO THAT DIDN’T MEET \nTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERALL \nIT’S BEEN AN AMAZING TIME\, AND I \nHAVE ENJOYED ALL OF THE WORK \nTHAT THE BCDC DOES\, AND WORKING \nWITH ALL THE STAFF. I FEEL LIKE \nI CAN RETIRE NOW HAVING ACHIEVED \nSOME INTERESTING THINGS\, IN \nADDITION TO WORKING ON THE \nCLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES\, AS THE \nFIRST IN THE NATION\, IT’S \nSOMETHING I’LL ALWAYS TREASURE. \nAND I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL \nTWO 72\, AS WELL. \nBUT IT’S REALLY BEEN \nPARTNERSHIPS THAT HAVE ALWAYS \nMADE ME ENJOY WORKING AT BCDC \nWITH THE STAFF\, AS I TOLD THEM \nTODAY AT OUR LITTLE \nLUNCH ON\, BUT ALSO WORKING WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS. I HAVE BEEN \nREALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS WE HAVE HAD AT \nBCDC\, ALWAYS IMPRESSED WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS WHO COME TO BCDC \nFROM WHARF BACKGROUND OR \nAPPOINTMENT\, BUT ALWAYS TOOK ON \nTHE ROLE OF BEING A REGIONAL \nBCDC COMMISSIONER. AND THAT’S \nHOW BCDC HAS PROSPERED\, SO\, I \nWANT TO SAY IT’S BEEN AN HONOR \nAND A PLEASURE WORKING WITH BCDC \nSTAFF AND NEW COMMISSIONERS\, AND \nI LOOK FORWARD TO MY NEW ROLE. \nSO\, THANKS SO MUCH. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: TWO THINGS \nTO FOLLOW THAT UP. FIRST WE \nHAVE TO LOOK FOR A NEW MEMBER OF \nSENIOR STAFF TO THIS DEPARTURE. \nYOU RECEIVED TWO WEEKS AGO LINKS \nTO THE JOB AND WILL GET IT AGAIN \nTODAY IN THE COMMISSION SUMMARY \nPLEASE DISTRIBUTE THEM TO \nANYBODY YOU BELIEVE SHOULD \nRECEIVE THEM. PERHAPS LATE \nBREAKING NEWS EVENT BCDC’S BOCCE \nTEAM WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN \nKNOWN AS THE MEAN HIGH TIDES\, \nHAS NOW CHANGED ITS NAME AT \nLEAVE THE FOR THE NEXT SEASON TO \nSTEVIE G AND THE SHORELINE \nBAND. \nSO\, WE DO THAT\, BECAUSE STEVE \nHAS BEEN A — I THINK\, STEVE\, \nYOU WERE A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE \nBOCCE GROUP\, AND REMAINS A \nSTALWART\, AND THE BYLAWS OF THE \nBOCCE RULES LEAGUE SAY THAT \nRETIRED ANNUITY ANTS CAN \nPARTICIPATE IN BOCCE GAMES\, JUST \nSO YOU KNOW. WITH THAT\, I HAVE \nONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CHAIR \nEISEN NOTED. THE MAJOR NEWS AT \nBCDC DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS \nIS THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR NEW WEB \nSITE. THANKS TO A GREAT EFFORT \nBY A NUMBER OF STAFF\, MOST \nESPECIALLY REYLINA\, ELSA\, AND \nETHAN\, AND VARIOUS OTHER STATE \nSTAFF AND A VERY GOOD CONSULTANT \nTEAM\, OUR NEW WEB SITE IS BOTH \nEASIER TO USE\, AND CAN BE \nEXPANDED TO CREATE GREATER \nFUNCTIONALITY. MOST IMPORTANT \nFOR THE PUBLIC\, IT IS MUCH \nBETTER ORGANIZED\, AND WE ARE \nWORKING HARD TO FULFILL ONE OF \nOUR STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES BY \nUSING AS MUCH PLAIN LANGUAGE AS \nPOSSIBLE. PLEASE CHECK IT OUT. \nLOOK AT THE NEW CALENDAR \nFUNCTION\, ESPECIALLY\, THAT \nCONTINUES TO MAKE ME SMILE. AND \nWE’RE STILL TINKERING WITH IT \nAND WILL BE FOR MANY MONTHS. \nAND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nYOUR COMMENTS. IF YOU FIND \nSOMETHING OR DON’T FIND \nSOMETHING THAT YOU EITHER LIKE \nOR DON’T LIKE\, PLEASE LET US \nKNOW. \nTHAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nEISEN\, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR LARRY? \nWELL\, LET ME SAY\, STEVE\, THAT \nWAS UNBELIEVABLE AND STUNNING \nLIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AND ON \nBEHALF OF A VERY GRATEFUL \nCOMMISSION\, WE’RE GOING TO MISS \nYOU\, AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD \nTO THE\, I THINK LARRY CALLED IT \nA SEND-OFF\, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE \nIT’S JUST A TRANSITION. ALL \nRIGHT. WE’RE NOW AT THE \nEXCITING GRAND NEW CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AT THIS POINT IN \nTHE AGENDA\, WE’RE GOING TO \nCONSIDER THAT THERE ARE TWO \nITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE \nMINUTES FOR OUR JUNE 6TH \nMEETING\, AND THE SECOND IS THE \nPROPOSED ADOPTION OF A REVISED \nSTIPULATED CEASE AND DESIST AND \nCIVIL PENALTY ORDER FROM THE \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. AND THAT \nREGARDS A PROPERTY IN SAN \nFRANCISCO AT 224 SEA CLIFF \nAVENUE. ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \nCHAIR MARIE GILMORE HAS ALREADY \nCONCURRED IN THE INCLUSION OF \nTHIS ORDER IN THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. SO\, FIRST\, SIERRA DO \nWE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT \nREGARDING THE CONSENT CALENDAR? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. SO\, THEN\, AS INDICATED\, \nWE DO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH \nRESPECT TO THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \nMAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND \nTO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR? \nSIERRA\, LET ME KNOW WHO MOVES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nAPPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AND PAT \nSHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I’LL BE \nGLAD TO SECOND THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: ECKLUND \nMOVES SHOWALTER SECONDS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nSIERRA PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? IS \n. \n>>SPEAKER: /*. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? ANN AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I THINK THAT \nCOUNTS. WE SEE IT. \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER \nECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGILLMOR? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES . \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nHASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nEISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH \n16 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO \nABSTENTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. \nALL RIGHT. WELL\, WE DO NOT HAVE \nAN ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING TODAY\, \nBUT COMMISSIONER GUNTHER ASKED \nAT OUR LAST MEETING THAT OUR \nSTAFF EXPLAIN HOW THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS \nWORKS AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM \nOTHER TYPES OF PERMITTING \nAPPROVALS. SO\, HARRIET ROSS WHO \nIS OUR REGULATORY DIRECTOR HAS \nPREPARED A RESPONSE FOR THE \nCOMMISSION. BUT BEFORE WE GET \nTO HARRIET’S RESPONSE\, DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS \nREGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. HARRIET\, YOU CAN \nPLEASE EXPLAIN TO US OUR \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS? \n>>HARRIET ROSS: YES. GOOD \nAFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. AGAIN\, I’M \nHARRIET ROSS. FIRST OF ALL\, \nBCDC HAS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF \nPERMITS\, AS YOU ALL HAVE \nNOTICED\, I’M SURE. WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION HEARS A PROJECT OR \nVOTES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID \nLAST MONTH IN MAY\, 505 BAYSHORE\, \nTHAT’S CONSIDERED A MAJOR \nPERMIT. BUT THE COMMISSION’S \nRULES HAVE DEDICATED AUTHORITY \nTO REVIEW AND ACT ON SOME OTHER \nPERMITS TO ITS EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. SO\, THE PERMITS THAT \nAPPEAR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE \nLISTINGS ARE CONSIDERED MINOR \nREPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND \nTHAT’S DEFINED BY THE \nCOMMISSION’S REGULATIONS AND BY \nTHE COMMISSION ITSELF. THERE \nARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nPROJECTS INCLUDED IN THIS \nDEFINITION OF MINOR REPAIRS AND \nIMPROVEMENTS. SOME EXAMPLES TO \nGIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT CAN BE SINGLE BOAT \nDOCKS LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET \nSHORELINE PROTECTION THAT WOULD \nFILL LESS THAN 10\,000 FEET OF \nTHE BAY ROUTINE REPAIRS THAT \nDON’T INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT \nENLARGEMENT OR CHANGES. JUST TO \nNAME A FEW. \nDIRECTOR ASKED TO ISSUE OR \nTO PERMIT REQUIRED ACTIONS TO \nTHE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC. THE \nLIST IS SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND \nPROPOSED AGES BY STAFF. IF THE \nCOMMISSION AGREES WITH THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nCLASSIFICATION THAT A PROJECT IS \nINDEED CONSIDERED A MINOR REPAIR \nOR IMPROVEMENT\, THEN NO ACTION \nIS NEEDED AND THAT’S TYPICALLY \nWHAT HAPPENS. I HAVE BEEN HERE \nFOR NINE MONTHS NOW\, AND I THINK \nWE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT \nPROCESS EVERY MEETING WITHOUT \nANY FANFARE. THEN THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR WILL ACT ON PENDING \nAPPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MANDATED \nDEADLINES. SO ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS OR PERMITS DON’T REQUIRE \nA PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY BE \nISSUED WITHIN A SHORTER TIME \nFRAME. NOW\, HOWEVER\, IF THE \nCOMMISSION — AND YOU ALL HAVE \nTHE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nDETERMINATION THAT A PROJECT IS \nINDEED A MINOR REPAIR OR \nIMPROVEMENT AND IF THAT’S THE \nCASE WE’LL HOLD A HEARING TO \nDISCUSS IF THAT — IF THE \nPROJECT DOESN’T FIT THE \nDEFINITION OF THE COMMISSIONER’S \nVOTE ON THIS TYPE OF PERMIT — \nSORRY\, IF IT DOESN’T MEET THE \nDEFINITION OF THIS PERMIT THEN \nWE VOTE AS A COMMISSION ON THE \nTYPE OF PERMIT IT SHOULD BE. IF \nTHE COMMISSION VOTES THE TYPE \nIS NOT THE RIGHT PERMIT THE \nCOMMISSION VOTES THEN \nADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT WHICH \nWOULD INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nCOMMISSION VOTE. \nSO THAT’S THE MAIN \nADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT INCLUDED \nIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING WE \nALSO LIST OTHER PERMITS SUCH AS \nREGION-WIDE ON A REGULAR BASIS \nAND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO GO \nOVER THAT IN DETAIL AT FUTURE \nTRAINING. THAT’S JUST THE \nBASICS OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING AND HOW \nTHAT’S DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJOR \nPERMITS THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER \nFROM TIME TO TIME. ANY \nQUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OF HARRIET? \nCOMMENTS? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. THANK YOU HARRIET. \nAND YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE COULD \nREMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING IF WE \nWISHED REMINDED ME THAT THAT IS \nALSO TRUE OF OUR CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AND I FORGOT TO \nMENTION THAT IF AT ANY POINT IN \nTIME SOMEBODY WANTED TO LIFT \nSOMETHING ALL THE COMMISSION — \nI MEAN THE CONSENT CALENDAR\, AND \nHAVE A REGULAR\, SORT OF\, ITEM \nFOR THAT MATTER\, THAT CAN BE \nDONE. SO\, I NEGLECTED TO \nMENTION THAT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I WANTED TO ADD \nTO THAT CHAIR EISEN IT TAKES TWO \nCOMMISSIONERS. IF ONE \nCOMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO IT\, IT \nTAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SAY \nWE’RE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU GREG. FIND A PARTNER \nIF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING \nFROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE THREE \nBRIEFINGS NOW. THE FIRST ONE IS \nWITH RESPECT TO SAND MINING \nISSUES. IT’S A BRIEFING BY THE \nBCDC STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES \nOF THE SAND MINING INDUSTRY. \nIT’S GOING TO BE WITH REGARD TO \nISSUES THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED \nBY THE COMMISSION’S TEMPORARY \nSAND MINING COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP\, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED \nRECENTLY. AND THEY’RE GOING TO \nBE CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES \nDURING THE REMAINDER OF THE \nYEAR. LAST WEEK\, BCDC \nDISTRIBUTED RESEARCH STUDIES ON \nISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY OUR \nCOMMISSION DURING THE SAND \nMINING PERMIT PROCESS BACK IN \n2015. THAT RESEARCH WAS \nREVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT \nSCIENCE PANEL. SO\, TODAY\, BCDC \nSTAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE A \nSHORT PRESENTATION ON THE \nRESEARCH AND THE FINDINGS \nPROCESS\, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF \nTHE SANDS MINING COMPANIES ARE \nGOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT \nPRESENTATION ON MINING \nACTIVITIES. SO\, THE PURPOSE \nOF THIS BRIEFING IS TO HIGHLIGHT \nTHE TOPICS THAT THE WORKING \nGROUP IS GOING TO CONSIDER. SO\, \nCOMMISSIONERS SHOULD WAITE THAT \nWORK BEFORE WE EXPRESS ANY \nOPINIONS WE HAVE ON THE STUDIES \nOR THE POSSIBILITY OF \nCONSIDERING A PERMIT FOR FUTURE \nSAND MINING ACTIVITIES. \nTODAY WE’RE GOING TO HEAR THE \nSHORT PRESENTATIONS. AND OF \nCOURSE\, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR \nANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT \nCOMMISSIONERS HAVE. OKAY. \nDO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON \nTHIS ITEM BEFORE WE BEGIN? I’M \nSORRY. \n[LAUGHTER] \nLET’S HAVE THE PRESENTATION \nBEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. \nBRENDA IS GOING TO MAKE THE \nPRESENTATION. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. YOU CAN ALL SEE MY \nSCREEN? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS I’M PLEASED TO \nPRESENT FINDINGS ON THE NEW \nSIGNS ON SAND IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AN OVERLOOKED AREA OF THE \nSEDIMENT SYSTEM THIS NEW SCIENCE \nIS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S REQUIREMENTS IN ITS \n2015 SAND MINING PERMITS. MY \nPRESENTATION AS CHAIR EYES \nMENTIONED WILL BE TO REVIEW THE \nHISTORY OF SAND MINING IN THE \nBAY\, THE COMMISSION’S PERMITTING \nSAND ACTIVITIES IN 2015 PROCESS \nAND ORGANIZATION FOR IDENTIFY \nTHE STUDIES AND RESEARCH AND \nFINDINGS THEN INDEPENDENT \nSCIENCE PANEL ON RESEARCH AND \nFINALLY PATH FORWARD IN THE NEXT \nSEVERAL MONTHS. \nAND MY SCREEN IS NOT \nFORWARDING. \nSO\, LET ME JUST DO IT THIS WAY. \nOKAY. SO\, AS SOME OF YOU ARE \nAWARE\, MINING IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY HAS OCCURRED FOR ALMOST A \nCENTURY\, VIA SMALL COMPANIES \nTHAT BEGAN AROUND THE 1930S\, AND \nPERHAPS BEFORE THAT. THE \nCOMMISSION’S RECORDS OF THIS \nACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE \nDOCUMENTED SAND MINING FROM \nVARIOUS PERMITS OF THESE SMALL \nCOMPANIES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN \nTHE 1970S. OVER TIME\, THE SMALL \nCOMPANIES WERE CONSOLIDATED. \nAND ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE \n1990S\, SEVERAL OF THE SMALL \nCOMPANIES\, ALONG WITH THE STATE \nLAND LEASES\, OR PRIVATE — OR \nPRIVATE LEASES WERE CONSOLIDATED \nUNDER HANSON AGGREGATES\, WHICH \nIS NOW MARTIN MARIETTA\, AND\, \nALSO\, LIND MARINE. ALSO NOTE A \nTHIRD SAND MINING COMPANY\, \nSUISUN ASSOCIATES WHICH IS A \nJOINT EFFORT — GIANT COMPANY OF \nLIND MARINE AND MARTIN \nMARIETTA. \nIN THIS GRAPHIC\, YOU SEE HERE\, \nIN THE UPPER RIGHT\, THERE IS A \nVERY SMALL MAP\, BILL BUTLER WITH \nLIND MARINE WILL SHOW YOU A \nBETTER MAP SHORTLY BUT THE \nSAND — CENTRAL \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY AND SUISUN \nCHANNEL IN BAY AREA CALLED \nMIDDLE GROUND SCHOELL SUISUN \nCHANNEL ITSELF PERMITS REPORTED \nBY MINING COMPANIES BETWEEN \n1970S AND 2023 HAS BEEN \nVARIABLE. SIGNALED MINING IS \nDONE PARTICULARLY TO PROVIDE \nAGGREGATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION \nINDUSTRY IN THE BAY REGION. \nIT’S NOT THE ONLY SAND THAT’S \nPROVIDED TO THE CONSTRUCTION \nINDUSTRY\, THERE IS ALSO IMPORTED \nSAND FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA AND \nSAND TRUCKED IN FROM VARIOUS \nQUARS IN THE REGION. BUT THE \nMINERS WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT \nTHAT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. \nBUT YOU WILL NOTE THAT DURING \nTHE EARLY 2000s WAS THE PEAK OF \nTHE SAND MINING AND THAT WAS \nAROUND THE.COM PERIOD WHEN THERE \nWAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF BUILDING \nGONE ON IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nYOU WILL ALSO SEE A DIP AROUND \n2018 AND 2014 WHICH MARKS A \nSIGNIFICANT RECESSION IN THE \nREGION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BACK THEN \nDECLINING OVER TIME AND IT TENDS \nTO TREND ALONG WITH THE \nCONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK AND \nWE’LL SEE HOW IT CONTINUES IN \nTHE FUTURE. \nIN 2015\, THE COMMISSION HEARD \nFOR THE FIRST TIME THREE MAJOR \nPERMITS IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND \nVOTE. AND THEY ISSUED THREE \nPERMITS. THE FIRST PERMIT WAS \nFOR CENTRAL BAY FOR 1.4 PER \nCUBIC YARDS OF SAND OVER \nMULTIPLE LEASE PARCELS ISSUED TO \nHANSON AGGREGATES NOW MARTIN \nMARIETTA. SUISUN BAY HAD A \nPERMIT ISSUE FOR 185\,000 CUBIC \nYARDS ANNUALLY AND THAT WENT TO \nSUISUN ASSOCIATES AND LIND \nMARINE HAD A SPECIFIC PERMIT \nISSUED ON A PRIORITY LEASE FOR \n100\,000 CUBIC YARDS AROUND \nMIDDLE GROUND SCHOELL. PERMITS \nARE FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD AND \nTHEY DIFFERENT STUDIES TO \nMITIGATE AND BETTER UNDERSTAND \nIMPACTS OF SAND MINING SO THE \nCOMMISSION ALONG WITH THE WATER \nBOARD REQUIRED WATER QUALITY \nMONITORING STUDY AND REQUIRED \nBENTHIC HABITAT STUDY THEN MOST \nRECENT WORK REQUIRED STUDY OF \nSAND TRANSPORT AND SAND BUDGET \nPOTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE MINING \nOF THE SAND\, AND PHYSICAL \nPROCESS IN THE BAY AND IN THAT \nACTION THE COMMISSION REQUIRED \nTHE MINERS TO CONTRIBUTE $1.2 \nMILLION TO THESE EFFORTS. \nTHERE WAS MITIGATION REQUIRED AS \nPART OF THESE PERMITS\, INCLUDING \nREMOVAL OF SOME BAY FILL WHICH \nWAS PRIMARILY UNDERTAKEN AT \nCROCKETT AND MARINA\, A DEFUNCT \nMARINA NEAR THE CITY OF \nCROCKETT NEAR THE BENICIA BRIDGE \nINSTALLATION OF FISH SCREENS ON \nALL OF THE EQUIPMENT ALL OF THE \nPUMPING EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE \nENTERTAINMENT OF FISH FROM THE \nWATER BEING PUMPED ON THE \nDREDGES TO SLURRY THE SAND. AT \nTHAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF \nCONCERN ISSUES RAISED AROUND \nSAND MINING THIS WAS THE FIRST \nTIME THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING \nIN THAT REGARD AND THE \nCOMMISSION SPECIFICALLY HAD A \nNUMBER OF QUESTIONS\, INCLUDING \nHOW MUCH SAND IS IN THE BAY \nWHAT’S THE VOLUME AND WHERE IS \nIT\, WHAT AREAS ARE IN TRANSPORT \nWHAT AREAS ARE RELIC SANDS IS \nTHE SAND BEING MIND AND \nTRANSPORT FOR RELIC AND WHAT ARE \nTHE IMPACTS OF MINING RELIC SAND \nAND IMPACTS TO ACTIVE SANDS\, AND \nCONSEQUENCES OF THAT MINING TO \nBAY BEACHES AND TIDES THAT IT \nFEEDS. QUESTIONS CAME UP WITH \nWHETHER YOU DIG A BIG HOLE AND \nSOME SEDIMENTS COME DOWN FROM \nTHE DELTA THAT FILL THE HOLE \nRATHER THAN GOING TO BAY \nBEACHES. THE QUESTION ASKED \nWHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE \nMODIFICATION OF MINING VOLUME AT \nDIFFERENT SITES OR SITES \nTHEMSELVES UNDER WHAT CONDITION \nSHOULD WE ALLOW MINING OR NOT \nAND WHAT’S SUSTAINABLE VOLUME \nFOR MINING AND SUBSTANTIAL \nDEPLETION\, COMMISSION AT THE \nTIME SUGGESTED MONITORING FOR \nIMPACTS OF EXTRACTION OF RELIC \nSAND AND SAND TRANSPORT WAS \nIMPORTANT ALSO WANTED TO \nUNDERSTAND BETTER BCDC’S AUTHOR \nAND JURISDICTION IN RELATIONSHIP \nTO SAND MINING AND LASTLY THE \nQUESTION CAME UP AROUND IMPACTS \nTO BENTHIC LIFE IN THE BAY BUT \nTHAT’S NOT A SUBJECT OF TODAY’S \nPRESENTATION SO THAT UPGRADE \nWENT OUT. AFTER THE PERMIT’S \nWERE ISSUED IN APRIL 2015 WE \nWENT AWAY FROM THAT HEARING AND \nBEGAN TO WORK WITH MINORS AND \nTHE COMMISSION REQUIRED $1.2 \nMILLION TO SUPPORT THE SAND \nSTUDIES THAT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED \nINTO THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY’S COASTAL TRUST FUND \nOVER FOUR YEARS SO WE ALLOWED A \nPERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT MONEY TO \nBUILD UP. ONCE THAT DEPOSIT WAS \nCOMPLETE THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AND BCDC BEGAN TO \nWORK TOGETHER WITH A SELECTED \nSAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE WHO DEVELOPED FURTHER \nTHE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE \nMANAGE SAND MINING\, WHAT THE \nIMPACTS OF MINING ARE. THEY \nWORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP \nSCUDDY SCOPES WE REQUESTED \nREQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WERE \nLISTED AT THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY’S WEB SITE AND \nPROPOSALS REVIEWED BY THE THE T \nTECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN \nADDITION DURING THE LATTER PART \nOF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE’S MAIN WORK AND \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nFORMALIZE THEY REVIEWED THE \nSCOPES AND REVIEWED PROPOSALS \nTHAT CAME IN THEY IDENTIFIED AND \nINTERVIEWED SAND SCIENCE TEAMS \nAND WORKED WITH TEAMS TO CREATE \nAND APPROPRIATE STUDIES TO BEST \nANSWER MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS AND \nWHEN STUDIES WERE COMPLETED THEY \nREVIEWED FINDINGS AND DEVELOPED \nA FINDINGS REPORT WITH THE SAND \nTECH CONSULTING FIRM. JUST SO \nYOU KNOW WHO IS ON THESE \nGROUPS. \nTHE SAND TECHNOLOGY \nIMPLEMENTATION OFFICE STEERING \nCOMMITTEE CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE \nINCLUDED CONSERVANCY\, BCDC\, \nCOASTAL COMMISSION\, STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS WATER BOARD NATIONAL \nMARINE FISHERIES AND COW FISH \nAND WILDLIFE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nKEEPER NON-PROFIT HIGHLIGHT \nINTERESTED IN WORKING AND MARIN \nM REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS \nCONSULTING FIRM ASSISTED IN THE \nWORK\, DEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nINCLUDED FIVE DISTINGUISHED \nSCIENTISTS\, BOB BA TAG LIA FROM \nENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\, DR. \nCRAIG JONES FROM INTERVAL AND \nSALT CONSULTING AND DR. JOHN \nFROM UC DAVIS AND DAVID USGE \nEMERITUS DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF \nFOLKS WORKING ON DEVELOPING \nTHESE STUDIES AND REVIEWING \nTHEM. THERE WE GO. AS I \nMENTIONED\, THE SAND TECHNICAL \nADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKED TO \nREFINE THE COMMISSION’S \nQUESTIONS AND ADD SOME OF THEIR \nOWN QUESTIONS ON WHAT KINDS OF \nINFORMATION WE WANTED OUT OF \nTHESE SAND STUDIES. THE \nQUESTIONS AS DEFINED INCLUDED \nSAND MINING AT EXISTING AREAS AT \nPRIMITIVE LEVELS HAVING \nMEASURABLE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT \nON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY \nWITHIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASKED \nWHAT’S THE SUSTAINABLE NUMBER \nAND SUSTAINABLE DEPLETION MUCH \nLIKE THE COMMISSION DID\, THEY \nASKED WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED \nPHYSICAL EFFECTS OF SANDS MINING \nAT PERMITTED LEVELS ON SAND — \nAND SUPPLY WITHIN THE BAY AND \nOUTER COAST AND ACTIVE SANDS \nCONSEQUENCES TO BEACHES AND \nTIDES IMPACT TO RELIC SANDS. SO \nSIMILAR BUT MORE SPECIFIC THAN \nTHE QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION \nASKED DURING THE PUBLIC \nHEARINGS. THE RESEARCH TEAMS \n— I’M NOT GOING TO READ ALL \nTHESE FOLKS NAMES BUT I FELT IT \nWAS IMPORTANT TO PUT THE \nAGENCIES ORGANIZATIONS AND \nSCIENTISTS UP FOR YOU TO SEE \nBECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS A \nDISTINGUISHED GROUP OF \nSCIENTISTS WHO WORKED VERY HARD \nON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STUDIES \nTO HELP THE COMMISSION \nUNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF SAND \nMINING AND UNDERSTAND THE SAND \nTRANSPORT SYSTEM A LOT BETTER \nTHAN WE DID TEN YEARS AGO. WE \nLOOKED AT SAND BUDGET\, SAND \nSUPPLY\, MORPHOLOGICAL CHAINS IN \nTRANSPORT ANALYSIS. WE ALSO HAD \nSOME SAND TRANSPORT MODELING \nTHAT WAS DONE\, AND SAND \nPROVIDENCE\, OR ALSO KNOWN AS \nFINGERPRINTING UNDERSTANDING THE \nORIGIN OF WHERE THE SAND CAME \nFROM AND MULTIPLE DIFFERENT \nFOLKS FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES \nWORKING TOGETHER ACROSS THESE \nDIFFERENT STUDS TO INTEGRATE \nTHIS WORK. \nSO\, HERE IS THE KEY FINDINGS. \nAND THIS IS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS \nIN THE FINDINGS REPORT.. THESE \nARE THE OVERARCHING FINDINGS. \nTHERE ARE ALSO REGIONAL FINDINGS \nTHAT I’M NOT INCLUDING IN MY \nPRESENTATION TODAY\, AND THE \nSTUDIES THEMSELVES ARE ALSO \nINCLUDED IN APPENDIX G WITH EVEN \nMORE INFORMATION ARE IF YOU ARE \nINTERESTED IN DIVING IN DEEP. \nSO\, THE KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE \nTHAT THE VOLUME OF MIND SAND IS \nSIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE \nBAY’S SAND BUDGET IT REPRESENTS \nLARGEST OUTFLOW OF SAND IN THE \nBAY INCLUDING NET SAND DISCHARGE \nTO THE OCEAN. ADDITIONALLY SAND \nIS MIND FASTER THAN IT IS BEING \nREFRESHED AND THEREFORE SAND IS \nA NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE OVER \nTHE LONG-TERM. SUISUN BAY SAND \nIS NOT BEING REPLENISHED AND \nTHUS A FINITE RESOURCE AND THE \nBED IS BEING LOWERED AND \nSYMMETRIC MODELING AND BUDGET \nSTUDIES ALL SUPPORT FINDING SAND \nMINING AFFECTS AND IN \nHIGHLY LOCALIZED EFFECTS \nDIMINISHING WITH DISTANCE AND \nLOCATION\, NEGLIGIBLE SAND \nTRANSPORT SUCH AS SUISUN BAY \nWHERE DEPRESSIONS CAUSED BY \nMINING PERSIST IN THE BED OVER \nTIME. NEXT FINDINGS\, CENTRAL \nBAY SAND IS RELIC MEANING IT WAS \nDEPOSITED BETWEEN 20\,060\,000 \nYEARS AGO AS SEA LEVELS ROSE AND \nTHE RIVER DISCHARGE POINT \nMIGRATED THROUGH THE BAY TO \nPRESENT LOCATION IN THE DELTA \nPART OF THE LARGE BAY OCEAN \nRESERVOIR SANDS FROM THE \nWATERSHED OF SACRAMENTO AND SAN \nJOAQUIN RIVERS ARE NO LONGER \nSIGNIFICANT SOURCE TO THE BAY \nOCEAN AND LARGE VOLUMES OF SAND \nDO NOT MOVE THROUGH THE SYSTEM \nDURING TIMES OF HIGH FLOW IE WET \nWINTERS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY \nASSUMED EFFECTS OF MINING TO \nBEACHES ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT \nREMAIN UNQUANTIFIED. IN EACH \nTIDAL CYCLE SAND IS TRANCE \nPORTED BETWEEN THE BAY AND THE \nOCEAN EFFECTIVELY LINKING THE \nTWO SAND DEPOSITS INTO A SHARED \nPOOL. THE SIZE OF THE SHARED \nPOOL OF SAND AND THUS THE \nSIGNIFICANCE OF THE REDUCTION \nDUE TO MINING IS UNKNOWN. \nSO\, THAT IS THE HIGH-LEVEL \nFINDINGS\, OVERARCHING FINDINGS \nOF THE IN THE SCIENCE \nPANEL. \nWE’LL FURTHER DIG INTO THIS \nINFORMATION AND FURTHER CODIFY \nWHAT IT MEANS FOR MINING \nACTIVITIES AND PERMITTING IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. GOING \nFORWARD\, WE HAVE TODAY’S \nBRIEFING AND ALL THE SCIENCE \nTHAT HAS GONE INTO IT\, INTO THAT \nFINDINGS REPORT WHICH IS 35 TO \n40 PAGES LONG. NOT TOO LONG OF \nA READ. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY \nREAD IT AND THESE ARE THE \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nFINDINGS. WE’LL TAKE THE \nINFORMATION AND DIG THROUGH IT \nIN THE COMMISSION ARE WORKING \nGROUP WHICH I’LL TALK ABOUT IN A \nMINUTE. WE’LL USE THE \nCOMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED \nQUESTIONS WE’LL STUDY IN REVIEW \nAND HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT \nWHAT THIS ALL MEANS. THE STATE \nLANDS COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY IN \nA CEQA REVIEW PROCESS SO WE’RE \nANTICIPATING OVER THE NEXT FEW \nMONTHS THAT STATE LANDS WILL BE \nREVIEWING DRAFT CEQA DOCUMENT. \nAND BCDC’S ROLE IN THAT IS TO \nREVIEW AND COMMENT ON IT ALONG \nWITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE \nAGENCIES. \nLATE THIS YEAR\, WE’RE \nANTICIPATING PERHAPS DECEMBER\, \nWE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE SAND \nMINING COMPANIES SUBMITTING \nTHROUGH NEW APPLICATIONS FOR \nADDITIONAL SAND MINING IN THE \nFUTURE. AND LASTLY\, PROBABLY \nAROUND EARLY SPRING\, APRIL 2025\, \nWE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE \nCOMMISSION HEARING AND VOTING \nONCE AGAIN ON SAND MINING \nACTIVITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, \nAS PROPOSED BY THE MINERS. \nSO\, THE SAND STUDIES \nCOMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. WE \nHAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO \nHAVE GRACIOUSLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nAGREED TO SIT ON A COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP AND HELP STAFF DIG \nTHROUGH IMPORTANT INFORMATION \nTHAT WILL INFLUENCE HOW WE \nPERMIT AND THINK ABOUT POLICY \nAPPLICATION WHEN WE GET THE \nPERMIT APPLICATION. SO\, IT WILL \nBE CHAIRED BY PAT SHOWALTER\, AND \nANDY GUNTHER\, AND BARRY NELSON \nWILL BE THE TWO COMMISSIONERS ON \nTHE WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE FOUR \nMEETINGS PLANNED AND SCHEDULED. \nAND PLEASE COME TO THESE \nMEETINGS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. \nBECAUSE THEY WILL BE FASCINATING \nAND WE’LL HAVE DIFFERENT \nPRESENTERS HERE TO HELP EXPLAIN \nSOME OF THE SCIENCE. SO\, THE \nFIRST ONE IS IN MID-JULY. IT’S \nAN AFTERNOON MEETING. \nAUGUST 21ST\, AND SEPTEMBER AND \nNOVEMBER ARE ALL MORNING \nMEETINGS. THEY’RE GOING TO BE \nTWO HOURS IN LENGTH\, AND THEY \nWILL BE VIRTUAL. SO EASY TO \nATTEND. AGAIN\, THEY WILL BE \nFULLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND I \nTHINK WITH THAT\, THAT IS MY \nPRESENTATION. WE CAN PROBABLY \nHOLD QUESTIONS FOR MY \nPRESENTATION UNTIL AFTER THE \nMINERS — THE MINING \nREPRESENTATIVES GIVE THEIR \nPRESENTATION\, UNLESS THERE ARE \nSOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nDO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS NOW BEFORE WE MOVE TO \nTHE MINERS PRESENTATIONS? \nIT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER \nJOHN-BAPTISTE HAS HER HAND UP. \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: I HAD A \nCLARIFYING QUESTION YOU CAN \nEXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY SAND \nBUDGET\, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: IF YOU THINK \nABOUT IT LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT \nTHERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF \nSAND WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY COMING IN AND OUT SOME OF \nTHAT IS HAPPENING IN A NATURAL \nPROCESS ACCUMULATING OVER TIME \nTHEN THE SAND LEAVING THE OCEAN \nTHERE’S ALSO HUMAN EXTRACTION OF \nSAND EITHER THROUGH NAVIGATING \nDREDGING OR MINING ACTIVITIES. \nSO\, IT’S A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IN \nWHICH SCIENTISTS DO THE BEST \nTHEY CAN TO BOUND THE AMOUNT OF\, \nIN THIS CASE\, SAND THAT IS \nPRESENT\, IN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT \nLAYERS\, THEN BALANCE OUT WHAT \nTHEY BELIEVE IS COMING IN AND \nOUT TO GET A MASS OF EQUILIBRIUM \nIT’S NOT WEIGHT OF VOLUME OF EK \nLIB RUM OR WEIGHT\, IT’S ACTUALLY \nMASS THAT IS DEFINITELY \nSOMETHING WE WILL BE TALKING \nMORE ABOUT AT THE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP BECAUSE IT’S A \nTECHNICAL BUT STANDARDIZED \nSCIENTIFIC PROCESS. \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nADDITIONAL CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS? \nOR SHALL WE TURN TO THE MINERS \nPRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: OKAY. I HAVE \nING IF OUT. STOP SHARING. \nPROUD TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY \nBILL BUTLER OF LIND MARINE\, \nERICA GERA AND MICHAEL BISHOP OF \nMARTIN MARIETTA WHOLE TELL YOU \nMORE ABOUT SAND MINING AND THEIR \nPERSPECTIVES. THANK YOU. AND \nWELCOME\, BILL\, ERICA\, AND \nMICHAEL. \n. \n>>BILL BUTLER: THANK YOU I’M \nNOT SURE WHO IS GOING TO SHARE \nTHE PRESENTATION. GOOD \nAFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN MEMBERS OF \nTHE COMMISSION MY NAME IS BILL \nBUTLER I AM VICE PRESIDENT WITH \nLIND MARINE. PRESENTING THE \nSAND MINING OVERVIEW ON BEHALF \nOF BOTH LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA \nTHIS AFTERNOON. JOINING ME \nAVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS \nBRENDA INDICATED\, IS ERICA GERA \nAND MIKE BISHOP FROM MARTIN \nMARIETTA\, WE ALSO HAVE AARON \nHOLLOWAY AND NICK FROM GHG WHO \nARE COASTAL ENGINEERING \nCONSULTANTS FOR THE SAND MINERS \nAND ALSO CLEFTIAN MARSH FROM \nCOUNCIL DOWNEY BRAND THEY’RE \nAVAILABLE TO HAVE QUESTIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE. SOME OF YOU MAY \nRECALL DETAILS ABOUT SAND MINING \nFROM THE COMMISSION IN ACTIVITY \nNINE YEARS AGO. I’LL TAKE THIS \nMOMENT TO REFRESH OVERVIEW OF \nBAY SAND MINING. I’M GOING TO \nBRIEFLY COVER THESE TOPICS. WHY \nSAND MINING HAPPENS\, WHO IS \nINVOLVED AND WHERE\, WHEN\, HOW\, \nAND HOW MUCH THAT IT HAPPENS. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THE PURPOSE OF SAND MINING \nIS TO OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL GRADE \nAGGREGATE THAT IS USED FOR \nPUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION\, \nGOING INTO CONCRETE\, ASPHALT\, \nAND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS \nTHAT ARE USED TO BUILD THE \nHOMES\, SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, \nROADS\, AND INFRASTRUCTURE \nPROJECTS AROUND THE BAY. MARINE \nSAND IS A KEY COMPONENT IN BAY \nAREA RESTORATION AND RESILIENCE \nPROJECTS\, AS WELL. ALL OF THESE \nTHINGS WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE \nQUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ENJOY \nHERE IN THE BAY AREA. UTILIZING \nA LOCAL RESOURCE FOR OUR LOCAL \nNEEDS IN THE REGION THAT’S \nTRANSPORTED VIA WATERWAYS TO \nSITES WHERE THE RESOURCE IS \nUTILIZED AND IN LARGE LOADS THAT \nEQUAL ROUGHLY 100 TO 140 TRUCK \nLOADS OF MATERIAL\, ALL HELP TO \nREDUCE THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL \nEFFECTS. AND ALSO PROVIDE \nREGIONAL JOBS FOR OUR LOCAL \nRESIDENTS. \nNOW IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE \nTHAT NOT ALL SAND IS COMMERCIAL \nGRADE SAND. IT NEEDS TO BE \nDURABLE\, CLEAN\, WELL \nGRADED\, AND OF THE RIGHT SIZE. \nTHE BAY SANDS WHERE MINING \nOCCURS\, MEET THESE CRITERIA. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF \nLOCAL PROJECTS THAT ARE \nUTILIZING BAY SANDS. AND THEY \nRANGE FROM\, AS I SAID\, \nCONSTRUCTING SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING\, REBUILDING \nFROM WILDFIRE DAMAGE\, TO \nENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION \nPROJECTS\, LIKE AT HUNTERS POINT\, \nAND BEACH RESTORATION\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, AT CROWN BEACH IN \nALAMEDA\, WHICH WAS DONE FOR \nRESILIENCE AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nDEFENSE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, AS BRENDA INDICATED EARLIER\, \nTHERE ARE TWO ACTIVE SAND MINING \nCOMPANIES OPERATING IN THE BAY. \nMARTIN MARIETTA\, FORMERLY \nHANSON\, AND LIND MARINE\, AS WELL \nAS THE JOIN VENTURE ENTITY THAT \nIS FORMED BY THESE TWO \nCOMPANIES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHESE FIGURES ILLUSTRATE WHERE \nSAND MINING TAKES PLACE IN THE \nBAY. THING IF ON THE LEFT IS \nTHE CENTRAL BAY LEASES. THEY \nSPAN 2600 ACRES CONSISTING OF \nNINE PARCELS LEASED FROM THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION. MARTIN MARIETTA\, \nEXCLUSIVELY MINES THESE AREAS\, \nAND THIS IS WHERE THE BULK OF \nSAND MINING TAKES PLACE. \nTHE MIDDLING IF IS\, I GUESS\, \nFITTINGLY MIDDLE GROUND LEASE \nAREA\, A 367 ACRE PRIVATE PARCEL \nIN SUISUN BAY\, AND LIND MARINE \nEXCLUSIVELY MINES THIS \nLOCATION. \nAND THEN FINALLY\, ON THE RIGHT\, \nTHE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE\, \nWHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS IN \nTHE SUISUN CHANNEL AT THE EAST \nEND OF SUISUN BAY. AND THIS 938 \nACRE LEASE AREA IS LEASED FROM \nSTATE LANDS TO THE SUISUN \nASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE\, MADE \nUP OF MARTIN MARIETTA AND LIND. \nAND LIND MARINE HAS CONDUCTED \nTHE MINING HERE OVER THE PAST \nTEN YEARS. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ARE \nGOING TO HELP DESCRIBE \nHOW THE SAND IS MIND. THE TWO \nCOMPANIES EACH OPERATE A SAND \nMINING BARGE THAT’S LIND \nMARINE’S ON THE LEFT AND MARTIN \nMARIETTA’S ON THE RIGHT. THESE \nARE SIMILAR IN HOW THEY OBTAIN \nSAND FROM OUR \nRESPECTIVE. THEY USE A TUGBOAT \nTO MOVE THE LARGES TO THE MINING \nLOCATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. AT \nTHE MINING LOCATIONS\, THE BARGE \nIS FILLED BY PUMPING A SAND \nWATER SLURRY FROM THE BAY \nFLOOR. \nON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS THE SAND \nPIPE ON THE BARGE WHICH IS \nLOWERED INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND \nA PUMP ON BOARD THE BARGE PUMPS \nTHE SAND WATER MIXTURE INTO A \nLOADING CHUTE THAT RUNS THE \nLENGTH OF THE BARGE\, ILLUSTRATE \nIN THING IF ON THE LEFT. THE \nSHOOT IS EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL \nSCREENED GATES THAT ALLOW SAND \nAND WATER TO FLOW INTO THE BARGE \nHOPPER. ANY MATERIALS LARGER \nTHAN SIGNALED FLOW OVER THE \nSCREENS AND THEN ARE DISCHARGED \nBACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH A PIPE \nAT THE END OF THE SHOOT THAT \nEXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. NOW\, AS \nTHE SAND AND WATER MIXTURE FILLS \nTHE BARGE\, WATER\, WHICH ALSO \nCONTAINS SOME FINE MATERIAL\, \nDECANTS FROM THE TOP OF THE \nHOPPER\, AND IS ALSO DISCHARGED \nBACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH PIPES \nTHAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. \nPUMPING CONTINUES UNTIL THE BARK \nHOPPER IS FILLED WITH WET SAND \nAND ONCE IT’S FILLED\, THE BARGES \nARE TRANSPORTED TO A NUMBER OF \nSITES AROUND THE BAY WHERE THE \nSAND IS OFF-LOADED\, STOCKPILED\, \nAND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO \nCUSTOMERS. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHESE FIGURES SHOW A COUPLE OF \nTHE DIFFERENCES IN THE SAND \nMINING BARGES. AND THEY SHOW \nTHE END OF THE SAND MINING \nPIPES. ON THE LEFT\, MARTIN \nMARIETTA’S BARGE IS EQUIPPED \nWITH A SUCTION DRAG HEAD THAT IS \nPLACED ABOUT TWO FEET INTO THE \nBAY SUBSTRATE WHEN IT’S LOWER. \nTHE TUGBOAT KEEPS THE BARGE AS \nSTATIONARY AS POSSIBLE\, BUT THEN \nMOVES TO NEW LOCATIONS\, AS \nNECESSARY\, TO CONTINUE THE \nSLURRY. IN THE SUISUN BAY \nLOCATIONS\, LIND MARINE SUCTION \nPIPE ILLUSTRATED THERE ON THE \nRIGHT\, IS PUSHED FIVE OR SIX \nFEET INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND THE \nBARGE IS ANCHORED TO LIMIT \nMOVEMENT DURING MINING. \nBOTH BARGES ARE EQUIPPED WITH \nTHOSE CYLINDRICAL SCREENS THAT \nYOU CAN SEE FOR THE SLURRY WATER \nTO PREVENT ENTRAINMENT OF FISH \nINTO THE PIPES. IN OF THE \nCENTRAL BAY\, MARTIN MARIETTA \nMIND SAND FROM DEPTHS RANGING \nBETWEEN 60 AND 90 FEET. IN \nSUISUN BAY LIND MINES IN AREAS \nTHAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 22 TO 40 \nFEET DEEP. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nNOW THESE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES \nILLUSTRATE THE LEVELS OF MINING \nACTIVITY OCCURRING IN THE THREE \nAREAS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL \nYEARS. BRENDA SHOWED A VERY \nSIMILAR SLIDE TO THIS\, WHICH WAS \nTHE SUMMATION OF ALL OF THESE \nFIGURES. THIS PARTICULARING IF \nSHOWS THE ACTIVITY ON THE \nCENTRAL BAY LEASES FROM 2\,000 TO \n2023. AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE \nVARIABILITY OF MINING TO MEET \nTHE DEMAND THAT BRENDA TALKED \nABOUT\, THE HIGHER DEMAND FOR \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OCCURS \nGENERALLY WHEN THE ECONOMY IS \nSTRONG AND MANY CONSTRUCTION \nPROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY. WHEN THE \nECONOMY SLOWS DOWN\, CONSTRUCTION \nACTIVITY DECREASES AND SO DOES \nTHE DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION \nMATERIALS. NOW THESE ECONOMIC \nCYCLES CAN ALSO BE INFLUENCED BY \nEXTERNAL FACTORS\, YOU KNOW? \nLIKE NATURAL DISASTERS OR EVEN \nTHE UPCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE \nADAPTATION THAT WE’RE DEALING \nWITH. I’LL MENTION IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO HAVE PERMIT LIMITS \nTHAT RECOGNIZE THIS VARIABLE AND \nHIGH ENOUGH TO OFFER FLEXIBLE TO \nMEET THESE CHANGES IN DEMAND. \nNEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \n— AVAILABLE BY PERMITTED \nVOLUMES IN THE LOW PERIODS THERE \nIN 2012 AND 2014 THEN WHEN \nMINING WAS REAUTHORIZED IN 2015\, \nTHERE WAS AN INCREASE IN \nPERMITTED VOLUMES THAT WERE \nSHIFTED TO THIS LEASE FROM THE \nMIDDLE GROUND LEASE. NEXT \nSLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT \nREDUCED VOLUME THERE IN THE \nLATER YEARS\, IN THE LAST TEN \nYEAR PERIOD\, WHEN THESE VOLUMES \nWERE SHIFTED TO THE SUISUN \nASSOCIATES LEASE AREA. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, WHAT’S NEXT? BRENDA DID A \nGOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THIS \nPROCESS EARLIER. AND WE’RE NOW \nHERE AT AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE. \nTHIS REPORT IS THE LAST MAJOR \nPERMIT CONDITION TO BE FULL FIT \nIN OUR CURRENT PERMITS. AND \nTHIS REPORT REALLY BUILDS ON A \nHOST OF OTHER STUDIES AND \nINFORMATION COMPILED THROUGH THE \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES \nTHAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OVER \nTHE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE PRIOR \nROUNDS OF CEQA ANALYSIS AND \nPRIOR ROUNDS OF PERMITTING AND \nSTUDY. \nAND MANY OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS \nREPORT REAFFIRM THE FINDINGS \nFROM THESE PAST STUDIES\, \nINCLUDING SOME OF THE \nDEMONSTRABLE IMPACTS ON SEDIMENT \nTRANSPORT AND SUPPLY BEYOND \nLOCALIZED AREAS WITHIN THE \nLEASES\, WEREN’T REALLY \nIDENTIFIED. \nWE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE \nOPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO BE \nPART OF THE SEDIMENT \nATTACK\, AND STUDIES DEVELOPED \nAND AT THE END ALSO APPRECIATE \nTHE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS. \nWE DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND \nISSUES ON THESE REPORTS THAT \nREMAIN OUTSTANDING. \nAND THOSE COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED \nIN THE REPORT’S APPENDICES WHICH \nYOU ALL SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF\, \nAND WE ENCOURAGE TO YOU TAKE A \nLOOK AT THOSE. YOU KNOW\, \nFINALLY\, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO \nTAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A \nBIG THANK YOU TO THE SEDIMENT \nTECH\, MEMBERS\, AND BCDC AND \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY STAFF\, THE \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nMEMBERS AND THE STUDY AUTHORS \nFOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS VERY \nCOMPLEX ISSUE. IT WAS A HUGE \nTASK\, AND THE WORK IS VERY MUCH \nAPPRECIATED. AND\, SO\, WITH \nTHAT\, I — WE’RE AVAILABLE TO \nANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, BILL. \nBRENDA DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING \nADDITIONAL? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: NO. WE’RE \nREADY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND/OR \nCOMMISSION QUESTIONS AND \nDISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY \nWHY DON’T WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT \nFIRST. SIERRA\, DO WE HAVE ANY \nMEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH \nTO COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nDO\, CURRENTLY HAVE ONE HAND \nRAISED. JIM McGRATH. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. MY \nNAME IS JIM McGRATH. SOME OF \nYOU KNOW WHO I AM. I JUST WANT \nTO SAY\, FIRST\, THAT THIS IS A \nSTUNNINGLY GOOD BIT OF SCIENCE. \nI DIDN’T READ EVERY SINGLE \nWORD. \nBUT I SKIMMED EACH ONE OF THE \nREPORTS. THE KEY CONCLUSION \nHERE IS THAT THE SEDIMENT THAT’S \nIN MOTION AT THE MOUTH OF THE \nBAY IS RELIC SEDIMENT. AND THAT \nDOESN’T REALLY SURPRISE ME. I \nCAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IN \nMONTEREY BAY AT THE MOUTH OF THE \nSALINAS RIVER. THAT MEANS IT’S \nNOT REFRESHED IN THE SAME \nNATURE. BUT UNLIKE MONTEREY \nBAY\, YOU FACE A VERY DIFFERENT \nSITUATION HERE. WHILE THE LOSS \nOF SEDIMENT TO MINING MAY BE \nDIRECTLY INVOLVED\, A LOSS OF \nSEDIMENT THAT EVENTUALLY MAKES \nIT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO AND \nMARIN COUNTY BEACHES\, THERE IS A \nHUGE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT INVOLVED \nIN THAT TRANSPORT SYSTEM. AND \nTHE AMOUNT IS RELATIVELY SMALL\, \nSIGNIFICANT\, I THINK\, IS THE \nCONCLUSION. BUT THE THING I \nWANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS \nTHAT\, WELL\, IT MAY BE THAT THIS \nEXACERBATES FUTURE EROSION \nSTOPPING SAND MINING PROBABLY \nNOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT \nON THE NEED FOR ADAPTATION ALONG \nTHE BEACHES SO IT’S A \nCOMPLICATED QUESTION THAT YOU’RE \nGOING TO FACE IN THE FUTURE. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL STOP. I’LL TRY \nTO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS \nOF THE COMMITTEE\, THE \nSUBCOMMITTEE. JUST ONCE AGAIN \nWANT TO SAY\, JUST \nREALLY EXCELLENT WORK BY THE \nSTAFF OF THE SCIENTIFIC \nCOMMUNITY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. ANY — I SEE AT \nLEAVE THE ONE MORE HAND RAISED. \nSIERRA\, DO YOU SEE THAT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nDO. \nBRENDA I WANT TO CLARIFY\, IS \nNICK PART OF THE PRESENTATION\, \nBRENDA? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SO\, NICK IS \nWITH THE CONSULTING FIRM HIRED \nBY THE SAND MINERS. NICK\, I \nDON’T KNOW IF YOU MAYBING A \nPUBLIC COMMENT OR IF YOU ARE \nTRYING TO COMMENT AS PART OF THE \nSAND MINING PRESENTATION? BUT \nMAYBE \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. THE MINING \nTEAM ASKED IF I COULD MAKE \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: DEAR VICE CHAIR AND \nMEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY \nNAME IS NICK S\, SENIOR COASTAL \nSCIENTIST WITH GHD ENGINEERING \nCONSULTANTS TO THE MINING TEAM \nEXPERTISE IN COASTAL SEDIMENT \nAND TRANSPORT HERE TO PROVIDE \nOBSERVATIONS OF THE SAND SCIENCE \nSTUDIES AND ISP PROCESS AND \nAPPRECIATION FOR THE PROCESS AND \nCHALLENGE OF GENERATING \nCOMPILING RESEARCH ON A \nCOMPLICATED ISSUE\, COMMEND THE \nHARD WORK OF RESEARCH TEAMS AND \nISP STUDIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE THE NEW RESEARCH \nBUILDS ON SIGNIFICANT WORK ON \nSAND TRANSPORT PATHWAYS \nREAFFIRMING A NUMBER OF \nFINDINGS\, MINING HAS LOCALIZED \nEFFECTS SHOULD BE EXAMINED AT \nINDIVIDUAL LEASE AREA SCALE\, \nCONSISTENT WITH PRIOR RESEARCH \nIN AREAS OF INACTIVE SAND \nTRANSPORT. REPORT ALSO \nCONSISTENT WITH THE STATES 2012 \nEIR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RESOURCE \nIS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY BCDC \nCOMMISSIONERS ISP REPORT \nACKNOWLEDGES MIND SAND IS RELIC \nDEPOSITED. IMPORTANTLY THE \nSTUDIES AND SUMMARY REPORT DO \nNOT IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC \nMEASURABLE OR IMPACT BEYOND \nLEASE AREAS THEMSELVES INSTEAD \nREPORT FINDINGS BEYOND LEASE \nAREAS ARE UNKNOWN WE CONTINUE TO \nHAVE CONCERNS REGARDING REPORTS \nAND BUDGET ANALYSIS SHARED \nCONCEPT MODEL CAPTURED AND \nWRITTEN COMMENT LETTER SUBMITTED \nBY LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA. \nDOUBLE COUNTING OUTFLOWS CAUSED \nBY MINING AND DREDGING \nACTIVITIES BOTH DREDGE VOLUMES \nAND SAND OUTFLOWS. RESULTING IN \nDRAMATIC OVERESTIMATE OF SAND \nOUTFLOWS FROM THE BAY \nADDITIONALLY SAND BUDGET STUDIES \nACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE GOLDEN \nGATE BRIDGE FLUX SAND FLOWS INTO \nOR OUT OF THE BAY REMAINING \nHIGHLY UNCERTAIN. THE ISP \nREPORT PROVIDES SEVERAL \nOVERGENERALIZES FOR EXAMPLE\, \nDETERMINATION THAT SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AND PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE A \nCOMMON POOL OF SAND IS OVER \nGENERALIZED AS THESE ARE LARGE \nBODIES OF WATER WITH COMPLEX \nPROCESSES\, TRANSPORTING AND \nCLIMATE\, AND I URGE STUDIES FOR \nDETAILED NUANCED FINDINGS. WE \nLOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING \nWITH BCDC STAFF ON THE UPCOMING \nWORKING GROUP PROCESS AND \nBELIEVE THAT CONTINUED DIALOGUE \nCAN BE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL \nPUBLIC COMMENT? I CAN SEE \nCOMMISSIONERS DO WANT TO ASK \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I SEE \nNO OTHER HANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AS \nWE SAID AT THE BEGINNING\, THIS \nIS A LONG PROCESS AND CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS NIPT TIME ARE \nCERTAINLY WELCOME. SO\, I THINK \nPAT SHOWALTER\, I SAW YOUR HAND \nUP FIRST\, \nSIERRA WILL CALL ON FOLKS AS \nTHEY RAISE THEIR HAND. \n>>SPEAKER: CHAIR EISEN IS IT IS \nTHIS TIME FOR COMMENTS AS WELL \nAS QUESTIONS? OR SHOULD I JUST \nASK THE QUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nWELL\, I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST \nASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE’LL SEE \nHOW IT GOES. OBVIOUSLY — \n>>SPEAKER: OKAY. SURE. I WILL \nJUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS \nREALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR ABOUT \nTHE REDUCTION OF GHGS. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: BECAUSE \nOF THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT \nDOESN’T OCCUR BECAUSE OF THIS. \nAND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nLEARNING MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT. \nI DO NOT REALLY EXPECT AN ANSWER \nTO THAT. BUT I JUST DISH WANT \nTO BRING THAT UP AS A REAL \nQUESTION THAT I HOPE TO LEARN \nMORE ABOUT. AND I’LL BE GLAD TO \nMAKE A FEW COMMENTS LATER. \n>>SPEAKER: PAT I’M NOT SURE \nTHAT’S REALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE \nOF THIS MEETING. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. I \nDIDN’T KNOW. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: THANK YOU\, \nGREG. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nI DO SEE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS\, YOU \nARE NEXT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR \nTHE REPORT. SO\, I GUESS IT’S \nCLEAR THAT SAND SUPPLIES ARE A \nLIMITED RESOURCE. MY QUESTION \nIS TO WHAT EXTENT OTHER \nALTERNATIVE MATERIALS FOR \nCONSTRUCTION USE MIGHT BE \nCONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WORK \nFOR THIS TASK FORCE? AND AS AN \nEXAMPLE\, I USE THE FACT THAT \nWE’RE USING RECYCLED \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN OUR \nROAD PROJECTS\, AS ROAD BASE\, SO \nWE’RE REGRINDING CONCRETE AND \nASPHALT TO USE\, AND THIS \nWOULDN’T BE SUITABLE FOR \nEVERYTHING. BUT I DO THINK WE \nNEED TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES AND \nOPTIONS TO A LIMITED SAND \nSUPPLY. I JUST WONDER IF THAT’S \nSOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES IT’S \nCERTAINLY SOMETHING I THINK WE \nCOULD BRAIN IN THE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP. THANK YOU FOR \nTHE QUESTION. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I \nWOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOMEONE CAN \nTELL ME\, WHAT IS THE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER — \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: — PERCENT OF \nTHE SAND USED WEEKLY IN \nCONSTRUCTION. HOW MUCH OF THAT \nSAND DOES THE SAND FROM THE MIND \nBAY COMPOSE. WHAT PERCENT OF \nTHE OVERALL DEMAND FOR SAND? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: I DON’T THINK \nWE’RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT \nQUESTION TODAY. WE DID HAVE AN \nECONOMIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY \nTHE SAND MINERS IN 2015\, THAT I \nTHINK THOSE NUMBERS WOULD HAVE \nTO BE REANALYZED. AND THE \nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND \nMINES AND GEOLOGY WOULD PROBABLY \nBE A GOOD SOURCE TO HELP \nUNDERSTAND THE AGGREGATE USE IN \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND \nLOCALLY\, BUT WE’RE NOT PREPARED \nTO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU \nTODAY\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SO WE CAN \nJUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA OF THE \nWORKING GROUP? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SURE. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: OKAY. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA WE’LL GO TO \nYOU NEXT THEN WE’LL MOVE TO \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON IN ROOM. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: MY CLASSMATE \nBARRY NELSON’S HAND WAS UP \nFIRST. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT \nWAS FIRST WE’RE TAKING VIRTUAL \nFIRST THEN QUESTIONS IN THE \nROOM. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: I THINK I HEARD \nTO COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S \nQUESTION\, BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME \nAS MINE\, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT \nTO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SAND \nTHAT’S MIND FROM THE BAY WHERE \nIS IT USED? IS IT USED ALL \nAROUND THE BAY OR IS IT EXPORTED \nTO AREAS OUTSIDE FOR USE SO END \nUSE OF THE SAND THAT’S MIND IN \nTHE BAY. I REALIZE YOU DON’T \nHAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW BUT I \nTHINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT \nPART OF THE WORK GROUP \nANALYSIS. \nAND SECOND\, WHAT ARE THE \nALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR SAND? \nAND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nOR ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF \nTHOSE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS? \nSO\, OTHER SOURCES\, IN OTHER \nWORDS. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YEAH. I \nBELIEVE YOUR QUESTION IS — YOUR \nFIRST QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY \nDIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER \nGUNTHERS\, WHICH IS\, I THINK\, THE \nPERCENTAGE OF BAY SANDS IN \nCOMPARISON TO ALL SANDS USED IN \nTHE REGION. YOURS IS A LITTLE \nDIFFERENT WHICH IS\, IS THE BAY \nSAND USED LOCALLY. I THINK THE \nANSWER TO THAT IS\, YES\, THE BAY \nMIND SAND IS USED LOCALLY. I \nBELIEVE BILL AND ERICA WILL \nCONFIRM THAT. BUT IT IS A VERY \nLOCAL RESOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION \nMATERIALS. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: IT WOULD BE \nUSEFUL TO KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF \nIT\, IF ANY\, IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE \nTHE BAY AREA FOR USE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. WE CAN \nGET YOU THAT NUMBER. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: AND I AGREE WITH \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION \nOF\, WHAT PERCENT OF MIND BAY \nSAND IS USED IN THE AREA VERSUS \nOTHER AREAS AND THE ALTERNATIVE \nSOURCES OF SAND IF SAND WERE \nLESS AVAILABLE FROM THE BAY AND \nWHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND \nECONOMIC FACTORS RELATED TO \nIMPACTS OF THAT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES THAT WOULD \nBE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO \nRESEARCH AND PROVIDE AS PART OF \nTHE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP \nAND WE’LL PUT THAT ON THE LIST \n. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: YOU SEEM TO BE \nCLEAR THAT THERE IS SAND IS NOT \nSUSTAINABLE HAVING DIVISION \nQUANTITY\, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO \nFURTHER UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF \nTHIS SAND MINING ON BAYSHORE AND \nBEACHES? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SO IN EACH OF \nTHE — L IN THE FINDINGS REPORT \nIN EACH OF THE STUDIES\, THERE \nARE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT CAN \nHELP US GET AT THOSE QUESTIONS. \nONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN US \nUNDERSTANDING THE QUANTITY OF \nSAND THAT IS IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY WAS THE MERE COST OF TAKING \nTHREE DEEP CORES TO UNDERSTAND \nTHE DEPTH OF THE SAND VOLUME \nTHAT WAS DEPOSITED BACK AT THE \nTURN OF THE ICE AGE. SO\, WE \nCOULD HAVE SPENT $1.2 MILLION \nON THAT ONE STUDY BUT WE CHOSE \nNOT TO BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE \nGOTTEN US FAR LESS INFORMATION \nAND FRANKLY THE AMOUNT OF SAND \nBEING MIND IS IN THE UPPER PART \nOF THAT. THAT WAS AN APP \nQUESTION. WE DID NOT HAVE \nENOUGH FUNDS TO GO AND TRY TO \nMAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE \nSAND IN THE SYSTEM AND IT \nGETTING TO BEACH TRANSPORT. \nTHAT’S A FULLY DIDN’T \nDIFFERENT STUDY SO THERE ARE A \nNUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES \nTHAT WE COULD DO IF ADDITIONAL \nFUNDS WERE PROVIDED\, BUT $1.2 \nMILLION IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY \nWHEN YOU ARE STUDYING DEEP WATER \nSYSTEMS THAT ARE QUITE LARGE. \nI’LL LEAVE IT AT. WE COULD GO \nON\, BUT THAT’S THE SHORT ANSWER. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: COMMISSIONER \nMOULTON-PETERS MENTIONED \nALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND IT \nMAY BE FOR SOME KIND OF PROJECTS \nTHERE ARE\, OTHERS THEY’RE NOT\, \nARE YOU GOING TO BE LOOKING MORE \nAT THAT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: WE CERTAINLY \nCAN. WE HAVE TO MEET WITH OUR \nWORKING GROUP CHAIR TO DEFINE \nBETTERA EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING \nTO BE LOOKING@EACH OF THE \nWORKING GROUPS BUT WE CAN \nREQUIRE THAT AS PART OF THE \nINFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE \nFEASIBILITIES OF SAND MINING IN \nTHE BAY AND ALTERNATIVES TO SAND \nMINING IN THE BAY. I SEE BILL’S \nHAND UP MAYBE I’LL TURN IT OVER \nTO HIM TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT \nALTERNATIVES. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU. \n>>BILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA THANK YOU FOR \nTHOSE QUESTIONS. I CAN CONFIRM \nTHAT THE BAY SAND MIND FROM THE \nBAY STAYS VERY REGIONAL WITHIN \nTHE BAY AREA. IT DOESN’T REALLY \nGO FOR USES OUTSIDE OF THE BAY. \nREGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCES OF \nMATERIAL\, ABSOLUTELY\, I THINK \nTHAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN \nLOOK AT A LITTLE HARDER\, GOING \nFORWARD. AS I MENTIONED BRIEFLY \nIN THE PRESENTATION\, YOU KNOW\, \nWHEN I SAID THAT ALL SAND IS NOT \nCONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND. AND \nEVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION GRADE \nSAND\, ALL SAND IS NOT CREATED \nEQUAL FOR THAT EITHER. SO \nYOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT FOR \nDIFFERENT USES\, ALTERNATIVE \nMATERIALS\, THERE IS DIFFERENT \nALTERNATE MATERIAL THAT CAN BE \nSUITABLE FOR THAT. BUT THAT’S \nCERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN \nADDRESS AND GET YOU THE ANSWER \nTO GOING FORWARD. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: \nTHANKS. I’LL TURN THAT OFF NOW. \nTHAT IS NOT OFF. \nOKAY. WE’RE WORKING? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>BARRY NELSON: \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU. SO\, JUST A COUPLE OF \nQUESTIONS. SOME COMMISSIONERS \nHAVE ASKED SOME OF THE OTHER \nQUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK. \nFIRST IS\, IT’S PRETTY CLEAR FROM \nTHIS WORK THAT WE’RE MINING \nRELIC SAND\, WHICH MEANS THAT \nTHIS ONGOING EXTRACTION ISN’T \nSUSTAINABLE. YOU CAN PUT A \nLITTLE TIME FRAME AROUND THAT? \nARE WE TAKING A 10th OF A \nPERCENT EVERY YEAR? TAKING A \n20th PERCENT EVERY YEAR. I’M \nTRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT \nTHE TIME FRAME IS AROUND THE \nNON-RENEWABILITY OF THAT \nRESOURCE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: I CAN’T \nBECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TOTAL \nVOLUME OF SAND. WE DON THAT \nSAND IS NO LONGER COMING IN FROM \nTHE DELTA AND WE KNOW THAT THE \nSAND FROM THE WATERSHEDS IS NOT \nBEING SUPPLIED TO THE BEDS BEING \nMIND. WE DO SEE AREAS WHERE THE \nBED IS BEING LOWERED AND WE CAN \nSHOW PICTURES OF THAT IN THE \nCOMMISSION WORKING GROUP. THE \nOTHER THING IS WE DID VERY \nSPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF VERY \nLOCALIZED MINED AREAS\, AND THERE \nIS A LIMITED PORTION OF THOSE \nMINED AREAS WHERE SAND IS IN \nTRANSPORT. WHERE IT IS IN \nTRANSPORT MAXIMUM AMOUNT \nIN THOSE AREAS REFRESH I \nBELIEVE WAS 55% AND THERE ARE \nOTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT BEING \nREFRESHED. THERE IS VARIABLE \nWITHIN THE SITES DETAILED \nWITHIN SOME OF THE STUDIES WE \nOPTED NOT TO GET INTO LOTS OF \nDETAILS TODAY ABOUT THE STUDIES \nWITH THE FULL COMMISSION. \n>>BARRY NELSON: WE CAN TALK \nABOUT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS \nLATER THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT \nWE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ON THAT \nLATER ON. THE OTHER QUESTION \nWAS THE CONCLUSIONS ENACT THAT \nTHE IMPACTS ON BEACHES AND \nSHORES AREN’T QUANTIFIED I WOULD \nLOVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IT \nWOULD TAKE TO ANSWER THOSE \nQUESTIONS BUT AGAIN MAYBE THAT \nWAITS FOR OUR WORKING GROUP. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: DEFINITELY \nSOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE IDEAS \nWITH TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER IN \nTHE WORKING GROUP. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: — \n>>SPEAKER: I’M ASSUMING THE \nBEACHES ARE GIVING SOME OF THAT \nSAND BACK IN TO FILL THE HOLE. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: IT’S ALREADY \nBEEN ASKED. THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU. \nI THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS I \nHEARD WAS REGARDING \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS \nASSOCIATED WITH THE SAND MINING \nAND I THINK BRENDA MENTIONED \nTHAT WOULD BE PUT ON THE LIST \nFOR DISCUSSION DURING ONE OF THE \nWORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AND I \nWANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET \nSOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. \nWOULD THAT BE IN THE CONTEXT OF \nWHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESPONSIBLE \nAGENCY IN THE CONTEXT OF CEQA? \nOR KIND OF LIKE WHAT’S BEING \nASKED AND WHAT WOULD BE ON THE \nWORKING GROUP AGENDA AS IT \nRELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPLICATIONS AND HOW DOES THAT \nRECONCILE WITH CEQA? \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE \nHAVE FLUSHED OUT EXACTLY WHAT’S \nGOING TO BE IN ALL OF THE \nWORKING GROUPS YET I THINK WE’RE \nSTILL DECIDING AND LOOKING AT \nTHAT GETTING INPUT FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS AND FROM THE \nWORKING GROUP THEMSELVES. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: OKAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER \nPEMBERTON I’LL NOTE FOR YOU THAT \nCHRIS HEWITT WHO I UNDERSTAND IS \nIN THE CEQA LEAD HAS BEEN \nPARTICIPATING IN ALL OF THESE \nMEETINGS AND HAS ALL OF THE \nDOCUMENTS SO HE’S WELL AWARE OF \nTHE STUDIES AND FINDINGS. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU \nBRENDA. I APPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I WASN’T SURE HOW TO \nRAISE MY HAND\, SINCE I’M \nIN-PERSON. ACTUALLY\, I HAVE A \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT. \nBECAUSE THE COMMENT THAT WAS \nMADE IS THAT THE — I CALL IT\, \nLIKE\, A VACUUM CLEANER\, AND YOU \nHAVE A SCREEN ON IT TO PREVENT \nFISH FROM COMING IN\, WHAT \nABOUT THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS \nTHAT ARE IN THE SAND? HAVE \nTHERE BEEN ANALYSIS OF THE \nIMPACT TO THE ORGANISMS WHETHER \nTHEY’RE SUCKED UP WITH THE SAND? \nDO YOU ACTUALLY SEE THEM? I’M \nKIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THE \nPRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS VACUUM \nCLEANER\, AND THIS SUCKING UP THE \nSAND AT THE BOTTOM. \nYOU CAN HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND \nWHAT THAT MECHANISM IS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO\, \nTHERE IS TWO MECHANISMS. ONE \nIS\, LIKE\, THE VACUUM CLEANER \nHAD THAT YOU SAW\, BELIEVE IT \nHAS A SIX BY SIX INCH OPENING \nGREAT\, AND SO ANYTHING — PLEASE \nCORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BILL \nERIK OR MIKE\, ANYTHING SMALLER \nTHAN SIX BY SIX \nGREAT COULD GO THROUGH THE DRAG \nHEAD ITSELF AND THE SCREEN IS ON \nTHE PUMP THAT BRINGS IN THE \nWATER AND THE SCREEN WILL NOT \nSCREEN SOUGHT NICHE BUT NOT \nPLANK TON AND LARVAE. THE DRAG \nHEAD ITSELF WOULD LIKE TAKE THE \nMATERIAL\, THE ANIMALS IN THE TOP \nOF THE SAND INTO AND THE PUMP \nTHROUGH THE SYSTEM MANY OF THOSE \nANIMALS ARE SOFT-BODIED AND \nWOULD NOT BE SEEN IN THE SAND \nBECAUSE OF THE ROUGHNESS OF THE \nSAND THROUGH THE PIPE. WE DID \nDO A BENTHIC STUDY I CAN’T \nREMEMBER THE YEAR\, I FEEL LIKE \nIT WAS 2017 OR 18\, AND THERE ARE \nSOME CONCLUSIONS THAT\, LIKE\, THE \nCRITTERS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE \nSAND ARE EARLY COLONIZERS \nBECAUSE THE SAND ITSELF IS SUCH \nA MOVING SYSTEM THAT YOU DON’T \nGET\, LIKE\, SOLID BUILT UP \nBENTHIC COMMUNITIES LIKE YOU \nMIGHT FIND IN FINE SAND\, BUT YOU \nWOULD ASSUME THAT THE CRITTERS \nARE BEING SUCKED UP IN THAT \nVACUUM-LIKE HEAD. AND THEN ON \nTHE OTHER TYPE\, WHICH YOU SAW\, \nWHICH LIND MARINE USES\, IT’S \nMORE OF A — I EQUATE IT TO\, \nLIKE\, A STRAW IN THE SAND. \nAND\, SO\, IT IS DOWN DEEPER\, \nPOTENTIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE YOU \nDON’T HAVE INVERTEBRATES \nLIVING. \nBECAUSE IT’S DEEP UNDER THE \nSAND. SO\, THERE MAY BE SOME \nDIFFERENCES. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE \nA STUD BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF \nMINING\, TO THE BEST OF MY \nKNOWLEDGE\, AGAIN\, PLEASE CORRECT \nME IF I’M WRONG. THAT GETS TO \nBE A VERY CONCLUSIVE STUDY. BUT \nTHERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF WORK \nAMONG THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY \nSIMPLY BECAUSE IT’S DEEP AND \nVERY DIFFICULT TO PLACE A \nMONITOR ASIDE FROM TWO STUDIES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO\, ARE WE GOING \nTO BE DOING ANY FUTURE WORK ON \nTHE IMPACT OF THE BENTHIC \nORGANISMS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THERE MAY BE \nSOME AS PART OF THE CEQA \nDOCUMENT\, BUT HONESTLY I DO NOT \nKNOW WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE \nANY REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXISTING \nPERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO \nTHE BIIOTA. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THE OTHER \nQUESTION I HAD IS THERE WAS \nMENTION OF A PRIVATE PARCEL. I \nTHINK IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE \nGROUND. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME TO \nUNDERSTAND WHY IS THERE A \nPRIVATE PARCEL IN THE BAY? AND \nARE THERE OTHER PRIVATE PARCELS \nTHAT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD \nABOUT YET? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO THAT \nPARCEL WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY \nTHE NAVY. IT IS NOW THE \nGROSSLY \nFAMILIES IT’S A PRIVATE PARCEL \nI WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO \nPARTICIPATE IN THE SUBTIDAL \nHABITAT GOALS PROJECT IN 2010 AS \nPART OF THAT PROJECT WE LOOKED \nAT THE OWNERSHIP OF SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY BOTTOM WHICH IS A \nLOT OF IT OWNED BY THE STATE\, \nTHERE ARE SOME OWNED BY PRIVATE \nIMPORTANT OWNERS AND IF YOU WANT \nTO SEE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE \nBOTTOM OF THE BAY\, YOU CAN GO TO \nTHE SUBTIDAL GOALS HABITAT \nPROJECT ON THE WEB AND LOOK AT \nBAYLAND OWNERSHIP MAP. AND IT \nWILL SHOW YOU THE PRIVATE PUBLIC \nOWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nIT’S QUITE FASCINATING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I’M VERY \nINTERESTED IN THAT PART OF IT. \nTHE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS \nTHAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOME \nOF THE SAND IS USED FOR \nRESTORATION OF BEACHES. SO\, \nWHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SAND THAT \nIS ACTUALLY USED IN THE \nCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES VERSUS \nRESTORATION PROJECTS. DO WE \nKNOW WHAT THAT IS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: WELL\, I CAN \nTELL YOU WHAT I KNOW AND BILL \nCAN ADD. SO\, ONE PROJECT\, \nALAMEDA CROWN BEACH\, THERE IS \nACTUALLY A FLOOD PROTECTION \nPROJECT THAT WAS BUILT MANY\, \nMANY YEARS AGO TO REDUCE EROSION \nON THAT FRONT\, AND APPROXIMATELY \nEVERY 20 YEARS\, ABOUT 80\,000 \nCUBIC YARDS OF SAND IS PLACE ON \nTHAT BEACH TO REFRESH THE BEACH \nSAND THAT’S ERODED OVER THAT 20 \nYEAR PERIOD. AND I BELIEVE THE \nLAST TIME WE PLACED THAT AMOUNT \nOF SAND ON THAT BEACH WAS \n2013. \nTHE RAMBREW ISLAND TOOK SOME \nSAND DOLLAR’S A SMALL \nRESTORATION PROJECT AT \nRAMBRU ISLAND THAT TOOK MAYBE \n2\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND AND \nTHAT CAME OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nMARINA WEST SOME OF THE LARGER \nPIECES OF SAND MATERIAL I THINK \nFROM HANSON\, CORRECT ME IF I AM \nWRONG\, MARTIN MARIETTA\, FROM \nTHEIR YARD WHERE THEY HAVE A\, \nSORT OF\, TAILINGS SAND THAT \nTHEY’RE NOT USING FOR THE \nCONCRETE MATERIALS AND THEN \nTHERE IS ANOTHER SMALL \nRESTORATION PROJECT I BELIEVE \nAROUND PEER 94 THAT SAN \nFRANCISCO IS USING MOSTLY \nTAILINGS FROM THE HANSON MARTIN \nMARIETTA I DON’T KNOW THE VOLUME \nTHOSE ARE PRIMARY SAND FROM THE \nMINING FOR RESTORATION AND I’M \nHAPPY TO HEAR FROM \nMINERS FOR \nMORE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ACKNOWLEDGED \nWRITTEN IN THE REPORT RELEASED \nTHURSDAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SPECIFICALLY \nTHAT IS NOT ON THE RESTORATION \nOF THE SAND BUT COULD QUANTIFY \nTHAT FOR YOU. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WHAT PERCENTAGE \nCURRENTLY BEING USED FOR FUTURE \nREFRESHED AND WHAT THE NEED IS. \nTHANK YOU. INTERESTING \nPRESENTATION. HAVING BEEN ON \nTHE HOPPER DREDGE DECADES AGO\, I \nSEE A LOT OF RELATIONSHIP TO \nTHIS ACTIVITY. SO\, THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. THERE ARE NO MORE \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I \nWANT TO THANK YOU\, BRENDA FOR \nYOUR WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. \nAND FOR THE MINER’S \nPRESENTATION. AND I \nSPECIFICALLY WANT TO THANK PAT\, \nANDY\, AND BARRY\, WHO CAN SEE \nMAYBE NOT REGRETTING THAT THEY \nVOLUNTEERED FOR THIS WORKING \nGROUP COMMITTEE. BUT CAN SEE \nTHAT THIS IS QUITE A TASK. AND \nI APPRECIATE ALL OF THE \nCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. BECAUSE \nI THINK THAT REALLY HELPS OUR \nWORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE \nDOING SO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING ON \nTHIS TO\, SORT OF\, SEE WHAT THE \nCOMMISSION IS GOING TO BE \nINTERESTED IN KNOWING AND \nUNDERSTANDING BEFORE WE GET DO \nTHIS PERMIT PROCESS. SO\, THANKS \nTO ALL OF YOU. \nWE NOW HAVE — \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: VICE CHAIR \nEISEN\, YOU CAN ASK ONE THING? \nWE MAY BE LOSING A PERSON OR \nTWO\, DEPENDING ON PHONE CALLS\, \nET CETERA\, WHO MAYBE COMING \nBACK\, ET CETERA AND SO O IT \nMIGHT BE GOOD FOR YOU TO SAY THE \nCOMMISSION WILL GO INTO \nCOMMITTEE IF THAT HAPPENS\, AND \nJUST IN THE FUTURE\, JUST TO MAKE \nSURE THAT THAT’S ON THE RECORD. \nTHERE ARE NO VOTES SCHEDULED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. YES. WE DON’T HAVE \nANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO VOTE O \nBUT IF WE LOSE OUR QUORUM\, WE \nWILL GO INTO COMMITTEE\, AS YOU \nPUT IT. IS THAT — DOES THAT DO \nIT\, LARRY? \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AWESOME. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. SO\, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR \nAGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE \nPROGRESS MADE BY THE SEDIMENT \nFOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. \nAND THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROJECT \nIS TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY \nAND USE OF SEDIMENTS AND SOILS \nTO RESTORE AND ADAPT WETLANDS TO \nRISING SEA LEVELS. \nOUR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKING \nGROUP WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY \nTO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. AND \nBCDC HOSTED A TWO-DAY IN-PERSON \nPUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC IN \nJANUARY AND IN FEBRUARY. SO\, \nMAYA MCLERNEY OF OUR STAFF IS \nGOING TO BEGIN THE BRIEFING ON \nTHIS PROJECT. THANK YOU\, MAYA. \n>>MAYA MCLERNEY: ALL RIGHT. \nTHANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON VICE \nCHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. \nMY NAME IS MAYA MCLERNEY\, AND I \nAM A PROJECT MANAGER FOR \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT I WORKED CLOSELY WITH \nBRENDA GODEN AND ERIK BEE MAN ON \nTHIS PROJECT. I’LL PROVIDE A \nBRIEFING ON SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nWORKSHOPS THAT WE HELD EARLIER \nTHIS YEAR AND BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN THAT WE’RE \nDEVELOPING RIGHT NOW. BEFORE I \nGET INTO THAT I WANT TO TALK \nABOUT WETLANDS AND SEDIMENT FOR \nWETLAND ADAPTING A PROJECT MORE \nGENERALLY. YOU LIKELY ALREADY \nKNOW THIS BUT WETLAND WILL NOT \nBE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH SEA \nLEVEL RISE WITHOUT OUR HELP WE \nNEED TO ACT NOW TO HELP WETLAND \nBE ABLE TO ADAPT BY RAISING \nELEVATIONS AND SUPPORTING THE \nESTABLISHMENT OF PLANS AND \nECOSYSTEMS. THERE HAS BEEN A \nLOT OF WORK DONE IN THE AREA OF \nSEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN OUR \nREGION SPECIFICALLY AND WE’RE \nBRINGING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER \nTHROUGH OUR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND \nADAPTATION PROJECT. OUR PROJECT \nGOAL IS TO INCREASE THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL FOR WETLAND HABITAT \nRESTORATION RESILIENCE SEA LEVEL \nRISE ADAPTATION IN THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY AREA. PART OF \nTHIS PROJECT\, AS PART OF THAT \nPROJECT\, BCDC IS DEVELOPING A \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN \nBASED ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS \nTHAT WE CONDUCTED EARLIER THIS \nYEAR. THIS IS A REGIONAL CALL \nTO ACTION WITH TASKS THAT WILL \nBE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH INCREASED \nCOLLABORATION WITH AND AMONG \nSTAKEHOLDERS AND ENTITY NOT ONLY \nBCDC WHO WILL SHARE IN THE GOAL \nOF INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE \nIN WETLAND TO HELP ADAPT TO \nRISING SEAS. BCDC WILL \nUNDERTAKE POLICY CHANGES LATER \nTHIS YEAR AND DEVELOP FINANCIAL \nSTRATEGY TO SUPPORT BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. WHAT EXACTLY IS \nBENEFICIAL REUSE YOU MAY BE \nASKING. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT \nRECOGNIZING SEDIMENT AND SOIL AS \nA VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE \nNECESSARY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTING A AND SHIFTING MINDSET \nFROM TREATING IT AS A WASTE \nPRODUCT TO BE DISPOSED OF TO \nSEEING AS A RESOURCE THAT CAN BE \nOFFICIALLY REUSED TO SUPPORT \nGREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND \nNATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS LIKE \nMARSH RESTORATION AND HABITAT \nREHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT \nALONG THE EDGE OF THE BAY. \nWE’RE TALKING ABOUT SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL FROM DREDGED NAVIGATION \nCHANNELS\, STREAMS AND FLOOD \nPROTECTION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE \nMATERIALS AND EXCESS \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS. SO SEDIMENT \nWETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT SWAP \nFOR SHORT FOCUSED ON ENSURING \nTHAT THESE MATERIALS ARE REUSED \nFOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSE \nSPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT WETLAND \nSO THE TIMELINE FOR THE SWAP IS \nSHOWN HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. \nWE’RE IN PHASE ONE CURRENTLY OF \nTHE THREE FACE\, THREE YEAR \nPROJECT. THIS PHASE IS ALL \nABOUT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AT \nTHE END OF THE FIRST PHASE WE’LL \nHAVE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION \nPLAN FOR THE REGION AND WILL \nINCLUDE TASKS FOR ALL \nSTAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN \nSEDIMENT NOT JUST BCDC AND WE’LL \nHAVE A COALITION OF STAKEHOLDERS \nTO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF \nTHIS ACTION PLAN. PHASE ONE \nWILL WRAP UP IN 2024 PRETTY SOON \nIN 2024\, AND WITH PHASE 2 AND 3 \nTAKING PLACE FROM THE END OF \n2024 THROUGH 2025. AND THIS \nPHASES 2 AND 3 WILL INCLUDE A \nPOTENTIAL BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AND \nFINANCING STRATEGY TO ASSESS \nCOSTS AND FEASIBILITY AND \nFUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE AND \nPART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN \nINCLUDES MEETINGS WITH OUR \nSEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE \nCOMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP SOME \nOF WHOM ARE IN THE ROOM. AND WE \nARE ALSO MEETING WITH — YEAH \nWE’RE GOING TO BE MEETING ALSO \nWITH OUR CORE TEAM. MEETING \nWITH A BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING \nGROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE GUIDING \nOUR STAFF WORK ON THE PROJECT \nAND IS GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY \nIMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY AS WE GET \nINTO THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PART \nOF THIS PROCESS. \nAND COLLABORATION IS AT THE \nHEART OF THIS. YOU KNOW\, AS WE \nMEET REGULARLY WITH OUR CORE \nTEAM\, WE’RE GOING TO BE GOING \nTHROUGH THE — \n[LAUGHTER] \nSO\, ALONG WITH BCDC\, OUR CORE \nTEAM IS MADE UP OF THE REGIONAL \nWATER BOARD\, THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY\, THE SF ESTUARY \nINSTITUTE\, SF JOINT VENTURE AND \nUS EPA\, THESE GROUPS ARE \nASSISTING IN CONCEPT AND CONTENT \nDEVELOPMENT. WE’RE GRATEFUL TO \nTHESE AND ALL PARTNERS IN THE \nPROJECT. TOGETHER WITH THE CORE \nTEAM AND OUR SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP \nWE DESIGNED AN INFORMATIONAL \nBRIEFING SERIES THAT WAS ROLLED \nOUT AT THE WORKING GROUP \nMEETINGS IN 2023. \nSO\, THE COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP INVITED EXPERTS TO COME \nAND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS \nON THE WORKING GROUP AND \nINTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \nTO DESCRIBE THE SEDIMENT \nPROCESSES AND CHALLENGES AND \nBRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED ON \nTHE ISSUES. THESE INFORMATIONAL \nBRIEFINGS WERE INTENDED TO \nPREPARE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS \nTO COME AND TO PREPARE \nSTAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR \nCONVERSATIONS HELD AT THE \nWORKSHOP EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE \nBRIEFINGS COVERED SF BAY \nSEDIMENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM\, THE \nPROCESS OF NATURAL SEDIMENT \nSUPPLY TO BAY MARSHES\, SEDIMENT \nCONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES \nAND WETLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECTS\, NAVIGATION DREDGING AS \nA SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AS WELL AS \nFLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS AS A \nSOURCE OF SAID AMOUNTED AND \nCONSTRUCTION AND UPLAND SOURCES \nOF SEDIMENT AND SOILS. WE \nWRAPPED UP THE SERIES OF \nBRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR \nALL PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE \nON THE COMMISSION’S WEB SITE. \nAND THEN IN JANUARY WE TURNED \nOUR ATTENTION TO THE SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER \nWORKSHOP. \nTHIS WAS A TWO-DAY WORKSHOP THAT \nWAS HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND \nIT WAS A CHANCE FOR STAKEHOLDERS \nTO COME TOGETHER AS A \nCOMMUNITY. \nWE HAD OVER 50 AGENCIES AND \nORGANIZATIONS IN ATTENDANCE TO \nSUPPORT CHANGES IN HOW SEDIMENT \nIS MANAGED IN THE BAY AREA. \nTHIS WORK BUILDS ON AND WIDENS \nTHE COALITION OF INTERESTED \nPARTIES IN THIS ARENA A WE \nBELIEVE THIS GROUP CAN AND WILL \nMAKE REAL CHANGES OVER THE \nYEARS TO COME. THE WORKSHOP HAD \nBREAKOUT SESSIONS TO DISCUSS \nISSUES AND PERCEIVED BARRIERS \nAND WE PRESENTED POTENTIAL \nSOLUTIONS. NOW\, THE ISSUE OF \nHOW INCREASED BENEFICIAL — OR \nINCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE AND \nPOTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THIS HAS \nALREADY BEEN PREVIOUSLY \nDISCUSSED IN A NUMBER OF FORUMS \nBY MOST STAKEHOLDERS WHO \nATTENDED THE WORKSHOP BUT WE \nNEVER COLLECTED EVERYONE \nTOGETHER TO REACH CONSENSUS AND \nFORMALIZE INFORMATION UNTIL NOW\, \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR BARRIERS \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL REUSE AND \nGAINED CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF \nIDEAS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING \nACTIONS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS \nTO HELP GET THE PROPOSED WORK \nDONE THE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED MAKE \nUP SUBSTANCE OF BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY \nBEING DRAFTED WITH AND WILL BE \nRELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nSOON. THE ACTION PLAN \nSTRUCTURED IN A STRAIGHT FORWARD \nWAY WE BELIEVE A STATEMENT OF \nPURPOSE SECTION THAT INTRODUCES \nISSUES AND NEEDS TO INCREASE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE\, BACKGROUND\, \nGOALS\, PRINCIPLES GOALS ARE \nPRIMARILY TO HELP ORGANIZE \nACTIONS AND PRINCIPLES FIND HOW \nTHE COALITION WILL WORK TOGETHER \nTO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN TASKS. \nSEDIMENT WETLAND SECTION COVERS \nTHREE MAIN SOURCES OF SEDIMENT \nSOIL CONSTRUCTION NAVIGATION \nFLOOD CONTROL DREDGING SECTION \nDETAILS ISSUES IN EACH SECTOR TO \nGET MATERIAL FROM THE SOURCE TO \nTHE PLACEMENT OF THE SITE. \nLASTLY THE FOCUS WHERE THE MEAT \nOF THIS DOCUMENT LIES WHERE WE \nPRESENT THE APPROXIMATELY 80 \nTASKS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE \nREGION BUT BEFORE I WANT TO \nPRESENT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF \nTHE ACTION PLAN FIRST GOAL IS TO \nSTRENGTHEN THE EXISTING REGIONAL \nPARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT INCREASED \nSOIL REUSE AND EXPAND AND \nIMPROVE COORDINATION AMONG \nGOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY \nSTAKEHOLDERS TO FILL \nCOLLABORATION GAPS AMONG SECTORS \nINVOLVED IN SEDIMENT AND SOIL \nMANAGEMENT SECOND GOAL IDENTIFY \nAND PREPARE SITES FOR BENEFICIAL \nREUSE BY SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT \nOF NEW EXISTING RESTORATION \nSITES TO PREPARE TO RECEIVE \nSEDIMENT AND THIRD GOAL \nCOORDINATE SEDIMENT AND SOIL \nSUPPLY RESTORATION NEEDS TO \nFACILITATE TIMELY DELIVER OF \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL. FOURTH GOAL \nIMPROVE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS \nIDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING \nPOLICY AND REGULATORY \nIMPROVEMENTS ACROSS AGENCIES AND \nENCOURAGE MORE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. \nFINAL GOAL OF THE ACTION PLAN TO \nDEVELOP FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES \nEXPAND AND SECURE FEDERAL\, \nSTATE\, REGIONAL AND PRIVATE \nFUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. \nPRINCIPLES LISTED IN THE ACTION \nPLAN HELP DEFINE HOW BCDC AND \nTHE CORE TEAM INTEND TO WORK \nTOGETHER AND WITH THE COALITION \nTO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION PLAN \nTHIS WILL BE DONE WITH FOCUS ON \nCOORDINATION\, COMMUNICATION AND \nCOLLABORATION TO ORGANIZE THE \nMANY ENTITIES WORKING IN THIS \nSPACE. AND THROUGH EQUITY TO \nENSURE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF \nSEDIMENT IN THE REGION AND TO \nPRIORITIZE COMMUNITY INPUTS\, AS \nWELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL \nSTEWARDSHIP TO SUPPORT EXISTING \nWETLANDS AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nRESILIENCY. AND IT CAN’T BE \nDONE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY TO \nENSURE THAT ALL ARE ABLE TO \nTRACK PROGRESS AND GIVE INPUT\, \nAND SPEED AND AGILITY IS A \nCRITICAL PRINCIPLE DUE TO \nLIMITED TIME WE HAVE TO MAKE \nCHANGES OUTLINED IN THE ACTION \nPLAN AND TO GET AHEAD OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHANKFULLY THERE ARE MANY OTHER \nGROUPS DOING GREAT WORK IN THE \nSPACE AND THE COALITION SHOULD \nBE CAPITALIZING ON EXISTING WORK \nAND BUILDING OFF OF IT. EIGHT \nFOCUS AREAS OF BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN ARE GOVERNANCE\, \nREGIONAL COORDINATION\, REGIONAL \nPLANNING RESEARCH\, FEDERAL AND \nSTATE REGIONAL POLICIES AND \nCOMMUNICATION\, REGULATIONS AND \nPERMITTING PILOT PROJECTS\, \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL QUALITY AND \nTIMING AND AVAILABILITY OF \nMATERIALS AND PLACEMENT AND \nCOSTS OF FUNDING. WITHIN EACH \nOF THESE FOCUS AREAS THERE ARE \nSPECIFIC ACTIONABLE TASKS THAT \nWILL NEED LEAD ORGANIZATIONS \nTHAT WILL CARRY OUT SOME OF THE \nWORK PRESCRIBED IN THE TASKS. \nSPECIFIC TASKS DEVELOPED THROUGH \nCONVERSATIONS AND INTERVIEWS \nWITH PARTICIPANTS\, BRAINSTORMING \nINTERNALLY\, CORRELATED ACTIONS \nAND TASKS INTO A MATRIX WE HAD \n140 POTENTIAL TASKS LISTED IN \nTHE MATRIX\, TWO WORKSHOP DAYS \nWERE A GREAT WAY TO EXPLORE THEM \nTASKS FURTHER\, AND PHOTOS FROM \nTHE WORKSHOPS\, WE TOOK COMMENTS \nGATHERED THROUGH THOSE \nBREAKOUT SESSIONS AND SIFTED \nAND SORTED CONSOLIDATED TASKS \nFURTHER TO GET OUR 80 OR SO \nTASKS. TO BE IN THE FINAL \nACTION PLAN THE TASK HAD TO BE \nFOCUSED ON INCREASING BENEFICIAL \nREUSE OF SEDIMENT SOIL\, \nACHIEVABLE IN 1 TO 5 YEARS\, HAVE \nAN IDENTIFIABLE CHAMPION AND \nHAVE REGIONAL SUPPORT MOST OF \nTHE WINNING PROCESS INVOLVED \nCONSOLIDATING THESE IDEAS WE \nCREATED A LOT FOR TASKS AND \nTHINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THE \nPROCESS WHY THEY DIDN’T MAKE THE \nCUT. WHAT’S NEXT? WE’RE \nWORKING TO RELEASE THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN IN \nTHE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND BE POSTED \nTO THE WEB SITE COLLECTING \nCOMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR \nABOUT A MONTH LOOK OUT FOR THAT \nIF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN \nREVIEWING TASKS AND POTENTIALLY \nCOMMENTING ON THE ACTION PLAN \nAFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL \nFINALIZE THE DOCUMENT AND POST \nTO OUR WEB SITE WE’LL SWITCH \nGEARS ONCE THAT’S WRAPPED UP AND \nCOME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION \nWHEN WE ARE READY TO INITIATE \nTHE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROSLATER \nTHIS YEAR TO ADDRESS NECESSARY \nUPDATES REGARDING SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE RAMPING UP \nDISCUSSIONS WITH THE FINANCING \nFUTURE WORKING GROUP DEVELOPING \nSUPPORT FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE \nWE’RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS WORK\, \nSUPPORTING WETLAND AND ENSURING \nTHEY ARE STILL HERE PROVIDING \nMANY BENEFITS FOR 50 TO 100 \nYEARS AND BEYOND. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND I \nWOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS \nABOUT THE PROJECT \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, MAYA\, DON’T GO AWAY. \nFIRST WE’LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT \nTHEN GET TO COMMISSIONER \nQUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nHAVE NO ONE IN THE ROOM AND NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>SPEAKER: I HAVE SOME. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE’LL \nHAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS\, \nOBVIOUSLY\, BUT NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M SORRY. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nWORRIES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO \nWE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT\, \nRIGHT\, SIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRIGHT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nWE’RE READY FOR COMMISSIONER \nQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCORRECT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nLOOKS LIKE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nCAN START WITH COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: START WITH ME? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I’M VERY HONORED THAT I \nGET TO GO FIRST HERE. I HAVE \nBEEN INVOLVED IN REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT\, OBVIOUSLY\, FOR WETLAND \nRESTORATION. ALSO\, IN SOME \nWETLAND RESTORATION\, I DON’T \nKNOW IF IT’S STILL BE DONE OR \nNOT\, SOMETIMES DEMOLITION DEBRIS \nHAS ALSO BEEN USED. IS THAT \nSTILL HAPPENING? OR IS IT \nPRIMARILY JUST SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL? \n>>SPEAKER: FOR THIS ONE WE’RE \nLOOKING AT EXCAVATED SOILS FROM \nPROJECTS SUCH AS PARKING\, \nSUBGRADE PARK LOTS AND WHAT \nNOT. \nYEAH. I THINK THAT’S ANOTHER \nTOPIC OF A POTENTIAL USE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OH OKAY. REUSE \nOF DEMOLITION DEBRIS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. SPECIFICALLY\, \nI DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT IS \nUSED\, OR REGULATED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY. I KNOW \nTHAT’S BEEN USED IN THE PAST FOR \nSOME WETLANDS RESTORATION. \n>>SPEAKER: >>BRENDA GOEDIN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THIS IS \nBRENDA AGAIN. WE’RE NOT \nSPECIFICALLY TARGETING \nCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. WE’RE \nLOOKING AT UPLAND ACCESS \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS LIKE WHAT’S \nBEING DUG UP FOR BASEMENTS. I \nDON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A \nPROHIBITION OF USING CLEAN \nCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. I KNOW \nHAMILTON WAS ONE THAT USED \nCONCRETE IN THE DEEP PARTS OF \nTHE BAY OR SITES THAT DIDN’T \nINHIBIT DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND. \nWE’RE JUST NOT TRYING RIGHT NOW \nTO SOURCE THAT MATERIAL. IT \nWOULD BE\, SORT OF\, A WHOLE OTHER \nWORLD OF ISSUES THAT WE WOULD \nHAVE TO ADDRESS. SO IT’S NOT \nCURRENTLY IN THE PLAN. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. THAT’S \n— \nI WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE \nHAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECT. NOT ONLY AS AN EPA \nEMPLOYEE\, BUT ALSO AS A RESIDENT \nAT THAT TIME. THE DREDGE \nMATERIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING \nDREDGED IN THE BAY BY THE ARMY \nCORP OF ENGINEERS AND OTHER \nDREDGING OPERATIONS HAVE WE \nQUANTIFIED WHAT THAT IS AND DO \nWE NEED MORE THAN WHAT’S \nCURRENTLY BEING DREDGE IN ORDER \nTO KEEP OUR SHIPPING INDUSTRY \nSTILL ACTIVE? OR ARE WE GOING \nTO NEED MORE SOIL ELSEWHERE \nIN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO ARE YOU ASKING \nABOUT IF THERE IS ENOUGH \nSEDIMENT SUPPLY ON THE \nNAVIGATION DREDGE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. FROM THE \nNATURAL — FROM THE DREDGE \nTHAT’S OCCURRING IN THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY AREA\, TOTAL\, AND \nIF IT ISN’T SUFFICIENT\, ARE WE \nLOOKING ALSO FOR REUSE OF SOIL \nFROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT\, AS \nWELL? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, WE ARE \n— \nTHERE IS THE LTMS MANAGES YOU \nKNOW\, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT \nDREDGE MATERIAL\, AND THERE IS A \nGOAL TO 40% OF IT BENEFICIALLY. \nAND THAT HAS BEEN MET\, I THINK \nIN THE LAST — I’M LOOKING AT \nBRENDA ON THE SCREEN\, SHE IS OUR \nLTMS REP BUT I’LL LET HER JUMP \nIN. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND\, THE COMMISSION FOR \nSEDIMENT REPORT ESTIMATED WE \nNEED 50 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF \nSOIL SEDIMENT SPECIFICALLY TO \nHELP SEA LEVEL RISE. WE DREDGE \nBETWEEN 2 AND 3 MILLION ‘S \nANNUALLY\, ARMY CORP\, PRIVATE \nPORTS\, MARINAS REFINERIES\, ET \nCETERA. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH THEY \nTHINK IT REPRESENTS 50 TO 60% \nOVER TIME. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT \nTHE UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, \nSOUTH BAY SALT PONDS SHORELINE \nARE CURRENTLY IMPORTING \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS CLEAN SOILS \nTO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT \nRESTORATION. THERE IS \nADDITIONAL MATERIAL\, ALTHOUGH \nMUCH SMALLER AMOUNT IN THE LOCAL \nFLOOD PROTECTION AND STREAM BED \nMAINTENANCE MATERIALS. BUT THE \nGENERAL CONSENSUS IS WE DO NOT \nHAVE ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING \nTHAT WE’RE HOPING TO DO AND KEEP \nUP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WHICH IS \nONE OF THE REASONS WE’RE PUSHING \nVERY HARD TO GET AS MUCH OF IT \nGOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS \nPOSSIBLE. THEN THERE IS A \nFURTHER FIELD OF SOURCES SUCH AS \nRESERVOIRS WHICH ARE A DIFFERENT \nSUPPLY MUCH MORE CHALLENGING TO \nGET INTO BUT WE’RE STARTING HERE \nWITH THIS ONE TO A FIVE-YEAR \nPROJECT TO TRY TO FREE UP AS \nMUCH OF THE MATERIAL GETTING IT \nTO THE RIGHT PLACE AS POSSIBLE \nTO GET RID OF SOME OF THE \nBARRIERS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I GUESS \nTHE ISSUE THERE IS THAT SINCE IT \nISN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH THEN \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE \nOUT HOW WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE \nTO COLLECT SOME OF THE SOIL THAT \nIS EXCAVATED NOT ONLY FOR MAJOR \nCONSTRUCTION\, BUT ALSO MAYBE \nEVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL\, AS WELL. \nI KNOW THAT THERE’S A LOT OF \nCHANGING OF THE BUILDINGS\, FOR \nAN EXAMPLE\, FROM OFFICE TO \nRESIDENTIAL. AND\, SO\, A LOT OF \nTHAT — SOME OF THE BUILDINGS \nWILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. \nAND\, SO THAT’S GOING TO BE A LOT \nOF DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT MAY \nBE AVAILABLE IF WE’RE GOING TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO COLLECT IT AS \nA SOCIETY OR HERE IN CALIFORNIA \nOR EVEN IN THE BAY AREA SAME \nWITH SOIL FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS \nTOO. JUST HAVING A RECENT \nEXPERIENCE OF HAVING SOME SOIL \nWE NEEDED TO GET RID OF\, I WAS \nSHOCKED THAT THERE WASN’T A \nPLACE THAT I COULD TAKE IT TO. \nAND FOR IT TO BE REUSED\, BECAUSE \nIT WAS CLEAN\, AND SO IT HAD \nTO BE THROWN AWAY IN THE \nGARBAGE\, WHICH YOU DO NOT WANT \nTO FILL UP THE LANDFILL WITH \nGOOD SOIL OR GOOD DEMOLITION \nDEBRIS WHEN IT COULD BE USED \nELSEWHERE. SO\, THIS IS MAYBE \nSOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO GET \nSOME OF THE STATE AGENCIES \nINVOLVED IN THAT REALLY PROMOTE \nRECYCLING OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT \nMATERIALS. ANYWAY\, I JUST \nREMEMBER FROM MY DAYS WITH THE \nARMY CORP AND WITH EPA THAT WE \nDID NOT HAVE ENOUGH DREDGE \nMATERIAL. AND I JUST WANT TO \nSEE IF THAT WAS STILL THE CASE. \nWHICH IT IS. AND I’M JUST \nREALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE \nPOSSIBILITY OF EVEN MAYBE \nCHANGING HOW WE DEAL WITH \nCONSTRUCTION COMPANIES\, AS WELL \nAS INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND HOW \nWE CAN REUSE THAT MATERIAL \nTHAT’S SO VALUABLE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH. I \nJUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO \nTHANK THE STAFF FOR THE WORK \nTHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE. I\, \nSORT OF\, VIEWED THIS AS THEM \nSUPPLYING US WITH A CLASS OF \nSEDIMENT 101. WE HAVE REALLY \nHAD AMAZING SPEAKERS COME TALK \nTO US ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND\, \nSORT OF\, THE OPERATION OF \nSEDIMENT REMOVAL IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. AND IT’S JUST \nGIVING US\, WE GOT A GREAT \nFOUNDATION\, AND THEN WE HAD THE \nWORKSHOPS. SO\, I THINK IT WAS \nKIND OF THE BEST WAY WE COULD \nPOSSIBLY GET A STAKEHOLDER GROUP \nTOGETHER\, GET THEM ALL ON THE \nSAME PAGE\, AND THEN HAVE THEM \nBRAINSTORM. SO\, I REALLY ENJOY \nTAKING PART IN THIS. AND I LOOK \nFORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, THE NEXT \nFEW STEPS YOU COME UP WITH\, AND \nI’M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE \nLIST IS NEAR 80 NOW. SO\, THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO ADD \nMY THANKS TO THE STAFF AND OUR \nCOMMITTEE FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE \nDONE. AND JUST TO SAY THAT I’M \nREALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, BRINGING ALL THE AGENCIES \nON BOARD WITH THIS BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE\, I \nHAVE A PROJECT AT McGINNIS MARSH \nWHERE WE HAVE GALENA’S CREEK \nRIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT WE ARE \nGOING TO DREDGE AND WE ARE \nAWAITING TO GET APPROVAL FROM \nNUMEROUS AGENCIES TO PUT THEM ON \nTHE MARSH AND IT’S TAKING AN \nAGONIZING LONG TIME SO I LOOK \nFORWARD TO THE PROCESS WHEN IT \nTHE RIGHT THING TO DO. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: REBECCA\, I HAD \nHAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE COST. \nIF THE SEDIMENT ITSELF IS THAT \nOF THE QUALITY THAT WE NEED FOR \nPARTICULAR WETLAND\, HAS IT BEEN \nDISCUSSED ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THE \nCLEAN UP OF THAT MATERIAL? OR \nWHETHER IT’S NOT EVEN JUST USED \nTHEN? THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SURE. THAT \nONE WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH ALL \nOF THE COSTS AND FUNDING \nSITUATIONS AND SCENARIOS YET. \nSO WE’LL PROBABLY SUBJECT KIND \nOF LEAVING THAT ONE TO TALK \nABOUT LATER ON. \n>>MAYA MCLERNEY: — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGREAT. THANK YOU MAYA. THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. \nTHANK YOU TO ALL THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY \nTHOSE WHO ARE ON THE WORKING \nGROUP WHO ARE DEALING WITH ALL \nOF THESE ISSUES ON OUR BEHALF. \nI APPRECIATE IT. \nWE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION ON \nDELTA ADAPT. THAT IS A CLIMATE \nCHANGE ADAPTATION STUDY\, WHICH \nHAS BEEN CREATED AND MANAGED BY \nTHE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL. \nAND IT’S DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE \nDELTA’S RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE HAZARDS\, INCLUDING\, OF \nCOURSE\, SEA LEVEL RISE. THE \nBRIEFING WILL BE PROVIDED BY \nCORY COPELAND WHO IS BCDC’S \nCHIEF SCIENTIST AND ALSO A \nFORMER DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL \nSTAFF MEMBER. SO\, THANK YOU\, \nCORY FOR THE PRESENTATION YOU’RE \nABOUT TO GIVE US. \n>>CORY COPELAND: YEAH. I \nACTUALLY WON’T BE GIVING T I’LL \nBE INTRODUCING THE STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO \nMUCH CHAIR EISEN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. I’M REALLY \nPLEASED TO BE INTRODUCING THIS \nITEM. AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, \nI HAD OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON \nTHIS DURING MY TIME AT THE DELTA \nSTEWARDSHIP COUNCIL BEFORE \nJOINING BCDC AS THE ADAPTING TO \nRISING TIDESRISING TIDES IN \nSCIENCE MANAGER. \nDELTA ADAPTS IS THE STATE \nCLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTING A PLAN \nFOR SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN AND \nUPPER ESTUARY OF SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY DELTA I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH \nSIDES OF THE COLLABORATION BCDC \nAND DELTA STEWARDSHIP WORK \nAROUND CLIMATE ADAPTATION. FOR \nCONTEXT THE FUNDING INVESTMENT \nFRAMEWORK THAT HELPED US \nIDENTIFY A $110 BILLION NEED FOR \nINVESTMENT IN SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION IN THE BAY AREA FOR \nCERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE \nANALYSIS\, USED HYDROLOFICIC WORK \nTHAT WAS DONE FOR DELTA ADAPT \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. WITH \nTHAT INNER RELATIONSHIP IN MIND\, \nI’M REALLY GLAD TO HAVE A COUPLE \nOF FOLKS FROM THE DELTA \nSTEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HERE TO \nPRESENT ON THEIR ADAPTATION PLAN \nTHAT IS COMING OUT SOON. SO\, \nHERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ARE JEFF \nHENDERSON\, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR \nFOR THE STEWARDSHIP ARE COUNCIL\, \nAND MORGAN C\, FORMER BCDC \nEMPLOYEE WHO IS NOW THE MANAGER \nOF CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT THE \nDELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL WHO \nWILL GIVING A PRESENTATION THAT \nI WILL BE SHARING. \nˆ >>JEFF LEVIN: \nˆ >>JEFFREY TUMLIN: \nˆ >>JEFFREY LEVIN: \nˆ >>JEFF MCKAY: \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: THANK YOU \nCORY. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT \nSLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: DOES THAT LOOK \nCORRECT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT \nLOOKS GOOD IN THE BOARDROOM. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT LOOKS GOOD \nCORY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT LOOKS GOOD \nONLINE. \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: ALL RIGHT. \nGOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. \nIT’S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE ON \nBEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT \nON OUR DELTA ADAPT CLIMATE \nCHANGE INITIATIVE. THIS \nINITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT WE \nHAVE BEEN LEADING SINCE 2018\, \nWITH A GOAL TO BETTER UNDERSTAND \nSPECIFIC RISKS FACED BY THE \nDELTA AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO \nPREPARE ACCORDINGLY. \nTO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, IT’S THE FIRST \nOF ITS KIND FOR THE ENTIRE DELTA \nREGION THAT CUTS ACROSS MULTIPLE \nTOPICS. THERE HAVE BEEN \nADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED AT THE \nLOCAL LEVEL\, OR ADAPTATION PLANS \nPREPARED TO ADDRESS A SINGLE \nTOPIC SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY OR \nECOSYSTEM OR FLOODING OR \nAGRICULTURE. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, \nTHIS IS THE FIRST AT SCALE THAT \nADDRESSES MULTIPLE SECTORS AND \nTOPICS ACROSS THE FULL REGION OF \nTHE DELTA ITSELF. WE’RE ABOUT \nTO RELEASE OUR ADAPTATION PLAN\, \nJUST PUTTING FINAL TOUCHES ON IT \nAND COMPLETING SOME FINAL \nREVIEWS AND WE’RE EXCITED TO \nRELEASE THAT. BECAUSE IT SHOWS \nHOW FAR WE HAVE COME THROUGHOUT \nTHE PROJECT’S PROCESS. HOW MUCH \nWE HAVE LEARNED\, AND IT SETS A \nFRAMEWORK FOR MAKING A LOT OF \nMUCH NEEDED ADAPTATION ACTIONS \nHAPPEN WITHIN THE REGION. IT’S \nTHE RESULT OF MANY YEARS OF \nCONVERSATIONS ACROSS PROBABLY \nTHE MOST DIVERSE GROUP OF \nINTERESTS AND EXPERTISE THAT THE \nCOUNCIL HAS ENGAGED TO DATE. \nTHE WORK RECOGNIZES A LOT OF \nGREAT PROGRESS IN PROTECTING THE \nDELTA THUS FAR. BUT\, ALSO\, \nPOINTS OUT ALL THE AREAS WE \nSTILL NEED TO AMPLIFY OUR WORK \nTO BE MORE INNOVATIVE\, TO \nPROVIDE AND PRIORITIZE \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO KEEP UP \nWITH THE IMPACTS THAT WE’RE \nALREADY SEEING. THE WORK IS \nBEING LED BY THE COUNCIL WHICH \nWAS CREATED TO HELP SAFEGUARD \nDELTA ASSETS. AND \nCRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO \nACHIEVING OUR MISSION\, WE HAVE \nIDENTIFIED NEEDS RESOURCES \nPARTNERSHIPS AND IMPORTANTLY \nLEADERS THAT ARE NEEDED AS MUCH \nOF THE PLAN RELIES ON A \nCOLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONG A \nNUMBER OF AGENCIES. OUR \nPRESENTATION TODAY MORGAN IS \nGOING TO PROVIDE A PREVIEW OF \nSOME OF OUR APPLICATION \nSTRATEGIES. WE’RE INTERESTED TO \nHEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AROUND \nCLARITY OF STRATEGIES AND ANY \nPRIORITIES OR APPLICATIONS \nOUTLINED FOR BCDC TO HELP INFORM \nTHE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE. AGAIN JUST TO \nORIENT THIS IS A MATCH DELTA \nWHICH IS ON THE RIGHT WITH THE \nSAN WAN KEEN RIVER DARK BLUE AND \nWHAT’S BEEN MARKED IN THE \nCENTER\, IDENTIFIED AS OUR \nOVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS BCDC \nTHAT’S THE MIDDLE AND SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY ON THE LEFT THIS \nIS IN THE SPIRIT OF MANAGING THE \nONE BAY DELTA ESTUARY WHERE \nACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN THE BAY \nAFFECT THE DELTA AND THOSE THAT \nTAKE PLACE IN THE DELTA AFFECT \nTHE BAY. NEXT SLIDE\, CORY. \nTHE FIRST PHASE OF OUR PROJECT \nBEGAN IN 2018\, IT WAS A \nVULNERABLE ASSESSMENT IN WHICH \nWE IDENTIFIED AT RISK SYSTEMS \nFROM CLIMATE CHANGE HEAVILY \nRELY ON NATURAL AND PHYSICAL \nSCIENCES AND PRIMARY AND \nSECONDARY RESEARCH. WE FOUND \nTHE FOLLOWING\, FLOOD RISK IS ONE \nOF THE MOST PRESSING THREATS TO \nTHE DELTA AND IT’S GOING TO \nCONTINUE TO WORSEN IN THE FUTURE \nWITH CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL\, \nPRECIPITATION\, HYDROLOGY AND \nTEMPERATURE THESE ARE NOT ALL \nGOING TO IMPACT THE DELTA \nRESIDENTS IN THE SAME WAY OR IN \nAN EQUITABLE WAY AND WILL AFFECT \nTHE CENTRAL SOUTHERN DELTA MOST\, \nCONCENTRATION IN THE STOCKTON \nAREA THIS MEANS MANY OF THE \nRESIDENTS EXPOSED TO FLOODING \nMAY HAVE HIGHER SENSITIVITY TO \nFLOOD IMPACTS AND LOWER CAPACITY \nTO ADAPT. WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT \nHOW FLOOD RISK IS DIFFERENT IN \nTHE DELTA THAN IN THE BAY WHEN \nWE COVER OUR STRATEGIES. \nPARTICULARLY THOSE RELATED TO \nFLOOD RISK REDUCTION. TWO\, \nDELTA WATER EXPORTS WILL BE LESS \nRELIABLE IN THE FUTURE DUE TO \nCLIMATE CHANGE. DELTA’S \nEXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM \nDOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH STORAGE \nTO CAPTURE ANTICIPATED INCREASES \nIN RUNOFF DUE TO MORE VARIABLE \nPRECIPITATION. IT’S WORTH \nPAUSING TO NOTE THAT IN THE \nDELTA\, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE \nHAVE FOUND OUT FROM THE \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT IS THAT \nTHE DELTA SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE \nAFFECTED BY ANTICIPATED CHANGES \nIN RIVERING FLOWS\, FROM THE \nSACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN\, \nBASED ON ADJUSTED\, OR — THE \nSITUATION OF MORE PRECIPITATION \nAND FALLING AS RAIN AND LESS AS \nSNOW\, THEN THE REGION IS \nAFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE. SO\, \nSEA LEVEL RISE AND RIVERING \nINFLOW ARE BOTH COMPONENTS OF \nTHE VULNERABILITY\, THE RIVERING \nAND THE FLOW ASPECT SEEMS TO BE \nMUCH MORE DIRECTING THE OUTCOMES \nIN THE DELTA. \nIN TERMS OF WATER QUALITY\, IN \nDELTA WATER USERS MAY BE \nTHREATENED BY WATER QUALITY \nDECLINES\, FUTURE DROUGHTS\, AND \nALL OF THAT EXPOSING MORE ACRES \nOF DELTA AGRICULTURE\, TO MORE \nSALINE WATER THAN HAS \nHISTORICALLY OCCURRED. DELTA \nAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION TRENDS \nWILL SHIFT DUE TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE\, INCREASING TEMPERATURES \nAND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT \nDAYS\, ARE BOTH PROJECTED TO \nREDUCE YIELDS FOR MANY DELTA \nCROPS. AND THE NUMBER OF \nEXTREME HEAT DAYS WILL INCREASE \nTHROUGHOUT THE DELTA AND \nCOMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AS MOST \nVULNERABLE TO THAT EXTREME HEAT \nARE LOCATED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE \nCITIES OF STOCKTON AND TRACY. \nAND I’LL ASK MORGAN TO JUMP IN \nAND GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON OUR \nUPCOMING ADAPTATION PLAN. THANK \nYOU. \n>>MORGAN CHAU: THANKS\, JEFF. \nAND GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN \nAND COMMISSIONERS. I’M HAPPY TO \nBE HERE PRESENTING TO YOU. AS \nCORY MENTIONED\, I USED TO WORK \nAT BCDC\, I WAS IN PERMITS\, \nANALYST IN SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT \nUNIT. SO IT’S NICE TO BE BACK. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, PHASE TWO IS REALLY THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE ADAPTATION \nPLAN THAT WE’RE SPEAKING ABOUT \nTODAY\, WHICH IT INCLUDES A RANGE \nOF ACTIONS TO IMPROVE REGIONAL \nRESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR \nTHE DELTA. SO\, THIS GRAPHIC \nREALLY JUST SHOWS OUR PROCESS \nAND HOW WE LEANED ON\, REALLY\, AS \nJEFF MENTIONED\, PROBABLY THE \nMOST DIVERSE SET OF INTERESTS \nTHAT’S ON HAVE ENGAGED WITH AT \nTHE COUNCIL\, AS WELL AS OUR \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT \nFINDINGS TO EXPLORE ADAPTATION \nNEEDS\, PRIORITIES\, AND DEVELOP \nSTRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE. WE \nWORKED ACROSS FOUR FOCUS AREAS \nFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE \nPLAN. \nAGRICULTURE\, FLOOD RISK \nREDUCTION\, ECOSYSTEM\, AND WATER \nSUPPLY RELIABILITY OVER THE LAST \nTWO AND A HALF YEARS\, WORKING TO \nINTEGRATE EQUITY THROUGH THE. \nWE ALSO WORKED ACROSS \nINTERDISCIPLINARY GROUP WHERE WE \nBROUGHT TOGETHER THOSE FOCUS \nGROUPS SEVERAL TIMES. OUR \nENGAGEMENT FOR SCOPING THE PLAN \nREALLY BEGAN IN 2021\, AND WE \nCOHOSTED A WORKSHOP SERIES WITH \nSEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS \nIN STOCKTON WHICH IS A HIGHLY \nSOCIALLY VULNERABLE CITY IN THE \nDELTA\, AND THIS ENGAGEMENT WITH \nTHIS GROUP OF COMMUNITY \nORGANIZATIONS CONTINUED. AND \nTHEY HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE \nINFORMED OTHER COMPONENTS OF OUR \nWORK INCLUDING OUR TRIBAL AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK. WE \nHAVE ALSO INCORPORATED SEVERAL \nTRIBAL CONSULTATIONS INTO THE \nPLAN\, AT INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH \nOTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE\, \nLOCAL\, AND FLOOD AND WATER \nAGENCIES. COUNCIL HOLDS MANY \nCOLLABORATIVE FORUMS THAT HAVE \nBEEN TOPICALLY RELEVANT FOR \nADAPTATION THAT HAVE BEEN \nINCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. AND \nANOTHER CRITICAL COMPONENT IS \nFOR THE FIRST TIME\, FOR THE \nCOUNCIL\, REALLY REACHING AND \nHEARING DIRECTLY FROM DELTA \nFARMERS AND GROWERS WE’RE \nHEARING FIRSTHAND ABOUT \nCHALLENGES THEY’RE CURRENTLY \nGRAPPLING WITH\, HOW THEY’RE \nADAPTING AND WHAT THEY NEED TO \nFURTHER ADAPT. LASTLY\, WE HEARD \nA LOT FROM INTERVIEWS\, BOTH \nTHROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORK AND ALSO RESULTS \nFROM THE REGION’S FIRST \nREPRESENTATIVE SURVEY OF DELTA \nRESIDENTS THAT HAS INFORMED OUR \nWORK. AS WE APPROACH HAVING \nPUBLIC DRAFT OF THE PLAN WE HAVE \nBEEN SPENDING A LOT OF CONCERTED \nEFFORT IN THREE CITIES IN THE \nDELTA THAT HAVE SCORED \nPARTICULARLY HIGH IN TERMS OF \nSOCIAL VULNERABLE CLIMATE \nIMPACTS FROM INDEX DEVELOPED IN \nPHASE ONE\, THOSE ARE FRO \nANTIOCH\, PITTSBURG\, AND \nSTOCKTON\, ANTIOCH AND PITTSBURG \nHAVE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION \nREALLY OVER THE EDGE OF BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND OURS. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, WE’RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE \nWE ARE PROPOSING OUR SET OF \nSTRATEGIES IN OUR PLAN\, THEY’RE \nBOTH PHYSICAL AND MANAGEMENT \nLEVEL STRATEGIES THAT WILL \nREALLY BE REALIZED DIFFERENTLY \nACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC \nLOCATION IN THE DELTA. AND OUR \nFOCUS REALLY WITH THE \nSTRATEGIES\, IS TO MAINTAIN \nFLEXIBILITY AND TO BE ABLE TO \nINCORPORATE NEW CLIMATE DATA AS \nIT BECOMES AVAILABLE\, REALLY \nPRIORITIZING PROJECTS THAT OFFER \nMULTIPLE BENEFITS IN AN \nEQUITABLE MANNER. SO\, JEFF \nTOUCHED ON THIS\, BUT EACH \nSTRATEGY BEFORE I GET INTO THEM\, \nHAS A RECOMMENDED LEAD ACCORDING \nTO THE AGENCY THAT MAKES THE \nMOST SENSE TO LEAD. NOT \nNECESSARY LEANLY BY REGULATORY \nAUTHORITY\, AND SEVERAL PROPOSED \nPARTNERS. WE ALSO WORKED TO \nHIGHLIGHT STRATEGIES THAT WE \nFEEL\, ACCORDING TO COST\, AND \nORDER OF OPERATIONS\, THAT REALLY \nSHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST OR \nNEAR-TERM. WE HAVE DONE\, CORE \nMENTIONED SOME OF OUR ANALYSIS \nPREVIOUSLY\, BUT WE HAVE \nWORKED TO DEVELOP ADAPTATION \nCOSTS FOR THESE BIG PROJECTS \nCOMPARE THOSE TO VALUE OF ASSETS \nAT RISK WHICH WAS PART OF OUR \nPHASE ONE\, STRATEGIES AND \nRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR \nEXISTING DELTA PLAN WHICH IS OUR \nLONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR \nDELTA RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER \nSTATE REGIONAL RESOURCE SPECIFIC \nPLANS AS WELL AS CASE STUDIES \nTHAT EXEMPLIFY TYPES OF \nSTRATEGIES WE WANT TO SEE MOVING \nFORWARD. \nOKAY. NEXT SLIDE. \nTOUCH BRIEFLY ON HOW WE ARE \nINCLUDING EQUITY THROUGH THE ALL \nOF OUR STRATEGIES. IT REALLY\, \nEQUITY IS A COMPONENT IN\, I \nTHINK\, THREE MAIN WAYS. FIRST \nIN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIONAL \nJUSTICE. SO\, IN A LOT OF THE \nPROPOSED ACTIONS IN OUR PLAN\, WE \nARE REALLY WORKING AND RECOGNIZE \nIT’S INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT TO \nHAVE DECISIONS AND THE \nDECISION-MAKING BODIES THAT \nREPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nSERVED SO THAT COMMUNITIES ARE \nBOTH INFORMED REPRESENTED AND \nINVOLVED IN THESE PLANNING \nPROCESSES. ANOTHER IS THROUGH \nPRIORITIZATION OF INVESTMENTS \nTHAT’S CONTINUING TO WORK TO \nUNDERSTAND WHO FACES MOST RISK \nAND WHO NEEDS INVESTMENT FOR \nADAPTATION THE MOST. LASTLY \nHEARD ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR \nDISCUSSIONS WAS NEED TO CONTINUE \nTO IMPROVE AND AMPLIFY RISK \nCOMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION\, AND \nREALLY PRESENT WHAT WERE OUR \nFINDINGS FROM PHASE 1 AND 2\, TO \nTHE MOST SOCIALLY VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, NOW TO THE STRATEGIES. THIS \nIS OUR FIRST OF OUR FOUR FOCUS \nAREAS IS FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, \nWHICH HAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN \nTHE DELTA\, AS JEFF MENTIONED. \nWE HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL \nPROGRESS\, BUT A LOT MORE NEEDS \nTO BE DONE TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE. THESE GRAPHICS WE’LL \nHAVE FOR EACH FOCUS AREA FROM \nLEFT TO RIGHT SHOWS SUMMARY OF \nVULNERABILITIES\, AN ILLUSTRATIVE \nSUMMARY OF OUR TYPES OF \nSTRATEGIES WE’RE PROPOSING\, AND \nEXAMPLE ACTIONS. SO\, ON THE \nLEFT\, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE FOUND \nRELATED TO FLOOD VULNERABLE\, WE \nKNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY \n— WILL REALLY AFFECT THE ENTIRE \nSYSTEM FROM ALL DIRECTIONS IN \nTHE DELTA. SO THAT’S \nRIVERING INFLOWS\, FLOOD CONTROL \nWATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS. AS \nJEFF MENTIONED\, BRIEFLY \nDISTINCTION FROM HOW BCDC \nAPPROACHES FLOOD RISK WHICH IS \nMORE FOCUSED ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, \nWE’RE LOOKING AT FLOOD RISK AND \nRIVERING\, AND LEVEES \nOVERTOPPING. WHILE THERE IS \nSUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR \nLEVEES IN PAST DECADES THERE IS \nSTILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN OUR \nSTRATEGY OUTLINING WHAT’S NEEDED \nTHROUGH A WELL ROUNDED APPROACH \nTO ADDRESSING BOTH HYDROLOGICAL \nVARIABILITY\, AND CHALLENGES \nPOSED BY CLIMATE OUR DELTA PLAN \nDOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR \nADDRESSING A LOT OF THESE \nSTRATEGIES FOR FLOOD RISK WE \nHAVE POLICIES RELATED TO HOW WE \nINVEST IN LEVEES AND SUPPORT \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNED USE \nDECISIONS. THE STRATEGIES GO \nBEYOND AND WE HAVE A FEW \nEXAMPLES\, STRATEGIES THAT \nTOUCHES ON SPECIFIC FLOOD \nMODELING NEEDS AND COLLABORATION \nAND COMMUNICATION ON THAT \nTOPIC. \nAND\, REALLY\, CONTINUING TO WORK \nON OUR DELTA LEVEE INVESTMENT \nSTRATEGY. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A \nMORE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURE IS \nTO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE \nIMPORTANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE\, \nIN THE DELTA REGION THERE\, IS A \nVERY LOW\, DESPITE THE FLOOD \nRISK\, THERE IS A VERY LOW \nPERCENTAGE OF FOLKS THAT \nACTUALLY HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nTHE SECOND FOCUS AREA IS \nECOSYSTEM. SO\, THE DELTA \nECOSYSTEM REALLY PROVIDES \nHABITAT FOR FUNERALING A \nMIGRATORY PATHWAYS\, WE ALSO \nKNOW THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM AS A \nBUFFER FROM IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE \nCHANGE WE KNOW FROM \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT THAT \nTHE ECOSYSTEMS AND DELTA WILL \nCONTINUE TO BE STRESSED AND HAVE \nLIMITED ROOM TO MIGRATE. AGAIN \nTHE DELTA PLAN WE HAVE POLICIES \nAND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO \nPROTECTING THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM \nWE HAVE ACTUAL SPECIFIC TARGETS \nFOR THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WE \nWANT TO RESTORE AND OUR \nSTRATEGIES HERE ALIGN WITH AND \nGO BEYOND WHAT IS IN OUR DELTA \nPLAN. IN A FEW THINGS WE CALL \nOUT CO-BENEFITS RELATED TO \nRESTORATION\, THAT’S RECOGNIZING \nREDUCED FLOOD RISK THAT CAN BE \nBROUGHT FROM PROJECTS\, AND THE \nIMPORTANCE OF IMPROVING ACCESS \nTO GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACES\, \nAND THE CULTURAL VALUE AND THE \nNEED TO WORK ALONGSIDE TRIBES \nIN THESE RESTORATION PROJECTS. \nANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM OUR \nSTRATEGIES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF \nHALTING AND REVERSING SUBSIZE \nSIDANCE\, DONE IN SEVERAL WAYS \nDEPENDING ON THE LAND OWNERSHIP\, \nAND FEASIBILITY SO IT COULD BE \nTHROUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nRESTORATION BUT ALSO THROUGH \nPLANTING CROPS SUCH AS RICE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nNEXT IS OUR AGRICULTURE FOCUS \nAREA AND\, \nREALLY\, AGRICULTURE IN THE DELTA \nIS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE \nDELTA’S CULTURE\, HISTORY\, AND \nECONOMY\, IT’S REALLY THE \nECONOMIC ENGINE OF THE REGION IT \nPROVIDES JOBS AND SIGNIFICANT \nANNUAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT HOWEVER \nAGRICULTURE WE KNOW FROM OUR \nPHASE ONE REALLY FACES A LOT OF \nCHALLENGES WITH CLIMATE\, \nINCLUDING VARIABLE \nPRECIPITATION\, SALT WATER \nINTRUSION\, WATER QUALITY \nDECLINE\, FLOODING\, EXTREME HEAT\, \nAND REDUCED CHILL HOURS WHICH \nALL COMPOUND TO IMPACT BOTH CROP \nYIELD AND QUALITY. SO\, AGAIN \nOUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY \nFOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING \nAGRICULTURE AND NEEDS FOR \nADAPTATION. WE HAVE SEVERAL \nRECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE \nAGENCIES TO REALLY ADAPTIVELY \nMANAGE AGRICULTURE LANDS AND \nALSO TO PROVIDE HABITAT \nCONDITIONS FOR FEASIBLE NATIVE \nSPECIES. OUR STRATEGIES ARE \nDIVERSE HERE. WE HAVE \nSTRATEGIES RELATED TO \nACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR AN \nEQUITABLE REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM. \nSO THIS INCLUDES THINGS LIKE \nLABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT \nFOR FARMS. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW \nACTIONS THAT SUPPORT CLIMATE \nSMART FARMING PRACTICES. SO\, \nTHESE ARE ACTIONS SUCH AS \nIRRIGATION\, EFFICIENCY\, BUILDING \nSOIL HEALTH\, PEST MANAGEMENT\, \nOTHER THINGS LIKE THAT\, \nRECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF \nDIVERSIFYING INCOME AND REVENUE \nFOR FARMS. SO\, SUPPORT FOR AGRO \nTOURISM\, CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES\, \nFUNDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL \nCREDITS\, LIKE CARBON CREDITS AND \nTHEN WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FARMING. \nAND THEN WHERE FEASIBLE IDENTIFY \nWHERE LAND MIGHT NEED TO BE \nRETIRED OF THERE ARE OTHER USES \nTHAT WOULD BE OF HIGH VALUE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THIS IS OUR LAST. FOCUS \nAREA\, WATER SUPPLY\, \nRELIABILITY. \nTHE DELTA WATERSHED PROVIDES A \nPORTION OF WATER SUPPLY FOR \nAPPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION \nCALIFORNIANS. AND WE KNOW FROM \nCLIMATE CHANGE FROM OUR PHASE \nONE THAT OUR WATER SUPPLY WILL \nLIKELY DECREASE WITH DEMAND AND \nINCREASED — SORRY — WITH\, AS \nDEMAND INCREASES\, AND WE \nEXPERIENCE MORE VARIABLE PE \nSIPTATION AND DECREASED SNOWPACK \nAS JEFF ALREADY MENTIONED\, OUR \nINFRASTRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE AT \nRISK TO SEVERAL CLIMATE \nIMPACTS. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THE STRATEGIES HERE \nREALLY GO BEYOND THE \nFOUNDATIONAL POLICIES IN THE \nDELTA PLAN WHICH DOES REQUIRE \nSUPPLIERS TO REDUCE RELIANCE ON \nTHE DELTA. AND OUR STRATEGIES\, \nWE HAVE FIVE STRATEGIES. AND \nTHE FIRST IS REDUCING RELIANCE \nON THE DELTA. SO THERE ARE \nSEVERAL ACTIONS HERE\, SUCH AS \nFUNDING PROJECTS THAT REALLY \nPROMOTE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL \nWATER CONSERVATION\, OR RECYCLED \nWATER. WE HAVE A STRATEGY \nRELATED TO INCREASING LOCAL \nSTORAGE OF SURFACE AND \nGROUNDWATER SUPPLIES\, BOTH NORTH \nAND SOUTH OF THE DELTA. A \nSTRATEGY RELATED TO MODIFYING \nRESERVOIR OPERATIONS TO BE \nADAPTABLE TO CHANGING CLIMATE \nCONTINUES. AND THEN\, LASTLY\, A \nSTRATEGY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER \nMODIFYING WATER QUALITY \nSTANDARDS SO THAT THERE ARE \nOBJECTIVES THAT PROVIDE FOR \nSEVERAL BENEFICIAL USES OF \nWATER\, SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL\, \nFISHING\, RECREATIONAL TRIBAL AND \nOTHER HUMAN BENEFICIAL USES OF \nWATER. SORRY. OUR LAST ONE IS \nTO REALLY IMPROVE OR MODIFY \nINFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DELTA TO \nMINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THROUGH \nDELTA CONVEYANCE. NEXT SLIDE. \nOUR PLAN HAS A GOVERNANCE \nCHAPTER THAT REALLY ADDRESSES \nTHE UNIQUE HISTORY\, CHALLENGES\, \nAND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR \nADAPTATION GOVERNANCE IN THE \nDELTA. AS REALLY GOVERNANCE \nDOES DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR \nFUNDING\, PLANNING AND \nIMPLEMENTING ALL OF THESE \nACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE TALKING \nABOUT THIS GRAPHIC THAT IS ON \nTHIS SLIDE WAS DEVELOPED BY A \nDELTA SCIENCE FELLOW\, TARA \nPOSEY\, AND UC DAVIS PH.D. \nCANDIDATE WHO IS DOING NETWORK \nMAPPING TO UNDERSTAND HOW \nCLIMATE COLLABORATIVES ARE \nCONNECTED AND JUST TO SHOW OUR \nPROJECT CONNECT MAPS AND \nUNDERSTANDING HOW CLIMATE \nCOLLABORATIVE ARE CONNECTED AND \nSHOWS IN OUR PROJECT COMPARATIVE \nEFFECTIVENESS IN THE REGION. \nTHIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT \nWORKING TO HAVE PROCEDURAL \nJUSTICE\, ACROSS DECISIONS TO \nPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT WE \nSERVE WE INCLUDE PRACTICES \nPARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE \nADAPTADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WE HAVE \nWORKING DOUBLE ON CONDITIONAL \nKNOWLEDGE THAT CAN HAVE A BETTER \nROLE IN DECISION-MAKING. JUST \nTO WRAP UP\, WE WANTED TO SHARE A \nLITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ROLE MOVING \nFORWARD ALREADY TOUCHED ON THESE \nCOMPONENTS WHAT’S IMPORTANT FOR \nUS IS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE \nREPRESENTAL JUSTICE ADAPTATION \nDECISIONS THROUGH INCREASED \nCOMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND \nRELATIONSHIPS\, TO CONTINUE TO \nUSE RESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS \nTO AMPLIFY BETTER \nCOMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE A \nSCIENCE PROGRAM THAT FUND A LOT \nOF RESEARCH IN THE REGION \nWORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM TO \nADDRESS A LOT OF THE RESEARCH \nGAPS THAT CAME OUT OF THESE \nCONVERSATIONS. I TOUCHED ON THE \nTRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE WORK AND \nTHEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW \nTO FUND ALL OF THIS. IF THIS IS \nAN AREA WHERE WE REALLY LEARN \nAND TO COLLABORATE WITH THE \nPLANNING STAFF IS JUST THINKING \nABOUT REGIONAL FUNDING FOR \nADAPTING A AND LASTLY WORKING \nTHROUGH EXISTING REGULATORY \nAUTHORITY FOR OUR COVERED ACTION \nAUTHORITY\, JUST CONTINUING TO \nPROMOTE LAND USES THAT ENHANCE \nDELTA RESILIENCE HALTING REVERSE \nSUBSIDENCE AND REDUCE RISK \nOVERALL. \nNEXT SLIDE. THAT’S ALL FOR ME. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING \nUS HERE. AS WE’RE GETTING VERY \nCLOSE TO HAVING A DRAFT OUT FOR \nPUBLIC REVIEW. WE APPRECIATE \nYOUR TIME FOR LETTING \nUS PRESENT TODAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, MORGAN. BEFORE WE \nGET TO QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY \nPUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS \nAGENDA ITEM? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON. AND NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY\, \nJEFF\, AND MORGAN FOR THAT VERY \nIN-DEPTH PRESENTATION. AND I’M \nGOING TO LOOK — OR SIERRA IS \nGOING LOOK FOR ME TO TELL ME IF \nTHERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT \nWANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR COMMENT \nON YOUR PRESENTATION. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY. BUT YOU \nDO HAVE COMMISSIONER ECKLUND \nHERE IN-PERSON. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR ALLOWING HE TO ASK AND \nQUESTIONS. YOU HAVE COME A LONG \nWAYS\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN ADDRESSING A \nLOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE \nCONFRONTING THE DELTA. A COUPLE \nOF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. HAS THE \nRATE OF SUBSIDENCE INCREASED \nOVER TIME? \nOR DO WE KNOW? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: I DON’T ACTUALLY \nKNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RATE OF \nSUBSIDENCE. I THINK IT \nMIGHT — \nYEAH IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE \nWHOLE DELTA\, IT MIGHT \nINTERESTING\, IS A LOT ACTIVE \nWORK TO ADDRESS THOSE EXPOSED \nPEAT SOILS. WE CAN GET BACK TO \nYOU. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GO AHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING TO SAY \nFOR MOST OF THE DELTA\, THE \nPEAT SOIL IS SO DEEP SO \nTHAT ANYWHERE THERE IS \nTRADITIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT IT’S \nKIND OF SUBSIDING AT A FAIRLY \nCONSISTENT RATE THROUGH THE TIME \nTHERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO \nDO SUBSIDENCE HALTING OR EVEN \nSUBSIDENCE REVERSE ACTIVITIES I \nKNOW THOSE ARE ENCOURAGED IN THE \nDELTA\, AN EXAMPLE\, \nWETLANDS\, AND CARBON \nSEQUESTRATION AT THOSE SITES\, \nTHEY HAVE USED ICE TO MANAGE \nSUBSIDENCE. IT’S A MAJOR TOPIC \nBUT IT HASN’T BEEN VERY — \nAT THIS POINT IT’S ALL \nUNIVERSALLY TAKEN AS LAND \nMANAGEMENT IN THE REGION BUT I \nKNOW THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO \nPROMOTE IT MORE. \n>>CORY COPELAND: >>PAT \nECKLUND: \nSO THE RATE MAY HAVE SLOWED DOWN \nIN SOME AREAS BECAUSE OF THE \nREVERSAL THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING \nSO HARD TO TRY TO EMBRACE\, \nCORRECT? \n>>CORY COPELAND: YEAH\, THOUGH\, \nI WILL SAY THOSE ARE RELATIVELY \nLIMITED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: LIMITED? \n>>CORY COPELAND: — PROJECTS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I THINK \nTHE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE\, FROM \nWHAT I KNEW YEARS AGO\, WAS \nINCREASING QUITE A BIT. AND \nTHERE WAS A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY \nTO REDUCE IT. BUT I KNOW THAT \nTHAT’S STILL A MAJOR ISSUE. THE \nCOMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT FLOOD \nINSURANCE. FLOOD INSURANCE\, I \nKNOW\, IS REALLY SUPER EXPENSIVE\, \nA LOT OF FOLKS THAT I KNOW IN \nTHE DELTA THAT MANAGE A LOT OF \nTHOSE ISLANDS\, OR WHATEVER\, THEY \nMAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE \nFUNDS. IS THERE ANY FINANCIAL \nSUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL OR \nSTATE GOVERNMENT TO HELP \nSUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THAT \nINSURANCE FOR THEM? ESPECIALLY \nIF THEY’RE DOING MORE PUBLIC \nWORK OR WHATEVER ON THEIR LAND \nMANAGEMENT. ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR \nFINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON THAT? \nIT’S A POOR REGION. \n>>MORGAN CHAU: YEAH. THAT’S A \nREALLY GOOD QUESTION AND POINT. \nAND I WILL — SO\, WE KNOW — I \nTHINK IT’S A LITTLE BIT AROUND \n20% OF RESIDENTS HAVE FLOOD \nINSURANCE. SO IT IS REALLY \nLOW. \nAND IT’S EXPENSIVE. WE TRACK \nFEMA’S PROGRAMS. I KNOW FEMA \nDOES HAVE THE COMMUNITY RATING \nSYSTEM. SO THAT’S AT A \nCOMMUNITY SCALE. YOU CAN \nUNDERGO A LOT OF DIFFERENT \nACTIVITIES TO GET LOWER RATES. \nI DON’T KNOW ABOUT A LOT OF \nOTHER PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL \nLEVEL. BUT WE ARE ALSO — WE \nARE ALSO TRACKING SOME OTHER \nSMALLER SCALE EFFORTS TO GET \nCOMMUNITIES MORE PROTECTED. \nKATHY SHAFER\, WHO I THINK SHE IS \nA POST DOC\, MAY BE A PH.D. AT \nUC DAVIS\, DOES A LOT OF RESEARCH \nRELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE AND\, \nLIKE\, FLOOD PREPAREDNESS IN THE \nDELTA\, AND SHE HAS BEEN WORKING \nWITH THE COMMUNITY ISLETON THEY \nCREATED A GEOLOGIC HAZARD \nABATEMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS A \nWAY YOU CAN ACCESS MORE FUNDS TO \nHELP WITH PREPAREDNESS SO IT’S \nNOT JUST INSURANCE BUT INSURANCE \nCOULD BE A COMPONENT OF THAT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ARE THERE \nRESTORATION OF THE LEVEES ACTIVE \nEFFORTS TO HELP STRENGTHEN AND \nRESTORE THOSE LEVEES AS THERE \nWAS IN THE PAST? OR HAS IT \nDIMINISHED? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: I’LL LET JEFF \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: THERE ARE \nONGOING EFFORTS THAT CONTINUE\, \nTHE STATE IS CONTINUING TO FUND \nWHAT’S KNOWN AS THIS SUBVENTIONS \nPROGRAM THAT PROVIDES MECHANISM \nFOR MAINTENANCE AND \nREHABILITATION OF THE LEVEES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. \nI’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. \nTHE CANAL S THERE AN EFFORT TO \nLIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT \nGOES DOWN THE CANCEL TO SOUTHERN \nCALIFORNIA? SORE IS THAT \nSOMETHING THAT’S PRETTY MUCH SET \nIN STONE? OR DO YOU KNOW? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WHO \nWANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION? \n>>CORY COPELAND: WELL\, DO YOU \nWANT ME TO HOP IN? I SUSPECT \nTHEY DON’T WANT TO COMMENT ON IT \nBECAUSE IT’S LIKELY TO COME \nTHROUGH THERE OFFICE AS \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: CORY\, GO \nAHEAD. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I IMAGINE IT’S A \nCONFLICTING QUESTION. \n>>CORY COPELAND: THE CANAL IS \nNOW THE DELTA BAY PROJECT BEING \nPROPOSED BY DWR AND AS I \nUNDERSTAND IT IS AROUND \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW. \nI SUSPECT AT SOME POINT THAT \nWILL GO BEFORE THE STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL TO BE REVIEWED. AT THIS \nPOINT IT’S TO BE REVIEWED \nPHASE. \nSOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE \nOPERATIONS ARE\, LIKE\, HOW MUCH \nWATER WOULD BE YIELD — I DON’T \nTHINK WE CAN COMMENT — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PROBABLY SHOWS \nMY AGE. THANK YOU FOR \nADDRESSING THAT. MY LAST \nQUESTION YOU TALK ABOUT THE \nCHANGE OF LAND USE\, I KNOW THAT \nGIVEN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN \nTHE DELTA IS THAT THERE IS A LOT \nOF FAMILIES THAT\, YOU KNOW\, SORT \nOF\, PASS ON THE PROPERTY DOWN \nTHROUGH THE DIFFERENT \nGENERATIONS. HOW IS THAT BEING \nENCOURAGED? IS INCENTIVES OF \nBUYING THEIR PROPERTY ONE OF THE \nISSUES? OR YOU HAVE REALLY \nIDENTIFIED OTHER MECHANISMS \nWHERE YOU CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE \nTHE — CHANGING THE USE WHICH IS \nGOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR A \nLOT OF HOMEOWNER — LANDOWNERS? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: YEAH I CAN START \nMAYBE JEFF AND CORY CAN ADD. \nTHE DELTA’S AN INTERESTING PLACE \nESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE BAY\, \nWHICH IS URBAN. PRIMARILY THE \nDELTA HAS A LOT OF STRONG \nDEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS A LOT \nOF THE LAND USE CHANGES THAT WE \nEXPLORE FOR DELTA ADAPTS IS \nLOOKING AT WHERE THERE IS \nPOTENTIALLY FARMLAND OR \nABANDONED FARMLAND THAT IS NOT \nACTIVE ANYMORE. LIKE YEAH IS \nTHERE LAND USE INCENTIVES FOR IT \nTO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. SO \nLIKE PEAT SOILS THAT ARE EXPOSED \nAND OXIDIZING\, SUBSIDING\, LIKE \nIS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AN \nOPTION TO WET THAT LAND\, CAN IT \nBE MANAGED\, LIKE\, COULD YOU GROW \nRICE THERE. I THINK THOSE ARE \nSOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE \nBEEN EXPLORED FROM THE \nCONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH \nFARMERS THROUGHOUT THE DELTA \nEVEN YOU KNOW DIFFERENT PARTS OF \nTHE DELTA HAVE THEIR DIFFERENT \nCHALLENGES\, SPECIFICALLY WITH \nFARMING\, FARMERS — SOME FARMERS \nARE OPEN TO\, YOU KNOW\, EXPLORING \nDIFFERENT LAND USES. IT REALLY \nIS A QUESTION OF FINANCIAL \nFEASIBLE AND SOMETIMES WANTING \nMORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. WE \nPARTNERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE \nINTERVIEWS THAT WE CONDUCTED \nBECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THESE \nINCENTIVE PROGRAMS THEY PROVIDE \nTO GROWERS\, TO HELP THEM BE MORE \nFINANCIALLY PROFITABLE. YEAH \nTHAT’S SOME OF THE TOPICS WE \nHAVE EXPLORED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GREAT. THANKS. \nI REALLY APPRECIATE THE \nPRESENTATION\, AND REALLY \nAPPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN \nABLE TO DO IN THE DELTA P THE \nDELTA\, FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT \nKNOW\, THE DELTA IS A VERY \nSPECIAL PLACE. AND\, REALLY \nENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET TO KNOW \nIT. BECAUSE IT DOES DEFINITELY \nHAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE \nWHOLE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND\, \nSO\, JUST REALLY WANT TO \nCOMPLIMENT EVERYBODY WHO HAS \nBEEN INVOLVED IN THIS. AND MY \nHAT’S OFF TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS \nTHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO \nMAKE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR EISEN\, \nCAN I ASK A QUESTION? THIS IS \nLARRY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OF \nCOURSE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MORGAN AND \nJEFF GREAT TO SEE YOU\, OF \nCOURSE. THE PROGRESS YOU ALL \nHAVE MADE ON DELTA ADAPT IS \nMARVELOUS. WE ALL LOOK AT IT \nFROM THE WEST SIDE AND YOU’RE \nFROM THE EAST SIDE\, AND \nTHANKFULLY BETWEEN\, WE HAVE \nGRAPPLED WITH OVER THE LAST \nCOUPLE OF YEARS HOW YOU TAKE THE \nSTRATEGY AND START GETTING \nTRACTION ON THE GROUND. WE HAVE \nBAY ADAPT AND WE NOW HAVE THIS \nTHING CALLED SB272 WHICH REALLY \nGIVES US A REAL PUSH TO ENSURE \nWHAT BAY ADAPT DOES REALLY HAS \nSOME REAL MAJOR IMPACT AND CAN \nGET TRACTION. HOW HAVE YOU ALL \nSTARTED LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING \nTHIS AND WORKING THROUGH THE \nPROCESS OF HAVING TO WORK WITH \nTHE HEAVY WEIGHTS LIKE DWR AND \nFOOD AND AG\, AS WELL AS THE \nINCREDIBLY WELL ENTRENCHED AND \nWELL MEANING FOLKS WHO HAVE \nOWNED LAND IN THE DELTA SINCE\, \nYOU KNOW\, THE MID-1800’S\, FOR \nHEAVEN’S SAKE\, AND THE LIKE. I \nMEAN\, THE NUMBER OF INTERESTS \nTHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH \nIS CERTAINLY AT LEAVE THE AS \nLONG AS OURS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHAT’S A BIG QUESTION\, \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: YEAH. I’M \nSTILL THINKING. NO. THANK YOU\, \nLARRY. WE’RE JUST AT THE \nINITIAL STAGES OF BEGINNING TO \nTHINK ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION\, AND \nARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO LEARN AS \nMUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM THE \nPATHWAYS THAT YOU ALL HAVE \nCHARTED. I THINK ONE OF THE \nOTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE \nHAVE DISCUSSED IS REALLY \nENLISTING THE DELTA PLAN \nINTER-AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION \nCOMMITTEE OR DPIIC WHICH IS \nESSENTIALLY A COMMITTEE FORMED \nAND LARRY SITS ON THIS \nCOMMITTEE\, ON BEHALF OF BCDC\, AS \nWELL. IT’S A COMMITTEE FORMED \nAT THE AGENCIES THAT ARE CHARGED \nIN THE DELTA PLAN WITH VARIOUS \nDIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR \nIMPLEMENTATION. AND WE’RE \nREALLY LOOKING TO USE THE DPIIC \nAS A PLACE TO BRING AND OF THESE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AND START \nUNPACKING THEM. AND LOOKING TO \nWORK WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL \nAGENCIES TO IDENTIFY WHAT \nRESOURCES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO \nBRING TO THE TABLE\, WHAT LESSONS \nLEARNED THAT THEY HAVE FROM \nVARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES\, \nAND REALLY TO USE THAT AS A \nPLACE TO CONSOLIDATE THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF DELTA ADAPT. \nTHAT’S SOME OF OUR EARLY \nTHINKING\, IN COMBINATION WITH\, \nTHEN\, MOVING TOWARD A BIT MORE \nOF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nSTRUCTURE THAT REALLY HELPS TO \nSOLIDIFY THE ROLES AND \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS \nAGENCIES\, AS THEY RELATE TO THE \nSPECIFIC STRATEGIES. MORGAN\, IS \nTHERE MORE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD \nTO THAT? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: NO. YEAH. I \nTHINK OUR REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH \nBCDC\, SINCE WE’RE DOING SIMILAR \nN A LOT OF WAYS\, ADAPTING A WORK \nWE’RE OPERATING WITH DIFFERENT \nACTORS AND DIFFERENT SETTINGS \nBUT WE CAN LEARN A LOT FROM EACH \nOTHER\, JUST I THINK THE OTHER \nTHING ABOUT THE DELTA WE HAVE \nIDEAS FOR THE \nMOU STRUCTURE AT THE DPIIC LEVEL \nBUT ALSO THERE ARE THINGS LIKE \nISLETON MODEL FOR FLOOD RISK AND \nPREPAREDNESS THAT CANNOT BE DONE \nYOU KNOW AROUND ISLETON IDEAS \nTHAT CORE MENTIONED SHERMAN I \nLAND EXPERIMENTS AND \nEXPERIENCE AROUND SOMETHING \nLIKE THAT WE REPLICATE THINGS \nTHAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING IN \nOTHER LEVEL AS YOU KNOW AT THE \nHIGHER LEVEL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \n>>SPEAKER: WANTED TO FOLLOW UP \nON A COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATED \nI ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN \nTHE BAY A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT \nARE CLEAR TO ME WITH DELTA \nPLANNING AND DIFFERENT \nADAPTATION IN THE BAY PLAN THE \nTWO ARE DIFFERENT FIRST IS THE \nDELTA IS A DIFFERENT WATER \nSUPPLY SOURCE FROM OTHER PARTS \nOF THE STATE THAT MEANS THAT \nWATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO \nCAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF A \nDELTA ADAPTATION STRATEGY. \nTHAT’S NOT EASY. IT’S ALSO TRUE \nTHAT THE FLOOD RISK IN THE DELTA \nIS DRIVEN TO A SUBSTANTIAL PART \nBY FLOOD COMING IN FROM AND \nWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES\, \nUPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA. THE SO \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT UPSTREAM FROM \nTHE DELTA IS AN IMPORTANT PART \nOF PROTECTING COMMUNITIES LIKE \nSTOCKTON. I WANT TO ASK HOW \nYOU’RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE \nBOUNDARY CHALLENGES. ON THE ONE \nHAND ARE YOU INCLUDING UPSTREAM \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT MULTI-BENEFIT \nPROJECTS UPSTREAM AS A FLOOD \nADAPTATION STRATEGY IN THE DELTA \nAND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU GOING \nTO BE FOCUSING ON THE PHYSICAL \nSAFETY OF THE DELTA\, DELTA \nAGRICULTURE AND SO FORTH \nCOMPARED TO WATER MANAGEMENT \nBENEFITS WHERE THE DELTA COUNCIL \nMAY HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING THE \nNEEDLE? IT’S A DIFFERENT \nPICTURE AND MORE COMPLICATED IN \nSOME WAYS THAN THE WORK WE’RE \nDOING IN THE BAY. \nMORTGAGE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD POINT \nESPECIALLY FOR FLOOD RISK \nREDUCTION PROPOSED STRATEGIES \nAND AROUND WATER SUPPLY \nRELIABILITY A LOT OF WHAT NEEDS \nTO HAPPEN IN THE DELTA TOUCH ON \nYOU KNOW UPSTREAM DON STREAM \nACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY \nHEALTH SAFETY AND WELL-BEING \nTHAT’S A LITTLE BIT FOCUSED TO \nCOMMUNITIES THAT LIVE WITHIN OR \nADJACENT TO OUR DELTA BOUNDARIES \nYOU MAKE A GOOD POINT AND IT’S \nINCLUDED IN OUR STRATEGIES. \nRIGHT NOW THE DRAFT PLAN IT DOES \nIN SOME WAYS LOOK LIKE IT \nMASSIVE MENU OF STRATEGIES. WE \nHAVE DONE SOME — INITIAL \nPRIORITIZATION IN TERMS OF\, LIKE \nI SAID\, LIKE WHAT WE REALLY FEEL \nNEEDS TO HAPPEN FIRST\, WHAT \nCOULD HAPPEN WITH EXISTING FUNDS \nTHEN THERE IS ALSO THAT FILTER \nWHERE IT COMES IN AND GOES WELL \nWHEN’S FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR \nCONTROL WHAT CAN WE LEAD WHAT \nARE OUR PARTNERS WILLING TO \nLEAD\, WHAT ARE WE TRACKING THAT \nIS ALREADY KIND OF HAPPENING BUT \nWE WANT TO HAPPEN MORE. SO\, I \nTHINK THERE IS A LOT OF \nDIFFERENT LEVELS AT WHICH WE CAN \nENGAGE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE \nTALKING ABOUT STRATEGIES OUTSIDE \nOF THE DELTA. BUT\, YEAH\, SO \nIT’S CHALLENGING IT MAKE GOOD \nPOINT AND WE’RE TRYING TO THINK \nABOUT IT TO THE BEST OF OUR \nABILITIES. JEFF DID YOU WANT TO \nADD? \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: COMMISSIONER \nNELSON\, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT \nBOUNDARY ISSUES MADE ME — AS DO \nA NUMBER OF THINGS\, REMINDED ME \nTHAT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL IS ACTUALLY A STATEWIDE \nAGENCY THAT REPRESENTS STATEWIDE \nINTERESTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE \nDELTA. SO\, YES\, WE DO NEED TO \nBE CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE WATER \nCONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO\, AND \nHOW THAT AFFECTS\, IN TURN\, THE \nAMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED THROUGH \nTHE DELTA\, AND IN TURN\, THE \nAMOUNT OF WATER STORED IN A \nRESERVOIR UPSTREAM. SO\, THESE \nARE THINGS THAT WE ARE VERY \nAWARE OF. I THINK\, DELTA \nADAPT ITSELF DOES PAY A \nCONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION \nTO THE DELTA ITSELF\, AND IF WE \nHAD ONE OF OUR OWN \nSELF-CRITIQUES OF THE WEEK IS \nPROBABLY THAT IT DOESN’T DO AS \nMUCH AS IT COULD TO ADDRESS SOME \nOF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE \nHAPPENING OUTSIDE OF DELTA TO \nAFFECT THE HEALTH IN THE DELTA. \nI DO\, THOUGH\, UNDERSTAND THAT \nTHE STRATEGIES\, AS MORGAN \nMENTIONED\, THE STRATEGIES\, WHERE \nPOSSIBLE\, DO RECOMMEND \nACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR UPSTREAM \nOR DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DELTA\, \nTHAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE \nCLIMATE BENEFITS THAT WE’RE \nSEEKING IN THE DELTA. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: \n>>SPEAKER: JUST ONE LAST \nTHOUGHT GIVEN THE BREADTH OF \nADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT ARE \nRELEVANT TO THE DELTA IT’S GOING \nTO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE CAN ONLY \nTO THINK THROUGH THE AREAS WHERE \nYOU FOLKS REALLY ARE GOING TO \nDRIVE THE DEBATE FORWARD AND \nREALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE THAT \nYOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY \nBIG BROAD ADAPTATION LIST. \nOR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE \nDELTA ADAPT PRESENTATION? ALL \nRIGHT. \nTHANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED \nME GET THROUGH THIS ALMOST \nENTIRELY VIRTUAL PRESENTATION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND \nCOMMISSION MEETING. WE ONE \nOTHER ITEM. AND THAT IS \nADJOURNMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION \nTO ADJOURN? BARRY\, THANK YOU. \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-20-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240611T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240611T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240130T045115Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240607T234532Z UID:10000135-1718098200-1718107200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240610T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240610T193000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240130T034300Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240607T234422Z UID:10000118-1718038800-1718047800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 10\, 2024 Design Review Board 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 Francisco\, CA415-352-3600 \nBoard Member Stefan Pellegrini will participate remotely in the meeting. \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/87310947591?pwd=OggytxR04SUpD7jhO7cG4mbB89Lnbo.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821 ( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID873 1094 7591 \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 the March 11\, 2024 DRB Meeting\nStaff Update\nPublic Comment Period\nBay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan; First ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its first review of the Draft Adaptation Strategy and Pathway Standards\, a section of BCDC’s developing Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP). When finalized\, the RSAP guidelines will be used by local jurisdictions for developing Subregional Implementation Plans\, required by Senate Bill 272 (Laird 2023)\, that effectively address local and regional climate risks.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-10-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240606T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240606T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240119T035417Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T220500Z UID:10000098-1717678800-1717693200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 6\, 2024 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nMeeting starting time 1:00 P.M. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nRichmond City Council Office: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, Richmond\, CA 94804\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\nDepartment of Transportation: 111 Grand Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n1084 Clarendon Cres\, Oakland\, CA 94610\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\nSanta Clara County Government Center: 70 W Hedding St\, 10th Floor\, Clerk’s Conf. Rm.\, San Jose\, CA 95110\n11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\nFront Porch at 112 Trellis Dr.\, San Rafael\, CA 94303\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87214727080?pwd=XpHUp0iSwZMfdyPKA6OaiUhlJcg9Ew.L5fNYRJW34IrS-62 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 1472 7080 \nPasscode506054 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment\nApproval of Minutes for May 16\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration and Possible Vote on Authorization of Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Technical and Policy Assistance Program Development ContractThe Commission will consider and possibly vote on authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $200\,000 contract to provide a Technical and Policy Assistance work plan and resource toolkit for local governments as they develop rising sea level adaptation plans in compliance with SB 272.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress ReportSenior Staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Misson-Based ReviewThe Commission will hear a briefing from Department of Finance staff on the outcomes of a Mission-Based Review it conducted of BCDC’s permitting program\, at the request of BCDC. Staff will also discuss how the results of the review will feed into strategies for improving the permitting program.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3648; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff presentation // Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \nThe following administrative permit applications have been filed and are presently pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nEast Bay Regional Parks District2950 Peralta Oaks CourtOakland\, CA 94605 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2019.001.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nMay 24\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nAugust 22\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, from Point Molate to past Castro Point (north of the east span of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge)\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct the following activities to construct a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail: \n\nIn the Bay:Repair revetment by placing 67 cubic yards of riprap along 191 linear feet of shoreline as part of the repairs to the Northern Revetment Area.\nWithin the 100-foot Shoreline Band:\n\n\n\nPrepare the site by removing and regrading areas where asphalt\, concrete pad and platforms\, vegetation (including invasive species) currently exist within the Bay Trail alignment.\nRepair revetment by placing 768 cubic yards of riprap along the Revetment Areas. Where the trail is at-grade\, the repairs will consist of placing rock slope protection fabric\, riprap and earthen backfill\, and an erosion control blanket with hydroseed.\nReplace a damaged 18- by 41-foot-long corrugated metal pipe culvert with a 9-foot-wide\, 85-foot-long channel containing a 4-foot-wide\, 12-inch-deep rock-lined\, low-flow channel and 2.5 feet of gravel on either side\, totaling approximately 34 total cubic yards of new riprap. This work will include restoring and revegetating the area with native riparian species to create 0.017 acres of new ephemeral stream habitat.\nReplace an existing dilapidated wooden staircase to the beach with a concrete beach access ramp\, reinforced with 59 cubic yards of new riprap.\nConstruct\, use\, and maintain a new 2.5-mile-long Bay Trail segment.\nInstall 385 linear feet of 6- to 8-foot-high chain link fencing and 4\,714 linear feet of 3.5-foot-high wooden fencing at various locations along the trail to ensure user and habitat safety as well as prevent unauthorized access to restricted access areas.\nInstall 6-foot-tall manually operated chain-link gates at both ends of the trail segments\, two benches\, and wayfinding and coastal access signage.\nConstruct\, use\, and maintain in-kind ADA access from the Point Molate Beach Park parking lot to and from the Bay Trail.\n\n\n\nAt the time of this listing\, East Bay Regional Parks District and the City of Richmond (co-applicant) are still finalizing easement agreements with the underlying property owners for the Bay Trail extension and has provided a letter demonstrating the property owners’ intent to execute the agreements. Permit conditions will include a requirement to submit copies of the final executed easements to BCDC prior to commencing work. \n\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pierce Abrahamson; 415/352-3607 or pierce.abrahamson@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSeecon Financial and Construction Company\, Inc.4021 Port Chicago HighwayConcord\, CA 94520 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.007.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 19\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 18\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Primary Management area of the Suisun Marsh\, at Duck Club 122\, in Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRegrade two duck club ponds on the interior of a managed wetland by removing an 18\,000 cubic foot interior levee and placing the fill material in an adjacent pond\, to join two ponds. The project will increase the area of the managed pond habitat and will not involve any permanent or temporary impacts to tidal sloughs or marshes outside of the managed pond. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nBallena Bay Townhouse Associationc/o Common Interest Management315 Diablo Road\, Suite 221Danville\, CA 94526 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.011.00-RWP-3 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay\, at 80 townhomes located at 1201-1237 Ballena Boulevard\, 300-354 Tideway Drive\, and 401-465 Cola Ballena\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReplace 40 sets of sets and landings\, including the following activities: \n\nTemporarily install access scaffolding;\nTemporarily detach and store 40 existing ramps by securing them to the top of the existing docks;\nRemove existing stairs and landings and install new wooden stairs and landings with stainless steel handrails and mounting hardware within the same footprint;\nRe-install the existing ramps; and\nRemove the access scaffolding.Contact: Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nCity of Alameda Public Works Department950 W. Mall SquareAlameda\, CA 94501\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.018.00-RWP-5 \n\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band\, at 1250 and 1300 Eastshore Drive\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair a sinkhole\, including the following activities: \n\nRemove an existing 6-foot-high\, 10-foot-wide fence and install a new 6-foot-high\, 10-foot-wide double gate;\nFill a 15-foot-wide\, 7-foot-deep sinkhole with 100 square feet of controlled low strength material (flowable fill); and\nConstruct a 9-foot-wide\, 6-foot-high\, 3- to 4.5-foot-deep gabion wall.\n\nContact: (Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of San Mateo330 West 20th AvenueSan Mateo\, CA 94403 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.019.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay\, near the San Mateo Bridge\, at 37°34’53.20”N\, 122°15’18.32”W. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair an existing 54-inch-diameter outfall pipe by: \n\nRemoving approximately 34 cubic yards of sediment from the final 100 feet section of the pipe; and\nReplacing two broken lifting lugs to restore the stopgate function.Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nContra Costa Water District1331 Concord AveConcord\, CA 94520 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.020.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nNear 5050 Imhoff Road in the City of Martinez\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\nUse Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to install a 638-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline and a 656-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline 60-80 ft below ground surface;\nTemporarily construct eight five-foot-deep and one-foot-diameter monitoring wells that will be removed after project construction\n\nIn the 100-foot Shoreline Band: \n\nUse Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to install a 233-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline and a 222-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline 60-80 ft below the ground surface over a 1\,861 square-foot area\, and three permanent monitoring wells;\nTemporarily use 38\,698 square-feet of upland areas for construction staging and access roads; and\nTemporarily construct up to 15 five-foot-deep\, one-foot-diameter monitoring wells that will be removed after project construction.Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nGiselle Shepatin and Gregg Doyle31 Sandy Beach RdVallejo\, CA 94950 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.022.00-RWP-7 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\n31 Sandy Beach Road\, Vallejo CA 94950. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\nInstall five 16-inch-diameter concrete pilings and one 12-inch-diameter concrete piling (after-the-fact); and\nReplace one four-inch-by-12-inch redwood beam under an existing pile supported single-family residence (after-the-fact).Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\nEmergency Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Redwood City1017 Middlefield RoadRedwood City\, CA 94063 \n\n\nEmergency Permit No. E2024.002.00 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at Redwood Shores community\, in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nSignificant erosion was reported April 22\, 2024\, and upon inspection\, a cavity was observed to be forming under the pedestrian trail atop the levee. The trail was immediately closed\, and City Public Works crews coordinated with the Engineering Division to investigate the cause. The situation was monitored continuously\, and the pedestrian controls were improved to keep the public safe. Additional investigations found that a previously unknown culvert had been buried under the levee with an inflatable pipe plug. Evidence suggests that the plug had come loose\, allowing tidally influenced flows to scour and erode the adjacent levee banks. The plan is to isolate the repair area with water-filled cofferdams\, dewater as necessary to perform the repair work\, and backfill the eroded section to restore the levee structure. The adjacent levee slopes are vegetated\, and the work area will be restored in-kind. Given the limited access to the site\, there is no estimated timeline for construction at this point. Once the repair plan is finalized\, a complete project description will be prepared for use in the permitting process. The City has already engaged a geotechnical firm to provide design and construction assistance and will be retaining a biological monitor to be onsite during all construction activity. \nContact: Julie Garren; 415/352- 3624 or julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\n100+ easements for one flood wall?\nRichmond\, San Rafael bridge limits access to cyclists and pedestrians\nInundation district is a feature-length film about the implications of one city’s decision to ignore the threats posed by climate change and spend billions of dollars on building a new waterfront district — on landfill\, at sea level.\nCartoonist Eddie Ahn draws on community\, environmental justice in new memoir\nThe drowning south where seas are rising at alarming speed\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. AND WELCOME TO OUR HYBRID\, BUT TODAY\, ALMOST FULLY VIRTUAL BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS REBECCA EISEN\, I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF BCDC\, I AM CHAIRING THIS MEETING BECAUSE CHAIR WASSERMAN IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, BUT NECESSARILY ABSENT TODAY. I AM GRATEFUL TO SEE COMMISSIONER MOULTON PETERS ON MY SCREEN BECAUSE SHE HAS AGREED TO BE OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY IN THE EVENT WE HAVE AN INTERNET PROBLEM. SO I’M HOPEFUL WILL NOT HAPPEN. OUR FIRST ORDER IS TO CALL THE ROLL AND SIERRA IS GOING TO HELP ME OUT HERE BECAUSE I CAN’T SEE ALL OF YOU ON MY SCREEN AT ONCE SO SHE’S GOING TO LET ME KNOW IF YOUR HAND IS RAISED OR IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK. FOR NOW\, PLEASE BE SURE YOUR CAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE MEETING\, AND UNMUTE YOURSELF FOR THE ROLL CALL. AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE RESPONDED\, MUTE YOURSELVES ONCE AGAIN. SIERRA? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nSPEAKER: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AMBUEHL? \nDAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. AHN? \nEDDIE AHN: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: ECKERLY? COMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \nSUSAN GORIN: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER HASZ? \nKARL HASZ: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: MOULTON-PETERS? \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON? \nBARRY NELSON: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \nCESAR ZEPEDA: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE I MISSED ANYONE? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: COMMISSIONER EISEN. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OH\, APOLOGIES\, VICE CHAIR EISEN. [LAUGHTER] I HAVE A TOTAL 16 PRESENT. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. SO WE ARE DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYONE WANTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER ON WHICH THE COMMISSION EITHER HAS NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC HEARING OR IS IN THE ON TODAY’S AGENDA\, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO. SIERRA\, ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE BUILDING WHO WISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THERE IS NO ONE PRESENT IN THE BUILDING\, BUT THERE IS A HAND RAISED ONLINE. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY CALL ON THEM. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: MR. BRUCE BEYERT. YOU MAY UNMUTE. \nSPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON VICE CHAIR EISEN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES WE CAN. \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS BRUCE BEYERT TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND ACTION COMMITTEE I’M HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED AFTER THE BRIEFING LAST MONTH ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE PILOT PROGRAM THE QUESTION ASKED ABOUT HOW USAGE OF BAY TRAIL ACROSS RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE COMPARED WITH OTHER BAY AREA BRIDGES. THE BAY TRAIL TRAVERSES BENICIA STRAITS RICHMOND CENTER FAIR BRIDGE OF COURSE THE BAY BRIDGE EAST SPAN AS WELL AS THE DUMBARTON BRIDGE. UC BERKELEY’S PARTNER FOR ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE REPORT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN THE MOST RECENT PEAK SEASON BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON THE BRIDGE WAS HIGHEST OF ALL STATE OWNED TOLL PASS INCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE. TO BE — END OF QUOTE — TO BE MORE SPECIFIC\, DURING THE LAST 45 DAYS\, WEEKEND BICYCLE TRIPS ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WERE 324 PER DAY\, VERSUS 206 ON THE BAY BRIDGE. ON WEEKDAYS\, BICYCLE TRIPS AVERAGE 132 ACROSS THE RSR BRIDGE\, VERSUS 128 ON THE BAY BRIDGE. PEDESTRIAN USAGE IS VERY LOW ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE BECAUSE THE PILOT WAS DESIGNED FOR TRANSPORTATION\, THAT IS BICYCLISTS AND NOT FOR RECREATION AND TO BE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE ARE NO RESTROOMS ON EITHER END OF THE BRIDGE AND THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES. THIS CONTRASTS DRAMATICALLY WITH THE BAY BRIDGE WHICH HAS A VERY LARGE USER FRIENDLY PARKING AREA WITH RESTROOMS AT THE BRIDGE YARD IN OAKLAND. OF COURSE\, NONE OF THE STATE OWNED BRIDGES CAN COMPARE WITH THE ICONIC GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL TOURIST DESTINATION AND LITERALLY CRAWLING WITH PEOPLE ON FOOT AND BICYCLE. SO THE BAY BRIDGE IS MOST HEAVILY USED BY BICYCLES OF ALL STATE OWNED BRIDGES. FINALLY CALTRANS LAST MONTH IN APRIL ACTUALLY FILED REQUEST TO EXTEND RICHMOND CENTERVILLE BRIDGE PILOT AND TRACK SUPPORT AND ASK TO BE EXTENDED ADMINISTRATIVELY TO THE END OF 2025 AS THE BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED THIS WILL CLEAR THE DECKS THE EXTENSION WILL BE SETTLED AND YOU WILL BE IN GOOD POSITION TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSAL COMING LATER TO SHUT DOWN THE BAY TRAIL RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE FOUR DAYS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR BREAK DOWN LANE FOR AUTOMOBILES WHICH OF COURSE I THINK IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. THANK YOU. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK YOU. NO MORE HANDS RAISED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT ANY ITEM THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING THAT ITEM. A FEW THINGS FOR THE CHAIR REPORT\, WE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY VIRTUAL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE FIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE METRO CENTER. BUT OUR STAFF TELLS US THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION IS ON SCHEDULE. AND IF THAT REMAINS THE CASE\, WE CAN HOPE AND EXPECT THAT WE WILL REGAIN USE OF BOTH THE BOARDROOM AND THE YERBA BUENA ROOM FOR OUR MEETING NEXT MONTH\, WHICH WILL BE ON JULY 18TH\, AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOTED\, WE WILL NOT HAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH. OUR STAFF WILL KEEP US INFORMED REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION\, AS THEY START PLANNING FOR THAT MEETING. TODAY IS THE FIRST MEETING WHERE WE WILL CONSIDER A CONSENT CALENDAR. AND I KNOW MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE FAMILIAR WITH CONSENT CALENDARS FROM THE VARIOUS BOARDS THEY HAVE SAT ON. IDEALLY\, A CONSENT CALENDAR HELPS US TO CUT THROUGH RED TAPE REGARDING NON-CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS\, AND GIVES US MORE TIME TO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND OUR PRESENTATIONS. SO\, WE’RE GOING TO GIVE IT A TRY AND SEE HOW THAT GOES. WE WILL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHEN WE GET TO IT\, IN A MINUTE\, AND WE WILL ALSO NEED TO TAKE A ROLL YOU CALL VOTE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE APPROVING THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE RISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO BE MEETING AT THE SAME DAY AT OUR NEXT MEETING\, JULY 18TH\, BUT IN THE MORNING. SO WILL THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORKING GROUP. THOSE MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE SCHEDULED BACK TO BACK\, SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN ATTEND ALL OF THEM. AND THEY WILL BE LISTED ON OUR BRAND-NEW WEB SITE’S BRAND-NEW CALENDAR. AND LARRY IS GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO HIS REPORT. FINALLY\, AS I SAID\, OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE JULY 18TH. I DO HOPE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A SAFE AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY\, IT SOUNDS LIKE PAT HAS WONDERFUL 4TH OF JULY PLANS. AT OUR MEETING ON MAY 18TH\, WE MAY TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS\, ONE\, A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE RESTORATION OF CHIPPS C-H-I-P-P-S ISLAND\, WHICH IS IN THE DELTA. A BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORS\, AND\, FINALLY\, AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF BCDC’S ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IF A COMMISSIONER HAS INADVERTENTLY FORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE OUR STAFF TO WITH EX PARTE WRITTEN OR ORAL EXPERT COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY REPORT ON THEM AT THIS POINT BY RAISING YOUR HAND. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR WRITTEN REPORT SHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE CONVERSATION’S MAIN TOPICS BUT YOUR ORAL REPORT SHOULD NOT BE LONGER THAN TWO MINUTES. SIERRA IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO HAS RAISED HIS OR HER HAND? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN-PERSON\, OR VIRTUALLY. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT. LARRY? \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR EISEN. SUMMER TIME AND AS THE GERSHWIN BROTHERS WROTE LIVING IS EASY TODAY IS SUMMER SOLSTICE LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR IF YOU PLAN TO GO TO THE BEACH THIS WEEKEND JUST REMEMBER IN JULY 1975 JAWS WAS RELEASED WITH STAR WARS BELIEVING RELEASED MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND THREE YEARS LATER THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WAS FOREVER CHANGED. SUMMER TIME ISN’T JUST A TIME TO HANG OWL WE’RE WORKING HARD IN SHORELINE PLAN GUIDELINES DISCUSSIONS ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PERMIT REQUESTS AND BUDGET NEWS AFTER ALL THAT HARD WORK WE’LL BE READY FOR ICE CREAM. THERE IS ONLY ONE STAFFING ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE TODAY. TODAY IS STEVE GOLDBECK’S FINAL STAFF MEETING AS A FULL-TIME PERMANENT STATE EMPLOYEE. STEVE JOINED BCDC AS A VOLUNTEER 38 YEARS AGO AND WAS HIRED A YEAR LATER AS A COASTAL PLANNER. AMONG HIS MANY ROLES AT BCDC HE WROTE THE COMMISSION’S FIRST WATER QUALITY POLICIES AND A FEW YEARS LATER WAS PRINCIPLE STAFF MEMBER IN CHARGE OF FIRST CREATING AND THEN IMPROVING BCDC’S DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. INITIATED AND LED THE BENEFICIAL REUSE STUDIES WHICH WAS START OF THE REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE BAY AREA AND ESTABLISHED THE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROGRAM HOW TO MANAGE DREDGE MATERIALS. HE HAD A CENTRAL ROLE IN BCDC’S EFFORTS TO RESTORE SONOMA BAYLANDS AND HAMILTON WETLANDS AND WAS THE MOVER BEHIND CREATING DREDGED MATERIALS MANAGEMENT OFFICE\, FIRST MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATION IN THE BAY AREA AS A RESULT OF THESE AND OTHER EFFORTS WAS AWARDED ROGER B. JONES AWARD EXCELLENCE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND RECEIVED COMMENDATION FROM PRESIDENT AL GORE’S AS PART OF VP NATIONAL AWARD FOR REINVENTING GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. HE’S BEEN BCDC’S CHIEF DEPUTY SINCE 2010 AND ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. WE HAVE ASKED STEVE TO COME BACK AS A RETIRED ANNUITANT AT SOME POINT AFTER A RESTFUL PERIOD AWAY FROM US. HE HAS BEEN CRUCIAL IN TRAINING THAN MENTORING OUR STAFF WHOSE OVERALL TENURE IS FAR LESS IN 2024 THAN EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO. AND HE HAS STARTED WORKING ON CREATING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR OUR STAFF. MOST IMPORTANT\, HE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS PARTNER. HE AND BRAD McCRAY PROPPED ME UP DURING MY FIRST YEARS WHEN I KNEW LITTLE ABOUT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS. HE KNEW QUICKLY HOW I TEND TO WORK\, WHICH IS MOST DIFFICULT THING TO OUT WHEN YOU GET A NEW BOSS. HE CREATED GREAT INTRO TO ANY DISCUSSION THAT GOES LIKE THIS\, QUOTE\, "LARRY\, WE HAVE AN ISSUE; BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING YET." WE SHALL MISS STEVE WANDERING AROUND THE OFFICE SCOPING OUT PROJECTS\, PROOFREADING REPORTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE DOES. BUT AT LEAST WE’LL HAVE HIM AS A RETIRED ANNUITANT FOR A WHILE. AND I CAN ASSURE HIM WE KNOW HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER WHEN WE NEED ADVICE. STAFF HAD A BURRITO LUNCH WITH SOME GREAT CAKE BEFORE TODAY’S MEETING. WE PLAN TO HAVE A LOW-KEY SEND-OFF FOR STEVE THIS SUMMER\, AND WE HOPE STEVE WILL CONTRIBUTE SOME OF HIS GREAT RED WINE FOR THAT OCCASION. SO\, STEVE\, I AM SURE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY JUST A FEW WORDS? \nSTEVEN GOLDBECK: THANK YOU\, LARRY. I HAVE A 20-MINUTE POWERPOINT AND THEN A 10 MINUTE MOVIE TO SHOW. NO. I CALL BCDC THE JOB I CALLED MY CAREER\, AND IT’S BEEN INTERESTING RIDE. AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT I WOULD GO OFF AND DO SOMETHING ELSE WHEN THINGS GOT BORING HERE; BUT THEY NEVER GOT BORING. WELL\, MAYBE THERE WAS A MEETING OR TWO THAT DIDN’T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. [LAUGHTER]. BUT OVERALL\, IT’S BEEN AN AMAZING TIME\, AND I HAVE ENJOYED ALL OF THE WORK THAT THE BCDC DOES\, AND WORKING WITH ALL THE STAFF. I FEEL LIKE I CAN RETIRE NOW HAVING ACHIEVED SOME INTERESTING THINGS\, IN ADDITION TO [INDISCERNIBLE] WORKING ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES\, AS THE FIRST IN THE NATION\, IT’S SOMETHING I’LL ALWAYS TREASURE. AND I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 272\, AS WELL. BUT IT’S REALLY BEEN PARTNERSHIPS THAT HAVE ALWAYS MADE ME ENJOY WORKING AT BCDC WITH THE STAFF\, AS I TOLD THEM TODAY AT OUR LITTLE LUNCHEON\, BUT ALSO WORKING WITH COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE BEEN REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE HAD AT BCDC\, ALWAYS IMPRESSED WITH COMMISSIONERS WHO COME TO BCDC FROM WHATEVER BACKGROUND OR APPOINTMENT\, BUT ALWAYS TOOK ON THE ROLE OF BEING A REGIONAL BCDC COMMISSIONER. AND THAT’S HOW BCDC HAS PROSPERED\, SO\, I WANT TO SAY IT’S BEEN AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE WORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND NEW COMMISSIONERS\, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MY NEW ROLE. SO\, THANKS SO MUCH. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: TWO THINGS TO FOLLOW THAT UP. FIRST WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR A NEW MEMBER OF SENIOR STAFF TO THIS DEPARTURE. YOU RECEIVED TWO WEEKS AGO LINKS TO THE JOB AND WILL GET IT AGAIN TODAY IN THE COMMISSION SUMMARY PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THEM TO ANYBODY YOU BELIEVE SHOULD RECEIVE THEM. PERHAPS LATE BREAKING NEWS EVENT BCDC’S BOCCE TEAM WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE MEAN HIGH TIDES\, HAS NOW CHANGED ITS NAME AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT SEASON TO STEVIE G. AND THE SHORELINE BAND. SO\, WE DO THAT\, BECAUSE STEVE HAS BEEN A — I THINK\, STEVE\, YOU WERE A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE BOCCE GROUP\, AND REMAINS A STALWART\, AND THE BYLAWS OF THE BOCCE RULES LEAGUE SAY THAT RETIRED ANNUITY ANTS CAN PARTICIPATE IN BOCCE GAMES\, JUST SO YOU KNOW. WITH THAT\, I HAVE ONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CHAIR EISEN NOTED. THE MAJOR NEWS AT BCDC DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS IS THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR NEW WEB SITE. THANKS TO A GREAT EFFORT BY A NUMBER OF STAFF\, MOST ESPECIALLY REYLINA\, ELSA\, AND ETHAN\, AND VARIOUS OTHER STATE STAFF AND A VERY GOOD CONSULTANT TEAM\, OUR NEW WEB SITE IS BOTH EASIER TO USE\, AND CAN BE EXPANDED TO CREATE GREATER FUNCTIONALITY. MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC\, IT IS MUCH BETTER ORGANIZED\, AND WE ARE WORKING HARD TO FULFILL ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES BY USING AS MUCH PLAIN LANGUAGE AS POSSIBLE. PLEASE CHECK IT OUT. LOOK AT THE NEW CALENDAR FUNCTION\, ESPECIALLY\, THAT CONTINUES TO MAKE ME SMILE. AND WE’RE STILL TINKERING WITH IT AND WILL BE FOR MANY MONTHS. AND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS. IF YOU FIND SOMETHING OR DON’T FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU EITHER LIKE OR DON’T LIKE\, PLEASE LET US KNOW. THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR EISEN\, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR LARRY? WELL\, LET ME SAY\, STEVE\, THAT WAS UNBELIEVABLE AND STUNNING LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AND ON BEHALF OF A VERY GRATEFUL COMMISSION\, WE’RE GOING TO MISS YOU\, AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE\, I THINK LARRY CALLED IT A SEND-OFF\, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT’S JUST A TRANSITION. ALL RIGHT. WE’RE NOW AT THE EXCITING BRAND NEW CONSENT CALENDAR. AT THIS POINT IN THE AGENDA\, WE’RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR OUR JUNE 6TH MEETING\, AND THE SECOND IS THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A REVISED STIPULATED CEASE AND DESIST AND CIVIL PENALTY ORDER FROM THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. AND THAT REGARDS A PROPERTY IN SAN FRANCISCO AT 224 SEA CLIFF AVENUE. ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR MARIE GILMORE HAS ALREADY CONCURRED IN THE INCLUSION OF THIS ORDER IN THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SO\, FIRST\, SIERRA DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE CONSENT CALENDAR? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO ONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. SO\, THEN\, AS INDICATED\, WE DO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR? SIERRA\, LET ME KNOW WHO MOVES. \nPAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: AND PAT SHOWALTER. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: I’LL BE GLAD TO SECOND THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: ECKLUND MOVES SHOWALTER SECONDS. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. SIERRA\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nMARK ADDIEGO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER AHN? \nEDDIE AHN: AYE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? [LAUGHTER] \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: I THINK THAT COUNTS. WE SEE IT. \nDAVID AMBUEHL: AYE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER ECKERLY? \nJENN ECKERLE: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: ECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: AYE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GUNTHER? \nANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HASZ? \nKARL HASZ: AYE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON? COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \nCESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR EISEN? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE I MISSED ANYONE? THE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH 16 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO ABSTENTIONS. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, SIERRA. ALL RIGHT. WELL\, WE DO NOT HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING TODAY\, BUT COMMISSIONER GUNTHER ASKED AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT OUR STAFF EXPLAIN HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS WORKS AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM OTHER TYPES OF PERMITTING APPROVALS. SO\, HARRIET ROSS WHO IS OUR REGULATORY DIRECTOR HAS PREPARED A RESPONSE FOR THE COMMISSION. BUT BEFORE WE GET TO HARRIET’S RESPONSE\, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. HARRIET\, YOU CAN PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US OUR ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS? \nHARRIET ROSS: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN\, I’M HARRIET ROSS. FIRST OF ALL\, BCDC HAS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF PERMITS\, AS YOU ALL HAVE NOTICED\, I’M SURE. WHEN THE COMMISSION HEARS A PROJECT OR VOTES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID LAST MONTH IN MAY\, 505 BAYSHORE\, THAT’S CONSIDERED A MAJOR PERMIT. BUT THE COMMISSION’S RULES HAVE DEDICATED AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND ACT ON SOME OTHER PERMITS TO ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. SO\, THE PERMITS THAT APPEAR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTINGS ARE CONSIDERED MINOR REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND THAT’S DEFINED BY THE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS AND BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION OF MINOR REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS. SOME EXAMPLES TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CAN BE SINGLE BOAT DOCKS LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET SHORELINE PROTECTION THAT WOULD FILL LESS THAN 10\,000 FEET OF THE BAY\, ROUTINE REPAIRS THAT DON’T INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGES IN USE. JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS. NOW\, BEFORE THE DIRECTOR ASKED TO ISSUE OR DENY A PERMIT\, THEY’RE REQUIRED TO ADVERTISE ACTIONS TO THE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC. WE DO THIS BEFORE EVERY MEETING\, THERE IS A LISTING OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ITEM AT THE BEGINNING OF COMMISSION MEETINGS. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS BY THE STAFF. IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S CLASSIFICATION THAT A PROJECT IS INDEED CONSIDERED A MINOR REPAIR OR IMPROVEMENT\, THEN NO ACTION IS NEEDED. AND THAT’S TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR NINE MONTHS NOW\, AND I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS EVERY MEETING WITHOUT ANY FANFARE. THEN THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILL ACT ON PENDING APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MANDATED DEADLINES. SO\, THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OR PERMITS DON’T REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY BE ISSUED WITHIN A SHORTER TIME FRAME. NOW\, HOWEVER\, IF THE COMMISSION — AND YOU ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION THAT A PROJECT IS INDEED A MINOR REPAIR OR IMPROVEMENT AND IF THAT’S THE CASE WE’LL HOLD A HEARING TO DISCUSS IF THAT — IF THE PROJECT DOESN’T FIT THE DEFINITION OF THE COMMISSIONER’S VOTE ON THIS TYPE OF PERMIT — SORRY\, IF IT DOESN’T MEET THE DEFINITION OF THIS PERMIT THEN WE VOTE AS A COMMISSION ON THE TYPE OF PERMIT IT SHOULD BE. IF THE COMMISSION VOTES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT IS NOT THE RIGHT PERMIT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION RULES TO DENY THE APPLICATION. THEN THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE REAPPLIED AS A MAJOR PERMIT\, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION VOTE. VOTES THEN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT\, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION VOTE. SO\, THAT’S THE MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING. WE ALSO LIST OTHER PERMITS SUCH AS REGION-WIDE ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO GO OVER THAT IN DETAIL AT FUTURE TRAINING. THAT’S JUST THE BASICS OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING AND HOW THAT’S DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJOR PERMITS THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER FROM TIME TO TIME. ANY QUESTIONS? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY QUESTIONS OF HARRIET? COMMENTS? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO HANDS RAISED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU HARRIET. AND YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE COULD REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING IF WE WISHED REMINDED ME THAT THAT IS ALSO TRUE OF OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. AND I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IF AT ANY POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY WANTED TO LIFT SOMETHING ALL THE COMMISSION — I MEAN THE CONSENT CALENDAR\, AND HAVE A REGULAR\, SORT OF\, ITEM FOR THAT MATTER\, THAT CAN BE DONE. SO\, I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT. \nGREG SCHARFF: I WANTED TO ADD TO THAT CHAIR EISEN IT TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS. IF ONE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO IT\, IT TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SAY WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU GREG. FIND A PARTNER IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THREE BRIEFINGS NOW. THE FIRST ONE IS WITH RESPECT TO SAND MINING ISSUES. IT’S A BRIEFING BY THE BCDC STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SAND MINING INDUSTRY. IT’S GOING TO BE WITH REGARD TO ISSUES THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION’S TEMPORARY SAND MINING COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP\, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED RECENTLY. AND THEY’RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. LAST WEEK\, BCDC DISTRIBUTED RESEARCH STUDIES ON ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY OUR COMMISSION DURING THE SAND MINING PERMIT PROCESS BACK IN 2015. THAT RESEARCH WAS REVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL. SO\, TODAY\, BCDC STAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON THE RESEARCH AND THE FINDINGS PROCESS\, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SAND MINING COMPANIES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON MINING ACTIVITIES. SO\, THE PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEFING IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE TOPICS THAT THE WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO CONSIDER. SO\, COMMISSIONERS SHOULD AWAIT THAT WORK BEFORE WE EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS WE HAVE ON THE STUDIES OR THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING A PERMIT FOR FUTURE SAND MINING ACTIVITIES. TODAY WE’RE GOING TO HEAR THE SHORT PRESENTATIONS. AND OF COURSE\, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE BEGIN? I’M SORRY. [LAUGHTER] LET’S HAVE THE PRESENTATION BEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. BRENDA IS GOING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. YOU CAN ALL SEE MY SCREEN? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M PLEASED TO PRESENT FINDINGS ON THE NEW SIGNS ON SAND IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AN OVERLOOKED AREA OF THE SEDIMENT SYSTEM THIS NEW SCIENCE IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE COMMISSION’S REQUIREMENTS IN ITS 2015 SAND MINING PERMITS. MY PRESENTATION\, AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, WILL BE TO REVIEW THE HISTORY OF SAND MINING IN THE BAY\, THE COMMISSION’S PERMITTING SAND ACTIVITIES IN 2015 PROCESS AND ORGANIZATION FOR IDENTIFY THE STUDIES AND RESEARCH AND FINDINGS THEN INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL ON RESEARCH AND FINALLY PATH FORWARD IN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS. AND MY SCREEN IS NOT FORWARDING. SO\, LET ME JUST DO IT THIS WAY. OKAY. SO\, AS SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE\, MINING IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY HAS OCCURRED FOR ALMOST A CENTURY\, VIA SMALL COMPANIES THAT BEGAN AROUND THE 1930S\, AND PERHAPS BEFORE THAT. THE COMMISSION’S RECORDS OF THIS ACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE DOCUMENTED SAND MINING FROM VARIOUS PERMITS OF THESE SMALL COMPANIES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN THE 1970S. OVER TIME\, THE SMALL COMPANIES WERE CONSOLIDATED. AND ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE 1990S\, SEVERAL OF THE SMALL COMPANIES\, ALONG WITH THE STATE LAND LEASES\, OR PRIVATE — OR PRIVATE LEASES WERE CONSOLIDATED UNDER HANSON AGGREGATES\, WHICH IS NOW MARTIN MARIETTA\, AND\, ALSO\, LIND MARINE. ALSO NOTE A THIRD SAND MINING COMPANY\, SUISUN ASSOCIATES WHICH IS A JOINT EFFORT — GIANT COMPANY OF LIND MARINE AND MARTIN MARIETTA. IN THIS GRAPHIC\, YOU SEE HERE\, IN THE UPPER RIGHT\, THERE IS A VERY SMALL MAP\, BILL BUTLER WITH LIND MARINE WILL SHOW YOU A BETTER MAP SHORTLY\, BUT THE SAND — CENTRAL SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND IN SUISUN CHANNEL IN BAY AREA CALLED MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL AND SUISUN CHANNEL ITSELF. THE MINING\, AS RECORDED BY PERMITS\, BY MINING COMPANIES BETWEEN 1970S AND 2023 HAS BEEN VARIABLE. IT GOES UP AND DOWN AND TRACKS THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK. SAND MINING IS DONE PARTICULARLY TO PROVIDE AGGREGATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN THE BAY REGION. IT’S NOT THE ONLY SAND THAT’S PROVIDED TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. THERE IS ALSO IMPORTED SAND FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SAND TRUCKED IN FROM VARIOUS QUARRIES IN THE REGION. BUT THE MINERS WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. BUT YOU WILL NOTE THAT DURING THE EARLY 2000s WAS THE PEAK OF THE SAND MINING AND THAT WAS AROUND THE DOT COM PERIOD WHEN THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF BUILDING GONE ON IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. YOU WILL ALSO SEE A DIP AROUND 2018 AND 2014 WHICH MARKS A SIGNIFICANT RECESSION IN THE REGION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BACK THEN DECLINING OVER TIME AND IT TENDS TO TREND ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK AND WE’LL SEE HOW IT CONTINUES IN THE FUTURE. IN 2015\, THE COMMISSION HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME THREE MAJOR PERMITS IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE. AND THEY ISSUED THREE PERMITS. THE FIRST PERMIT WAS FOR CENTRAL BAY FOR 1.4 PER CUBIC YARDS OF SAND OVER MULTIPLE LEASE PARCELS ISSUED TO HANSON AGGREGATES NOW MARTIN MARIETTA. SUISUN BAY HAD A PERMIT ISSUE FOR 185\,000 CUBIC YARDS ANNUALLY AND THAT WENT TO SUISUN ASSOCIATES AND LIND MARINE HAD A SPECIFIC PERMIT ISSUED ON A PRIORITY LEASE FOR 100\,000 CUBIC YARDS AROUND MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL. PERMITS ARE FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD AND THEY DIFFERENT STUDIES TO MITIGATE AND BETTER UNDERSTAND IMPACTS OF SAND MINING SO THE COMMISSION ALONG WITH THE WATER BOARD REQUIRED WATER QUALITY MONITORING STUDY AND REQUIRED BENTHIC HABITAT STUDY THEN MOST RECENT WORK REQUIRED STUDY OF SAND TRANSPORT AND SAND BUDGET POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE MINING OF THE SAND\, AND PHYSICAL PROCESS IN THE BAY AND IN THAT ACTION THE COMMISSION REQUIRED THE MINERS TO CONTRIBUTE $1.2 MILLION TO THESE EFFORTS. THERE WAS MITIGATION REQUIRED AS PART OF THESE PERMITS\, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF SOME BAY FILL WHICH WAS PRIMARILY UNDERTAKEN AT CROCKETT AND MARINA\, A DEFUNCT MARINA NEAR THE CITY OF CROCKETT NEAR THE BENICIA BRIDGE INSTALLATION OF FISH SCREENS ON ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT ALL OF THE PUMPING EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE ENTERTAINMENT OF FISH FROM THE WATER BEING PUMPED ON THE DREDGES TO SLURRY THE SAND. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ISSUES RAISED AROUND SAND MINING THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THAT REGARD AND THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS\, INCLUDING HOW MUCH SAND IS IN THE BAY WHAT’S THE VOLUME AND WHERE IS IT\, WHAT AREAS ARE IN TRANSPORT WHAT AREAS ARE RELIC SANDS IS THE SAND BEING MIND AND TRANSPORT FOR RELIC AND WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF MINING RELIC SAND AND IMPACTS TO ACTIVE SANDS\, AND CONSEQUENCES OF THAT MINING TO BAY BEACHES AND TIDES THAT IT FEEDS. QUESTIONS CAME UP WITH WHETHER YOU DIG A BIG HOLE AND SOME SEDIMENTS COME DOWN FROM THE DELTA THAT FILL THE HOLE RATHER THAN GOING TO BAY BEACHES. THE QUESTION ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE MODIFICATION OF MINING VOLUME AT DIFFERENT SITES OR SITES THEMSELVES UNDER WHAT CONDITION SHOULD WE ALLOW MINING OR NOT AND WHAT’S SUSTAINABLE VOLUME FOR MINING AND SUBSTANTIAL DEPLETION\, COMMISSION AT THE TIME SUGGESTED MONITORING FOR IMPACTS OF EXTRACTION OF RELIC SAND AND SAND TRANSPORT WAS IMPORTANT ALSO WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER BCDC’S AUTHOR AND JURISDICTION IN RELATIONSHIP TO SAND MINING AND LASTLY THE QUESTION CAME UP AROUND IMPACTS TO BENTHIC LIFE IN THE BAY BUT THAT’S NOT A SUBJECT OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION SO THAT UPGRADE WENT OUT. AFTER THE PERMIT’S WERE ISSUED IN APRIL 2015 WE WENT AWAY FROM THAT HEARING AND BEGAN TO WORK WITH MINORS AND THE COMMISSION REQUIRED $1.2 MILLION TO SUPPORT THE SAND STUDIES THAT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED INTO THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY’S COASTAL TRUST FUND OVER FOUR YEARS SO WE ALLOWED A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT MONEY TO BUILD UP. ONCE THAT DEPOSIT WAS COMPLETE THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND BCDC BEGAN TO WORK TOGETHER WITH A SELECTED SAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO DEVELOPED FURTHER THE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE MANAGE SAND MINING\, WHAT THE IMPACTS OF MINING ARE. THEY WORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP SCUDDY SCOPES WE REQUESTED REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WERE LISTED AT THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY’S WEB SITE AND PROPOSALS REVIEWED BY THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IN ADDITION DURING THE LATTER PART OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S MAIN WORK AND INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL FORMALIZE THEY REVIEWED THE SCOPES AND REVIEWED PROPOSALS THAT CAME IN THEY IDENTIFIED AND INTERVIEWED SAND SCIENCE TEAMS AND WORKED WITH TEAMS TO CREATE AND APPROPRIATE STUDIES TO BEST ANSWER MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS AND WHEN STUDIES WERE COMPLETED THEY REVIEWED FINDINGS AND DEVELOPED A FINDINGS REPORT WITH THE SAND TECH CONSULTING FIRM. JUST SO YOU KNOW WHO IS ON THESE GROUPS. THE SAND TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE STEERING COMMITTEE CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE INCLUDED CONSERVANCY\, BCDC\, COASTAL COMMISSION\, STATE LANDS COMMISSION ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS WATER BOARD NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES AND COW FISH AND WILDLIFE SAN FRANCISCO BAY KEEPER NON-PROFIT HIGHLIGHT INTERESTED IN WORKING AND MARIN M REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS CONSULTING FIRM ASSISTED IN THE WORK\, DEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL INCLUDED FIVE DISTINGUISHED SCIENTISTS\, BOB BATTAGLIO FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\, DR. CRAIG JONES FROM INTERVAL [INDISCERNIBLE] IN CONSULTING AND DR. JOHN LAJIER FROM UC DAVIS AND DAVID SHOLHAMER\, USGS EMERITUS\, AS WELL AS DR. PAUL [INDISCERNIBLE]\, USGS EMERITUS. A DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF FOLKS WORKING ON DEVELOPING THESE STUDIES AND REVIEWING THEM. THERE WE GO. AS I MENTIONED\, THE SAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKED TO REFINE THE COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS AND ADD SOME OF THEIR OWN QUESTIONS ON WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION WE WANTED OUT OF THESE SAND STUDIES. THE QUESTIONS AS DEFINED INCLUDED SAND MINING AT EXISTING AREAS AT PRIMITIVE LEVELS HAVING MEASURABLE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY WITHIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASKED WHAT’S THE SUSTAINABLE NUMBER AND SUSTAINABLE DEPLETION MUCH LIKE THE COMMISSION DID\, THEY ASKED WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF SAND MINING AT PERMITTED LEVELS ON SAND TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY WITHIN THE BAY AND OUTER COAST AND IMPACT TO ACTIVE SANDS CONSEQUENCES TO BEACHES AND TIDES\, IMPACT TO RELIC SANDS AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO MINING THE BAY. SO SIMILAR BUT MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION ASKED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE RESEARCH TEAMS — I’M NOT GOING TO READ ALL THESE FOLKS NAMES BUT I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PUT THE AGENCIES ORGANIZATIONS AND SCIENTISTS UP FOR YOU TO SEE BECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS A DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF SCIENTISTS WHO WORKED VERY HARD ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STUDIES TO HELP THE COMMISSION UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF SAND MINING AND UNDERSTAND THE SAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM A LOT BETTER THAN WE DID TEN YEARS AGO. WE LOOKED AT SAND BUDGET\, SAND SUPPLY\, MORPHOLOGICAL CHAINS IN TRANSPORT ANALYSIS. WE ALSO HAD SOME SAND TRANSPORT MODELING THAT WAS DONE\, AND SAND PROVIDENCE\, OR ALSO KNOWN AS FINGERPRINTING UNDERSTANDING THE ORIGIN OF WHERE THE SAND CAME FROM AND MULTIPLE DIFFERENT FOLKS FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES WORKING TOGETHER ACROSS THESE DIFFERENT STUDS TO INTEGRATE THIS WORK. SO\, HERE IS THE KEY FINDINGS. AND THIS IS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN THE FINDINGS REPORT. THESE ARE THE OVERARCHING FINDINGS. THERE ARE ALSO REGIONAL FINDINGS THAT I’M NOT INCLUDING IN MY PRESENTATION TODAY\, AND THE STUDIES THEMSELVES ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN APPENDIX G WITH EVEN MORE INFORMATION ARE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DIVING IN DEEP. SO\, THE KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE THAT THE VOLUME OF MIND SAND IS SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE BAY’S SAND BUDGET IT REPRESENTS LARGEST OUTFLOW OF SAND IN THE BAY INCLUDING NET SAND DISCHARGE TO THE OCEAN. ADDITIONALLY SAND IS MIND FASTER THAN IT IS BEING REFRESHED AND THEREFORE SAND IS A NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE OVER THE LONG-TERM. SUISUN BAY SAND IS NOT BEING REPLENISHED AND THUS A FINITE RESOURCE AND THE BED IS BEING LOWERED AND SYMMETRIC MODELING AND BUDGET STUDIES ALL SUPPORT FINDING SAND MINING AFFECTS AND IN HIGHLY LOCALIZED WITH EFFECTS DIMINISHING WITH DISTANCE FROM THE EVENT LOCATION. THE EFFECT IS PRONOUNCED IN AREAS OF NEGLIGIBLE SAND TRANSPORT SUCH AS SUISUN BAY WHERE DEPRESSIONS CAUSED BY MINING PERSIST IN THE BED OVER TIME. THE NEXT FINDINGS\, CENTRAL BAY SAND IS RELIC\, MEANING IT WAS DEPOSITED BETWEEN 20\,000 AND 6\,000 YEARS AGO AS SEA LEVELS ROSE AND THE RIVER DISCHARGE POINT MIGRATED THROUGH THE BAY TO PRESENT LOCATION IN THE DELTA PART OF THE LARGE BAY OCEAN RESERVOIR OF SAND. SANDS DERIVED FROM THE WATERSHED OF THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS ARE NO LONGER A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE TO THE BAY OCEAN AND LARGE VOLUMES OF SAND DO NOT MOVE THROUGH THE SYSTEM DURING TIMES OF HIGH FLOW\, I.E.\, WET WINTERS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED EFFECTS OF MINING TO BEACHES ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT REMAIN UNQUANTIFIED. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE SAND\, AND IN EACH TIDAL CYCLE SAND IS TRANSPORTED BETWEEN THE BAY AND THE OCEAN EFFECTIVELY LINKING THE TWO SAND DEPOSITS INTO A SHARED POOL. THE SIZE OF THE SHARED POOL OF SAND AND THUS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REDUCTION DUE TO MINING IS UNKNOWN. SO\, THAT IS THE HIGH-LEVEL FINDINGS\, OVERARCHING FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENCE SCIENCE PANEL. WE’LL FURTHER DIG INTO THIS INFORMATION AND FURTHER CODIFY WHAT IT MEANS FOR MINING ACTIVITIES AND PERMITTING IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. GOING FORWARD\, WE HAVE TODAY’S BRIEFING AND ALL THE SCIENCE THAT HAS GONE INTO IT\, INTO THAT FINDINGS REPORT WHICH IS 35 TO 40 PAGES LONG. NOT TOO LONG OF A READ. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY READ IT AND THESE ARE THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL FINDINGS. WE’LL TAKE THE INFORMATION AND DIG THROUGH IT IN THE COMMISSION ARE WORKING GROUP WHICH I’LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. WE’LL USE THE COMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED QUESTIONS WE’LL STUDY IN REVIEW AND HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THIS ALL MEANS. THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY IN A CEQA REVIEW PROCESS SO WE’RE ANTICIPATING OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THAT STATE LANDS WILL BE REVIEWING DRAFT CEQA DOCUMENT. AND BCDC’S ROLE IN THAT IS TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON IT ALONG WITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES. LATE THIS YEAR\, WE’RE ANTICIPATING PERHAPS DECEMBER\, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE SAND MINING COMPANIES SUBMITTING THROUGH NEW APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SAND MINING IN THE FUTURE. AND LASTLY\, PROBABLY AROUND EARLY SPRING\, APRIL 2025\, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE COMMISSION HEARING AND VOTING ONCE AGAIN ON SAND MINING ACTIVITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, AS PROPOSED BY THE MINERS. SO\, THE SAND STUDIES COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE GRACIOUSLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, AGREED TO SIT ON A COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP AND HELP STAFF DIG THROUGH IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT WILL INFLUENCE HOW WE PERMIT AND THINK ABOUT POLICY APPLICATION WHEN WE GET THE PERMIT APPLICATION. SO\, IT WILL BE CHAIRED BY PAT SHOWALTER\, AND ANDY GUNTHER\, AND BARRY NELSON WILL BE THE TWO COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE FOUR MEETINGS PLANNED AND SCHEDULED. AND PLEASE COME TO THESE MEETINGS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. BECAUSE THEY WILL BE FASCINATING AND WE’LL HAVE DIFFERENT PRESENTERS HERE TO HELP EXPLAIN SOME OF THE SCIENCE. SO\, THE FIRST ONE IS IN MID-JULY. IT’S AN AFTERNOON MEETING. AUGUST 21ST\, AND SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER ARE ALL MORNING MEETINGS. THEY’RE GOING TO BE TWO HOURS IN LENGTH\, AND THEY WILL BE VIRTUAL. SO EASY TO ATTEND. AGAIN\, THEY WILL BE FULLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK WITH THAT\, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION. WE CAN PROBABLY HOLD QUESTIONS FOR MY PRESENTATION UNTIL AFTER THE MINERS — THE MINING REPRESENTATIVES GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION\, UNLESS THERE ARE SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE MINERS PRESENTATIONS? IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE HAS HER HAND UP. \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: I HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY SAND BUDGET\, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SAND WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY COMING IN AND OUT SOME OF THAT IS HAPPENING IN A NATURAL PROCESS ACCUMULATING OVER TIME THEN THE SAND LEAVING THE OCEAN THERE’S ALSO HUMAN EXTRACTION OF SAND EITHER THROUGH NAVIGATING DREDGING OR MINING ACTIVITIES. SO\, IT’S A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IN WHICH SCIENTISTS DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO BOUND THE AMOUNT OF\, IN THIS CASE\, SAND THAT IS PRESENT\, IN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT LAYERS\, THEN BALANCE OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS COMING IN AND OUT TO GET A MASS OF EQUILIBRIUM IT’S NOT WEIGHT OF VOLUME OF EQUILIBRIUM OR WEIGHT\, IT’S ACTUALLY MASS THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE WILL BE TALKING MORE ABOUT AT THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP BECAUSE IT’S A TECHNICAL BUT STANDARDIZED SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANK YOU. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? OR SHALL WE TURN TO THE MINERS PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: OKAY. I HAVE FIGURE OUT. STOP SHARING. PROUD TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY BILL BUTLER OF LIND MARINE\, ERICA GERA AND MICHAEL BISHOP OF MARTIN MARIETTA WHO WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT SAND MINING AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES. THANK YOU. AND WELCOME BILL\, ERICA\, AND MICHAEL. \nBILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I’M NOT SURE WHO IS GOING TO SHARE THE PRESENTATION. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY NAME IS BILL BUTLER. I AM VICE PRESIDENT WITH LIND MARINE. PRESENTING THE SAND MINING OVERVIEW ON BEHALF OF BOTH LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA THIS AFTERNOON. JOINING ME AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS BRENDA INDICATED\, IS ERICA GERA AND MIKE BISHOP FROM MARTIN MARIETTA\, WE ALSO HAVE AARON HOLLOWAY AND NICK FROM GHG WHO ARE COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FOR THE SAND MINERS AND ALSO CHRISTIAN MARSH FROM COUNCIL DOWNEY BRAND THEY’RE AVAILABLE TO HAVE QUESTIONS. NEXT SLIDE. SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL DETAILS ABOUT SAND MINING FROM THE COMMISSION IN ACTIVITY NINE YEARS AGO. I’LL TAKE THIS MOMENT TO REFRESH OVERVIEW OF BAY SAND MINING. I’M GOING TO BRIEFLY COVER THESE TOPICS. WHY SAND MINING HAPPENS\, WHO IS INVOLVED AND WHERE\, WHEN\, HOW\, AND HOW MUCH THAT IT HAPPENS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THE PURPOSE OF SAND MINING IS TO OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL GRADE AGGREGATE THAT IS USED FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION\, GOING INTO CONCRETE\, ASPHALT\, AND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE USED TO BUILD THE HOMES\, SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, ROADS\, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AROUND THE BAY. MARINE SAND IS A KEY COMPONENT IN BAY AREA RESTORATION AND RESILIENCE PROJECTS\, AS WELL. ALL OF THESE THINGS WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ENJOY HERE IN THE BAY AREA. UTILIZING A LOCAL RESOURCE FOR OUR LOCAL NEEDS IN THE REGION THAT’S TRANSPORTED VIA WATERWAYS TO SITES WHERE THE RESOURCE IS UTILIZED AND IN LARGE LOADS THAT EQUAL ROUGHLY 100 TO 140 TRUCK LOADS OF MATERIAL\, ALL HELP TO REDUCE THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. AND ALSO PROVIDE REGIONAL JOBS FOR OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS. NOW IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT NOT ALL SAND IS COMMERCIAL GRADE SAND. IT NEEDS TO BE DURABLE\, CLEAN\, WELL GRADED\, AND OF THE RIGHT SIZE. THE BAY SANDS WHERE MINING OCCURS\, MEET THESE CRITERIA. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO\, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF LOCAL PROJECTS THAT ARE UTILIZING BAY SANDS. AND THEY RANGE FROM\, AS I SAID\, CONSTRUCTING SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, REBUILDING FROM WILDFIRE DAMAGE\, TO ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION PROJECTS\, LIKE AT HUNTERS POINT\, AND BEACH RESTORATION\, FOR EXAMPLE\, AT CROWN BEACH IN ALAMEDA\, WHICH WAS DONE FOR RESILIENCE AND SEA LEVEL RISE DEFENSE. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, AS BRENDA INDICATED EARLIER\, THERE ARE TWO ACTIVE SAND MINING COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE BAY. MARTIN MARIETTA\, FORMERLY HANSON\, AND LIND MARINE\, AS WELL AS THE JOIN VENTURE ENTITY THAT IS FORMED BY THESE TWO COMPANIES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THESE FIGURES ILLUSTRATE WHERE SAND MINING TAKES PLACE IN THE BAY. THING IF ON THE LEFT IS THE CENTRAL BAY LEASES. THEY SPAN 2600 ACRES CONSISTING OF NINE PARCELS LEASED FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION. MARTIN MARIETTA\, EXCLUSIVELY MINES THESE AREAS\, AND THIS IS WHERE THE BULK OF SAND MINING TAKES PLACE. THE MIDDLING IF IS\, I GUESS\, FITTINGLY MIDDLE GROUND LEASE AREA\, A 367 ACRE PRIVATE PARCEL IN SUISUN BAY\, AND LIND MARINE EXCLUSIVELY MINES THIS LOCATION. AND THEN FINALLY\, ON THE RIGHT\, THE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE\, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS IN THE SUISUN CHANNEL AT THE EAST END OF SUISUN BAY. AND THIS 938 ACRE LEASE AREA IS LEASED FROM STATE LANDS TO THE SUISUN ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE\, MADE UP OF MARTIN MARIETTA AND LIND. AND LIND MARINE HAS CONDUCTED THE MINING HERE OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ARE GOING TO HELP DESCRIBE HOW THE SAND IS MIND. THE TWO COMPANIES EACH OPERATE A SAND MINING BARGE THAT’S LIND MARINE’S ON THE LEFT AND MARTIN MARIETTA’S ON THE RIGHT. THESE ARE SIMILAR IN HOW THEY OBTAIN SAND FROM OUR RESPECTIVE AREAS. IN BOTH CASES\, THE SAND MINERS USE TUGBOATS TO MOVE THE SAND TO THE MINING LOCATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. AT THE MINING LOCATIONS\, THE BARGE IS FILLED BY PUMPING A SAND WATER SLURRY FROM THE BAY FLOOR. ON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS THE SAND PIPE ON THE BARGE WHICH IS LOWERED INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND A PUMP ON BOARD THE BARGE PUMPS THE SAND WATER MIXTURE INTO A LOADING CHUTE THAT RUNS THE LENGTH OF THE BARGE\, ILLUSTRATE IN THING IF ON THE LEFT. THE SHOOT IS EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL SCREENED GATES THAT ALLOW SAND AND WATER TO FLOW INTO THE BARGE HOPPER. ANY MATERIALS LARGER THAN SAND FLOW OVER THE SCREENS AND THEN ARE DISCHARGED BACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH A PIPE AT THE END OF THE SHOOT THAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. NOW\, AS THE SAND AND WATER MIXTURE FILLS THE BARGE\, WATER\, WHICH ALSO CONTAINS SOME FINE MATERIAL\, DECANTS FROM THE TOP OF THE HOPPER\, AND IS ALSO DISCHARGED BACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH PIPES THAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. PUMPING CONTINUES UNTIL THE BARK HOPPER IS FILLED WITH WET SAND AND ONCE IT’S FILLED\, THE BARGES ARE TRANSPORTED TO A NUMBER OF SITES AROUND THE BAY WHERE THE SAND IS OFF-LOADED\, STOCKPILED\, AND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMERS. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THESE FIGURES SHOW A COUPLE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SAND MINING BARGES. AND THEY SHOW THE END OF THE SAND MINING PIPES. ON THE LEFT\, MARTIN MARIETTA’S BARGE IS EQUIPPED WITH A SUCTION DRAG HEAD THAT IS PLACED ABOUT TWO FEET INTO THE BAY SUBSTRATE WHEN IT’S LOWER. THE TUGBOAT KEEPS THE BARGE AS STATIONARY AS POSSIBLE\, BUT THEN MOVES TO NEW LOCATIONS\, AS NECESSARY\, TO CONTINUE THE SLURRY. IN THE SUISUN BAY LOCATIONS\, LIND MARINE SUCTION PIPE ILLUSTRATED THERE ON THE RIGHT\, IS PUSHED FIVE OR SIX FEET INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND THE BARGE IS ANCHORED TO LIMIT MOVEMENT DURING MINING. BOTH BARGES ARE EQUIPPED WITH THOSE CYLINDRICAL SCREENS THAT YOU CAN SEE FOR THE SLURRY WATER TO PREVENT ENTRAINMENT OF FISH INTO THE PIPES. IN OF THE CENTRAL BAY\, MARTIN MARIETTA MIND SAND FROM DEPTHS RANGING BETWEEN 60 AND 90 FEET. IN SUISUN BAY LIND MINES IN AREAS THAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 22 TO 40 FEET DEEP. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. NOW THESE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ILLUSTRATE THE LEVELS OF MINING ACTIVITY OCCURRING IN THE THREE AREAS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. BRENDA SHOWED A VERY SIMILAR SLIDE TO THIS\, WHICH WAS THE SUMMATION OF ALL OF THESE FIGURES. THIS PARTICULAR FIGURE SHOWS THE ACTIVITY ON THE CENTRAL BAY LEASES FROM 2\,000 TO 2023. AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE VARIABILITY OF MINING TO MEET THE DEMAND THAT BRENDA TALKED ABOUT\, THE HIGHER DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OCCURS GENERALLY WHEN THE ECONOMY IS STRONG AND MANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY. WHEN THE ECONOMY SLOWS DOWN\, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DECREASES AND SO DOES THE DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. NOW THESE ECONOMIC CYCLES CAN ALSO BE INFLUENCED BY EXTERNAL FACTORS\, YOU KNOW? LIKE NATURAL DISASTERS OR EVEN THE UPCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION THAT WE’RE DEALING WITH. I’LL MENTION IT’S IMPORTANT TO HAVE PERMIT LIMITS THAT RECOGNIZE THIS VARIABLE AND HIGH ENOUGH TO OFFER THE FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THESE CHANGES IN DEMAND. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS FIGURE SHOWS ACTIVITY ON THE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE OVER THE SAME 23-YEAR PERIOD. IT SHOWS A DIFFERENT CURVE. BECAUSE HERE\, THE VARIABILITY WAS IMPOSED BY AVAILABLE BY PERMITTED VOLUMES IN THE LOW PERIODS THERE IN 2012 AND 2014 THEN WHEN MINING WAS REAUTHORIZED IN 2015\, THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN PERMITTED VOLUMES THAT WERE SHIFTED TO THIS LEASE FROM THE MIDDLE GROUND LEASE. NEXT SLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT REDUCED VOLUME THERE IN THE LATER YEARS\, IN THE LAST TEN YEAR PERIOD\, WHEN THESE VOLUMES WERE SHIFTED TO THE SUISUN ASSOCIATES LEASE AREA. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, WHAT’S NEXT? BRENDA DID A GOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THIS PROCESS EARLIER. AND WE’RE NOW HERE AT AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE. THIS REPORT IS THE LAST MAJOR PERMIT CONDITION TO BE FULL FIT IN OUR CURRENT PERMITS. AND THIS REPORT REALLY BUILDS ON A HOST OF OTHER STUDIES AND INFORMATION COMPILED THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE PRIOR ROUNDS OF CEQA ANALYSIS AND PRIOR ROUNDS OF PERMITTING AND STUDY. AND MANY OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT REAFFIRM THE FINDINGS FROM THESE PAST STUDIES\, INCLUDING SOME OF THE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACTS ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY BEYOND LOCALIZED AREAS WITHIN THE LEASES\, WEREN’T REALLY IDENTIFIED. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO BE PART OF THE SEDIMENT ATTACK\, AND STUDIES DEVELOPED AND AT THE END ALSO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS. WE DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND ISSUES ON THESE REPORTS THAT REMAIN OUTSTANDING. AND THOSE COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT’S APPENDICES WHICH YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF\, AND WE ENCOURAGE TO YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. YOU KNOW\, FINALLY\, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO THE SEDIMENT TECH\, MEMBERS\, AND BCDC AND COASTAL CONSERVANCY STAFF\, THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL MEMBERS AND THE STUDY AUTHORS FOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. IT WAS A HUGE TASK\, AND THE WORK IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. AND\, SO\, WITH THAT\, I — WE’RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, BILL. BRENDA\, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL? OR ARE WE — \nBRENDA GOEDIN: NO. WE’RE READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND/OR COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY WHY DON’T WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. SIERRA\, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO COMMENT? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE DO\, CURRENTLY HAVE ONE HAND RAISED. JIM McGRATH. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. \nSPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JIM McGRATH. SOME OF YOU KNOW WHO I AM. I JUST WANT TO SAY\, FIRST\, THAT THIS IS A STUNNINGLY GOOD BIT OF SCIENCE. I DIDN’T READ EVERY SINGLE WORD. BUT I SKIMMED EACH ONE OF THE REPORTS. THE KEY CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT THE SEDIMENT THAT’S IN MOTION AT THE MOUTH OF THE BAY IS RELIC SEDIMENT. AND THAT DOESN’T REALLY SURPRISE ME. I CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IN MONTEREY BAY AT THE MOUTH OF THE SALINAS RIVER. THAT MEANS IT’S NOT REFRESHED IN THE SAME NATURE. BUT UNLIKE MONTEREY BAY\, YOU FACE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION HERE. WHILE THE LOSS OF SEDIMENT TO MINING MAY BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED\, A LOSS OF SEDIMENT THAT EVENTUALLY MAKES IT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO AND MARIN COUNTY BEACHES\, THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT INVOLVED IN THAT TRANSPORT SYSTEM. AND THE AMOUNT IS RELATIVELY SMALL\, SIGNIFICANT\, I THINK\, IS THE CONCLUSION. BUT THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT\, WELL\, IT MAY BE THAT THIS EXACERBATES FUTURE EROSION STOPPING SAND MINING PROBABLY NOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON THE NEED FOR ADAPTATION ALONG THE BEACHES SO IT’S A COMPLICATED QUESTION THAT YOU’RE GOING TO FACE IN THE FUTURE. WITH THAT\, I’LL STOP. I’LL TRY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE\, THE SUBCOMMITTEE. JUST ONCE AGAIN WANT TO SAY\, JUST REALLY EXCELLENT WORK BY THE STAFF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. ANY — I SEE AT LEAST ONE MORE HAND RAISED. SIERRA\, DO YOU SEE THAT? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I DO. BRENDA I WANT TO CLARIFY\, IS NICK PART OF THE PRESENTATION\, BRENDA? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SO\, NICK IS WITH THE CONSULTING FIRM HIRED BY THE SAND MINERS. NICK\, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU MAKING A PUBLIC COMMENT OR IF YOU ARE TRYING TO COMMENT AS PART OF THE SAND MINING PRESENTATION? BUT MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY? \nSPEAKER: YEAH. THE MINING TEAM ASKED IF I COULD MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GO AHEAD. \nSPEAKER: DEAR VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY NAME IS NICK S\, SENIOR COASTAL SCIENTIST WITH GHD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO THE MINING TEAM EXPERTISE IN COASTAL SEDIMENT AND TRANSPORT HERE TO PROVIDE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SAND SCIENCE STUDIES AND ISP PROCESS AND APPRECIATION FOR THE PROCESS AND CHALLENGE OF GENERATING COMPILING RESEARCH ON A COMPLICATED ISSUE\, COMMEND THE HARD WORK OF RESEARCH TEAMS AND ISP STUDIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE NEW RESEARCH BUILDS ON SIGNIFICANT WORK ON SAND TRANSPORT PATHWAYS REAFFIRMING A NUMBER OF FINDINGS\, MINING HAS LOCALIZED EFFECTS SHOULD BE EXAMINED AT INDIVIDUAL LEASE AREA SCALE\, CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR RESEARCH IN AREAS OF INACTIVE SAND TRANSPORT. REPORT ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE STATES 2012 EIR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RESOURCE IS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY BCDC COMMISSIONERS ISP REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES MIND SAND IS RELIC DEPOSITED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO\, IMPORTANTLY THE STUDIES AND SUMMARY REPORT DO NOT IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC MEASURABLE OR IMPACT BEYOND LEASE AREAS THEMSELVES INSTEAD REPORT FINDINGS BEYOND LEASE AREAS ARE UNKNOWN WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING REPORTS AND BUDGET ANALYSIS SHARED CONCEPT MODEL CAPTURED AND WRITTEN COMMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA. DOUBLE COUNTING OUTFLOWS CAUSED BY MINING AND DREDGING ACTIVITIES BOTH DREDGE VOLUMES AND SAND OUTFLOWS. RESULTING IN DRAMATIC OVERESTIMATE OF SAND OUTFLOWS FROM THE BAY ADDITIONALLY SAND BUDGET STUDIES ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE FLUX SAND FLOWS INTO OR OUT OF THE BAY REMAINING HIGHLY UNCERTAIN. THE ISP REPORT PROVIDES SEVERAL OVER- GENERALIZATION FOR EXAMPLE\, DETERMINATION THAT SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE A COMMON POOL OF SAND IS OVER GENERALIZED AS THESE ARE LARGE BODIES OF WATER WITH COMPLEX PROCESSES\, TRANSPORTING AND CLIMATE\, AND I URGE STUDIES FOR DETAILED NUANCED FINDINGS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH BCDC STAFF ON THE UPCOMING WORKING GROUP PROCESS AND BELIEVE THAT CONTINUED DIALOGUE CAN BE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT? I CAN SEE COMMISSIONERS DO WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I SEE NO OTHER HANDS RAISED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AS WE SAID AT THE BEGINNING\, THIS IS A LONG PROCESS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME. SO\, I THINK PAT SHOWALTER\, I SAW YOUR HAND UP FIRST\, SIERRA WILL CALL ON FOLKS AS THEY RAISE THEIR HAND. \nSPEAKER: CHAIR EISEN\, IS IT IS THIS TIME FOR COMMENTS AS WELL AS QUESTIONS? OR SHOULD I JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WELL\, I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST ASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE’LL SEE HOW IT GOES. OBVIOUSLY — \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. SURE. I WILL JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS REALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR ABOUT THE REDUCTION OF GHGS. BECAUSE OF THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT DOESN’T OCCUR BECAUSE OF THIS. AND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT. I DO NOT REALLY EXPECT AN ANSWER TO THAT. BUT I JUST DISH WANT TO BRING THAT UP AS A REAL QUESTION THAT I HOPE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT. AND I’LL BE GLAD TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS LATER. \nSPEAKER: PAT I’M NOT SURE THAT’S REALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS MEETING. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. I DIDN’T KNOW. \nGREG SCHARFF: THANK YOU\, GREG. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, I DO SEE — \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS\, YOU ARE NEXT. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, SIERRA. \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. SO\, I GUESS IT’S CLEAR THAT SAND SUPPLIES ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE. MY QUESTION IS TO WHAT EXTENT OTHER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION USE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WORK FOR THIS TASK FORCE? AND AS AN EXAMPLE\, I USE THE FACT THAT WE’RE USING RECYCLED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN OUR ROAD PROJECTS\, AS ROAD BASE\, SO WE’RE REGRINDING CONCRETE AND ASPHALT TO USE\, AND THIS WOULDN’T BE SUITABLE FOR EVERYTHING. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS TO A LIMITED SAND SUPPLY. I JUST WONDER IF THAT’S SOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN. THANK YOU. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES IT’S CERTAINLY SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD BRAIN IN THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOMEONE CAN TELL ME\, WHAT IS THE — \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER — \nANDREW GUNTHER: — PERCENT OF THE SAND USED WEEKLY IN CONSTRUCTION. HOW MUCH OF THAT SAND DOES THE SAND FROM THE MIND BAY COMPOSE. WHAT PERCENT OF THE OVERALL DEMAND FOR SAND? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: I DON’T THINK WE’RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION TODAY. WE DID HAVE AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE SAND MINERS IN 2015\, THAT I THINK THOSE NUMBERS WOULD HAVE TO BE REANALYZED. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND MINES AND GEOLOGY WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD SOURCE TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE AGGREGATE USE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND LOCALLY\, BUT WE’RE NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU TODAY\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nANDREW GUNTHER: SO WE CAN JUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA OF THE WORKING GROUP? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SURE. \nANDREW GUNTHER: OKAY. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GIOIA WE’LL GO TO YOU NEXT THEN WE’LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER NELSON IN ROOM. \nJOHN GIOIA: MY CLASSMATE BARRY NELSON’S HAND WAS UP FIRST. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT WAS FIRST WE’RE TAKING VIRTUAL FIRST THEN QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM. \nJOHN GIOIA: I THINK I HEARD TO COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION\, BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME AS MINE\, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SAND THAT’S MIND FROM THE BAY WHERE IS IT USED? IS IT USED ALL AROUND THE BAY OR IS IT EXPORTED TO AREAS OUTSIDE FOR USE SO END USE OF THE SAND THAT’S MIND IN THE BAY. I REALIZE YOU DON’T HAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE WORK GROUP ANALYSIS. AND SECOND\, WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR SAND? AND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL OR ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF THOSE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS? SO\, OTHER SOURCES\, IN OTHER WORDS. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YEAH. I BELIEVE YOUR QUESTION IS — YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S\, WHICH IS\, I THINK\, THE PERCENTAGE OF BAY SANDS IN COMPARISON TO ALL SANDS USED IN THE REGION. YOURS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHICH IS\, IS THE BAY SAND USED LOCALLY. I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS\, YES\, THE BAY MIND SAND IS USED LOCALLY. I BELIEVE BILL AND ERICA WILL CONFIRM THAT. BUT IT IS A VERY LOCAL RESOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. \nJOHN GIOIA: IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF IT\, IF ANY\, IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE BAY AREA FOR USE. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. WE CAN GET YOU THAT NUMBER. \nJOHN GIOIA: AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION OF\, WHAT PERCENT OF MIND BAY SAND IS USED IN THE AREA VERSUS OTHER AREAS AND THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF SAND IF SAND WERE LESS AVAILABLE FROM THE BAY AND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS RELATED TO IMPACTS OF THAT. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH AND PROVIDE AS PART OF THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP AND WE’LL PUT THAT ON THE LIST. \nJOHN GIOIA: YOU SEEM TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE IS SAND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HAVING DIVISION QUANTITY\, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO FURTHER UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THIS SAND MINING ON BAYSHORE AND BEACHES? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SO IN EACH OF THE — WELL IN THE FINDINGS REPORT IN EACH OF THE STUDIES\, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT CAN HELP US GET AT THOSE QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN US UNDERSTANDING THE QUANTITY OF SAND THAT IS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY WAS THE MERE COST OF TAKING THREE DEEP CORES TO UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH OF THE SAND VOLUME THAT WAS DEPOSITED BACK AT THE TURN OF THE ICE AGE. SO\, WE COULD HAVE SPENT $1.2 MILLION ON THAT ONE STUDY BUT WE CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN US FAR LESS INFORMATION AND FRANKLY THE AMOUNT OF SAND BEING MIND IS IN THE UPPER PART OF THAT. THAT WAS AN OPEN QUESTION. WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO GO AND TRY TO MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SAND IN THE SYSTEM AND IT GETTING TO BEACH TRANSPORT. THAT’S A FULLY DIDN’T DIFFERENT STUDY SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT WE COULD DO IF ADDITIONAL FUNDS WERE PROVIDED\, BUT $1.2 MILLION IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY WHEN YOU ARE STUDYING DEEP WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE QUITE LARGE. I’LL LEAVE IT AT. WE COULD GO ON\, BUT THAT’S THE SHORT ANSWER. \nJOHN GIOIA: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS MENTIONED ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND IT MAY BE FOR SOME KIND OF PROJECTS THERE ARE\, OTHERS THEY’RE NOT\, ARE YOU GOING TO BE LOOKING MORE AT THAT? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: WE CERTAINLY CAN. WE HAVE TO MEET WITH OUR WORKING GROUP CHAIR TO DEFINE BETTER EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT EACH OF THE WORKING GROUPS BUT WE CAN REQUIRE THAT AS PART OF THE INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE FEASIBILITY OF SAND MINING IN THE BAY AND ALTERNATIVES TO SAND MINING IN THE BAY. I SEE BILL’S HAND UP MAYBE I’LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ALTERNATIVES. \nJOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU. \nBILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GIOIA THANK YOU FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. I CAN CONFIRM THAT THE BAY SAND MIND FROM THE BAY STAYS VERY REGIONAL WITHIN THE BAY AREA. IT DOESN’T REALLY GO FOR USES OUTSIDE OF THE BAY. REGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCES OF MATERIAL\, ABSOLUTELY\, I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT A LITTLE HARDER\, GOING FORWARD. AS I MENTIONED BRIEFLY IN THE PRESENTATION\, YOU KNOW\, WHEN I SAID THAT ALL SAND IS NOT CONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND. AND EVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND\, ALL SAND IS NOT CREATED EQUAL FOR THAT EITHER. SO YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT FOR DIFFERENT USES\, ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS\, THERE IS DIFFERENT ALTERNATE MATERIAL THAT CAN BE SUITABLE FOR THAT. BUT THAT’S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS AND GET YOU THE ANSWER TO GOING FORWARD. \nJOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON? \nBARRY NELSON: THANKS. I’LL TURN THAT OFF NOW. THAT IS NOT OFF. OKAY. WE’RE WORKING? \nSPEAKER: YES. \nBARRY NELSON: [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. SO\, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SOME COMMISSIONERS HAVE ASKED SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK. FIRST IS\, IT’S PRETTY CLEAR FROM THIS WORK THAT WE’RE MINING RELIC SAND\, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS ONGOING EXTRACTION ISN’T SUSTAINABLE. YOU CAN PUT A LITTLE TIME FRAME AROUND THAT? ARE WE TAKING A 10th OF A PERCENT EVERY YEAR? TAKING A 20th PERCENT EVERY YEAR. I’M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE TIME FRAME IS AROUND THE NON-RENEWABILITY OF THAT RESOURCE. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: I CAN’T BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TOTAL VOLUME OF SAND. WE DON THAT SAND IS NO LONGER COMING IN FROM THE DELTA AND WE KNOW THAT THE SAND FROM THE WATERSHEDS IS NOT BEING SUPPLIED TO THE BEDS BEING MIND. WE DO SEE AREAS WHERE THE BED IS BEING LOWERED AND WE CAN SHOW PICTURES OF THAT IN THE COMMISSION WORKING GROUP. THE OTHER THING IS WE DID VERY SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF VERY LOCALIZED MINED AREAS\, AND THERE IS A LIMITED PORTION OF THOSE MINED AREAS WHERE SAND IS IN TRANSPORT. WHERE IT IS IN TRANSPORT MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN THOSE AREAS REFRESH I BELIEVE WAS 55% IN THAT AREA. AND THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT BEING REFRESHED. THERE IS VARIABLE WITHIN THE SITES DETAILED WITHIN SOME OF THE STUDIES WE OPTED NOT TO GET INTO LOTS OF DETAILS TODAY ABOUT THE STUDIES WITH THE FULL COMMISSION. \nBARRY NELSON: WE CAN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS LATER THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ON THAT LATER ON. THE OTHER QUESTION WAS THE CONCLUSIONS ENACT THAT THE IMPACTS ON BEACHES AND SHORES AREN’T QUANTIFIED I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BUT AGAIN MAYBE THAT WAITS FOR OUR WORKING GROUP. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: DEFINITELY SOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE IDEAS WITH TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER IN THE WORKING GROUP. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: — \nSPEAKER: I’M ASSUMING THE BEACHES ARE GIVING SOME OF THAT SAND BACK IN TO FILL THE HOLE. \nCESAR ZEPEDA: IT’S ALREADY BEEN ASKED. THANK YOU. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. \nSHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU. I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS I HEARD WAS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAND MINING AND I THINK BRENDA MENTIONED THAT WOULD BE PUT ON THE LIST FOR DISCUSSION DURING ONE OF THE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AND I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WOULD THAT BE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY IN THE CONTEXT OF CEQA? OR KIND OF LIKE WHAT’S BEING ASKED AND WHAT WOULD BE ON THE WORKING GROUP AGENDA AS IT RELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS AND HOW DOES THAT RECONCILE WITH CEQA? \nSPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE HAVE FLUSHED OUT EXACTLY WHAT’S GOING TO BE IN ALL OF THE WORKING GROUPS YET I THINK WE’RE STILL DECIDING AND LOOKING AT THAT GETTING INPUT FROM COMMISSIONERS AND FROM THE WORKING GROUP THEMSELVES. \nSHERI PEMBERTON: OKAY. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON I’LL NOTE FOR YOU THAT CHRIS HEWITT WHO I UNDERSTAND IS IN THE CEQA LEAD HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND HAS ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS SO HE’S WELL AWARE OF THE STUDIES AND FINDINGS. \nSHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU BRENDA. I APPRECIATE THAT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WASN’T SURE HOW TO RAISE MY HAND\, SINCE I’M IN-PERSON. ACTUALLY\, I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT. BECAUSE THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IS THAT THE — I CALL IT\, LIKE\, A VACUUM CLEANER\, AND YOU HAVE A SCREEN ON IT TO PREVENT FISH FROM COMING IN\, WHAT ABOUT THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS THAT ARE IN THE SAND? HAVE THERE BEEN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT TO THE ORGANISMS WHETHER THEY’RE SUCKED UP WITH THE SAND? DO YOU ACTUALLY SEE THEM? I’M KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THE PRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS VACUUM CLEANER\, AND THIS SUCKING UP THE SAND AT THE BOTTOM. YOU CAN HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MECHANISM IS? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO\, THERE IS TWO MECHANISMS. ONE IS\, LIKE\, THE VACUUM CLEANER HAD THAT YOU SAW\, BELIEVE IT HAS A SIX BY SIX INCH OPENING GREAT\, AND SO ANYTHING — PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BILL ERIK OR MIKE\, ANYTHING SMALLER THAN SIX BY SIX GREAT COULD GO THROUGH THE DRAG HEAD ITSELF AND THE SCREEN IS ON THE PUMP THAT BRINGS IN THE WATER AND THE SCREEN WILL NOT SCREEN SOUGHT NICHE BUT NOT PLANK TON AND LARVAE. THE DRAG HEAD ITSELF WOULD LIKE TAKE THE MATERIAL\, THE ANIMALS IN THE TOP OF THE SAND INTO AND THE PUMP THROUGH THE SYSTEM MANY OF THOSE ANIMALS ARE SOFT-BODIED AND WOULD NOT BE SEEN IN THE SAND BECAUSE OF THE ROUGHNESS OF THE SAND THROUGH THE PIPE. WE DID DO A BENTHIC STUDY I CAN’T REMEMBER THE YEAR\, I FEEL LIKE IT WAS 2017 OR 18\, AND THERE ARE SOME CONCLUSIONS THAT\, LIKE\, THE CRITTERS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE SAND ARE EARLY COLONIZERS BECAUSE THE SAND ITSELF IS SUCH A MOVING SYSTEM THAT YOU DON’T GET\, LIKE\, SOLID BUILT UP BENTHIC COMMUNITIES LIKE YOU MIGHT FIND IN FINE SAND\, BUT YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT THE CRITTERS ARE BEING SUCKED UP IN THAT VACUUM-LIKE HEAD. AND THEN ON THE OTHER TYPE\, WHICH YOU SAW\, WHICH LIND MARINE USES\, IT’S MORE OF A — I EQUATE IT TO\, LIKE\, A STRAW IN THE SAND. AND\, SO\, IT IS DOWN DEEPER\, POTENTIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE YOU DON’T HAVE INVERTEBRATES LIVING. BECAUSE IT’S DEEP UNDER THE SAND. SO\, THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENCES. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A STUD BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF MINING\, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE\, AGAIN\, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG. THAT GETS TO BE A VERY CONCLUSIVE STUDY. BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF WORK AMONG THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT’S DEEP AND VERY DIFFICULT TO PLACE A MONITOR ASIDE FROM TWO STUDIES. \nPAT ECKLUND: SO\, ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING ANY FUTURE WORK ON THE IMPACT OF THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THERE MAY BE SOME AS PART OF THE CEQA DOCUMENT\, BUT HONESTLY I DO NOT KNOW WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXISTING PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO THE BIOTA. \nPAT ECKLUND: THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS THERE WAS MENTION OF A PRIVATE PARCEL. I THINK IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE GROUND. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY IS THERE A PRIVATE PARCEL IN THE BAY? AND ARE THERE OTHER PRIVATE PARCELS THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT YET? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO THAT PARCEL WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY THE NAVY. IT IS NOW THE GROSSLY FAMILIES IT’S A PRIVATE PARCEL I WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBTIDAL HABITAT GOALS PROJECT IN 2010 AS PART OF THAT PROJECT WE LOOKED AT THE OWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY BOTTOM WHICH IS A LOT OF IT OWNED BY THE STATE\, THERE ARE SOME OWNED BY PRIVATE IMPORTANT OWNERS AND IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BOTTOM OF THE BAY\, YOU CAN GO TO THE SUBTIDAL GOALS HABITAT PROJECT ON THE WEB AND LOOK AT BAYLAND OWNERSHIP MAP. AND IT WILL SHOW YOU THE PRIVATE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY. IT’S QUITE FASCINATING. \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I’M VERY INTERESTED IN THAT PART OF IT. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS THAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOME OF THE SAND IS USED FOR RESTORATION OF BEACHES. SO\, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SAND THAT IS ACTUALLY USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES VERSUS RESTORATION PROJECTS. DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS? \nBRENDA GOEDIN: WELL\, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW AND BILL CAN ADD. SO\, ONE PROJECT\, ALAMEDA CROWN BEACH\, THERE IS ACTUALLY A FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT MANY\, MANY YEARS AGO TO REDUCE EROSION ON THAT FRONT\, AND APPROXIMATELY EVERY 20 YEARS\, ABOUT 80\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND IS PLACE ON THAT BEACH TO REFRESH THE BEACH SAND THAT’S ERODED OVER THAT 20 YEAR PERIOD. AND I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME WE PLACED THAT AMOUNT OF SAND ON THAT BEACH WAS 2013. THE RAMBRU ISLAND TOOK SOME SAND THERE’S A SMALL RESTORATION PROJECT AT RAMBRU ISLAND THAT TOOK MAYBE 2\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND AND THAT CAME OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO MARINA WEST SOME OF THE LARGER PIECES OF SAND MATERIAL FROM\, I THINK\, FROM HANSON\, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG\, MARTIN MARIETTA\, FROM THEIR YARD WHERE THEY HAVE A\, SORT OF\, TAILINGS SAND THAT THEY’RE NOT USING FOR THE CONCRETE MATERIALS AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER SMALL RESTORATION PROJECT I BELIEVE AROUND PEER 94 THAT SAN FRANCISCO IS USING MOSTLY TAILINGS FROM THE HANSON MARTIN MARIETTA I DON’T KNOW THE VOLUME THOSE ARE PRIMARY SAND FROM THE MINING FOR RESTORATION AND I’M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM MINERS FOR MORE. \nPAT ECKLUND: ACKNOWLEDGED WRITTEN IN THE REPORT RELEASED THURSDAY. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SPECIFICALLY THAT IS NOT ON THE RESTORATION OF THE SAND BUT COULD QUANTIFY THAT FOR YOU. \nPAT ECKLUND: WHAT PERCENTAGE CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR FUTURE REFRESHED AND WHAT THE NEED IS. THANK YOU. INTERESTING PRESENTATION. HAVING BEEN ON THE HOPPER DREDGE DECADES AGO\, I SEE A LOT OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS ACTIVITY. SO\, THANK YOU. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE CHAIR EISEN. THERE ARE NO MORE HANDS RAISED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WANT TO THANK YOU\, BRENDA FOR YOUR WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. AND FOR THE MINER’S PRESENTATION. AND I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO THANK PAT\, ANDY\, AND BARRY\, WHO CAN SEE MAYBE NOT REGRETTING THAT THEY VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE. BUT CAN SEE THAT THIS IS QUITE A TASK. AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT REALLY HELPS OUR WORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE DOING SO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING ON THIS TO\, SORT OF\, SEE WHAT THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING BEFORE WE GET DO THIS PERMIT PROCESS. SO\, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. WE NOW HAVE — \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: VICE CHAIR EISEN\, YOU CAN ASK ONE THING? WE MAY BE LOSING A PERSON OR TWO\, DEPENDING ON PHONE CALLS\, ET CETERA\, WHO MAYBE COMING BACK\, ET CETERA AND SO ON\, IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR YOU TO SAY THE COMMISSION WILL GO INTO COMMITTEE IF THAT HAPPENS\, AND JUST IN THE FUTURE\, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT’S ON THE RECORD. THERE ARE NO VOTES SCHEDULED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. YES. WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON\, BUT IF WE LOSE OUR QUORUM\, WE WILL GO INTO COMMITTEE\, AS YOU PUT IT. IS THAT — DOES THAT DO IT\, LARRY? \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: AWESOME. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. SO\, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS MADE BY THE SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROJECT IS TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF SEDIMENTS AND SOILS TO RESTORE AND ADAPT WETLANDS TO RISING SEA LEVELS. OUR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. AND BCDC HOSTED A TWO-DAY IN-PERSON PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC IN JANUARY AND IN FEBRUARY. SO\, MAYA MCLERNEY OF OUR STAFF IS GOING TO BEGIN THE BRIEFING ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU\, MAYA. \nMAYA MCLERNEY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON VICE CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MAYA MCLERNEY\, AND I AM A PROJECT MANAGER FOR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT I WORKED CLOSELY WITH BRENDA GODEN AND ERIK BEE MAN ON THIS PROJECT. I’LL PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS THAT WE HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING RIGHT NOW. BEFORE I GET INTO THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WETLANDS AND SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTING A PROJECT MORE GENERALLY. YOU LIKELY ALREADY KNOW THIS BUT WETLAND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WITHOUT OUR HELP WE NEED TO ACT NOW TO HELP WETLAND BE ABLE TO ADAPT BY RAISING ELEVATIONS AND SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANS AND ECOSYSTEMS. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE IN THE AREA OF SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN OUR REGION SPECIFICALLY AND WE’RE BRINGING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER THROUGH OUR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. OUR PROJECT GOAL IS TO INCREASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT AND SOIL FOR WETLAND HABITAT RESTORATION RESILIENCE SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. PART OF THIS PROJECT\, AS PART OF THAT PROJECT\, BCDC IS DEVELOPING A BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN BASED ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT WE CONDUCTED EARLIER THIS YEAR. THIS IS A REGIONAL CALL TO ACTION WITH TASKS THAT WILL BE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH INCREASED COLLABORATION WITH AND AMONG STAKEHOLDERS AND ENTITY NOT ONLY BCDC WHO WILL SHARE IN THE GOAL OF INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE IN WETLAND TO HELP ADAPT TO RISING SEAS. BCDC WILL UNDERTAKE POLICY CHANGES LATER THIS YEAR AND DEVELOP FINANCIAL STRATEGY TO SUPPORT BENEFICIAL REUSE. WHAT EXACTLY IS BENEFICIAL REUSE YOU MAY BE ASKING. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT RECOGNIZING SEDIMENT AND SOIL AS A VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE NECESSARY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTING A AND SHIFTING MINDSET FROM TREATING IT AS A WASTE PRODUCT TO BE DISPOSED OF TO SEEING AS A RESOURCE THAT CAN BE OFFICIALLY REUSED TO SUPPORT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS LIKE MARSH RESTORATION AND HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT ALONG THE EDGE OF THE BAY. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SEDIMENT AND SOIL FROM DREDGED NAVIGATION CHANNELS\, STREAMS AND FLOOD PROTECTION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE MATERIALS AND EXCESS CONSTRUCTION SOILS. SO SEDIMENT WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT SWAP FOR SHORT FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT THESE MATERIALS ARE REUSED FOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSE SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT WETLAND SO THE TIMELINE FOR THE SWAP IS SHOWN HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. WE’RE IN PHASE ONE CURRENTLY OF THE THREE FACE\, THREE YEAR PROJECT. THIS PHASE IS ALL ABOUT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AT THE END OF THE FIRST PHASE WE’LL HAVE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN FOR THE REGION AND WILL INCLUDE TASKS FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN SEDIMENT NOT JUST BCDC AND WE’LL HAVE A COALITION OF STAKEHOLDERS TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACTION PLAN. PHASE ONE WILL WRAP UP IN 2024 PRETTY SOON IN 2024\, AND WITH PHASE 2 AND 3 TAKING PLACE FROM THE END OF 2024 THROUGH 2025. AND THIS PHASES 2 AND 3 WILL INCLUDE A POTENTIAL BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINANCING STRATEGY TO ASSESS COSTS AND FEASIBILITY AND FUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE AND PART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN INCLUDES MEETINGS WITH OUR SEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP SOME OF WHOM ARE IN THE ROOM. AND WE ARE ALSO MEETING WITH — YEAH WE’RE GOING TO BE MEETING ALSO WITH OUR CORE TEAM. MEETING WITH A BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE GUIDING OUR STAFF WORK ON THE PROJECT AND IS GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY AS WE GET INTO THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PART OF THIS PROCESS. AND COLLABORATION IS AT THE HEART OF THIS. YOU KNOW\, AS WE MEET REGULARLY WITH OUR CORE TEAM\, WE’RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THE — [LAUGHTER] SO\, ALONG WITH BCDC\, OUR CORE TEAM IS MADE UP OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD\, THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY\, THE SF ESTUARY INSTITUTE\, SF JOINT VENTURE AND US EPA\, THESE GROUPS ARE ASSISTING IN CONCEPT AND CONTENT DEVELOPMENT. WE’RE GRATEFUL TO THESE AND ALL PARTNERS IN THE PROJECT. TOGETHER WITH THE CORE TEAM AND OUR SEDIMENT AND BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP WE DESIGNED AN INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING SERIES THAT WAS ROLLED OUT AT THE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS IN 2023. SO\, THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP INVITED EXPERTS TO COME AND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP AND INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO DESCRIBE THE SEDIMENT PROCESSES AND CHALLENGES AND BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED ON THE ISSUES. THESE INFORMATIONAL BRIEFINGS WERE INTENDED TO PREPARE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS TO COME AND TO PREPARE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR CONVERSATIONS HELD AT THE WORKSHOP EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE BRIEFINGS COVERED SF BAY SEDIMENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM\, THE PROCESS OF NATURAL SEDIMENT SUPPLY TO BAY MARSHES\, SEDIMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTS\, NAVIGATION DREDGING AS A SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AS WELL AS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS AS A SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND UPLAND SOURCES OF SEDIMENT AND SOILS. WE WRAPPED UP THE SERIES OF BRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR ALL PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE COMMISSION’S WEB SITE. AND THEN IN JANUARY WE TURNED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP. THIS WAS A TWO-DAY WORKSHOP THAT WAS HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND IT WAS A CHANCE FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO COME TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY. WE HAD OVER 50 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN ATTENDANCE TO SUPPORT CHANGES IN HOW SEDIMENT IS MANAGED IN THE BAY AREA. THIS WORK BUILDS ON AND WIDENS THE COALITION OF INTERESTED PARTIES IN THIS ARENA A WE BELIEVE THIS GROUP CAN AND WILL MAKE REAL CHANGES OVER THE YEARS TO COME. THE WORKSHOP HAD BREAKOUT SESSIONS TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND WE PRESENTED POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS. NOW\, THE ISSUE OF HOW INCREASED BENEFICIAL — OR INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN A NUMBER OF FORUMS BY MOST STAKEHOLDERS WHO ATTENDED THE WORKSHOP BUT WE NEVER COLLECTED EVERYONE TOGETHER TO REACH CONSENSUS AND FORMALIZE INFORMATION UNTIL NOW\, OPPORTUNITIES FOR BARRIERS SEDIMENT AND SOIL REUSE AND GAINED CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF IDEAS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ACTIONS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS TO HELP GET THE PROPOSED WORK DONE THE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED MAKE UP SUBSTANCE OF BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED WITH AND WILL BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT SOON. THE ACTION PLAN STRUCTURED IN A STRAIGHT FORWARD WAY WE BELIEVE A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE SECTION THAT INTRODUCES ISSUES AND NEEDS TO INCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE\, BACKGROUND\, GOALS\, PRINCIPLES GOALS ARE PRIMARILY TO HELP ORGANIZE ACTIONS AND PRINCIPLES FIND HOW THE COALITION WILL WORK TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN TASKS. SEDIMENT WETLAND SECTION COVERS THREE MAIN SOURCES OF SEDIMENT SOIL CONSTRUCTION NAVIGATION FLOOD CONTROL DREDGING SECTION DETAILS ISSUES IN EACH SECTOR TO GET MATERIAL FROM THE SOURCE TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE SITE. LASTLY THE FOCUS WHERE THE MEAT OF THIS DOCUMENT LIES WHERE WE PRESENT THE APPROXIMATELY 80 TASKS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE REGION BUT BEFORE I WANT TO PRESENT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE ACTION PLAN FIRST GOAL IS TO STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT INCREASED SOIL REUSE AND EXPAND AND IMPROVE COORDINATION AMONG GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS TO FILL COLLABORATION GAPS AMONG SECTORS INVOLVED IN SEDIMENT AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SECOND GOAL IDENTIFY AND PREPARE SITES FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE BY SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW EXISTING RESTORATION SITES TO PREPARE TO RECEIVE SEDIMENT AND THIRD GOAL COORDINATE SEDIMENT AND SOIL SUPPLY RESTORATION NEEDS TO FACILITATE TIMELY DELIVER OF SEDIMENT AND SOIL. FOURTH GOAL IMPROVE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING POLICY AND REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS AGENCIES AND ENCOURAGE MORE BENEFICIAL REUSE. FINAL GOAL OF THE ACTION PLAN TO DEVELOP FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES EXPAND AND SECURE FEDERAL\, STATE\, REGIONAL AND PRIVATE FUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. PRINCIPLES LISTED IN THE ACTION PLAN HELP DEFINE HOW BCDC AND THE CORE TEAM INTEND TO WORK TOGETHER AND WITH THE COALITION TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION PLAN THIS WILL BE DONE WITH FOCUS ON COORDINATION\, COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION TO ORGANIZE THE MANY ENTITIES WORKING IN THIS SPACE. AND THROUGH EQUITY TO ENSURE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENT IN THE REGION AND TO PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY INPUTS\, AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP TO SUPPORT EXISTING WETLANDS AND SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY. AND IT CAN’T BE DONE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY TO ENSURE THAT ALL ARE ABLE TO TRACK PROGRESS AND GIVE INPUT\, AND SPEED AND AGILITY IS A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE DUE TO LIMITED TIME WE HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES OUTLINED IN THE ACTION PLAN AND TO GET AHEAD OF SEA LEVEL RISE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THANKFULLY THERE ARE MANY OTHER GROUPS DOING GREAT WORK IN THE SPACE AND THE COALITION SHOULD BE CAPITALIZING ON EXISTING WORK AND BUILDING OFF OF IT. EIGHT FOCUS AREAS OF BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN ARE GOVERNANCE\, REGIONAL COORDINATION\, REGIONAL PLANNING RESEARCH\, FEDERAL AND STATE REGIONAL POLICIES AND COMMUNICATION\, REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING PILOT PROJECTS\, SEDIMENT AND SOIL QUALITY AND TIMING AND AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT AND COSTS OF FUNDING. WITHIN EACH OF THESE FOCUS AREAS THERE ARE SPECIFIC ACTIONABLE TASKS THAT WILL NEED LEAD ORGANIZATIONS THAT WILL CARRY OUT SOME OF THE WORK PRESCRIBED IN THE TASKS. SPECIFIC TASKS DEVELOPED THROUGH CONVERSATIONS AND INTERVIEWS WITH PARTICIPANTS\, BRAINSTORMING INTERNALLY\, CORRELATED ACTIONS AND TASKS INTO A MATRIX WE HAD 140 POTENTIAL TASKS LISTED IN THE MATRIX\, TWO WORKSHOP DAYS WERE A GREAT WAY TO EXPLORE THEM TASKS FURTHER\, AND PHOTOS FROM THE WORKSHOPS\, WE TOOK COMMENTS GATHERED THROUGH THOSE BREAKOUT SESSIONS AND SIFTED AND SORTED CONSOLIDATED TASKS FURTHER TO GET OUR 80 OR SO TASKS. TO BE IN THE FINAL ACTION PLAN THE TASK HAD TO BE FOCUSED ON INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT SOIL\, ACHIEVABLE IN 1 TO 5 YEARS\, HAVE AN IDENTIFIABLE CHAMPION AND HAVE REGIONAL SUPPORT MOST OF THE WINNING PROCESS INVOLVED CONSOLIDATING THESE IDEAS WE CREATED A LOT FOR TASKS AND THINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THE PROCESS WHY THEY DIDN’T MAKE THE CUT. WHAT’S NEXT? WE’RE WORKING TO RELEASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND BE POSTED TO THE WEB SITE COLLECTING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ABOUT A MONTH LOOK OUT FOR THAT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN REVIEWING TASKS AND POTENTIALLY COMMENTING ON THE ACTION PLAN AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL FINALIZE THE DOCUMENT AND POST TO OUR WEB SITE WE’LL SWITCH GEARS ONCE THAT’S WRAPPED UP AND COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION WHEN WE ARE READY TO INITIATE THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS LATER THIS YEAR TO ADDRESS NECESSARY UPDATES REGARDING SEDIMENT AND BENEFICIAL REUSE RAMPING UP DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FINANCING FUTURE WORKING GROUP DEVELOPING SUPPORT FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS WORK\, SUPPORTING WETLAND AND ENSURING THEY ARE STILL HERE PROVIDING MANY BENEFITS FOR 50 TO 100 YEARS AND BEYOND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, MAYA\, DON’T GO AWAY. FIRST WE’LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT THEN GET TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIERRA? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE ROOM AND NO HANDS RAISED. \nSPEAKER: I HAVE SOME. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE’LL HAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS\, OBVIOUSLY\, BUT NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \nSPEAKER: I’M SORRY. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO WORRIES. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT\, RIGHT\, SIERRA? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: RIGHT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WE’RE READY FOR COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CORRECT. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: LOOKS LIKE — \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE CAN START WITH COMMISSIONER ECKLUND. \nPAT ECKLUND: START WITH ME? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I’M VERY HONORED THAT I GET TO GO FIRST HERE. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN REUSE OF SEDIMENT\, OBVIOUSLY\, FOR WETLAND RESTORATION. ALSO\, IN SOME WETLAND RESTORATION\, I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S STILL BE DONE OR NOT\, SOMETIMES DEMOLITION DEBRIS HAS ALSO BEEN USED. IS THAT STILL HAPPENING? OR IS IT PRIMARILY JUST SEDIMENT AND SOIL? \nSPEAKER: FOR THIS ONE WE’RE LOOKING AT EXCAVATED SOILS FROM PROJECTS SUCH AS PARKING\, SUBGRADE PARK LOTS AND WHAT NOT. YEAH. I THINK THAT’S ANOTHER TOPIC OF A POTENTIAL USE. \nPAT ECKLUND: OH OKAY. REUSE OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS? \nSPEAKER: YES. SPECIFICALLY\, I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT IS USED\, OR REGULATED. \nPAT ECKLUND: OKAY. I KNOW THAT’S BEEN USED IN THE PAST FOR SOME WETLANDS RESTORATION. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THIS IS BRENDA AGAIN. WE’RE NOT SPECIFICALLY TARGETING CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. WE’RE LOOKING AT UPLAND ACCESS CONSTRUCTION SOILS LIKE WHAT’S BEING DUG UP FOR BASEMENTS. I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A PROHIBITION OF USING CLEAN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. I KNOW HAMILTON WAS ONE THAT USED CONCRETE IN THE DEEP PARTS OF THE BAY OR SITES THAT DIDN’T INHIBIT DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND. WE’RE JUST NOT TRYING RIGHT NOW TO SOURCE THAT MATERIAL. IT WOULD BE\, SORT OF\, A WHOLE OTHER WORLD OF ISSUES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS. SO IT’S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN. \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. THAT’S — I WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE HAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT. NOT ONLY AS AN EPA EMPLOYEE\, BUT ALSO AS A RESIDENT AT THAT TIME. THE DREDGE MATERIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DREDGED IN THE BAY BY THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS AND OTHER DREDGING OPERATIONS HAVE WE QUANTIFIED WHAT THAT IS AND DO WE NEED MORE THAN WHAT’S CURRENTLY BEING DREDGE IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR SHIPPING INDUSTRY STILL ACTIVE? OR ARE WE GOING TO NEED MORE SOIL ELSEWHERE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. \nSPEAKER: SO ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT IF THERE IS ENOUGH SEDIMENT SUPPLY ON THE NAVIGATION DREDGE. \nPAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. FROM THE NATURAL — FROM THE DREDGE THAT’S OCCURRING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA\, TOTAL\, AND IF IT ISN’T SUFFICIENT\, ARE WE LOOKING ALSO FOR REUSE OF SOIL FROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT\, AS WELL? \nSPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, WE ARE — THERE IS THE LTMS MANAGES\, YOU KNOW\, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT DREDGE MATERIAL\, AND THERE IS A GOAL TO 40% OF IT BENEFICIALLY. AND THAT HAS BEEN MET\, I THINK IN THE LAST — I’M LOOKING AT BRENDA ON THE SCREEN\, SHE IS OUR LTMS REP BUT I’LL LET HER JUMP IN. \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THE SEDIMENT FOR SURVIVAL REPORT PUT OUT BY SFEI SAYS THAT BETWEEN NOW AND 2100 WE NEED 450 MILLION TO 650 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF SEDIMENT OR SOIL\, FOR THE WETLANDS\, SPECIFICALLY\, TO HELP RESTORE AND KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. CALCULATION AROUND NAVIGATION DREDGING\, WE DREDGE BETWEEN 2 AND 3 MILLION ‘S ANNUALLY\, ARMY CORP\, PRIVATE PORTS\, MARINAS REFINERIES\, ET CETERA. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. THEY THINK IT REPRESENTS 50- TO 60% OVER TIME. SO\, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS SHORELINE ARE CURRENTLY IMPORTING UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, CLEAN SOILS\, TO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT RESTORATION. THERE IS ADDITIONAL MATERIAL\, ALTHOUGH MUCH SMALLER AMOUNT IN THE LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION AND STREAM BED MAINTENANCE MATERIALS. BUT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IS WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE’RE HOPING TO DO AND KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE’RE PUSHING VERY HARD TO GET AS MUCH OF IT GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS POSSIBLE. THEN THERE IS A FURTHER FIELD OF SOURCES SUCH AS RESERVOIRS WHICH ARE A DIFFERENT SUPPLY MUCH MORE CHALLENGING TO GET INTO BUT WE’RE STARTING HERE WITH THIS ONE TO A FIVE-YEAR PROJECT TO TRY TO FREE UP AS MUCH OF THE MATERIAL GETTING IT TO THE RIGHT PLACE AS POSSIBLE TO GET RID OF SOME OF THE BARRIERS. \nPAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I GUESS THE ISSUE THERE IS THAT SINCE IT ISN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH\, THEN WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT SOME OF THE SOIL THAT IS EXCAVATED\, NOT ONLY FOR MAJOR CONSTRUCTION\, BUT\, ALSO\, MAYBE EVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL\, AS WELL. I KNOW THAT THERE’S A LOT OF CHANGING OF THE BUILDINGS\, FOR AN EXAMPLE\, FROM OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL. AND\, SO\, A LOT OF THAT — SOME OF THE BUILDINGS WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. AND\, SO THAT’S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE IF WE’RE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COLLECT IT AS A SOCIETY OR HERE IN CALIFORNIA OR EVEN IN THE BAY AREA SAME WITH SOIL FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS TOO. JUST HAVING A RECENT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING SOME SOIL WE NEEDED TO GET RID OF\, I WAS SHOCKED THAT THERE WASN’T A PLACE THAT I COULD TAKE IT TO. AND FOR IT TO BE REUSED\, BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAN\, AND SO IT HAD TO BE THROWN AWAY IN THE GARBAGE\, WHICH YOU DO NOT WANT TO FILL UP THE LANDFILL WITH GOOD SOIL OR GOOD DEMOLITION DEBRIS WHEN IT COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE. SO\, THIS IS MAYBE SOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO GET SOME OF THE STATE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THAT REALLY PROMOTE RECYCLING OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS. ANYWAY\, I JUST REMEMBER FROM MY DAYS WITH THE ARMY CORP AND WITH EPA THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH DREDGE MATERIAL. AND I JUST WANT TO SEE IF THAT WAS STILL THE CASE. WHICH IT IS. AND I’M JUST REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF EVEN MAYBE CHANGING HOW WE DEAL WITH CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES\, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND HOW WE CAN REUSE THAT MATERIAL THAT’S SO VALUABLE. THANK YOU. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE. I\, SORT OF\, VIEWED THIS AS THEM SUPPLYING US WITH A CLASS OF SEDIMENT 101. WE HAVE REALLY HAD AMAZING SPEAKERS COME TALK TO US ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND\, SORT OF\, THE OPERATION OF SEDIMENT REMOVAL IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND IT’S JUST GIVING US\, WE GOT A GREAT FOUNDATION\, AND THEN WE HAD THE WORKSHOPS. SO\, I THINK IT WAS KIND OF THE BEST WAY WE COULD POSSIBLY GET A STAKEHOLDER GROUP TOGETHER\, GET THEM ALL ON THE SAME PAGE\, AND THEN HAVE THEM BRAINSTORM. SO\, I REALLY ENJOY TAKING PART IN THIS. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, THE NEXT FEW STEPS YOU COME UP WITH\, AND I’M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE LIST IS NEAR 80 NOW. SO\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO ADD MY THANKS TO THE STAFF AND OUR COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. AND JUST TO SAY THAT I’M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, BRINGING ALL THE AGENCIES ON BOARD WITH THIS BENEFICIAL REUSE. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE\, I HAVE A PROJECT AT McGINNIS MARSH WHERE WE HAVE GALENA’S CREEK RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT WE ARE GOING TO DREDGE AND WE ARE AWAITING TO GET APPROVAL FROM NUMEROUS AGENCIES TO PUT THEM ON THE MARSH AND IT’S TAKING AN AGONIZING LONG TIME SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PROCESS WHEN IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THANK YOU. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nPAT ECKLUND: REBECCA\, I HAD HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE COST. IF THE SEDIMENT ITSELF IS THAT OF THE QUALITY THAT WE NEED FOR PARTICULAR WETLAND\, HAS IT BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THE CLEAN UP OF THAT MATERIAL? OR WHETHER IT’S NOT EVEN JUST USED THEN? THANK YOU. \nMAYA MCLERNEY: SURE. THAT ONE WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE COSTS AND FUNDING SITUATIONS AND SCENARIOS YET. SO WE’LL PROBABLY SUBJECT KIND OF LEAVING THAT ONE TO TALK ABOUT LATER ON. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GREAT. THANK YOU MAYA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE ON THE WORKING GROUP WHO ARE DEALING WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES ON OUR BEHALF. I APPRECIATE IT. WE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION ON DELTA ADAPT. THAT IS A CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STUDY\, WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED AND MANAGED BY THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL. AND IT’S DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE DELTA’S RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS\, INCLUDING\, OF COURSE\, SEA LEVEL RISE. THE BRIEFING WILL BE PROVIDED BY CORY COPELAND WHO IS BCDC’S CHIEF SCIENTIST AND ALSO A FORMER DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL STAFF MEMBER. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY FOR THE PRESENTATION YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE US. \nCORY COPELAND: YEAH. I ACTUALLY WON’T BE GIVING IT. I’LL BE INTRODUCING THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. I’M REALLY PLEASED TO BE INTRODUCING THIS ITEM. AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, I HAD OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON THIS DURING MY TIME AT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL BEFORE JOINING BCDC AS THE ADAPTING TO RISING TIDES IN SCIENCE MANAGER. DELTA ADAPTS IS THE STATE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTING A PLAN FOR SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN AND UPPER ESTUARY OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COLLABORATION BCDC AND DELTA STEWARDSHIP WORK AROUND CLIMATE ADAPTATION. FOR CONTEXT THE FUNDING INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK THAT HELPED US IDENTIFY A $110 BILLION NEED FOR INVESTMENT IN SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE BAY AREA FOR CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ANALYSIS\, USED HYDROLOGIC WORK THAT WAS DONE FOR DELTA ADAPT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. WITH THAT INNER RELATIONSHIP IN MIND\, I’M REALLY GLAD TO HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS FROM THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HERE TO PRESENT ON THEIR ADAPTATION PLAN THAT IS COMING OUT SOON. SO\, HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ARE JEFF HENDERSON\, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE STEWARDSHIP ARE COUNCIL\, AND MORGAN C\, FORMER BCDC EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOW THE MANAGER OF CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL WHO WILL GIVING A PRESENTATION THAT I WILL BE SHARING. \nJEFF HENDERSON: THANK YOU CORY. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. \nSPEAKER: DOES THAT LOOK CORRECT? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT LOOKS GOOD IN THE BOARDROOM. \nSPEAKER: THAT LOOKS GOOD CORY. \nSPEAKER: IT LOOKS GOOD ONLINE. \nJEFF HENDERSON: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. IT’S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT ON OUR DELTA ADAPT CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE. THIS INITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN LEADING SINCE 2018\, WITH A GOAL TO BETTER UNDERSTAND SPECIFIC RISKS FACED BY THE DELTA AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO PREPARE ACCORDINGLY. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, IT’S THE FIRST OF ITS KIND FOR THE ENTIRE DELTA REGION THAT CUTS ACROSS MULTIPLE TOPICS. THERE HAVE BEEN ADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL\, OR ADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED TO ADDRESS A SINGLE TOPIC SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY OR ECOSYSTEM OR FLOODING OR AGRICULTURE. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, THIS IS THE FIRST AT SCALE THAT ADDRESSES MULTIPLE SECTORS AND TOPICS ACROSS THE FULL REGION OF THE DELTA ITSELF. WE’RE ABOUT TO RELEASE OUR ADAPTATION PLAN\, JUST PUTTING FINAL TOUCHES ON IT AND COMPLETING SOME FINAL REVIEWS AND WE’RE EXCITED TO RELEASE THAT. BECAUSE IT SHOWS HOW FAR WE HAVE COME THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT’S PROCESS. HOW MUCH WE HAVE LEARNED\, AND IT SETS A FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING A LOT OF MUCH NEEDED ADAPTATION ACTIONS HAPPEN WITHIN THE REGION. IT’S THE RESULT OF MANY YEARS OF CONVERSATIONS ACROSS PROBABLY THE MOST DIVERSE GROUP OF INTERESTS AND EXPERTISE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ENGAGED TO DATE. THE WORK RECOGNIZES A LOT OF GREAT PROGRESS IN PROTECTING THE DELTA THUS FAR. BUT\, ALSO\, POINTS OUT ALL THE AREAS WE STILL NEED TO AMPLIFY OUR WORK TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE\, TO PROVIDE AND PRIORITIZE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO KEEP UP WITH THE IMPACTS THAT WE’RE ALREADY SEEING. THE WORK IS BEING LED BY THE COUNCIL WHICH WAS CREATED TO HELP SAFEGUARD DELTA ASSETS. AND CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO ACHIEVING OUR MISSION\, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED NEEDS RESOURCES PARTNERSHIPS AND IMPORTANTLY LEADERS THAT ARE NEEDED AS MUCH OF THE PLAN RELIES ON A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONG A NUMBER OF AGENCIES. OUR PRESENTATION TODAY MORGAN IS GOING TO PROVIDE A PREVIEW OF SOME OF OUR APPLICATION STRATEGIES. WE’RE INTERESTED TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AROUND CLARITY OF STRATEGIES AND ANY PRIORITIES OR APPLICATIONS OUTLINED FOR BCDC TO HELP INFORM THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN JUST TO ORIENT THIS IS A MATCH DELTA WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT WITH THE SAN WAN KEEN RIVER DARK BLUE AND WHAT’S BEEN MARKED IN THE CENTER\, IDENTIFIED AS OUR OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS BCDC THAT’S THE MIDDLE AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY ON THE LEFT THIS IS IN THE SPIRIT OF MANAGING THE ONE BAY DELTA ESTUARY WHERE ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN THE BAY AFFECT THE DELTA AND THOSE THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE DELTA AFFECT THE BAY. NEXT SLIDE\, CORY. THE FIRST PHASE OF OUR PROJECT BEGAN IN 2018\, IT WAS A VULNERABLE ASSESSMENT IN WHICH WE IDENTIFIED AT RISK SYSTEMS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE HEAVILY RELY ON NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH. WE FOUND THE FOLLOWING\, FLOOD RISK IS ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING THREATS TO THE DELTA AND IT’S GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORSEN IN THE FUTURE WITH CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL\, PRECIPITATION\, HYDROLOGY AND TEMPERATURE THESE ARE NOT ALL GOING TO IMPACT THE DELTA RESIDENTS IN THE SAME WAY OR IN AN EQUITABLE WAY AND WILL AFFECT THE CENTRAL SOUTHERN DELTA MOST\, CONCENTRATION IN THE STOCKTON AREA THIS MEANS MANY OF THE RESIDENTS EXPOSED TO FLOODING MAY HAVE HIGHER SENSITIVITY TO FLOOD IMPACTS AND LOWER CAPACITY TO ADAPT. WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT HOW FLOOD RISK IS DIFFERENT IN THE DELTA THAN IN THE BAY WHEN WE COVER OUR STRATEGIES. PARTICULARLY THOSE RELATED TO FLOOD RISK REDUCTION. TWO\, DELTA WATER EXPORTS WILL BE LESS RELIABLE IN THE FUTURE DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. DELTA’S EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH STORAGE TO CAPTURE ANTICIPATED INCREASES IN RUNOFF DUE TO MORE VARIABLE PRECIPITATION. IT’S WORTH PAUSING TO NOTE THAT IN THE DELTA\, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE FOUND OUT FROM THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE DELTA SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE AFFECTED BY ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN RIVERING FLOWS\, FROM THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN\, BASED ON ADJUSTED\, OR — THE SITUATION OF MORE PRECIPITATION AND FALLING AS RAIN AND LESS AS SNOW\, THEN THE REGION IS AFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE. SO\, SEA LEVEL RISE AND RIVERING INFLOW ARE BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE VULNERABILITY\, THE RIVERING AND THE FLOW ASPECT SEEMS TO BE MUCH MORE DIRECTING THE OUTCOMES IN THE DELTA. IN TERMS OF WATER QUALITY\, IN DELTA WATER USERS MAY BE THREATENED BY WATER QUALITY DECLINES\, FUTURE DROUGHTS\, AND ALL OF THAT EXPOSING MORE ACRES OF DELTA AGRICULTURE\, TO MORE SALINE WATER THAN HAS HISTORICALLY OCCURRED. DELTA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION TRENDS WILL SHIFT DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE\, INCREASING TEMPERATURES AND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT DAYS\, ARE BOTH PROJECTED TO REDUCE YIELDS FOR MANY DELTA CROPS. AND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT DAYS WILL INCREASE THROUGHOUT THE DELTA AND COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AS MOST VULNERABLE TO THAT EXTREME HEAT ARE LOCATED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE CITIES OF STOCKTON AND TRACY. AND I’LL ASK MORGAN TO JUMP IN AND GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON OUR UPCOMING ADAPTATION PLAN. THANK YOU. \nMORGAN CHAU: THANKS\, JEFF. AND GOOD AFTERNOON\, CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. I’M HAPPY TO BE HERE PRESENTING TO YOU. AS CORY MENTIONED\, I USED TO WORK AT BCDC\, I WAS IN PERMITS\, ANALYST IN SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT UNIT. SO IT’S NICE TO BE BACK. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, PHASE TWO IS REALLY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADAPTATION PLAN THAT WE’RE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY\, WHICH IT INCLUDES A RANGE OF ACTIONS TO IMPROVE REGIONAL RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE DELTA. SO\, THIS GRAPHIC REALLY JUST SHOWS OUR PROCESS AND HOW WE LEANED ON\, REALLY\, AS JEFF MENTIONED\, PROBABLY THE MOST DIVERSE SET OF INTERESTS THAT WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH AT THE COUNCIL\, AS WELL AS OUR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TO EXPLORE ADAPTATION NEEDS AND PRIORITIES AND DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE. WE WORKED ACROSS FOUR FOCUS AREAS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN. AGRICULTURE\, FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, ECOSYSTEM\, AND WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS\, WORKING TO INTEGRATE EQUITY THROUGHOUT. WE ALSO WORKED ACROSS INTERDISCIPLINARY GROUP WHERE WE BROUGHT TOGETHER THOSE FOCUS GROUPS SEVERAL TIMES. OUR ENGAGEMENT FOR SCOPING THE PLAN REALLY BEGAN IN 2021\, AND WE COHOSTED A WORKSHOP SERIES WITH SEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN STOCKTON\, WHICH IS A HIGHLY SOCIALLY VULNERABLE CITY IN THE DELTA\, AND THIS ENGAGEMENT WITH THIS GROUP OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS CONTINUED. AND THEY HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE INFORMED OTHER COMPONENTS OF OUR WORK INCLUDING OUR TRIBAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK. WE HAVE ALSO INCORPORATED SEVERAL TRIBAL CONSULTATIONS INTO THE PLAN AT INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE\, LOCAL\, AND FLOOD AND WATER AGENCIES. THE COUNCIL HOLDS MANY COLLABORATIVE FORUMS THAT HAVE BEEN TOPICALLY RELEVANT FOR ADAPTATION THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. AND ANOTHER CRITICAL COMPONENT IS FOR THE FIRST TIME\, FOR THE COUNCIL\, REALLY REACHING AND HEARING DIRECTLY FROM DELTA FARMERS AND GROWERS. SO\, WE’RE HEARING FIRSTHAND ABOUT CHALLENGES THEY’RE CURRENTLY GRAPPLING WITH\, HOW THEY’RE ADAPTING AND WHAT THEY NEED TO FURTHER ADAPT. LASTLY\, WE HEARD A LOT FROM INTERVIEWS\, BOTH THROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK AND ALSO RESULTS FROM THE REGION’S FIRST REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY OF DELTA RESIDENTS THAT HAS INFORMED OUR WORK. AS WE APPROACH HAVING PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE PLAN\, WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF CONCERTED EFFORT IN THREE CITIES IN THE DELTA THAT HAVE SCORED PARTICULARLY HIGH IN TERMS OF SOCIAL VULNERABLE CLIMATE IMPACTS FROM INDEX DEVELOPED IN PHASE ONE\, THOSE ARE FRO ANTIOCH\, PITTSBURG\, AND STOCKTON\, ANTIOCH AND PITTSBURG HAVE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION REALLY OVER THE EDGE OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION AND OURS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, WE’RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING OUR SET OF STRATEGIES IN OUR PLAN\, THEY’RE BOTH PHYSICAL AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL STRATEGIES THAT WILL REALLY BE REALIZED DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC LOCATION IN THE DELTA. AND OUR FOCUS REALLY WITH THE STRATEGIES\, IS TO MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY AND TO BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE NEW CLIMATE DATA AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE\, REALLY PRIORITIZING PROJECTS THAT OFFER MULTIPLE BENEFITS IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER. SO\, JEFF TOUCHED ON THIS\, BUT EACH STRATEGY BEFORE I GET INTO THEM\, HAS A RECOMMENDED LEAD ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO LEAD\, NOT NECESSARILY ONLY BY REGULATORY AUTHORITY\, AND SEVERAL PROPOSED PARTNERS. WE ALSO WORKED TO HIGHLIGHT STRATEGIES THAT WE FEEL\, ACCORDING TO COST AND ORDER OF OPERATIONS\, THAT REALLY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST OR NEAR-TERM. WE HAVE DONE\, AS COREY MENTIONED SOME OF OUR ANALYSIS PREVIOUSLY\, BUT WE HAVE WORKED TO DEVELOP ADAPTATION COSTS FOR THESE BIG PROJECTS COMPARE THOSE TO VALUE OF ASSETS AT RISK WHICH WAS PART OF OUR PHASE ONE. WE’RE CAREFUL TO NOTE THE STRATEGIES AND RELATIONSHIP TO OUR EXISTING DELTA PLAN\, WHICH IS OUR LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DELTA RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATE REGIONAL RESOURCE SPECIFIC PLANS AS WELL AS CASE STUDIES THAT EXEMPLIFY TYPES OF STRATEGIES WE WANT TO SEE MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. TOUCH BRIEFLY ON HOW WE ARE INCLUDING EQUITY THROUGH THE ALL OF OUR STRATEGIES. IT REALLY\, EQUITY IS A COMPONENT IN\, I THINK\, THREE MAIN WAYS. FIRST IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIONAL JUSTICE. SO\, IN A LOT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS IN OUR PLAN\, WE ARE REALLY WORKING AND RECOGNIZE IT’S INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE DECISIONS AND THE DECISION-MAKING BODIES THAT REPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SERVED SO THAT COMMUNITIES ARE BOTH INFORMED REPRESENTED AND INVOLVED IN THESE PLANNING PROCESSES. ANOTHER IS THROUGH PRIORITIZATION OF INVESTMENTS THAT’S CONTINUING TO WORK TO UNDERSTAND WHO FACES MOST RISK AND WHO NEEDS INVESTMENT FOR ADAPTATION THE MOST. LASTLY HEARD ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS NEED TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE AND AMPLIFY RISK COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION\, AND REALLY PRESENT WHAT WERE OUR FINDINGS FROM PHASE 1 AND 2\, TO THE MOST SOCIALLY VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, NOW TO THE STRATEGIES. THIS IS OUR FIRST OF OUR FOUR FOCUS AREAS IS FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, WHICH HAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE DELTA\, AS JEFF MENTIONED. WE HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS\, BUT A LOT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. THESE GRAPHICS WE’LL HAVE FOR EACH FOCUS AREA FROM LEFT TO RIGHT SHOWS SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITIES\, AN ILLUSTRATIVE SUMMARY OF OUR TYPES OF STRATEGIES WE’RE PROPOSING\, AND EXAMPLE ACTIONS. SO\, ON THE LEFT\, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE FOUND RELATED TO FLOOD VULNERABLE\, WE KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY — WILL REALLY AFFECT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM FROM ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE DELTA. SO THAT’S RIVERING INFLOWS\, FLOOD CONTROL WATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS. AS JEFF MENTIONED\, BRIEFLY DISTINCTION FROM HOW BCDC APPROACHES FLOOD RISK WHICH IS MORE FOCUSED ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, WE’RE LOOKING AT FLOOD RISK AND RIVERING\, AND LEVEES OVERTOPPING. WHILE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR LEVEES IN PAST DECADES THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN OUR STRATEGY OUTLINING WHAT’S NEEDED THROUGH A WELL ROUNDED APPROACH TO ADDRESSING BOTH HYDROLOGICAL VARIABILITY\, AND CHALLENGES POSED BY CLIMATE OUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING A LOT OF THESE STRATEGIES FOR FLOOD RISK WE HAVE POLICIES RELATED TO HOW WE INVEST IN LEVEES AND SUPPORT FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNED USE DECISIONS. THE STRATEGIES GO BEYOND AND WE HAVE A FEW EXAMPLES\, STRATEGIES THAT TOUCHES ON SPECIFIC FLOOD MODELING NEEDS AND COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION ON THAT TOPIC. AND\, REALLY\, CONTINUING TO WORK ON OUR DELTA LEVEE INVESTMENT STRATEGY. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A MORE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURE IS TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE\, IN THE DELTA REGION THERE\, IS A VERY LOW\, DESPITE THE FLOOD RISK\, THERE IS A VERY LOW PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. NEXT SLIDE. THE SECOND FOCUS AREA IS ECOSYSTEM. SO\, THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM REALLY PROVIDES HABITAT FOR [INDISCERNIBLE] MIGRATORY PATHWAYS\, WE ALSO KNOW THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM AS A BUFFER FROM IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE WE KNOW FROM VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT THAT THE ECOSYSTEMS AND DELTA WILL CONTINUE TO BE STRESSED AND HAVE LIMITED ROOM TO MIGRATE. AGAIN THE DELTA PLAN WE HAVE POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PROTECTING THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM WE HAVE ACTUAL SPECIFIC TARGETS FOR THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WE WANT TO RESTORE AND OUR STRATEGIES HERE ALIGN WITH AND GO BEYOND WHAT IS IN OUR DELTA PLAN. IN A FEW THINGS WE CALL OUT CO-BENEFITS RELATED TO RESTORATION\, THAT’S RECOGNIZING REDUCED FLOOD RISK THAT CAN BE BROUGHT FROM PROJECTS\, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPROVING ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACES\, AND THE CULTURAL VALUE AND THE NEED TO WORK ALONGSIDE TRIBES IN THESE RESTORATION PROJECTS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM OUR STRATEGIES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HALTING AND REVERSING SUBSIDENCE THAT THE DELTA EXPERIENCES. THAT CAN BE DONE IN SEVERAL WAYS DEPENDING ON THE LAND OWNERSHIP AND FEASIBILITY SO IT COULD BE THROUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESTORATION BUT ALSO THROUGH PLANTING CROPS SUCH AS RICE. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT IS OUR AGRICULTURE FOCUS AREA AND\, REALLY\, AGRICULTURE IN THE DELTA IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE DELTA’S CULTURE\, HISTORY\, AND ECONOMY\, IT’S REALLY THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF THE REGION IT PROVIDES JOBS AND SIGNIFICANT ANNUAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT HOWEVER AGRICULTURE WE KNOW FROM OUR PHASE ONE REALLY FACES A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH CLIMATE\, INCLUDING VARIABLE PRECIPITATION\, SALT WATER INTRUSION\, WATER QUALITY DECLINE\, FLOODING\, EXTREME HEAT\, AND REDUCED CHILL HOURS WHICH ALL COMPOUND TO IMPACT BOTH CROP YIELD AND QUALITY. SO\, AGAIN OUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING AGRICULTURE AND NEEDS FOR ADAPTATION. WE HAVE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE AGENCIES TO REALLY ADAPTIVELY MANAGE AGRICULTURE LANDS AND ALSO TO PROVIDE HABITAT CONDITIONS FOR FEASIBLE NATIVE SPECIES. OUR STRATEGIES ARE DIVERSE HERE. WE HAVE STRATEGIES RELATED TO ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR AN EQUITABLE REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM. SO THIS INCLUDES THINGS LIKE LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR FARMS. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW ACTIONS THAT SUPPORT CLIMATE SMART FARMING PRACTICES. SO\, THESE ARE ACTIONS SUCH AS IRRIGATION\, EFFICIENCY\, BUILDING SOIL HEALTH\, PEST MANAGEMENT\, OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT\, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSIFYING INCOME AND REVENUE FOR FARMS. SO\, SUPPORT FOR AGRO TOURISM\, CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES\, FUNDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CREDITS\, LIKE CARBON CREDITS AND THEN WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FARMING. AND THEN WHERE FEASIBLE IDENTIFY WHERE LAND MIGHT NEED TO BE RETIRED OF THERE ARE OTHER USES THAT WOULD BE OF HIGH VALUE. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THIS IS OUR LAST. FOCUS AREA\, WATER SUPPLY\, RELIABILITY. THE DELTA WATERSHED PROVIDES A PORTION OF WATER SUPPLY FOR APPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION CALIFORNIANS. AND WE KNOW FROM CLIMATE CHANGE FROM OUR PHASE ONE THAT OUR WATER SUPPLY WILL LIKELY DECREASE WITH DEMAND AND INCREASED — SORRY — WITH\, AS DEMAND INCREASES\, AND WE EXPERIENCE MORE VARIABLE PRECIPITATION AND DECREASED SNOWPACK AS JEFF ALREADY MENTIONED\, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE AT RISK TO SEVERAL CLIMATE IMPACTS. SO\, AGAIN\, THE STRATEGIES HERE REALLY GO BEYOND THE FOUNDATIONAL POLICIES IN THE DELTA PLAN WHICH DOES REQUIRE SUPPLIERS TO REDUCE RELIANCE ON THE DELTA. AND OUR STRATEGIES\, WE HAVE FIVE STRATEGIES. AND THE FIRST IS REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE DELTA. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL ACTIONS HERE\, SUCH AS FUNDING PROJECTS THAT REALLY PROMOTE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION\, OR RECYCLED WATER. WE HAVE A STRATEGY RELATED TO INCREASING LOCAL STORAGE OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES\, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE DELTA. A STRATEGY RELATED TO MODIFYING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS TO BE ADAPTABLE TO CHANGING CLIMATE CONTINUES. AND THEN\, LASTLY\, A STRATEGY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER MODIFYING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SO THAT THERE ARE OBJECTIVES THAT PROVIDE FOR SEVERAL BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER\, SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL\, FISHING\, RECREATIONAL TRIBAL AND OTHER HUMAN BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER. SORRY. OUR LAST ONE IS TO REALLY IMPROVE OR MODIFY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DELTA TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THROUGH DELTA CONVEYANCE. NEXT SLIDE. OUR PLAN HAS A GOVERNANCE CHAPTER THAT REALLY ADDRESSES THE UNIQUE HISTORY\, CHALLENGES\, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADAPTATION GOVERNANCE IN THE DELTA. AS REALLY GOVERNANCE DOES DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR FUNDING\, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THIS GRAPHIC THAT IS ON THIS SLIDE WAS DEVELOPED BY A DELTA SCIENCE FELLOW\, TARA POSEY\, AND UC DAVIS PH.D. CANDIDATE WHO IS DOING NETWORK MAPPING TO UNDERSTAND HOW CLIMATE COLLABORATIVES ARE CONNECTED AND JUST TO SHOW OUR PROJECT CONNECT MAPS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE ARE CONNECTED AND SHOWS IN OUR PROJECT COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IN THE REGION. THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT WORKING TO HAVE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE\, ACROSS DECISIONS TO PRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE WE INCLUDE PRACTICES PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WE HAVE WORKING DOUBLE ON CONDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT CAN HAVE A BETTER ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING. JUST TO WRAP UP\, WE WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ROLE MOVING FORWARD ALREADY TOUCHED ON THESE COMPONENTS WHAT’S IMPORTANT FOR US IS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE REPRESENTATIONAL JUSTICE ADAPTATION DECISIONS THROUGH INCREASED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS\, TO CONTINUE TO USE RESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS TO AMPLIFY BETTER COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE A SCIENCE PROGRAM THAT FUND A LOT OF RESEARCH IN THE REGION WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THE RESEARCH GAPS THAT CAME OUT OF THESE CONVERSATIONS. I TOUCHED ON THE TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE WORK AND THEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW TO FUND ALL OF THIS. IF THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE REALLY LEARN AND TO COLLABORATE WITH THE PLANNING STAFF IS JUST THINKING ABOUT REGIONAL FUNDING FOR ADAPTING A AND LASTLY WORKING THROUGH EXISTING REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR OUR COVERED ACTION AUTHORITY\, JUST CONTINUING TO PROMOTE LAND USES THAT ENHANCE DELTA RESILIENCE HALTING REVERSE SUBSIDENCE AND REDUCE RISK OVERALL. NEXT SLIDE. THAT’S ALL FOR ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE. AS WE’RE GETTING VERY CLOSE TO HAVING A DRAFT OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME FOR LETTING US PRESENT TODAY. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, MORGAN. BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN-PERSON. AND NO HANDS RAISED. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY\, JEFF\, AND MORGAN FOR THAT VERY IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION. AND I’M GOING TO LOOK — OR SIERRA IS GOING LOOK FOR ME TO TELL ME IF THERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR COMMENT ON YOUR PRESENTATION. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY. BUT YOU DO HAVE COMMISSIONER ECKLUND HERE IN-PERSON. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING HE TO ASK AND QUESTIONS. YOU HAVE COME A LONG WAYS\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE CONFRONTING THE DELTA. A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. HAS THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE INCREASED OVER TIME? OR DO WE KNOW? \nMORGAN CHAU: I DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE. I THINK IT MIGHT — YEAH IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE DELTA\, IT MIGHT INTERESTING\, IS A LOT ACTIVE WORK TO ADDRESS THOSE EXPOSED PEAT SOILS. WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU. \nSPEAKER: YEAH. \nPAT ECKLUND: GO AHEAD. \nSPEAKER: I WAS GOING TO SAY FOR MOST OF THE DELTA\, THE PEAT SOIL IS SO DEEP SO THAT ANYWHERE THERE IS TRADITIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT IT’S KIND OF SUBSIDING AT A FAIRLY CONSISTENT RATE THROUGH THE TIME THERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO DO SUBSIDENCE HALTING OR EVEN SUBSIDENCE REVERSE ACTIVITIES I KNOW THOSE ARE ENCOURAGED IN THE DELTA\, AN EXAMPLE\, WETLANDS\, AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION AT THOSE SITES\, THEY HAVE USED ICE TO MANAGE SUBSIDENCE. IT’S A MAJOR TOPIC BUT IT HASN’T BEEN VERY — AT THIS POINT IT’S ALL UNIVERSALLY TAKEN AS LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE REGION BUT I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO PROMOTE IT MORE. \nPAT ECKLUND: SO THE RATE MAY HAVE SLOWED DOWN IN SOME AREAS BECAUSE OF THE REVERSAL THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO TRY TO EMBRACE\, CORRECT? \nCORY COPELAND: YEAH\, THOUGH\, I WILL SAY THOSE ARE RELATIVELY LIMITED. \nPAT ECKLUND: LIMITED? \nCORY COPELAND: — PROJECTS. \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I THINK THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE\, FROM WHAT I KNEW YEARS AGO\, WAS INCREASING QUITE A BIT. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY TO REDUCE IT. BUT I KNOW THAT THAT’S STILL A MAJOR ISSUE. THE COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT FLOOD INSURANCE. FLOOD INSURANCE\, I KNOW\, IS REALLY SUPER EXPENSIVE\, A LOT OF FOLKS THAT I KNOW IN THE DELTA THAT MANAGE A LOT OF THOSE ISLANDS\, OR WHATEVER\, THEY MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE FUNDS. IS THERE ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THAT INSURANCE FOR THEM? ESPECIALLY IF THEY’RE DOING MORE PUBLIC WORK OR WHATEVER ON THEIR LAND MANAGEMENT. ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON THAT? IT’S A POOR REGION. \nMORGAN CHAU: YEAH. THAT’S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION AND POINT. AND I WILL — SO\, WE KNOW — I THINK IT’S A LITTLE BIT AROUND 20% OF RESIDENTS HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. SO IT IS REALLY LOW. AND IT’S EXPENSIVE. WE TRACK FEMA’S PROGRAMS. I KNOW FEMA DOES HAVE THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM. SO THAT’S AT A COMMUNITY SCALE. YOU CAN UNDERGO A LOT OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES TO GET LOWER RATES. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT A LOT OF OTHER PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. BUT WE ARE ALSO — WE ARE ALSO TRACKING SOME OTHER SMALLER SCALE EFFORTS TO GET COMMUNITIES MORE PROTECTED. KATHY SHAFER\, WHO I THINK SHE IS A POST DOC\, MAY BE A PH.D. AT UC DAVIS\, DOES A LOT OF RESEARCH RELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE AND\, LIKE\, FLOOD PREPAREDNESS IN THE DELTA\, AND SHE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY ISLETON THEY CREATED A GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS A WAY YOU CAN ACCESS MORE FUNDS TO HELP WITH PREPAREDNESS SO IT’S NOT JUST INSURANCE BUT INSURANCE COULD BE A COMPONENT OF THAT. \nPAT ECKLUND: ARE THERE RESTORATION OF THE LEVEES ACTIVE EFFORTS TO HELP STRENGTHEN AND RESTORE THOSE LEVEES AS THERE WAS IN THE PAST? OR HAS IT DIMINISHED? \nMORGAN CHAU: I’LL LET JEFF TAKE THAT ONE. \nJEFF HENDERSON: THERE ARE ONGOING EFFORTS THAT CONTINUE\, THE STATE IS CONTINUING TO FUND WHAT’S KNOWN AS THIS SUBVENTIONS PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF THE LEVEES. \nPAT ECKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. I’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THE CANAL\, IS THERE AN EFFORT TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT GOES DOWN THE CANCEL TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA? SORE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT’S PRETTY MUCH SET IN STONE? OR DO YOU KNOW? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION? \nCORY COPELAND: WELL\, DO YOU WANT ME TO HOP IN? I SUSPECT THEY DON’T WANT TO COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE IT’S LIKELY TO COME THROUGH THERE OFFICE AS A COVERED ACTION. \nJEFF HENDERSON: CORY\, GO AHEAD. \nPAT ECKLUND: I IMAGINE IT’S A CONFLICTING QUESTION. \nCORY COPELAND: THE CANAL IS NOW THE DELTA BAY PROJECT BEING PROPOSED BY DWR AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW. I SUSPECT AT SOME POINT THAT WILL GO BEFORE THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL TO BE REVIEWED. AT THIS POINT IT’S TO BE REVIEWED PHASE. SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS ARE\, LIKE\, HOW MUCH WATER WOULD BE YIELD — I DON’T IT’S FULLY RESOLVED\, BUT PROBABLY OF INTEREST. \nPAT ECKLUND: PROBABLY SHOWS MY AGE. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT. MY LAST QUESTION YOU TALK ABOUT THE CHANGE OF LAND USE\, I KNOW THAT GIVEN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE DELTA IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF FAMILIES THAT\, YOU KNOW\, SORT OF\, PASS ON THE PROPERTY DOWN THROUGH THE DIFFERENT GENERATIONS. HOW IS THAT BEING ENCOURAGED? IS INCENTIVES OF BUYING THEIR PROPERTY ONE OF THE ISSUES? OR YOU HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED OTHER MECHANISMS WHERE YOU CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE THE — CHANGING THE USE WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR A LOT OF HOMEOWNER — LANDOWNERS? \nMORGAN CHAU: YEAH I CAN START MAYBE JEFF AND CORY CAN ADD. THE DELTA’S AN INTERESTING PLACE ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE BAY\, WHICH IS URBAN. PRIMARILY THE DELTA HAS A LOT OF STRONG DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS A LOT OF THE LAND USE CHANGES THAT WE EXPLORE FOR DELTA ADAPTS IS LOOKING AT WHERE THERE IS POTENTIALLY FARMLAND OR ABANDONED FARMLAND THAT IS NOT ACTIVE ANYMORE. LIKE YEAH IS THERE LAND USE INCENTIVES FOR IT TO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. SO LIKE PEAT SOILS THAT ARE EXPOSED AND OXIDIZING\, SUBSIDING\, LIKE IS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AN OPTION TO WET THAT LAND\, CAN IT BE MANAGED\, LIKE\, COULD YOU GROW RICE THERE. I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLORED FROM THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH FARMERS THROUGHOUT THE DELTA EVEN YOU KNOW DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE DELTA HAVE THEIR DIFFERENT CHALLENGES\, SPECIFICALLY WITH FARMING\, FARMERS — SOME FARMERS ARE OPEN TO\, YOU KNOW\, EXPLORING DIFFERENT LAND USES. IT REALLY IS A QUESTION OF FINANCIAL FEASIBLE AND SOMETIMES WANTING MORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. WE PARTNERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE INTERVIEWS THAT WE CONDUCTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THESE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THEY PROVIDE TO GROWERS\, TO HELP THEM BE MORE FINANCIALLY PROFITABLE. YEAH THAT’S SOME OF THE TOPICS WE HAVE EXPLORED. \nPAT ECKLUND: GREAT. THANKS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION\, AND REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE DELTA. THE DELTA\, FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW\, THE DELTA IS A VERY SPECIAL PLACE. AND\, REALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET TO KNOW IT. BECAUSE IT DOES DEFINITELY HAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE WHOLE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND\, SO\, JUST REALLY WANT TO COMPLIMENT EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS. AND MY HAT’S OFF TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE. THANK YOU. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR EISEN\, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? THIS IS LARRY. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OF COURSE. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: MORGAN AND JEFF GREAT TO SEE YOU\, OF COURSE. THE PROGRESS YOU ALL HAVE MADE ON DELTA ADAPT IS MARVELOUS. WE ALL LOOK AT IT FROM THE WEST SIDE AND YOU’RE FROM THE EAST SIDE\, AND THANKFULLY BETWEEN\, WE HAVE GRAPPLED WITH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HOW YOU TAKE THE STRATEGY AND START GETTING TRACTION ON THE GROUND. WE HAVE BAY ADAPT AND WE NOW HAVE THIS THING CALLED SB272 WHICH REALLY GIVES US A REAL PUSH TO ENSURE WHAT BAY ADAPT DOES REALLY HAS SOME REAL MAJOR IMPACT AND CAN GET TRACTION. HOW HAVE YOU ALL STARTED LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING THIS AND WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HAVING TO WORK WITH THE HEAVY WEIGHTS LIKE DWR AND FOOD AND AG\, AS WELL AS THE INCREDIBLY WELL ENTRENCHED AND WELL MEANING FOLKS WHO HAVE OWNED LAND IN THE DELTA SINCE\, YOU KNOW\, THE MID-1800’S\, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE\, AND THE LIKE. I MEAN\, THE NUMBER OF INTERESTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS CERTAINLY AT LEAST AS LONG AS OURS. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THAT’S A BIG QUESTION\, LARRY. \nJEFF HENDERSON: YEAH. I’M STILL THINKING. NO. THANK YOU\, LARRY. WE’RE JUST AT THE INITIAL STAGES OF BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION\, AND ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO LEARN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM THE PATHWAYS THAT YOU ALL HAVE CHARTED. I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IS REALLY ENLISTING THE DELTA PLAN INTER-AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE OR DPIIC WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A COMMITTEE FORMED AND LARRY SITS ON THIS COMMITTEE\, ON BEHALF OF BCDC\, AS WELL. IT’S A COMMITTEE FORMED AT THE AGENCIES THAT ARE CHARGED IN THE DELTA PLAN WITH VARIOUS DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. AND WE’RE REALLY LOOKING TO USE THE DPIIC AS A PLACE TO BRING AND OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND START UNPACKING THEM. AND LOOKING TO WORK WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES TO IDENTIFY WHAT RESOURCES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BRING TO THE TABLE\, WHAT LESSONS LEARNED THAT THEY HAVE FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES\, AND REALLY TO USE THAT AS A PLACE TO CONSOLIDATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DELTA ADAPT. THAT’S SOME OF OUR EARLY THINKING\, IN COMBINATION WITH\, THEN\, MOVING TOWARD A BIT MORE OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING STRUCTURE THAT REALLY HELPS TO SOLIDIFY THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES\, AS THEY RELATE TO THE SPECIFIC STRATEGIES. MORGAN\, IS THERE MORE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? \nMORGAN CHAU: NO. YEAH. I THINK OUR REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH BCDC\, SINCE WE’RE DOING SIMILAR IN A LOT OF WAYS\, ADAPTING A WORK WE’RE OPERATING WITH DIFFERENT ACTORS AND DIFFERENT SETTINGS BUT WE CAN LEARN A LOT FROM EACH OTHER\, JUST I THINK THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE DELTA WE HAVE IDEAS FOR THE MOU STRUCTURE AT THE DPIIC LEVEL BUT ALSO THERE ARE THINGS LIKE ISLETON MODEL FOR FLOOD RISK AND PREPAREDNESS THAT CANNOT BE DONE YOU KNOW AROUND ISLETON IDEAS THAT CORE MENTIONED SHERMAN ISLAND EXPERIMENTS AND EXPERIENCE AROUND SOMETHING LIKE THAT WE REPLICATE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING IN OTHER PLACES WHILE TRYING TO GET ALIGNMENT\, AS YOU KNOW\, AT THE HIGHER LEVEL. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON? \nBARRY NELSON: WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON A COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATED I ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BAY COMPARED TO THE DELTA. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT ARE CLEAR TO ME WHERE DELTA ADAPTATION IS DIFFERENT ADAPTATION IN THE BAY PLAN\, MORE COMPLICATED AND CHALLENGING. URBANIZATION WITH HUGE IMPLICATIONS WITH FINANCING. THE TWO MORE THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FIRST IS THE DELTA IS A IMPORTANT WATER SUPPLY SOURCE FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. THAT MEANS THAT WATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO CAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF A DELTA ADAPTATION STRATEGY. THAT’S NOT EASY. IT’S ALSO TRUE THAT THE FLOOD RISK IN THE DELTA IS DRIVEN TO A SUBSTANTIAL PART BY FLOOD COMING IN FROM\, AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES\, UPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA. SO FLOOD MANAGEMENT UPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF PROTECTING COMMUNITIES LIKE STOCKTON. I WANT TO ASK HOW YOU’RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE BOUNDARY CHALLENGES. ON THE ONE HAND ARE YOU INCLUDING UPSTREAM FLOOD MANAGEMENT\, MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECTS UPSTREAM AS A FLOOD ADAPTATION STRATEGY? IN THE DELTA AND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF THE DELTA\, DELTA AGRICULTURE AND SO FORTH\, COMPARED TO WATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS WHERE THE DELTA COUNCIL MAY HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING THE NEEDLE? IT’S A DIFFERENT PICTURE AND MORE COMPLICATED IN SOME WAYS THAN THE WORK WE’RE DOING IN THE BAY. \nSPEAKER: GOOD POINT ESPECIALLY FOR FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROPOSED STRATEGIES AND AROUND WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY A LOT OF WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE DELTA TOUCH ON YOU KNOW UPSTREAM DON STREAM ACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SAFETY AND WELL-BEING THAT’S A LITTLE BIT FOCUSED TO COMMUNITIES THAT LIVE WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO OUR DELTA BOUNDARIES YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT AND IT’S INCLUDED IN OUR STRATEGIES. RIGHT NOW THE DRAFT PLAN IT DOES IN SOME WAYS LOOK LIKE IT MASSIVE MENU OF STRATEGIES. WE HAVE DONE SOME — INITIAL PRIORITIZATION IN TERMS OF\, LIKE I SAID\, LIKE WHAT WE REALLY FEEL NEEDS TO HAPPEN FIRST\, WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH EXISTING FUNDS THEN THERE IS ALSO THAT FILTER WHERE IT COMES IN AND GOES WELL WHEN’S FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR CONTROL WHAT CAN WE LEAD WHAT ARE OUR PARTNERS WILLING TO LEAD\, WHAT ARE WE TRACKING THAT IS ALREADY KIND OF HAPPENING BUT WE WANT TO HAPPEN MORE. SO\, I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS AT WHICH WE CAN ENGAGE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGIES OUTSIDE OF THE DELTA. BUT\, YEAH\, SO IT’S CHALLENGING IT MAKE GOOD POINT AND WE’RE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. JEFF DID YOU WANT TO ADD? \nJEFF HENDERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON\, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BOUNDARY ISSUES MADE ME — AS DO A NUMBER OF THINGS\, REMINDED ME THAT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY A STATEWIDE AGENCY THAT REPRESENTS STATEWIDE INTERESTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE DELTA. SO\, YES\, WE DO NEED TO BE CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE WATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO\, AND HOW THAT AFFECTS\, IN TURN\, THE AMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED THROUGH THE DELTA\, AND IN TURN\, THE AMOUNT OF WATER STORED IN A RESERVOIR UPSTREAM. SO\, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE VERY AWARE OF. I THINK\, DELTA ADAPT ITSELF DOES PAY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION TO THE DELTA ITSELF\, AND IF WE HAD ONE OF OUR OWN SELF-CRITIQUES OF THE WEEK IS PROBABLY THAT IT DOESN’T DO AS MUCH AS IT COULD TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF DELTA TO AFFECT THE HEALTH IN THE DELTA. I DO\, THOUGH\, UNDERSTAND THAT THE STRATEGIES\, AS MORGAN MENTIONED\, THE STRATEGIES\, WHERE POSSIBLE\, DO RECOMMEND ACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DELTA\, THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE BENEFITS THAT WE’RE SEEKING IN THE DELTA. \nSPEAKER: JUST ONE LAST THOUGHT TO FOLLOW UP ON LARRY’S COMMENT. GIVEN THE BREADTH OF ADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE DELTA\, IT’S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNCIL TO THINK THROUGH THE AREAS WHERE YOU FOLKS REALLY ARE GOING TO DRIVE THE DEBATE FORWARD AND REALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY BIG BROAD ADAPTATION LIST. OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DELTA ADAPT PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME GET THROUGH THIS ALMOST ENTIRELY VIRTUAL PRESENTATION. \nSPEAKER: WE LOVE A GOOD CHALLENGE. \nSPEAKER: GOOD LUCK. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND COMMISSION MEETING. WE ONE OTHER ITEM. AND THAT IS ADJOURNMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? BARRY\, THANK YOU. SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? SEE YOU ON JULY 18TH. \nADJOURNED \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-6-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240605T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240605T140000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240528T222905Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T223031Z UID:10000178-1717592400-1717596000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:June 5\, 2024 Environmental Justice Working Group DESCRIPTION:Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group Meeting Notice URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-5-2024-environmental-justice-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240521T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240521T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240130T045033Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T212536Z UID:10000134-1716283800-1716292800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 21\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-21-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240517T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240517T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240528T224810Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T225149Z UID:10000180-1715940000-1715947200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 17\, 2024 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Notice URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-17-2024-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240516T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240516T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240118T081327Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250321T215637Z UID:10000097-1715864400-1715878800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 16\, 2024 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Temazcal Conference RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88105137697?pwd=vbbiJ6slOT960Wiv4z9juBdKuZbMvZ.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 1472 7080 \nPasscode506054 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for May 2\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.002.00 The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program for existing gas and electrical transmission structures throughout the Commission’s jurisdiction\, excluding the Suisun MarshApplication Summary Staff PresentationApplicant Presentation (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.003.00mdThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program of existing gas and electrical transmission structures in the Suisun Marsh.Application Summary (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.Application SummaryLetter of Support Letter of SupportStaff PresentationApplicant Presentation (Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Authorization of an Interagency Flooding and Sea Level Rise Memorandum of Understanding The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BCDC and the member agencies of the Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC). The purpose of the MOU is to coordinate efforts to address the threats of flooding and sea level rise the San Francisco Bay Area. Attachment APresentation (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n \nThis report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nJ&M Paradise Properties LLCP.O. Box 2099Mill Valley\, CA 94941 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.029.0\n \n\n\nFiled\nApril 25\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 24\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Shoreline Band jurisdiction\, at 2088 Paradise Dr.\, Tiburon\, in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRenovate and remodel a single-family home through the following activities: \n\nInstall a new 600-square-foot parking deck and driveway;\nConstruct a new\, approximately 1\,000 square-foot ADU residence with an approximately 410-square-foot deck;\nExpand the second-floor residence from 650 square feet to approximately 1\,047 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nExpand the first-floor residence from 639 square feet to approximately 786 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nReduce the size of the crawl space area from 584 square feet to 575 square feet;\nExpand the basement floor patio from 145 square feet to 220 square feet; and\nReplacing the existing outdoor staircases and landings\, reducing the footprint from 512 square feet to 305 square feet. The project will take place entirely within the Shoreline Band and will not result in any Bay fill. The applicant will submit an amendment request at a later date for a proposed overwater deck and boat dock. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project.\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito CA 94965 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 4\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 3\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at 466 Bridgeway\, in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReinstall a historic sea lion sculpture\, which was originally installed in 1958\, and damaged by a storm in 2023. This project would reinstall the statue on a new concrete pedestal. The project will result in approximately 1.2 cubic yards of new fill over an approximately25-square-foot area of the Bay. Construction of the project will require a temporary detour of a sidewalk for fewer than five days. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nNational Park ServiceLower Fort Mason Center – Building ESan Francisco\, CA 94123 \n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2024.003.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 23\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJun3 22\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at the Sea Scout Base of San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair the existing deteriorated system of walkways\, docks\, and piers at the Sea Scout base\, through the following activities. Remove the existing: \n\n20-foot-long walkway between the concrete platform and elevated wooden pier;\n12-foot-long by 8-foot-wide portion of the existing elevated wooden pier;\n21-foot-long by 8-foot-wide metal gangway; and\nfloating 40-foot-long by 8.75-foot-wide dock. Install a new 40-foot-long by 10-foot-wide floating dock\, consisting of wood planking on floats; and a new 42-foot-long by 4-foot-wide metal gangway with metal guardrail.\n\nNo existing pilings will be removed\, and new pilings will not be installed. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay Resources and public access in the vicinity during construction. The project will result in no solid fill in the Bay. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\nThe Commission has received the following minor amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program for certification since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSuisun Resource Conservation District2516 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \n\n\nMinor Amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (BPA 1-23) \n\n\n\nDescription\nOn March 11\, 2022\, the Commission certified a major amendment to the Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) Component of the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (LPP). The amendment included 121 updated Individual Ownership Adaptive Habitat Management Plans (IOAHMPs) for each privately-owned managed wetland within the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. To ensure these plans remain current\, SRCD tracks modifications to operations and updates plans on an ongoing basis. Annually\, SRCD will submit these minor amendments to the LPP for Commission certification. This listing is to notify the Commission that the Executive Director intends to certify a minor amendment to the SRCD component to the LPP\, submitted on April 19\, 2024. The amendment submitted by SRCD includes updates to facilities and operations on 10 privately-owned managed wetlands. Examples of activities described in the minor amendment include\, but are not limited to\, repairs\, replacements\, or upgrades to water control structures\, such as flaps and pipes. The activities described in the minor amendment consist of minor repairs and improvements to privately-owned managed wetland facilities and meet the requirements of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 11210-11215.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Certification. Erik Buehmann; erik.buehmannbcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94111 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.019.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 5\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 5\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at Wharf J9\, Pier 47\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove and replace the existing dilapidated Wharf J9 mooring piles and construct a temporary floating dock\, through the following actions: \n\nRemove fifteen existing timber piles;\nInstall twelve steel piles;\nInstall a 12-foot by 270-foot floating dock;\nInstall an 8-foot by 16-foot aluminum access platform; and\nInstall an 8-foot by 12-foot steel platform with a 4-foot by 80-foot aluminum gangway connecting to the floating dock.\n\nThe dock will accommodate up to six vessels\, and allow public access to off-boat fish and crab sales. The Project is an interim action\, and is part of the Port’s longer-term Waterfront Resiliency Program redevelopment project of Wharf J9. The new floating dock would remain in place for approximately two to five years until the Wharf J9 Redevelopment project is permitted and implemented. The project will result in a net total of 3\,479 square feet of overwater fill and 5.22 cubic yards of solid fill. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay resources and to public access in the area during construction. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nChina Basin revealed: How a ‘complicated land-use deal’ yielded a new gem by the bay \n Will Travis Obituary \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \nAudio recording \n \n\nTranscript\n\nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? AHN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nECKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGILLMOR? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGUNTHER? \nGUN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KIM \nBAIL? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? RAN. \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HAVE WE \nMISSED ANYONE? \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER \nJOHN-BAPTISTE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN\, YOU HAVE \nA QUORUM. THANK YOU FOR THOSE \nOF YOU WHO ARE HERE VIRTUALLY \nWHO ARE MEETING OUR STATUTORY \nREQUIREMENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN \nTHE BUILDING. WE ARE NOW AT \nITEM THREE PUBLIC COMMENT SIERRA \nDO WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nSIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nTHIS IS TO ADDRESS MATTERS THAT \nARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY FOR \nWHICH WE DO NOT HAVE A HEARING. \nYOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THERE ARE \nNO COMMENTS IN-PERSON AND NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \n— OH I’M SORRY. THAT BRINGS US \nTO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF \nMAY 2ND\, 2024. WE HAVE BEEN ED \nDRAFTS OF THOSE MINUTES DO I \nHAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I MOVE \nAPPROVAL\, PAT EKLUND. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I’LL \nSECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMOVED BY COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, \nSECOND BY COMMISSIONER \nKISHIMOTO. ARE THERE ANY \nOBJECTIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE \nMINUTES? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILLMOR ABSTAINS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WILL WILL BE AB \nSTAINING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO \nABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES ARE \nAPPROVED. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \nREPORT I WANT TO START BY \nTHANKING THE GOVERNOR\, LARRY \nWILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILIS \nWANT TO RECOGNIZE ON BEHALF OF \nTHE COMMISSION THAT THE \nGOVERNOR’S MAY BUDGET DOES \nINCLUDE FUNDING TO START \nIMPLEMENTING SB272. AND IN THIS \nVERY DIMPLE BUDGET YEAR\, WE NEED \nTO THANK HIM FOR DOING THAT AND \nHIS COMMITMENT TO SHORELINE \nRESILIENCE AND OUR — AND THIS \nIS A VERY BROAD OUR\, \nA VERY BIG TENT — ABILITY TO \nSTART DISSEMINATING THESE \nGUIDELINES AND START \nIMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY WE THEM \nAND PROJECTS TO SAVE US ALL FROM \nTHE INUNDATION THAT IS COMING. \nI WAS PLEASED IN A NUMBER OF \nWAYS ON TUESDAY BAY \nPLANNING COALITION HOSTED THEIR \nSPRING SUMMIT FOCUSED ON \nFINANCING ADAPTATION TO RISING \nSEA LEVEL. \nTHEY HAD A FULL ARRAY OF \nSPEAKERS AND PANELISTS TALKING \nABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING HAPPEN \nAND THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS. WE \nWERE KICKED OFF WITH A KEYNOTE \nBY FORMER MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF OF \nOAKLAND\, WHOSE THEME WAS HOPE\, \nCHANGE\, ACTION. AND SOME OF THE \nTHEMES THAT WE’RE STATED \nTHROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS SPEAKERS \nWERE\, WE DO NEED TO WORK \nTOGETHER. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE \nTHAT WE CAN ONLY ADDRESS THIS AS \nA REGION\, THAT IT’S GOING TAKE\, \nAS WE WELL KNOW\, SOURCES\, FUNDS \nFROM MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES TO \nMEET THE COST\, THE ESTIMATED \n$110 BILLION COST\, AND WE ALL \nTHAN’S A LOW FIGURE\, A SCARY \nFIGURE\, BUT LOW FIGURE. THERE \nWAS ALSO SOME EMPHASIS ON THE \nIMPORTANCE OF STORY TELLING\, \nBOTH FOR OURSELVES AND AS WE \nCOMMUNICATE OUR ISSUES TO \nELECTED LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS \nAND TO THE PUBLIC THAT\, WE NEED \nTO KEEP IN MIND STORY THAT \nCONVEY BOTH WHAT MAY HAPPEN\, AND \nTHE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN\, IN \nFACT\, ADAPT AND FUND \nADAPTATION. \nI HAD THE CHALLENGE OF \nSUMMARIZING SOME FIVE HOURS OF \nPRESENTATIONS IN TEN MINUTES. \nAND I THINK I ROSE TO THE \nCHALLENGE. BUT IT WAS A VERY \nGOOD CONFERENCE. I WANT TO \nTHANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS AT THE \nMETRO CENTER TWO WEEKS AGO. OUR \nABILITY TO MEET TOGETHER\, I \nTHINK\, DOES ENHANCE OUR ACTIONS \nAS A COMMISSION. RECOGNIZING \nTHAT FOR MANY\, THE CONVENIENCE \nOF BEING ABLE TO ATTEND BY ZOOM \nIS IMPORTANT\, AND \nENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL. \nNONETHELESS N DOING THIS WORK\, \nWHICH IS NOT EASY\, HAVING PEOPLE \nMEET TOGETHER AND BE ABLE TO SEE \nEACH OTHER AND TALK OFFLINE A \nBIT\, IS ALWAYS VERY HELPFUL. \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER HAS ASKED \nFOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO \nCOMMENT ON THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nPRESENTATION THAT WE HEARD AND \nHE NOW HAS THE FLOOR. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU MR. \nCHAIRMAN. JUST VERY BRIEFLY\, I \nWANT TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY \nTHAT IN THINKING ABOUT BEN \nHAMILTON’S PRESENTATION\, AND THE \nFACT THAT THE HIGH SCENARIO FOR \nSEA LEVEL RISE IS NOW LOWER\, AND \nTHAT WE WON’T SEE — WE REALLY \nDON’T HAVE A CHANCE\, ACCORDING \nTO THEIR NEW PROJECTIONS OF \nSEEING THREE METERS OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE \n22nd CENTURY\, THAT MEANS \nEVERYTHING THAT WE’RE DOING NOW\, \nPARTICULARLY THE WETLANDS \nRESTORATION IS GOING TO RESULT \nIN ANOTHER HALF OR MAYBE A FULL \nCENTURY OF BENEFITS TO THE \nREGION BEFORE THEY’RE FINALLY \nINUNDATED. AND THE SAME THING \nGOES THROUGH FOR ANY HARD \nSTRUCTURES WE PUT IN THERE. SO\, \nI THINK IT AD ADDS TREMENDOUS \nFRAME OF THE VALUE OF WHAT WE DO \nIN THE PRESENT DAY. THAT BEING \nSAID\, I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THAT \nTHE WHOLE PROCESS OF ICE SHEET \nCOLLAPSE\, WHICH IS THE MECHANISM \nTHAT’S DRIVING THAT HIGH \nSCENARIO\, IS STILL VERY\, VERY \nUNCERTAIN. AND I HAVE A \nCOLLEAGUE LOOKING AT THESE \nISSUES FROM A CONCERNED \nSCIENTIST BOARD AND SHE SHARED \nWITH ME THAT HE THINKS IT’S A \nLITTLE TOO EARLY TO PUT THE IDEA \nIN OUR POCKET THAT WE’RE NOT \nGOING TO SEE ONE OF THESE REALLY \nEXTREME SCENARIOS. SO\, WITH \nTHAT PROVISO\, I THINK THE \nINFORMATION THAT WE GOT INFORMS \nTHE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING \nTODAY PARTICULARLY TO \nRESTORATION BECAUSE IT’S GOING \nTO PAY OFF FOR THE FUTURE OF THE \nREGION THAN WE THOUGHT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. IT’S AN IMPORTANT \nREMINDER THAT AS WE FOCUS OUR \nEFFORTS ON THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE \nIN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A FUTURE \nTHAT IS MODERATELY FAR OFF\, THE \nTHINGS WE DO WILL BENEFIT US IN \nBETWEEN\, AS WELL. OUR NEXT \nMEETING WILL OCCUR IN TWO WEEKS\, \nON JUNE 6TH\, THE MEETING WILL BE \nHELD IN THE METRO CENTER\, AND \n— \nSORRY\, I’M PAUSING BECAUSE I \nNEED TO SWITCH BETWEEN \nDOCUMENTS. WE EXPECT THAT WE \nWILL HAVE PRESENTATIONS ON — \nSORRY. THE AGENDA WILL INCLUDE \nA PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT \nOF FINANCE DESCRIBING THE \nMISSION BASED REVIEW OF BCDC’S \nPERMITTING PROCESS AND SYSTEMS \nCONTRACT TO DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND \nTHIRD UPDATE ON PROGRESS ON THE \nCOMMISSION’S STRATEGIC PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO EX \nPARTE MATTERS. IF THERE IS ANY \nCOMMISSIONER WHO WISHES TO \nREPORT ON A COMMUNICATION \nCONCERNING A COMMISSION MATTER\, \nTHAT THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY PUT \nON THE RECORD\, NOW IS THE TIME \nTO SHARE THAT. THIS IS ON \nADJUDICATORY MATTERS\, NOT \nMISCELLANEOUSLY MATTERS OF \nPOLICY\, AND YOU DO NEED TO FILE \nSOMETHING IN WRITING. BUT NOW \nIS THE TIME TO SPEAK\, AND I SEE \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND HAS HER \nHAND UP. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: NOT EX \nPARTE I WANTED TO QUESTION YOU \nSAID IT WAS AT THE METRO CENTER \nWE CAN COME INTO THE OFFICE OR \nINTO THE MEETING ROOMS THAT WAS \nYOUR POINT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU FOR HELPING ME \nEMPHASIZE PARTICULARLY AS WE \nTALK ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN I \nTHINK HAVING AS MANY THERE AS \nPOSSIBLE MAKES IT A PRODUCTIVE \nMEETING. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANKS \nFOR CLARIFYING THAT. WASN’T \nQUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO \nTHE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, JUST TO LET \nPEOPLE KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER \nGILMORE IS HAVING SOME TECHNICAL \nISSUES SO SHE’LL BE TRYING TO \nGET BACK IN IF SHE’S NOT HERE \nNOW. FIRST I WANT TO APOLOGIZE \nTO THE COMMISSION\, AND AGAIN TO \nSTEVE GOLDBECK FOR HAVING TO \nVACATE THIS BUILDING TWO WEEKS \nAGO 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE \nCOMMISSION MEETING\, WHICH MEANS \nTHAT STEVE HAD TO SIT IN MY \nCHAIR UNEXPECTEDLY AND I MISSED \nHIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS \nRETIREMENT. I HAD ALREADY JUST \nA FEW MINUTES EARLIER THAT MY \nWIFE HAD TESTED FOR COVID SO I \nFIGURED YOU ALL WOULD BE MUCH \nHAPPIER IF I LEFT THE OFFICE AND \nBEGAN TO ISOLATE. THAT I DID\, \nALTHOUGH I HAD TO TAKE BART TO \nGET HOME SO I WE’RE A MASK. \nWHILE LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT \nBART I SMILED AT HOW FAST I \nCOULD GET TO OUR HOME OVER 20 \nMILES AWAY. NOT ALWAYS THE CASE \nOF COURSE LINOLEATE HAS IT ON \nTHIS DAY MAY 18th FIRST \nREGULARLY SCHEDULED MISSISSIPPI \nSTEAMBOAT HEADED SOUTH LIKELY AT \nFOUR MILES PER HOUR. A GREAT \nCOINCIDENCE 134 YEARS LATER ON \nTHIS DATE THE FIRST REGULARLY \nSCHEDULED AIRPLANE SERVICE \nBETWEEN NEW YORK AND LONDON \nBEGAN JUST AS TRAVEL TIMES \nCONTINUE TO GET SHORT YOU CAN \nGET STUCK IN A 90 MINUTE TRAFFIC \nJAM JUST TO GET TO THE BAY \nBRIDGE AS WE DID ON SUNDAY AFTER \nTHE GIANTS GAME. WITH REGARD TO \nBUDGET AND STAFFING BCDC HAS \nSELECTED ALYSSA PLEASE TO JOIN \nKATHARINE PAN SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITTING TEAM AS A \nCOASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST ALYSSA \nIS A GOLDEN BEAR HAVING EARNED \nHER UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM \nCAL LANDSCAPE TECHNICAL \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING JOINS \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND \nGENERAL PLAN POLICY DEVELOPMENT \nRELATED TO COASTAL PLANNING \nCLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY. \nGREATER NEWS CHAIR WASSERMAN \nGOVERNOR NEWSOME’S MAY REVISE \nBUDGET PLAN INCLUDES FULL \nFUNDING FOR BCDC AND THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO HIRE STAFF TO \nIMPLEMENT SB272 LEGISLATION \nAUTHORED BY SENATOR JOHN LAIRD \nREQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO \nCREATE RISING SEA LEVEL \nADAPTATION PLANS THAT EITHER WE \nOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL \nNEED TO APPROVE. YESTERDAY I \nSPENT THE DAY IN SACRAMENTO \nWATCHING ASSEMBLY AND SENATE \nBUDGET HEARINGS\, AND I THINK \nTHAT I’M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT \nNONE OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE \nMEMBERS DEALT AT ALL WITH RISING \nSEA LEVEL FUNDING\, LEADING US\, \nPERHAPS TO HOPE THAT NOBODY WILL \nQUESTION ITS IMPORTANCE. \nLEADERSHIP OF THE RESOURCES \nAGENCY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE \nOF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDING \nIN THE GOVERNOR’S PLAN AND I \nKNOW THEY WILL BE WORKING ON OUR \nBEHALF. MORE INFORMATION TO \nCOME WHEN WE RECEIVE IT. \nNOW FOR SOME NOT SO GREAT BUDGET \nNEWS\, AS PART OF THE BUDGET PLAN \nBCDC AND ALL OTHER STATE \nORGANIZATIONS WILL FAIRS FACE A \nGENERAL FUND CUT OF SOMETHING \nLIKE 8% NEXT YEAR WE HAVE \nSTARTED TO PLAN FOR IT AND WILL \nKEEP YOU UPDATED ON \nRAMIFICATIONS. GOOD NEWS\, MANY \nOF OUR STAFF ALONG WITH \nCOMMISSIONER AHN TO MY RIGHT \nPARTICIPATED IN A WORKSHOP WITH \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISERS LAST WEEK AS PART OF \nTHE ORGANIZATIONALITY \nDEVELOPMENT CONSULTING CONTRACT \nTHAT AIMS TO INCREASE \nCOMMUNICATION AND ALIGNMENT \nBETWEEN BCDC AND OUR ADVISERS. \nEACH OF US WHO ATTENDED HAVE \nREALTY POSITIVE THOUGHTS ABOUT \nTIME SPENT TOGETHER AND WE HAVE \nTALKED AT LENGTH HOW TO BEST \nWORK AS COLLAB RURALITYS I AM \nSURE WE’LL HAVE MORE TO REPORT \nIN THE FUTURE. I’M RELATIONSHIP \nTO REPORT THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN \nYOU APPROVED LAST NOVEMBER HAS \nBEEN APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA’S \nOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW \nTHIS PAST TUESDAY THEREFORE THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN IS NOW IN \nEFFECT. GREAT NEWS GOVERN ALL \nTHE WORK THAT CORY AND THE TEAM \nPUT INTO IT STARTING\, REMEMBER\, \nWITH THE HOWARD TERMINAL ISSUE. \nFULL OF GOOD NEWS TODAY \nESPECIALLY TO MY LEFT AS \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH WATCHES. \nTHIS WEEK THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS 2024 WORKPLAN WAS \nRELEASED AND WE’RE EXCITED TO \nNOTE THAT THE CORP HAS RECEIVED \nFUNDING TO INCLUDE THE BEL MARIN \nKEYS UNIT INTO THE HAMILTON \nWETLANDS PROJECT WHICH WILL \nBRING THE TOTAL HABITAT \nRESTORATION TO 26\,000 ACRES AS A \nRESULT OF OUR 2016 COALITION \nTHAT SPURRED CHANGES TO THE \nAUTHORIZING LEGISLATION THE CORP \nWILL SPEND ANOTHER $7 MILLION TO \nINCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY DURING THE \nNEXT YEAR. TWO FINAL NOTES\, \nFIRST PERHAPS SOMETHING OF AN \nANTIDOTE TO THE GIANT’S \nDISAPPOINTING FIRST QUARTER OF \nBASEBALL\, I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT — I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT THE NEW CHINA BASIN PARK \nACROSS McCOVEY COVE FROM THE \nBALLPARK I WAS POSITIVELY \nTHRILLED TO ASK TO SPEAK AT THE \nGRAND OPENING LATE LAST MONTH \nAND IT’S TREMENDOUS. AT THE \nBCDC PERMIT THERE IS AN AUDIO \nTOUR OF THE SHORELINE FROM THE \nFERRY BUILDING DOWN TO MISSION \nROCK NOW KNOWN AS CHINA BASIN \nPARK THAT IS NOW LIVE IT’S A FEW \nYEARS LATE\, A DIFFERENT FORM OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS THAN WHAT BCDC \nNORMALLY REQUIRES FOR SURE AND \nWE’RE WORKING WITH GIANTS TO \nMAKE SURE IT’S PUBLICIZED WELL. \nFINALLY ANOTHER NOTICE FOR THE \nBCDC BOOK CLUB. COMMISSIONER \nAHN’S NEW BOOK ENTITLED \nADVOCATE\, A GRAPHIC MEME WHAT OF \nFAMILY\, COMMUNITY\, AND THE FIGHT \nFOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS NOW \nAVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE. IT’S \nABSOLUTELY SUPERB AND IF YOU \nFOLLOW COMMISSIONER AHN ON \nSOCIAL MEDIA\, YOU WILL KNOW WHY\, \nAND WE ALL RECOMMEND IT HIGHLY. \nIN ADDITION THE COMMISSIONER HAS \nASSURED US THAT HE IS MORE THAN \nHAPPY TO SIGN ALL AVAILABLE \nCOPIES AT A SMALL PRICE. WITH \nTHAT\, CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR LARRY? \n>>EDDIE AHN: A QUICK COMMENT \nFROM COMMISSIONER AHN. THERE IS \nNO PRICE. IT WILL BE DONE \nABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU\, THOUGH. VERY MUCH \nAPPRECIATE YOUR PRAISE FOR THE \nBOOK. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWELL\, THERE IS A PRICE\, YOU NEED \nTO BUY THE BOOK\, AND YOU \nSHOULD. \nBUT NO PRICE FOR THE SIGNATURE. \nI WAS ACTUALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT \nWE ARE NOT ALL TOGETHER\, BECAUSE \nI HAVE MY BOOK AND HOPE TO GET \nHIM TO SIGN T BUT I WILL \nHOPEFULLY DO THAT AT OUR NEXT \nMEETING. \nONE OF THE THINGS SAID REMINDS \nME OF ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE\, \nTHERE WAS A REPORT IN THE SAN \nJOSE MERCURY LAST WEEK ABOUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL SETTLEMENT\, THE \nSETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM BY \nPACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION AND \nOTHERS AGAINST BCDC REGARDING \nOUR ACTIONS\, AND THERE WAS A \nSTATEMENT IN THAT ARTICLE THAT \nWE HAD IN THAT SETTLEMENT\, MADE \nA DEAL AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF \nWHAT WAS GOING ON TO PUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. THAT IS NOT \nACCURATE. WE MADE NO CHANGE IN \nTHE DEAL. WE SIMPLY DISMISSED \n— AGREED TO DISMISS THE \nLAWSUIT. STATE LAW WHICH \nAUTHORIZED THE USE BY THE AS OF \nHOWARD TERMINAL\, HAD AN \nEXPIRATION DATE IN IT WHEREBY IF \nTHE PORT AND THE A DESERT NOT \nREACH A BINDING AGREEMENT\, BY A \nDATE\, WHICH I THINK WAS SOMETIME \nTHIS YEAR\, SOMEBODY MAY CORRECT \nME ON THAT — IT — THE \nEXCLUSION OF THE PROJECT\, FROM \nTHE TIDE LANDS TRUST\, OR THE \nDETERMINATION THAT THAT USE WAS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE TIDE LANDS \nTRUST WOULD EXPIRE\, WE DID NOT \nMAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT WE WILL \nCONVEY THIS TO THE MERCURY. I \nKNOW THE PORT OF OAKLAND KNOWS \nTHAT\, BUT WE WILL MAKE THAT \nCLEAR\, AS WELL. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE \nADMINISTRATIVE — THE DRAFT OF \nADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. \nARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS \nON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIST? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SEE \nNOTHING FROM COMMISSIONERS. SO\, \nONCE AGAIN\, DIRECTOR ROSS GETS \nOFF WITHOUT BEING GRILLED. \nONE OF THESE DAYS\, YOU MAY FIND \nYOU’RE GETTING GRILLED. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEMS 8 AND 9\, \nWHICH WE ARE GOING TO COMBINE \nAND HEAR AS ONE ITEM. THEY ARE \nVERY SIMILAR. THEY INVOLVE TWO \nDIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS\, BUT \nTHE ISSUES ARE ESSENTIALLY \nSUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. THESE \nARE HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE VOTES \nON PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nAPPLICATION FOR NEW FIVE-YEAR \nPROGRAMMATIC OPERATIONS \nMAINTENANCE PERMIT EXISTING \nELECTRIC TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES \nTHROUGHOUT THE COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION OUTSIDE SUISUN \nMARSH AND INSIDE SUISUN MARSH \nWHERE WE DO HAVE SOME \nJURISDICTION. THE PRESENTATION \nWILL BE — SO\, WE’RE HAVING ONE \nPUBLIC HEARING TO COVER BOTH OF \nTHESE ISSUES. ROWAN YELTON OF \nOUR STAFF WILL MAKE THE STAFF’S \nINTRODUCTION AND THEN INTRODUCE \nSPEAKERS FROM PG&E. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. IS THAT SHOWING UP? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nIT’S SHOWING UP WITH YOUR NOTES \nWHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOT \nIT. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: MY NAME IS \nROWAN YELTON\, I AM A COASTAL \nPROGRAM ANALYST ON THE BAY \nRESOURCES TEAM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: FOR YOU ALL \nWHO ARE ONLINE THERE IS \nCONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE METRO \nCENTER THAT’S MAKING IT HARD FOR \nUS TO HEAR. I’M LOOKING AT YOU \nALL SO I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU CAN \nHEAR\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. \nIF YOU CAN’T HEAR — ALL RIGHT\, \nROWAN\, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED TO \nYELL INTO THAT MICROPHONE. USE \nYOUR OUTSIDE VOICE. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: OKAY I’LL USE \nMY OUTSIDE VOICE. I’M \nPRESENTING TWO PERMIT \nAPPLICATIONS FOR OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAM PROPOSED BY \nTHE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nCOMPANY. APPLICATIONS ARE FOR \nFIVE YEARS PROGRAMS OF \nMAINTENANCE REPAIR REPLACEMENT \nREMOVAL RETIREMENT AND \nMODIFICATION OF PG&E FACILITIES \nACTIVITIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO \nEXISTING FACILITIES AND \nSTRUCTURES AND WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN PERMANENT NET BAY FILL THOUGH \nSOME TEMPORARY FILL WOULD BE \nINSTALLED FOR SITE ACCESS. \nTHERE WOULD NOT BE PERMANENT \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC \nACCESS. \nBASED ON THE APPLICATION\, WE \nEXPECT THAT HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS \nWILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT EACH YEAR. MOST PROJECTS \nINVOLVE REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS AND POLES SUCH AS \nREPAIRING CRACKS AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS TRIMMING VEGETATION \nNEAR TOWERS AND LINES AND \nREPLACING DAMAGED HARDWARE \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF TOWERS \nAND POLES. LESS FREQUENT \nACTIVITIES INCLUDE REPLACEMENT \nOF ENTIRE STRUCTURES SUCH AS \nTOWERS AND PIPELINES. THE \nPROGRAM WOULD INCLUDE ACTIVITIES \nIN ALL NINE COUNTY BAY AREAS\, \nBCDC’S BAY SHORELINE BAND\, WATER \nWAYS SALT PONDS AND MANAGED \nWETLANDS JURISDICTIONS THE \nPROGRAM SPLIT INTO TWO \nAPPLICATIONS ONE FOR ACTIVITIES \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE \nSUISUN MARSH AND FOR ALL OTHER \nLOCATIONS THE TWO PERMITS WOULD \nHAVE IDENTICAL AUTHORIZATIONS \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ONLY \nDIFFER IN FINDINGS. BCDC \nPREVIOUSLY ISSUED TWO PERMITS \nFOR SIMILAR OPERATION AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN 1987 AND \n1989. THESE PERMITS WERE \nREPEATEDLY AMENDED AND EXTENDED \nAND WILL BOTH EXPIRE ON MAY \n30TH\, 2024. IN 2021\, PG&E \nAPPLIED FOR FIVE-YEAR EXTENSIONS \nTO BOTH PERMITS. WHEN \nAPPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED BCDC \nSTAFF REVIEWED THE EXISTING \nPERMITS AND DETERMINED THAT THEY \nWERE OUTDATED FOR THE FOLLOWING \nREASONS: AUTHORIZATIONS WERE NO \nLONGER SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL \nOF PG&E’S ACTIVITIES AND SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS NEEDED SIGNIFICANT \nCHANGES TO BRING THEM UP-TO-DATE \nWITH CURRENT BCDC LAWS AND \nPOLICIES\, ENGINEERING CODES AND \nSTANDARDS\, CURRENT STATE OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT\, AND OUR \nSCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT. \nSO\, THE PREVIOUS PERMITS WERE \nPERMITTED ADMINISTRATIVELY\, BUT \nAT THIS TIME WE ARE LOOKING TO \nISSUE MAJOR PERMITS \nFOR THEM BECAUSE ALTHOUGH EACH \nINDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY QUALIFIES AS \nMINOR REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS \nTHE PERMITS WOULD COVER A LARGE \nNUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE \nENTIRE BAY AREA OVER FIVE YEARS \nTHEY CANNOT BE REASONABLY \nCONSTRUED AS A SINGLE ACTIVITY \nAND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED \nADMINISTRATIVELY. WHEN WRITING \nTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OUR \nCONCERN WAS ENSURING THAT THE \nPROJECTS WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANT PERMIT IMPACTS OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS ADDRESSING CONCERNS TO \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED \nREQUIRE PERMITTEE TO RESTORE \nCONSTRUCTION SITES TO ORIGINAL \nCONDITION OR BETTER WHERE \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nAVOID MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS BEST MANAGEMENT OF \nPRACTICES IN MARSHES IN THE BAY \nAND SENSITIVE HABITATS COMPLY \nWITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS BY \nTHE RESOURCE AGENCIES SPECIAL \nCONDITION LIMIT TO ALLOW \nACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT RESULT IN \nINCREASE TO BAY FILL DURATION OF \nTEMPORARY FILL LESS THAN 180 \nDAYS PER PROJECT LIMIT \nRELOCATION AND REDECISION OF \nSTRUCTURES AND DISALLOW \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. PROPOSAL REVIEW \nPROCESS ALL ACTIVITIES REQUIRE \nBCDC STAFF APPROVAL BEFORE THEY \nCAN BE CONDUCTED EXCEPT FOR \nLIMITED CATEGORY ACTIVITIES THAT \nWOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nDO NOT INVOLVE ANY WATERWORKS. \nSOME EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES \nINCLUDE REPLACING MINOR \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND \nEQUIPMENT\, PAINTING AND \nVEGETATION TRIMMING. FOR ALL \nACTIVITY WHICH IS COULD RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE BAY OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nWOULD INVOLVE WATERWORKS THE \nPERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO \nSUBMIT ACTIVITY PROPOSAL BASED \nON FORM INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT TO \nTHE PERMIT BCDC STAFF WOULD THEN \nREVIEW ACTIVITY FOR CONSISTENCY \nWITH THE PERMIT YOU \nAUTHORIZATION AND CONDITIONS IF \nSTAFF FIND THE PROJECT IS NOT \nCONSISTENT WITH PERMITS AND PG&E \nWILL HAVE TO SUBMIT AN \nINDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS ALSO INCLUDED \nTO REQUIRE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT \nANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITIES \nCONDUCTED OVER THE PAST YEAR \nCUMULATIVELY SINCE PERMIT WAS \nISSUED AND IF THE ACTIVITY IS \nPROJECTED FOR UPCOMING YEAR \nFIVE-YEAR PROJECTED WORKPLAN FOR \nREPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF \nELECTRICAL TOWERS IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. AS YOU LEARN MORE \nABOUT THIS PROGRAM FROM THE PG&E \nSTAFF PRESENTATION\, \nTO KEEP IN MIND TIDAL \nFLATS\, FISH\, AQUATIC ORGANISMS\, \nWILDLIFE MITIGATION PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SHORELINE BAND \nAND MARSH PLANS LAND USE AND \nMARSH MANAGEMENT POLICY THE \nCOMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER \nWHETHER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT APPLICABLE TO \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN POLICIES \nSPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE FILL \nRESULTS IN RESULTING PROJECTS \nUPON CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS \nSECTION 66605 AND THAT FILL IS \nMINIMUM NECESSARY AND DESIGNED \nTO MINIMIZE HARM RECALL EFFECTS \nOF THE FILL. AND WHETHER \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ARE \nAPPROPRIATE TO AVOID MINIMIZE \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC \nACCESS AND BAY ENVIRONMENT. \nTHAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION AND I’LL NOW \nINTRODUCE KYLE STAPLE MAN\, TIM \nANDREWS\, JOHN WILCOX FROM PG&E F \nTHEIR PRESENTATION OF THE \nPROGRAM. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS ROWAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GO AHEAD JOHN. \n>>JON WILCOX: ARE YOU ABLE TO \nRUN THE PRESENTATION? WE DIDN’T \nWORK OUT THE LOGISTICS WITH \nBCDC. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M PULLING UP THE \nPRESENTATION NOW\, IF YOU CAN \nCONFIRM YOU SEE IT? \n>>JOHN WILCOX: I SEE T I’LL \nKICK US OFF. THANK YOU\, FIRST \nOF ALL\, CHAIR WASSERMAN AND THE \nCOMMISSIONERS\, TO LOOK AT OUR \nPERMIT APPLICATION. AS ROWAN \nSAID\, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE \nHAVE BEEN WORKING ON FROM THE \n’80s OFF A PREVIOUS PERMIT THIS\, \nIS SOLELY FOR OUR OWN ACTIVITIES \nIN AND AROUND THE BAY SO WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO GETTING THIS NEW \nPERMIT PUT IN PLACE\, GETTING \nPROCESSES IN PLACE AND WORKING \nTO\, YOU KNOW\, A GOOD FUTURE WITH \nUS\, WITH BCDC AS WE HAVE THIS \nPERMIT ACTIVE IN THE FUTURE. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL INTRODUCE TIM \nANDREWS WHO IS THE MANAGER OF \nOUR WATER PROGRAM. TIM\, ARE YOU \nABLE TO PRESENT? SORRY. WE \nHAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE ON \nOUR SIDE. PG&E DOESN’T \nNECESSARY HE ALLOW US TO USE \nZOOM SO WE’RE TRYING TO DO IT \nVIA PHONES FOR SOME FOLKS. \n>>SPEAKER: TIM SAID SAID HE MAY \nNOT — HE’S RUNNING INTO \nTECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. I CAN \nTAKE IT OVER FOR HIM. GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSION STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TYLER \nSTAPLE MAN. \n>>JON WILCOX: TYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER \n. \n>> CUYLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY \nNAME IS CUYLER STAPLE MAN\, \nPLANNER AT PG&E I HAVE BEEN \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND PG&E \nSTAKE R STAKEHOLDERS ON THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PERMIT FOR \nTHE PAST COUPLE OF YEAR OR SO \nTODAY IS THE BIDAY AND LOOKING \nFORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AFTER \nTHE PRESENTATION. I WANT TO DO \nA QUICK OVERVIEW OF OUR AGENDA \nTOPICS HERE IN THIS \nPRESENTATION. I’M GOING TO GO \nOVER PROGRAM NEED AND PURPOSE \nBACKGROUND OF OUR WORK\, \nACTIVITIES WE’RE SEEKING TO GET \nAUTHORIZED BY THESE PERMITS\, \nEXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE \nACTIVITIES ARE\, AND THE ACTIVITY \nCLASSES THAT HAVE BEEN \nINCORPORATED INTO THIS PERMIT\, \nAND OVERVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL \nIMPACTS AND THE SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS THAT WE WILL BE \nIMPLEMENTING DURING OUR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPROGRAM. I REALIZE SOME OF THIS \nIS — MAY BE REPETITIVE FROM THE \nINFORMATION THAT WAS JUST \nPRESENTED\, SO\, I’LL TRY TO \nSTREAMLINE WHERE POSSIBLE. \nPG&E’S MISSION IS TO DELIVER \nCLEAN SAFE RELIABLE AFFORDABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS\, THIS \nMEANS WE MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT \nMAINTAIN AND OPERATE OUR \nFACILITIES TO ACHIEVE THAT \nGOAL. \nWE FEEL THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS \nO&M PLAN IS TO MAINTAIN THE \nENERGY TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES TO \nDELIVER THAT ENERGY TO OUR \nCUSTOMERS. AND IN DOING SO\, AND \nMAINTAINING SAFE AND RELIABLE \nFACILITIES\, WE’LL BE DOING OUR \nPART IN BEING GOOD STEWARDS TO \nTHE BAY ENVIRONMENT AND THE \nRESOURCES UNDER BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. \nPG&E HAS BEEN CONDUCTING ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION UNDER \nPERMITS THAT WERE INITIALLY \nEFFECTIVE IN 1987. THEY HAVE \nBEEN EXTENDED NUMEROUS TIMES IN \nTHE CURRENT EXTENSIONS EXPIRE \nMAY 31ST OF THIS YEAR. UNDER \nTHESE NEW PERMITS WE PROPOSE TO \nCONTINUE THAT OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PLAN WITH NEW \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nNOTIFICATION AND REPORTING \nPROCEDURES WITH BCDC. \nSO\, AGAIN THIS\, PERMIT WOULD \nAUTHORIZE PG&E TO PERFORM THIS \nROUTINE WORK FOR A PERIOD OF \nFIVE YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO \nRENEW AT THE END OF THE TERM. \nAND THIS O&M WORK WILL BE \nCONDUCT THE UNDER TWO SEPARATE \nPERMITS\, ONE FOR SUISUN MARSH \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA\, AND THE \nOTHER PERMIT FOR ALL OTHER \nPORTIONS OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, \nALONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nAGAIN\, THE ACTIVITIES WE’LL BE \nPERFORMING WILL BE SIMILAR TO \nACTIVITIES WE HAVE BEEN \nPERFORMING UNDER EXISTING \nPERMITS WITH NEW SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS. \nSO\, THE FOLLOWING MAPS SHOW THE \nLOCATIONS OF PG&E WORK THAT WE \nCONDUCTED UNDER THE EXISTING \nPERMITS IN 2022 AND 2023\, AS \nWELL AS WORK WE’RE PLANNING FOR \n2024 AND 2025. I WANT TO \nBRIEFLY POINT OUT SOME ITEMS ON \nTHIS LEGEND IN THE FOLLOWING \nMAPS BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS \nSHADED IN A PURPLE COLOR\, AND \nTHE PROJECTS FROM 2022 TO 2025 \nARE SHOWN AS POINTS. ONE THING \nTO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE \nDISTINCTION BETWEEN TRANSMISSION \nAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. \nSO\, WHEN PG&E TALKS ABOUT OUR \nFACILITIES THERE\, IS TWO MAJOR \nCATEGORIES THAT THINK WE OF\, \nTRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION. \nAND TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE \nIT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN \nMIND THAT ENERGY ISN’T ALWAYS \nCONSUMED WHERE IT’S PRODUCED. \nSO\, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT \nTRANSMISSION FACILITIES\, THESE \nFACILITIES TRANSMIT ENERGY \nRESOURCES OVER LONG DISTANCES\, \nBETWEEN THE LOCATIONS ITS \nPRODUCED AND WHERE IT’S \nCONSUMED. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION \nSYSTEM MAY BE HIGHER VOLTAGE \nWITH LARGER POLES\, AND A GAS \nTRANSMISSION SYSTEM HAS A LARGER \nDIAMETER PIPELINE. FOR \nDISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS\, THESE \nSYSTEMS DELIVER ENERGY DIRECTLY \nTO THE END USER\, OUR \nCUSTOMERS. \nDISTRIBUTION POLE\, ELECTRIC \nDISTRIBUTION POLE ARE THOSE \nYOU’RE LIKELY TO SEE IN YOUR \nCOMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD\, AND A \nGAS DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE IS \nGENERALLY SMALLER. \nTO GIVE PG&E STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS A SENSE OF THE \nAMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE HAVE \nIN THE JURISDICTION\, I \nRAN SOME NUMBERS WITH OUR GIS \nDEPARTMENT AND WANT TO SHARE \nTHOSE WITH YOU TODAY. WE HAVE \nOVER 520 MILES OF ENERGIZED \nELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR WITHIN YOUR \nJURISDICTION AND THOSE \nCONDUCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY 829 \nTOWERS\, AND OVER 4\,900 POLES AND \nSIMILAR SUPPORT STRUCTURES. \nTHOSE 829 TOWERS MAY BE ACCESSED \nBY OVER 180 MILES OF BOARDWALK \nIN THE BAY AND WE ALSO HAVE OVER \n65 MILES OF NATURAL BAS \nPIPELINE. ALL OF THESE ASSETS \nMUST BE INSPECTED\, MAINTAINS AND \nOPERATED TO ENSURE FAY OUR \nFACILITIES PROVIDE SAFE RELIABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS. \nTHE ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY \nTHESE PERMITS ARE THOSE THAT WE \nROUTINELY PERFORM TO MEET OUR \nGOALS. UNDER THIS PERMIT\, THESE \nACTIVITIES WILL BE LIMITED TO \nTHE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING \nFACILITIES RATHER THAN THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES. \nTHE PERMIT WILL CATEGORIZE OUR \nOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE \nACTIVITIES INTO FOUR CLASSES\, \nWHICH WE’LL DISCUSS IN A FEW \nMORE SLIDES. BUT I WANTED TO \nNOTE THAT THE PERMIT WAS WRITTEN \nWITH BROAD LANGUAGE INTENDED TO \nCOVER MOST OF OUR ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nWORK. \nHOWEVER ANY ACTIVITY THAT \nDOESN’T FALL WITHIN THESE \nACTIVITY CLASSES OR WITHIN THE \nAUTHORIZED ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS\, \nPG&E WILL SEEK SEPARATE \nAUTHORIZATION FROM BCDC. EXCUSE \nME\, SO\, THE MAJORITY OF \nACTIVITIES WE EXPECT TO PERFORM \nUNDER THIS PERMIT ARE WHAT WE \nREFER TO AS OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWHICH CONSIST OF REPLACING \nOR REPAIRING OR REPLACING OF \nEQUIPMENT AT TOP OF UTILITY \nPOLES AND TOWERS ACTIVITIES \nDON’T REQUIRE ANY GROUND \nDISTURBANCE OR EXCAVATION ON THE \nGROUND\, ACTIVITIES OVERHEAD MAY \nINCLUDE REPLACING \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND HANGING \nPLATES THAT SUSPEND ELECTRIFIED \nCONDUCTORS FROM TOWERS AND POLES \nAS WELL AS REPAIRING HIGH WIRES\, \nVOLTAGE SIGNS AND REPLACING \nBOLTS THESE ARE DEMON MOUSE \nCLASS ACTIVITIES MENTIONED ON \nTHE SLIDE EXPECTING TO PERFORM \n500 OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES DURING \nTHE FIVE-YEAR PERMIT TERM. IN \nADDITION TO OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWE’RE EXPECTING TO REPLACE 25 \nMILES OF BOARDWALK REPLACE 50 \nPOLES\, TOWERS\, AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS AND REPLACE SECTIONS \nOF FIVE GAS PIPELINES OVER THE \nNEXT FIVE YEARS. \nSO PERMITS INCLUDE FOUR ACTIVITY \nCLASSES WITHIN WHICH PG&E WILL \nHAVE SPECIFIC REVIEW\, \nNOTIFICATION\, AND REPORTING \nREQUIREMENTS TO FOLLOW. IN \nGENERAL\, ACTIVITIES WITH LESS \nENVIRONMENTAL RISK WILL BE \nREVIEWED AND AUTHORIZED MORE \nQUICKLY THAN ACTIVITIES THAT \nHAVE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PUBLIC \nACCESS OF BAY RESOURCES. CLASS \nONE ACTIVITIES DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY IMPACTS TO PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nTHE BAY\, AND DO NOT INVOLVE ANY \nIN WATERWORKS. THESE ARE THOSE \nOVERHEAD ACTIVITIES I PREVIOUSLY \nREFERRED TO. \nPG&E WILL BE PROCEEDING WITH \nTHIS WORK AT OUR DISCRETIONARY \nDURING — UNDER — DURING THIS \nPERMIT\, HOWEVER WE’LL BE \nREPORTING TO BCDC ANNUALLY\, A \nSUMMARY OF CLASS ONE ACTIVITIES \nPERFORMED. \nTHE SECOND ACTIVITY CLASS IS \nCLASS TWO AND WITHIN CLASS TWO\, \nTHERE ARE TWO SUBTYPES. CLASS \nTWO. A AND 2B. CLASS TWO \nACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR IN THE \nSHORELINE BAND\, THEY MAY INVOLVE \nSMALL AMOUNTS OF FILL AND \nEXTRACTION. THEY DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY WATERWORKS. NOW\, THE \nDIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2A AND 2B IS \nCLASS 2A IS LIMITED TO WORK THAT \nDOES NOT IMPACT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nWHEREAS CLASS 2B MAY INCLUDE \nTEMPORARY PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS. \nCLASS THREE ACTIVITIES ARE THE \nROUTINE OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE ACTIONS THAT HAVE \nPOTENTIAL TO RESULT IN IMPACTS \nTO BAY RESOURCES INCLUDING FISH \nAND WILDLIFE AND TIDAL MARSHES \nHOWEVER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT AND PG&E \nPROGRAMMATIC MAINTENANCE PERMITS \nWITH RESOURCES AGENCIES \nSIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES WILL NOT OCCUR FROM \nIMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS THREE \nACTIVITIES. CLASS THREE \nACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE REPLACING \nOF CONCRETE FOOTING OF AN \nEXISTING STEEL TRANSMISSION \nTOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH THAT \nMAY INVOLVE EXCAVATION OR GROUND \nDISTURBANCE WITHIN THE TIDAL \nMARSH. \nTHIS SLIDE IS BRIEFLY \nSUMMARIZING THE IMPACTS THAT MAY \nRESULT FROM PG&E’S OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES UNDER \nTHIS PERMIT. AS ROWAN \nPREVIOUSLY MENTIONED\, WE DO NOT \nEXPECT ANY SIGNIFICANT NET \nINCREASE IN BAY FILL. WHILE \nPG&E EXPECTS TO REPLACE OVER 100 \nCUBIC YARDS PLACE OVER \n140 CUBIC QUARTERS OF FILL \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION THIS \nFILL WILL BE OFFSET BY REMOVAL \nOF EXISTING FILL OF ROUGHLY \nEQUAL AMOUNTS\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IF \nWE REPLACE A POLE WE’LL INSTALL \nAND REPLACE POLE NEW POLE AND \nBASE STAYS AT ROUGHLY ZERO. \nPERMIT ALSO LIMITS PUBLIC ACCESS \nSCENIC VIEW IMPACTS FROM PG&E \nFACILITIES PROJECTS WITH \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO BAY \nRESOURCES PUBLIC ACCESS WILL \nNOT BE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT. \nTO BRIEFLY MENTION PREVIOUSLY\, \nTHESE PERMITS WILL REQUIRE PG&E \nTO EMPLOY A STANDARD OF BEST \nMANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHILE \nPERFORMING ALL AUTHORIZED \nACTIVITIES. ADDITIONALLY THE \nPERMIT HAS A NUMBER OF \nCONDITIONS THAT PG&E MUST FOLLOW \nTO AVOID OR MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES REGULATED BY BCDC. \nSUCH AS FISH\, WILDLIFE\, AND \nTIDAL MARSH. \nFURTHERMORE\, PG&E’S BIOLOGISTS \nWILL BE REVIEWING MAINTENANCE \nWORK WITH POTENTIAL TO IMPACT \nBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TO IDENTIFY \nSPECIFIC RESOURCES PROTECTION \nMEASURES NEEDED TO AVOID IMPACTS \nTO RESOURCES DURING WORK \nEXECUTION THESE PROJECTS \nSPECIFIC MEASURES WILL BE \nDOCUMENTED IN A BIOLOGICAL \nREPORT SENT TO BCDC’S WITH THE \nWORK NOTIFICATION PACKAGE. \nTHE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO POINT \nOUT IS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT ARE \nCONSISTENT WITH THE RESOURCE \nAGENCY PERMITS PG&E HAS FOR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPLANNING INCLUDING THE BAY AREA \nHABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN \nAUTHORIZED BY THE OFFICIAL \nWILDLIFE SERVICE\, THE BAY AREA \nINCIDENTAL PERMIT BY DEPARTMENT \nOF FISH AND WILDLIFE AS WELL AS \nOUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPERMIT PERFORM FROM REGIONAL \nWATER QUALITY BOARD AND U.S. \nARMY CORP. WITH THAT SAID \nTHAT’S THE END OF THE \nPRESENTATION. I’LL TURN IT BACK \nTO BCDC F QUESTIONS AND \nDISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nWE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE \nPUBLIC OR COMMENTS FROM THE \nPUBLIC. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED IN-PERSON OR ON ZOOM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nJUST TO BE VERY CLEAR\, BECAUSE I \nSHOULD HAVE DONE IS THAT BEFORE\, \nWHAT I JUST DID\, WE STILL HAVE \nNOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING \nTO COMMENT\, IS THAT CORRECT \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THAT’S \nCORRECT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nDO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONER HANDS \nRAISED\, COMMISSIONER ECKLUND. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH\, CHAIR. \nMY QUESTION IS THAT YOU \nINDICATED THAT THERE WOULDN’T BE \nANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC \nVIEWS OR WHATEVER. BUT IS THERE \nANY OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE CAN \nIMPROVE THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nVIEWS BY MAKING SOME CHANGES? \nTHAT’S MY FIRST QUESTION. MY \nSECOND QUESTION IS — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \nTHAT’S WHY I GOT FEEDBACK. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PARDON \nME? OVERDOES AND THE \n— THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE \nIS YOU SHOWED THE BIG TOWERS ARE \nTHERE ANY TOWERS THAT ARE GOING \nTO BE REPLACED? IF YOU COULD \nCLARIFY THAT? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES WE ARE GOING \nTO REPLACE TOWERS AND WILL \nPROVIDE A PLAN OVER THE NEXT \nFIVE YEARS TO BCDC OF THOSE \nTOWERS THAT WILL BE REPLACED \nWE’RE GOING THROUGH THAT\, THAT’S \nTHE BIG DRIVER FOR RENEWING THIS \nPERMIT. BECAUSE THOSE TOWERS \nARE SITTING IN SALT WATER\, THEY \nGET BEAT UP PRETTY BAD\, AND THEY \nNEED TO BE REPLACED EVERY NOW \nAND THEN. WITH REGARDS TO THE \nOTHER ONE ABOUT IMPROVEMENT\, SO\, \nWE ARE DOING THINGS OF APPROVING \nOR LINING SOME BOARDWALKS TO \nBETTER LOCATIONS THAT MAKE LESS \nIMPACTS THAT’S OUT THERE\, THIS \nIS REALLY AT THE HEART OF \nO&M TO HANDLE THE EQUIPMENT AND \nFACILITIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN \nPLACE THAT WOULD TRIGGER OTHER \nTHINGS LIKE RIGHT OF WAY\, \nACCESS\, AND OTHER PERMITS THAT \nWOULD BE NEEDED ABOVE AND BEYOND \nOF JUST FIXING THE ASSETS THAT \nARE CURRENTLY IN THAT LOCATION. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. \nAND THEN\, I GUESS THAT \nCLARIFICATION ON THOSE METAL \nTOWERS\, YOU SAID THAT THEY WOULD \nBE REPLACED\, BUT ARE — YOU SAID \nTHAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE A \nSEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION TO \nBCDC? WAS THAT CORRECT? \n>>JON WILCOX: NOT A SEPARATE \nPERMIT IT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN \nTHE REPORT WE’RE PROVIDING TO \nBCDC THAT’S WHAT’S CREATED UNDER \nTHIS NEW PERMIT. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: SO ARE \nYOU GOING TO BE COORDINATING \nWITH CITIES AND COUNTIES ON \nGETTING A PERMIT? BECAUSE I \nJUST HAD AN SPECIALTY RECENTLY \nTHAT PG&E WAS GOING TO BE \nWORKING ON A PARTICULAR \nTELECONFERENCE POLE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: APPARENTLY THEY \nFORGOT TO GET A PERMIT. DO YOU \nHAVE A DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT PERMITS ARE APPLIED FOR AND \nRECEIVED BEFORE WORK IS ACTUALLY \nIN THE SHADED\, OR LETTERS GO OUT \nTO FOLKS? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES THAT’S ALL OF \nOUR PERMIT PLANNING PROCESS IT’S \nNOT JUST CITIES AND COUNTIES WE \nHAVE STATE AGENCIES AND THERE IS \nOVERLAY. WE HAVE A PROCESS\, \nPRESIDENT MATTICS\, WITH THE FEDS \nAND STATE THAT REQUIRE \nREPORTING\, BEST MANAGEMENT \nPRACTICES\, OR AVOIDANCE MEASURES \nTHAT WE PUT IN PLACE\, AS WELL. \nSO\, THAT’S IN THERE AND THERE IS \nA CHECK PROCESS THAT GOES \nTHROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nPLANNING GROUP TO TAKE CARE OF \nTHINGS AS FAR AS CITIES AND \nCOUNTIES THAT’S A DIFFERENT \nGROUP CALLED EPWC BUT THEY \nHANDLE THE — IN THIS CASE\, IF \nYOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO SHUT \nDOWN A ROADWAY FROM THE CITY AND \nCOUNTY ENCROACHMENT TYPE PERMITS \nTHEY WORK ON THAT AS WELL. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I UNDERSTAND I \nWORKED FOR THE ARM I CORP OF \nENGINEERS AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL \nPROTECTION AGENCY FOR 43 YEARS \nSO I UNDERSTANDS ALL OF THAT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nANSWERING MY QUESTION. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: TO ANSWER THE \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS\, THE PERMIT IS — \nRESTRICTS THE ACTIVITIES TO \nPROJECTS THAT WOULDN’T REQUIRE \nANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATORY \nMITIGATION. SO\, WHEN PG&E WOULD \nPROPOSE SOMETHING LARGE AND \nIMPACTFUL LIKE A TOWER \nREPLACEMENT\, OUR STAFF WOULD USE \nTHE ACTIVITY REVIEW PROCESS\, \nWHICH IS SPECIAL CONDITION OF \nTHE PERMIT TO ASSESS WHETHER \nTHAT ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nWHETHER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nARE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT \nWOULD REQUIRE COMP PENS TORE \nMITIGATION. SO THERE MIGHT BE \nSOME CASE WHERE IS A SPECIFIC \nTOWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT WOULD \nREQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT. \nHOWEVER\, THERE ARE SOME CASES \nWHERE PG&E\, I BELIEVE\, IS \nPLANNING ON REPLACING TOWERS IN \nDIFFERENT LOCATIONS\, AND THIS \nWOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT WHEN THE RELOCATION OF \nTHE TOWER WOULD MOVE THE TOWER \nOUT OF BCDC JURISDICTION\, \nENTIRELY\, WILL MOVE THE TOWER \nFROM THE BAY JURISDICTION INTO \nTHE SHORELINE BAND\, OR THE \nMOVEMENT WOULD RESULT IN \nSIGNIFICANTLY LESS BAY FILL OR \nSIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED PUBLIC \nACCESS OR VIEWS. AND THE \nRELOCATION WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ADVERSE \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARED \nTO REPLACING THE TOWER IN THE \nSAME PLACE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THAT \nWAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I \nHAD. SO\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? YOU’RE \nMUTED\, BARRY. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I’M GETTING AN \nECHO\, I’M NOT SURE WHY. \nCAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: TWO \nQUESTIONS. THE FIRST IS\, IT \nSOUNDS AS THOUGH THERE ARE A \nCOUPLE OF WAYS IN WHICH THIS \nPERMIT COULD PRODUCE PUBLIC OR \nENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS \nRELOCATING THE TOWERS AS ROWAN \nJUST MENTIONED\, POTENTIALLY\, \nOUTSIDE OF OUR BAY JURISDICTION\, \nAND EVEN TO OUR SHORELINE BANNER \nUPLAND JURISDICTIONS\, AND \nREDUCTION IN BAY FILL FROM \nCONSOLIDATED OR REMOVING BOARD \nWALKS\, GIVEN THERE ARE 25 MILES \nOF BOARD WALKS TO REPLACE\, \nTHAT’S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT \nNUMBER. SO I’M ASKING IF THE \nREPORTING PROCESS IN THIS PERMIT \nWILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THOSE \nBENEFITS OVER TIME\, IF THERE ARE \nINDEED THOSE KINDS OF \nSIGNIFICANT BENEFITS GIVEN THE \nSCALE OF OPERATIONS OVER THE \nLENGTH OF THIS PERMIT\, IS THE \nREPORTING GOING TO ALLOW US TO \nDETECT THOSE BENEFITS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. FOR ALL OF \nTHE LARGER PROJECTS THAT ARE \nREQUIRED\, THE REVIEWS IN THE \nCLASS TWO OR CLASS THREE\, SUCH \nAS THE REPLACEMENT OF \nSTRUCTURES\, REMOVAL\, REPLACEMENT \nOF BOARD WALKS\, THAT KIND OF \nTHING\, THE ANNUAL REPORTS WOULD \nBE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THOSE \nPROJECTS BOTH THAT ARETIVELY\, \nAND WITH THE RAW DATA OF THINGS \nLIKE\, HOW — WHAT THE NET FILL \nDIFFERENCE WAS. SO THAT OUR \nSTAFF CAN REVIEW HOW THIS \nPROGRAM IS GOING AND SEE IF \nTHERE ARE UNEXPECTED BENEFITS OR \nTHINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO \nCHANGE THE NEXT TIME THE PERMIT \nCOMES UP FOR RENEWAL. \n>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND \nQUESTION. GIVEN — IF THIS WAS \nA LAND PERMIT F THIS WERE A \nCAPITAL PERMIT OF THIS SIZE AND \nSCALE AND SCOPE\, I AM CERTAIN \nTHAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRING \nSIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nOUR REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE \nMAXIMUM PUBLIC ACCESS CONSISTENT \nWITH A PROJECT. BUT THIS IS AN \nO&M PERMIT\, NOT A CAPITAL \nPERMIT. SO\, CAN YOU HELP US \nUNDERSTAND\, GIVEN THE SIZE OF \nTHIS PERMIT\, HOW STAFF HAS \nTHOUGHT ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nJUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE — \nWE DON’T WANT TO DOUBLE DIP\, IF \nTHERE WERE CAPITAL — IF THERE \nWERE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS REGARDING FOR SOME OF \nTHESE PROJECTS WHEN THEY WERE \nORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED WE DON’T \nWANT TO DOUBLE DIP BUT AT THE \nSAME TIME WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nWE’RE APPROPRIATELY THINKING \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS \nFOR BIG LONG-TERM O&M PROJECTS. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, AS WE \nWERE GOING THROUGH THE \nAPPLICATION PROCESS\, WE \nSERIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHETHER WE \nWOULD BE — WHATEVER THIS \nPROGRAM WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC \nACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. AND THE \nFACT IS THAT THE PROGRAM WOULD \nONLY INVOLVE ACTIVITIES ON \nEXISTING STRUCTURES. IT \nWOULDN’T INVOLVE ANY INCREASES \nIN USE OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN \nUSES. AND THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY \nPERMIT PUBLIC ACCESS IMPACTS. \nSO STAFF DETERMINED THAT THERE \nWASN’T AN APPROPRIATE NEXUS TO \nREQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: ARE THERE OTHER \nEXAMPLES OF LONG-TERM \nPERMITS LIKE THIS THAT DON’T \nHAVE PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. WE HAVE \nSEVERAL LONG-TERM O&M PERMITS \nWITH DIFFERENT PUBLIC \nAGENCIES\, CALTRANS\, SANTA CLARA \nVALLEY WATER\, EAST BAY \nPARK DISTRICT\, CARGILL. THERE \nARE A LOT OF THEM. AND I DON’T \nBELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE \nPUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS \nREQUIRED. \n>>BARRY NELSON: THAT’S ALL. IF \nI COULD — \n>>SPEAKER: — [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \n>>SPEAKER: APP UP AGAIN. \n>>BARRY NELSON: CAN YOU HEAR \nME? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERM FOCUS IN \nPUBLIC ACCESS A LOT OF FOCUS IS \nACTUALLY AVOIDING IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS DURING THESE KINDS \nOF WORK THAT PG&E NEEDS TO KEEP \nELECTRICITY AND THE GAS \nFLOWING. \nTHAT’S REALLY WHAT THE PERMIT \nPROVIDES FOR IS MAKING SURE \nTHERE AREN’T SIGNIFICANT \nLONG-TERM IMPACTS TO THE \nEXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS WITH THE \nPROJECT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT \nPUBLIC ACCESS BUT IT WAS MORE IN \nTHAT LIGHT\, WE REALIZE THE \n99\, I DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT \nMOST OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY \nSMALL LIKE REPLACING RESISTORS \nOR THINGS LIKE THAT\, THAT AREN’T \nPHENOMENAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: MY QUESTION \nIS ABOUT MAYBE THE LARGER \nPROBLEMS. YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THE STAGING AREAS THAT \nMIGHT BE REQUIRED? I GUESS \nTHERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT \nTHAT THERE. BUT YOU TALK ABOUT \nBOARDWALKS\, BUT — WHAT KIND OF \nHEAVY EQUIPMENT DO YOU \nPOTENTIALLY NEED FOR\, LIKE\, THE \nWORK ON THE LARGER TOWERS? AND \nHOW MANY LARGE STAGING AREAS DO \nYOU ANTICIPATE HAVING TO BUILD \nAND POTENTIALLY MITIGATE FOR? \n>>CUYLER STAPLEMANN: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR QUESTION. I CAN JUMP IN \nHERE. A LOT OF OUR ELECTRIC \nTRANSMISSION TOWERS ARE IN THE \nBAY. THEY DO HAVE BOARDWALK \nACCESS. BUT WE PERFORM A LOT OF \nWORK ON THOSE TOWERS\, ESPECIALLY \nAT THE TOPS OF THOSE TOWERS\, BY \nHELICOPTER. SO IMPORTANT — \nTHERE IS LOTS OF RESTRICTION \nWHERE IS WE CAN SAFELY FLY \nSPECIFIC DISTANCES WE CAN’T \nCROSS PUBLIC ROADS WITHOUT \nTRAFFIC CONTROL WE TRY TO \nLOCATION THOSE HELICOPTER \nLANDING ZONES AS CLOSE TO THE \nWORK LOCATIONS AS POSSIBLE IT’S \nA SAFETY ISSUE FOR OUR WORKERS \nAS WELL AS THE PUBLIC I CAN’T \nREALLY SPEAK TO THE VOLUME OF \nLANDING ZONES\, ZONES MAY BE \nREQUIRED PER YEAR BUT GENERALLY \nTHEY ARE LOCATED ON EXISTING \nPAVED SURFACES \nLOTS\, DISTURBED AREAS THEY’RE \nSTAGE A COUPLE OF POLES AND \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND SLIDE \nTHEM OUT TO THE WORK LOCATIONS\, \nIN THE CASE OF LARGER TOWER \nPROJECT THERE WOULD BE \nADDITIONAL TEMPORARY \nCONSTRUCTION EASTMENT OR WORK \nAREAS OUTSIDE OF OUR RIGHT OF \nWAY THAT WOULD NEED\, SORT OF\, A \nTEMPORARY RIGHT FROM THE \nPROPERTY OWNER\, AND THOSE WOULD \nGENERALLY BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY \nIN THE VICINITY OF THE TOWER DUE \nTO A TOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH\, \nTHOSE WORK AREAS YOU WOULD\, \nAS SMALL AS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE \nIMPACTS AND WE CAN’T ACCESS BY \nBARGE OFTENTIMES WE’LL HAVE \nEQUIPMENT ON BARGES AND THROW \nTHEM RIGHT UP TO THE TOWERS. \nBUT IN RARE OCCASIONS WE WILL \nNEED TO PLACE MATTING SOME REVE \nEQUIPMENT. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH THAT \nHELPS EITHER HELICOPTER OR BARGE \nBECAUSE YOU COULDN’T BRING HEAVY \nEQUIPMENT ALONG THE BOARDWALK. \nTHAT’S IT. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERMITS WOULD \nALSO INCLUDE SPECIAL CONDITION \nREQUIRING RESTORATION OF \nTEMPORARY IMPACTS TO TIDAL MARSH \nIF THEY’RE EXPECTED IN A \nPROJECT. AND THESE ACTIVITIES \nTHAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE \nTHAT PG&E EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO \nBE PASSIVELY RESTORED WITHIN TWO \nYEARS. SO\, SOME OF THE LARGER \nTOWER REPLACEMENTS THAT WOULD \nREQUIRE MORE VEGETATION \nCLEARING\, MORE MATTING\, THOSE \nMIGHT BE KICKED OUT OF THIS \nPERMIT AND REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL \nPERMIT IF THE RESTORATION WOULD \nBE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER\, OR \nTHERE WOULD BE PERMIT IMPACTS. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN GUYS \nHEAR ME? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SPEAK UP A LITTLE \nBIT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: CAN YOU HEAR \nME NOW? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: IT’S THE \nSETTINGS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: WE’RE GETTING \nSOME FEEDBACK HERE. QUICK \nQUESTION. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF \nTHE DETAIL IN YOUR \nPRESENTATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nCAN BARELY HEAR YOU ANDY. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN \nDESCRIBE HOW YOU ARE \nCONSIDERING\, AS YOU PREPARE AND \nUPGRADE FACILITIES\, I ASSUME YOU \nARE THINKING ALSO ABOUT THE \nFUTURE CLIMATE IN WHICH THESE \nFACILITIES WILL NEED TO BE \nOPERATED. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THAT? AND WHETHER AS \nWE’RE WORKING TO IN THE AREA \nAROUND THE BAY WHETHER THERE ARE \nPOSSIBILITIES OF\, SORT OF\, \nMULTI-BENEFIT KIND OF WORK THAT \nYOU CAN DO — BECAUSE I KNOW YOU \nDON’T GO OUT TO THESE SITES \nREALLY THAT OFTEN. \n>>JON WILCOX: WE HAVE TEAMS \nLOOKING AT SEA LEVEL RISE AND \nIMPACT. WE HAVE SUBSTATIONS \nTHAT ARE CLOSE\, RAVENSWOOD IN \nPARTICULAR\, THINGS THAT ARE \nTRIGGERED FOR SEA LEVEL RISE WE \nSPEND A LOT OF TIME IF TOWERS \nNEED TO BE RAISED\, TO ADDRESS \nTHAT\, AND THOSE ISSUES OCCUR. \nWE HAVE A BIG TEAM AND THEY’RE \nDEFINITELY SPENDING TIME \nREVIEWING THAT. AND SOME OF THE \nPROJECT WORK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE \nIS PROTECTING SEA LEVEL RISE \nTHOSE ARE PROJECTS COMING \nTHROUGH RIGHT NOW\, TO YOUR \nQUESTION ABOUT MULTI-BENEFIT\, I \nTHINK THAT’S GOING TO GO TO EACH \nPROJECT WHAT WE CAN DO. WE WORK \nCLOSELY WITH THE JOINT VENTURE \nAND A LOT OF GROUPS SEEING WHAT \nWE CAN DO TO WORK TOGETHER. WE \nDIDN’T — WE HAVE THESE OTHER \nPROGRAMMATICS AS I MENTIONED \nBEFORE AND THOSE TRIGGER A LOT \nOF MITIGATION OUT THERE\, LIKE \nFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND \nCFW AND WE’RE WORKING WITH THEM \nTO CREATE LARGE-SCALE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO POSTAGE \nSTAMP STUFF DONE BEFORE \nHISTORICALLY THOSE ARE THINGS WE \nCAN DO TO WORK WITH JOINT \nVENTURE AND BOTH FEDS AND STATE \nAGENCIES AND LAND AGENCIESES TO \nCREATE BENEFITS RESTORATION \nOPPORTUNITIES. THERE ARE AREAS\, \nWE’RE WORKING WITH A MITIGATION \nBANK DEVELOPER WHERE WE’RE \nSWITCHING AN EASEMENT TO AN \nARIEL EASEMENT THAT WOULD NEVER \nPUT ANYTHING DOWN\, DON EDWARDS \nREFUGE RIGHT NOW THOSE ARE THE \nTHINGS COMING UP\, BUT BENEFICIAL \nASPECTS SEA LEVEL RISE ARE HIGH \nIN OUR MIND WE HAVE ASSETS THAT \nARE IN THE MIDST OF BEING \nIMPACTED. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THAT’S KIND \nOF WHAT I FIGURED AND I WANT TO \nMAKE SURE ONCE YOU’RE OUT THERE \nTOUCHING THESE FACILITIES THAT \nEVERYTHING — ALL THE CAPITAL WE \nINVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY NOW \nNEEDS TO BE DONE IN THAT \nMANNER. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I HAD A QUICK \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR JON\, YOU \nREFERRED TO SOMETHING CALLED A \nJOINT VENTURE\, JON\, AND I WAS \nCURIOUS WHAT THAT WAS WITH \nREGARD TO THE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS THAT YOU DO. \n>>JON WILCOX: IT’S THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE\, WE \nSIT ON THAT BOARD AS WELL — I’M \nSORRY\, THE BAY AREA JOINT \nVENTURE PROGRAM\, THAT WE SIT ON\, \nWE’RE EXPLORING WITH THEM \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR RESTORATION \nTHAT EXIST OUT THERE CURRENTLY \nRIGHT. WE CAN LEVERAGE\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE HAVE PROPERTY CALLED \nANTIOCH DUNES THAT WAS PART OF \nTHE REFUGE\, WE DONATED THAT BACK \nTO THE REFUGE TWO YEARS AGO IT’S \nA BIG EXPANSION. WEIGH DO WHAT \nWE CAN AS FAR AS WORKING \nTOGETHER\, THE BENEFITS ON \nMITIGATION SIDE\, BUT ALSO \nBENEFITS WHAT WE’RE CAN DO AND \nPUT INTO A REFUGE TYPE SITUATION \nOR RESTORATION\, RIGHT THOSE ARE \nTHE THINGS WE’RE LOOKING AT. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nGREAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nDON’T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS \nRAISED. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nAPPROVE TO CLOSE — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PARDON ME. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I MOVE \nTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND I HAVE A SECOND \nFROM COMMISSIONER \nMOULTON-PETERS. THANK YOU. IS \nTHERE ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSING \nTHE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING \nNONE. IT IS CLOSED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO TO BEGIN THE \nDISCUSSION\, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT’S WHAT’S COMING UP \nNEXT. \nGO AHEAD\, RON. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO\, I MOVED IT. \nIS THERE A SECOND? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nNO. \nWE NEED TO HAVE IT BEFORE \nYOU GO AHEAD \nROWAN. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: STAFF \nRECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF \nCONDITIONS OF PROPOSED PERMANENT \nAPPLICATION NUMBER 202300200 FOR \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL \nGAS TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA \nINCLUDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRING ACTIVITY PROPOSAL FOR \nSTAFF REVIEW INCLUDING ANNUAL \nREPORTING SPECIES PROTECTION \nINCLUDING RESTORATION TEMPORARY \nDISTURBANCES COMPLIANCE WITH \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nWINDOWS AND COMPLIANCE WITH \nAGENCY PROGRAMMATIC PERMITS AND \nINDIVIDUAL PERMITS CONDITIONS \nREGARDING AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION \nMITIGATION TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. THE STAFF \nBELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS \nOF THE MCATEER-PETRIS AND THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MAY I ADD \nSOMETHING ROWAN\, WHICH IS THIS \nRECOMMENDATION IS FOR ITEM \nEIGHT\, NOT ITEM NINE. SIMPLY \nFOR ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS — IS \nTHAT CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. NUMBER \nNINE IS DIFFERENT. I WOULD LIKE \nTO MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOR THIS PERMIT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IS \nTHERE A SECOND? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nAND I ASSUME THE APPLICANT \nACCEPTS THE CONDITIONS. BUT I \nWOULD LIKE TO HEAR AFFIRMATION. \n>>ION WILCOX: WE DO. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND\, ZACK\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK FOR THEIR \nTHOROUGHNESS\, IN DEVELOPING \nTHOSE CONDITIONS\, AS SOMEONE WHO \nWAS IN CHARGE OF THE NPDS \nPERMITTING PROGRAM FOR EPA MANY \nYEARS AGO\, I KNOW WRITING THESE \nPERMITS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT’S \nEASY\, AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK \nPG&E FOR AGREEING TO NOT ONLY \nMAINTAIN WHAT YOU HAVE GOT BUT \nTRY TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND VISUAL ASPECT \nOF IT\, AS WELL. THIS IS THE \nTIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE DOING \nTHAT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE \nTWO COMMENTS VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN TAKE THE SLIDE DOWN SO THAT \nI CAN SEE THE \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. I WOULD \nASK FOR A MOTION ON THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I MOVED IT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. TECHNICALLY WE NEED \nTO MAKE THE MOTION AFTER IT \nCOMES IN. IS THERE A SECOND FOR \nTHE MOTION? COMMISSIONER GORIN \nSECONDS. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE \nIS NO FURTHER COMMENTS\, SIERRA\, \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THIS \nQUESTION ON ITEM EIGHT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION PER HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPATA? CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n14 YESES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. I \nWOULD NOW ASK \nFOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON \nITEM NINE. \n>>SPEAKER: THE STAFF RECOMMENDS \nAPPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OF THE \nPROPOSED PERMIT APPLICATION \nNUMBER 202300300MD FOR THE \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM OF OPERATION \nAND MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL AND \nGAS TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION \nFACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF \nSUISUN MARSH THE PERMIT WOULD \nINCLUDE THE SAME SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS AS 2023002. THE \nSTAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROJECT \nIS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT. SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, SUISUN MARSH \nPROTECTION ACT\, AND SUISUN MARSH \nPRESERVATION ACT\, AND THE SUISUN \nMARSH PROTECTION PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nTHEN WILL YOU TAKE DOWN THE \nSLIDE\, PLEASE? IS THERE A \nMOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NINE? \nCOMMISSIONER PINE\, I BELIEVE \nYOUR HAND IS US. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND I’LL SECOND \nTHE MOTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO FURTHER \nCOMMENTS\, SIERRA\, PLEASE CALL \nTHE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER. \n>>DAVE PINE: PINE YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZAPATA? \nWASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n15 YESES ZERO NOS AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU ALL AS FOR ALL YOUR \nWORK. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS \nGOING FORWARD. ITEM TEN PUBLIC \nHEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON \nAPPLICATION FROM REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA LLC TO REDEVELOP \nAPPROXIMATELY 2.54 ACRE NEW \nRESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING \nOF 56 FOR SALE TOWNHOUSES AS \nWELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS \nOPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THE BAY \nAND 100 FEET OF SHORELINE BAND \nAT 505 EAST BAY SHORELINE ROAD \nREDWOOD CITY\, BCDC SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITS MANAGER WILL \nMAKE THE PRESENTATION AND \nINTRODUCE THE APPLICANT \nSPEAKERS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BE RIGHT \nTHERE WE’RE DOING A \nTECHNOLOGICAL FIX. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: WE’RE \nWORKING ON SOME SOUND IN THE \nROOM. GIVE US ONE MINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS I’M KATHARINE PAN \nSHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM \nMANAGER AT BEA R BCDC I’LL BE \nPROVIDING A BRIEF SUMMARY OF \nTHIS NEXT APPLICATION NUMBER \n2023005 FOR RESIDENTIAL \nDEVELOPMENT AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD IN REDWOOD CITY SAN \nMATEO COUNTY I’LL INTRODUCE \nREGIS HOMES WHO WILL SHARE THE \nDETAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THEIR PROJECT WITH \nYOU. SUMMARY FOR THIS PROJECT \nWAS MAILED ON APRIL 5TH\, 2024 \nAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOLLOWED ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. \nALL RIGHT. TO ORIENT YOU\, \nTHE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN \nREDWOOD CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY \nNEARBY LANDMARKS INCLUDE BEAR \nISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AND \nSMITH SLEW TO THE NORTH AND PORT \nOF REDWOOD CITY CARGILLS REDWOOD \nCITY SALT PLANT NEAR THE EAST \nBEAR ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nPART OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN \nDESIGNATED WILDLIFE PRIORITY \nUSED R USE AREA BUT ITSELF IS \nNOT PART OF PRIORITY AREAS. THE \nHALF ACRE SITUATED JUST OFF \nWHIPPLE AVENUE OVERPASS \nOFF-HIGHWAY 101 PREVIOUS USE OF \nTHE SITE WAS FOR METAL RECYCLING \nSUPPLY OPERATION DATING BACK TO \n1963 THERE ARE NO EXISTING BCDC \nPERMITS ON THE SITE. TO THE \nSOUTH IS FORMER TOYOTA 101 \nDEARLISHIP AND EAST 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD CURRENTLY VACANT \nMOVIE THEATRE COMPLEX IN THE \nPROCESS OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE \nPROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORING \nDEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE \nCOMMISSION IN JUNE OF LAST \nYEAR. \nNOTABLE FEATURES TO THE NORTH OF \nTHE SITE WE FREQUENTLY REFERENCE \nIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nIMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS A \nTIDALING INFLUENCE DITCH WITH \nMUTED TIDAL MARSH HABITAT PART \nOF THE JURISDICTION’S NORTHED \nOF THAT IS PAVED TRAIL THE LEVY \nTRAIL RECOMMENDATION AND NORTHS \nOF THAT IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS \nTHE UNNAMED SLEW WHICH IS A \nTRANSCRIBETARY OF SMITH SLEW AND \nNORTH OF THAT IS THE BAY AREA \nISLANDS TRAIL SEGMENT THE TIDAL \nDITCH IS CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING \nMUTED TIDESAL MARSH HABITAT \nLIMITED DUE TO SIZE AND \nISOLATION PROVIDING SUITABLE \nHABITAT FOR MARSH HARVEST MOUSE \nAND SHOE\, BEAR \nISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nNORTH ARE BOTH BIOLOGICAL \nHABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF SPECIAL \nSTATUS SPECIES\, IMAGINES OF THE \nSITE TAKEN AT HIGH AND LOW TIDE. \nREGIS HOMES BAY AREA LLC IS \nPROPOSING TO REMEDIATE AND \nREDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD WITH \nRESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME PROJECT \nCONSISTING OF 56 TOTAL UNITS \nINCLUDING EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS \nAS WELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC \nACCESS OPEN SPACE AREAS 1.39 \nACRES OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE \nWITHIN THE COMMISSION’S BAY \nSHORELINE BAN JURISDICTION \nINCLUDING THREE TOWNHOME \nBUILDINGS IN A PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA IN SHORELINE TRAIL. DUE TO \nTHE PRESENCE OF TIDAL MARSH IN A \nDITCH THE BAY SHORELINE IN THIS \nAREA IS CONSIDERED THE UPLAND \nEDGE OF MARSH VEGETATION UP TO \nFIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA LEVEL \nTHE DIAGRAM YOU CAN SEE IT IN \nRED. THE PROJECT WILL INVOLVE \n600 FRIEFR FEET OF NEW BAY FILL \nCAN I HAVING OF SMALL PORTIONS \nOF NEW SHORELINE TRAIL OVERLOOKS \nCAN’T LEVERED OVER THE DITCH \nFROM A RETAINING WALL SITUATED \nIN THE SHORELINE BAND MAYBE HARD \nTO SEE HERE THE PARTS CAN’T \nLEVERING CROSS OVER THE BAY \nJURISDICTION. DEDICATED OPEN \nSPACE TO MAINTAIN A VISUAL \nCONNECTION TO BEAR ISLANDS \nWITHIN THE SHORELINE BAND THE \nSITE WILL INCLUDE SITE \nPREPARATION REMOVING ALL \nEXISTING SITE FEATURES \nREMEDIATING PCB CONTAMINATED \nSOILS RAISING ELEVATIONS \nAPPROXIMATELY 5 TO 7 FEET THE \nPROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FEW 550 \nFOOT RETAINING WALL ALONG THE \nDITCH 3\, 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL \nBUILDINGS WITH 20 TOWNHOME UNITS \nASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS AND \nAPPROXIMATELY 16\,560 FEET OF \nPROJECT PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS TAKING PLACE \nOFF-SITE ON PUBLICLY OWNED \nPROPERTY. THE PROJECT WILL \nPROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 18\,800 \nSQUARE FEET OF DEDICATED \nPUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC ACCESS IN \nAN AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS \nDOESN’T CURRENTLY EXIST THIS \nINCLUDES 14\,250 SQUARE FEET OF \nDEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nBAY AND SHORELINE BAND AND 180 \nFOOT OF DEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS \nOUTSIDE OF COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION. IMPROVEMENTS IN \nTHE PUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL \nINCLUDE A TEN FOOT WIDE CONCRETE \nPATH WITH 210 FOOT SHOULDERS ON \nEACH SIDE THAT WILL CONNECT \nROADWAY TO PLAN IMPROVEMENTS AT \n557 EAST BAY SHORE OVERLOOKS \nOBSERVATION DECK DELIVERED OVER \nTHE TIDAL DITCH WITH VIEWS \nTOWARD THE BEAR ISLANDS AND \nPLAZA AT THE TRAIL ENTRANCE\, \nPERMIT IS FIVE FEVEN EAST BAY \nSHORE SITES TIDESAL TO \nFACILITIES ON THE SIDE. IN \nADDITION PROJECT WILL PROVIDE \n4\,550 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, INCLUDING NEW \nTRAIL PLAZA SIDEWALK CONNECTION \nTO THE BEAR ISLAND TRAIL HEAD \nAND SIDEWALK ALONG THE EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD LEADING TO FIVE NEW \nPUBLIC SHORE PARKING SPACES IN \nTHE RIGHT OF WAY S CONTAMINATION \nIN THE SOIL AND SEDIMENT ON THE \nSITE IN THE TIDAL DITCH THE \nWATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS \nCONDUCTED THROUGH SEPARATE \nRELATED REMEDIATION PROJECTS \nINCLUDING RENEEDIATION OF THE \nON-SITE AREA SHOWN HERE IN \nPURPLE OR BLUE THIS WORK BASED \nON-SITE CLEAN UP PLAN DEVELOPED \nUNDER OVERSIGHT ASSIST WATER \nBOARD INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF \nTHE RETAINING WALL EXCAVATING \nCONTAMINATED SOIL AROUND THE \nPLAN UTILITY LINES AND GRADING \nAND CAPPING CONTAMINATED SOIL \nUNDER GEO TEXTILE AND IMPORTING \nCLEAN SOIL. IN ADDITION ANOTHER \nPROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED BY A \nDIFFERENCE APPLICANT TO \nREMEDIATE THE SITE BANK IN \nYELLOW AND ORANGE SITES IN AREAS \nBELOW THE RETAINING WALL AND \nDITCH MEETING REMEDIATION \nPROJECTS COMPLETED TO THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF ANY HOUSING OR \nPUBLIC ACCESS COMPONENTS THE \nPROJECT SITE BANK AREA WILL \nBECOME DEDICATED OPEN SPACE. \nTHE PROJECT WILL ELEVATE THE \nENTIRE SITE TO 5 TO 7 FEET ABOVE \nEXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE OF \n13 FEET AND VD88 EXCEPT FOR THE \nNORTHWEST CORNER PORTION OF THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS ELEVATIONS \nDECREASE TO AROUND 11 FEET TO \nCONFORM WITH EXISTING GRADES IN \nTHE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. \nSTORM TIDAL LEVEL PROJECTS AND \nCONTRACTS WITH PROPOSED GRANT \nAWARDS OVERED TO RISE 12.SKWIEN \nFEET 88 FROM CURRENT LEVELS OF \n10.69 FEET ON HIGH EMISSIONS \nSCENARIO PROVIDED BY THE \nOCEANARY PROTECTION COUNCIL \nUNDER 2018 SEA LEVEL RISE \nGUIDANCE. AT THE PROPOSED \nELEVATIONS MOST PROJECT AND \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL BE \nRESILIENT TO FLOODING FROM THE \n100 YEAR STORM TIED IN 2050 \nUNDER MEDIUM HIGH RISK HIGH \nEMISSION SCENARIO WITH EXCEPTION \nOF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHWEST \nPART OF THE SITE. \nHOWEVER THE 100 YEAR STORM TIME \nIS PROJECTED TO REACH 13.6 FEET \nBY 2060 AND 14.5 FEET BY 2070 \nMEANING PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS \nWOULD BE AT RISK OF FLOODING \nBEFORE THE END OF THE CENTURY. \nGROUNDS WATER LEVELS POTENTIAL \nTO COMPROMISE PROJECT STORM \nDRAINS BY 2050 AND PROJECTED TO \nBE AT OUR ABOVE GROUNDS LEVEL BY \n2100. THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT \nTHAT WILL LOOK LIKE BASED ON \nCURRENT CONDITIONS NEARLY ALL OF \nTHE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE \nFACING IMPACTS BY THIS TIME. \nTHE APPLICANTS CONTEMPLATED \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES DURING THE \nDESIGN PHASE INCLUDING RAISING \nTHE EDGE CHATTY RETAINING WALL \nAND ELEVATES THE MULTI-USE TRAIL \nBUT HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO A \nSINGLE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AT \nTHIS TIME STAFF HAS AGREED TO \nMONITOR THE SITE AND ENGAGE IN \nAN ADAPTATION PLANNING PROCESS \nTHAT WILL BEGIN BY 2050 OR AT \nANY EARLY STAGES OR ANY SIGNS \nMUCH FLOODING TO REASSESS SITE \nCONDITIONS USING BEST AVAILABLE \nSCIENCE AT THE AND DEVELOP AND \nIMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE ADAPTATION \nMEASURES TO AVOID IMPACT ON THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA BECAUSE THE \nPROJECT INVOLVES SALE OF TOWN \nHOMES AND EXPECT PERMIT TO BE \nTAKEN OVER BY HOMEOWNERS \nASSOCIATION REQUIRES NOTICE TO \nBUYERS THAT CLEARLY INDICATES \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE \nPERMITTEE TO MAINTAIN AND ADAPT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA FOR THE LIFE \nOF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION \nFOR CONTENTS OF THAT NOTICE IS \nINCLUDED IN APPENDIX C OF THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDING \nTO THE COMMISSION’S VULNERABLE \nMAPPING TOOL THE PROJECT SITE IS \nLOCATED WITHIN A BLOCK \nIDENTIFIED AS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY GIVEN INDUSTRIAL \nCOMMERCIAL NATURE OF SURROUNDING \nDEVELOPMENT MUCH OF THE AREA \nSHOWS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY ALSO IDENTIFIED IS \nHIGHEST CONTAMINATION VULNERABLE \nWHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH NEARBY \nHAZARDOUS CLEAN UP ACTIVITIES \nGROUNDS WATER THREATS HAZARDOUS \nWASTE FACILITIES AND SOLID WASTE \nFACILITIES. PROJECT DESIGN \nAPPLICANT CONDUCTED OUTREACH TO \nCOMMUNITY GROUPS TO IDENTIFY \nENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL EQUITY \nCONCERNS\, DESIRES FOR AFFORDABLE \nHOUSING AND COMMUNITIES IMPROVED \nSHORELINE ACCESS TO TRAIL \nCONNECTIONS AND PARKING ISSUES \nAPPLICANTS PROPOSING TO MAKE \nOFFSITE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SEGMENTS \nALONG EAST BAY SHORE ROAD AND \nFIVE DESIGNATED PUBLIC SHORE \nPARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT HAS \nBEEN DESIGNED TO INCLUDE EIGHT \nBELOW MARKET RATE UNITS THAT \nWILL BE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS \nMAKING UP TO ONE HUNDREDS 20% OF \nTHE AREA MEDIAN INCOME WHICH IS \nAPPROXIMATELY 21\,000 FOR A \nFAMILY OF FOUR. RELEVANT POLICY \nISSUES RAISED BY PROJECT INCLUDE \nWEATHER PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE PROJECT OTHERWISE \nCANNOT WITH MCATEER-PETRIS\, BAY \nPLAN IN TERMS OF BAY FILL \nAPPEARANCE AND DESIGN SCENIC \nVIEWS WATER QUALITY MITIGATION \nFISH AND WILDLIFE AND CLIMATE \nCHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY. WITH THAT I \nWOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE KRYSTA \nHEINS VICE PRESIDENT FOR \nDEVELOPMENT AT SEARS REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA TO PRESENT THE \nPROPOSAL IN GREATER DETAIL \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I WANT TO \nREMIND FOLKS THAT WE ARE CLOSE \nTO A QUORUM. SO\, PLEASE WE NEED \nYOU TO STAY. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS \nKATHARINE. \nAPPRECIATE THAT. I’M CHRIS \nDEHAN WITH REGIS HOMES JOINED BY \nJEFF SMITH ALSO WITH REGIS HOMES \nAND OUR DESIGN TEAM. REGIS \nHOMES IS A LOCAL HOME BUILDER \nAND DEVELOPER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO. GREAT. THANK YOU. \nREGIS HOME BUILDER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS \nFOR 30 YEARS WE HAVE A LONG \nTRACK RECORD DELIVERING HOUSING \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AND HERE \nIN REDWOOD CITY INCLUDING THE \nTHREE PROJECTS YOU SEE ON THE \nSCREEN BEFORE YOU. WE’RE REALLY \nEXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. \nHERE TO TELL YOU MORE ABOUT OUR \nHOUSING PROPOSAL AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO \nSTART BY THANKING BCDC STAFF WHO \nHELPED US GET HERE TODAY\, \nINCLUDING KATHARINE\, YURIE\, \nJESSICA\, TONY\, ANDREA\, ETHAN\, \nAND SO MANY MORE. IT’S BEEN A \nHUGE TEAM. THANK YOU\, ALL. 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE IS A SMALL BUT \nIMPORTANT HOUSING PROPOSAL \nTHAT’S A BROADER TRANSFORMATION \nOF THE BEAR ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD \nTHAT STARTED WITH CITIES GENERAL \nPLAN UPDATE BACK IN 2010 THE \nVISION IS MIXED USE WATERFRONT \nNEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTING OF \nHOUSING OF MIXED USES\, \nDEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES LIKE \nBLUE HARBOR VILLE AS MARINA AND \nOF COURSE THE APPROVAL OF 480 \nUNIT PROJECT NEXT DOOR AT 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE WE’RE PART OF \nTHAT TRANSFORMATION. OUR \nPROJECT SITE IS THE GATEWAY TO \nTHAT NEIGHBORHOOD\, YOU GET OFF \nAT WHIPPLE AND COME ON TO \nBAYSHORE ROAD THE SITE IS \nWALKABLE TO DOWNTOWN\, AND \nINCLUDES RESOURCES TO BEAR \nISLANDS AND WILDLIFE REFUGE. \nTHIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY \nTHERE ARE NO TREES NO \nAPPEAL\, THE BUILDINGS ARE AGING. \nIT’S LACKING BASIC PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SAFETY MEASURES LIKE \nA SIDEWALK STREET TREES\, \nPARKING\, NOTHING CHATTY KIND. \nSO TODAY WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTRANSFORM THIS SITE. NOT ONLY \nCAN WE BUILD NEW HOUSING\, WE CAN \nALSO BEAUTIFY THE ENTRANCE TO \nTHE NEIGHBORHOODS\, WE CAN CREATE \nNEW PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BAY \nFRONT\, AND ADD MUCH NEEDED \nSAFETY FEATURES TO THE GATEWAY \nSITE. I WANT TO FILL IN A FEW \nGAPS HERE. \nJUST OVER TWO AND A HALF ACRES \nTHIS\, IS A SMALL SITE IN THE \nGRAND SCHEME OF THINGS WE’RE \nEXCITED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTURN IT INTO 56 NEW HOMES \nINCLUDING THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE \nHOMES THAT KATHARINE MENTIONED. \nLET’S SEE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE \nDITCH AND LEVY TRAILS. SO\, I \nWON’T GO THROUGH THAT. I WANT \nTO MENTION FEATURES OF THE SITE \nDESIGN. WE HAVE BROKEN UP THE \nHOMES INTO NINE BUILDINGS ACROSS \nTHE STATE TO AVOID CREATING TOO \nMUCH MASS. WE HAVE PASEOS \nRUNNING THROUGH THE SITE TO \nENHANCE VIEWS TO CREATE VIEW \nCORRIDORS AND ENHANCE CONNECTION \nTHROUGH TO THE BAY. WE MAXIMIZE \nLANDSCAPING ACROSS THE SITE YOU \nCAN SEE THAT HERE AND INCLUDED A \nMODEST PRIVATE OUTDOOR AMENITY \nSPACE FOR RESIDENTS IN THE LOWER \nRIGHT HAND CORNER BUT TRIED TO \nMAKE MOST OF THIS AS PUBLIC AS \nPOSSIBLE. I’LL SHARE \nARCHITECTURE NEXT. HOMES ARE \nTHREE STORY TALL\, ARCHITECTURE \nIS CONTEMPORARY WITH MIX OF \nMATERIALS PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE\, \nTHREE LEVELS\, ABOVE GRADE THAT \nWAS EXCEPTIONAL BECAUSE WE \nWANTED THE PUBLIC SPACE ALONG \nTHE TRAIL TO FEEL PUBLIC SO WE \nELEVATED THE PRIVATE OUTDOOR \nSPACES. HERE IS A VIEW OF THE \nTRAIL WITH THE DITCH IN THE \nFOREGROUND AND THE BAY AND \nWILDLIFE REFUGE IN THE \nBACKGROUND WE’RE PROUD TO OFFER \nA FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH BAY TRAIL \nSECTION HERE THAT CONSISTS OF \nTEN FOOT CENTER WALKWAY WITH TWO \nFOOT SHOULDERS ON EITHER SIDE \nFOR MULTI-MODAL USE\, WE HAVE \nCAN’T LEVERED OVERLOOKS WE CALL \nNODES WITH INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE \nAND PERFORMINGS TO ENHANCE THE \nPUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE \nTRAIL. WE HAVE PASEOS RUNNING \nTHROUGH AND EMPHASIS AND \nCONNECTION THROUGH THE BAY\, \nPRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES \nDELINEATED WITH LANDSCAPING AND \nNOT FENCES TRYING TO CREATE AN \nOPEN EXPERIENCE. SO IN ADDITION \nTO HELPING ADDRESS THE HOUSING \nSHORTAGE THIS PROJECT OFFERS A \nNUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY \nBENEFITS INCLUDING THE \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE \nTALKED BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT \nTHAT’S 15% OF THE OVERALL HOMES \nAT THE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nTHAT WAS AN INCREASE FROM OUR \nRIM REQUIREMENT OF 10%. THE NEW \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE \nEASEMENTS TOGETHER ARE OVER \n20\,000 SQUARE FEET MORE THAN 18% \nOF OUR SITE AREA NOT INCLUDING \nOFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS I’LL TALK \nABOUT NEXT. WE’RE EXCITED TO \nOFFER SIGNIFICANT BIKE \nPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS \nADAPTATION FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nAND MORE THAT I’LL OUTLINE IN \nACKNOWLEDGE SLIDES AND NEW \nDEVELOPMENT WILL BRING \nSIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND \nINFRASTRUCTURE FEES AND OF \nCOURSE ENHANCED PROPERTY TAX \nREVENUE TO THE CITY TO FURTHER \nSUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE \nAREA. \nI WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THESE ARE \nFOR SALE HOMES WHICH IS GOING TO \nHELP THE CITY MEET ITS GOAL OF \nINCREASING OWNERSHIP HOUSE STOCK \nAS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THERE \nHAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT IN REDWOOD \nCITY LION SHARE OF WHICH IS \nAPARTMENT HOMES THIS IS A BADLY \nNEEDED UNDERSERVED SEGMENT OF \nTHE MARKET THOSE AFFORDABLE \nUNITS WILL ALSO BE OFFERED FOR \nSALE WHICH IS FAIRLY RARE. AT \nTHE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nPERFECT FOR FIRST SPONSORED AND \nESSENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMUNITY AT MARKET RATE HOMES \nSIZE AT THIS PRICE POINT TOWN \nHOMES ARE PERFECT FOR FIRST TIME \nHOME BUYERS WHICH ARE\, SORT OF\, \nMOST UNDER SERVED SEGMENT OF THE \nMARKET. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE \nTRAIL AND HOW WE DESIGNED IT. \nWITH THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHILE MINIMIZING \nANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE BAY \nOLDER IN OUR DESIGN PROCESS WE \nENGAGED BROADLY TO COMPLETE A \nBIOLOGICAL STUDY TO LOOK AT THE \nDITCH AND TIDAL VEGETATION IN IT \nAND COMPLETED A JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WITH THE ARMY CORP \nBASED ON THAT JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WE RECONFIGURED \nOUR SITE PLAN\, UNDERSTANDING \nWHERE THE DITCH AND BAY IS AND \nDESIGN EVERYTHING AROUND THAT \nRATHER THAN PUSHING INTO IT. \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF WE ADDED \nA CAN’T LEVER ALONG THE TRAIL TO \nACHIEVE THE FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH \nBAY TRAIL SECTION WHILE AVOIDING \nPHYSICAL IMPACTS INTO THE \nDITCH. \nWE’RE AWARE OF THE RISK SEA \nLEVEL RISE POSES TO THE \nCOMMUNITY AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO \nDOING OUR PART TO PREPARE THE \nCOMMUNITY FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS \nOUR PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEA \nWALL ALONG THE DITCH TO HELP US \nBUILD UP THE SITE ENABLING US TO \nADD NEW PUBLIC ACCESS WHILE \nMAINTAINING FEASIBLE UNIT COUNT \nTHE SEA WALL WAS PIVOT ALL TO \nOUR SITE PLAN AND ENABLING US TO \nRAISE THE SITE UP BETWEEN 5 AND \n7 FEET ACROSS THE SITE PROVIDING \nPROTECTION OF 2100 MEDIAN HIGH \nWATER ALIGN AND ADAPTABLE TO 100 \nYEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS IF NEEDED \nIN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO \nCLARIFY CONTEXT\, BEYOND THE \nDRAINAGE DITCH WE TALKED ABOUT\, \nTHE LEVEE AND SLEW AT BUYER BARE \nISLANDS REFUGE THERE IS AN \nEXISTING BAY TRAIL SEGMENT IN \nGREEN HERE IN BLUE I WANT TO \nPOINT OUT THE OTHER PUBLIC \nACCESS WALK WAYS LIKE THE PG \nLEVEE TRAIL AND WALKWAYS FROM \nOTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE \nAREA AND THEN IN YELLOW YOU CAN \nSEE THE NEW TRAIL SEGMENTS FROM \nOUR PROJECT SITE AND 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD COMBINED HERE. \nSO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT \nTHEY’RE ADDITIVE TO AN EXISTING \nNETWORK OF PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nAREA. SPEAKING OF CONTEXT\, I \nWANTED TO ZOOM IN ON AN EXISTING \nFLAW AND A PRETTY SERIOUS ONE \nABOUT THIS NETWORK OF PUBLIC \nACCESS. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE \nINTERSECTION AT WHIPPLE ROAD AND \nBAYSHORE AT THE FRONT OF OUR \nSITE WHERE THE EXISTING BAY \nTRAIL HEAD IS LOCATED. AS \nTHINGS STAND TODAY YOU CAN SEE \nTHE INTERSECTION IS INCOMPLETE \nAND UNSAFE THERE IS NO SIDEWALK\, \nNO PARKING\, NO SAVE PEDESTRIAN \nACCESS AT ALL TO THE BAY TRAIL\, \nTRAIL HEAD THEN THE CROSSWALK TO \nNOWHERE WHICH DEAD ENDS INTO A \nCHAIN LINK FENCE TODAY IN \nADDITION TO BUILDING MUCH NEEDED \nNEW HOUSING WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY \nTO FIX THIS PROBLEM. OUR \nPROPOSAL INCLUDES ING WHY BEYOND \nOUR PROPERTY LINE WITH \nSIGNIFICANT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS \nTO CREATE A SAFER CONNECTION TO \nTHE TRAIL SYSTEM INCLUDING A NEW \nSIDEWALK WITH RAISED LANDSCAPE \nPLANTERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED \nPEDESTRIAN PROTECTION. THIS \nJURISDICTION CREATES OPPORTUNITY \nFOR A NEW TRAIL HEAD WE’RE \nCALLING IT A PLAZA WITH SEATING \nELEMENTS\, A DRINKING FOUNTAIN\, \nSIGNAGE\, AND A MICRO-MOBILITY \nSTATION OR THE CITY’S BIKESHARE \nAND/OR SCOOTER SHARE PROGRAM AND \nOF COURSE WE GET TO COMPLETE THE \nCROSSWALK TO NOWHERE. \nALL RIGHT. AS MANY OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY RECALL THE 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD SITE WAS \nAPPROVED WITH PACKAGE OF PUBLIC \nACCESS AMENITIES HOWEVER THEY’RE \nCOMPLETELY ORPHANED AND \nINACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC \nWITHOUT TRAVERSING THROUGH THE \nSITE FROM BAYSHORE ROAD WE \nPROVIDE A DIRECT CONNECTION FROM \nTHE SITE THROUGH OURS TO THE \nTRAIL HEAD CREATING A CONTINUOUS \nPATHWAY. WE’RE PROUD OF HOW \nSUSTAINABLE THIS PROJECT WILL BE \nTHESE HOMES WILL BE ALL ELECTRIC \nNO NATURAL GAS PLUMBED TO THE \nPROPERTY NO TAIL PIPES TO THESE \nHOMES THEY WILL HAVE SOLAR PV \nPANELS INSTALLED AS WELL AS EV \nCHARGING OUTLET’S PART OF ALL \nELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES \nHEAT PUMP WATER HEATING WHICH \nINCLUDES TECHNOLOGY YOU’RE GOING \nTO HEAR A LOT ABOUT IN THE FIGHT \nAGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE PURPLE \nPLUMBING FOR IRRIGATED RECYCLED \nWATER AND SO MUCH MORE. AS ALL \nOF US IN THIS INDUSTRY KNOW IT \nCAN BE QUITE A JOURNEY TO GET \nNEW HOUSING APPROVED I WON’T GO \nTHROUGH IN DETAIL BUT WANT TO \nMENTION WE’RE REALLY EXCITED TO \nBE HERE TODAY. WE WERE APPROVED \nBY THE CITY ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND \nPRIOR TO THAT WE WENT THROUGH \nFOUR ROUNDS OF DESIGN REVIEW TWO \nWITH THE CITY AND TWO WITH BCDC \nWE COMPLETED A FULL \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND \nCONDUCTED EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY \nOUTREACH. AND WE ARE ASKING FOR \nYOUR APPROVAL THIS AFTERNOON. \nSPEAKING OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH\, \nPART OF OUR PROCESS OF REGIS \nHOMES IS TO MEET WITH AS MANY \nSTAKEHOLDERS AS POSSIBLE \nINCLUDING STAKEHOLDERS BUT FOLKS \nIN THE CITY MORE BROADLY AND IN \nTHE BAY AREA. NOT ONLY DO WE \nMEET WITH GROUPS THAT SUPPORT \nHOUSING WE TRY TO MEET WITH AS \nMANY GROUPS AS WE CAN THAT MAY \nSEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN \nWE DO THIS IS A LIST OF GROUPS \nWE HAVE MET WITH THROUGH THE \nYEARS IMPORTANTLY MENTION \nSUPPORT OF THE BEAR ISLAND \nNEIGHBORHOOD\, BOOSTER\, AND WE \nSAT DOWN WITH CITIZENS COMMITTEE \nTO COMPLETE THE REFUGE AND \nSIERRA CLUB TO HEAR ABOUT THEIR \nCONCERNS WE MADE A FEW CHANGES \nIN \nRESPONSE. AND WITH THAT WE’RE \nPROUD TO HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF \nTHESE FINE GROUPS HERE AND THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON \nI’LL \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nI’LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. \nDO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW \nMANY? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CURRENTLY \nTHREE HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY\, \nAND NONE IN-PERSON. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THEM. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: LUIS — \nPARDON ME FOR YOUR LAST NAME\, \nMIRANTE\, YOU’RE UP FIRST\, \nFOLLOWED BY GITA \nD. LUIS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO MR. CHAIR\, \nMEMBERS\, MY NAME IS \nLUISMIRANTE YOU NAILED MY LAST \nNAME LIKE AN OLYMPIC GYM \nAND-A-HALF CONGRATULATIONS THANK \nYOU I’M HERE TODAY PROUD TO \nSUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA \nCOUNCIL ALL WITH THE GOAL OF \nMAKING THE BAY AREA THE BEST \nPLACE IN THE COUNTRY TO LIVE AND \nWORK. THE HOUSING CRISIS THE \nBAY AREA FACES IS AS YOU KNOW \nOBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE MOST \nIMMENSE CHALLENGES THAT OUR \nEMPLOYERS AND OUR RESIDENTS IN \nTHIS REGION FACE TODAY SO WE’RE \nPROUD TODAY TO BE A PART OF \nHELPING SUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nWHICH IS A SMALL BUT MIGHT \nCONTRIBUTION TO REDUCE YOU THE \nINTENSITY OF THAT CRISIS. OUR \nPROJECT ENDORSEMENT COMMITTEE \nREVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND \nUNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO SUPPORT IT \nIN PART BECAUSE THE PROJECT \nALIGNS WITH OUR GOALS OF \nEXPANDING AFFORDABLE \nHOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS IN A JOB \nMARKET THAT SO CLEARLY NEEDS \nTHEM AND BECAUSE THE PUBLIC \nBENEFITS AND RESILIENCY EFFORTS \nTHAT THE PROJECT UNDERTOOK GO \nABOVE AND BEYOND IN OUR OPINION \nIN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING VALUE \nTO THE PUBLIC. SO\, WHEN LOOKING \nAT THIS PROJECT\, I HOPE THAT YOU \nSEE IT’S NOT JUST A HOUSING \nPROJECT BUT ALSO ONE THAT \nIMPROVES THE REGION’S RESILIENCY \nHOWEVER SLIGHTLY\, AND IS PART OF \nA BIGGER PICTURE THAT WE NEED TO \nMEET TO GET TO OUR CLIMATE GOALS \nAND TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR REGION \nCAN ADAPT TO AND BE RESILIENT TO \nCLIMATE CHANGE W THAT I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE \nABOUT OUR SUPPORT LETTER WHICH \nWAS TRANSMITTED TO YOU YESTERDAY \nAND OTHERWISE URGE YOUR SUPPORT \nFOR THIS STERLING PROJECT. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. GITA \nDEV. YOU ARE NEXT. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES WE \nCAN. \n>>SPEAKER: YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE \nNUMBER 14 AND THEN WE COULD \nSTART THE CLOCK? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKATHARINE\, CAN YOU SHARE SLIDE \n14? THANK YOU. WHICH \nPRESENTATION WAS IT? OUR STAFF \nPRESENTATION OR THE APPLICANT’S \nPRESENTATION? \n>>SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT WAS THE \nAPPLICANT’S PRESENTATION\, THE \nLAST ONE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ONE \nMINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: 14 OR 17. EITHER \nONE WILL DO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: IS THIS \nTHE CORRECT SLIDE? \n>>SPEAKER: IT ACTUALLY SHOWED A \nSITE PLAN. MAYBE TRY 17. \nJUST THE PREVIOUS ONE. JUST GO \nBACK TWO. ONE MORE. \nYEAH. I THINK THIS WILL BE \nFINE. THIS WILL BE FINE. THANK \nYOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YOUR TIME \nIS NOW RUNNING. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M GITA \nDEFINITELY\, I’M WITH THE SIERRA \nCLUB ALIVE CAMPAIGN. I \nAM APPRECIATIVE THAT REGIS \nHOMES PROJECTS\, HOWEVER I WANT \nTO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SIERRA \nCLUB DID NOT MEET WITH REGIS \nHOMES ON THIS PROJECT THEY DID \nREACH OUT AND WE DECLINED ALSO I \nWOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT \nCITIZEN’S COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE \nTHE REFUGE IS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED \nTO THIS PROJECT THERE WERE ALSO \nCOMMUNITY BENEFITS BUT SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE NOT BENEFITS SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE REQUIRED FEES. SO\, \nGIVEN THAT\, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO \nPOINT OUT IS FOR\, I ASSUME THAT \nALL YOU COMMISSIONERS REALIZE \nTHAT THE FRONT ROW OF TOWN HOMES \nTHAT ARE SHOWN IN THIS SITE PLAN \nARE ALL WITHIN THE BCDC 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. AND WITH GIVEN \nSEA LEVEL RISE\, YOU CAN SEE THAT \nWE REALLY NEED THAT 100 FEET. \nYOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROJECT \nNEXT TO IT IS RESPECTING THAT \n100 FOOT SET BACK WITH ITS \nHOMES. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT \nTHAT THIS SEGMENT OF WHAT \nTHEY’RE CALLING THE BAY TRAIL IS \nREALLY AN ISOLATED SEGMENT THAT \nIS REALLY FOR THE ENJOYMENT \nENJOIMENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO \nLIVE IN THESE HOMES BECAUSE \nTHERE IS NO CONNECTION BACK TO \nTHE BLUE LINE WHICH IS USED AS A \nPUBLIC TRAIL\, AND I AM VERY \nFAMILIAR WITH IT. I DO ACCEPT \nALL OF THE POINTS ABOUT HOW \nDIFFICULT THE CONNECTION IS TO \nBEAR ISLAND\, AT THE WILL LOW\, AT \nTHE WHIPPLE ROAD. HOWEVER\, I \nREALLY THINK THIS WOULD BE THE \nWRONG TIME TO ENCROACH TO ALLOW \nENCROACHMENTS INTO THIS 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. ONE SHORELINE\, \nAS YOU ALL KNOW\, CAME BEFORE US \nAND SAID THAT IT IS THEIR POLICY \nTO TRY TO MAINTAIN A 100 FOOT \nSET BACK IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR \nTHE BAY TO STAY ALIVE. TO NOT \nHAVE SEA WALLS RIGHT UP AGAINST \nTHE BAY. \nAND YOU CAN TELL IF YOU HAD \nANYTHING TO DO WITH \nCONSTRUCTION\, THAT DOING \nCONSTRUCTION INTO THE BAY\, INTO \nTHAT SLOUGH\, INTO THAT DITCH \nWHICH HAS ENDANGERED SPECIES \nYOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE \nOFF THAT DITCH IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO DRAIN IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO PULL THAT STUFF \nUNDERGROUND. I WOULD SAY ONE \nTHING\, AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, THIS \nIS NOT THE PLACE TO PUT \nHOMEOWNER AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, \nTHEY’RE GOING TO GET HIT UP WITH \nA LOT OF COSTS WHEN THE SEA \nLEVELS IN 2050. THE STORM \nDRAINS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE \nREDONE THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO \nLOCATE HOUSING AND PARTICULARLY \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT YOUR \nTIME HAS NOW FINISHED. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOVING ON \nTO KEVIN CHAN. YOU MAY NOW \nUNMUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON \nMEMBERS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION MY NAME IS KEN CHAN \nAND I AM THE SENIOR ORGANIZER \nWITHIN THE HOUSING LEADERSHIP \nCOUNCIL SAN MATEO COUNTY WE WORK \nWITH COMMITTEES AND THEIR \nLEADERS TO PRODUCE AND RESERVE \nQUALITY AFFORDABLE HOMES \nAPPRECIATION TO STAFF FOR THE \nHARD WORK ON TODAY’S \nPRESENTATION\, ON BEHALF OF HCL \nOUR LETTER I WOULD LIKE TO \nEXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR 505 \nBAYSHORE TOWNHOME PROJECT REGIS \nHOMES BAY AREA AS YOU MAY \nALREADY KNOW CREATING OWNERSHIP \nOF AFFORDABLE HOMES IN OUR STATE \nIS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF LACK OF \nAVAILABLE FUNDING. THIS IS WHY \nWE SUPPORT THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE\, \nTWO BEDROOM AND 4 TO 8 MARKET \nRATE HOMES THAT THE CITY \nDISPARATELY NEED\, FAMILIES WILL \nGET STABILITY THEY NEED TO \nTHRIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES \nWHERE THEY WILL NO LONGER WORRY \nABOUT QUALITY OF AFFORDABLE \nHOMES AND ALSO BE ABLE TO LIVE \nNEAR THEIR PLACES OF WORK \nREDUCES STRESS ON THE BAY AREA \nINFRASTRUCTURE AND DECREASE BOTH \nTHEIRS AND YOUR TIME ON THE ROAD \nLEAVING TIME FOR HEALTH FAMILY \nAND COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AND WE \nURGE YOU TO APPROVE THE 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE TOWNHOME \nPROPOSAL. \nTHANK YOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN THERE IS \nNO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. AND \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON SECONDS. \nTHERE IS NO OBJECTION. THE \nPUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. \nCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND \nCOMMENTS? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: — UH — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES\, THANK \nYOU. LET’S SEE. I WAS GOING TO \nASK IF EITHER STAFF OR THE \nAPPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT \nON THAT — THE COMMENT ABOUT THE \n100 FOOT SET BACK AND — JUST \nGIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE \nCONTEXT ABOUT THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: HAPPY TO. I HOPE \nCAN YOU HEAR ME. KATHARINE\, I \nACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT SLIDE 14 \nWAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR THIS \nSUBJECT. I’M HAPPY TO COMMENT \nON THAT. THE SHORT ANSWER IS \nTHIS IS A SMALL SITE PUTTING A \n100 FOOT SET BACK WOULD MAKE \nTHIS UNDEVELOPABLE THAT’S WHY \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE AMOUNT \nOF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WE CAN \nOFFER TO THE SITE UNDERSTANDING \nWE CAN’T GET TO THE FULL 100 \nFEET ALSO MENTION TO LOOK AT THE \nOTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA \nIF WE CAN GET THE SLIDE UP HERE \nIF YOU LOOK AT THE VILLAS\, BLUE \nHARBOR\, MARIN A NONE HAVE 100 \nFOOT SET BACK SOME HAVE A \nSIMILAR SEA WALL WITH SMALLER \nSIDEWALK. OUR TRAIL SECTION IS \n14 FEET PLUS LANDSCAPING SETI \nWENT OUT TO BLUE HARBOR VILLE AS \nAND MEASURED EIGHT FOOT AND TEN \nFOOT SIDEWALKS SO THIS IS A HUGE \nINCREASE COMPARED TO THE LARGER \nSITES. I HOPE THAT’S HELPFUL. \nTHE 557 EAST BAY SHORE SITE NEXT \nTO US IS LARGER IT HAS 480 \nUNITS APARTMENT COMPLEX A \nDEVELOPMENT THAT’S LARGE THEY’RE \nCAN SUPPORT MORE PUBLIC BENEFITS \nLIKE THIS. \nGREAT. THANK YOU. IF YOU LOOK \nTO THE TOP RIGHT HERE YOU CAN \nSEE THE DEVELOPMENTS I’M TALKING \nABOUT AND IF YOU SQUINT\, ONE \nPARTICULAR MARINA VERY LIMITED \nSET BACK OURS IS MUCH LARGER AND \nWE’RE PROUD OF THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: AND I ALSO WANT TO \nJUST CLARIFY\, SO\, BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION IS THE 100 FOOT \nSHORELINE BAND THAT JUST MEANS \nTHAT WE HAVE PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY WITHIN THAT AREA. \nIT’S NOT A SET BACK. IT \nDOESN’T\, SORT OF\, PRECLUDE THIS \nTYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN IT. SO\, \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE \nBETWEEN OUR PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION AND THE CONCEPT OF \nA SET BACK. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU \nHAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, WELL\, THAT’S \nHELPFUL. BUT\, SO\, ARE THE ONE \nSHORELINE AND THE OTHER POLICIES \nWE HAVE. SO THEY RECOMMEND . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: UP TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE 100 FOOT SET BACK OR \nMAXIMUM SET BACK\, BUT THEY LEAVE \nIT UP TO BCDC DISCRETION\, IS \nTHAT RIGHT? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \n— CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION \nEITHER FROM KATHARINE OR FROM \nLEGAL ON WHAT OUR JURISDICTIONAL \nAUTHORITY IS WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE BAND? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AND POLICY \nRECOMMENDATIONS\, YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WE DON’T HAVE \nANY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT \nNOT BUILDING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT \nBAND. OUR AUTHORITY\, BASICALLY\, \nUNDER — SORRY. IT’S HARD UNDER \n— UNDER 66632.4 \nIS BASICALLY PUBLIC ACCESS. IT \nSAYS BASICALLY THE COMMISSION \nMAY DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A \nPERMIT OR FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT \nONLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE \nPROJECT FAILS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN \nTHAT SHORELINE BAND. IN FACT\, \nOUR REGULATIONS ENVISION THAT WE \nWILL BUILD WITHIN THAT SHORELINE \nBAND. THAT’S PRETTY CLEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. GO AHEAD\, \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO. . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: OKAY. LET \nME THINK ABOUT THAT. AND I \nGUESS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I \nHAVE IS LIGHTING\, I GUESS THERE \nIS NO LIGHTING\, PLAN FOR THAT \nWALKWAY OR ADDING LIGHTING TO \nTHAT AREA? \n>>SPEAKER: OF COURSE\, YEAH\, \nTHERE IS LOW BALLARD LIGHTING\, \nALL ALONG\, WE HAVE CONDITIONS \nAPPROVAL FROM THE CITY RELATED \nTO DARK SKY ORDINANCE BUT THE \nPATHWAY WILL BE LIT. I THINK \nTHAT’S YOUR QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH. \nOKAY. WELL\, I’M SURPRISED\, I \nWOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT \nTO MINIMIZE LIGHTING\, BECAUSE OF \nWILDLIFE ISSUES. BUT THAT’S NOT \nWITHIN OUR SET OF \nRECOMMENDATIONS OR GUIDELINES \nEITHER? \n>>SPEAKER: SO WE DIDN’T INCLUDE \nWITHIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nANY CONDITIONS RELATED TO \nLIGHTING. I MIGHT. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: I DON’T KNOW \nIF OUR BAY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST \nHAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS BUT \nWITH LIGHTING\, I KNOW ESPECIALLY \nWITH PUBLIC ACCESS AS IT GETS \nLATER INTO THE EVENING THAT \nTHERE IS ALSO A SAFETY CONCERN \nRELATED TO LIGHTING\, SO I DON’T \nKNOW IF WITHIN THE EIR\, THAT \nTHERE WAS ANY SPECIFICATION TO \nLIKE THE INTENSITY OF THE \nLIGHTING THAT WAS ALLOWED. BUT \nI’LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO \nTHAT. \n>>SPEAKER: NOT THAT I RECALL \nAND I’LL ADD I THINK LIGHTING \nFOR WALKWAYS MIGHT BE A BUILDING \nCODE ISSUE I’M NOT SURE\, SO I’M \nNOT SURE YOU CAN’T LIGHT A \nPATHWAY IN THIS SITUATION BUT WE \nALSO HAVE LOW LIGHTING TO TRY TO \nMITIGATE T I HOPE THAT’S \nHELPFUL. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: WELL\, LOW \nLIGHTING IS BETTER THAN TOO MUCH \nLIGHTING. BUT\, YES\, I — I \nMEAN\, I WOULDN’T — I WOULD HOPE \nTHAT BCDC LOOKS AT THAT LIGHTING \nISSUE. BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE \nTHAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT \nON THE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE. \nSO\, THAT’S — I GUESS THAT’S THE \nCOMMENT I’LL MAKE AT THIS \nPOINT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I DO \nAPPRECIATE ALL THE OTHER \nSUSTAINABILITY FEATURES AND \nSUCH\, BUT THERE’S — BUT IT IS \nAT A SENSITIVE LOCATION. SO\, I \nAPPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPEDA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU \nCHAIR. WOULD STAFF BE ABLE TO \nPUT UP THE SLIDE AGAIN? ONE OF \nTHOSE INFAMOUS SLIDES THAT HAS \nBEEN PRESENTED. PAGE 14 OR 12 I \nDON’T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT IS \nTHE ONE THIS’S LOOKING AT THE \nNEXT DOOR PROPERTY\, THAT’S \nALREADY BEEN APPROVED. I HAVE A \nQUESTION ON THIS ONE. THANK \nYOU. JUST\, HISTORY\, AND FOR ME \nTO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE — TO BE \nCONSISTENT IN OUR RESPONSES WITH \nANY PROPERTY. SO\, THE PROPERTY \nRIGHT NEXT DOOR\, I SEE THE 100 \nFOOT LINE\, AND I’M IMAGINING \nTHE LINE THERE BASED ON ONE OF \nTHE OTHER SLIDES THAT DREW THE \nLINE IN THERE ON THE YELLOW \nSQUARE. \nSO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT \nWAS ALREADY APPROVED BY BCDC I’M \nASSUMING\, IN PRIOR MONTHS OR \nYEARS\, I’M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS \nPROVED\, BUT IF STAFF IS ABLE TO \nTELL US — HOW THEY THE \nDECISION FOR HAVING THAT GREEN \nAREA BE GREATER THAN WHAT WE’RE \nREQUESTING THIS PROJECT? AND IF \nTHERE IS A RHYME OR REASON WHY \nONE WOULD HAVE IT BUT THE OTHER \nWOULD NOT OTHER THAN THE SPACE \nIS SMALLER AND EVERYTHING IS \nNEEDED TO BUILD MORE HOUSING? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, FOR THE 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE PROJECT THAT WAS \nAPPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ABOUT \nTHIS TIME LAST YEAR\, IT REALLY \nDOES\, SORT OF\, COME DOWN \nPROBABLY TO SIZE. YOU KNOW\, THE \nQUESTION FOR US — OR THE \nQUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION \nIS THIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT AND SO FOR THAT PROJECT \nIT’S\, AS YOU CAN SEE IT’S \nSIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. WE PUSHED \n— OR WE WORKED WITH THEM TO \nENSURE THAT AS MUCH OF THAT \nSHORELINE BAND BE DEDICATED \nPUBLIC ACCESS AS POSSIBLE. IT \nWAS SOMETHING THEY WERE ABLE TO \nACCOMMODATE BASED ON THEIR \nPROJECT. FOR THIS ONE — AND \nYOU CAN SEE PRETTY MUCH\, LIKE\, \nWHERE THAT GREEN SPACE ENDS. \nPART OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING \nDOES CROSS OVER INTO THE SHORE \nLINER BAND\, BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH \nCORRESPONDS TO THE SHORELINE \nBAND. SO IF YOU CONTINUE ACROSS \nON TO THIS SITE YOU CAN SEE THAT \nPRETTY MUCH CUTS THIS SITE IN \nAND A HALF. AND SO\, I THINK\, IN \nTERMS OF FEASIBILITY\, THAT’S \nMORE FOR THE PROJECT PROPONENT \nTO SPEAK TO THE DETAILS OF \nTHAT. \nBUT YOU KNOW\, THE QUESTION IS\, \nLIKE\, FOR A PROJECT TO MOVE \nFORWARD\, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THAT \nTHEY’RE ABLE TO PROVIDE\, AND IN \nTHIS CASE\, YOU KNOW\, WE DID DO A \nCOMPARISON WITH SOME OTHER \nPROJECTS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND IT — IT’S IN \nTHE BALLPARK OF PERCENTAGES OF \nTHE SITE\, BUT OF COURSE THAT IS \nTHE QUESTION BEFORE THE \nCOMMISSION. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: DO WE HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT? I KNOW WE HAVE \n100 FEET BCDC JURISDICTION BUT \nDO WE HAVE A MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT \nHAS TO BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC \nACCESS? BECAUSE HERE\, THE 100 \nLINE\, THERE IS ANOTHER ONE\, I \nTHINK IT WAS THE SECOND TO LAST \nLINE THAT HAS THE BCDC \nJURISDICTION LINE WHICH IS RIGHT \nWHERE — I BELIEVE IS RIGHT \nWHERE THE HOMES\, I THINK THIS IS \nTHE PURPLE LINE IS THE BCDC \nDINE? SO\, IT’S PRETTY — LIKE \nYOU WERE SAYING IT’S PRETTY MUCH \nHALF OF THE PROPERTY. SO\, FOR \nCONSISTENCY PURPOSES\, AND I’M \nSURE THIS WON’T BE THE ONLY \nPROPERTY THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nREVIEWING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF \nYEARS\, BECAUSE WE NEED MORE \nHOUSING\, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM \nREQUIREMENT WITHIN THE 100 \nFEET? \nAND IS IT BASED ON WHAT THEY’RE \nTELLING US THAT THEY CAN GIVE \nUS? OR BASED ON A NUMBER THAT \nWE HAVE THAT SAYS\, IN OUR 100 \nFEET\, WE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF \nX? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO NOT HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT\, WHETHER THAT’S \nIN TOTAL ACREAGE OR SQUARE \nFOOTAGE OR PERCENTAGE OF A SITE \nTHAT’S REQUIRED BY A LAW OR \nPOLICY TO BE DEDICATED OR \nIMPROVED AS PUBLIC ACCESS. IN \nTHE STAFF REPORT\, YOU KNOW\, THIS \nIS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE \nTAKE SUCH GREAT PAINS WITH THAT \nSECTION OF FINDINGS\, TO GO \nTHROUGH WITH COMPARISONS WITH \nPAST COMMISSION DECISIONS AND \nTHEN LOOKING AT OF COURSE THE \nWAY THAT THAT PUBLIC ACCESS AREA \nIS ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND \nIMPROVED\, LIKE HOW USEABLE IS T \nWHAT ACTUAL BENEFITS IS IT \nPROVIDING WHAT’S CONNECTSTIVITY\, \nHOW ACCESSIBLE IS IT\, ALL OF \nTHOSE ASPECTS ARE\, SORT OF\, \nDETAILED IN OUR POLICY. YOU \nKNOW\, WE DO WANT PUBLIC ACCESS \nTO BE USABLE WE WANT IT TO BE \nACCESSIBLE\, WE WANT IT TO SERVE\, \nLIKE\, YOU KNOW\, A WIDE RANGE OF \nPOPULATIONS\, ET CETERA. SO \nTHOSE ARE THE SORTS OF THINGS \nTHAT WE LOOK AT OR THAT WE \nLOOKED AT IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. BUT AS FOR THE \nACTUAL AMOUNT\, THAT’S ONE OF THE \nTHINGS THAT THE POLICIES AND \nLAWS DON’T PROVIDE. THAT’S — \nTHAT IS\, LIKE\, THE DISCRETIONARY \nPART OF THIS APPROVAL. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. AND \nDO WE HAPPEN TO KNOW\, OUT OF ALL \nTHE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE \nAPPROVED IN THE PAST\, WHICH ONE \nIS THE ONE THAT HAS THE LEAST \nAMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS? THIS \nONE HAS A 14 FOOT TRAIL. DO WE \nKNOW IF WE HAVE ANY WITH LESS? \nJUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT \nBECAUSE WITH EVERY VOTE WE SET \nNEW PRECEDENCE AND I WANT TO \nKNOW HOW WE’RE SETTING IT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WITHOUT TAKING \nTHE SLIDE DOWN AND\, SORT OF\, \nOPENING UP THE STAFF RACK\, I \nCOULDN’T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY\, \nBUT I — WHAT CHRIS WAS SAYING \nABOUT THE BLUE HARBOR \nDEVELOPMENT\, FOR EXAMPLE\, YOU \nKNOW\, THAT TRAIL IS SMALLER. \nINITIALLY\, I THINK THIS PROJECT \nCAME IN WITH A SIMILARLY\, SORT \nOF\, NARROW TRAIL AREA THAT ENDED \nUP BECOMING EXPANDED AS WE \nTALKED THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH \nTHEM. OR AS THEY MADE THEIR WAY \nTHROUGH THE PROCESS. SO\, THERE \nARE\, CERTAINLY\, PROJECTS WITHIN \nTHE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION \nWITH LESS PUBLIC ACCESS \n[LAUGHTER] \nBUT I WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO \nIMMEDIATELY POINT THOSE OUT TO \nYOU\, AND I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY \n— YOU KNOW\, EVERY PROJECT \nSHOULD BE KIND OF CONSIDERED ON \nITS OWN MERIT\, AND SO THAT’S\, \nSORT OF\, THE OTHER REASON WHY \nTHE COMPARISON IS DIFFICULT. \nBECAUSE YOU DO JUST — JUST \nBECAUSE ANOTHER PROJECT HAS LESS \nDOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT \nTHIS IS BETTER. IT IS LIKE\, A \nPROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS. KIND \nOF ENCOURAGE TO YOU LOOK AT IT \nTHAT WAY. \n>>JEFF SMITH: CAN I ADD ANOTHER \nPIECE OF INFORMATION THIS IS \nJEFF SMITH THE APPLICANT WITH \nREGIS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: TWO PIECES OF \nINFORMATION IF YOU COULD GO BACK \nTO THE SLIDE THAT KIND OF SHOWS \nTHE GENERAL AREA. AND I KNOW \nTHIS BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY \nCLOSELY WITH 557 ON THEIR \nDESIGN. IN FACT WE HAVE THE \nSAME CIVIL ENGINEER THE SAME \nLANDSCAPE ENGINEER\, WE HAVE THE \nSAME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS \nAND WE KNOW THE ARCHITECT. THE \n557 PROPERTY\, IF YOU REMEMBER \nBACK\, IT WAS THE OLD THEATRE\, \nAND WHEN THEY BUILT THAT \nTHEATRE\, THEY ACTUALLY GAVE BCDC \nAN EAST EASEMENT\, A 50 \nFOOD EASEMENT BACK IN THE DAY \nIT’S OVER 50 YEARS OLD THAT WAS \nTHE PRIMARY REASON THEY DECIDED \nTO ORIENTED SITE AS THEY DID \nTHAT’S WHY THIS SITE LOOKS \nDIFFERENT IN ADDITION TO THE \nFACT THAT IT’S SEVEN TIMES \nBIGGER. I WANT TO ALSO POINT \nOUT THE BLUE HARBOR PROJECT \nWHICH WAS IN THE UPPER RIGHT \nHAND CORNER WHICH DOES HAVE A \nBCDC PERMIT WITH A SMALL WALK. \nWE DID PUSH OUR BUILDINGS BACK \nTO MAINTAIN THE DESIRED WALKWAY \nAND SET BACK THAT BCDC STAFF \nASKED US TO THAT GIVES CONTEXT \nOF THE THREE PROJECTS IN THE \nAREA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. MY \nLAST YE IS DO WE REQUIRE SOME \nKIND OF SIGNAGE THAT SAYS THIS \nIS PUBLIC ACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO. SO\, THAT IS \nPART OF THE\, YOU KNOW\, MAKING IT \nUSEABLE\, MAKING IT WELCOMING\, SO \nTHERE IS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AT LEAST SOME \nREQUIREMENTS AROUND WAYFINDING \nAND SIGNAGE. AND THERE IS \nKIND OF A STANDARD PUBLIC SHORE \nACCESS SIGN THAT YOU SEE AROUND \nTHE BAY AREA. AND THAT’S\, SORT \nOF\, LIKE I CAN’T BRANDING THAT \nWE REQUIRE. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU SO \nMUCH. NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: CAN \nI HAVE THE FULL SCREEN BACK\, \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. \nI DON’T SEE ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. SO\, I UNDERSTAND \nWHERE THE 100 FEET PUTS IT \nWITHIN THE PROJECT\, BUT ARE WE \nSTARTING AT THE SLOUGH\, OR ARE \nWE STARTING AT THE DITCH? WHEN \nWE MEASURE OUT THE 100 FEET? \n248 STARTS AT THE DITCH. SO\, \nTHAT TIDAL DITCH\, IT’S \nTIDALLY INFLUENCED SO THIS IS \nSOMETHING WE DISCUSSED WITH THE \n557 APPLICANT BUT THE BAY TIDAL \nINFLUENCED THE WATER BODY AND \nALSO BECAUSE THERE IS MARSH \nVEGETATION WITHIN THE DITCH \nTHAT\, SORT OF\, CHANGES LIKE HOW \nWE WOULD NORMALLY SAY THE BAY \nSHORELINE IS MEAN HIGH WATER BUT \nIN THE AREAS OF TIDAL MARSH IT \nMAKES IT EDGE EVER TIDAL MARSH \nUP TO FIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA \nLEVEL SO THAT’S THE LINE THAT \nTHEY’RE GOING FROM AS BAY \nSHORELINE THAT’S MARSH \nVEGETATION FIVE FEET ABOVE SEA \nLEVEL MARK. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: IT’S \nINTERESTING IT’S CALLED A DITCH \nI ASSUME AT ONE POINT IT WAS \nCALLED A DRAINAGE DITCH WHEN IT \nWAS ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES \nTHEN IT BECAME PART OF THE MARSH \nOVER TIME BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T \nMAINTAIN THE DITCH AND THE FLOW \nOF WATER OFFSITE. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. MY \nUNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS \nONCE WAS A TIDAL GATE IN THAT \nAREA BUT AT SOME POINT IN THE \nPAST IT MALFUNCTIONED AND \nACCORDING TO OUR REGULATIONS\, IT \nTURNED THAT AREA BACK INTO BAY. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: OKAY. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nJEFF\, DID YOU WANT TO SAY \nSOMETHING? \n>>SPEAKER: JEFF SMITH: JUST \nFOR CONTEXT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SO LONG \nAND JUST A BIT OF HISTORY THAT’S \nEXACTLY THE CASE COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO THERE IS ONE SMALL PIPE \n12 INCH PIPE THAT CONNECTS THE \nDITCH TO THE SLOUGH IT WASN’T A \nDRAINAGE DITCH AND ALLOWED WATER \nTO GO OUT IT DID NOT ALLOW WATER \nTO GET BACK IN AND UNFORTUNATELY \nAT SOME POINT SOMEONE FAILED TO \nMAINTAIN THAT AND MADE \nCONNECTION BUT IF YOU HAVE TO GO \nBACK OUT TO THE SLOUGH IT WOULD \nMOVE THE LINE NORTH 60 TO 70 \nFEET THAT WAS INITIAL DISCUSSION \nWE SAID RATHER THAN FIGHT OVER \nTHE LINE LET’S WORK TOGETHER \nTHAT WAS SIX YEARS AGO\, WORKING \nWITH THE CITY AND BCDC STAFF AND \nTHEN THE COMMISSION SO \nAPPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I HAVE ONE \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION\, SINCE THE \nARGUMENT IS IT’S SUCH A \nRELATIVELY NARROW PARCEL OR \nSMALL PARCEL\, SO JUST GOING BACK \nTO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE \nHISTORY OF THE PARCEL WAS OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, BUT I MEAN\, \nWHEN IF IT WAS SUBDIVIDED\, OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, I MEAN\, IT WAS \nSOLD WITH THAT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTION LINE IN MIND. IS \nTHAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT \nSOMETHING THAT BCDC HAS\, OR THE \nCITY WOULD HAVE ANY — GIVES ANY \nCONSIDERATION TO? \n>>SPEAKER: WOULD YOU MIND \nREPHRASING THAT QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: JUST KIND \nOF LOOKING AT THE VIABILITY OF \nTHAT PARCEL AS COMMERCIAL PARCEL \nFOR EITHER HOUSING OR COMMERCIAL \nUSE AND IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THERE \nIS THAT IMPORTANT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTIONAL AREA\, WOULD THEY \nHAVE SUBDIVIDED IT WITH — OR \nSOLD IT WITH THAT FULL \nUNDERSTANDING? \nI MEAN\, IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT \nIT IS THAT THE PEARLS IS TOO \nNARROW TO GIVE THE FULL \nCONSIDERATION FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, THAT HISTORY IS \nNOT SOMETHING THAT I’M AWARE \nOF. \nI WILL SAY OUR JURISDICTION HAS \nHAD THE SAME DESCRIPTION SINCE \nTHE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT WAS \nPASSED\, AND\, SO\, ANYONE DOING \nDUE DILIGENCE ON PROPERTY ALONG \nTHE BAY FRONT SHOULD BECOME \nAWARE THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS \nSUBJECT TO BCDC PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY. WHAT I WILL SAY\, \nTHOUGH\, JUST TO GIVE WHOEVER \nORIGINALLY SUBDIVIDE THAT AREA\, \nTHE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT\, YOU \nKNOW\, AS JEFF WAS SAYING AT SOME \nPOINT\, THAT AREA ACTUALLY WENT \nSUBJECT TO BCDC JURISDICTION THE \nSAME WAY BECAUSE THAT DITCH \nDIDN’T — WASN’T ALWAYS PART OF \nOUR BAY JURISDICTION. \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONERS\, I \nTHINK I WANT TO BE REALLY \nCLEAR. \nOUR JURISDICTION HERE IS MAXIMAL \n— MAXIMUM PUBLIC — MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS IN OUR \nSHORELINE BAND. THAT’S WHAT \nWE’RE — \n>>SPEAKER: CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PROJECT. STAFF DOES A \nPROCESS\, THEY GO LOOK AT THE \nPROJECT AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nCALLED UPON TO DO HERE. THERE \nIS NO 100 FOOT SET BACK. THAT \nIS A MISNOMER THAT. IS \nNOTHING. \nIT DOES NOT EXIST. SO WHEN \nPEOPLE BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY \nTHAT IN OUR SHORELINE BAND\, IT’S \nNOT THAT THEY EXPECT TO MOVE THE \nPROPERTY 100 FEET OFF THAT. IS \nNOT — THIS IS NOT AN EASEMENT \nFOR PUBLIC ACCESS. WHAT WE DO \nIS WE DETERMINE WHAT IS MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT THAT \nIS THERE. THAT’S — AND I WANT \nTO BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT \nBECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE’RE \nGETTING OFF ON A TANGENT HERE \nAND MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE \nPROCESS IS. THE PROCESS IS \nSIMPLY\, IS THIS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nWITH THIS PROJECT\, GIVEN THE \nCONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. WE’RE \nGIVEN A PARTICULAR SITE\, DECIDE \nWHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE \nSITE HOW DO YOU PROVIDE MAC MUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THERE ARE \nMANY PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME \nBEFORE BCDC AND A LOT OF THOSE \nARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECTS \nSO IF SOMEONE HAS A \nSINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECT WE \nSAY WHAT’S THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHICH MAY BE ZERO \nWITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME \nBECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT PEOPLE \nWANDERING INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY \nHOME SO THERE IS NO PUBLIC \nACCESS IN THE SHORELINE BAND ON \nTHAT OR IT MAY HAPPEN THERE MAY \nBE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOME \nSTAIRS DOWN THERE OR SOMETHING \nWE LOOK AT EACH PROJECT AND MAKE \nCASE BY CASE DETERMINATION AND \nFROM IS NO SET BACK IT JUST \nDOESN’T EXIST AS A CONCEPT \nWITHIN OUR REGULATIONS I THINK \nIT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION \nCAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT \nBUT IT’S GOT TO BE BASED ON \nMAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND STAFF HAS PROVIDED \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT — \nYES LARRY KEEPS \nSAY CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT\, HE’S CORRECT WE LOOK AT \nTHE PROJECT\, LOOK AT THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND SAY HAS THE \nAPPLICANT PROVIDED MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS. \nSTAFF BELIEVES THEY HAVE GIVEN \nTHE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROJECT \nTHE QUESTION IS\, DO YOU THINK \nTHEY HAVE\, AND THAT’S WHAT \nYOU’RE VOTING O REALLY NOTHING \nELSE. I MEAN\, THE CITY OF \nREDWOOD CITY HAS GONE INTO THE \nOTHER ISSUES\, YOU KNOW\, THAT’S \nOUR JURISDICTION\, THAT’S OUR JOB \nTODAY. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. I — \nOKAY\, POINT TAKEN. I UNDERSTAND \nTHAT. YEAH\, ARE THE ONLY POINT \nI WOULD MAKE IS \nPERHAPS BEYOND TODAY A \nDISCUSSION IS WHEN IN THE LONGER \nTERM WHEN CITIES DO LOOK AT \nZONING FOR AREAS ALONG THE \nSHORELINE AS WE HOPE THAT THEY \nALLOW\, YOU KNOW\, ZONE WITH — \nWITH SEA LEVEL RISE\, ET CETERA\, \nIN — AS ONE OF THE \nCONSIDERATIONS. SO\, THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nHAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND A \nREQUEST/SUGGESTION. I WANT TO \nREEMPHASIZE WHAT GREG SAID. THE \n100 FEET SHORELINE BAND IS \nWITHIN OUR JURISDICTION UNDER \nSTATE LAW\, UNDER THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT FOR PURPOSES \nOF MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF \nTHE PROJECT. THERE IS A \nSEPARATE OVERLYING PIECE\, WHICH \nI THINK WE WILL GET TO IN THE \nFUTURE\, COMING FROM OUR \nGUIDELINES TO JURISDICTIONS \nUNDER SB272 OF HOW TO RESPOND\, \nTHAT MAY HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE \nACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE. BUT THE PRIMARY \nJURISDICTION OVER WHAT GOES \nTHERE\, ACCEPT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS UP TO LOCAL JURISDICTION NOT \nTHIS AGENCY. \nMY SUGGESTION REQUEST IS \nWHETHER WE CAN HAVE A CONDITION \nTHAT THE — THAT THE CONDITIONS \nIN THE EXISTENCE OF PERMIT IS \nRECORDED. \nWE HAVE HAD OCCASIONAL \nDISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS THERE IS \nA CONDITION HOMEOWNERS BE GIVEN \nNOTICE BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE \nWAY DO THAT NOTICE IS RECORDING \nTHE PERMIT SO THAT SHOWS UP IN \nTHE RECORD AND IT’S PARTICULARLY \nOUT FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH IS \nFOR SALE PROJECT SO THAT THE \nINDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND SUCCESSORS \nAND BUYERS WOULD THEN CLEARLY \nHAVE NOTICED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE \nIN THE RECORD AND TITLE REPORT I \nPOSE THAT TO STAFF AND THEN \nASSUMING THAT’S OKAY WE’LL POSE \nTO SEE WHETHER IT’S ACCEPTABLE \nTO THE APPLICANT \n>>SPEAKER: QUICKLY THERE IS \nALREADY ONE CONDITION WITHIN THE \nPERMIT SO IT’S IN ADDITION TO \nTHE NOTICE TO BUYERS ANY TIME WE \nHAVE DEDICATION CONDITION WITHIN \nA PERMIT IT’S TYPICAL WHERE WE \nWOULD REQUIRE RECORDING AS WELL \nTHE TIMING ON THIS ONE IS \nSLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THAT IT’S \nREQUIRED AT THE TIME OF CLOSE OF \nSALE OF THE PROPERTY. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: BECAUSE THE \nPERMITTEE CURRENTLY DOES NOT \nACTUAL LE OWN THE PROPERTY\, THEY \nHAVE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE. BUT \nIT IS IN THERE THAT AT THAT \nTIME\, WHEN THEY’RE READY TO MOVE \nFORWARD WITH THE PROJECT\, THAT \nIT WILL BE RECORDED. \nI THINK AT THIS POINT IT’S NOT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO\, \nYEAH\, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT \nUNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES\, YOU \nCAN’T RECORD THE PERMIT UNTIL IT \nCOMES INTO THE APPLICANT’S HANDS \nTHAT\, MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I \nJUST WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF IS \nSATISFIED THAT WE’RE FULLY \nPROTECTED. NO DISRESPECT AT ALL \nTO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WILL \nBE DONE. SO\, IT’S THERE. \nTHAT’S FINE. I’M SATISFIED. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A \nSECOND. CAN I PLEASE ASK ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS TO TURN ON YOUR \nCAMERAS\, ALL COMMISSIONERS ON \nTHE CAMERA AT ALL TIMES WE NEED \nTO MAKE SURE WE’RE KEEPING \nQUORUM AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN \nTELL IS IF WE CAN SEE YOU. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IF \nTHERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE. \nOH I’M SORRY. WE DID CLOSE THE \nPUBLIC HEARING\, DIDN’T WE? \nTHANK YOU. STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, \nPLEASE. \n>>SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. SO THIS \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS MAILED \nTO YOU ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. IN \nHERE I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A \nMOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT \nOF THE HARD WORK ON THE STAFF \nANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION WAS \nACTUALLY COMPLETED BY JESSICA \nFINKEL ONE OF OUR EXCELLENT \nPERMIT ANALYSTS WHO RECENTLY \nWENT ON PLAN LEAVE AND SO \nCOULDN’T BE HERE TO PRESENT THE \nITEM TO YOU TODAY I WANT TO \nPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR HER \nEFFORTS BECAUSE IT MADE IT \nPOSSIBLE FOR US TO CARRY IT THE \nREST OF THE WAY. WITH THAT \nSTAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVE THE PERMIT \nAPPLICATION WITH SEVERAL \nCONDITIONS AMONG THEM ARE \nDEDICATION OF THE ON-SITE PUBLIC \nACCESS AREAS AND IMPROVEMENTS \nWITHIN THE TOTAL PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA INCLUDING IN THE CALTRANS \nREDWOOD CITY RIGHTS OF WAY \nPRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PROCESS \nENSURING FEASIBILITY AND \nCONSISTENCY OF FINAL DESIGN \nSUBMITTING PROPERTY INTERESTS \nFOR WORK ON LANDS THAT ARE NOT \nCURRENTLY OWNED BY PERMITTEE \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK \nSUBMITTING APPLICABLE WATER \nQUALITY CERTIFICATIONS OR WASTE \nCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE \nWATER BOARD PRIOR TO BEGINNING \nWORK DOCUMENTING COMPLETION OF \nON-SITE AND OFFSITE REMEDIATION \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON \nINHABITABLE SPACES MEASURES TO \nPROTECT BAY RESOURCES \nCOMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE \nHABITAT IMPACTS OF NEW BAY FILL\, \nMONITORING AND ADAPTATION \nPLANNING TO ENSURE CONTINUED \nVIABILITY PUBLIC ACCESS NOTICING \nFUTURE HOME BUYERS ABOUT \nRESPONSIBILITIES UNDER PERMIT \nINCLUDING REQUIREMENTS TO \nMAINTAINS ADAPT PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREAS STAFF CONSISTENT WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONS LAWS AND POLICIES \nRECOMMENDS THAT YOU ADOPT \nRECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTAKE DOWN THE SLIDE SO YOU CAN \nSEE THE SCREEN PLEASE. IS THERE \nA MOTION? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nSTAFF — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nRECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION PATTED PAT EKLUND \nI’LL SECOND. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nECKLUND SECONDS. IF THERE ARE \nNO FURTHER QUESTIONS SIERRA \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBAL? \n>>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: IT’S A \nTOUGH ONE\, BUT\, YES\, I GUESS SO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: I HAVE A \nTOTAL OF 14 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANKS ALL OF \nYOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK \nAND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION \nFOR THE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, WE \nWILL RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND \nCONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG BCDC AND THE MEMBER \nAGENCIES OF THE BAY AREA \nREGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, BARC. \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE MOU IS TO \nCOORDINATE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \nJESSICA FAIN OUR PLANNING \nDIRECTOR WILL INTRODUCE THE \nISSUE THEN INTRODUCE ALLISON \nBROOKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE \nLEADER OF THIS EFFORT TO DRAFT \nAND ADOPT THE MOU. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M \nPLEASED TO BE HERE AT THE END OF \nTODAY’S MEETING WITH YOU TO \nPRESENT AND SEEK YOUR \nAUTHORIZATION FOR OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN \nINTER-AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF \nUNDERSTANDING ON FLOODING AND \nSEA LEVEL RISE. I’M JOINED \nTODAY BY ALLISON BROOKS THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE WHO \nHAS HELPED SPEARHEAD THIS EFFORT \nAND WHO IS GOING TO BE \nCOPRESENTING WITH ME TODAY. SO \nIF SOMEONE CAN PULL UP THE \nPRESENTATION\, WE CAN GET GOING. \nTHANK YOU. SO\, THE COMMISSION \nIS WELL AWARE THAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS HAPPENING AND THAT AS A \nREGION IT WILL FUNDAMENTALLY \nCHANGE THE WAY THAT WE WILL \nLIVE\, WORK\, AND RECREATE ALONG \nOUR BAY SHORELINE. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. IT WILL ALSO COST A LOT \nOF MONEY. HERE IS A SLIDE FROM \nA RECENT REPORT THAT BCDC AND \nMTC ABAG RELEASED LAST SUMMER \nTHAT MAPS OUT THE $110 BILLION \nTHAT IS ESTIMATED\, THAT IT WILL \nCOST THE REGION TO ADAPT TO \nRISING SEA LEVEL BY \nMID-CENTURY. \nAND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS $110 \nBILLION ESTIMATE\, ABOUT HALF \nTHOSE COSTS ARE BASED ON WHAT WE \nKNOW OR OUR PLANNED PROJECTS\, IF \nYOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE RIGHT \nTHOSE ARE THE BLUE SPACES AS \nWELL AS WHAT WE CALL PLACE \nHOLDER PROJECTS GREEN LINES \nWHERE NO PROJECT EXISTS BUT WE \nKNOW SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO \nHAPPEN THERE. WHILE THIS IS A \nLOT OF MONEY IT APPEALS IN \nCOMPARISON TO THE ESTIMATED $231 \nBILLION IN \nANTICIPATED DAMAGES SHOULD WE \nDO NOTHING. \n$230 BILLION ARE BASED ON \nACCESSED PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL \nAS TRANSPORTATION ASSETS. THE \nREPORT INDICATED THERE IS \nCONSIDERABLE UNEVENNESS ACROSS \nTHE REGION IN TERMS OF PROJECT \nTYPES HOW FAR ALONG PLACES ARE \nAS WELL AS ABILITY OF LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS AND OTHER PLACES TO \nRAISE FUNDS THERE ARE EQUITY \nIMPLICATIONS TO THIS WORK AS WE \nLOOK ACROSS THIS REGION TO TRY \nTO ADAPT AS A REGION. \nADDITIONALLY IT’S WORTH NOTING \nTHERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF \nACTIVITIES THAT ARE NEEDED BOTH \nTHE RESTORATION OF OUR BAY \nWETLANDS\, AND OTHER NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES. BUT WE ALSO KNOW \nTHAT A VARIETY OF GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES ARE \nNEEDED IN OTHER PLACES. SO \nWHILE A LOT OF THE WORK THAT A \nLOT OF OUR REGIONAL AND STATE \nAGENCIES ARE FOCUSED ON NOW \nACCELERATING NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES THERE IS NOT A \nSIMILAR ANALOG FOR GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE WHERE \nNATURE-BASED STRATEGIES ARE NOT \nFEASIBLE AND BOTH OF THESE TYPES \nOF SOLUTIONS ARE REQUIRED. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nSO THIS REPORT AS WELL AS BCDC’S \nWORK THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT \nPROGRAM HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED \nTHE NEED TO NOT JUST IDENTIFY \nTHIS BIG FUNDING GAP\, BUT THAT \nWE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO \nIDENTIFY HOW WE CAN IDENTIFY \nLEADS WHO CAN SPEARHEAD AND HELP \nFILL THE GAPS WITH SOME OF THESE \nFUNDING HOLES. THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM FOR EXAMPLE\, \nCALLS FOR A REVENUE GENERATION \nAND DISTRIBUTION PLAN AND \nACCOMPANYING GOVERNANCE \nSTRUCTURE TO RAISE AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDS AND THIS REPORT \nWE RELEASED LAST YEAR LIKEWISE \nCALLS FOR ESTABLISHING AND \nDEVELOPING BETTER LEAD ROLES FOR \nORGANIZING HOW WE FUND THIS \nWORK. THE BAY AREA REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATION HAVE ROLLED UP \nTHEIR SLEEVES TO DEVELOP THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE MOU IT IS ATTACHED IN \nYOUR MEETING PACKAGE TODAY\, \nATTACHMENT A\, AND I’LL TURN IT \nOVER TO ALLISON TO TALK US \nTHROUGH IT. \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: THANKS \nJESSICA\, AND THANKS FOR HAVING \nME HERE TODAY. I CAN SIT DOWN? \n[LAUGHTER] \nGREAT. THANKS JESSICA. IT’S \nGREAT TO BE WITH YOU TODAY \nCOMMISSIONERS. NEXT SLIDE. A \nQUICK RECAP OF WHAT IS THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION. IT \nWAS CREATED THROUGH STATE \nSTATUTE. WE HAVE FOUR MEMBER \nAGENCIES WRITTEN INTO THE \nLEGISLATION. THE TOP $4\, \nINCLUDING BCDC\, AND THEN WE HAVE \nTHE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THREE \nAGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATE \nREGULARLY IN OUR EFFORTS\, AND \nTHEY ARE SIGNATORIES OF THIS \nMOU\, AS WELL. AND THEY’RE ALL \n— WE’RE MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH \nGETTING THEIR APPROVAL\, EACH \nAGENCY’S APPROVAL TO HAVE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS \nSIGN THE MOU. EACH ARE KIND OF \nAPPROACHING IT IN THEIR OWN WAY\, \nBUT YOU’RE THE FIRST ONE TO \nBRING — YOU’RE THE FIRST ENTITY \nTHAT WE’RE BRINGING IT FORWARD \nTO\, SO THAT’S EXCITING. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, WHAT IS — WHAT’S IN THE \nMOU? WHAT IS THE MOU\, IF YOU \nHAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO POUR \nOVER IT QUITE YET\, WELL\, ITS \nPURPOSE IS TO ALIGN EFFORTS \nEXPERTISE AND CORE FUNCTIONS \nACROSS THOSE SEVEN AGENCIES TO \nACCOMPLISH SOME KEY GOALS\, \nACCELERATE PROJECT \nIMPLEMENTATION\, INCREASE THE BAY \nAREA’S COMPETITIVENESS FOR \nFUNDING SO HOW CAN WE WORK \nTOGETHER TO GO AFTER \nINCREASINGLY MORE SCARCE \nRESOURCES AT THE STATE LEVEL AND \nAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO SUPPORT \nSOME OF OUR BIG ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD \nAROUND THE REGION. ANOTHER GOAL \nIS TO ESTABLISH STRUCTURES \nCOORDINATION AND PROJECT \nPRIORITIZATION\, SUPPORT \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL \nPARTNERSHIPS\, AND SUPPORT CITIES \nAND COUNTIES\, AND WORK WITH YOU \nALL TO EXPAND YOUR CAPACITY TO \nFUND AND IMPLEMENT ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL\, \nBECAUSE WE KNOW THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD. \nSO\, I’LL QUICKLY GIVE A BRIEF \nSUMMARY OF EACH OF THE FIVE \nTOPIC AREAS WHICH YOU’RE SEEING \nON THE SLIDE HERE THAT ARE \nCOVERED IN THE MOU\, THESE CORE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS WHERE WE HAVE \nIDENTIFIED LEADS WHERE\, AS MUCH \nAS POSSIBLE. SO\, ON THE \nPLANNING SIDE\, PREPARING FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND FLOODING RISK\, \nTHAT FOCUSES ON PLANS\, POLICIES \nAND PROJECT PRIORITIES TO FOSTER \nAN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR WIDE \nSCALE ADVANCEMENT OF EQUITABLE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS. THE FIRST MAIN ITEMS \nINCLUDED IN THAT ARE BCDC \nDEVELOPING YOUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR \nSENATE BILL 272\, WHICH IS OFF \nAND RUNNING\, AND THE SECOND IS \nTO DEVELOP A SEA LEVEL RISE \nFUNDING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY \nTHAT’S BEEN GOING TO BE LED BY \nBCDC AND MTC ABAG TO REALLY \nPRIORITIZE PROJECTS AND FUNDING \nSTRATEGIES WHICH WILL THEN BE \nINCLUDED IN PLANNED BAY AREA. \nSO\, WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES \nWORKING TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS \nTO REALLY START TO INTEGRATE \nTHESE EFFORTS AND I THINK IT’S \nSHOWING UP HERE REALLY NICELY. \nON THE FUND MANAGEMENT SIDE\, IT \nDESCRIBES HOW THE AGENCIES WILL \nCOLLABORATE TO SEEK\, SECURE\, AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDING TO SUPPORT \nTHE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS THAT WE \nHAVE IDENTIFIED THE STATE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY IS THE LEAD \nFOR FUNDING PROPOSALS TO FEDERAL \nAGENCIES\, THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY WITH BARC WILL TRACK \nWITH STAFF AND COORDINATE \nFUNDING PROPOSALS AND THERE ARE \nROLES IN THERE FOR SAN FRANCISCO \nESTUARY PARTNERSHIP\, MTC AND \nABAG AND CALTRANS TO RAISE \nFUNDS\, ALIGN AND DISTRIBUTE \nFUNDING\, AS WELL AS COORDINATE \nON LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AND \nREGIONAL FUNDING MEASURES. THIS \nSECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nFOCUSES ON HOW REGIONAL AGENCIES \nCAN BEST SUPPORT PROJECT \nDEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY THROUGH \nA REGIONAL TA PROGRAM. THIS IS \nINTENDED TO AUGMENT THE CAPACITY \nOF LOCAL GOVERNMENT\, SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS AND LOCAL \nORGANIZATIONS. OF COURSE\, \nREALLY BRINGING THIS TO THE \nSCALE\, I THINK WE ALL WOULD \nBENEFIT FROM AND REALLY WHAT WE \nNEED IS \nGOING TO NEED IS MORE FUNDING. \nTHERE IS A LOT TO START WITH AND \nMANY INVOLVED IN THIS SPACE \nWE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO FOCUS \nON HOW WE CAN ORGANIZE OURSELVES \nAND POTENTIALLY EXPAND AND MEET \nTHE NEEDS OF THE REGION \nPROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. \nTHE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT SECTION \nIS FAIRLY SHORT BUT WE COMMIT \nTHE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER \nAND WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY \nTO CONTINUALLY IMPROVE THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS TO FACILITATE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECT DELIVERY WHILE \nMAINTAINING IMPORTANT \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS\, AND \nFINALLY THE COORDINATION SECTION \nFOR COLLABORATIVE \nDECISION-MAKING DESCRIBES THE \nPROCESS AND FORUMS FOR \nCOLLABORATION AND \nDECISION-MAKING. AND IT’S WORTH \nNOTING\, THINGS CHANGE. WE KNOW \nTHINGS — THERE IS A LOT OF \nCHANGE IN THE WORLD. SO\, THE \nMOU DOESN’T SUPERSEDE OR CHANGE \nANY AUTHORITIES OR JURISDICTIONS \nOF INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES. IT \nDOESN’T LOCK US INTO THIS \nRELATIONSHIP MOVING FORWARD\, IT \nALLOWS FOR CHANGES TO OCCUR \nMOVING FORWARD. IT’S EXCITING \nTHE AGENCIES ARE COMMITTING TO \nREALLY KIND OF FIGURING OUT HOW \nTO SYNC OF AND ALIGN THESE \nEFFORTS AROUND THESE FUNCTIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nHERE IS A QUICK ROLES AT A \nGLANCE SUMMARY SHEET WE HAVE \nPREPARED THAT IDENTIFY THE PRIME \nENTITIES FOR THE DIFFERENCE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS THE CORE AGENCY \nIS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM AND \nESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY’S INVOLVED \nIN EVERYTHING ON THIS NEXT \nSLIDE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? \nWHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, WE \nHAVE NEVER DONE SOMETHING LIKE \nTHIS BEFORE IT’S INTRODUCING A \nCOORDINATED REGIONAL STRATEGY TO \nFUND AND DELIVER PROJECTS WHICH \nREALLY HASN’T BEEN UNDERTAKEN. \nIT IS SIGNIFICANT AND THERE IS A \nLOT OF WORK TO DO TO REALLY \nOPERATIONALIZE THIS BUT IT IS \nOUTLINING RULES AND \nRESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS TO ACHIEVE \nTHESE SHARED GOALS. I THINK WE \nHAVE ALL BEEN WORKING ON THIS\, \nAND I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY BIG \nDEAL\, AND I’LL HAPPENED IT OVER \n— WE HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE? I \nTHINK THAT’S IT. THAT WOULD BE \nIT. OH\, YEAH\, I CAN HAND IT \nOVER TO JESSICA NOW. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: SORRY. IN CASE \nTHIS SOUNDS SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR TO \nYOU OR ANY OF THESE CONCEPTS\, IT \nREALLY SHOULD. MUCH OF THIS \nCOMES FROM THE BAY ADAPT JOINT \nPLATFORM THE CONSENSUS DRIVEN \nROADMAP FOR REGIONAL SEA LEVEL \nRISE ADAPTATION LED BY BCDC \nADOPTED IN 2021 THE MOU SPECIFIC \nCALLS OUT FOR EXAMPLE\, SOME OF \nOUR BAY ADAPT GROUPS LIKE THE \nIMPLEMENT BAY ADAPT \nIMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP OUR LEADERSHIP GROUP TO BE \nA FORUM THAT’S TO HELP MOVE THAT \nMOU FORWARD RELIES ON REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nBACKBONE TO SUPPORT THAT BCDC IS \nPROVIDING TO HELP MOVE IT \nFORWARD AS L LASTLY THE MOU \nADVANCING SEVERAL OF BCDC’S \nSTRATEGIC PLAN GOALS NAMELY GOAL \nONE LEADING REGIONAL PLANNING \nEFFORTS THAT RESULT IN \nSUCCESSFUL EQUITABLE ADAPTATION\, \nGOAL TWO IMPROVING OUR \nREGULATORY PLANNING FUNCTION IN \nA UNIFIED REGIONAL SCALE \nAPPROACH AND GOAL THREE \nEMBEDDING EQUITY INITIATIVES AND \nPRACTICES THROUGH THE OUR \nPROGRAMS. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, OUR NEXT STEPS\, AS ALLISON \nMENTIONED\, EACH OF THE AGENCIES \nIS WORKING THIS THROUGH THEIR \nOWN SYSTEM WE LIKE TO BE FIRST \nLIKE ALL THINGS RELATED TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, PAVING THE WAY\, THEN \nTHE IDEA IS THAT THE BARC \nGOVERNING BOARD MEETING IN JULY\, \nHOPEFULLY THE FULL BOARD WILL \nAPPROVE THIS\, THEN THE HARD WORK \nBEGINS AS WE START TO REALLY \nDIVE INTO THE WORKPLAN THAT \nWE’RE DEVELOPING AND MOVING \nTHESE PIECES FORWARD. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nI’LL READ THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND THEN PERHAPS \nWE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR \nDISCUSSION. BUT\, WE’RE ASKING \nYOU TODAY TO AUTHORIZE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION AND THE ASSOCIATION \nOF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS\, ALSO \nHOST SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY \nPARTNERSHIP\, THE BAAQMD\, THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY\, THE CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION \nDISTRICT FOUR\, THE METROPOLITAN \nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\, AND \nTHE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER \nQUALITY CONTROL BOARD\, SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY REGION. TO \nCOORDINATE EVERYDAYS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nTHANK ALL OF THE PRESENTERS. I \nWILL HAVE SOME REMARKS IN A \nBIT. \nDO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND NO HANDS RAISED\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMENTS OR \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, AND THANKS TO \nALLISON AND STAFF FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. JUST WANT TO \nCONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON GETTING \nTO THIS POINT. I KNOW IT’S \nGOING TO BE COMPLEX TO FIGURE \nOUT HOW TO WORK ACROSS SO MANY \nDIFFERENT AGENCIES BUT HAVING A \nSHARED UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS \nDOING WHAT AND WHAT THE PURPOSE \nIS IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL AND I \nTHINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A \nVALUABLE TOOL. SO\, \nCONGRATULATIONS FOR THAT. I HAD \nONE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT MAYBE \nALLISON CAN SPEAK TO. I NOTED \nIN THE WRITE-UP THAT YOU HAVE A \nLEAD IDENTIFIED FOR SEEKING AND \nSECURING FEDERAL FUNDING. I \nDIDN’T SEE ANY REFERENCE TO THE \nSAME THING ON THE STATE LEVEL. \nBUT THAT’S — I ASSUME THE \nPATHWAY THAT WE’LL NEED TO \nPURSUE AS WELL\, AND I WONDER IF \nYOU COULD SPEAK TO THE APPROACH \nTHAT’S PLANNED THERE? \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: YEAH. THAT’S \nA GREAT QUESTION. IT’S PART OF \nTHE COORDINATION THAT WE’RE \nDOING\, WHERE WE’RE HAVING A \nSUBCOMMITTEE OF THE KEY AGENCIES \nAROUND THE FUND-RAISING TO\, \nFIRST\, IDENTIFY — WE’RE GOING \nTO HAVE A LIST AND IDENTIFY ALL \nTHE ACTIVE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES \nTHAT ARE COMING FORWARD\, AND \nTHROUGH OUR WORK TOGETHER AND \nCOORDINATION\, WE’LL IDENTIFY WHO \nTHE APPROPRIATE LEAD IS FOR A \nSPECIFIC GRANT OPPORTUNITY AS \nTHEY COME FORWARD BASED ON WHO \nIS BEST POSITIONED TO GO AFTER \nIT. AND THEN THROUGH THAT\, \nWE’LL IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR \nJOINT PROPOSALS THAT MAY COME \nFORWARD. BUT\, REALLY\, I THINK \nIT’S HELPFUL TO JUST SAY WE’RE \nGOING TO START WITH THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AS THE KIND OF MAIN \nENTITY. BUT THERE WILL BE \nOPPORTUNITIES WHICH WE RECOGNIZE \nFOR STATE GRANTS AND OTHERS \nWHERE ANOTHER APPLICANT CAN \nPROBABLY BETTER SUITED TO GO \nAFTER IT. SO\, THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE COORDINATION AND THE \nSYSTEM WE’RE SETTING UP TO \nREGULARLY BE ON TOP OF THESE \nOPPORTUNITIES WILL KICK N FOR \nSURE. . \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: A QUESTION \nABOUT FINANCE. I’M REALLY \nPLEASED TO SEE THE DISCUSSION \nWITH INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN \nPLANNING\, NUMBER ONE\, BUT UNDER \nNUMBER TWO\, I HAVE A QUESTION\, A \nLOT OF THE DISCUSSION AS STAFF \nWAS JUST TALKING ABOUT\, IS ABOUT \nA LOT OF LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT \nSEEKING FUNDING FROM STATE \nGRANTS FEDERAL GRANTS AND \nREGIONAL SOURCES. WE HAVE \nTALKED MANY TIMES ABOUT THE \nPOTENTIAL FOR A REGIONAL — A \nREGIONAL BALLOT MEASURE\, LIKE \nMEASURE AA\, THAT WOULD BE \nSUBSTANTIALLY LARGER\, FINANCE \nADAPTATION\, I KNOW 2H DISCUSSES \nTHAT POTENTIAL\, BUT IT SAYS \nLEAVING INSTRUCT BE DETERMINED \nFOR THAT ITEM\, THAT IDEA IS \nCRITICAL THERE MAY BE ANALOGOUS \nIDEAS THAT ARE JUST NOT QUITE \nTHAT BUT SOMETHING ELSE CREATIVE \nALONG THOSE LINES. I WANTED TO \nASK WHY 2H IS LEFT UNRESOLVED \nAND WHETHER THIS MOU ADEQUATELY \nCAPTURED OTHER POTENTIAL \nCREATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS? \nBECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nCOME UP WITH THOSE \nMECHANISMS. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I CAN TRY TO \nANSWER THIS\, I DON’T THINK \nANYONE IS JUMPING TO LEAD THE \nFUNDING MEASURES AT THIS POINT\, \nAND CERTAINLY\, WOULDN’T WELL \nSUITED\, BCDC IS NOT GOING TO \nLEAD A REGIONAL FUNDING MEASURE \nFOR EXAMPLE\, MTC AND ABAG ARE \nOCCUPIED RIGHT NOW WITH OTHER \nBALLOT MEASURES INCLUDING \nHOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION WHICH \nHAVE RESILIENCY COMPONENTS AS \nWELL BUT AREN’T SPECIFIC ON THIS \nTOPIC. I THINK THIS IS \nIMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THIS IS A \nCONCEPT WE DON’T WANT TO LOSE \nIT’S KNOWN IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE \nDISCUSSED FOR A LONG TIME THAT \nWE’RE COMMITTING TO BUT I THINK \nTHERE IS MORE TO BE DONE IN \nTERMS OF FIGURING OUT EXACTLY \nTHE RIGHT LEAD ON HOW TO MOVE \nTHAT FORWARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ONE \nOF THE DIFFICULTIES IS THIS MOU \nIS REALLY AIMED AT THESE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND WHILE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES WERE \nINVOLVED IN AA\, THEY WERE NOT \nTHE LEAD AND THAT MAY BE THE \nCASE AGAIN. BUT WE WILL \nCERTAINLY BE VERY INVOLVED IN \nNOT ONLY THINKING ABOUT IT\, BUT \nMAKING SURE IT STAYS AT THE TOP \nOF EVERYBODY’S ATTENTION. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK \nJESSICA AND ALLISON AND ALL OF \nTHE AGENCIES. I HAVE BEEN \nFOLLOWING THIS AND VERY \nGRATIFIED TO SEE ALL THE \nPROGRESS IT’S MADE. I WANT TO \nOFFER A FURTHER THOUGHT ALONG \nTHE LINES THAT COMMISSIONER \nNELSON JUST OFFERED\, AND THAT \nIS\, I KNOW THE FOCUS HERE IS ON \nCOORDINATING GRANT APPLICATIONS \nFOR FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING\, I \nTHINK IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO \nREALIZE THAT THE PRIVATE AND \nNON-PROFIT SECTORS WILL PLAY A \nROLE IN FUNDING IN THE KIND OF \nMITIGATION ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE \nLOOKING FOR. AND SO WHILE IT \nDOESN’T TOTALLY FIT WITHIN THE \nGRID AND TABLE THAT WE SAW\, I \nTHINK THE AGENCIES\, AND BARC\, \nWANT TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE \nHOW WE WOULD INCORPORATE THE \nPRIVATE AND NGO SECT ON WERES \nWHO WILL INEVITABLY GET INTO THE \nPICTURE AND HOW WE LEVERAGE \nTHOSE DOLLARS ALONG WITH THE \nSTATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING. SO \nJUST WANTED TO THROW THAT INTO \nTHE POT FOR FUTURE \nCONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWANT TO JOIN IN THANKING \nEVERYBODY. WHEN I WAS INVOLVED \nIN A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS \nLEADING UP TO THIS MOU\, AND \nTHERE WAS INITIALLY A LOT OF \nSKEPTICISM\, NOT ABOUT DOING IT\, \nBUT HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE\, \nOR NOT\, AND HOW QUICKLY WE COULD \nDO IT. AND I THINK WE ARE \nBEATING PEOPLE’S EXPECTATIONS. \nI SHARE JESSICA’S PRIDE IN OUR \nBEING FIRST AGENCY TO APPROVE \nIT\, AND I THINK IT WILL MOVE \nALONG WITH ALL OF THE AGENCIES\, \nBUT IN PART BECAUSE THIS CLEARLY \nWAS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT. NOT \nALWAYS WILLINGLY\, BUT EVERYBODY \nUNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF \nDOING THIS AND TAKING THIS \nAPPROACH. AND A LOT OF THE \nFOCUS IS ON FINANCING\, BUT THE \nMOU GOES BEYOND THAT AND TALKS \nABOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND \nMOVING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION. \nSO\, I WOULD — IF THERE ARE NO \nFURTHER QUESTIONS\, WELCOME \nSOMEONE MAKING THE MOTION TO \nAPPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT \nWE AUTHORIZE OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? \nNEVER MIND. I STAND CORRECTED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY\, I WOULD \nLIKE TO MOVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS\, SEER A \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CAN I \nCONFIRM THAT WAS ECKLUND AND \nGUNTHER\, CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>JUSTINE BEACH: ABSTAIN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN THROW IN A REGRETFUL. \n>>SPEAKER: VERY REGRETFULLY\, \nPERSONALLY SUPPORT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nVERY HAPPILY\, YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: A TOTAL \nOF 15 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, ALL VERY MUCH. I \nAPPRECIATE THIS. I APPRECIATE \nYOUR ATTENTION AND EFFORTS\, AS \nALWAYS. \nAND WITH THAT\, I WOULD \nENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nADJOURN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES TO \nADJOURN AND COMMISSIONER NELSON \nSECONDS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO WE’RE ON OUR \nWAY NOW TO ABAG. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] \nIF THERE AREN’T NO OBJECTIONS \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-16-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240516T080000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240516T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240528T224540Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240628T211943Z UID:10000179-1715846400-1715878800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 16\, 2024 Environmental Justice Working Group (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-16-2024-environmental-justice-working-groupcancelled/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240515T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240515T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240130T055623Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T210225Z UID:10000153-1715778000-1715792400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 15\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-15-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240507T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240507T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240130T044937Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T212319Z UID:10000133-1715074200-1715083200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 7\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-7-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240506T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240506T183000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240130T034203Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240424T211721Z UID:10000117-1715014800-1715020200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 6\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-6-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240502T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240502T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 CREATED:20240118T073133Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240910T225726Z UID:10000096-1714654800-1714669200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:May 2\, 2024 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nCNRA Building\, 715 P St.Sacramento\, CA 95814\n\n\n14265 Highway 128Boonville\, CA 95415\n\n\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/89261651141?pwd=Yolo_X3i5Bj1zilCAN8pY22-povhGQ.U61iG35S8nb899rG \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID892 6165 1141 \nPasscode136595 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for April 18\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Public Pathway Pilot ProjectThe Commission will receive a briefing from Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) regarding the status of the four-year Public Pathway Pilot Project on Richmond-San Rafael Bridge originally authorized by BCDC Permit No. 1997.001.04. The briefing will include a report on the findings of the pilot project\, as well as proposed changes to the pilot being contemplated for a forthcoming permit amendment request.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment letters // Presentation // Presentation // Additional Public Comments\nPublic Hearing and Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application – POSTPONEDThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSan Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (OneShoreline) BriefingRepresentatives of OneShoreline\, the Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District working throughout San Mateo County\, will brief the Commission on its vision and plan for the future to build resilience to rising sea level.(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications and Federal Consistency Actions \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nU.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District\, Regulatory Division450 Golden Gate Avenue\, 4th FloorSan Francisco\, CA 94102-3404 \n\n\nDe Minimis Determination for the MOTCO Large Object Relocation Project No. C2024.001.00 \n\n\n\nSubmitted\nJanuary 4\, 2024 (originally)\, with subsequent information submitted January 25\, 2024\, April 3\, 2024\, and April 9\, 2024\, and April 22\, 2024.\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Coastal Zone in subtidal waters near the Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO)\, south of Ryer Island and Roe Island\, in Suisun Bay. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nMOTCO has submitted a proposed project to relocate 25 submerged objects from a subtidal area at MOTCO that is planned for dredging\, to a different subtidal area that would be out of the path of boat traffic and strong currents. MOTCO located the objects using sonar and believes them to be pieces of ships sunk during the 1944 Port Chicago ammunition explosion disaster; therefore\, the objects are historical artifacts and are protected by the Sunken Military Craft Act. MOTCO has concluded that the activity would not result in significant direct or indirect coastal effects\, and qualifies as a de minimis activity under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA requires that the state agencies review the de minimis activity proposed by the Federal agency\, and either concur with\, or object to the de minimis determination. If the State agency concurs with the Federal agency\, the activity will be excluded from further State agency review. If the State agency objects to the de minimis finding\, the Federal agency must provide the State agency with a negative determination or a consistency determination. \nOn March 15\, 2024\, BCDC staff issued a letter of disagreement with MOTCO’s de minimis determination. After further discussion\, MOTCO submitted additional information on the project and agreed to modify the project to include the submittal of project work plans and minimization measures for BCDC staff review and approval prior to undertaking the project. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nWith this modification to the project\, BCDC staff agrees with MOTCO’s determination that the project will have insignificant direct or indirect (cumulative and secondary) coastal effects\, and thus is a de minimis activity. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \nBay Area community members\, lawmakers push for funding to restore tidal marsh to help with flooding \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n Meeting recording \n\n \n\nMeeting transcript\n\nBoardroom SX80: Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: You were slow on that one. Commissioners\, if you are. \nBoardroom SX80: please unmute yourself to answer yes\, whether you’re here or participating virtually\, and then mute yourself. After responding\, Sierra\, will you please call the role? \nBoardroom SX80: May we first have our video played Felipe to insist? \nBoardroom SX80: Welcome to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Wasserman here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Diego\, here\, Commissioner on we are \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ambuel here\, Commissioner Eckerley. \nJenn Eckerle\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eckland\, President\, Commissioner Joy. Here\, Commissioner Gun here. \nBoardroom SX80: oof. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Karen. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Hawes. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson\, here Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pine here \nBoardroom SX80: into the mic\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Here\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Pardon me\, Commissioner Ramos. \nBoardroom SX80: Here\, Commissioner Randolph\, here\, Commissioner\, show Walter here\, Commissioner Stefani. \nBoardroom SX80: Present. \nBoardroom SX80: Total. 17. Present. Malton Peters. Oh\, pardon me\, did I miss anyone? Commissioner Malton Peters? Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Total of 18 present chair Wasserman\, you have quorum. \nBoardroom SX80: We have a quorum and therefore can conduct business. \nBoardroom SX80: I wanna thank all of you for being here particularly. I wanna thank the people who have responded to my request that on some of our meetings roughly every every other month we get as many people as possible\, many commissioners as possible. Here in person there is a different sense\, a different ability to communicate. Zoom has given us some very wonderful things. It’s just not quite the same. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 3\, which is the public comment period. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the time when the public can comment on matters not on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: or where there has not been a hearing \nBoardroom SX80: to bring matters to our attention. So if you are here for either of the items on the agenda\, you should speak on those items. Submit your speakers cards. \nBoardroom SX80: physically or virtually \nBoardroom SX80: and for public comment period I will give each person 3 min. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any people for public comment\, not on agenda items. \nBoardroom SX80: We currently have 3 hands raised. Chair Wasserman. Go ahead and call them\, please\, Shawn Camden\, your first stop\, and I’m I hope\, Shawn\, I did let me before you start the timer. \nBoardroom SX80: Typically\, when we have people speak virtually. \nBoardroom SX80: we show the timer\, and that’s so that they know how much time there is. We have had some requests from people who wish to have their faces shown. \nBoardroom SX80: And I absolutely want to respect that. If you want that \nBoardroom SX80: say that we’ll do that\, and since the timer will not be shown to you\, we will have Sierra give you a 1 min and a 30 s warning. \nBoardroom SX80: Sean\, just to confirm. \nBoardroom SX80: Would you like to speak on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: No public comment. Currently\, chair Wasserman\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: So that brings us to item 4\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is approval of the minutes of our April eighteenth meeting. We have received copies of the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: I would appreciate a motion to\, and a second to approve the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson moves Commissioner Gunther slightly slower on the trigger seconds. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any comments or \nBoardroom SX80: changes to the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. Is there any opposition to approving the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: or does anyone wish to abstain? \nBoardroom SX80: I see none. The minutes are approved. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings me to my report. I’m going to try to be brief. I don’t always succeed at that. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, since Commissioner Eisen is out of the country and not available to participate. I have asked Commissioner Randolph to act as our vice chair for the meeting this afternoon\, and he has graciously agreed to do so. He has a fair amount of experience doing so. \nBoardroom SX80: Just as I thanked everybody for being here today\, or as many as possible. I want to remind you that we can’t do that at our next meeting it will be virtual because of construction going on in this meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: so that if you are going you you need to give the address that you’re going to be at \nBoardroom SX80: to Regina! \nBoardroom SX80: No\, to you. Sorry to Sierra. \nBoardroom SX80: I was trying to divide responsibilities\, and I did it wrong. \nBoardroom SX80: by \nBoardroom SX80: today or tomorrow \nBoardroom SX80: end of business today. Chair Wasserman end of business today. \nBoardroom SX80: So please send that to her. \nBoardroom SX80: So that we can properly post it. \nBoardroom SX80: hey? \nBoardroom SX80: On a \nBoardroom SX80: sad note\, and yet a celebratory one\, as you all know\, I believe\, Will Travis\, the longtime executive director of Bcdc. \nBoardroom SX80: Passed away last week. \nBoardroom SX80: I did not serve on this commission with Will as executive director. We missed each other by about 4 months. \nBoardroom SX80: But I knew him well before that\, and we talked a fair amount afterwards. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a tribute to him posted. \nBoardroom SX80: and I urge you to read it. He was most certainly one of the leaders and effective leaders of both protecting the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: but also thinking \nBoardroom SX80: proactively and creatively on the things that we need to do\, and not simply\, reactively. \nBoardroom SX80: He\, I think\, taught all of us a great deal. \nBoardroom SX80: He was \nBoardroom SX80: Strong in his beliefs. \nBoardroom SX80: and not shy about sharing them. \nBoardroom SX80: But he listened to people \nBoardroom SX80: as part of \nBoardroom SX80: the series of events that led me to becoming chair of this commission. Where there was some \nBoardroom SX80: significant differences between regulated \nBoardroom SX80: people\, both governments and and developers and others about what new \nBoardroom SX80: rules should apply as we adapt to rising sea levels. \nBoardroom SX80: He was very effective in shuttled diplomacy. \nBoardroom SX80: It was actually one of the \nBoardroom SX80: great examples I have seen of public negotiations which are often not easy\, because most of them\, albeit not all\, need to be conducted in in public. And he really did a superb job of that. \nBoardroom SX80: He understood people\, and he did listen\, but he was absolutely not afraid \nBoardroom SX80: to lead \nBoardroom SX80: others may wish to comment on him briefly. I don’t. We have a lot of speakers\, so I don’t wanna go on at great length\, but I. I wanna give people the opportunity because the number of people work with him much more than I did. And I will recognize the Dean in the sense of longer serving member. This commission\, John Joya. \nBoardroom SX80: I had a chance to serve with Trav. When I joined the Commission in 99\, when he was executive director through his retirement in 2011. So I just want to acknowledge one main point. \nBoardroom SX80: I think Trav\, more than anyone was really responsible for moving. This commission\, this agency toward addressing\, planning for sea level rise. Not just the work of the Bay Plan amendment which establish policies on sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: but really just ramping up the work. And it was really part of our planning function. I think our planners here are the lead sort of group of individuals as many but lead group of individuals in the Bay area who really work with local government\, state agencies and others and private sector to work on planning for resiliency. So I just wanted to acknowledge that point that really was Trav’s leadership\, to move the Commission to \nBoardroom SX80: into that. So instead of just dealing with a bay that was potentially going to get smaller back in the 19 sixties to dealing with the bay that was going to get larger. \nBoardroom SX80: So I just want to acknowledge that \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson. I’m now gonna go around agree with everything the Chair and Commissioner Joy just said and all. I’ll add to that is that Trav was also\, and I worked with it for many years before I was on the Commission when I was before the Commission while I was an advocate on Bay issues. trav on top of everything that the chair and the Commissioner\, Commissioner Joyce said Trav was entrepreneurial\, smart and funny\, and a ton of fun to work with \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Yaxley. Thank you very much for allowing me an opportunity to talk about Will Travis\, I started working with the US. Environmental\, US. Army corps of Engineers in 1 69\, \nBoardroom SX80: and we had a lot. The Army Corps of engineers had a lot to do with the formation of the Bcdc. Believe it or not\, but I really got to know him. When I moved over to the US. Environmental Protection Agency. I was in charge of the oceans and estuaries program for EPA. Region 9\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s where I really got to know and work with Will Travis on a lot of issues\, because obviously we were in the 301 H and 4. One permitting process and everything else. So we worked with Bcdc. And all the other State agencies \nBoardroom SX80: that were involved with water\, and one of the things that I would most admired about him is his willingness and his eagerness to listen to others and to try to solve problems. And he did it in a way that you never felt that you were being put down\, and you never felt like you weren’t part of the group\, and I really respected him for how he treated others\, even people that didn’t necessarily share his views. \nBoardroom SX80: So I really spent a lot of time working with him because of both the agencies. In fact\, my boss\, Jean Huggins. He was a director of public affairs for the US. Army Corps Engineers\, and that’s how I first got to to know about Bcdc. When it was formed in 69\, \nBoardroom SX80: and so\, and then really got to know him. And I was in charge of \nBoardroom SX80: oceans and water program for EPA. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: he was just a really neat guy\, and it’s really sad to see people pass away. But he left a legacy that he will always be remembered because of that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John. I. I had the privilege of working with Trav for almost 9 years as as chairman of the BC. DC. At the time\, and he was. \nBoardroom SX80: He was always incredibly professional\, incredibly supportive of the Commission \nBoardroom SX80: and of me. And he he had it felt like just the right balance in his focus on conservation and and development\, which is what what we’re about here in the end of the day. \nBoardroom SX80: And it was already pointed out that he was really the pioneer for us in Bcdc. And in the region among the agencies\, in focusing on sea level rise and adaptation at a time when it wasn’t really on the agenda. We know there were issues out there\, but there was no institutional focus\, and there was a gap\, and he. He led us into a leadership role in that. And. \nBoardroom SX80: as Chair Wasson has said\, it wasn’t an easy territory. There are conflicting interests\, just to say the least. But in the end\, when we did take that first step forward\, I think it was to amend the Bay plan. It was a unanimous support by what are otherwise contending camps. And so I think that was quite an achievement \nBoardroom SX80: to get us to that point. And I think it’s one reason why we’ve been especially diligent ever since then about making sure we had everybody on board with us across the region as we go forward. \nBoardroom SX80: He was a terrific leader for the commission\, and \nBoardroom SX80: he he was also really engaging and charming. He was a terrific person to all\, miss. \nBoardroom SX80: All right\, thank you all. \nBoardroom SX80: We will adjourn the meeting in his memory \nBoardroom SX80: online. I’m sorry none of the concerns on. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think so. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any hands \nBoardroom SX80: all right. Our next meeting\, as I noted will be in 2 weeks. On May sixteenth it will be virtual. \nBoardroom SX80: and we expect that we \nBoardroom SX80: may take up the following matters. \nBoardroom SX80: a permanent application for Pg’s continuing operation and maintenance projects throughout the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: a permitted application for a development at 505 East Bay Shore in Redwood City. \nBoardroom SX80: an enforcement case in the city of Richmond\, and \nBoardroom SX80: a memorandum of understanding among various state and regional agencies\, to better organize how we will fund and manage adaptation to rising sea levels in the Bay Area. \nBoardroom SX80: That last one is going to be really important. I do urge you to attend the meeting\, albeit virtually \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to ex parte communications. If you have received a communication that is not on record on a matter that we are going to adjudicate \nBoardroom SX80: you may report it now. If you have not reported it in writing\, you do need to report it in writing in any event\, and the portal is available to do that. \nBoardroom SX80: Does anybody wish to make any ex-party communication reports? \nBoardroom SX80: And when you say a matters are adjudicated\, obviously\, there’s an issue coming before us on a potential permit. So I’ve had conversations with \nBoardroom SX80: like organizations\, residents\, bare council Mtc. and residents for and against the even though we have no application before us\, and we’re not making any decisions\, but just to be transparent. \nBoardroom SX80: and I left out\, turning back to Commissioner Joy\, the environmental. No sorry \nBoardroom SX80: you can report on the elected task force. There was a meeting of the elected officials task force on. They adapt yesterday\, and Commissioner Joy\, who chairs that we’ll give a brief report. So just briefly\, yesterday\, you know\, we do have this. \nBoardroom SX80: a very good group of elected officials\, 2 per county around the Bay Area to really address from a local level. How we address sea level rise\, and the meeting yesterday had 2 great presentations about best practices that are currently out there. One from San Mateo County and and Supervisor director. Pyne\, was part of that presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: and one from Bryn County\, and supervisor and director\, Stephanie Moulton Peters was part of that so great to see the work that’s occurring\, and what we said we would do is collect best practices from counties around the Bay Area and communities around the Bay Area\, about how cities and counties and the community are working together to address sea level rise. So we’ll hear from other counties and other efforts. And we did get an update on the regional shoreline adaptation plan from BC. DC. Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: That was it? \nBoardroom SX80: It’s \nBoardroom SX80: any questions on that. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t have a question\, but I do have a comment. I watched the presentation yesterday\, and I have to tell you really impressed with what San Mateo has done? You’re a large county \nBoardroom SX80: and a lot of cities\, and just having worked with a lot of folks down there\, too\, when I worked for EPA. It is really a good effort. And again\, I wanted to also compliment Supervisor Peters\, too\, for initiating the action\, and we’re in \nBoardroom SX80: and and getting that going. And I’m very interested in following that. And that’s why I watched it. And I was just going. Wow! Go\, girl. Go\, girl. So\, anyway\, both. Thank you very much for your fantastic presentations. Yesterday and discussion. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Pat. \nBoardroom SX80: Just as of alert for future meetings. There will be a meeting of the Environmental Justice Working Group\, virtually on the morning of May sixteenth\, prior to our Commission meeting and a meeting of the sediment working group the following day on the seventeenth. \nBoardroom SX80: in the morning also\, virtually \nBoardroom SX80: Our executive director had a sudden\, not serious\, but needed attention. Medical \nBoardroom SX80: issuing his family. That is why he is not here. Steve Goldbeck\, our deputy director\, is here \nBoardroom SX80: to make a report to us. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, chair. I will keep the report very\, very short\, because the executive director didn’t have one for today. But he did want me to make an announcement that I am going to be retiring. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s been a pleasure and an honor to work for the Commission and the bay since the eighties\, but it’s time to pass the torch. \nBoardroom SX80: and I won’t be leaving until the end of the fiscal year in a couple of months\, and maybe returning in some capacity\, perhaps\, as a retired annuitant\, so you may have to kick around for a while\, but in any event I wanted to thank you all\, and no need for any further speechifying right now. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s my report. \nBoardroom SX80: We will have\, and time at future meetings to \nBoardroom SX80: Recognize Steve’s yeoman work for this agency\, and on behalf of the people of California and the people of this region and the people of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. That brings us to item \nBoardroom SX80: 7 \nBoardroom SX80: the consideration of administrative matters. We have been furnished\, a listing of them. \nBoardroom SX80: and regulatory director\, Harriet Ross\, is ready and willing to talk about any. If you have questions. Are there any public comments on administrative hearing matters? \nBoardroom SX80: Sean Camden\, is your public comment for this item for or for a current item. \nSean Camden: No\, it’s a general comment. \nBoardroom SX80: I\, it should have been done and open\, but but I’ll allow it. Go ahead. \nSean Camden: Oh\, okay\, I thank you. \nSean Camden: I I just wanna say that \nSean Camden: removing a multi use bath from the Richmond Santa Fe bridge would be a huge step backwards for the future of Bay Area transportation. \nSean Camden: And I also want to address some of the lies that I’ve heard people telling about the about the path. I don’t think I need to. \nBoardroom SX80: Shawn. This is direct towards item 8 will ask you to hold your comment until it’s for item 8. Carol. \nBoardroom SX80: No further public comment at this time. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That does. And I assume I don’t see any commissioners on items on the \nBoardroom SX80: administrative listing \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to item 8. \nBoardroom SX80: A briefing and discussion regarding the status of the four-year public pathway pilot project on Richmond\, San Rafael Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: originally authorized by the Commission several years ago as a permitting matter. The briefing presented by Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority will include a report on the findings of the pilot project as well as proposed changes to the pilot being contemplated for a vote by Adam\, the Toll authority later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry. Later this month \nBoardroom SX80: the Commission can expect a permit amendment request to be forthcoming after that is deliberations. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I want everybody to be clear in the public. I know there’s a lot of public interest in this. \nBoardroom SX80: we are not taking action today. We will not take action until after \nBoardroom SX80: the agency that has actually authority over it \nBoardroom SX80: takes an action and then seeks our approval of a permit or modification to a permit\, as the case may be\, but because we know this is an item of importance \nBoardroom SX80: we are. This is on the agenda for people to talk\, but I want the public in particular to understand we are not acting today \nBoardroom SX80: because it’s not timely for us to do so. We are a permitting agency. \nBoardroom SX80: We are not the sponsors of this project \nBoardroom SX80: shoreline development program manager. Kathryn Pan will introduce the briefing. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have an estimate of the number of hands raised who wish to speak on this? If you do wish to speak\, you’ve submitted a card already. We’re counting you \nBoardroom SX80: Guess on virtual hands the current count is 24\, and climbing all right. I’m going to ask you to do 2 things\, please for the public speakers. One. Reduce your time to 2 min. \nBoardroom SX80: and second. \nBoardroom SX80: please try not to be repetitive. If if you simply want to come up and demonstrate that you’ve made the effort to come here\, or the effort to be on virtually and supporting what others people said. You can say that briefly\, and and and I don’t want to restrict what anybody says. Say what you wish to. But in respect for people’s time\, including the members of the public. I would ask you not to be repetitive. \nBoardroom SX80: With that \nBoardroom SX80: Take it away\, Katherine. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. Well\, thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m Katherine Pan\, the Shoreline development program manager at Bcdc. And I’ll be introducing this item\, which is a briefing on the Richmond San Rafael Bridge access improvement pilot project. \nBoardroom SX80: A staff report on this briefing was shared with you on April 20 sixth\, including a copy of Bcdc. Permit number 9\, 97\, 0 0\, one Amendment 4 and a written report from Caltrans and the Bay Area Toll authority or data detailing the information that will be presented today. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll summarize some of the highlights of the staff report to provide the regulatory context for the project before passing things over to Cal Transambada\, who will provide a status report on the project \nBoardroom SX80: and just to situate you. Here’s a regional map of the project location. The Richmond San Rafael Bridge spanned San Francisco Bay between Marin and Contra Costa counties. It is owned by Caltrans\, and managed in partnership with data. A sister agency of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission\, or Mtc. \nBoardroom SX80: The bridge is a segment of Interstate 5\, 80\, and is a designated segment of the Bay Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: The Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project was a four-year pilot to evaluate the use of the shoulder on the westbound upper deck of the bridge\, as a full-time separated class\, one multi-use pathway and the shoulder of the eastbound lower deck as a peak hour\, third vehicle Travel Lane\, and that was approved by the Commission in September 2016\, as part of a material amendment number 4 to permit number 9\, 7 0 0 1. \nBoardroom SX80: That permit was originally issued in 90 97\, to authorize the seismic retrofitting of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: At the time of the original permit. There was no bicycle or pedestrian access on the bridge\, although it was already designated as a proposed bay trail segment by the Bay trail project \nBoardroom SX80: when considering the project\, the Commission heard from many community members advocating for bicycle and pedestrian connection across the bridge\, and the findings of the original permit\, stated that providing bicycle and pedestrian access was desirable\, and would maximize the public access benefits of the retrofit retrofit project. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the Commission also found that there was a need for further study as to whether this kind of access could be provided safely that could not be accommodated by the urgent timing of the project. Therefore the original permit did not include any special conditions to require bicycle and pedestrian access across the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Instead\, the Commission decided to work with Caltrans to complete the necessary studies and the permit findings document that Caltrans voluntarily committed to using its best efforts to study the feasibility of providing non-motorized public access on the bridge\, and if such access was found to be feasible that it would ensure that it was provided \nBoardroom SX80: nearly 20 years later. In 16\, the pilot project followed from the series of studies and commissioned briefings and discussions stemming from that commitment which are further detailed in the Staff Report. \nBoardroom SX80: Material Amendment number 4 authorized 2 elements of the pilot project\, as well as some other permanent access improvements on the approaches to the bridge that were not part of the pilot on the eastbound lower deck of the bridge. The pilot involved the use of a 4 mile long segment of the shoulder as a vehicle travel lane during peak commute hours\, and this part of the pilot opened in 2\,018. \nBoardroom SX80: On the westbound upper deck of the bridge. The pilot involved a 4 mile long\, 10 foot wide\, 2 way. Class\, one accessible public pathway\, as well as a 42 inch tall\, 18 inch wide\, movable barrier to separate the path from vehicle traffic\, also safety railing and signage and usage instrumentation. \nBoardroom SX80: And this part of the pilot opened in 2019. \nBoardroom SX80: The purpose of piloting these uses of the shoulders was to seek a means of reducing congestion and travel time in the eastbound direction and providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities across the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Caltrans intended to evaluate the performance and usage\, to determine whether they should be made permanent. \nBoardroom SX80: The special conditions of the amended permit required. Caltrans provide a written and verbal report to the Commission on the status of the public pathway\, including\, but not limited to\, an analysis of public usage and benefits and assessment of any operational and safety issues\, and the need for any future changes to the facilities\, including removal or making them permanent. \nBoardroom SX80: This briefing and the written report attached to the staff report are intended to fulfill this requirement. \nBoardroom SX80: So at this point I’d like to introduce Larry Bonner of Cal trans. And Lisa Klein of Bada\, and invite them to provide their status. Report. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? Thank you\, Catherine. Good afternoon. My name is Larry Bonner. I’m the Cal Trans. District for Office Chief for the Office of environmental analysis. And I’m here today with Lisa Klein\, the Bay Area Toll authority section director for field operations and asset management \nBoardroom SX80: to chair Wasserman and the commissioners. First of all\, I just want to say\, thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the pilot today and for considering next steps\, data and Cal. Trans. Are proud of this work and appreciate the commission support of the pilot which permitted the innovative uses of the shoulders on the Richmond Stanford bridge \nBoardroom SX80: data. And Cal trans. Acknowledged BCD. C’s long history of advocating for access in this corridor. We want to assure you that we take this very seriously. \nBoardroom SX80: We are pleased to provide this report and presentation today\, and acknowledge that this is a little later than we had anticipated. But Covid was not part of our original plan\, and it was important to let the post covid usage patterns abate in order to provide accurate findings and make recommendations. \nBoardroom SX80: Lisa and I will be presenting updates and results of the pilot project on the Richmond Santa File Bridge. Along with some recommendations for the future \nBoardroom SX80: for today’s presentation\, we will cover the following 3 topics\, an overview and recap of the project itself. \nBoardroom SX80: the findings and results from the project’s pilot study efforts\, and then we will conclude with\, recommend the next steps in a proposal for the pilot\, based on the current results and findings \nBoardroom SX80: and 14 data\, took responsibility for funding and implementing the Richmond San Rafael Bridge Access Improvement Pilot Project undertaken in partnership with Caltrans. The transportation authority of Marin and the Contra Costa transportation authority with the combined goals to address traffic congestion and provide bicycle and pedestrian access to and across the bridge. This was undertaken to be consistent with the core strategies in the planned bar area 2050\, including the Bay trail\, build out \nBoardroom SX80: the project partners committed to a 4 year pilot that in April of 2018 converted the lower deck\, emergency shoulder to a part time. Third travel Lane followed in November of 2019\, with the conversion of the upper deck emergency shoulder to a full time. 10 foot\, multi-use\, bicycle\, and pedestrian path. \nBoardroom SX80: Note for the sake of clarity\, please\, that the shoulder on the upper deck has not been used as a travel lane since the 1970 S. And in no part of this pilot or in the recommendations we will discuss today. Are we proposing to use this shoulder on the upper deck as a travel lane. \nBoardroom SX80: The pilot project was designed for 2 main purposes. The purposes of this project were to provide pedestrian and bicycle access along the Interstate 5 80\, which achieved the Bay trail connections between the East Bay and Marin County through the multi-use path on the upper deck of the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge\, and to reduce congestion\, congestion. Excuse me\, and travel time on Eastbound I. 5 80\, over the Richmond Santa trail Bridge through the part-time third travel lane on the lower deck of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, the pilot project provided for several permanent improvements\, including permanent trail connections for bicyclists and pedestrians in Richmond and San Rafael\, and permanent traffic improvements through the widening on the bridge approaches. \nBoardroom SX80: as mentioned in the previous slide. In addition to the pilot project\, improvements built\, monitored\, and still under study\, the project implemented\, implemented non-pilot\, permanent improvements and connections to existing trails and landmarks on each ends of the bridge to remote connectivity in support of the goals of the Plan Bay Area 50 plan. \nBoardroom SX80: On the contrary\, Costis County side. The project installed a class\, one bidirectional path for bicycles and pedestrians\, separated from automobile traffic by a permanent concrete barrier along the north side of Westbound I 5 80 from the tewkesbury Standard Avenue\, intersection\, near Point Richmond\, to Stenmark Drive\, near Point Milate. \nBoardroom SX80: This replaced the existing one-way class\, 2 bicycle lanes that were on both eastbound and westbound i. 5\, 80. \nBoardroom SX80: On the Marin County side the project widened a 10 foot sidewalk to provide for a bi-directional path for bicyclists and pedestrians along East Francisco boulevard in the city of San Rafael. In addition. \nBoardroom SX80: there is an ongoing construction project to finish. The remaining sidewalk widens that will further close the gap between the multi-use path on the Bridgeman Bridge\, and the connections to Sir Francis Drake\, Boulevard Anderson Drive and connections to the Bay trail. \nBoardroom SX80: Throughout the pilot period. Mtc. And data\, also implemented initiatives to encourage bike commutes across the bridge they partnered with local organizations and coalitions for guided group rides\, which which included options to try ebikes and bike education and safety demonstrations. They also started an ebay commute program that provided discounts on ebay purchases for qualified applicants. \nBoardroom SX80: As Catherine summarized in the beginning for you all\, and as detailed in the Staff Report\, Bcdc. Has a long history regarding access in the corridor and the permit reflects that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you all now I’ll turn it over to Lisa Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, thank you\, Larry. I’m going to pivot now to the pilot. Study results. The evaluation of the pilot was conducted by Uc. Berkeley partners for advanced transportation technology\, and I’m going to call them Uc. Berkeley Path for short. And it was a data driven evaluation that addresses the areas identified in the Permit amendment. \nBoardroom SX80: The evaluation includes 2 reports\, the phase\, one report was issued in the summer of 2022. It’s included in full in your board packet\, and\, as you might suspect\, and as Larry acknowledged\, much of the data in that report reflects the Covid period. \nBoardroom SX80: The phase 2 report adds data through this spring\, you know very current data\, and it’ll be published in a couple of weeks. We do have some preliminary results from that phase. 2 report. And we’ve included those in the summary memo in your board packet. And that’s what I’ll be focused on in my presentation today. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m going to very quickly run through the findings on the lower deck pilot first\, because I suspect there’s going to be more interest in discussion on the upper deck path. \nBoardroom SX80: So the results for the lower deck\, finding the lower deck pilot\, are really quite clear. The project has been very\, very well received by the public as well\, really\, as soon as it opened the that part time Lane essentially eliminated the eastbound congestion on the bridge\, and it now saves East Bay commuters between 14 and 17 min on their return trip home in the evening. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also seen some reductions on the traffic on local streets\, and we’ve seen reduction in the traffic incidents or crashes\, and we also find that drivers are generally following the rules around part time\, part time use\, and you know\, not driving in it when it’s\, in fact\, a shoulder \nBoardroom SX80: when it comes to the upper deck. Honestly\, the results here are far more mixed. And this is true both of the data I’ll share with you and of the public reaction to the pilot. \nBoardroom SX80: We have\, I believe\, demonstrated that public access is important\, and the path is is quite well used\, especially on weekends. At the same time we’ve seen some puzzling data emerging related to traffic incidents or crashes in these phase 2 findings. And we believe that this suggests trying something a little different to see what more we can learn \nBoardroom SX80: data\, and all of the partners\, and Cal\, trans. And all of you\, I believe\, have heard very\, very strong opinions that support keeping the path\, and very strong opinions that support removing the path\, and also strong opinions regarding use of the upper deck shoulder as a third traffic lane\, and I just want to reiterate\, as Larry noted the beginning\, that that is beyond the scope of this pilot decision. \nBoardroom SX80: The shoulder\, because it has not been a travel lane for decades requires an entirely different analysis. It requires a full environmental review. Data and Cal Trans are embarking on some analysis at the direction of the Bata Board. But it’s not something we’re asking Bcdc. To consider. Now\, there’s quite a bit more work to be done. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a lot of data in the evaluation\, and I’m going to focus on a few key areas in my presentation. I’ll start with path usage and safety. \nBoardroom SX80: So the daily usage on the path is about 2 and a half times higher on weekends than weekdays. This means essentially that the number of people using it over a weekend is about the same as the number of people using it over the work week. \nBoardroom SX80: On average\, there are 360 bicycle trips per day on a Saturday or a Sunday and 140 trips on a weekday. \nBoardroom SX80: and there is quite a bit of seasonal variation. For example\, on Saturdays\, in the summer the average is closer to 500 trips total. That day \nBoardroom SX80: someone did ask me the other day about traffic volumes on the bridge\, and those average about 35\,000 vehicles a day on the upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: on the \nBoardroom SX80: on the use of the path. The majority of trips\, about 85% are recreational\, based on surveys that were conducted in the evaluation. So over the course of a week that would be about 1\,200 recreational trips and about 200 commute trips \nBoardroom SX80: when it comes to safety. Those who use the path have rated it say they feel quite safe and comfortable\, using it\, giving it an 8 out of 10 rating. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. There’s been a lot of attention\, and some\, I think\, perhaps\, confusion about traffic congestion. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s true that over the past decade or so the congestion in this corridor has has grown considerably. When we look more closely at the recent data\, however\, the regular congestion patterns are not really that different today than they were before the past. \nBoardroom SX80: before the path. And the pilot \nBoardroom SX80: that’s illustrated by this graph. Here on the right\, we call this a heat map it shows when and where traffic speeds are slowest during the morning commute. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s really good for looking at what I’ll call regular congestion patterns\, but it doesn’t really do a good job of capturing the experience when there are incidents or crashes\, and I’ll come back to that in a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: The upper half of this colorful chart here shows 2019 conditions\, and the lower half shows 2023\, and you can see that the patterns of red and red showed speeds. They’re really quite similar. \nBoardroom SX80: And that’s even though the traffic today is about 90% of the volumes that use the bridge in in 2\,019 before Covid. \nBoardroom SX80: The red indicates very slow speeds\, less than 35 miles per hour\, and the pink is up to 55 miles per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: The width of the graph correlates with geography. So if you start on the right point d that letter D\, there in Richmond correlates with Regatta Boulevard Point C. Is Stenmark. Drive right about at the Toll Plaza\, and then Point B is Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Marin. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the height of each graph represents the hours during the morning. So if you look at the 2023 graph on the bottom\, you can see that the typically that congestion shown in red starts a little after 6 Am. And it’s very\, very close to the Toll Plaza \nBoardroom SX80: between 7 and 8 Am. It backup grows to or grew. This is 2023 to Regatta Boulevard\, and then it decreases over the course of the morning and kind of dissipates there a little bit after about 10 Am. \nBoardroom SX80: And compared to 2019\, the backup in 2023 was about a quarter of a mile longer\, and it also dissipated about 15 min earlier. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s very\, very similar. Again\, this is regular commute traffic\, not really reflecting incidents\, and I think it’s worth acknowledging that \nBoardroom SX80: an incident probably generates much slower speeds on the bridge. The speeds on the bridge are shown in the big pink box. I forgot to mention that \nBoardroom SX80: so probably generate much more slower speeds on the bridge\, and perhaps more backup enrichment. I think that’s probably more likely what people remember. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m gonna turn now to incidents\, and this is a place where the data leaves us frankly\, with more questions than answers. You know. Honestly\, it’s harder than we’d like\, probably to correlate incidents and congestion\, and we do have a lot of information on on incidence and incident rates. So the phase 2 findings suggest that incident rates overall are down about 15 to 20% over the course of the day\, but they’re up about 20 to 30 Morning Peak. \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s of interest to us\, because the peak is when incidents are likely to cause the most backup and the most headaches for commuters. \nBoardroom SX80: So on the left of this chart in the blue and red there. The slide shows that the increase in incident rate\, you know\, in incidence incident rates gone up in the morning. It’s largely in collisions that are rear ends or side swipes. \nBoardroom SX80: and those are the most common types of incidents. So that’s perhaps not surprising. \nBoardroom SX80: On the right\, in the green and orange. The data shows that the increase in incidents are mostly the kind of incidents where there’s no reported injury as opposed to incidents where there’s a serious injury or fatality. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I spend a little bit more time on this topic. \nBoardroom SX80: as you guessed\, the time that it takes for emergency responders to get to an incident really makes a difference. Not only have incident rates increased during the morning peak\, but the UC. Berkeley Path study also found\, it may be taking longer to respond to them. \nBoardroom SX80: And response times can really range a lot from\, say\, less than 5 min to 30 or 40 min. Or\, you know\, really\, you know\, really extreme incident even longer than that \nBoardroom SX80: today\, the average is 16 min to respond. And that’s compared to about 13 min before the pilot\, and I’ll acknowledge that sounds very small\, and you’re probably wondering why do we care if it’s a small change\, and I’d say we care\, because each minute of delayed response to an incident multiplies traffic by a factor of 4. \nBoardroom SX80: And this creates more uncertainty about travel times\, and that’s really can be a big deal when you got to get to work on time. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to\, you know\, kind of briefly recap the findings here and then talk about our proposed next steps. \nBoardroom SX80: The results for the lower deck part Time Lane are very clear and very positive in terms of addressing the purpose of the project relieving congestion\, and as I just discussed\, results for the upper deck path are much less clear. I do think we’ve really demonstrated the importance of access on this bay trail segment\, especially on weekends. \nBoardroom SX80: While there’s no increase in the regular congestion. There is some kind of thought-provoking data when it comes to weekday incidents\, and we would really like to try something different. So we can learn more. \nBoardroom SX80: And that brings me to our proposal\, which is graphically summarized on this slide. This is the Bat and Cal trans proposal\, and it’s still subject to board approval. As the chair mentioned in his introductory remarks. \nBoardroom SX80: we are proposing to make the lower deck part Time Lane permanent a permanent condition as it is\, and we are proposing to extend the pilot with some modifications on the upper deck to answer the questions raised by the data and to better understand the role of an emergency shoulder. Specifically\, we’re proposing to retain the multi-use path on days where there is less commute traffic. \nBoardroom SX80: restore the shoulder on other days of the week\, and run a bike shuttle when that space is functioning as a shoulder\, the shuttle service operations and the days that we would provide the path. We’re still working those out. To be honest. \nBoardroom SX80: I think you know\, weekends and Fridays and holidays are good candidates for the path. We may even be able to open the path midday\, Thursday as and we’ll be reviewing the traffic and operations on that. You know. If we could do that we’d really have an extension. That was about half time\, a path and half time a shoulder \nBoardroom SX80: we are proposing to extend through the end of 2025\, and it might actually possibly we might possibly ask for a longer extension that would really depend on the start date. How quickly we can get in front of you. For a permanent amendment\, or\, if we need a little additional time for for proper evaluation. \nBoardroom SX80: So let me just clarify what we’re trying to achieve with this proposal. The first is\, it really allows us to learn more about this. \nBoardroom SX80: this constrained real estate on the bridge\, and how it operates while we keep the bay trail segment open and the times it’s most used. It allows us to get more data on safety and operations with the emergency shoulder open on weekdays\, and it allows us a better understanding of access. I’m curious\, really\, whether we would attract some different bay trail users with a shuttle service. \nBoardroom SX80: and it allows us to take a closer look at equity. The demographics and equity considerations of users was not something in the current\, and the original scope for the Uc. Berkeley path\, and we think this is worth spending some time on. I think it’s important when you think about the variability in congestion due to incidents in the morning. \nBoardroom SX80: and it also allows us to continue working on projects such as the Richmond San Rafael\, forward\, that will make the approach to the bridge and Richmond work better\, and speed up transit and carpools in the corridor. \nBoardroom SX80: and before I wrap up I’m just gonna spend a minute on the Richmond. Sandra fell forward projects. These are fully funded projects that will move us toward a multimodal corridor\, and we believe they will alleviate but not not eliminate\, congestion in in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: Probably the most impactful of these projects. The biggest is the open road tolling and H. Ov lane extension that would open by the end of 2025. And this project will do 2 things. It will remove the toll booths at the plaza\, and it will streamline traffic through the plaza to reduce the slowdown that happens when the merging\, you know\, right now the plaza \nBoardroom SX80: sort of wows out to 7 lanes\, and then it goes back to a few lanes to get on the bridge\, so it’ll streamline that traffic \nBoardroom SX80: it’ll also provide an HOV. Lane\, extension for carpools and buses through the through Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re also working with A/C. Transit and Golden Gate transit to install\, transit signal priority on cutting Boulevard\, and we expect to make some improvements to the Richmond Parkway interchange by 2026 that will help with some of the local congestion and the traffic diversion. \nBoardroom SX80: And then in parallel. Although not shown on this slide\, Cal Transambada are looking at the ability to use the upper deck shoulder on the bridge as a carpool lane\, potentially in conjunction with a part time path\, and\, as I mentioned earlier that really requires a full environmental review process. And it’s not the subject of our the item before you today. \nBoardroom SX80: This is my last slide. So in terms of next steps\, we’re certainly very interested to hear your thoughts and questions today. \nBoardroom SX80: Our first step\, though\, before we can come back to you for a formal action is first to ask data to authorize staff. That’s me to pursue the proposal\, and we’ll be making an initial presentation to Bada committee in next week\, and then we’ll be seeking approval from the full authority at the end of the month. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, we need to really define the the parameters of the modification. Like the days of the week\, the bike shuttle operations\, and work more closely with Bcd. Staff on the best approach to the permit\, particularly with respect to the lower deck. And then\, third\, we would submit a formal request for amendment for your consideration at a later meeting. So thank you very much for your attention\, and we look forward to your discussions after \nBoardroom SX80: I’m Katherine closes this out. \nBoardroom SX80: So thank you for that presentation\, and I also wanted to note that the current permit specifically prohibits the alteration or removal of the facilities without a permit amendment. And so in this sort of weird space where the authorization for the pilot project has run out before the next amendment comes in. Caltrans has submitted a request for a non-material \nBoardroom SX80: time extension to extend that authorization for the existing pilot as is to get them some time to like\, finish up their proposal\, finish up their valuation\, and come back in with a material amendment request later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: So at this point it seems worthwhile to share the legal and policy bases for how a future proposal for the pilot will be analyzed. So first\, as always\, it’s important to remember that section 6\, 6\, 6\, 0 2. The Mcatir Petrus Act finds that existing public access to the shoreline and waters of the San Francisco Bay is inadequate\, and that maximum feasible public access consistent with the proposed project should be provided \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay Plan further expands on this in particular in its public access policies\, and also includes a section of transportation policies and findings that are relevant to this case and to paraphrase transportation policies one and 4 require the Commission to encourage the development of alternative modes of transportation and to include pedestrian and bicycle paths in transportation projects on bridges over the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and these are based on findings that primary reliance on single occupant vehicles for transportation in the Bay area results in further pressures to use the bay as a route for future roadways and bridges\, and that pressure to fill the bay can be reduced by providing safe and convenient public pathways for non-motorized forms of travel. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, before closing\, I’d like to offer some questions for the Commission to consider in your discussion. A staff appreciates any insights or direction you’re able to provide. In response to these questions\, as we prepare to return with the permit ease later this year with their amendment request. This first question is related to the conditions of the permit\, and simply asks whether the Commission believes that there is sufficient information at this time to remove the improvements\, make them permanent\, or propose an alteration \nBoardroom SX80: for the second question. Knowing that the Permity plans to request an amendment to the permit for a modified pilot project. What information would the Commission like to be included in the application and or the staff analysis to support a determination of whether the proposed modifications are appropriate \nBoardroom SX80: for the third question. At the conclusion of the pilot\, including any extended or modified version of the pilot\, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether non motorized public access is feasible on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: and lastly\, at the conclusion of the pilot\, what information should be provided to support a determination of whether any proposed permanent project would be providing the maximum feasible public access on the bridge consistent with that project\, and with that thank you very much for your attention to this presentation staff\, and the permities are happy to answer any clarifying questions you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair was\, I would just like to make a short statement. I just wanted to remind everyone that this is an informational briefing\, and that this may come before us for a permanent amendment\, as you’ve heard. Therefore\, I just wanna state that now is not the time to state support or opposition to something that may come before us for a permanent amendment\, and that general comments and concerns that don’t state how you would vote on a permanent amendment are okay. \nBoardroom SX80: and that the focus should be on responding to these 4 questions that Staff has posed. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for that. I’m \nBoardroom SX80: going to start with questions for clarification from the Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we’ll go to public comment. I’m going to start with Commissioner Joy. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thanks for the presentations. And as someone who lives in Richmond and represents the area. That’s the approach to the bridge\, and I’ve been both a driver in my car on the bridge and a biker across the bridge. So I’ve experienced the enjoyment of biking the frustration of delays. So I understand. I think the dynamics of this. \nBoardroom SX80: I do. I do have a number of questions that will help us later to determine. You know what \nBoardroom SX80: and answer the Commission questions\, but one of them deals with air quality studies that you may do\, and I wanted to get Greg Nudd before he leaves\, I think\, and then I’ll have Lisa come up. Greg. Greg has to is a senior official at the air district. And and as Greg comes up because I I think part of it is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, what are we gonna ask for in the study. And I know you’re gonna be doing air quality analysis. We’ll ask as an air district member\, that’s an issue that’s been raised. I do wanna make. I I do think it’s important to clarify cause. There’s a lot of good information and not so accurate information that’s out there in the public about all of this potential proposal\, and I know it’s clear that there’s no proposal to make this lane a \nBoardroom SX80: vehicle lane for cars\, potentially an HOV transit lane\, but not just a vehicle lane and a lot of the comments we hear. I think people think it’s gonna be turned into a Vehicle Lane. Then there’s this stuff going around that the bike lane has caused more air pollution which hasn’t happened. I just wanted but I wanted to understand\, Greg. \nBoardroom SX80: so can you just comment about air pollution impacts so far. And then if part that’s part one and part 2\, if we were to ask as they do studies. What kinds of studies would make sense? It sounds like the alternatives you’re looking at. I mean\, using it as a shoulder\, using it as an HOV. Transit lane have different implications for congestion and air quality. \nBoardroom SX80: But just so I know you had to leave\, so I wanted to ask you that before going back to Mtc. Sure\, I’ll keep it brief right now. We don’t have any evidence that the bike lane is causing greater air pollution. In Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: The data that we see is consistent with what we see near every freeway in the Bay area\, where there is significant increases in air pollution in the mornings. But that’s typical of pretty much every freeway in the Bay Area \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of things to consider when you are doing an air quality\, evaluation of a traffic improvement project. \nBoardroom SX80: You want to look at the types of vehicles that are traveling. You want to look at. By that I mean light duty vehicles versus diesel trucks. \nBoardroom SX80: You want to look at vehicle speeds before and after\, and you want to look at total vehicle throughput before and after \nBoardroom SX80: What we are finding recently is because light duty\, vehicle\, tailpipe emissions are so low. \nBoardroom SX80: Congestion isn’t really an issue for light Dv vehicles from an air quality standpoint. Obviously\, it’s an issue from a quality of life standpoint\, and it can be an air quality issue if it causes traffic to back up on surface streets\, especially if there’s Diesel vehicles in that traffic. Mix \nBoardroom SX80: the thing to be careful about\, though\, is induced demand\, and if you \nBoardroom SX80: make some modifications that end up having greater throughput through the area you can actually see increases in particulate matter\, even though the congestion is lower. So it’s a little bit of a different framework than what we’re used to dealing with in terms of congestion\, and that really has to do with having a better first of all having cleaner cars\, which is great. \nBoardroom SX80: but also having a better understanding about the impacts of brake\, wear and tire\, wear and road dust from an air quality. So how does to the extent? How does more congestion\, versus less congestion affect \nBoardroom SX80: the the larger source which from cars now\, which is their break entire wear and road dust as opposed to the tailpipe emissions. How does Con\, having congestion versus not having congestion\, affect that \nBoardroom SX80: part? Well\, tireware tracks directly with vehicle. Miles traveled \nBoardroom SX80: as does road dust. And so the more vehicle Miles traveled you have\, the more tireware you have. \nBoardroom SX80: Recent study came out\, showing that most of the microplastics in the bay are actually tireware. \nBoardroom SX80: So the more Vmt you have\, the more tireware you have\, the more air pollution\, more water pollution \nBoardroom SX80: with electric vehicles. We’re we’re seeing increased tire wear because folks use their tires as brakes right through regenerative braking. But you see less brake wear so kind of the net impact of electric vehicles on that is is questionable. \nBoardroom SX80: In terms of Diesel. \nBoardroom SX80: if you’ve got Diesel trucks idling. That’s going to be a big problem for the community\, especially if if they’re on surface\, low surface level streets. \nBoardroom SX80: So generally\, then\, when this thanks crake\, that’s all I had\, but it sounds like when\, as you do\, a study\, their district will be involved making comments and reviewing the parameters of a study to ensure that we’re getting\, you know\, the the right overview and the right sort of comment on that. So and their district’s prepared to do that. Yeah\, we’re happy to help Mtc. \nBoardroom SX80: Provide some technical support on that. We’re we’re already working with them on the overall improvement projects and helping make sure that they \nBoardroom SX80: that they’ve got the right technical approach\, for with that their contractors are taking for their quality analysis. Great thanks. So I just had a few questions on the presentation\, maybe to \nBoardroom SX80: Lisa so\, or can Cal trans. Just to be clear? So you’re you’re not proposing a through Lane you’re proposing HIV and or a\, and transit long term\, but your your permit\, your permit application may seek. Just have a shoulder for a period of time\, and then \nBoardroom SX80: this HOV. Transit lane. How are you going to be able to distinguish \nBoardroom SX80: during this modified period. \nBoardroom SX80: the the cause of change\, the MoD\, the changes under the modified permit. If we’re also making the changes which are gonna benefit. This\, the Richmond center fall forward\, because right now you have 3 lanes of traffic going to 7 at the Toll Plaza going down to 2\, and your proposals to have \nBoardroom SX80: 3 lanes of traffic\, 3. Through the Toll Plaza down to 2\, which is\, gonna have\, I think\, a big\, positive effect on reducing congestion. So to the extent that you’re looking at that benefit from that project\, how are you gonna distinguish that from the modified for what you’re doing in the modified proposal. \nBoardroom SX80: the modified permit assuming it’s successful right? Assuming we’re not making be really clear here to the public. We’re asking questions to get information. We could potentially be disqualified from voting\, as as our counsel said\, if we\, if we start specifying\, you know\, support and opposition. And plus\, we don’t have all the information to make a decision. Right? Right? That’s right. That’s a very good question. And we are trying to thread a needle here\, so what we would hope to be able to do \nBoardroom SX80: do is very quickly come back to you with\, submit. The request for the Permit amendment to try this modification. As you noted\, the modification would restore the shoulder on the weekdays. No traffic on that lane. \nBoardroom SX80: and we would like to be able to run that through before we’d like to be able to\, you know. Open that pretty quickly. Run that next year before the forward project opens\, that forward project is projected to open the end of 2025 and so that would give us\, you know\, I mean hopefully about a good year’s worth of data before that. Those improvements get made to the toll. It’s your belief that forward projects gonna have \nBoardroom SX80: a great benefit of reducing congestion there. And have you thought about what? How much? \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, you know\, I think the forward project is not gonna eliminate connection at the plaza right? I mean\, we wouldn’t be building an H over Lane if it would\, because you wouldn’t. You know you wouldn’t have an advantage right? So I think. \nBoardroom SX80: I know that I have those numbers in my notes\, and how much it is. It’s it’s up. I think it’s it’s a few minutes worth of of relief for the general lanes. It’s a bit it’s a far more beneficial to the carpools and the transit vehicles that will be able to use the HOV. Lane. And it’s\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: was a few minutes worthy. How are you thinking of doing enforcement? I’ve had an electric car for 10 years. I drive in H. Ov lanes that are packed all the time\, because I think I look around more than half the drivers are not \nBoardroom SX80: either 3\, you know\, have the number of passengers or have an electric car. So I mean\, obviously. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s the potential for for a traffic lane. How does. How do you? How are you gonna address that? Yeah. And that’s a really good question. Yeah\, enforcing carpool lanes is tough. There’s no doubt about it. You all see that all the time on the road\, and so do I. We do a little bit better on the bridge approaches a little bit easier on the bridge approaches than it is\, say on Interstate 80 in your neck of the woods there. \nBoardroom SX80: and that’s because\, you know\, the drivers are going through a single point at the at the Toll plaza\, where there’s an HOV. Lane. And they’re currently a little slower right there than they are on on Interstate 80\, and you can put a highway patrol vehicle \nBoardroom SX80: pretty much right there\, and they can look and see who’s in the lane\, and that’s much easier than having them drive by on\, you know\, when cars are drive by moving with traffic on the regular freeway. \nBoardroom SX80: could you collect this same data with less days of modified changes. You just propose something that was a Thursday through Sunday\, which is potentially 50 50. Do you need? How many days. Do you need to really collect the data to make a final decision? \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t. I don’t think I have a real specific answer to that question. What we are doing in trying to assess the number of days is really trying to balance the traffic patterns that we see where there\, you know\, is the the congestion\, and the number of vehicles that are traveling on the bridge\, and we see very clear patterns. Thus far traffic volumes are very consistent. \nBoardroom SX80: Tuesday\, Wednesday\, Thursday\, Monday is very close to those\, and then Friday\, the traffic is lower. So that is really what that’s one of the things we’re really considering. When we look at what days we want to \nBoardroom SX80: operate them out. You you’ve proposed a bike shuttle for the days that the bike lane isn’t available\, which presumably is in the lane of traffic which is also congested. Is there any reason your proposal \nBoardroom SX80: couldn’t include a bike shuttle \nBoardroom SX80: on the shoulder? A smaller vehicle on the shoulder that puts the again. Assuming this\, goes forward right? That puts bikes on a \nBoardroom SX80: on on a on on the shoulder that gets them across bike or pedestrian\, I should say\, yeah\, I mean\, I think that’s a that’s a really interesting idea. And I think it’s something we’d have to look at\, that’s we. We would want to really work through that with Cal. Trans. As the owner of the bridge and understand what you know what that kind of operation would mean. So I think it’s a \nBoardroom SX80: it’s a really interesting suggestion\, and something we’ll look at given that and this is more to Bcdc\, I mean one of the things we obviously have to consider maximum feasible public access. All those standards \nBoardroom SX80: have shuttles been used on some temporary or long term basis \nBoardroom SX80: to to deal with public access issues. And this is really \nBoardroom SX80: to to the staff\, have they? Or and maybe it’s also a legal question of whether or not it meets Max public access having a shuttle. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m looking at Ashley to see just in terms of like. \nBoardroom SX80: I guess. Like detouring\, I guess. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Does the maximum feasible public access interplay with using a shuttle on some days in place of actually providing the access. Actually Tomerland Bay design analyst we’ve seen shuttles \nBoardroom SX80: on the Richmond Bridge previously. \nBoardroom SX80: and then at Middle Harbour Road\, related to Middle Harbour Shoreline Park. \nBoardroom SX80: Use of shuttles. Doesn’t seem to be popular either with user groups or the people or the agencies running them. The Richmond felt bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: A shuttle was ran prior to the 1997 Richmond Bridge permit\, and it was canceled due to load ridership and unsatisfaction on the parts of the bicyclists \nBoardroom SX80: just due to unreliability. Just wondered. Okay\, thanks. And just a couple final. \nBoardroom SX80: So also is\, is there a reason you you want to go forward with the shoulder as opposed to waiting\, collecting more and apply for a permit when you’re when you’ve done the analysis to look at an HOV. Transit lane. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, that’s a good question. Well\, I think that you know\, because the shoulder I’m just shoulders\, or should I mean shoulder? And I’ll get to the incident question in a second. Right? Well\, I mean\, I think it really does relate to the it really does relate to the incidents\, you know. I think there’s also really it’s been a. It’s been a while now since we had a shoulder on that bridge right? It’s been for \nBoardroom SX80: 4 years\, and there’s Covid in between it right. And I think you know\, one of the things that we we wonder a little bit is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, do people really remember the experience of the of the bridge before before the pilot. And is there maybe some? You know\, it’s been a while. So this question about what do? What do incidents. Really\, what happens when there’s an incident at this point we we only have the more recent experience right where we have the \nBoardroom SX80: where we have the the path. And we do think that there is some value in getting fresh data. You know\, it’s also true that traffic is 90% of what it was before before Covid. And so it may function a little differently now in this period than it did\, you know\, back in (202) 018-2019. So that is one reason we’d like to go ahead and do it. Now\, how long is it going to take you to \nBoardroom SX80: determine\, analyze\, and determine whether \nBoardroom SX80: whether it’s feasible to have a \nBoardroom SX80: Hov transit lane there. Right? So we because\, yeah\, that’s\, I assume that’s where you ultimately are trying to end up in your permit application. But this intermediate use of a shoulder\, you know\, it’s just different. So just how long is it gonna take you? Right? Well\, I don’t know where we’re trying to end up. I mean\, I think we’re looking at. We’re looking at options\, and we wanna understand what the analysis will show \nBoardroom SX80: I \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of how long the analysis takes. It’s a 2 step process. We are doing an initial analysis. We call a design alternative assessment. And we are trying to move very expeditiously through that and complete that by the end of the year. That’ll tell. Give us a general sense of feasibility. \nBoardroom SX80: But it’s but it’s not. Gonna in order to really pursue this and to come back for a permit\, we would have to click complete and full environmental Review. It’d be comparable in scope to the Environmental review we did for the current pilot\, and that was a 2 year process. So it is a good 2 plus years before we could come back and ask for a permit. For an Hv. Lane \nBoardroom SX80: 2 plus years. So I mean\, cause the Commission is looking at like I don’t know. Maybe 3 general alternative options. One is whether to continue \nBoardroom SX80: the current status quo. \nBoardroom SX80: second is whether \nBoardroom SX80: to \nBoardroom SX80: amend the permit to our shoulder. \nBoardroom SX80: Third is whether ultimately to amend a permit to have HOV in a transit\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what you want us to do it sounds like is study. \nBoardroom SX80: What the benefits or not of the shoulder are. \nBoardroom SX80: and if we found that \nBoardroom SX80: there wasn’t a great benefit \nBoardroom SX80: that we go. \nBoardroom SX80: we would potentially go back to status quo\, or then entertain later an application on an HOV. Because that’s a yeah. There’s different cost benefits. \nBoardroom SX80: I should say\, for each of those right? I mean a shoulder versus HOV. Transit. It’s a big difference with different cost benefits and different impacts on congestion and air quality and all of that. But you’re only gonna collect data on the shoulder. You’re not gonna have collected data on the HOV. And the transit \nBoardroom SX80: right? But that’s true\, we will be doing analysis in parallel on the HIV lane on the shoulder. So the trick is to bring all this together. And there’s one reason. But you’re not going to have data from an HIV transit. We won’t have data for it. But I think \nBoardroom SX80: we. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, I think \nBoardroom SX80: one of the challenges in traffic analysis is this notion of incidents and and this non-recurring congestion. And that’s a place where I think real life experience is especially valuable. Incidents are tremendously variable. Right? It’s anything from you. Get a flat tire and you pull over to a major crash\, and they vary on the weather and the time of day and the lighting\, and there’s just so much variation. \nBoardroom SX80: And so I think that’s an area where direct experience is particularly valuable\, I think\, as as an industry\, if you will\, we’re do a little better at traffic analysis when we’re talking about \nBoardroom SX80: right? You know. You calculate there were some increase in incidents. I get it in the morning. 6 to 9. But how many incidents are we talking about? What’s the actual\, absolute number of incidents we measure technically. But we and what\, in fact\, what’s the data you have? That shows what the impact of that incident was on any increased congestion or not. Right? Oh\, yeah. So we measure the incidence as rates \nBoardroom SX80: typically. And the rates are the numbers that are included in your packet. It’s rates per 1 million vehicle. Miles traveled. So it’s a very\, very small number\, which you know\, is really a good thing\, right? Because a lot of crashes. \nBoardroom SX80: So those numbers are in your packet\, I would have to go back and look at the actual number of incidents over a period of time. I don’t have that\, you know\, on top of my head. It seems that’s useful. And and how much\, then that’s a questionnaire. And to come back to us\, how much. \nBoardroom SX80: how many days was that? And how much did it actually affect congestion\, or how much did it affect delay? Right? \nBoardroom SX80: We don’t have that\, really. Thanks. Those are some questions about \nBoardroom SX80: speaking of. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks. couple of of additional questions. The first is very much along that same line. I have struggled when I was looking at those graphics to look at number of incidents per 1 million miles traveled. I have no idea what that translates to in terms of real world number of incidents. \nBoardroom SX80: How they’re distributed\, do they? All we do. They happen at different times a day. If you’re considering\, varying the the the use of that shoulder that distribution might matter. So we don’t need those answers now\, but as we think about about moving forward as you folks are preparing to come back to us really help if those numbers came back to us in numbers that we could understand. \nBoardroom SX80: A couple of other questions\, I mean it it just in general\, we’re not I. I share Commissioner Joy’s questions and concern about this\, you know\, not not seeing this as sort of a one way step toward a transit line. We haven’t made that decision yet\, and you’re not proposing. We make that decision yet. But the debate here really is about \nBoardroom SX80: emergency. The the trade-off is really not about traffic. It’s about emergency use of that lane compared to at least it’s it’s emergency related traffic congestion related to the current bicycle use. Right? That’s the trade-off we’re talking about. \nBoardroom SX80: So I just wanna make sure we’re all clear about that. And and one of the things. Just with that in mind. I was trying to understand. \nBoardroom SX80: You said that the volume of traffic today is about 90% of the Pre covid levels. But the congestion level is pretty similar\, or maybe a little bit worse than Pre covid. Can you help us understand why that is\, I would expect the congestion to be \nBoardroom SX80: lower a little bit lower\, I mean\, I think that’s that’s one of the questions. So I would say it’s comparable. I wouldn’t say it’s a little bit worse\, I would say. It’s really very comparable. It’s a little different in shape\, but it’s really pretty comparable. And I think you know that is a good question. And I’m not sure we have a great answer for it. There is \nBoardroom SX80: you know. Still\, you know\, a lot of the congestion really has to do with that toll plaza and the fact it winds out and it comes back down. You’ve got a merge in the back. So that’s one of the considerations the path study did find. I didn’t highlight it because I don’t think it’s \nBoardroom SX80: necessarily central to to the discussion today. But the Path study did find that there’s a slight decrease in capacity on the bridge with the barrier in place\, and that\, I think\, has to do. It may have to do with how the cars are moving across the bridge. They may be a little slower right next to the barrier. That may be more in\, you know\, choosing more to be in the left lane\, because they don’t want to be next to the barrier. \nBoardroom SX80: But but what we found is that really\, you know\, it hasn’t really dramatically\, it hasn’t dramatically affected the performance on the \nBoardroom SX80: traffic across the bridge. It’s it’s sort of \nBoardroom SX80: hiding in the background there. But it\, you know. Could it be something with traffic? We don’t know. Now\, if this is a new normal\, we also don’t know that right? If traffic were to grow back\, could it be a consideration? Could it make the backup worse? You know? Maybe it could. But that’s also very hard to test in real real life\, when traffic is low\, couple of other questions that it’d be helpful \nBoardroom SX80: if you could provide us more information when you come back\, and I suspect we’re going to be hearing about some of this from the public. The \nBoardroom SX80: documents indicate that the Richmond Center fell. Bridge is the second most popular bridge for bicycle transit compared to the Bay Bridge. Be good to have those numbers as well. That that bridge\, that that connection doesn’t go all the way across currently\, but that those would be good numbers to see. I’d also be really interested. And I I’d be interested in members of the public. Talking about this as well is\, is to what extent\, if any\, is the low use on the bridge \nBoardroom SX80: are related to connections on either end. I wasn’t quite sure\, Larry\, you were talking about the the connection on the wet on the west end of the bridge\, and I wasn’t sure whether that was really affecting bicycle use in a significant way that might have an impact on use. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s just a question for everybody about to the extent\, to what extent\, if any\, is the use being frankly lower than I would have expected\, especially during the weekdays related to access \nBoardroom SX80: off of the bridge. And the last question is\, if we’re considering going back to a shuttle\, it’d be helpful to hear from the members of the public and it’ll help to see the numbers. Staff just said that that was cancelled because of a lack of \nBoardroom SX80: public support. \nBoardroom SX80: Was that \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, that could have been unreliability of the shuttle. It could be the fact that members of the public are much more enthusiastic about traveling across the bridge by bicycle rather than in the back of a van. \nBoardroom SX80: but those would be good numbers to have before us as well. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think that’s it. Thank you through the chair. If you would like you to respond to any of those like\, I can tackle them now\, or I could. I could hold\, and we could do\, unless you think there’s something very specific. I think most of them are intended as guidance for what comes back to us. Certainly. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Commissioner Gunther. \nBoardroom SX80: just to follow up briefly\, I think that \nBoardroom SX80: the discussion seems to be \nBoardroom SX80: centering around the need \nBoardroom SX80: for benchmarks to better analyse the quantitative information that you’re giving us. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, for example. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s 500 people \nBoardroom SX80: each weekend on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Is that a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: or is it not a lot did we project \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: 16\, what it would be \nBoardroom SX80: and that that kind of of of benchmarking would help us interpret right? So 14 to 17 min saved eastbound. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m getting the impression. That’s a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: compared to what I think that that would be really helping and just a couple of things like that. Number of incidents\, you know\, is\, are there incidents in the pedestrian bike lane \nBoardroom SX80: there for that week? \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, okay\, it’s very\, very small\, if there were any at all. \nBoardroom SX80: would reducing the speed on the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: reduce the number of incidents. \nBoardroom SX80: Saggy \nBoardroom SX80: Joe\, would you like me to respond now? Something. I’m happy to take your guidance. I know you have other business to. Take care I would take these as as guidance for the information. That’s all\, that’s all that’s all they’re meant for. Thank you. So I think that that I know that sometimes \nBoardroom SX80: it feels like you’re pulling something out of thin air\, but in terms of interacting then with the greater public. As I\, I was responsible for using scientific information to decide. If the bay is healthy. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, is it? How do you do that? There’s no heathometer you put into it right? You have to come up with this a sense of what’s good\, and and it would be great whatever you decide to do\, and whatever we all agree to do\, going forward to have some \nBoardroom SX80: goals\, some kind of benchmarks out there. We think this is going to reduce the number of incidents by whatever. And then let’s see what happens. And at least we can get a sense from that of of of what these statistics mean. And and again\, I’m gonna reiterate \nBoardroom SX80: there’s no right answer to this right. But your expert judgment. \nBoardroom SX80: informed by everybody else’s helps. Kind of guide the discussion in the future. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I just have some clarifying questions\, because I have not been as involved in this project as a lot of others have been. But so what you’re saying is that the lower deck\, which goes eastbound \nBoardroom SX80: the bike lane will remain \nBoardroom SX80: on the lower deck. There’s a part time\, Traffic Lane. It’s not. The lower deck is a vehicle line lane\, 2 to 7 Pm. Or part. So it’s not a bike lane. It is not a bike lane. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: that that is correct. Okay\, so the bike Lane pedestrian. It’s only on the upper deck. That’s correct. Yes\, okay\, that’s a very important clarification. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: you’re looking at doing the upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: which is westbound. You would like to try to convert that to an h of transit lane. \nBoardroom SX80: during the week. \nBoardroom SX80: and then on the weekends. Use that lane as the Bike Lane pedestrian Lane correct. There’s a series of things over time\, right? And and we’re a little more spread out. So the immediate \nBoardroom SX80: the immediate. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s not an ask yet\, because we still have to get authority\, but the immediate proposal is to extend the pilot to on the upper deck\, restore a shoulder on the weekdays and have the path. Retain the path on the weekends. We are in parallel with that\, and we would seek to get \nBoardroom SX80: a permit to do that very soon\, and you know\, perhaps have that in place ideally before the end of this year. In parallel with that\, we are doing analysis studies first feasibility\, sort of analysis\, and then perhaps an environmental review that would look at using that shoulder as a bus\, or HOV. Bus an HOV. Lane. \nBoardroom SX80: But that is a separate analysis. We would. We would not be able to come before the Commission with that for several years\, because it needs a full environmental review. So I guess I share some of the concern about how you’re gonna be able to compare different pilots. And since this proposal is substantially different than the pilot that has been occurring over the last few years. \nBoardroom SX80: So I share that very much. So help me to understand the public opposition. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s with the \nBoardroom SX80: upper deck. \nBoardroom SX80: Correct. That’s correct. Okay\, and it’s the opposition to retaining it as a bike and pedestrian \nBoardroom SX80: path. I’m gonna give her a lifesaver. But we’re gonna hear from the public. Okay\, I’d rather hear from the public than than have the calculation. Okay\, I’m speaking\, I guess\, for myself and others that may not have been involved in this\, and from the beginning it’d be helpful \nBoardroom SX80: to have. This is where we were. This is what we did\, and this is what we’re proposing\, and I sort of come in like this in midstream. \nBoardroom SX80: And you know I just hear a lot of controversy. But I don’t know what the controversy is \nBoardroom SX80: is about in particular. \nBoardroom SX80: And so you stated\, this congestion is triggered by the toll plaza. \nBoardroom SX80: Has Cal trans. Ever looked at what they could do\, and you probably have what you could do to the toll closet to \nBoardroom SX80: minimize\, if not eliminate. \nBoardroom SX80: that congestion \nBoardroom SX80: again. Sort of\, and maybe that maybe that has to be at a separate hour later. Okay\, so if you can explain that later\, that’s fine. Just some of these basics. \nBoardroom SX80: why is it that the bridge is more popular with bike and pedestrian? That’s a good question. \nBoardroom SX80: Because the Golden Gate Bridge is pretty popular so. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’d be interesting to have some of the other statistics\, too\, so we can compare them. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I have some other ideas of what I would like to see. But I think we’ve got a long way to go. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I guess this is sort of an observation. Having been part of this conversation we had. Was it 2\,016 that I remember very well at the time? And it goes to\, I think\, 2 questions. It’s the the optimal or most appropriate use of the space that is currently used as the Viking pedestrian lane as opposed to alternative uses. And I remember when this first came up. \nBoardroom SX80: there was understandably a lot of advocacy by the bicycle community\, and then Abag said\, It’s gonna complete the bay trail\, which is great. But I \nBoardroom SX80: I registered a fundamental concern at that time. This is years ago\, now that this was coming to us in the complete absence of any kind of data whatsoever. \nBoardroom SX80: and some folks said\, well\, you know\, bikes are so successful on on the Golden Gate Bridge\, come on the Golden Gate Bridge and to the Presidio in San Francisco\, and at the other end is in Sausalito. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s a major tourist destination scenic\, and I don’t think any of us would call the Bay bridge scenic\, rather the the Sandbridge scenic\, and there’s very little at either end immediately that would draw people as destinations. So you got a little pretty far away to get anywhere that’s really going to folks. A marine and Contra Costa may disagree with that. You. \nBoardroom SX80: I live in Marin County. Thank you very much\, and I ride my bike. Oh\, hundreds of miles. So anyway\, I’m a biker\, too\, so I totally get it. But I guess this goes to the question. One is\, I might use different terminology than you did\, that the upper deck bath is quite well used. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not sure I would say that 140 bikes a day is quite well used\, it compared to the other traffic\, so I would probably use different language. But I I think the kind of. I think we have the key data that we need\, which is the number of bikes and pedestrians on the bridge during commute hours and and non-commute hours. \nBoardroom SX80: What I think would be useful \nBoardroom SX80: again when you said that the Santa Fe Bridge has the the number 2 most popular bridge for bikes after the Bay Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, it’d be great to see what is the Pat? How many bikes to use the Bay Bridge? \nBoardroom SX80: How many bikes use other California bridges in the region\, and how many use the Golden Gate Bridge. So if we see the data Golden Gate Bridge \nBoardroom SX80: Bay Bridge\, Santa Vale Bridge\, San Mateo Bridge\, any other bridges. I think that’s the data\, I think\, telling us it’s number 2 doesn’t tell us very much at all. So anyway\, I’m I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I’m glad we have the data. \nBoardroom SX80: We could use a little bit more\, and I think anything else that you can share with us that would help us understand the \nBoardroom SX80: the benefits of \nBoardroom SX80: the shoulder that would get us\, maybe eventually\, if we go there someday to the age of Elaine. I know that’s not this permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Request! But I think anything to understand \nBoardroom SX80: the benefits of further of the of the getting the shoulder back would be very helpful. I’d love to see the data on all the bridges \nBoardroom SX80: and just to complicate it a little bit more. \nBoardroom SX80: I’d like to see data on other well used bicycle paths\, commuter and recreational\, not just limited to bridges. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. As the Commissioner\, along with our previous Commissioner on in Marin County\, so I have some follow-up questions about the safety issues that you raised. \nBoardroom SX80: Because I I wanna understand\, we talked about the accident rates. But actually\, the impacts of accidents go to everybody else on the bridge at the time that it happens and backed up. And so I wonder if you could come back with us? You mentioned that \nBoardroom SX80: minutes of delay on the bridge\, due to incidents\, have 4 times the impact. And so I’d like to understand that better 4 times the impact of what and to whom? \nBoardroom SX80: Because we are hearing from teachers and healthcare workers who need to be to work on time\, that they’re coming across the bridge one and 2 h early. Now. \nBoardroom SX80: to offset the potential of an incident\, they need to be at their jobs on time. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’d like some better understanding of these impacts of 5 incidents may happen\, and they may affect 50\,000 people. \nBoardroom SX80: Similarly\, I wonder if you could come back to us with on your heat maps. You showed a longer period of delay in the commute in the morning\, a more lengthy period of commute time that had increased over 20 the pre covid times. \nBoardroom SX80: And if there’s any way to explain what is happening\, there are there more. You said that the total volume of traffic has not changed\, but the time duration of congestion is longer now. And so if it’s possible to understand that \nBoardroom SX80: and a related question is\, are you able to use Enrique’s data or other data to track commuters going over the bridge both by bike and by car in the morning. I know that we have origins and destination information about \nBoardroom SX80: auto commuters\, and and we know where they go. Part to Sonoma County\, part to Moran. Be good to get an update on that. \nBoardroom SX80: but also the bicycle commuters. Because I’m I’m quite certain we have a cadre of bicycle commuters who use it during the week. \nBoardroom SX80: But if if it would be possible to determine. Are these repeat users \nBoardroom SX80: going over? And of the 140 something or other each week? How many are repeaters that would just be helpful to understand. \nBoardroom SX80: then I’d also\, I agree the usership on Golden Gate Bridge would be interesting to know. \nBoardroom SX80: I can say chair Wasserman. Incidentally\, that we have some 3\,000 riders over a weekend on the North Sausalito to Mill Valley Path. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have 3\,000 riders a weekend\, which is quite different. So it’d be useful to get some comparative data on all that. \nBoardroom SX80: I think that’s my questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I I would just say\, I realize we do have a serious trade off discussion of a constrained bridge. It would be nice if it was a new bridge\, and we could outfit it with bike lanes in both directions. But we we have what we have. We have to figure it out. So thank you. Those are my questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Down to my right. I see no light\, so I’m going to go to Commissioner Kashimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Okay. Yeah\, thank you very much. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I have. I do have 5 or 6 questions. So \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: one is kind of goes back to history. But I’m just curious. Why\, that original. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I mean\, why do we have a part time? Vehicle laying added on the \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: heading\, heading West versus East\, I mean. And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and why was that decision made? I guess I just curious about that. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: second is \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I I read that I can’t deliver bike and pedestrian facility was contemplated at 1 point\, and I’d be curious to \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: here how much research was done. And is that a possibility? \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: I also had questions about the incidents per day. So that’s that and and then regarding transit. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: So so I actually\, I have to confess I don’t even know if there are any buses crossing the bridge today. So that’s kind of a basic question. There are okay. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and is there discuss\, is there? This contemplation of HIV buses \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: or even other demand side strategies? I mean\, it might be increasing\, increasing the tolls and using\, you know\, the greater revenues\, for\, you know\, improving\, improving transit and and related to that the the the supervisor just just mentioned\, the Origin destination studies. And and I imagine that \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: that’s that. If they were\, I’m sure there were studies done at that point\, I’d I’d be carrying kind of curious to know\, you know. Quick\, some summary of that about where the you know 70\,000 vehicles are going per day. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And does it actually\, without\, you know\, without that it’s kind of hard\, hard to make suggestions on on what would be the most effective. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: yeah\, alternative transportation. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Let me see? Let me see\, I I guess alternatives for cyclists who want to cross the bay. I guess I you know I don’t know what has changed since that last look. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and and then there was some discussion about the land side by connections and it wasn’t clear to me they’re still under construction. So if they are\, when are they due to be done? And \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: if so\, it does seem unfair that we’re kind of looking at this with without lands\, by connections not being completed. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Let me see if there I think was\, and I and I suppose the last one I’ll throw out is\, you know it. It just kind of\, I mean\, if we are looking for some combination of emergency shoulder room for disabled vehicles. Is there some way to combine it with. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: you know\, kind of narrowed lanes\, and some places for either pedestrians or bicyclists who might have to dismount to pass. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: That was that might. That might be a crazy idea\, but wanted to throw that out there. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Okay. And I think that’s that’s those are most of my questions. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Through the chair. If if I may make one clarification\, the improvements on the Marin side and the Contra Costa County side. Those are largely complete the access improvements. There is some additional work we’re doing on Marin that is\, under construction now\, but we have really completed on the Richmond side \nBoardroom SX80: those path improvements to access are complete\, and there have been substantial improvements completed already on the marine site as well. So I just want to clarify that because it’s come up a couple of times. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other. \nBoardroom SX80: so we will now go to public speakers. We’re going to start with speakers in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: You have \nBoardroom SX80: 2 min\, and please try very hard not to be repetitive. \nBoardroom SX80: Bruce Baird\, and coming up behind Bruce is Rosemary Corbin. \nBoardroom SX80: There was some\, and there’s a Commission \nBoardroom SX80: Action Committee \nBoardroom SX80: and a member of the San Francisco Bay Trail Project Board of Directors. The Richmond Sandra Fell Bridge trail is a key section. \nBoardroom SX80: the multi-use San Francisco Bay Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: It should stay open 365 days per year. \nBoardroom SX80: Cyclists\, pedestrians\, joggers have enjoyed about 380\,000 trips across this bridge. This opened in November 2019. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s no justification for shutting it down 4 days a week in order to provide a vehicle. Breakdown Lane. \nBoardroom SX80: page 7 of the Caltrans Battle report in your agenda package states\, and I quote a relatively small number of incidents have occurred on the upper deck of the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: There have been a relatively small number of incidents. Why shut down the trail for a breakdown lane? \nBoardroom SX80: My wife and I were driving across the bridge a couple of weeks ago\, and there was a car broken down with a flat tire in the left lane. \nBoardroom SX80: So what I’d like to suggest\, and some of the Board members have alluded this in their discussion today is that rather than moving ahead now\, and I’m talking to both. Cal. Transat also with shutting down the trail. 4 days a week provide a baked breakdown lane. We should wait for completion of the Richmond Santor bridge forward program. The data is carrying out now \nBoardroom SX80: the major problems\, the breakdown of delays in the bridge are the approaches. The rsa. 4 forward program will make major improvements to the Richmond Parkway Interchange approach to the bridge. It will eliminate as discussed earlier and eliminate the coal Plaza area. Going to open road tolling. It’ll extend the Hov Lane from Ricotta Boulevard to the bridge approach. It’ll make a huge difference in the traffic flow situation. \nBoardroom SX80: and at that time you’ll then have a new baseline\, and that would be the time to look at the options that are being considered closing the trail to provide a breakdown Lane\, or provide an HOV. Lane\, or whatever ideas might come up. It’s premature now\, thank you for your public comments. Your time is now complete. Thank you. Thank you\, sir. \nBoardroom SX80: Rosemary Corbin\, followed by Tom Lent \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Wasserman and Commissioners. I’m Rosemary Corbin and I used to be a Bcdc. Commissioner and voted when we approved the recommendation to have a bay trail on the Richmond center. So here I am again\, and I am now the chair pro tem. Of the San Francisco Bay Trail Committee. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m here to tell you. I think you all received copies of our resolution. We passed a resolution last Friday in opposition to closing the Bay trail. Across the Richmond Centre fell Bridge. 4 days a week. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: for many reasons the Bay trail is loved. Thousands of people around the bay\, and the Commission has been supportive of it\, and the goal of the bay trail is to ring the bay\, and you can’t ring the bay if you don’t go across bridges. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: I think we need to think about where the cause is. The congestion was there before the bay trail\, and it will be there after the bay trail. The congestion is caused by the fact that Marin County and cities don’t allow for the building of affordable housing for the people who work there. So they have to live in the East Bay\, and they cross the bridge every morning and then back at night. \nBoardroom SX80: So please keep that in mind\, and don’t make the bay trail a scapegoat. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Tom Lent\, followed by Robert. Prince \nBoardroom SX80: did it on both of the last 2 speakers. I would also suggest that you don’t really have the data you think you have yet a lot has changed. I’m Tom Lead. I come before you today as a user of the of the pathway. I live in. Berkeley\, and I use the bridge for both business purposes to attend meetings in Marin and San Francisco\, and for recreation access to a variety of locations in Marin. \nBoardroom SX80: and I come also to give a voice to another group of San Francisco commuters from Berkeley\, who I ride with regularly\, who cannot attend a Work day meeting. I’m also the Ebay Project Coordinator for a walk by Berkeley\, and this is 1 one change that is not captured in the data. Ebikes are a game changer for the practicality\, the time\, practicality of crossing that bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I know this because I’ve tested it myself against Google against Google Crossing Times. And I don’t mean just the bridge. I mean\, going from \nBoardroom SX80: from places where people live in Richmond to places where people work in San Rafael\, and an ebay makes this practical\, and Ebikes are just taking off now\, so we don’t have a lot of data for how people with Ebikes would use this bridge. We also don’t have data for how people will use the bridge with the improvements in the access. You previously had to ride on an expressway to get on and off of this bridge\, rather intimidating \nBoardroom SX80: to a lot of people understandably. And now we have a different situation with access to the bridge\, a few more improvements still to come\, but much already there we should be looking at how it’s used now with the current conditions\, not looking back at the previous 4 years\, when it was constrained\, and when people had different technologies for crossing. It’s a really important link \nBoardroom SX80: in our transportation infrastructure that were just beginning to be understood and utilized. Don’t chop it off now. It will be a major step backwards for the Bay trail\, for active\, active transportation commuters and recreation\, and for the residents of Richmond\, who will breathe the the air in the particular matter that increased vehicle Miles traveled will put into their lungs. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re feeling your public comment. Time is now completed. Okay\, I’ve got it. I got answers on that bus that I’ll hold. Thank you. So hope someone else will pick that one up. Thank you\, Robert Prince\, followed by Sarah Benjamin. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, commissioners. Thank you for receiving my comment and happy bike month. I’m Robert Prince\, obviously director of Bikies Bay nonprofit\, representing contra costs in Elmia County since 1972 back\, when we were called East Bay Bike Coalition and wearing my Uvc. Hoodie today\, shortly after the Bcdc. Was formed in the late 60 S. And I mentioned that because Bikes Bay was formed as an organization\, one of the primary goals of our organization was bike access across bridges connecting between the East Bay and other regions. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re at 6 and a half bridges right now\, with bike access. We’re working on that seventh half across the West Band Bay bridge\, but we’ve never gone backwards. So I want to really stress how historic and serious this proposal is to actually go backwards for the first time ever on these connections. Yesterday our organization submitted a coalition letter to this body in support of keeping the trail open to people by king walking and rolling at all hours\, 24\, 7. \nBoardroom SX80: At the time there were 57 local\, state and national organizations that signed onto that letter focused on issues of active transportation\, sustainability environment. One of those was\, Save the Bay\, an organization that was out also foundational in the forming of Bcdc. Back in the 60 S. I’m pleased to say that since then\, even just yesterday\, more organizations have signed on a new total of at least 65 groups. There’s a huge groundswell of interest in this topic. \nBoardroom SX80: One of the purposes of converting the pathway to breakdown shoulder mentioned by Staff is the need for more experience. I’d like to remind folks here that we do have 37 years of experience with the bridge\, with a breakdown shoulder from 1 82\, when the pipeline was removed all the way up until 19. \nBoardroom SX80: So far we only have 4 years of data with the bridge with a pathway on it. So if anything\, I would encourage us to leave the pathway for there for longer\, to have even more data about how the operations are handled with the current conditions. We can compare it against that 37 years prior. \nBoardroom SX80: So also primary responsibility\, Bcdc is to maximize feasible public access to the shoreline. So closing the bridge trail 4 days a week will affect that access negatively to significant degree. I encourage you to center this in your future decision making on the issue. Thank you. Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Sarah Benjamin\, followed by Peter Gwynn. \nBoardroom SX80: Peter\, come on up. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks. Like you mentioned. My name is Peter Gwynn. I’m a Berkeley resident who works in San Francisco pretty close by. Actually\, I have 2 young kids\, ages 2 and 5\, and I oppose the proposed path\, closure and support\, keeping it open. 24\, 7. \nBoardroom SX80: I first rode over the bridge back in December 2019\, to commute to my office in San Francisco via Marin. It was a beautiful way to start the day\, and I look forward to doing it more frequently. Then the pandemic hit. Like many folks during Covid\, I struggled to maintain my mental and physical health. In early 2021 I put on additional weight on top of an already unhealthy baseline. The new change was necessary. Starting a decade earlier\, I had a passion for cycling\, and renewed my interest as a way to improve my health. \nBoardroom SX80: With exercise and lifestyle changes\, I was able to drop 30 pounds\, felt better\, forever\, better than ever. Excuse me. Once Covid started to subside\, and I was expected to return to the office. Like many parents of young kids\, I faced a challenge\, trying to continue to incorporate exercise into my day\, but I was committed to find a way. My solution was to repurpose my commute into a workout\, and the key to enabling this was weekday access. The rsr. Bridge! \nBoardroom SX80: Since summer 2022\, nearly every week I’ve ridden risen early and rid my bike from Berkeley to downtown San Francisco to Marin County. It’s something I look forward to every week\, and has markedly improved my physical and mental health\, watching the sun break over Mount Tam commuting and in the fresh air beats being on elliptical machine. Any day. When I heard the pilot period was ending\, it was natural to expect that there would be a well informed discussion of what to do with the path. I think I’ve seen that here today with the committee. So thank you for that. \nBoardroom SX80: But the news that we’re going to return it to a breakdown shoulder as opposed to addressing some of the root causes of the congestion caught me totally by surprise\, and honestly\, it was a little dramatic for me\, but I was kind of depressed to hear that I might lose access to something that made my week so enjoyable. \nBoardroom SX80: I get that no one likes traffic\, however\, making a change like this\, in order to appease motorists\, who are\, you know\, seemingly angered by the mere sight of the path without solving the the root causes of traffic. Congestion seems like a step in the wrong direction. So I’d urge the Board to consider some other options\, maybe\, in timing and sequencing instead of shutting down the the bypass. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Jackson Lester\, followed by \nBoardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! My name is Jackson Lester\, and I’m a resident of Oakland. \nBoardroom SX80: So about 10 years ago I had a transportation epiphany that you couldn’t exist in the society that I grew up in in Lexington\, Kentucky\, without a car\, and that led me to a career in transportation from a master’s in transportation engineering to working as a planner for a transit agency \nBoardroom SX80: to moving here to work in the transit tech space. And one of the things that I love the most about living in the Bay area is the diversity of transportation options. It’s the first place I’ve lived in America where I feel like I can live a full life without having to drive everywhere. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’ve ridden the bridge more than 40 times since it opened in 2019. It made moving to the East Bay feel like a viable option when I moved there in 2020\, because I still had access to Marin into the city by bike and this nascent connective tissue that we’ve recently grown. It would be a tragedy to sever it\, and. \nBoardroom SX80: as I see it\, this is a trade-off between short-term resiliency of travel time\, where\, you know when a vehicle breaks down or gets a flat\, making the travel time more consistent versus the long-term resiliency of our entire region in terms of allowing us to have multiple transportation options\, because across the US. And particularly California\, we have \nBoardroom SX80: hyper focus on the car as the serious way of getting around and everything else is secondary. And that’s apparent in talking about this path being only an option during weekends\, and when it’s inconvenient kind of. But if we want to have a more resilient transportation system into the future\, then we need to facilitate more real alternatives to driving everywhere. \nBoardroom SX80: And so I ask you to please consider long-term resiliency and not just day of resiliency when an incident happens. Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Terrell Calloway\, followed by Charlotte \nBoardroom SX80: Duruso. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m Terry Callaway. I’m the executive director for Marine County Bicycle coalition\, and I’m also the vice mayor for the lovely town of San Anselmo\, in Marine County. I’m here today to urge you to keep the Richmond San Rafael Bridge open to people who walk in bike 24\, 7 \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,019. When the pathway opened\, I spoke at the ribbon cutting\, cutting ceremony. On that day hundreds of people\, including many in this room\, were there\, and we spoke about moving\, moving our region forward into the future. We spoke about our commitment to moving away from fossil fuels and and improved access to mobility. On both sides of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: We talked about people from the East Bay having car free access to trails and beaches and marin\, and we also welcomed increased connectivity and relations between our communities which hasn’t always been the case. Many of us who are committed to a less car dependent lifestyle\, including my organization’s planning and policy director\, who\, many of you know. \nBoardroom SX80: took jobs across the bridge in hopes that they would be able to ride to work in the days since Mtc. Announced it would recommend closing the trail certain days a week. We’ve heard from hundreds of people who use the trail to access work in play. Aiden is just one of them. He volunteers at the San at San Quentin on Wednesday evenings\, and he uses the bridge to get there. He’s committed to a car-free lifestyle until we can \nBoardroom SX80: the climate emergency. And this would take that away from him and the people that he helps at \nBoardroom SX80: the prison. Curtailing. This path is a step in the wrong direction for our transportation system. It would roll back more bay trail. Miles in one fell swoop than have been committed in the last 6 years combined. I ask you to do the brave and right thing. Thank you. Thank you\, Charlotte Durusso\, followed by \nBoardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, thank you for listening. And I want to mention that so this path is very an essential and unique connection in the Bay area. How else do you cross from the East Bay to San Rafael? So I think this path should be open to all kinds of transportation mode\, especially the ones that we know are the most sustainable for our society. \nBoardroom SX80: We need to allow alternatives to cars. \nBoardroom SX80: Why only let people cross this bridge and do this essential connection by using an individual private car. \nBoardroom SX80: I think just to bounce on the study that we heard today. \nBoardroom SX80: This study is analysing little data\, and I think it’s not very conclusive. And\, on the other hand\, I think we still have enough data to conclude\, because many other studies have been conducted on this topic. This is a very classic topic of \nBoardroom SX80: the car use\, especially in urban areas. If we look at other metrics more relevant\, for example\, how many people can we get through the bridge per hour? \nBoardroom SX80: Which mode of transportation\, do you think is the most efficient to get as many people across the bridge as possible per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: a car or a bicycle. If you compare these 2\, we already have numbers. We know \nBoardroom SX80: that the space used by cars creates congestion which diminishes a lot the number of cars you can get through the bridge per hour. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is to mention that there’s more the bigger problem associated to this issue. We know and has been mentioned by other members of the public. \nBoardroom SX80: Just the car. The relies on cars in the city has limited a lot of our options and makes this whole city and friendly for people that want to use alternate modes of transportation. So this is about a human right public comment. Your time is now done. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Colleen Monaghan\, followed by dress wedding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Everybody knows \nBoardroom SX80: my name is Colleen Monihan. I live in Berkeley\, and I commute by bike over the Richmond San Rafael Bridge to and from my work in San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: My access to these bike paths is part of the reason why I live in the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The bike pedestrian path is a critical part of the bay trail\, as has already been discussed and eliminating\, it will destroy equitable access to huge swaths of the coastline. \nBoardroom SX80: It is your Commission’s responsibility to protect that access\, and I urge you to take that responsibility seriously. \nBoardroom SX80: It feels important to note all of the people that I see on the bridge every evening. \nBoardroom SX80: I see little kids on mountain bikes. I see elders on Ebikes tourists. I see commuters and families. \nBoardroom SX80: The bike in the pedestrian path is used by everyone and should remain open and accessible to everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Mtc’s proposal would eliminate equitable access to the Bay trail\, and it would be a regressive move to prioritize transportation choices that are actively driving climate change. \nBoardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is not the result of the bike path\, and it will remain if you approve the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: The congestion on the bridge is because the people who work in Marin County and in the city and county of San Francisco cannot afford to live there. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the result of decades of exclusionary housing and land use policies and eliminating weekday access to the bike path will not fix that. \nBoardroom SX80: All people should have access to the coastline\, and all people should have access to safe\, consistent\, and sustainable modes of transportation. \nBoardroom SX80: and I urge you to act in alignment with the very mission of your commission. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposal is not responsible\, it is not productive\, and it is not equitable\, and I urge you to deny the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Dress wedding\, followed by Brian Culbertson. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioners my name is Brian Culbertson. \nBoardroom SX80: I work on art installations in Richmond. One of them\, Lava Trolla\, is installed in point San Pablo\, just off the Bay Bridge trail near the Richmond Bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I biked law. Victroolla passed the Chevron refinery. So I want to talk to you about the air quality issues in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: Refinery is the largest sole emitter of greenhouse gas emissions on the West Coast\, and the largest polluter in Richmond by far air quality studies show that chevron is the number one culprit causing air quality issues in Richmond\, followed by Philip 66\, and then the landfill. \nBoardroom SX80: It is crucial that we lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Richmond. To do that\, we should follow the direction of air quality experts whose study recommends electrifying and industrial truck fleets like chevron\, because industrial trucks are the top source of vehicle emissions in Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: and expanding public transportation to reduce the number of vehicles over the bridge that releases tire and road particulates the current. Bus comes less than once an hour only operates until 10 PM. Has space for 2 bikes\, and many do not fit ebikes. It is not a viable option as a replacement\, for this path \nBoardroom SX80: removing the pathway would at best make air quality worse in the bay. Instead\, let’s deploy proven solutions to improve air\, quality and improve congestion in Richmond and direct chevron to electrify their trucks instead of getting rid of this pathway. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Kyle Brundle\, followed by Danny Lannis. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we will go to Virtual. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello! My name’s Kyle Brunel. Thank you for letting me speak today. I just want you a little bit of my personal experience with the Bike lane. I’m a long-time East Bay resident \nBoardroom SX80: long-time homeowner in El Cerrito. I make frequent use of the Bay Bridge. I’ve been across there about 400 times across the rich from Santa Fe bridge by bike. That’s 400 automobile trips I didn’t take because I was able to ride my bike across there. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m here obviously to urge you to \nBoardroom SX80: keep the bridge open. 24\, 7 for bicycle and pedestrian and jogger use. \nBoardroom SX80: Tom. \nBoardroom SX80: as a longtime resident. I’ve waited over 30 years for \nBoardroom SX80: access from the East Bay tumor in without having to climb into my car and the opening of this bay trail finally. \nBoardroom SX80: provided that I’m disappointed to hear that that that’s potentially in jeopardy now. So \nBoardroom SX80: and this would again force myself and anyone else who wants to go between the East Bay and Marin to climb back in our cars and to add another car to the road. \nBoardroom SX80: Hum! \nBoardroom SX80: One thing I want to know\, I’ve since this has \nBoardroom SX80: become a discussion again. I’ve I’ve started making a personal observation to look at cars as I’m heading eastbound on the bridge and look at cars heading westbound and looking in a windshield. I notice that 95% of them are single occupant vehicles. And I think \nBoardroom SX80: if we are going to do anything about congestion\, we possibly need to do something about urging people to \nBoardroom SX80: not drive their own car to somehow \nBoardroom SX80: get better usage of these available space on a bridge than just single occupant vehicles. \nBoardroom SX80: I also think that if there are that many incidents on the bridge\, perhaps the traffic speed is too fast\, and it should be lowered to accommodate the lowest common denominator of driver skills that are using the bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: I see a lot of time. Thank you. Thank you\, Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Danny Lannis. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Daniel\, Resident of Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to mention that this past Monday\, April thirtieth\, the city of Richmond\, passed a resolution in support of 24\, 7. Access to the Richmond from Raphael Bridge Trail. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks to Council\, Member Dorie Robinson and Mayor Eduardo Martinez\, who co-sponsored the resolution \nBoardroom SX80: Sean and all Commissioners I’ve led dozens of rides\, including the Richmond Summerfield Trail. I would love to invite you to go on a ride with me and show you how fantastic of an experience it is \nBoardroom SX80: I have some others have mentioned\, gone through the bridge to \nBoardroom SX80: for mental health\, especially during Covid\, and partially thanks to that\, I’m here. \nBoardroom SX80: I won’t need to also show you this picture of my daughter being one of the first trailer bike bikes to cross through the original bridge trail. When she was about 5\, 6 years old. \nBoardroom SX80: and the whole poster here depicts her\, and it tells you that she is invited and actually leading. 2 years later she was invited to lead a ride with a community organization called Re City Rise\, that is\, empowering her and brought community together through bikes. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition to that I would like to point out that the data is very important. But the world shaped the Bay Area Bay Area and then \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay Area shaped the world. \nBoardroom SX80: What do? What is the message that we want to send? Where do we want to go? Do we want to increase vehicle miles traveled? \nBoardroom SX80: Are we increasing public access to the bay and the shoreline? \nBoardroom SX80: That was the question. Thank you so much. Thank you. I do have 2 more speakers\, and then I’m cutting it off for the people\, and you’ve had your opportunity. \nBoardroom SX80: Herb Castillo\, followed by. \nBoardroom SX80: I think it’s Jason Vargas. \nBoardroom SX80: Everybody. I’d like to cede 10 s of this\, for everybody who has passed who has been a part of helping people around the bay mobilize around the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: receding 10 s. \nBoardroom SX80: But there’s Highland. \nBoardroom SX80: I wanna say\, thank you. And I think that we have a lot more tools like Kamu and Strava. And I wanted to come up here because I I did have this ride\, and I grew up in Redwood City and right in the bay lands which almost don’t exist anymore. But most of my experience biking is on those bay trails\, and what I remember is marshes. I remember the birds. I remember being able to bike around and seeing that there’s wilderness around you. And when I think about this room \nBoardroom SX80: there’s a reason that it’s so beautiful \nBoardroom SX80: it changes our minds\, it changes the way that we view our perceptions and that we’re in a \nBoardroom SX80: a \nBoardroom SX80: we’re in a difficult moment for young people across the world. \nBoardroom SX80: What we fail to understand is that the Bay Area could really lead for what is essentially touring. So\, to give you an example of a ride that I do is from Hayward up to Tamales Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: something that I think growing up\, I didn’t imagine was possible\, but having lived in San Francisco around the city. And now\, Oakland\, I get to imagine what the world would look like in a different way. If we really want to address climate change and these rising levels you’re talking about\, we may as well\, just put gondolas all over. Why are we even talking about a side of a bridge? Build a whole lane? We have so much infrastructure. And we’re talking about municipal things. But \nBoardroom SX80: the other thing I wanted to say is\, let’s just get rid of the Bike lane and make it just a private lane for side shows. So instead\, on Saturday nights and Sunday nights\, it could just be used for people to do side shows and fun events. And then that way\, there’d be no bicyclist either. So I just wanted to say\, thanks and \nBoardroom SX80: there’s a potential here to view\, and and I can show you to my heart rate data\, there’s a difference. Thank you. Your time is now complete for public comment. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: James Vargas. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! My name is neither James nor Vargas. It’s Jason Vargo. Sorry about that good start good afternoon\, Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. I came here today to support keeping the bridge path open. 24\, 7 to walking and biking. I live in Albany\, California. I work in San Francisco. I frequently go to Moran. I use the bridge as a motorist and as a cyclist on weekdays and on weekends. \nBoardroom SX80: The multipurpose lane is a necessary accessibility feature on this important regional infrastructure. \nBoardroom SX80: approving the proposal\, takes away the option from some people to use that bridge in the interest of reducing congestion times. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposal to close the path on weekdays restricts access accessibility. And there’s a large body of research that infrastructure with less inclusive design fosters and maintains societal inequities\, including disparate access to jobs\, housing\, and healthy lifestyles. \nBoardroom SX80: preserving multi-use path like this is in the interest of eliminating those inequities\, and that is in line with many of the general plans\, transportation plans\, and economic development plans of the region. Certainly it’s a chief concern of this commission. \nBoardroom SX80: and this is a crucial reason for preserving ubiquitous access to the multipurpose lane as a highly visible and connected piece of the regional transportation network. \nBoardroom SX80: maintaining round the clock accessibility prioritizes public safety\, encourages active lifestyles and supports local economies. It also upholds environmental stewardship. It makes our region more vibrant\, connected\, and liveable for everyone. Again\, I oppose the proposed Weekday Bridge path\, Closure\, and thank you for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: I apologize. \nBoardroom SX80: That did it. There you go. So there\, please start with the virtual speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: and again you have 2 min. If you want your face shown\, we will do that and give you verbal warnings. \nBoardroom SX80: John Spangler\, you’re up first with Roland cats on deck next \nBoardroom SX80: go. \nJon Spangler: Thank you very much. President Wasserman and members of the Commission. First\, I want to thank you \nJon Spangler: because for your advocacy for the Bay\, I grew up in Redwood City. I’m a second generation Nor Northern California\, and I love the bay. \nJon Spangler: and I appreciate everything you do for the bay \nJon Spangler: and the staff as well\, and I want to commend Lisa Klein for her wonderful staff report \nJon Spangler: recently. \nJon Spangler: It may help the rest of us who are commenting to have up the questions that she posed to the Commission. \nJon Spangler: And I wanna add to that in addition to the letter that I signed from the Bart Bike Advisory task force that you have received \nJon Spangler: electronically \nJon Spangler: as to the questions you should be asking. \nJon Spangler: concurrence is not causality. \nJon Spangler: and I believe that the increased incidence of collisions and collisions are the result of deliberate driver choices. \nJon Spangler: whether to drive distracted\, to drive under the influence or to not pay adequate attention to what you’re doing. \nJon Spangler: Collisions \nJon Spangler: have gone up. \nJon Spangler: and my question \nJon Spangler: to the Bata Staff Uc. Berkeley \nJon Spangler: Group and to the Commission is how much of the increase in collisions\, side swipes and rear enders \nJon Spangler: have been as a result of covid-related changes in driver behavior and emotions. \nJon Spangler: This is not mentioned in the staff report\, and I believe that should be covered. \nJon Spangler: and I thank you very much for your time and your efforts. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Roland Katz. \nBoardroom SX80: You are now up with Tomasso. Wanda. \nRoland Katz: Share my share. My video\, please. I’m Raleigh Katz. I’m the executive director of the Marine Association of Public Employees. We’re the union that represents the overwhelming majority of \nRoland Katz: employees of the county of Marin. \nRoland Katz: We have advocated for years that there be a \nRoland Katz: third lane in the rush hour. Westbound as well as eastbound. I understand that’s not before you today\, but we would support the proposal to \nRoland Katz: the lane for 4 days a week. \nRoland Katz: Yes\, affordable housing is a significant cause of the traffic \nRoland Katz: problem. But that’s not going to get solved tomorrow very simply. If there’s a stall or an accident. \nRoland Katz: The bridge without a shoulder. \nRoland Katz: You get one lane or no lanes. Emergency vehicles can’t get there on a shoulder. Cars cannot avoid the accident without a shoulder\, so we think that having a shoulder \nRoland Katz: will improve traffic time and congestion. \nRoland Katz: and very simply put \nRoland Katz: almost all of our members \nRoland Katz: riding a bicycle to work from the East Bay is simply not a viable alternative. \nRoland Katz: Thank you very much. If we build a new bridge\, as Commissioner Peter suggested\, it should have a bike lane. It should have a pedestrian lane and a \nRoland Katz: rail lane\, but we don’t have a new bridge\, so it’s a matter of balancing the competing interest. \nRoland Katz: and there are far more people driving across the bridge than are riding across the bridge. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Tomasso. You’re up next with Kristen Denver on deck. \nTommaso (he/him): Thank you\, guys\, thank you so much for your time. And\, Mr. Mazubaja\, I’m a resident in Oakland. \nTommaso (he/him): I do not own a car. And I don’t need to remind you\, Commissioners\, that your mandate is to expand access to the Bay. \nTommaso (he/him): You’re not the Metropolitan Transportation Transportation commission. You’re not the Bay Area quality district not making commutes maybe 10 min shorter\, based on data that actually would fail. A stats class is not your mandate. This is one of our decisions that in front of you that you need to apply a class angle to the poorer the household\, the least likely they are to have a car available. \nTommaso (he/him): You have the choice now to marginally improve access to cars\, maybe once again based on questionable data\, while severely restricting access to people who do not. This is in direct opposition to your mandate\, as they are but very Development Commission. I’ve enjoyed riding the bridge to visit family and friends in Marin and Sonoma \nTommaso (he/him): and to recreate a China Camp State Park. But I honestly hesitate to do so every single time\, because the noncar infrastructure in Marin is so hostile. I was kind of shocked by the questions from the Marin representative here \nTommaso (he/him): Marin County has been sabotaging this bike lane from Day one\, and the connection between the path and destinations like China Camp\, or even the further connections to the to the North Bay\, like the smart train\, are absolutely terrifying. I would like to encourage the representative on this board to ride that path. It\, like \nTommaso (he/him): it\, was one of the scariest right I’ve done. \nTommaso (he/him): Please do not use your commissions power \nTommaso (he/him): to restrict access to noncarning households. That is essential through this bridge. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Kristen Denver. You’re up next with John Shorba on deck afterwards. \nKristin Denver: Hello! And thank you. First commission. Thank you for your time. I would like to endorse a lot of what rolling cats the Speaker\, 2 speakers ago just said that was very well said. My name is Dr. Kristen Denver\, and I’m here to express my support for the recommendations presented today with regard to keeping the limited availability lane on the bottom deck of the bridge and piloting a part time shoulder during higher commute times during the work week days. \nKristin Denver: My husband and I have lived in Richmond for over 20 years\, and we have both worked in Sonoma County for that long as well. Additionally\, our son attends school in Sonoma County\, so we are an active commuting family\, who crosses the bridge with 2 vehicles daily\, 6 days a week\, often crossing the bridge in both directions twice a day. \nKristin Denver: I’d like to thank the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the other cohorts who are involved for thinking creatively and facilitating changes to the lower deck and allowance. Limited use of the third lane\, because that was an absolute game changer for our family\, often cutting commute times up to 30 min daily. \nKristin Denver: With regard to the current proposal for the upper deck\, similar to the information shared by Commissioner multimolars. We are among the daily commuters who leave home nearly 2 h in advance to ensure we reach work and school on time. \nKristin Denver: Please note that without traffic. It’s actually only a 45 min drive\, and the majority of our commute time is spent approaching and crossing the bridge \nKristin Denver: in order to ensure that all 3 of us arrive to school and work on time. We have to account for the expanded and extended commute times that are caused by incidents with no access to an emergency shoulder \nKristin Denver: in summary. I’m here in support of a solution that provides continuing access for bikers and pedestrians during the times that the data shows they’re using it the most. \nKristin Denver: However\, I’m an absolute support of a solution that will improve the flow of traffic for the thousands and thousands of daily commuters during the times when the bike and pedestrian lane is highly under utilized. Thank you all for your hard work\, for your time and for your consideration. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: John Charba. You’re up next with Dwayne on deck. \nJohn Chorba: Hi! Thank you so much for allowing me the chance to speak just in the in the nature of of being timely. I did submit my comments to the to the public information\, so I won’t go through all of them here my name is Dr. Shawn\, sure\, but I’m a cardiologist and also a Marin County Resident and I I now work in North Oakland\, and I commute my butt by bike. pretty much every day. \nJohn Chorba: So I’m here to support the the 24 7 opening of the path 3 quick points I want to make one. I think you’ve heard many people say that place called commuting is good for personal health. I want to echo\, that I think as a cardiologist\, I can tell you that from first hand knowledge the second thing is that I I did hear some \nJohn Chorba: concerns or requests\, perhaps\, for more data on what the benefit of the bicycle of of commuting would be in terms of numbers. I had just put my information in through \nJohn Chorba: we’re in commutes.org. And I was pleased to see that over the past month I’ve reduced about \nJohn Chorba: 789 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. So I just want\, you know the commissioners\, to understand what the benefits of having commuters going across the bridge as bicyclists would be. \nJohn Chorba: And the last thing that I wanna mention is\, it seems there’s a big question on you know how to best use the next period of time to get more data\, and I would argue that perhaps the better question is not what would happen\, what we should understand if the bike path were to go away\, but perhaps to keep the bike path open\, and then better understand what we could do with it. \nJohn Chorba: For example\, You know\, I’ve learned from my commuting that the area of Point Richmond is really quite beautiful. And had I known that before\, maybe I would spend more time there. Or might there be a way for us to decadest the bridge by putting in ebay or school rental depos on either side. Those are just some thoughts\, and I I think I would leave you with those. So thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: You \nBoardroom SX80: left \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. You’re up now. \nBoardroom SX80: John Grubb\, you’ll be next \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. Can you go ahead and talk into your mic for us? We show that you’re unmuted. \nBoardroom SX80: Go to John and come back. \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne will come back to you. John Grubb\, go ahead and unmute yourself. \nJohn Grubb: Thanks\, John Grubb\, thank you. Chair Wasserman and and Commissioners John Grubb. Coo of the Bay Area Council. \nJohn Grubb: the pandemic and the rise of remote work has laid bare and sometimes conflicting public policy goals in the Bay area. Policy. Makers like yourselves must balance a desire to promote active transportation\, such as walking and biking\, while also working hard on social equity goals\, making life and economic opportunity easier for historically disadvantaged places and people. \nJohn Grubb: Perhaps nowhere in the Bay Area is that conflict more obvious or more raw than on the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge. \nJohn Grubb: The bike pilot\, at least during the commute hours\, has not succeeded with 140 bikers on average a day\, and 80\,000 drivers. \nJohn Grubb: We need to recognize that and correct it. \nJohn Grubb: Who are the people in the backup\, the vast majority of them 63% are people of color. 69% of them do not have a college degree\, and the majority of them make 60% make less than the Bay area is Median income. \nJohn Grubb: We argue that the Richmond side of the bridge preserves deserves the same relief that the Marin side got. We’ve pulled the residents of Richmond and 80% of them favor opening the lane to carpools in transit. Bcdc. Has a mandate to provide public access\, and we would argue that in this case the weekend recreation on the bridge\, and the numerous spike and pedestrian improvements that have been made on both sides of the bridge in recent years. \nJohn Grubb: All satisfy the in lieu access requirement. We would ask you to please amend the permits for the Richmond Center Bridge to restore the historic third lane on the upper deck and dedicate it during commute hours to carpools and transit. \nJohn Grubb: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll try and circle back. Dwayne. Go ahead and unmute \nBoardroom SX80: showing is unmuted. \nBoardroom SX80: Dwayne. We show you as unmuted. Go ahead and try and talk into your mic for us. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any speakers after Dwayne? Let’s go to them. We’ll try and circle back David Reynolds. You’re up next with Dave H. After that. \nDavid Reynolds: Hello\, members of the Commission. \nDavid Reynolds: Are you able to hear me? Excellent! So I am a resident of Oakland\, and I am an educator in the mission in San Francisco. \nDavid Reynolds: I am committed to a No car lifestyle\, and have been my entire life. I do this because of our looming climate crisis. \nDavid Reynolds: I do it to live a healthful lifestyle\, and I do it because of the financial constraints that have been placed upon me in my career \nDavid Reynolds: I commute across the Richmond Bridge twice per week \nDavid Reynolds: and 3 weeks ago my friends and I did it 5 days. We did it every single morning. \nDavid Reynolds: It is a pleasurable experience to arrive at work\, having already gotten a workout and to do so in a way that is environmentally sustainable and physically healthy \nDavid Reynolds: many of the points I was going to raise have already been covered\, so I wanted to just share a little bit of napkin math with you. I did some research on Strava. I looked up. How many riders have crossed the bridge \nDavid Reynolds: in the past 90 days \nDavid Reynolds: and assuming 33 grands of carbon dioxide saved per mile on bicycles. \nDavid Reynolds: Richmond Bridge cyclists saved 18\,422 pounds of carbon dioxide in the last 90 days alone. \nDavid Reynolds: It’s a small step\, but it is an important one\, and one that we must make in this day and age\, with a climate crisis crisis all around us. \nDavid Reynolds: Looking at Bcdc’s mandate on your website\, it says that the Commission is intended to forward the protection and enhancement of the Sfa. And the encouragement of the base\, responsible use. \nDavid Reynolds: I hope that you consider the health of our region and the health of our people when you make your final decision. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: David Reynolds. You’re now up with David S. To follow. I think we just did. David Reynolds. \nDavid Reynolds: I will gladly speak for another 2 min. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Hard side. Thank you. Pardon me\, Dave H. Several days. \nDave H.: Good afternoon. My name’s Dave. Morning over the past safe. 8 years I’ve lived in the East Bay\, in Oakland\, in the city\, and I now reside in Sonoma County. I’m a frequent bike commuter. I’m a avid touring cyclist and a transit and urbanism enthusiast \nDave H.: data from the urban planners. Much smarter on science behind the traffic engineering than I is quite conclusive that an additional lane for cars does not alleviate traffic on a long term scale. \nDave H.: The the fact that we have traffic across the Richmond Santa Fe Bridge is actually a lever that can be used to adjust the behaviors of people who are stuck in that traffic to instead use public transit or use HIV vehicles. \nDave H.: The transition to returning this to a non bike lane or an Hov lane \nDave H.: will not alleviate traffic\, it will worsen community resiliency and equity. It will increase carbon emissions\, even if this were made into an Hov lane. This is a massive step backward\, and it is not based on data and facts that have been a scientific consensus for decades. I strongly oppose this measure and ask the commission to advocate against this motion. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe we have David S. Up next \nBoardroom SX80: with Maureen Gaffney to follow. \nDavid S: Hey? Now I’m muted\, I guess. \nDavid S: Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is David Shreeman\, and I’ve lived in the East Bay for 8 years\, and I have a degree in applied physics. \nDavid S: First\, I am for the bike path as long as it doesn’t affect the equal nature of lanes in both directions. That doesn’t appear to be the approach that is being taken. \nDavid S: 2 lanes\, one direction\, and 3. The other direction is illogical. Cars have to come back. There is no argument that makes 2 equal\, 3 \nDavid S: 3 lanes westbound on the Richmond bridge until the south one on one interchange\, is the only logical solution. \nDavid S: Only 4.9% of bikes. Slash pedestrians use the bridge to commute to work as seen on page 132 of the report. The path is overwhelmingly for recreation\, which is optional and should not be prioritized above low income workers from the East Bay. \nDavid S: I would encourage the Commission to conduct a poll to look at the relative income levels of who supports the bike lane and who opposes it. \nDavid S: I support a bike lane\, in addition to 3 permanent lanes\, both directions 7 days a week\, and to increase taxes on the wealthy\, to make this possible and to not punish low income workers who are forced to commute to where the job where the jobs are in Marin. \nDavid S: Thank you very much for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We have Maureen Gaffney with Barry \nBoardroom SX80: Tarantino to follow. \nMaureen Gaffney: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Maureen Gaffney. A huge part of Bcdc’s mission is public access to the bay\, and this has historically included unwavering support for the San Francisco Bay trail. I would posit that. The current condition is the maximum feasible public access. As you know\, many people have worked for many years to secure this pathway\, and the low hanging fruit on the bay trail has been picked. \nMaureen Gaffney: Removing this pathway will be a first for the Bay trail\, going backwards\, removing public access\, removing 4 miles of bay trail. As has been stated\, the upper deck has never had a third Lane. It’s not proposed to be a third lane here\, so it will not help traffic. Yes\, this pathway is under utilized on weekdays\, and that is\, in fact\, in large part\, because the infrastructure on the marine side is incomplete and inadequate. \nMaureen Gaffney: We need more transportation choices and options not less. This path is not a silver bullet for sea level rise\, Vmt. And climate change\, but removing it is a clear and definitive step backwards for all of these things\, for the Bay trail for public access to the bay and the shoreline that is\, this commission is tasked to protect. \nMaureen Gaffney: Shuttles are notoriously unreliable and do not provide maximum feasible public access. Again\, maximum feasible public access is the current condition on the bridge. I would like to second the notion about Ebikes. We they’re they’re really just taking off now. And and they are a great \nMaureen Gaffney: a great option for people to to be outside of cars to use this pathway. And we really haven’t seen their their full deployment yet. And we should definitely keep this pathway open so that we can continue to get to gather the information that we need\, and that will be done by retaining the path\, not by going back to the previous condition. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Barry. You are next with Nick Sweeting to follow. \nBarry Taranto: Good more. Good evening. Good afternoon. Excuse me. So I am calling as a long time resident of San Rafael. \nBarry Taranto: and and I want to support the marin position on this. The thing is\, though\, is\, I think\, you should look at a permit \nBarry Taranto: on a limited timeframe until they build more affordable housing\, as as was reported by John Grubb\, that the the type of people who use their cars to commute into marin are people of color and of minorities\, and I think you’re not gonna expect them with their families in the East Bay\, and and they afford to Bill and a second jobs to be able to ride a bicycle across the bridge to get to and from their jobs. \nBarry Taranto: And we need these these employees and workers in Marin in order for the county to function just as valuable as other workers. So I wanna say that I think that \nBarry Taranto: the proposal put before you to to have a a a curb\, a curb lane\, \nBarry Taranto: and a a shoulder\, and then to also have h ov Lane would be the best alternative\, and a compromise to what would be having a third lane for all traffic. \nBarry Taranto: I it. It doesn’t need to be third lane for all traffic all the time. But I think there has to be some type of change\, because people’s lives are changed in different ways and and income income and wages have not met up with the changing economy. So I beg you\, and when you do have come this before you that you look at creating a permit \nBarry Taranto: that deals with this issue\, and yet is limited to allow for the creation of more housing and more affordable housing in Marin County. Thank you for allowing me to speak today\, and great questions from the Commissioners to the presenters. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Nick Sweden. You’re up with Lucas to follow. \nNick Sweeting: Hello! I’m a Emoryville resident and Long Time Bay resident. I oppose the path\, closure and support\, keeping it open. 24\, 7 in particular. Uniquely for me weekday nights \nNick Sweeting: in the spirit of maximum feasible public access. Night access is critical to my ability to use the Bay trail for transit and exercise. \nNick Sweeting: Without the path. There’s no way to get to Marin back at night without a car\, as the soonest bus is 6 in the morning. \nNick Sweeting: I have been stuck on the wrong side at night before the path existed\, and it really sucks \nNick Sweeting: I asked the Commission to seriously consider freedom of movement for all citizens. Not just during the day\, but also for people who work and exercise at night. \nNick Sweeting: Also regarding the usage of a shuttle. I\, personally\, would not use a shuttle much. But I do. I would. I do currently use the path about once a week. The shuttle sort of defeats the purpose of having the bridge as a destination for exercise\, and it makes me dependent on a service that’s likely not going to be offered at night. \nNick Sweeting: Regarding benchmarks to judge the success of the path I recommend everyone. Take a look at Terry Town in New York city. They have a similar situation where they started with no bike path. They added a shuttle service on an existing bridge. It wasn’t used much\, and then eventually\, when there finally was a a bike path solution going across \nNick Sweeting: induced demand gradually brought more ridership\, so induced demand teaches us that adding a new lean doesn’t necessarily reduce traffic\, but it cuts both ways. \nNick Sweeting: adding a lane\, for bicyclists \nNick Sweeting: will eventually induce demand for more cyclists and pedestrians across that way. \nNick Sweeting: Thank you for your time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Lucas. You’re up with Jan Shiller to follow. \nLucas: Hi commission. My name’s Lucas. I experience the bike lane every single day. By looking out of my car window and seeing almost nobody in it\, along with thousands of other people moving very\, very slowly\, just trying to get to work. \nLucas: I don’t think we need more data. It shows that\, like maybe 20 people are commuting with it every day\, the rest is recreational. \nLucas: And so I think this is really a fair proposal that when most people are using it\, they get to use it for biking\, or walking\, or running\, or whatever on the weekends and Friday. \nLucas: but otherwise\, like \nLucas: thousands of us are just trying to get to work. \nLucas: and it really sucks. I have a kid I’d rather be hanging out with instead of getting up early and leaving so that I don’t lose my job. \nLucas: There are more people advocating for the bike lane in this meeting than are using it to commute. \nLucas: I think this is sort of ridiculous that we are equivocating like this. \nLucas: that’s it. Thank you. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chan Chiller. You’re up next with Drew Levitt to follow. \nJan Schiller: Can you hear me? \nJan Schiller: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nJan Schiller: Great. Thank you. \nJan Schiller: Thank you. I really appreciate being here. I’m a resident of Sonoma County. \nJan Schiller: and I serve on the Advisory Board for in-home supportive services\, representing people with disabilities. \nJan Schiller: and my caregiver is my sister. She lives in the East Bay\, and she drives over here quite often\, and it’s very difficult for her\, with the congestion that it is now \nJan Schiller: in Urban. \nJan Schiller: We would really appreciate having this third lane. \nJan Schiller: so not just her\, but \nJan Schiller: but other caregivers would have an easier time coming over to the North Bay and also I’d like to suggest as alternatives before I became physically disabled. I used to ride my bike and I I noticed they’re making improvements now in Highway 37\, and it’s a beautiful scenic route. \nJan Schiller: and also I’d like to suggest that carpools that there’d be an easier system for people to connect with carpools\, because that’s been very difficult to to get to the North Bay with Carpool. So thank you so much for all the good work you do\, and I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: and Drew Levitt. You may unmute Patrick Lake. You’ll be up next. \nBoardroom SX80: Drew. \nBoardroom SX80: Can you unmute. \nDrew Levitt: There we go! Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nDrew Levitt: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Thank you\, Commissioners. My name is Drew Levitt. I live in Oakland. I work for Mtc. But I’m speaking solely in my capacity as a private citizen. Today. I am a travel demand modeler. So I think a lot about self fulfilling prophecies. And it turns out that if you make it easy to do something and give people long enough to adapt their lifestyles accordingly\, more of that thing tends to happen\, and if you make it hard to do something\, people tend to stop doing that thing\, whether they want to or not. \nDrew Levitt: A hypothetical question to consider how many people might walk or bike over the Golden Gate bridge a popular bridge if there weren’t a bike path on that bridge. 0 obviously \nDrew Levitt: travel outcomes take many\, many years to emerge. Land\, use changes. People change their houses in their jobs. People make sticky decisions based on what they believe and will remain available. \nDrew Levitt: So the choice\, as I see it\, is that we can keep making easier to drive\, and harder\, or sometimes impossible to do anything else. And then\, many years from now we can wonder\, while we’re all S sitting in car traffic\, why everyone drives everywhere and nobody walks or bikes\, or we can make important decisions\, large and small\, that may be frustrating this year. But what we remembered is visionary in decades to come. \nDrew Levitt: A few concrete points for the Commission. Please consider how keeping or removing the Richmond S. Nfl. Bridge\, bike path would align with regional plans and policies\, such as our stated commitments to reduce vehicle miles of travel and greenhouse gas emissions\, the incredibly important San Francisco Bay Trail\, as has been discussed\, as well as smaller efforts like Mtc’s Ebake subsidy program. \nDrew Levitt: Frankly\, the proposal before you. I\, in my opinion\, personal opinion is so at odds with these efforts that it feels a little like the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing\, and perhaps Bcdc. Can help get the 2 hands on the same page. Specifically. But for question 2. I would urge the Commission to request an analysis of the changes in walk sheds and bike sheds and land use accessibility for non motorized travelers with and without the path. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Patrick Lake. You’re up next with Bruce to follow. \nPatrick Lake: Hi! Getting audio! Here! \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, we can hear you. \nPatrick Lake: Hi! I’m Patrick Lake in Point Richmond\, and I’m lucky to have the bridge in my backyard. \nPatrick Lake: I ride a bike on it many days a week. My favorite ride in the world is a double bridge ride to Sf. Of my dog in a backpack. \nPatrick Lake: This access lets me thrive. \nPatrick Lake: If here as a neural diverse. \nPatrick Lake: So at all the hours of day and night. \nPatrick Lake: My city counselors\, Bcdc. Commissioner\, is a Paida\, and Commissioner Joya appointed me to the contract. Costa County Bicycle Advisory Committee. \nPatrick Lake: I’m a bike instructor with Bike East Bay. I organize events\, and this week I’m joining 1\,000 people for a hundred mile bike ride with the Grizzly Peak cyclists. \nPatrick Lake: We ride for all the reasons that drivers drive\, but we also have a community for all ages and and identities\, and we deserve equity. \nPatrick Lake: I oppose closing the bridge path because the data says there’s nothing to gain. Let’s keep it open. Opponents of the path. Say they want to relieve congestion\, but they’re making it worse. \nPatrick Lake: The real impact of more car space isn’t less congestion. It’s induced demand\, more cars\, more miles more\, pollution\, more parking. It’s choking. Living space out of our cities. \nPatrick Lake: Opponents exaggerate where issues like crashes once in a million miles\, but working cars jam the bridge every day\, just like the Bay bridge gets jammed with 5 full lanes. Extra space doesn’t solve this. If people really care\, the only solution is alternatives\, more rail\, bus and bike instead of a car per person. \nPatrick Lake: Many cyclists are also drivers\, but the less we rely on cars the more we solve the problem. There’s no going back. If we want a working system\, don’t roll back the access to the bay. It can’t be an afterthought just on weekends or somewhere else. After we get out of the way of cars we need reliable 24 7. Access to end car reliance. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to interrupt. \nPatrick Lake: Going to interrupt. \nBoardroom SX80: We have. \nBoardroom SX80: Hip! \nBoardroom SX80: The echo stopped. \nBoardroom SX80: 22 more speakers. We have an additional\, also very important item on this agenda. We are not making a decision today. \nBoardroom SX80: Assuming that Caltrans and Bata wish to proceed with this proposal. \nBoardroom SX80: we don’t know that they will or not. This will come back to us for a permit. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m going to cut. I’m going to stop the public speaking. But any of you who have not spoken\, and for that matter\, any of you who have \nBoardroom SX80: are absolutely free to submit to us through our portal comments\, whether by email or by letter\, and those will be distributed to the Commissioners\, and this will come back to us if it’s going forward. So I thank all of you for your attention and your patience. And we’re now going to move on to the next item. \nBoardroom SX80: Out of respect to the Dean of our commission. I’m going to give him one last short comment. I just want to make sure\, since we’re asking questions. And I think I just want to reset it at the beginning. \nBoardroom SX80: because this has come up and as well in the speaking is is collecting more granular data on the incidents that you do have. And I realize you don’t have the best data \nBoardroom SX80: that any information you have in the pilot period regarding the number frequency of incidents we’re talking going westbound now. \nBoardroom SX80: during the peak hour\, right? During the specifically\, I mean at all times\, but specifically during the peak hour. So that getting more\, I think I’ve heard from several Commissioners\, we need more of that. \nBoardroom SX80: How much the delay was. You know what type of incident you have some of that in there. But putting it all together and summarizing. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: We are now going to Item 9\, which is a briefing on the San Mateo County. Flood and sea level Rise resiliency district. \nBoardroom SX80: commonly known as one shoreline \nBoardroom SX80: representatives of one shoreline working throughout San Mateo County\, will brief the Commission on the vision and plan for the future to build resilience to rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: Regulatory director\, Harriet Ross\, will introduce the briefing \nBoardroom SX80: once again I would ask Sarah to keep a close eye on the number of hands that pop up\, and if you do want to public. Speak \nBoardroom SX80: on this. You’re a member of the public. Be sure to submit a card. If you’re in the room and raise your hand. If you are participating virtually. \nBoardroom SX80: Director Ross\, you’re gonna start. Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. I’m happy to introduce the next item. BC. DC\, staff have been working with one shoreline over the last several months\, as we both share common goals of protecting the Bay’s development and resources while creating resilience to climate change. Much of one shorelines. Projects are located within Bcdc’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s much to learn from each other. One shoreline was established to address all water related impacts of climate change\, including the most significant long-term impact of sea level rise. They were ahead of the curve in addressing climate impacts in San Mateo county across jurisdictional boundaries much like Bcdc. Was ahead of the game in tackling sea level rise on a regional basis here in the Bay area \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to acknowledge Commissioner Pine\, who has been on BC. DC’s commission since 2011\, and he was the driving force for creation of one shoreline for almost a decade\, and has served as one shoreline board chair since its inception in 2020. So with that\, I’m going to go ahead and turn it over to Lenderman\, chief executive officer of one shoreline to brief the Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, thank you\, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. It’s good to see you. Thank you for the introduction. Harriet\, appreciate that. And\, thanks to Commissioner Pine\, who’s the chair of our board as well as others in Bcdc. Who have been so actively involved in our efforts at the staff level and at the Commissioner level over the years. \nBoardroom SX80: Including Commissioner Showalter. Good to see you. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe what I will do is is first invite one of one Shorelines Board members\, and the Mayor of Burlingame\, who\, I know\, has to leave the meeting shortly. She. She signed on to make a few comments\, in part because of her service\, and one Shorelines board since our inception\, also\, in part because one of \nBoardroom SX80: things I’m going to dive into a little bit is a project that we have on the Millbrain and Burlingame shoreline\, and she’s the mayor of that city. So if I could invite her to say a couple words\, and then I’ll proceed with the presentation. \n_Donna Colson: Thank you very much. Mr. Maderman\, I appreciate this. My name\, and thank you. Chair and commissioners for entertaining this conversation today. My name is Donna Coulson. I’m the Mayor Burlingame\, A. Re. And a regional director of one shoreline. I am grateful that you have added this topic to your busy agenda today. Sea Level rise is a critical concern to Burlingame. Our businesses\, residents\, and visitors. \n_Donna Colson: For the last 4 years we have worked to develop the first in the Bay area and possibly even in the nation. 100 years. Sea level rise\, resilience\, zoning code. And just last week\, with the support of environmental advocates and our community. We approved a new biotech development of approximately 13 acres \n_Donna Colson: that will provide a nature base and other pre protections as well as complete our bay trail and add stream and other habitat restoration to about 13 acres of the shoreline. \n_Donna Colson: This this result. This result protects inland businesses\, residents\, and our vulnerable infrastructure\, which includes highway 101\, at no expense to the tax pair. \n_Donna Colson: This is a feasible model that is being shared with other communities. I’ve done a lot of work with Sausalito as well\, and our leadership up there in in in the city and the county to share all the work we’re doing\, and I’m grateful for their openness. To receive information that is based on what we’ve already done. \n_Donna Colson: The Bay front is a large part of our economic engine in Burlingame. \n_Donna Colson: It provides almost 30% of our budget \n_Donna Colson: resources\, and it hosts critical recreation\, infrastructure\, including parks and fields as well as our wastewater treatment center\, which is quite literally 10 feet away from the bay \n_Donna Colson: protecting these assets has been a priority for my generation of leadership. Here in Burlingame one shoreline has proven indispensable in our efforts to protect our city from rising seas. \n_Donna Colson: We wanna thank CEO Matterman\, and of course\, Supervisor Pine\, my colleagues on one shoreline and all of the regional agencies that have expressed interest and support for the work we’re doing. \n_Donna Colson: Mr. Maderman’s outstanding staff has really led the way on this\, and we appreciate our collaboration with the agencies like Bcdc. \n_Donna Colson: We look forward to continued collaboration and mutual support. I am so sorry I have to leave to go to another meeting at about 4 30\, but I’ll stay on until then and again\, just wanna thank you and tell you how important this work is for our city. \n_Donna Colson: All done. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Mayor Coulson. \nBoardroom SX80: so I will share screen \nBoardroom SX80: and begin a presentation \nBoardroom SX80: and given the the \nBoardroom SX80: the time we’re at\, I will try to make this as \nBoardroom SX80: efficient as possible. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, so my name is Len Matterman. The name of our agency. We go by one shoreline\, and you’ll understand why\, once\, I say\, our full name is San Mateo County. Flood and sea level rise resiliency district and we also one shoreline also kind of expresses the the sentiment and ethos of our of our efforts. It was created with the mentality. By this all the 20 cities in San Mateo County\, as well as the county itself\, thinking that we’re all in this together. \nBoardroom SX80: Bit of background. On one shoreline\, 65 years ago\, a flood control district was created in San Mateo County. Like many other counties in the Bay area and around the nation\, it only worked in 10% of our county. In the areas that are shown in various colors here watersheds. \nBoardroom SX80: and meanwhile\, over the past about 10 years\, many studies done by the county or Caltrans\, or Mtc. A bag or Scripts Institute or Stanford or Berkeley. They pointed to the San Mateo County’s all too common vulnerability to wildfire and drought \nBoardroom SX80: increased vulnerability compared to others in relation to groundwater and and just unique vulnerability to sea level rise around California. \nBoardroom SX80: So there was a realization\, after all\, that that climate change is transformative for our county\, and that no one jurisdiction can do it together. \nBoardroom SX80: In 1919 Assembly Member Kevin Mullen authored a bill in the State House to create one shoreline out of this former flood control district\, and it was established on January 1\, 2020\, to address the climate\, related impacts of the water\, related impacts of climate change. \nBoardroom SX80: We take a holistic view to threats\, geography\, and objectives. What that means is we work multi-jurisdictional. That’s in our DNA. Let’s say in terms of threats. We’re not just looking at a historic flood event that was modeled by Fema in the 1980 s. Or 90 S. We’re looking forward to extreme storms\, and of course\, sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: we think\, in terms of objectives holistically \nBoardroom SX80: cross sector governmental schools\, private sector\, community based organizations and also cross disciplinary climate affects everything\, it affects housing\, transportation\, utilities\, everything that is related to our society\, and so our objective is to have housing advocates or utilities advocates also see climate as their issue\, because it’s important to the resilience \nBoardroom SX80: of their interests. We take a quick look at our priorities. Land use. I show these 2 pictures. One is is a housing project in our county\, and you can see the the bay water level today is quite high compared to the front door and and first floor windows of this housing development\, and then\, of course\, an underground parking garage that has water after a major storm event. During a high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: I bring these up \nBoardroom SX80: to say that that these are these pictures are from developments from about 10 years ago\, but these are also developments that are coming to BC. DC. In 2024\, with underground parking and with front doors right next to the bay\, without any back\, without any setback. And so these are not just issues that we face 10 years ago. These are issues we face today. And it’s important for all of us to work together so that Bcdc. Has the authorities to create resilience beyond its important mission of public access. \nBoardroom SX80: so we’re interested in land use. We want any project\, whether it’s public infrastructure or private development to function for its lifespan. That’s really what this is about. Can it function for the for its intended lifespan\, based on our changing climate. So we’re creating policy guidance around. We already created one related to private development that was approved by the one shoreline board last year. \nBoardroom SX80: and next year we’re focused on public infrastructure. So that’s things like pump stations. You see a picture here of a pump station on a sunny day. No rain across from a private development. And of course\, you see the effects that we’ve seen in other parts of the Bay area as well\, where on the sunny days. There’s quite a bit of water. This picture\, with at Highway 380. This is west of Highway 101. It’s about a mile upstream in San Bruno \nBoardroom SX80: Creek\, and this is again with no rain. Of course this is Highway 101. The public access trails also have substantial resiliency issues. And then here is a picture of a Pg. And E. Tower that won’t have to worry about its No Trespassing Sign much longer. And so we are creating a public infrastructure. Guidance in 2024 to 2025\, and working with Pcdc. Staff on both of those efforts which is. \nBoardroom SX80: are helpful. \nBoardroom SX80: As part of this planning guidance. We have what we call a map of future conditions. And this shows the whole county. Basically\, we look at both effects of sea level rise water coming over the edge of of our shoreline\, but also groundwater rise. And that’s a emerging field with data is\, is improving on that quite a bit as as time goes by. There’s a lot of work being done. \nBoardroom SX80: On that in at Uc. Berkeley\, and one of our fellows\, the Stanford Ph. D. Student\, is specializing in groundwater\, and we’re trying to kind of fine tune our understanding of the effects of groundwater in the shoreline area. \nBoardroom SX80: zeroing in on the area I’m gonna talk a little bit about in a few minutes. This is San Francisco International Airport\, just south of. There is city of Millbury\, and just south of there is city of Burlingame. This area is impacted\, you see\, in in kind of blue green the fema flood zone. And then \nBoardroom SX80: in that area\, plus is the yellow area which is the sea level\, rise overlay district\, and then beyond that is groundwater. So groundwater actually goes farther inland than the effects of anticipated sea level rise. And I need to stop you for one quick moment for procedural action. \nBoardroom SX80: We have lost our quorum\, not your fault. And we’re going to move to a committee of the whole and proceed that way to receive your very important information. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: You can just continue. Okay\, okay\, I will not lose a beat and go to the wrap up of our other priorities. Wanted to say\, we were created as a long-term resiliency agency. That was the intent\, in 2015\, 2016\, etc\, all the way through our legislation\, signed by the Governor in 2019. What quickly became apparent in the fall of 2021 to all of us. \nBoardroom SX80: as well as 22\, the winter of 2223 is the atmospheric rivers that we see\, and we \nBoardroom SX80: at one shoreline believe are fueled by climate change. That’s an impact of climate change now. \nBoardroom SX80: and it was not sufficient for us to just focus on thinking about long term resilience when the the greatest impact of climate is happening today. And so we spend a lot of time on alerting people\, too\, and reducing the impacts of extreme storms. Many of those impacts are exacerbated by high tides\, as you know\, and in a low lying area like the bay shoreline of San Mateo County. That’s a huge issue. \nBoardroom SX80: Where we have storm surge and extreme tides coincident with a big storm. And that’s what creates problems. We don’t have a long-term stable source of funding. That’s a high priority for us as well\, and then finally projects\, and this will transition to zeroing in on this Millbrey Berlin game shoreline. But this is a snapshot of the 53 miles of San Mateo County shoreline. We have 12 cities impacted by the bay\, 11 that touch the bay\, and within those 53 miles and 12 cities there are 10 distinct \nBoardroom SX80: efforts that are looking at long term resilience on our shoreline\, and they range from early early planning to completed construction. Completed construction has been Foster City\, and that was a project really focused on the current fema flood plain\, and our work at one shoreline is to align as much as possible all of these efforts that you see in different colors throughout the shoreline\, so that they are substantial and that they complement one another. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, zeroing in on one aspect of our shoreline\, San Francisco Airport \nBoardroom SX80: course\, a major important facility\, very large\, and they also have a project they call it their shoreline protection programme. You see in yellow the outline there\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what’s interesting to me is when the airport was developed\, not surprisingly\, the creeks were rerouted around the airport\, and the impacts of that are partially shown in in the pictures that we see of the areas around the airport. So on the right. That’s Colma Creek during the king tide\, and then below that is the city of San Bruno during a storm and and high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: And then the city of Bill Bray\, with the flooding scene. This is all areas west of Highway 101 along the creeks and then to the south of there. It’s really just a shoreline shot of the city of Burlingame. So our job with these dashed lines and arrows in green\, extending north from the airport and south from the airport is to leverage the work of San Francisco airport to create greater \nBoardroom SX80: section to the north and south within San Mateo County. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s important to talk about kind of what our objectives are. Our objective is really one objective. And that’s climate resilience for areas with existing or potential development. You see\, appear a picture during during a high tide\, but not extreme tide of a walkway. Alongside a hotel in Berlin game. So resilience for development\, resilience for trails. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s bay trails here in in this area\, like there are in many areas\, most areas thankfully\, of San Francisco Bay. But those trails\, even where they exist\, may not be terribly attractive\, or may not be resilient to climate change\, and so our project is also about creating resilience for public access\, and then resilience for habitat. These are also images from this part of the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s it’s not so much in my mind about just building habitat for today. It’s about\, what can we build today? That’s not gonna be washed away when the bay expands in in 10 years\, 15 years\, 20 years\, it’s about resilience for development\, public access\, and habitat. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have a project that is in large part at this moment funded by the State of California\, and that is to look at the shoreline of Bill Bray\, which is just next to Sfo\, and then Burlingame\, with the potential to extend it to the city of San Mateo and the fundamental alternatives of this project are shoreline and creek flood protection. We have 6 creeks or channels that flow into San Francisco Bay. You can see that \nBoardroom SX80: kind of purple lines that extend outward from the bay here. And and so this project looks like a very traditional approach of building a levee or wall on the shoreline\, and then building. In this case walls not so much levees along these creeks. I’ll talk about some of those constraints in a second. The other option is\, we stay away from working in the creeks because of land rights\, concerns riparian issues of concerns about environment. \nBoardroom SX80: and cost and working with highway 101\, which is very complicated when all these creeks go under Highway 101 and flood the highway today\, and instead we put tide gates and pump stations on the mouth of these creeks that has opportunities and constraints like all of these. And so we could talk about that \nBoardroom SX80: third fundamental alternative is to put some sort of of a wave break offshore. And this has been done in San Francisco Bay\, and it’s essentially putting a hardened structure that you put some habitat on top of\, and you put these out in the bay\, and they break the waves\, and that reduces the wave height and wave energy which allows for a slightly smaller shoreline protection. But at the end of the day you still need \nBoardroom SX80: shoreline protection. If you’re talking about sea level rise\, because you’re trying to address the water level at some point. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the fourth one is an offshore barrier\, with doors and as well as a pump station and shoreline enhancement for access and for habitat. And this sense is that now today\, if if this were put in\, these doors would basically remain open at all times\, except for during a atmospheric river\, when you need the \nBoardroom SX80: offshore to collect that water to reduce flooding on shore\, so that would be a few times a year\, and then also during king tides\, on whatever 4 days a year. So the doors would be closed for those half dozen days a year\, otherwise they would remain open to allow for \nBoardroom SX80: Riparian Creek flow and tidal action\, and as sea level rises the doors would be closed more so. What our engineers estimate is that after a foot and a half of sea level rise from today the doors would be closed. A total of 1 h per day\, basically 30 min at each high tide. \nBoardroom SX80: and then\, after 3 feet of sea level rise\, they would be closed about 6 HA day\, so they would be closed more and more as time goes on\, and whenever we reach a foot and a half sea level rise\, that’s kind of what the scenario would be\, but for today we can also provide the protection of against allowing these these during the storms the creeks to flow into the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: So those are our options where look at the constraints in the area\, and the number one is that this area is heavily urbanized. You see here a picture of of a building in Burlingame\, right alongside the bay shoreline. Not a lot of room to build protection for this area unless you go into the bay or you take out the building. And so those are your fundamental options. If you have this. And this is not just at this site so \nBoardroom SX80: a concern. And then this is on a creek channel. You see the building on one side\, the parking on the other\, and utilities. And so we have constrained Creek channels as well. Other constraints are. Our goal is to get people out of the fema flood plain\, in part because it’s a certain means as a certifiable project that will last\, and in part\, of course\, because of the financial benefits for the property owners in the area. \nBoardroom SX80: And then this is just adjacent to San Francisco airport\, which has a lot of concerns about birds\, not surprisingly. And so building habitats that attract flying birds is something that they’re they’ve expressed a great concern about \nBoardroom SX80: and and something I wanted to. Highlight is we don’t have a lot of room here\, basically\, the areas that you see in pink are the only areas that either don’t involve private taking or going into the bay. Those are the only areas that we have for actually building resilience. And we have a concern that as the bay shoreline is developed or the creeks are developed in the shoreline area. \nBoardroom SX80: that those projects that are being currently approved by the cities and by regulatory agencies\, are limiting our ability to do natural solutions do resilience period\, but including natural solutions into those projects. It makes it more difficult as the buildings get developed closer and closer to the bay\, like you see in that picture on the left. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re left with 2 alternatives that we’re currently analyzing. One is onshore fundamentally\, and one is offshore fundamentally. And and our status right now\, on this project is we put out a notice of preparation. We’ve got a lot of comments. They were very robust comments\, mostly on our offshore idea\, and we’re taking those comments in. We’ve learned from them quite a bit. \nBoardroom SX80: and we are beginning analysis! It’s called a leadpa analysis\, which is required by both feet\, both the core and the water board\, and that’s defined the least environmentally damaging practical alternative. We’re also this month hiring an outreach consultant to enhance our outreach efforts. And and after all of that\, and meeting with regulatory agencies. In fact\, next week. And after all of that\, we will begin the environmental process. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re at early\, so early days on this. But it’s an important project\, and it’s one that’s gotten a lot of attention. And BCC. Bccdc. Staff have asked me to to \nBoardroom SX80: speak on it\, and I’m happy to do so because it just presents all of us with a lot of questions about what is this place gonna look like\, if we’re really serious about about becoming resilient. And we are we in San Mateo\, Caron County are serious about becoming resilient\, and that poses a lot of opportunities and a lot of constraints. So with that\, I thank you. And I’m happy to answer questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: How many public speakers do we have \nBoardroom SX80: currently \nBoardroom SX80: through \nBoardroom SX80: 4. Chair Wasserman 4 4. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. I’m gonna \nBoardroom SX80: as I did in the last item. \nBoardroom SX80: Give the Commissioners the opportunity to ask questions. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we’ll turn to the Public \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Nelson. \nBoardroom SX80: Just one quick question. One of your earlier graphics showed that you were looking at the potential for walls along some of the creeks that lead out to the bay between one and one in the bay\, and your discussion at the end showed that you’d apparently screen those out. And I’m just hoping you can help me understand why? Why you made that decision. Yeah\, we\, the \nBoardroom SX80: basically going up the creeks. We would have to. If under our sea level rise assumptions we’d have to go all the way up to the caltrain tracks. So it’s beyond highway 101. So the combination of \nBoardroom SX80: of all of that work which is costly and and has environmental impacts. All of the land rights that would be needed to be acquired as part of that\, because a lot of those properties they don’t just end at the edge of the parking lot. They go into the mid center line of the creek\, and so all of the land rights that would have to be involved in building that \nBoardroom SX80: also\, as I mentioned\, the complications of integrating that with highway 101 at 6 different crossings just made it infeasible to us and and the trade-off\, for though all of that is the tie gate and pump station approach at the creek mouse. \nBoardroom SX80: There may be ways to limit that slightly but fundamentally. That’s that’s the alternative. So the the shoreline based alternative that you were looking at includes those tide gates about stations. That’s right\, exactly. I appreciate that. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Gunther Lynn. Thanks so much for this. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: it’s really great to see somebody putting pencil and paper to like\, okay\, so what do we actually do? I wanted to ask you first of all\, when we had our South Bay Shoreline Conference in 2\,017 and created a map just by asking people\, Are you thinking about something? Are you thinking about something? There were lots of holes. \nBoardroom SX80: There was a project\, and then there was no project. Then there was another project. You presented us a. \nBoardroom SX80: Obviously\, there are very different stages of these things. But now everybody that’s got shoreline in San Mateo County is thinking about this issue \nBoardroom SX80: collectively. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, that’s that’s well\, I mean congratulations. I mean\, that’s a great\, that’s a really a really great achievement. I also wanted warm to my heart as a Water Board member to hear you talking about thinking about groundwater and I assume you’re in communication with staff at the waterboard \nBoardroom SX80: on this issue. And that’s gonna be a challenge\, no matter what alternative\, right that you you select. And then\, lastly\, obviously\, you’re gonna eventually get into the dollars and cents of all this\, and I\, unless I missed it\, and sorry \nBoardroom SX80: there’s been a lot coming at us today. But there\, you didn’t seem to have an alternative in which some kind of retreat is mixed in with everything else. That is the assumption is every building that’s there is gonna be protected. \nBoardroom SX80: Do you want me to address that. Well\, I just want it if they do. Yeah\, yeah\, no\, I would like to hear\, cause I know that’s that. That is an alternative that is bandied about. But of course\, you know\, every every place is gonna be a little different. But I just wondered if that was thought of at all\, and and and then how that compares to to the idea of areas getting wet\, bringing more birds near the airport. I didn’t know if that was part of the thinking. \nBoardroom SX80: If I could comment on the retreat question because it is an important one that we hear often. \nBoardroom SX80: there are really 2 parts of my response to that. And one is \nBoardroom SX80: We have put out this planning policy guidance that I discussed about land use policies that we recommend that cities adopt and the county adopts\, and many cities have\, and Burling\, as Mayor Colson mentioned\, Burlingame has taken lead on that the first one in our county to do that\, and in the area generally. \nBoardroom SX80: that planning policy guidance calls for setbacks from the shoreline. It’s not a wholesale retreat of a community or a neighborhood\, but it’s retreat from water to enable us to do \nBoardroom SX80: resilience measures\, including natural features\, within those resilience measures rather than just a wall. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s the part. One of my answer. \nBoardroom SX80: which yeah\, part 2 is as one shorelines does in very specific areas of the county. Do we have land use authority. We don’t really have land use authority. We have land rights in certain areas\, and and none of those areas are on the shoreline \nBoardroom SX80: except for creek mouths in 2 locations \nBoardroom SX80: as long as these projects are\, and I’m not picking on this area at all. I’m talking about Bay Area wide as long as these projects \nBoardroom SX80: are debt buildings right along the shoreline are being approved by environmental regulatory agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: and as long as they’re being approved by local governments\, cities\, and counties. \nBoardroom SX80: Our job is not to say that project you approved last year\, or the one you’re considering in 2\,024 \nBoardroom SX80: has to move. Our job is to say\, how do we take the context of our environment? \nBoardroom SX80: Not just on these development projects on Sfo as as an entity right? How do we take the context of how\, of the and of the \nBoardroom SX80: environment\, small E that we inherit and turn that into the most resilient environment that we can. So I am not an advocate. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m not talking about me. Personally\, I’m just saying organizationally\, I’m not an advocate for large scale retreat\, because that’s not where our community or governments are\, and bodies like Bcdc. And the water board and other bodies\, they are not at a place to compel that. \nBoardroom SX80: and I think that should change personally\, but until that does\, my job is to take the most vulnerable county and make it the most resilient county. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s all I can do \nBoardroom SX80: well\, I really appreciate that. I I certainly didn’t. Imp! I’m not \nBoardroom SX80: in asking this question \nBoardroom SX80: suggesting that \nBoardroom SX80: retreat is actually the preferred alternative. However\, there’s \nBoardroom SX80: we\, you know\, people say there’s gonna be either managed retreat or chaotic retreat. And and or there’s gonna be more hardening of the shore in the area like you’re talking about. So so and and I think this will come out a little. These alternatives will become clarified. Once we start talking about \nBoardroom SX80: how much these things cost\, and who’s going to pay for them? And then what are other cheaper alternatives? \nBoardroom SX80: And and that’ll also be influenced by our sea level rise projections changing over the next few years. But I really I just really appreciate the way you guys are thinking about this I I mean. And and Dave is\, is there? Is my last question. Is there? \nBoardroom SX80: Is there an analogous \nBoardroom SX80: public institution \nBoardroom SX80: anywhere else? I mean the the way that you guys went and had your. You know\, the legislation rewritten that I don’t know of anyone else in the Bay area. No\, I don’t think so I mean\, we spent a better part of 5 years putting this together. Right? So. But I mean\, so this is you. This is a an approach of national significance. I would think \nBoardroom SX80: I I know you don’t. Guys don’t think about spend time thinking about yourself that way. But but the integrated way that you’re you’re doing this on both shorelines. I mean\, you’re only talking about the bay shoreline now is is something that is\, I think\, worth just remembering that this is really the you know\, you guys are on the cutting edge of of what’s gonna have to happen. \nBoardroom SX80: Anybody else \nBoardroom SX80: you have your light on\, but that was just to answer that \nBoardroom SX80: couple of comments. One question. \nBoardroom SX80: terrific\, is the major comment. I know there’s a lot and a lot and a lot of work to go\, and a lot of problems. What you’ve done over the 5 years and beyond is is terrific. And I I think. \nBoardroom SX80: so I’m sorry. Let me ask my question first. \nBoardroom SX80: Here’s state legislation that \nBoardroom SX80: created you or structured it to create you with the approval of the local agencies \nBoardroom SX80: does give you specifically taxing powers. \nBoardroom SX80: Am I correct in assuming that those taxing powers under the authority given still requires a two-thirds vote. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll just say they record our voting thresholds are the same as any other public entities. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? \nBoardroom SX80: I would add that we \nBoardroom SX80: made sure that the legislation provided us with all the tools\, revenue raising tools \nBoardroom SX80: that are available. \nBoardroom SX80: and one shoreline did spend an extended amount of time looking at a potential parcel tax \nBoardroom SX80: combined with fire\, the combined fire and sea level rise\, flooding measure. And the sport just wasn’t\, wasn’t there? Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: One of the issues that I know has been talked about in the past. I don’t know if there’s any current discussion about it is \nBoardroom SX80: changing the law for flood control districts to make them more like the utilities in imposing fees which do not require 2 thirds do require a majority. \nBoardroom SX80: So I\, as we are looking at our financing the future issues. That’s one of the vehicles I I think we wanna look at. \nBoardroom SX80: if I may comment on that extremely briefly. There is a measure. On the November 2024 ballot to lower the threshold for bonding \nBoardroom SX80: from 2\, 3 to 55. Right now that lower authority\, or that that lower threshold rests with school districts\, but not with climate\, resilience\, projects\, or housing projects\, and the legislation in November\, just for the general public\, and others who may not be aware\, or anyone not aware is is to lower that for those types of projects. So \nBoardroom SX80: one of the things that we’re waiting on to think about\, do we go back. Go to the voters in our county is what happens this November in regards to that and other measures that that makes absolute sense. Our our funding\, simply put. \nBoardroom SX80: is half funded by the county and half funded by the cities. Each of the 20 cities put in puts in very modest amount\, but they all contribute towards the towards the operation. \nBoardroom SX80: most of the staff I’m talking to no disrespect\, Harriet\, are not present for a variety of reasons. I think it would be useful\, not necessarily at a commission hearing\, but perhaps in in one of our workshop formats\, to have a more detailed presentation and and interaction\, and we might want to include Sonoma in that\, because\, although they have not done what you have done\, they have done some interesting and different things. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think the one shoreline in Sonoma are the 2 \nBoardroom SX80: most progressive\, and in in thinking of holistic changes within government agencies to address the issues that we are addressing. \nBoardroom SX80: I thank you very much for the work in the presentation\, of course. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, sorry. Public comment is there. We do have public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Sometimes you get wrapped up in your own thoughts. Please call the public speakers \nBoardroom SX80: Arthur Feinstein\, your first up. \nArthur Feinstein: Whoops unmute chair Wassman and Commissioners. Thanks for the opportunity to talk on this. \nArthur Feinstein: I first recommend that all of you look at this \nArthur Feinstein: scientific article published in urban sustainability in 2\,022 \nArthur Feinstein: I hope Staff can tell me whether you can distribute it to all of the Commissioners. Protection and restoration of coastal habitat \nArthur Feinstein: yield multiple benefits for urban residents. As sea levels rise. Now this is 2\,022. \nArthur Feinstein: Many of the scientists working on this\, and there were like 10 are local ones working for agencies and for Sfei \nArthur Feinstein: and their conclusion. And \nArthur Feinstein: they studied specifically the San Mateo coast \nArthur Feinstein: to look at what were the problems and what could be the solutions? \nArthur Feinstein: Their conclusion\, this work\, as to the growing body of research from around the world\, demonstrating that nature-based solutions help protect coastlines and yield diverse ecosystem services. \nArthur Feinstein: The issue that I’m pointing to. They also recommend and \nArthur Feinstein: not recommended already existed\, but they point to one shoreline as an excellent way of bringing a regional perspective to a shoreline. So you can address all the issues along that shoreline very simple\, similar to what the Rsap and the sub regional sap are doing. \nArthur Feinstein: The problem but run out of time very quickly. Is that what Len is proposing for the shoreline\, the off shoreline gates? It’s already been proposed for the whole bay. You put a gate across the Golden Gate \nArthur Feinstein: and just stop the water\, and then we don’t have to worry about any of this. Well\, his. \nBoardroom SX80: Exactly. \nArthur Feinstein: Well\, it got shot down I’m similarly hoping that this gets shot down \nArthur Feinstein: because it proposes the same reason. Every agency that’s examined it has had. Thank you for. \nBoardroom SX80: Like comment. Your time is now complete. Moving on to Michael Browning. \nMichael Brownrigg: Thanks very much. I’m Michael Brown Rigg. I am a long time council member for the city of Burlingame\, and I really just am here in solidarity for the inquiry in gratitude to one shoreline into Supervisor Pine for creating it. This is\, as Mayor Colson pointed out\, a vital piece of our own economy\, and without \nMichael Brownrigg: a healthy shoreline that allows to allows businesses and recreational use\, our city would be devastated. So this is us a very serious matter for us\, and we appreciate bcdc’s willingness to explore all potential options. In my view\, retreat is not an option. \nMichael Brownrigg: I think the good news is\, you know\, back in Paris in 2\,015\, we thought the world was on path to a 4 to 5 degree warming. Now we’re down to 2 and a half to 3\, which is still unacceptable\, but we’re going in the right direction. \nMichael Brownrigg: so I have hope that we will\, as a planet\, figure this out\, but not before a wall of water comes at us\, and that’s what we need to defend. So I thank Len for his work and his team’s work\, and I appreciate Bcdc. In the spirit of inquiry. That\, you guys are adopting towards this work. I think the only thing that is less sensible than a bad answer is not doing the exploration and research at all. \nMichael Brownrigg: And I think that’s you know that’s the Dark Ages versus the Enlightenment. So thank you very much. I’m done. I’ll give you the balance of my time. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you. Moving to Eileen Mclaughlin. \nEileen McLaughlin: Good afternoon. Chair\, mosterman and commissioners. Thank you for this these few minutes. Here. I’m Eileen Mclaughlin\, with Citizens committee to complete\, direct. \nEileen McLaughlin: and have been \nEileen McLaughlin: studying and following the the one shoreline project and Millbrand rolling game\, for since last fall\, when it was first \nEileen McLaughlin: announced to the public. \nEileen McLaughlin: I want to take a focus on the habitat issues here one that that would be affected by the barrier particularly. This is a place\, Hannah\, 2 mile barrier \nEileen McLaughlin: they want to have at one area. They have tidal marsh at one end\, which is marsh that Sfo must protect for the Ridgeway rails that moves on down southward onto beach and \nEileen McLaughlin: broad mud flats that are have waves coming back and forth them and the shore birds all winter long. Thousands and thousands just use that thoroughly\, and then down further to it\, where the water gets deeper at the shoreline\, and every single day recreational fishermen or women or children \nEileen McLaughlin: are out there catching fish. \nEileen McLaughlin: because the hydrology of idle action serves all of those different kinds of habitats\, and underneath the waters there’s eel grass\, which is also known as something that inhibits and cleans fresh water. \nEileen McLaughlin: This is an area that the project\, says one of its threats and and and opportunities or objectives is habitat\, but that barrier\, even with all its breaks\, is going to completely destroy the hydrological flow of this cove\, and all of the habitats and wildlife \nEileen McLaughlin: that use it today. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Kita Dev is our last public commenter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Good afternoon chair\, Washington and Commissioners. I know it’s getting late. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: I wanna thank once your line for a lot of good work that they’ve done in San Mateo County\, which is part of our our Sierra Club’s chapter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: However\, I have to tell you\, right upfront that every single agency\, and also the airport has taken rather violent exception to filling in the bay with a lagoon. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and it’s clear to us that while this may seem like an easy solution. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and we always appreciate research. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: But the scientific community \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: has weighed in on the side of nature \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and using nature-based solutions which they believe \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: will help not only the land\, but also the bay. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: and we’ll keep costs down. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: I do want to point out that \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: since one shoreline worked on its guidelines\, which we were very involved with\, and which we very much appreciate. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Sb. 2\, 72 has passed. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: which requires all cities to follow be adapts \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: 6 goals\, the second of which is to put nature first whenever possible. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: but that is because \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: it recognizes that the bay itself. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: its living shorelines\, and its ecosystems are as much at risk \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: with sea level rise as the shoreline and the buildings and the infrastructure around it. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Therefore\, to fulfill the obligations of that law. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: We need Bcdc. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Policy makers to make sure that the public staff and the consultant teams that work on it \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: to extend their adaptation plans \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: to include integrating nature into their plants\, not just as vegetation on levees. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: but with some of the other elements that the scientific community in the paper that Arthur Feinstein mentioned includes. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes our published research. \nBoardroom SX80: One more. You’re Mike\, David. \nBoardroom SX80: any Commissioner want a final comment on this? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Hi\, Lynn\, it’s great to see you and I want to compliment you on this wonderful agency that you’ve created\, and in particular\, I’m delighted to see how you are looking at the protections \nBoardroom SX80: as a continuum all along the shoreline\, because one of the things we learned in Katrina was that those touch points\, those connection points between projects were where things typically broke down. And if that happened\, you had a big flood. \nBoardroom SX80: So we don’t want to do that anymore. And having you look at it all as a system\, is the best way to avoid that. So I’m really delighted to see that this has gone so well\, and so far\, and I’m bringing you greetings from Santa Claire County\, where we are blessed with being ringed by old salt ponds. That can be\, you know that can be restored to marshes. \nBoardroom SX80: But I just want to say that we’re delighted to see that you’re working with that. And I as both A. BC. Commissioner\, as the Mayor of Mountain View\, will do whatever I can to make sure that that connection between your county and my county \nBoardroom SX80: works beautifully\, even though I know that the methodologies there will be different from time to time. But thanks and thanks for this wonderful work\, and keep it up. Let me know how I can help. Thank you very much. Lynn and David. \nBoardroom SX80: I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nBoardroom SX80: so moved. We have a motion sorry by Commissioner Cheryl Alter\, and I think a second by Commissioner Randolph. Although there were a number of offered seconds\, we are adjourned.\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-2-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T140000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240501T153000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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 BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240424T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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=UTC:20240424T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240424T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240418T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240418T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240411T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240411T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240408T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240408T183000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240404T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240404T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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=America/Los_Angeles:20240404T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240404T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240327T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240327T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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=UTC:20240327T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240327T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240321T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240321T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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=America/Los_Angeles:20240315T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240315T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240314T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240314T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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=UTC:20240311T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240311T183000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240307T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240307T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240228T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240228T170000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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:20240228T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240228T120000 DTSTAMP:20260629T064350 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 END:VCALENDAR