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:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20220313T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20221106T090000
END:STANDARD
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
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240124T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240124T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240130T041106Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240304T202738Z
UID:10000126-1706088600-1706097600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81796419902?pwd=4pnoHbQhsdp8c53twTXZVf9Nten0fI.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID817 9641 9902Passcode042232\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic-CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing from Cities of Oakland and Alameda on Continuing Alameda-Oakland Estuary Clean-up Efforts.The Enforcement Committee will hear a briefing from the Cities of Oakland and Alameda regarding the progress they have made to clean up the Oakland/ Alameda Estuary. Their presentation will include their progress to date and their plans to maintain the Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov](Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov)Public Comment // Staff Presentation // City Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Meeting Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording.mp3 \nTranscript \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240118T044859Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191230Z
UID:10000088-1705582800-1705597200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing January 5\, 2024\n\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments \n\nCommission Mailing January 12\, 2024\n\nDraft Minutes of December 21\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nA Reborn Portal to a Great American City\nTerrific Article on CA Coastal Commission Seawall Litigation\nEditorial: Anchor-outs must abide by Richardson Bay rules\nWhat If People Don’t Need to Care About Climate Change to Fix It?\nCleaning Up After Lahaina\nFor the Billionaire Who Has Everything\, Consider an Island in the San Francisco Bay
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T090000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T103000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240130T061956Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T165331Z
UID:10000162-1705568400-1705573800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Rising Sea Level Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Meeting agenda\nDraft One Bay Vision for the Future of the Shoreline Presentation\nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-rising-sea-level-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240130T061624Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T061624Z
UID:10000161-1705564800-1705597200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Environmental Justice Working Group Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-environmental-justice-working-group-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240111T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240111T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240130T040950Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191038Z
UID:10000125-1704965400-1704974400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance withSB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \n9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterBoard Room \n375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82124816434?pwd=LrQsC3appV0cSHTnxie2UYKxTaJTe7.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID821 2481 6434 \nPasscode642155 \n\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the November 9\, 2023\, and December 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021\, respectively\, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // Staff Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording-1.mp3 \nTranscript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240108T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240108T180000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240127T083112Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T163914Z
UID:10000113-1704733200-1704736800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 8\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBoard Member Tom Leader will participate remotely in the meeting. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81620422280?pwd=dQumoXk9goaQYJJ1Rvb2lWc96hMy6Q.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID816 2042 2280 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summary for November 6\, 2023 Meeting  and the December 11\, 2023\nStaff Update\nPublic Comment Period\nDePave Park\, Alameda\, Alameda County; First Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of a proposal by the City of Alameda to develop DePave Park at the former Naval Air Station Alameda\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. The proposed De-Pave Park Project is one in a series of waterfront public spaces surrounding the three sides of the Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda. The Project would involve creating an urban ecological park by removing much of the site’s existing World War II-era concrete runway spaces and onsite buildings; repurposing remaining materials for public access areas and amenities; and establishing new tidal wetlands\, a pilot eelgrass restoration area\, and other native habitats appropriate for San Francisco Bay. The project intends to maximize re-use of on-site materials and design the park as a model for open space and habitat restoration areas that can be adapted to sea level rise over time.(Schuyler Olsson) [415/352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits\n1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; Second Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its second pre-application review of the proposal by Four Corners Properties to redevelop a 6.91-acre site with a life sciences campus at 1301 Shoreway Road in the City of Belmont\, San Mateo County. The project proposes to demolish the existing four-story office building on site and construct two 7- to 8-level office/R&D buildings and a 9-level parking garage. The project proposes both on-site and off-site public access improvements\, including constructing a new sidewalk along Sem Lane to provide public access from Shoreway Road to the shoreline\, widening the Belmont Creek Trail\, and refreshing the landscape with seating areas and trail serving amenities.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				January 8\, 2024 meeting summary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nJanuary 8\, 2024 meeting video \n  \nThank you for joining us tonight for the BCDC Design Review Board meeting. I’d like to remind the board members to please speak directly into the microphone. \nIn front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. And please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nOkay. Thank you\, Ashley\, and we’ll open the meeting. My name is Jacinta McCann and I’m the chair of the BCdc’s Design Review Board. \nI’m located here at Metro Center. In San Francisco and our meeting will include participants who are here in the room and participants who are participating online. \nOur first order of business is to call the role. Board members\, can you please unmute yourselves to respond and they mute yourselves following that? \nAshley\, can you call the role? \nChair McCann. Present. Vice chair string present board member Anderson. Present. \nBoard member Pellegrini. Present. Board member leader. \nHere. Present. \nAnd board member Chow will be with us at 5 30. The staff BCC staff attending tonight or myself\, Ashley\, You’rey Jewett\, Skylar Olson\, Julie Garen\, Trouty Senna\, and Katherine Pan. \nOkay\, thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum present\, so we duly constituted to conduct business. \nI want to stop by sharing some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nFor everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise. \nFor board members if you have a webcam please make sure that it’s on so everyone can see you and for members of the public if you would like to speak during the public comment period you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nIf you’re here with us in person\, speaker cards are available at the door and you will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nAfter all\, individuals who are present make their comments\, we shall call on those participants who are attending the meeting remotely. \nIf you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in Zoom by clicking the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nThe hand should turn blue when it’s raised. Please note that we will only hear your voices and that your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment. \nAnd star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nWe will not tolerate hate speech. Threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines or who exceeds the established time limits without permission. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the Gallery View option in view in view settings in order to see all the panelists. \nAudio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced in to the individual panelist videos. \nIf you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects\, please call or email Ashley Tomlin who is right there\, Ashley. \nAnd Ashley’s contact information is on screen or is found on the BCdc’s website. \nFinally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host\, Yuri. And your use\, what about BCDC staff and is acting as a host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. So we’ll move to item 2 now\, which is approval of the meeting summaries for number\, November sixth\, 2\,023 in December eleventh\, 2023. \nAnd board members we’ve all been furnished the draft summaries for those 2 meetings I’m just going to remind you\, we might just approve these individually. \nSo the November sixth BCDC meeting. We had the following people present. Bob was here\, Bob Balio\, Kristen Hall\, Tom Leader\, Gary Strang and Stefan were were here. \nAnd we were. Reviewing the 1499 bash project that was the first pre-application review. \nAre there any comments? From anyone? I do not have any comments. Any other comments from anyone? \nI have actually have a couple of comments. It’s just clarifying language\, page 8. \nUnder item 4\, emergency vehicle access and terminus of the public trail. Some point 2. \nI just the wording in the paragraph is not particularly clear and it may have been my expression\, but I would like to just clarify it. \nSo Ashley\, I’ve rewritten the paragraph and I’ll can give it to you afterwards but I’m proposing it be changed to say Jacinda McCann observes that the terminus of the trail is a dead end and that is it is unlikely that people will walk to the end is currently proposed. \nPositioning public art in the end could potentially encourage people. Improvements to the hammerhead configuration could also assist in making this section of the trail more appealing. \nIt would also help if staff could clarify if there’s any potential for the trail to continue beyond the site in the future. \nSo it’s just cleaning up that paragraph so you can refer to that. \nAnd I wanted to clarify on page 9 and Kristen isn’t with us tonight\, but under sub point 2\, the second paragraph below the top of the page. \nIt’s a Kristen Hall was talking at this point. She says it’s beautiful space and will be a nice respite. \nAnd then the second sentence says excited about the possible road diet. And I think that needs to be changed to something else. \nAnd I could not remember what that would be\, but maybe someone could go back and just cross check that and clarify what that is. \nAnd then . The \nI think that was it. Yeah\, that was it. So with those 2 changes\, is everyone okay with the? \nWith the adjustments to the minutes\, for these meeting notes for the November 6 meeting. \nI’ll make a motion to approve. Second. Bye. Okay\, the next meetings were meeting summary was the December eleventh summary. \nAnd people present there was myself\, Bob Batalio\, Kristen Hall\, Gary Strang\, and Steph. \nAnd we were reviewing. It was just last month\, so. It was the first review of the\, \nWindrover project\, which\, excuse me\, it was technically the second review. Even though it felt like the first review. \nCorrect. And at the end it says we moving to the third review\, which I will just reconfirm is correct. \nRight. And\, \nYeah. There was just a minor improvement in. Language. I can pass these through to you. \nThey’re not substantial\, just a couple of minor clarifications but with Just the bottom\, sentence\, on page 6 site entrances\, sub point one\, final centers\, it would be helpful to have more context shown for the concept plan and a clearer illustration of the connections\, being made on site and off site. \nAnd the final sentence there starts struggling to determine to just change that to it is difficult to determine at this stage whether \nAnd there’s a repeat of a sentence on page 8\, some point 3. Just send him a CAD suggested incorporating playful elements\, if we could just strike that sentence\, which is a repeat of a sentence in the previous paragraph. \nSo we don’t need\, it will be a very desirable place for families. So with those changes\, any other changes that anyone has? \nOkay. Motion to approve. The commotion to approve. \nHi. \nOkay\, all in favor? I. Okay\, thank you. Good. \nLet’s move to item 3\, staff update. \nThank you\, Chair McCann. Congratulations to Tom and Leo on the soon to open public access at 3\,500 Marina in Brisbane. \nThe project last came to the board in September\, 2\,018 and includes approximately 1\,100 linear feet of bay trail and shoreline spaces and then approximately a hundred 1\,000 square foot public access area on the podium level. \nThe project will also be constructing an approximately 700 linear foot pay trail around the neighboring parcel that will complete the Bay Trail loop around the Sierra Point Peninsula. \nI wanted to update the board on a few changes in laws and policies related to member participation. I will send out a summary of these changes. \nFirst\, BCDC has an updated policy regarding the role DRB members may play as consultants to permit applicants. \nBoard members are no longer allowed to represent permit applicants before the commission or a BCDC advisory board. \nBoard members who have been recused for assisting permit applicants are not allowed to speak in front of the board while being paid by the applicant. \nAnd this is to present as well as for answering questions. Recused board members may attend meetings in person or remotely as a member of the public. \nA board member may speak as a member of the public as long as they are not being compensated by the applicant. \nDo board members have any questions? \nI don’t have any questions on that. I don’t think we have any questions. Tom\, any questions? \nWell\, I remember there was confusion on this project you’re looking at whether I can represent the the applicant or not. \nAnd I decided I better not because I wasn’t sure nobody seemed sure but now it’s it’s clear. \nThat on this project I would not be able to present. Speak in front of BCDC or a commission or anything like that. \nYou are correct. Actually\, just to be very clear because Tom\, I recall that. Does it apply to any member of the firm that the African has or just the individual. \nIt is just the individual. So\, for instance\, with 1301 shoreway\, the project going second tonight. \nAn ECRB member had spoken and answered questions during the last DRB meeting related to the levy or the shoreline protection. \nB he would not be able to answer questions in front of the design review board\, but a member of Moffat and Nicole could. \nI see. Okay\, thank you. Alright. Second for law and policies update as of January one and through 2\,025 board members may attend and participate in meetings remotely staff are required to notice remote attendance at least 24 h in advance of the meeting via email and on the website notice. \nAnd we do not need to include the remote location. I believe our preference will remain to be in person or to have in person attendance\, but we do now have flexibility for your participation. \nAre there any questions? \nVery clear. \nFinally\, the DRB meeting dates have been set for 2024 and are posted on the BCC website. \nThe February meetings canceled and our next meeting is planned for March eleventh and will be the second review of the proposed very building and plaza renovations. \nAnd that concludes the BCDC staff update. I’ll pause if there’s any other questions from the board. \nWell\, thanks\, Ashley. And\, again\, congratulations\, Tom\, on seeing your project. \nCompleted and contributing to the continuation of the Bay Trail. It’s a very important project. \nSo well done. I don’t have any other questions. It’s good to get the policy updates out clearly. \nSo thank you for that. Any other questions from the board? \nHearing none\, I think we’ll move on. Okay\, so. \nWe will also just move now to public comment for items. Not on tonight’s agenda. So we’ll start with those members of the public in our headquarters building here today. \nIf anyone has a comment on on something that is not on tonight’s agenda form a line near the podium to make a public comment. \nAnd if you’re attending online\, it would like to make a public comment. Raise your hand to speak as previously notified. \nIs there anyone who wants to make a public comment? \nOkay. \nThere’s no hands raised online. Okay\, thank you very much. So no public comment for items not on tonight’s agenda. \nSo we’ll move to item 5\, which is the first review of the Depave Park project in Alameda\, Alameda County. \nAnd I’ll just remind you of the project order that we follow for these reviews. So we start with the BCDC staff introduction. \nWe then move to the project proponent presentation. We then have both clarifying questions\, which are between the proponent and the board. \nIt’s not a time for discussion but question and answer then we move to public comment and then we have full discussion and summary which is the dialogue between the board and then following that the project proponent can make a brief response as desired. \nSo we’ll follow that. Permit and so with that the BCDC permit analyst Scholar Olson will introduce the project. \nSo thanks\, Ga. Go ahead. \nThank you\, Chair Macken. I’m just gonna share my screen here. \nAlright\, good evening to the design review board members\, the project team\, my members of the public. My name is Skylar Olsen and I’m a senior environmental scientist at BCC. \nI’m happy to introduce the project for tonight’s review\, the DPA Park project in Alameda proposed by the City of Alameda. \nThis product has received Measure AA funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and is a bay restoration regulatory integration team or Brit project. \nTonight will be the board’s first pre application design review of the project. I’ll start with a brief introduction to the project before the applicants present the project in greater detail. \nBefore we discuss the project\, we’d like to begin by acknowledging that the project side is located on. \nArtificially filled land. It was historically shallow water habitat within the traditional indigenous homelands at the outline people. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original storage of the down to phone natural resources of the Bay Area. \nThis slide shows the location and vicinity of the proposed project site. The approximately 21 acre . \nPay Park project side is located in along San Francisco Bay at the western end of Alameda. It’s on\, it’s on property owned by the city of Alameda\, within the central. \nArea southern and central area of the larger former Naval Air Station\, Alameda site\, commonly referred to now as Alameda Point. \nIt’s bounded to the east by sea playing Lagoon to the south by San Francisco Bay. \nTo the west by wetlands owned by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and to the north and east by sea plain lagoon promenade a public area. \nRunning along the north side of. See Plain Lagoon. \nAs shown in this image from BCdc’s community. Vulnerability\, mapping tool. The project sites. \nIs located within an area with high social vulnerability based on a range of vulnerability indicators. This area also has a high contamination vulnerability based on Call them viral screen. \nWhat does a statewide pollution vulnerability assessment? The project proponents will talk more about how local communities have been engaged in their project design. \nAnd how the design has evolved. Accordingly. \nThis slide shows the project site as it relates to other BCDC required public access areas. \nAlong the seaplane Lagoon shoreline. The city and its presentation will go into greater detail. \nAbout the Limited Point precise plan. And what is planned for the greater. See playing the goon area. \nCurrently the project site shown on the left of the screen is open to the public\, but it’s not improved for public access. \nAnd the purple lines in the map show approximate locations of existing BCDC required. Public access. \nSo the first permit shown here. . 1998 that o 3 6 required public access to London northern side of sea play in the goon in association with the Alameda Antiques and Collectables Fair. \nBut this public access is no longer in effect as the fair is no longer operating at the site. However\, this area It’s still open to the public\, but mostly unimproved for public access\, except the portion on the right\, which I’ll talk about next. \nSo permit number\, 2017 dot o one issue to the city of Alameda and that’s me to point partners. \nRequires an approximately 2.5 acre. Al Lima Point Waterfront Park. And associated amenities. \nAt the northeast corner of Sea Plain\, Lagoon. I’m\, 2018 dot o 2 5 also issue to the city\, requires an approximately 2 acre public access area on the eastern shoreline of sea playing lagoon in connection with the seaplane\, the groom ferry terminal. \nFinally\, permits\, and\, 1\,900\, and 96\, dot\, o\, 2\, 6\, issue to Nelson’s marine requires an approximately 8 700 square foot area at the southeast corner. \nOf the lagoon in connection with authorized construction of various marine. Facilities. \nI’ll now show you the sea level rise vulnerability for the site based on BCdc’s\, Bay Area flood explorer. \nIt’s important to know that this represents the vulnerability of the existing site without the changes that will be associated with the proposed project. \nThe product team will later show figures demonstrating the sea level rise\, resilience of the site if the proposed project were implemented\, as well as potential future adaptation measures. \nSo this image shows the funding that would occur with a total water level. That is 2 feet above the current mean higher high water. \nSuch a water level could under\, could occur under a range of scenarios such as No sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge. \nOr one feet of one for sea level rise plus a king tide or 2 feet of sea level rise. \nI mean higher high water. 2 fee of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2050 projection. \nUnder high emissions\, medium to high risk aversion scenario. Which has a 0 point 5% chance of occurring. \nAs you can see\, there would be some inundation at the western area of the site. \nThis\, in\, shows a flooding that would occur with a total water level that is 7 feet. \nAbove the current mean higher high water. That could occur with about 54 into sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge or 6 feet silver rise plus a king tide. \nOr 7 feet of sea level rise. At mean\, high high water and 7 feet of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2\,100. \nProjection. Under the same scenario. And as you can see\, the site would be completely inundated with this amount of sea level rise. \nThis slide shows an image from the San Francisco estuary. Institute San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas. \nWhich identifies and describes the suite a potential sea level rise that upation options. For the base store line. \nThe Atlas also identifies which adaptation options may be feasible. How long specific area that the shoreline based on the shoreline conditions at each location? \nUnfortunately\, the map is very difficult to read at the scale and does not appear to identify conditions suitable for any of the listed adaptation options to any meaningful. \nExtent. However\, that does not mean the site is not\, is not suitable for such features. \nI’ve known as they were discussed\, the pilot team is proposing an eagrass restoration area at the west side. \nOf the lagoon. Whereas this Atlas indicate suitability for ill grass at the eastern side of the Lagoon. \nHowever\, again\, this does not necessarily mean the Western side is not suitable. The\, will work with the product team to ensure any ill grass restoration work would be designed and cited appropriately for the site conditions. \nAnd finally\, I would like to make one correction to the staff report that was sent out on December 20 s. \nSo on page 3\, the staff report references and existing. US Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion from a separate project. \nThat relates to the nearby California least turned nesting site and that’s an endangered species the opinion limits\, trees and structures within areas of the\, the proposed the pay park. \nTo reduce perching opportunities for predator species of the California lease turn. So on the staff report\, I indicated that certain structures proposed for the site\, including their restroom and barbecue cellus would be acceptable. \nTo US Fashion Wildlife Service if they were equipped with anti-purchin devices. However\, this was a misunderstanding and certain portions of the design may in fact be and consistent with a biological opinion and require modification. \nThis map shows a slightly outdated version of the site plan. As it overlaps with 3 zones that are defined in the biological opinion. \nYou can disregard the question mark and the red dot line here. So within zone one\, which is on the right. \nThe biological opinion prohibits construction of new buildings lightpost vegetation or other structures Greater than 4 feet in height. \nThe restroom and as proposed would be in zone one. And would therefore be inconsistent with a biological opinion as currently designed. \nLighting for the adjacent parking lot may also require modification. \nBut I\, you know\, the project team will discuss this more and we’ve already talked about this and we’re confident that. \nYou know\, that will be able to coordinate. To through the pre application process to ensure that the project is designed to be compatible with the You guys fish and wildlife service requirements. \nOther requirements applied to zones 5 and 6. And I think the design is likely consistent with these requirements. \nBut we need to verify this. But we’ll continue coordinating through the\, process on this. \nThis slide shows the 7 objectives for public access and the commissions. Public access design guidelines. \nWhich the board should consider closely in its review. I’m sure you’ve seen this many times\, although of course we have a new member today. \nSo the guidelines focus on publicness and usability\, the public access\, visual access and visual quality. \nConnections and continuity along the shoreline. I’ve taken advantage of the base setting. And. \nAnd compatibility with wildlife. Additionally\, while not currently included in the 7 objectives\, It is important for the board to focus on sea level rise\, resilience\, environmental justice\, and social equity. \nAnd it’s review. \nFinally this slide includes a condensed version of the questions for the board as included in the staff report. \nAs well as one question they added to address that. Us fish and wildlife service requirements. \nSo in addition to the considerations on the previous slide\, we’d also specifically appreciate the board’s input on. \nThe design of the beach and that’s resilience of sea level rise. The advocacy of the terraced beach steps to provide public access to the water when the beach is in data. \nThe adaptation approach for the southern portion of the site. And add a quick advocacy or the adaptation plan in general. \nPotential events that should trigger future adaptation actions. Such as T level rise or funding events. Needs for additional weather protection at the site while avoiding wildlife conflicts. \nRecommendations to adjust the limits of the biological opinion described earlier and of course Any other comments that the board may have on the design? \nThank you very much and that includes my staff introduction. \nThank you\, Scott. Are there any questions from the board? Any clarifying questions on Skyler’s presentation? \nTom\, anything? \nOkay\, I think we will move on. That was a very helpful scalar. Thank you very much for that presentation. \nSo we will now move to the project presentation. And. \nAnd I think we\, I’m not sure who will be making that presentation\, but we will. Hear the introductions shortly. \nGood evening\, everyone. My name is Justin Long. I’m the director of Recreation and Parks for the City of Alameda. \nI’m joined here with Assistant City Manager\, Amy Boldridge\, as well as Kevin Conger with CMG Landscape Architects to present our project. \nWe are very excited here to present DPave Park as an ecological park that will adapt to Dee Pave Park as an ecological park as an ecological\, park that will adapt to see rise here in a relatively\, dense urban area\, in a relatively\, dense urban area\, and per also provide\, the community and\, \nSo this project has been in development for a very long time going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified for a very long time\, going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified as potential park space. \nAnd then\, became\, a little bit further alive in\, 2\,020 when we started the DPA Park vision plan. \nAnd then again\, when we were granted the measure AA funding. So it kicked off a really busy year this year starting February where we had our project kick off\, community events. \nNot to mention we’ve also worked with Brit. We’ve had 3 or 2 rounds of community engagement meetings. \nWe’re about to have the third. We presented the designs to the Park and Rec Commission and then to City Council in November. \nAnd here we are today. Presenting to you\, to get your feedback on this wonderful project we have for you. \nAgain\, to build on Skylar’s presentation\, the Oval Circle identifies the location of C plane lagoon here as part of the old naval air station as well as Elmo Point. \nThis area really has become a very active space for the residents in Alameda as housing has been added. \nThere’s many businesses out here. You’ll often find people out there fishing\, biking\, walking their dogs currently\, even though it is undeveloped in its current space as a park\, but it’s very active and very important part of the Alameda Park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the Alameda park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the city. \nHere’s some historical figures that sort of show what it looked like and before the fill happened in the military naval station was built\, you can sort of see in the different pictures and on the bottom right behind the words there you can see seaplane lagoon and it’s Clory when it was open. \nHere we are with a image from today where if you look at the bottom of the picture\, we have the new seaplane lagoon ferry terminal that services between San Francisco and Alameda to your right\, you see a park development there’s seaplane lagoon promenade phase one which is the current park that has been built that will also help with the sea level rise for the rest of the Alameda \npoint. Area just above that is the plain lagoon promenade for the future next 2 phases we’re about to enter into phase 2 phases. \nWe’re about to enter into phase 2 of that. And then in the distance in the center is the location of Depave Park with behind that the Veterans of Fair Wetlands. \nYou can see at the top the least turned nesting site was out there between the runways as well in the background at the top right hand corner is where the future veterans VA Hospital in Columbarium will be located. \nThis is in that\, C plane lagoon promenade phase 2 is probably where we’re going to\, we’re proposing to have the kayak launches and those components for people to get access to water there as there was historical ramps down there that brought the airplanes down into the water. \nWe’re going to try to use those accommodate those and bring them into have people bring themselves into the lagoon that way as well. \nAnd then San Francisco\, they’re in the background with the views of the bay. \nSo here again is the outside of our project site. It’s approximately 21.2 5 acres. \nYou can see that there are currently 2 big buildings that are located on the site\, building 29 and building 25. \nWe went to city council in November of this year and city council made a very forward thinking decision and they voted to remove both buildings from the property and so that to expand the wetlands and have more of a basically create more ecological space here on the property. \nAs you can also see in the lower part\, what the VA wetlands currently and sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project. \nAnd sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project. We’re not looking for them to be combined at this point\, but at\, in the Grand Sense\, they will be one space in the overall. \nThe other thing is we’ve been coordinating with the VA as well during this project. \nSo we recently just had another meeting with them to try to coordinate property line and edges and what that’ll look like. \nNext slide. So these are sort of today’s current images. The C plane lagoon is lined by a rip wrap wall and then our project site is combined mainly of large concrete paving and asphalt. \nAnd again\, joined by the 2 buildings on the side and then it has a jetty out into seaplane lagoon there. \nLike I say\, currently these spaces are used for a variety of uses. There’s also some really kind of interesting old remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the air station\, from its original uses with the air station\, airplane ties\, rails\, different components like that air station\, airplane ties\, rails\, different components like that\, things that we’d like to incorporate into the \noverall design moving forward. \nSo this was the price. Precise plan back in 2\,014 identifying the different areas and uses that would happen on Alameda Point. \nDeepave Park is outlined there in the dark green or the purple around the dark lean green. And then you see the\, see\, the see plane promenade right there on the north end of Seaplane Lagoon\, as well as sort of the natural or the nature preserve area that is controlled by the VA and then slightly to the north of that is the VA Hospital Colombarium and then a regional park to \nthe northwest. So these are all side of the kind of different components that were decided back then about what would be done on Lima Point. \nSo here’s an image of Seaplane Lagoon phase one. So this part currently is open to the public. \nIt is showing a tiered level park up from the lagoon that acts as the virtual first phase of the levy that will continue to protect the rest of Alameda Point as it gets built out and in the distance at the very end right before the San Francisco skyline back there is D. \nPave Park and again DPA will serve as that node of the levy system that will be protecting all of the. \nThis slide here shows the pedestrian circulation and bike circulation and where our project site is here. \nSo it’s serves as a very big connection for the Be Trail and so Deepave Park will serve as a node both for the Bay Trail but also for the seasonal Bay Trail that will continue out around all of Alameda Point seasonally. \nAnd so it’s a very important project in that sense that it’s connecting the people to the bay\, but as well as making sure that there’s sort of the seasonal trail so you can get out all your own. \nSo again\, here’s the slide that is from East Bay Park District that shows the outline of the seasonals\, betrayal that will go all the way around the existing point there and at the bottom right hand corner is D Pave Park. \nAnd so where those lines intersect shows where the Bay Trail will come\, but also as DPA Park is the node for the jumping off point where you will be able to do the seasonal trail all around. \nSo again\, we’ve. Had a great time with this project involving the community. We certainly\, we’ve already had 5 in-person community meetings. \nWe’ve had online surveys. We had a great involvement from one of our local high schools who were over 150 responses to our survey. \nWe’ve been working with the Limited Point Collaborative\, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is an that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is an underserved community\, which is an underserved community and they’ve been involved in it from day one. \nAnd they’ve been involved in it from day one. We’ve had a great experience with day one. \nWe’ve had a great experience with having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion\, we’ve had a great experience with\, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion\, seeing how the kids and the families out there asking their\, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinions\, seeing how things that they like out here\, and really getting a So here’s it sort of some \nof the meetings that we held on site. We did intercepts. We hosted meetings. We had tours. \nAnd like I said\, we’ve done the first 2 rounds of our community engagement and we’re about to start our third here on the twentieth where we’ll actually have one meeting out with the Elm to point collaborative community as well but also one for the general public as well in person. \nSo overall\, we’ve the community is very excited about this project. We are delighted to be having this here in Alameda. \nWe think they’ll be a great example of showing how sea level rise can happen and happen in a way to bring the community forward as well as also working on developing a stewardship program to help maintain that with that community as well. \nWe’ve been working with LM to point collaborative to do that. As a sort of an employment. \nProgram in order to get experience and job development. \nHave we seen the support for\, you know\, having Fishermen. They people don’t want to have dogs off leash out there. \nThere’s all sorts of great information that we’ve collected incorporated into our designs. You know\, there’s just been a great support for the marsh\, natural play areas\, fishing\, bicycling\, spaces for outdoor education. \nYou know\, there’s just been a huge tremendous involvement in people asking for a tremendous amount of access to the water\, tidal pools\, really about bringing people out and also creating a great environment for wildlife. \nAnd with that\, I will hand it off to Kevin Conger. Alright\, thank you. \nGood evening. Hi Leo. It’s certainly a pleasure to be here and talking about this project. \nMy new favorite project. One of the one of the biggest outcomes of the community process that Justin was talking about was a very in informed and passionate community that argue for this once in a lifetime opportunity to make a park that was all about nature. \nAnd to compel the council to remove the big building 25 that you saw on that last slide and I think you’re probably going to hear. \nA little bit of support for that decision from the group that’s behind me. Which button am I pushing that one? \nOkay. Transforming this 20 acres of pavement into a place that creates nature and public access to nature is pretty straightforward. \nActually\, in our approach. There’s mostly asphalt out there\, but also these strips of concrete. \nIt’s really thick concrete. It’s about 12 inches deep. And as some of those pictures shown\, there’s some really interesting steel rails and remnants in the concrete from the military industrial past. \nAnd so the strategy is to save the bits and pieces of concrete. That are useful. And to use those for the future. \nPublic space\, promenade\, circulation\, pathways\, etc\, and to remove all the rest of it. \nCrush it\, use it for the fill area. Under the elevated levy portions of the Discovery Play in the picnic area. \nThere’s a huge benefit to repurposing all this existing concrete because it greatly reduces the carbon footprint of this project during construction. \nAnd in fact\, this project will be climate positive we estimate in 4 years it will start to offset its own carbon footprint and be part of the climate solution. \nSo reuse\, recycle as much as possible. And it also leads us with some really interesting forms. \nAnd then basically Take it big hole\, lower the areas to encourage the tides to come in so we create some intertidal habitat areas. \nWe’re gonna create some fill areas that have that are elevated a little higher for some upland habitat creation. Take a \nRest of the film and put it over on into the elevated levy area. So we have a balanced cut fill is what the strategy is and then basically invite nature in. \nThe. The forms that are generated around the new paving\, which is the orange area\, which is all that DG area\, those are. \nThat way because we’re trying to harvest strips of concrete from the. The pieces that we’re moving\, we’re gonna use that for the. \nRestraining edges for all the edges of the DT paving and everything. So again\, we’re trying to reuse pretty much as much as possible. \nSo this is a paving diagram\, everything basically to the left. Is all existing paving and again the forms there\, you know\, these sock up machines are these big giant heavy things that pretty much make straight lines. \nYou don’t get to do curves or anything\, so it’s a really kind of just pragmatic approach to. \nGenerating form and then everything to the right. Basically the right third is going to be new paving DG and that’s all upon the elevated area and then the parking area is also going to be on existing paving. \nLooking to some of the furnishings and I’ll start at the right hand side\, which is north. \nThere’s about 75 parking spaces on existing paving over there. The restroom is on that north side. \nWe\, as was mentioned by Skylar\, we got a bit of discussion of whether that restroom can be there with the anti perching element on it or whether we need to move it a little bit. \nEast out of that zone. So we’ll work with Brit to do that. And then from there\, that’s down a little lower. \nSo then from there you go. South and you go up onto the elevated levy. There’s a big picnic trellis there in a picnic area\, group barbecue area\, same issue there with the bird predator things we may need to move that a bit east and then the discovery play area. \nThere’s a terrorist that steps down to the beach. The terrace made out of concrete slabs that we’re going to cut and harvest. \nMove those over from the existing paving. So that’s all repurposed. Moving south\, there’s a overlook area\, interpretative overlook area\, and then down the promenade that goes all the way out to the end and then the further south is the what we call the learning lab\, but there’s some of the big or more interesting remnant pieces of concrete with the steel rails. \nThat will be places for groups to gather school groups to go out there and gather. Social spaces\, etc\, all the way at the far\, far\, far south then as a fishing trail along the back edge of that rip wrap. \nThat’s where the fish fisher people like to go because it’s out on the bay side\, not in the Lagoon side. \nSo here’s a simple circulation diagram. So\, 24 foot. More average prominent minimum. \n24 foot minimum promenade\, multi-use path all the way up to the end\, and then these smaller pedestrian pathways that are again are mostly all predominantly using existing paving except for those areas that are on the. \nNorth where we’re elevating the land. And we will have\, bike circulation out here and also vehicle circulation for service vehicles. \nEventually\, that spur that heads up to the top screen to the west will connect and go north and be part of the levy. \nProtection that goes all the way around behind the hanger buildings in future phases. \nSo some material and character all pretty straightforward\, natural materials. \nHere’s some scale comparisons because it’s a little hard to wrap your head around how big this park is. \nIt’s about 2 thirds to. Size of Similar width actually about 2 thirds the length It’s a little bit shorter than the length of the Christy field. \nTitle Marsh\, out the same width\, actually interestingly. The beach piece down here is overlaid here on top of Crane Cove. \nQuite a bit smaller than Crane Cove\, so it’s a little pocket beach. The learning lab. \nPiece is about the size of the area down by the warming hut at Chrissy fields. \nIt’s a little bit bigger\, maybe\, you know\, maybe twice the size of that\, but. \nKind of similar to that and maybe a little bit. Better scale present will be this side down on the east end of Christy field where a butts up against Marina Green. \nIt’s about the same size as that space down there. So we’re really confident that it’s scaled appropriately. \nThe grading. The whole site is basically at about. 10 and a half. So we’re. \nLowering the edge in the center area\, where the gravel beach is proposed\, which is Right here. \nAbout. 6 feet at the rip wrap edge. And lower the seawall down a little bit and lower the rip wrap to create a gravel beach and then basically excavating out the areas to create intertidal zones and raising up the Discovery Play Picnic area up to about 15\, which is the height of the levy that’s part of the master infrastructure plan that goes around and \nprotects. All of the\, Alameda point. So. Here down at the north end\, we’re basically elevating a little bit down at the Picnic terrace and where that interpretative overlook is and then as we move further south. \nYou can see here where we’re cutting into the seawall\, which is shown in red there. \nI’m going to drop the top of the seawall down. But not remove it all the way because we still need that lower part of the rip wrap sea wall to interface with the seaplane lagoon. \nAnd same with the inner title\, the Rocky Inner Title Habitat area at the Far Far South End. \nSo that allows us to create an inner title area that’s illustrated in that top diagram where the dark blues mean high high water and lighter gray is the king tide so all of that zone will be intertidal and what’s exciting is that with CLRIs coming up\, our wetland areas get bigger. \nAnd we get increasing intertidal zone\, which is the goal of this project. So you see that on the bottom one with about 2 feet of sea level rise all the public access places are still high and dry at that point. \nBut when we get to\, 3 and a half feet of sea level rise\, you can see that the main promenade starts to get inundated at king tides and it will be at about that point where the city will need to make some decisions about when to do the adaptation for the public access. \nTo maintain public access out here. And the thought that we have is that they’ll just leave that concrete was a big 12 inch map foundation and just build a elevated promenade on top of that. \nAnd I know in the staff report there was some comments about are we thinking about providing enough public access at the southern part where the learning lab is and as to say that this is just very notional. \nI mean at the time when that adaptation gets designed. The city will make a decision about whether they want to add more elevated deck space out there or different types of\, you know\, public access amenities out there\, which I think would be great. \nAnd then ultimately\, when we get to 7 feet of sea level rise as with the rest of the Alameda point the levy itself needs to be adapted and elevated up. \nBut that will be far enough out where that program that discovery play area and the picnic and stuff up there were\, you know\, 80 years from now. \nRenovated anyway. \nSo what all that does is allows us to create a bunch of habitat\, primarily salt marsh in this lower inner tidal area\, upland coastal scrub in the areas at above that will transition to salt marsh over time\, gravel beach habitat right along the shoreline\, eel grass pilot project at that southern end and a rocky intertidal habitat zone on the very\, very far south end. \nAnd you can see how this becomes more or less contiguous with the with the VA. Weapons on on the other side. \nSo it’s really all about\, and I won’t point out we have HC Harvey and ESA advisors advising us on the ecological. \nComponents of this but it’s really all about this interface between the tide waters and the land obviously to create these different type of habitat zones. \nWe are doing it for These stakeholders\, these are all the species that are currently out. At Alameda Point and including the\, Alameda Song Sparrow there in the middle of the screen and some of the subtitle species that are on the bottom of the screen there\, but we also have. \nThese VIP stakeholders\, the California Least Turn in the Great Blue Hare and there’s a There’s a her and site right in the middle of the Project site\, which you’ll see in that blue dot here on that lower part of the slide. \nAnd this slide also shows. The least turned nesting site and all of that hatched area is part of the. \nConservation area because of the lease turns and so oh\, and I just wanted to point out that\, \nDown on the on the southern end of the VA property There’s 2 black kind of bubbles that are outlined and there’s improvement\, habitat improvements that are planned down there which include doing some re vegetation around the existing wetlands\, but also creating a new planned wetland you see on the left hand of this screen to expand the inner title zones over on that VA. \nA property and HC Harvey has been doing the work on those 2 projects as well. And so just to look at that in this air photo\, you can see the those VA wetlands\, you see that the heron. \nHooker rookery right there in the middle of the side the least turn loafing area over to the left there is some habitat value currently at DPA Park with the bottom edge of the intertidal rocky shoreline and also the mudflats out there. \nBut if you just kind of diagram all that stuff that’s existing and we also put in here the expanded marsh and then overlay the proposed DPA park wetlands and upland vegetation. \nYou can see that how the whole thing kind of becomes one bigger complex. All sort of working together. So the subtitle area will be look like this. \nThis native. Vegetation\, the upland coastal upland areas. Looks like this. All things that we’re familiar with. \nSome of the plant species that HD Harvey is recommending things that are familiar pickleweed and cord grass and the glass ward and eel grass and see. \nThere’s transition planting and should come up a little higher and then the upland. Plant materials. \nSo take you on a quick tour now from north to south. Zooming in a little bit on the plan. \nSo there’s that the barbecue trellis area\, they’re right in the middle\, there’s the beach area with the terrace\, the nature play area\, there’s another large group picnic area that’s to the west and then these 3 nodes of like smaller picnic spaces and then the overlook that will have these interpretive panels. \nWhich show another view again to see it there. And then a rendering from the overlook. We’re looking at incorporating the interpretive story into the railing that goes all around it. \nMoving to the middle\, there’ll be a bridge. Where we remove some of the existing paving\, create a bridge where the Martian let is. \nView from that and then down in the what we call the learning lab and all these kind of big Blob things that you see on top of the payment call these seating slabs. \nThat’s where we’re proposing to take some of the big plants that we’re going to kind of harvest out of the existing paving and repurpose them. \nFor\, seating elements and sculptural elements. And then also you see the\, space there at the end. \nSo. A view of the learning lab. With the steel rails in it\, the intertidal area. \nAnd\, and then lastly\, a view from one of the higher upland overlooks looking back. \nSo that’s where we are. We’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan. \nWe’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan. \nWe’re hoping to get to 30% design. This spring and with that assist the city and going after more grant money with\, AJA and others and really looking forward to hearing. \nYour thoughts and comments about how to make this better and also hopefully hearing your endorsement. For us moving this project forward. \nThank you. Okay\, thank you both. Justin and Kevin. Excellent presentation. \nAnd I\, it’s a. It is a very exciting and very significant project. So I’m thrilled that you are all here with your team and associated folks from the community as well because it’s a significant evening for us to have this project with us. \nSo we’ll move to clarifying questions\, from. The project presentation. We’ll just perhaps move along the line here. \nGary\, do you have any questions? \nSure. Yeah. Thank you. That was a wonderful presentation. \nI’m just curious context wise because it’s an opportunity for us to all learn something about the bay edge and context. \nJust curious\, who are the? Users today and what do you anticipate? You know\, in the future given the status of\, a\, to point\, you know\, what projects have been completed recently and what do you see in the pipeline? \nAnd and then maybe just one other thing those very large hangers that Kevin referred to for a second and they’re shown as being\, I think\, being flooded in the recently near future is their plans for those buildings. \nThank you\, Gary\, for your questions. The current users\, out here at all\, to point\, like I said\, the community\, even though it is sort of undeveloped\, is actively using this. \nThere are with the reason projects built out in what we call site a with a housing out there there’s a tremendous amount of people living here now. \nThere’s restaurants amount of people living here now. There’s restaurants\, there’s breweries. \nIf you\, now with a new ferry terminal connection to this area\, it’s become incredibly active. \nSo it also with the first phase of C plane lagoon promenade. We’re also working with radium who has regular performances out there currently. \nI’ll\, to point collaborative is located\, within walking distance of this site. \nThey’re sort of our\, it’s a very low income area and an underserved community. \nWe are also in the process of starting construction on our reshape project. Which is going to help both take care of our older housing units that are out there that are serving the underserved but also expand that and also provide different services out there like the\, a library branch is going to be out there\, but also they’re building as part of that project\, this barn employment center training center part of that that’s going to \nbe built out as part of that. And then as the rest of the master plan for the base build out\, there’s going to be just a lot more residents and businesses out there using this park and getting access to this property. \nSo encouraging people to get out their sea nature\, be connected to it\, and then addressing your concern about the sea level rise. \nSo part of the master plan infrastructure plan that continues out and around at the edge of D Pave Park where you saw the elevated part with the picnic and terrace all that promenade going out to Deepave Park and then continuing out north and around the entire Alameda point will be a raised levy system in order to protect those old hanger buildings that you see there. \nAnd many of those are not vacant currently today. There we have active uses in them\, different businesses\, and we’re actually looking about expanding those. \nSo that’s who we’ll be using in the future. Okay\, thank you. Stefan\, any questions? \nYeah\, thank you for the presentation. I really appreciate it. I have one question sort of about. \nI guess the stewardship and management. Of the space and sort of how that actually might relate to. \nThe management of the other public spaces around in this in this vicinity. Are there special needs here that you’re hoping to accommodate as this sort of built out? \nOkay. Thank you. Yeah\, so\, you know\, as part of this process\, we’re also working on a stewardship group with\, you know\, as part of this process\, we’re also working on a stewardship group with Albie to Point Collaborative\, really trying to get at a stewardship group with Albany to Point Collaborative\, I’ll be to point collaborative\, really trying to get at environmental justice and \ngetting\, really trying to get at environmental justice and getting\, a workforce trained to help do this. \nWe understand that this is not going to be a workforce trained to help do this. We understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. \nWe understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, we understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. \nSo there’s going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. So there’s going to be a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a work program and trying to do that to reach out to the community and that unders \nOkay\, thank you\, Cody. Clarifying questions. Yeah\, per se\, I think it’s extraordinary. \nPlace to build a park. Working at this scale in the bays. Rare\, especially in an adaptive retreat that I think could serve as is an example regionally and you know around the world. \nI was curious about the the longer term. Resilience for 2\,100 protection and you alluded towards. \nYou know at such time the city would decide whether or not or how to go about providing access out to the to the end of the point that would be outside of the area protected by the levy\, I understand. \nBut\, yeah\, I’m just curious if strategies or any additional thoughts have been developed that weren’t included in the presentation. \nOr if that’s something that you intend to address as we get closer to that scenario. I believe as we continue project development as we look at that\, we’ll definitely need to do\, further studies of how that levy\, how the whole levy system will interact\, will be looking at the adaptive ways in the future\, whether or not the height out continuing around the park\, but also that access continuing out to \nthe waterway as to what height\, what we need to build it at. I think that we have the preliminary ideas around it\, but I think we need to do\, we’ll be doing more as we continue to develop this project. \nAnd as we get to that\, 2\,100\, you know\, between now and then\, you know\, there’s be so much to anticipate that I think\, you know\, working on positive strategies and really trying to think that through will be part of the rest of this project as we continue to move forward. \nThank you. Leo\, any questions? Sure. Thank you. \nAnd like others\, I wanna thank you for the presentation. I think it’s always wonderful to see a very thorough presentation about a project. \nThat’s as important as this. And really gonna contribute a significant amount of area back to public access. \nSo thank you. I had really maybe 2 questions. Or 2 areas of questions. One is about hydrology and second is about access. \nSo on the hydrology side\, I know you\, Kevin and others have done this kind of work extensively. \nI would like to understand that the hydrology of these inlets and the way the targets work that those areas will continue to be flesh and fleshed out and remain healthy and how that your thoughts behind that. \nAnd then secondly about access. We can see from the plans that there’s certain amount of seating along that length. \nWould be helpful to understand what is the sort of interval. Is it comfortable for people to walk all the way out? \nThey might need places to perch and to sit as well as are there specific types of seating\, you know\, this is a former air base. \nSo presumably it’s pretty windy and are there opportunities for some seating not all but some that might have a little bit of wind or purchase for people who wanna come here for bird watching. \nCause it sounds like that’s a real opportunity. So any fine-tuning about that kind of access would be appreciated. \nOkay\, great. Hi\, hydrology. We\, ESA is on our team doing the hydraulic\, hydrological analysis. \nSo they are feeling pretty comfortable with the title prism coming in out of here and there have been analyzing the amount of scour and everything and make sure that it’s all going to work feeling good. \nMoffat and Nichols also on our team. We do have a little bit of wave erosion threat in here because the ferry coming in and out generates these little waves that just kind of lap out the shoreline. \nSo\, but we think we have a strategy that everybody’s really comfortable with in the short term\, but also a sea level rise comes up so we don’t have. \nAn erosion problem later. So a long story short is we’re on that. We’re and at you know\, at the 30% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now. \nWe think we’re in good shape with the hydrology. And at the 30% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now\, we think we’re in good shape with the hydrol On the seating. \nIt’s only\, you know\, it’s only about 1\,700 feet. Long from one edge of this to the other you saw when I showed those scale comparisons. \nSo it’s about a 7 min walk. And I think we have\, I don’t remember\, 27. \nSeating plants or something like there’s a lot of seating out here and they’re both these big concrete plants\, but there’s also a whole bunch of benches everywhere benches with backs and armrests and more convectional seating. \nSo I think Leo that there’s going to be a plenty of seating in terms of like when you need to sit and take a rest and stuff like that. \nWe also have been pretty Okay\, careful to get seating oriented toward the different views and to have some of it behind. \nThe the mounded upland scrub areas. So by the time you get a little bit of topography and vegetation\, the benches down low enough to where you’re going to be tucked in out of the wind. \nWe are constrained somewhat by not being able to have tall elements. That encourage predator birds to perch on them and then. \nAnd then that creates some conflicts with the least turn site. So. And we’re trying to frankly kind of keep\, I’m trying to keep everything low also out here and to not have too many design elements. \nTo that that in my mind potentially start to change what this park is about like if we can make it just essentially about Nature. \nAnd being on an old runway. You know\, that’s like that’s enough\, I think. \nThat’s a really compelling place to be. I’m in an old runway in nature and without adding too many bells and whistles to it. \nThanks. That helps. And I think that that overarching principle is really spot on. So thank you. \nOkay\, thank you\, Leo. Tom\, any clarifying questions? \nYeah\, Kevin\, I guess\, I mean\, great project\, obviously. I think you just answered maybe my question\, which was\, you know\, there was\, I noticed there was a board question about shelter for people. \nOut here and I guess that means wind but also sun. And There being no trees here. I guess the reason there’s no trees is because that provides a Burch not damages the. \nHabitat but I just is there. Anything that could or should be done for somebody’s got a Very fair skinned little baby out there all the way at the end. \nThat kind of thing. I don’t know if that’s needed or appropriate with the discussion has been and the other question is how close is nearest bathroom? \nThe bathroom is near the parking. So it’s 1\,700 feet from the far south end. You know\, it’s at the it’s at the entrance end. \nBut again. \nOkay. So\, 7\, 7 min walk. \nRight\, so 7. So I think it’s\, it’s not too far. And You know\, again\, when we thought about shade and treat your correct on trees and the perching. \nA predator perching so that that was that. And when we went out to places like\, Heron’s head and\, you know\, when you walk along the marsh at Chrissy field\, again\, which I showed in the scale comparisons\, it just seems like. \nIt’s not that. It’s\, it’s\, I think that shades not neat\, really needed. \nI think it’ll be it’ll be good. \nOkay. \nOkay\, thanks\, Tom. I just have 3 questions. The first one I just want to clarify. What the ground conditions are expected to be like when you. \nRemove the concrete and start\, repurposing it\, recycling it. Do you expect to\, find contamination or what What’s likely? \nThere’ll probably be some we’re doing up there’s been some testing that’s done out there and some remediation that’s been done out there and some remediation that’s been done already by the Navy. \nWe are underway with more further testing right now just to make sure that we have a good understanding of what is going to be in there. \nSo if we have to do any further remediation that we can capture that in our cost estimates\, in our grant funding requests. \nSo if things are found that are in conflict with what it is that’s being proposed\, they’ll be remediated or removed. \nRight. I mean\, the question behind that really is\, This is conceptual and\, you know\, moving into\, design right now\, but\, you know. \nWhether they could be flexibility to actually avoid some of these areas once you\, you know\, in the design. \nYes\, and we\, and we have done that based on what we think might be there. We have\, you know\, the\, and the bigger conflicts with the contaminations\, potential contaminations are not so much human. It’s the interaction with the bay. \nSo have it’s the related to the Brit. So we’re trying to like work around that if we can\, but we don’t. \nExactly know what’s where. Okay. Like a second question. Is dealing with the beach and\, appreciated the presentation and scale comparison. \nCan you talk a little bit more about what the intended uses are on the beach is that it tended to be a place you swim from or you know what’s being the feedback so far from the community and then the question of resilience of beach related to fairy waves and so on and you know what what the how far you’ve gotten studies. \nAs far as any type of erosion\, so there’s a little beach now that’s there. \nThere’s a little sandy beach that more sand gets deposited right there and so we’re basically just working with that grade. \nAnd laying it back a little bit deeper and you know we’re gonna have to import some sand to bring it in there so we’re trying to stay with what’s there so that we don’t create any new erosion problems. \nAnd so\, Thanks we’re in good shape there in terms of that approach. I know there was a question from staff about the long term. \nAdaptability of the beach. And\, what to do about that and I\, think\, that our assumption is what when the water comes up another 3 feet it won’t be a beach there or if it is just gonna be at the lowest tides\, you know\, it’s gonna be underwater like a lot of the other beaches in the world. \nThe intended use is just a small recreational. Pocket you know I think people will go down there and sit on the beach and I think people probably will go swimming out there. \nAs Justin mentioned\, the primary kayak launch and small craft launch is further down in that second phase of the promenade. \nSo we imagine that that’s the place where most of the kind of launching activity is gonna occur. \nBut I think it’s gonna be a popular recreational amenity to just run around on the sand a little bit like the tiny beach at Clipper Cove is. \nRight. I looked just so\, question. I just wanted to clarify. The on the plan that’s on the screen right now the yellow color on the main walkway is decomposed granted. Is that correct? \nThat follow is about 25% of the length and then it moves to concrete. So my question is really to do with accessibility and safety. \nWheelchairs etc. you know baby strollers are you comfortable that the I mean\, well\, I went\, but just I just wanted to clarify that. \nSo that is. Decomposed. Correct. Stabilized crush stone. Right. \nAnd then the following question to that is on the vision plan. I saw that there at least in the package we received that there was originally some looping of the trail secondary paths and it was a just wanted to hear a bit more on your thinking. \nAbout you know\, a 1\,700 long linear path versus loops and so on. We took the loops out when we all toured Heron’s head with our ecology team and we observed that the place that had the most habitat was the place that was furthest away from people. \nPeople and dogs and so forth. And so we thought\, well\, if we want to have habitat on the west edge of our wetlands and we do loop out there it’s going to be counterproductive. \nAnd so I’m better to be a little further away from the birds\, but seabirds than to be over there and have no birds. \nOkay\, thank you. Okay\, I think that concludes our clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment now and Any members of the public attending the meeting in person? \nPlease notify the board secretary if you would like to make a comment. And as we said before\, if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, you can raise your virtual hand to speak and please do that. \nAt this time. And if you’re calling in. You can also call in to make a comment you will be called in the order that your hand was raised and you will have a 3 min Period to speak. \nUri will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comment. \nAnd as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting\, if you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project. \nPlease call or email Ashley Tomlin. So\, you will hand to you now. Thank you. \nOkay. \nAnd you will have 3 min to speak. \nHello\, my name is Jeff Maker. I live within walking distance of where DPA Park is going to be. \nI’m here also as a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance. I’m a co chair of the East Bay Conservation Committee and I’m also on the Youth Advisory Committee for Education in the East Bay. \nI’m a lifelong birder. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea. \nI can’t wait to see more birds out there. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea. I can’t wait to see more birds out there. \nI go out there frequently the bird and see a lot of other burgers out there. One of my concerns is about\, access for fishermen. \nWherever fishermen go. And of course it’s not all the fishermen. I have nothing against personally\, but they often leave tankled fishing line. \nAnd that is a big hazard for birds. I would much prefer that fishermen are not allowed out on the jetty on the far end. \nAlso I walk out\, Pass Ensignel Beach on the jetty out there and there’s often a lot of trash left out there by Mostly fishermen because those are the people I see out there. \nAnd that attracts rats. And rats will wreak havoc with the birds if they’re roosting out there. \nAnd especially if there are nesting birds out there\, rats will. Eat eggs\, chicks. \nAdult birds\, etc. So. I would caution against allowing fishing out on the far end of the thing. \nThere are fishermen out there\, but they’re not very many. There are many other places where they can go. \nOut over by the Hornet by Ensignel Beach. etc. So. \nMy recommendation. Would be to not have fishermen there. I think it’d be better for the birds\, which is one of the major purposes of the park is to have a nature center. \nAnd I think it would interfere with the birds. So that’s my recommendation. Thank you. \nMarjorie Powell\, you will have 3 min to speak. \nThank you. My name is Marjorie Powell. I am an Alameda resident. \nI very frequently go birding out on this. Section of concrete and around the other. Section of seaplane lagoon. \nI have personally seen more than 100 species of birds out in that area. It is an area. Currently with only concrete\, but with the. \nLand in the VA wetlands behind and the water within seaplane lagoon. It is very well used by birds. \nI anticipate that once there is marshland there\, there will be more birds nesting there. Once you have birds nesting\, you have a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. \nOne of those is dogs. I think it’s vitally important that dogs not be allowed within this park. \nIf there is any interest in encouraging birds\, particularly nesting birds\, the dogs will. Eliminate a lot of that because they scared the birds off the nest even when the dogs are on leashes. \nNow I’m not opposed to dogs but there are numbers of places within Let me the point. As well as the entire Alameda Island where dogs are very welcome. \nI think just shouldn’t be one of them. I’d like to echo the fishing issue. I almost every time I leave the D to pay park area I have fishing line that I’ve picked up from the ground in my back pocket to go find one of the places I can dump it to be recycled. \nFishing line and fish hooks are anathema to birds. There are all kinds of problems with birds. \nGetting tangled in fishing line or getting caught with fishing nets. So that’s a real concern. \nBut I also think that there is a concern about trash. And any time you have people\, particularly people out having picnics or using the parks in other ways\, you get trash. \nAnd if you’ve tried to take trash out of marshlands\, it’s very difficult. \nAll you have to do is look at any other wetland park\, I think it’s important to have good trash bins and to make sure that there are. \nThat the trash doesn’t move into the wetland areas. But I’m excited to see all these developments and looking forward to the sea level rise\, changing the patterns of the water there. \nThank you. Thank you. \nKaren Miller\, will you approach the podium? \nGood evening. My name is Karen Miller and I am a long time Alameda resident. I am also a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance. \nAnd I’m also a member of the very active paddle boarding. Neighborhood in Alameda. \nSo in regards to the park itself. I am very excited about this and\, I just wanted to bring up one thing about making sure that the access for people with disabilities is really carefully looked at. \nHope that the pass and the access will be there for people. Who have need to use a wheelchair. \nI also\, I live right next to Crab Cove and I know that some of the East Bay regional parks have specialized wheelchairs that people can reserve and use that have special wheels that make it easier for them to use them on the pass. \nAnd also people who don’t have wheelchairs of their own but have disabilities that make it difficult for them to get around in parks. \nCan use those so they can also get out there and really enjoy. The park and I think given that the VA is gonna be so close\, I think it would be really healing for a lot of the people who are patients there to come out and to the park and we’d want to make sure that those patients also were able to fully use the park even given whatever disabilities they might have. \nAnd then also. With people who are in wheelchairs or where there’s benches and seating and stuff to make sure that any fences that are put in don’t have slats like right at your eye level when you’re sitting down by LC Romer\, bird sanctuary on shoreline\, the dock that goes out there. \nIf you’re sitting in a wheelchair\, you can’t see through the slots there on that dock. \nAnd that’s just one example of something that would be an easy fix. On behalf of the paddle boarding and kayaking community\, I’m so excited about having a new landing spot. \nThere’s probably maybe a half dozen of really specific public landing spots for the small craft in kayaks in Alameda. \nSo this will be. Very widely used by those communities and we’re very\, very excited about it. \nSo\, I think it’s a wonderful park and\, I’m really happy that we’re all here working on it. \nThank you. Thank you. \nRichard Banger and then Cheryl Nelson and Bry you’ll be next. \nThank you. My name is Richard Banger. I’m a resident of Alameda and I’ve in a long time advocate for this park going from. \nConceptual plan to master plan. And I’m thrilled that. The City Council recently approved the maximum plan by bringing to remove building 25 And I would say this should serve as an example for other cities around the bay. \nBecause it’s not just a building\, it’s a building that’s worth a lot of revenue. \nAnd someday it will be\, it would be worth a lot of money to sell. They’ve given that up. \nAnd for the environment\, for the future. And I think that is a remarkable. Achievement. \nThe\, the issue that I’d like to talk about tonight. \nIs the passage in the staff report. That refers to fencing and dogs. Says finally low cable and mesh fencing would border the central promenade. \nThe property line with the adjacent BA wetland. To prevent dogs and people from disturbing habitat areas. \nI would argue that best way to keep dogs from disturbing habitat areas is to not allow them in there in the first place. \nAnd I think. You need look no further than. Coyote Regional Park. In the South Bay where Yes\, it’s coyote hills and there’s a lot of hills\, but there’s also a lot of marsh area. \nAnd the rules specifically state no dogs. In the marsh area. So\, and also. The walkway that goes through that marsh area. \nIt doesn’t have any fencing on it. It’s just like a boardwalk. I mean\, yeah\, somebody could fall off into the water\, but. \nDoesn’t seem to be a problem. So\, and if you would have fencing. Well\, it wouldn’t just be the promenade. \nI mean\, where would you stop? I mean\, you’d have to have fencing so next to the tide pools. \nAnd then how do people go down there if they brought their dog? They could tie the dog up. So\, I mean\, it’s just not practical. \nFrom any angle to allow dogs in this park\, it’s a marshland. It’s a marshland and your your guidelines state\, well I’ve lost it on the screen but it states that you the policies The last bullet point stated that policy should not negatively affect wildlife. \nAnd management policies. And I would urge you to stipulate when the permit is issued that it’s state\, no dogs allowed. \nThat I think is necessary for the benefit of the wildlife there. So thank you very much. Thank you. \nOkay. Hi\, I’m Cheryl Nelson inbri and I was the supervising naturalist at Crab Cove for 26 years. \nAnd retired about 4 years ago. I’m now involved with the Golden Gate Audubon. \nAnd formerly Audubon\, now the Bird Alliance. And I’m also the co-chair of the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve. \nSo we just really applaud the city of Alameda for. Planning this park for taking it through the visioning process and we’re just really excited that this is going to be a wetland park that will welcome wildlife and can help to replace the more than 80% of wetlands that have been lost around the bay. \nAnd because of this being a wildlife park it just doesn’t make sense to have dogs roaming freely through it. \nAnd currently a lot of wildlife uses this park I’ve been watching nesting osprey. \nThat are in the park on the jetties that are one of them will be within this new park plan. \nAnd the osprey have been nesting there for about 10 years so they kind of alternated between the 2 jetties. \nAnd so we can already see\, you know\, the impact that additional fishing would have on that kind of bird life. \nAnd then also having the dogs roaming there\, you know\, that would reduce the number of bird species that could nest there. \nSo I just really encourage you to think about some of the details of this plan like that. And also\, if there were no dogs\, you wouldn’t have to have the fencing that went to the ground. \nYou could just have a boundary line for people to know that they shouldn’t go across. So thank you so much for the work that you’re doing for nature and for creating new habitat for wildlife as well as for people to enjoy. \nAnd thanks for letting me say my peace. Thank you. \nIrene Dieter\, please. \nHello board members. I am a resident of Alameda. I am one of the many residents of Alameda who have been really excited about this project. \nWe have been working on it for years. And I cannot find anyone in the city who is not looking forward to it. \nSo\, I want to just say that I hope that you do not underestimate. How important? \nHow significant\, how historic. How monumental this project is. And each of you get to be a part of this history making. \nThere are not many places. Where we have been able to adapt. To sea level rise while people get to enjoy the change. \nAnd I’m sure that you don’t have many projects that you were looking at that it’s being undeveloped versus developed. \nBut it’s being in a different context. And it is just so exciting. And I think that this project\, there’ll be many coastal communities around the country that will look at it. \nAnd for an example. Let alone around the world. To look at it and your names will be on this to make it the best it can be. \nAnd to move it forward. And I just think that this will be a project that so many different agencies and stakeholders will be involved with with getting funding for this. \nSo the more excitement and the more support that we have for this project\, the more the money will follow to make it a reality. \nSo I\, want to thank you for being a part of this historic event. Thank you. Thank you. \nChair\, we have 2 public comments online. The first person is Andy Mavoli. Apologize. \nHopefully I pronounce your name correctly. I am allowing you to speak and you have 3 min. \nGood evening. My name is Andy Mavoli and I’m speaking on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper. \nThank you for the opportunity to comment on this innovative Depave Park project. Baykeeper is a California nonprofit organization and submits these comments on behalf of its approximately 5\,000 members and supporters who live and or recreate in and around San Francisco Bay area. \nBaykeeper’s mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and to hold pleuters and government agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive. \nBeeekeeper has participated in the stakeholder group since the visioning plan for this progressive ecological park. \nAs one of the scientific leads\, we met with city staff and consultants to help describe the benefits of this park for the people of Lameda and Alameda’s wildlife\, including how it will help protect this community against climate change impacts. \nAs you know\, nearly 85% of San Francisco Bay’s historical wetlands have been destroyed by development. \nSo we are encouraged to see Alameda begin to rewild its shoreline and restore the many benefits wetlands can provide. \nAll right. Alan Mida should be applauded for designing and implementing this visionary park. \nWe hope that other cities will follow Alameda’s lead and rewild their shorelines\, creating buffers for sea level rise\, enhancing biodiversity\, increasing community resiliency to climate change and creating more shoreline access. \nWhen built Deepave Park can become the model for other cities to follow. Using nature-based solutions rather than hardening their shorelines to address climate change. \nWe encourage this design review board to support Deepave Park in its mission and design. Projects like this will truly support communities and nature as our climate crisis unfolds. \nThank you so much. \nThank you. \nOkay\, the next speaker is Come if you could date your first and last name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nYes\, we can. \nCan you hear me? Am I on? Thank you. My first name is Kami. \nLast name is Richards. I’m also an elevator resident. I feel a little bit lonely because I’m not going to speak wildly in favor of this. \nMy question is\, has anybody done research on how many? Least turns were losing to predator birds now. \nI mean\, there are buildings that have been there for 50 or 60 years. The least turn community seems to be doing okay. \nAnd here we are\, it sounds like we’re afraid to put up a 6 foot wind break. In the future. \nSo I\, it sounds like you’ve got a huge science team working on this. And I don’t know that we need to be horrified of. \nPlanting the tree or putting up a windbreak when you if you go and look at the buildings that are have been there since the Navy was there and the least turns have been there just as long. \nThat’s\, that’s my\, conceptually\, I like the idea of a park. \nI don’t think that it needs to be. Literally like walking on a runway. \nI think we could do better Thank you. \nThank you. And there are no more public comments. \nOkay\, well thank you for that and thank you to everyone who contributed comments tonight. I can see there’s a great deal of long-term. \nCommitment and passion about this project as one of the speakers mentioned that is really needed to bring it to reality. \nOkay\, we will now move to board discussion. And advice. And so we have all the board members present here. \nTom online. So Tom will make sure you contribute. The staff have asked us to consider 4 particular questions but as always I think we you know at this stage in the development of the the design I think you know bigger picture comments are also welcome from in our discussion. \nBut the full question is just to remind you\, the first question deals with the beach. And just you know is it appropriately designed to be usable and accessible. \nWe heard some details on that\, you know\, details about\, well\, is it\, Will it be expected to erode\, require regular nourishment\, so maintenance questions. \nDo the terrorist beach steps provide an equivalent water access experience when the beach is inundated due to sea level rise? \nSo we we heard the proponents talk about that. But. We should have some discussion on that\, question. \nThe second question deals with the adaptation approach that has been presented and the adequacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site\, which as you recall in the advocacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site\, which as you recall\, in the long term that that disappears. \nSo\, you know\, are there programs that have not been included in the long term adaptation plan that should be included or prioritized. \nSo it’s really a question about adaptation and program. And then question 3\, events and event frequency. \nWell\, actually I just want to read this as written. What events and event frequency would the board recommend as triggers? \nEG flooding events or observe sea level rise amounts for initiating sea level rise actions\, adaptation actions such as the elevated board walk. \nSo this is speaking to our. Our question that we deal with every time we look at a project. And then the final question\, do the public access uses of the southern portion of the site necessitate weather protection? \nIf so\, does the board have recommendations on how this could be provided while avoiding conflict with the adjacent habitat area. \nSo so these are the 4 questions that\, you know\, if you want to speak specifically to one of those that would be helpful to staff. \nAnd But if you also want to speak to any bigger. Points related to access. All the design. \nPlease go hit. So. Gary\, do you want to lead off? \nSure\, I can do that. Thank you. Okay\, well. Maybe just start with. \nThe beach comment You know\, I do\, I think that\, you know\, it’s great to have the beach. \nIf you’re bringing in sand\, then yeah\, that implies that there’s some maintenance involved. \nI think it’s worth Considering what is the beach become if the maintenance is not there to keep it replenished. \nAnd I think that’d be a great study to do and just. You said there’s some sand there. Does it just go away? \nDoes it just get flooded? But I don’t know\, I think we’re entering into an era where\, you know\, maintenance is getting really difficult and every city is seems to be overwhelmed with the maintenance they they already have. \nSo I love the beach\, but I’m not. I don’t know the idea of having to truck in sand on a regular basis doesn’t seem\, you know\, maybe that appealing or. \nI don’t know how realistic that is. Gary\, can we just jump maybe to Cody? \nCause what was your reaction to the materials we’ve got on the beach? Do you need to see more detail or? \nWhat’s your what’s your reaction given your? Other beaches along the southern\, edge of Alameda that seem to self-maintain relatively successfully. \nThat this area is unique and that it’s so bound by hardscape. That I’m not sure where the source of sand\, where the sand is going\, where it’s coming from\, but I do know that along Crab Cove\, you see the beach change over time and as as with some exceptions\, maintain itself. \nRight. Okay\, that’s helpful. Thank you. So\, you know\, beyond that. \nDetail. I mean\, I think the adaptation plan is exemplary. I love the way the project. \nIs reusing materials on site and embraces the change as the adaptation and the fact that it can improve or become more of a habitat while also adapting. \nIs brilliant and I think it’s realistic and it’s pragmatic. And the idea that the you know\, the concrete walkway can be becomes a foundation for a future pathway that can easily be raised. \nI mean\, to me that just is so beautifully logical. That I\, I think I have a lot of confidence in what’s been. \nPresented and you know\, as far as the comments by the speakers\, I mean\, thank you for your comments. \nI\, there’s almost nothing I heard that I don’t agree with a hundred percent I mean I think that urban areas are overrun with with with dogs and you know if the fishing is a problem I think I don’t know what is our ability to comment or mandate\, you know\, no dogs or no fishing or whatever\, but I think it should be considered and I think you know it kind of in a way is that. \nCross purposes with the main mission of the of the parks. So I I really agree with that and and I think that there can be some some open spaces public open spaces in the Bay Area that don’t have dogs. \nI think that’s okay. I think it’s \nGary\, can I chime in? Others please weigh in too. I think one of the beautiful aspects of the design. \nWith the 1\,700 foot long walkway out to where the Guys are currently parking their cars and fishing. \nI think there may be some self selection. I mean\, I do support having some. Clear guidance and\, well\, not even guidance mandate if that’s if that’s\, if that can be done. \nEffectively and I think it probably can but I’m really hopeful that the people who currently fish there and I support people being able to fish and as people made the comments you know I think they agree if people want to fish there should be places that they can fish from but this is not one of those places and I think the design is going to really help. \nAccomplish that and the fishermen can go somewhere else where they can. Pack their car and fish. So I\, and\, I think\, you know\, the question about dogs\, obviously that needs some real\, guidance on that point\, but. \nBut I like the fact that the design is assisting in some of these objectives. Yeah\, that’s a great point. \nSo I do\, I do think it’s an exemplary project. I think that it will serve as an example. \nYou know\, we see a lot of communities where\, you know\, we’re reviewing sites. Communities that are doubling down on marginal sites for long-term development that will ensure expensive mitigation for as long as you know we can see into the future. \nAnd the fact that this project is seeing it differently I think is a amazing inspiration for the area. So I’ll leave it at that. \nThank you. Oh\, Stefan. Yeah\, I went just\, again\, thank you for a great presentation. \nAnd this is maybe the second or third. Project that we’ve seen that is sort of thinking about. \nThe shoreline as an opportunity to sort of subtract and revert a portion back to nature. And I think that’s just really\, again\, exemplary. \nThis is clearly sort of the largest scaled. Proposal that we’ve seen. I want to see something about public access. \nAnd I also want to say something else\, but just to try to sort of put a Put a bow on this discussion that we’re having. \nI think that the party of public access is really strong and I really command that. And\, the idea that you would maintain sort of equitable public access for the entire length of the park. \nI really appreciate that. This idea of creating a public space that can nurture. In an increase in habitat. \nFrom what we see there today. It seems really difficult to make that decision today about Should this. Should this park be? \nPrimarily for birds or primarily for people or primarily\, for fishermen\, fisher people\, however you want to say it. \nIn my mind what seems more important is that there’s sort of a management structure and a stewardship structure that can actually adapt. \nThe use of the park over time. In the same way that the users of the space today didn’t have access to it 50 years ago. \nBecause it wasn’t public at all. And so I would sort of wanna be careful with the like. \nMaybe predetermining the balance. Between public access. And wildlife compatibility today. But I think it’s really important that that’s monitored. \nIn the same way that DGNRA and other stewards around the bay have been actively making these decisions to respond to. \nIncreases in habitat populations or challenges\, the certain habitat populations and sort of how that actually mixes with dogs and the success of places. \nThere’s certainly value to. \nBringing public access and bringing people to a space where they can actually see the functioning of the bay. \nWhen we understand how limited those are. And just the value of that for a population that needs to learn and understand. \nWhat’s happening to the Bay. I think it’s hard to. I think it’s hard for us to lose sight of that. \nThe other thing I think that I’m struggling with is I shouldn’t say struggling because I think this is sort of a challenge is this idea that The site is being reinterpreted. \nFrom a runway. Environment to something different that we’re seeing today. And so I’m curious about sort of the historic orientation to that. \nAnd this idea that you can actually now be in the space that used to be the sort of\, it’s totally fabricated. \nIt’s this military structure and you’re sort of Taking pieces of that away and creating this nature\, but How do we interpret that? \nHow do we learn about it? Are there? Is that exclusive to the learning center? Is there other places that that can be interpreted. \nIs there sort of. Like. You know\, this kind of interpretation where somebody’s telling you how to view the site\, is there other stuff about like at how you interpret the ground plane and where you just know where you learn and sort of understand. \nI can look at the concrete and I understand what that used to be. Versus look at the Deacon Post granted and I understand that that’s actually what’s been changed. \nThat whole sort of like morphological interpretation\, I think there’s a huge value. To that because \nWe don’t\, we don’t necessarily realize people not realize that this portion of the bay was just bay. \nAnd so now you’re creating like a second nature which. You can tell people about the history of what people made and then decided to subtract. \nThat’s also sort of makes it very unique and valuable\, but that historic layer and who manages that\, who tells about it\, who has that expertise I think is. \nReally important and to Gary’s point this starts to get beyond like what cities do. So I think it’s just really important to continue to kind of foster the right stewardship for these kinds of places. \nI’m gonna stop talking there\, but that’s what’s on my mind. Yeah\, can I can I just say really quickly? \nI mean one of the things I really love is is that it preserves that one piece of concrete which really maintains the historic\, you know\, military edge\, you know\, that crisp industrial edge. \nWell\, wilding the site so you’re kind of having it both ways. I mean there’s a pretty strong you know pedestrian runway now that that\, you know\, keeps that edge intact for. \nA very long time. \nOkay. Cody\, comments. \nYeah\, I\, it makes me think of a couple of adjacencies. One\, I know the site really well. \nI taught myself to write a motorcycle on this pavement that you’ll be removing. \nI’m still a big fan of removing the thing but it’s it’s a heavily used site there have not all the activities that have happened there have been things that are building community. \nThere’s been a fair amount of \nRequirements for law enforcement\, right? Maintenance and law enforcement. I thought it was going to be a sideshow preserve for some time and I applaud the city for not making it a Seijo preserve. \nI think it’s a genuinely exciting site in a in an area that. It has a lot of direct community benefits in an area that where the community is growing. \nI’m the civil engineer\, so I have to ask simple engineering questions. It’s difficult for even those of us in the design community to really understand what sea level rise resilience looks like and what it will look like after we’re gone. \nBut the sections that we draw. You know they’re they’re based on the best available data we have. \nAnd that will change over time and the implementations will adapt as we get better data. But I\, when I see these plans and I look at how the\, the park would integrate into these future levies. \nYou know\, it’s the future levies that always I think make us scratch our hands is what is what is that ultimately really look and feel like? \nSo it’s not necessarily a comment on the design of this part\, which I think is really. Really thoughtful and already captivating. \nBut it’s more a thought of how does this\, how does the adaptation of this community over time. \nThe adjacencies to this park and this park. What does it really start to look and feel like? \nBecause it’s. I just don’t think any of us really get it. And whether you’re in East Palo Alto. \nOr you’re out of the\, to point. What does it look like when we build these levies up to 16 and a half? \nAnd\, I don’t necessarily have a comment on how the park is laid out to best. \nMake that up\, that adaptation is\, thoughtful as possible. But\, yeah\, it’s sort of the first thing that comes to mind is I see this\, levy shooting out to the west and shooting out to the east. \nTrying to wrap my brain around\, you know\, what does that really look and feel like over time? So. \nI’ll stop my comments there. Otherwise I’m a I’m a big proponent. \nI’ve spent more time on the specific site than I care to admit. I haven’t fished from there. \nI haven’t burned rubber in my car\, but I can when I first saw the plans I was very excited about what this place can be. \nSo Cudi\, I have a follow-up question. You know\, we were asking question 3. \nYou know\, what would be a trigger for initiating sea level rise adaptation measures and I’m just curious\, are you starting to really Analyze that at this stage. \nWell\, I think we all rely on the best available data. Right? And when we project out\, to 2050 and beyond the accuracy the precision of that data diminishes. \nRight\, so I think that the. We have to have some faith in how the design community will continue to. \nTo respond to to the available data. And we’re not it’s not gonna be an isolated case where we see it that will be a point. \nWe’re gonna see it everywhere. So I think it’s probably really difficult to assign prescriptive measures for any any given site\, but I do think that I mean\, guess there’s a lot of faith in the future communities of leaders and designers. \nTo be as thoughtful or more thoughtful than we’re able to be now about how to respond to the evidence. \nContinue to collect and and review data and then respond in time because you’re not gonna you’re not gonna be able to build this elevated platform. \nWhen it’s underwater\, you know\, half the year. Yeah\, I mean\, I’ve got to believe that the The tree is going to be centered around valuation of risk\, you know\, people. \nCould\, you know\, could injure themselves or be killed\, you know\, fall in water\, you know\, and then sort of frequency of inundation and I don’t know how much work is being done at this point. \nBut I’m sure cities around the Bay are thinking about that even though it is still some years off. \nCan I just mention maybe a really good precedent for that would be the\, Sausalito Mill Valley path\, which accommodates thousands of bikers I think on weekends and it floods you know regularly I mean you didn’t use staff to check the tides before you went for bicycle ride\, but now that’s getting more common. \nSo at some point\, you know\, it’s going to get inconvenient and\, and I think it’s self regulating. \nThat’s a great point\, Gary. Thank you. I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the public that have joined us this evening. \nI think it’s always a really important part for us to hear one’s voice. As residents\, neighbors\, users. \nI think it’s really important. And one of the things I think that really struck me was \nIt really made me wonder about the term or the usage of the word park. Because I think it’s a bit of a loaded word and I think that we think about these things in certain ways. \nBecause I think a lot of the conversation has been about and I think it’s very important one is How do we strike this balance? \nBetween creating a place that’s good for people and a place that’s really puts nature out first. \nAnd I think\, you know\, when most people think of parks\, they think of about being supporting people’s people like human activity first. \nAnd I think with this project. I think part of what we love so much about it is that it is trying to allow people access to witness natural processes at work and it’s really about nature first and I think that’s really important and and I think we need to think about it as being nature first and I that’s where I think we really appreciate about it. \nSo I agree if there’s ways to. Manage the human activities to try and allow nature to be. \nReally protected and to succeed on its own. I think that’s really important if we can. \nAnd find a way forward. On the question of adaptation. I think it’s\, I think there’s another thing about parks\, which again\, maybe I don’t know if it’s nineteenth or eighteenth century thinking but there’s a sense of the the permanence of these things that the desire for them to be something that is accessible to us and to future generations all time. \nAnd I think really we’re in a world today and particularly in a place like this where sea level rise happens that adaptability is this notion of adaptability or resilience. \nI think it’s really about the changeability that nature is constantly in flux and particularly these days and perhaps the flux is something that’s human-induced but The fact that the park could retreat could. \nBe adjusted by future generations\, I think is actually appropriate. It’s the way we should be thinking about the edges. \nOf where we build where it meets nature. We should really allow for that line to be a soft one. \nYou know\, nature doesn’t very rarely works in hard lines. It’s always gradual transitions from one thing to the other. \nAnd I think that’s what this park is trying to do\, even the beach\, I think. How’s that opportunity to be something that It’s there probably because there’s some currents or some sands that are allowing that to be deposited into. \nExtend that a bit\, but I don’t what I’m not hearing and I don’t think we should be is. \nOh\, it’s gonna be permanent. Something that’s going to be protected forever and ever. It’s if it gets in the data eventually then that’s what nature wanted. \nRight? So I think that kind of soft approach is really what this project calls for and the way we should be thinking about these kinds of spaces these days. \nSo. And then\, so when it comes to this question of event frequency and triggers\, I think it’s really. \nWe’re gonna have to see what. I’m hoping that future generate we’ve learned enough to know that. \nWe really need to take our cues in these kinds of places from what nature is telling us and to listen and not try to. \nPut the human stamp on it. So\, I think we have to put a little bit of faith in our future leaders to to be sensitive and to recognize that. \nGood. Thank you. Tom\, comments. On these questions. \nYeah. \nBut everybody said everything already. Okay\, I would just touch for a minute. On the assumptions that are built into both. \nHe’s big levees that Cody was talking about. And the. Continual assumption about what a park program is supposed to be. \nAnd that we treat every park. With the same list of of concerns and demands on And\, I don’t think it should be that way. \nI think this one here in terms of. How it reaches apart? Should be very\, it’s a very raw and almost severe idea here\, which is all we’re doing is removing and chopping up concrete. \nIt has a coolness\, but that you don’t wanna lose by softening too much. First I was worried\, but I think that It needs to just be dim\, demonstrating the the rawness of ripping up concrete and stacking in a few places and then declare a really clear purpose that it’s going to be\, I think in this case\, Why not test it for the birds for the for the least turn? \nIt’s easily adaptable to something else that doesn’t work\, but it’s going to have a clear purpose. \nYou don’t know why it’s there\, I think. I would navigate for very\, very heavy on. \nYou know\, making all that work. They were the dogs\, get rid of the fishing. Give it the best chance it can and then if it’s not so great. \nIn the future\, you don’t know\, you can. Change it. Also I thought\, Stefan raised an interesting point\, you know\, about interpretation. \nWho’s going to tell this story? I don’t know. Who’s got money or or timer? \nExperts use to do that. The could be some something done like that. There could be something that BCDC concerned itself with\, you know. \nBcds was started. By people that were saving the bay and then Ron Blatman\, you\, and\, our friend Ron Blatman. \nHmm. \nHe\, he\, he did that series saving the bay. And it was about about. \nNot fill it. And this is about something different\, like saving the bay too. Ought to tell the story. \nThere ought to be somebody that’s doing this that’s kind of in charge that this is like the documentarian of the this and this is a great example of one chapter in a in a thing like that and I think it could be the charge of BCDs to think about. \nWho’s telling this story and how? It’s critically important to advancing the us. That’s it. \nThanks\, Tom. Okay\, I just want to make a couple of comments myself. And I don’t want to repeat what other people have said because it’s been said very elegantly. \nI do wanna comment just pick up on question for the question of public access and You know\, I’m really persuaded by what we heard that the\, you know\, It is about nature. \nConstructed elements should be secondary. I don’t think that we need to be too concerned about\, you know. \nStructures for weather protection. I don’t think this is that kind of park. I think it’s it’s something else and there are Fabulous\, really great. \nAreas of public space that are being built. Just me here where there’s protection and lots of opportunities for people who want shade and so on. \nSo. You know\, this is\, this is about something else. So I don’t have a concern that\, you know\, I think the design is going in the right direction\, with that approach. \nAnd I also\, I mean\, just\, I was just thinking about how often we are. Reviewing typically reviewing Bay Trail and we talk about safety of\, you know\, commuter cycling or cycling versus pedestrians. \nAnd maintenance and operations. And again\, I think in this park\, if this is something that is not so relevant here\, not relevant actually. \nSo there is a a generously proportioned space that goes 1\,700 feet. Out along beer to the water. \nAnd people will. So-organized and people will It’s their have their children with their bicycles\, they can be on the bicycles\, if they’re walking they can be walking. \nAnd I think that is perfectly. Fine in\, I don’t think we need to have\, you know\, strips of planting to delineate. \nThe bicycles and so on. And\, because to the point about stewardship. \nI see. Time. This park will evolve\, these spaces will evolve. So I’m not really concerned about the issues that we are often quite concerned about for for different reasons. \nThere is one thing that I want to emphasize that\, someone spoke about\, at some lengths. \nI\, do think that the the distance is fairly significant for people who have accessibility concerns I think just being very confident that people can get across a long stretch of decomposed granite and that that decompose granite will be maintained data quickly and be stable and so on is important. \nIt sounds like a real detail at this stage\, but I think you know\, the big moves of\, surfacing\, being established at this point in the design. \nSo. I would just encourage you to think about that. And Yeah\, I\, the points are being made about the beach. \nI was just looking at these questions for anything else. We should be\, commenting on\, but I think everything has been said very clearly. \nSo look\, I think that concludes. The board discussion. Do you want me to highlight critical points or are you fine\, Ashley\, with what’s been said? \nGreat. One thing I know. Yes. Yeah\, I just the interpretation thing that Stefan and Tom\, we’re talking about. \nAfter working with the Torium for 15 years. I mean\, I think I’m a proponent of. \nTo some extent of non didactic learning like self-discovery and I was thinking about how the marina green You know\, at a low tide you can see\, you know\, the landfill\, you know\, call on Corinthian capitals and keystones\, you know\, all the rubble from the earthquake. \nWhich is kind of which shows itself at low tide and there’s something about No visiting there\, you know\, 10 times or 20 times and then all of a sudden you discover this and start asking the question like\, well\, how did that\, you know\, how did those old building parts get down there and then you\, you know\, it tells a whole story about the marina. \nSo anyway\, I rather than signage\, I don’t I’m not sure that that’s what you were referring to\, but but I think there’s kind of a beauty in letting it be what it’s going to be. \nAnd there’s plenty of runway out there for people to. You know\, just to build on that too on the question of stewardship. \nI mean\, it’s so inspiring to see so many of you from the community here tonight speaking about stewardship really and so I think we already have the beginning of\, you know\, and perhaps the core. \nYou know\, what will become an important part of long term stewardship of the park\, which is really strong community advocacy and involvement and dialogue. \nContinued dialogue with the city really close dialogue to address. Questions and potentially management issues\, which as Stefan pointed out\, you know\, might not be here today. \nBut in 20 years time there may be a raft of different issues that are being dealt with. So I think that\, you know\, whether there’s some formalization of that as this design and this process continues. \nYou know for you all to think about but i’m really pleased to see this level of commitment from the community. \nIt both very well for project. Okay\, so look with that\, I think we’ll wrap up the. \nThe board discussion. And at this point. We can move to a project proponent response Would the team like to respond or comment on what’s been? \nDiscuss tonight. I just wanna say thank you very much. This went. Exactly as we had hoped. \nA great insight and ideas. Welcome the board to the DPA. Project team. Thank you to the community for you guys showing up. \nYou guys are always great. So we have a lot of work to do and you know as I said We’ll be trying to wrap up 30% design in this spring and then we’ll have a lot of activity around. \nFundraising to try and get money to actually. Make it happen And from the city’s perspective\, I just want to thank you all for your time and your thoughtful comments. \nWe’ve been excited to bring this project forward. And we’re going to be continuing to be just as excited to have this project built. \nSo thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you for making the trip over from Alameda to here too. \nIt is so much better to be able to see people and talk about. The issues face to face. \nSo. Thank you. \nYeah. Yeah\, there is a question. Do we want to see this project again? \nI don’t\, you know\, I know we often need a second review\, but given what we have. \nYou know\, given the presentation\, the comments that we’ve made back \nI don’t think we need to see it again. Unless it would be helpful to you to come and have a another conversation at some point during the process. \nSo Do others agree with me on this or? Yep. \nI would have confidence in this team to do it. \nAccording to what’s what we’ve seen \nOkay\, so yeah\, so we don’t need to see this project again\, but we would certainly like to keep. \nTrack of it. And stay in touch with you on it. Yeah. \nIs that okay with you? Good. And we’ll the staff will follow through on all of the points we’ve made tonight. \nThank you. Okay. Look\, we’ll take a 5 min break to set up and we’ll try and keep it to 5 min so that we can get started with the second review. \nThank you. Access. \nOkay. \nOkay. Yeah. Yes. Okay. \nOkay. Nice to meet you in person. Thanks for your support. We differ to local jurisdictions. \nThat is all you. Sounds good. Okay. We’re gonna. \nYeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. \nIt’s great. \nWe’re going to continue with the second part of the meeting now. Welcome. And this is the second review of the 13\, point\, 0\, one\, shoreway life sciences development project. \nAnd. We are all familiar with the order but I’ll just run through it very quickly. \nWe’ll have BCDC staff do an introduction overview\, you will then present. We’ll have clarifying questions\, public comment\, board discussion and summary and then a brief response. \nWe appreciate you coming back and for the additional work that you’ve done. And we’re looking forward to hearing. \nThe issues that we raised last time addressed so with that We’ll\, hand over to our permanent analyst who is Shruti for this project. \nSo Shr\, please go ahead. \nThank you. Chair McCann and good evening board members. My name is Shruti Sinha. \nI am a permanent analyst at BCDC. The second project for review tonight is a life sciences redevelopment project in Vermont proposed by 4 coronals. \n4 coroner’s properties. Please note that the staff report that was mailed out\, ously indicated that this will be the project’s first DRB review. \nIn fact\, the project was first reviewed by the DRB in August\, the twentieth. 23 and tonight will be the project’s second review. \nBefore we discuss the project\, we would like to acknowledge that the majority of the land in this area was once water and historic tidal flats. \nLocated near Lampson. The unseated ancestral homeland of the Rahmatush Oloni. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the Bountiful Natural Resources of the Bay Area. \n1301 shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1301 showway road in the city of Vermont\, San Mateo County. \nJust outside of the Redwood Chores waterfront community. \nThe satellite map on the right shows the project site outlined in yellow. The project site is bounded by some lane to the northwest. \nShorway Road to the Southwest. A PG and E substation to the south. And Vermont Creek to the east. \nThe site shares the Vermont Creek shoreline with 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin. \nBoth reviewed by the DRB. \nIn 2022. Sure way road is adjacent to and runs parallel with Highway One. \nThe existing permit for the project site was originally issued in 1\,982 in association with the construction of a 48\,000 square foot building which is now a medical office building. \nThe permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court. The overall public access requirements of the permit include. \nAppropriate landscaping. A 10 foot wide pedestrian path. No fewer than 3 benches. No fewer than 2 public access signs. \nAnd an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court. \nThis is a Google Street View capture of the site from Shawway Road from the 101 freeway. \nThe project site is shown at the center with a hotel campus to the northwest and a PG and E substation to the southeast. \nThis Google Street View capture of the site. \nIs from Sem Lane\, which terminates here. To the right you can see the parking lot of 1\,301 of the 1301 shoreway campus to the left is the existing Vermont creek trailhead marked by a public shore sign. \nThis is a photo of Vermont Creek from a staff site visit in 2\,022. It was taken from Shawway Road\, north of the 1301 shoreway site. \nIn this photo\, 13 or one shore away would be to the right of the frame as indicated. The creek is at the center\, flanked by marsh vegetation. \nAnd the building on the left is 10 twin dolphin\, also known as the former Oracle campus\, a project previously reviewed by the DRB as mentioned. \nThis slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas in the vicinity. \nThe project side is outlined in yellow. Public access paths are shown in purple lines while the bay trail is shown in a thick blue line. \nArea shaded in dark green represent BCDC priority use areas for wildlife purposes. And areas shaded in light green represent public parks. \nAdjacent project sites\, 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin. \nCan be seen to the north and south of the project site. \nWith respect to the social setting of the project location\, the area is largely dominated by office buildings. Then BCdc’s community vulnerability mapping tool shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability. \nAnd lower contamination vulnerability. \nIn this area\, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle. \nPeople with a disability. People of color. People with limited English proficiency and people with very low income. \nNote that there are some areas to the West that are identified as having high and highest social vulnerability. \nVulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile for this higher vulnerability area includes children under 5. \nPeople over 65 and alone. People with no high school degree. People with limited English proficiency. \nAnd people\, people who are not US citizens and people with very low income. \nMoving on to sea level rise. BC DC’s Flood Explorer Map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nThe site is outlined in yellow for the medium to high risk aversion scenario. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level. \nWhich would not cause any flooding on the site. \nHere’s a zoomed out picture of the map\, the same map showing. Flooding in surrounding areas at 24 inches of sea level rise. \nThis map shows with 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site. If the site remained unchanged. \nHere again\, the project side is outlined in yellow. For the medium to high risk conversion scenario\, 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid century. \nAnd mean higher high water. In the year 2090. As you can see\, 66 inches of sea level rise would cause overtopping at the project site. \nThis is a summary of the Bay Pine policies and guidelines that apply to this project. The proposal should provide public access that is clearly visible. \nUsable\, visually accessible. Complementary to the visual quality of the bay\, shoreline and surroundings. \nConnective and takes advantage of the base setting. \nIn addition\, Steph\, we’ve also included some questions by staff that we would like the board to consider. \nSpecifically\, we would like the board to consider the legibility and public feel of the proposed public access. \nAny additional ideas for public access improvement. The legibility of connections to and through the site for pedestrians and cyclists. \nThe adequacy of the revised signage plan. \nOur apologies. We seem to have. Been disconnected from the presentation. I was trying to share it again. \nNo\, but that was our very last slide. And I only had one other thing to add was that the\, we would like the board to consider the advocacy of the revised signage\, plan and possible triggers for flood adaptation measures at the site. \nAt this point\, does the board have any clarifying questions? \nNone for me. Does anyone else have clarifying questions? \nNo. In that case\, I will turn the floor over to Renee Behan of SWA to present the project. \nThank you\, Streaty. \nThank you. Distinguished board members\, BCDC staff and members of the public. It’s my honor to present 1301 shoreway. \nI’m presenting today on behalf of\, our client\, 4 Corner property who owns it and also representing the larger consultant team joined by Craig Bachelor from DGA Architecture. \nBKF\, Raquel Fontas\, and Moffat Nichols who are on the zoom and available if need be. \nThis is our second presentation and I’d like to maybe start by thanking\, BCDC staff\, Shruti\, and Ashley for all of their assistance. \nAlso very much appreciate the first round of comments from our August meeting. For those who weren’t here\, I’ll try to make sure you have all of the same information through this presentation. \nI thought we had a fairly positive feedback and review. I think the question was a level of detail\, you know\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the and specificity about the program\, clarification about flood risk. \nRelationship to courtyard and of course the potential accessibility of the private sports court for the users of the DCDC path. \nI’ll try to address all of those issues through the presentation today. \nAnd also\, Try to not be too\, repetitive of the presentation BCTC just gave. \nYou know\, our site located off 101 sits on this important kind of apex between not just Vermont but the city of San Carlos and Redwood City itself. \nVermont Creek itself outlined in blue kind of goes across all 3 entities\, Vermont\, San Carlos\, and Redwood City. \nThe park\, the site itself is adjacent to 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin. \nAnd I will say that we lean heavily on those approved submittals to make sure that this was designed as a single. \nEcology in terms of plant life materiality\, accessibility\, and we do plan to continue to work with those other groups to develop more of a regional signage and wayfinding system. \nTo the dash purple\, you can see\, the BCDC lot\, I’m sorry\, the Bay Trail itself. \nWhich we do not connect to directly\, but\, are adjacent to. \nOur city\, one of the unique things about our BCDC development is that actually our property owners do not actually own. \nThe parcel that is currently designed that is owned by SBCA. Which has fully endorsed through letters and communication with BCDC\, the plan that we’re submitting. \nAs Truthy mentioned\, to the south is the PG and E transformer. \nSite to the north is Sem Lane and Vermont’s corporate yard beyond that shoreway road and 100\, and one to the south. \nThe maybe a little clarification of what Truthy presented\, the original plan accessible area in purple originally submitted in 1\,981 in 1985 that plan was amended to include a private tennis court that you see in the upper. \nRight hand detailed blowup. Our site has an existing trail and as I mentioned\, it does not connect directly to the larger bay trail. \nIt’s a little bit of a one off. You enter the trail\, the trail head is at the end of Sam Lane. \nAnd then it comes out just west of 1010 twin dolphin drive. The bubbles show that if you cross the street crossing\, twin dolphin drive\, you can\, connect to\, to the larger bay trail. \nAs Truthy mentioned\, our site is just under 7 acres. The\, you can see that BCDC jurisdiction line. \nThere are 3 seating nodes\, which I’ll demonstrate in a minute here. An existing creek trail. \nAccess\, icular access is off of both shoreway and Sem Lane currently. \nViews pulled back first from the 101 the creek itself is not detectable from this area. \nIt’s it’s about 600 feet off of shoreway drive. There’s no visible connection and it’s it’s a little bit of a walk without much signage upfront. \nWay. Again\, there’s no indication that there’s actually a trail down there from a shore way. \nAnd so you can see the images looking down. Looking at the existing building and then looking at the parcel adjacent to the PG and E. \nSubstation. \nFrom the site itself currently in a bit of disrepair the trail head in the upper right hand corner one of the seating and trash nodes\, one of 3\, they’re all pretty much. \nIn the same condition and then the slightly improved node adjacent to the private tennis courts down in the lower right. \nJust a little bit more. The trail has\, although it’s actually in pretty firm\, pretty good shape\, it’s accessible. \nYou could\, you could easily roll a\, a bike or a wheelchair\, through it. \nBut again\, I think the biggest issue is just identity and kind of getting people to understand that this is a public place and you’re welcome to join. \nFlood map in the larger area. I think last meeting we clarified that that FEMA levy is on the other side of the creek in the Redwood City side. \nOur site is in a zone X\, which is a minimal flood hazard. Currently the site is more or less at 10 with the existing a trail sitting between elevation 10 and 11 5. \nOur proposal is to bring the minimal height. Up at the trail to 12.5. And then to have some variation. \nSo it would basically vary between 12 5 and elevation 15. And I think this is one of the one of the questions that you guys had last time in terms of. \nHow the grading\, the burning\, the accessibility kind of ties new to old. Buildings will be elevated to elevation 12 per the city of Vermont regulation. \nI’m consistent with FEMA and again our minimal elevation would be 12 5 with the burning. \nGoing up as high as 15 and then meandering between 1413 and down to the 12 5. Little more detail of the contouring. \nThe path itself will remain relatively flat other than the connection to some lane. Where you basically slope the walkway down to meet grade. \nSome data on what’s being proposed existing\, ing proposed obviously the site remains 6.9 acres publicly accessible DCDC space is going from 57.6 to 83.6. \nLandscape area is increasing from 51\,000 to 56\,000. DG path and program nodes increasing from 6\,500 to 9\,100. \nMulti-use sports court. Which we are making publicly accessible is an additional 4\,700 feet. \nThe auxiliary sports court kind of the workout area adjacent to it is an additional 5\,008 8 5\,800 feet. \nBike spaces we’re adding 10 public parking spaces we’re dating 3 sidewalk\, new sidewalk. \nAlong some lane\, which will demonstrate is an additional 7\,700 square feet of accessible space. The bench seating going from 8 to 19. \nGoing from 2 to 4 signs and adding 2 fitness nodes. We’ll get into the details on that as we go through the presentation. \nSo again\, from a grading perspective\, existing grade on site\, 10 more or less at 10. And at the berm more or less 11. \nGoing to a minimum\, 12 5 at the berm and the buildings go up to 12. \nThese are the key to the sections are up in the\, in the upper right hand corner. So this is through the first building. \nSecond\, the wrong way. Second section is through the courtyard. And again\, the courtyard going up to 14. \nThe berm is going up to 14. Along the BCDC easement and up to 1415 in areas of the courtyard as well. \nAnd then adjacent to the parking structure\, again\, 12. And then going up as high as 15 when we go adjacent to the PG and E. \nTransformer station. \nOn the question\, so this satisfies\, Bcdc’s\, 2\,000\, and 50 requirement on the question of 2\,100 you know is there advocate room to go up an additional 6 feet. \nYes\, there is taking a 3 to one slope up from the existing top of bank. We can easily hit elevation 18. \nAnd accessibility from the parking lot is not an issue. That we would also be willing to work\, you know\, 2050 and beyond with adjacent property owners. \nIf there was another approach to developed in\, in time. \nThe signage program\, we’re adding for signage starting again at the beginning of some lane with just kind of a identity sign that there’s a public shore in this area. \nThe first node at the end of science some is more of an educational wayfinding regional wayfinding hoping to orient people to where they are and how to get to the larger trail system. \nFocusing on birds. Naturalized birds in the area in the third node and then focusing on plant and plant life in the fourth. \nNote for the signage. So again\, existing. Existing intersection on SEM and shoreway\, no sign\, no walkway. \nNo. Kind of clues whatsoever. That there’s a path. And then the\, the proposed. \n6 foot walkway from shoreway all the way back. Public signage and you can see the new building starting to come into the landscape here. \nAbout halfway down the block is the courtyard between the 2 buildings. You see the parking structure in the background. \nSo there’s basically a space where the 2 lobbies face each other and there’s an amenity space for. \nThe building users. And\, you continue your access for the BCDC easement. Second signage at the end of some lane is kind of an active note. It’s where you park. \nIt’s where you deal with your bike in terms of repairs or parking and that sort of thing. \nIt’s also where you orient yourself. So that’s sorry. This includes a Parker Station\, the first of 3 stations along the court. \nSo we’ll get into the detail in this in a second\, but just to snippet of what you’ll find at the end of some lane as you approach on your bike or park your car. \nOr take the new walkway down to the area. The second node as we said\, this is a more passive node. \nThere’ll be informational signage about burning bird life along the material here. Just a snippet of the kind of larger regional landscape will be included. \nIn that\, in the development. The third node has orientation back into the architectural courtyard. \nThe private courtyard\, but also designed as a passive node preceding. Additional signage and information. \nStorytelling about plant life along the Bay Area. And then finally\, the sports court area. \nAs I mentioned\, we are going to open the court to the to the public in addition to being developed as a\, to the public\, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court\, to the public\, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court. \nThere’s a manetized se \nSo\, a little bit more detail now on each node. The first node will include a bicycle repair station\, a fitness node\, again educational way finding signage. \n10 bike parking spaces and 3 vehicle spaces as well as a new entry to the to the path itself. Fully accessible. \nSo existing condition at the end of Sem and the trail head. And the proposed condition. New buildings off to the right. \nThe next node\, is where there’s visual connectivity. To the existing courtyard. \nAgain\, the idea here is to continue with the decomposed granite trail. Develop a unique signage program for the plant life of the area\, provide seating\, I’m trying to use natural material\, wood\, and other materials that kind of support the sense of a natural space. \nExisting node and sitting area looking back to the parking area and the proposed node. And although\, you know\, the courtyard itself is going to remain private\, It’s a singular ecology. \nIt’s the same plant material\, same plant life carried from the creek through and into the project itself. \nAnd then\, finally the sports court itself\, I think\, on your recommendation\, which was a good one\, to give a little bit of scale and variety\, we combined 2 nodes with the existing sports court in this case. \nSo the space is very flexible. It can be used\, you know\, basketball\, paddle ball. \nIt has the exercise nodes and it also has ample seating around the perimeter. \nSo the proposed sports court. Fencing on the PG and E. And outer property line but open both to the to the trail. \nTo the trail to the north and to the west. \nAgain\, the parkour area\, it’s one of 4\, 4 along the trail. \nExisting plant leaf\, plant life\, trees anyway\, that our verse report has\, deemed\, the existing plant to be either in poor or very poor condition. \nThere’s no trees that we deem\, are necessary to\, salvage out there. So we’re adding a substantial. \nNew and improved. Plant palette and by improved\, I mean plants that are more appropriate for the environment. \nA lot of plants\, a lot of trees adjacent to the PG and E station and the parking garage and then with greater transparency obviously as you get to the courtyards itself. \nAgain\, same plant material on the trail and in the courtyard so that there’s both visual and ecological connectivity between the spaces. \nPlant pellet. It’s and again this is similar to the plant palette at 210 twin dolphin drive. \nAnd then the ground cover pellet itself. \nSo in summary\, That’s our presentation. Hopefully\, we were successful in giving you a better sense of what’s being proposed. \nBoth from a physical and emotional perspective of how the project feels. \nYeah. Okay\, thank you very much. That was very helpful. I was not at the original\, first presentation\, but from reading meeting notes\, I think you’ve put a lot of effort into communicating more detail\, which was a significant part of the comments previously. \nSo with that\, are there any questions from the board clarifying questions from the proponent? \nTo the proponent. \nAny questions? Yeah. Yeah\, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for coming back. \nOne question I had and I don’t remember if it was answer. Thank you for coming back. One question I had and I don’t remember if it was answered in the first meeting was you What is the anticipated maintenance of the area going forward. \nSo that it doesn’t fall into the kind of similar state of disrepair. \nYeah. Shorthy\, can you help me answer that? Is there a maintenance agreement? In place. \nThe final permit will include a maintenance condition. But. The. \nThe\, the applicants who will become the permitting. Can can determine how that will. \nHow that will take place. That agreement can be an internal agreement\, but they as co-permitees\, they will both be held to that maintenance condition. \nI think just speaking practically\, it’s absolutely in their best interest to make sure that it is maintained and doesn’t fall into disrepair. \nOkay\, thanks. Yeah. I think that’s my only question right now. \nTom\, any questions? \nNone for me. That’s pretty clear to me. \nOkay\, I just had one question about the multi purpose court. I don’t know how things work in Vermont\, but in San Francisco\, city of San Francisco\, Parks and Rick have a booking site\, you know\, where you can book courts and so you know that that courts available. \nIs there a similar system in the city of Vermont? We’re currently in discussion with the city and with Vermont in terms of how best to do that. \nThey they actually we presented this updated presentation last week and they were They asked the same question and they also are worried about\, well\, is it too open now? \nYou know\, are you going to get graffiti and that sort of thing? And I\, I don’t think so. \nI’ve worked in the area for decades and this is not a high crime or a graffiti kind of type of neighborhood. \nI think part of it is balancing the programs that are provided. For the communities that live in the area\, the communities that Shruti was mentioning. \nWell\, at the same time making sure that the courts are getting ample use. In other words\, we talked about paddle ball\, but we’re a little bit worried about that paddle ball will kind of overrun all the other programs that could happen here. Right. \nAnd\, yeah\, I mean. Some of these activities come and go as well. So. You know\, got to think long term\, but yeah\, the other side of that is that\, nothing would be better than seeing this. \nTrail overrun with people because it’s it’s a bit isolated and I think That’s the key is balancing something that’s gonna draw a lot of use\, but not have a single user group dominate how it’s used. \nI’m glad to hear the city is focusing on that as well because that will be the key to. \nPeople knowing about it and coming there. So\, yep. Yeah. Okay\, I think that concludes the questions. \nQuestions\, clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment. Is there any public comment? \nThe board will have received a forwarded letter from the Steve\, in support of this project. But that was the only public comment that we were seen. \nAnd we did receive that letter and very Good to hear that we\, you know\, did not have that. \nInformation last time around. So we’re very pleased to hear the city is supporting the project. \nOkay\, we will move on from public comment. To broad discussion and advice. As we always do\, we have some questions to consider. \nThe question one is about\, you know\, public nature of the spaces and is the new is the more developed. \nScheme\, allowing for that. Are there any other improvements? Could enhance the public access experience? \nAnd the third question really is\, related to the scale\, the size of the buildings and\, you know\, is there a are they legible connections and\, you know\, how does that work. \nAnd then the fourth question is about the revised signage plan\, the adequacy of that. And the fifth one is Just\, again\, raising this question of flooding and adequacy of\, well\, the types of events and frequency that could trigger adaptive actions. \nSo that’s the way that question is framed. So. Look\, I’m gonna defer to the people who were here at the last meeting to provide comments and i think that was leo you were here and stefan and gary and Tom\, were you with your time too? \nI was here. \nYeah. Tom\, why don’t you just lead off with your reaction? \nWell\, you\, I. Maybe I don’t remember everything\, but I recall. I had 3\, 3 things\, only 3 things. \nOne was that the signage at the\, at the same way. Clearly directed people to the bay trail. \nThat that was probably handled. To just about safe crosswalk traffic table type crosswalk from the courtyard over to the trail. \nAnd 3\, I was concerned about the non public nature of basketball\, of the\, yeah\, tennis court. \nSo \nThose are my concerns. I would go ahead and say I think they’ve all been dressed. But. \nOkay. Good talk. Yeah\, well. \nAnything else you want to comment on or we’ll just go around the table here and get people’s \nI think I feel like it’s pretty simple they did what we asked him. \nYeah. Okay\, any other comments from the group Leo? \nNo\, I think\, you know\, I think Tom’s right. They did more\, more or less what we asked. \nI think the is still\, there was a general question that I don’t know that for me has been clearly answered\, which is Is everything been done to really make this section feel as public as possible? \nAnd I think perhaps part of that is smaller elements related to parking\, you know\, for example\, the parking spaces that are for the public. \nAre inside what probably will feel like. Our private parking lot because you know this whole area is about parking lots better on the other side of a curb cut. \nSo I don’t know if there’s anything that could be done to Further emphasize that you know maybe there needs to be an extra sign by the street or something to encourage folks to come in or the curb cut is pushed back in some way so that the it’s the parking is really seen as being part of the public realm and not private room. \nDid I? I thought I heard that there were 2 spaces at the end of Yeah\, I mean\, we don’t wanna put them in the street because then you’re blocking the the trail itself. \nCertainly we could put signage there. We could move up planting island and isolate those 3 and you know\, I think additional signage would would clarify that it’s BCDC. \nYeah\, I think\, the\, again\, it’s maybe small. Details that will help provide the cues for the public that it’s It’s okay to come in. \nThis is this is areas that you can be in. I said it doesn’t It could simply be the spaces are there\, but they’re lowered. \nStreet level and the curb cut is pushed inboard. But I think\, you know\, that’s something that you could work through what the details are. \nYes\, I hadn’t realized that you have to. Drive through the. The driveway into the parking field for the for the project. \nRight. \nYeah\, it would be more. \nIntuitive if you could just drive down. Same line and access those. Right. \nThere\, Craig reminds me\, there is parallel parking on some lane. If that’s a preferred designated area for YouCDC. \nParking. \nI guess we’d have to work with the city on that then. Yeah. No\, I think it’s\, I think it’s the spaces are fine. \nI think it’s just again about providing signage and clarity for the public. \nThanks\, you. Yeah. Stefan\, anything? No\, I think we talked about this a little bit before I think. \nYou know\, opening up this area. To public access. Thinking about what’s there today is a huge benefit. \nAnd like and I don’t want to sort of lose side of that and I would agree with Tom that the specific comments that we articulated before. \nAre being addressed very nicely. \nI think the \nI don’t think this merits Any discussion on our part\, but I do want to say that this question about timing of adaptation\, which is a concurrent theme tonight for these 2 projects and Not something that I think staff has specifically. \nAsked us in that way before. And it feels tough to address that here given. The Progress and improvements that we’ve made since the previous submittal. \nWhich again\, I don’t want to sort of lose sight of that. But I do think that. \nThis is sort of a future challenge. From staff that we need to think about how to best respond. \nYeah. Yes\, I don’t think that’s something we need to. Correct. Yeah\, incorporate into this review specifically\, but this is a new question that we’re receiving and I think it comes with it needs a lot of. \nThought and probably separate dialogue between staff and ourselves to really explore what that what you would like us to. Focus on when considering that question. \nOkay. Thank you for bringing that up. Gary. Yes\, yes\, I\, I agree the\, having the court be public is a huge improvement. So\, you know\, appreciate that. \nI think it’s really a game changer and the amount of detail and materiality that you’ve provided I think answers a lot of questions so I feel very good about that. \nCouple observations. The It looks like the level 15\, you know\, BERM is\, back at the courtyard\, I believe\, right? \nIt’s not on the\, You know\, it’s not the Bay Trail. It’s really the. \nLike the day trail remains at about 12. And the 15 protects the courtyard\, which I think is a good idea. \nSo I just thought There’s an interesting device observation that you know the private space is protected more than the public space but I think that that kind of you know makes sense but I just wanted to point that out you know I don’t know if the berm well I think\, I think we’re always a little skeptical about the Bs anyway because you know\, you just have one parcel and you can’t hold back the \nbay just on your parcel. So. You know\, that’s running comment\, you know\, that without the cooperation of your neighbors\, like you said\, I mean\, it really is not a solution. \nAnd so\, you know\, that’s why I always think about\, okay\, what if the neighbors don’t? \nPlay along\, you know. But that\, that is a comment\, about every project that we review. \nJust to clarify\, the the BERM goes to 15. At the PG and E station. So behind the ball court\, and then it fluctuates\, to 14 between 12\, 5 and 14 along the trail. \nOkay\, it’s minimum\, 12 5 and then 2\, 14\, wherever we could easily get it that higher. \nOkay\, great. And just one other comment. It was about the parking\, you know\, because in plan you see a pretty strong presence of parking lining the bay trail in the renders you don’t really see what is that impact. \nI think it’s okay to show the cars and to really\, you know\, figure out how to incorporate them into the design. \nI guess in some places where the there’s a node. Which is. Write up against parking\, you know\, the planting strip gets\, you know\, a little constricted there. \nSo. I don’t\, I think it’s just a comment to stop and you to just think about the screening that would need to occur there in order to keep those nodes\, you know\, really. \nActive and protected. So those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you. \nYeah\, look\, I think everything is being said. I just want to raise one comment\, which this is not something you can address at this time\, but. \nIn the projects that we’ve been reviewing in this part of the Bay\, the the number of parking spaces structured parking spaces that are required\, you know\, are if I added them all up over the projects we’ve reviewed within a probably 2 to 3\, radius of this site. \nIt’s a huge number and And I think there’s a almost a philosophical question in my mind\, which is\, you know\, just as we are being asked by staff to consider. \nAt what point do we adapt? And at what point are we able to\, you know\, confidently say that we need to. \nIncrease protection. Along the along the water’s edge by raising the elevation. I just feel like at some point we should be saying at what point Do we stop building? \nStructured parking. I think this is at the size that we’re currently doing it. I just can’t imagine that in 25 or 50 years time people will be driving to these buildings the way they are anticipated or the way the city anticipates. \nSo I mean I think the garage is 10 stories or 8 stories? 9\, 9. And it’s just a lot of parking and and a lot of cost to build it. \nSo I just would love. People who have to pay for developing. Projects like this. Somehow push this with these cities. \nTo really push them on this question because it seems It seems. You know\, like we are building in redundancy down the track\, which is unfortunate. \nSo this is not anything to be answered tonight\, but I just. It dismayed me to see all of this. \nI think you could say that the that providing less parking would provide one avenue to long-term adaptability. \nBecause the site could more easily be adapted for slide control purposes. I mean\, you could. \nLook at it to that lens that it allows more public space on the site that could be moved around. \nRight. Cody\, please. Wait. I wasn’t here the first time\, but I know this area. \nAnd I know that across the slew are\, FEMA accredited levees that are in a state of seclusion\, which is like. \nPurgatory for levees. Which\, which means that without raising them\, they’re no longer going to provide adequate flood protection. \nSo in the scenarios you have here. These berms would at some point need to be accredited levies and those are very specific design requirements if they’re providing flood protection through the FREEMA program\, they would. \nCould potentially be accredited levies which have very specific design requirements that would to have geometries associated with them\, write a certain\, driveable surface on top. \nAnd the only comment I have is if that were at some case and you know maybe 2\,100 is allows for other adaptations but if that geometry was going to affect your program. \nIn your design. It might be worth just doing that overlay. \nThank you. Okay\, I think that concludes the feedback. I just want to reiterate the\, appreciation for\, I mean\, big picture. \nThe transformation from what is there today to what you are proposing and with this added level of detail that we see is is you know really appreciated and And I think you’re doing a great service to the community by making this. \nImportant part of the public realm here. Actually available to people in a much more clear way than it was before. \nSo we really appreciate that and appreciate you coming back into the additional effort you’ve put into addressing the questions that were raised last time. \nIs there any\, comment that you’d like to make? \nNo\, I appreciate all the feedback. I mean\, I think the first ground made us feel confident that we were on the right track and Appreciate the feedback and note that\, you know\, this is a client that cares about the site and the ecology. \nThey’re small local developer firm and I think that it’s good to hear the positive feedback. \nThank you very much. Good. Great. Okay\, we’ll look that concludes the. \nThe review. I\, we\, we don’t need to see this project again. \nSo with that\, we will adjourn the meeting and I would like someone to propose a motion to adjourn. \nMove to adjourn. \nYeah. \nHello? Sorry\, I think Leah’s hand beat you\, Tom. Yes. Okay\, Tom\, second. \nSecond. \nAye. \nGreat. All those in favor. Bye. Okay\, we have a \nThere are no objections\, I am sure. So here in none\, the meeting is adjourned. \nSo thank you very much. Good night and staff. Thank you very much for all your continued hard work on both projects tonight. \nReally appreciate it. Thank you. \nOkay \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-8-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240104T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240104T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240118T065653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T161333Z
UID:10000089-1704355200-1704387600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nLevee breach creates new tidal marshland in San Francisco Bay\nProject works to restore tidal marshlands along San Francisco Bay\nRestoring San Francisco Bay wetlands\, one industrial salt pond at a time
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-4-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231227T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231227T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20240131T060022Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T060022Z
UID:10000169-1703664000-1703696400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 27\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-27-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231221T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231221T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124221
CREATED:20231017T045735Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T190337Z
UID:10000051-1703163600-1703178000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 21\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for December 7\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nVote on the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s Proposed Phased Consistency Determination for the Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project (PDF)The Commission will vote on whether to concur with the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s phased consistency determination that the proposed Port of Oakland Outer and Inner Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, Alameda County is consistent with the Commission’s Coastal Zone Management Plan for San Francisco Bay. In order to improve the ability of large ships calling at the Port of Oakland to turn around\, the USACE proposes to widen the Outer Harbor Turning Basin from 49 acres to 70 acres\, and the Inner Harbor Turning Basin from 41 acres to 61 acres. At the Inner Harbor Turning Basin portions of Howard Terminal and Alameda Landing (former Naval Annex wharves) a portion the wharves and\, land beneath them\, infrastructure\, and portions of two warehouses would be removed. Both turning basins would require dredging of the new areas to minus 50 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). In addition\, sheet and batter piles\, and rip rap would create new bulkheads at Howard Terminal and Alameda Landing. Adjacent to Schnitzer Steel\, a subtidal retaining wall with rip rap would stabilize the slope from the shore to subtidal bottom. The disposal of construction debris and dredged sediment is targeted for an appropriately classed landfill\, and beneficial reuse at a wetlands restoration site when the materials are of suitable quality. The disposal and reuse site locations are not fully defined\, but could occur in Marin and/or Solano County\, and a landfill(s) outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction\, respectively. The public hearing was heard on December 7\, 2023.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.govPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\n\n\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\n\n\nBriefing on Planning Activities in the Suisun MarshThe Commission will receive a briefing by the Long-Range Planning team on recent planning activity by Commission staff in the Suisun Marsh\, including an overview of the Commission’s authority in the Marsh\, a summary of recent updates to Plan in the Marsh\, and future planning work.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise GuidanceRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Mill Valley Parks Recreation and Waterfront 26 Corte Madera Avenue Mill Valley\, California 94941 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.030.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n12/15/23\n\n\n90 Day\n03/14/24\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at the Hauke Pedestrian Bridge\, 498 Sycamore Avenue\, in the City of Mill Valley\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReplace a 145-foot-long\, 3-inch-diameter galvanized pipe with a 145-foot-long 3-inch-diameter HDPE pipe on an existing bridge. The project will not alter the bridge\, as the pipe runs underneath the bridge deck. Construction will require the temporary closure of the bridge for approximately two weeks\, and the bridge will be reopened outside of work hours and on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. Construction has been scheduled to occur over the Marin Valley Unified School District winter break to limit disruption to regular users of the bridge. The City has posted notices of the planned disruption\, and will post signs directing pedestrians along the 2/3 mile detour. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions.(Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing December 15\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of December 7\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation to Amend the Contract with the Port of San Francisco for BPA 3-17 to Fund Planning Activities (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project (PDF)\nUS Army Corps of Engineers – Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (PDF) – Revised Presentation\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nRestoring San Francisco Bay wetlands\, one industrial salt pond at a time\nThe plan for a massive floating pool on S.F. piers is moving forward\, despite big funding gap\nA free water shuttle connecting two East Bay cities is launching next year. Here are the details\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nMinutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-21-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231219T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231219T113000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240206T000142Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T001121Z
UID:10000176-1702980000-1702985400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 19\, 2023 Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda \nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-19-2023-bay-adapt-local-electeds-regional-task-force/
CATEGORIES:Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231214T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231214T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240131T071126Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T072656Z
UID:10000171-1702546200-1702555200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87615183792?pwd=MnQrSC96ZEhETEFVODJJRTBCN0h5dz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID876 1518 3792 \nPasscode058228 \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 November 9\, 2023\, Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021\, respectively\, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].Presentation \nAdjournment\n\n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/12-14-EC-audio-recording.mp3\n  \nAudio Transcripts \nMarie Gilmore: Good morning\, everyone. \nMarie Gilmore: Good morning\, everyone the time is 9 30\, and this is a meeting of the Bcd. C. Enforcement Committee is hereby call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am the chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera is always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore: Our first order of business is to call the roll. \nMarie Gilmore: Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves. After responding. \nMatthew Trujillo: Good morning. Commissioner Bielin \nLetty Belin: Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore: here. \nMarie Gilmore: So\, ladies and gentlemen\, we do not have a quorum present\, and are not duly constituted constituted to conduct business. Therefore we will adjourn this meeting at this time. \nMarie Gilmore: The next meeting of the Enforcement Committee is scheduled for January eleventh\, 2024\, at 9 30 Am. \nMarie Gilmore: This meeting will be held online and in person for information on how to join online\, or where to attend in person. Please visit the public meetings. page@wwwbcdc.ca\, dot\, Gov. And on behalf of the the committee. I would like to apologize for any inconvenience that moving. This meeting has caused. \nMarie Gilmore: We had something unexpected. Come up\, and therefore we’re not able to a \nMarie Gilmore: constitute a quorum today. So thank you\, everybody for your patience and indulgence. This meeting is now adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-14-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231211T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231211T210000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231019T002314Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235654Z
UID:10000065-1702314000-1702328400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 11\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \n  \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/86855219805 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 259552 \nMeeting ID868 5521 9805 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summary for November 6\, 2023 Meeting\nStaff Update\nWind River\, Alameda\, Alameda County; Second Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its second pre-application review of a proposal by Blue Rise Ventures to develop The Research Park at Marina Village\, the final phase of the office and R&D campus at 200 Wind River Way\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. The project would construct a three-story\, approximately 120\,000-square-foot office and R&D building at the newly-created intersection of Atlantic Avenue\, Clement Avenue\, and Sherman Street. The project would also involve public access improvements\, including removal of a degrading timber wharf to create open water and enhance views to the Bay\, renovation of the remaining concrete portion of that wharf with pedestrian paths offering Bay Trail connectivity\, and public access amenities such as seating\, game tables\, and a bocce ball court.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govExhibits // Public Comment Letter\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-11-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231207T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231207T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231008T045545Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T212147Z
UID:10000050-1701954000-1701968400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nNote: Agenda Item 8 and 11 have been postponed. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nJoin the meeting via Zoom \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for November 16\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative MattersThere is no administrative listing(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning ActivitiesPOSTPONEDThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote to Approve Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote to approve two stipulated orders as recommended by the Enforcement Committee to resolve BCDC Enforcement Case No. ER2019.063.00 against Seaplane Investments LLC alleging unauthorized development activities and violations of BCDC permits 1973.014.04 and M1985.030.01 in Sausalito\, Marin County.(Greg Scharff) [650/868-9303; greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]   Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision with Exhibits\nPublic Hearing on the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s Proposed Phased Consistency Determination for the Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project.The Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comment on the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s proposed Port of Oakland Outer and Inner Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, Alameda County. In order to improve the ability of large ships calling at the Port of Oakland to turn around\, the USACE proposes to widen the Outer Harbor Turning Basin from 49 acres to 70 acres\, and the Inner Harbor Turning Basin from 41 acres to 61 acres. At the Inner Harbor Turning Basin portions of Howard Terminal and Alameda former Naval Annex wharves\, land beneath the wharves\, infrastructure\, and portions of buildings would be removed. Both turning basins would require dredging of the new areas to minus 50 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). In addition\, sheet and batter piles\, and rip rap would create new bulkheads in Oakland and Alameda. Adjacent to Schnitzer Steel\, a subtidal retaining wall with rip rap would stabilize the slope from the shore to subtidal bottom. The disposal of construction debris and dredged sediment is targeted for an appropriately classed landfill\, and beneficial reuse at a wetlands restoration site when the materials are of suitable quality. The disposal and reuse site locations are not fully defined\, but could occur in Marin and/or Solano County\, and a landfill(s) outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction\, respectively.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.govPresentation (PDF) // Public Comment (PDF) // Application Summary Addendum (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise GuidancePOSTPONEDRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing November 17\, 2023\n\nStipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00\nApplication Summary C2023.003.00 \n\nCommission Mailing December 1\, 2023\n\nRevised December 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8 has been postponed\nDraft Minutes of November 16\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nWhen sea levels rise\, so does your rent\nThere’s a big new sea wall in the Bay Area\, is this the future?\nNo water\, power\, Wi-Fi or parking – but for $25 million\, this island on S.F. Bay can be yours \nBay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise \nMLB owners approve Athletics’ planned move to Las Vegas\, sources say\nBay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/12-07-CM-audio-recording.mp3 \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL\, AND \nWELCOME. TO OUR\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nHYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. \nMY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I \nAM THE CHAIR OF BCDC. \nBEFORE WE GET STARTED\, I WANT TO \nINFORM THAT YOU BOTH ITEMS EIGHT \nREGARDING A CONTRACT WITH THE \nPORT OF SAN FRANCISCO AND ITEM \n11 REGARDING THE UPDATE OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE GUIDANCE HAVE BEEN \nPOSTPONED\, HOPEFULLY TO OUR NEXT \nMEETING. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS \nTO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS \nIF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELVES WHEN YOU ANSWER\, AND \nTHEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN \nAFTERWARDS. RAY LYNN A WILL YOU \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: BURT? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nJOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I \nFORGET ANYONE? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: AND PEMBERTON. \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 23 \nCOMMISSIONERS PRESENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nHAVE A QUORUM AND SO WE CAN \nPROCEED. IT’S A LITTLE A BIT \nLIKE A QUAKER QUILT\, IF YOU \nDON’T LEAVE SOMEBODY OUT\, THEN \nIT’S TOO PERFECT. \n[LAUGHTER] \nITEM THREE IS PUBLIC COMMENT. \nYOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY \nITEM NOT ON OUR AGENDA\, OR NOT \nWHERE WE HAVE NOT — WHERE WE \nHAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, \nOR ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO. \nI DO WANT TO REMIND YOU\, ALL\, OF \nTHE UNFORTUNATE INCREASE IN THIS \nTERRIBLE WORD ZOOM BOMBING OF \nBOTH LOCAL AND REGIONAL \nAGENCIES\, AND THEIR MEETINGS. \nEVERYONE PLEASE DO NOTE\, AS WAS \nSAID IN THE INTRODUCTORY VIDEO\, \nTHAT BCDC WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY \nFORM OF HATE SPEECH OR THREATS \nOF ANY GROUPS\, AGAINST ANY \nGROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS. AND AS \nCHAIR\, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I \nWE WOULD A VERY HEAVY HAMMER ON \nTHOSE ISSUES. \nWITH THAT\, DO WE HAVE ANY \nMEMBERS IN THE ROOM WHO HAVE \nSUBMITTED CARDS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: I HAVE \nNO CARDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nDO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM WHO \nWISHES TO SPEAK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS GOING \nTO BE A VERY QUICK MEETING\, \nEVERYBODY. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO APPROVAL OF \nOUR MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16TH. \nWE HAVE ALL RECEIVED COPIES. I \nWOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO \nAPPROVE\, AND A SECOND. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nMOVED. I SAW IT. \nCOMMISSIONER BAPTIST SECONDED. \nI SAW HER MOVING HER HAND. \n[LAUGHTER] \nANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO \nTHE MINUTES? \nSEEING NONE. \nDOES ANYBODY WISH TO OPPOSE OR \nABSTAIN? \nI DON’T SEE ANY. THE MINUTES \nARE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO MY REPORT. \nOUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON \nA.M. AT THAT MEETING WE MAY \nTAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH \nTHE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nREGARDING SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN \nTHAT WE POSTPONED TODAY. A \nPOTENTIAL COMMISSION VOTE ON THE \nPROPOSED OAKLAND TURNING BASIN \nEXPANSION ON WHICH WE ARE \nHOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY. \nA BRIEFING ON THE UPDATE OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE GUIDANCE FROM THE \nSTATE\, ALSO POSTPONED FROM \nTODAY. A BRIEFING ON THE SUISUN \nMARSH IN SOLANO COUNTY\, AND A \nBRIEFING ON BAY ADAPT. \nJUST A COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS. \nAS I NOTED EARLIER\, SLIGHTLY \nJOKING\, THIS IS GOING TO BE A \nBRIEF MEETING. ENJOY THE GIFT \nOF TIME. I THINK NEXT MEETING \nWILL BE A BIT LONGER. AND AS WE \nMOVE INTO THE NEW YEAR\, I THINK \nTHEY WILL BE LONGER. I THINK \nWE’LL START TAKING ON MORE \nIN-DEPTH SOME OF THE POLICIES WE \nHAVE BEEN DISCUSSING AND I AM \nCERTAIN THERE WILL BE SOME \nINTERESTING HEARINGS ALONG THE \nWAY. THERE WAS AN INTERNATIONAL \nSCIENTIFIC REPORT THAT NOTED \nOVER THE LAST TEN YEARS GIVE OR \nTAKE OR MAYBE EVEN ARE LONGER\, \nTHE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE HAS \nDOUBLED OVER THE LONG-TERM \nTREND. IT’S STILL SMALL\, BUT \nTHAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND \nINDICATES THE WATER THAT WE KNOW \nIS COMING\, WELCOME OR NOT\, IS \nCOMING\, AND WE NEED TO KEEP \nDOING OUR WORK\, AS WE ARE\, AND \nWE NEED TO KEEP PUSHING OUR \nCOLLABORATORS AND PARTNERS ON \nMOVING EVER FASTER. BECAUSE THE \nSEA AIN’T WAITING FOR US. \nWITH THAT\, THIS IS A MOMENT TO \nPUT ON THE RECORD ANY EX PARTE \nCOMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY HAVE HAD \nTHAT YOU HAVE NOT PUT IN WRITING \nTHROUGH OUR WEB SITE. YOU DO \nNEED TO DO THAT\, IN ANY END OF \nTHE EVENT\, AND THESE ARE ON \nADJUDICATORIAL MATTERS NOT ON \nPOLICY MATTERS. ANYBODY HAVE \nANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO \nREPORT? SEEING NONE. THAT \nBRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR GOLDZBAND IS ON \nVACATION\, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR \nSCHARFF IS ACTING TO PROVIDE THE \nREPORT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I’M GREG \nSCHARFF IT’S BEEN A PLEASURE \nSERVING AS YOUR ACTING EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS \nWHILE LARRY HAS BEEN OUT. I \nWANT TO NOTE TODAY IS PERIL \nHARBOR DAY AND I CAN ONLY \nIMAGINE HOW LARRY WOULD HAVE \nWEAVED THAT INTO THE REPORT. \nUNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE ME\, NOT \nLARRY. SO\, YOU WILL JUST HAVE \nTO IMAGINE. \nNOW\, FIRST OF ALL\, I WANT TO \nTHANK EVERYONE WHO INDICATED \nTHEY WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE \nDECEMBER 21ST COMMISSION \nMEETING\, AND STRESS THAT IT’S \nCRITICAL THAT YOU DO SO\, AS WE \nWILL ALL BE TAKING A VOTE AT THE \nMEETING ON TODAY’S ITEM 10\, \nWHICH IS THE THE PROPOSED PHASE \nCONSISTS OF DETERMINATION FOR \nTHE PROPOSED BASIN-WIDENING \nPROJECT AND WE WILL NEED A \nQUORUM FOR THAT. \nI WANT TO NOTE AS PART OF BCDC \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT\, BCDC AND PARTNERS US \nEPA COASTAL CONSERVANCY REGIONAL \nWATER BOARD\, SFEI AND SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE ARE \nHOSTING A WORKSHOP IN-PERSON ON \nJANUARY 23RD AND FEBRUARY 13TH\, \n2024 TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS \nPOTENTIAL CHANGES TO SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION \nROADMAP OF ACTIONS TO INCREASE \nBENEFICIAL USE OF SOIL AND \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. THE \nWORKSHOP WILL WORK WITH A \nVARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE \nINVOLVED IN AND IMPACTED BY \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. WE \nWILL BE HOLDING OUR SECOND BAY \nADAPT COORDINATING MEETING ON \n12/8 AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TASK \nFORCE MEETING ON 12/19. FINALLY \nNOVEMBER 27TH COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nISSUED TWO DECISION LETTERS \nAPPROVING CHANGES TO THE COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT NOAA \nHAS APPROVED TWO SETS OF \nAMENDMENT TO THE COMMISSION’S \nREGULATION ADOPTED IN 2022 \nREGULATIONS CONCERNING \nENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY \nPOLICY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF \nTHE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL \nQUALITY ACT WITH NOAA PRIVATE \nPRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ELEMENTS \nCOMMISSIONS REGULATIONS \nCONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE \nPROCEDURAL PERMITTING AND \nPLANNING MATTERS. ALL THREE \nSETS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE \nREGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE \nCOMMISSION IN 2022 HAVE BEEN \nAPPROVED BY NOAA AS PART OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR OUR ACTING \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? SEEING \nNONE. WE MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN \nWHICH WE’RE NOT TAKING UP \nBECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATTERS TO \nREPORT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM \nEIGHT WHICH WE ARE ALSO NOT \nTAKING UP THAT WILL BE POSTPONED \nHOPEFULLY TO THE NEXT MEETING \nAND THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NINE \nWHICH I CAN’T EVEN GET TO IN MY \nPAGE. \nTHIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLE VOTE TO APPROVE \nSTIPULATED ORDERS\, \nCCD2023.002.00 AND \nCCD2023.003.00 REGARDING THE SEA \nPLANE INVESTMENTS LLC OF CORTE \nMADERA AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN \nMARIN COUNTY. AFTER BCDC HAS \nGIVEN ITS OPENING REMARKS I’LL \nASK RESPONDENTS TO AFFIRM THE \nSTIPULATED AGREEMENT I’LL \nCOMMENT AFTER AND WE HOLD \nDISCUSSION AND VOTE ON THE \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. AT \nTHIS TIME WILL THE \nREPRESENTATIVES FOR THE \nRESPONDENT PLEASE IDENTIFY \nTHEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD. \nPRESENT OR ON ZOOM. \n>>SPEAKER: DO WE NEED TO \nPOSSIBLY ADMIT GILLIAN \nBLANCHARD\, COUNSEL FOR SEA PLANE \nINVESTMENTS\, LLC AND LOU \nVASQUEZ? \n>>LOU VASQUEZ: HI. THIS IS LOU \nVASQUEZ. I’M PRESENT\, \nREPRESENTING SEA PLANE \nINVESTMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nBEFORE STAFF GIVES ITS \nPRESENTATION\, I INVITE \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE\, THE CHAIR \nOF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO \nGIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE \nCOMMITTEE’S HEARING ON THIS \nMATTER THAT TOOK PLACE ON \nNOVEMBER 9TH OF THIS YEAR. \nCHAIR GILMORE. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I \nSTART\, I WANT TO GIVE A REAL \nVOTE OF THANKS TO BOTH THE \nRESPONDENTS\, STAFF\, AND OUR \nGENERAL COUNSEL GREG SCHARFF\, \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HEARD \nTHIS CASE SEVERAL TIMES AND IT \nIS A COMPLICATED CASE AND IT’S \nCOMPLICATED BY THE NUMBER OF \nVIOLATIONS\, THE FACT THAT THE \nPROPERTY CHANGED HANDS AND ALSO \nTHE LENGTH OF TIME INVOLVED IN \nTHIS AND SO KUDOS TO EVERYBODY \nINVOLVED BRINGING THIS TOGETHER \nAND GETTING AN ORDER THAT FIXES \nTHE VIOLATIONS AND ALLOWS \nEVERYBODY TO MOVE FORWARD. SO \nTHANKS AGAIN TO THE RESPONDENTS\, \nTO STAFF\, AND TO OUR GENERAL \nCOUNSEL. \nCHAIR WASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nWILL NOW HAVE STAFF’S \nPRESENTATION BY PRINCIPLE \nENFORCEMENT ANALYST ADRIENNE \nKLEIN. GO FOR. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU \nCHAIR GILMORE. IN JULY 2024 \nSTAFF ISSUED A VIOLATION TO \nREPORT COMPLAINT TO RESOLVE SIX \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS IN OCTOBER \nOF THE SAME YEAR WE ISSUED A \nSECOND COMPLAINT FOR \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES \nTO RESOLVE THE PENALTY PORTION \nOF THREE RESOLVED VIOLATIONS \nDURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON \nMAY 30TH\, 2023 THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE DIRECTED STAFF TO \nENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT \nNEGOTIATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN \nTWO PROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS \nTO RESOLVE ALL NINE VIOLATIONS \nDURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON \nNOVEMBER 3RD OF THIS YEAR THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAS \nJANUARY MENTIONED BY CHAIR \nGILMORE COMMISSIONER GILMORE \nADOPTED BOTH PROPOSED STIPULATED \nORDERS WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU \nTODAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nTHE PRESENTATION WILL COVER THE \nSITE LOCATION\, NINE VIOLATIONS \nAND THE TWO STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \nTHE RED PIN ON THIS VICINITY MAP \nSHOWS THE LOCATION WHERE THE \nVIOLATIONS ARE OCCURRING AND ARE \nOCCURRING KNOWN AS 240242 \nREDWOOD HIGHWAY FRONTAGE ROAD IN \nAN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MARIN \nCOUNTY. JUST TO BE CLEAR\, \nAPOLOGIES CHAIR WASSERMAN\, IT’S \nNOT IN CORTE MADERA. IMAGE ON \nTHE LEFT SHOWS THE SITE LOOKING \nTO THE NORTHEAST THE SITE \nCONTAINS A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES \nAND OPERATIONS WHILE SOME OF THE \nGROUND LEVEL USES AND ASSOCIATED \nFILL APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ONGOING \nSINCE 1965 CHANGES TO THE \nONGOING USES AND ASSOCIATED \nTHROUGH WITHIN BCDC JURISDICTION \nINCLUDING MAINTENANCE THAT \nOCCURRED AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT REQUIRING \nBCDC PERMIT OR PERMIT AMENDMENT. \nPERMITS RUN WITH THE LAND AND \nNEW OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR \nRESOLVING INHERITED VIOLATIONS \nAND VIOLATIONS THEY UNDERTAKE. \nAS NEW OWNERS RESPONDENTS HAVE \nDID NOT CONTACT THE BCDC AS PART \nOF THE DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW TO \nINQUIRE ABOUT THE SITE STATUS IN \nRELATION TO THE LAW AND THE \nEXISTING PERMITS THAT GOVERN THE \nSITE THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS \nAN OVERLAY OF THE PROXIMATE \nLOCATIONS IN THE TWO PRIVATELY \nOWNED PARCELS NUMBERED 164\, ON \nTHE RIGHT 167 ON THE LEFT WITH \nTHE THREE STREET RIGHTS OF WAY \nWHICH YOU CAN SEE THE LEFT SIDE \nPARAPPA STREET\, MOLENA STREET\, \nAND YELLOW STREETS THAT SURROUND \nOR STRADDLE THEM AND THE DOCKING \nFACILITY PICTURES IN THE WATER \nIS LOCATED ON MARIN COUNTY \nPROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. I’LL \nDESCRIBE THE SIX VIOLATIONS \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATION FIRST BEING \nTHAT RESPONDENT VIOLATING \nSPECIAL CONDITION TO SEE PUBLIC \nACCESS OF ITS 1973 PERMIT BY \nFAILING TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC \nSHORE SIGNAGE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONNECTION FROM THE SITE TO \nMARIN COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS WEST \nOF THE SITE VIOLATION TWO IS OF \nSPECIAL CONDITION 2C TWO \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PERMIT BY \nFAILING TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING \nREQUIRED PUBLIC SHORT PATHWAY \nAND LANDSCAPING. THE BULK HEAD \nAT PARAPPA STREET IS SEVERELY \nERODED IN THE ADJACENT PUBLIC \nSHORELINE PATHWAYS FREQUENTLY \nINUNDATED BY TIDES AND THE \nNORTHWESTERN TIP IS ERODED TO \nTHE POINT OF BEING GONE AND THE \nWERE REMAINDER IS COLLAPSING \nINTO THE BAY. VIOLATION THREE \nIS MCATEER PETRIS ACT SECTION \n66632A BY PLACING UNAUTHORIZED \nFILL IN THE BAY AND SHORELINE \nBAND IN YOLO STREET. \nUNAUTHORIZED FILL INCLUDES \nVEHICLE PARKING AND OR EQUIPMENT \nSTORAGE\, SEA PLANE STORAGE \nREPAIR AND SEA PLANE STORAGE \nREPAIR MAINTENANCE FUELING TANK \nELEVATED ASPHALT PATHWAY ACROSS \nYELLOW STREET TO ALLOW \nPEDESTRIAN ACCESS DURING HIGH \nTIDES. BY USING FILLED AREAS \nDESIGNATED TO BE USED ONLY FOR \nLANDSCAPING PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nPEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAYS FOR \nPRIVATE USE. \nVIOLATION FOUR IS MCATEER-PETRIS \nACT INVOLVING PLACING \nUNAUTHORIZED FILL IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION CONSISTING OF THE \nUNAUTHORIZED HELICOPTER LANDING \nPAD AND FOUR PAVED WALKWAYS ON \nBLOCK 164 VIOLATION FIVE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT VIOLATION \nPLACING UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN THE \nBAY ON MARIN COUNTY PROPERTY BY \nEXPANDING EXISTING U SHAPED \nFLOATING SEPARATE EPISODES WITH \nNEW FLOATING FILL TWO PILINGS \nRELOCATING ON WATER FILLING \nSTATION. \nAND THE SIXTH UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATION IS ALSO A MCATEER \nPETRIS ACT VIOLATION INVOLVES \nEXCAVATION TO FILL AND CONSTRUCT \nA NEW CONCRETE REBAR WATER \nACCESS RAMP IN THE YELLOW STREET \nRIGHT OF WAY. THIS MOST \nRECENTLY MARCH 20\, 2022. THIS \nCOMPLETES THE SUMMARY OF THE SIX \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE WHERE I WILL \nDESCRIBE THE THREE RESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS. \nTWO ARE THE SAME\, WHICH ARE \nRESPONDENTS FAILURE TO TAKE \nASSIGNMENT OF BOTH THE 1973 AND \nTHE SECOND 1985 PERMITS THAT \nGOVERN THE SITE AND THE THIRD \nRESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO COMPLETE \nA PROJECT PRIOR TO PERMIT \nEXPIRATION DATE AND CONTINUE \nWORK WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT \nTHOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED \nBUT THERE WERE ADMINISTRATIVE \nCIVIL PENALTIES. NEXT SLIDE. I \nWILL NOW READ THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION TO RESOLVE \nTHE SIX UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS. \nTHE RESPONDENT HAS AGREED TO \nSTIPULATE TO THE FOLLOWING \nTERMS. SO\, TO CEASE AND DESIST \nFROM VIOLATING THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND BOTH \nPERMITS BY JUNE 30TH\, 2024 TO \nCOMPLY WITH THE EXISTING PERMITS \nBY MAINTAINING THE PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG THE \nEXISTING SHORELINE PATHWAY \nWITHIN RESPONDENTS CURRENT \nPROPERTY OWNERSHIP ON YOLO \nSTREET FROM THE TERMINATION OF \nTHE SHORELINE PATHWAY LOCATED \nWITHIN THE DEDICATED PUBLIC \nACCESS AREA TO STRIPE AND \nMAINTAIN A CONNECTION FOR AN \nEIGHT FOOT WIDE ACCESS PATH OF \nTRAVEL. AND THAT IS OUTLINED IN \nONE OF THE ORDER EXHIBITS. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO INSTALL \nEIGHT PUBLIC SHORE SIGNS AS \nOUTLINED ON THE SLIDE AND IN \nORDER TO RELOCATE ACCESSIBLE \nPARKING ALSO SHOWN IN THE ORDER \nEXHIBIT ON YOLO STREET TO REMOVE \nUNAUTHORIZED ELEVATED ASPHALT \nPATH THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED TO \nALLOW FOR ACCESS AND HIGH TIDES \nAND TO CONFIRM WITH STAFF WHICH \nHELICOPTER LANDING PADS AND \nWALKWAYS ARE AUTHORIZED OR NOT. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nWITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF \nTHE ORDER RESPONDENT AGREES TO \nFILE A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR \nTHE UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN USES AS \nFOLLOWS THEY’LL SUBMIT A REVISED \nLANDSCAPING PLAN FOR AREAS \nADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WILL \nBE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND IT WILL \nINCLUDE INSTALLATION AND \nMAINTENANCE OF SOME PICNIC \nTABLES THAT WILL BE ADA \nACCESSIBLE. AND IF THERE IS ANY \nNEW ACCESS REQUIRED UNDER A \nFOLLOWING SECTION\, THAT WILL BE \nINCLUDED ON THESE PLANS. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO REQUEST \nAFTER THE FACT AUTHORIZATION FOR \nANY HELICOPTER LANDING PADS\, \nFUEL TANKS\, AND WALKWAYS THAT \nARE NOT PERMITTED BY THE ’85 \nPERMIT. THE THREE FINGERS THAT \nARE PART OF THE DOCKINGS IS THAT \nARE NOT CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED\, \nAND THE LAUNCHING RAMP \nCONSTRUCTED IN MARCH 2022. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO PROVIDE \nSOME ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nEITHER THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRED \nBY THE PERMIT\, WHICH IS A \nCONNECTION BETWEEN THE SITE AND \nTHE ADJACENT COUNTY PUBLIC \nWALKWAY\, AND BICYCLE PATH\, OR \nALTERNATIVE ON-SITE ACCESS IF \nLOCAL APPROVAL CANNOT BE \nOBTAINED. AND FINALLY TO \nPREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE RISK \nASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL \nRISE IN THE PERMIT RELATED \nPUBLIC ACCESS — THE PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS. \nAND TO IMPLEMENT THAT SEA LEVEL \n— TO IMPLEMENT THE SEA LEVEL \nRISE PLAN IN THE TIMELINE \nOUTLINED IN IT. \nAND IT WILL INCLUDE THE \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nON PARAPPA STREET THAT’S FLOODED \nAND ERODED\, FREQUENTLY FLOODED \nAND QUITE ERODED AND ALSO \nADAPTIVE MEASURES TO MAINTAIN \nPUBLIC ACCESS FOR THE LIFE OF \nTHE PROJECT OR UNTIL 2050. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, THAT COMPLETES THE \nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS. \nTHERE WILL BE\, FOR THE THREE \nRESOLVED VIOLATIONS\, A \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO A $5\,000 \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY DUE \nWITHIN 12 AND 24 MONTHS OF THE \nORDER IN TWO EQUAL INSTALLMENTS. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND THE PENALTY BE ASSOCIATED \nWITH THE SIX UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS IS 43\,800 DUE IN \nTHREE DIFFERENT INCREMENTS\, \nFIRST 10\,000 WITHIN 60 DAYS OF \nORDER ISSUANCE THEN TWO PAYMENTS \nOF 16\,900 DUE WITHIN 12 AND 24 \nMONTHS OF ORDER ISSUANCE. \nI THINK THAT’S MY LAST SLIDE. \nMAYBE NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, TOGETHER\, THE TWO \nRECOMMENDATIONS WOULD RESULT IN \nA TOTAL PENALTY OF $48\,800\, AND \nTHAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nI WOULD ASK RESPONDENTS \nREPRESENTATIVE WHETHER THEY \nCONCUR WITH STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS IN THE \nSTIPULATED ORDER? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS. APOLOGIES FOR \nJOINING LATE. I’M GILLIAN \nBLANCHARD WITH LAW GROUP AND I \nREPRESENT SEA PLANE INVESTMENTS\, \nLLC. \nGOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. \nI\, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS\, CAN \nCONCUR THAT WE DO SUPPORT THE \nSTAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND \nSTIPULATED ORDER. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE OPEN FOR \nPUBLIC COMMENT? I THOUGHT WE \nHAD A QUIET GROUP? VICE CHAIR \nEISEN \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I \nWANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS \nMATTER IS\, SORT OF\, A REALLY \nGOOD EXAMPLE OF THE WORKINGS OF \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE. \nSTAFF AND RESPONDENTS ARE \nWORKING HARD TO RESOLVE THIS \nMATTER BUT SOMETIMES THEY CAN’T \nQUITE PULL IT ACROSS THE FINISH \nLINE\, AND THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE SERVES AS WHAT I WOULD \nCALL THE COURTHOUSE STEPS. AND \nAS CHAIR WASSERMAN AND ADRIENNE \nKLEIN MENTIONED THIS WAS A \nCOMPLICATED MATTER AND WHEN IT \nCAME TO US\, WE THE EFFORT THAT \nHAD BEEN MADE ALREADY\, AND WE \nSAW THAT WITH A LITTLE MORE \nEFFORT AND PUSH FROM OUR \nCOMMITTEE THEY COULD RESOLVE \nTHIS MATTER AND THEY DID. SO\, \nIT’S REALLY A TESTAMENT TO HOW \nWELL THAT COMMITTEE WORKS AS AN \nARM OF THIS COMMISSION. SO I \nJUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND I WOULD ADD MY \nTHANKS TO STAFF\, AND TO CHAIR \nGILMORE. \nANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nASSUME THERE ARE NO FINAL \nCOMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. \nAND I NOW INVITE CHAIR GILMORE \nOF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO \nPRESENT THE COMMITTEE’S \nENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I PUT \nFORTH THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS I’M \nGOING TO BRIEFLY REVIEW THE \nCOMMISSION’S OPTIONS TO PROCEED. \nPURSUANT TO BCDC REGULATIONS \nSECTION 11332 ENTITLED \nCOMMISSION ACTION ON RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION. WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ACTS ON A RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION THE \nCOMMISSION’S ACTION SHALL BE ONE \nOF THE FOLLOWING. ONE\, THE \nCOMMISSION MAY ADOPTED \nRECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \nWITHOUT ANY CHANGES TO THE \nPROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS AND \nTHIS IS YOUR ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. \nTWO\, THE COMMISSION MAY DISMISS \nTHE ENTIRETY OR EITHER PART OF \nTHE MATTER BY VOTING NOT TO \nISSUE ONE OR BOTH OF THE \nSTIPULATED — OF THE PROPOSED \nORDERS. \nTHREE\, THE COMMISSION MAY REMAND \nTHE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE OR STAFF \nFOR FURTHER ACTION AS THE \nCOMMISSION DIRECTS\, OR\, FOUR\, \nTHE COMMISSION MAY REJECTED \nRECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \nAND DECIDE TO CONSIDER THE \nENTIRE MATTER DE NOVO. IN THIS \nEVENT THE COMMISSION SHALL \nCONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO \nTHE NEXT AVAILABLE COMMISSION \nMEETING WHERE IT SHALL PROCEED \nIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME \nPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AS THE \nCOMMISSION MUST FOLLOW UNDER \nREGULATION SECTION 11327. \nI WILL NOW PRESENT THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE’S \nRECOMMENDATION. \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \nRECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION \nVOTE IN FAVOR OF THE ADOPTION OF \nTHE PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT \nDECISION AND CEASE AND DESIST \nCIVIL PENALTY ORDERS CCD \n2023.002 AND CCD2023.003 TO \nRESOLVE BCDC ENFORCEMENT CASE \nNUMBER ER2019.063.00. \nI’M GOING TO MOVE THAT THIS \nCOMMISSION ADOPTED RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION WITHOUT ANY \nCHANGES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nI HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION? \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL SECOND THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS FROM \nTHE GREAT COUNTY OF MARIN \nSECONDS THE MOTION. \n[LAUGHTER] \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL REYLINA. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BURT? \n>>PAT BURT: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? PAT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE? \nRAMOS? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 20 \nYESES. NO NOS\, AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOR \nALL OF YOUR WORK. \nCONTINUE AND LET THIS NOT COME \nBACK TO US. THAT BRINGS US TO \nITEM TEN\, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE \nU.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nPROPOSED PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION OF THE OAKLAND \nTURNING BASIN’S WIDENING \nPROJECT. \nTHE PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE BY \nOUR SEDIMENT PROGRAM MANAGER \nBRENDA GADEN\, OR AT LEAST SHE’LL \nINTRODUCE AND KICK IT OFF. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. WE APPRECIATE \nYOU ALL BEING HERE TODAY FOR THE \nARMY CORP’S OAKLAND TURNING \nBASIN-WIDENING PROJECT. WE HAVE \nA BIT OF A PRESENTATION FOR YOU \nTODAY. PLEASE HANG ON. WE \nRECOGNIZE THAT THIS PROJECT IS \nBOTH COMPLEX IN ITS CONSTRUCTION \nAND TIMING\, BUT ALSO WE NOTE \nTHAT THE COMMISSION DOESN’T \nOFTEN HEAR PHASED CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION. SO WITH THAT\, WE \nWOULD TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nJUST USE OUR LEGAL EAGLE\, \nMICHAEL NG TO WALK YOU THROUGH \nTHE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICIES \nAROUND THIS TYPE OF PROJECT \nPRIOR TO GETTING THE — PRIOR TO \nGETTING THE OVERVIEW OF THE \nPROJECT FROM THE COMMISSION \nSTAFF\, WHICH WILL BE MYSELF. \nTHEN FOLLOWING ME\, PHOENIX \nARMENTA WILL BE PRESENTING ON \nTHE EJ POLICIES BECAUSE THERE \nARE SOME COMPLEX EJ ISSUES HERE. \nFOLLOWING PHOENIX I’LL STEP BACK \nIN FOR A MINUTE THEN WE’LL BE \nTURNING THE PROJECT OVER TO THE \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS TO GIVE \nYOU A DETAILED DESCRIPTION. \nWITH THAT\, I APPRECIATE YOUR \nATTENTION TODAY. MICHAEL WILL \nGO AHEAD AND TAKE THE MIC. \n>>MICHAEL NG: HELLO \nCOMMISSIONERS MICHAEL\, SENIOR \nSTAFF ATTORNEY AT BCDC. \nAS BRENDA MENTIONED I’M GOING TO \nBE COVERING TWO TOPICS TODAY \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CMA \nAND FEDERAL CONSISTENCY\, THEN \nTHE SECOND TOPIC IS THE \nCOMMISSION’S AUTHORITY AND \nJURISDICTION. I’M GOING TO KEEP \nTHIS BRISK. THE COMMISSION’S \nCURRENT CONSIDERATION IS A BIT \nOUT OF ITS USUAL CONSIDERATION \nOF PROJECTS. THROUGH THE MY \nPRESENTATION YOU MAY SEE \nASTERISKS ON CERTAIN SLIDES AND \nWONDER WHAT THAT’S ALL ABOUT. \nTHOSE HAVE NO PARTICULAR \nSIGNIFICANCE OTHER THAN TO SERVE \nAS CUES FOR MYSELF TO PROVIDE \nFOR SPEAKER NOTES WHICH I \nWOULDN’T FIT ON TO MY SLIDES. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nTHANK YOU. SO\, FIRST I’LL TALK \nABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE CZMA. \nIT IS A FEDERAL LAW\, AGAIN\, THE \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT. \nITS BASIC PURPOSE IS TO \nPRESERVE\, PROTECT\, DEVELOP\, AND \nWHERE POSSIBLE TO RESTORE OR \nENHANCE THE NATION’S RESOURCES \nOF THE COASTAL ZONE AND THE CZMA \nENCOURAGES THIS AND ACCOMPLISHES \nTHIS BY ENCOURAGING STATES TO \nDEVELOP WHAT’S CALLED COASTAL \nZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OR \nCZMP’S AND THIS GOAL IS FURTHER \nINCENTIVIZED BY FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT PROVIDING MATCHING \nGRANTS TO ADMINISTER CZMP’S FOR \nCOASTAL STATES THAT HAVE \nCERTIFIED CZMP’S AND ADMINISTER \nPER CMA STATUTE CZMP SHOULD \nINCLUDE OBJECTIVE POLICIES AND \nSTANDARDS TO GUIDE PUBLIC AND \nPRIVATE USES OF LANDS AND WATERS \nIN THE COASTAL ZONE AND ONCE \nAPPROVED BY NOAA CMP STANDARD \nFOR FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITY THAT \nCOASTAL ZONE. NEXT SLIDE. \nBCDC AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY \nUNDERTAKING A STEP BACK THERE’S \nACTUALLY TWO COASTAL ZONE \nSEGMENTS IN CALIFORNIA FOR CZMA \nPURPOSES BCDC ADMINISTERS THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND \nCOASTAL ZONE SEGMENT AND THE \nCOASTAL COMMISSION ADMINISTERS \nTHE REST OF THE COASTAL ZONE BUT \nIT’S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT \nBOTH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nFOUNDING LAW AND THE BAY PLAN \nPREDATE THE CZMA AND THE MAC ACT \nWAS ADOPTED AND ENACTED BY \nLEGISLATURE IN 1965 AND THE BAY \nPLAN APPROVED IN 1968\, CZMA \nENACTED BY CONGRESS IN 1972. IN \n1977 WHEN NOAA APPROVED THE BCDC \nCZMP IT VIRTUALLY AND WHOLLY \nINCORPORATED THE MAC ACT AND THE \nBAY PLAN INTO OUR CCP. BACK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY \nMICHAEL. \n>>SPEAKER: UPDATES TO OUR CZMP \nMUST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH OUR \nCZMA PROGRAM CHANGES AND MOST \nCOMMONLY OCCURS WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ADOPTS A BAY PLAN \nELEMENT SO IT’S WORTH POINTING \nOUT THAT BCDC CZMP HAS UPON BEEN \nUPDATED 121 TIMES SINCE 1982 AND \nREFLECT AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES \nTO BCDC’S LAWS AND POLICIES. \nNOW WE GET INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY \nBEFORE US TODAY A SUBMITTED \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION SO THE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nPROCESS OR CD INVOLVES BOTH \nFEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES. \nI’LL TALK ABOUT THE FEDERAL \nAGENCY ROLE SUBMITTING TO BCDC \nPRIOR TO UNDERTAKING ANY \nACTIVITY THAT AFFECTS ANY LAND \nOR WATER USE OR NATURAL RESOURCE \nOF THE COASTAL ZONE ACTIVITY \nMUST BE CARRIED OUT IN A MANNER \nWHICH IS CONSISTENT TO THE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH \nTHE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF THE \nAPPROVED STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN \nPROGRAM. TWO NOTES FIRST I’LL \nADDRESS THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF \nPHASE LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION \nSECOND NOAA’S REGULATIONS DEFINE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO \nMEAN FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF \nMANAGEMENT PROGRAMS UNLESS FULL \nCONSISTENCY IS PROHIBITED BY \nEXISTING LAW APPLICABLE TO THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY AND NOAA \nREGULATIONS FURTHER DEFINE \nENFORCEABLE POLICY AS STATE \nPOLICIES WHICH ARE LEGALLY \nBINDING THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL \nPROVISIONS LAWS REGULATIONS LAND \nUSE PLANS ORDINANCES OR JUDICIAL \nADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS BY \nWHICH A STATE EXPERTS CONTROL \nOVER A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAND \nAND WATER USES AND NATURAL \nRESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE SO \nTHE FEDERAL AGENCY SHALL NOT \nPROCEED WITH ACTIVITY OVER BCDC \nOBJECTION UNLESS FEDERAL AGENCY \nHAS CONCLUDED ONE OF THE \nFOLLOWING EITHER THAT ACTIVITY \nIS CONSISTENT WITH BCDC \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES IS \nENFORCEABLE ARE POLICIES IS \nPROHIBITED BY LAW OR THAT \nPROPOSED ACTION IS CONSISTENT \nWITH BCDC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES. \nTHE NEXT PART OF THE CD PROCESS \nIS THE STATE AGENCY ROLE. BCDC \nRESPONDS TO A CD SUBMITTED TO \nTHE FEDERAL AGENCY BY ONE OF THE \nFOLLOWING EITHER CONCURRING \nCONDITIONALLY CONCURRING OR \nOBJECTING TO THE CD CONDITIONAL \nCONCURRENCE MEANS THAT THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY MUST MEET \nSPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO BE \nDEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPOLICIES AND BCDC MUST IDENTIFY \nSPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF \nITS CMP EXPLAINING WHY \nCONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO \nENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THOSE \nSPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES \nAGAIN BCDC CZMP INCLUDES \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BOTH \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY \nPLAN IF THE FEDERAL AGENCY \nREJECTS CONDITIONS IN THE \nSTATE’S CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCE \nIS EFFECTIVELY DEEMED AN \nOBJECTION. NEXT SLIDE. NOW WE \nKNOW THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND \nSTATE AGENCY ROLES IN THE \nPROCESS\, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN \nTHERE’S A CONFLICT IN THE TWO \nSIDES. FIRST NOTING OBJECTION \nTO A CD IS NOT A DENIAL IN THE \nWAY WE MAY BE ABLE TO DENY AN \nAPPLICATION UNDER OUR STATE LAW \nAUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL AGENCY \nDECIDES TO PROCEED WITH ACTIVITY \nTHAT IS OBJECTED TO BY BCDC THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY MUST NOTIFY BCDC \nOF ITS DECISION TO PROCEED \nBEFORE COMMENCEMENT. SO IF \nTHERE IS A SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT \nBETWEEN THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND \nBCDC\, EITHER PARTY MAY REQUEST \nMEDIATION BY NOAA’S OFFICE OF \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT\, OCM OR THE \nSECRETARY OF COMMERCE. IF \nMEDIATION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL OR \nUTILIZED\, EITHER PARTY MAY SEEK \nREVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THAT WAS A LOT OF \nINFORMATION. BUT TO SUMMARIZE\, \nBCDC’S CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES OF MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nAND THE BAY PLAN AND FEDERAL \nAGENCIES MUST UNDERTAKE \nACTIVITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF OUR \nCZMP. FEDERAL AGENCY SUBMITS A \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR \nITS PROPOSED ACTIVITIES TO WHICH \nBCDC CAN CONCUR CONDITIONALLY \nCONCUR OR OBJECT\, AND FOR \nSERIOUS DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN A \nFEDERAL AGENCY AND BCDC\, BCDC \nMAY REQUEST MEDIATION FROM \nNOAA’S OFFICE OF COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT OR THE SECRETARY OF \nCOMMERCE AND/OR SEEK JUDICIAL \nREVIEW IN A COURT OF LAW. NEXT \nSLIDE. NOW TO THE SECOND PART \nTALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION’S \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nBEFORE I ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC \nTOPIC OF THE COMMISSIONS \nJURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER \nTHIS PROJECT IT WILL BE HELPFUL \nTO TAKE A STEP BACK AND \nUNDERSTAND HOW VARIOUS LEGAL \nREGIMES SHOULD INFORM AND GUIDE \nTHE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING \nPROS. I HAVE SET FORTH TWO \nBROAD CATEGORIES FOR DISCUSSING \nRELEVANT LEGAL REGIMES FIRST \nCATEGORY SHOULD GUIDE THE \nPROCESS AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE \nPOLICY STANDARDS BY WHICH THE \nCOMMISSION SHOULD MAKE A \nDECISION ON THE PROJECT AT THE \nNEXT MEETING ON DECEMBER 21ST. \nTHE SECOND CATEGORY \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION \nIDENTIFIES TWO LAWS\, ONE FEDERAL \nAND ONE STATE WHICH REQUIRES \nPREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL \nDOCUMENTATION WHICH SHOULD ALSO \nINFORM THE COMMISSIONS POLICY \nDETERMINATIONS WITHIN ITS \nDECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. YOU MAY \nHEAR COMMENTERS MAKE REFERENCE \nTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nDOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THE \nPROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THESE \nLAWS. HOWEVER IT’S WORTH \nPOINTING OUT THAT THE \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION LAWS \nTHEMSELVES DO NOT DIRECTLY \nCONTROL THE COMMISSIONS \nDECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK HERE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nFIRST WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE CZMA \nWHICH WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. AS \nPREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED UNDER CZMA\, \nA FEDERAL AGENCY UNDERTAKING ITS \nOWN ACTIVITY WITHIN OR OUTSIDE \nOF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY COASTAL \nZONE WHICH MAY AFFECT COASTAL \nRESOURCES WITHIN OUR SEGMENT OF \nTHE COASTAL ZONE MUST SUBMIT A \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION TO \nBCDC JUSTIFYING THAT THE FEDERAL \nAGENCY’S PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE \nCONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM \nCOMMENT PRACTICABLE WITH THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC \nCZMP. ARMY CORP ENGINEERS \nSUBMITTED A FIRST PHASE CD THAT \nIS PROPOSED ACTIONS CONSISTENT \nTO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT \nPRACTICABLE WITH THE ENFORCE \nPOLICIES OF OUR CZMP AND AGAIN \nBCDC CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES OF THE MAC ACT AND THE \nBAY PLAN AND BCDC CAN CONCUR \nCONDITIONALLY OR OBJECT. THESE \nARE BASED ON DEVELOPING \nINFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE AT THE \nTIME OF THE CD WITH EACH PHASE \nSUBJECT TO FEDERAL AGENCY \nDISCRETION TO IMPLEMENT \nALTERNATIVE DECISIONS BASED UPON \nTHE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT \nTHAT TIME. FOR EXAMPLE\, \nPLANNING CITING DESIGNING DESIGN \nPHASES AND CD IS REQUIRED FOR \nEACH MAJOR DECISION. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nNEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AS PART OF \nTHE DECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. THE \nPROJECT WOULD OCCUR OUTSIDE OF \nTHE BAY AND SHORELINE BAN \nJURISDICTIONS BUT THE PROJECT \nMAY AFFECT RESOURCES WITHIN BOTH \nOF THESE JURISDICTIONS WITHIN \nBCDC COASTAL ZONE SEGMENT \nIDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION \nSUMMARY OF LISTED I’M NOT GOING \nTO GO OVER ALL OF THESE BUT YOU \nCAN SEE STAFF IDENTIFIED AS THE \nRELEVANT POLICIES FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO CONSIDER IN \nRELATION TO THIS PROJECT. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, NEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE \nBAY PLAN AS PART OF THE \nDECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. AND ON \nTHIS SLIDE\, AGAIN\, I’M NOT GOING \nTO READ ALL OF THESE CATEGORIES\, \nBUT THESE ARE ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES AND THE CZMP THAT WERE \nIDENTIFIED IN THE BAY PLAN. THE \nFOLLOWING BAY PLAN POLICY \nCATEGORIES ARE RELEVANT IN \nENFORCING POLICIES FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO CONSIDER \nDETERMINING WHETHER IT CONCURS \nCONDITIONALLY OR OBJECTS TO THE \nARMY CORP SUBMITTED CD. THE \nCOMMISSION’S RECENT UPDATE TO \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN VIS-À-VIS \nADOPTED PLAN IS NOT YET PART OF \nTHE BCDC APPROVED CERTIFIED \nCZMP. FOR PURPOSES OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF \nTHE CD THE COMMISSION SHOULD \nRELY ON POLICIES OF THE SEAPORT \nPLAN PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF BPA \n119 TO THE EXTENT THEY INFORM \nTHE COMMISSION DETERMINATION \nWHETHER IT CONDITIONALLY CONCURS \nOR OBJECTS TO THE ARMY CORP’S \nSUBMITTED CD. NEXT SLIDE. \nNEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AS \nPART OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL \nREGIME HERE. SO\, NEPA STANDS \nFOR THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL \nPOLICY ACT\, WHICH WAS ENACTED BY \nCONGRESS IN 1969. IT REQUIRES \nTHAT ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE TO \nPREPARE DETAILED STATEMENTS \nASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT AND ALTERNATIVES TO MAJOR \nFEDERAL ACTIONS SIGNIFICANTLY \nAFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. SO\, \nHERE\, FOR THIS PROJECT\, THE ARMY \nCORP PREPARED AN INTEGRATED \nFEASIBILITY REPORT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS THE \nNEPA LEAD AGENCY. AND AS PART \nOF ITS EA\, IT MADE A DRAFT \nFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT \nOR [INDISCERNIBLE] UNDER CZMA \nSTATE AGENCIES CANNOT REQUIRE \nSUBMITTAL OF NEPA DOCUMENTATION \nAS PART OF A CD BUT HERE THE \nARMY CORP DID PROVIDE AN EA FOR \nSTAFF CONSIDERATION IN \nEVALUATING THE SUBMITTED CD IT’S \nWORTH POINTING OUT FEDERAL \nAGENCIES CD OBLIGATIONS UNDER \nCZMP ARE INDEPENDENT OF THOSE \nREQUIRED UNDER NEPA AND ARE NOT \nNECESSARILY FULFILLED BY THE \nSUBMISSION OF NEPA. THE EA IS \nNOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE OF \nTHE COMMISSION’S REVIEW OF THE \nARMY CORP’S SUBMITTED CD THOUGH \nANALYSIS IN MAY ASSIST THE \nCOMMISSION IN DETERMINING \nWHETHER IT CONCURS CONDITIONALLY \nCONCURS OR OBJECTS TO THE \nSUBMITTED CD. SIMILAR TO NEPA \nCEQA REQUIRES STATE AND LOCAL \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO INFORM \nDECISION MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC \nABOUT THE POTENTIAL \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF \nPROPOSED PROJECTS AND REDUCE \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE \nEXTENT FEASIBLE THE. THE EIR IS \nNOT DIRECTLY BEFORE US TODAY \nBECAUSE CEQA IS NOT A \nREQUIREMENT UNDER CZMA. UNDER \nTHE DOCUMENT THEY HAVE \nIDENTIFIED FOUR SIGNIFICANT AND \nUNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THREE \nRELATING TO AIR QUALITY AND ONE \nRELATING TO NOISE AND THEY ALSO \nIDENTIFIED CERTAIN MITIGATION \nMEASURES TO MITIGATE THE \nSIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE IMPACTS \nALTHOUGH THEY STILL CONCLUDED \nTHEY WERE SIGNIFICANT AND \nUNAVOIDABLE. SO BCDC STAFF IS \nCURRENTLY REVIEWING AND \nCOMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR AS A \nRESPONSIBLE AGENCY AND WILL \nCONSIDER IT WHEN THE PORT \nAPPLIES FOR A BCDC PERMIT. THIS \nIS TYPICALLY HOW BCDC HANDLES \nITS CEQA COMPLIANCE BECAUSE \nPERMIT APPLICANTS MUST OBTAIN \nALL DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS \nBEFORE SEEKING A BCDC PERMIT AND \nTYPICALLY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT \nPROVIDING ANY LOCAL \nDISCRETIONARY APPROVAL SERVES AS \nA CEQA LEAD AGENCY. BCDC RELIES \nON THE CEQA DOCUMENTATION \nPREPARED BY THE LEAD AGENCY WHEN \nACTING ON A PERMIT APPLICATION \nFOR A PROJECT AS A CEQA AGENCY \nRESPONSIBLE AGENCY IF A PROJECT \nREQUIRES APPROVAL FROM A \nCALIFORNIA PUBLIC AGENCY OR \nFEDERAL AGENCY THE CEQA \nGUIDELINES GENERALLY REQUIRE \nPREPARATION OF A JOINT CEQA \nDOCUMENT GUIDELINES ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHAT A FEDERAL AGENCY MAY NOT \nCOOPERATE IN THE PREPARATION OF \nA JOINT DOCUMENT AND MAY REQUIRE \nA SEPARATE NEPA DOCUMENTATION. \nHERE THE ARMY CORP AND PORT OF \nOAKLAND DID NOT PREPARE A JOINT \nNEPA CEQA DOCUMENT INSTEAD THE \nARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA PORT \nPREPARED AN EIR UNDER ITS CEQA \nREQUIREMENTS. THERE IS NO \nREQUIREMENT THAT THE \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A \nPROJECT UNDER NEPA COME TO THE \nCONCLUSIONS AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW OF THE SAME PROJECT UNDER \nCEQA BECAUSE CEQA AND NEPA ARE \nDIFFERENT STATUS WITH DIFFERENT \nREQUIREMENTS. AGAIN THAT WAS A \nLOT OF INFORMATION. JUST TO \nSUMMARIZE HERE THE ARMY CORP \nSUBMITTED A PHASED CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION AS REQUIRED AND \nALLOWED BY THE CMA. BCDC MUST \nCONCUR INITIALLY CONCUR OR \nOBJECT TO THE SUBMITTED CD THAT \nTHE ARMY CORP’S PROPOSED ACTIONS \nARE CONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM \nEXTENT PRACTICABLE WITHIN THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC\, \nCZMP. AND AGAIN BCDC CZMP \nINCLUDES ENFORCEABLE OF POLICIES \nOF MACATEER PETRIS AND THE BAY \nPLAN. OBJECTION IS NOT A \nDENIAL. THOUGH BCDC MAY SEEK \nMEDIATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. \nARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA UNDER \nITS NEPA AUTHORITY\, ALTHOUGH \nTHIS IS NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT. \nAND THE PORT PREPARED AN EIR \nUNDER ITS CEQA AUTHORITY WHICH \nIS ALSO NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT \nBUT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY BCDC \nWHEN THE PORT NEEDS A BCDC \nPERMIT. AND THAT’S THE END OF \nMY PRESENTATION. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU MICHAEL. \nSO\, COMMISSIONERS\, I HOPE YOU \nAPPRECIATE THAT MINI CONCISE \nTRAINING ON CZMA\, CEQA AND NEPA. \nIT’S VERY MUCH TO INFORM THE \nPROJECT AND HOW THE COMMISSION \nSTAFF HAS BEEN APPROACHING THE \nOAKLAND TURNING BASIN’S WIDENING \nPROJECT. \nI’M GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF \nOVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE \nTHE ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE A \nLONGER AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF \nTHE ARMY CORP PROJECT. IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A \nJOINT PROJECT OF THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND AND THE U.S. ARMY CORP \nOF ENGINEERS AS MICHAEL \nMENTIONED OR ALLUDED TO\, THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND WILL BE \nREQUESTING A BCDC PERMIT LIKELY \nIN 2025\, 2026. SO\, WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT \nAGAIN AROUND THE MCATEER-PETRIS \nACT STATUS AND BAY PLAN \nPOLICIES. \nSO\, JUST A QUICK NOTE. AGAIN\, \nTHIS IS A FIRST PHASE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. THE \nARMY CORP WILL DESCRIBE FURTHER. \nBUT IN THE FIRST PHASE\, AT THIS \nLEVEL WE’RE LOOKING AT THE \nFEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE \nPROJECT. THAT MEANS THAT MANY \nOF THE DETAILS THAT WE WOULD \nNORMALLY RECEIVE IN A PERMIT \nAPPLICATION HAVE NOT YET BEEN \nPROVIDED ALTHOUGH WE HAVE \nSEVERAL DETAILS IN HAND. THE \nPROJECT IS NOT YET AUTHORIZED OR \nFUNDED. SO\, WE ANTICIPATE A \nSECOND PHASE — WE ANTICIPATE A \nSECOND PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION IN 2025 OR 2026. \nTHAT WILL BE AT THE PLANNING \nENGINEERING AND DESIGN PHASE \nWHERE MORE DETAILS WILL BE \nPROVIDED BY THE ARMY CORP. ONE \nOF THE REASONS WE’RE HERE TODAY \nIS BECAUSE IN ORDER FOR THE ARMY \nCORP OF ENGINEERS TO HAVE THEIR \nHEADQUARTERS SIGN WHAT IS KNOWN \nAS THEIR CHIEF’S REPORT\, THE \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION LETTER \nOF AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE \nAPPENDED TO THAT REPORT. THEN \nLASTLY THIS ACTION HELPS THE \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS REQUEST \nAUTHORIZATION FOR THIS PROJECT \nIN THE WATER RESOURCES AND \nDEVELOPMENT ACT\, 2024\, OR LATER\, \nSHOULD THAT NEED TO HAPPEN AT A \nLATER TIME AND FUTURE \nAPPROPRIATIONS OF THE PROJECT BY \nCONGRESS. \nTHIS IS THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nI’M HOPING MANY OF YOU ARE \nFAMILIAR WITH IT. THIS IS A \nGRAPHIC FROM THE PORT’S FILES. \nBUT IT SHOWS THE OUTER HARBOR TO \nTHE NORTHERN PART OF MY SCREEN\, \nTHE TOP OF MY SCREEN\, WITH THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASINS\, \nSORT OF IN THE CRUX OF THE OUTER \nHARBOR AND THE INNER HARBOR \nTRAVELING BETWEEN THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND AND THE ISLAND OF \nALAMEDA WITH THE INNER HARBOR \nDOWN IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND \nCORNER OF THE SCREEN. THESE TWO \nTURNING BASINS ARE THE MAIN \nSUBJECT OF THIS CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION\, BECAUSE AT THIS \nTIME\, LARGE VESSELS THAT ENTER \nTHE PORT FACE RESTRICTIONS NOT \nALL OF THEM BUT SOME FACE \nRESTRICTIONS WHEN THEY’RE \nTRAVELING IN AND OUT OF THE PORT \nFACILITIES TO BERTH AND OFFLOAD \nTHEIR CARGO. THIS IS A SHORT \nVERSION OF THE PORT OF OAKLAND’S \nPROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE \nPROJECT. BUT BASICALLY THEY’RE \nLOOKING TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES \nFOR LONGER VESSELS FOR BOTH THE \nCURRENT VESSELS THAT ARE \nENTERING AND LEAVING THE HARBORS \nTODAY AND ALSO FOR THE FUTURE \nDEEP DRAFT VESSELS THAT MAY CALL \nAT THE PORT IN THE FUTURE\, AND \nARE ANTICIPATED TO CALL IT THE \nPORT. THEY ALSO MAINTAIN WANT \nTO MAINTAIN THE COMPETITIVENESS \nFOR THE PORT INTERNATIONAL CARGO \nSHIPMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT VESSELS HAVE FLEXIBILITY \nFOR CONNECTING TO SHORE POWER \nWHILE THEY’RE AT BERTH \nAPPARENTLY SOME OF THE SHIPS \nONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONNECT \nTO SHORE POWER ON THE INSIDE SO \nTHEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN AND \nMAKE SURE THEY CAN CONNECT TO \nSHORE POWER. THIS HELPS SUPPORT \nA MOVE TOWARDS ZERO-EMISSIONS IN \nTHE FUTURE AND THEY WILL ALSO \nIMPROVE VESSEL MANUFACTURING AND \nSAFETY AND REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL \nRISKS SUCH AS OIL SPILLS THAT \nCURRENTLY EXIST IN THE TURNING \nBASINS WHEN THEY’RE UNDERSIZED \nFOR THE VESSELS THAT ARE \nTRANSITING THEM AND ALSO \nMEASURES TO MODERNIZE ESSENTIAL \nWATERWAY PORT OF OAKLAND FOR THE \nNATION AND WITH THE FLEET COMING \nAND GOING AND THE GRAPHIC ON THE \nRIGHT SHOWS SOME OF THE \nDIFFERENCES THAT THE PORT IS \nFACING NOW BOTH IN THE FUTURE \nVESSELS GET LONGER AND WIDER \nWITH THE ABILITY OF VESSELS TO \nTRY TO CARRY MORE CARGO. \nLOOKING AT THE TWO AREAS OF \nACTION FOR THIS PROJECT SO THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN CLOSE \nUP OF EARLY DESIGN PHASE BUT THE \nTURNING BASIN AS IT EXISTS TODAY \nIN THE LIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED \nTURNING BASIN IN THE DARKER OR \nCHARCOAL GRAY TO BLACK. \nBASICALLY\, THIS REPRESENTS AN \nEXPANSION OF THE EXISTING \nTURNING BASIN BY 21 ACRES. IT \nWOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY \nDREDGING APPROXIMATELY \n1.34 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF \nSHALLOW SUBTIDAL HABITAT THAT’S \nCURRENTLY AT 4 TO 5 FEET MEAN \nLOW WATER. THAT AREA WILL BE \nTAKEN DOWN TO MINUS 50 FEET TO \nMATCH THE EXISTING TURNING BASIN \nSTEPS. AND THE PORT AND CORP \nHAVE COMMITTED TO BEN OFFICIALLY \nREUSING ALL THE DREDGE SEDIMENT \nTHAT’S CLEAN AND SUITABLE FOR \nREUSE FROM THIS PROJECT AND \nPARTICULARLY THE OUTER HARBOR \nBECAUSE IT’S ANTICIPATED TO HAVE \nFEWER CONTAMINANTS IN THE INNER \nHARBOR JUST DUE TO THE NATURE \nWAS THE UNDISTURBED SITE. AND \nAS PART OF THIS\, THEY WILL BE \nUPGRADING EXISTING ELECTRICAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE NEAR 26\, WHICH IS \nADJACENT TO THE SITE. \nTHE INNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN \nFAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THE OUTER \nHARBOR TURNING THE BASIN \nEXPANSION. SIMILARLY THE \nGRAPHIC YOU SEE HERE EXISTING \nINNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IN \nLIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED \nWIDENING EXPANSION OF THE \nTURNING BASIN IN BLACK WITH THE \nDASHED LINES BEING IN AREAS THAT \nARE WITHIN THE EXISTING 50 FOOT \nFEDERAL NAVIGATION CHANNEL AND \nTHE AREAS THAT ARE YELLOW AND \nSOLID BLACK ARE AREAS NEED TO BE \nEXCAVATED OR DREDGED AS PART OF \nTHE PROJECT. IN ORDER TO EXPAND \nTHE TURNING BASIN AS THE CORP \nDID IN THE 50-FOOT DEEPENING \nPROJECT — THIS HAS BEEN DONE AT \nLEAST ONCE BEFORE — PORTIONS \nOF HOWARD TERMINAL WHICH WERE \nPUT INTO PLACE IN THE 1980’S \nWOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED\, 3.9 \nACRES. ALAMEDA LAND SITE \nOPPOSITE THE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE \n6.5 ACRES REMOVED. THERE ARE \nTWO WAREHOUSES ON THAT SITE; \nYOU CAN SEE THEM THERE IN WHITE. \nON THE LOWER PART OF THE SCREEN \nONE OF THEM SAYS ALAMEDA \nPROPERTY THOSE WAREHOUSES WOULD \nBE PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED TO \nACCOMMODATE THE WIDER TURNING \nBASIN. IN THE WHARFS ON BOTH \nSIDES THERE IS A COMBINATION OF \nA ROCK DIKE\, THOSE AREAS THAT \nNEED TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF \nTHIS PROJECT AND TWO BULK HEADS \nWOULD BE INSTALLED ONE ON THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL SIDE ONE ON THE \nALAMEDA SIDE TO HOLD THE NEW \nSHORELINE. IN ADDITION — AND \nIT’S NOT ON THIS SLIDE — IN \nADDITION THERE IS A SMALL NARROW \nAREA IN FRONT OF SCHNITZER STEEL \nON THE LEFT UPPER PART OF THE \nSLIDE WHERE THE CORP WOULD PLACE \nIN WATER RETAINING WALL TO HOLD \nBACK THE SLOPE OF THE SHORELINE \nSO WHEN THE AREA IS DEEPENED TO \nMINUS 50 FEET THE SLOPE WOULDN’T \nSLUMP AND CAUSE SLOPE FAILURE. \nONCE THE NEW BULK HEADS ARE IN \nPLACE THE PROJECT WOULD DREDGE \nAPPROXIMATELY 825 CUBIC YARDS OF \nSEDIMENT ALSO TARGETED FOR \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WHENEVER \nSUITABLE AND IT WILL BE DEEPENED \nTO MINUS 50 FEET TO MATCH THE \nCHANNEL AND EXISTING TURNING \nBASIN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WOULD \nBE DISPOSED OR RECYCLED\, \nDEPENDING ON ITS TYPE\, AND THEY \nWOULD NEED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. \nOOPS. WE WENT THE WRONG WAY. \nSORRY. \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: BRENDA\, I \nTHINK YOU MISSPOKE. IT’S \n825\,000. \n>>SPEAKER: DID I SAY MILLION? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: — \n[INDISCERNIBLE] DREDGING. \nI THINK YOU SAID 825. \n>>SPEAKER: OH. YEAH\, I ALWAYS \nDROP OFF THREE ZEROES. MY \nAPOLOGIES. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS \nWHEN YOU WORK IN THE WORLD OF A \nLOT OF ZEROS. \nTHANK YOU FOR THAT\, STEVE. \nONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS OF THE \nPROJECT IS MACING FILLS TAKING \nAWAY OF FILL\, OVERALL IT’S \nREDUCTION OF BAY FILL INCREASE \nOF SURFACE AREA VOLUME IN THE \nBAY. YOU CAN SEE THE TOP FOUR \nLINES LOOKING AT FILL REMOVAL \n10.4 ACRES OF THE AREA WOULD BE \nREMOVED OVERALL THEN 418\,400 \nCUBIC YARDS OF SOLID FILL WOULD \nBE REMOVED. THE FILL PLACED\, OR \nTHE NEXT SET OF NUMBERS \nTOTALLING 2.81 ACRES OF FILL \nPLACED AND 23\,000 ACRE YARDS OF \nFILL PLACED THAT RESULTS IN \nTOTAL NET OF REDUCTION OF 7.6 \nACRES AND NET SOLID FILL \nREDUCTION OF 395\,400 CUBIC YARDS \nREPRESENTING INCREASE IN SURFACE \nAREA AND VOLUME OF THE BAY WHICH \nIS HELPFUL. I’M GOING TO TOUCH \nON ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION \nWILL NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN IT’S \nVOTING TO HELP FRAME ANY PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS THAT MAY ARISE AND ALSO \nFOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS \nPROJECT AS YOU’RE HEARING THE \nARMY CORP PRESENTATION. SO THE \nPRIMARY ISSUES THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS AND \nPOLICIES\, WHETHER THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN \nWHETHER THE ARMY CORP HAS \nCONDUCTED EQUITABLE AND \nCULTURALLY RELATIVE OUTREACH TO \nTHE PUBLIC PARTICULARLY THE \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY \nTHAT MAY BE DISPROPORTIONATELY \nIMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT AND \nWHETHER IT’S CONSISTENT WITH OUR \nENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL JUSTICE \nPOLICIES AND THERE IS MITIGATION \nFOR THOSE IMPACTS WHERE WE HAVE \nAUTHORITY. AND LASTLY\, WHETHER \nTHE PROPOSED DELAY ON ADDRESSING \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND SCENIC VIEWS \nTO THE NEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE. \nA COUPLE MORE SLIDES THEN I’LL \nTURN IT OVER TO PHOENIX. \nMICHAEL TOUCHED ON THIS I’M NOT \nGOING TO BELABOR THE POINT BUT A \nQUICK REMINDER THAT WE’RE USING \nTHE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN FOR THIS \nPROJECT AS AMENDED IN 2012. HE \nMENTIONED THE CURRENT ONE \nREQUIRES COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT \nREVIEW BEFORE WE CAN USE IT. \nSO\, JUST A QUICK NOTE THAT THE \nSEAPORT PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY \nEXISTS SUPPORTS REDEVELOPMENT OF \nTHE PORT TO IMPROVE WATER BORNE \nCOMMERCE AND COMMERCE AND \nSUPPORT ECONOMY OF THE BAY AREA \nALSO INCLUDES DREDGING TO DEEPEN \nAND MAINTAIN NAVIGATION \nCHANNELS. \nAND THEN IN JUST A MINUTE ON \nPUBLIC ACCESS. SO THERE HAS \nBEEN CONCERNS AND COMMENTS MADE \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS AND WHETHER \nOR NOT THE PROJECT SHOULD \nPROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. AND AT \nTHIS POINT IN TIME\, IN THE \nFEASIBILITY STAGE\, THE CORP AND \nTHE PORT HAVE NOT PROVIDED OR \nPROPOSED ANY PUBLIC ACCESS. \nIT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE DIFFERENT \nPOLICIES THAT SUPPORT THE \nCOMMISSION STAFF’S VIEW THAT \nPUBLIC ACCESS IS AND SHOULD BE \nREQUIRED BY THIS PROJECT. SO\, \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT SECTION 66602 \nSPEAKS TO REQUIRING THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONSISTENT WITH A PROJECT AND IT \nSPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT PORTS AS \nONE AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS \nSHOULD BE REQUIRED WHERE \nFEASIBLE AND SAFE TO DO SO. \nWHEN THE STAFF LOOKS AT PROJECTS \nFOR PUBLIC ACCESS THEY LOOK AT \nTHE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT BOTH \nCURRENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIN THE AREA. \nIN LIEU\, PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PORT \nPROPERTIES IS LIKELY AN OUTCOME \nDUE TO THE SAFETY CONCERNS \nTHAT’S PART OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICY 1 AND 2 IT SEEKS IF YOU \nCAN’T PROVIDE IT IN PORT \nPROPERTIES THAT NEARBY PUBLIC \nACCESS PROJECTS COULD BE \nPROVIDED AND IF YOU CAN’T DO IT \nNEARBY\, THEN PUBLIC ACCESS \nSHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR \nVULNERABLE OR DISADVANTAGED \nCOMMUNITIES. \nI ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS \nSTAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA\, WHO RAISED SPECIFIC \nCONCERNS ABOUT THE STAFF \nSUMMARY. AND FRANKLY\, THE \nTERMINOLOGY USED\, WE CALLED IT \nALAMEDA TERMINAL\, THE TRUE NAME \nIS ALAMEDA LANDING. THE MASTER \nLAN FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING FOR \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA ANTICIPATES \nAND ENCOURAGES PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nRECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS \nPART OF THAT SITE AND IN FACT \nMENTIONED THAT IT’S PART OF THE \nBAY TRAIL\, IN THE FUTURE. \nAND THEN LASTLY\, THE PORT’S \nPOLICIES AND THE SEAPORT PLAN \nSAY THAT PORT SHOULD BE DESIGNED \nWHENEVER FEASIBLE TO PERMIT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND VIEWING \nACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWING \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR PORT \nACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWPOINTS \nAND OPENINGS BETWEEN BUILDINGS \nAND OTHER SITE DESIGNS THAT \nPERMIT VIEW OF THE MARITIME \nACTIVITIES. JUST WANTED TO CALL \nTHOSE TO YOUR ATTENTION AS WE \nTHINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT WITH \nTHE PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS. AND \nI’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO \nPHOENIX ARMENTA TO TALK ABOUT \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nPOLICIES. \n>>SPEAKER: WEST OAKLAND IS AN \nENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AS \nDEMONSTRATED BY CALENVIROSCREEN\, \nEJ COMMUNITY SCREENING TOOL AND \nBCDC COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE MAP \nCLOSEST TO THE OAKLAND HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN ARE WITHIN THE \n70th\, 8TH\, 90th PERCENTILE IN \nTERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nBURDEN IN THE STATE OF \nCALIFORNIA BCDC SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY MAP SHOWS \nCOMMUNITIES AROUND THE TURNING \nBASIN RANGE FROM MODERATE TO \nHIGH SOCIAL VULNERABILITY. \nOAKLAND HAS A LONG HISTORY OF \nINDUSTRIAL USES PORT EXPANSION \nAND IS SURROUNDED BY TWO \nFREEWAYS LEADING TO THE HIGHEST \nEXPOSURES TO PARTICULATE MATTER \nIN THE NATION. NEXT SLIDE. \nBCDC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND \nSOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES ADOPTED \nIN 2019 OUTLINE REQUIREMENTS FOR \nWORKING IN SOCIALLY VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES FIRST POLICY DIRECTS \nCOMMISSION TO INCLUDE PRINCIPLES \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY IN ALL ACTIONS AND \nACTIVITIES RELATED TO \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY THAT MAY AFFECT THE \nCOMMISSION’S AUTHORITY OR \nJURISDICTION. \nTHE THIRD POLICY REQUIRES \nMEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT \nBY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT \nAPPLICANTS WORKING IN SOCIALLY \nVULNERABLE COMMUNITIES FOURTH \nPOLICY REQUIRES THAT LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS AND THE COMMISSION \nSHOULD MAKE MEASURES THROUGH \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS WITHIN THE \nSCOPE OF THEIR RESPECTED \nAUTHORITY TO REQUIRE MITIGATION \nFOR DISPROPORTIONATE ADVERSE \nPROJECT IMPACT ON THE IDENTIFIED \nVULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH \nTHE PROJECT IS PROPOSED. IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT POLICY \nFOUR IS APPLIED ONLY WITHIN THE \nSCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S \nRESPECTIVE AUTHORITY WHEN \nCONSIDERING ITS APPLICATION TO \nTHE OAKLAND HARBOR TURNING \nBASIN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nWITH REGARDS TO MEANINGFUL \nCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE PORT \nAND THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS HELD A TOTALLY OF NINE \nMEETINGS AS PART OF THE NEPA AND \nCEQA PROCESSES THEY MET WITH \nLOCAL GROUPS SUCH AS THE OAKLAND \nENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR’S \nPROJECT JACK LONDON IMPROVEMENT \nDISTRICT AND ACORN PRESCOTT \nNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL TO DISCUSS \nTHE PROJECT THEY ALSO WORKED \nCLOSELY WITH ME TO DEVELOP AND \nHELP WITH THE OUTREACH \nSTRATEGIES. NEXT SLIDE. \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS \nSTILL REMAIN AROUND THE PROJECT \nINCLUDING CONCERNS AROUND \nSIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS \nOF AIR QUALITY FROM CONSTRUCTION \nAND DREDGING EQUIPMENT CONCERNS \nOF WIDENING COULD INDUCE GROWTH \nOVER TIME AND CONTRIBUTING TO \nWORSENING AIR QUALITY RESIDENTS \nDON’T WANT CONTAMINATED SOIL TO \nBE PASS ODDS TO OTHER EJ \nCOMMUNITIES LIKE KETTLE MAN \nCITY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE \nTHESE CONCERNS ALTHOUGH \nIMPORTANT TO ADDRESS DO NOT FALL \nUNDER THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S \nAUTHORITY. NEXT SLIDE. BCDC \nHAS BEEN COORDINATING WITH \nAGENCIES TO HAVE SOME AUTHORITY \nON THESE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nCONCERNS TO HELP ADDRESS THEM \nOUR STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH \nBAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT \nDISTRICT\, CALIFORNIA AIR \nRESOURCES BOARD\, CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE \nAND CALIFORNIA WATER BOARDS \nCALIFORNIA SUBSTANCES CONTROL \nAND US EPA TO WORK ON FINDING \nSOLUTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE CONCERNS ON THIS \nPROJECT. I’LL SEND IT BACK TO \nBRENDA TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE \nPROJECT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. SO THE \nCOMMISSION UNFORTUNATELY DOES \nNOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS \nAIR QUALITY ISSUES ASSOCIATED \nWITH THIS PROJECT IT’S OUTSIDE \nOF OUR SCOPE AND AUTHORITY \nHOWEVER BECAUSE WE REALIZED THE \nCOMMISSION MAY BE CONCERNED \nABOUT THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF \nTHE PROPOSED PROJECT WE THOUGHT \nWE WOULD BRIEFLY LIST OUT SOME \nOF THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE THE \nABILITY TO REGULATE THESE ISSUES \nIN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE TRYING TO \nLAY OUT AREAS WHERE THIS ISSUE \nCAN BE ADDRESSED. SO\, THE BAY \nAREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT \nDISTRICT REGULATES STATIONARY \nEQUIPMENT AND COMMENTS ON \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. THE \nCALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD \nREGULATES MOBILE EQUIPMENTS\, \nVEHICLES AND SHIPS IN STATE \nWATERS. SO\, FOR EXAMPLE\, THEY \nHAVE REGULATIONS RELATING TO \nTRUCKING AND THIS IS THE CARB \nREGULATION. SO\, ALL OF THESE \nLISTED BELOW ARE PRIMARILY \nRELATED TO CARB\, BECAUSE THEY \nARE ENACTING NEW LAWS AND \nPOLICIES AND REGULATIONS TO \nIMPROVE AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO\, \nYOU CAN SEE THAT THEY’RE WORKING \nTO REDUCE SULFUR OXIDES\, NITROUS \nOXIDES\, REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM \nTRUCKS THROUGH INCREASING \nIMPROVEMENTS FOR THEIR ENGINES\, \nFOR LES EMISSIONS. OVER TIME. \nAND SO SOME OF THOSE ARE ALREADY \nIN PLACE. SOME ARE COMING \nONLINE NOW. VESSEL REGULATIONS \nTHAT THEY HAVE ENACTED ARE \nLOOKING AT RENEWABLE DIESEL \nFUEL\, AND\, AGAIN\, IMPLEMENTING \nPHASED-IN BETTER ENGINES WITH \nLESS EMISSIONS. SIMILARLY FOR \nCARGO EQUIPMENT\, THEY’RE \nDEVELOPING CARGO HANDLING AND \nREGULATIONS TO TRANSITION TO \nZERO-EMISSIONS FOR THOSE TYPES \nOF EQUIPMENT\, AND THEN FINALLY \nWITH RAIL\, THEY’RE LOOKING AT \nIMPROVING LOCATION MOTION SO IT \nHAS LESS EMISSIONS AND THEN \nZERO-EMISSIONS OVER TIME. SOME \nOF THAT IS BY PHASING OUT OLDER \nEQUIPMENT. \nLASTLY\, BECAUSE CALIFORNIA’S LAW \nAND AUTHORITY ONLY GOES TO THE \nEXTENT OF THE STATE OF \nCALIFORNIA’S JURISDICTION\, I \nALSO LOOKED INTO WHAT KIND OF \nREGULATIONS APPLY TO OVER — \nEXCUSE ME — TO OCEAN GOING \nVESSELS THAT MAY COME TO THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND WHEN THEY’RE \nCALLING ON THE PORT. \nSO\, THERE ARE CONTROLS WENT 200 \nMILES OF THE COAST THROUGH THE \nINTERNATIONAL MARITIME \nORGANIZATION\, THEY’RE LOOKING\, \nAGAIN\, TO REDUCE — EXCUSE ME — \nSULFUR OXIDES\, AND — [ AUDIO \nDISTORTION ] GREENHOUSE GASSES\, \nU.S. MARINE VESSELS. THE JONES \nACT WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY \nLOOKING AT EMISSIONS IT GOVERNS \nDOMESTIC SHIPPING IN THE UNITED \nSTATES\, THERE IS A FEDERAL \nMARITIME COMMISSION WHICH \nGOVERNS OTHER ASPECTS OF \nSHIPPING BUT NOT NECESSARILY \nMISSIONS. AND THEN LASTLY\, \nCALIFORNIA AIR BOARD\, JUST A \nLITTLE BIT MORE\, WITHIN 24 \nNAUTICAL MILES FROM BASELINE OF \nTHE STATE\, THEY HAVE OCEAN-GOING \nVESSEL FUEL REDUCTION \nREGULATIONS AND OCEAN GOING \nVESSELS AT BERTH REGULATIONS. \nSO I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO \nYOUR ATTENTION SO THE COMMISSION \nDOES HAVE AN AWARENESS OF THE \nDIFFERENCE LAWS AND ORGANIZATION \nTHAT IS WORKING TO REDUCE AIR \nQUALITY IMPACTS AT THE PORTS AND \nFOR THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nAROUND THEM. NEXT STEPS SO YOU \nKNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING. NEXT \nSTEPS ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE \nA PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT IN \nMORE DETAIL THAN I HAVE PROVIDED \nHERE TODAY THEN WE’LL HAVE \nOPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE \nPUBLIC ON THIS PROJECT. \nDECEMBER 15TH IS THE DATE WE \nANTICIPATE SENDING OUT THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. IT WILL BE \nRELEASED BOTH TO THE PUBLIC AND \nTHE COMMISSION. A.M. IS THE DAY \nTHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO VOTE ON \nTHIS PROJECT AND THIS IS A VERY \nIMPORTANT DAY\, BECAUSE IT’S THE \nLAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO VOTE IN 2023. \nAND THEN\, LASTLY\, SHOULD THE \nCOMMISSION CHOOSE TO CONCUR WITH \nTHIS PROJECT\, WE WOULD ISSUE THE \nLETTER OF AGREEMENT NOT LATER \nTHAN DECEMBER 31ST\, 2023. \nSO\, THIS IS A PLEA FROM OUR \nFRIENDS THE HARBOR SEALS\, \nCOMMISSIONERS PLEASE COME TO THE \nMEETING ON A.M. BECAUSE WE NEED \nTHE 84 TOWEL HAVE A VOTE OR THE \nPROJECT WILL BE DELAYED AND \nPOTENTIALLY NOT MAKE IT INTO THE \nREPORT. SO THAT’S A CUTE LITTLE \nFACE SAYING PLEASE COME. WE \nWOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU AGAIN IN A \nCOUPLE OF WEEKS. THAT IS IT \nFROM ME AND NEXT UP IS THE ARMY \nCORP. AND I THINK I’M SHARING \nMY SCREEN FOR THEM\, AS WELL. \nJUST ONE MINUTE. WITH THAT\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE ERIKA \nPOWELL\, FROM THE ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS. SHE ALSO HAS MEMBERS \nFROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND THE \nARMY CORP STAFF WITH HER TODAY \nTO ASSIST IN THE PRESENTATION OR \nQUESTIONS SHOULD THEY ARISE. \nERIKA? \n>>ERIKA POWELL: THANK YOU \nBRENDA HELLO EVERYONE MY NAME IS \nERIKA POWELL. THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF FOR \nALL YOUR SUPPORT AND OPPORTUNITY \nTO PRESENT TODAY ON THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR TURNING BASINS WIDENING \nFEASIBILITY REPORT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THIS \nSTUDY WAS AUTHORIZE WAS FUNDED \nBY CONGRESS WHICH ALLOWED THE \nARMY CORE OF ENGINEERS TO ENTER \nINTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND IN JULY OF 2020 TO \nDETERMINE IF THERE WAS A \nTECHNICALLY FEASIBLE \nECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED \nENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE \nPROJECT THAT WOULD DECREASE \nVESSEL TRANSIT INEFFICIENCIES AT \nTHE OAKLAND HARBOR. SO THAT WAS \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. I AM \nJOINED HERE BY — NEXT SLIDE — \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S NOT \nTRANSITIONING. \n>>ERIKA POWELL: I WAS GOING TO \nTAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I’M \nSO HAPPY TO SEE SO MANY FAMILIAR \nFACES. SO\, I’M JOINED HERE BY \nTHE CORP OF ENGINEERS TEAM \nMEMBERS. WE HAVE A VERY LARGE \nTEAM BUT WE DO HAVE FOLKS HERE \nIN PERSON. BARNEY WAIR\, WHO IS \nOUR TECHNICAL LEAD\, ALSO OUR \nGEOTECHNICAL EXPERT\, ERIK \nJOLIFFE\, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD\, \nAND VIRTUALLY\, WE HAVE ELIZABETH \nDIONNE. OUR LEAD PLAN \nFORMULATOR\, AND ELLIE C\, WHO IS \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL COLEAD AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nSPECIALIST. I’M ALSO JOINED \nHERE BY THE PROJECT DELIVERY \nTEAM ON THE PORT SIDE. JUSTIN \nTASCHEK. I BELIEVE THE PORT \nWOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW \nCOMMENTS. IF THAT’S OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: GREAT. \nAPPRECIATE THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON \nHONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BCDC \nCOMMISSION. BCDC STAFF\, AND THE \nPUBLIC. \nMY NAME IS JUSTIN TASCHEK\, AND I \nAM THE PORT OF OAKLAND PROJECT \nADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PROPOSED \nPROJECT TO WIDEN THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR TURNING BASINS. WITH ME \nMY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES\, EDWIN \nDRAPER\, LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL \nSCIENTIST\, CAMERON CHUOP\, AND I \nWOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO \nBCDC STAFF FOR THEIR COMMITMENT \nAND SUPPORT FOR BRINGING THIS \nITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY \nAND SECONDLY\, I WOULD LIKE TO \nTAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK \nTHE U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nFOR DETERMINATION AND LEADERSHIP \nIN ENSURING THE PORT CONTINUES \nTO DELIVER ECONOMIC PROSPERITY \nTO THE REGION. THE PORT\, IN \nCOLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITY \nMEMBERS\, ENVIRONMENTAL \nORGANIZATIONS\, INDUSTRY\, AND \nLOCAL AGENCIES\, INCLUDING BCDC\, \nIS COMMITTED TO A DECARBONIZED \nFUTURE AND PROUDLY ALIGNS ITSELF \nWITH THE MUTUAL GOAL OF \nDELIVERING SUSTAINABLE \nTRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES. \nWIDENING THE TURNING BASINS IS \nONE SUCH PROJECT THAT HELPS \nDELIVER ON THIS COMMITMENT. \nWITH WIDENED TURNING BASINS\, THE \nPORT CAN ACCOMMODATE SAFE \nEFFICIENT ACCESS FOR A \nTRANSITIONING GLOBAL FLEET THAT \nINCLUDES NEWER\, LONGER\, AND MORE \nENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SHIPS \nWHICH ARE SHORE POWER READY. \nTHAT IS THE SHIPS CAN PLUG IN \nAND TURN THEIR ENGINES OFF WHILE \nAT BERTH. THANK YOU FOR BCDC’S \nONGOING SUPPORT. OUR SHARED \nPURSUIT OF REGIONAL PROSPERITY \nAND BAY RESILIENCE UNDERSCORES \nTHE IMPORTANCE OF THIS AGENDA \nITEM AND WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY. \nTHE PORT LOOKS FORWARD TO OUR \nCOLLECTIVE ENDEAVORINGS AS WE \nNAVIGATE A COURSE TOWARDS A \nTHRIVING\, SUSTAINABLE\, AND \nDECARBONIZED FUTURE. AS A \nREMINDER\, THE PORT\, AS LEAD \nAGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA \nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT\, AS \nMENTIONED PRIOR\, RELEASED A \nDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT \nREPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nON OCTOBER 3RD. COMMENTS ARE \nDUE DECEMBER 18TH. \nRESPECTFULLY\, WE ARE IN THE OPEN \nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE \nCEQA DOCUMENT\, AND ALL QUESTIONS \nDIRECTED TO THE PORT HERE TODAY \nWILL BE INCLUDED AND RESPONDED \nTO IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT REPORT. \nAND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE \nPUBLIC RECORD\, LAST FRIDAY\, \nDECEMBER 1ST\, THE PORT SUBMITTED \nA COMMENT LETTER FOR STAFF’S \nCONSIDERATION\, AS WELL AS THE \nCOMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION\, \nFURTHER EXPANDING ON INFORMATION \nRELATED TO THIS PROPOSED \nPROJECT. WITH THAT I’LL HAND IT \nBACK TO ERICA. THANK YOU. \n>>ERIKA POWELL: ALL RIGHT. \nTHANK YOU TO THE PORT FOR BEING \nHERE TODAY. I AM EXCITED ABOUT \nGIVING CREDIT TO BCDC STAFF. \nTHAT WAS A FANTASTIC \nPRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH \nYOU’RE GOING TO MAKE MY JOB SO \nMUCH EASIER. \nSO\, NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, JUST TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH \nTHIS SLIDE A LITTLE BIT. ON THE \nFAR LEFT\, FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT \nENTIRELY FAMILIAR WITH THE MAKE \nUP OF THE SEAPORT AREA. ON THE \nFAR LEFT IS AN ARROW THAT POINTS \nTO THE ENTRANCE TO THE \nNAVIGATION CHANNEL. ON THE \nUPPER PART OF THAT — THE SLIDE\, \nIS AN ARROW THAT POINTS TO THE \nOUTER BASIN AND THEN THE FAR \nBOTTOM RIGHT IS AN ARROW THAT \nPOINTS TO THE INNER BASIN. THE \nBLUE DASH LINE SHOWS THE FEDERAL \nCHANNEL LIMITS OF THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR WHICH INCLUDES DEEP \nNAVIGATION CHANNELS AND TWO \nTURNING BASINS. A TURNING BASIN \nIS VERY SIMILAR TO A CUL-DE-SAC \nON A STREET. RIGHT? SO THE \nWHOLE POINT OF A TURNING BASIN \nIS TO ALLOW VESSELS ENTERING OR \nDEPARTING OR EXITING THE PORT TO \nTURN AROUND. SO THAT’S JUST TO \nKIND OF GIVE YOU A BIRDS EYE \nVIEW OF THE PORT. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nWE HAD ANOTHER SLIDE SIMILAR TO \nTHIS ONE\, JUST TO KIND OF SPEAK \nTO THE PROBLEM. THE EXISTING \nTURNING BASINS WERE DESIGNED FOR \nCONTAINER VESSEL OF \nAPPROXIMATELY 1139 FEET. \nVESSELS LARGER THAN THAT HAVE \nRESTRICTIONS SO THE EXPERIENCED \nRESTRICTIONS FOR TODAY WHEN \nUSING THE EXISTING TURNING \nBASINS. THESE RESTRICTIONS \nINCLUDE SCHEDULING TRANSITS \nAROUND SPECIFIC TIDE\, CURRENT\, \nAND WIND CONDITIONS. LIMITING \nTO DAYLIGHT TIMES. USES OF \nADDITIONAL PILOT AND REQUIRED \nNUMBER OF VESSEL — \n[INDISCERNIBLE] ARE NEEDED\, \nTHAT’S HOW THEY MITIGATE THESE \nRESTRICTIONS. THESE CAN DELAY \nVESSELS FROM ARRIVING OR \nDEPARTING A BERTH. IN ADDITION \nVESSELS LONGER THAN 1200 FEET IN \nLENGTH ARE USED IN THE HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN AND ARE RESTRICTED \nTO DOCKING PORT SIDE ONLY \nPOINTED EAST. THAT CAN IMPACT \nTHE ABILITY FOR THE VESSEL TO \nUSE SHORE POWER\, AND IF NEEDED\, \nIT PREVENTS — IT PREVENTS THE \nABILITY TO DEPART IN AN \nEMERGENCY. SO\, ONE THING THAT’S \nKIND OF IMPORTANT HERE TOO THAT \nI WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS \nTHAT IN THE FUTURE\, EXISTING \nFLEETS OF SMALLER VESSELS WILL \nBE REPLACED BY LARGER VESSELS\, \nAND WE DO HAVE A SLIDE THAT \nSHOWS THAT TREND. WE HAVE DATA \nTHAT SHOWS THAT TREND. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY\, \nANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE \nVESSELS THAT ARE — OR THE CLASS \nOF THAT — THE VESSEL CLASSES \nTHAT ARE VISITING OR CALLING ON \nTHE PORT TODAY. SO\, ANY VESSEL \nABOVE A THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE \nFEET\, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP \nBLUE TABLE DOESN’T EXPERIENCE \nTHE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE \nMENTIONED EARLIER. HOWEVER\, IF \nYOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM TABLE\, \nTHERE ARE ALL SORTS OF \nRESTRICTIONS FOR ANY VESSEL \nTHAT’S OVER 1200 FEET. AND AS \nYOU HEARD MY SAY\, THERE IS TIDE\, \nCURRENT\, AND WIND CONDITIONS \nTHAT IMPEDE THE PROPER \nNAVIGATION OF THESE VESSELS. \nTHEY NEED ADDITIONAL PILOT\, THEY \nNEED ADDITIONAL TUGBOATS TO HELP \nTHEM NAVIGATE SAFELY IN AND OUT \nOF THE PORT. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED\, \nTOO\, ON THAT LAST SLIDE\, THAT \nALL OF THOSE VESSELS ARE COMING \nINTO THE PORT TODAY. A BRIEF \nDESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND I \nTHOUGHT BRENDA DID A GREAT JOB \nIN DETAILING IT PART OF THE U.S. \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PLAN \nFORMULATION PROCESS IT WAS \nDETERMINED THAT THE INNER HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN SHOULD BE WIDENED \nBY AN ADDITIONAL 334 FEET AND TO \nA DEPTH OF 50 FEET WHICH IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT \nDEPTH OF THE TURNING BASIN AND \nTHE INNER HARBOR CHANNEL. THE \nPURPLE AREAS WHERE THE LAND \nEXCAVATION AND DREDGING OCCUR \nBOTH IN THE OAKLAND SIDE AND THE \nALAMEDA SIDE. THE TWO \nWAREHOUSES ON THE BOTTOM WHERE \nIT SAYS ALAMEDA THEY ACTUALLY\, \nDEMOLITION WE SAY PARTIAL \nDEMOLITION\, I DON’T KNOW IF \nYOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE \nWAREHOUSES\, WE HAVE TWO BAYS \nTHAT WOULD BE IMPACTED IN THE \nFRONT AND THREE BAYS IN THE \nBACK. THE DARK ORANGE DASH \nLINES REPRESENT THE NEW BULK \nHEAD AND YOU CAN SEE BOTH ON THE \nOUTER EDGE OF THE GREEN CIRCLE \nON THE HOWARD SIDE AND THEN ON \nTHE ALAMEDA SIDE. THE NEW BULK \nHEAD SERVES AS SEPARATION OF \nLAND AND WATER. ON THE RIGHT IS \nTHE SCHNITZER STEEL NOW WHAT IS \nCALLED RADIUS RECYCLING THAT IS \nAN INWATER STRUCTURE AND THE \nPOINT OF THAT LITTLE WALL IS TO \nPREVENT SLOPE FROM — TO PREVENT \nSLOPE FROM SLIPPING THERE. THE \nTILL OF THE SLOPE. IT IS \nPROPOSED THAT INFRASTRUCTURE \nWOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE \nSOUTHEAST CORNER OF HOWARD \nTERMINAL TO FACILITATE ELECTRIC \nDREDGING TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION \nAND EMISSIONS FOR THE PROSED \nPROJECT. OKAY. THE LAST THING \nI WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU \nAS A TAKE AWAY FOR THIS IS A \nTOTAL OF 2.4 MILLION CUBIC YARDS \nOF DREDGE MATERIAL IS EXPECTED\, \nAND DIRT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE \nINNER AND OUTER BASIN SO THE \nTOTAL IS 2.4 MILLION. A LITTLE \nMORE THAN 2 MILLION WOULD \nACTUALLY BE TAKEN BY BARGE TO \nNEARBY WETLANDS RESTORATION SITE \nFOR BENEFICIAL USE AND \nAPPROXIMATELY 400\,000 CUBIC \nYARDS WHICH ARE NOT\, RIGHT NOW\, \nESTIMATED NOT SUITABLE FOR \nBENEFICIAL USE\, IS PROPOSED TO \nBE TAKEN TO A LANDFILL AND/OR \nRECYCLED. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHE OUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN \nWOULD BE WIDEN TO APPROXIMATELY \n315 FEET AND AGAIN TO THE SAME \nDEPTH AS THE EXISTING CHANNEL \nWHEN WHICH IS MINUS 50\, THIS \nWOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY \nDREDGING SHOWN IN THE PURPLE \nHATCH AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY \nREMOVAL OF ANY LAND. IN \nADDITION\, AND BASED ON PUBLIC \nFEEDBACK SPECIFICALLY FROM THE \nBAR PILOTS\, THE BASIN WOULD BE \nSHIFTED AWAY FROM THE BERTH AREA \nTO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ACCESS. \nBERTH 26 IS WHERE WE WOULD \nPROPOSE ELECTRICAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRIC \nDREDGING AND BERTH TEN WOULD BE \nUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING \nAND REHANDLING OF NON-HAZARDOUS \nDREDGE MATERIAL THAT REQUIRES \nLANDFILL DISPOSAL. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \nSO\, ACTUALLY BEFORE I TALK ABOUT \nTHIS SLIDE\, I DID WANT TO SAY A \nSPECIAL THANKS TO BCDC EPA \nREGION NINE AND THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND FOR THEIR COLLABORATION \nWITH OUR DISTRICT TO ENSURE \nMEANINGFUL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT\, \nAND EFFECTIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. \nWE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY \nBASIS. IT’S BEEN A YEAR SINCE \nWE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY \nBASIS WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE \nRELEASE OF THE SECOND DRAFT IFR \nEPA INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY \nREPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT \nAND TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT I \nBELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THE END OF \n2022\, THAT WE HAD POLICY \nGUIDANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE. SO THAT ALLOWED US TO \nSTEP UP OUR ENVIRONMENTAL — I’M \nSORRY — OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. \nSO\, WE\, THE CORP\, ARE TRYING TO \nDO MORE THAN THE BEAR MINIMUM \nNOW\, AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. \nSO\, WITH THIS NEW GUIDANCE WE \nWERE ABLE TO CONSIDER \nCOMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. AND \nTHAT’S AN INTERESTING TERM BUT \nWHAT IT SAYS IS WE WERE ABLE TO \nLOOK AT ELECTRIC DREDGING DURING \nCONSTRUCTION AND BENEFICIAL USE \nOF DREDGE MATERIAL\, EVEN THOUGH\, \nFOR EXAMPLE\, FOR DREDGE \nMATERIAL\, WE’RE NOT REQUIRED TO \nDO IT AS MITIGATION\, BUT THIS IS \nSOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE \nTO GO TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY \nOF THE ARMY AND ASK FOR \nPERMISSION TO BE ABLE TO COST \nSHARE THAT WITH THE LOCAL \nSPONSOR. THEY APPROVED THAT\, SO \nTHAT’S A RECOMMENDATION THAT’S \nBEING MADE BY THIS REPORT. IN \nADDITION\, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS \nACTUALLY GOING TO BE FULLY \nPAYING ENTIRETY FOR THE ELECTRIC \nDREDGES. SO THAT’S SOMETHING \nTHAT THE PORT IS DOING\, AS WELL. \nAND THAT’S JUST TO POINT OUT \nTHAT WE HAD AS MANY MEETINGS AS \nPOSSIBLE. WE HAD SOME \nNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MEETINGS\, \nWHICH WERE — IT’S NOT SOMETHING \nTHAT WE TYPICALLY DO BUT WE WERE \nASKED TO BE INVITED TO THEIR \nMONTHLY MEETINGS\, AND THAT’S ONE \nWAY THAT WE WERE TRYING TO REACH \nOUT. WE ALSO MET WITH THE WEST \nOAKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL \nINDICATOR’S PROJECT TWICE\, ONCE \nIN ’22\, AND ONCE IN ’23. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE \nRECEIVED MULTIPLE TIMES\, AND \nWE’RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT\, \nWAS RELATED TO INDUCED GROWTH. \nAND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE \nWOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IS THAT \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES NOT \nCHANGE HOW MANY VESSELS CAN BE \nADOPTED AT ANY TIME. SO \nINCREASING THE DIAMETER OF THE \nTURNING BASINS DOES NOT ADD \nBERTHING SPACE. \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO DOES \nNOT CHANGE THE CONTAINER \nHANDLING FACILITIES. SO\, THE \nPORT’S LAND SIDE CONTAINER \nHANDLING CAPACITY REMAINS \nCONSTANT\, REMAINS THE SAME. \nTHIRDLY\, THE RECOMMENDED PLAN \nDOES NOT AFFECT CONSUMER \nECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE BAY \nAREA\, OR IN THE CENTRAL AND \nNORTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKET. \nECONOMIC FACTORS SUCH AS \nRECESSIONS\, TRADE AGREEMENTS\, \nMICRO ECONOMIC DEMANDS\, \nECONOMIES OF SCALE AFFECT GLOBAL \nSHIPPING SUPPLY AND DEMAND. \nWHAT THE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES \nIS IT ALLOWS FOR SHIPS TO TURN \nMORE SAFELY\, AND FOR SMALLER \nSHIPS TO BE PHASED OUT FOR \nBIGGER MORE EFFICIENT FLEETS. \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO ALLOWS \nFOR EFFICIENCY IN DEPARTING AND \nARRIVING AT THE PORT WITH FEWER \nIDLING SHIPS\, FEWER RESTRICTIONS \nON SHIPS ALREADY IN THE HARBOR. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND THEN\, AS I INDICATED \nEARLIER\, I WAS GOING TO PROVIDE \nYOU WITH A SLIDE THAT \nILLUSTRATES THE TRENDS OF \nSHORTER AND LONGER VESSEL CALLS \nTO THE PORT OF OAKLAND. IN THIS \nGRAPH\, IF YOU LOOK ON THE FAR \nLEFT\, YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF \nCALLS. ON THE BOTTOM\, YOU HAVE \nTHE YEAR STARTING IN 2014 TO \nTODAY\, AND ON THE FAR RIGHT YOU \nHAVE THE TEUS OR THE THROUGHPUT \nPER YEAR. SO THE VESSELS ARE \nGROUPED INTO TWO CATEGORIES \nHERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SOLID \nNAVY BLUE LINE\, THAT IS THE \nLONGER VESSELS. THE DASHED LINE \nIS THE SHORTER VESSELS\, AND \nTHERE IS A VERTICAL LINE THAT \nSHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THE \nPANDEMIC\, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF \nSHORTER UNRESTRICTED VESSELS \nCONTINUED ITS DOWNWARD TREND. \nAND THEN THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF \nTHIS YEAR\, THE PORT HAS SEEN 406 \nLONG VESSELS CALL THE PORT\, \nCOMPARED TO 319 SHORTER VESSELS \n— OR SHORT VESSELS\, I SHOULD \nSAY. \nTHEN THE — OKAY\, THE BIG TAKE \nAWAY HERE IS THE GRAY SHADED \nAREA DEPICTS TOTAL CARGO HANDLE \nFOR THE LAST TEN YEARS DURING \nWHICH TIME CARGO VOLUME HAS \nREMAINED RELATIVELY CONSTANT. \nTHOUGH THE NUMBER OF VESSELS HAS \nCONTINUED TO DECREASE. SO\, \nTHANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO \nPRESENT THOSE SLIDES. ALLOWING \nME TO PRESENT THOSE SLIDES. I’M \nGOING TO HAND IT OFF TO ERIK \nJOLIFFE. \n>>ERIC JOLIFFE: THANKS ERICA. \nTHANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nSPEAK TO YOU. WHAT I’M GOING TO \nTALK ABOUT HERE HAS ALREADY BEEN \nDISCUSSED IN BRENDA’S \nPRESENTATION BUT LET’S GO OVER \nIT. WHERE WE’RE AT IN OUR NEPA \nCOMPLIANCE\, A LONG TIME AGO IN \nSEPTEMBER 2020 WE SENT OUT \nREQUESTS FOR COOPERATING \nAGENCIES\, THE ONLY AGENCY THAT \nACCEPTED WAS EPA SO THEY ARE \nCONTRIBUTING AS A COOPERATING \nAGENCY IN THIS STUDY. BETWEEN \nDECEMBER 17TH AND FEBRUARY 14TH \nWAS OUR COMMENT PERIOD FOR OUR \nINITIAL DOCUMENT THAT WE \nRELEASED\, AND BASED ON COMMENT \nTHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THAT \nDOCUMENT\, WE CHANGED THE DESIGN \nA LITTLE BIT THAT REQUIRED US TO \nRERELEASE\, AGAIN\, IN APRIL 26\, \n2023 TO JUNE 16TH\, 2023 WE HAD \nTHE COMMENT PERIOD ON OUR SECOND \nDOCUMENT THAT WE SENT OUT TO THE \nPUBLIC THAT ADDRESSED THE SHIFT \nIN ALIGNMENT THAT WE SHOWED YOU\, \nAND IT ADDRESSED SOME NEW \nREQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD TO DO\, \nWE HAD TO — THE 50 DOCUMENT \nDIDN’T REQUIRE GUIDANCE DURING \nTHE FIRST DOCUMENT DIDN’T \nREQUIRE US TO ANALYZE GREENHOUSE \nGAS IMPACTS AND THE DOCUMENT NOW \nCONTAINS ANALYSIS OF THAT. \nAND THAT BRINGS US TO WHERE WE \nARE AT NOW. AND THEN WE ARE IN \nTHE FINAL PROCESSES OF \nADDRESSING COMMENTS\, PUBLIC \nCOMMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS\, AND \nFINALIZING THE DOCUMENT. AND IN \nJANUARY\, HOPEFULLY ON THE 17th\, \nWE’LL TRANSMIT THAT TO OUR SOUTH \nPACIFIC DIVISION\, WHICH IS THE \nNEXT LEVEL ABOVE US\, AS A FINAL \nREPORT. AND SOMETIME AFTER — \nTHAT’S — AND IN THE PROCESS \nTHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT GETTING \nAWARDED AUTHORIZATION\, HOPEFULLY \nIN 2024\, AND AFTER THAT TIME\, \nWE’LL BE COMING BACK FOR A PHASE \nTWO CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nONCE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL \nINFORMATION WE’LL HAVE MORE \nDETAILED SEDIMENT \nCHARACTERIZATION\, WE’LL HAVE \nMORE DETAILED ENGINEERING \nINFORMATION\, AND WE’LL HAVE DONE \nSOME FURTHER COORDINATION WITH \nSOME OF THE AGENCIES. OKAY. \nGO AHEAD BRENDA. \nSO\, THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED \nTHROUGH THE BOTH OF THESE \nCOMMENT PERIODS\, SOME OF THEM \nWERE FAIRLY CONSISTENT AND FROM \nNUMEROUS GROUPS\, ESPECIALLY WITH \nRELATION TO THE NOTION OF DOING \nAN EA\, INSTEAD OF AN EIS. AND \nIN CONCERT WITH THAT\, THE \nDECISION NOT TO COMBINE THE \nDOCUMENTS IN AN EA EIR. \nAND WE DECIDE THAT WE WERE ON \nTHE RIGHT PATH\, THAT THE \nDOCUMENT\, WE DIDN’T HAVE ANY \nSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WEREN’T \nMITIGABLE. SIMILAR IMPACTS TO \nAIR QUALITY SIMILAR TO TRUCK \nTRAFFIC AND THE PERCEPTION THAT \nTHIS PROJECT IS GOING TO INDUCE \nGROWTH AND INCREASE THE TRUCKS \nGOING THROUGH THEIR \nNEIGHBORHOODS\, THAT WAS STILL \nWHAT WE’RE WORKING THROUGH WITH \nTHE OAKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS\, \nESPECIALLY THE INDICATOR \nPROJECT. \nTHERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT \nIMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY. \nTIMING\, WE GOT SOME COMMENTS. \nBECAUSE THE PORT IS STILL \nELECTRIFYING THINGS\, MOST FAST \nAS THEY CAN\, AND THEY’RE ASKING \nUS TO DELAY THE PROJECT INTO THE \nFUTURE ONCE EVERYTHING’S \nELECTRIC. THERE WERE COMPLAINTS \nTHAT WE WEREN’T ENGAGING WITH \nTHE PUBLIC SUFFICIENTLY. SOME \nPEOPLE ASKED US ONLY DO THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN. \nTHERE WAS SUPPORT FOR THE \nPROJECT FROM A NUMBER OF GROUPS \nAND PEOPLE WERE VERY HAPPY THAT \nWE WERE COMMITTING TO BENEFICIAL \nUSE OF EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD. \nAND THE SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF \nELECTRIC DREDGING WHICH REDUCES \nTHE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF \nCONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. \nRESPONSES WILL BE INCLUDED IN \nTHE DOCUMENTS THAT WE’RE \nFINALIZING NOW\, AND WE’LL HAVE \nADDITIONAL COORDINATION THAT \nI’LL TALK ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT \nTHAT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE \nFUTURE. GO AHEAD\, BRENDA. \nSO THESE AREN’T REALLY \nMITIGATION MEASURES\, BUT \nAVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION \nMEASURES THAT WE WILL BE USING. \nIF YOU LOOK AT THE APPENDIX\, \nTHIS IS A LONG LIST BUT BRIEF \nVERSION OF THAT. RELATED TO \nPILE DRIVING\, PLACING BULK HEADS \nIS GOING TO REQUIRE SHEET PILE \nDRIVING\, AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO \nUSING VIBE TORE METHODS FOR THAT \nWHICH PRODUCES LESS NOISE AS \nMUCH AS POSSIBLE. IT WON’T BE \nPOSSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING BUT \nWE’LL TRY TO MINIMIZE THE \nIMPACT. WE’LL BE USING NOISE \nATTENUATION MEASURES FOR IN \nWATER NOISE\, SO THE BIOLOGICAL \nACOUSTICAL MONITORING AND NOTION \nOF USING SOME NOISE — I’M \nTRYING TO REMEMBER THE TERM — \n>>SPEAKER: DAMPENING. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU BRENDA \nWE’LL BE COORDINATING WITH THE \nPHASE 2C D FOR MARINE MAMMAL \nIMPACTS\, AND THERE WILL BE HOW \nMANY PILES AND LOCATIONS AND \nWE’LL GET INTO THAT WITH NOAA \nAND WE’LL DEVELOP SOME \nREQUIREMENT FOR THE PROJECT TO \nPROTECT MARINE MAMMAL \nPOPULATIONS. WE’LL BE DOING EEL \nGRASS SURVEYS IN THE OUTER \nHARBOR\, THERE IS EEL GRASS \nFAIRLY CLOSE TO BE DOING \nDREDGING SOLELY PRE AND POST \nSURVEY AND SOME LIGHT MONITORING \nLIKE WE NORMALLY DO FOR O&M IN \nTHAT AREA WE’LL BE USING CLAM \nSHELL BUCKETS WE WON’T BE DOING \nHYDRAULIC DREDGING. THE TUG \nMOVEMENT NIGHT TIME ISN’T \nCORRECT. WE WERE CONSIDERING \nTHAT BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT’S NOT \nNECESSARY. THAT HAD TO DO WITH \nNOISE IN ALAMEDA DURING THE \nNIGHT TIME\, BUT IT TURNED OUT \nTHAT SLIPPED IN THERE IT’S NOT \nSUPPOSED TO BE THERE. THERE \nWERE VARIOUS VMTS FOR REDUCING \nPARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND \nFUGITIVE DUST. BUT KEEPING A \nLOW SPEED LIMIT\, LIMITING IDLING \nTIME FOR TRUCKS\, AS THEY’RE \nWAITING FOR STUFF TO LOAD AND \nUNLOAD. AND REQUIRING THAT ALL \nTHE CONTRACTORS USE EQUIPMENT \nTHAT MEET CARB’S CERTIFICATION \nSTANDARDS\, THINGS LIKE TIER FOUR \nENGINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. \nBUT I SHOULD SAY HERE THERE ARE \nSOME MITIGATION MEASURES THAT \nARE REDUCING IMPACTS TO LESS \nTHAN SIGNIFICANT\, AND THOSE ARE \nTHE ONES THAT PEOPLE ARE \nPROBABLY MOST INTERESTED IN\, AND \nTHAT WOULD BE THE USE OF SILT \nCURTAINS WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT \nON THIS SLIDE\, BUT TO PREVENT \nEXPOSURE TO MARINE FAUNA\, TO \nSUSPENDED SEDIMENTS AND TO \nPOTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS THAT MAY \nBE CONTAINED IN THERE\, IN THE \nAREAS WHERE WE EXPECT \nCONTAMINATED MATERIALS TO BE\, \nWE’LL BE DOING THE DREDGING \nBEHIND A SILT CURTAIN. THE \nOTHER ONE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT \nWITHOUT MITIGATION WOULD BE THE \nPILE DRIVING\, THE NOISE IMPACTS \nFROM THAT\, BUT WE’LL BE \nDEVELOPING BUBBLE CURTAINS AND \nAPPROPRIATE DISTANCES WHEN WE \nCOORDINATE. AND THE OTHER ONE \nIS AGREEING TO COMPLY WITH THE \nLTMS WINDOW THAT IS ESTABLISHED \nFOR AT LEAST IN WATER DREDGING \nFOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC \nSPECIES. SO WE HAVE COMMITTED \nTO CONFORMING WITH THAT\, AS \nWELL. OKAY. THAT’S IT. \nBRENDA. \nSO\, THIS IS KIND OF A RECAP OF \nWHAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. \nWE’RE LOOKING TO GET OUR \nCONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IN \nJANUARY OF 2024 AND \nPRECONSTRUCTION\, WE’RE GOING \nINTO OUR PRECONSTRUCTION \nENGINEERING AND DESIGN\, WHERE WE \nFINALIZE THE TECHNICAL \nINFORMATION AND DEVELOP A FULL \nDESIGN\, AND WE’LL COME BACK TO \nBCDC FOR OUR PHASE TWO \nDETERMINATION ONCE WE HAVE \nENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT 35%. \nWE ASSUME THAT WILL BE IN 2026 \nCOULD BE AS EARLY AS 2025 WE \nHOPE TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION IN \nJULY OF 2027 THAT WOULD RUN INTO \nOCTOBER OF 2029. THANK YOU\, \nBRENDA. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU ERIK AND \nERIKA. \n>>SPEAKER: I WANT TO SAY FOR \nTHE RECORD\, ON THAT SLIDE WHERE \nWE SAY MITIGATION MEASURES\, FOR \nTHE RECORD\, IT’S MINIMIZATION. \nSO WE’LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION ON \nTHE POWERPOINT BEFORE WE SUBMIT \nIT\, IF THAT’S OKAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ABSOLUTELY. \nTHANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. \nI WANT TO MENTION ONE THING I \nACCIDENTALLY OMITTED AT THE \nOPENING OF MY STATEMENTS\, THE \nPORT AND CITY OF ALAMEDA\, THE \nSTAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA AND PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nARMY CORP REGARDING SOME \nCONCERNS AFTER THE STAFF SUMMARY \nWAS SENT OUT\, AND AS A RESULT \nBOTH ENTITIES PROVIDED SOME \nIMPROVED LANGUAGE FOR US. THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND INCLUDED SOME \nVERY EXTENSIVE LANGUAGE WHICH WE \nSUMMARIZED IN AN ADDENDUM AND \nATTACHED ERRATA SHEET THAT WAS \nSENT OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AT \n10:00 A.M. THIS MORNING SO IT IS \nIN YOUR COMMISSION PACKET. AND \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA INFORMATION \nIS INCLUDED SPECIFICALLY \nREGARDING THE ALAMEDA LANDING \nAREA. I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO \nTHE COMMISSION THAT WE DO \nAPPRECIATE ALL THREE ENTITY COME \nTOGETHER TO HELP US CLARIFY AND \nIMPROVE THE STAFF SUMMARY WHERE \nWE HAD SOME CLARITY NEEDS AND \nMISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PARTS OF \nTHE PROJECT. SO I JUST WANT TO \nTHANK THEM FOR THAT. AND WITH \nTHAT\, CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I WILL \nGIVE THE MEETING BACK TO YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. \nI WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. ANY MEMBERS OF THE \nPUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A \nPUBLIC COMMENT\, PLEASE LINE UP \nAT THE PODIUM OR RAISE YOUR HAND \nIN ZOOM. WE WILL START WITH \nTHOSE IN THE ROOM. REYLINA\, DO \nWE HAVE ANY IN THE ROOM \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW \nABOUT ON ZOOM? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: YES. \nALAN TAI. PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF \nTHE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ALAN \nTAI\, I AM THE PLANNING BUILDING \nAND TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OF \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA WHERE A \nPORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS \nLOCATED. THE CITY OF ALAMEDA \nWANTS THE COMMISSION TO BE WAIR \nTHAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO \nOUR LOCAL DISCRETIONARY \nAPPROVALS. THE PROPERTY THAT’S \nAFFECTED BY THE PROJECT FALLS \nWITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA’S \nALAMEDA LANDING MASTER PLAN \nAREA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nWOULD REMOVE SIX ACRES OR A \nTHIRD OF THE 18 ACRES THAT THE \nCITY HAS PLANNED FOR EMPLOYMENT \nLANDS AND THAT’S PART OF THE \nMASTER PLAN. SO WE BELIEVE THE \nPROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR \nLOCAL MASTER PLAN AND WILL \nREQUIRE A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT. \nAND THAT ACTION IS SUBJECT TO \nAPPROVAL BY OUR ALAMEDA CITY \nCOUNCIL. THE CITY ALSO HAS MANY \nCONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT ON \nMATTERS NOT WITHIN THE BCDC \nJURISDICTION\, BUT THE PROPERTY \n— I’M SORRY — THE PROJECT’S \nLACK OF FLOOD AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nPROTECTIONS AND WATERFRONT \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, WHICH ARE WITHIN \nTHE COMMISSIONS REGULATORY AND \nPOLICY SCOPE AND AUTHORITY\, AND \nTHE CITY RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE \nCOMMISSION AND BCDC STAFF TO \nTAKE THE CITY’S CONCERNS INTO \nCONSIDERATION FOR YOUR UPCOMING \nACTIONS ON THIS PROJECT. THESE \nCOMMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN A \nLETTER ADDRESSED TO YOU BY OUR \nMAYOR AZZY ASH CONTRACT AND IS \nINCLUDED IN YOUR MEETING \nMATERIALS. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS \nITEM. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: MIKE \nJACOB. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HI I’M MIKE JACOB \nWITH PACIFIC MERCHANT SHIPPING \nASSOCIATION WE REPRESENT \nTERMINAL OPERATORS DOING \nBUSINESS AT PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nOBVIOUSLY WE SUPPORT THE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nREQUEST FROM THE ARMY CORP AND \nSUBMITTED COMMENTS IN WRITING. \nAND JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS \nAND TO EXPAND ON SOME OF THE \nCOMMENTS YOU HEARD FROM THE PORT \nAND THE ARMY CORP WITH RESPECT \nTO ISSUES REGARDING GROWTH AND \nAIR QUALITY. I THINK IT’S WORTH \nMENTIONING THAT THE ISSUES FOR \nUS ARE NOT THAT THE PORT WILL OR \nWILL NOT GROW WITH RESPECT TO \nTHE PROJECT. THE QUESTION IS \nWHETHER OR NOT THE PORT WILL \nGROW SAFELY\, AND WHETHER OR NOT \nWILL GROW CONSISTENT WITH THE \nTERMS OF OTHER PORTS THAT ARE ON \nOUR SAME VESSEL STRINGS AND DO \nSO IN A WAY WHICH REDUCES COST \nAND INCREASES EFFICIENCY. MAYBE \nTHE ANALOGY BEST USE IS WHEN YOU \nTHINK OF A VESSEL STRING PER \nCONTAINER LINES LIKE A BUS \nSERVICE WE SET UP A ROUTE AND \nSERVICE THAT ROUTE FOR OUR \nCUSTOMERS AND CUSTOMERS THEN \nWILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT \nIMPORTS AND EXPORTS BASED ON \nTHOSE SERVICES. THE SIZE OF THE \nBUS THAT SERVES THAT ROUTE\, \nWHETHER IT’S A SMALL BUS\, A \nLARGE BUS\, DOUBLE DECKER BUS\, \nDOESN’T MATTER IF YOU HAVE TO \nGET FROM PLACE A TO PLACE B. \nAND IT’S SIMILAR FOR US. YOU \nBOOK CARGO\, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A \nBUSINESS IMPERATIVE TO IMPORT OR \nEXPORT CARGO. IT DOESN’T MATTER \nTO THE IMPORTER OR EXPORTER THE \nSIZE OF THE VESSEL THAT COMES \nAND DOES THAT WORK. BUT IT DOES \nMATTER TO US\, AS THE OCEAN \nCARRIER\, WHEN YOU HAVE LARGER \nVESSELS\, YOU HAVE HIGHER \nEFFICIENCY\, LESS FUEL\, AND \nBECAUSE YOU’RE BURNING LESS FUEL \nPER BOX\, YOU’RE ACTUALLY \nDECREASING EMISSIONS PER UNIT\, \nAND OVERALL. WE WANT TO BRING \nIN THE LARGER VESSELS. WE WANT \nTO BRING IN THE MOST EFFICIENT \nVESSELS AND THE NEWEST VESSELS \nAND HAVE THEM IN THOSE STRINGS. \nAND THAT IS AT THE CORE OF WHY \nTHIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US\, FROM A \nCOMMERCIAL POINT OF VIEW\, IN \nADDITION TO THE REST OF THE \nISSUES WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY. \nWE LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING \nIN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS ON \nTHIS PROJECT\, BUT IT’S \nIMPERATIVE THAT THIS MOVE \nFORWARD. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR \nCONSIDERATION. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KATRINA \nTHOMAS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M KATRINA THOMAS \nWITH EARTH JUSTICE ALONGSIDE \nWITH WEST OAKLAND ENVIRONMENT AT \nINDICATOR’S PROJECT HAS BEEN \nENGAGING ON THIS PROJECT\, \nCOMMENTING TODAY TO URGE BCDC TO \nREJECT THE CORP REQUEST FOR \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nBECAUSE THE CORP HAS NOT \nCONDUCTED EQUITABLE OUTREACH AND \nTHE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT \nIMPACTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS NOR \nHAS THE COURT ADDRESSED \nCOMMUNITY CONCERNS CLEARLY \nIDENTIFIED MITIGATION FOR \nPROJECTS IMPACTS WHILE \nACKNOWLEDGING THE COURT HAS HELD \nPUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS PROJECT \nNONE HAVE CONSISTED OF A \nDIALOGUE AND THE COURT HAS NOT \nENGAGED IN COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER \nCONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROJECTS \nDURING DRAFTING OF ITS ANALYSIS \nTO IDENTIFY MITIGATION MEASURES. \nTHAT DOES NOT LIVE UP TO THE \nCOMMITMENTS IN THE WEST OAKLAND \nCOMMUNITY ACTION PLAN OR BIDEN \nADMINISTRATION’S RECENTLY \nADOPTED EXECUTIVE ORDERS \nREQUIRING AGENCIES THAT INVEST \nIN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT TO \nALSO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES THAT \nWILL YIELD EQUITABLE OUTCOMES \nFOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. \nTHE COURT’S FAILURE TO \nCOORDINATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW WITH THE PORT HAS LEFT \nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE DARK \nWITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND \nTHE COMERY CORP DATA ANALYSIS \nDIDN’T FIND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS \nBUT THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND CEQA \nREVIEW CONCLUDES THE PROJECT \nWOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT \nUNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS TO NEARBY \nCOMMUNITIES EVEN ARCH PROPOSED \nMITIGATION. THE FAILURE TO \nCOORDINATE HAS LEFT QUESTIONS \nENTIRELY UNANSWERED. I ALSO \nWANT TO NOTE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nANALYSIS OF ALL IMPACT AREAS \nINCLUDING WATER QUALITY AND \nBIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACT. WE \nDON’T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT \nIMPACTS WILL BE AS MORE SHIPS \nBEGIN TO VISIT. ALSO BECAUSE \nCORE CONSTRAINTS SCOPE OF \nANALYSIS IS LIMED TO ONE MILE \nRADIUS FROM PROJECT SITE IT \nDOWNPLAYS BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND \nOPERATION IMPACTS TO WATER \nQUALITY AND WILDLIFE IN THE BAY. \nBCDC SHOULD REJECT THE REQUEST \nFOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nBCDC IS NOT BEHOLDEN TO INDUSTRY \nINTEREST AND WE ENCOURAGE THE \nCOMMISSION TO LISTEN TO THE \nCOMMUNITY CONCERNS AND USE YOUR \nAUTHORITY ON THIS PROJECT TO \nPREVENT A HOST OF ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACTS. THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ROBERT \nROGERS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR \nWASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. MY NAME \nIS ROGER\, AND I AM HERE ON \nBEHALF OF THE BAY PLANNING \nCOALITION ALIGNING WITH THE \nORGANIZATIONS MISSION OF \nPROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL \nSUSTAINABILITY AND ECONOMIC \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION BCDC \nWOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR \nSUPPORT FOR THE OAKLAND TURNING \nBASIN-WIDENING PROJECT BY \nINCREASING EFFICIENCY AND \nENHANCING CAPABILITIES AT THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND. THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND GENERATES 98\,340 LOCAL \nJOBS AND IS THE SECOND LARGEST \nJOB GENERATOR IN THE CITY OF \nOAKLAND AND FIFTH LARGEST IN THE \nREGION IT REMAINS CRITICAL \nSOURCE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY \nAND JOBS IN THE NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA MOREOVER VALUE \nHIGHLIGHTS FROM BUSINESS REVENUE \nCONSUMER SPENDING AND TOTAL \nVALUE OF GOODS SERVICES THE PORT \nADDS $174 BILLION IN ECONOMIC \nVALUE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nWOULD IMPROVE NAVIGATIONAL \nACCESS FOR LARGER VESSELS. BY \nOPTIMIZING OPERATIONS THE \nPROJECT WILL SUPPORT A GREENER \nFUTURE FOR OUR COMMUNITIES BY \nREDUCING CONGESTION AND \nMINIMIZING STAGNANT VESSELS THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND IS A VITAL \nECONOMIC HUB FOR THE REGION AND \nTHE NATION. ALLOWING FOR THE \nWIDENING OF THE TURNING BASIN \nENSURES PROSPERING ECONOMIC \nCONDITIONS CONTINUE TO THRIVE I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON BEHALF \nOF THE BAY PLANNING COALITION. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SEAN \nSWENDSEN. PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, CAN YOU HEAR ME \nALL RIGHT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: YES. \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, MY CONCERN IS \nVERY BRIEF. WE HEARD FROM THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA TODAY. I \nBELIEVE HAS NAME IS ALAN TAI\, \nAND I’M WONDERING\, HE REFERENCED \nA LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA TO BCDC FOR \nCONSIDERATION AS PART OF THIS \nAPPROVAL PROCESS\, AND I WAS \nWONDERING IF YOU WOULD BE SO \nKIND AS TO INCLUDE THAT LETTER \nIN THE BCDC’S PORTAL OF OTHER \nDOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS \nAPPROVAL PROCESS SO THAT THOSE \nIN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO \nREAD THE LETTER CAN ACCESS IT. \nTHAT’S ALL. THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EVEY\, \nPLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO. MY NAME IS \nEVEY FONG\, A MEMBER OF THE \nCUSTOMS BROKERS FORWARDERS \nASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA. I WANT TO SPEAK UP \nTODAY AND OFFER SUPPORT FOR THE \nTURNING BASIN PROJECT. THE \nTURNING BASIN IS NECESSARY AND \nRESPONSIBLE PROJECT TO ENSURE \nTHE PORT OF OAKLAND CONTINUES AS \nAN ESSENTIAL WEST COAST GATEWAY \nTO U.S. COMMERCE. WE\, AT THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND\, IT IS \nNECESSARY\, AS A REGIONAL PORT \nAND WITH THE LARGER COMMERCIAL \nSHIPS\, THIS WILL ENSURE THE \nPORT’S FUTURE AS THE NECESSARY \nREGIONAL PORT. DECISIONS MADE \nTODAY WILL ENSURE CURRENT \nCONTRACTS TO ENDURE AND SUCCEED \nINTO THE FUTURE. THIS TURNING \nBASIN WILL TAKE ABOUT TEN YEARS. \nIT IS NECESSARY THAT THE \nDECISIONS MADE WILL GO FORWARD \nWITH THE PROJECT. THE FACT THAT \nTHE EXISTING CHANNEL AND TURNING \nBASINS WERE LAST UPDATED 25 \nYEARS AGO\, I THINK IT’S TIME TO \nREDESIGN THE PORT INTO THE NEXT \n25 YEARS. AND THEN LASTLY\, \nINFRASTRUCTURE. AS SAID FOR \nCARB CONCERNS\, THE TURNING BASIN \nACCOMMODATES FOR SHORE POWER \nINFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND \nOTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED THAT \nTHE — ANY ENVIRONMENTAL \nCONCERNS AND ELECTRIFICATION CAN \nBE ACCOMMODATED. THOSE ARE GOOD \nTHINGS. AND THAT IS THE AIR \nQUALITY MEASURES THAT ARE NOW \nREQUIRED BY THE STATE. THIS \nWILL BE SUSTAINABLE\, COMPATIBLE \nGROWTH FOR THE PORT AND CITY OF \nOAKLAND. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR \nALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SUNG \nLEE. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO. THIS IS SUNG \nLEE. I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF \nNORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT \nEXPORT COUNCIL. A PRIVATE \nINDUSTRY ADVISORY GROUP \nAPPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF \nRAI MONDO OF DEPARTMENT OF \nCOMMERCE ALSO REPRESENTING HERE \nAS PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA CUSTOM BROKERS AND \nFREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSOCIATION \nTHAT CLEARS CUSTOMS AT THE \nPORTS. WE’RE SUPPORTING THE \nTURNING BASIN AT THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED \nTO IMPROVE VESSEL TRANSIT \nEFFICIENCIES AND NAVIGATIONAL \nSAFETY AND WE FULLY SUPPORT THAT \nMORE ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS \nINCLUDING REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS \nAT THE RATE OF GROWTH OF \nEMISSIONS PER CONTAINER AND \nDECREASING GHG EMISSIONS BY \nBOATING CARGO\, THE DIVERSION IS \nONE OF OUR GOALS. I WORK IN THE \nCONTAINER SHIPPING INDUSTRY THE \nSHIPPING COMPANIES THAT ARE \nCALLING PORT OF OAKLAND ARE \nPURCHASING PLACING ORDERS ON \nNEWER AND CLEANER VESSELS THAT \nIS GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF \nTHE LARGER TURNING BASIN THEY \nWILL BE COMPLETED ABOUT THE SAME \nTIME AS WHEN THE TURNING BASIN \nIS COMPLETED SO WE LOOK FORWARD \nTO HAVING THE CLEANER SHIPS CALL \nOAKLAND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SUSAN \nRANSOM. \n>>SPEAKER: HI EVERYBODY\, WITH \nSSA TERMINAL IN OAKLAND FIRST I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE \nPARTIES FOR CONTINUING TO WORK \nTOWARDS THE TURNING BASIN THE \nDISCUSSIONS ARE GOOD IT’S \nESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE OF \nOAKLAND ECONOMIC ENGINE THAT \nSUPPORTS EVERYONE NEAR AND FAR I \nHAVE ALL DREDGING EQUIPMENT \nNEEDED TO WIDENING THE DURING \nBASIN WOULD BE ELECTRIC AND SOIL \nWOULD BE REPURPOSED. AS FAR AS \nADDITIONAL CONTAINER TRAFFIC \nTHAT WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE \nMARKETPLACE. THE TURNING \nPROJECT CHANGES THE NUMBER AND \nTYPE OF SHIPS FACILITATING THAT \nCOMMERCE. THIS WON’T BE BRING \nMASSIVE ADDITIONAL CONTAINERS IT \nWILL CONSOLIDATE CARGO WITH \nOLDER SMALLER SHIPS BEING \nDEPLOYED ELSEWHERE AND THE NEWER \nLARGER SHIPS WILL BE MORE \nENVIRONMENTALLY CLEAN COMING \nINTO THE PORT ALL OF THE MARINE \nTERMINALS IN THE PORT ITSELF ARE \nCOMMITTED TO DOING BUSINESS \nZERO-EMISSIONS. KEEP IN MIND \nTHE WIDER THE TURNING BASIN THE \nSAFER AND FASTER SHIPS TURN IT’S \nA WIN-WIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT \nAND ECONOMY. IN ADDITION TO \nMANDATES AND REGULATIONS \nCALIFORNIA IS PUTTING ON \nTRUCKING COMPANIES TO BE RUNNING \n0 EMISSIONS\, IT’S LIKELY THAT \nTHE INDUSTRY WILL LOSE ABOUT 25% \nOF TRUCK CAPACITY AS MANY WON’T \nBE ABLE TO AFFORD THE NEW TRUCKS \nSO THERE WILL BE LESS TRAFFIC \nOVERALL AND LESS POLLUTION NOT \nMORE. ALREADY INVESTING \nMILLIONS OF DOLLARS GETTING TO \nTHE GOAL OF ZERO EMISSIONS AND \nVESSELS ARE ALREADY PLUGGING \nINTO SHORE POWER ELIMINATING \nNEED FOR DIESEL GENERATORS AT \nTHE PORTS WE HAVE AN \nENVIRONMENTAL TEAM WITHIN OUR \nCOMPANY WORKING ENDLESSLY WITH \nTHE PORT AND ALL OTHERS TO MEET \nCHALLENGES OF NEW CALIFORNIA \nREGULATIONS WE ARE NOT DONE BY \nFAR BUT ARE CONTINUING TO \nADVANCE THE GOAL. WE ARE \nCRITICAL PARTNERS INCLUDING THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND AND ASK THAT IT \nBE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BY THE TIME \nTHIS PROJECT BREAKS GROUND WE’LL \nBE ONE OF THE CLEANEST PORTS IN \nTHE WORLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nFURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, ALL\, FOR THAT. \nI WOULD NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION \nTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nA SECOND\, PLEASE? \n>>SPEAKER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nVICE CHAIR MOVES. AND I’M \nSORRY. WHO SECONDED? \nOH I SEE SEVERAL HERE. I’LL \nTAKE COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S \nSECOND. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nPLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU \nAGREE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. ANYBODY OPPOSED TO \nCLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? \nPUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. \nTHANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. \nWE WILL NOW ENTERTAIN COMMISSION \nQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. \nI’M GOING TO RECOGNIZE \nCOMMISSIONER EISEN FIRST\, AND \nTHEN I’LL GO TO THE SCREEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I \nHAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I \nDON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHO TO DIRECT \nTHEM TO. AND I DON’T KNOW IF \nTHEY’RE PREMATURE. BUT THERE \nWAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC \nACCESS AND\, OF COURSE\, MIDDLE \nHARBOR SITS BETWEEN THESE TWO \nTURNING BASINS. AND MIDDLE \nHARBOR IS THE BIGGEST AREA OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS THAT OAKLAND HAS. \nI WAS THERE A WEEK AGO\, BECAUSE \nIT’S A MASSIVE BIRDING \nDESTINATION\, AND THE — I DON’T \nKNOW IF THIS IS RELATED IN ANY \nWAY\, SHAPE\, OR FORM\, BUT ALL OF \nTHE VEGETATION HAD BEEN REMOVED \nFROM MIDDLE HARBOR. AND I DON’T \nKNOW HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE \nIMPACTED BY THIS — WHAT SOUNDS \nLOOK A VERY LARGE PROJECT\, \nWHETHER IT’S GOING TO BE \nEXPANDED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC \nACCESS ON OR WHETHER IT’S GOING \nTO BE — WE HAVE TALK ABOUT IT \nBEFORE ON THE COMMISSION\, THAT \nIT IS A SAD AND UNHAPPY PLACE\, \nAND THAT THERE WAS COMMITMENTS \nBY THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nOTHERS THAT THEY WOULD IMPROVE \nIT. SO\, I’M NOT — I REALLY \nWOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT \nHAPPENS TO MIDDLE HARBOR IN THE \nMIDST OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT. \nTHAT’S NUMBER ONE. AND\, SORT \nOF\, RELATED\, I HEARD FROM ONE OF \nTHE PRESENTERS THAT ONE OF THE \nMITIGATION MEASURES IS TO AVOID \nDOING CONSTRUCTION DURING BIRD \nBREEDING SEASON. I WONDER WHO \nIS GOING TO HELP DETERMINE WHEN \nTHAT IS AND WHAT KIND OF IMPACT \nTHAT HAS ON THE PROJECT. \nBECAUSE JUST NOT CONSTRUCTING AT \nALL DURING BIRD BREEDING SEASON \nIS GOING TO BE\, YOU KNOW\, \nCOSTLY\, AND DIFFICULT TO \nSCHEDULE. SO\, I REALLY WANT TO \nUNDERSTAND THAT. \nBRENDA MENTION THAT WE NEED TO \nDECIDE NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN \nCONCUR AND THAT CAN BE ATTACHED \nTO THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT\, I \nTHINK WAS THE EXPRESSION. AND I \nWONDER IF THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT \nIS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO \nCONGRESS\, BECAUSE THE TIMELINE \nSAYS THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nASKING — THE ARMY CORP IS GOING \nTO BE ASKING CONGRESS FOR\, I \nGUESS\, VOTE ON THIS IN JANUARY\, \nWHICH IS JUST TWO WEEKS AWAY. \nSO\, AND ONLY TEN DAYS AWAY FROM \nOUR NEXT MEETING. I’M WONDERING \nWHAT THE ANSWER IS TO THE \nQUESTION ABOUT WHY WE NEED TO \nEXPAND BOTH TURNING BASINS\, WHY \nIT ISN’T SUFFICIENT JUST TO \nEXPAND THE ONE THAT’S IN THE \nOUTER HARBOR AND NOT THE ONE \nTHAT’S IN THE INNER HARBOR. AND \nMAYBE ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE \nANSWERED AT OUR NEXT MEETING? \nOR MAYBE IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR \nUS TO HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE \nPRIOR TO OUR DECISION ON WHETHER \nTO CONCUR. THERE IS A LOT OF \nCOMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING \nTO BE BENEFICIAL FOR SAFETY \nREASONS AND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL \nREASONS BUT IT’S NOT NECESSARILY \nGOING TO CHANGE\, SORT OF\, THE \nECONOMICS. BUT I REALLY DON’T \nUNDERSTAND SOME BASIC THINGS. I \nMEAN\, HOW MUCH GROWTH IN THESE \nLARGER SHIPS ARE WE SEEING? IS \nIT EXPECTED TO CONTINUE? AND \nFOR HOW LONG? SO THAT THAT\, \nSORT OF\, DATA\, WHETHER THIS IS \nREALLY A NECESSARY PROJECT\, I \nDON’T HAVE THAT. MAYBE IT’S IN \nSOME DOCUMENTS\, MAYBE SOMEONE \nCAN POINT ME TO IT. WITH THAT I \nHAVE EXHAUSTED MY TIME ASKING \nQUESTIONS \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWE’LL WORK ON ANSWERS. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL TAKE THE EASY \nONE. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT \nWHEN IT’S GOING TO CONGRESS. \nRIGHT NOW THE REPORT IS BEING \nFINALIZED AND IT’S GOING TO \nHEADQUARTERS IN JANUARY AND THEN \nTHE CHIEF’S REPORT IS COMPLETED \nAND SUBMITTED IN MAY\, END OF \nMAY\, 2024\, TO CONGRESS. YEAH\, \nTHE CHIEF’S REPORT THAT GOES TO \nCONGRESS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I’M \nPRETTY SURE THAT I SAW THAT IT \nWAS ON JANUARY ON THE SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: I THINK IT WAS \nINCORRECT\, AS WELL. YEAH. SO \nIT STARTS — ONCE WE SUBMIT IT \nTO HEADQUARTERS IT\, SORT OF\, \nSTARTS THAT PROCESS OF GETTING \nIT TO — GETTING THE CHIEF’S \nREPORT PREPARED AND SUBMITTING \nTO CONGRESS FOR CONGRESSIONAL \nAPPROVAL. WE’LL MAKE A \nCORRECTION ON THAT POWERPOINT. \nSO THAT WAS THE EASY ONE. ON \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL ONE\, REGARDING \nTHE BIRD NESTING SEASON\, I’LL \nLET ERIK THEN ON THE ECONOMICS \nWE’LL BRING JUSTIN UP TO ANSWER \nTHAT QUESTION. AND ALL OF THIS \nIS IN THE REPORT. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, WE HAVE THE \nRESTRICTION ON TIMING FOR BIRDS \nWAS RELATED TO PILE DRIVING \nONLY. IT WAS ONLY IN THE \nPILE-DRIVING MEASURES. WE’RE \nGOING TO ATTEMPT TO STAY WITHIN \nTHAT WINDOW\, THE ONLY BIRDS WE \nWOULD BE COMING INTO CONTACT \nWITH FROM A NESTING STANDPOINT \nAT HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD BE \nPOTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCONS THAT \nWOULD BE IN THE CRANES BUT IT’S \nHIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED CONTAINERS \nBEING MOVED AROUND BY TRUCKS ALL \nOVER THE PLACE BUT IT’S IN \nMOTION AND COMPLETELY PAVED AND \nCONTAINED. WITH INTERRUPTING \nFORGING OF SOME BIRDS\, WE \nBELIEVE IN OUR INNER AND OUTER \nHARBOR BASINS ARE NOT PREFERRED \nHABITAT FOR THE TURINS. THE \nPROJECT SHOWED THAT THE MOST \nOVERWHELMING LARGE AMOUNT OF \nFORAGING HAPPENS SOUTH OF \nALAMEDA. THERE IS A BIG COLONY \nIN ALAMEDA AT THE AIR FIELD \nLARGEST COLONY IN NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA\, LARGELY FORAGED \nWITHIN THREE MILES SOUTH OF THE \nISLAND TOWARDS BAY FARM AND \nTHAT’S WHERE THE OVERWHELMING \nAMOUNT OF THAT HAPPENS SINCE \nIT’S NOW STARTING TO HAPPEN IN \nTHE MIDDLE ONCE WE CREATED THAT \nHABITAT DURING THE 50 FOOTWORK. \nWE’RE STILL WORKING ON MILL \nHARBOR WE’RE DOING EEL GRASS \nSURVEYS WE DID PLANTING LAST \nYEAR AND ARE ANALYZING POTENTIAL \nFOR ADDITIONAL PHASE TWO \nPLANTING OF EEL GRASS. WE NEED \nTO COMPLETE THE MARSH THAT’S IN \nTHAT CORNER THAT LOOKS \n[INDISCERNIBLE] NOW\, WE’RE \nCOMMITTED TO DOING SOME TIDAL \nMARSH FOR INTERPRETATIVE \nPURPOSES\, AND WITH THE OAKLAND \nCOMMUNITY CAN COME AND SEE WHAT \nTHE MARSH IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK \nLIKE. WHICH CROSSES BOTH \nPROJECTS AT SHORELINE PARK AND \nIT WILL ENHANCE THE AREA AND \nWE’LL HAVE SOME OPTIONS TO FIX \nTHAT BEACH AND I CAN’T ANSWER \nTHE QUESTION ABOUT THE PLANTS IN \nTHE UPLAND AREAS SOMEBODY AT THE \nPORT MIGHT KNOW THE ANSWER TO \nTHAT ONE. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: JUSTIN \nTASCHEK\, PORT OF OAKLAND I’LL \nADDRESS THE QUESTION RELATED TO \nHASH BORE OUTER BASIN ONLY. \nTHERE ARE TWO TURNING BASINS AND \nIT MIGHT HELPFUL TO PULL UP THE \nPRESENTATION MATERIAL THAT DOES \nHAVE THE SEAPORT OVERVIEW\, IF \nTHAT COULD BE PULLED UP\, FROM \nBRENDA? \n>>SPEAKER: WORKING ON IT. JUST \nA SECOND. \n>>SPEAKER: WHILE SHE’S DOING \nTHAT\, I WANT TO MENTION HERE \nEACH TURNING BASIN PROVIDES ITS \nOWN UTILITY FOR TURNING BASINS \nFOR THE OUTER HARBOR TURNING \nBASIN AND PROPERTIES IN THE \nINCARBON TURNING BASIN THESE \nPROPERTIES ARE LEASED OUT THAT \nOPERATES THE FACILITIES AND \nTHESE LEASES DO COMPETE FOR THE \nBUSINESSES SO THE VESSELS WE \nTALKED ABOUT THAT VISIT THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND FULL-SIZED VESSELS\, \nGO TO BOTH THE OUTER AND INNER \nHARBOR IT’S INTEGRAL AND \nIMPORTANT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE \nTHROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PORT \nCOMPLEX TO ALLOW ALL VESSEL \nSIZES TO VISIT ALL PROPERTIES \nWITHIN THE PORT COMPLEX AS THOSE \nARE MARINE TERMINAL PROPERTIES. \nBRENDA COULD YOU PULL UP THE ONE \nBEFORE THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ONE? \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THE SEAPORT \nFIGURE THAT HAS ALL THE \nDIFFERENT BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS\, \nI WOULD MENTION SUZANNE PROVIDED \nPUBLIC COMMENT THEY DO OPERATE \nTHE LARGEST FACILITY IN THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND KNOWN AS OAKLAND \nINTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL \nIT IS RIGHT NOW MOVING GREATER \nTHAN HALF OF THE TOTAL VOLUMES \n60% CATEGORY OF THE VOLUMES \nTHAT’S SERVED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE \nINNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IT’S \nVERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO \nPROVIDE THAT COMPETITIVE \nLANDSCAPE TO WIDEN BOTH THE \nTURNING BASINS. THANK YOU. \nBRENDA — \n>>SPEAKER: I’M JUST \nEMBARRASSING MYSELF AT THIS \nPOINT. THANK YOU. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. FIRST OF ALL\, FOR FULL \nDISCLOSURE\, I WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I DID \nWORK FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS FOR EIGHT YEARS\, AND \nAM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE \nDREDGING ISSUES. AND I ALSO \nWORKED FOR THE U.S. \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \nFOR 35 YEARS WHERE AT ONE POINT \nI WAS IN CHANGE OF THE NPDS \nPERMITTING PROGRAM SECTION 404 \nWHICH DEALT WITH A LOT OF \nDREDGING\, AND A LOT OF OTHER \nWATER RELATED ISSUES. \nI HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT \nI’M GOING TO — WOULD LIKE TO \nSTART OUT WITH A COUPLE OF THEM\, \nAND THEN ASK THAT WE HAVE AN \nOPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT WRITTEN \nQUESTIONS — OR ASK WHEN WE CAN \nALSO SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS \nAFTERWARD AND MAYBE GET SOME \nANSWERS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. \nBUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT \nLATER. SO FIRST OF ALL\, I AGREE \nWITH THE SPEAKER REQUESTING A \nCOPY OF THAT LETTER OF THE \nLETTER FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA. \nI WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER \nUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT \nALAMEDA\, CITY OF ALAMEDA’S \nCONCERNS ARE. AND I’M NOT QUITE \nSURE TO WHAT EXTENT\, AND THIS IS \nA QUESTION\, DOES BCDC NEED TO \nMAKE ANY TYPE OF A DECISION \nWHERE THAT — THIS ACTION IS \nALSO GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE \nWITH LOCAL — A NEARBY \nJURISDICTION\, OR A JURISDICTION \nTHAT’S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY \nTHE ACTIVITY. SO\, SHOULD WE — \nIS IT REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE A \nBETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE \nIMPACT IS GOING TO BE TO THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA? AND WHAT \nREMEDIES ARE POSSIBLY AVAILABLE? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I CAN TAKE \nTHAT ITEM AS A STARTER AND \nOTHERS CAN JOIN IN. THE LETTER \nFROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA IS \nCURRENTLY POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE \nUNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL \nINFORMATION IF YOU GO TO THE \nAGENDA THAT’S THE SUPPLEMENTAL \nINFORMATION THERE\, WE RECEIVED \nTHREE PUBLIC COMMENTS WRITTEN \nBEFORE THE COMMISSION MEETING. \nSO THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. ALSO \nTHE ADDENDUM\, WHERE I TRIED TO \nEXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT BETTER SOME \nOF THE INFORMATION WE DIDN’T GET \nQUITE RIGHT IN THE STAFF SUMMARY \nIS IN THERE. SO REGARDING THE \nLOCAL DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL IN \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA. RIGHT NOW \nWE’RE AT THE FEASIBILITY STAGE \nSO THE CORP FINISHED THE STUDY \nOF WHETHER OR NOT IT’S FEASIBLE \nFOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO \nHAVE A PIECE IN THIS AND THEY \nHAVE SAID YES FIRST PHASE \nCONSISTENCY SO WE’RE LOOKING TO \nFIND OUT NEXT MEETING AS THE \nCOMMISSION SEES THE PROJECT IS \nGENERAL CONSISTENT WITH ITS LAWS \nAND POLICIES NEPA — EXCUSE ME\, \nIT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE LAWS \nAND POLICIES OF THE COMMISSIONER \nMET AS PART OF THE FILL STILL \nPART OF THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nTHERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE \nFILL ON THE PROPERTY THAT THERE \nIS PROPERTY INTEREST SO WE \nCANNOT REQUIRE THE PORT OR CORP \n— THE LOCAL SPONSOR THE CORP IS \nREQUIRED TO GET THE LAND’S \nEASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY \nBEFORE THE CORP CAN CONSTRUCT \nTHE PROJECT SO THAT MEANS THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND HAS TO GET THOSE \nPROPERTIES THEY WOULD GET THAT I \nBELIEVE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA AND IN ORDER FOR US TO \nISSUE A PERMIT TO THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND FOR THIS PROJECT OF \nTHEIR UPCOMING APPLICATION IN A \nCOUPLE OF YEARS\, THEY WOULD HAVE \nTO PROVIDE THE LOCAL \nDISCRETIONARY APPROVAL AND THE \nPROPERTY INTEREST BECAUSE THAT \nPROJECT IS FULLY UNDER THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY \nPLAN AND OUR STATE AUTHORITY \nVERSUS OUR FEDERAL AUTHORITY \nUNDER CDMZMA. THAT WAS A LOT. \nDOES IT MAKE SENSE? \n>>PAT EKLUND: YEAH IT IF WE \nTOOK ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING \nTHAT WOULD STILL ALLOW US AS THE \nTIME COMES BACK TO ADD SOME \nADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IF WE \nWANTED TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: IMPACTS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES AND WE WILL NOT \nBE RECOMMENDING THAT WE ALLOW \nTHE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD WE \nWILL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WORK AT \nTHIS TIME SO IF WE DON’T HAVE \nTHOSE DETAILS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THAT HELPS ME A \nLOT. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IS \nPROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LARGER AND \nI’M ASSUMING THAT BCDC HAS AN \nINTEREST IN IT I WORKED FOR U.S. \nEPA\, I PUSHED REALLY HARD\, WE \nTRIED TO SET UP A PROGRAM TO \nREUSE THE DREDGE MATERIAL \nBECAUSE AS YOU KNOW THERE’S NOT \nENOUGH DREDGE MATERIAL AVAILABLE \nTO DO ALL THE WETLAND \nINSPIRATION THAT’S NEEDED AROUND \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY AREA\, \nAND SO I SAW IN THE REPORT \nTHEY’RE TALKING ABOUT NOT ONLINE \nLOOKING TO REUSE THE MATERIAL \nBUT I DIDN’T SEE SPECIFIC AREAS \nOR WHETHER IT’S MARSH LANDS\, I \nSAW FILL\, BUT I DIDN’T SEE ANY \nWETLAND RESTORATION. YOU CAN \nHELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT \nMATERIAL MIGHT OR WHETHER IT HAS \nBEEN DETERMINED BECAUSE I KNOW \nTHEY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF TESTING \nFIRST. \n>>SPEAKER: FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE \nI THINK WE MENTIONED HERE \nWETLAND RESTORATION\, WE THINK \nTHEY MIGHT GO TO BENEFICIAL \nDEEPER MATERIAL\, IT HAS NOT BEEN \nIMPACTED BY INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY\, \nAND HAVE RECEIVED SUSTAINABILITY \nDETERMINATION IN THE 1990S THAT \nMATERIAL IS CLEAN ENOUGH TO GO \nTO BENEFICIAL REUSE. I BELIEVE \nTHE PORT HAVE BEEN TALKING TO \nMONTEZUMA WETLANDS BECAUSE THEY \nCAN TAKE BOTH FOUNDATION AND \nCOVER QUALITY MATERIAL THAT IS \nNOT DETERMINED YET BECAUSE WE’RE \nNOT AT THAT LEVEL OF DESIGN\, IF \nBEL MARIN KEYS CAME ONLINE SOME \nOF THE MATERIAL COULD GO THERE\, \nIF COLIN IS OPERATIONAL SOME OF \nTHE MATERIALS COULD GO THERE\, \nTHERE IS SITES THAT MAY NOT HAVE \nBEEN IDENTIFIED\, BUT THERE IS \nANTICIPATION COMMITMENT FROM THE \nCORP AND THE PORT THROUGH THEIR \nBENEFICIAL — I’M NOT \nREMEMBERING THE NAME — BUT THEY \nDID APPROVAL TO TAKE MATERIAL TO \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WE DO \nANTICIPATE THAT TO BE WETLANDS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IS IT GOING TO BE \n100% I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE \nPROPOSING REUSE FOR FILL VERSUS \nWETLAND RESTORATION OR LEVELS OR \nWHATEVER. \n>>SPEAKER: SORRY THAT WAS NOT \nCLEAR. FILL PROPOSED IS PILE \nSHEET PILES RIP RAP\, IT’S NOT \nDREDGE MATERIAL. SORRY THAT WAS \nNOT SUPER CLEAR. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IS THERE ANY \nDREDGE MATERIAL THAT’S BEING \nPROPOSED FOR DUMPING IN THE BAY \nOR IN THE OCEAN? \n>>SPEAKER: NOT AT THIS TIME. \n>>PAT EKLUND: DO WE HAVE A \nREQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO \nREUSE ALL OF THE DREDGE \nMATERIAL? \n>>SPEAKER: THAT WOULD COME IN \nTHE DESIGN PHASE WHEN WE HAVE \nBETTER INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nQUALITY OF THE MATERIAL\, THAT \nWOULD BE THE SECOND PHASE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION BUT I \nBELIEVE THEY’RE COMMITTED IN THE \nROOM THERE\, THEY CAN VOUCH \nWHETHER OR NOT THIS MATERIAL IS \nSUITABLE FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. \nTHAT IS MINDING AT THIS TIME. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS IS ERIK AGAIN \nWE DO HAVE PERMISSION FROM \nHEADQUARTERS THAT WE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE ALL MATERIAL. THE BULK IS \nWETLAND COVER AT THIS POINT \nBASED ON ASSUMPTIONS WE HAVE \nMADE WHICH TECHNICALLY MEANS \nMONTEZUMA AT THIS POINT THEY’RE \nTHE ONLY ONES THAT CAN TAKE THAT \n1.71 MILLION YARDS GOING THERE\, \n150\,000 YARDS OF COVER THAT \nCOULD GO TO ANY WETLAND \nRESTORATION SITE. \n>>PAT EKLUND: OKAY GREAT. \nTHANK YOU. AND THEN\, LET’S SEE\, \nWHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION? YOU \nCAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND AT WHAT \nPOINT THROUGH THE THIS WHOLE \nPROCESS BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL\, \nIS IT GOING TO BE COMING BACK TO \nTHE COMMISSION SO THAT IF NEEDED \nWE CAN ADD SOME ADDITIONAL \nCONDITIONS BECAUSE IF THIS IS \nTHE ONLY TIME WHERE WE CAN ADD \nSPECIFIC CONDITIONS\, THEN I \nPROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT THIS \nWITH A FINE TOOTH COMB BUT I WAS \nHOPING WE GOING TO GET ANOTHER \nBITE AT THE APPLE WHICH IS \nTYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN \nTHE PAST BUT I DON’T KNOW IF THE \nPROCESS HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE I \nLEFT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES THIS IS A PHASE \nCONSISTENCY. FIRST PHASE IS A \nGENERAL AUTHORIZATION BUT AS \nWRITTEN SO FAR IT’S IN REVIEW. \nTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOES \nINCLUDE SOME GENERAL CONDITIONS \nBUT NOT THE FINAL SET. IT ALSO \nLISTS OUT SOME POTENTIAL \nADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE NOT \nBEING REQUIRED AT THIS TIME BUT \nWOULD LIKELY BE REQUIRED. AT \nTHE SECOND PHASE WHEN WE’RE IN \nTHE PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING \nAND DESIGN PHASE\, THE CORP WILL \nBE COMING BACK TO US ANTICIPATED \nIN 2025\, ’26\, PROBABLY 2026\, WE \nWILL HAVE A MORE DEFINITIVE \nCOMPLETE PICTURE OF THE PROJECT \nAND WILL LIKELY MAKE MORE \nREQUIREMENTS AT THAT TIME. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I DIDN’T SEE IT \nIN THE CONDITIONS OR MAY HAVE \nMISSED IT THAT THEY WILL REUSE \nALL OF THE DREDGE MATERIAL. \n>>SPEAKER: YOU DON’T HAVE TO \nYET THAT’S WHY YOU MISSED IT \nIT’S COMING OUT IN REVIEW AND \nI’M SHARING IT WITH THE CORP IN \nTHE REPORT THEN YOU WILL SEE IT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GREAT. SO OVER \nTIME IT WILL BE HERE IN 2026 \nIT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO KNOW \nBUT ANYWAY\, OKAY. THAT’S GREAT. \nIS IT POSSIBLE TO SEND \nADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN WRITING \nBEFORE THE NEXT MEETING? OR IS \nTHAT SOMETHING YOU PREFER NOT TO \nDO? \n>>SPEAKER: I’M HAPPY TO RECEIVE \nWRITTEN COMMENTS. WE’LL DO OUR \nBEST TO GET ANSWERS FOR YOU \nBEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. I’M \nFINE WITH THAT\, BUT TO THE CHAIR \nAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT WOULD BE \nGREAT. IF I COULD GET FEEDBACK \nTHAT WOULD BE GREAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO \nCOMMENTS BEFORE I GO TO THE NEXT \nCOMMISSIONER. \nYES\, CERTAINLY QUESTIONS AND \nCOMMENTS CAN COME IN. THIS IS \nAN ONGOING PROCESS IT MAY NOT \nAFFECT THIS VOTE. BUT THIS IS \nNOT THE LAST TIME THIS PROJECT \nWILL COME BEFORE US\, AND THE \nSECOND POINT\, UNLESS I’M WRONG\, \nIN ADDITION TO COMING BACK FOR \nFURTHER CONCURRENCE ON \nCONFORMANCY\, OR CONFORMANCE\, \nIT’S GET TO COME TO US FOR A \nPERMIT. SO\, WE WILL HAVE MORE \nTHAN ONE ADDITIONAL BITE AT THIS \nAPPLE. \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU \nMR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR THE \nREALLY DETAILED RICH \nPRESENTATION. I REALLY \nAPPRECIATE IT. I JUST HAVE TWO \nQUICK QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL\, \nTHE ELECTRICAL WORK THAT’S GOING \nTO BE DONE AS PART OF BUILDING \nTHE TURNING BASIN. I MEAN\, \nELECTRIFICATION OF OPERATING \nDIESEL MOTORS AT THE PORT IS A \nVERY\, VERY IMPORTANT PART OF \nIMPROVING THE HEALTH OF THE \nLOCAL COMMUNITIES IN REDUCING \nEMISSIONS. SO\, IT DOES — DOES \nTHAT WORK WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS \nFACILITATING THE USE OF \nELECTRICAL DREDGES\, DOES THAT \nALSO CONTRIBUTE\, SORT OF\, AS THE \nPORT AS A WHOLE\, FOR \nELECTRIFICATION FOR OTHER \nPROCESSES AT THE PORT OR FOR \nCHARGING SOME OF THE BATTERY \nOPERATED MACHINERY THEY HAVE \nNOW? I HOPE THAT WE CAN MAKE — \nTHAT THIS WILL NOT ONLY REDUCE \nMISSIONS DURING DREDGING\, BUT \nALSO CONTRIBUTE TO REDUCING \nEMISSIONS IN THE FUTURE. AND \nTHEN\, SECONDLY\, I DIDN’T SEE \nMUCH DISCUSSION OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE. NOW\, I HAVE A FEELING \nTHAT’S BECAUSE OF THE NATURE — \nTHAT’S — MAYBE THAT’S IN PHASE \nTWO\, BRENDA? BUT I JUST WANTED \nTO MAKE SURE THAT AS THIS \nPROJECT GOES FORWARD AND SO MUCH \nOF THE SHORELINE IN THAT REGION \nIS ALTERED\, BUT IT’S ALTERED IN \nA WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH \nBUILDING RESILIENCY TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE\, WHICH I ASSUME IS KIND OF \nINTEGRATED INTO OUR PERMIT \nDECISION\, IF I UNDERSTAND IT \nRIGHT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WILL START \nTO ADDRESS THAT. THE CORP AND \nPORT CAN BACK ME UP — TRY TO \nSAY THAT FIVE TIMES FAST — BUT \nI WOULD ALSO ELECT THE PORT TO \nADDRESS THE ELECTRIFICATION \nISSUE BECAUSE I’M UNFAMILIAR \nWITH THEIR PLANS. REGARDING SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, WHICH SAY CONCERN OF \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND OTHERS\, \nTHE PORT AND THE CORP VIEW THIS \nAS A NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT \nPROJECT. THEY’RE NOT PROPOSING \nSHORELINE PROPOSE PROTECTION. \nTHEY’RE BUILDING A BULK HEAD. \nAS I UNDERSTAND THE PLANS\, AND \nTHE ARMY CORP’S ANALYSIS OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, UNDER THEIR \nGUIDANCE\, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME \nAS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA \nGUIDANCE\, IT’S SIMILAR BUT A \nLITTLE DIFFERENT\, THE PROJECT IS \nRESILIENT TO FLOODING THROUGH \nALL PHASES OF THEIR PROJECT\, I \nBELIEVE\, TO 2090. AND I’M \nTALKING ABOUT THAT OFF THE TOP \nOF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW. SO DON’T \nQUOTE ME ON THAT\, AND THERE IS \nONLY ONE AREA THAT IS NOT \nRESILIENT. SO\, THE WAY THEY \nPROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT IT\, IT’S \nAT OR ABOVE THE EXISTING \nELEVATION. THEY DON’T \nANTICIPATE FLOODING IN THAT \nREGION. THE OTHER ANSWER\, WHICH \nCAME UP DURING THE ENGINEERING \nCRITERIA REVIEW BOARD — AND I \nBELIEVE BARNEY IN THE ROOM\, SO \nHE MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS \nFROM THE ARMY CORP — THE \nQUESTION WAS DID YOU INCORPORATE \nSEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE IN \nTHIS PROJECT; AND HIS ANSWER \nWAS\, UNDER THIS FEASIBILITY \nSTUDY\, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE\, IT \nDOES NOT INCLUDE SHORELINE \nPROTECTION. THAT WOULD BE A \nDIFFERENT AUTHORITY AND A \nDIFFERENT FEASIBILITY FOR THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA. AND THEY COULD \nREQUEST THAT OF THE CORP\, BUT \nTHE CORP WOULD HAVE TO FIND A \nNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEREST AND \nHAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE KIND OF \nPROJECT. IT’S BULKHEAD\, NOT \nSHORELINE PROTECTION. YES THERE \nIS FLOODING ON ALAMEDA FROM OUR \nLOOK AT IT COMES FROM A NUMBER \nOF OTHER SOURCES NOT \nSPECIFICALLY THIS AREA EXCEPT \nFOR THE LIMITED HIGH ELEVATION \nISSUE HIGH SEA LEVEL ELEVATION \nISSUE. THAT’S THE WAY THE \nCOMMISSION STAFF HAS ADDRESSED \nIT AT THIS POINT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SO YOU’RE \nSAYING BRENDA THAT AS IMAGINED \nCURRENTLY\, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS \nGOING TO BE MUCH MORE WORK DONE \nON THE SPECIFICS OF A PROJECT. \nTHE PROJECT WILL — WHEN THE \nPROJECT IS COMPLETED\, THE \nSHORELINE IN THAT AREA WILL BE \nRESILIENT TO A SEA LEVEL RISE AT \nA CERTAIN AMOUNT. I JUST WANT \nTO MAKE SURE WE’RE NOT PROPOSING \nTO SPEND $500 MILLION IN AN AREA \nAND NOT HAVE THAT PRODUCE A \nRESILIENT SHORELINE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I UNDERSTAND \nWHAT YOU’RE SAYING\, AND \nAPPRECIATE IT. I MEAN BASICALLY \nA BULK IS CREATING A NEW \nSHORELINE BUT NOT YOU KNOW\, \nINCREASING THE HEIGHTS OF THE \nSHORELINE IT’S SIMPLY INCREASING \nTHE NEW SHORELINE THERE IS NO \nPROPOSED PROJECT THAT RAISES THE \nELEVATION OR PROTECTS THE \nSHORELINE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE AT \nTHIS TIME AND FROM WHAT I \nUNDERSTAND FROM THE CORP THAT \nWOULD BE A DIFFERENT PROJECT \nTHAN WHAT IS AUTHORIZED THROUGH \nTHEIR PROGRAM SO MAYBE THE CORP \nOR PORT WANT TO STEP IN AT THIS \nPOINT AND HELP ME OUT? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: I WOULD ADD \nTHAT POLICIES ON RISING SEA \nLEVEL REQUIRE LARGER PROJECTS TO \nBE RESILIENT TO MID-CENTURY AND \nHAVE AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN \nTO END THE CENTURY. BUT THAT’S \nFOR THE PROJECT\, AND THE PROJECT \nIS A TURNING BASIN. SO\, YOUR \nPOLICIES WOULD REQUIRE THAT \nPROJECT ITSELF THAT BEING THE \nTURNING BASIN BE RESILIENT NOT \nNECESSARILY PROVIDE PROTECTION \nFOR ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: THANK YOU\, \nSTEVE. ALSO WE CAN DIRECT YOU \nTO POLICY SEVEN WHICH SAYS WHEN \nWE’RE IN THIS SITUATION WE DON’T \nHAVE A REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION PLAN PROJECT THAT ARE \nREGIONAL BENEFITS INCLUDING \nTRANSITION TRANSPORTATION AND \nTHEN THIS IS THE MARINE \nTRANSPORTATION ISSUE. \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: THAT’S NO \nOPINION FROM STAFF ON WHETHER IT \nWOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE GREATER \nPROTECTION OF THE SHORELINE BUT \nSIMPLY YOUR POLICIES CALL FOR \nTHAT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU\, STEVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WOULD \nLIKE ANOTHER BRIEF UNDERSTANDING \nOF A CHIEF’S REPORT. SORT OF\, \nFROM A HIGH-LEVEL MY \nUNDERSTANDING OF THE CHIEF’S \nREPORT IS BASICALLY IF IT GIVES \nENOUGH SPECIFICITY THAT THE \nHEADQUARTERS OF THE CORP OF \nENGINEERS FEELS CONFIDENT TO ASK \nCONGRESS FOR AUTHORIZATION \nAND/OR FUNDING TO GO FORWARD \nWITH THIS PROJECT\, IS THAT \nCORRECT? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. I THINK I CAN \nANSWER THAT WHEN WE SUBMIT IN \nJANUARY IS GOING TO BE A FINAL \nREPORT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION \nAND THAT GOES TO HEADQUARTERS \nAND THEN WE — WE PRODUCE A \nCHIEF’S REPORT THAT WOULD MAKE \n— THAT WOULD BE DONE BY THE END \nOF MAY OF 2024\, AND THAT IS A \nRECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS. \nCONGRESS CAN DECIDE WHETHER\, AT \nTHEIR DISCRETION\, WHETHER \nTHEY’RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE IT SO \nIT CAN GET INTO [INDISCERNIBLE] \n2024 AND AT THEIR DISCRETION \nWHETHER THEY WANT TO APPROPRIATE \nFUND AS WELL. THOSE ARE TWO \nSEPARATE DECISIONS THAT THEY \nNEED TO MAKE AND THEY CAN DECIDE \nTO SAY NO TO BOTH\, SAY YES TO \nBOTH\, OR THEY CAN AUTHORIZE AND \nTHEN AT A LATER TIME \nAPPROPRIATE. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU \nERICA. THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT I \nREMEMBERED. BUT I WANTED TO \nMAKE SURE. SO\, I GUESS WHAT MY \nFEELING IS THAT BECAUSE THIS IS \nTHE PHASE WE’RE AT\, IT’S \nAPPROPRIATE\, I FEEL LIKE\, FOR US \nTO SUPPORT THIS GOING FORWARD AT \nTHIS PHASE. I MEAN\, GRANTED\, \nWHEN WE GET MORE DETAILS\, WE \nWILL HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS \nAND THERE WILL BE THINGS WE WANT \nTO MAKE SURE ARE TAKEN CARE OF. \nBUT AT THIS POINT\, TO GET — YOU \nKNOW\, TO GET — MAKE SURE THAT \nTHIS PROCESS GOING FORWARD IN A \nTIMELY MANNER\, I’M VERY \nSUPPORTIVE OF IT. AND \nPARTICULARLY\, THE REUSE OF THE \nDREDGE SEDIMENT. THAT IS A \nWONDERFUL FEATURE. AND \nSOMETHING THAT IS VERY\, VERY \nIMPORTANT FOR OUR OTHER SEA \nLEVEL RISE PROTECTION EFFORTS\, \nPARTICULARLY MARSH RESTORATION \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY. SO\, I’M \nREALLY GLAD TO SEE THIS. AND I \nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON IT \nFOR QUITE A WHILE. THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONER. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nHAVE A HAND\, COMMISSIONER \nNELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: [LAUGHTER] \nIT KEEPS DROPPING AWAY. TWO \nISSUES FOR STAFF. QUESTIONS \nABOUT — FIRST IS ABOUT HOWARD \nTERMINAL. IF I AM REMEMBERING \nCORRECTLY\, WHEN WE DELETED THE \nSEAPORT PLAN DESIGNATION FOR \nHOWARD TERMINAL\, IT CAME WITH \nTHE CONDITION THAT IF AS DID NOT \nCONSTRUCT A BALLPARK AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL\, THAT SEAPORT WOULD \nREVERT BACK TO PLAN \nJURISDICTION. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ALMOST. IT \nREVERTS BACK TO PORT PRIORITY \nUSE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: IF THAT HAD \nHAPPENED LAST MONTH\, AND THE AS \nMOVED TO LAS VEGAS\, AND THEY’RE \nNOT BUILDING A TERMINAL THEN THE \nPORT PRIORITY DESIGNATION WOULD \nBE ON THE SITE AND I ASSUME THE \nSTAFF WOULD INCLUDE ANALYSIS OF \nWHAT THIS MEANS FOR HOWARD \nTERMINAL. SOME OF THIS WOULD BE \nEXCAVATED\, HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD \nBE SHORTER\, ONLY ACCOMMODATE \nCERTAIN SHIPS AND SO FORTH. \nTHAT DECISION HASN’T BEEN MADE \nBY THE CITY AND THE AS\, IT SEEMS \nLIKE SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT \nTHAT ISSUE? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WOULD SAY\, \nAS I LOOK TO MY ESTEEMED \nCOLLEAGUES\, DEPUTY DIRECTOR\, \nEXECUTIVE DEPUTY DIRECTOR\, IS \nWE’RE CURRENTLY BEHOLDEN TO THE \nLAWS AND POLICIES THAT WE HAVE\, \nBECAUSE THE REVERTING ACTION HAS \nNOT TAKEN PLACE\, AND IT WILL \nLIKELY NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE \nDECEMBER 21ST A.M.\, WE NEED TO \nUSE THE POLICIES AND THE \nPRIORITY USE AREAS THAT WE HAVE \nIN FRONT OF US AT THAT TIME. IF \nTHE PRIORITY USE AREA REVERTS TO \nPORT PRIORITY USE BEFORE THE \nNEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION\, WE WOULD CONSIDER \nIT DIFFERENTLY AND LOOK FOR \nDIFFERENT INFORMATION. BUT\, AT \nTHIS TIME\, THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION EXPLAINS THAT \nTHERE IS NO PORT PRIORITY USE AT \nHOWARD TERMINAL AT THIS TIME. \n>>BARRY NELSON: AND THAT LEAVES \nTHE QUESTION ABOUT PHASING AND \nSEGMENTATION. WHAT HAPPENS IF \nWE LOOK AT IT NOW AND SAY \nTOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR \nPLAN\, AND THEN WE LOOK AT IT IN \nA YEAR OR WHENEVER IT COMES BACK \nTO US FOR THE NEXT PHASE\, AND \nTHE AS HAVE MADE THEIR DECISION\, \nPORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION IS \nBACK ON THE SITE\, AT THAT POINT \nWE DO AN ANALYSIS ABOUT IMPACTS \nON THE PORT PRIORITY USE. WHAT \nHAPPENS IF WE REACH A DIFFERENT \nCONCLUSION ON THE SECOND PHASE \nBECAUSE THE PORT PRIORITY USE \nISSUE GIVEN THAT WE FOUND \nCONSISTENCY OAT FIRST PHASE WITH \nDIFFERENT CONSISTENCY — WITH \nDIFFERENT DESIGNATION FOR THE \nSITE? \n>>SPEAKER: I CAN ADD A LITTLE \nBIT TO THE CONVERSATION MICHAEL \nNG G STAFF ATTORNEY. WE LOOK AT \nWHETHER THE CONTINUED PLACEMENT \nOR REMOVAL OF PORT PRIORITY USE \nAREA DESIGNATION AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL HAD ANY PARTICULAR \nSIGNIFICANCE OR CONSEQUENCE WITH \nTHE RESPECT TO REALIZATION OF \nOAKLAND TURNING BASIN PROJECT IF \nWE PROCEED WE ANALYZED THAT AT \nTHE TIME OF THE BPA 2/19 WHEN \nTHAT DESIGN DESIGNATION WAS \nREMOVED\, AND I BELIEVE OUR VIEW \nAT THAT TIME WHICH I THINK IS \nSTILL OUR VIEW IS THAT IT IS NOT \nWHETHER IT’S THERE OR NOT IS NOT \nA HINDRANCE TO THE REALIZATION \nOF THE TURNING BASIN’S PROJECT I \nTHINK WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO \nIS THE A.B. 1191 WHICH WAS THE \nSPECIAL HOWARD TERMINAL BALLPARK \nPROJECT THAT DOES HAVE THIS\, \nSORT OF\, AUTOMATIC REVERSION \nCLAUSE THAT IF THERE’S NO \nDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN \nTHE CITY AND THE AS BY 2025 THAT \nTHE DESIGNATION WILL BE \nREINSTATED AS IF IT HAD NEVER \nBEEN REMOVED BUT AGAIN WHETHER \nIT’S THERE OR NOT GIVEN THE \nPURPOSE OF WHAT THE PA \nDESIGNATION IS FOR WHICH IS \nMINIMIZE MITIGATE PRESSURE FOR \nTHE INCREASED FILL FOR PORT \nPURPOSES I DON’T THINK THAT THIS \nPROJECT IMPLICATES THAT POLICY \nISSUE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND \nQUESTION. ALAMEDA AND THE \nSPEAKER FROM EARTH JUSTICE ON \nBEHALF OF WEST OAKLAND \nINDICATORS RAISED A NUMBER OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT\, \nLAND USE\, OPERATIONS \nCONSISTENCY\, WITH FEDERAL \nPOLICIES AND A NUMBER OF OTHER \nTHINGS. WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE \nCONCERNS\, SOME ARE OUTSIDE OUR \nJURISDICTION\, WE HAVE OUR OWN \nEQUITY POLICIES THAT MAY OVERLAP \nBUT ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE \nFEDERAL POLICIES. I DON’T KNOW \nIF BRENDA YOU’RE READY TO \nDISCUSS THIS NOW OR SOMETHING \nSTAFF WANTS TO THINK ABOUT \nPREPARING FOR THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. BUT I WOULD \nLIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE \nCONCERNS RAISED BY ALAMEDA AND \nEARTH JUSTICE IN PARTICULAR\, \nOVERLAP WITH THE COMMISSION’S \nPOLICIES AND THEIR ISSUES THAT \nWE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING AND \nCONSIDERING IN MAKING THIS \nDECISION OR WHETHER THEY’RE JUST \nOUTSIDE OUR AUTHORITY AND \nTHEY’RE NOT GOING TO BE A PART \nOF OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE \nPROJECT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I GUESS I \nCOULD MENTION THEM IN BRIEF. \nSO\, AS MICHAEL SPOKE TO OR \nACTING UNDER COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nACT\, AND AROUND THAT ACT WE ARE \nDIRECT TO LOOK AT THE EFFECTS TO \nTHE COASTAL ZONE\, WHICH IN THIS \nCASE IS SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND \nWE INVESTIGATED ACTUALLY VERY \nTHOROUGHLY OVER THE LAST TWO \nYEARS WHETHER OR NOT AIR QUALITY \nIMPACTS WERE SOMETHING THAT THE \nCOMMISSION COULD ADDRESS UNDER \nCZMA\, AND I THINK WE DETERMINED\, \nMICHAEL\, STEVE\, CORRECT ME IF I \nAM WRONG\, DETERMINED THAT WE DID \nNOT HAVE NEXUS THAT THE AIR \nQUALITY THAT ARMY CORP HAS TO BE \nRESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL CLEAN \nAIR ACT AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT \nTHEY INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION AS \nPART OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS \nPROJECT. SO WE DON’T HAVE THAT \nNEXUS. WHERE WE HAVE A BIT OF \nNEXUS ON AIR QUALITY IN MY \nHUMBLE OPINION\, AND I’M WAITING \nTO FIGURE OUT IF I’M RIGHT IS \nTHAT PARTICULATE MATTER FROM \nEMISSIONS FROM TRUCKS AND SHIPS \nACTUALLY DO IMPACT WATER \nQUALITY. AND SO WE’RE DO HAVE A \nBRIEF REQUIREMENT LOOKING AT \nTRUCK ENGINES FOR REDUCTION OF \nPARTICULATE MATTER BECAUSE OF \nTHE CONNECTION TO WATER QUALITY. \nIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nWE’LL SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT \nCONSIDERATION. THE CORP IS \nRESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL LAWS. \nWE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO CZMA. WE \nDO NOT INVESTIGATE VESSEL \nTRAFFIC OR REGULATE VESSEL \nEMISSIONS WE DO NOT REGULATE \nTRUCK TRAFFIC. WE DO NOT \nREGULATE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT \nBUT WE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS \nAROUND IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY\, \nFIDUCIARY AND WILDLIFE\, \nCONTAMINANT ISSUES. AND SO \nWHETHER THERE IS A NEXUS TO \nTHOSE ITEMS PER THE POLICIES \nTHAT WE LAID OUT FOR YOU TODAY\, \nWE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS\, BUT \nWHERE WE DON’T HAVE POLICIES OR \nAUTHORITY\, WE DON’T — WE CANNOT \nMAKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND \nREGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAS PHOENIX LAID OUT\, THE WAY OUR \nPOLICIES ARE WRITTEN — AND I \nTHINK I’M FROZEN IN SOME \nSCREENS\, WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT \nPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE \nAND CULTURALLY RELEVANT. AND WE \nCAN WORK WITH THE FEDERAL AND \nLOCAL PROJECT SPONSOR TO \nCONTINUE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND \nTRY TO WORK HARDER TO MAKE IT\, \nENSURE THAT THEY DO CULTURALLY \nRELATIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND \nTHAT THEY WORK WITH THE \nCOMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION \nMEASURES WHERE WE HAVE \nAUTHORITY. AND\, AGAIN\, OUR \nAUTHORITY IT LIMITED IN THAT \nREGARD. AND THEN REGARDING MED \nNEED LANDING\, I THINK I \nMENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE PORT \nIS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING \nPROPERTY RIGHTS AND IF THEY \nCAN’T GET PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY \nCANNOT GET A PERMIT FROM BCDC. \nAND REGARDING THEIR CONCERNS \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS. CERTAINLY \nTHE ALAMEDA LANDING AREA IS AN \nAREA THAT BCDC STAFF HAS \nIDENTIFIED AND ALREADY TALKED TO \nTHE PORT AND CORP ABOUT A \nPOTENTIAL PUBLIC ACCESS AMENITY \nAT THAT SITE BECAUSE THEY WILL \nBE CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION \nSITE VIA REMOVING SOME OF THE \nWATERFRONT WHARF AND DEM OCEAN \nPORTIONS OF THE TWO WAREHOUSES \nWHICH SHOULD OPEN UP VIEWS AND \nPROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO \nTALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE \nPOTENTIAL FOR IN LIEU PUBLIC \nACCESS NEARBY. AND POTENTIALLY \nPROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO AN EJ \nOR DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED \nCOMMUNITY\, BECAUSE THAT ALSO \nPART OF OUR PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICIES. I AM HOPING THAT’S \nHELPFUL. \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. THAT’S \nALL OF THOSE THAT WILL BE \nADDRESSED IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS WHEN IT COMES \nBACK TO US. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \nI WANT THANK BARRY AND BRENDA \nBECAUSE YOU ANSWERED QUESTIONS I \nWAS ABOUT TO ASK. I WAS\, SORT \nOF\, DISTURBED BY THE OPPOSING \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS THEY \nSEEM TO COME OUT AT EITHER ENDS \nOF THE SPECTRUM. BUT THANKS TO \nYOUR EXPLANATION\, BRENDA I FEEL \nBETTER ABOUT IT. I’M ASSUMING \nTHAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST \nDISCUSSED DOES NOT HAVE TO BE \nDETERMINED BY THE 21st. WE’RE \nGOING TO GET ADDITIONAL BITES AT \nPUBLIC MEETINGS\, ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS \nTHAT YOU JUST\, SORT OF\, LISTED \nOFF AND EXPLAINED. RIGHT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YEAH. THAT IS \nTHE PLAN. RIGHT NOW\, I THINK WE \nHAVE EIGHT OR NINE REQUIREMENTS\, \nWHICH ARE GENERAL\, IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION WHICH ADDRESS \nTHESE ISSUES THAT ARE \nOUTSTANDING. PARTICULARLY THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS ENGAGEMENT\, I \nTHINK IS ONE THAT YOU WILL BE \nHEARTENED TO SEE IN SOME \nADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nCONTAMINANTS ASSOCIATED WITH \nBOTH THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND \nTHE DREDGING. AND I’M NOT \nREMEMBERING THE REST OF THEM OFF \nTHE TOP OF MY HEAD\, BUT\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE SILT CURTAINS AND THE \nPROTECTIONS FOR THE FISH AND \nWILDLIFE AND WATER QUALITY. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: OKAY. AND SO \nAS WE\, ASSUMING THIS PROJECT \nMOVES FORWARD\, WE WILL — AND WE \nFIND OUT MORE ABOUT EXACTLY \nWHAT’S BEING PROPOSED\, WE CAN \nADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR \nTIGHT END UP CERTAIN CONDITIONS. \nSO WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE \nPROJECT ABOUT THE 300 FOOT \nLEVEL\, AND AS TIME GOES BY WE’RE \nGETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO \nGROUND LEVEL KIND OF THE WAY I \nLOOK AT IT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nOTHER QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? I WOULD HAVE \nEXPECTED TO YOU HAVE A LOT. \nI JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK \nONES. \nI HAVE A LITTLE FAMILIARITY WITH \nDREDGING IN THE OAKLAND ESTUARY. \nI HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE \n1978. I\, IN PARTICULAR\, \nREMEMBER A HELICOPTER RIDE WITH \nMAYOR LIONEL WILSON AND \nCONGRESSMAN RON DELLUMS WHEN WE \nWERE FIGHTING FOR FUNDS TO \nDREDGE TO THINK IT WAS 38 FEET\, \nAND THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE WHO \nDID NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS \nNECESSARY THAT THESE BIG SHIPS \nTHAT EVERYBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT \nWERE SIMPLY NOT ACKNOWLEDGE\, \nTHEY WERE PIE IN THE SKY. OR I \nGUESS\, IN THE WATER. CLEARLY \nTHEY ARE INCREASE THEY CAME\, \nTHEY ARE INCREASING IN SIZE. \nAND I DO THINK THAT SOME \nADDITIONAL ATTENTION — NOT BY \nTHE 21st; I’LL ADDRESS IN THAT \nMOMENT — BUT AS THIS COMES BACK \nTO US IN THE FUTURE ITERATIONS \nTHAT NEEDS SOME MORE FACTS AND \nATTENTION\, AS VICE CHAIR EISEN \nINDICATED. I ALSO THINK\, AS WE \nMOVE FORWARD\, WE NEED AS A \nCOMMISSION TO BE VERY CAREFUL \nAND THOUGHTFUL — AND MICHAEL \nTOOK US THROUGH A LONG TUTORIAL \nEARLIER THIS AFTERNOON\, BUT IT \nWAS APPROPRIATE\, BECAUSE WE HAVE \nNOT DONE THIS IN A WHILE\, AND \nTHERE ARE NEW COMMISSIONERS. WE \nHAVE GOT FAIRLY LIMITED \nJURISDICTION IN A LOT OF THESE \nTHINGS AND IT’S NOT THAT WE \nSHOULDN’T VOICE OUR CONCERNS\, \nBUT WHEN IT COMES TO DIRECTOR \nSTAFF AND VOIDING AND VOTING\, WE \nNEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND HERE \nWE DO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDING \nOR NOT CONFORMANCE IS QUITE \nDIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE CAN DO \nAND SHOULD DO WHEN IT COMES \nBUDGET US FOR A PERMIT AND I \nTHINK UNDERSTANDING THOSE \nDIFFERENCES BUT I WANT TO BE \nCLEAR THAT IT’S AN ONGOING \nPROCESS AND THAT MEANS THAT THE \nPUBLIC OUTREACH AND IN \nPARTICULAR THE OUTREACH TO EJ \nTHAT’S PART OF OUR POLICY \nONGOING PROCESS I’M NOT SAYING \nANYBODY HAS SUGGESTED THAT BUT \nTHE DIALOGUE IS NOT OVER IT WILL \nCONTINUE AS THIS PROJECT GETS \nFLESHED OUT AND MORE DETAILS \nEMERGE. COMMISSIONER ECKLUND \nHAS HER HAND UP. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I’M SORRY FOR A \nSECOND BITE AT THE APPLE. BUT \nYOU TRIGGERED ME TO ASK A \nQUESTION. IS THERE A \nPOSSIBILITY WE COULD GET A \nROADMAP OF WHERE BCDC IS GOING \nTO HAVE INPUT ON THIS ISSUE \nFIDUCIARY THE NEXT 5\, 6 YEARS\, \nOR WHATEVER? JUST SO WE HAVE A \nBETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE \nMIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING DIFFERENT \nISSUES? \nTHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nAGREE. THAT’S A VERY GOOD \nSUGGESTION. \n>>SPEAKER: WE CAN BRING THAT TO \nTHE NEXT MEETING ON. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ON \nTHIS WILL COME BACK ON THE 21st \nFOR A VOTE ON THE CONFORMANCE \nISSUE FOR THE FIRST PHASE. AND \nWITH THAT\, I WOULD ENTERTAIN — \nI’M SORRY. YOU WANT A LAST \nWORD. SURE. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. I DID. THANK \nYOU SO MUCH. THROUGH THE CHAIR\, \nWE WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF \nTHINGS FOR THE RECORD\, AND ONE \nIS GOING TO BE RELATED TO \nELECTRIC DREDGING\, AND SINCE THE \nPORT IS PAYING FOR THAT 100%\, \nI’M GOING TO ASK JUSTIN TO COME \nUP HERE IN A MINUTE. WE WILL \nPROVIDE RESPONSES TO ALL THE \nQUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY TO \nBRENDA FOR HER STAFF\, TO MAKE IT \nEASIER FOR HER STAFF REPORT. TO \nALL THE QUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY \nIT’S NOTHING NEW IT’S ALL IN THE \nREPORT AND WE’LL POINT TO WHERE \nTHEY CAN BE FOUND. SPECIFICALLY \nFOR COMMISSIONER EISEN\, THE \nECONOMIC APPENDIX HAS REALLY \nGOOD INFORMATION. THERE IS AN \nECONOMIC MODEL WE CALL THE \nHARBOR SIM MODEL THAT’S USED TO \nDETERMINE\, LOOK AT PROJECTIONS\, \nCONSEQUENCES\, A FUTURE WITHOUT \nTHE PROJECT. SO THAT IS A \nREALLY GOOD DOCUMENT. AND WE’LL \nALSO PROVIDE SLIDES THAT WILL \nHAVE CORRECTIONS IN THERE TO \nMAKE IT CLARIFY. \nAND I THINK THIS’S ALL I HAVE. \nSO\, WE WILL PROVIDE \nCLARIFICATION DIRECTLY TO BRENDA \nAS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND ONE \nLAST THING. ELECTRIC DREDGING \nAND BENEFICIAL USE THAT WAS NOT \nREQUIRED IS MITIGATION\, THIS IS \nTHE FIRST TIME A CORP OF \nENGINEERS PROJECT HAS SUBMITTED \nTO HEADQUARTERS A REQUEST TO \nASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY \nTO COST SHARE THAT WITHOUT BEING \nREQUIRED TO DO IT. THIS IS \nCALLED COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. \nIT’S A NEW POLICY. WE WERE THE \nFIRST TO DO THAT\, FROM WHAT I \nUNDERSTAND. \nSO\, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE \nREALLY APPRECIATE IT. JUSTIN? \n>>SPEAKER: JUSTIN. PORT OF \nOAKLAND. DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE \nTHAT HANGING. ELECTRIC \nDREDGING\, THE INFRASTRUCTURE \nPROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED \nPURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nIS DISCRETE AND SPECIALIZED FOR \nTHE ELECTRIC DREDGERS. BUT REST \nASSURED THAT THE ELECTRICAL \nPOWER THAT WOULD BE MADE \nAVAILABLE FOR THOSE UNITS DURING \nCONSTRUCTION WOULD CERTAINLY BE \nVALUABLE AS WE ALL STRIVE AND \nMOVE FORWARD TO DECARBONIZE THE \nPORTS. SO THE DEMANDS FOR \nELECTRICITY WILL ONLY INCREASE \nOVER TIME AND REST ASSURED THAT \nPOWER THAT WILL BE MADE \nAVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT WILL \nBE UTILIZED FOR OTHER THINGS IN \nTHE FUTURE. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT TRIGGERED IN ME TWO QUICK \nTHINGS. ONE\, THANK YOU FOR \nEMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE IN \nPIONEERING EFFORT OF THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE IN THIS \nPROJECT. IT IS SOMETHING THIS \nCOMMISSION HAS CERTAINLY BEEN \nSTRIVING FOR SOMETIME\, AND WE \nARE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THE CORP \nFULLY ON BOARD FOR THIS. \nSECOND\, WELL\, IT MAY OR MAY NOT \nBE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS \nPROJECT — CERTAINLY RELATED TO \nCONCERNS\, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS \nUNDERTAKING A VERY MAJOR PROJECT \nTO REDUCE EMISSIONS\, BOTH IN THE \nMODERATELY SHORT-TERM AND IN THE \nLONGER TERM\, REALLY WITH A \nZERO-EMISSION EMPHASIS TO WHICH \nPOINT THEY HAVE REDESIGNED THEIR \nPORT LOGO TO EMPHASIZE THAT. \nSO\, THIS IS NOT — THE WORDS \nTHAT HAVE BEEN HEARD HERE BEFORE \nARE BEING LISTENED TO. I THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. I WILL ENTERTAIN \nA MOTION TO ADJOURN. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nMOVES TO ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO SECONDS. SEEING NO \nOPPOSITION THIS MEETING \nADJOURNS. WE’LL SEE OUT 21st \nENJOY HANUKKAH\, ENJOY YOUR TIME. \nBE SAFE. \n[ADJOURNED] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-7-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231206T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231206T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231019T011653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235959Z
UID:10000074-1701867600-1701882000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 6\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings
DESCRIPTION:he meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, via Zoom and in person \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84343056351?pwd=LWLyZoyLy1zVQOsCJN2gXApP8rPpJA.cORnRbl1Sun0oXV0 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID843 4305 6351 \nPasscode679717 \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\, Meeting Procedure Review\nPublic Comment Period on Items Not on the Agenda\nStaff Updates\nItem of Discussion: India Basin Shoreline Park Project (Pre- Application) The Board will review the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (Applicant) proposed India Basin Shoreline Park Project\, designed to provide improved public access to the Bay and sea level rise resilience. The Board will review the proposed design of the new South Marine Way and piers in the boat launch dock. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the stability of the structures due to anticipated loads and scenarios including seismic events\, storm waves or sea level rise. The public may comment on the Applicant’s presentation at its conclusion. (Schuyler Olsson) [415/352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/12-06-ECRB-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Can everybody hear me? \nYerba Buena SX80: We ready to go \nYerba Buena SX80: us? \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry for me being late? I guess there’s other \nYerba Buena SX80: challenges to \nYerba Buena SX80: anyway. Jen like to welcome everyone to the BC. DC\, \nYerba Buena SX80: ecrb meeting the engineering Criteria Review board \nthis meeting will be recorded. So everybody knows that. \nYerba Buena SX80: I. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: of the engineering Criteria Review Board\, EC. Rb. Of the BCDC. \nYerba Buena SX80: My name is Jim French. I’m the acting chair to day of the DE. Crb\, because our regular chair rod has been recused for this particular project. \nI’d like to announce that we also have a new \nYerba Buena SX80: board member\, New ECEC. Rb. Member Patrick Ryan\, Structural Engineer\, and a principal of Ryan Joyce\, structural design. And Ryan’s not here right? \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s recused\, I know\, but he didn’t show up anyway. So \nYerba Buena SX80: so we look forward to working with Patrick in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: also recused today is a board member board\, alternate delete travidi \nYerba Buena SX80: our first oh\, and and our \nYerba Buena SX80: chair is recused\, wrought iwash Iwashta. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our first order business is to call the role Board members. Please please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m gonna call off everybody’s name\, you know. They’re not here today\, so I’ll start with roddy washed chair of the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know he’s not here today since he was recuse. Jim French vice chair of the board today’s chair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob\, tell you present \nYerba Buena SX80: so Holmes present \nYerba Buena SX80: Jima Kasalli present \nYerba Buena SX80: Chris\, may \nYerba Buena SX80: I know Chris wanted to be here\, but she was sick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Rameen Golzorkey present \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick Sotard here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gail Johnson\, present \nYerba Buena SX80: Talia Trevasaru. She was not going to show up today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Dylan Trevetti we mentioned. He was recused. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin Vannevar present. \nYerba Buena SX80: and Patrick Ryan. \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s recused. \nYerba Buena SX80: we have \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 board members present. Jim. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s correct. The quorum is 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: This will be louder than sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll keep going. Then a second. If you’re attending on Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand \nYerba Buena SX80: in zoom if you’re new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting using the zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen and the hand should turn blue\, I think maybe different color on different platforms. \nYerba Buena SX80: Third\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone press star 9 \nYerba Buena SX80: on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, we will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period for each project. Well\, one project today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every now and then I might refer to the meeting host Grace\, who is working behind the scenes to ensure the technology\, moves forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us as needed. Next ex parte communications as set forth in BCD. C’s regulations\, a member of the Ecr shall not have any oral or written communications regarding a proposed project \nYerba Buena SX80: or other matter \nYerba Buena SX80: that has been noticed to be considered at the Ecrb meeting with the project proponent \nYerba Buena SX80: permit applicant prospective applicant or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a notice on any written or oral ex parte. Communications invite members who have engaged in any such communications \nYerba Buena SX80: to report on him at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself \nYerba Buena SX80: for the record. No hands have been raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Second agenda. Item\, public comment period on items not on the agenda. We have set a time \nYerba Buena SX80: set set aside time now for hearing public comment on items related to BC DC policies\, or permits that are not explicitly on the agenda. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you have anyone present or online who would like to make a comment not related to the planned project for the India Basin Shore Basin Shoreline Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: No hands online or no hands in person here\, either. Okay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Agenda. Item\, 3 staff updates. Now we’ll have a staff update from Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair French. I would like to provide an update to the board on a few items Ecrb meeting dates have been set for 2\,024 and are posted on the Bcbc website. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve started to send out meeting invitations to board members\, so you can reserve that time on your calendar. \nYerba Buena SX80: Regarding upcoming Ecrb meetings. There are currently no projects \nYerba Buena SX80: right now scheduled for the meetings in 2024. But please keep these dates open on your calendar. Since there there are some applicants we know\, we’ll need to return to the Ecrb. Particular Cargill salt. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also San Francisco International Airport are gonna schedule second meetings. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, it a follow up meeting in the New year. Lastly\, I wanted to let the Board members know that Bcd\, C has updated the policy regarding the role that Ecrb members can play as consultants to permit applicants. \nYerba Buena SX80: Board members are no longer allowed to represent permit applicants before the Ecrb board. Members who have been \nYerba Buena SX80: recused for assisting permit. Applicants are not allowed to speak to the Board in a presentation\, or answer questions while being paid by the applicant. \nYerba Buena SX80: Recused board members may attend meetings in person or remotely\, as a member of the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: If they do want to speak as a member of the public\, they may\, as long as they are not being compensated by the applicant. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do board members have any questions about this? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Great that’s all I have to for announcements. \nThen \nYerba Buena SX80: let me do that over again. She’s sorry about that. Okay\, with a microphone on this time before we move on to the presentation proper. Are there any announcements from board members? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, no hands raised. So we will move on to the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: the India Basin Shoreline Park. The discussion and presentation will follow. The meeting will proceed according to the following agenda\, first\, Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from BCDC. Will make a short presentation on the project\, followed by the presentation by the application team. \nYerba Buena SX80: By the applicant team during the presentation. It’s fine for board members to ask short\, clarifying questions or have limited discussion\, but the primary discussion will follow later \nat the end of the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, we’ll open the meeting for public comments related to engineering issues in the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: After hearing any comments from the public. The Ecrb will resume the discussion with their questions and comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: and at the end of the discussion I’ll ask for final comments and any emotions\, and then close our consideration of the project. This time I would like to ask board members and other participate. Our other participants. \nYerba Buena SX80: To please turn on your cameras. You’re speaking or actively engaged with the discussion. When you’re not actively engaged with the discussion. Please turn off your cameras so that we minimize distractions on screen and possibly bandwidth issues as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: I now ask Jen to provide the introduction to the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good afternoon\, chair. French and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: My name is Jen Hyman\, and I’m the senior engineer at Bcd. C. And Secretary of the Ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: This will be the Board’s first review of the India Basin Trolley Park Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have some background information on the project to share with you first. \nYerba Buena SX80: There we go. \nYerba Buena SX80: We already went over. The meeting agenda \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: let me share with you a little bit about India Basin Trolling Park. \nYerba Buena SX80: India Basin\, Shoreline Park is located just north of Hunters Point and Candlestick Park\, and just south of Mission Bay and Herons Head Park\, in the southeast corner of San Francisco. \nYerba Buena SX80: There is an existing park there that is being completely renovated. \nYerba Buena SX80: San Francisco Department of Recreation\, parks has submitted pre application materials to BC. DC. And has had a meeting with the Design Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: The adjacent 900 Innis Avenue project is a separate concurrent project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Also with extensive new public access features. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lenia Bison Shoreline Park Project is designed to renovate the entire park\, based on extensive community input \nYerba Buena SX80: includes 2 new full sized basket ball courts and a cook out terrace. \nYerba Buena SX80: It also includes new water oriented activities\, including boating and waiting\, which are the focus of this meeting\, and also provides sea level rise. Resiliency to the park. \nYerba Buena SX80: Today’s meeting of Ecrb is focused on the engineering design of 2 structures that are in the Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: The first is the boathouse pier and intermediate landing \nYerba Buena SX80: of the new boating dock. \nYerba Buena SX80: These 2 piling supported structures are connected by gangways and lead to a floating dock for launching kayaks. \nYerba Buena SX80: The second item of discussion is the South marine ray wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a hundred 65 foot long concrete walkway. It’s about 12 foot 10 to 12 feet wide on top. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it holds up the new gently slipped beach. and is also designed to allow the public to walk on top of it. Down to the end of the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: The design issues\, which will be explained shortly in the presentation by the applicant’s team include challenging geology. \nYerba Buena SX80: including undocumented\, fill and highly compressible clays below the fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: seismically active region leading to strong ground shaking and liquefaction of soil layers. \nYerba Buena SX80: wind and wave loads. \nYerba Buena SX80: potential impacts from construction of a flat concrete wall in the bay and sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: So questions I put together for the board to consider as they hear the presentation today are one. \nYerba Buena SX80: are the scenarios and design criteria in the stability analyses for the piers and the South Marine Way wall appropriate for the site hazards\, site conditions and site criticality \nYerba Buena SX80: to our potential hydrodynamic impacts from the South Green Way wall a concern \nYerba Buena SX80: 3. Our future coastal flooding concerns from sea level rise\, addressed adequately in the park. Design \nYerba Buena SX80: 4. Is there any data monitoring you recommend? Bcdc. Require the applicant to enhance the future safety of the project in light of its projected 40 year\, estimated design life. \nYerba Buena SX80: and lastly\, 5. Are there any design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we will hear the presentation from the applicant team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Hello. I’m Catherine lists from Ggn. We’re the landscape architect and design lead on this project. India based in Shoreline Park. \nI just wanna thank you all for taking the time to review this on behalf of our design team and project partners. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just quickly. These are the project partners and the team that will be speaking today. So as I noted\, I’m from Ggn\, and then Sean Hart from often Nicole and Cameron from Ags will also be speaking. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will provide a brief overview very similar to what Jen just went through\, and then I’ll hand it over to Shawn and Cameron to go through the technical and engineering elements \nYerba Buena SX80: so\, as noted\, we are located on the southeast corner of San Francisco\, right on the bay\, zooming in on the image on the right. We’re also located along the bay trail. That’s that purple line that’s winding its way through\, connecting basically Pg and E directly to the north with the future 900 Dennis project\, once it’s constructed to the south. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then this is a view of the existing site. It is an existing park\, India\, based in Sherline Park\, outlined in the dashed black line that you see there. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a park that really is underutilized and needs some renovation. And specifically focusing along the shoreline\, you can see an image number 3 in the bottom right hand corner. We do have a rip wrap protection there right now\, but it is in disrepair\, and is still showing signs of erosion\, even with that protection there. \nYerba Buena SX80: so as noted. I will now hand it over to Cameron and Sean to go through these 3 key elements of our design on the from the engineering standpoint. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you so much\, Katherine. This I’m Cameron Gelson with a GS. A. Gs has done Joe technical investigation in 2 phases for this project \nYerba Buena SX80: on phase one\, we focus on 900 inner sight and on phase 2\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: supplement our work in 900 in s. And also did the India basic \nYerba Buena SX80: in phase one\, we performed 10 test speeds for soar boring and 7 Cpt’s. and on phase 2. We did 14 additional onshore\, boring \nYerba Buena SX80: to depth\, ranging between a to 100 feet. 5 offshore boarding \nto also depth of the homework. you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, yes. \nyeah\, you’re not \nYerba Buena SX80: cool. \nYerba Buena SX80: I apologize. For the delay. We lost our wi-fi here in the meeting room we’re in\, and it just came back so we’ll be restarting the presentation. \nyou know. \nBill Holmes: I think anybody \nBill Holmes: that’s oh\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yes\, so we perform geotechnical investigation in 2 phases and phase one\, we focus on 900 in a side with 10 test speed for sole boring and 7 Cpt’s \nYerba Buena SX80: on A and on the phase 2. We combine the India Basin project\, as well as the 900 in. As. \nand we perform additional 14 boardings \nYerba Buena SX80: 9 Cpt’s \nYerba Buena SX80: also there’s 8 of them was onshore\, and 5 of them was offshore on one of the boardings. We also perform Ps suspension downhole logging for the Joe physical to determine the sheer velocity of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: as in total we did 29 boardings. \nYerba Buena SX80: which 24 of them was offshore\, and 5 of them offshore\, 9\, Cpt’s 1010 test pits there. \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 of the boarding was focused on this area that we have these 2 structures which are concerned with the Bcd C. And which 4 of them was offshore\, and 4 of them was onshore. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we did 3 CP. Ts in there \nYerba Buena SX80: as a summary. We had a very \nYerba Buena SX80: no previous one. Yeah\, very\, very complex subsurface conditions. We had some area we had undocumented feel. The feel was very heterogeneous. \nthe depth\, thickness of it it was ranging between nothing from 0 to 41 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: in some area underneath of it\, typically\, we had young Bay mode. which\, with the thickness of the between 0 to 77 feet. \nBelow young Baymont we encounter interbedded sand and clay \nYerba Buena SX80: sometimes\, and the thickness of it ranges between 0 to 30 feet. and below that is old bait clay with the thickness of the 0 to 20 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then collovium or residual soil between 0 to 20 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the bedrock with. We encounter most of our \nYerba Buena SX80: our borings in offshore and near the shoreline reached the bedrock. There \ngroundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: ranges from 9 to 22 feet below ground surface the ground surface at those locations. The elevation of it was plus 5 2 plus 13 feet\, with \nYerba Buena SX80: NAVD. 88. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nSole parameters were developed \nYerba Buena SX80: by the information from the field and the lab. Most of it was developed by either published relationship or guidelines from the public agencies there \nYerba Buena SX80: residual under shear strain parameter for Lico. Fibrous soul was determined from correlation with the N. 1 60 \nsuggested originally by seed\, and then later by other researchers like Kramer and Wang in 2\,015\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and for the bedrock \nYerba Buena SX80: we estimated the module of the elasticity by a relationship between that with unconfined\, compressive strength of the rock\, and conservatively\, we use a hundred for the ratio there\, Cameron. I have a quick question\, I guess. Pretty obvious\, maybe\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: effective unit weights. I assume that’s when it’s below the ground water table\, right? But above the ground water table your effective unit weights will be \nYerba Buena SX80: much higher\, 50 pounds heavier\, 60 pounds heavier. Correct. You didn’t use 62\, for that is correct. There. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: This plate shows the distribution of our boring and Cpt’s and test speeds\, as you can see that we try to characterize the site by going along the proposed structures as well as the other places that we are play planning to place\, feel. \nYerba Buena SX80: to determine settlements and other Joe technical considerations. There also we perform \nYerba Buena SX80: slope stability analysis along 9 cross sections. Those cross sections are shown by green \nYerba Buena SX80: arrows there. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we develop 7 generalized subsurface profile which are showing with the dark blue \nlines in there \nYerba Buena SX80: next\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is one of the cross-sections near the proposed 2 structures that it is concerned for the PC. DC. As you can see them is already generalized\, but the the materials are relatively heterogeneous. They pinch out in some area. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the artificial feel is actually pretty thick. In some in the onshore portion of that \nYerba Buena SX80: next one. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is the generalized geologic cross section along the profile\, EE. Prime. and you can see that in this one. We don’t have some of some of the subsurface material\, or missing like interbedded sand and clay is missing\, and or old baked clay is missing in some area\, and the artificial field was directly on top of the bedrock. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the thickness of the bay mode was also very significantly there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nexus. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is also another one along this more or less the same area. That’s also you can see that some of the thicknesses are variable. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some layers are missing in that section according to our boring locks \nYerba Buena SX80: and the next one. So we determines some major geotechnical considerations that affecting the project because of the placing the beach one item would be static settlement \nand a \nYerba Buena SX80: and also due to the this settlement also can be due to the undocumented field and highly compressible clay below the field. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also have a seismically induced deformation due to the potential liquor\, fibrous soil\, and lose unsaturated soil \nYerba Buena SX80: above and below the groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: both for the field and also the Sam lenses below the young Bay mode. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also have a strong ground shaking\, like everywhere else in the area. and we also have some ground movement due to earthquake. Induce slope failure \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Following the procedure in sc. 7\, 16\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and also A. C. 41\, 17. We developed seismic criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: For the 900 in s. We have some structure which they remain in place. So that’s why we use the sc. 7\, 41 17. But for the other project\, other part of the project and the new\, the structures we use. We follow the sc. 7\, 16 there. \nYerba Buena SX80: next one\, please. Oh\, I’m yeah. \nSo \nYerba Buena SX80: based on the site. Information that we had\, we develop. We classified the sub surface condition to 2 site classification \nYerba Buena SX80: D. One of them was D\, with the shareware velocity\, average shareware velocity of the about a thousand feet per second. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then one of them\, of course\, would be F because of the presence of the liquefiable soil and collapsible solar. \nYerba Buena SX80: We cider specific acceleration was developed\, following\, sc. 7\, 16\, for 50 years\, return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then Pg. A. M. Of the point 7 8 and point 6 5 was the term or calculated for onshore and offshore. \nYerba Buena SX80: Harder \nYerba Buena SX80: a maximum moment\, Max. We use the San maximum moment. Magnitude of the 8.0 5 for San Andros fault\, which is the governing fault for this site. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we also use the design seismic criteria by multiplying it by 2\, 3 of the Mca level there \nfor the legal faction analysis. Also\, we use a magnet moment magnitude of the 8.0 5\, \nYerba Buena SX80: with the Pgm. Of the point 7 8 G \nYerba Buena SX80: no depth limit was applied. Thin layer transition\, you know\, was applied for the Cpt logs. There \nYerba Buena SX80: we also use the clay like\, and sand like method as a proposed by Bowlinger and Idris\, and then ground water level was as the highest point of plus 8 feet for the onshore and 0 for the offshore developer. \nYerba Buena SX80: for the assumptions that we did for local faction induced lateral deformation. We were looking at the continuity of the layers\, making sure that because this the cofaction that we calculate was very localized in some areas because of the this field was very heterogeneous in some areas that a lot of the gravels\, rocky materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: and in some area they had young Bay mode\, and this that it was mixed with the field and some area was just a sand and clay there. So we were looking at the continuity of that layer to determine if the lateral deformation can occur. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the free phase\, we apply the free face condition for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we use the lateral displacement index method to calculate the\, you know\, liquor faction in these lateral deformations \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide \noff \nYerba Buena SX80: for the Marine Walk project. There is gonna be some beach level and some raising the grade there. so to \nYerba Buena SX80: provide a support for this field \nYerba Buena SX80: originally retaining wall was considered. \nYerba Buena SX80: but that it was very difficult to come up with the design due to liquefi soil and the young and thickness of the young bay mart there. therefore\, instead\, we are so we decided to use a \nYerba Buena SX80: Msc. \nYerba Buena SX80: Embankment for supporting that engineered field\, and that Mse. \nYerba Buena SX80: By itself is going to be supported by the Dsm. \nBecause of the \nYerba Buena SX80: Bay MoD. That we have in there is a very highly compressible. We estimate that the settlement could be on order of the several feats over many years. \nYerba Buena SX80: and therefore we wanted to improve that soil by \nYerba Buena SX80: constructing the deep soil mixing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we we develop some plans for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we try to keep that as a performance based. Approach \nYerba Buena SX80: that the specified maximum design bearing capacity of the treated young Bay mode of the 20 psi psi for a debt plus livelo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a cross section along the peer\, and you will see that. \nWe have. \nYerba Buena SX80: and young Bay mode which is gonna be treated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and underneath of it we have bedrock\, the sensual leader. \nYerba Buena SX80: So all the Dsm are gonna be extending to the entire length of the young. Baymot goes to the bedrock. and we are using\, maybe hopefully\, the line to to improve that funder. \nYerba Buena SX80: and above that above the Dsm. Will be Msc. Wall\, that we are. Gonna place it there \nYerba Buena SX80: next one\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Msc wall is also what’s considered to be the most cost effective solution for that. So to pro\, to provide the support for the marine way\, beach or field and walkway slab. There \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, performance-based approach was selected to a specified minimum safety factor against sliding \nYerba Buena SX80: Crip and constructions. Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are showing several sections of the Msc. And then Ds involved \nYerba Buena SX80: to have a face set for the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: We try to stay\, provide a gap between the Msc. And the face of face of all there \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the Msc. Has in one side has up to 70 degree \nYerba Buena SX80: angle\, and the other side has about 45 handholders. It’s gonna be all wrapped in filth in the \nYerba Buena SX80: Joe Grid\, and also with the filter fabric in\, lay inside of it\, there to make sure that we have appropriate drainage \nYerba Buena SX80: as well as the supporter \nYerba Buena SX80: next one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some by that I’m gonna pass it to Shawn. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright moving on. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nI guess this \nYerba Buena SX80: slide shows the \nYerba Buena SX80: items that we’re considering during this meeting. So you can see the pier and the intermediate landing on the left that are pile supported\, and then on the right that red line\, that kind of curls around. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s the marine way \nYerba Buena SX80: walkway that has a \nYerba Buena SX80: like Cameron just said has a Msc \nYerba Buena SX80: structure that’s retaining and a \nYerba Buena SX80: cast in place. Concrete facial wall in front for corrosion concerns more than anything else. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve listed \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: design criteria items here on the table. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the right. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think most of those are fairly self-explanatory. \nYerba Buena SX80: they. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess we’re concentrating on the peers in the pile supporting structures first. But dead live. There’s no\, we’re not considering our \nYerba Buena SX80: wave and current loads aren’t going to govern on these structures. \nYerba Buena SX80: No birthing loads would have to be a very \nYerba Buena SX80: shallow ship. Wind loads\, not gonna govern seismic loads \nYerba Buena SX80: we are designing this per category is low and based on low importance. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we’re using a two-thirds. Mcr. Like Cameron spoke before\, and all those that spectrum was developed by ags. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think an important \nYerba Buena SX80: wow\, no\, keep going. Go next. Yep. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright so this is just kind of the method\, a method that we use. \nYerba Buena SX80: we used a \nYerba Buena SX80: pushover analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: And 16 different directions with\, you know\, the 100% plus 30% to account for \nYerba Buena SX80: torsional items. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we calculate the displacement demand for the design\, earthquake. \nYerba Buena SX80: for each brochure curve. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and then we’re using \nYerba Buena SX80: life safety as the limit state for the hinges. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is another important criteria\, and we have in the table over here on the bottom right? We have the strain limits. \nYerba Buena SX80: That apply for the life safety criteria\, both for \nYerba Buena SX80: above ground hinges in the piles and below ground hinges. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. No requirements for deepened ground for the life safety protection. Item. \nYerba Buena SX80: criteria so \nYerba Buena SX80: form joint share. I think we could go to the next slide. It’s basically A/C 61. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this is kind of a snapshot of what the sap. \nYerba Buena SX80: finite element model looks like. We developed Pmem hinges\, which I think I’ve talked about briefly on the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: The soil springs that are along. The piles were developed with the help of A. GS. And \nYerba Buena SX80: the tables that are on this slide kind of tell you the layering that was assumed for the location of these 2 structures. So we have the \nYerba Buena SX80: intermediate landing that’s in the darker green. And then the pier that’s in yellow. \nYerba Buena SX80: A note to be made is that we just we I assumed that \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: what was liquefiable was liquefied during the allows. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: you know it. It’s it’s already in the liquefied state\, right? So the fill that could liquefy. We just assumed it was liquified. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go\, Shawn. I have a quick question\, I think. Let me see if I can get my \nYerba Buena SX80: video going again. \nYerba Buena SX80: How are you imposing these springs\, or do you have deformation from the geotech that pushes against the back of the springs. And that’s what’s pushing against. No we are. We are calculating\, and displacement demand with a substitute structure method. And so. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, so we get a displacement requirement. And then we’re checking. So we’re forcing it and then getting and how are you comparing what? The what’s actually going to push on that from the soil? \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s gonna push? Well\, we are getting What’s going to push on it from the soil. There’s no loads from the soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we determined that there was no lateral spread loading from it. If that’s what you meant by that. Yeah\, because of the discontinuity that exists between the Lico fiber layers. There. There. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Gotcha. \nyeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is just a basic extract analysis to get plastic moments. we’re using expected values for the materials to \nYerba Buena SX80: via tinge capacities. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. And that little box on the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is one of the cases case. A one shows the hinges in the pile\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: above ground hinges. There you can see them as green dots \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the below ground hinge in \nYerba Buena SX80: low ground at the maximum moment. Location? \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you could go to the next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: this is an elevation view of the different structures. I think it kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: gives you a good idea of what’s going on otherwise. So you have the boathouse pier that’s on the top. \nYerba Buena SX80: You arrive from the boathouse\, and there’s like a walkway. I believe\, is also cloud supported. But it’s not part of this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then you transition onto the Votehouse pier. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 gangways that connect the boathouse pier to the intermediate landing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the intermediate landing to a float system is another gambling. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: These are some basic structural details\, for those 2 pile supported elements. concrete. There’s gonna be a \nYerba Buena SX80: wood deck on top. I don’t think that makes much difference to us \nYerba Buena SX80: today. \nYerba Buena SX80: and go next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Basic detail for a reinforced concrete pile. go to next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So now we are over to the marine way. Wall\, \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, as Cameron discussed \nYerba Buena SX80: previously. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know the text. Sorry. The text is a little small on the detail on the top left\, but you can see the trapezoid of Msc. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s there. And then below that is Dsm\, the cross hatch. and then we have some engineered fill in the back of all that. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there’s the gravel beach\, which is a fill and back that are on top of that\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: concrete fascia panel is sitting in the front of all of those items with a void between it and the \nYerba Buena SX80: MSE. And the purpose of the void is we’re trying to disconnect \nYerba Buena SX80: from the Msc. So any lateral translation of Msc. Won’t \nYerba Buena SX80: load the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: the what else? \nYerba Buena SX80: We were asked to talk about the so that the concrete wall will have a textured surface. it’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: so e concrete\, I guess\, is what they’re the proprietary brand is\, but it’s a textured surface that promotes \nYerba Buena SX80: marine growth. The picture below is a picture I took last week out at \nYerba Buena SX80: Peer. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s 45 over by Fisherman’s Wharf\, where they have a the port has these test panels that they hung. So the comparison is on the top. There’s the sheet pile wall\, and that’s the amount of growth that \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re getting in the bottom is a concrete panel which \nYerba Buena SX80: looks to have more growth. So I\, you know\, qualitative. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, my. \nYerba Buena SX80: there you go. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So II want. I wanted to know a little bit more about the scar protection apron that you’re talking about. I mean\, what’s the extent of that? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then as well \ncan do that for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s a cross-section as the \nYerba Buena SX80: Why \nstate \nto call the limits of it. \nOkay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this supported on the DSM. System. \nplease. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe that within \ndown. \nessentially the extent stand them up \nYerba Buena SX80: on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, can you review it? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, he said\, that this. The scar. Put that. Dsm is going to extend 4 to 5 feet in front of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: What about the sparrow protection? It’s 8 feet wide. Right \nYerba Buena SX80: size. \nThe \nYerba Buena SX80: is our. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, can I follow up and just \nYerba Buena SX80: what size way is being \nYerba Buena SX80: assumed for that? Because that sounds very small\, I can point to \nYerba Buena SX80: real problems with the \nYerba Buena SX80: because you have a\, you have a solid wall\, and the wave impact is goes going straight down\, and it will every 5 5 to 8 inch cargo right out. That that’s not. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not rock of any significance. Actually\, when it comes to wave action. So II would strongly suggest that somebody look at the size of the waves and make sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: this is\, in fact\, adequate\, but just \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of looking at it. It doesn’t look adequate. And since we are added\, there is the other issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure why \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re so worried about separating the wall from the mechanically stabilized embankment behind. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: We have plenty of examples. City of Pacifica specifically. Where the waves coming\, go right behind the wall and rip the panels out from behind the point being that you really have to have. If if there is going to be gap\, it has to be really carefully sealed \nYerba Buena SX80: or protected from direct water entry. And the other thing is that \nYerba Buena SX80: since you’re talking\, my understanding is geography\, and the wrap \nYerba Buena SX80: that there’d be again erosion protection\, basically a fabric around the wrap. So there is no opportunity for basically erosion. If\, should the Ms. You all get saturated \nYerba Buena SX80: by. You know\, things happen so extra protection. And that’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: a very difficult thing to do that would \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s try and keep these comments. For now. \nYerba Buena SX80: One. \nOkay\, so very. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, okay\, mine’s working. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. awesome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. is this possible to have mads? And \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, II was trying to get mad to kind of take over for the next slide. But \nMads Jorgensen M&N: yes\, I apologize. I had a sequence just before we got to this point where I lost audio. I could see the slides moving on. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and but I could speak to the size of the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: stone or the rock for the scour apron. We did look at that. and we sized that to be appropriate \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so the condition in the bay there is that it’s it’s really a mud flat at at low tide. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: A large extent of the bay is dry\, and it’s mud flat\, so very\, very flat. shallow pan coming up to these structures. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so in many cases \nMads Jorgensen M&N: of intermediate tight conditions\, the waves coming in are going to be depth limited. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So there’s certain size they can get to\, and they start breaking \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and then for a more severe \nMads Jorgensen M&N: case of storm surge and waves coming in. There’s considerably deeper water along these wall structures. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: but we have sort of considered the envelope of these exposures as resized the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: the stone for the scour apron. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. Should we continue on with the slides. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: mads! Can you speak to the sea level? Rise analysis? And \nMads Jorgensen M&N: yeah. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So I don’t know if this slice been \nMads Jorgensen M&N: been presented earlier\, but the table on the left summarizes all the different \nMads Jorgensen M&N: title datum plates that exist at the site. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: That’s the upper part of the table. and the lower portion has the storm water \nMads Jorgensen M&N: levels with tide up to the 100 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: return period water level at the bottom row. and \nMads Jorgensen M&N: the table below that\, then\, has the tidal plains projected with a future civil rise\, and this is assuming the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Opc. A medium tool. Low risk aversion\, sorry medium to high risk aversion. Projection. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: which is a pretty conservative solarized projection \nMads Jorgensen M&N: to to apply to this kind of project\, it puts us on the safe side of things. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: And site. Features are generally \nMads Jorgensen M&N: at innovation\, plus 15 enabled. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So we’ve evaluated the risk of exposures to seal arise for future projected conditions \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and finding that the site is basically resilient to solar rice \nMads Jorgensen M&N: through mid-century and going towards end of century. King tides would not be \nMads Jorgensen M&N: a concern until around the time 2070 or thereafter. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so\, in terms of public access her features\, the site is \nMads Jorgensen M&N: resilient through 2050\, and beyond. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question. \nYerba Buena SX80: But chair. Can I ask you a quick question. What’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry I got that turned on? But wrong one. \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s the design life of the project? I\, Jen said in her introduction\, that it was 40 years \nYerba Buena SX80: 40 years plus now is 2065\, which I don’t see down here. \nYerba Buena SX80: You have a bunch of other things. What is it? That’s our actual target? \nYerba Buena SX80: 2\,070. II had the same question\, where did the 40 years come from? It’s a funny number \nYerba Buena SX80: that I read in one of the reports. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what is the design life of the project? \nYerba Buena SX80: 40 to 50 years? I mean\, design. Life is \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, 40 to 50 years. So 2\,075 ish\, or something like that? 2\,070. \nYerba Buena SX80: How was that established? Does that come from the from the owner or the \nYerba Buena SX80: the city. \nYerba Buena SX80: Don’t. I don’t actually know that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: no\, I don’t. I don’t. I mean\, we decided on how \nYerba Buena SX80: long was reasonable. I mean. I think that’s some of it is\, you know\, some of the these elements obviously will last longer than that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think that was a reasonable projection. \nYerba Buena SX80: I thought it was for the peers. It was reasonable. Yeah\, so that’s different. Yeah. For the peers. I thought that was the reasonable projection from like you you’re talking about when they have to move. I’m just talking about for the design life of the structure\, I mean\, that’s reasonable last longer. But I mean\, there’s plenty of peers in San Francisco that are over 100. So \nYerba Buena SX80: well\, well\, I mean Mo. In fact\, most structures are are assumed to be\, have a design life longer than 40 years. That’s why I’m wondering where it came from. The funny number. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a very short number. \nYerba Buena SX80: It should be based on the the lifespan of the materials used to construct a project. Well\, it should be\, it should be based upon what whoever’s paying for this wants it to be. I mean\, that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not usually made up by the design team. In my experience\, someone says\, I want this to be. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, so so long \nYerba Buena SX80: we can double check on that. I’m David Frolick from Wrecking Park City of San Francisco\, and it may have been established as a as a departmental number 40 to 50 years based on material life. And and \nYerba Buena SX80: then we reevaluate and we’ll see if it needs to be renovated. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so what have you been you? You have been working as if it is 40 to 50. \nYerba Buena SX80: without quite knowing exactly how that was established. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so everything you’ve done so far\, everything you’re presenting here is based on a 40 to 50 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, go ahead. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was looking at the coastal engineering report. I think it was\, and it showed\, I think\, figure 5 and or 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: showed that the pier at the India Basin Shoreline Park to the float\, the the lower pier. \nYerba Buena SX80: the lower peer deck. There’s a first pier\, then a ramp\, and then a lower pier\, and then a ramp to the flow\, so that lower peer is \nYerba Buena SX80: under water at 2050\, II guess\, during the 100 year event\, or the 1% annual chance. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Oh. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is getting very complicated. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks for reminding me. yeah. So III just wanted to clarify that. I guess we can have discussion later. And I think that’s because of access. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think I understand that. But I just wanted to get that out there and then I have a question which may or may not be in your presentation. But since I’m talking\, and may also be to Jen \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m really interested in the motions of the floats and what the programming is\, or for the multiple floats \nYerba Buena SX80: and the public safety associated with that. And I don’t know that that was in our \nYerba Buena SX80: requested review. But I would like to hear about it. If that’s okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, basically\, what kind of motions do you expect on the public access flows. And what what’s their programming are? Are you gonna have commuter ferries\, or just\, you know\, small boats\, or what you know\, what’s what’s happening. So II just. \nYerba Buena SX80: however\, you want to finish your presentation\, but if if somebody could address that\, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: refinance presentation first\, or do you want to? Well\, I think we can just address that if you wanted. Talk about the wave component of it. And then I well\, I can start with the program. \nYerba Buena SX80: So in terms of the program\, the main feature is the the reason why it has to go out this far is again\, because it’s such a shallow bay. And so we need that distance to get basically to make the stock as usable as possible. I think we’re again. We’re trying to get it to about 95% usable. So like 5% of the time at like very extreme tides\, it wouldn’t be. It would be kind of grounded. But at that 95% \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re getting enough water underneath so that it can be usable. And it’s for very shallow water craft or human powered craft water craft. I guess. So like kayaks or small boats. That you can kind of paddle up to. And there’s a portion of the dock. That’s actually a lower free board dock than the rest of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: which you can kind of see on this top image here. So there’s actually the very end of it is about a 20 by 20 area. That is just 2 picnic tables. And that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: how high I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re going for something like 4 or 5 inches. so the rest is higher\, like 14 or 16. I forget the number portion that 20 by 20 would be \nYerba Buena SX80: that upper\, higher \nYerba Buena SX80: distance away from the water\, and that’s just\, you know\, meant to be for everyone to kind of come and enjoy the kind of the end of the floating dock. You know. Gather there. You could have kind of lunch spot. And then again\, that other. Actually\, yeah. So that other portion is that lower portion that has the kayaks\, and then also on the other side\, there’s an accessible component. It’s like an accessible access \nYerba Buena SX80: for Kayak\, so you can kind of get on and off excessively. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. And that makes sense to me. It’s consistent with what I was looking at. But on the access or the programming there is another peer\, and I think this is still under our review\, and I thought I read in a report that something about ferries could dock on either side. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that the 700 or the 900 in us? Well\, okay\, thank you. And III did read it so II might have been in an older. I think it was the older report off the nickel report on coastal I’ll look again while we’re on. Maybe it was my mistake\, but I wouldn’t have \nYerba Buena SX80: said that unless I thought I read alright. Thank you. My mistake. \nYerba Buena SX80: my my specific concern which we can discuss later. and I’d like to hear your take on. It is the structural loading. Look at a 2.7 foot wave at a 50 year. Recurrence\, wind\, wave. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m just interested in how the float will risk the floats that are publicly accessible with\, you know picnic cables. Whoever will respond to that wave action\, what kind of float motion is anticipated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then \nYerba Buena SX80: which raises\, you know\, maybe a question about safety\, for you know the general public\, and maybe some management of access to that \nYerba Buena SX80: and that \nYerba Buena SX80: the tech at the intermediate level\, the lower level power supported structure. Landing would be underwater during a hundred year. Event within the project life \nYerba Buena SX80: also indicate some need to manage access\, although it might be obvious that \nYerba Buena SX80: they shouldn’t go\, but you never know. So those are the reason why I’m asking the question\, so I don’t know if you can address that now or later\, or we can just discuss it along the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I can just clearly quickly. Sorry. Explain the the kind of rationale between that intermediate here. It basically is for access. So we wanted to kind of create a series. You know\, because this route is quite a distance out in the water\, we had to have more than one gangway. So we wanted to\, and needed to actually create an intermediate point at which there could be\, you know\, kind of a \nYerba Buena SX80: initial peer\, and then there’s a a slope down to the intermediate pier. And then that intermediate peer is really what starts that second gangway which allows for the flexibility of floating dock to go up and down. So we really need that intermediate peer in order to essentially not have a very long gang way that has\, you know\, a very extreme slope when the dock is grounded\, and\, you know\, could have other kind of slope issues. So it kind of allows that piece to happen. And actually\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: have. I think I have it in here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, we had this strategy where you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: In the future\, you know\, as sea levels rise\, and maybe that intermediate peer isn’t needed. Sorry the entr orientation changed a little bit here\, but when this intermediate appear isn’t needed in the future. The idea is that the floating Doc and that gangway that fluctuates can just be reattached to the more fixed peer up further upland. Yeah\, that makes sense to me that all makes sense. I\, with the access. I just wanted to clarify it\, and perhaps the board or the staff might be interested in in that detail about how \nYerba Buena SX80: within the project life at a hundred year water level. \nYerba Buena SX80: That would not be accessible without getting your feet wet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then also there may be waves of over 2 feet\, maybe 2.7\, I think at a 50 year event which would probably cause the floats to move. which may add questions to whether what kind of public access. So that’s really where I’m I’m okay with the ramps and everything that makes total sense to me\, and I thank you for clarifying that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But my other question still not answered. Yeah\, I think if you could show a design drawing of the float to see how many corners it’s attached to the pilings. If it’s just on one side or both sides \nYerba Buena SX80: then\, and sort of what the clearances where the pilings go through the float. I think that could probably reassure Bob that it’s not gonna till \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re all on one edge. Any ideas that you’re trying to provide\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: places where kayaks can birth\, I guess\, is the word\, even as kayak \nYerba Buena SX80: right\, most more importantly on the on the end than \nYerba Buena SX80: But we are not currently showing them on both sides. I kiss \nYerba Buena SX80: on the approach section. There’s not really any reason why we couldn’t swipe. Swap\, you know\, back and forth\, and it would provide a more stable \nYerba Buena SX80: platform. Okay\, thank. I think that answers my question\, and we’ll have some discussion on this topic. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Couple of questions\, cause I’m quick clarification questions still\, are these longer discussion kind of questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. If it’s longer it needs to be now\, because we’ll we’ll lose our place. That’s fine. If we’re just. I think I’d like to try and finish the present\, and then we’ll come back. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the rest of it could be pretty quick. I don’t think. Do you want. Do you want to go for it? \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. So this slide just shows \nYerba Buena SX80: the elevations of the different items. Design items on here. \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: intermediate landing\, as Bob brought up is at plus 10\, and then the \nYerba Buena SX80: finish floor elevation of the boat house is at 16\, which is over. I think it was 15\, the flood elevation and then on the \nYerba Buena SX80: marine way. Wall\, we’re at \nYerba Buena SX80: basically mean high water there at the plus 6 at the bottom of the marine level. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we can go to the next slide. \nI think the \nYerba Buena SX80: sequence of the last 3 or 4 slides here just projected sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: And where that puts the water within a planned view. \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s not really right. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it creeps up\, I guess as the \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t really have any more discussion on that than yeah\, I can\, I can speak to this. So \nYerba Buena SX80: now\, jeez. okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so yeah\, I mean\, I’m just. You know\, they’re a series of slides\, and and the purpose of them is to really show in the 3 levels of blue how those 3 different title. \nYerba Buena SX80: Datums are \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of tracing the topography on the site. So the mean high water that came tied in the base flood elevation at each of the sea level rise projections. So kind of skip to 2050. Just so you could see that \nYerba Buena SX80: and then I’ll move through. Okay\, so then 2070. Again\, the main takeaway here is that our design \nYerba Buena SX80: elements that are structures and the bay trail\, and even the space City ferry deck\, which is basically a gathering deck\, are all well above the bfe at 2070 we do see inundation into the gravel shore and upland into this area. That’s a grass transition zone. But this is designed to have that flexibility with these higher tides\, to be able to have that inundation come in and then recede \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, at this time\, you know\, Recon Park could also determine to add more gravel shore. If that was desirable from a programming standpoint. They could just add more gravel at this point\, and to kind of replace the grass area. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then in 2\,100 again\, you can see those 3 title datums. So the lightest color is the one at Bf\, the second darkest is the king tide. At 14.7. Again\, you can see it’s coming into these areas at that point. Over the \nYerba Buena SX80: the fixed pier\, the upper fixed pier. But it’s still below the top finished floor of the boathouse. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the bay trail is set above that 14.7 as well. So really\, in 2\,100 the bfe will \nYerba Buena SX80: flood over the bay trail\, but just in one portion\, and the bay trail is exposed area concrete. So this should be a fairly\, you know\, when this event happens\, there’s just going to need to kind of be some potential minor repair \nYerba Buena SX80: of that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then this is just again a summary of those elements. So the key elements boat house\, the base city ferry deck and the trails and the bay trail \nYerba Buena SX80: dashed\, and magenta here\, looking at 2050 on how they’re all above those levels. And then\, just looking back at our site\, \nYerba Buena SX80: just seeing that main lawn unfold down the center with that gravel shore at the very end\, and then the marine way wall on the left side\, and then the floating dock coming forward towards us on the right side. This is a rendering. Yes\, sorry. Thank you. That’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm\, everyone can turn it. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: so board members\, if you’re \nYerba Buena SX80: getting ready to present something actually\, right now\, we’re not doing board member stuff\, right? We have public comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. Right? So so thanks. Project team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, public comments at this point like to receive public comments\, if any on the project. specific to the presentation\, please raise your hand digital hand. If you’re online or \nYerba Buena SX80: nobody’s in the audience. One person in the audience. If you’re in the audience and want to talk\, raise your hand physically. \nYerba Buena SX80: please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of remarks. Remember\, you have a 3 min \nYerba Buena SX80: time limit. \nYerba Buena SX80: as in any meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. We’re here to listen to every one who wishes to address the meeting. but\, as always\, we ask every one act in a civil manner. \nYerba Buena SX80: hate\, speech\, threats\, threats made public\, directly or indirectly\, and abusive. Language will not be tolerated\, and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: or who exceeds the established 3 min limit without permission will be muted. \nGrace\, we let us know if there’s any one who has their hands raised\, and call their names and state \nYerba Buena SX80: when no more hands are raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: there are no hands raised for public comments. Oh\, there is one hand raised behind you\, a physical hand. Wow! Physical hand! That’s a exciting thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello\, everyone! My name is Jade Carter. I’m an undergrad student at University of San Francisco\, and I’ve been involved with the Equitable Development Plan port portion of this project through rec parks. I just have a question for you all about kind of how you’re drilling into the bay for this construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m aware that one of the remediation techniques in the clean up process at 900 was to place sand and soil caps offshore to prevent the re exposure of soil contaminants. I’m curious how this offshore construction aims to prevent the re-exposure or uncovering of these contaminants back into the bay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: You can stay there for a minute if you want\, while they respond. I can provide a quick answer. The remediated area was at 900\, Dennis. Not at India\, based in Shoreline Park. So we’re actually not penetrating any caps at this portion of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to? \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to bring up a map and kind of show generally\, where those remediation there are compared to the project site. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the 900 in a site is if you can see the mouse kind of moving around. That’s the site \nYerba Buena SX80: right there and then the basin\, which is \nYerba Buena SX80: looks like a lighter brown area was the area that was remediated\, and we didn’t remediate all the way out to where that color changes in the water tide. But maybe about midway through is where we removed about 2 to 5 feet of sediment\, both upland and in the water off hauled it\, and then imported new sediment or new fill to \nYerba Buena SX80: cap\, that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does that address? Your question? Excellent. Yeah. And Grace\, are there any other hands raised online. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello\, Caller\, please for the record. Please state your name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Hi! My! My name is Katherine Langsteiff. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I’m with the wild oyster project. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I’ve been interested in using living shorelines here at the site to help buffer wave action\, but also \nAutopoiesis LLC: to increase biodiversity. And I’ve had the pleasure of talking with some of the design team\, but I wanted BCDC. To understand that there’s an opportunity here that I think would be a really great one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can you share a little bit more about your ideas? \nAutopoiesis LLC: Yeah\, I mean. I’m sorry. Do you have an echo? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is is that better. \nAutopoiesis LLC: So if you go to. If you go to the slides with the inundation. \nAutopoiesis LLC: you can see\, and also with a discussion around the fascia panel\, there’s an opportunity there where you were talking about. I think you call that scouring\, that we could use oyster reefs as a way to buffer the wall\, but also to help \nAutopoiesis LLC: sort of seed the wall with native oysters\, and we’ve had success with the port of San Francisco right across India\, based in at Herons Head park. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I think it’s a great opportunity for us to continue \nAutopoiesis LLC: using nature-based solutions \nAutopoiesis LLC: in this area. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Another idea would be to line the shore line\, as you see\, when you get to the \nAutopoiesis LLC: 2\,100 by that point you have a lot of \nAutopoiesis LLC: flooding which which would allow oyster habitat \nAutopoiesis LLC: to have the the to move inland. \nAutopoiesis LLC: which becomes water right at. As this hole over this 60 year period or longer. You can see how the oyster habitat could keep buffering the shoreline as it moves inward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do we respond to the public comment\, Would the team like to respond to the public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll have our time\, our chance\, sure we can. So we we recently met with Katherine from the wild oyster project to look at our site and and and try to see if there were any opportunities or possible opportunities for \nYerba Buena SX80: oyster reef balls. It. It looks like due to elevations that \nit may be difficult at our site within our project limits to achieve\, but we’re still looking into it. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I don’t remember the numbers off the top of my head\, but I think they have to be submerged for a certain amount of time. \nYerba Buena SX80: do you remember? Yeah. So in \nYerba Buena SX80: trying to find a good image. \nYerba Buena SX80: So basically\, our extent of kind of grading work into the shoreline ends at about elevation one\, and from my understanding the oysters do best when they’re set at about an elevation of 0 at their at their kind of base\, because of the tide fluctuations that we have here that allows them. It would still be visible because we go out to a negative one or negative 2 tides sometimes. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it gives them enough water most of the time that they’re mostly covered at that 0. So there are certain areas where we might explore having them. The if you can see my mouse kind of this area\, upper left \nYerba Buena SX80: corner is a potential site where we’re the existing topography brings us pretty close to the 0 contour \nYerba Buena SX80: but in these other areas\, further upshore\, or I don’t know what the right term is. But basically we’re up at elevations 1\, 2 or 3\, even though it is showing inundated right? Because our high waters at around 5 right? But at those hires elevations \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s just a mud flat\, and so the it may just not be the best place for the oysters\, but we are exploring them on or along the the marine way. Wall. So I think the Catherine is asking specifically about\, although elevation elevations change effectively. Due to sea level rise. So in 30 years\, elevation 0 is what I mean\, it will look like 0 \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s right now\, elevation 3 or whatever\, and that if you do it now\, the oysters can kind of walk their way up the slope as sea level rise occurs. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that how does that fit with what you just said? What you just described? \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, well again. We’re\, you know\, we recently met with her\, and and we’re looking at opportunities to \nYerba Buena SX80: try to incorporate them if possible. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Grace\, any more hands. Thank you. \nI do have one more. It might be the same caller\, but I’m not sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello! For the record. Please state your name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Yes\, thank you so much. This is Katherine Langstein. I appreciate the team and meeting with me\, and I just wanted to say that we’re exploring\, not reef balls. \nAutopoiesis LLC: but oyster reefs that are created through bag shell. \nAutopoiesis LLC: And I think that that’s something that \nAutopoiesis LLC: that might change the elevation in our favour. So thank you for her listening. Appreciate it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Catherine lists our \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you guys have other \nYerba Buena SX80: respond to what you just said? Is that still part of your discussion\, same as what you’re doing. Yeah\, I would say that we’re still\, you know\, trying to evaluate. If if it’s a possibility at our our project site\, you know\, I just wanna comment on this if I can. I was thinking the same thing. I mean most of the oyster work in the bay is with these \nYerba Buena SX80: cast structures where the reef falls\, or castles\, or whatever but you know\, in other parts of the world. \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe historically\, in the bay there were reefs\, or\, or\, you know\, just benthic type coverings of of oysters\, and maybe the rocks that are part of the design could be \nYerba Buena SX80: a substrate. I don’t know. I’m not a biologist\, but you know what she said sounded like it. It might be a little more feasible \nYerba Buena SX80: than if you’re placing a refall\, which is\, you know\, has some high to it. The one thing I would say is\, you probably don’t want the oysters where people are gonna walk like at the bottom of the \nYerba Buena SX80: gravel beach. I mean assuming somebody might walk out there. I mean\, it’s not too bad if if if you know they’re there. But you really don’t want to step on oysters\, I don’t think that would. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it’s it’s gonna be a balance between public use and and kayaks are entering\, and it could be potentially entering from the floating dock and the gravel beach\, so we don’t want them to \nYerba Buena SX80: impede on on \nYerba Buena SX80: fe potential future future oyster habitat. Yeah\, we are also looking at possibly incorporating oyster shells into the marine way. Walls to kind of try to increase the habitat on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks\, Grace. Any more now. Okay\, no more hands in the audience here and no more hands online. \nSo then we will move on to board. Discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: to start\, please raise your hand\, turn on your mic. Make sure your camera is on while you’re speaking. And Bob stuck his hand up first and Remine is \nYerba Buena SX80: right behind him. Okay\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I just would like a \nYerba Buena SX80: I have an echo. or do. I thought I had an echo. Now I don’t \nBill Holmes: alright. \nYerba Buena SX80: You do. I do. Somebody does. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. How was that somebody else has a microphone \nYerba Buena SX80: or somebody. How’s their \nYerba Buena SX80: your computer? \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s unmuted. \nYerba Buena SX80: The volunteers is not safe. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not using my computer audio. So it’s not me. So now it sounds okay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: well. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I just. I’m \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like. So I think\, just to cut to the chase. Probably I will suggest that recommend that \nYerba Buena SX80: supervision and adaptive management of operational restrictions to occur\, due to wave action that induces float motions and the high water levels that inundate the lower peer deck and flows. So that’s kind of not worded that. Well\, but basically I \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I guess we could ask for some sort of analysis of the float motions during certain wave conditions\, and have a better understanding of \nYerba Buena SX80: what level of wave action 10\, year 20 year 50 year type wave action would induce float motions that aren’t really \nYerba Buena SX80: appropriate for public access. If that’s the case\, in in which case. \nYerba Buena SX80: perhaps the public shouldn’t have free access to the \nYerba Buena SX80: floats and and or if it’s flooded\, and and then and then so what would you do about it? And that would be some sort of management of the operational conditions. But I think\, in lieu of asking for a whole study and stuff\, and and realizing that the designs not complete yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: an alternative would be to \nYerba Buena SX80: expect that that would be addressed in the design \nYerba Buena SX80: and or in the operational management\, or the management of operational conditions\, which would be some sort of closure or other \nYerba Buena SX80: approach which could be adaptively managed. which might be more practical\, I don’t know\, so I just throw that out there\, but I think I do have a concern about having a float that far out \nYerba Buena SX80: where the waves could be. Get to the point where somebody might fall off. \nYerba Buena SX80: or you know something like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would the team like to respond to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I’ll just. I can note that we will have a just a a kind of chain at the very top here\, next to the boat house before you start the entering the first kind of fixed pier which can be managed. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know when. Yeah\, we can. We? We’ve discussed with our operations and maintenance that. \nYerba Buena SX80: we will need to adaptive or do some sort of adaptive management depending on on how this is \nYerba Buena SX80: how the how you know what happens after it’s built? But we are currently having a chain\, a chain put in so that we could close it off. We went back and forth with having a chain or a gate\, and you know\, if someone wants to jump over\, they’re gonna jump over\, no matter what it is so we thought that we would put a chain in for now\, and and sign it if needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: depending on the situation. So\, Bob\, is that sufficient? Or do you need something more than that? No\, I think it’s I mean\, the risk is on the city \nYerba Buena SX80: and others\, and you know so \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel like they’re aware of it and motivated to deal with it. So I don’t have any. So I think we’re on record. Now. \nYerba Buena SX80: be being aware of the concerns and having a a response. So I think maybe that’s out. Thank you \nYerba Buena SX80: for me \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you all for for your presentation the. I heard some words that I needed clarification in my mind. \nYerba Buena SX80: I heard performance base. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then I heard response. I heard pushover analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anytime history type\, any response history analysis. So it’s basically a spectral type analysis. So I don’t know if that \nYerba Buena SX80: qualifies as performance based type approach or not. But so that that’s one thing. \nand the other thing is in my mind. I’m I’m very surprised. \nYerba Buena SX80: considering the soft conditions out there\, that such high pgas were used for the compaction. Evaluation mean your grand response analyses computes almost half of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m I’m I’m kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: little unclear on that. You can use a code value. I guess it’s really high. But since you have done all the site specific evaluations\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: it begs the question\, what is the impact? And does it need this level of of perhaps ground notification that you’re considering the other \nYerba Buena SX80: So in other words\, they may be over conservative attenuation of the ground motions. Not only that\, also\, considering that this interbedded sand and clay\, the the lower below the fill\, \nYerba Buena SX80: doesn’t seem to me based on the results from your boring logs. \nYerba Buena SX80: that is \nYerba Buena SX80: as potentially liquifiable as as you have \nYerba Buena SX80: considered it\, especially with very low. It seems to me residual strength that you’re assigning? \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think \nYerba Buena SX80: you should take a look at that and see if if that’s really justified. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what is the basis really more than anything. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure\, thanks. So I think actually\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: we have some layers of the lico fiber layers. It’s very thin in that interbedded sand below the young bay mode. \nYerba Buena SX80: The below counts. I think it was in high teens \nYerba Buena SX80: even though in most cases was in on the top twenties or thirties. That portion was not Nico fibro. \nYerba Buena SX80: but for the those areas which was high teens\, it turns out to be liquor fiber by by procedures that we followed there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. Then the next follow up question would be like\, for example\, in your \nYerba Buena SX80: ideologic section DD plate 5 d. In your report. I think it’s part of the presentation. Yeah\, right there. Yeah\, that’s what. So so that layer is about \nYerba Buena SX80: 20 feet or so thick \nYerba Buena SX80: and at least based on \nYerba Buena SX80: based on table you provided you’re assigning a residual strength of 400 Psf. To that layer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that what was used in your evaluations? \nYerba Buena SX80: Let me see what was the I have the porting logs for the right. \nYerba Buena SX80: so you can see that we have \nYerba Buena SX80: some below counts in the order of like 20\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s all been potentially liquefy with the upper portion of it is very \nYerba Buena SX80: dance. I mean\, it’s not even dense. It’s medium dance\, because that’s their moth\, Cal. So we have to multiply it by point 6 to get the Sbt values. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s that’s about high twenties. But as it goes down it’s it is turning all everything to potentially lico fibro. And I think it gets clear\, too. \nSo \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it\, it begs the question whether or not it’s the look of action issues\, especially in that deeper layer\, is as \nYerba Buena SX80: severe. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if so\, there’s some sense in which us as representing public agency that’s looking out for the health and safety of of the public. They’re they’ve got health and safety. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe beyond what is. you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, they got some conservatism that’s not perhaps even needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: But we’re not objecting to it being unsafe. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not objecting to being unsafe. I’m just saying \nYerba Buena SX80: what is the basis? This is an engineering review board. So you’re reviewing engineering criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we are just following the procedures by Oringer and Itris for triggering the licoaction. And for that particular layer. It seems to be trigger. It may not be \nYerba Buena SX80: everywhere. \nYerba Buena SX80: but when we are designing for the pies we are\, we are kind of designing it based on that particular wonder. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what\, when one way to look at it\, pre perhaps\, is \nYerba Buena SX80: blow count sampling doesn’t account for thin layer correction. Very well. You can get one low blow\, count and it looks like it’s 5 feet thick on your the way you want applies it\, whereas if you look at that back as a \nYerba Buena SX80: Cpt\, you might see that it’ll look okay. There are some sequential \nYerba Buena SX80: thin zones that are\, you know\, 12 inches thick\, but but they’re inner\, interlayered\, interfingered\, and so on\, and so \nYerba Buena SX80: some of that can go away frequently with \nYerba Buena SX80: others. Seelick\, you can. You can get rid of that off and get rid of much of that. I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: oops it has. There’s some some other newer methods as well. yeah. Actually\, if you look at the boring B 9. Also\, you will see that \nYerba Buena SX80: we have some layers with the teens. I mean\, not even low teens a blow counting there. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I looked at B 9 to my so even better in d 9. Now\, one thing I would like you to comment on. \nYerba Buena SX80: because it does say\, this has gravels in it. Hmm. If \nYerba Buena SX80: you are from your judgment\, considering that your blow counts in a small sampler\, is\, is elevated artificially because of presence of gravel. That’s one thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I didn’t see any statement to that effect in in the\, in the report that qualifies or the the particular blow counts in that sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, I go back to also\, like faction evaluation based on PGA values which I don’t think are reasonable for the conditions you have\, and your own analysis is showing it too. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? So if you look at the blow counts in B 9 30 feet. We have \nYerba Buena SX80: 21\, \nYerba Buena SX80: at 35\, we have 10\, \nYerba Buena SX80: at 40\, we have 15. There’s a very low blow down for that. That depth. \nYerba Buena SX80: Get into this type. Right? Those are pretty clean sounds. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s about 15 feet of I mean \nYerba Buena SX80: it\, says Clay. Lens in in. \nYerba Buena SX80: So should based on your own boring bonds. It has a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: perhaps finer material and plays and sils that reduces the blowcast and potentially is not as severe in terms of look of action\, behavior\, and all of that just suggesting that it seems to me to be overly conservative\, assigning \nYerba Buena SX80: these very low values to to this \nYerba Buena SX80: fairly thick layer \nYerba Buena SX80: have to? Very good. I ran out of battery. So I have to plug in. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So when they go with their setting a performance criteria for the ground treatment for the Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, is this conservative assumption mean that they’ll they will over treat they over treat the soil \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s probably not related to whether needs to be treated or not\, because the treatment is\, I think\, primarily for bay mud\, which is not a liquid faction issue. It’s a softness\, weakness\, compressibility\, issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: we are not doing sole improvement for the co-faction purposes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think the suggestion from remine is that you take this under consideration\, and go back and take a look. And that seems like a reasonable thing to me is to take it back and take it under consideration and \nYerba Buena SX80: and and re-look at it and \nYerba Buena SX80: as a as a role of in our role of protecting the public\, I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: if you leave it where it is. \nYerba Buena SX80: With respect to this comment\, at least\, you’re on the conservative safe. Public is protected side of things\, and so we wouldn’t object necessarily. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s maybe more conservatives necessary. Maybe it’s gonna cost more money than necessary. Maybe it doesn’t make that much difference\, after all. But \nYerba Buena SX80: but I think if you consider it again. \nYerba Buena SX80: city and county of San Francisco is a public entity as well. So that’s public funds as well. So \nYerba Buena SX80: not representing them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. \nYerba Buena SX80: See\, Bob\, I think your hand is still residually left up. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’ll lower my hand. II was mistaken. Thank you? And I think Gail is up next. \nOkay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Could you go to? I think it’s slide 25 that has the elevation of the pier with all the structures. \nYerba Buena SX80: Elevation one. That \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, that that one right there. Few questions for me on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: the gangways that connect the peers. \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s the what’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: intent for? How those are attached \nto the pure structures? \nYerba Buena SX80: Will they be attached on one side with the Slider roller on the other end? \nYerba Buena SX80: I can’t turn my camera on\, because it’s it. But yeah. So they’re basically pinned on the top. And then for the first 2 gangways\, so that for segment. They are on like Uhw pads\, because they’re not expecting much movement. And then the next ones are on rollers. Okay? So each one of them is attached\, one roll in the other. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: So in the. in the basis of design. when they talk about the the design as a the design of the pure and and intermediate landings. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a mention of one of the steps is to develop actual deck displacements at the 4 corners of the deck \nYerba Buena SX80: corresponding to displacement\, demand to verify that the seismic gap is adequate. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I didn’t understand what was being checked when they said seismic gap. \nYerba Buena SX80: because I think what needs to be checked is to make sure that if you get \nYerba Buena SX80: differential movement where the 2 piers are or 2 structures are going different directions. you wanna make sure you just have a large enough seat that you’re not \nYerba Buena SX80: dropping your gangway into the water. So that’s agreed. Yes\, and this is actually well\, there’s the gangways\, but then there’s also the land side\, right there’s a gap. There’s a small gap. Well\, there’s like 12 inches there. Gap right there where the arrow is that that’s allowed to move well\, between the pier and the. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s to avoid pounding. And then there’s also a plate. Then I assume. That’s over. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So I just think for all of these interfaces. I think you need to consider \nYerba Buena SX80: moving apart from each other and just make sure that you’re not going to lose. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So that I think that just needs to be added as a specific criteria because it wasn’t clear \nYerba Buena SX80: on a related issue you mentioned about these things \nYerba Buena SX80: actually being underwater at some point further down. Is that right? The last gangway\, maybe underwater. So I think\, then\, is\, is anyone looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: these actually become buant and potentially uplift and come off. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have not looked at that\, but I think I think you just need to look at an uplift condition from buoyancy. and you can just probably detail it with stops of some kind of passive restraints. But anything that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: going underwater that’s not designed for it. You gotta look at the buoyancy uplift. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then the last comment I had was that \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen\, one of your one of the questions had to do with instrumentation. And I think there’s a requirement for \nYerba Buena SX80: seismic instrumentation on a new project. And \nYerba Buena SX80: you guys are aware of that. I assume II know that they did that at Treasure Island. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And you need to interface with Cgs on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And they’ve they’ve had a lot of personnel changes there. \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think Jen can \nYerba Buena SX80: make sure you have the right person to talk to. I don’t. I don’t know if if I don’t\, I don’t know that there’s any special features on this that require \nYerba Buena SX80: any any fancy monitoring of multiple instruments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would think just some free field. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s free field. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: Accelerometers would be good enough. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any anybody else have any opinions on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jim\, or no \nYerba Buena SX80: anything special that you see\, II don’t think the peer needs anything. I think \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s anything with the Dsm. That needs any special. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, okay. So just \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll trust Staff to take your making sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s done. Then \nYerba Buena SX80: just that they need to interface with Cgs for for monitoring seismic instrumentation. And it should be fairly minimal here. \nYerba Buena SX80: No special things that we think are. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, need need to be addressed. There’s nothing unique about this site. Well\, I mean\, that’s one of the things that Jen\, you had reiterated in your \nYerba Buena SX80: staff summary. I think there’s some questions about \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the criteria. The Bcd see is to provide seismic instrumentation for any significant projects. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s what you’re yeah and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I’m I’m sure if Roger were here he would say\, you got to put in lots of instrumentation. This is \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m a little bit on the fence on this project. It’s relatively modest project. There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean like life. Safety is life\, safety that matters. But but as far as any structures there’s nothing very big\, it seems to me. And \nYerba Buena SX80: so yeah\, and C. And Cgs may say we have free field instruments nearby\, and there’s really no value in it. I mean\, I think that’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: discussion with them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So I’m not quite sure how that how we should attack this ability. No\, I think I think these instruments are \nYerba Buena SX80: part of a system. So if there are nearby\, then that that would say you may not need one. But if there isn’t one nearby\, then that site may\, you know\, fill in the system somehow\, so there should be some interaction. But \nYerba Buena SX80: the last time I checked in with Cgs and the engineer they’re in charge of their seismic monitoring program. They said they wanted to hear recommendations from from the Board on where the devices should go\, and that they weren’t \nYerba Buena SX80: the going to be making decisions on where it should go. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it would be beneficial to at least put one \nYerba Buena SX80: on the structures \nYerba Buena SX80: to see the peer behavior. And also where you have the \nYerba Buena SX80: fill in the bay mud. That that you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: more data is always better. So \nYerba Buena SX80: that will be my recommendation. Safer. \nYerba Buena SX80: A big time. \nYerba Buena SX80: would you say? Towards the end of the Dsm. I would assume. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. right\, cause it’s pretty long. \nYerba Buena SX80: My interest would be on the soft ground\, not on the improved ground. Okay? Because \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s an area that data is lacking. \nYerba Buena SX80: See\, I can see 3 points of interest. One would be out on the pier \nYerba Buena SX80: one would be on top of the Msc. To see how how the ground improvement \nYerba Buena SX80: strengthens and stiffens things\, changes\, periods and and amplifications. and so on\, and one would be on the soft ground. So you know what the Msc slash? Dsm. Has changed it from. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe what we do is we send this off to whoever’s handling this now with Cgs and let Jen and the team interact with with Cgs about what would be appropriate. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I’m happy to do that. \nPerfect \nYerba Buena SX80: and yes\, Skylar wants to. continue my phone. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. \ncancels. \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, she actually does. But it’s not working. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gayle is still on the floor. \nSomething \nYerba Buena SX80: you guys know. So \nYerba Buena SX80: i can read it. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, no it’s not the way\, it was\, yet \nYerba Buena SX80: you are. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry we interrupted our discussion because there’s someone from the public who also wants to make a statement named Art. And if you can hear \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: We have promoted you to Speaker\, and so you can go ahead and unmute yourself and talk \nYerba Buena SX80: he’s on. He’s just\, I know. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: Awesome \nYerba Buena SX80: a chance of your opportunity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I’m I’m my comments are done. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. Are you able to get your microphone working? \nYerba Buena SX80: You see that you’ve joined the meeting \nhome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why don’t we? Oh\, Art. can you go ahead and speak? It looks like you might be unmuted. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll just read the comment from art. He says\, I was watching the presentation\, and was interrupted on my end. \nYerba Buena SX80: I may have missed it\, but wanted to mention that it appears that the bfe calculations and corresponding elevation benchmarks do not include free board\, a factor of safety which typically ranges from \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 feet to 4 feet and will likely be required for final fema certification. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Is fema certification a part of this project? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, but we will confirm that we don’t think so. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. This is not a flood protection slash fema regulated \nYerba Buena SX80: project. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not. No we there. There may be requirements in the coastal floodplain management \nYerba Buena SX80: of for the project\, which perhaps\, is what the commenter \nYerba Buena SX80: is commenting on. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that would be. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. City County\, San Francisco Blood plane manager judgment \nYerba Buena SX80: on the criteria. And II don’t have it. I can’t think exactly what. Usually it’s a foot above the total water level. But there\, perhaps there’s a another one for peers. I’m not. I’m not aware of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: We can look into it and get back to you. Yeah\, okay\, thanks. Jim’s hand doesn’t show up on Zoom\, but he had his hand up. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Cameron\, I have a few questions for you. \nYerba Buena SX80: where you describe the the materials as heterogeneous. So \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s a lot of variability\, especially in the film. But I see that you just have a single \nYerba Buena SX80: value for the strength of these materials which are really \nYerba Buena SX80: variable. \nYerba Buena SX80: how did you decide on just a single valley for \nYerba Buena SX80: potentially variable properties for these layers? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, so essentially\, the values that you are looking at is mostly for the peers. So it’s a closest poring\, using the closest boring\, and then we use the closest poring for the you know that we encounter feeling there \nYerba Buena SX80: off offshore boarding. Of course we didn’t have feel. \nYerba Buena SX80: but for the onshore we use a conservative value for that field material that we had in there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, my camera is not. Unfortunately\, I’m not appearing. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, so\, but you have the fell for the slope stability analysis that you did also\, right where you interface for the Msc wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: you did some slopes. That’s an engineer field that we are. Gonna place it. Oh\, it’s engineered. Yes\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. So what kind of material are you looking to specify for \nYerba Buena SX80: that? Engineered Phil. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry I couldn’t hear. What material are you looking to specify for the engineered Phil. Well\, I mean\, typically\, we are just going to. I think they are going to put maybe more granular granular material there \nYerba Buena SX80: and compact it to minimum 90%. That’s what they are planning to do\, I think. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So when you talk about the contiguousness of the liquefibles\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: were you talking? Is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: which layer is that referring to this is the existing field\, the existing fill. Okay? And I think you’ve concluded that \nYerba Buena SX80: they are not contiguous. Correct. The Leco fibrill layers are not necessary. \nYerba Buena SX80: continues. They are localized mostly. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we have a revet revett man next to the road that also prevent the movement there also. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. You are thinking of using line treatment to for your Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this a dry or where? No\, it’s a wet okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright wet\, quick climber. hydrated lyme hydrated lime\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. alright and I think you mentioned that you wanted tangential. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, because this is essentially providing a bearing for the material on the top. Then we wanted to have tangential with a Geo grid \nYerba Buena SX80: on on top of it there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I mean\, why not see cats? Because. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I mean\, you have this stiff material \nYerba Buena SX80: that you want to act together. You want them to act together. Right? Are you opposed to using a see? Can? I’m not opposed to using? Okay? Yeah. Because the way I see it is that the whole system. \nYerba Buena SX80: Your Msc wall. then this. Dsm. it’s kind of like a stress magnet. you know\, within the matrix of\, you know. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: failure\, loose material\, soft material\, and so it would tend to attract forces to it. Understand? So as as best as you can\, you want it to interlock them. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: listen. So I’m curious\, Jimo. If it was \nYerba Buena SX80: If they’re doing Dsm cells or Dsm wall\, then seek an overlapping is is critical because but they’re filling in the entire mass. I think right\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s there’s all the circles are bumped into all the circles. \nYerba Buena SX80: so there’s not really wide open spaces\, so so is\, seek it quite as important when they’re when they have a mass bill rather than just a you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: filling in\, you know\, creating Dsm cells. Well\, I mean the the what is good to happen is that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know these are going to be install at different times. Right? So by the time you \nYerba Buena SX80: do the next one\, you know\, one is already queued\, and so\, I think getting everything to add together \nYerba Buena SX80: because it’s acting as a stress magnet is is beneficial to the overall response of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, let’s see what else I have here. \nYerba Buena SX80: so II mean\, I know. Jen mentioned. You know whether there’s a need for data or \nYerba Buena SX80: Gadarin or not. But the way that then\, that I see might be useful \nYerba Buena SX80: is actually to monitor displacement\, especially. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, near the interface of the fell. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and this what I call the system\, the Msc. Wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the Dsm. Wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: So something like an in kilometer\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: at that location would kind of give you an idea of what is happening. you know\, between \nYerba Buena SX80: the stress magnet and the material\, you know\, on offshore to the onshore side \nYerba Buena SX80: of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: doing about for earthquake displacements\, or for during construction displacements. Well\, earthquake\, earthquake displacement\, especially \nYerba Buena SX80: So you want an interanometer between the Msc and the infield in the walkway. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So because you will see what is happening. Any kind of displacement is going to be happening \nYerba Buena SX80: more on the onshore side of that of that system. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s that’s it for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hi\, Nick. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, thank you. If you would be kind enough with slide 20 \nYerba Buena SX80: on there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And really my comment follows the the discussion on the clean on how to instrument this. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would submit that if you look at this you have a outline of a basic ferry remains. You have bunch of different structures here. \nYerba Buena SX80: I do not see a place that \nYerba Buena SX80: one could place a seismic instrument that one could then actually interpret the results with any kind of useful \nYerba Buena SX80: way. However\, as Jima mentioned\, and inclinometer. \nYerba Buena SX80: or possibly a fiber optic \nYerba Buena SX80: in there\, because that gives you continuous response and can even manage size. Me. \nYerba Buena SX80: would be a really good implementation and call Francis working on it\, and I know Cgs is working some. Some displacement measurement would be better. And these days \nYerba Buena SX80: why.is cheap. \nYerba Buena SX80: Light out before\, and afterwards we’ll give you the \nYerba Buena SX80: ground displacement very nicely as well. So there! There are alternatives. I just \nYerba Buena SX80: from the We. We started with question of instrumentation\, and we promptly went up to possibly 3 instruments\, and I am racking my head. Where would I put a useful instrument in here that one could actually interpret the results based on the complexity of the different structures \nYerba Buena SX80: and the ground conditions. So my recommendation would be to be cautious on putting a lot of effort into instrumentation \nYerba Buena SX80: but displacement measurements would be incredibly valuable. But we we lack those in general along the day margins. \nYerba Buena SX80: That that’s that’s my comment. Otherwise\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: any thoughts. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we will look into putting displacement\, measuring devices right? That makes sense \nYerba Buena SX80: where? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, it’s too much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Or if it’s something that that happens \nYerba Buena SX80: that the monitoring could happen manually in different locations and doesn’t necessarily need to happen continuously with instrumentation. That’s something that we’ve also manual. And Nick’s fiber optic can be remotely monitor. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: but there are digital and phenomena still. I mean\, where you have senses till tilt senses\, and you can actually monitor them remotely. Use this solar kind of system. And can \nYerba Buena SX80: we did in that time. \nYerba Buena SX80: So no power required just this whole thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and busy after earthquakes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Jim. Yeah\, thank you all for your work on this project. I look forward to visiting the park when when it’s completed. My questions will be coastal\, related. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just first one quick follow up. On Bob’s comment about the floating deck. I mean\, in addition to the motions of that deck you mentioned. It’s a low\, free board \nYerba Buena SX80: decks\, so there’s also a potential for waves splashing up on it\, which could also be a safety hazard. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then on the comment about free board and fema accreditation\, I think\, as Jim noted. The fema accreditation is not applicable\, probably cause this is not a flood protection structure. \nYerba Buena SX80: not to say that consideration of free board is not\, you know\, bad idea. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think the place to look would be the city’s flip plan\, management ordinance \nYerba Buena SX80: although that probably relates more to buildings than these kind of public access features. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some \nYerba Buena SX80: but kind of on that topic of free board. A lot of the the design flood elevations \nYerba Buena SX80: primarily represent\, like a still water elevation without the effective wave run up and so I just wanted to note that \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the discussion of like the timing of inundation and impacts due to sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know that. You know\, if there are wave events\, those could impact those elevations sooner than is kind of laid out here. And so for some of those lower elevation areas\, you could have events that would splash up\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: so that you know those surfaces should be able to accommodate that kind of overtopping and scour of any pathways and things like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then \nYerba Buena SX80: on the \nYerba Buena SX80: the marine way\, wall\, II guess I’m just still kinda struck me as like\, what’s the the primary purpose of that? Is it to contain that gravel beach fill? Because it\, you know\, it’s a big\, substantial structure. And I was like\, wait is the only purpose of this to sort of prop this beach up is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: primary function? \nYerba Buena SX80: So it it’s not just the gravel shore. Sorry I’m looking for a plan so essentially our \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, there’s there’s a design intent here that we didn’t go through because we wanted to focus on the engineering components. But overall the Marine Way lawn is a major design feature of this park that continues all the way down to the gravel shore and the water. And this was really this came out of our earlier concept design that we shared with the community\, and it really resonated with the community because of \nYerba Buena SX80: the fact that this provided that generous space and view down to the water. And really and it’s kind of gesture and \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of openness really emphasize that connection down to the water and that welcoming down to the water. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s that whole kind of design move all the way down with the pathways\, which are also actually a reference and a little bit of an abstraction to the boatyard history of 900\, and with. You know the marine rails that pulled up\, you know. You pull up boats on those like marine rails right? Which are much smaller than this. \nBut that’s the idea behind it. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s where this came from in terms of its geometry and design. And but yes\, it does hold the gravel shore and that portion of the lawn\, allowing it to be that continuous \nYerba Buena SX80: welcome\, Matt\, down to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: It also does serve other purposes\, though\, because if we you know\, if the Bay City Ferry directly kind of to the east of that\, there’s a an artifact in the water that we can’t kind of fill over or penetrate through. And so that kind of limited us on that edge of you know\, what could we do? Kind of outboard of that? \nYerba Buena SX80: We also obviously wanted to minimize fill. So this is basically the solution we determined that would kind of meet all those program and community goals while minimizing fill and \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of\, you know\, maintaining that the basic artifact where it was obviously so thank you. That makes sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: The reason I was asking is just \nYerba Buena SX80: for Pcdc’s question about the potential hydrodynamic impacts of the wall. You talked a little bit about wave reflection. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this is also sort of like a \nYerba Buena SX80: a jetty sticking out into the water\, and with \nYerba Buena SX80: tattle currents\, you know\, it could cause some interesting dynamics there. So I think I don’t know if there’s been any \nYerba Buena SX80: assessment of sort of how that \nYerba Buena SX80: structure could affect the circulation and that area. And you mentioned that \nYerba Buena SX80: this remnant ship\, and it sounds like that portion of the shoreline is not armored. So at the end of the combination of \nYerba Buena SX80: the tidal circulation and waves reflecting off the wall that could be like a vulnerable spot in the shoreline that could be exposed to erosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the drawings as they are now. \nYerba Buena SX80: my understanding is we couldn’t do anything on where the ship is. But actually it turns out that we can regrade. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the plan is to fix the armoring. That is there. So there will be shoreline protection. Whether this the \nYerba Buena SX80: ship artifacts. because we yeah\, we did see that as a \nYerba Buena SX80: and I just want to \nYerba Buena SX80: rip\, wrap\, slope that’s currently there will effectively maintain grading and re establish the rock. But we still are not filling or placing anything over the part that’s in the water. Because there’s it’s kind of a big boat. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And then just one last question\, there was mention of a 50 Year design wave\, looking at the loading on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: It just looking at the wind and kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: knowing the wave dynamics it. It feels like going up to like a hundred year design wave probably would not be that much bigger\, but might give you a little bit additional factor of safety\, or just wondering \nYerba Buena SX80: why a 50 year Wave condition was selected as opposed to a hundred year. Design condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey\, Mads\, are you still on the call? \nYerba Buena SX80: I am. Yes. Can you answer that question? I think you’re the best suited for it? \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Er yes. I think that is correct. Yeah\, that a current year wave exposure would not be significant. Higher in the 50 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: they tend to sort of taper off \nMads Jorgensen M&N: but I think the 50 year is a consideration of maybe 100 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: in the perspective of that is\, and maybe too conservative. even the life of these types of structures. And there’s maintenance\, too. So I think\, putting in these dark state \nMads Jorgensen M&N: probably wouldn’t \nMads Jorgensen M&N: last\, for I’m not a talk expert\, but they probably wouldn’t last for 4 years or longer without some \nMads Jorgensen M&N: significant amount of maintenance of replacement along the way. and \nMads Jorgensen M&N: I think that’s the idea behind that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But in in addition to the docks\, I think the 50 year wave was used for the wave loading \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the wall\, which presumably could last longer than 40 years. Yeah\, but\, Shawn\, correct me if I’m wrong\, but I don’t believe wave loading \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the war would govern. It’s pushing in that material behind it. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, it it would govern\, that was. That’s one of the main loads that we’re using. On the wall. Matt is the waylock\, because it’s not really retaining any soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the the wave load is one of the main. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. \nYerba Buena SX80: out of that it probably would make sense to look at a little bit longer. Design or design wave. Yeah\, at least check it. See what the sensitivity of the design is to the 100 year. That’s fair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it may not. Okay. Thank you. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Yeah. II would just comment\, too\, that I think for the case with \nMads Jorgensen M&N: there would be substantial or significant. A wave loading on the wall would be high \nMads Jorgensen M&N: water level condition\, right so\, but then for the exposed portion that would be. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: there’d be water behind the wall\, too. Is that right\, Shawn? So \nMads Jorgensen M&N: you have a high study pressure on the back side of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s true. But there’s still the impact load from the wave. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Yeah\, but that would then be \nMads Jorgensen M&N: discontinuous along the wall right so where you would have a \nMads Jorgensen M&N: a wave splashing up er in other portions of the wall there would be a wave trough\, or \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the change in water labels\, so \nI don’t know how we applied the load\, but if we applied. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: or the 50 year wave load as a continuous line\, load along the wall. That would likely be pretty conservative. \nYerba Buena SX80: That is what we did. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, we can look at sensitivity\, at least\, to see what \nYerba Buena SX80: how much of a fix. \nYerba Buena SX80: So my hand is up\, so I’ll call on myself. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a few comments\, base\, basically nice looking presentation and overall. Well done. I think I have a few comments. Slide 10. Maybe you can cost slide 10 up. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll I’ll justify this as engineering criteria as in. We ought to follow good geological principles in in geomorphology \nYerba Buena SX80: and if you look in the the middle of those explorations at Cpt\, I guess it shows that actually the the left one to B 3 shows \nYerba Buena SX80: bay mud being at elevation 3 or 4\, it looks like\, which is probably not correct in this case. My guess is there’s some soft undocumented existing fill \nYerba Buena SX80: it won’t make any difference in analysis other than it sort of looks \nYerba Buena SX80: funny to me. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you go to the next slide slide 11\, there’s bay mud that’s above \nYerba Buena SX80: above \nYerba Buena SX80: elevation 0 also. But I think that one I can defend as as being. There’s probably a mud wave it looks like\, because bay mud is lower on the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: and when Phil was placed it may have pushed the bay mud up \nYerba Buena SX80: in that spot where it’s too high. So that seems reason why I wouldn’t change that. But anyway. \nYerba Buena SX80: nitpicky stuff just to prove that we read the materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: more substantive\, perhaps. Qc\, testing on the Dsm\, I think I read some place. There’s a pilot program planned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so that’s all good. I think I didn’t see anything\, at least about a Qc. Program for the Dsm seems like\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, 20 psi is \nYerba Buena SX80: probably pretty achievable. but it’s\, you know\, if it’s what your assumptions are\, you need to document somehow\, that not just in the pilot program\, but that you have some sort of a Qc. I think it needs to be emphasized somewhere in \nYerba Buena SX80: the reports that Qc. On the Dsms. Is important. \nYerba Buena SX80: Along the same lines. I guess I in the drawings it looks like Dsm\, kind of is sitting on top of what’s the bottom? That’s rock\, I think right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And it seems like there should be some discussions at least you probably wanna tow a foot into it or 2 feet into it. I’m not sure how you know that you’re on top of bedrock unless you push hard enough to grind into it a little bit. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so probably some discussion about how you know that you’re in bedrock\, when how you know you’ve reached the maximum depth required for the Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just document that it’s required that you you feel the rock and add a foot or 2 or something like that doesn’t need to be a lot\, I think. But \nYerba Buena SX80: settlement\, I think. Cameron\, you said that you might get a couple of feet of settlement under the Msc. Which is why you’re putting the Dsm. In. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the fill behind the Mse is almost as high\, so presumably the settlement of the fill behind the Mse would still be something like 2 or 3 feet\, and I didn’t see that discussed any place \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s gonna affect \nYerba Buena SX80: may affect drainage may affect \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean the grading it. I mean it more than a few inches. You’re gonna start to affect the way sidewalks cross it or way drainage happens the way things pond behind the Msc. Wall. If it rains heavily. Something \nYerba Buena SX80: curious. \nYerba Buena SX80: How if that’s how that\, how that has been addressed since I was one of the 5 critical geote Geo technical issues. I didn’t really see that addressed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, thank you. So definitely\, we will do the pilot program for Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: During the pilot program. We will develop some sort of the Qc. Also that to go with it there \nYerba Buena SX80: the athletes to fit into the bedrock. We were thinking that maybe have one foot\, but then we during the pilot program\, we will develop some sort of the pressure that they have to place it there\, or the dragging\, and everything’s there. \nWe do\, of course\, getting some course \nYerba Buena SX80: during for that and test it\, and and during the courting we can figure out that if they are penetrating into the bedrock or not. That so all that sounds good. I’m just saying that should be documented. I didn’t see it. Maybe I didn’t read everything word for word through all your large presentation\, it will all gonna be into the project specifications there for the Dsl. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So anyway. So I think what your plan is sounds good\, but just documented in in the geotech report\, or in the drawings\, or someplace. Jim\, could I follow up on something you said? Were you saying that you’re concerned about the settlement where the gravel is being placed between the \nYerba Buena SX80: in the kind of marine railway. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the gravel beach\, or the \nYerba Buena SX80: whatever is behind the Msc. Which is not just gravel\, is\, it’s oh\, there’s some engineered filling behind. Yeah\, you know. I was wondering a little bit about that\, too\, in terms of placing the engineer. So down in the lower parts where you it’s kind of low or inner title. \nYerba Buena SX80: and as I guess there’d have to be some sort of coffee damning or something. But \nYerba Buena SX80: There was a project just recently across the way at Haron’s Head\, where gravel was placed on\, on mud and fill. and on the on the mud. There were places where it it\, you know\, sank immediately\, and there are little mud waves and mud boils and interesting things. So that is something to be aware of. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if that if you’re placing a lot of Phil\, is it? Is it going? It must be going directly over bay mud\, in some places at least\, right\, and so the whole bay\, the whole mud wave criteria should be addressed and talked about pretty carefully. And you know\, research that because there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: lots of old experience about \nYerba Buena SX80: placing thick fills on top of bay mud and developing mud waves where\, you know\, you can get multiple feet of settlement at the beginning of the fill. And then multiple feet of heave in front of where the fill is being placed\, and then you place it in it. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: Much of the time it may not matter\, but it may have impact on stability analysis\, if the mud wave is happening under the toe bubbles upright. Yeah\, but it. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, obviously. to some extent\, once that happens\, you have something that continues to move as you place more fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’m not a Geo. Technical expert\, soft and bay mud strength instead of sensitive strengths which are weak but but not softened. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? He said\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So so probably should be some discussion about mud wave prevention\, you know. Start with some thin levels of layers of fill to try and get it all held down. And \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe you even need to. Hmm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe you can potentially put geote textiles that may not prevent ways from happening\, or I mean\, for the first few lifts at least\, the geotext. I won’t help it would help after you get the \nYerba Buena SX80: the first couple of lifts\, and if you put the geotextile under the first couple of lists. it’ll help for the subsequent lists. \nYerba Buena SX80: But so there should be probably some discussion about how to prevent mud ways from happening. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure\, yes\, we will. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s what I had for new stuff\, Jen\, did you want to talk about combined that email you sent me just before the meeting. Did you want us to talk about it? \nThanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: the app can ask me\, we are unclear as to which scenarios\, with both earthquake and flooding\, should be analyzed\, and what analysis should be. Request is being requested to the ecrb. Please expand on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh. \nthat’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, take that back. Strike that from the record. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: any other new topics. And we’ll talk about what needs to be required. If we’re gonna have any requirements to add to what you said about the \nYerba Buena SX80: mud wave\, I mean\, you can also consider the use of lightweight material right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Reduce the thickness of the pill \nfor lightweight. My techno\, we have to just make sure it doesn’t coming up. But yeah\, like\, maybe lightweight aggregate or something like that. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: or what’s been used most reliably in the bay mud. Marginsville is municipal waste. \nYerba Buena SX80: The one thing about the lightweight. That was an engineering joke. \nYerba Buena SX80: One thing I like but about the the lightweight aggregate. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not gonna be as stable under way. So the upper layers probably have to be a denser gravel\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: the aggregate is going to have to be sized so appropriately for the way of exposure given if if it has a lower density. But I think your coastal folks can sort that out. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t see any other comments from the Ecr\, go ahead\, Katherine. Yeah\, I just had a clarifying question. From our team here related to the monitoring. We just wanna understand. Is the monitoring a requirement \nYerba Buena SX80: for the project because it may influence our design? Or is it monitoring for \nYerba Buena SX80: another kind of purpose? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, the seismic monitoring which is within the purview of the Ecrb \nYerba Buena SX80: is for the benefit of the future. Science and \nYerba Buena SX80: ongoing profession. \nYerba Buena SX80: monitoring of displacement \nYerba Buena SX80: is you know\, it’s not as not an explicitly \nYerba Buena SX80: mandated direction or not a directive that we have as the ecrb and it probably won’t change your design because you won’t find out about the displacements till after the fact. \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure. And you know\, II \nYerba Buena SX80: we we can discuss it amongst the board here. Somebody wants to chime in\, whether we have the authority to require that sort of a thing\, because it won’t change the design\, and it won’t protect things right now. There’s some good ideas. There’s some interest\, there’s some\, you know\, potentially\, if we think there’s really gonna be some hazard and life safety types of things \nYerba Buena SX80: that are gonna be moving. We wanna know about it early in the deformation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey\, Joe? If I if I understood the question. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re asking whether. if I understood the question you were asking whether it’s something that’s gonna meant to influence a structural designer. If it’s just something you’re required to do for other purposes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that really what \nYerba Buena SX80: cause? I mean? I think you\, I think you and and was it\, Jim? Sorry? Yeah. Understood the question correctly. It’s just basically\, yeah\, yeah\, it’s trying to. It’s it’s really not. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every project has to has to. It’s like an opportunity for the state to increase our seismic network. So really\, that’s why you’re being \nYerba Buena SX80: required to do it. It’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: to change what you’re doing on your project. But it does affect your project. Obviously\, because \nYerba Buena SX80: you have to accommodate it. And there are issues\, especially with power and things like that. So it’s it\, can’t. It can be a \nYerba Buena SX80: you. You wanna be careful in how you how you do it. You know you don’t want it to become a \ntoo huge of a burden that it \nYerba Buena SX80: drives everyone nuts\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: in in general\, I don’t have in front of me the language that gives us the directive to implement ground monitoring. But my recollection is on the way. We’ve always done it in my. \nYerba Buena SX80: however\, many years as I’ve been on the the ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s been to put in accelerometers. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, site response\, type of instrumentation. And I don’t know that we’ve ever \nYerba Buena SX80: required \nYerba Buena SX80: inclinometers physical or or \nYerba Buena SX80: fiber \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’m not sure if \nYerba Buena SX80: where that fits. \nSee? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, thank you. I was gonna mention there\, we do have a safety of sales policy number 3. It says\, to provide bodily needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds of soils. \nYerba Buena SX80: Insulation of strong motion seismographs should be required on all future \nYerba Buena SX80: major landfills. In addition\, the Commission encourages insulation of strong motion seismographs and other developments on problem soils and in other areas recommended by the \nYerba Buena SX80: Us. Geological Survey for purposes of data\, comparison and evaluation \nYerba Buena SX80: displacement in there. And it was worse. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: still. So I think\, monitor. yeah. I mean\, I think the way we need to look at it\, though\, is. you know\, they are simplifying assumptions that yeah. we are making \nYerba Buena SX80: with respect to something which is is really a system. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, we break it down to make it easy to analyze. And it’s it’s food\, and to verify that the assumptions\, the way you expect this system to behave is the way it’s behaving. \nYerba Buena SX80: Because if there should be failure\, the impact is significant. Right? So you have an opportunity to react. If you see that something is happening. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think that falls on the\, you know\, kind of you can interpret that to mean that we don’t want failure. We don’t want the failure placed into fail. \nYerba Buena SX80: You don’t want to jeopardize life\, you know\, and so\, monitoring what you have put in\, based on your analysis\, I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s important \nYerba Buena SX80: it could just like remain. And then your next. I reread this sentence that includes seismographs. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think both sentences included seismographs. But I guess I’ll just read it again. So to provide vitally needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds of soils. Insulation of strong motion seismographs \nYerba Buena SX80: should be required on all future major landfills. \nYerba Buena SX80: In addition\, the Commission encourages installation of strong motion seismographs in other developments on problem soils and in other areas recommended by the US. Geological Survey for purposes of data comparison. \nYerba Buena SX80: an evaluation. And I’ll put it in the chat as well. if \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I’ll do that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s see what what is your inclination? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry that was Nick. Nick. Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t have an objection to your \nYerba Buena SX80: proposal\, if you will\, but I think \nYerba Buena SX80: the directive is really about \nYerba Buena SX80: recording earthquakes rather than \nYerba Buena SX80: than ground deformations. Yeah\, yeah\, that’s right. And and and the other thing about \nYerba Buena SX80: your point about failure. If we’re talking about static movements of the ground being an issue\, that’s a completely different. I mean\, we we cannot have that. That’s their design should be robust enough that \nYerba Buena SX80: that issue is not \nYerba Buena SX80: even part of the discussion that should issue should be \nYerba Buena SX80: address as part of their design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I think I would just add to that\, maybe by saying\, if you agree with your design criteria. and I’m not sure additional monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m I’m not sure that that \nYerba Buena SX80: can be an additional requirement. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think there may be cases where it might be but \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure that’s the case right now. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, okay\, yeah. \nTrying to understand this. First. First of all\, I don’t see this as a major fail. \nYerba Buena SX80: It is a film. It’s not a Major. okay\, I don’t see this as a major structure. This is actually a relatively minor structure. It has impact on the shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: As we discussed. You know\, there are elements of we want it to perform as designed. Because it is in a challenging environment. You got way by action. You got title action. You got currents and all of that\, and that affects the Short Line\, and we already discussed the shoreline protection. So from the standpoint you know the question is\, do we insist on instrumentation just because we can put instruments in there? Or are we trying to get something useful \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of displacements. I was worried about seismic displacement. We have very little data on seismic displacement. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a lot of acceleration records. Of course\, you can get displacements out of acceleration records no question about it. But then II as I said\, I pointed out\, you show me where you want to put those instruments and get information that actually can be interpreted in any useful way. And that’s my concern. I know lot of lot of instrumentation in California \nYerba Buena SX80: in places that is being used that actually serves no useful purpose. When you actually look at the location of the instrument. \nYerba Buena SX80: I can name any number of dams \nYerba Buena SX80: where we have a lot of instruments that only confuse\, but don’t improve. So my concern here is\, if we’re going to put instrumentation there\, somebody should look very carefully \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s located. so that the information obtained \nYerba Buena SX80: actually serves the purpose that it’s supposed to\, which is inform about size week \nYerba Buena SX80: response. So that that would be my comment\, and frankly\, from my perspective\, II am challenged to suggest where we would put it. You can certainly put it on the breakwater and see how the breakwater behaves. But \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s a very unique situation\, anyway. And you you’re saying that about seismographs specifically commenting on strong motion instruments. You know the the thing is \nYerba Buena SX80: how to put it. You can publish it in the journal of your producable results. \nYerba Buena SX80: If that’s what we get\, then that’s not helpful. And so all I’m saying is that then very careful attention should be to put the instrument someplace where the results will actually \nYerba Buena SX80: serve to enhance the database in in a useful way. So that’s all. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what we talked about earlier was potentially having them talk with Usgs and negotiate what to put in. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would you say they don’t need to do that even\, or encourage them that they they would talk to us Usgs or Cgs\, whoever? It’s gonna yeah. Cgs\, whoever’s gonna be monitoring things. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. Brief. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anybody. Wanna speak differently than what Nick just said. It sounds reasonable to me. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we’re we we love data. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this is II mean\, so the the language that they just provided says major projects. And it says\, or other projects on problem soils\, and I think we might fall under. Not necessarily\, major fills\, although this is one of the biggest fills I’ve seen in a dozen years on the board recently\, and we don’t put any very massive fills in the bay anymore. \nYerba Buena SX80: in part because of BC. DC. Is blockade\, I suppose\, but and concern\, for you know there’s plenty of base \nYerba Buena SX80: 100 years old. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve filled in what? A third already. So I think I think it makes sense that we go on record as recommending that they talk with Cgs. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we would support whatever the Cgs \nYerba Buena SX80: would would request \nYerba Buena SX80: on this anything new. I think maybe we’re done with new topics that we can go on to figure out. What do we need to summarize for requests. And or do we want to see the project again? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll summarize what I’ve got\, I think\, so far. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, from Remine’s early comments. We wanna advise the team to re-look at some of the \nYerba Buena SX80: what? What accelerations you’re putting in to the liquid analysis and relook at \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the blow counts and susceptibility\, and you’ve already talked about discontinuity. Maybe thin layer correction would be a part of that discussion\, maybe presence or absence of gravels would be a question. \nYerba Buena SX80: No. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe the you know\, influence of of plast plastic materials on driving blow counts down\, which make the blow counts go down\, but the plasticity itself makes them not liquifiable. So \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: summarize your concern more or less with that collection of of concerns at least\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I need for us to see it again. \nYerba Buena SX80: Or I mean\, there’s there’s 2 options I get\, I mean 3 options. We can say. \nYerba Buena SX80: do it and and resubmit it in your materials. But we don’t need to see it again. We can say\, Do it and submit it to Jen\, and she’ll distribute\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know one of us will take a look at it and say\, Yeah\, looks looks good\, or we can say no. The we\, as the Board want to see the project again. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, in my view\, is. if the conclusions and recommendations are gonna be changed because of these particularly valuations\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: for sure it has at least document has to come to us. Sure. Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that part of it would be then that we would like to have the results resubmitted whether or not it comes as before\, a regular board meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that could be potentially evaluated by staff\, I guess\, in particular\, potentially and \nYerba Buena SX80: consultation with the chair or somebody. \nYerba Buena SX80: That was point 1 \nYerba Buena SX80: art\, suggested that free board be looked at. So I think we’re gonna recommend that you look at freeboard. fema is probably rolled out. But what do you say\, Bob? Coastal Commission \nYerba Buena SX80: may have some input on free board requirements. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll I’ll let Justin respond to that. But I was thinking that the City county\, San Francisco is because of their participation in national flow insurance program would \nYerba Buena SX80: be the ones that would identify and articulate any coastal floodplain management requirements \nYerba Buena SX80: for development in the floodplain. Yeah\, it may just be a matter sort of looking at the design elevations and and the projected timing of impacts with sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: with the run up component and and just sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: discussing how your sort of sea level rise. Lifespan of the project might change with consideration of \nYerba Buena SX80: wave run up as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Could if I could just make a comment on that clarifying. I use the term total water level before and total water level in the sense of fema is the \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay water level plus the wave run-up \nYerba Buena SX80: or the wave crest above the water level. Total water level in the Bcd Sea adapting to rising tides is a slightly different definition. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m referring. And I think Justin is referring to. \nYerba Buena SX80: although it’s your fault that \nYerba Buena SX80: art doesn’t include waves. Right? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, that’s an another engineering joke. Sorry. But \nYerba Buena SX80: so we’re talking about the wave run up over and above the still water\, even though the waves are supposedly small. Your documents indicate a 3.7 or something foot wave in a 50 or one wave event. So that’s not. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Nothing. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry\, Jim. I was just trying some notes for myself. That was good. Thanks\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: a. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we had talked about inclinometers. I think we kind of established that we don’t have that’s not within our purview to require. But I think we wanna just go ahead and be documented as saying\, we think that some sort of defamation \nYerba Buena SX80: instrumentation is a cool idea. \nYerba Buena SX80: The potentially could be useful. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it is within our purview to request you at least talk with Cgs about a strong motion instrumentation\, and we have suggested 3 potential locations. One would be the \nYerba Buena SX80: the peer. \nYerba Buena SX80: One would be on top of Msc. Slash\, Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: And want to be somewhere on soft ground. \nYerba Buena SX80: And\, Jim\, I just wanted to make sure we didn’t forget the the I think the Board recommends \nYerba Buena SX80: that city county\, San Francisco\, and perhaps are consultants. \nYerba Buena SX80: Consider the operational constraints on public access to the \nYerba Buena SX80: floats and along the gangways\, due to wave-induced float motions and wave and water level induced flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So they had said that they’re gonna put a gate up there which is kind of keeping people out \nYerba Buena SX80: by suggestion. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I mean said already that people can jump over gates if they want to\, or over over chains if they want to\, and I thought you had said more or less. That was a a good enough response. Well\, I’m not sure II don’t. I don’t want to be on the record\, supporting or not supporting that response. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would just say that the city county\, San Francisco is responsible for it\, as their design consultants are\, and in my view\, and that \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m okay with not understanding what the operational criteria are and how that’s managed. As long as it’s clear that \nYerba Buena SX80: they have to take care of it\, whether it’s a chain or maybe something else. I think it’s the issue of the operational control rather than what the devices? Yeah\, yeah\, that’s kind of where I was going. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s a. It’s an important issue that I think should be on the record. And II know that you heard it\, but I just feel like we should write it down specifically different than I understood previously. I just didn’t catch it is that I think our recommendation is that they go to City county and \nYerba Buena SX80: work it out well. I think the reason why I say City can in San Francisco is because reckon Park is the app the owner applicant. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s why I said that. But I think also their consultants are professionally responsible for for that without having analyzed those motions. I mean it could. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you found that it would be frequently unusable. Maybe there’s a design change that could be made \nYerba Buena SX80: to make it safer. \nYerba Buena SX80: so it might be worth looking at in the design phase as opposed to just waiting to see how it does\, and closing it when it’s dangerous. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, II agree. That would be perhaps a more detailed response. And I don’t know why I’m being so easy on everyone today\, but that would be the typical action would be actually address. Like\, if you’re designing a ferry berth\, there are operational limits on the motions based on the waves\, and then the ferry operators shut down the facility\, if not the ferries themselves. In that condition \nthis is a little different. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I would recognize that. Not only do you have people that might come on from land\, you have people that may approach from the water\, so maybe some signage is\, or some sort of notice to mariners\, or there may be a number of items that make sense that may evolve. Actually\, as you figure out how people are. Gonna use this \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, in the Design Review Board meeting I mentioned having a docent or somebody that’s kind of close to a harbor master that might just be aware of what’s going on and at least have an emergency response capability. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think the operational limits are important for the general public on the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: II think if I if I may your point your point\, that operational limits\, if\, in fact\, the facility has to be shut down more than 50% of the time because of wave action\, then it doesn’t serve the purpose that it was intended for. And I think that’s the that’s the direction from which it should be looked at. What percentage of time would the conditions be so adverse that you would have to limit access \nYerba Buena SX80: to the public to to protect their safety. And\, as I said\, if it exceeds 50 of the time. \nYerba Buena SX80: it becomes a red herring as opposed to a useful facility. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think that’s that’s a good point. Yeah\, thank you. That that’s a better way of saying it appreciate that. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, you guys are\, gonna look into the basis of the 40 to 50 year design life. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s actually based on the life of the or what we expect\, the life of the floats would be \nYerba Buena SX80: float\, float the \nYerba Buena SX80: right because they’re aluminum\, and they move around maximum. \nYerba Buena SX80: I should be. It just should be documented somehow. I mean formally. It’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: not that I don’t trust your judgment\, but it shouldn’t be your judgment. I mean\, the owner should know. What’s what do you think the life is? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I think there’s 2 things we’re talking about. There’s the talk\, the the lifespan of the actual material. The flow which he just mentioned is 40 years. And then there’s the anticipated lifespan of the the park features\, and and that’s something that we can look into as a department\, and what Rec. Park \nYerba Buena SX80: usually uses as our our criteria for design longevity and and get back to you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And you were\, gonna look into 100 year versus 50 year Wave. \nYerba Buena SX80: You gotta include a document documentation somewhere of the Qc. Program for the \nYerba Buena SX80: the The Dsm \nYerba Buena SX80: and include documentation about the tow embedded. How that’s going to be determined and controlled in the field \nYerba Buena SX80: and discussion of settlement behind the MSE. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wall of the engineered film. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it seems to me that what we’re looking for is to have it be resubmitted. Some of this stuff\, Doc. Redoc the new documentation and discussions. You missed a couple for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry I had 2 other recommendations. One was \nYerba Buena SX80: the seating of the gangways to verify the seating on the gangways. They need to add that to their design criteria\, and the other was to include buoyancy. \nYerba Buena SX80: uplift\, uplift. to look at the uplift that needs to be \nYerba Buena SX80: put into the criteria. Okay. thanks. Anything else I missed. \nYerba Buena SX80: seems to me that what makes sense is that we that it be resubmitted to the to staff. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we don’t de facto\, we we’re not determined that we need to see it again. But we may depending on how the impact of some of these relooks goes\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: that can be determined by staff. And or\, you know\, staff potentially discussion with \nYerba Buena SX80: one or more of us on the board\, although they’re limited to how many people they can talk to because of Bagley keen act. So\, Mr. Chairman\, may I move that once the report is finished that you resubmit a quick \nYerba Buena SX80: summary of the major \nYerba Buena SX80: changes so responses to the questions that were raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that the staff evaluate \nYerba Buena SX80: the need to consult the whole board \nYerba Buena SX80: based on \nYerba Buena SX80: substance of the changes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Second\, that \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, it’s been moved and seconded. Do I need to restate the motion that that when they just said that\, Bill\, you’ll resubmit in re with responses to what we just summarized here \nYerba Buena SX80: to this to staff and staff will evaluate whether how whether you see our me needs to look at it further. \nStatic. \nYerba Buena SX80: present school? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that clear enough to you\, Jen. Yes\, okay\, it’s been moved and seconded \nYerba Buena SX80: any further discussion on the motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: hearing none. All those in favor say\, aye\, aye. \nYerba Buena SX80: a post the motion carries \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s been moved to June. Is there a second second? It’s been a second and third and fourth\, and a fifth we have a motion before us to adjourn all those in favor all opposed. \nYerba Buena SX80: We are adjourned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, all nice present to 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/december-6-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231122T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231122T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240131T055858Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055858Z
UID:10000168-1700640000-1700672400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 22\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-22-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231117T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231117T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240205T193328Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240319T204543Z
UID:10000174-1700215200-1700222400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 17\, 2023 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meetings
DESCRIPTION:AgendaPresentationMeeting Summary
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-17-2023-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meetings/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231116T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231116T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231017T045435Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T224326Z
UID:10000049-1700139600-1700154000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 16\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Due to the APEC conference in San Francisco\, this meeting will be held online and through teleconference only. \nNote: Agenda Item 9 has been postponed. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for November 2\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nVote on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19The Commission will vote on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, an amendment to the Bay Plan to update the findings\, policies\, and map designations of the Seaport Plan. The public hearing was heard on November 2\, 2023.(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]Final Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Appendix A: Resolution 2023.02 (PDF) // Envionmental Assessment Final (PDF) // Seaport Plan Final (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning ActivitiesPOSTPONEDThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Fiscal Year 2023 BudgetThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Budget Act (SB101) and reimbursable awards that will include an update of the first quarter 2023 expenditures and cost recoveries.(Sean Williamson) [415/352-3637; sean.williamson@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Resilient State Route 37 ProjectsThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of Caltrans State Route 37 interim and long-term highway improvements and developments projects along the corridor\, from Highway US 101 (Novato\, Marin) in the west to I-80 in the east (Mare Island\, Vallejo).(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3670; [larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on the BCDC Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a quarterly update on the ongoing program improvements and developments since the last briefing in September 2023.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nFederal Consistency Actions \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation	  Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA) 	  55 Broadway 	  Cambridge\, MA 02142	     \n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2023.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n09/07/23\n\n\n75th Day\n\n	11/21/23\n\n\n\n		Location \n\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MotCo) in northern Contra Costa County\, California (lat. 38.0464\, long. -122.0335). \n\n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nDecommission and remove existing outdated infrastructure used by the FAA and restore the project area to near pre-existing conditions through the following activities: \n\nRemove a 6-foot by 8-foot prefabricated fiberglass building;\n\nRemove a 10-foot-tall antenna pole; 3) Remove a 30-foot antenna pole;\n\n Construct 600 linear feet of chain-link fencing; and \n Remove surface gravel\, and backfill with clean fill and native vegetation.\n\nThe project will be conditioned to include avoidance and minimization measures to avoid possible adverse species and wildlife habitat impacts for listed species\, including the salt marsh harvest mouse. Monitoring of site conditions to evaluate restoration performance will be conducted in coordination with other natural resource agencies\, in accordance with Bay Plan Policies on Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats. The total project area is approximately 0.7 acre\, and the project will result in an increase in Bay fill of no greater than 30 cubic yards\, resulting from backfilling the removed building and antenna foundations. The project will have no impacts to existing public access. \n\n\n\n\n		Tentative Staff Position:\n	\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. (Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-16-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231116T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231116T113000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240205T201658Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240205T202531Z
UID:10000175-1700128800-1700134200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 16\, 2023 Environmental Justice Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Join the meeting via ZOOMhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84258841304?pwd=QXBrUWZCVkFnbndmWFFOY3BHQzBTdz09 \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID842 5884 1304 \nPasscode415352 \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\, Roll Call\, Introductions and Approval of AgendaWorking Group member roll will be called and introductions from visitors and staff will be made.\nRacial Equity Action PlanLita Brydie\, Assistant Manager for Climate Equity and Community Engagement\, will report back on development of BCDC’s Racial Equity Action Plan.(Lita Brydie) [415/352-3626; lita.brydie@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommissioner Toxic Tour SurveyEJ Advisor Anthony Khalil will present a survey for the EJ Working Group Commissioners on the plan for Toxic Tours.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-16-2023-environmental-justice-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231109T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231109T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231019T011513Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T073313Z
UID:10000073-1699534800-1699549200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 9\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-9-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231109T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231109T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240131T060305Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T225609Z
UID:10000170-1699522200-1699531200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 9\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:his Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83980384080?pwd=YmlaazJCOE56MzdjUjBra1dyVUxqUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID839 8038 4080 \nPasscode824357 \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 September 27\, 2023\, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nHearing and Vote to Recommend Approval of Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00The Committee will review\, discuss\, and vote whether to recommend to the full Commission for approval two stipulated orders to resolve BCDC Enforcement Case No. ER2019.063.00 against Seaplane Investments LLC alleging unauthorized development activities and violations of BCDC permits 1973.014.04 and M1985.030.01 in Sausalito\, Marin County.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov];(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision with exhibits // Staff Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/11-09-EC-Audio-Recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Eating of the beast. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The Bcd. C. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am the chair of this Committee for Commissioners\, including those attending at Field Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Our first order of business is to call the role. Matthew. Please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Mr. Bieland. \nBoardroom SX80: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Gilmore. I’m sorry. Share it\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is 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\, as far as I know\, we have received no general public comments in advance of this meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. 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 call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order in which they were raised. After you are called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please queue up at the speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: since I’m I myself at my location\, I have no commenters. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Any anybody else zooming in as public speakers. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Chair\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: nobody’s at my location\, either. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so that brings us on to Item Number 4\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is approval of draft minutes. From the last meeting. We have all been furnished with draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved \nBoardroom SX80: second \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Billen and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody opposed to this motion \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any extensions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 is the Enforcement report. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Enforcement policy manager Matthew Trujillo will now provide the Enforcement report. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: I have 3 items to report out on today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: First\, the case update since our last meeting on September twenty-seventh. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: In the past 43 days we received 7 new cases\, resolved 11 cases\, and as of today\, there are 74 unresolved cases in the queue\, which is a net change of negative 5. Since my last report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: second\, is an update on the status of compliance with issued orders by the Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Tony Daysau\, one of our company’s analysts reports that he has been monitoring compliance with Ccd. 2022 0 0 3\, which was issued to the port of Oakland in july 2022\, to address public access maintenance issues at Jacqueline Square. He notes that there are no issues of concern. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: John Creech reports that he’s been monitoring compliance with Ccd 2\,020 dot 0 0 2 \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: issue to Param and Amande Dylan for illegal filling in white\, slew in Bolivo also for an authorized fill at the Family Gun Club and the Zoom\, March \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and Ccd 2020 dot 0 0 1 issue to the city of Oakland for failing to maintain the public access and shoreline areas at Union Point Park. He reports that there are no issues of concern with the Dillon and Family Gun Club orders\, and that the City of Open has not responded to his outreach efforts lately. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Finally\, I’m pleased to report that\, thanks to the fine investigative work of Rachel Cohen\, of our Enforcement staff and the negotiations led by former chief counsel\, Mark Zapatelo\, who\, generous\, generously donated his time to assist us in its resolution. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The case against the Bay Area Council for failing to abide by the terms and conditions of its permits. 2021 dot 0 0 one\, which was to redevelop the historic ferry boat climate for public access of tier 9 in San Francisco has been settled. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The settlement agreement was executed by our executive director on November seventh\, and the settlement establishes a timeline by which the Council must complete his public access obligations under its permit\, and pay a fine of $50\,000. Executive director gold span will provide further comments on the settlement at the next Commission meeting on the sixteenth\, where\, incidentally\, I am scheduled to deliver my third quarterly report on the status of the Enforcement program to the full Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and this concludes my report. I’d be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions that you may have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew\, do any members of the Enforcement Committee. Have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. I’m just curious. I think you said we got 7 new cases and settled 11\, and we’re still down minus 5 instead of minus 4. Is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: because something dropped off somehow? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  I believe that that report\, probably incorporates cases that yes\, have been either combined or were closed\, and we didn’t get to it right away. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Sometimes those things happen. It’s a pretty big \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  database\, and we don’t really have a systematic way of\, you know\, tracking everything in real time. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay\, great thanks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other committee members have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do we have any public comment on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Vasquez has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome\, Commissioner. Good morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Wasn’t raining cats and dogs\, but I cats and dogs problem this morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I know how that happens. So just for the record. Do you have any members of the public at your location. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda is item number 6\, which is seaplane investments. Llc. Stipulated orders. This is going to be a briefing and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt 2 stipulated Cease and assist orders to be issued to seaplane investments. Llc. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Porto\, Madera\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either or both of these stipulated orders than the recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which includes the orders\, will be put up for a vote for approval or rejection by the full Commission at its December seventh\, 2023\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco. Beginning at one Pm. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After Vcdc. Staff gives its opening remarks\, I will ask the respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and then afterwards the committee shall hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives or the responded please identify themselves for the record. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Good morning\, Commissioners. This is Gillian Blanchard with Rudder log group\, and I represent seaplane investments. Llc. The respondent. \nLou Vasquez: Thank you very much and welcome\, and I have with me here today\, Lou Vasquez\, the managing member seaplane investments. Lllc. Morning\, everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning and thank you both for being here. \nKey. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I. Now I’m going to ask general counsel\, Greg Sharff and principal enforcement analyst\, Adrian Klein\, to begin their opening remarks. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you\, Chair Gilmore. So I first wanted to start off by just really thanking the respondents\, Lou Vasquez and Milly Ricklin\, as well as their counsel\, Gillian Blanchard\, for really their hard work in resolving this matter. \nGreg Scharff: You know it wasn’t easy\, but we worked through all the issues\, and II thought we did it in an open and collaborative manner that resolved all of the outstanding issues. \nGreg Scharff: And I just wanted you to know that that was very helpful. And it was sort of unusual. And I’m feeling really positive about \nGreg Scharff: see plan on a going forward basis that they’ll get all the work done they’ve promised to do\, and that they’ll honor their their agreement. Adrian Klein will provide the highlights of the settlement for you and I and Ms. Blanchard are available to answer any questions that you may have regarding the settlement. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Adrian. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: good morning. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Everyone can see this screen and hear me. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, yes. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: thanks for confirming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: in in July of 2022\, Staff issued a violation reporting complaint to resolve 6 unresolved violations\, and in October of 2022 staff issued a complaint for administrative penalties to resolve the penalty portion of 3 resolved violations \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: during a public hearing or 2\, rather on May thirtieth\, 2023\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the Enforcement Committee directed Staff to enter into settlement negotiations\, and today’s public hearing provides an Enforcement committee\, recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed\, stipulated\, cease and assist orders. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Let’s see here. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m just. Oh\, there we go! I’m so sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So\, for \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the presentation will cover the site location. Describe the 9 violations and summarize the staff recommendation. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and for some reason my progression is not occurring. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Hmm! \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Pardon me. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Matthew\, since I seem to be stuck. Do you wanna share the screen instead of me? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Yes\, I’m gonna need to open it up one moment. Let me try one more time. I’m really sorry about this \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: works fine when I’m not sharing. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Oh\, thanks\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: So third slide\, third slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Sorry about that. Everyone. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: this one \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bingo\, so the red PIN on the vicinity map shows the location where the violations occurred and are occurring\, known as 240242 Redwood highway frontage road\, in an unincorporated area of Marin County. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next. the image on the left shows the site looking to the northeast. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The site contains a number of businesses and operations\, while some of the ground level uses and the associated fill appear to have been ongoing in 1965. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: At the time of enactment of the Mackette\, Petr Sack changes to the ongoing uses and associated fill within Bcd’s jurisdiction\, including maintenance that occurred after the law was enacted\, require A\, BC. DC. Permit or amendment. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Vcdc. Permits run with the land\, and new owners are responsible for resolving inherited violations and also violations that they themselves undertake \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: as new owners. Respondents should have. But did not contact. Bcd see as part of a due diligence review to obtain site status in relation to the law\, and existing\, permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the image on the right has an overlay of the approximate locations of the 2 privately owned parcels number 164 and 167\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: with the street rights of way that surround them. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The docking facility is located on Marin County property. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 6 unresolved violations that would be the next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: violation. One respondent is violating special condition. 2 C. Public access of permit\, 197301404. By failing to provide the public shore signage and the public access connection from the site to the Marin County public access west of the site. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 2. Respondent is violating special condition 2 c. 2. Maintenance. By failing to maintain the existing required public short pathways and landscaping. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The bulkhead. Apparepa Street is severely eroded\, and the adjacent public shoreline pathway is frequently inundated by tides. The northeastern tip of this area is eroded to the point of being gone\, and the remainder is collapsing into the Bay. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 3 respondent is violating mackature. Petrus act section 6\, 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a. By placing unauthorized fill in San Francisco Bay and or the shoreline band on Yolo Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The unauthorized fill includes vehicle\, parking and or equipment\, storage. seaplane\, storage\, repair and maintenance\, seaplane fueling tank and elevated asphalt path across yellow street to allow access during \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to the to the seaplane. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m sorry to the Healyport launching area. During high tides. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Some of this unauthorized fill also violates special condition to the use of solid fill of the 1973 permit\, by using filled areas at designated to be used only for landscaping\, landscape\, public access and pedestrian and bicycle pathways for private use. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation for respondent is violating the Mac at your Petrus act by placing unauthorized fill in Bcd’s jurisdiction\, consisting of an unauthorized helicopter landing pad \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 4 paved walkways on block 1\, 6\, 4. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 5. Respondent is violating the mackature Petrus Act by placing unauthorized\, fill in the bay on Marin county property by expanding an existing U-shaped floating dock during 3 separate episodes with new floating\, fill 2 pilings and relocating an on water fueling station. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and finally\, violation. 6. Respondent is violating the Macer Petras Act by placing unauthorized fill in BC. DC. Jurisdiction\, consisting of excavation and fill to construct a new concrete and rebar water access ramp in the yellow street right of way. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: This completes the violation summary of the 6 unresolved violations. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 3 resolved violations next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to our respondents. Failure to take assignment of both the 1973 and the 1\,985 permits\, and the third is\, respondents\, failure to complete a project prior to the permit\, expiration\, date\, and continuing work with an expired permit \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So the staff recommendation for the 6 unresolved violations\, will be covered in the following 4 slides. So first\, there is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an agreement by respondent to cease and desist from violating the Macintosh Petras Act\, and both the 1\,973\, and the 1\,985 permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: by the thirtieth of June 2024 respondents has stipulated to comply with the existing permits as follows\, by maintaining the permit required public access along the existing shoreline pathway within respondents. Current property \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street\, from the termination of the shirlin pathway located within the dedicated public access area within respondents\, property to stripe and maintain by restriving is often as necessary to maintain a clearly delineated public shirling pathway \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an 8 foot wide. Accessible path of travel\, as shown on a plan that will be attached to the order \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to install a total of 8 public shore signs\, consisting of 5 directional arrows on Belina Street\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: And one sign each on prefa and yellow streets\, and a back-to-back sign visible from the Mill Valley \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bike path. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 3 additional public shore signs \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: respondent agrees to permanently relocate accessible parking to the west side of Elena Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street to Rou to remove the asphalt path constructed. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and to confirm with Bp. B Cdc. Staff\, which helicopter pads and walkways are covered within the existing permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: within 12 months of the date of the order to file a complete application. to amend the 1973 permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That would include revised landscaping for areas adjacent to the required public access \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: that includes installation and maintenance of several picnic tables. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That will be Ada accessible. And if new public access is proposed\, in a following section\, that that those amenities will be included on the revised landscaping plans. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and also to request\, after the fact authorization for any heliport pads\, fuel tanks\, and walkways not otherwise permitted. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The 3 unauthorized finger piers that are part of the docking system. The unauthorized \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: launch ramp next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Respondent also agrees to provide additional public access. Which would either be provision of the existing required connection to the Marin County bike path from the site. If local approval is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: obtained. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: or if it is not to provide alternate access on site \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: finally respond and agrees to prepare and submit a sea level rise\, risk assessment that addresses potential sea level rise in all permit\, required public access areas \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and and in additional public access series \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: described above\, and to implement that plan within time frames to be specified. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and it shall include adoptive measures to maintain the Peripa Street public access that is frequently flooded and eroded\, and adaptive measures to maintain public access for the life of the project\, or until 2050. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That concludes the injunctive relief in the next slide outlines the penalty\, which is 43\,800 10\,000 of which to be paid within 60 days of order issues 16\,900 do within 12 months of order\, issuance\, and 16\,900 do within 24 months of order issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So that concludes the terms of the stipulation for the 6 unresolved violations\, and for the 3 resolve violations. The next slide outlines the administrative civil penalty of $5\,000\, half of which is due within 12Â s half\, is due within 12 months of order\, issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So together\, the 2 recommendations result in a total penny penalty of 48\,000 and $800. And this concludes the staff presentation. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Adrienne. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  now\, I would like to ask respondents to affirm their agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the stipulated orders. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ccd. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 202-30-0200 and Ccd\, 202-30-0300. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Thank you\, Commissioner Gilmore. Yes\, I first wanna say\, thank you very much to staff working with Mr. Sharf. Mr. Trujillo has been very\, very collaborative and we appreciate the opportunity to resolve this matter and move forward with compliance. And I can say\, on behalf of seplain investments\, that we do agree to all the terms and the stipulated orders. And I’ll just to ask \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Mr. Vasquez to come off mute and confirm as well. \nLou Vasquez: Yeah\, I also want to thank Staff for their cooperation and and help in resolving these issues. And we do agree to the stipulated terms. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Now\, before we turn to public comment. I wanna ask if any of the Commissioners have any clarifying questions? Not discussion\, just clarifying questions at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I am not seeing any Commissioner hands raised? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time we will take public comments on this item. First of all\, Margie\, have we received any written comments. \nBoardroom SX80: No\, we did not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Do we have any public speakers? I don’t see anybody in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, no\, nobody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Nobody in the room and nobody online. \nBoardroom SX80: Correct? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Then. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I guess I was a little bit ahead of myself. I since \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I need a motion to close the public hearing. So somebody wanna okay\, Commissioner Eisen? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did I see Commissioner Blynn raise her hand \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So now that we’ve done that\, are there any? I’m gonna open it up to discussion from committee members. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Well\, I wanna join in the thanks to our staff\, and also to the respondent and the Respondents Council for getting done what was seeming back when we last heard about it\, to be a very difficult and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: almost intractable problem. So you have done fantastic work getting this done. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: My understanding is that the first thing that will happen in terms of whether we know whether enforcement has occurred is the 60 days penalty that will be due. That will be the first indication of \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: whether we’re going to be able to stay on track with all of the different settlement requirements\, and but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I am certainly hoping that we never have to really answer this question. But I am curious\, Greg\, if you could explain to us \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if for some reason \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the settlement agreement were not was not complied with either whole or part. \nGreg Scharff: So what would be the steps then? Are we back to square one\, or would we be able to go directly to some kind of enforcement mechanism to make sure the settlement agreement is complied with. So it’s actually not a settlement agreement. It’s a stipulated order. \nGreg Scharff: So what we would do\, we would turn it over to the Attorney General’s office in the worst case\, and they would then prosecute it. \nGreg Scharff: and then fines could be up to $2\,000 a day \nGreg Scharff: for not being in compliance. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it would not come back to this Enforcement Committee. That’s correct. It would not great. Okay\, thanks for that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anyone else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I just want to echo the comments and thanks to both the respondents and staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This has been a set of issues going back a long time. I’m just gonna make comment for the record that some of the issues occurred before the respondents. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: bought the property. So that’s that’s always an issue. And just it the length of time that this has gone on and the complexity of the issues. So I wanna say I really appreciate staff and response willingness to work together in a very\, very positive manner. And I’m thankful and grateful for this very positive outcome. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m going to look for a motion and a second to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Accept the recommended Enforcement decision and move it on to the full commission. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’ll move it \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: second. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and need to hear the recommendation before we vote\, or that’s a good point. We do \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Keeping me on the straight and narrow here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, staff \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: break. You want me to make the recommendation. Yes\, go ahead\, Adrian. so I’m assuming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: you don’t want me to go into the details\, so the recommendation would be to adopt. The Enforcement Committee recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed stipulated Cease and desist orders to resolve \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: 6 unresolved\, and 3 resolved violations. Is that adequate? \nGreg Scharff: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you. So once again the staff recommendation was moved by Commissioner Vasquez and seconded by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so now we will take a roll call vote. I believe that’s Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. Commissioner Bielin. \nYes. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Vasquez. chair. Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Everyone. The motion passes unanimously\, and once again thank you. To everyone involved great work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And now\, committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez\, and I will note for the record that it is 1001 Am. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, everybody. This meeting is now adjourned. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: 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/november-9-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231106T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231106T210000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231019T002240Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235455Z
UID:10000064-1699290000-1699304400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 6\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85438410738?pwd=cH3_YSGq54uFndlO4_vkkut948dABA.pmVE-cNEVYy1Zz5n \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 259552 \nMeeting ID854 3841 0738 \nPasscode259552 \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 Summaries for August 7\, 2023  and September 11\, 2023  Meetings\nStaff Update\n1499 Bayshore\, Burlingame\, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by King Street Properties to redevelop an approximately 384-foot-long portion of the shoreline along Mills Creek with a new 8-story Life Science/Research and Development (R&D) building and a freestanding 7-story parking garage. The project proposal includes an approximately 7\,000-square-foot public plaza and an approximately 400-linear-foot public trail.(Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nBioMed Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; Second Pre-Application ReviewPOSTPONEDThe Design Review Board will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant site in the City of Belmont with three 8 to 11-level office buildings and a new 10-story parking garage. The project would make improvements to the O’Neill Slough Trail and create a publicly accessible plaza with public art installations\, diverse seating areas\, and native gardens\, and provide public shore parking spaces.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govExhibits // Public Comment Letter\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-6-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231102T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231102T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231017T045353Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225222Z
UID:10000048-1698930000-1698944400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes for October 19\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)\n(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nRecommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)\nThe Commission will hold a public hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, an amendment to the Bay Plan to update the findings\, policies\, and map designations of the Seaport Plan.\n(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nDraft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities \nPOSTPONED\nThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.\n(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Resilient State Route 37 Projects\nPOSTPONED\nThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of Caltrans State Route 37 interim and long-term highway improvements and developments projects along the corridor\, from Highway US 101 (Novato\, Marin) in the west to I-80 in the east (Mare Island\, Vallejo).\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3670; [larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing October 20\, 2023 \n\nSan Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Draft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 27\, 2023 \n\nNovember 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting – POSTPONED Agenda Item 9\nDraft Minutes of October 19\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nWhat Does ‘Unavoidable’ West Antarctic Ice Shelf Melt Mean for the Bay Area?\nThe sea is rising — and the clock is ticking\nGiant Ferris wheel closes at Golden Gate Park. It will return for APEC in new location\nCalifornia Mandates Coastal Cities Plan for Future Sea-Level Rise\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/11-02-CM-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND RECORDING \nIN PROGRESS\, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM \nTHE CHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, LET ME TAKE CARE OF A COUPLE OF AGENDA \nITEMS. WE ARE GOING TO DELAY OUR DISCUSSION OF THE UPCOMING CONTRACT \nWITH THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT TO FINISHED WATERFRONT PLANNING ACTIVITIES. \nSTAFF HOPES TO BRING THAT CONTRACTITOUS AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN EARLY DECEMBER. \nIN ADDITION TO THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE \nIN NOVEMBER THAT WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA. WE WILL DELAY ON THIS AGENDA \n— OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS\, IF YOU \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF TO ANSWER AND THEN \nMUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN. AFTER RESPOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR WASSERMAN? \n>>ZACK WASSERMAN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? >>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: BEACH? >>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nEL-TAWANSY? >>DINA EL-TAWANSY: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GILLMOR? >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? >>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nRANDOLPH? RAN. >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ZAPEDA? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I MISS \nANYONE? GORIN? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE HAVE QUORUM AND CONDUCT BUSINESS. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEM THREE\, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION ON A MATTER NOT ON OUR AGENDA\, OR WE HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC \nHEARING MAY DO SO NOW AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \nPRIOR TO STARTING THE COMMENT\, I DO WANT TO REEMPHASIZE WHAT WAS SAID IN \nTHE VIDEO. WE HAVE\, UNFORTUNATELY\, ACROSS OUR REGION IN THE COUNTRY\, \nEXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN A TOMORROW I WOULD JUST AS SOON NOT KNOW\, ZOOM \nBOMBING\, IN WHICH PEOPLE UTILIZE TIME TO ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH\, PERSONAL \nATTACKS\, OR THREATS. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT AS CHAIR THAT WILL NOT \nBE TOLERATED\, AND PEOPLE WILL BE CUT OFF QUICKLY. \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT\, I’M GOING TO START WITH PEOPLE HERE IN OUR HEADQUARTERS \nBUILDING. PEOPLE HAVE SUBMITTED CARDS. IF YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK AND HAVE NOT\, \nPLEASE SEE REYLINA. AND THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER IS SUNG LEE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I APOLOGIZE. SORRY. SORRY. OH\, IT’S \nALL — HOLD ON. MY APOLOGY. I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MESSAGE. \nWE ONLY HAVE ONE COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM\, JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSER COMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF. FOR \nTHOSE WHO DON’T KNOW ME I’M THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROFFICER. EVERYBODY \nSHOULD GET THEIR SECOND OR THIRD SHOT IF THAT’S NECESSARY. _ HERE HERE TO \nINTRODUCE A NEW PERSON ON OUR STAFF. ROBERT ROGERS TO MY RIGHT IS A NEW \nPOLICY ASSOCIATE HE COMES FROM SONOMA WATER. HE HAS A BACKGROUND IN WATER \nRESOURCES AS WELL AS LEGISLATION\, AND I WAS ABLE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO SOME OF \nYOU HERE AND CLEARLY SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN. I COULDN’T INTRODUCE \nYOU TO HIM. BUT WE WELCOME HIM AND YOU WILL \nPROBABLY SEE OR HEAR FROM HIM AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I ASKED HIM IF \nHE WANTED TO SPEAK NOW AND HE SAID NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT. \nOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH BCDC\, 11\, 12 YEARS AGO\, I THINK THOSE AROUND CAN \nATTEST TO THE FACT THAT IT’S MUCH DIFFERENT NOW. \nWE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE\, THAT’S FINE. MY WIFE AND I DON’T ALWAYS AGREE \nEITHER. WE WORK THROUGH ISSUES WHEN ISSUES COME UP IN A COLLABORATIVE \nMATTER TO SUPPORT HOPEFULLY ISSUES COMING UP BEFORE YOU. WE BELIEVE THAT \nBCDC PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN NOT ONLY PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT BUT THE \nECONOMY OF OUR REGION. THAT’S WHAT WE ENJOY AND WHY WE’RE HERE. IF WE TOUCH \nTHE WATER OR DRIVE OVER THE WATER WE WANT TO MAKE SURE RESOURCES ARE \nPROTECTED FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. \nWITH THAT\, AGAIN\, ROBERT ROGERS. AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, JOHN. WELCOME TO THE COMMUNITY\, ROBERT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO WE \nHAVE REMOTE SPEAKERS\, REYLINA? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRINGS US TO ITEM FOUR\, APPROVAL OF \nTHE MINUTES OF OUR OCTOBER 19TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED \nDRAFT MINUTES. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE \nMINUTES. DO I HEAR A MOTION? \n>>PAT EK LUND: I’LL MOVE IT. \nANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. IS ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION \nOR WISHES TO ABSTAIN FROM THE MINUTES. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL ABSTAIN. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMINUTES ARE APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE\, MY REPORT. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS \nINTRODUCE ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE AND WATCHING\, \nTO A MARVELOUS NEW VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN CREATED AS PART OF OUR BAY ADAPT \nREGIONAL SHORELINE OUTREACH PROGRAM. IT HAS BEEN CAREFULLY WORKED ON. \nI’M SURE YOU COULD FIND SOMETHING TO IMPROVE IN IT THERE’S\, ALWAYS \nSOMETHING TO IMPROVE. BUT IT’S GOOD AND IT HELPS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT \nAND WE’RE GOING TO SHARE IT. I THINK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ANGELA? [ VIDEO PLAYING ] \n>>SPEAKER: EXERCISE WITH STUNNING VIEWS WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE \nHOME TO FISH\, FREEWAYS AND TRANSIT AND BAY TRAIL LEAD US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER \nPOWER LINES AND WATER LINES PROVIDE CRUCIAL SERVICES WHERE DIVERSE \nCOMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER TO LIVE\, WORK\, AND PLAY\, MAKING THE BAY AREA A \nONE-OF-A-KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME. >>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK \nAS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUND WATER BENEATH US TO \nRISE. WITHOUT ACTION\, THOSE RISING WATERS \nWILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE \nGROCERY STORE EVEN ING TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS\, BART\, \nAND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE WILL ALL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE \nDON’T LIVE IF A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME EFFECTS ARE LEAD HERE. IN RECENT \nYEARS RISING GROUNDWATER HAVE LED TO FLOODING. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING\, \nOUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO \nNEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE. \nIF WE DON’T ACT\, 190\,000 JOBS\, 83\,000 HOMES\, AND 20\,000 ACRES ARE WET LANDS \nARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960s WHEN \nTHE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCERNED \nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY FOUNDING SAFETY SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. NOW BCDC IS ORGANIZING \nAROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY \nPARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING \nOTHERS TO GET STARTED. WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE\, WE CAN \nPLAN FOR A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT CREATES NEW WALKING AND BICYCLE TRAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES AURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE. \n>>SPEAKER: SOME AREAS HAVE HIGHER RISK OR ALREADY AT PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR \nDUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST. _. \n>>SPEAKER: WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING. \nBECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE. \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT \nCAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO LEARN AND WORK TOGETHER \nOVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS \nUNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US \nFOR GENERATIONS TO COME. (END OF VIDEO) \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT SHOULD BE \nPOSTED SHORTLY ON THE WEB SITE. IT IS THERE NOW. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE \nA COPY FOR DISTRIBUTION\, PLEASE CONTACT LARRY OR STAFF\, WE WILL GET THAT TO \nYOU. MY NEXT PIECE IS THE NOMINATION OF A NEW MEMBER OF THE ENGINEERING \nCRITERIA REVIEW BOARD AS AN ALTERNATE. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, ONE OF MY DUTIES AS \nCHAIR IS APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE ECRB. WE HAVE A VACANCY\, AND HAVE GONE \nTHROUGH A PROCESS TO FIND A NEW ALTERNATE. JENN HYMA\, IN OUR CHIEF \nENGINEER DID A SEARCH PROFITED ON THE BCDC WEB SITE LINKEDIN AND REACHED OUT \nTO LOCAL UNIVERSITIES UC BERKELEY\, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND SAN FRANCISCO \nSTATE AND SENT TO LOCAL CHAPTERS OF SOCIETY OF WOMEN ENGINEERS\, SOCIETY OF \nHISPANIC ENGINEERS AND SOCIETY OF BLACK ENGINEERS WITH COMPLEX PROJECTS IN AND \nNEAR THE BAY AND BROADENING DIVERSITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH \nTHE COMMISSION RECENTLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY GUIDING PRINCIPLES. AFTER THE SCREENING\, AN INTERVIEW \nPROCESS THERE\, IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT PATRICK RYAN BE APPOINTED TO THE OPEN \nALTERNATE POSITION. MR. RYAN IS A LICENSED SPECIAL INFRASTRUCTURE \nENGINEER AND PRINCIPLE COFOUNDER OF RYAN JOY STRUCTURAL DESIGN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM. \nHE HAS 31 YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE\, MANAGING BAY AREA PROJECTS \nWITH STRUCTURES ON LAND ALONG THE SHORELINE\, AND IN THE BAY. HE SERVED \nAS A STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE EXPLORATORIA RENOVATION\, AND SEISMIC \nRETROFIT AT PEERS 15 AND 17 AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENTS IN MISSION BAY AND OYSTER \nPOINT. HAS RECENT DESIGN WORK APPEARS AT SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE\, HE IS \nCONSTRUCTION NEAR ON THE ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SERVES ON \nBOARDS OF AIA\, SAN FRANCISCO\, AND SAN FRANCISCO SPECIFICATION IN SAN \nFRANCISCO. I CONCUR THIS RECOMMENDATION UNLESS I HEAR AN \nOBJECTION I WILL APPOINT MR. RYAN TO THE ECRB. \nSEEING\, HEARING NONE. HE IS SO APPOINTED. THANK YOU\, JENN\, FOR YOUR \nWORK. WE CONTINUE AS THE VIDEO INDICATED \nADVANCING BAY ADAPT FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CAN DO\, STAFF IS WORKING HARD ON \nTHE IMPLEMENTATION AND ROLLING OUT UNDER RESPONSIBILITIES OF SB272. \n_ I AM GLAD TO SEE SO MANY COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM. AND HOPE \nTHAT OTHERS WILL JOIN US FOR OUR POST MEETING GET TOGETHER SOCIAL HOUR IN \nTHE TEMESCAL ROOM\, RIGHT OVER THERE. AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR MEETING. \nNO DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESS UNDER BCDC JURISDICTION WILL OCCUR AT \nTHE SOCIAL GATHERING SO IT IS NOT A MEETING SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nBAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETINGS ACT BUT IT’S A CHANCE FOR US TO TALK TO EACH OTHER\, \nINCLUDING ALTERNATINGS\, SENIOR STAFF\, AND SENIOR STAFF WHO ARE HERE ARE \nWELCOME. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD NOVEMBER 16TH HERE AT THE METRO \nCENTER. AT THAT MEETING WE HOPE TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS CONTRACT \nWITH PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT AREA WATER \nPLAN DISCUSSION ON THE PROGRAM TO RECONSTRUCT STATE ROUTE 37 IN THE \nNORTH BAY AND UPDATE ON OUR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM\, AND A BRIEFING ON OUR CURRENT \nAND PAST YEAR’S BUDGET. WE EXPECT TO HOLD ALL OF OUR REGULAR \nSCHEDULED MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS YEAR\, INCLUDING A MEETING ON \nA.M. SO\, PLEASE KEEP THOSE ON YOUR CALENDAR AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE \nAVAILABLE. WE WILL PROBABLY NOT MEET ON JANUARY 4TH OF 2024. \nTHIS BRINGS US TO THE ALWAYS EXCITING EX PARTE REPORTS F ANY OF YOU HAVE HAD \nDISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION MEETINGS ON MATTERS THAT ARE \nADJUDICATORY OR YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO DISCLOSE. YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO \nDISCLOSE THOSE IN WRITING. IF YOU HAVE DONE SO\, OR FOR OTHER REASONS WISH TO \nDO SO VERBALLY\, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT BUT AGAIN YOU MUST DO IT IN \nWRITING. ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? SEEING NONE. \nWE MISSED THAT EXCITEMENT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. TAKE IT AWAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. ONE THING WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN AS MANAGERS\, LEADERS COLLEAGUES\, \nPARENTS OR FRIENDS IS THAT SIMPLY SOMETIMES THINGS JUST GO WRONG. \nSOMETIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T THOUGHT THROUGH ALL POSSIBLE \nRAMIFICATIONS OF AN IDEA. OTHER TIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE OVERPLAY OUR HANDS AND \nTHINK WE’RE JUST SMARTER THAN THE OTHER GUY OTHER AND TIMES IT’S SOMETHING \nTOTALLY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE\, ON THIS DAY IN 1948\, PRESIDENT HARRY \nTRUMAN WON AN ASTOUNDINGLY SURPRISING REELECTION BID. BUT WHAT WE ALL \nREMEMBER ISN’T HOW WE WON IT\, BUT THAT AFTER THE ELECTION WAS CALLED\, HE WAS \nPHOTOGRAPHED HOLDING THE FRONT PAGE OF THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE WITH THE \nHEADLINE “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.” OR WHY DID CORNELL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE \nROBERT MORRIS DECIDE ON DECEMBER 2ND\, 1988 THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO LET \nLOOSE HAS MORRIS WORM FROM MIT COMPUTER NETWORK TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. \nCOSTING PROBABLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FIX THE UNINTENDED RAMIFICATIONS OF \nTHE FIRST WORM EVER LET LOOSE ON THE INTERNET. \nI BRING THESE EXAMPLES UP BECAUSE OF TODAY’S VERY SHORT AGENDA. WE HAD \nPLANNED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA INCLUDING \nDISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 37 IN THE NORTH BAY\, AND A CONTRACT TO MOVE FORWARD \nSAN FRANCISCO’S WATERFRONT PLANNING PROGRAM\, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE ISSUES \nCOULD MOVE FORWARD IN TIME. SO\, WE PLEAD FOR YOUR INDULGENCE AND WANT TO \nLET YOU KNOW THAT WE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PLAN BETTER THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER \nOF THE YEAR AND BEYOND. AND I WANT TO REINFORCE SOMETHING THAT CHAIR \nWASSERMAN JUST SAID\, WE WILL HAVE COMMISSION MEETINGS TWICE IN NOVEMBER\, \nAND TWICE IN DECEMBER\, AS PLANNED. AND WE NEED YOU AT EACH OF THEM. \nDECEMBER WILL BRING A CONTENTIOUS PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN A VOTE TWO \nWEEKS LATER. I WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT \nI HAVE MADE A DECISION TO REQUIRE OUR STAFF TO WORK IN THE OFFICE TWO DAYS \nPER WEEK STARTING IN JANUARY\, AN INCREASE FROM THE CURRENT ONE DAY PER \nWEEK. ONE OF THOSE TWO DAYS WILL BE ON THURSDAYS EACH WEEK WHEN OUR ENTIRE \nSTAFF WILL COME INTO IS THE OFFICE TO MAXIMIZE INTERDIVISION WORK AND ALIGN \nWITH COMMISSION MEETING DAYS. TIM COOK CALLS THIS AN ANCHOR DAY. \nWHILE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET WORK COMPLETED AND WELL WHILE WORKING \nREMOTELY I BELIEVE WE CAN PRODUCTIVITY GAINS IF WE WORK PHYSICALLY ONE CHA \nDAY PER WEEK. NOT INCREASING BCDC COLLABORATIVE CULTURE EXPANDING \nABILITY TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER _ FORMALLY AS WELL AS INFORMALLY AND \nCAPITALIZING ON SOCIAL ASPECTS OF ALL IN FAVOR LEAD TO A PRODUCTIVE AND \nINSIGHTFUL STAFF. THE STATE’S CURRENT SYSTEM FAVORS ENABLING OUR STAFF TO \nCOME INTO THE OFFICE TWO DAYS PER WEEK AND I HAVE NO PLANS TO INCREASE THAT \nANY FURTHER. OF COURSE\, WE SHALL REMAIN AS FLEXIBLE AS WE ALWAYS HAVE \nBEEN REGARDING ATTENDING FAMILY AND CARE — OR OTHER PARTS OF THE BAY \nAREA\, I RECOGNIZE THIS MAY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND RECRUIT STAFF \nBUT I BELIEVE THE ADVANTAGES FAR OUTWEIGH RISKS INVOLVED I’M HAPPY TO \nDISCUSS THIS WITH ANY OF YOU AS COMMISSIONERS JUST AS I’M DOING WITH \nSTAFF THIS WEEK AND NEXT. GIVEN THE COMMISSION AND COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY HAVE STARTED BRINGING BACK STAFF TWO DAYS PER WEEK I DO NOT \nANTICIPATE OUR BARGAINING UNITS WILL OPPOSE THE CHANGE. HAPPY TO REPORT WE \nHOSTED OVER 180 PARTICIPANTS IN BCDC FIRST BAY ADAPT REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN GUIDANCE WORKSHOP. THAT A MOUTHFUL TO BE SURE AND I WANT \nTO LET YOU KNOW IT WAS REMARKABLY ACTIVE VIRTUAL WORKSHOP LOTS OF \nDISCUSSION ABOUT THE BAY SB272 DEFINITION OF REGIONAL PLANS \nEVERYTHING STAFF BRIEFED YOU ON TWO WEEKS AGO. TERRIBLY EXCITING. NOW \nFOR DISAPPOINTING NEWS FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND MAYBE FOR \nYOU. STARTING IN JANUARY\, STATE LAW WILL AGAIN REQUIRE COMMISSIONERS WHO \nARE NOT PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET DURING OUR FULL COMMISSION MEETINGS TO \nPROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH THE ADDRESSES FROM WHICH THEY WILL BE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. AND OUR REMOTE PARTICIPANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO SO IN A \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND NOTICED PHYSICAL SPACE. \nWHILE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACT THAT ESTABLISHES THE BAGLEY-KEENE ACT \nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION — ONLY IF MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT \nHERE AT METRO CENTER. STAFF CANNOT ENSURE THAT A MAJORITY OF \nCOMMISSIONERS WILL BE PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET FOR ANY GIVEN MEETING AND \nWE WILL NOT RUN THE RISK OF NOT HAVING A QUORUM AS FOR THE COMMISSION’S \nADVISORY BODIES WE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH LOCATIONS OF ADVISORY BODY \nREMOTELY SO LONG AS ONE STAFF MEMBER IS PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET AT THE \nMEETING THAT ISN’T AN EASY BAR TO CLEAR. THAT COMPLETES HIGH REPORT \nCHAIR HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: LARRY\, I’M GLAD TO \nHEAR YOU ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE TO COME IN TWICE A WEEK. \nTHIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS \nTHAT I AM ON THE BOARDS OF\, AND EXECUTIVES SEEM TO BE KIND OF COMING \nBACK TO THAT PLACE. HOWEVER\, I’M QUITE AWARE OF IT\, THAT IT’S REALLY \nCOMFORTABLE FOR THOSE IN MY GENERATION. BUT THE YOUNGER GENERATION\, I HAVE \nHAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM WHO INSIST PRODUCTIVITY. _ I WOULD ASK YOU TO \nSHARE WITH US IN 3 TO 6 MONTHS HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND I HAVE \nEXPERIENCED SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY\, YAY\, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE OFFICE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: GREAT QUESTION YES WE WILL. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT\, IF WE \nFIGURE IT OUT\, WE’LL TELL YOU. THIS HAS BEEN REALLY\, FROM AN \nORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR PERSPECTIVE\, FROM A LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE\, THIS \nHAS BEEN ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING — AND I MEAN THAT NOT IN AN OBFUSCATE \nWAY BUT AN INTERESTING PROCESS FOR ME. \nI AM\, I’LL TELL YOU ALL\, I NOW CARRY A MEDICARE CARD AS OF THIS YEAR WHICH \nHAS AFFECTED ME GREATLY IN A LOT OF WAYS. BUT THE POINT IS THAT I GREW UP \nPROFESSIONALLY IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, OF 40 OR \nMAYBE UNDER 30 HAVE NOT. AND THAT’S COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAD A \nPANDEMIC IN WHICH EVERYBODY CHANGED THE WAY THEY BEHAVE IN TERMS OF HOW WE \nWORKED. AND SO\, I THINK THAT THE REALLY INTERESTING POINT ABOUT THIS IS \nTHAT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITH OUR FRIENDS WHO ARE ALSO IN \nTHE WORKING WORLD ON SATURDAY NIGHTS OR AT DINNER PARTIES OR WHATEVER\, IT \nREVOLVES AROUND THIS. WE’RE ALL INTERESTED IN HOW WE WORK NOW. \nAND I HAVE BEEN REALLY GRATIFIED THAT A NUMBER OF OUR STAFF WHO ARE YOUNGER\, \nLESS VETERAN THAN WE ARE\, BY FAR\, ARE EAGER TO COME BACK INTO THE OFFICE A \nCOUPLE OF DAYS A WEEK AND A COUPLE HAVE GONE SO FAR AS TO SAY I REALLY WANT TO \nMEET EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T MET EVERYBODY. AND SO BECAUSE WE \nHIRED A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A RELATIVE WAY\, OVER THE PANDEMIC\, AND \nOVER THE PAST YEAR. AND SO THE THURSDAY ANCHOR DAY I THINK IS GOING \nTO BE REALLY\, REALLY PERSONALITY. AND I DO THINK\, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT \nIN THE DAYS THAT I’M IN THE OFFICE THREE DAYS A WEEK\, THAT WHEN PEOPLE \nARE SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER\, THEY TALK WITH EACH OTHER\, AND THEY WILL \nRUN INTO EACH OTHER\, AND I HAVE SEEN INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, \nWOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE\, HAD THEY NOT BEEN IN THE OFFICE\, AND THEY’RE \nLEARNING THINGS FROM THEIR COLLEAGUES. \nI’M LEARNING FROM THEM. SO\, I THINK IT’S REALLY\, REALLY IMPORTANT TO DO \nTHIS. IT’S ONLY TWO DAYS A WEEK\, COMPARED TO FIVE DAYS PRE-PANDEMIC\, \nAND WE WILL GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY — \nWELL\, MAXIMUM IS THE WRONG WORD — WE’LL GIVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY ON \nTHAT SECOND IS DAY. WE’LL LET THE MANAGERS CHOOSE WHEN THAT’S GOING TO \nBE AND THEY WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT’S BEST FOR THEIR TEAMS. SO THERE WILL BE \nFLEXIBILITY THAT WAY TOO. SO WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED. \nYOU KNOW\, PRODUCTIVITY IS NOT MEASURED AT P PG&E? IT’S NOT MEASURED BY \nWIDGETS AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE\, IT’S NOT AS IF YOU CAN QUANTIFY — \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER — OR INCREASE A \nSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PERMITS THAT WE ISSUE BECAUSE WE’RE HERE. THAT’S NOT \nTHE WAY THE WORLD WORKS. BUT PRODUCTIVITY CAN WELL BE MEASURED BY \nINCREASING CULTURE\, BY INCREASING SOCIAL ASPECTS AT WORK AND THE LIKE. \nSO\, I THINK BY DOING THIS WE WILL INCREASE OUR GENERAL PRODUCTIVITY. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. >>SPEAKER: I’LL ALSO POINT OUT MY \nEXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS THAT — THAT THOSE WHO SUFFER \nGREATLY FROM REMOTE WORK ARE THE YOUNGEST STAFF MEMBERS WHO ENDS UP NOT \nHAVING ANY KIND OF REGULAR MENTORING THAT HAPPENS JUST KIND OF ELBOW TO \nELBOW WITH PEOPLE. AND I WOULD SUGGEST MR. CHAIRMAN WE CONSIDER POSSIBLY \nHAVING ANCHOR MEETINGS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER GIOIA? WHO DISAPPEARED. \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH. WE’LL COME \nBACK TO COMMISSIONER GIOIA. >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE BEEN BACK NOW\, AT \nMY ORGANIZATION 2\, 2 DAYS A WEEK\, BUT THE TREND IS TOWARD THREE. AND WE’RE \nCLEARLY A BETTER TEAM AND WE’RE EFFECTIVE WHEN WE’RE TOGETHER AND \nHAVING THOSE KIND OF INTERACTIONS. AND I THINK WHAT YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO \nSEE IS A TREND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. \nIT’S TWO DAYS A WEEK NOW\, BUT TRENDING TOWARD THREE\, AND PROBABLY FOUR DAYS \nOVER THE NEXT MAYBE TWO YEARS. IT’S NEGOTIATION\, IT’S A CULTURAL SHIFT. \nWITH US\, AS WELL\, AND MY YOUNGER WORKERS. BUT AFTER A SPUTTERING \nATTEMPT TO DO THIS IN 2022\, I THINK YOU’RE SEEING MORE OF A CONSENSUS IN \nPRIVATE INDUSTRY THAT WE’RE BETTER TOGETHER AND\, SORT OF\, ACTUAL \nSTANDARDS BEING ENFORCED BY COMPANIES TO ENSURE — I’M NOT SUGGESTING THIS \nFOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT THAT\, YOU KNOW\, PEOPLE’S SALARIES\, THEIR VALUATION OR \nEMPLOYMENT WILL DEPEND ON ACTUALLY BEING IN OVER TIME. SO\, I THINK WHAT \nYOU’RE DOING NOW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION WE’RE SEEING IN THE PRIVATE \nSECTOR. AND IT’S A TRANSITION\, BUT I THINK OVER PROBABLY THE NEXT TWO \nYEARS\, MAYBE THREE\, PROBABLY WE’LL ALL BE BACK 3 TO 4 DAYS. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I RESPOND TO THAT FOR A SECOND? BECAUSE I WANT TO EDUCATE THE \nCOMMISSION ABOUT SOMETHING WITH CAL HR AND THE WAY WE WORK WITH THE STATE. \nYOU KNOW THIS. I MENTIONED IN MY REPORT\, THERE IS \nTHIS SPLIT WITHIN THE STATE IN TERMS OF HOW THE STATE LOOKS AT TWO DAYS VERSUS \nTHREE DAYS. WHAT THE STATE DID WHEN PEOPLE WERE \nCOMING BACK\, WHEN STATE WORKERS WERE COMING BACK WAS PROVIDE A STIPEND\, AND \nTHIS’S THE AMOUNT OF THAT STIPEND DEPENDS UPON WHETHER YOU ARE EITHER \nOFFICE CENTRIC OR REMOTE CENTRIC. AND YOU’RE OFFICE CENTRIC IF YOU ARE LESS \nTHAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE\, AND YOU’RE REMOTE CENTRIC IF \nYOU ARE MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. WE DON’T HAVE TIME \nAND A HALF AT BCDC THAT BASICALLY MEANS TWO VERSUS THREE. I FIGURED\, AND I \nTHINK THIS IS RIGHT\, AND I THINK THIS IS FAIR _ I DON’T WANT TO GET IN FRONT \nOF THE STATE F THE STATE DECIDES TO CHANGE THE 2/3 SPLIT INTO SOMETHING \nELSE IF THE NEXT GOVERNOR DECIDES TO DO THAT\, I DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT. \nBUT AT THIS POINT SINCE EVERYBODY AT BCDC IS REMOTE CENTRIC WITH EXCEPTION \nOF ME BECAUSE I COME IN THREE DAYS A WEEK AND EVERYONE ELSE IS COPYING IN \nTWO DAYS A WEEK I’M NOT GOING TO GO PAST TWO DAYS THAT’S HOW THE STIPEND \nWORKS WITHIN CAL RHR AND IT’S A 2/3 SPLIT. YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE COMING IN \nCERTAIN DAYS. >>SPEAKER: YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT \nLARRY IT DEPENDS ON THE BUSINESS NEEDS AND EVERY DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT \nDEPENDING ON NEEDS. OUR CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN FIVE \nDAYS A WEEK THEY NEED TO BE. OTHER DIVISIONS WE’RE ASKING THEM TO COME \nINTO THE OFFICE MINIMUM OF TWO DAYS. THIS IS A DISTRICT FOUR OR BAY AREA \nDIRECTION. WE SEE DEFINITELY THERE IS A NEED WITH A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE \nCOMING INTO THE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT ANY PRIOR EXPERIENCE. WE WANT TO BE \nABLE TO DO SOME TEAM BUILDING\, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO GET TO KNOW \nTHEIR TEAMMATES\, AND ASK QUESTIONS FACE-TO-FACE. THERE IS A LOT OF VALUE \nIN HAVING PEOPLE INTERACT FACE-TO-FACE. SO THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SO \nFAR. AND WE’RE GOING TO BE REEVALUATING EVERY SIX MONTHS OR SO TO \nSEE IF WE’RE ON POINT OR NOT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: I JUST WANT TO SAY WHEN \nWE GET INTO JANUARY AND THE REGIONAL CENTERS I’M WILLING TO HAVE MY OFFICE \nBE A REGIONAL LOCATION\, JUST LIKE WE CURRENTLY ARE FOR THE AIR DISTRICT AND \nTHE SAN 47ING BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY. SO WE GET OTHER BOARD \nMEMBERS IN THE AIR DISTRICT COMING TO MY OFFICE. \nBECAUSE WE ARE HAVE STAFF THAT CAN RUN THIS WHETHER I’M HERE OR NOT\, BUT I \nWILL USUALLY BE HERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT \nTHERE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE DOING WHAT THE AIR DISTRICT IS DOING AND\, \nYOU KNOW\, AND WORKING WITH CURRENT MEMBERS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH \nAGENCIES WHERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC OFFICES. AND I SEE MY FRIEND COUNCIL \nMEMBER ZEPEDA HERE\, CESAR CAN COME UP TO MY OFFICE OR WE CAN TAKE THE FERRY \nTO SAN FRANCISCO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT I’M SURE. \nMY COMMENT IS IT’S PARALLEL IN PART TO THE COMMENT ABOUT EMPLOYEES COMING IN\, \nAND THAT’S ABOUT OUR MEETING IN-PERSON\, VERSUS THESE HYBRID MEETINGS. \nONE\, THERE IS JUST AS MUCH UNCERTAINTY AND EXPERIMENTATION GOING ON IN THAT \nAS THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SERVE ON OTHER REGIONAL \nBOARDS KNOW. I THINK\, IN PARTICULAR\, THEY HAVE NOT — THEY\, THE LEGISLATURE \n— HAVE NOT LOOKED VERY CLOSELY AT THE DIFFERENCES FOR REGIONAL BOARDS SUCH \nAS OURS. BECAUSE\, AS MUCH AS I THINK HAVING \nPEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM MAKES A DIFFERENCE\, TO WIT OUR SOCIAL HOUR \nAFTER THIS MEETING\, THERE ARE ALSO OTHER FACTORS. \nRANGING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL TO\, PLAIN AND SIMPLE\, EFFICIENCY\, WHEN YOU HAVE \nGOT PEOPLE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE BAY AREA. \nAND MY HOPE IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL CONTINUE REVIEWING THIS AND\, \nPERHAPS\, COME TO SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN THE LEGISLATION THAT WILL TAKE \nEFFECT IN 2024\, IT APPEARS\, AT LEAST TO ME. \nOKAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS. OH\, PAT? \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE CONCEPT ANCHOR MEETINGS AND I \nPRESUME THAT’S A MEETING THAT WE EXPECT EVERYBODY TO SHOW UP TO IN-PERSON. \nAND HAVING SERVED ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS\, I HAVE \nOBSERVED THAT IF YOU HAVE AN ANCHOR MEETING EVERY QUARTER OR EVERY SIX \nMONTHS\, YOU CAN DO YOUR WORK PRETTY WELL OVER THE PHONE OR BY ZOOM. THOSE \nANCHOR MEETINGS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD BE AGENDAIZED WELL IN ADVANCE \nSO WE CAN PLAN FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TIME. AND\, OF COURSE\, THEY SHOULD \nINCLUDE A SOCIAL HOUR. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS WHERE\, FOR THE \nSECOND TIME IN A ROW\, ARE STILL MODERATELY NEW STAFF MEMBER HARRIET \nROSS GETS OFF EASY. ITEM EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE\, BAY PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 119. \nTHE COMMISSION WILL NOW HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT PLAN TO UPDATE \nTHE FINDINGS\, TELLSES\, AND MAP DESIGNATIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN. WE \nHAVE NOT SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THIS ITEM TODAY TO ENSURE THAT COMMISSION STAFF \nAND MEMBERS CAN ANALYZE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INCLUDE THE FINAL DRAFT PROPOSAL. \nANY IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATE CHANGES. \nBEFORE WE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT FROM PRINCIPLE WATERFRONT PLANNER CORY \nMANN\, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE VICE CHAIR EISEN WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE SEAPORT \nPLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT IF SHE DESIRES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SHE DOES DESIRE. I WAS GRATEFUL CHAIR \nWASSERMAN IS ASKING ME TO SPEAK IT GAVE ME TIME TO TAKE A TRIP DOWN MEMORY \nLANE IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. IT WAS BACK IN JANUARY 2019 WHEN THE COMMISSION \nWAS ASKED TO CONSIDER TWO BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS. ONE IS THIS ONE TO REVISE \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN\, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO REMOVE HOWARD TERMINAL FROM THE \nPORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION THAT COVERED IT. FOR REASONS OUR CHAIR \nKNOWS VERY WELL\, WE CHOSE TO ADDRESS THE HOWARD TERMINAL AMENDMENT FIRST. \nAND DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CONTENTIOUS HEARINGS? \n[LAUGHTER] SO IT WAS — THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD \nISSUE A TRIGGER WARNING BEFORE I MENTIONED HOWARD TERMINAL. BUT \nLOOKING BACK ON IT\, IT FEELS SOMETIMES IT WAS AN EXERCISE\, IT PROLONGED \nEXERCISE IN IF YOU TILLITY BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER WE \nREACHED OUR CONCLUSION IN JUNE 2022. IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT TO REVISE THE SEAPORT PLAN IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE LEARNED A LOT \nDURING THAT PROCESS. WE LEARNED A LOT THAT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY HELPFUL IN \nWHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING NEXT. FOR EXAMPLE\, WE LEARNED ABOUT THE SPECK\, \nTHE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE EXPERTISE WE HAVE THERE _ AND \nHOW IMPORTANT THEY PLAY A ROLE IN ADVISING THIS COMMISSION. I HOPE \nTHERE IS SOMETHING SPAC MEMBERS HERE TODAY. WE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE \nPORTS. A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE PORTS AND DIFFICULTIES IN PLANNING AND \nMAKING SURE THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THIS HUGE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE BAY \nAREA. WE LEARNED MORE THAN I EVER THOUGHT I WOULD KNOW ABOUT CARGO \nFORECAST\, AND HOW DIFFICULT LONG-TERM PLANNING IS. AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS \nTO UPDATE THESE LONG-TERM PLANS REGULARLY SO THAT WHEN WE DO GET \nCALLED ON TO MAKE DECISIONS\, WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN REALLY USE AND \nRELY UPON. AND THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT WAS \nREALLY IMPORTANT IN THAT PROCESS IS WE LEARNED\, OR RELEARNED HOW IMPORTANT IT \nIS WHEN WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS TO INVOLVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITIES\, \nAND THE EQUITY COMMUNITIES IN THE PROCESS. \nAND I WAS REALLY HAPPY WHEN I SAW THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS \nAGO\, I GUESS IT IS NOW\, JESSICA. IT WAS CLEAR THAT OUR STAFF HAS TAKEN \nEVERY ONE OF THOSE LESSONS TO HEART AND HAS INCORPORATED THEM IN THE DRAFT \nSEAPORT PLAN THAT WE’RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IN A SECOND\, AND IN THE PROCESS \nOF CREATING THAT DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, IT WAS NOT ALL FOR NOT. IN FACT\, \nI THINK IT ACTUALLY PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN WHAT WE’RE GOING TO \nBE DOING NEXT. THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEARN \nFROM HISTORY. I WOULD NOW ASK CORY MAN TO PRESENT \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN DRAFT. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \nTHANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. \nI’LL GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE PRESENTATION. \nAND I’LL ASSUME THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THE PRESENTATION OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE’RE GOOD. \n>>CORY MANN: WELL\, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I AM EXCITED TO GIVE YOU A \nPRESENTATION ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT PLAN. \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1982\, AND AS YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE BEEN \nUNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PLAN. \nIN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S MEETING\, STAFF CIRCULATED A NEW DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN \nALONG WITH A STAFF REPORT\, A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT\, AS WELL AS \nAN ADDENDUM TO THE CARGO FORECAST AND I BELIEVE CAT IS GOING TO ADD A LINK TO \nTHE ZOOM DOCUMENTS SO YOU CAN REFER TO THEM. THIS IS A PRESENTATION OF 30 \nMINUTES BUT I’M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. \nAPOLOGIES IF THIS IS ON THE LONGER SIDE BUT THERE IS A LOT TO COVER TODAY AND \nWE’LL HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. \nHERE IS A PREVIEW OF WHAT I’LL BE TALKING THROUGH. FIRST GOING THROUGH \nBASIC BACKGROUND ABOUT THE SEAPORT PLAN LIKE THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AND HOW \nBCDC HAS BEEN USING IT IN THE PAST AND HOW WE’RE WORKING TO UPDATE. \nAND THEN I’LL GET TO THE DRAFT PLAN ITSELF. I’LL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF \nPROPOSED CHANGES TO THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO GO \nINTO DEPTH OF EVERY POLICY IN THE PRESENTATION I’LL DISCUSS THE LEVEL OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGE IN THE DRAFT BUT MORE THAN HAPPY TO \nANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY POLICY INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT. \nAFTER THAT I’LL SHARE — I’LL TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I’LL \nSHARE MORE ABOUT PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART TWO OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AND \nTHAT’S THE MAPPED BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND SOME RELATED POLICIES. AND THEN FINALLY I WILL OUTLINE NEXT \nSTEPS. SO\, FIRST JUST SOME BACKGROUND ABOUT \nTHE HISTORICAL AND\, LIKE\, LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN. MOST \nSIMPLY YOU CAN THINK OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AS A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. SO THE BAY PLAN HAS A SECTION OF FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES SPECIFIC TO THE PORTS. AND THOSE FINDINGS STATE\, I’LL PARAPHRASE\, \nTHAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CENTRAL AGENCY TO COORDINATE THE PLANNING AND \nDEVELOPMENT OF BAY AREA SEAPORT TERMINALS\, THERE IS A RISK OF \nUNNECESSARY BAY FILL. THEN IT GOES ON TO STATE THAT A \nSEAPORT PLAN IS BASICALLY THEREFORE NEEDED TO COORDINATE THE PORT \nDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE RISK FILL. \nIN THE 1980s ACTUALLY LATE 1970S BCDC BEGAN TO WORK WITH THE PORTS AS WELL \nAS THE SEAPORT PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE\, AND I’LL TALK MORE ABOUT \nTHE COMMITTEE IN THIS PRESENTATION\, TO CREATE THE FIRST SEAPORT PLAN\, IT WAS \nPUBLISHED IN 1982. THE EXISTED PLANNING WAS ACTUALLY \nPUBLISHED IN 1996. AND AS YOU WILL LEARN DURING THIS PRESENTATION IT TOOK \nA PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR MARINE TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT\, KIND OF \nON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS\, BUT AGAIN WITH THAT GOAL OF MINIMIZING BAY \nFILL. OF COURSE\, A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE \n1996 AND BECAUSE MANY OF THE PLAN’S POLICIES ARE OUTDATED\, THE COMMISSION \nDECIDED THERE WAS A NEED TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND THAT’S WHAT \nWE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO\, SOME FAMILIAR \nTHINGS HERE. BUT THAT’STHAT’S CONTEXT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN I WANT TO EXPLAIN \nHOW IT WORKS AND HOW IT FITS INTO BCDC’S AUTHORITY. AS YOU KNOW \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT ENABLES THE PETITION TO ENABLE WATERWAY FOR ORIENTED USES \nONE OF THOSE IS FOR PORTS THESE ARE CALLED PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. \nWITHIN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ONLY USES ARE BASICALLY FOR PORT PURPOSES \nOR TEMPORARY OTHER USES. AND THE INTENT OF THIS DESIGNATION IS \nTHAT BY RESERVING SPECIFIC AREAS FOR MARITIME CARGO AS A REGION WE CAN MAKE \nSURE THOSE AREAS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PORT USE THEREBY MINIMIZING AMOUNT OF BAY \nFILL THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT. SEAPORT PLAN \nDESIGNATES THESE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ACROSS THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS. \nAND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE THAT INCLUDES THE PORTS OF BENECIA\, \nOAKLAND\, SAN FRANCISCO\, RICHMOND\, AND REDWOOD CITY. \nTHERE ARE ALSO TWO RESERVE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WERE NEVER \nDEVELOPED. THAT’S SELBY AND THE CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND I’LL \nTALK MORE ABOUT THOSE AND APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES TO THESE AREAS. \nAS YOU MIGHT RECALL FROM PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS THE FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES IN THE PLAN ARE UNDERPINNED BY A REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST THAT HELPS \nUS UNDERSTAND CARGO GROWTH AND CAPACITY ACROSS THE BAY AREA. \nSO THE PREVIOUS CARGO FORECAST EXPIRED IN 2020 THAT WAS ANOTHER IMPETUS FOR \nUPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER SOME OF THIS\, \nBUT BCDC WORKED WITH A PRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP A NEW CARGO \nFORECAST WITH THE PORTS PROVIDING SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CARGO \nACTIVITIES OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS IN 2019 AND 2020. \nTHE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS APPROVED BY THE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE IN MAY OF 2020 AND IT’S A 30 YEAR FORECAST. SO IT UNSETS IN 2050 \nNOW. WE HAVE CIRCULATED AN ADDENDUM WITH THE CARGO FORECAST WITH MATERIALS \nTHAT REFLECTS INFORMATION CONCERNING DURING THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 2019. \nYOU MIGHT RECALL IT FORECASTS THREE TYPES OF CARGO THAT MOVE THROUGH THE \nBAY AREA PORTS CONTAINER CARGO\, ROLL ON\, ROLL OFF\, ROLL ROW VEHICLE CARGO\, \nAND THE THIRD IS DRIVE OFF CARGO\, AND THAT AFFECTS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. \nIN ADDITION TO DEMAND AND GROWTH FORECAST IT HAS HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF \nCAPACITY WITHIN BCDC EXISTING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS DESCRIBES WHERE \nTHERE IS ROOM FOR EXPANSION AT THE EXISTING MARINE TERMINALS IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WITHIN BCDCEE JURISDICTION. \nSO FOR BCDC STAFF\, THE CARGO FORECAST IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL PROVIDING DATA TO \nEVALUATE PORTS BASED ON POLICIES AND THE FORECAST ANTICIPATES GROWTH ACROSS \nALL THREE TYPES OF CARGO TYPES THROUGH 2050 WHICH REQUIRES AS A REGION TO \nPLAN CAREFULLY FOR THE FUTURE. SO\, BCDC HAS A SEAPORT PLANNING \nADVISORY COMMITTEE\, OR SPAC. AND THE SPAC OVERSAW DEVELOPMENT OF \nTHE ORIGINAL SEAPORT PLAN IN 1982\, AND ALL OF ITS CONSEQUENTLY UPDATES\, \nINCLUDING THIS ONE. SPAC IS AS AN ADVISORY BODY TO THE \nCOMMISSION AND PROVIDES STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON SEAPORT RELATED MATTERS. \nSPAC IS COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS\, BCDC \nCOMMISSIONERS\, MTC AND ABAG\, THE SAN FRANCISCO MARINA EXCHANGE CALTRANS AND \nSAVE THE BAY. AS PART OF THE UPDATE WE’RE PROPOSING REVISIONS TO THE \nCOMPOSITION OF THE SPAC AND I’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. \nCOMMISSIONER REBECCA EISEN IS CHAIRING THE SPAC AND COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS \nSTEPPED IN AS VICE CHAIR I WANT TO THANK THEM BOTH FOR PROVIDING FEEDBACK \nON THE DRAFT PLAN. COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS TAKEN IN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT \nPROVIDING VALUABLE EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS. AT THIS POINT IF THERE \nARE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S PROBABLY BECAUSE I MANAGED TO \nREINTRODUCE THEM AFTER COMMISSIONER EISEN FIXED THEM. _ WITH THAT GENERAL \nOVERVIEW IN MIND I’LL RECAP MAJOR REASONS FOR UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN \nNOW. WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THE REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST. WE NEEDED TO REMOVE \nOUTDATED INFORMATION AND UPDATE THE PLAN’S FINDINGS AND POLICIES. WE \nWANTED TO INTRODUCE SOME NEW TOPIC AREAS ESPECIALLY ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND \nON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT PLAN WITH \nCHANGES TO THE BAY PLAN THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. \nWE WANTED TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FROM THE PORTS TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. MOST OF THAT’S TO REFLECT ON THE GROUND \nCHANGES TO CARGO ACTIVITY THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE SEAPORT PLAN WAS \nLAST UPDATED. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE WANTED TO GENERAL REALIGN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO BETTER REFLECT THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S AUTHORITY AND TO \nENCOURAGE MORE REGIONAL COORDINATION. THOSE TRANSLATED TO GOALS FOR OUR WORK \nON THE PLAN. FIRST WE WANT TO HAVE POLICIES IN THE PLAN THAT PROVIDE \nCLEAR AND STREAMLINED GUIDANCE FOR PORTS ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE \nFOR BCDC WHEN THEY HAVE A PROJECT OR WHEN THEY WANT TO REQUEST A CHANGE FOR \nPORT PRIORITY USE BONDRIES TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING AND PLANS FOR \nTHE PORTS AND ALSO TO GIVE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO BCDC STAFF WHEN THEY \nEVALUATE THOSE PROPOSALS. WE WANT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR HOW PORTS \nDEVELOPMENT WHILE MINIMIZING BAY FILL AND MAKE SURE WE’RE RETAINING IT \nCAPACITY FOR OUR PORT SYSTEM. WE WANT POLICIES THAT ARE MORE FIRMLY \nROOTED IN BCDC’S AUTHORITY TO MINIMIZE BAY FILL PROMOTE WATER ORIENT THE USES \nAND MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESSES TO THE BAY. AND WE WANT TO SEAPORT PLAN THAT \nIS CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH POLICIES THAT ARE GOING STAY \nUP-TO-DATE AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS COME AND GO. \nALTHOUGH IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLAN TO BE TIMELESS THOSE ARE IDEAS WE TRIED \nTO KEEP IN MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN REMOVING OUTDATED POLICIES AND DRAFTING NEW \nONES. TAKEN TOGETHER THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE AND STREAM PERMITTING FOR \nPORT PROJECTS BY MAKING THE PLAN EASIER TO READ AND USE. AND WE BELIEVE THE \nDRAFT PLAN ACHIEVES THAT VISION. SO NEXT I’LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT \nTHE TIMELINE\, WHICH HAS BEEN PROLONGED AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY CONDENSED \nVERSION. BUT AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO INITIATE A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN \nIN 2019. BCDC STAFF THEN BEGAN TO WORK WITH A \nPRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP THE CARGO FORECAST\, AGAIN WITH THE GUIDANCE OF \nINDIVIDUAL PORTS\, AS WELL AS THE SPAC\, AND THE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS \nPUBLISHED IN MAY OF 2020. AFTER THAT STAFF BEGAN TO WORK WITH \nTHE PORTS ON SPECIFIC REQUESTS THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTING TO MODIFY THE \nBOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. I’LL SHOW YOU THE MAP IN A FEW \nMINUTES. THAT PROCESS WAS ONGOING IN 2021 BUT AS MENTIONED EARLIER\, WE HAD \nTO PAUSE WORK ON THE BAY PLAN WHILE CONSIDERING BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 219 \nBECAUSE THAT HAD A LEGISLATIVE TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH T WE WERE ABLE TO \nREMOVE WORK ON THE SEAPORT PLAN LAST FALL AND WE BEGAN BY REACHING OUT TO \nPORT AND PORT STAFF REMOVING MAP CHANGES AND WERE ABLE TO START \nDRAFTING NEW FINDINGS AND POLICIES FOR THE PLAN OF THE WE FIRST CIRCULATED \nTHE PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE NEW SEAPORT PLAN THIS JULY — SDPSH HELD A PUBLIC \nMEETING OF THE SPAC TO REVIEW THE DRAFT. SPAC VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO \nAPPROVE THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN IN THAT MEETING WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT BCDC \nSTAFF WOULD BE INCORPORATING REVISIONS AND FEEDBACK THAT CAME UP BOTH BEFORE \nAND AT THAT MEETING. SO\, WE DID EXACTLY THAT. WE \nINCORPORATED SOME CHIANGS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE PLAN\, BASED ON INPUT FROM \nSPAC MEMBERS\, FROM THE PORTS\, AND FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WHO PROVIDED PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. AND THERE IS A SECTION IN TODAY’S STAFF REPORT THAT DESCRIBES \nEXACTLY WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE. WE HAVE SENT THE REVISED DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN TO YOU AT THEN OF SEPTEMBER AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE PRESENT. SO \nAFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING\, WE’LL UNDERTAKE A FINAL ROUND OF REVISIONS \nTO THE PLAN AS NEEDED AND THEN CIRCULATE A FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nTHAT DESCRIBES LAST NEW CHANGES RAINING A COPY OF THE DRAFT PLAN. LASTLY \nWE’LL HOLD ONE MORE PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A VOTE ON THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN. IT’S BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL PROCESS WE HAVE HAD FIVE \nPUBLIC MEETINGS OF OUR SEAPORT PLAN MEETING BRIEFINGS TO STAKEHOLDERS AND \nINDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH PORT AND PORT STAFF TOO BUT ALL HAS SUBSTANTIALLY \nIMPROVED THE DRAFT PLAN AND WE’RE EXCITED TO SHARE IT WITH YOU TODAY. \nBEFORE I GET INTO CONTENT OF THE NEW DRAFT PLAN I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO \nDISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE SEPARATE AMENDMENT. AS YOU MAY RECALL THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA FROM THE HOWARD \nTERMINAL SITE AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IN JUNE OF 2022. AT THE REQUEST OF THE \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS ALONG WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND. \nHOWEVER\, HOWARD TERMINAL REMAINS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF ASSEMBLY \nBILL 1191. SO\, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A RELEVANT PROVISION OF THIS BILL\, AND \nSORRY FOR THE SMALL TEXT BUT I WILL READ IT. IT STATES IF THE PORT AND \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT BY JANUARY 1ST\, \n2025\, THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OAKLAND SPORTS AND MIXED USE \nPROJECT THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED ON THE HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DELETED \nPURSUANT TO BCDC’S SEAPORT PLAN AND BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THE REMOVAL OF THAT DESIGNATION FROM HOWARD TERMINAL WAS A \nSEPARATE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSED SEAPORT PLAN THE \nCOMMISSION ACTED ON LAST SUMMER SO BCDC STAFF DOESN’T TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO \nTHE CURRENT STATUS OF HOWARD TERMINAL AS PART OF THE GENERAL UPDATE TO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. HOWEVER SHOULD AN AGREEMENT NOT BE REACHED REGARDING THE \nPORT AND BETWEEN THE PORT AND OAKLAND ATHLETICS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2025\, AT \nTHAT TIME\, BCDC STAFF WILL REVERT THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BACK TO HOWARD \nTERMINAL PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nTHE FIRST DRAFT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WAS CIRCULATED BACK IN JULY \nDIDN’T INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL AND SOME OF THE SEAPORT PLANS TABLES THAT \nCONCERNED SOME STAKEHOLDERS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HOWARD TERMINAL MAY GO BACK \nTO PRIORITY USE. DUE TO COMMENTS STAFF REVISED THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN THAT WE \nSENT TO YOU TODAY TO INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL IN THE RELEVANT TABLE OF THE \nPLAN\, THAT LISTS OUT MARINE TERM NAT EXPANSION SITES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, \nWITH A FOOTNOTE TO DESCRIBE ITS UNIQUE STATUS. \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BCDC STAFF HAVE INTENTIONALLY USED A LIGHT TOUCH HERE \nIN THE UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN REGARDING HOWARD TERMINAL IN A PROCESS \nTO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE PLAN IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION MUST \nREVERT TO PORT PRIORITY USE ON JANUARY 25\, ’20. \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SIMPLE AND EASY TO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO PORT \nPRIORITY USE NOT TRYING TO CREATE BARRIERS IN REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nSORRY THAT’S A LOT. BUT THAT’S AN \nOVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE TO DATE. SO NOW I’M GOING TO SHIFT TO \nCONTENT AND PREVIEW PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN. YOU \nKNOW\, THIS UPDATE IT’S TECHNICALLY A REVISION TO THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT WE’RE REVAMPING THE ENTIRE PLAN. IT’S GOING TO BE A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW \nOF TOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED FROM THE 1996 PLAN TO THE NEW \nDRAFT. BUT AGAIN HAPPY TO GO INTO DEPTH ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR POLICIES \nAFTER THE PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. \nSO\, FIRST\, AS I MENTIONED\, THE ENTIRETY OF THE SEAPORT PLAN HAS BEEN REWRITTEN \nINTRODUCTION TO THE 1996 PLAN IF YOU LOOK AT IT IT’S REALLY TECHNICAL AND \nWE TRIED TO SCALE THAT BACK IN THE NEW DRAFT PLAN TO IMPROVE THE PLAN’S \nGENERAL READABILITY AND CLARITY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S A \nREGULATORY DOCUMENT AND MANY PEOPLE WHO ACCESS IT ARE LIKELY TO BE PORT STAFF \nOR OTHER BCDC APPLICANTS. WE WANTED TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO \nMAKE SURE THAT ANYONE WHO PICKS THIS UP CAN LEARN ABOUT BCDC\, UNDERSTAND BCDC \nROLE AS IT RELATES TO THE PORTS\, AND LEARN SOME BASIC INFORMATIONS ABOUT \nTHE FIVE PORTS AND WHY THEY’RE VITAL TO THE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY. SO \nTHE INTRODUCTION WITH SOME MAJOR GOALS OF THE PLAN AND IT EXPLAINS BCDC \nAUTHORITY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PLAN AND HOW IT WAS UPDATED \nTHEN THERE ARE NICE SUMMARIES OF EACH OF THE FIVE PORTS AND THEIR \nACTIVITIES. THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PORTS THEMSELVES WHICH \nWAS REALLY NICE OF THEM. AND THEN THERE IS A HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE \n2050 CARGO FORECAST. THEN WE GET TO THE ACTUAL POLICY TOPIC \nAREAS. IN EACH OF THESE TOPIC AREAS THERE ARE NUMEROUS FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES. I’LL GO INTO EACH TOPIC AREA IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. AS AN \nOVERVIEW YOU SEE THERE ARE FOUR NEW TOPIC AREAS. ONE IS ON THE SEAPORT \nPLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ITSELF AND THEN CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY AND REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN \nUPDATES. WE ARE ALSO RETAINING A COUPLE OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND RECITATION THEM IN THE NEW PLAN. ONE OF THOSE IS ON \nPRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND THE OTHER ARE THE \nPOLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. AND THEN FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE TWO TOPIC AREAS\, NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUES THEMSELVES ARE UNIMPORTANT\, BUT \nJUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY BECOME OUTDATED AND REDUNDANT WITH \nOTHER REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS OR OTHER EFFORTS THAT BCDC HAS \nUNDERTAKEN. BUT WE ACTUALLY RETAIN STILL A COUPLE OF POLICIES \nPARTICULARLY RELATED TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION. BUT HAVE BROUGHT THEM \nOVER TO THE NEW SECTION ABOUT REGIONAL COORDINATION. \nTHAT’S A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE TOPIC AREAS. \nSO\, THE FIRST NEW TOPIC AREA\, IT’S SPECIFIC TO THE SPAC ITSELF. THE SPAC \nWAS ESTABLISHED\, ORIGINALLY\, THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING\, AN MOU\, \nBETWEEN BCDC IN 1978\, THE SEAPORT PLAN NICKS INCONSISTENCIES PLAN DOESN’T \nHAVE FINDINGS OR POLICIES THAT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE PURPOSE \nAND ROLE OF THE SPAC. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THIS \nTO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF. WE ADDED FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES TO IDENTIFY COMPOSITION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SPAC. \nPREPSED CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPAC. I KNOW THIS SLIDE IS A BIT \nHARD TO READ YOU ABOUT BASICALLY WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE A COUPLE OF \nDEFUNCT POSITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE IS AN APPOINTMENT FOR SOMEONE \nFROMENSENAL TERMINALS WHICH DOESN’T EXIST ANYMORE. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO REBALANCE BCDC AND MTC AND ABAG APPOINTMENTS\, AND WE’RE \nSUGGESTING TO ADD TWO NEW MEMBERS FROM COMMUNITY-BASED AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND ONE FROM A MARITIME INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER. \nWE HOPE THESE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE GOING TO STRENGTHEN THE SPAC’S ROLE AS \nAN EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP TO THE COMMISSION. BUT I ALSO WANT TO \nEMPHASIZE\, AND THIS IS ALSO DESCRIBED IN A FINDING ABOUT THE SPAC THAT THE \nPURPOSE OF THE SPAC IS TO PROVIDE BASICALLY EXPERT TECHNICAL ADVICE TO \nTHE COMMISSION. THE SPAC PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME STAKEHOLDERS TO \nADVISE THE COMMISSION ON PORT RELATED TOPICS\, BUT CONSULTATION WITH THE SPAC \nIS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT OF PORT COMMUNITIES IN \nDECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. Y IS EMPHASIS OF THE COMMITTEE IS ON \nTECHNICAL EXPERTISE. NEXT ABOUT POLICIES OF THE FORECAST WE \nHAVE WRITTEN FINDINGS THAT SUMMARIZE CONCLUSIONINGS OF THE CARGO FORECAST. \nTHERE ARE TWO POLICIES IN THIS TOPIC AREAS. \nFIRST DESCRIBES HOW THE FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED AND THE SECOND DESCRIBES \nHOW THE SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD IMPLEMENT AND RELY ON THE FORECAST. \nSO THOSE POLICIES IN PART STATE THAT THE CARGO FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED \nAT LEAST ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS BUT THERE ARE ALSO ALLOWANCES FOR UPDATES \nBASICALLY BASED ON THE COMMISSION’S DISCRETION. \nNEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT THE POLICIES FOR THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. SO THESE \nARE THE BULK OF POLICIES THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON WHEN A PORT OR ENTITY NEEDS \nA PERMIT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO SIMPLIFY FOUR TOPIC AREAS FROM THE 1996 PLAN BY COMBINING \nTHEM INTO A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED\, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY \nUSE TOPIC. THE 1996 PLAN HAD SOME OUTDATED CARGO SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT \nWERE BASICALLY WANTING TO REMOVE IN A SINGLE TOPIC AREA THAT’S ALIGN WITH \nBCDC’S SCOPE MISSION AND AUTHORITY. _ THIS TOPIC AREA HAS A RANGE EVER \nPOLICIES. MOST RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT OR ALLOWABLE USES IN PORT PRIORITY USE \nAREAS. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ALL THIS INCLUDES POLICY FOR ADDING OR \nREMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS\, FILL\, USING TERMINALS TOPICS LIKE INTERIM \nUSES\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, FERRIES AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS. \nHAPPY TO ANSWER ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THESE POLICIES \nAGAIN. YOU KNOW\, IN THIS SECTION\, STAFF BASICALLY SOUGHT TO IMPROVE THE \nCLARITY OF THE FINDINGS AND\, ESPECIALLY\, THE DEFINITIONS OF \nDIFFERENT TERMS. THERE IS ALSO A GENERAL FOCUS ON THE PROCESS AND \nSTANDARDS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPLY TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. \nSO\, COMBINED\, WE HOPE THESE CHANGES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO \nPORTS\, AS WELL AS FOR BCDC STAFF TO USE TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS. BASICALLY\, \nLIKE\, HERE IS THE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE IN AN APPLICATION\, AND HERE IS \nWHAT THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO SHOW TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN. \nSO TRYING TO REMOVE ANY AMBIGUITY AND HOPE TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING. \nWE’RE HOPES PROPOSING A NEW TOPIC ON ADDING CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT \nADDRESSED IN THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN THE INTENT IS TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN WITH POLICIES. THIS IS BRIEF RECOGNIZING THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF IS \nUNLIKELY TO BE A DRIVING FORCE FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA\, \nRATHER FINDINGS AND POLICIES ARE INTENDED TO BRIDGE AND REFERENCE OUT \nTO EXISTING AND PLANNED EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE. SO THEY’RE \nNOT NECESSARILY NEW REQUIREMENTS BUT INSTEAD THEY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS THAT \nARE ALREADY LAID OUT IN THE BAY PLAN POLICIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE. \nSO\, THERE ARE FOUR NEW FINDINGS THERE THAT SUMMARIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF \nPORTS\, GENERAL VULNERABILITIES\, BCDC LED ADAPTATION EFFORTS AND THE ROLE OF \nTHE PORTS IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE. AND THERE ARE THREE NEW POLICIES THAT YOU \nCAN SEE ON THE SLIDE\, THEY SPEAK TO THE NEED TO INCLUDE PORTS AS CRITICAL \nSTAKEHOLDERS IN ADAPTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nNEED TO INCORPORATE SEA LEVEL RISE CONSIDERATIONS INTO ANY FUTURE UPDATES \nTO THE SEAPORT PLAN OR THE CARGO FORECAST. AND NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE \nROLE OF THE PORTS IN DISASTER RESPONSE. \nSO WE RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OF THE PORTS ARE UNDERGOING THEIR OWN SEA LEVEL \nRISE PLANNING PROCESSES THOSE ARE RAMMED RAPIDLY EVOLVING AT DIFFERENT \nSTAGES. BAY ADAPT IS GOING TO IMPACT HOW LOCAL PORTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLAN \nFOR RISE IN SEA LEVEL. NOW THAT IS. B 272 HAS PASSED THAT’S GOING TO BE A \nPRIMARY FOCUS FOR BCDC WORK. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PORTS ARE INFORMED AS \nPART OF THE PROCESS AND WE WANT POLICIES TO ACT AS A BRIDGE TO PROVIDE \nGUIDANCE WHILE WE SEE HOW THE LANDS SCAPE EVOLVES OVER THE NEXT FEW \nYEARS. WE HAVE INTRODUCED A NEW TOPIC AREA ON \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY. THIS IS\, AGAIN\, TO ALIGN THE \nBAY PLAN POLICIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY THAT WERE \nADOPTED IN 2019. SO\, AS YOU KNOW\, THE BAY PLAN REQUIRES \nEQUITABLE\, CULTURALLY RELEVANT COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT TO \nBE CONDUCTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT APPLICANTS TO MEANINGFULLY \nINVOLVE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN \nUNDERREPRESENTED\, VULNERABLE\, OR IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. SO THOSE \nPOLICIES ALSO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL DISPROPORTIONATE \nIMPACTS OF PROJECTS AND TAKE MEASURES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND \nPERMITTING PROCESSES TO REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ANY DISPROPORTIONATE \nADVERSE PROJECT IMPACTS. SO\, THOSE REQUIREMENTS\, OF COURSE\, \nALSO APPLY TO ANY ACTIVITIES IN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN\, WE HAVE INTRODUCED THREE NEW FINDINGS THAT DESCRIBE GENERAL \nPORT RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS\, EFFORTS TO REDUCE \nENVIRONMENTSAL BURDENS AND ROLE AND AUTHORITY THAT BCDC OTHER AND AGENCIES \nAND MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IN REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS. \nWE HAVE INTRODUCED 33 NEW POLICIES HERE — FIRST ONE INTRODUCES PLANS AND \nPOLICIES\, PROJECTS REDUCE AIR MUSICIANS\, REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND \nSEAPORT PLAN UPDATES AND STREAMLINE PROJECTS FOR SOAR POWER IMPROVEMENTS \nOR INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED IN THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS. AND THIRD SPEAKS TO REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND FUTURE PLAN \nUPDATES. _ IMPORTANTLY\, THERE ARE OTHER POLICIES IN THE DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN THAT HAVE EJ RELATED REQUIREMENTS\, BUT SOMETIMES THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE \nWOVEN INTO THE APPROPRIATE RELEVANT POLICIES THEMSELVES. \nFOR EXAMPLE\, THE POLICY FOR ADDING OR REMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WILL \nNOW HAVE A REQUIREMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE BAY PLAN FOR APPLICANTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT IN CONSISTENCY WITH EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY \nPOLICIES. AS I MENTIONED\, WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE DREDGING AND NAVIGATION FINDINGS AND POLICIES FROM THE EXISTING SEAPORT \nPLAN. BOTH POLICIES WERE WRITTEN PRIOR TO \nTHE COMPLETION OF THE BAY AREA LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OR LTMS \nFOR DREDGING BACK IN 2001. SO THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE AND THE \nBAY PLAN ALREADY CONTAINS POLICIES ON DREDGING. SO WE LOOKED AT THIS AND \nDIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY COVERED BY THE BAY PLAN\, LTMS \nOR OTHER EXISTING EFFORTS SO WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT SECTION FROM THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO REMOVE REDUNDANCY. THIS DOESN’T AFFECT PLANS FOR DREDGING \nPROJECTS THIS IS CLEAN UP OF OUTDATED INFORMATION. \nAND FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO DELETE A TOPIC AREA THAT INCLUDES SOME GROUND \nTRANSPORTATION POLICIES THAT SPOKE MORE DIRECTLY TO MTC’S PRIOR ROLE IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. INSTEAD WE HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW TOPIC \nAREA CALLED REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN SEEP UPDATES TO \nBETTER REFLECT BCDC ROLE IN JURISDICTION. SO THE FIRST TWO \nPOLICIES IN HERE WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION TOPIC AREA OF \nTHE PLAN AND WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE PLAN WITH MINOR REVISIONS. FIRST \nSPEAKS TO THE NEED TO PRESERVE _ ACCESS TO MARINE TERMINALS AND SECOND FOCUS \nIS ON MITIGATION RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC. \nPOLICY THREE HERE IS NEW. IT ENCOURAGES BCDC AND MTC TO COORDINATE \nREGARDING MAP CHANGES WHEN EITHER BCDC UPDATES THE SEAPORT PLAN OR MTC \nUPDATES PLANNED BAY AREA. SO\, BASICALLY BCDC AND MTC WANT TO MAKE \nSURE THAT WE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO ALIGN OUR REGIONAL THINKING AND REDUCE \nANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS IN THESE KIND OF DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES. \nAND FINALLY POLICY FOUR HERE SETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING THE \nSEAPORT PLAN AND ENCOURAGES FUTURE UPDATES WE DO TO BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH \nTIMING OF MTC’S SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN AND/OR PLANNED BAY \nAREA UPDATES WHEN POSSIBLE. NEXT TIME WE GO TO UPDATE THE CEQA PLAN WE HOPE \nTO PLAN AND COORDINATE THE TIMING OF THAT WITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. \nSO\, THAT’S AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE POLICY CHANGES TO THE PLAN. \nBEFORE I TALK ABOUT PART TWO OF THE PLAN\, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS THE MAPS OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND SOME POLICIES RELATED TO SOMETHING CALLED \nMARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS\, I THOUGHT I SHOULD PAUSE HERE\, JUST TO ANSWER IF \nTHERE ARE ANY BRIEF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ABOUT \nJUST WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR. SO\, I’LL BRIEFLY STOP SHARING MY SCREEN SO \nI CAN SEE YOU ALL. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS THUS FAR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>SPEAKER: YOU HAD SAID THAT THE \nCARGO FORECAST IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE PLAN. AND MY MEMORY\, FROM OUR \nPREVIOUS HEARINGS WAS THAT THERE WAS REALLY UNAVOIDABLE UNCERTAINTY IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST. LIKE\, I REMEMBER PARTICULARLY PROJECTIONS OF ROLO CARGO \nWERE SOMETHING LIKE TESLA WOULD MAKE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WAS THE FORECAST \nPROVES INACCURATE? AND WAS THERE A PREVIOUS FORECAST THAT WE WERE ABLE TO \nLOOK AT AND SEE HOW ACCURATE THE PROJECTIONS WERE? \n>>CORY MANN: GREAT QUESTION. THANKS. I THINK THAT’S RIGHT. \nTHERE IS INHERENT UNCERTAINTY TO FORECASTING. IT’S DEFINITELY REALLY \nCHALLENGING AND ESPECIALLY DOING SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THE BAY AREA \nREGION. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT \nIN MIND IN OUR DECISION-MAKING. WE REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT WHEN MAKING \nNEW POLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. SO\, ONE OF THE POLICIES CALLS \nFOR THE COMMISSION IN THE SPAC IN COORDINATION WITH THE PORTS TO TRY TO \nMONITOR THE REGION’S CARGO VOLUMES\, MARINE TERMINAL USES AND SHIP CALLS AS \nNEEDED. AND\, ALSO\, TO KEEP AN EYE ON EMERGING \nTRENDS THAT COULD IMPACT THE REGION’S CARGO CAPACITY. FOR EXAMPLE\, LIKE\, \nINFRASTRUCTURE FOR ZERO-EMISSIONS TRUCK CHARGING\, OFFSHORE WIND HAS COME UP\, \nAND TRYING TO KIND OF CONTINUOUSLY COLLECT AND ASSESS THAT DATA. \nWE ALSO ADDED A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SEAPORT PLAN FOR FIRST THE \nCOMMISSION TO REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATES TO THE CARGO FORECAST IF \nGROWTH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATING FROM EXPECTED TRENDS OR IF\, YOU KNOW\, A \nPARTICULAR CHANGE\, LIKE ADDING OR REMOVING A PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nCOULD IMPACT A REGION’S CAPACITY FOR CARGO GROWTH. \nTHERE IS QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION IN THERE\, THERE IS ANOTHER POLICY WE \nADDED IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CARGO FORECAST. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER IT \nHAS DIFFERENT GROWTH SCENARIOS AND HAS A MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO WHICH WAS \nDEVELOPED BASICALLY AS THE BASELINE FORECAST\, AND SO WE HAVE PUT A POLICY \nIN THERE SAYING SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD GENERALLY RELIES ON THE \nBASELINE FORECAST BUT THE COMMISSION CAN ALWAYS CONSIDER NEW INFORMATION ON \nCARGO GROWTH\, YOU KNOW\, IF IT’S DEVIATING FROM THAT TREND IN ORDER TO \nSUPPLEMENT THE CARGO FORECAST. AND WE ALSO SAID WHEN POSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE \nUPDATED PRIOR TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THOSE ARE THINGS WE TRIED TO THINK \nABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE FOR THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER THEN \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THIS WAS REALLY \nVERY\, VERY FASCINATING. AND I WANT TO MAKE MAINLY A FEW \nCOMMENTS AND I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS TO. ONE COMMENT IS THIS IS A SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT IS REALLY A CARGO — A SEAPORT PLAN RELATED TO CARGO. SEAPORTS DO OTHER \nTHINGS IN OUR WORLD BESIDES JUST FOR CARGO\, THEY’RE USED FOR RECREATION\, \nAND THEY’RE — YOU KNOW\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, THERE IS OTHERS THINGS THAT WE USE OUR \nSEAPORTS FOR. AND WIND POWER WAS MENTIONED AS LOCATIONS AT SEAPORTS \nBECAUSE IT’S OFTEN WINDY AT THE EDGES OF WATER BODIES. ANOTHER THING I WANT \nTO MENTION IN THE LARGE VIEW TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE\, WE HAVE TALKED \nABOUT HOW TO PROTECT THE SEAPORTS. BUT ANOTHER THING I THINK WE WANT TO TALK \nABOUT IN A SENSE IS HOW DO THE SEAPORTS PROTECT US. BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK \nABOUT THE ENERGY THAT’S INVOLVED IN MOVING CARGO\, IT’S MUCH\, MUCH MORE \nEFFICIENT TO MOVE IT BY BARGE THAN IT IS BY AIRPLANE. AND PARTICULARLY FROM \nGHG EMISSIONS. NOW THAT\, IT DEPENDS A LOT ON HOW THE SHIPS ARE\, YOU KNOW\, \nARE POWERED\, BUT THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT TO BE IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WHEN WE THINK OF \nCONTRIBUTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPROVEMENTS\, THIS ISN’T SO MUCH OF AN \nADAPTATION THING\, IT’S A MITIGATION\, A HUGE MITIGATION\, ALLOWING THIS CARGO \nINDUSTRY TO PERSIST AND PROSPER IN OUR AREA IS JUST A LONG-TERM BIG \nMITIGATION. SO\, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT JUST \nTHESE STRUCTURES\, THESE SEAPORTS THEMSELVES\, THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE \nINFRASTRUCTURE. I MEAN\, THEY DO FUNCTION THAT WAY. THE ROADS INSIDE \nTHEM OFTEN FUNCTIONS AS LEVIES FOR FLOODING. WE DON’T USUALLY THINK \nABOUT IT THAT WAY BUT IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE BAY AREA\, IT’S REALLY CLEAR \n_ THAT OUR ROADS ARE\, SORT OF\, A — THE ULTIMATE LEVEES. AND THEN ANOTHER \nTHING I WANTED TO MENTION THAT IS\, SORT OF\, THE OPPOSITE IS FROM AN ENDANGERED \nSPECIES PROTECTION POINT OF VIEW. CARGO SHIPS HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD ACTOR \nOVER TIME IN BRINGING IN INVEGAS INVASIVE SPECIES IN THEIR HULLS. HOW \nWE OPERATE SEAPORTS CAN BE PROTECTIVE OF\, YOU KNOW\, OF THE NATURAL — OUR \nNATURAL BIODIVERSITY. NOW\, I PRESUME THAT NOAA FISHERIES IS TAKING CARE OF \nTHAT. WE’RE NOT TAKING CARE OF THAT. I WANT TO MENTION IT AS ANOTHER \nENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT’S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS\, THAT WE SHOULD — YOU KNOW\, \nI THINK WE SHOULD JUST BE KEEPING IN MIND IN THE BIG PICTURE. \nAND THEN I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I\, JUST AS A QUESTION\, THAT THE — \nTHIS IS SILENT ON DREDGING. AND THAT’S BECAUSE\, OF COURSE\, OF THE LTMS\, SINCE \n2001\, AND IT’S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE POLICY WORK THAT WE’RE DOING IN THE \nSEDIMENT\, WORKING GROUP\, RIGHT NOW\, TO PRODUCE NEW POLICIES FOR THE BAY PLAN. \nSO\, THAT IS BEING DEALT IN A DETAILED MANNER SOMEWHERE ELSE. \nI WANTED TO CONFIRM\, EVERYBODY\, YEAH\, THAT’S THE CASE. OKAY. \nTHEN MY OTHER QUESTION\, MORE DETAILED\, IS ABOUT POLICY FIVE. \nPOLICY FIVE IS\, CORY\, IS BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE TERMINALS. \nAND WHEN I READ POLICY FIVE\, GRANTED IT DOES HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SEEMS SIMILAR \nTO THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT\, BUT IT ALSO SEEMS VERY RESTRICTIVE ALL AVAILABLE \nBERTHS WILL HAVE BEEN USED\, ALL REASONABLE INVESTMENTS\, NO OTHER \nFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES. I MEAN\, DOES THAT GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE \nMAY NEED IN THE FUTURE? >>SPEAKER: DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER \nTHAT? >>CORY MANN: I CAN START. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. THERE ARE TWO RELATED POLICIES NEXT TO EAR OTHER \nTHERE\, THERE IS THE BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE POLICY\, AND BAY FILL TO DEVELOP \nEXISTING MARINE TERMINAL SITES. POLICY FIVE THERE\, BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE \nTERMINALS IS BASICALLY — THAT POLICY IS ORIENTED TOWARD IF A \nBRAND-NEW MARINE TERMINAL WAS TO BE PROPOSED. WHERE ONE DOESN’T CURRENTLY \nEXIST SO THAT’S THE KIND OF PROJECT WHERE YOU WOULD BE CONTEMPLATING \nLARGER VOLUMES OF BAY FILL THAN A SITE THAT’S BEING REDEVELOPED. \nAND\, SO THAT’S WHY THE STANDARD THERE IS HIGH. \nAND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ERIK. \n>>SPEAKER: I CAN SAY IT ECHOES THE MAC TEAR PET RICK REQUIREMENTS. WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT BAY FILL FOR PORT USE. MCATEER-PETRIS ACT HAS TO DO WITH \nEXCEEDING THE FILL\, WATER USE WATER FILL NECESSARY AND NO ALTERNATIVE \nLOCATION. WHEN WE’RE DOING WITH PRIORITY USE AREAS IN MARINE TERMINALS \nTHAT COULD EXIST OUTSIDE OF THOSE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WE WANT TO BE \nTHINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS THAT’S WHY WE’RE USE THE PRIORITY USE \nAREAS FOR INFILL FOR SOME PLACE THAT ALREADY HAS A LOCATION. _ THAT’S WHY \nWE DRAFTED IT THAT WAY. THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS COULD BE ADDED TO \nOR CHANGED BASED ON REGIONAL NEEDS OVER TIME. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD \nRECOMMEND IN THAT CASE BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSORRY. A LITTLE BIT OF A CATERING ISSUE FOR THE SOCIAL HOUR. \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. ONE COMMENT\, ON THE BCDC APPOINTMENTS TO THE SPAC\, ONE OF THEM \nSAYS COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION\, \nAPPOINTED BY BCDC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN JUST ADD \nTO THAT DESCRIPTION\, A CBO\, OR EJ ORGANIZATION FROM A COMMUNITY IMPACTED \nBY THE — BY ONE OF THE PORTS. WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE IS\, LET’S SAY \nSOMEONE APPLIES THAT’S NEAR THE PORT OF OAKLAND\, VERSUS SOMEONE WHO MAY COME \nFROM AN EJ COMMUNITY THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR A PORT. SO\, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE \nIF WEEKEND ADD THAT DESCRIPTOR THAT IT WOULD BE\, YOU KNOW\, ONE OF THOSE \nORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY A PORT. CAN WE DO THAT? \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: YEAH. THANK YOU FOR \nTHAT RECOMMENDATION. >>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION? \nWE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO WELCOME COMMENTS \nFROM ANY MEMBERS — >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE PART TWO? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M SORRY. CORY. YOU HAVE PART TWO. \n>>CORY MANN: SORRY. IT’S A LONG PRESENTATION. \n[LAUGHTER] NO PROBLEM. I’LL DO PART TWO NOW. \nPART TWO IS SHORTER\, TOO. OKAY. I’LL ASSUME EVERYONE CAN SEE MY \nSLIDES AGAIN. THANKS FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. NEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT\, THIS \nIS BOTH PART TWO OF THE PRESENTATION\, AND PART TOFT SEAPORT PLAN. THIS PART \nOF THE SEAPORT PLAN IS CALLED THE MARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS. \nAND WE’RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF HOW WE APPROACH THIS IN THE \nNEW DRAFT PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY I’LL REVIEW THE MAPS OF THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS THEMSELVES AND CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PORTS. \nANOTHER RELATIVELY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW BUT OF COURSE I’M HAPPY TO TAKE \nQUESTIONS AGAIN ON ANYTHING SPECIFIC. FIRST I’LL TALK ABOUT THE MARINE \nTERMINAL DESIGNATIONS WHICH ARE PART OF THE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN. THIS IS A BIT \nIN THE WEEDS BUT A BIG COMPONENT ABOUT HOW THE 1996 PLAN WORKS. I WANTED TO \nMAKE SURE TO DESCRIBE HOW THIS IS CHANGING. SO\, I MENTIONED AT THE \nBEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES \nTO THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. AND IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, IT BASICALLY \nALLOCATES PROJECTED CARGO VOLUMES TO EVERY MARINE TERMINAL IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. SO I HAVE INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE TABLE \nFROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND UP ON THIS SLIDE\, BUT IT WORKS THE SAME FOR ANY \nOF THE PORTS. AND THIS TABLE BASICALLY ASSIGNS OUT \nCARGO VOLUMES AND CARGO TYPES TO EACH OF THE BOARDS BASED ON THE CARGO \nFORECAST PROJECTIONS. THEN THERE’S A POLICY THAT ACCOMPANIES EACH TABLE \nTHAT SAYS EACH OF THE MARINE TERMINALS SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING CARGO BY \n2020. AT THE TIME WE COULD ACCURATELY PROJECT CARGO VOLUME AND ASSIGN TO THE \nPORTS AND ANTICIPATE WHERE BAY FILL WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED TO MEET THE \nREGION’S NEEDS. BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE\, IN PRACTICE\, ALLOCATING \nSPECIFIC CARGO TYPES AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO INDIVIDUAL TERMINALS IS \nVERY DIFFICULT FOR A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU KNOW\, FIRST\, AND THIS \nKIND OF ALREADY CAME UP\, BUT UNLESS THE CARGO FORECAST AND THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS ARE UPDATED VERY FREQUENTLY. THIS INFORMATION IS GOING \nTO BE OUTDATED BY THE TIME A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR PERMIT ARISES. AND INDEED \nTHESE TABLES HAVEN’T BEEN UPDATED IN QUITE SOMETIME. \nSECOND\, AS I WAS GETTING TO\, THIS APPROACH MAKES ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHERE \nFUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND BAY FILL MIGHT OCCUR AND THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE ALSO \nUNLIKELY TO BE ACCURATE AS CONDITIONS AND AS TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER THINGS \nCHANGE. SO THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF IS BASICALLY TO REMOVE THOSE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS TO SIMPLIFY THE SEAPORT PLAN\, PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE \nFLEXIBILITY FOR THE PORTS\, BUT WE DON’T THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE LOSING \nANYTHING BY MAKING THIS CHANGE. WE ALREADY HAVE POLICIES IN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING ABOUT PERMITS OR ABOUT \nPROJECTS THAT MIGHT BE REQUESTED BY THE PORTS. AND WE HAVE WORKED TO MAKE \nTHESE POLICIES MORE ROBUST AND MORE CLEAR IN THE UPDATE. AND OF COURSE\, \nWE CAN STILL RELY ON INFORMATION FROM THE CARGO FORECAST TO MAKE DECISIONS. \nBUT BY NOT HAVING ALL OF THESE TABLES IN THE PLAN IT’S GOING TO SIMPLIFY THE \nSEE PORT PLAN HOW IT READS MAKE IT MORE APPROACHABLE TO UNDERSTAND. SO THAT \nIS OUR SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR THAT. AND SO FINALLY I’LL GET TO THE ACTUAL \nMAPS THEMSELVES. BEGINNING IN 2021\, BCDC RECEIVED \nREQUESTS TO MODIFY THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BOUNDARIES FROM THE PORT OF \nREDWOOD CITY\, THE PORT OF RICHMOND\, THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO\, AS WELL AS THE \nCITY OF OAKLAND. BCDC ALSO RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS REQUESTING TO REMOVE \nCELLY STATUS AS A RESERVE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA. \nSO\, WHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER\, THE ONLY ALLOWABLE \nUSES IN PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ARE FOR CARGO OR OTHER RELATED USES. \nSO\, ADDING THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BASICALLY PROTECTS A SITE \nFOR PORT USES. CONVERSELY\, HOWEVER\, REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION FROM A SITE\, IT DOESN’T ACTUALLY PREVENT PORTS FROM \nUSING THAT AREA FOR CARGO PURPOSES. THEY CAN CERTAINLY STILL DO THAT\, BUT \nIT DOES FREE THE SITE UP TO POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR NON-PORT USE. \nSO\, THAT’S THE KIND OF\, LIKE\, WHY IT MATTERS. AND\, SO\, AT ITS MARCH 2021 \nMEETING\, THE SPAC RECEIVED A PRESENTATION BY BCDC STAFF SUMMARIZING \nSTAFF’S ANALYSIS OF THESE CHANGES. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, DELETIONS OF PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH BCDC’S POLICIES FOR REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, GENERAL POLICY FOUR IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, AND IT STATES \nTHAT DELETION SHOULD NOT RETRACT FROM THE ABILITY TO MEET THE GROWTH IN \nCARGO. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT ANALYSIS\, STAFF ALSO SUMMARIZED \nINFORMATION ON SOME OTHER RELEVANT TOPICS\, INCLUDING PORT PLANNING AND \nOPERATIONS\, LAND USE CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, AND BAY FILL TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL \nCONTEXT FOR THE SPAC IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION ON THE PORT’S REQUESTS. \nPOTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS \nASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES HAVE ALSO BEEN ANALYZED IN THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTED IN SEPTEMBER. AND THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN ANY SUBSTANTIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. \nTHE CARGO FORECAST DIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY OF THE AREAS BEING REQUESTED FOR \nREMOVAL FROM PORT PRIORITY USE AS BEING FEASIBLE SITES FOR CARGO HANDLING. \nAND THUS STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE \nSEAPORT PLAN POLICY. IN EFFECT\, IT MEANS THESE REMOVALS \nWERE ACCOUNTED FOR ALREADY IN THE CARGO FORECAST SINCE THESE WEREN’T ACTIVE \nSITES AND MAKING THESE CHANGES WON’T IMPACT WHAT THE CARGO FORECAST SAYS. \nSTAFF ALSO ASKED THE PORTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE \nCOMMUNITIES\, COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATURE OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY \nREQUESTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES. SOME PORTS HAD ALREADY TAKEN \nUNDER\, LIKE\, AN OUTREACH RELATED TO THEIR OWN PROCESSES OR THEIR OWN \nREQUIREMENTS\, THEIR OWN MEETINGS\, THEIR OWN BOARDS AND SOME UNDERTOOK OUTREACH \nTO BCDC REQUEST THAT IS SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT NEITHER THE PORTS \nNOR BCDC STAFF IDENTIFIED ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED MAP \nCHANGES. AND\, FINALLY\, THE SPAC VOTED IN FAVOR \nOF THE PROPOSED CHANGES\, BOTH AT ITS MARCH 2021 MEETING\, AND THEN THEN THIS \nJULY WHEN APPROVING THE DRAFT PLAN. I’LL RUN THROUGH EACH OF THE FOUR \nREQUESTS. FIRST THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY IS PLANNING A FUTURE EXPANSION OF \nA WHARF TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW OMNI TERMINAL THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE DRIVE \nOFF OR RAIL CARGOS TO ENSURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE THE \nPORT IS ADDING 1.3 ACRES TO THE WHARF\, OR TO AN AREA SOUTH OF WHARF FIVE TO \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION. AND STAFF ANALYZED THAT REQUEST IN \n2021 AND RECOMMENDED AND STILL RECOMMEND APPROVING IT. \nTHE CITY OF RICHMOND HAS REQUESTED REMOVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nFROM THE ENGRAVING DOCKS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING SOUTH OF THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDUE TO HISTORIC STATUS AS WELL AS A SITE AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF \nHARBOR WAY SOUTH ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. \nTHOSE DOC DOCKS ARE PART OF THE ROSY THE RIVETER NATIONAL PARK AND THE SITE \nIS ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LAT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL\, OFFERS PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND A FISHING PEER AND CONNECTS TO THE BAY TRAIL THOSE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS \nBEING VIABLE FOR CONTINUED CARGO USE AND STAFF RECOMMENDED AND CONTINUED TO \nRECOMMEND APPROVING THAT REQUEST. A FEW DIFFERENT CHANGES FOR THE PORT \nOF SAN FRANCISCO. PEER 48 UP THE NORTH THERE\, AND A RELATED AREA WERE \nACTUALLY ALREADY REMOVED FROM PORT PRIORITY USE IN 2016. PER AN ASSEMBLY \nBILL THAT FOUND THAT THE PIER IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE EMBARCADERO \nHISTORIC DISTRICT AND NO LONGER VIABLE FOR CARGO OPERATIONS. SO IN THAT CASE \nWE’RE UPDATING THE MAPS. THE PORT REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE \nPORT AT PIER 50 NO LONGER VIABLE FOR BULK OPERATIONS BUT THE PORT IS \nRESERVING FOR MARITIME PURPOSES SUCH AS PORT MAINTENANCE. PORT 70 REQUESTED \nTO REMOVE SIX ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT INCLUDES A PIER THAT WAS \nPHYSICALLY REMOVED AS WELL AS AN AREA THAT ENCOMPASSES PARKING. \nFINALLY THE PORT REQUESTED TO REMOVE ABOUT TEN ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE \nFROM PIER 94 DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A WETLAND AS WELL AS 15 ACRES FROM \nUPLAND SITES\, BASICALLY DUE TO THEIR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ELEVATION \nRELATIVE TO THE MARINE TERMINAL. THEY ALSO REQUESTED TO ADD TEN ACRES \nBETWEEN PIERS 92 AND 94 TO REFLECT WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY DRY \nBULK OPERATIONS BUT TO MAKE SURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE. \nTHIS WAS ANALYZED IN 2021 AND STAFF \nFOUND NONE OF THOSE SITES REQUESTED FOR APPROVAL IDENTIFIED AS SITES FOR CARGO \nHANDLING AND CONTINUED TO HANDLING REQUESTS. _ FINALLY 20 TOUR BCDC HAD \nREQUEST TO SPOP PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT’S FOR ANCILLARY USE\, SPAPD AN \nADDITIONAL 1.2 ACRINGS OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT REQUESTS STEMS BACK TO \nAN EARLY 2000s AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PORT THAT THEY BOTH MADE \nTO PROVIDE TRUCK PARKING WHEN THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE WAS REDEVELOPED. SO \nTHE SITE THE CITY WANTS TO REDESIGNATE FOR PORT PRIORS USE HAS BETTER \nLOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE AREAS FOR MARITIME SERVICES THAN \nTHE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AREA. BOTH AREAS PROPOSING TO BE ADDED OR REMOVED \nARE INLAND FROM THE MARINE TERMINALS NEITHER SITE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST FOR HANDLING BOTH SITES ARE WELL OUTSIDE BCDC PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION. IF BCDC SEES APPROVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE SWAP HERE ONE \nWAY OR THE OTHER IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE CITY OF OAKLAND’S ABLE FOR TRUCK \nPARKING. BECAUSE USES OF THE SITE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PORT PRIORITY USE \nDESIGNATION THAN THE CURRENT ONE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVING THAT REQUEST. \nFINALLY\, SO I MENTIONED THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN 96 PLAN DESIGNATED TWO \nPORT PRIORITY USE SITES CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND SELBY. CONCORD \nRESERVE AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY A NAVY MILITARY BASE CALLED CONCORD NAVAL \nWEAPONS STATION. IN 2005 THE NAVY TRANSFERRED PART OF \nTHE BASE TO THE ARMY\, AND IT’S NOW OCCUPIED BY THE MILITARY OCEAN CONCORD \nMOTCO. AND THEN THE SELBY SITE ON THE RIGHT \nTHERE IT WAS ANOTHER RESERVE AREA\, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE SITE OF A SMELTING \nOPERATION THAT PRODUCED SWAG AS A WASTE PRODUCT AND _ DEPOSITED ON THE SITE \nTHAT SITE IS UNDERGOING REMEDIATION FOR EXTENSIVE HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION. \nBCDC RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS IN THE AREA \nNEAR SELBY REQUESTING WE MOVEMENT THAT SITE FOR PORT PRIORITY USE. STAFF \nLOOKED AT BOTH OF THESE SITES BOTH DESIGNATED FOR PORT PRIORITY USE IN \n1982 AS POSSIBLE RESERVE SITES THAT THE REGION COULD POTENTIALLY ACTIVATE AND \nDEVELOP IF NEEDED FOR CARGO HANDLING BUT NO PLANS TO DEVELOP EITHER SITE \nFOR PORT USE HAVE EMERGED IN THE 40 YEARS SINCE. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING \nTO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORS USE STINGS FROM BOTH SITES. TIMELINE OF \nFEASIBILITY OF REDEVELOPING EITHER FOR CARGO USE IS UNCLEAR. OF COURSE\, \nEITHER SITE COULD BE ADDED BACK INTO PORT USE INTO THE FUTURE BUT AT THIS \nPOINT WE’RE RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSION ESPECIALLY TO OCCUR AS TO \nTHE PROCESS IN THE FUTURE IF IT ENDS UP WARRANTED. _ THOSE ARE THE LAST OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE BOUNDARIES. FINALLY TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT’S \nHAPPENING HERE AFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING STAFF WILL WORK TO REVISE THE \nDRAFT PLAN IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER FEEDBACK OR PUBLIC COMMENTS. \nAFTER THAT WE’LL RELEASE A FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN ALONG WITH THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND SOME OTHER INFORMATION \nTHAT MAKES UP THE FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. \nTENTATIVELY THOSE ITEMS MIGHT BE MAILED ON NOVEMBER 10TH OF THE FINALLY THERE \nWILL BE ANOTHER COMMISSION MEETING TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO ADOPT THE NEW \nSEAPORT PLAN WE’LL VOTE AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 16TH \nDEPENDING ON REQUESTED REVISIONS. I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY THANKING EVERYONE \nWHO HAS CONTRIBUTED THEIR TIME ON GETTING TO THIS POINT. THIS WAS A \nCHALLENGING PROJECT. THERE WERE DELAYS. AND SO I REALLY \nWANT TO THANK THE FIVE BAY AREA BOARDS AND THEIR STAFF FOR WORK STICKING WITH \nBCDC ON THIS PROJECT\, PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND COMMENT ALONG THE WAY\, AS WELL AS \nSEAPORT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, AND STAFF WANT TO EXTEND \nGRATITUDE TO OUR FORMER COMMISSIONER TO JIM McGRATH FOR SUPPORT DURING EARLIER \nPHASES OF THIS PROJECT AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LATE COMMISSIONER ANNE \nHALSTED WHO CHAIRED WHEN THIS WAS LAUNCHED AND THIS WOULDN’T HAVE \nHAPPENED WITHOUT HER LEADERSHIP. THAT’S IT FOR ME AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHERE MAY BE QUESTIONS\, BUT WE’RE ACTUALLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, GOING TO OPEN \nTHE HEARING. UNLESS THERE IS A THIRD PART? \nAND I WOULD LIKE TO START BY OFFERING ANY MEMBERS OF THE SPAC OR ANY PORT \nREPRESENTATIVES\, IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS. \nANYBODY OUT THERE IN PUBLIC LAND\, REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ALL RIGHT. THEN\, I THINK WE WILL GO — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. THAT’S WHAT I WAS GOING TO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD. \n>>SPEAKER: I HAD ONE COMMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ONE \nQUESTION\, IN THE DOCUMENTS WE GOT IT STATED THERE WASN’T ANY EVIDENCE \nBEFORE BCDC OF FAILED PROPOSAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED SEAPORT \nPLAN UPDATE. AND I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT’S STILL THE CASE F STAFF CAN \nCONFIRM THAT? >>SPEAKER: I CAN PROBABLY FIELD THAT \nQUESTION. MICHAEL AMES STAFF ATTORNEY FILLING IN FOR GREG SCHARFF TODAY. \nDISCUSSION OF SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE POA \nDESIGNATIONS IS RELATED TO A CONCEPT IN CEQA\, BASICALLY EVALUATING THE \nINDIRECT EFFECTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT\, YOU KNOW\, IS \nBEFORE YOU TODAY\, UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, OBVIOUSLY THOSE PROJECTS \nARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT\, THE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE. BUT THERE HAS TO \nBE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER\, YOU KNOW\, THERE WILL BE\, SORT OF\, THESE INDIRECT \nEFFECTS\, VIS-A-VIS\, THOSE PROJECTS AS A RESULT OF WHEN WE’RE DOING TODAY. AND \nBASED ON OUR WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT\, YOU KNOW\, THE EVALUATION WAS BASICALLY \nTHAT THOSE PROJECTS\, WHILE\, YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE GENERAL DISCUSSION OR \nIDEAS FLOATING OUT IN THE ETHER ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY’RE \nNOT THE KEY TERM OF ART IS THEY’RE NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF \nWHAT WE’RE DOING. YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE SOME IMPETUS TO PURSUE THOSE \nPROJECTS BUT IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING THAT THOSE PROJECTS WILL \nBE REALIZED OR THE LEAD AGENCIES WILL BE PURSUING THOSE PROJECTS. THAT’S \nWHERE THAT STATEMENT COMES FROM. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. I WILL NOW GO TO THE SPEAKERS IN THE \nROOM AND NOW WE’LL START ON THE APPROPRIATE ITEM WITH SUNG LEE. \n>>SPEAKER: BEFORE YOU MAKE MY REMARKIS JUST WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE \nCOMMISSION AND STAFF FOR THIS WONDERFUL REPORT. \nSOMEBODY FROM THE TRADE COMMUNITY. IF I COULD GIVE YOU IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK\, \nVERY GOOD JOB\, LOOKS AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. SO\, MY NAME IS SUNG LEE. \nI AM THE PRESIDENT OF CB\, ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE AN \nINTERNATIONAL TRADE PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTING CLIENTS BEFORE YOU. \nOUR CLIENT COMPRISES OF IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUCH \nAS RETAILERS\, FARMERS AND MANUFACTURES. IT IS OUR POSITION TO SUPPORT STAFF \nAMENDED BPA 1-19 TO INCLUDE STIPULATION THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT \nEXECUTED BETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AS\, PORT AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY \n1ST\, 2025 THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED FOR MARITIME AT HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY. I AM ALSO VICE \nCHAIR OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL A PRIVATE INDUSTRY ADVISORY \nBOARD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A POSITION OF EXPERT COUNSEL ADVISORY \nBOARD THAT BCDC SUPPORT MARITIME BUSINESS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS\, MANDATE CLEAN TRUCKS\, CLEAN \nPORT OPERATIONS\, AND ALSO CLEAN CONTAINER SHIPS CALLING THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND. AND TO THAT END\, PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL HAS \nPROVIDE HAS PROVIDED UPGRADES TO THE COMMUNITY. THE GOALS SET BEFORE US WE \nASK BCDC TO CONTINUE TO AND GIVE THE ADMINISTERED — \nDEMONSTRATED WITH THIS REPORT THAT YOU ALL\, THE GOALS OF THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT\, STATE GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES TO PROMOTE\, EXPORT AND TRADE WITH OUR \nTRADE PARTNERS ALLIES OVERSEAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: EVY WANG. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS BUTTON. OKAY. I HAVE PRESSED THE BUTTON. MY NAME IS \nEVY WONG. I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE CUSTOM [INDISCERNIBLE] ASSOCIATION OF \nCALIFORNIA\, A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER WAS SUNG LEE. I WANT TO COMMEND CORY MANN \nAND THE SUPPORT PLANNING STAFF. WHAT AN OUTSTANDING REPORT. AND I \nUNDERLINED REWRITTEN FOR READABILITY AND CLARITY\, THAT IS SUPER. THANK YOU \nSO MUCH. SO\, I — WE ARE USERS AND SUPPORTERS \nOF THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND RELATED MARITIME SERVICES. WE CONTINUE TO \nSHOW UP BECAUSE AS SEAPORT STAKEHOLDERS WHO CARE DEEPLY FOR OUR HOME PORTS \nFUTURE\, I WANT TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEAPORT PLAN TO \nINCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2024\, THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL BE REINSTATED BACK TO HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTY. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT ANY PROPOSAL FOR THE HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTIES\, OR ANY OTHER PORT ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES\, THAT IT MIGHT BE \nCONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR CONTRARY TO MARITIME SERVICES THAT THEY UNDER \nGO THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY\, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION\, WE’RE GRATEFUL BCDC FOR ITS CONTINUED \nTHOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR STATE LANDS IN RELATION TO MARITIME \nSERVICES. AT AND ADJACENT PORT LANDS WHICH IS \nREALLY IMPORTANT. LET’S KEEP THE BUSINESS AT THE PORT\, LET’S GROW \nCENTRIC AND SUSTAINABLE INTO THE FUTURE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF \nTHE WORK THAT IS DONE FOR OUR PUBLIC USE AND MARITIME AT THE PORT OF OAK. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. NEXT IS BILL DOW WHO WILL \nBE FOLLOWED BY BILL DOW. >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS \nBILL TAO\, LOCAL SIX RETIRED MEMBER OF OUR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT \nCOUNCIL. OAKLAND IS A WORKING PORT. NOT\, YOU \nKNOW\, IT — IT’S TOO — PARDON ME FOR A SECOND. I’M WATCHING \nTHIS CLOCK. IT INTIMIDATES ME. BUT ANYWAY\, OAKLAND\, I’M HERE HERE TO URGE \nYOU TO REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, TO PUT PORT DESIGNATION BACK ON HOWARD \nTERMINAL. WHEN YOU REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG \nINFORMATION TO THE MARITIME INDUSTRY\, YOU SAY YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED IN PORTS \nANYMORE. PORT OF OAKLAND IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR US IN THE AREA\, FOR \nWORKING — IT’S A WORKING CLASS PORT. AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AND \nBY REMOVING THE PORT DESIGNATION YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG MESSAGE. PUT IT \nBACK ON\, SEND OUT THE MESSAGE THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. MELVIN MCKAY FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE \nRANSON >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. \nLONG TIME COMING. YOU KNOW? LIKE BILL SAID\, WE SENT THE WRONG MESSAGE OUT TO \nA LOT OF OUR SHIPPERS AND LABOR. WHEN WE STARTED THIS\, WE HIRED OVER A \nTHOUSAND PEOPLE TO WORK IN THESE PORTS WE LOST A LOT OF COMMODITY HERE. I \nHEARD SOMETHING DISTURBING WE USED TO BE 3 AND 4 IN THE WORLD NOW WE’RE \nNUMBER TEN TO GEORGIA. WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THIS \nSTARTED. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. SUZANNE RANSON FOLLOWED BY MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: IS THERE A BUTTON TO PUSH \nHERE? IT’S ON. HELLO I’M SUSAN SSA TERMINAL THE LARGEST PORT TENANT WITH \nPORT OF OAK AND WE’RE ON THE INNER HARBOR. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY LISTENING TO COMMENTS REGARDING \nIMPORTANCE EVER UPDATING EPA 1-19 TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT\, AND A \nTHIRD TIME WE’RE GOING TO SAY THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED \nBETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1\, 2025 THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REINSTATED AT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS REQUESTED TO SPAC AT OUR LAST MEETING. WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO BEING AT THE TABLE AND SUPPORTING THE PORT OF OAKLAND ON \nIDEAS FOR USAGE OF HOWARD TERMINAL THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO GROWING THE \nECONOMY\, A WIN-WIN FOR THE PORT\, ESTATE\, ENVIRONMENTALISTS\, AND \nMARITIME STAKEHOLDERS. AS THE AS HAVE MADE THEIR INTENTIONS CLEAR AFTER \nPUTTING EVERYONE THROUGH THE RINGER\, WE ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ACCEPT SPAC’S \nRECOMMENDATION AND SEVEN. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN. IT REALLY IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. \nLAST TWO COMMENTS\, COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER\, I PERSONALLY INVITE YOU TO \nSSA TERMINAL TO SHOW YOU THE GREAT STRIDES WE HAVE MADE\, ENVIRONMENTALLY\, \nWE HAVE INVESTED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ENVIRONMENTAL — \nEXCUSE ME — CLEAN UP IN TANDEM WITH THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nEVERYBODY ON THIS COMMISSION CAN COME TO SSA TERMINAL\, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE \nIMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AND YOU REALLY NEED TO COME AND SEE WHAT \nTHE TERMINALS ARE DOING. FOR YOU I’M LEAVING MY CARD PLEASE FEEL FREE TO \nGIVE MY E-MAIL AND PHONE NUMBER TO EVERYBODY HERE. \nLASTLY AS YOU KNOW PART OF HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FOR \nTHE TOURNEY BASIN WHICH IS SO FAR MOVING FORWARD WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT \nTHAT. THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS A HUGE CHEER LEADER FOR THAT\, THANK YOU. \nPLEASE COME SEE ME AT THE TERMINAL. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN\, MIKE JACOB WE REPRESENT \nOCEAN CARRIERS\, ALL OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PORTS INCLUDING PORT OF \nOAKLAND. WE DID SUBMIT EXTENSIVE COMMENTS TO SPAC AT THE JULY MEETING \nBUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING WE SUBMITTED COMMENTS THAT ARE PRETTY EXTENSIVE AT \nMOST OF THE SPAC MEETINGS GOING BACK OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. IT WAS A \nLONG PROCESS. I’M GLAD THE STAFF RECOGNIZED THE EFFORTS OF BOTH THE \nFORMER CHAIRS IN THIS PROCESS. IT TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN \nDUE TO SOME DISTRACTIONS BUT THE PRODUCT IN FRONT OF YOU IS NOT ONLY \nSOUND IN TERMS OF THE FACTS\, BASED ON A VERY ROBUST\, AND WE THINK WELL DONE \nCARGO FORECAST IN EXERCISE\, BUT THE STAFF THEN WAS ABLE TO SYNTHESIZE \nTHOSE IN IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR CURRENT PLAN. WE SUBMITTED A LOT OF COMMENTS. \nAND THOSE COMMENTS REALLY DID RANGE \nFROM SMALL SCALE\, NIT-PICKY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO HOW INDIVIDUAL POLICIES \nWOULD BE ADDRESSED VERSUS OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER THE SCOPE IN \nTHE LAST FOUR YEARS WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKET SPACE INCLUDING NEW OFFSHORE \nDEVELOPMENT PRESSURES WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS\, \nADDITIONAL PRESSURES ON DEDICATION OF PORT PROPERTY\, FOR THINGS SUCH AS \nCHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PORT TRUCKS. THOSE ARE NEW DEVELOPMENTS\, \nNEW PRESSURES ON PROPERTY THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. THEY DO EXIST NOW. SO\, \nTHE PROCESS THAT WAS SET UP IN PROPOSING THIS PLAN\, TAKE THOSE INTO \nACCOUNT\, PROVIDE A PATHWAY NOT JUST FOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC AND \nFOR PORTS TO MAINTAIN OUR IMPORTANT PLACE IN THE FABRIC OF THE BAY\, WHICH \nIS OUR WATER DEPENDENT USES FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES THAT CANNOT BE \nREPLICATED. WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO ANYWHERE ELSE\, EXCEPT IN THE AREAS \nTHAT YOU DESIGNATE. THOSE ARE NOT GETTING BIGGER\, AND WE \nDO NOT ANTICIPATE THEY WILL BE GETTING BIGGER OVER TIME SO WE HAVE TO USE \nWHAT WE HAVE MORE EFFICIENTLY E EFFECTIVELY AND MOVE MORE PRODUCT AS \nTHE ECONOMY GROWS AS WE ADD MORE PEOPLE BUT ALSO ADDING DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEM \nINCLUDING ENERGY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK. WE \nAPPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US ON MAKING THIS A BETTER PLAN MOVING \nFORWARD\, AND\, OF COURSE\, I DON’T THINK IT SHOULD GO UNRECOGNIZED THAT YOU ARE \nSTILL HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE WE’RE HERE AND WE CARE ABOUT THIS \nPROCESS AND OUR PORT INVESTMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH ONE \nPARCEL. [LAUGHTER] \nIN ONE PORT. THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN COMMISSIONERS. I USUALLY DON’T SPEAK \nAT MEETINGS NOR TWICE. I WANT TO THANK BCDC ON THIS PROCESS. I HEARD THE \nINITIAL PRESENTATION AT A SPAC MEETING. I REACHED OUT TO LARRY GOLDZBAND\, AND \nCORY AND ERIK MADE A PRESENTATION WHO OUR MEMBERS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT OUR MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF WHAT YOU’RE DOING SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE \nISSUE WE HAD A DECADE AGO WITH THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS AND WE DID NOT HAVE \nNEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS ON THIS\, AND I THINK THAT’S KUDOS TO THE \nHARD WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND SPAC HAVE DONE IN PRAYING TO EMBRACE \nDIFFERENT ISSUES THAT EXIST OUT THERE. \nAND SINCE I HAVE TWO MINUTES AND 14 SECONDS LEFT\, THE PORTS PLAY A \nCRITICAL ROLE TO THE ECONOMY NOT ONLY OF OUR REGION\, OUR STATE\, AND OUR \nNATION. THE AMOUNT OF GOODS THAT GO IN AND OUT OF OUR PORTS DRIVE THE ECONOMY \nTO A VERY LARGE EXTENT OF CALIFORNIA\, THE TAX REVENUE AS GENERATED BY THE \nPORTS IS HUGE FOR OUR ECONOMY. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR STATE AND FEDERAL \nMONEY COMING IN\, WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CLEAN THE PORTS UP AS THEY NEEDED TO \nBE CLEANED UP IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. AND DREDGING GOES ALONG \nWITH THAT. IF WE DON’T DREDGE WE’RE NOT GOING TO GET THE BIG SHIPS IN FF \nWE DON’T GET THE BIG SHIPS IN THEY’RE GOING TO GO ELSEWHERE AND THAT DOESN’T \nHELP US BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT ARE HIGH PAYING \nUNION JOBS THAT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES AT THE PORT AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT \nALL THE PORTS IN THE REGION ARE BENEFITTING\, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PORTS IN OUR REGION. AND I \nBELIEVE THAT THIS SEAPORT PLAN ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES. AND\, AGAIN\, \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. KRISTINE ZINTMAN. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. KRISTINE \nZORTMAN\, I AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE PORT. THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT PROCESS \nFROM OUR PERSPECTIVE _ AS MR. COLEMAN MENTIONED\, YOU KNOW\, PORTS ON AN \nECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THIS REGION\, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\, \nTHERE ARE 11 MUNICIPAL PORTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE PORTS \nTHAT ARE IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, FOUR OF THOSE PORTS\, ONE IS PRIVATE\, BUT \nFOUR OF THOSE PORTS ARE IN YOUR JURISDICTION\, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT \nTHROUGH THIS PROCESS I HAVE TRULY APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH. \nI KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULTY THERE SOMETIMES\, BUT I \nTHINK THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH\, IN PARTICULAR\, I WANT TO DEFINITELY \nRECOGNIZE CORY AND ERIK\, BECAUSE — AND OTHER BCDC STAFF\, IN REACHING OUT TO \nMEMBERS OF THE SPAC\, IN REACHING OUT TO PORT STAFF\, AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT WHAT WAS COMING INTO THIS PLAN IS TRULY A PLAN THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL \nBE PROUD OF\, AND WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THE COLLABORATION AND THE COOPERATION \nTHAT EXISTS. AND SO WITH THAT\, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nANY SPEAKERS REMOTELY? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>SPEAKER: I FIRST WANT TO THANK \nEVERYBODY WHO TOOK THE TIME TO COME HERE AND TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE. \nTHAT’S REALLY — THAT’S ALWAYS NICE TO HEAR. \nBUT OF COURSE COMMISSIONERS LIKE ME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. \nTHAT’S RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF AND ALL OF YOU WORKING TOGETHER AND I’M JUST \nREALLY\, REALLY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT\, YOU KNOW\, THAT WHILE I’M SURE THERE \nWERE DISAGREEMENTS\, THAT EVERYBODY FEELS HEARD\, RESPECTED AND \nCOLLABORATED WITH\, AND THAT THAT’S GOING TO SERVE AS GOING FORWARD. SO \nTHAT’S REALLY WONDERFUL. CORY\, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENT — ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE AMONG OUR PORTS? \nAND I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS ABOUT THIS\, THAT I WAS SURPRISED AT \nONE POINT TO LEARN THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS ACTUALLY LESS VULNERABLE \nTHAN I EXPECTED BECAUSE [INDISCERNIBLE] \nWERE RISEN _ YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT? \n>>CORY MANN. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I’LL SEE IF STAFF WANT TO \nJUMP IN\, OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG PORTS IN TERMS OF \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE. I THINK THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK FOR \nUS TO DO AT BCDC IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB272 AND OUR \nPLANNING PROCESSES AS IT RELATES TO PORTS. TO BE HONEST WE DIDN’T \nUNDERTAKE REALLY IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND MAKING \nTHE POLICIES FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN THOSE POLICIES ARE A BRIDGE TOWARDS EFFORTS \nTHAT WE’RE WORKING ON NOW. I’M NOT SURE IF I HAVE ANY PARTICULARLY GOOD \nINSIGHTS OTHER THAN TO SAY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: CAN I JUST ADD\, THERE WASN’T A BIG\, SORT OF\, RESILIENCE OR \nRISK ASSESSMENT TAKEN TO THE PORTS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. THE PROCESS WAS \nDRIVEN BY THE THE CARGO FORECAST BEING\, SORT OF\, OUTDATED. THE PREVIOUS CARGO \nFORECAST THAT GOVERNED THE PLAN AND TO DO A NEW CARGO FORECAST AND UPDATE THE \nPOLICIES. WE ACKNOWLEDGED WHILE WORKING THROUGH IT THAT THE PLANNING \nLANDSCAPE ESPECIALLY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE IS SHIFTING A LOT. \nOBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SB272\, BAY ADAPT\, AND ALSO THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT \nREQUIRES THE PORTS TO INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH A RISK ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS \nFOR SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THAT WAS\, SORT OF\, ONGOING AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE \nDOING THIS PROCESS. SO WE THINK IT’S VERY LIKELY ESPECIALLY WITH SB272 AND \nSOME OF THE SUBREGIONAL PLANS THAT WILL BE CREATED THROUGH BAY ADAPT\, THAT \nWE’LL BE LOOKING AT THIS IN MORE DETAIL IN TERMS OF RESILIENCE TO THE PORTS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING ASK YOU TO GO \nTO JESSICA. >>SPEAKER: I WANT GOING ADD ON \nSPECIFICS TO THE PORTS THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION THERE WAS A LAW THAT STATE \nLANDS COMMISSION REQUIRED EACH OF THE PORTS TO PREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION PLAN. IN ADDITION OUR BAY AREA REPORT LOOKED ACROSS THE REGION \nOF THE PORTS WHAT WE FOUND IS AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IT’S \nTRUE THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE RISKS TO PORT OPERATIONS THAT YOU MAY EXPECT \nBUT AS YOU LOOK OUT TO THE HIGHER NUMBERS OF COURSE THESE ARE AREAS ON \nWATER GOING TO BE INUNDATED WITH CONNECTIONS AND BEHIND PORTS SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS IMPORTANT AND PORTS CAN’T RETREAT _ WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THOSE FUNCTIONAL IT’S NOT OVER TOPPING AT THE TERMINALS \nIT’S WATER COMING IN FROM OTHER WAYS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: . >>SPEAKER: I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE \nPORTS ARE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE NEIGHBORING LOWER LANDS THAT MIGHT \nHAVE VULNERABILITY ALTERS AND I ASSUME THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR ANALYSIS OF \nEQUITY IN THE PLAN. _. >>SPEAKER: YES\, THANK YOU. YOU KNOW\, \nI — SO\, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THIS DECISION TO RENAME\, TAKE AWAY THAT \nSECTION THAT WAS ON GROUNDS TRANSPORTATION AND RENAME IT TO \nREGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATES. I WAS ASKING \nMYSELF WHAT BOTHERED ME ABOUT IT AND PART OF IT IS\, YOU KNOW\, JUST THINKING \nABOUT WHAT BCDC’S ROLE\, WHICH IS — I MEAN IT’S KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE 100 \nFOOT BAN AND BAY FILL\, AND I GET THAT\, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE \nCARGO FORECAST\, YOU’RE KIND OF LOOKING AT IT\, THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY MOSTLY \nFROM THE WATER SIDE. BUT I DON’T SEE AS MUCH ANALYSIS\, YOU KNOW\, FROM THE \nLAND SIDE IN TERMS OF\, YOU KNOW\, THE — AND I KNOW THERE IS MANY OTHER \nAGENCIES INVOLVED IN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIFICATION\, AND \nTHAT’S GREAT. BUT THERE IS NOT A LOT ABOUT THE MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND \nDO WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR\, YOU KNOW\, ALL THE STAGING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE \nPLACE THERE\, BUT\, SO\, I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH THOUGHT HAS GONE \nINTO THE LAND SIDE PLANNING FOR THE 100 FOOT BAN FOR THE PORTS. BAND FOR THE \nWORDS. _. >>CORY MANN: THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT \nQUESTION. THERE ARE ORIGINS TO THE SEAPORT PLAN AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE \nWITH THE UPDATE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. \nOF COURSE\, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SHIFTS\, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST SEAPORT \nPLAN WAS PUBLISHED BUT IN LAST VERSIONS\, IN TERMS OF REGIONAL \nPLANNING IN HOW DIFFERENT AGENCIES ARE COORDINATING ON THAT KIND OF WORK. \nEARLIER VERSIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN WERE DEVELOPED AS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT \nORIGINALLY BETWEEN BCDC AND MTC. SO THAT A SEAPORT PLAN CONSTITUTED \nMARITIME MANAGEMENT PLAN AND USED BY TO MAKE PROJECT FUNDING DECISIONS \nSENTENCE THEN MTC HAS SHIFTED ITS FOCUS AND HAS PUBLISHED SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nGOODS MOVEMENT PLAN WHICH IS THE PLAN THAT SPEAKS MOST TO THE QUESTIONS \nYOU’RE RAISING PLANNED BAY AREA. AND SO THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF HAS NOT \nBEEN AN EFFECTIVE DRIVER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WE\, OF COURSE\, WORK WITH MTC ON UPDATING THE PLAN\, BUT THE KIND \nOF THE SCOPE OF THE UPDATE HAS BEEN MORE FOCUSED ON BCDC’S SPECIFIC KIND \nOF LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY PLAN. \nSO THOSE EFFORTS HAVE CHANGED. BUT THAT’S ALSO WHY WE INCLUDED A POLICY \nIN THAT SECTION ON REGIONAL COORDINATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY \nTO TIME THE TIMING OF FUTURE UPDATES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN TO SYNCHRONIZE THAT \nWITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH MTC STAFF ABOUT THAT. WE \nTHINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO WORK TOGETHER AND MIGHT HELP US TO LEVERAGE \nSUPPORT FOR THINGS LIKE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THAT KIND OF \nTHING. SO THAT’S SOME OF THE THINK THAT’S GONE INTO THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT BCDC WILL BE A BIG PARTNER OR PARTICIPANT \nIN THE GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN? >>CORE M: I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO. \nYEAH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nCOMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER MOVED. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD SECONDS. \nIF THERE IS NO OPPOSITION\, AND SEEING NONE\, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED\, AS \nWE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED\, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS TODAY\, BUT WE DO LOOK \nFORWARD TO IT COMING BACK TO US WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMENTS AND \nQUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND RAISED. \nWITH THAT\, AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT BOTH ITEMS 9 AND 10 ARE \nPOSTPONED\, WE COME TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \nREMINDING EVERYONE\, PLEASE\, TO ADJOURN TO THE TEM TEMESCAL ROOM FOR SOCIAL \nTIME. MOTION TO ADJOURN? COMMISSIONER \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-2-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231025T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231025T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240131T055618Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055618Z
UID:10000167-1698220800-1698253200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 25\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-25-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231019T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231019T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20230920T040845Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225949Z
UID:10000047-1697720400-1697734800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 19\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nConsideration of an Environmental Justice Advisors Organizational Development Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract of up to $45\,000 with MIG\, Inc. and Benchmarq Consulting\, LLC to provide organizational development support for the Environmental Justice Advisors Program.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance – POSTPONEDRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nRegional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Presentation and DiscussionThe Commission will hear an update on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan’s vision and goals phase\, including initial takeaways from pop-up events throughout the region and the online survey. The update will include the most recent Bay Adapt website improvements and Commissioners may discuss considerations of the next phase of the project\, including how subregional plans should be organized.(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Commission Strategic Plan ProgressSenior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94105 \nSkyStar Wheel\, LLC1610 Des Peres Road\, Suite 130St. Louis\, MO 63131 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.023.00 \nFiled on 10/13/23 \n90th Day on 01/11/24 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at Seawall Lot 301 between The Embarcadero and Jefferson Street\, in the City and County of San Francisco \nDescriptionTemporarily install and operate a ferris wheel and associated facilities within a footprint of approximately 5\,634 square feet for a period of six months\, with the option to extend the authorization for up to an additional 18 months. The project will include: \n\nConstructing an approximately 148-foot-tall ferris wheel with 36 fully enclosed gondolas that hold six people each; and\nConstructing support structures including an operations office\, a retail and photo pick-up tent\, an employee break room\, a storage container\, an emergency back-up generator\, ADA-accessible ramps\, 10 concrete planters\, bicycle and scooter parking\, a photo capture tent\, a queuing area with stanchions\, a ticketing counter/kiosk\, a temporary diesel generator\, informational and wayfinding signage\, and security fencing.Tentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. Please note that the City of San Francisco’s environmental review of the project is still in progress and is anticipated to be completed by October 20\, 2023.Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\nEmergency PermitsThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicantReclamation District1607 4301 Inverness DrivePittsburg\, CA 94565 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.005.00 \nFiled on 08/28/2023 \n90th Day on 11/26/2023 \nLocationIn the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh at Van Sickle Island\, on the Sacramento River in Solano County. \nDescriptionRepair a 500-linear-foot section of a breached exterior levee by placing 1\,100 cubic yards of rip rap and 3\,400 cubic yards of imported fill to replace material that had been lost after storm damage in December 2022. The fill will not extend or increase fill in the Bay beyond what existed prior to the damage. The project was authorized via email on August 18\, 2023. The permit includes special conditions requiring the permittee to monitor the levees over the next rainy season and submit a permit application for further repairs to the Island’s levees by March 31\, 2024 to forestall the need for future emergency permitting at this Island. \nRowan Yelton [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing October 6\, 2023 \n\n Staff Report and Recommendation on a Contract for Environmental Justice Advisors Organization Development (PDF)\nA joint statement on Senator Feinstein’s passing (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 13\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nIssued Permits and Received Permit Applications\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments\nPublic Comment Letters (PDF) – Sierra Club letter regarding Oakland Trash Diversion\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nA big cleanup is underway on San Francisco Bay. Here’s what’s involved\nS.F. power plant set to become new ‘neighborhood’ with 2\,600 homes\, 1.6 million feet of commercial space\nAt the end of the Mississippi\, a saltwater wedge overwhelms a community\nIn the battle over hate speech at Bay Area public meetings\, are the Zoombombers winning?\nSeverely congested Bay Area highway is about to see first phase of $1.6 billion revamp\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/10-19-cm-audio.mp3 \nTranscript \nUNDER TELECONFERENCE RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETING ACT. \nCOMMISSIONERS ARE LOCATED BOTH AT METRO CENTER AND AT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE \nVENUES THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AS SPECIFIED ON THE MEETING NOTICE. \nCOMMISSIONERS WHO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY WILL KEEP THEIR CAMERAS ON THROUGHOUT \nTHE MEETING SO THEY WILL BE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \nATTENDING VIRTUALLY\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE PUBLIC \nCOMMENT PERIOD\, WHICH IS ITEM THREE ON THE AGENDA OR DURING A PERIOD RESERVED \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM YOU WILL NEED TO DO SO IN \nONE OF TWO WAYS. FIRST IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM\, PLEASE \nRAISE YOUR HAND IN ZOOM. TO DO SO CLICK THE PARTICIPANTS ICON \nAT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN\, FIND YOUR NAME AND THE SMALL HAND TO THE LEFT \nAND CLICK ON THAT HAND. IF YOU ARE JOINING OUR MEETING VIA PHONE\, YOU \nMUST PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR KEY PAD TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE TO MAKE A COMMENT. \nINDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THEY HAVE \nBEEN RAISED AND THEY WILL BE UNMUTED. ATTENDING THIS MEETING IN-PERSON \nEITHER AT METRO CENTER OR AT A PUBLICLY NOTICED TELECONFERENCE LOCATION WHO \nWANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL AT YOUR LOCATION. \nTHOSE ATTENDING THE MEETING AT THE \nMETRO CENTER WILL USE THE PODIUM ON THEIR RIGHT. \nWHEREVER YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND FROM PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME TO PROVIDE YOUR \nCOMMENTS. ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. \nCOMMENTS MUST BE RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \nTO ACT IN A CIVIL MANNER WITHOUT USING HATE SPEECH DIRECTOR\, INDIRECT \nTHREATS\, AND/OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. BCDC HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED AN E-MAIL ADDRESS \nTO COMPILE PUBLIC COMMENTS ITS ADDRESS PUBLIC COMMENT AT BCDC@CA.GOV. \nE-MAILS RECEIVED BEFORE TEN THIS MORNING HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ANY RECEIVED SINCE THEN WILL ALSO BE SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND WELCOME TO \nOUR HYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM THE \nCHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, I DO WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE \nWILL POSTPONE OUR DISCUSSION OF THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE \nBECAUSE THE OCCASION PROTECTION COUNCIL HAS NOT YET PUBLISHED ITS DRAFT OF \nTHAT POLICY. WE HOPE TO LEARN ABOUT THAT FORECAST AND HOW BCDC MAY \nIMPLEMENT IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AS ALWAYS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \nCOMMISSIONERS IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF WHEN \nYOU ARE CALLED THEN UNMUTE YOURSELF AFTER RESPONDING. REYLINA\, WELCOME \nBACK. IT’S GOOD TO HAVE YOU. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ANUP DID A SPLENDID \nJOB IN YOUR ABSENCE. PLEASE CALLING THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR \nEISEN? >>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? >>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: RAMOS? >>BELIA RAMOS: HERE\, 95 THIRD STREET. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I FORGET ANYONE? BAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: >>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER NELSON IS HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT ITEM IS THREE PUBLIC COMMENT IF \nANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A MATTER THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA \nOR ON WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, YOU WILL HAVE THREE \nMINUTES TO DO SO. PRIOR TO STARTING PUBLIC COMMENT I WANT TO REEMPHASIZE \nONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTRODUCTION. AND WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE INCREASE IN A PHENOMENON THAT UNFORTUNATELY NOW \nHAS ITS OWN NAME\, ZOOM BOMBING\, IT IS MAKING RACIST OR HATE COMMENTS BY ZOOM \nAT PUBLIC AND LOCAL AND REGIONAL MEETINGS. \nAS STATED IN THAT VIDEO\, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY FORM OF HATE SPEECH OR \nTHREATS AGAINST ANY GROUP OR ANY INDIVIDUALS. AND AS CHAIR\, I WANT TO \nLET EVERYONE KNOW THAT I WILL ENFORCE THAT RIGIDLY. \nI HOPE NOT TO HAVE TO DO SO. I AM GOING TO START WITH MEMBERS OF \nTHE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE. REYLINA\, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS FROM \nPEOPLE IN THE ROOM? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO CARDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO PUBLIC CARDS. \nAND ANY HANDS FROM PEOPLE ON ZOOM WHO WISH TO ADDRESS US FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ALLISON \nMADDEN. LET ME GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: OKAY THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M REALLY SAD ABOUT THE ZOOM BOMBING TOO. I WANTED \nTO BE THERE IN-PERSON TODAY BECAUSE I WANTED TO THANK YOU\, AND I WANTED TO \nSHOW THAT EXTRA EFFORT TO BE THERE IN-PERSON. NOT ONLY BECAUSE I’M \nINTERESTED IN ALL OF THE CONTENT OF YOUR MEETINGS\, BUT DUE TO HOW \nCOMPASSIONATE YOUR DISCUSSION WAS ON SEPTEMBER 7TH\, AGENDA ITEM 11 NOT JUST \nON LIVEABOARD POLICIES BUT ON OYSTER COVE SITUATION IN GENERAL ALSO THE \nDISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESENTATION WAS REALLY SOPHISTICATED \nPOLICY ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING YOU ALL HAVE OF THE \nPUBLIC TRUST AS POLICY MAKERS BOTH ELECTED AND APPOINTED\, AND OF THE \nNUANCES\, NOT JUST OF THE PUBLIC TRUST\, BUT THE BCDC UNDERLYING POLICIES. \nAND\, SO\, WERE REALLY ENCOURAGED BY THAT. DURING THIS YEAR\, WHICH IS \nBOOKENDED BY SEPTEMBER 15TH OF 2022 WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT OYSTER COVE \nAND TALKING ABOUT THE LIVEABOARD POLICIES IN SEPTEMBER 7TH OF THIS \nYEAR\, YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE TRIED TO SHOP AND SPEAK\, NOT TOO MUCH\, AND NOT TOO \nLITTLE BUT TO ASK FOR THAT PUBLIC PROCESS BUT BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE \nINFORMATION THAT IT SEEMS LIKE COMMISSIONERS WERE ASKING ABOUT THE \nDATA WOULD REALLY COME FORTH IN A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT INCLUDES THE \nPUBLIC ACCIDENT UPLANDOWNERS\, LIVEABOARDS\, HASH BORE AND MARINA \nOWNERS AND OPERATORS AT HARBOR MASTERS ET CETERA\, AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE \nBEEN SPEAKING WERE AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF DOZENS OF LIVEABOARDS \nWE HAVE BEEN MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR AND SOME OF US WORKING ON THIS FOR \nEVEN OVER A DECADE AND REALLY WANTED TO PARSE OUT IN THAT PUBLIC PROCESS HOW \nMUCH LIVEABOARD COMMUNITIES SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST WHICH IS WHY I’M KIND OF \nSAD HOW PRIMARILY IT’S TIED TO THE RECREATION POLICY. \nBECAUSE A LOT OF LIVEABOARDS HAVE A SEPARATE RECREATIONAL BOAT THAT THEY \nTAKE OUT. SO THERE\, IS SO MUCH INFORMATION TO CONVEY. BUT ONE OF THE \nTHINGS I WANT TO SAY IS\, ONE OF THE LAST THINGS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DID\, \nTHE LAST BILLS HE SIGNED BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE WAS A FUNDING BILL FOR THE \nCOAST GUARD AND THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEER THAT PRESERVED 1500 \nHOUSEBOATS ON THE TVA PROPERTIES ON THE 13 SOUTHEASTERN STATES IN THE UNITED \nSTATES\, AND AT FIRST IT WAS THE REPUBLICS THAT CAME TO THE AID OF THE \nPEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO BE DISPOSSESSED\, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS \nDID IT TOO\, BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNANIMOUSLY OVERWHELMINGLY \nTHEY GRAND FATHERED TO PRESERVE ALL OF THAT WHICH AVOIDED THE KIND OF CARNAGE \nTHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH OUR LOSS OF MARINAS SO WE’RE OFFERING TO BE A \nCONDUIT OF THE INFORMATION WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT \nTHE MARINAS AND LIVEABOARDS OVER THE LAST YEAR SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE \nCONTINUING THE DISCUSSION YOU HAD LAST TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. YOU\, CERTAINLY\, WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC \nITEMS ON THE AGENDA AS THEY COME UP. ITEM FOUR IS THE APPROVAL OF THE \nMINUTES OF OUR SEPTEMBER 7TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED DRAFT \nMINUTES OF THAT MEETING. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE THE MINUTES. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE \nMOTION. >>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PESKIN MOVES. AND? \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO SECONDS. \nDO I HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OR ABSTENTIONS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I ABSTAIN? CHAIR\, [INDISCERNIBLE] HAS ABSTAINED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO — >>SPEAKER: THIS IS THE COURT \nREPORTER\, WHO WAS THE FIRST ABSTENTION? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA\, THE NEW \nCOMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER ECKERLE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MY FIRST \nITEM IS TO RECOGNIZE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER JESSE \nARREQUIN WILL NO LONGER BE REPRESENTING THE EAST BAY ON BEHALF OF ABAG\, AND \nABAG HAS APPOINTED RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SEIZURE CESAR ZEPEDA AS \nTHE REPLACEMENT\, NO STRANGER TO BCDC HE IS A MEMBER OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED TASK \nFORCE THAT HAS BEEN HELPING OUR BCDC PREPARE OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN STARTING WITH OUR GUIDELINES I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT HIS \nALTERNATE IS RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HELIA BANA\, AND WE WILL BE \nHEARING MORE ABOUT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN LATERED IN \nTHE MEETING. CESAR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE. \nRICHMOND DOES HAVE 32 MILES OF SHORELINE THE MOST OUT OF ANY OTHER \nBAY AREA CITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HAS \nAPPOINTED STEVEN BEN SENAS ITS NEW COMMISSIONER\, THE DEPARTMENT’S NEW \nPRINCIPAL PROGRAM BUDGET ANALYST FOR THE SECTION THAT INCLUDES BCDC. WE \nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING CLOSELY WITH HIM AND HIS STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: HE TOLD ME BEFORE THE MEETING HE CANNOT ATTEND THIS MEETING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HE CANNOT \nATTEND THIS MEETING BUT I AM SURE HE WILL ATTEND FUTURE ONES. \nI WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SOME SADNESS\, BUT NOT TOTALLY SAD\, TO SAY A \nFEW WORDS ABOUT DIANNE FEINSTEINFEINSTEIN. WITH HER PASSING\, \nWE HAVE LOST A TRUE PUBLIC SERVANT. ONE OF HER MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE \nBAY AND ITS PEOPLE WAS HER INVOLVEMENT IN MEASURE AA. TO THE FRUSTRATION OF \nSOME OF ITS SUPPORTERS. SHE PUSHED TO MAKE IT BETTER. AND SHE DID MAKE IT \nBETTER AND SHE HELPED SUPPORT IT AND TO PASS IT AND IT’S A VERY IMPORTANT PART \nOF OUR EFFORTS TO BOTH PRESERVE THE BAY AND TO PROTECT IT. \nI ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE SOME LESS RECOGNIZED CONTRIBUTIONS THAT SHE MADE \nOVER THE YEARS TO A NUMBER OF BLACK ORGANIZATIONS. \nSHE HOSTED THE FIRST ANNUAL RETREAT FOR BLACK WOMEN ORGANIZED FOR POLITICAL \nACTION. ONE OF THE — A STRONG LOCAL AND LONG \nINVOLVED ORGANIZATIONS. AND SHE\, WHICH HAS BEEN A STRONG VOICE \nFOR BLACK WOMEN THROUGH THE OUR COMMUNITIES AND SHE WAS ONE OF THE \nORIGINAL SUPPORTERS OF BLACK AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA \nFOUNDATIONED BY PERCY PINKNEY WHO WORKED ON HER STAFF. BUT MOST OF ALL\, \nI WANT TO RECOGNIZE HER STEADY\, COMMITTED\, AND DEDICATED LEADERSHIP\, \nAS SAN FRANCISCO’S MAYOR AND AS OUR UNITED STATES SENATOR. TO SOME SHE \nWAS NOT AS AGGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE AS THEY WOULD LIKE YET SHE WAS NOT ONLY \nTHE AUTHOR BUT REALLY THE CHAMPION OF THE 1994 FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN \nAND HEAVEN ARE KNOWS WE NEED MORE OF THOSE. SHE BROKE THROUGH SO MANY \nGLASS SEALINGS\, I CAN’T COUNT THEM SHE WAS A CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE AND SHE \nWILL BE MISSED. AS YOU KNOW\, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE LAIRD BILL SB272\, \nAND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATIONS WHO HELPED SUPPORT THAT \nAND PERSUADE THE GOVERNOR THAT THIS TIME ROUND\, YOU REALLY SHOULD SIGN IT \nAND IT WORKED. AND WE WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT \nIN THIS MEETING AND IN FUTURE MEETINGS. IT’S GOING GIVE US SOME VERY NEEDED \nHELP IN BOTH PROVIDING GUIDANCE\, BUT\, ALSO\, BEING ABLE TO PUSH LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT THE PLANS THAT ARE VERY NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR BAY. \nI WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT LARRY AND I \nHAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE LEADERS OF MTC AND ABAG AND THE CALIFORNIA \nCONSERVANCY TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY\, TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN COORDINATE \nEFFORTS IN SEEKING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ADAPTING TO RISING SEA LEVEL. THE \nGOAL IS TO MAKE US MORE EFFECTIVE AND TO ENSURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THAT \nLOCAL COMPETITION DOESN’T HURT US. WE HAD A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF THIS WITH \nTHE APPLICATION TO NOAA FOR LOCAL FUNDS THAT WE ARE HOPEFUL WILL BE SUCCESSFUL \nSO WE KNOW IT CAN WORK BUT WE NEED TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE VIGOROUS AND MUCH \nMORE THOUGHTFULLY COORDINATED. YOU WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THESE \nEFFORTS AT FUTURE MEETINGS. I HOPE WE’LL GET A MAJORITY OF OUR \nCOMMISSIONERS HERE IN PHYSICAL PRESENCE FOR OUR NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING. I’LL BE \nHOSTING A GET-TOGETHER HERE AT 375 BEALE STREET AFTER OUR COMMISSION \nMEETING\, FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS\, AND SENIOR STAFF\, SO THAT WE CAN TALK A \nLITTLE\, AND SOCIALIZE AND RENEW OUR BONDS WITH EACH OTHER AS WE\, MORE OR \nLESS\, COME OUT OF COVID. SO\, HOPEFULLY THAT YOU CAN COME FOR \nTHAT. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON NOVEMBER \n2ND\, AND AT THAT MEETING\, WE EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS. \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING THE \nSAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE UPDATED \nDRAFT SEAPORT PLAN\, A BRIEFING AND STATUS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENTS \nCONCERNING HIGHWAY 37. AND THIS IS THE MOMENT IN TIME WHEN \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY REPORT ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE NOT \nREPORTED IN WRITING\, REMEMBERING THAT YOU DO NEED TO REPORT THEM IN WRITING \nANYWAY. SO\, IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO MAKE A REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS\, \nTHEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE ON MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION\, NOW IS \nTHE TIME TO DO SO. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I DO NOT \nSEE ANY HANDS. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX\, THE — \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PASSING OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN. AS MANY \nOF YOU KNOW I WAS SENIOR MEMBER OF SENATOR PETE WILSON’S GUBERNATORIAL \nCAMPAIGN IN 1989 AND 1990 SO I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT MAYOR FEINSTEIN \nTHEN WITHOUT TELLING LONGER STORIES I CAN SAY THAT EACH CANDIDATE HAD \nRESPECT FOR OTHERS GIVEN THEY WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL BIG CITY MAYORS. MY \nFAVORITE SENATOR FEINSTEIN STORY\, HOWEVER\, OCCURRED FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN \nI WAS LAST IN WASHINGTON\, D.C. I WAS WAITING FOR OUR FLIGHT BACK TO SAN \nFRANCISCO WHEN THE SENATOR CAME INTO THE GATE AREA SHE WAS GREETED BY THE \nVIRGIN AMERICA STAFF WHO OBVIOUSLY KNEW HER TRAVEL HABITS VERY WELL. \nWHILE WE WERE WAITING FOR OUR BOARD DELAYED FLIGHT I SCREWED UP MY COURAGE \nAND WALKED OVER TO HER AND INTRODUCED MYSELF AS BCDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND \nAS A FORMER FELLOW. NOT A SECOND AFTER I DID AND THANKED HER FOR BEING SUCH A \nVISIBLE SUPPORTER OF THE COMMISSION SHE BROKE ENTER A BIG SMILE AND LET ME \nKNOW IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS HOW MUCH SHE ADMIRED BCDC AND HOW MUCH SHE ENJOYED \nBEING A COMMISSIONER SHE OBVIOUSLY LOVED THE BAY AND ASKED ME A COUPLE OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT OUR WORK DURING THE PAST 20 YEARS I HAVE MET WITH SEVERAL \nSTAFF MEMBERS AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY THE \nREPORTS THAT HER STAFF HAD TO WORK VERY HARD TO KEEP UP WITH HER. SHE WAS \nTREMENDOUSLY GRACIOUS THAT EVENING AND MAY HER WORK AND DEVOTION TO WHAT WE \nDO KEEP HER AS A BLESSED MEMORY FOR ALL ASSOCIATED WITH BCDC. \nFOR THE FIRST TIME IN BCDC HISTORY STAFF HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE \nCALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORP TO PLACE CORP MEMBER ROSE ONE VELAZQUEZ AT BCDC \nAS AN INTERN TO BE PAID FOR BY THE CONSERVATION CORP. ROSE ONE HAS BEEN \nA CORP MEMBER FOR 18 MONTHS DURING WHICH SHE HAS CANDIES EXPERIENCE IN \nTRAIL BUILDING SALAMON RESTORATION AND FUEL REDUCTION AND NOW IS ON THE FIRE \nCREW MAYBE WE COULD HAVE USED HER THIS MORNING DURING THE EARTHQUAKE DRILL. \nA HORN ET FROM FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE GRAD FROM \n>>MARY SACKETT: STATE UNIVERSITY FROM WHICH SHE EARNED BACHELOR OF SCIENCE \nIN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES WITH MINOR IN SPANISH AND CERTIFICATE IN HEALTH CARE \nSPANISH ROSY WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND \nWILL HELP US GROW OUR SMALL SOCIAL MEDIA PRINCES CONCURRENTLY AND WE’RE \nPLEASED SHE VOLL TIERED TO JOIN US. ALSO INTRODUCING A MEMBER OF OUR \nCLIMATE POLICY FOR THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HARRIET ROSS HAS JOINED AS \nBCDC REGULATORY DIRECTOR YOU WILL SEE HER IN A MOMENT SHE WONDERED WHETHER \nTHERE WILL BE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING. BCDC HAS \nPOWED TO PARTNER WITH THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY SAVE THE BAY\, BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY PROGRAM ESTUARY INSTITUTE \nDUCKS UNLIMITED AND BAY JOINT VENTURE TO ISSUE A COLLABORATIVE COMPREHENSIVE \nSTATEMENT AFTER SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S PASSING IT’S BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO EACH \nOF YOU AND IS POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE AS WELL. I WANT TO NOTE COMMISSIONER \nJENN ECKERLE HAS BECOME A NUMBER OF THE NOAA’S NEW NA RENE AND COASTAL AREA \nBASED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NATIONAL BODY ADVISES UNDER SECRETARY \nOF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS ATMOSPHERE ON SCIENCE BASED APPROACHES TO AREA BASED \nPROTECTION CONSERVATION RESTORATION MANAGEMENT COASTAL MARINE AREAS ITS \nMEMBERSHIP REPRESENTS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA’S OCEAN \nCOASTAL AND GREAT LAKES COMMUNITIES RELYING ON INCLUDING RESOURCE MANAGERS \nCOMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USERS AND SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS INDIAN TRIBES AND \nINDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES PHILANTHROPIC NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND EDUCATORS \nIN SHORT A TERRIFIC PLACE FOR CALIFORNIA POLICY MAKERS AND WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT ITS WORK LAST MONTH BCDC WAS PLEASED TO SUPPORT THE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY’S REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nAUTHORIZING COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE NINE COUNTIES SHORELINE OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WHICH WOULD HELP THE REGION PREPARE AND ADAPT TO RISING SEA \nLEVELS. OCTOBER 9TH IN THE ABSENCE OF CHAIR WASSERMAN VICE CHAIR EISEN \nAPPROVED AN EMERGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION FROM THE OWNERS OF A HOUSE \nBUILT ON PILES OVER THE BAY IN TIBURON WHILE DOING OTHER WORK ON THE HOUSE \nENGINEERS FOUND THAT THE ROCK SEA WALL UNDER THEIR HOUSE HAD BEEN \nDESTABILIZED ALONG ITS ENTIRE LENGTH DUE TO WAVE ACTION AND MAY FAIL \nCOMPLETELY AT ANY TIME WHICH WOULD RESULTED IN CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF \nHOUSE FOUNDATION THE ENGINEERS ALSO ADVISED THE OWNERS TO VACATE THE HOUSE \nIMMEDIATELY. I WANT TO THANK VICE CHAIR EISEN FOR WILLINGNESS TO STEP \nINTO THE CHAIR’S SHOWALTER SHOES SO THE REPAIRS COULD BEGIN. \nFINALLY I’M PLEASED TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT THE BCDC BOCCE \nTEAM\, THE MEAN HIGH TIDES EMERGED AS VICTORS IN THE WEDNESDAY FERRY \nBUILDING BOCCE LEAGUE PLAY OFFS. BCDC’S TEAM WHICH INCLUDES STALWARTS \nTOLL HALLENBECK\, JIM\, KATHARINE PAN AND STEVE GOLDBECK AMONG OTHERS THE PLAY \nOFF GAMES AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND POVERTY \nSAN FRANCISCO WEREN’T GRUDGE MATCHES OR ANYTHING STEVE IS ACTUALLY SHOWING THE \nMEDAL THAT EVERYBODY RECEIVED AFTER WINNING. HAPPY TO REPORT THAT OUR \nFRIENDS WHO PLAY FOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION TEAM THERE’S A GRUDGE MATCH \nLOANED BCDC SUPPORT IN A TERRIFIC DISPLAY OF COLLABORATION WHICH NO \nDOUBT PRESTAGES COLLABORATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT \nSB272. THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR ON HIS REPORT? >>SPEAKER: NOT A QUESTION. BUT A \nCOMPLIMENT. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMING OUT TO \nOUR MARIN MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GATHERING LAST MONTH AND GIVING A \nFABULOUS BCDC 101 AND THEN ENGAGING ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AFTERWARDS. IT WAS \nFANTASTIC\, LARRY. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I WANT TO \nMAKE A BRIEF COMMENT ON THE EMERGENCY PERMIT. I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS \nWITH SOME CONTRACTORS AND OTHERS\, AND I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT CAUSED THE NEED \nFOR THAT EMERGENCY PERMIT IS NOT UNCOMMON. \nAND I’M NOT SURE THERE IS A LOT WE CAN DO. BUT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nPURCHASED HOUSES OVER THE WATER\, PARTICULARLY IN MARIN\, NOT \nEXCLUSIVELY\, THERE ARE SOME IN CONTRA COSTA AND ELSEWHERE\, DON’T EVEN KNOW \nTHEY HAVE PERMITS FROM BCDC OR THAT THEY’RE REQUIRED\, AND THEY MAY WELL \nNOT KNOW THAT THE WORK THAT WAS DONE PURSUANT TO THOSE PERMITS MAY HAVE \nBEEN UNDERMINED. SO\, I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE A LITTLE \nBIT OF THOUGHT ABOUT HOW WE CAN PUBLICIZE THAT AND ALERT THEM SO THAT \nWE DON’T FACE A RASH OF EMERGENCY PERMITS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE RECEIVED A POSTING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND AS LARRY \nSAID\, OUR NEW HEAD OF REGULATORY MATTERS\, HARRIET ROSS IS HERE\, EAGER \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. \nNOBODY WANTS TO JUMP IN. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU GET OFF EASY. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISERS PROGRAM. \nPHOENIX ARMENTA\, OUR SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMATE EQUITY AND COMMUNITY \nENGAGEMENT WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. >>PHOENIX ARMENTA: THANK YOU\, CHAIR\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. AGAIN I’M PHOENIX ARMENTA\, SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMB \nEQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR CONSIDERATION OF \nAN ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE ADVISERS ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. \nNEXT SLIDE. THE EJ ADVISORS PROGRAM RECENTLY \nCOMPLETED ITS SECOND YEAR THE PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED AFTER THE CREATION OF \nOUR EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES IN 2019. BCDC CREATED THE PROGRAM \nBECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR EJ POLICIES WERE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE \nHELP OF OUR PARTNERS. THIS EJ ADVISERS PROGRAM IS A PILOT PROGRAM AND A \nUNIQUE MODEL BEING EMULATED BY OTHER AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE. THE \nPROGRAM WAS CODEVELOPED WITH EJ ADVISORS AND OVER THE TWO YEARS HAS \nSEEN MANY SUCCESSES WHICH INCLUDE HELPING US TO DEVELOP OUR RACIAL \nEQUITY ACTION PLAN\, ADVISING US ON CREATING AN EQUITY PROCESS AND BAY \nADAPT WORK\, ALSO SEEN CHALLENGES OVER THE YEARS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE RECENT \nRESIGNATION OF THREE ADVISORS. WITH ANY PROGRAM IT’S IMPORTANT TO \nEVALUATE HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING AND ASSESS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO \nIN THE FUTURE\, ISSUING RFP FOR ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT \nTO CONDUCT ANALYSIS OF THE EJ PROGRAM AND HELP DESIGN THE PROGRAM FOR \nMAXIMUM IMPACT. NEXT SLIDE. THROUGH A COMPETITIVE \nBIDDING PROCESS STAFF HAS SELECTED MIG\, INC. IN COLLABORATION WITH BENCHMARQ \nCONSULTING LLC. MIG HAS FOUR DECADES OF PLANNING RESEARCH AND STRATEGY \nSUPPORT TO A DIVERSE ARRAY OF PARTNERS THEIR BACKGROUND INCLUDES WORKING WITH \nPUBLIC AGENCIES COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS FACILITATING THESE \nINSTITUTIONS UNDERSTANDING EQUITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION WHILE LEADING \nCOLLECTIVE CULTURAL SHIFTS TO COLLABORATIVE DYNAMIC BETWEEN \nGOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WORKING DIRECTLY WITH \nBCDC AND EJ ADVISERS IN THE BAY AREA. \nWORKING WITH 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGH IMPLEMENTING SPECIALIZED TRAINING \nSOLUTIONS FOCUSING ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nDIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES. \nCONSULTING IS A FORM PARTNERING ON THIS CONTRACT. I’LL OPEN UP TO ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER? I WOULD \n— I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION. I WOULD MAKE ONE COMMENT. NOT SO MUCH \nRECENTLY BUT OVER THE YEARS WITH A NUMBER OF PUBLIC AGENCIES I HAVE \nREPRESENTED I WORKED WITH MIG AND FOUNDATION THEM TO BE AN EFFECTIVE \nCREATIVE ORGANIZATION ASSISTING PUBLIC AGENCIES. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR \nWORKING ON THIS PROJECT. SEEING NO QUESTIONS. STAFF — \nOH\, PUBLIC. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC — >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nYOU CAN PUT UP THE SLIDE FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? \nOKAY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES ITS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT UP TO $45\,000 CONTRACT WITH \nMIG INC. PARTNERSHIP WITH BENCHMARQ CONSULTING \nHLLC PROVIDING THE COMMISSION FACILITATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL \nDEVELOPMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORS PROGRAM OVER A PERIOD \nFROM OCTOBER 19TH\, 2023 THROUGH MARCH 1ST\, 2024 STAFF FURTHER RECOMMENDS \nTHAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE \nCONTRACT AS NECESSARY INCLUDING REVISING THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF \nTHE AGREEMENT. >>SPEAKER: I WILL MOVE THE ITEM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PETERS MAKES THE MOTION. \nCOMMISSIONER AHN SECONDS. CALL THE ROLL\, PLEASE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? COMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? >>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BURKE? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER LEE? \n>>OTTO LEE: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? >>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? >>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 17 YESES\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. NO-NOS HEARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. \nWE LOOK FORWARD TO THE WORK GOING FORWARD. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, SINCE ITEM NINE HAS BEEN POSTPONED. THIS IS AN \nUPDATE ON THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN’S VISION AND GOALS \nPHASE. JACKIE MENDOSKY OUR SENIOR CLIMATE \nADAPTATION PLANNER WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BEFORE JACKIE STARTS\, I JUST — I HAVE RECEIVED \nQUESTIONS FROM\, NOW\, THREE COMMISSIONERS SAY WHEN ARE WE GOING TO \nTALK ABOUT 272. [LAUGHTER] \nPAY ATTENTION TO JACKIE\, PLEASE. >>JACLYN MANDOSKE: ALL RIGHT LET ME \nGO AHEAD AND GET MY SCREEN SLIDES UP. OOPS. \nSORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. \nGOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JACLYN \nMANDOSKE\, I AM A SENIOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNER HERE AT BCDC AND \nTHE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN HERE TO \nSHARE AN UPDATE ON OUR PROGRESS TOWARDS DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR O A REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. YOU LAST HEARD UPDATE ON THIS PROJECT BACK IN \nFEBRUARY WHEN WE INTRODUCED THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND \nWE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF EXCITING WORK SINCE THEN. I WANT TO REMIND US \nWHY WE’RE HERE AND WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE. AS WE ALL KNOW RISING SEA \nLEVEL AND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER WILL AFFECT ALL OF US WHO LIVE NEAR AND \nEVEN FAR FROM THE BAY SHORELINE AND WHILE LOCAL ADAPTATION IS OCCURRING \nIT’S HAPPENING UNEVENLY AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SHORELINE FACE DIFFERENT \nRISKS AND DIFFERENT RESOURCES TO RESPOND JURISDICTIONS ARE WELL ON \nTHEIR WAY WHILE OTHERS HAVE NOT YET GUN WHILE FLOODING DOESN’T CARE ABOUT \nJURISDICTION AT BOUNDARIES PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE \nWILL REQUIRE US TO ACT TOGETHER AS A CONNECTED REGION THAT WE ARE IN WAYS \nTHAT ARE COORDINATED AND CONSISTENT THIS IS WHY WE’RE DEVELOPING A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS A REMINDER THIS THIS PROJECT IS WOW OF \nMANY WAYS WE’RE IMPLEMENTING THE BAY ADAPT JOINT PLATFORM IT’S FUNDED BY \nTHE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL AND THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND IS \nENVISIONED TO SERVE AS A MODEL FOR HOW REGIONS IN CALIFORNIA CAN PLAN \nCOLLECTIVELY FOR CLIMATE IMPACTS AS COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR LARRY GOLDZBAND SAID IN THE OPENING REMARKS WE HAVE VERY EXCITING \nNEWS ON OCTOBER 7TH GOVERNOR OF — HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR WORK WHAT DOES IT \nCHANGE? THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS AND WE’LL ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS LATER IN \nTHE PRESENTATION. STAY TUNED. I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE WORK \nTHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO DEVELOP THESE GUIDELINES. \nWHEN WE USE THE TERM REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT \nIS THREE MAIN PARTS FIRST PART IS CREATING GUIDELINES THIS WORK WE’RE \nDOING WILL INCLUDE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THAT WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE \nSUBREGIONAL PLANS FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES THE NEXT STEP IS \nSUPPORTING LOCAL JURISDICTION THROUGH POLICY AND TECHNICAL STANZAS IN \nCREATING THEIR OWN SUBREGIONAL PLANS LASTLY DEVELOPING AN ONLINE MAPPING \nPLATFORM TO SUPPORT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND COMMUNITIES TO ACCESS GUIDELINES \nTO ALLOW US TO TRACK PROGRESS ON ADAPTATION SO WE CONDITIONED HOW AND \nWHERE THE REGION IS WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE SHARED SUCCESS. WHERE ARE WE \nIN THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES? WE’RE HERE IN LATE \nOCTOBER AND HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE LAST TWO MONTHS CONDUCTING OUTREACH WITH \nPRACTITIONERS PLANNERING RESIDENTS AND MORE TO ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR VISION \nSUPERVISOR VALUES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BAY SHORELINE WE HAVE HELD MEETINGS \nWITH OUR EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP ATTENDED LOCAL COMMUNITY EVENTS AND CURRENTLY \nHAVE A SURVEY OUT TOGETHER FOR FEEDBACK ON THE VISION WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST \nPUBLIC WORKSHOP TO HELP US WRAP THE VISION A BIT LATER I’M LOOKING HERD \nYOU CAN SEE IN THE TRANSITION DEPENDING GUIDELINES IN THE COMING MONTHS. \nEQUITY STRATEGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THIS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND EQUITY SUBCOMMITTEE STRATEGY ALLOWS US TO TRANSPARENTLY \nDOCUMENT PRACTICES OF EQUITY THAT WE’RE FOLLOWING IN THIS WORK IT CONTAINS TWO \nPARTS\, PROCESS HOW WE PAY OUR EQUITY REPRESENTATIVES\, CONDUCT OUTREACH WORK \nIN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITIES DEVELOP GUIDELINES AND SECOND PART IS ENSURING \nTHAT WE’RE EVALUATING AT EACH STAGE OF THE PROCESS AND HOW AND WHERE EQUITY \nIS BEING INTEGRATED ACROSS THE OUTCOMES OF OUR WORK. DEVELOPING VISIONS FOR \nTHE FUTURE WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE GUIDELINES REFLECT OUR \nVALUES AS A REGION AND ARE COLLECTIVE ACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE SUBREGIONAL \nPLANS ADDING UP TO SHARED OUTCOMES WE HAVE DEFINED. \nTOPICS AND ISSUES WE’RE PLANNING INCLUDE GUIDELINES\, PEOPLE AND HEALTH \nECOSYSTEMS RESILIENCE DEVELOPMENT AND MORE WILL BE DEVELOPING VISION \nSTATEMENTS GUIDELINES WILL BE WRITTEN TO GET US TOWARDS THESE MEASURES\, \nCONTINUING TO ELEVATE EQUITY ALONG WITH EVALUATING PRIORITIES PRIORITIES SUCH \nAS IMPROVING NATURE-BASED INITIATION AND ADAPTATION\, ACHIEVING MULTIPLE \nBENEFITS. WE HAVE ATTENDED NINE COMMUNITIES EVENTS IN THE LAST TWO \nMONTHS AND WE HAVE ONE MORE COMING UP THIS WEEKEND WE HAVE BEEN OUT IN \nCOMMUNITIES EVERY WEEKEND SINCE SEPTEMBER. WE HAVE BEEN ALL OVER FROM \nTHE NORTH BAY TO THE CENTRAL BAY AND THE SOUTH BAY. AND I WANT TO NOTE \nTHAT WE WERE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN EACH OF THESE EVENTS THROUGH \nPARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING THROUGH THE SUPPORT OF MANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS\, \nAS WELL AS ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED’S \nREGIONAL TASK FORCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY WHO \nHELPED US GET INTO THE EVENTS THEY HAVE BEEN REALLY SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT \nEXPERIENCES. YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL HOPEFULLY RECEIVED \nAN E-MAIL FROM US THIS MORNING THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT E-MAIL WITH A LINK TO \nTHIS SURVEY. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY THAT WE’RE CAPTURING FEEDBACK ON THE \nVISION. IF YOU DIDN’T GET THAT E-MAIL PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I AM HAPPY TO \nRESEND. I’LL MAYBE PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT AND ASK FOLKS IF THEY WOULD \nLIKE TO TAKE THEIR PHONES OUT AND SCAN THE QR CODE. SAVE IT FOR LATER. \nTHE SURVEY IS ABOUT 5 TO 7 MINUTES SO MAYBE AFTER THE MEETING TODAY. WE \nENCOURAGE ALL OF TO YOU TAKE IT AND SHARE IT WITH YOUR NETWORKS AND \nCOMMUNITIES. WE’LL BE CLOSING THE SURVEY AT THE END OF THIS MONTH ON \nOCTOBER 31ST. SO\, WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING AT ALL OF \nTHESE EVENTS? WE HAVE TALKED TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. \nWE HAVE HAD OVER 250 INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE INTERACT WITH OUR — OR ENGAGE ON OUR \nINTERACTIVE BOARD. AND ON THIS BOARD\, WHICH YOU CAN SEE A BIT IN THESE \nPHOTOS\, WE ASK PEOPLE WHAT’S IMPORTANT TO YOU. WE PROVIDED A SERIES OF VALUE \nSTATEMENTS AND ASKED PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY THE TOP THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO \nTHEM RIGHT NOW. AND WE ALSO ASKED THEM THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO THEM FOR \nFUTURE GENERATIONS. WE USED THIS ACTIVITY TO INITIATE CONVERSATIONS AND \nSHARE THE CONTEXT THAT SEA LEVEL RISE WILL HAVE LONG-TERM GENERATIONAL EXACT \nIMPACTS AND CHOICES TODAY WILL AFFECT OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. \nINCLUDING TOP PRIORITIES FROM ALL NINE COMMUNITIES BOTH IN RIGHT NOW AND FOR \nTHE FUTURE. UNSURPRISINGLY RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE \nTHINKING ABOUT THE DAY-TO-DAY ISSUES INCLUDING COST OF LIVING AND HOUSING \nAFFORDABILITY. WE SAW THAT PEOPLE VALUE PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING \nOF BAY AREA RESIDENTS IT WAS A HIGH PRIORITY TODAY AND FOR FUTURE \nGENERATIONS AS WE LOOK AT PRIORITIES HELD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS WE SEE \nVALUES CHANGED A BIT. YES FOLKS ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT COST OF LIVING \nBUT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE FUTURE BY FAR IS PROTECTING NATURAL HABITATS \nAND WILDLIFE. IT’S REMARKABLE THAT NEARLY EVERY COMMUNITY PRIORITIZED \nTHIS FOR THE FUTURE. WHILE THIS ACTIVITY WAS NOT INTENDED \nTO BE AN OFFICIAL SURVEY WE WILL USE THESE RESULTS TO HELP US VERIFY OUR \nVISION STATEMENTS. THROUGH THE EVENTS WE INTERACTED WITH A BROAD RANGE OF \nPEOPLE WITH VARYING LEVELS OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE TOPIC SOME HAD \nNEVER HEARD OF SEA LEVEL RISE. WE TALKED WITH KIDS AND ADULTS WE HAD \nMATERIALS AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH AND WE FORMED RELATIONSHIPS \nWHICH WE HOPE WILL BE PART OF OUR PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. WE HAVE BEEN \nGATHERING FEEDBACK FROM OUR ONLINE SURVEY WHICH YOU ALL HAVE THE QR CODE \nON YOUR PHONE. AMONG MANY QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY WE ASKED PEOPLE TO SHARE IN \nTHEIR OWN WORDS THEIR VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE SHORELINE. I WON’T READ \nALL OF THEM BUT DRAW ON I A COUPLE OF THEMES THAT STOOD OUT TO ME. \nPEOPLE ARE ENVISIONING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS AT ALL \nLEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER TOWARDS THE SAME SET OF BOLD \nOBJECTIVES THAT SEA LEVEL RISE CLIMATE CHANGE OFFER OPPORTUNITY TO RETHINK \nOUR CURRENT SYSTEMS AND FOSTER HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER AND THE \nNATURAL WORLD. SO FAR THE SURVEY HAS GENERATED 170 RESPONSES AND WILL CLOSE \nIN OCTOBER THIS INFORMATION ALSO IS BEING USED TO CONFIRM OUR VISION \nSTATEMENTS AND VALIDATE AND GATHER VOICES FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE REGION. \nLASTLY WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT THURSDAY OCTOBER 26TH ON \nZOOM PLEASE TENANTS IN THE MORNING THIS MORNING’S E-MAIL YOU RECEIVED A ZOOM \nREGISTRATION LINK FOR THIS WORKSHOP. IT WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO \nLEARN ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT DEBUTING CHALLENGES \nOPPORTUNITIES AND BAY AREA ADAPTATION SHARING MORE RESULTS FROM ALL FEEDBACK \nWE HAVE BEEN GATHERING IN THIS PHASE\, AS WE BEGIN TRANSITIONING INTO THE \nNEXT PHASE WHICH IS DEFINING SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS. \nWHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN WE HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT \nTHIS THROUGH A COUPLE OF MAJOR BUCKETS. 50 FIRST IS WHAT’S IN THE PLAN\, \nWHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE AND WHAT ARE GOOD PLANS THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS \nHAVE BEEN DOING THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM. NEXT THINKING ABOUT WHAT’S THE \nPROCESS FOR HOW THESE PLANS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. IMPORTANT PART OF THE \nQUESTION IS WHAT’S THE SCALE OF THE PLAN OR SUBREGION\, WHO LEADS AND \nIMPLEMENTS IT: THERE ARE IDEAS FOR HOW WE MIGHT CONSIDER SCALE OF PLANS FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE’LL BE EXPLORING MULTIPLE SCALES CITIES COUNTIES OPERATIONAL \nLANDSCAPE UNITS EVALUATING TRADE-OFFS DIFFERENT APPROACHES LASTLY THINKING \nABOUT PLANS ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTED WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WILL BE \nTACKLING THESE QUESTIONS WITH US WE’LL BRING THESE QUESTIONS TO OUR RISING \nSEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AS WELL AS CONSIDERING FOCUS \nGROUPS TO ENSURE THE WAY WE DEFINE THESE PLANS IS RESPONSIVE TO \nCHALLENGES AT HAND. NOW WE’RE HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE LAIRD BILL. OUR \nNEXT STEP IN SUBREGIONAL PLANS IS EXCITING WITH THE PASSAGE OF SB272. \nWHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY DO? IT REQUIRES LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ALONG THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE TO DEVELOP SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE RESILIENCY \nPLANS. THESE ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE BILL BUT ARE BEING DEFINED THROUGH OUR \nPROJECT. THIS IS A STATEWIDE BILL FOR THE OUTER COAST\, THE CALIFORNIA \nCOASTAL COMMISSION HAS EQUIVALENT RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH THEIR LOCAL \nCOASTAL PROGRAM AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO ENSURE ALIGN. THIS BILL REQUIRES BCDC TO DEVELOP \nGUIDELINES BY THE END OF 2024 WHICH WE’RE CURRENTLY DOING AND SPECIFICALLY \nCALLS OUT THAT THE GUIDELINES WILL BE BUILT ON BAY ADAPT’S GUIDING \nPRINCIPLES. IT REQUIRES THAT SUBREGIONAL PLANS ARE \nSUBMITTED TO BCDC FOR APPROVAL BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH GUIDELINES AND SETS \nUP IMPORTANT PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPROVED PLANS \nWILL BE PRIORITIZED FOR STATE FUNDING. \nSETS A TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF SUBREGIONAL PLANS BY JANUARY 2034 \nALTHOUGH WE’RE HOPING TO EXCEED THAT TIMELINE IN THE BAY AREA. \nWHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF SB272 FOR ADVANCING SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION? \nIT HELPS US ACHIEVE OUR GOALS FOR REGIONAL PREPARATION. AS I MENTIONED \nEARLIER A RISING BAY DOESN’T FOLLOW JURISDICTIONAL LINES AND ONE DECISION \nIN ONE LOCATION CAN HAVE CASCADING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ACROSS THE BAY AREA \nBAY ADAPT SB272 WILL HELP SOLVE THOSE THREATS BY ESTABLISHING COMMON \nREGION-WIDE STANDARDS SUPPORTING PLANS THAT TRANSCEND JURISDICTIONS. THE \nSAME IS TRUE ACROSS THE ENTIRE CALIFORNIA COAST THIS BILL COMPELS ALL \nCOMMUNITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA TO PREPARE ADAPTATION PLANS THAT \nPRIORITIZE DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES\, IS BASED ON SCIENCE AND PROTECTS \nCRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEIR NEIGHBORS OR \nHABITATS AND CREATES A PRIORITY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION AND FUNDING. A \nRECENT MTC BCDC REPORT ESTIMATES IT WILL COST $110 BILLION IN THE BAY AREA \nALONE TO ADAPT TO MID-CENTURY SEA LEVEL RISE. SB272 WILL HELP US PLAN WHERE \nWE NEED SMART INVESTMENTS TO PRIORITIZE AT RISK LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES NATURAL \nAREAS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS LINK THOSE PLANS TO STATE \nFUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THEM. WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE \nBILL\, SETS MINIMUM STANDARDS INCLUDING USE OF BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE LOCAL \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT INCLUDES EFFORTS TO ENSURE EQUITY FOR AT RISK \nCOMMUNITIES THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES \nRECOMMENDED PROJECTS IDENTIFICATION OF LEAD PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES \nA TIMELINE FOR UPDATES AS NEEDED AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN \nAGREEMENT WITH BCDC OR THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF \nANALYSIS OF AT LEAST COST FOR CRITICAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDED \nAPPROACHES FOR IMPLEMENTING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES PROJECTS THROUGH OUR \nCURRENT WORK WE INTEND TO NOT ONLY MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS BUT ALSO EXCEED \nTHEM. WE’RE INCLUDING A BROADER RANGE OF TOPIC AREAS IN OUR GUIDELINES \nWORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND ELEVATING EQUITY IN \nNATURE-BASED ADAPTATION SOLUTIONS THE GOOD NEWS\, WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED AND \nARE WELL ON OUR WAY BCDC REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDELINES \nWILL ADDRESS MINIMUM STANDARDS AND MORE. \nADAPTING REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN SB272 ARE ALIGNED ON TRACK AND \nLINK FUNDING WE’RE ALIGNED WITH THIS BILL BCDC WORKED CLOSELY WITH SENATOR \nLAIRD AND A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP SB 272 AND THE COMMISSION AND \nMANY OTHERS ARE AROUND THE REGION TOOK SUPPORT VISION SUPPORT POSITIONS ON \nTHE BILL AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE ANTICIPATED THE ADOPTION OF SB272 WE \nSTARTED MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS EVEN BEFORE THE BILL WAS SIGNED AND THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DEVELOPED LAST YEAR AS YOU CAN SEE IN \nTHE BLUEPRINT OF SB272 OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE WORKED \nCOLLABORATIVELY WITH THE VOLUNTARY BAY AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIONAL \nPARTNERS TO DEVELOP BAY ADAPT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS WE IMPLEMENT THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL. WE WILL ALSO BE PROVIDING POLICY TECHNICAL \nASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS THEY APPLY THE GUIDELINES AND \nDEVELOP THESE PLANS WE’RE ON TRACK TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES BY THE END OF \n2024 IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE BILL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPORTANTLY THIS BILL \nIS RANKED TO FUNDING AND THIS IS NOT AN UNFUNDED MANDATE FOR LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS A GRANT FOR FUNDING DEVELOPING BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPLANS WILL ISSUE AVAILABLE STARTING AT THE END OF 2023 FROM THE OCEAN \nPROTECTION COUNCIL AND OTHER POTS COULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS PURPOSE AS WELL\, O \nTHIS. PC HAS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR PHASING AND IMPLEMENTING \nPLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION WORK WITH OPC ON THE CURRENT GRANT ON THEIR \nCURRENT GRANT CRITERIA ONCE THESE GUIDELINES ARE COMPLETE WE WILL WORK \nWITH OPC TO UPDATE THOSE FUTURE ROUNDS THESE ARE HISTORIC LEVELS OF FUNDING \nFOR ADAPTATION SO IT IS IN JURISDICTIONS BEST INTEREST TO GET \nTHESE PLANS DEVELOPED SOON THE STATE HAS ALLOCATED $690 MILLION IN \nMULTI-YEAR FUNDING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BETWEEN NOW AND 2050. \nWHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US? SB272 PRESENTS CHALLENGES AND \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR BCDC IN THE BAY AREA WE’LL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES \nAND NOW HAVE SB272 BEHIND IT WHILE THE BILL CALLS FOR SUBREGIONAL PLANS TO BE \nCOMPLETED BY 2034 WE THINK THE REGION CANNOT WAIT THAT LONG TO PLAN FOR IT. \nWE CAN COLLECTIVELY WORK TOGETHER TO ADOPT PLANS SOONER ONE WAY IS BCDC \nWILL ESTABLISH AS I MENTIONED A SUPPORTIVE FLEXIBLE POLICY AND \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO MEET CITIES AND COUNTIES WHERE THEY ARE \nCONNECT THEM TO FUNDING AND REDUCE BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL PLANNING COSTS WE \nWILL CONTINUE TO DEFINE THE SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ENSURE LOCAL PLAN APPROVAL \nPROCESS CLEAR AND CODIFIED SO THAT GOVERNMENTS KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. \nFINALLY BCDC STRATEGIC PLAN FORESEES A UNIFIED CONSISTENT REGIONAL APPROACH \nACROSS BCDC PLANNING AND REGULATORY FUNCTIONS IN LIGHT OF RISING SEA LEVEL \nAND DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER BCDC REGULATORY AND PLANNING \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO FOSTER LARGER SCALE \nADAPTATION EFFORTS. AS BCDC IMPLEMENTING SB272 WE’LL HOLD \nPUBLIC DISCUSSIONS WHETHER AND HOW TO CHANGE OUR LAWS AND POLICIES TO BEST \nIMPLEMENT THIS NEW BILL. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. I’M \nSURE YOU HAVE LOTS MUCH QUESTIONS. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AND WILL GO AHEAD \nAND TURN IT BACK OVER TO COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN. THANK YOU \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS? \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, JESSE. THAT WAS FANTASTIC. \nTHE 272 REFERS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND YOU SAID IN ONE OF YOUR EARLIER \nSLIDES THAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN COULD BE BASED ON THE CITY\, THE COUNTY\, OR AN \nOLU\, I THINK IS THE TERM WE’RE NOW USING. WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION? \nOAKLAND AND ALAMEDA COULD EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PLAN? OR THEY COULD DO IT \nON A COUNTY-WIDE BASIS OR AS PART OF AN LOU? WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? \n>>SPEAKER: RIGHT NOW OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS THROUGH AS I MENTIONED OUR \nADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS WORKING WITH OUR RISING SEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP AND FOCUS GROUPS ACTUALLY TO COME UP WITH THAT DECISION IN THE PROCESS \nTO DEFINE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN IS AND THAT INCLUDES ANY KIND OF \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ASPECTS SO OUR INTENTION AT THIS POINT IS NOT THAT \nEVERYBODY POSSIBLY GETS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ALTHOUGH WE WANT TO EXPLORE \nAND ENSURE WHEN PEOPLE ARE PLANNING THEY’RE DOING SO IN WAYS THAT REALLY \nSUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION\, AT THIS POINT WE DON’T INTEND EVERYBODY GETS \nTO CHOOSE ON THEIR OWN BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PHASES OF THE PROJECT \nWE’LL BE EVALUATING THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET INTO \nTHE DEVELOPING OF GUIDELINES WE’LL HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROACH THAT WE’LL BE \nUSING. >>SPEAKER: ADDING TO THAT\, WE’LL \nINCLUDE IN THE GUIDELINES WHAT THE DEFINITION OF SUBREGION IS. WE WON’T \nLEAVE IT OPEN AND WE’LL BRING THAT BACK TO YOU AS COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH IN ON \nAS WELL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU. WELL\, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ADD\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK JACKIE AND TODD HALLENBECK FOR COMING TO MOUNTAIN \nVIEW’S BIRTHDAY PARTY FOR SHORELINE PARK. IT WAS OUR 40th ANNIVERSARY AND \nFOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON’T KNOW\, SHORELINE PARK WAS BUILT UPON A — \nABOUT A 30-YEAR LANDFILL THAT WAS BUILT WITH SAN FRANCISCO GARBAGE. AND IT’S \nREALLY QUITE AN INTERESTING PUBLIC WORKS SUCCESS STORY. \nIT’S A BEAUTIFUL 700 FIRST ACRE REGIONAL PARK NOW. BUT WE DO HAVE \nFOREVER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS LANDFILL THAT’S UNDERNEATH IT\, BUT ON THE GOOD \nSIDE\, IT RAISED THE SURFACE ELEVATION OF THE AREA OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ADJACENT \nTO THE BAY BY NINE FEET. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT THE REST OF THE \nWAY IS A LITTLE LESS THAN SOME PEOPLE IN OTHER AREAS MAY HAVE TO DO. \nANYWAY\, I WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL THANK THEM FOR COMING. PEOPLE WERE HAVING A \nGREAT TIME. TODD TOOK SOME FOLKS OUT ON TOUR OF RESTORATIONS THAT ARE GOING \nON AND JACKIE WAS VERY BUSY ASKING QUESTIONS SO WE REALLY APPRECIATED THE \nINVOLVEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY CELEBRATION. THEN I WANT TO ASK ABOUT \nTHIS WHAT IS SUBREGIONAL. THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DEVELOPED A PLAN\, AND \nABOUT 2013\, AND WE REVISED IT A FEW TIMES. IT HAS 14 PROJECTS THAT WE \nNEED TO DO. AND WE COORDINATE WITH PALO ALTO AND \nSUNNYVALE AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT\, AND THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AND ALL SORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. BUT WE — \nYOU KNOW\, I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO BUILD ON THAT PLAN. SO\, I’M REALLY \nINTERESTED IN SEEING HOW THIS SUBREGION GETS DEFINED AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE \nBUILD ON WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE\, EVEN THOUGH IT’S — I KNOW THE \nPLANNING IS QUITE UNEVEN THROUGHOUT THE AREA. SO\, MY QUESTION\, REALLY\, IS \nJUST\, GENERALLY\, HOW ARE WE PLANNING TO DO THAT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THIS IS DANA BRECHWALD\, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR \nFOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION WE’RE IN THE BEGINNING PHASES OF DEFINING THAT \nRIGHT NOW\, I WANT TO REASSURE PEOPLE WE DON’T HAVE A FINAL OUTCOME IN MIND \nRIGHT NOW IT WILL BE A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WE’LL HAVE A WORKING GROUP AND \nBACK TO THE SEA LEVEL RISE WORKING GROUP AND BRING IT BACK TO THE \nCOMMISSION WE’LL HAVE SOME FOCUS GROUPS TO HELP DEFINE THAT\, LOOKING AT THE \nPROCESS AND BUILDINGS ON THE PLANNING THAT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE. SO WE \nDON’T HAVE ANY FINAL ANSWER. [LAUGHTER] \nFOR YOU AT THIS TIME. BUT YOU DO RAISE GOOD POINTS AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nGOING TO CONSIDER AS WE COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN \nS >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: GREAT. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS\, AROUND THE BAY\, WHO \nHAS\, SORT OF\, JURISDICTION FOR FLOOD PROTECTION\, WHICH IS WHAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE PROTECTION S REALLY IT’S COASTAL FLOOD PROTECTION FROM COASTAL FLOODING \nAND IT VARIES ALL OVER THE MAP IT’S LIKE A PATCHWORK QUILT I WANT TO MAKE \nSURE YOU’RE INCLUDING THE FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCIES AS WELL IN THIS \nGROUP. RIGHT? THAT YOU’RE TALKING TO. ARE THEY — \nYOU DIDN’T MENTION THEM IN THE SPECIFICALLY IN THE PRESENTATION\, BUT \nI AM SURE THEY’RE PART OF THE MIX. IS THAT CORRECT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE HAVE AN ADVISORY GROUP OF 40 INDIVIDUALS THAT PANT \nGAMUT OF PRACTITIONERS WE HAVE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ON THAT \nWE’RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE MORE FOCUS GROUPS AND MAKE SURE THAT \nAT DIFFERENT PARTS TO ENSURE THAT WE’RE CAPTURING THOSE EXPERT VOICES\, THAT WE \nCREATE SPACES IN THIS PROCESS TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OH YES THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THAT. I KNOW \nSEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING ON THAT EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP. THAT FILLS \nTHAT BILL. THANKS VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: THANKS. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THE BRIEFING AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF\, ESPECIALLY LARRY AND SPECIFICALLY STEVE AS WELL\, SB272 \nIS A REAL STEP FORWARD FOR THE COMMISSION\, JUST A MILESTONE I THINK \nWE SHOULD RECOGNIZE. WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST \nSEVERAL YEARS ABOUT THE SORT OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HELP US WITH \nADAPTATION EFFORTS AND 272 REALLY TICKS A LOT OF THOSE BOXES SO IT’S IMPORTANT \nAS A STEP FORWARD AS REGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS COME TOGETHER AND WE \nTHINK ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR \nESPECIALLY FOR THE LEGISLATURE WHETHER IT’S FOR POLICY LEGISLATION REGARDING \nIMPLEMENTATION OR ESPECIALLY NEXT STEPS ON FINANCING AND FUNDING ADAPTING A \nEFFORTS\, THE FACT THAT WE’RE DOING ALL OF THIS WORK IN RESPONSE TO A MANDATE \nFROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE\, AS OPPOSED TO DOING IT JUST BECAUSE THE \nCOMMISSION THINKS IT’S A GOOD IDEA\, IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO\, I JUST WANTED \nTO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS STEP. AND\, REALLY\, THANK STAFF AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF FOR MAKING SURE THAT THIS BILL IS SO CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH \nOUR THINKING AND OUR EXISTING EFFORTS. AND I THINK IT WILL REALLY GIVE US A \nBOOST. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS CHAIR WASSERMAN. THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR \nTHIS EXCELLENT COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION. \nOBVIOUSLY THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING MOMENT TO BE N AS I’M THINKING ABOUT \nTHIS QUESTION OF SUBREGIONAL\, HOW TO DEFINE SUBREGIONAL. THERE IS ALREADY \nI THINK IT YOU HAVE HEARD PEOPLE ALREADY IDENTIFYING DIFFERENT STARTING \nPOINTS DIFFERENT RESOURCES DIFFERENT PRIORITIES AMONG ALL THE DIFFERENT \nACTORS AND I THINK FRANKLY IN SOME CASES DIFFERING LEVELS OF TRUST \nBETWEEN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF WHOM I CONSTITUTE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL \nJURISDICTION LOOKS LIKE SO WHAT OCCURS TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT ALSO BE THINKING \nABOUT AS YOU’RE CONSIDERING HOW TO DEFINE SUBKNEE REGIONAL IS ALSO HOW TO \nTHINK ABOUT ENSURING INTEGRITY ACROSS SUBREGIONAL PLANS SO WE HAVE A KIND OF \nSECONDARY WAY TO BACKSTOP ANY GAPS IN THE SYSTEM. WHICH THIS LEGISLATION \nWAS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GIVES BCDC THE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY HOLD THE \nWHOLE PICTURE SO CONSIDERING YOU CAN DO THAT IN A WAY THAT MATCHES UP WITH \nDEFINING AREAS I THINK WILL BE IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER NELSON. YOU STILL HAVE \nYOUR HAND UP. DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SHOT? OR YOU JUST HAVEN’T PULLED IT \nDOWN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ECKERLE RELATED TO THIS. \nAND THAT IS IF YOU CAN GIVE US ANY SENSE OF THE TIMING OF THE ROLE ROLL \nOUT ON THE FUNDING FROM OPC FOR THESE PLANNING EFFORTS. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO GIVE AN \nOVERARCHING REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION\, THE \nOCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL’S SB1 GRANT PROGRAM WHICH IS WHERE THIS 95 MILLION \nWILL LIVE IS GOING TO OFFER TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS FOR FUNDING ONE FOR \nPLANNING ONE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SO EXAMPLES OF PLANNING PROJECTS \nINCLUDE COMMUNITY VISIONING VULNERABLE ASSESSMENTS DATA COLLECTION ADAPTATION \nPLANS AND ELIGIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS INCLUDE NATURE-BASED GREEN \nGRAY HYBRID ADAPTATION PROJECTS FEASIBILITY STUDIES PROJECT DESIGN SO \nYOU HAVE HEARD THAT THIS PROGRAM INCLUDES A SET OF ADAPTATION CRITERIA \nWHICH ARE THE STANDARDIZED SET OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WANT TO \nSEE\, THE CRITERIA DRAFT STANDS NOW AIMING TO ESTABLISH BEST PRACTICES AND \nCONSISTENCY ACROSS OUR ADAPTATION EFFORTS WE DEVELOPED IN THAT CLOSE \nCOORDINATION WITH STAFF FROM BCDC AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND OTHER \nMEMBER AGENCIES OF OUR STATE. SEA LEVEL RISE COLLABORATIVE SO THAT FINAL \nCRITERIA FOR THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR GRANT PROGRAM SOLICITATION WHICH \nWE ANTICIPATE RELEASING BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. SO ONCE THE SOLICITATION \nIS RELEASED WE INTEND TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE PLANNING PROJECTS THROUGH \nROLLING QUARTERLY NON-COMPETITIVE PROCESS PROVIDING THEY SATISFY THE \nREQUIREMENTS IN THE FINAL SEA LEVEL RISE CRITERIA AND WE WILL BEGIN \nACCEPTING IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS IN THE COMET PETATIVE PROCESS MID-TO LATE \n2024 THEN ONE OTHER NOTE THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR EQUITY WORK WE ARE \nENSURING THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO THIS FUNDING OPC IS SIMULTANEOUSLY \nLAUNCHING A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL PROVIDE DIRECT GRANT \nAPPLICATION SERVICES TO LOCAL REGIONAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES SO TO QUALIFY FOR THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nAPPLICANTS MUST MEET SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT CRITERIA IS CURRENTLY UNDER \nDEVELOPED BUT THE GOAL IS TO PRIORITIZE FUNDING TO COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nUNDERRESOURCED AND ARE LACKING NECESSARY CAPACITY TO COMPETE FOR THIS \nFUNDING. SO INTERESTED LOCAL AND REGIONAL AND TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS TO \nMEET THAT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CRITERIA CAN APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE THAT \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT SO I’M COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE COMMISSION \nAPPRISED ON THE NEXT STEPS AND ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN \nLEARNING MORE ABOUT BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT WHEN OUR FUNDING BECOMES \nAVAILABLE TO VISIT OPC’S WEB SITE AT WWW.OPC.CA.GOV. AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BURKE? >>SPEAKER: I WANT TO ECHO \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S POINT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE’RE ENGAGING WITH \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES SO FOR EXAMPLE\, THE SAN FRANCISCO SIS QUIT OWE CREEK \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTS BOTH SAN MATEO\, SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE \nCITIES EAST OF PALO ALTO\, BECAUSE SOUTH OF THE CREEK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY \nPALO ALTO\, ALLEY WATER AND MOUNTAIN VIEW ARE IN COLLABORATION TOGETHER \nNORTH OF THE CREEK SAN MATEO COUNTY EAST PALO ALTO DID NOT HAVE THE \nRESOURCES AND SAN MATEO COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE ESSENTIALLY FLOOD CONTROL \nDISTRICT AND FUNDING SO THE FLOOD CONTROL JOINT POWER AUTHORITY HAS \nASSUMED THE LEADS ROLE ON THE BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION INITIATIVE FOR \nEAST PALO ALTO. SO\, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE \n— ARE WORKING TOGETHER\, HAS BEEN MORPHING BASED UPON KIND OF ORGANIC \nCIRCUMSTANCES. AND IT WON’T BE EASY SORTING ALL THAT OUT. BUT THE FLOOD \nCONTROL AGENCIES\, CERTAINLY\, ARE\, I THINK\, MAYBE MORE IMPORTANT PLAYERS \nTHAN WE HAVE APPRECIATED. THANKS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS? I HAVE GOT A COUPLE BEFORE WE GO TO THE PUBLIC. \nONE\, I CERTAINLY ECHO THOSE REMARKS\, AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ON AND OFF \nWITH STAFF ABOUT INVOLVING THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS. NOT AN EASY TASK\, \nJUST TO NOTE. BUT A CRITICAL ONE\, INCLUDING THE FACT \nTHAT\, OVER THE LONG RANGE\, THEY MAY BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE FUNDING GAP. \nBECAUSE AS SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER\, \nTHERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT IN THE PAST TO PUT A MEASURE ON THE STATEWIDE BALLOT \nTO CHANGE THE WAY THEY COLLECT FEES TO MAKE THEM MORE LIKE THE UTILITIES \nREQUIRING ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE INSTEAD OF A TWO THIRD’S VOTE. SO\, FOR A \nRANGE EVER REASONS\, THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT. \nI WANT TO EMPHASIZE COMMISSIONER ECKERLY’S REMARKS AS WELL AS THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION. THE FUND THAT’S OUT THERE IS NOT COMING ALL AT ONCE IT’S \nGOING TO BE A ROLLING PROCESS IT’S BEING PUT IN PLACE FORMULATED AND SOME \nOF THE EFFORTS REGARDING THAT GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS \nABOUT WORKING TO BETTER COORDINATE THE PROCESS OF THE VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS \nGOING AFTER THAT FUNDING SO THAT WE ARE HELPING EACH OTHER AND NOT HURTING \nEACH OTHER. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nREYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU’RE NOT FROM THE PUBLIC. YES YOU \nMAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES. \nYOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WHEN THE GOVERNOR SIGNED 272 STEVE SOMEHOW FOUND THAT \nOUT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY\, AND E-MAILED ME\, AND I THINK THE REST OF SENIOR \nSTAFF AT THE SAME TIME. AND I WANT TO SAY\, FIRST OF ALL\, THAT THIS BILL \nWOULD NOT BE WHAT IT IS WITHOUT STEVE. HE DID AN ABSOLUTELY SUPERB JOB \nLEADING THE EFFORT AND WORKING WITH SENATOR LAIRD’S STAFF\, WORKING WITH \nCOMMITTEE STAFF\, MAKING SURE THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION KNEW WHAT WE WERE \nDOING\, MAKING SURE THAT WE KNEW WHAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WAS DOING. \nHE HAD A LOT OF HELP FROM JESSICA AND DANA AND JACKIE AND SOME FROM ME AND \nCERTAINLY FROM MICHAEL AND GREG. BUT STEVE DESERVES TREMENDOUS PRAISE FOR \nHIS WORK ON THIS. WE WOULDN’T BE HERE WITHOUT WHAT HE DID. \nTO ANSWER COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S QUESTION\, WHICH IS HOW\, AND ALSO \nCOMMISSIONER BURKE’S AND EVERYBODY’S\, HOW WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS WITH \nREGIONAL SHORELINE PLANNING. MY ANSWER IS\, WITH GREAT LACRITY. \nTHERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF COMPLEXITY ALONG THE SHORELINE WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT. THERE WILL BE SURPRISES DURING THE NEXT YEAR\, YEAR \nAND A QUARTER AS WE DO THIS BUT WE ARE GETTING OUR DUCKS IN A ROW INTERNALLY \nTO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW HOW WE CAN FORECAST AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE \nSO THERE ARE AS FEW SURPRISES AS POSSIBLE. \nWITH REGARD TO THE OPC’S FUNDING\, I THINK COMMISSIONER ECKERLE WOULD \nEXPECT ME TO SAY THIS BUT I HAVEN’T CLEARED IT WITH HER. LET ME — THANK \nGOD SHE’S SMILING. LET IT BE STATED HERE THAT AS SOON AS WE HEAR ANYTHING \nABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, \nBECAUSE WE WILL NO DOUBT DISTRIBUTE IT JUST AS THE OPC WILL. AND WE WILL\, \nALSO — I HAVE AUTHORITY\, THE DISTRICT WRITTEN MYSELF A NOTE PUT THE OPC WEB \nSITE ON MY COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY TODAY SO THAT YOU ALL CAN JUST CLICK \nAND FIND OUT JUST AS MUCH AS YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH FUNDING. \nFINALLY\, I WANT TO SAY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVED THE CLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENTS BACK IN 2011. SO\, THAT WAS \nA DOZEN YEARS AGO. IT HAS TAKEN US A DOZEN YEARS TO GET TO 272. BUT I \nDON’T THINK THAT CANDIDLY IS NECESSARY TOO LONG. I THINK THAT SO MUCH HAS \nHAPPENED OVER THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS THAT HAS CHANGED THE CONTEXT TO \nWHICH PEOPLE VIEW CLIMATE CHANGE AND RISING SEA LEVEL THAT WE PROBABLY \nCOULDN’T EVEN HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING A 272 BACK IN 2017 OR 2018. AND I \nWANT TO THANK ALL OF THE FOLKS WHO BEEN WITH US OVER THE PAST DOZEN YEARS. \nAND I WAS REMINDED OF THIS YESTERDAY AS I WAS DRIVING AND LISTENING TO OF ALL \nTHINGS\, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND THOUSAND DOLLARS THUNDER ROAD. THERE IS A LINE \nIN THERE AS HE LOOKS AT MARY AND SAYS — THEY WANT TO ESCAPE THAT TOWN\, BUT \nTHE DOOR IS OPEN BUT THE RIDE AIN’T FREE SO WE HAVE EARNED THIS DOOR BEING \nOPENED\, THE RIDE IS GOING TO BE COMPLEX. BUT WE’RE GOING TO GET IT \nDONE WITH YOUR HELP INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU \nFOR ALWAYS COMING TO BCDC AND PUTTING ON YOUR REGIONAL HAT DISTINGUISH — \nBECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO TAKE. \nWITH THAT CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR \nLEADERSHIP FOR HELPING US GET TO 2272 AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AS IMPATIENT AS I NORMALLY AM\, I’M ALMOST \nINCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE TIMING OF 272. \nI DO WANT TO REPEAT MY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AND ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT \nSUPPORTED GETTING 272 SIGNED THIS ROUND\, INCLUDING THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS \nWHO\, IN MANY WAYS\, REPRESENT THE LARGEST MOST ORGANIZED PART OF WHAT I \nVIEW AS OUR CONSTITUENCIES\, SAFETY BAY AND THE BAY PLANNING COALITION. IT \nWAS A UNITED AND COMMUNITY EFFORT THAT GOT THAT DONE. SO\, I THANK YOU ALL. \nWITH THAT\, WE WILL TURN TO ITEM 11. THANK YOU VERY MUCH\, JACKIE\, FOR AN \nEXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANKS\, STAFF\, FOR THE WORK. \nAND\, YEAH\, THE RIDE AIN’T FREE\, AND IT AIN’T OVER YET. \nALMOST 11 IS A BRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK TO IMPLEMENT THE \nCOMMISSION’S 2023 STRATEGIC PLAN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOLDZBAND WILL \nSTART THE BRIEFING. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: SO THIS FLOWS \nRIGHT FROM 272. BELIEVE IT OR NOT T REALLY DOES. AND IT FLOWS FROM BAY \nADAPT. I DON’T KNOW WHO HAS THE PRESENTATION\, BUT IF SOMEBODY COULD \nSTART BRINGING IT UP\, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE PROMISED YOU WHEN YOU ALL \nADOPTED THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN THE SPRING\, THAT WE WOULD COME AT YOU IN \nTHE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. \nWELL\, AUGUST DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE WE COULDN’T MEET IN AUGUST AND WE ONLY \nHAD ONE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. SO WE’RE HERE IN OCTOBER AND WILL BE BACK TO \nYOU IN EITHER DECEMBER OR JANUARY WITH AN UPDATE AS WELL. \nBUT THIS IS\, I THINK\, BASICALLY\, DUE TO\, IN GREAT PART\, CHAIR WASSERMAN’S \nINSISTENCE\, A REAL WAY FOR US TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON JUST PARTS OF \nTHE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE THINK YOU MIGHT WELL BE MOST INTERESTED IN\, AND \nTHAT WE\, CERTAINLY\, ARE INTERESTED IN\, AS WELL AS GIVING YOU A LARGER SCALE \nUPDATE. SO\, JESSICA\, ARE YOU GOING TO DO THIS OR AM I GOING TO DO THIS? \nI’M GOING TO DO THIS? THANK YOU. YOU CAN TELL WE PRACTICED THIS. BUT I \nWANT TO THANK JESSICA FAIN A LOT BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN TREMENDOUS IN \nPUTTING THIS TOGETHER. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: WE’RE ALL GOING TO DO THIS LARRY. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WE’LL ALL BE DOING THIS BUT I’LL START IT OFF. YOU \nREMEMBER THAT WE CREATED YOU ALL WITH OUR HELP CREATED A NEW VISION WE HAVE \nFIVE GOALS EACH WITH ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES THIS IS NOT NEWS TO YOU \nNOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH REGARD TO THE GOALS OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. THE CORE VALUES REMAIN\, EQUITABLE AND \nINCLUSIVE SCIENCE BASED AND DATA-DRIVEN\, AGILE AND PROACTIVE\, \nALACRITY IS IN THERE\, INCLUSIVE SERVICE ORIENTED TRUSTED ACCOUNTABLE AND WE \nWANT TO LIVE UP TO THAT ON A DAILY BASIS. NEXT SLIDE. \nWE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND YOU WILL REMEMBER \nTHAT WE HAVE FIVE GOALS SOME OF SOMETHING LIKE 24 OR 25 DIFFERENT \nOBJECTIVES WITHIN THEM. YOU WILL SEE A HISTORY OF WHAT WE SINGLE ON TRACK\, \nTHERE HAVE BEEN A FEW DELAYS OR BASICALLY ISSUES\, A COUP EL \nTHATHAVEN’T BEEN COMPLETED AND A BUNCH THAT HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN STARTED YET. \nTHESE ARE BASED UPON THE DIFFERENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WHICH THEN \nHAVE UNDERNEATH THEM A SERIES OF ACTIONS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE. \nSO THIS HISTOGRAM ISN’T THE GOALS\, IT’S NOT THE OBJECTIVE\, IT’S THE ACTUAL \nACTIONS THAT WILL COMPLETE THOSE OBJECTIVES AND GET US TO THAT GOAL. \nSO THAT’S WHY YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE 70 OR SO\, 65\, OR 70 DIFFERENT ACTIONS \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH 65 OR 70 ACTIONS\, GOD FORBID\, BECAUSE WE \nWANT YOU TO STAY AWAKE. BUT WHAT WE WILL DO IS LEAD YOU THROUGH A COUPLE \nOF THOSE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES EACH OF THOSE FIVE GOALS SO YOU CAN SEE HOW WE \nARE PROGRESSING. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WHICH IS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE \n1.1. SO THAT’S WHERE I THROW IT OVER TO JESSICA. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANKS LARRY. SO\, STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.1 IS HOW WE \nSUCCESSFULLY LEAD OUR BAY ADAPT PROGRAM. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THIS \nPAST QUART INCLUDE ACTUALLY COMPLETING ONE OF THE TASKS IN THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM. WE PUBLISHED WITH MTC A REPORT CALLED THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK THAT WE BRIEFED YOU ON\, WE \nHAVE KICKED OFF LEADERSHIP GROUPS TO GUIDE BAY ADAPT IMPLEMENTATION \nINCLUDING OUR ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE AND IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSE \nPARTICIPATION IN THE VARIOUS BAY ADAPT GROUPS AND FOCUSED ON COMMUNICATIONS \nUPDATED OUR WEB SITE\, WE STARTED A BLOG THANKS TO SOME SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE \nFROM SOME CONSULTANTS TO REALLY UP OUR COMMUNICATIONS GAME. \nONE OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT — SOME OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT WE’LL BE \nFACING ARE COMING OUT OF THAT FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK\, HOW DO WE \nACTUALLY PULL TOGETHER AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS AND AGREEMENT TO HELP FILL \nTHAT GAP. SO WE’RE WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS AT \nTHE BAY AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION\, MISSISSIPPI ABAG REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATIVE TO UNDERSTAND ACROSS OUR AGENCIES TO TRY TO SOLVE THIS. WE’RE \nALSO — WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE HOW WE’RE DOING ON BAY ADAPT SO OUR \nTEAM IS DEVELOPING METRICS ON HOW TO MEASURE PROGRESS. \nFINALLY ONE THING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO NEXT SUMMER IS TO HOST AN ANNUAL \nFORUM ON REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION. THIS WILL BE A NEW EVENT \nWE’RE JUST STARTING TO SCOPE IT OUT. IF YOU HAVE IDEAS LET US KNOW BUT \nTHAT’S SOMETHING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO. NEXT SLIDE. \nANOTHER STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OF GOAL ONE IS AROUND OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO MUCH DETAIL HERE YOU HEARD A LOT \nFROM JACKIE ON THIS. NEEDLESS TO SAY WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT\, \nWE’RE HOSTING A PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT WEEK AND HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS \nAROUND THIS PHASE WHICH IS BACKGROUND VISION AND MEASURING OUR SUCCESS. \nMOVING FORWARD AS WE ENTER INTO OUR NEXT PHASE AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED \nDEFINING WHAT THESE SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS ARE DEVELOPING THOSE \nGUIDELINES AND INTEGRATING SB272 INTO THIS. I THINK I TURN IT OVER TO \nHARRIET. >>HARRIET ROSS: I’M NEXT. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES\, 2.1. THAT’S MINE. THAT REALLY SPEAKS TO \nDETERMINING — >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THAT’S THE NEXT \nSLIDE. >>HARRIET ROSS: SORRY. NEXT SLIDE. \nREALLY SPEAKS TO DETERMINING IF AND HOW BCDC AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD \nBE EXPANDED TO FOSTER THESE LARGER SCALE ADAPTATION EFFORTS WHICH ARE WE \nHAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY. LUCKY ME\, I’M NEW\, SO I GET TO SHARE \nTHE GREAT WORK AND THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT MY REGULATORY TEAM HAS BEEN \nWORKING ON. SO\, SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS WORKING TOWARDS THIS \nSTRATEGY REALLY INCLUDES UNDERTAKING A COACH OF COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF OUR \nPERMITTING PROGRAM. WE REVIEWED 15 MAJOR STUDIES LOOKING AT REGULATORY \nCHALLENGES POSED BY ADAPTATION AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OVER 30 MAJOR \nRECOMMENDATIONS FOR BCDC AND OUR REGULATORY PARTNERS TO CONSIDER. \nWE’LL BE TAKING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THESE STUDIES AND USING THEM TO INFORM \nSPECIFIC PROJECTS THE REGULATORY TEAM CAN PURSUE IN THE COMING YEARS. AND \nWE HAVE ALSO DEVOTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE DEPARTMENT \nFINANCE LED EMISSION BASED REVIEW FOR OUR PERMITTING PROGRAM\, WHICH YOU \nHEARD ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING. WE\, AND ALMOST EVERY MEMBER OF OUR \nREGULATORY TEAM IS PROVIDING INPUT AND EXPERTISE ON THAT REVIEW. THE PROJECT \nWILL RESULT IN A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFINANCE STAFF ON HOW BCDC CAN BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN \nPERMITTING AGENCY REALLY READY TO TACKLE MAJOR ADAPTATION PROJECTS \nCOMING AHEAD OF US. SOME OF OUR UPCOMING WORK INCLUDES \nSCOPING OUT A PROPOSAL FOR REIMAGINED BCDC JURISDICTION THAT WILL ALLOW THE \nCOMMISSION TO IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS WE HAVE \nTALKED ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE PLAN IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT WORK IS \nTO DEVELOP THE INCLUDING REGULATORY STAFF AS WELL AS THE GOAL FOR OUR \nULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS THE COMMISSION’S FUTURE REGULATORY PROGRAM \nTO REFLECT THE PRIORITIES DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THAT PLAN AND LASTLY WE’LL \nBE WORKING WITH A REGULATORY PARTNER TO SCOPE OUT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE \nIMPROVED MULTI-YEAR AGENCY ADAPTATION OVER THE COMING YEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE A NEW GROUP COMPLIANCE. AND COMPLIANCE SITS \nBETWEEN PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT. AND THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO INTEGRATE \nTHE COMPLIANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND INTO THE REGULATORY PROGRAM. \nAND I GOT TO SAY\, THE GOOD NEWS IS COMPLIANCE IS UP AND RUNNING\, DOING A \nGREAT JOB. WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATED THEM BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT \nAND PERMITTING\, POSITIVE RESULTS HAVE BEEN SEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND BY \nPERMITTEES\, AND IN OTHER — AND IN DIVERSIONS FROM FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT. LESS ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AND MORE IN COMPLIANCE WHICH IS THE \nGOAL HERE. IT’S INTERESTING IN DISCUSSIONS AT TIME WHEN WE SEND \nSOMETHING TO COMPLIANCE\, COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN LOOKING AT OUR PERMITS WHICH HAVE \nA WHOLE RANGE OF THINGS OVER TIME AND IT’S THE TIME THAT MAKES COMPALESTINES \nHAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND WHEN THINGS START TO FALL OFF COMPLIANCE CAN OFTEN \nGET THINGS BACK ON TRACK. I WOULD SAY THAT’S GOING REALLY WELL. \nCOORDINATION MEETINGS BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE WHICH IS \nGREAT REALLY OPERATING THERE AND FIVE MONTHLY MEETINGS BETWEEN COMPLIANCE \nAND REGULATORY TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE PERMITTING ISSUES MAKING THEM \nENFORCEABLE AND MAKING THINGS MORE COMPLIANT ALSO HOW TO TAKE SOME OF THE \nLOAD OFF OF PERMITTING. OUR NEXT CHALLENGE AND GRAY AREAS\, DOCUMENTING \nAND PROCESS AND RESOLVING THOSE AREAS. LAST PART IS HOW TO MEASURE THOSE \nEFFICIENCY GAINS SEEING WE’RE ACTUALLY GETTING BENEFITS FROM HAVING OUR \nCOMPLIANCE TEAM AND BEING ABLE TO SHOW MEASURABLE BENEFITS THOSE ARE OUR \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN 2.4. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.2 HIGHLIGHTS THE WORK ON BCDC RACIAL EQUITY PLAN SINCE \nLAST WE CAME TO YOU WE HAVE HAD REVIEW FROM SENIOR STAFF AND HAVE BEEN \nWORKING TO INTEGRATE COMMENTS WE HAVE ALSO BEEN REVIEWING ACTIONS WITH \nSUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS EVEN THOUGH THE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED WE MADE A \nLOT OF PROGRESS ON SEVERAL ACTIONS INCLUDING INCREASING FUNDING TO THE \nADVISERS BEGINNING BIANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROGRAM CURRENTLY WORKING ON \nFINAL DRAFT AND WILL BRING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR AND \nTO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL IN WINTER OF 2024. \nNEXT SLIDE. 3.3 FOCUSES ON STRENGTHENING COMMISSIONER EQUITY \nAWARENESS BRINGING TRAININGS TO ALL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AGENCY STAFF. \nSENIOR STAFF AT OUR AGENCIES HAVE REGISTERED ARE PLANNING TO GO TO \nTRAINING BEYOND LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT\, AFTER TRAINING WE’RE GOING TO INVITE \nTHE RESOURCES GROUP TO GIVE TRAINING TO ALL STAFF. WE ALSO CONTINUE TO HAVE \nEJ OFFICE HOURS FOR STAFF EVERY TWO WEEKS AND A MONTHLY RACIAL EQUITY \nMEDIA CLUB WE’RE READING THIS BOOK EVOLUTION OF A MOVEMENT ABOUT THE \nHISTORIED OF CALIFORNIA EJ MOVEMENT WE’RE PLANNING A SERIES OF EJ AND \nTRAVEL ENGAGEMENT TRAININGS IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND TRAINING WORK PLAN WITH \nCOASTAL COMMISSION AND STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR CDMA STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AS YOU CAN TELL \nMOST SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS HAVE A PARTICULAR GOAL FOR WHICH THEY ARE \nRESPONSIBLE PLUS PHOENIX ON THE EJ. MINE IS GOAL FOUR. AND YOU WILL \nREMEMBER THAT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.1 BASICALLY SAYS WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER \nJOB WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION AND WE NEED TO BE MORE \nACCESSIBLE. WE NEED TO INCREASE AWARENESS AND WE HAVE TO FOSTER \nSUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY DIALOGUES. WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS \nAS PART OF BAY ADAPT WE HAVE HELD TWO ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE MEETINGS \nAND WE HAVE HAD A SERIES OF POP-UP COMMUNITY EVENTS AND YOU SAW THE \nRESULTS OF THAT EARLIER TODAY WHEN JACKIE SHOWED YOU THE COMMENTS ON \nVISIONING AND THE LIKE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD WITH A GREAT \nGROUP OF STAFF ON DEVELOPING A NEW WEB SITE THAT WILL BE FAR MORE USER \nFOCUSED. WE JUST FOUND OUT THIS WEEK THAT THE \nMIGRATION HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED\, WHICH DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE GOING TO SEE A NEW \nWEB SITE TOMORROW\, BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT AT LEAST THE WEB SITE WILL BE UP \nAND RUNNING WE CERTAINLY THINK BY THE END — CERTAINLY WITHIN NOVEMBER. \nAND WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE FIRST EVER TRANSLATION SERVICES CONTRACT\, WHICH \nYOU HAVE APPROVED TO PROVIDE MORE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC ACCESS TO COMMISSION \nDOCUMENTS. SO OUR NEXT CHALLENGE IS\, ESSENTIALLY TO FINISH THE FIRST PART \nOF THE NEW WEB SITE\, PUT IT UP\, AND THEN CORRECT T BECAUSE WE KNOW IT’S \nNOT GOING TO BE PERFECT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO BRIEFINGS AT \nTHE COUNTY AND CITY LEVELS ABOUT BCDC AND THE BAY\, WHETHER THEY BE IN MARIN \nOR IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND OR WHEREVER THEY ARE\, AND WE ACCEPT ALL \nINVITATIONS AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO ASK MORE OF YOU IN ASSISTING WITH \nOUTREACH. BECAUSE YOU ARE GREAT PROSITIZERS\, AND GREAT VEHICLES FOR US \nTO GET PLACES. NEXT SLIDE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.2 WAS REALLY SIMPLE. HIRE A PIO. \nWELL\, WE HAVEN’T. BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT CNRA\, \nTHAT THE RESOURCES AGENCIES APPROVE THE DRAFT SENIOR LEVEL POSITION CALLED \nBCDC DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THAT DUTY STATEMENT BASICALLY SAYS \nTHAT THAT PERSON WILL BE A PART-TIME PAI\, PART-TIME LEGISLATIVE LIAISON \nPART-TIME CMA EXPERT AND BASICALLY ENSURING THAT AS WE LOOK OUTSIDE BCDC \nWE HAVE A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO CONNECT THOSE DOTS AND WE ARE LOOKING \nFORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CNRA TO GET THAT FUNDED. WE HAVE STARTED \nDISCUSSIONING WITH THEM AND WE ASSUME WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE AND HEADING OFF TO GOAL FIVE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES OF \nGOAL FIVE WAS TO HAVE OUR STAFF REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF THE BAY AREA WE HAVE \nBEEN ABLE TO MOVE TOWARDS BY CONTINUING TO RECRUIT GREAT TALENT FOR POSITIONS \nAND WE’RE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING SPECIAL SALARY INCREASES FOR SEVERAL \nCLASSIFICATIONS USED AT BCDC. NEXT QUARTER WE’RE CONDUCTING AN \nORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY AND INCLUDING A SEPARATE SURVEY ON RACIAL \nEQUITY. NEXT SLIDE. ANOTHER OBJECTIVE OF GOAL FIVE IS TO \nIMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGICAL UPGRADES TO IMPROVE PROCESSES. \nOUR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ANDREW CHEN DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF WORKING \nWITH NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY TO ON BOARD THEIR SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER \nWHICH ENHANCES OUR OVERALL CYBER SECURITY BY PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING \nSECURITY THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES ANDREW WORKED WITH THE CALIFORNIA \nMILITARY DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE OUR BIANNUAL IT SECURITY ASSESSMENT WHICH \nIS A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TO MEASURE CYBER SECURITY INCLUDING \nVULNERABILITY\, FIRE WALL ANALYSIS PHISHING SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MORE. \nLASTLY WE INITIATED THE WATCHED HOSTING SERVICES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF \nTECHNOLOGY WHICH PROVIDES A STANDARDIZED STATE WEB SITE TEMP PLATT \nAND ENHANCES SECURITY AND IMPROVES CONTENT MAINTENANCE. \nTHIS QUARTER WE REVIEWING FINDINGS FROM IT ASSESSMENT ENSURING WE ADDRESS ANY \nCONCERNS THEN WE’LL BE WORKING ON FINALIZING THE NEW WEB SITE WHICH WILL \nALSO INCLUDE A PAYMENT PORTAL TO ALLOW FOR ONLINE PAYMENT OF FINES AND PERMIT \nFEES. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: NEXT SLIDE. \nSO THAT\, IS AN OVERVIEW. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE\, IF YOU \nWOULD LIKE IT\, THE FULL ACTION PLAN\, WITH ALL — I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY — \n75\, 85 DIFFERENT ACTIONS\, EACH OF WHICH HAS BEEN COLOR-CODED\, GREEN\, YELLOW\, \nRED OR BLUE. IF YOU ARE CERTAINLY INTERESTED. \nBUT WE’RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI SEE NONE. OH OF COURSE. WHEN I SAY QUESTIONS I \nMEAN COMMENTS\, AS WELL. >>SPEAKER: OKAY. I SHOULD KNOW THAT \nBY NOW. LARRY\, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF. YOU ARE MAKING TANGIBLE \nPROGRESS ON ALL THESE GOALS AND IT WAS GREAT TO SEE HOW YOU ALL BROKE IT DOWN \nTODAY. THANK YOU. GOOD TO SEE THE PROGRESS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nBECAUSE THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHAT I MEAN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. I SHARE IN THE \nCONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYBODY FOR THE PRESENTATION\, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY \nTHAN THE PRESENTATION\, THE WORK ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND EVALUATING IT AND \nMONITORING IT. I THINK WE ARE MAKING GREAT STRIDES. WE MAY HAVE TO THINK \nABOUT A LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID FOR 272 FOR OUR PIO \nFUNDING. I SAY THAT ONLY SEMI FACETIOUSLY BECAUSE IN FACT IT IS A \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-19-2023-commission-meeting-2/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231012T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231012T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20240131T055514Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055514Z
UID:10000166-1697097600-1697130000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 12\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-12-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231011T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231011T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231012T011242Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T060424Z
UID:10000072-1697029200-1697043600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 11\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-11-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231010T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231010T210000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231011T000424Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T063904Z
UID:10000063-1696957200-1696971600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 10\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-10-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231005T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231005T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231006T035810Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T025555Z
UID:10000046-1696510800-1696525200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 5\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of October 5\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to October 5\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after October 5\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nCalifornia State Lands Commission100 Howe Avenue\, Suite 100 SouthSacramento\, CA 95825 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.018.00 \nFiled on 09/22/2023 \n90th Day on 12/21/2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, approximately seven hundred and fifty feet west of the Eckley Pier\, near Crockett\, in Contra Costa County (parcel number 354-030-009-6). \nDescriptionTo remove and dispose of approximately 432 derelict timber piles and deck debris in an area from near the shoreline to approximately two hundred feet offshore\, and approximately seven hundred and fifty feet long\, parallel to the shoreline. The removal and disposal of the piles will be completed by barge in the Carquinez Strait\, with no land-based removal operations. The piles will be taken to CS Marine’s Mare Island facility and then disposed of at an approved facility. The project will be conditioned to ensure appropriate minimization measures are implemented to protect subtidal habitats and aquatic species\, including using a vibratory hammer where feasible\, the use of a floating debris boom during work activity\, and conducting pre- and post-construction eelgrass surveys and subsequent monitoring. The proposed project will have no impacts to existing public access at the Eckley Pier. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicant \nJohn Muir Land TrustP.O. Box 31Martinez\, CA 94533 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.004.00 \nFiled on 09/20/2023 \n90th Day on 12/19/2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Site (lat./long. 38.030758\, -122.087820) along Waterfront Road in Martinez\, Contra Costa County. \nDescriptionThe proposed Pacheco Marsh Public Access project would involve constructing a range of public access amenities at the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Site in Martinez\, CA\, which was breached and restored in 2021. The Commission issued a separate permit in December\, 2020\, (BCDC Permit No. 2019.005.00) for the original restoration project to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”). The public access special conditions associated with that permit required that the District either transfer ownership of the site to another entity that would construct public access amenities at the site within three years of transfer or construct public access improvements at the site consistent with a plan improved by the Commission. Pursuant to this condition\, the District transferred the lands to the John Muir Land Trust\, who are proposing to construct the public access improvements at the site. The improvements would include a system of trails\, bridges connecting the trails over tidal channels\, a small watercraft launch\, an interpretive center\, picnic areas\, parking\, and restrooms. \nSpecial Conditions would be included to ensure that the project is constructed in a manner that is protective of Bay resources and water quality\, and that appropriate wayfinding\, interpretive\, and sensitive habitat signage is installed at the site. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Schuyler Olsson; 415-352-3668 or schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing September 21\, 2023 \n\n Commission Request to Hire Ujjayan Siuddarth\n\nCommission Mailing September 29\, 2023 \n\nCommission Request to Hire Maya McInerney as an Environmental Scientist in the Planning Division (PDF)\nSan Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Draft Seaport Plan (PDF)//  Environmental Assessment (PDF)  // Public Comments (PDF)  // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nA hidden climate danger threatens U.S. coastal communities\nOpinion: Governor should help California cities protect against flooding\nMaking Roads Work for Transit\nSB 272 Sea Level Rise: Planning and Adaptation – SUPPORT\nThey’re Ultrarich Techies\, and They Want to Build a City From Scratch. What Could Go Wrong?\nCalifornia tops FEMA’s new list of areas vulnerable to weather disasters. What does it mean for the Bay Area?\nFish and Wildlife to Award Millions to Improve California Boat Access? \nThe Port of Oakland took on massive debt for an expansion that some say went bust. Is the same mistake possible?
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-5-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231005T103000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231005T120000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20231006T005602Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T010122Z
UID:10000086-1696501800-1696507200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 5\, 2023 Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:If 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/88238694520?pwd=abzysBuwWf7ypamHEPYjKGWPyOFm3l.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID882 3869 4520 \nPasscode415889 \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\nChair Reports from Local Electeds Task Force\, Bay Adapt Implementation Coordinating Group\, and Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Advisory GroupWorking Group members will hear progress on various other leadership groups involved in Bay Adapt and the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan from each group chair to learn how the various efforts are receiving input and feedback from key advisors.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]\nRegional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Presentation and DiscussionWorking Group members will hear an update on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan’s vision and goals phase\, including initial takeaways from pop-up events throughout the region and the online survey. They will hear about the most recent Bay Adapt website improvements and discuss considerations of the next phase of the project\, including how subregional plans should be organized.(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nPermitting for a Resilient Shoreline UpdateThe Bay Adapt Joint Platform set out the goal of refining and accelerating regulatory approval processes. The Working Group will receive a brief update on BCDC staff efforts to improve the Commission’s permitting and regulatory processes.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-5-2023-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230927T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230927T170000
DTSTAMP:20260630T124222
CREATED:20230928T005030Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T011109Z
UID:10000071-1695819600-1695834000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:September 27\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board
DESCRIPTION:The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, in person and virtually. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85411509355?pwd=QzFVWkNlenZvdU5tNTZ3QUYyYTVRZz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID854 1150 9355 \nPasscode580200 \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\, Meeting Procedure Review\nPublic Comment Period (10 minutes) \nStaff Updates\nAppointment of New Alternate Member (10 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Shoreline Protection Project (Pre- Application). (100 minutes) (PDF).The Board will review the SFO (Applicant) proposed Shoreline Protection Project\, designed to address coastal flooding and sea level rise out to 2085. The Board will review the proposed design of the new sea wall and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the sea wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.(Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nItem of Discussion: Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, (Consistency Determination). (100 minutes)The Board will review the US Army Corps of Engineers (Applicant) and Port of Oakland proposed Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project\, designed to enhance the safety for large ships that need to turn around in two places along the Port of Oakland. The Board will review the design criteria and conceptual design for the new bulkhead walls and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the bulkhead wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/09-27-ECRB-audio-recording.mp3 \nMeeting Transcript \nCrestron: I believe all the Board members have been promoted. \nBCDC HOST: I think the recording is on now. \nCrestron: Thank you\, Grace. \nCrestron: I’ll turn my microphone off. \nso that Rod can start the meeting. \nCrestron: Okay? So good afternoon. And welcome to this virtual Bcdc \nengineering criteria review board meeting my name is Rod Iwashta. I’m chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. Our first order of business is to call the role \nBoard members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, please call the roll. \nCrestron: Roddy. Watchdog chair. Here. \nJim French vice chair. Here Bob Battalio is here\, but he’s recused from both meetings. Since he’ll be presenting for Sfo today. \nCrestron: Bill Holmes \nis absent. He is on vacation today. Jima Kasalli \nnot present. Chris May. \nCrestron: I know Chris May is here\, but is recused also from the first agenda. Item. \nSfo. \nCrestron: Ramen Gosarky \npresent \nCrestron: Nick Satar. \nyeah. \nCrestron: Gail Johnson \npresent \nCrestron: Malia Travisaru. \nShe’s not here. \nCrestron: Phillip Trevetti. \nyeah. \nCrestron: And Justin Van Buren \nhere. \nOkay. thank you. Jen\, we have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nCrestron: Okay. \nwe’ve got a half page text read here. So thank you. Everyone. I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nCrestron: First\, everyone make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nfor board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on so that everyone can see you. For members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. \nThat is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways. \nCrestron: First\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised \nCrestron: the second way. If you are joining the meeting via phone. \nyou must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make comment. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period for each project. \nCrestron: and finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host. \nGrace\, Bcds host\, who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. \nCrestron: Okay\, this part is for board members \nex parte communications in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a notice of on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nI invite members who have engaged in any such comic communications to report on on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. Jen. Has any board member raised his or her hand. \nCrestron: I do not see any. Raise hands. \nOkay. so now we’re on to agenda. Item number 2 staff updates. \nCrestron: Right now\, we are going to switch the order of a couple of items on the agenda. \nFirst\, we are going to do staff updates. which was number 3 on the published agenda. also agenda. Item 4. Appointment of new alternate member \nwas put on the agenda by mistake\, since it is the Commission who confirms the recommended Board appointments. we have time set aside for hearing public comment on items not on the agenda for each of the 2 projects being heard today. \nSan Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project and the Oakland Harbor turning basins widening project. \nCrestron: But we are going to have this occur in conjunction with each of the presentations. \nCrestron: so the order of \neach presentation will be to hear the presentation from the applicant. Have board discussion. \nCrestron: hear any comments from the public \nrelated to the presentation\, and then at the end. we will hear public comments not related to the presentation or engineering issues on the project following staff updates. \nthe first presentation will be for the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project. The second present presentation will be the Oakland Harbor interturbing reasons. Widening project \nwhich could begin around 3 Pm. Jen\, please provide any staff Updates that you have. \nCrestron: Thank you. Chair Washeda. I would like to provide an update on a few items \nregarding upcoming engineering criteria Review board meetings. Next month’s October meeting is canceled. since there was nothing on the agenda. There are currently no items on the agenda for the November meeting. \nbut something may still come up. So board members\, please keep that time open for now. and on December sixth we will. We will be meeting to discuss the permit application for the India Basin \nShoreline Park Project. \nCrestron: The applicant for that is the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Yeah. Ecrb meeting dates have been set for next year for 2024 and are posted on the Vcvc website. \nCrestron: Lastly\, an update on the recruitment for our open alternate board member seats. The position was posted for several months. \nI did outreach to colleagues as well as numerous local universities and engineering societies\, including the Society of Women Engineers. the National Society of Black Engineers\, and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers. \nWe received 2 applications after interviewing the 2 qualified candidates\, the nominating committee that consisted of the chair and the vice chair has recommended for appointment\, Patrick Ryan. \nStructural Engineer and principal of the firm\, Ryan Royce. Structural Design. \nCrestron: We will be giving the recommendation to the chair of the Commission for concurrence at an upcoming meeting\, and the new appointee should begin their term \nat the next Ecrb meetings. \nOkay\, thank you\, Jen. Are there any announcements from the Board? \nCrestron: Okay. \nseeing none. \nCrestron: Let’s move on to agenda. Item 3\, \nand I have to recuse myself since I’m a city of San Francisco employee. \nCrestron: so I will step aside into the audience\, and Jim French will take over. \nCrestron: Thank you\, Rob. \nCrestron: I will chair this portion of the meeting while Rod joins the public \nsection of the Zoom Meeting room. I guess the virtual Zoom Meeting is over there\, too. \nvirtually. \nCrestron: just let everyone know any board member with a potential conflict of interest on any given project must be refused from participating in the Ecrb review \nof that project\, but they may join the public section of the meeting. and they may make comments as members of the public\, if they so desire. I will apologize for my mask\, so you can’t see mics. \nimpressions. \nCrestron: and my! My voice comes out muffled. I had a potential covid exposure 5 days ago. I’ve been testing negative every time\, including this morning\, and I’m symptom free. But \nremaining math just to be be cautious. This portion \nCrestron: of the meeting will proceed according to the following agenda\, first up\, Jen Hyman. \nsenior engineer from Bcd. C. Will make a short presentation on the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project\, followed by the presentation by the airport team \nCrestron: during the presentation. It’s fine for board members \nto ask short questions and have limited discussions. At the end of the present presentation we’ll open the meeting for public comments initially just related to the engineering issues in the presentation. \nafter hearing comments from the public. Ecrb will resume our discussion with questions and comments. At the end of the discussion. I will ask \nCrestron: for final comments and motions\, and then close our con. Our consideration of this project. Following all that we will make\, we will take public comments on aspects of the project\, not under consideration by the BC. By the Ecrb. In other words\, not \nspecifically related to engineering criteria. \nCrestron: I’d like to remind the Board members and other participants to please. Please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. When you’re not actively engaged with the discussion. Please turn off your video \nso that we minimize the distract distractions on the screen. I’ll now ask Jen Hyman to provide an introduction to the project. \nCrestron: So do you wanna ask Re\, retake that part of the role\, and just get Jima to \nacknowledge that he’s present in participating. \nCrestron: So\, Jimmy\, you are present and not recused from this meeting. I think. Right. \nCrestron: Hello\, Grace\, can you \npromote Jima once his name comes up. Thank you. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see them yet. \nBCDC HOST: Jen board Member Cassali zon out \nI’ll add to our role. Jima Kasali if you’re here. Turn the microphone on and say\, yes. yes. \nCrestron: that’s great. Thank you. \nAlright. Good afternoon\, chair. French and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. My name is Jen Hyman. I am the senior engineer at Bcd. C. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project. \nI have some background information on the project to share with you. \nCrestron: Hmm. \nCrestron: San Francisco International Airport. \nAlso referred to in this meeting as Sfo has will be applying for a permit for their shoreline protection project. \nCrestron: I’ll tell you in a lot more detail about that in their presentation. \nBut overview of it is that their shoreline protection project is a seawall to surround the airport designed to comply with fema requirements for a hundred year flood protection \nand eliminate the probability of substantial inundation. At the airport from coastal flooding through the year 2\,085\, \nCrestron: the Sri Lankan Protection Project has been divided into 15 reaches. \nCrestron: and each reach has its own unique design. \nCrestron: San Francisco Airport International Airport has submitted pre-application materials and will submit a permit application to BC. DC\, possibly later this year. Now\, I will turn it over to the airport team who will present the project to you today. \nCrestron: Good afternoon board members. My name is David Kim. I’m the senior environmental planner for Sfo. \nWe’re gonna be talking to you about today about our shoreline protection program slide. \nCrestron: This is this is the agenda for our presentation. Today \nI’m going to be starting out with the introduction and the project purpose. And then I’m going to be followed by our technical experts. On the technical analyses\, and then we’ll be followed by questions \nCrestron: I will be representing as a foe today\, joined by Environmental Science Associates. \nCoe Tera engineers\, and Geosynch. \nso put it succinctly the airports here to develop a shoreline protection program under a hundred year flood events pretty much. Most of the airfield and airport property will be inundated as shown on this photo. \nThis image next slide. \nCrestron: So what we’re gonna do is plan. On developing a seawall around the perimeter\, the sea shoreline perimeter of the airport. As you’ll see on your hard copy handouts\, it’s divided into 15 individual reaches starting from reach\, one at the north side to reach 15 on the southern end. And these are just a little \nexamples of what that construction would look like of the wall. And we can go into more detail into that. In our technical analysis \nCrestron: we have a number of project objectives that we want to accomplish with our shoreline protection program. First and foremost is to protect travelers and workers\, airport operations and city assets. \nSecondly\, we want to remove the airport from the 100 year fema floodplain via the clomer process. Third\, we want to make sure our protection system is adaptable to future projections of sea level rise. \nWe don’t know exactly where sea level rise is gonna hit in the future. But we wanna make sure it’s adaptable. \nCrestron: Fourth\, we want to create a protection system that poses no safety hazards to airport operations\, maintains runway capacity and satisfies Faa design standards as a public use airport. There are a number of requirements\, rules that we have to comply with under the Faa to keep operating safely \nnumber 5. We want to enhance emergency vehicle access near our fuel tank Farm. This is around reach 2 6. We want to make sure we minimize hazardous wildlife attractants to prevent bird strikes. \nThis is a constant hazard that we have to deal with. We wanna make sure that whatever protection system we develop helps minimize that that hazard. \nCrestron: And lastly\, we want to create a protection system as expeditiously as possible for the safe and continuous airport operations and and minimize disruption to aircraft operations during the construction of this project \nCrestron: just going to go over briefly what our project description is. \nWe’re going to be removing our existing shoreline protection\, and that consists mainly of some concrete walls\, vinyl\, sheepaw walls\, concrete debris\, and some other associated elements. \nand also remove the existing infrastructure in areas where it conflicts with the shoreline protection program. \nCrestron: We’re gonna be constructing the new shoreline protection system. And this is gonna be largely\, mostly steel sheet pile walls with some reinforced concrete walls at reach one and reach 15 with some armor rock revent and open water. Fill \nthe shoreline. Protection is gonna be approximately 7.6 miles long. It’s going to be about 3.9 to 13 feet high above \nabove existing and newly graded ground surfaces. and the sheet piles will go down to a maximum depth of 50 feet \nCrestron: we’ll be creating a new perimeter dike around reaches 7 and 8. \nThese are off our runway 19 ends to extend the shoreline protection an additional 100 to 215 feet beyond the existing shoreline into the bay. This is to maintain our existing runway. Capacity. \nCrestron: Armor\, rock revetment will be used in tandem with the walls to dissipate wave energy and prevent sediment. Scour. \nThere will be some open water fill\, intended to stabilize the shoreline and create a necessary slope for the support of the shoreline protection system. And we do propose filling in the wetlands and reach sub subreach to be. This is near our fuel Tank Farm. \nand our reach 14 areas to push out our vehicle Service Road slide. \nCrestron: Speaking of our vehicle Service road as part of our associated improvements that go along with this project. \nwe’ll be relocating our vehicle service road\, approximately 12 to 140 feet towards the bay. This is to make sure that we are in line with Faa design standards \nfor distance from our taxiways for safe operation \nCrestron: existing infrastructure will be retrofitted and rerouted. This is\, namely\, our storm drain pump station outfalls. Make sure that they go up and over our new seawalls. \nA lighting stress at the end of Runway 19 left at reach 7 will be demolished to accommodate the construction of the new perimeter dike in that area\, and then that new lighting trestle will be reconstructed in the same area. \nAnd finally\, there’ll be some floodgates and other access control gates that will be installed associated with the program. \nCrestron: So I’m going to hand this over to James Connolly at Coe\, and he’s going to go over the structural analysis. \nThank you\, David. Hopefully\, everyone can hear me. Okay. next slide\, please. \nCrestron: As David and mentioned\, we’ve broken the project into 15 reaches this is partly just given the different topography different elements along the shoreline\, and and to make it a little bit more manageable from a design and design perspective. \nNext week our next slide. So in the bottom left there you’ll see again the the alignment of the reaches with some color coding. The orange is reaches one and 15. These are concrete type T walls is the current design for those areas. \nThe green is a sheet pile wall be installed right at the edge of the existing shoreline. This will be replacing existing flood protection elements. There’s \ncertain reaches with existing vinyl sheets\, others with Burns. Essentially\, it will be a cantilevered sheet pile wall along those reaches \nCrestron: the blue area is at the end of Reach 7 and 8 again\, as David mentioned. Is that a a that push out \nat the end of the runway in order to accommodate the height of the wall and still have safe aviation off that runway. Essentially\, the construction at the completion of that will look like all the other sort of green segments. It’ll be a sheet pile wall at the edge of the shoreline. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: From a design basis standpoint we looked at the flood wall looking at 2 sort of major \ndesign considerations flooding which we use. The army corps em 111-02-2502\, or the design criteria \nfor the seismic performance. We looked at Fema 5\, 4\, 3\, which is a performance based design methodology. Looking at the risk and the performance next slide. \nI won’t go into all the various load combinations. We can come back to this if there’s particular questions. But we did look at a variety of different cases\, both from a flooding and from a seismic standpoint to \nCrestron: prior to the preliminary design. \nNext slide \nCrestron: from a seismic perspective. We looked at the 72 year and 475 year seismic events \nand then establish performance criteria based on the fema guidance \nCrestron: for the 72 year event. Essentially\, we’re looking for mild \nwhich represents essentially no structural damage for the 475 year. We’re looking at a moderate\, basically repairable damage\, essentially \nglobally\, sort of minimal sort of moderate damage. There could be some localized bit more severe damage\, but it would all be repairable after the sizing event. like slide \nCrestron: from the wave perspective. Again we looked at the 10 year 100 year\, which is the Fema flood standard. But we also looked at a 750 year resiliency check \nfor the floodwall next slide. \nCrestron: Again. I won’t go into detail here\, but this is all the various loads that we looked at and the diagrams for the cheap power wall and the concrete wall next slide \nCrestron: from an analysis approach for the steel sheet piles. We use a variety of different analysis methods. \nWe use py wall\, and including corroded properties. Again\, we’re looking at a wall to last to 2\,085. So for the non-seismic load cases. \nessentially the flood cases. We use Pywall for the seismic cases. We use the mix of inertial plexus\, 2D. And we also considered liquid faction\, Bob and his presentation later will go into much more detail in these analysis \nCrestron: on the T wall. The concrete wall \nCrestron: lost the screen up there. \nCrestron: Thank you. \nFor the concrete\, we again designing to the army core standards\, essentially mostly sort of hand\, counts mathcat calculations\, looking at a variety of limit states and evaluating factors of safety against sliding. \nbearing capacities\, rotation\, and so on. Next slide \nCrestron: as far as the actual results. \nSorry little bit of coverage there. for the steel sheet piles again representing reaches 2 through 14 currently. And again\, this is the preliminary design. This will eventually be a design build project. So final design details we determined by that team. But we’ve sized the wall as an AV. 19700 or a Nz 19 \nwith grade grade\, 60 steel we have a minimum of 10 feet of embedded into the bay mud\, which approximately is minus 35. Again\, Bob\, we’ll go into that in more detail \nas far as the T. Wall. Again\, it’s a conventional T. Wall\, reinforced concrete construction. Next slide \nCrestron: as far as our checks at this stage again\, these are based on for the steel sheet pile\, considering the \nsort of final service life. So it does include corrosion. We are maximum DC range we are aiming for was point 9 at this stage in the project for the T. Wall. Again\, we’re looking at variety of factors to safety. And again\, the solution that we presented here meet all of the design criteria that we’ve established essentially for the flooding case. \nThere is no damage for any of the low cases for the seismic for the inertial. There’s no damage. Again\, when we bring in soil structure interaction\, and Bob will present that there is some localized damage that’s expected during the liquifiable case. But again\, it’s within the performance criteria that we’ve established \nnext slide. \nCrestron: I’ll touch on now our coastal. How we develop the the wave loads and the essentially the flood load cases. \nThis project was built off of the female club maps. Again\, David have pointed out the pro er I suppose\, within the flood zone for Fema. And so we use that as part of our basis to look at the 100 year flood case building off of the baker Ecom study. That was the basis of Fema’s maps. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: Essentially\, we took the the storm events transformed them to from offshore to near shore\, converted those considerations\, for for wave run up and perform the extreme. \nStatistics! Analysis! Looking at a sort of a 31 year time history to generate what is a hundred year\, storm event\, and essentially and converted that to design load next slide. \nThrough this analysis we also established the height of the wall. Again\, the total water height. To get off of a fema flood map you need to exceed the one still water elevation for the total water elevation. It’s \nwith a set free board. You need 2 feet above still water elevation or one foot above total water elevation that’s at our base. And then we building in that resiliency and sort of long-term\, with sea level rise. \nprojecting out 42 inches of additional height. Into the walls. We established the wall height along Sfo shoreline. The table on the right is real small to read\, but that those are the design heights along the perimeter \nnext slide. \nCrestron: David mentioned. We also have riprap along the majority of the shoreline. Currently there is riprap out there. There is a few reaches with none. Currently with the new shoreline and new seawall. We are placing riprap \ntoll to prevent future erosion\, and also to knock down the ways again\, helping reduce the height of the wall\, and sort of overtopping that you would get with reflection of the waves smashing into a vertical surface versus one with riffraff and some run-up \nnext slide. \nCrestron: So with that I’ll turn it to Bob. \nCrestron: Thank you\, James. \nAnd I’m joined today by John Lim\, who’s with Tara and his help. A lot on liquid action analysis. \nTurn my camera on. Thank you. Sorry. \nCrestron: Great. \nYeah. And I’m joined today by John Lim. Who so with Tara and his help\, quite a bit with the liquid faction analysis\, and in particular by one Pascana. who’s with us in Tech\, and has been working with with Tara and Koe for quite some time \non on the project. next slide\, please. \nCrestron: So just for some highlights\, I’ll be covering the subsurface conditions at the site site seismicity and the site response analysis. the seismic performance of this of the sheep. How walls at the Shoreline Protection Project. \nAnd then I’ll talk briefly about the geotechnical design associated with the infill area or the the field area where the service roads are being pushed out into the bay at reach number 7 \nnext slide. \nCrestron: of course. The the airport footprint that we’ve you’ve seen now already was created by placing fill within within the bay and the marshlands. \nNext slide\, please. This bill is shown here on a generalized cross section that reaches from it goes from reach 5 to to reach 7. We have nominally\, you know\, 15 or 20 feet of pill that overlies young bay mud. \nThat young bay mud extends to elevation minus 50 elevation\, minus 75\, depending on the location. We have Franciscan bedrock at great depth\, 225 feet or so. \nand the bedrock\, and the problem solves\, you might say\, from the fill and the and young bay mode is separated by some very competent older sediments next slide. \nThere’s been a lot of really a wealth of geotechnical investigations that have been completed at the airport. Many of these done\, and around the year 2\,000 by a big study by \nthe airport Development engineering consortium. Looking at here the location of previous explorations\, the orange dots are boring. \nThe green squares are cone panentrometer test locations. \nCrestron: next slide\, please. \nCrestron: This is a zoom in to reach Number 6\, \nand what we’ve done when we looked at the soil conditions. As for the various you have other borings or phone kind of trauma pros. You’ve flagged key elevations. This happens to be the elevation of the top of the young bay mud. \ntypically at about elevation\, minus 15. The next slide is the same base map\, but it’s showing how we tag the elevation of the the bottom of the young bay mud\, and that does vary from elevation minus 50. On the left portion of the slide\, reach 5 and \nhalf half of 6\, and then it goes down to elevation minus 75 on reach 6 and 7\, and it turns out to reach 6 is really the the critical section in terms of the greatest thickness \nof the of the young Baymont at the project next slide. \nCrestron: With regard with regard to site seismicity. As James mentioned\, the 475 year return period has been selected \nas the design earthquake based on fema guidance. We’ve we’ve developed a hazard curve for that design earthquake using a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. The controlling earthquake is the San Andreas event. In and 19 6\, \nthe 7 time. Hist were developed from our dynamic analysis chosen from the peer database. And for those 7 time histories include\, a pulse \ncharacteristics next slide \nCrestron: in in our report. There’s a table that’s reproduced here showing characteristics of those earthquakes \nnext slide\, please. Perhaps more informative is this graph. It shows a response\, spectrum presentation of the design criteria. The target has it. Curve is shown in red. \nAnd then the jagged traces that you see there represent the response vector associated with those 7 selected time histories. They were scaled to match. I mean our mean value with the target spectra. \nAnd and that’s shown as a dotted line. Next slide\, please. \nCrestron: We did a site response analysis\, one dimensional site response analysis input\, at the base on the rock. There’s 7 ground motions \npropagated it. Through the the model that the deep saw model that was used. We we see the peak peak ground acceleration\, the panel on the left. It starts at about point 3 5 at the rock. \npropagates through the through the swell profile at\, but at the ground surface it’s at approximately 0 point 2 g. \nProbably worth noting that at the top of the young bay mud we’re also at about point 3 5G. And that’s actually a horizon that we use as the the input horizon for our ground motions in the analytical models. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: As far as the analytical work was concerned\, we use 2 dimensional plexus analysis. \nanalyzing reach 6 and also reach 7. Reach 7 is special because it has that fill that’s been added. So we looked at both of those as as kind of the controlling design sections. \nWe studied separately the liquefaction displacements and and then we evaluated both and combined and considered the combined inform performance based on the plexus analysis \nand the liquefaction and these lateral displacements. \nCrestron: And I’ll talk about that now next slide\, please. \nSo as far as plexus is concerned. This is the model for the reach. 6. We see the sheet pile driven through the existing conditions there. It extends through the bill \nand penetrates 10 feet below the bottom of the fill and into the young bay mud. The ground motions in the model were in input at the top of the old bay clay. \nand the sole profile is shown here is consistent with the in information that we have\, and and the primarily from those\, of course\, the the solar borrings \nand engineering properties come largely from the Adac study\, which was done in the year 2\,000 next slide. \nCrestron: These are the results. The \nfor those 7 ground motions. The average lateral displacement at the top of the sheet pile was 1.2 feet standard deviation\, a half a foot. \nCrestron: What we’re looking at. There are the contours of lateral displacement. The \nthe the Red Zone to the right of the sheep pile has got about 1.8 feet of maximum movement in that zone next slide. \nCrestron: This is the model\, the plexus model for the reach 7\, where the the field moves out. \nThe I’ll talk about that in a bit more detail later. The results\, though shown on the next slide\, we have a calculated average displacement of just over 2 feet. \nWith a standard deviation of that movement of 0 point 7 feet. I might note that the grounded this situation. The build area will be treated to mitigate liquid vaccine \nnext slide. \nCrestron: I’ll I’ll get to that. But the it’s it’s a \nsome vibrating beams that go into the ground. They’ve been used successfully at treasure. \nCrestron: The Jfk technology. \nthe \nCrestron: this is a summary of the performance of the sheet pile in terms comparing the moment demand \nto the to the moment capacity. And it’s an envelope that we’re showing on the left for reach 6 and on the right for reach 7 all 7 ground motions\, or in normal and reverse polarity\, are summarized here. What we found was the \nthe the maximum moment demand occurs at the at the as you’d expect at the top of the young Bay mud. It’s about 20 k. Feet. At that location. We compared it rather conservatively to the \na an allowable stress from a from the design sheet pile that we’ve used with a with a yield stress of 36 ksi \nand based on that we’re only 25. The demand\, the maximum demand is only 25% of the allowable capacity for that 36 K assign material. \nCrestron: If we look at the right-hand side for the reach. 7 similar analysis show that the maximum demand is about 40% \nof the mild steel sheet pile allowable capacity. Next slide. \nwe analyzed separate that the plexus analysis didn’t include liquefaction and just movements. We analyze those separately. The peak ground acceleration was based on the site response analysis for Reach 6 that we showed a slide on earlier. \nthe factor of safety against liquefaction and the relative density came from Cpt data analysis of Cpt data. and we use belongier and address to estimate the maximum cyclic shear strains that occur in the profile. \nThis was an input we followed a empirical method developed by Zangedol. which allows you to take those maximum shear strains and scale them to the position that you’re at \nrelative to the to the edge of the film. And we used A\, we evaluated that performance based on a conservative assumption regarding the side slopes of the of the shoreline bill. \nNext slide\, please. We did that analysis. The Zeng type analysis for each of 62 combinatorometer tests that are located around the perimeter of the site. \nCrestron: So essentially\, what when we do these calculations\, we’re assuming that the sole \nproperties associated with that particular Cpt infinitely and lateral direction. So it’s\, you know\, one estimate at a time that that we made of the lateral displacements\, that liquefaction lateral displacements. Ld. \nnext slide. \nCrestron: And we. This is a summary of those results. So it’s a \nlooking at the right-hand panel. This is the design earthquake. So what we’re looking at is for those 62 data. How how do those calculated lateral displacements for the 62 cpt stack up. \nWe we looked at the mean sea level. That’s the solid line and a couple of cases where the groundwater levels were at elevation. And that’s elevation plus 4. We looked at elevation plus 6 and elevation 0. Those are the \nthe\, the data to the right and the left that are summarized. But focusing on groundwater\, it means sea level\, which is where we find it in the air field. Now. we\, the fiftieth percentile estimated\, lateral displacement is a half a foot. \nand the the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacements is is 2 feet. the next slide indicates and shows how that those displacements are distributed along the various reaches. The 7 or 8 miles that we have. \nSo what we have is on the vertical axis is the estimated movement\, and on the horizontal axis the station that occurs. \nthe fiftieth percent\, the vectors\, the vertical vectors that we have there represent calculations at a particular Cpt tip of the arrow is what the estimated displacement is at that location. \nand the fiftieth percentile and ninetieth percentile values of a half a foot and and 2 feet are are shown there for for reference. Next slide\, please. \nCrestron: So then\, we look to combine the performance of the shupa walls\, considering plaxis and the zhang type\, lip perfection studies the keeping in mind that the maximum \nCrestron: moment demand or or stress\, if you will for the \nanalysis. Every 6 was 27 of the allowable that’s really as I mentioned\, that moment occurs at the top of the young Bay mud. \nIt’s it’s related to the amount of rotation that occurs in the young Bay mud which in turn is related to the displacement within the field. As you go from the bottom to the top of the young day mud. So that displacement was 0 point 4 feet \nin our plexus analysis. If we compare that to the median value of the induced displacement. Ld. Within the the liquefaction and new settlement. That’s that’s a half a foot which compares to that point 4. \nIf you simply combine those 2 point 9 feet and use that that’s allows you to scale the rotation at the bottom. And the moment. So that would bring the moment demand up to 60% of allowable. \nIf if we use a Ld of one foot that boost that moment demand up to 95% of the allowable keeping in mind that allowable stress calculation is very conservative. It’s based on miles\, 2 \nnext slide. \nNow\, indeed\, the the Ld that controls the performance at a particular location on the sheepile is really the average ground conditions around\, not not one from a single \nCpt. although we have 62 Cpt’s\, which sounds like a lot\, and it is\, I think it gives us a good overview. In fact\, considering that we’re talking about 7 miles of shoreline. It’s not a lot of Cp. \nCrestron: so we we really need to complete closely spaced Cpt to delineate \nareas problem areas\, if you will\, where the calculated Ld\, based on average values might be greater than a foot and in those areas\, they may indeed require ground improvement or upgrading the the steel sections. \nand that’s something that in order to meet our damage or performance criteria. So that’s something that needs needs to be done. \nCrestron: Pardon me. \nCrestron: those additional Cpt’s would be in reach 6 primarily. No\, they would be along the entire waterfront. \nAnd we’re we’re planning to explore it in a rather uniform way\, because the we we expect the liquefaction problem within the fill is everywhere. It’s not just Route 6\, so we will be looking at that all along this road. \nCrestron: W. 1. One of the things that’s also important for\, and we considered was certainly along the alignment of the sheet pile\, there going to be some differential movements. It won’t all be one value or another\, and that’ll lead to some elongation strains that need to be managed with within the wall. And that’s one of the strengths of the Z-type pile is that through a rotation of interlocks \nwe’ve looked at that. And it can handle lateral strains of about 5%. And we think that that we’ll we’ll mitigate and handle the the differential zones next slide. \nCrestron: So moving on to fill placement at reach 7. it’s it’s it’s in a way\, it’s a complicated process\, but it’s one that’s very well understood and has been many\, many times in the past. \nand involved at that facilities like ours. Here at the airport\, it involves dredging and construction of a perimeter dike filling behind that installing wic trains. and following that with a preload\, fill with the wick drains accelerating the settlement. \nand then\, followed by deep compaction of the fill and the perimeter dike to mitigate liquefaction potential. And then finally\, with the installation of a sheepaw floodwall \nwithin the the perimeter type. Next slide. \nCrestron: This is a picture of of the extent of that \noutward movement of the service road. As David mentioned. the the dotted red line is the limits of the outside limits of the perimeter pill. The solid red line is the sheepaw wall itself. \nNext slide\, please. \nCrestron: To the right is is the maximum section. This\, this is at the end of the runway\, where the where it extends out the furthest. \nand it’s illustrating the geometry of the concept. There \nCrestron: the the dredging extends 20 people or the mudline \nthe perimeter dike is crushed rock\, and that would be crust stone\, and that would be placed. That’s the yellow with place within the the dredge zone that we’ve taken \ndug out to to give us a stronger material at the base behind. That would be till that would be placed that fill and would be \nCrestron: The the whole system would be treated by \nconstructing a preload fill\, which is shown in violet\, and prior to doing that\, though we would install those vertical wick drains which extend completely through the young bay mud and into the \nthe upper layered sediments. \nCrestron: And as I mentioned the \nthe compaction method we have in mind\, and still it’s early to choose. But at at Treasure Island they they use a vibrating beam. It’s 4 beams that vibrate in\, and that that had quite a bit of success. We haven’t mind using that for \nfor the deep compaction of the second. \nCrestron: So with that I think that’s the end of my story. I’ll turn it all over to \ncommand. \nCan you? \nCrestron: Thank you? \nGood afternoon. My name is Matt Brandon\, with Esa along with my colleague\, Bob Batalio\, and using a lot of input from the other technical experts. Here today\, we worked on the adaptation plan for \ntelorized flood hazards. I’m going to give a quick overview of that for the project. \nCrestron: As James mentioned earlier\, the \ncurrent design\, sea level rise criteria is 3 and a half feet that’s shown as a solid green line on the left side that tracks across the panel of seal of seal rise projection. \nand certainly with 3 and a half years it will rise. There will be significant consequences for the airport’s flooding in terms of the depths and extents\, as shown on the right with some inundation mapping of the 100 year flood with 3 and a half years ago\, Verizon. \n3 and a half feet of civil rise is projected to occur somewhere between 2\,070\, under the medium-high risk projection curves from the State to about 2\,100\, at the low risk. Aversion curves to the state \nCrestron: in addition to the and and this is 3 and a half years civil rise with maintaining fema accreditation for 3 and a half years civil rise. \nThe project also considers its adaptive capacity for 6.9 feet of seal rise\, which is the yellow line on the left curve\, and you see that takes you to 2\,100 under the medium High Risk \nscenario. \nCrestron: So here’s a look at how those work in terms of the crest elevations. \nSo the reaches are listed down by the rows with their proposed design elevations. Here\, in the third column. this sea level\, still water level is the augmented still water level from today’s present day by 3 and a half feet\, and you can see the free board \nfor these still water levels are all above to maintaining that fema accreditation with 3 and a half feet still arise. The next column over is the total water level. Calculated independently for each of the reaches\, and you can see there the \ntotal water Level Free board remains above the one foot requirement for fema accreditation. \nCrestron: I’ll draw your eye to reach 7\, which is sort of in the middle here\, where the free boards are significantly larger than the other amounts. Reach 7 is the one that Bob Kirby just talked about. That includes fill out in the bay and that has these. \nyou know\, multiple conflicts going on\, of working with sea level rise\, planning and flood assessments\, dealing with faa flight paths and with putting fill in the bay so that one is proposed to have a little bit more allowance and resilience for sea level rise\, so it wouldn’t have to be augmented and adapted as soon as the other reaches\, given its complications. \nCrestron: So this is a table sort of going forward from that condition I showed you this proposed design condition. \nSo the first row of this table is that 3 and a half feet of seal arise that was detailed in the prior slide. You can see\, as I noted\, that would go is projected to occur between 2\,100\, or as early as 2070 \nand as I showed that provides the fema accreditation of 2 feet of still water level and one foot of total water level free board. and then the table goes down with sort of incrementally more seal horizon about one foot increments. \nwith an additional foot of seal\, arise to 4 and a half feet. that’s when you would. The the project would no longer meet female accreditation\, but would really be only susceptible potentially to some wave over wash because of the total wall being a few tenths of a foot \nfrom the top. 5 and a half feet is when the free board would go to 0 for the still water levels. That’s kind of what we think of as the threshold for really being substantial consequences. If sea level rise goes higher. \nand \nCrestron: so to get from there from 5.5 to the 6.9. So the next step up. That’s about a foot and a half higher. That’s the point at which \nsince the freeboards would be going negative. At that point some sort of structural modification around the reaches would be probably needed\, something like adding a foot and a half or so cap to most of the reaches\, as I pointed out\, reach 7 has some additional capacity\, so wouldn’t need a cap as soon for that additional amount of \nto to reach that amount? Question\, Matt\, yeah. On the previous table\, the Twl column does that include is that with 3.5 feet of sea level rise. That’s with 3.5 cso. Rise. And as James mentioned\, it’s also starting the the total water level calculations\, you know\, offshore with additional seal rise\, so that added to like the wave depth and the propagation. \nCrestron: And so these are \nfrom the Fema study\, right? The the existing twl has not been recalculated. \nyou know\, to the offshore water levels additional water depth and then bring the waves sort of from the near shore in. \nCrestron: I can add to that also a essentially what we did was we took the the Fema model \nand we ran it to make sure our model calibrated. So we match today’s case that airport on the map. And we reran that model with the wall because it’s the structural element that changed and see what impacts that had on the behavior of the total water elevation \nand made some adjustments. And then\, as Matt mentioned\, we did then\, look at\, you know\, would things change in the future would sea level rise. and we ran it that also. And so that’s ultimately how we arrived at the total water and set our wall height. \nCrestron: I’m going to go a little bit more briefly onto these slides\, but you know we can certainly come back to them if you all have questions. The project\, as David mentioned\, is looking to get out of the theme floodplain that will fire a letter of map\, revision the the Clomar\, the the conditional letter of map provision process is currently underway in the airports and meeting with \nFema they’ve been looking at the inboard drainage side of things\, and so there’s been a series of models from the hydrology watershed models to riverine models that route the flow sort of around the backside and just to the north and south of the airport\, and then also taking input from that and precipitation to look at the \nstormwater system\, and how that performs. \nCrestron: So just give you a quick snapshot of those. So this is a snapshot of the results of some of the storm water modeling. You’ll see here that that \neven for cases which include extreme participation event\, and as those blue arrows indicate\, some overtopping from the adjoining riverine channels. the storm water system is capable of maintaining the water depths below a foot. \nbecause of that one of the sort of programmatic level ideas that’s been included in this project\, which is called reach 16 sort of along the western side is thought to not necessarily not be needed in terms of\, because the amount of discharge into the site would be small enough to be handled by the storm drain system. \nCrestron: here’s some more details on that sort of connection between the riverine system and the storm drain system\, which is\, you know\, using a model to go from the in this case this is flowing around the north side\, up by reach one of San Bruno Creek\, and there is a few areas of overtopping\, but they kind of pond in shallow areas and don’t extend over the entire site. \nCrestron: Similarly\, it reached 15 here the proposed where it flows just along the \nthe the the channel actually of Samuel Barry Canal channel flows right by reach 15\, and that floodwall would prevent inundation from coming onto the airport. Basically\, that green area that currently is at risk from being inundated\, would no longer be inundated with the proposed project. \nCrestron: The site also \nis is. you know\, as Bob pointed out\, built on former marshland\, and not that high above the groundwater table there’s been some hazard mapping that’s been done for groundwater at a regional level. Here’s \n2 2 of those mapping efforts by may it all and point blue in the Usgs\, showing that the site is sort of just \nsort of about 3 feet down is where the water table lies below the ground surface. Elevation\, certainly with seal rise\, has potential\, for there being some inundation hazards from groundwater. \nCrestron: the project\, the airport as part of this project has been monitoring groundwall on the site. \nThis plot here shows an example out. The light blue line is the title elevation from the bay\, and then there’s 3 other lines are 3 sites in profile along the shoreline there reach 6\, and that inset image \nyou can see in general\, that sea level is about 4 feet. As Bob mentioned before. the water levels are a bit below that\, and they remain roughly below that 8 foot ground surface elevation\, you see tagged on the upper left. So you know it is \nconsistent with those maps that you know a few feet below the ground surface. \nCrestron: So recognizing that\, recognizing some of the risks to the \nseismic hazard. the price the airport is looking at\, doing\, continuing to monitor ground water and develop it as part of and manage it. But that would be something that’d be an adaptation to this project\, not part of the current project and go into more detail on this. \nif you’d like \nCrestron: That takes us to the end of our presentation. And I didn’t quite get the order of public versus board questions. But we’ll leave \nyou all. \nCrestron: Yeah\, thanks\, Matt and team. \nAnd I think what we’re going to do next next is invite the public to. If the public has any comments regarding engineering type of criteria engineering issues or the presentation specifically \nthat they could go now and then the board will jump in with our comments. So I guess I ask anybody in the room. That’s part of the public who would like to present\, or grace if you have any anyone has raised their hands. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see any public with raised hands. \nCrestron: and I don’t see any others in the room with raised hands\, either physical raised hands. \nSo then we’ll go on to the board. I’ll invite anyone that has a questions. Comments eventually move on to motion. But just for the time being questions and comments. \nThat’s the only \nI have a commitment. Let let me just let’s see\, remember to turn your your speaker on. Make sure your face is showing on the zoom \nBCDC HOST: chair. Can I request something? \nAye. \nCrestron: is that Grace? Yes\, this is me\, Grace. If \nBCDC HOST: the public and the board members\, and the reps when they speak\, can they speak more into the mic on my end? It’s very hard to hear. \nBCDC HOST: So if we can speak a little louder or closer to the mics\, that will be great. \nsure. Thanks. \nI have a number of questions. But I think the board member \nCrestron: how\, considering Sfo is a lifeline facility. \nHow was the 4 75 level of ground shaking. determined to be appropriate for design. \nBob\, you want me to start this off. Then? Again we looked at again the fema guidance\, and looking at the requirements for this. Floodwall. \nThe idea\, again\, is essentially it is a flood wall is its primary purpose. That’s the problem that I suppose\, facing immediately. And they are currently on a flood zone need to \nget it off the map. So\, looking at that and the primary focus there\, we made sure that for all flood load cases\, 100% resilient\, no damage. We started looking at the seismic performance. \nAgain\, there’s a sort of small table here on the right. Again\, they give different criteria looking at performance. Again\, this coming out of the Fema 543 \nrecommendations. And essentially. we picked a 475 or 475 year event\, representing a sort of a typical waterfront structure that you would normally see and checking its capacity against that and its performance. \nWith the understanding that this wall in essence is again focused on blood protection. So if you were to build it and had a large sizing event and had some damage to the wall. There isn’t an immediate risk to the airport \nin the sense that it’s not retaining any in the sense that it’s not retaining any water on every given day. Now there is an increased risk of flooding. Again\, you would be basically essentially bringing back the fema flood risk that we have today. And admittedly it does get worse over time. \nSo that was the idea of the wall. So as as in the future\, that flood risk is gonna increase. So we need to build the wall to prevent it. The seismic vulnerability then increases concurrently in a sense\, because in the future that flood risk is more and more common. So you do want to have a wall that essentially \nperform as well and can be quickly rebuilt. Looking at the more extreme cases\, the sort of we would see for an essential facility\, often felt that \nagain focusing on the wall\, for that case was difficult choice\, and it would require probably much more impactful and costly improvements to address that particular item\, and it wouldn’t address anything sort of behind the wall\, back on the airfield\, which are essentially would be the main areas of concern from an operational life safety standpoint. \nCrestron: There’s a very long\, rambling answer\, but hopefully\, is an idea how we got there. I don’t\, Bob. You want to add to that. \njust might add that. And and and this is covered in a tech memo that we haven’t actually have as an appendix to our geotech report. It’s \nIt’s appendix B\, But we we also have to look at the performance group. But what? What is what is the required performance of the facility? So\, looking at combining \nthe design event with the with the performance requirement. The th\, the the 475 year return period. Earthquake. When combined with \nwhat we viewed as a performance Group 3 structure and A and a performance requirement per the fema guidelines of moderate damage. So those factors all fit together. So it’s a risk and performance-based \nassessments that that led to that. But my concern is in your presentation. You mentioned that the maximum demand capacity ratio for design is point 9 under the Dbe level. \nStructurally speaking. so so are you reaching those levels of demand capacity ratios\, because that doesn’t give you a lot of margin once something bigger happens right \nCrestron: couple of points to that. And I think Bob’s analysis showed again from \nmuch of the size and behavior. Essentially\, this wall is a cantilevered wall. There’s no soil or basically air on both sides from a seismic perspective quite honest\, the walls just going along for the ride\, for whatever the soil does \nCrestron: so. The soil is really the main driver\, and Bob’s analysis has shown \nthe stresses\, the differential movements across the length of the wall during those seismic events is actually quite small\, because again\, the wall just kind of rides with the soil. Now you do get kind of over a long enough period. You do get a chance of differential displacement\, causing interlock breakage. But the wall itself is not gonna just fall over because there’s really no \nlateral load applied to it\, going with the soil. So that’s why\, from an inertial seismic standpoint. Again\, we are not seeing \nmuch more demand again from that. And again the DC ratios of the point 9. Those are all flood based cases\, the inertial. We have those in our calculation package. They’re actually quite a bit lower from a seismic cause. It’s self-weight. \nreally sees no outside lateral load. \nCrestron: So \nif you were\, did you even consider higher level just to check? See if you have enough margin. I’ll ask my colleague\, Evan\, who’s online again\, we can perform that check if necessary. I’m just Evan. I’m not sure if we did run that calc again given the DC ratios for the seismic were quite low from an inertial standpoint. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So we we did not end up checking anything that was past the 475 year. But we\, when when doing the calculations with the 475 year\, the forces that we were seeing were\, I mean\, significantly\, significantly\, less than anything that we were seeing for the flood loading \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): cause that\, as James mentioned\, it’s it’s the self weight of the sheet pile. So if you’re doing that on a you know per foot basis\, you’ve got\, you know\, your your 3 inch 3 8 inch thick sheet \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): times the height \nat\, you know. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): and that was about it. Whereas the the flood cases with the wave loading and everything were. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): you know\, 200 to 400\, you know\, pounds per square inch pressure against the side were significantly larger than anything that the self weight was gonna create. \nI have few other questions\, but I’ll wait for others. Let me follow up on your comments there. Ramine. I had some questions about that also on page 19 of your presentation\, you had the the maximum d over C. \nRotational stability was point 9 point 9 0 for the sheet pile wall for the T wall bearing capacity was 0 point 9 9. Is that a structural? So that was a if you look at the I think you might have an older version. \nwe. We did make a correction on that\, because it did not logically make sense. Essentially\, again\, it’s an army corps looking at factors of safety. Essentially\, they are requiring a level of factor safety. And but we were writing like\, well\, we met it. We’re point 9. We’re right on that. So essentially under bearing capacity\, we have a 3.5. \nOkay\, Evan\, can you help me with that? \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So that that point 9 9 that was shown there. Originally was. It’s the ratio of the calculated technical safety factor 1.1 1 \nthat was the that was the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): yeah\, basically it was. It was the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): oh\, man. Sorry. I’m trying to remember here. So it was. It was taking the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): the depth of the of step to fixity ratios. That we were providing versus actual \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): that we were calculating out. \nCrestron: I guess. What do I say? We’ll probably come back to you on that\, and give you a little more clarity. But essentially\, and from Bob’s analysis with the wall was found to be stable at the depths going 10 feet into the bay. Mud \nagain under inertial loading effects and flood cases. That’s about an embedded of roughly 35 feet with a stick up of anywhere between. I think the numbers are about 5 to 13 feet. \nYou know\, ratuing that we essentially had enough tip elevation and again looking at a liquid. Ca faction case. Now the whole soil masses sort of moving in the wall is slightly going along for the ride. We do not see any indication of the wall with \npotentially rotate and collapse. And it’s sort of a more severe manner. We can revisit that and give a little bit more clarity on that point. Walls don’t rotate and collapse if you have a safety factor of 1\, 3 \nbut that’s not a conventional design\, acceptable design safety factor understood. And so I’d be interested in seeing an actual safety factor\, or you can turn upside down and have it be a \nthe performance factor. reduction factor\, whatever you want to do. But point point 9\, II think what you’re saying is somehow the the depth is. you know\, point \n9. You know the the death required divided by point 9. So you’ve added an extra few feet or something like that which isn’t a safety factor. You’re correct. \nCrestron: along that same line makes since I have the the floor here\, and since I’m the chair and no one can take it away from me. \nLet let me let me follow up a little bit on that is II got interested in the point 9\, and maybe that point 9 is not exactly what I was thinking it meant. But there was nothing really that showed II there’s a ton of C of Cpt data. I assume there’s a lot of lab data. I didn’t see it in any of the \nPdfs that were forwarded to us. This showed how that data was reduced\, except for a few averages and some plots of cumulative values\, and so on. But I’d be interested in seeing \nsomething that shows how the data was reduced and how you came up with your design values. And actually\, what were the strength values that were used in somebody’s analyses. You know I see the analyses. I assume that behind that there’s a lot of maybe Appendix B in the Jutec report was something that that was not provided to us. \nCrestron: Ye yes\, II can speak to that. \nCrestron: There! There was a study done from about 1\,998 to 2\,001 on the \nThe. \nIt was looking at the airport development at at the time\, and it was done by Fugro and and muffin and nickel. They were the joint venture. and and most of the Cpt’s that that you saw in Bayside and along the perimeter. And what have you? Those were actually done as part of that that program. \nAnd and the and the program included extensive\, very extensive laboratory testing\, including a lot of focus on dynamic properties. \nAnd and this is what was available to us and was\, is a wealth of information in that regard. And so we drew from that database \nto to develop the engineering properties that we used in in our analysis. And and you had that live database\, you could analyze it yourselves rather than just taking their summary plots\, and so on. \nCrestron: We that we had there. We didn’t have a a live database. In a sense\, we we had reams and rings of appendices and tables\, and and the like\, which we which we reviewed. \nand and one pistana who has worked with us on on all of the plexus kind of analysis\, and selecting the dynamic properties \ngot got quite involved with with that review as well. And. Juan\, maybe I could ask you to speak a bit to the to the soil properties\, if \nif you don’t mind. \nCrestron: So how would one do that? \nThey’re not \nJuan M Pestana: can you hear me. Can you \nJuan M Pestana: see me? \nHey? Everyone? Yeah\, we got you. Thanks. Nice to see you. So the \nJuan M Pestana: so that’s a you know. Very extensive question about the properties. I mean. \nJuan M Pestana: we actually have gone through all the cycle characterization\, going from a strength to a stiffness to share modules reduction. So do name it\, except there is a very\, very dense database \nJuan M Pestana: for for that particular case. So II think your question is a valid one. It would be helpful if you narrow down a little bit\, the the concern would be \nJuan M Pestana: the particular property that you may be looking at. \nJuan M Pestana: But of course\, asking a question with the properties of soil\, is like. \nJuan M Pestana: you know\, asking for a 3 h lecture and install property. So you know\, it would be helpful to \nJuan M Pestana: specific about the question have you had in mind? Does it make sense? \nCrestron: Yeah. And and one\, I think we would just. \nBut I thought you might want to speak to the. to the wealth or to the depth and breadth of the information. But it it it’s it’s a extraordinarily extensive. \nyeah\, yeah. So so I guess my request would be of the design team. That I that I kind of assumed it looked like from the way you’d done what you had presented that there was a lot behind it that wasn’t presented. But I think. \nas ecr be reviewer\, I’d be interested in seeing that I’m not gonna spend a lot of time going into it. But just see. the criteria that you used for how you selected properties\, how you average\, how you pick standard deviations or outliers\, and \nand so on. \nCrestron: We know that the criteria that we would like to see has. \nII know\, you guys. \nJuan M Pestana: that’s that’s an excellent question. That’s an excellent question. So III can tell you of\, on the properties\, the the purpose. We’re extensively not that. And and you would be surprised. But some of those properties are actually quite quite well behaved. And the \nJuan M Pestana: yes\, of course there are always outliers\, but of course\, they are those outliers. So we we tend to look at the at the behavior. We tend to look at the \nJuan M Pestana: characteristics of soils. So we we have a lot of database\, so as far as testing is concerned\, to support or deny the validity of someone else data points. And and of course\, as a modeler\, I mean speaking now for myself as a model\, you\, you tend to develop a lot of criteria to see how reasonable. \nJuan M Pestana: The relationship between the properties are properties. So the the report was very\, very well documented\, and and I can attest to \nJuan M Pestana: to Bob’s a comment that there was a well from information there\, and it seemed to be consistent with several of the reports that we have not for other projects. So\, rather than being \nJuan M Pestana: in the San Francisco Bay Area things like the Threshold island. They Berkeley report some you know\, some properties for San Francisco Bay matter\, and so forth. So II do think they are very well established\, I mean\, if definitely\, if you\, if you need some clarification\, any specific issue? \nJuan M Pestana: and how\, for example\, we determine we use base average base value\, based estimates. And when appropriate. And this was a performance\, base analysis. But in some cases\, for example\, for strength\, we use the typical\, you know\, 30% \nJuan M Pestana: and you know\, characteristics. So so again. \nJuan M Pestana: I would be delighted to go at length in any of any of those any of those aspects. \nJuan M Pestana: Bob\, is that\, Tom? What you had in mind. \nCrestron: Yes\, thank thank you\, Juan. \nDid you have? Yes\, I think that’s fine\, I think just to go ahead. I think\, Juan\, you cited extensive documentation evaluation of that\, and maybe just submit some of that to to Jen to the Bcdc\, I just so that we have it on record that. Yeah\, it’s all been followed. Re related that one follow-on question\, one more on page 44. I think of your presentation. \nYou show the the fiftieth percentile and nineteenth percentile. And then a handful of points that are larger deformations than that. \nI. \nCrestron: And you know\, obviously\, we don’t want to have the average wall to perform well\, and only fail in \n4% of the locations. and let let me clarify. So what what we indicate is that II think this gives a good overview of of what the general field conditions are. \nBut we we have recommended to the airport that we we do as a large number of additional Cpt’s. where we would \nreally do a rolling average of calculated values of Ld. As we move along the shoreline. \nCrestron: identify areas that \nbased on that rolling average lead to \nCrestron: special attention and as a preliminary matter\, we were thinking that \nhaving a an average Ld of a foot is an area that we look more carefully at and consider either ground improvement \nalong those areas or upgrading the the steel\, but And we we have discussed with the airport about ground improvement as a as an included to assure the \nthe moderate damage performance. Criterias\, Matt. \nCrestron: we would. We wouldn’t leave that behind. And we do understand that we need to look \nvery carefully. You know. \nCrestron: You know\, every few 100 feet\, if you will. I mean not not not not right. \nAlthough 62 Cpt’s are a lot. It’s a big distance that we have. \nCrestron: Okay. \nreally\, if you got go ahead. \nthank you for the presentation. Very nice\, very clear. A few questions. If my biggest one really is the selection of seal sheet file \nCrestron: right for a \nproject that clearly is \nCrestron: 2085\, and beyond\, and adapting to it with \nso what was the thought process? And were there other alternatives considered to steal\, that was one. and then a follow on to that is that I would imagine that with steel \nCrestron: is there a \nCatholic protection system that is being included as part of the design. If not\, I would imagine that it’s probably with the section loss. You’re probably bulking it up right? And so with that bulk up section. \nYour Dcrs are still in the just at about one\, or is it substantially greater than one because of the thicker section anticipating section loss in the future. \nCrestron: So maybe I’ll stop with that and few other questions which are different topics. Right? So for the the first item as far as alternatives there was an alternatives\, analysis\, phase\, which is actually performed by a different consulting group before we came on board the report looked at a variety of different types of blood protection\, Perth and levies \nsteel sheet piles concrete\, retaining walls\, concrete panel sheet piles again\, a wide variety of different alternatives through that analysis. And looking at sort of the the life and the kind of looking at cost today versus future they made a determination at that time that they still sheet pile\, while with a a coding\, was the most economical solution for them \nfor this project. Again\, thinking through the period of 2085 leading into that sort of the second part of your questions\, we are planning to have a coating on the steel sheet piles on the above portion. We’ll extend it a short distance into the ground. \nThat coating and the wall itself again. The majority of the time is right at the edge of the shoreline. It will be accessible by foot. On either side of the wall. There is no flood waters\, there is no soil retain tension on it\, so it is accessible. So the expectation is\, if the airport chooses to do so\, and a maintenance program\, they could maintain the coating over the life of the wall to further extend it. \nWe\, as a kind of a design approach to date. We’ve assumed that they will not maintain the wall again. This is not their decision that you know. Very likely they will. But for conservatism\, we assume no \nmaintenance. So the coding we gave a life of\, I believe\, about 10 to 15 years. At that point we calculated the corrosion rates we’d expected\, based on exposure and and use those for the calculations. The DC. Ratios you were seeing in that table at end of service life 2085 against \nthe full design loads. So they are much better. DC ratios. you know\, in the first 2030\, 40 years they’re much better\, and then they get less and less towards the end. \nCrestron: Thank you. Yeah\, thanks for that. \nyou know. And and so it wasn’t just from that. You know\, my\, my other biggest question concern is the Cpg. Right? So cpige is a very large piece of any kind of fema floodwall\, particularly in segments where \nthe backland is just about at present day. Bfe! So in the future\, even with a modest amount of sea level rise. the steel barrier is the only \nseparation from the base. \nCrestron: So Matt had alluded to it in one of his slides. So currently\, as far as this project is concerned. Again\, with the media goal of getting Fema getting essentially off the fema map. \nwe are driving our sheet piles to a distance into the young bay mud to act as a deterrent to groundwater from coming under but obviously over a long enough period of time. With sea level rise. The expectation is\, the groundwater interior will will increase\, and there could be some potential for seepage. \nkind of a long-term projection is eventually again an add on project\, not district project. There will be a drainage system. Would it tie into the interior drainage system at the airport and handle sort of that seepage issue? We’re extending the sheets down in preparation for the eventuality that a system like that may be needed. \nBut again\, for this particular project. It’s not needed today\, but for sure in the future. And so again. Immediate need is\, let’s get off the map. \nOkay. My second question was\, I didn’t see a plan. I saw only at the end of runway 19\, where there is some fill that is taking place. But I see\, I think\, on Slide 2 \nCrestron: There are roads being pushed out also up to what 120 feet or so so. \nand that is in Reach’s. \nCrestron: Oh\, is it between reaches 7 and 13? I guess your slide says. \nand so \nCrestron: is that a new perimeter system that is being created? \nWell\, David has stepped out\, but I’ll do my best as essentially\, that’s the Vehicle Service Road. There’s an existing vehicle service road at the airport the current road in certain areas is required does not meet faa requirements. \nThere is a waiver that they have to request. I’m not sure if that’s annually\, but they have to get an exemption from Faa. It is too close to the taxiways\, the wing tips. \nThe idea of the movement of the Vs. Our vehicle service road is to come in conformance with with that\, the idea being that if this project goes forth we don’t want to permanently lock in a deviation from the Faa\, and that is essentially the reason for those \nshifts in the Vsr. So\, David\, there was a question about the Vsr\, so hopefully I covered it. Yeah\, my question was\, is the Vsr within the existing footprint of the runway? 28 area? Or is it a new edge that is being created for the Vsr. \nHmm. Well\, the the existing Bsr along the runway. 19. Excuse me\, runway 19 right? And then also around both the 2\, 8\, yeah\, 28 as well. So those will all be also be shifted out \nagain. My question is\, when you say shifted out\, are they on new fill in the bay? Which means the new perimeter is being created\, or is it within the footprint of the existing \nCrestron: shown here would have to be implemented \nin order to ship that the the Dsr. \nCrestron: If you can go to slide 5\, \nyou know\, my question is really on the other reaches on reaches 13 and 14. Is there a new perimeter being created for the Vsr. \nCrestron: The answer is\, yes\, very nominal. We’re minimizing it to the maximum extent possible. It’s much less than at the end of the runways. \nBut there is at certain components certain areas. We are pushing out a little bit to accommodate that Vsr outboard of the existing dyke system. Correct correct \nCrestron: that. So it is a large retention structure. Now at that point\, right? I mean\, it’s not just a flood wall like in the other reaches. No. There again\, when when the wall gets installed essentially\, that shoreline will look just the same\, or just \nsliding it out. And so the wall itself again does not have differential loading of significance. You know there’s maybe a foot or 2 here and there on each side of the wall\, but there’s no reach where it’s essentially holding back and retaining soil of significance. \nI see \nCrestron: I don’t know. Last question was\, and I think there’s some other stuff. Maybe Gail might speak to it\, but I did see that? \nWhat was it? 90%. So the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacement of the Ld is at about 2 feet. \nwhich \nCrestron: you know. So 10% is is still substantial\, you know\, that will need to be treated. Are you thinking? Tie backs\, or are you thinking? \nJust continue with the cantilever assumption and just go deeper \nCrestron: cool. Do you mind? Take this? Yeah\, from a structural standpoint. You know\, once we treat the soil locally. \nyou know\, any sort of seismic risk really starts to go away right. Our our risk is the liquefaction\, the the soil interaction with the sheets. So the ideas would be more of ground improvement methodologies. \nbecause again\, in the ultimate\, the wall itself will not be retaining any soil. It’s purely there to wait for the flood waters to come\, which you know\, aren’t there often\, but it has no retention. So we’re not anticipating adding to any structural elements to be purely ground improvement methods to strengthen the soil locally. \nCrestron: Thank you. That’s what I had. Can I take 1 s to? Get a better answer to you about the point 9 on the rotational. So II got the facts from Evan. Here I sent you are correct. We designed the wall to meet a requirement of 1.3 against rotational stability. \nOur wall\, as currently designed\, is 1.4 5\, is our rotation factor. Safety 1.3 over 1.4 5 is point 9. Not typical way to present it. So apologize for that. But that is our design. \nCrestron: We fixed. We we fixed one. We didn’t fix the other. You’re correct. \nIf I understood it correctly. you said you use the PGA at reach 6 for liquefaction analyses \nCrestron: what was the basis of that. \nand I also think I heard that Beach 6 has the thickest payment. which I would expect to have a lot of reductions in terms of pgas. At this at the surface. \nAnd considering the 19 reaches\, which means 19 significantly different subsurface conditions to consider what is the basis there. \nCrestron: And also\, it’s very curious that \nreach 6 gave the highest lateral deformations. \nCrestron: And why would \nyou know\, go through all of this analysis that you did\, and you chose one result from one reach to consider for the whole project. \nCrestron: have some other questions\, but \nwe we select to reach 6 \nCrestron: be because of the the large depth that is the the reach with the with the thickest layer of of yoga. MoD\, \nwe we did our plexus analysis in in that reach. and our expectation is\, and I\, \nCrestron: that that\, based on the \nand and the the lateral deformations that come out of the plexus analysis are primarily driven by the shear strains within the underlying young bay mud. And and it’s for that reason we \nwe we felt that that that was the the critical section for the for the for the plexus analysis. we. \nCrestron: We followed \nsuit on that and and the this one dimensional site response analysis that we’re doing here. It was done for a couple of reasons\, of course\, and well\, it’s supporting. Reach 6. Our expectation that reach 6 is the critical section. \nOverall for the the lateral displacements. Now keep keeping in mind that the that the plexus analysis didn’t explicitly consider the the liquefaction. But it\, you know\, really driven by the \nby\, the the young bay mud. So the site response analysis was done at Read 6. It was used to \nCrestron: develop the the motions at the base of the Paxis model\, the \nto to translate the ground motions from the the rock to the base of the plexus model. It was done to using deep soil to compare that to to the re response of the one dimensional plaxis model. So it was a calibration kind of activity. \nCrestron: and and we did then as as we \nsubsequently did\, the the liquid faction assessment we anchored\, if you will\, on the on the on the on the PGA of of about point 2. \nThat’s there at reach 6 now\, there has been some some discussion about expanding that to to to look at different soil profiles and variation of PGA at the ground surface\, as it relates to the lip of action \nassessments. At the analysis that we’ve done to date on the on the liquifaction assessment has used the the site\, response analysis and Mpga based on on reach. \nCrestron: So I think that Ramen is is the point leading up to that \nthicker bay mud will give you will will shake a tall building worse than thinner bay mud\, but it will give you it will\, and it will amplify weak ground motions. But W. Is likely to attenuate really strong ground motions like you’re going to have from a 5 or 6 kilometer away. \nSan Andreas event\, and so \nCrestron: for PGA specifically reach 6 may may be unconservative \nfor the design level earthquake of the 7\, 8 at 6 kilometers. Hmm. \nJuan M Pestana: may I interject? There\, just for a second? \nYes\, please. \nJuan M Pestana: Yeah. So II think I have perhaps a simpler answer. \nJuan M Pestana: So what we were looking at the behavior for the day month. \nJuan M Pestana: So it made sense to analyze \nJuan M Pestana: reach 6. And then\, when we analyze local faction. If we wanted to somehow see how to combine we did it for for reach 6. And then we we wanted to expand that. So we use the the point to more like \nJuan M Pestana: for equality \nJuan M Pestana: over evaluation\, because the the PGA for each individual Cbt\, which has a very different\, we have a different sole profile is different. \nJuan M Pestana: So it would have been need the the analysis on the evaluation of the results much more difficult. So II think the idea here was to use that as a screening tool \nJuan M Pestana: for the system\, and to see which areas which of the reaches we’re more vulnerable and then focus the attention of \nJuan M Pestana: the site investigation to narrow down the \nJuan M Pestana: the areas where they have so many Asian needs to be done. I mean all the areas where remediation may not be necessary. So \nJuan M Pestana: II do. II do agree with you that there was the first of all\, this was not a combined analysis. We we did not do sideways pause with all combined\, which could have been done for one of those reaches at one specific location for one particular set of conditions\, but it wouldn’t be able to be done for 62 of them even less for more. \nJuan M Pestana: So I think you have to understand that graph as a screening tool tool says\, if you were to use point to which was consistent for the reach 6 that we analyze. \nJuan M Pestana: then this is what we’d see for all the other ones. Yes\, absolutely. All the older locations will have a different. So profile will have a different \nJuan M Pestana: Ega will have a different amplification\, and so forth. And that was not possible to do it systematically. So the choice was made to do it that way. And and then what that gave is to give a very clear indication that their phone areas they’re more susceptible than others. And that’s where we should focus \nJuan M Pestana: you sign investigation. \nJuan M Pestana: And for those areas\, then we can have a representative combined so profile of the Bay mode and the \nJuan M Pestana: characteristics on the fill that we can analyze together\, and then you could. It’s very difficult\, as you will know\, to add 2 things that are no wind. So the the response of the fell adding\, the map is essentially a screening tool is not\, should not be viewed. \nJuan M Pestana: So that’s the answer. But it’s a very good screening tool. \nJuan M Pestana: And so once we have those areas fully defined\, then you can do something that is more specific. And then we do a service\, pause by information analysis with the profile. So that that’s my take on on the question. So I hope that \nJuan M Pestana: then perhaps shed some light on the\, on the choices. \nCrestron: but I think it’s also could \nacknowledging the conditions change\, and our different. and you may get different answers\, different places from a system that \nis structural. \nFor the most part. \nCrestron: then it begs the question\, that is\, that an appropriate level of demand that is being considered for these particular \nsegment or reaches. so that you make sure that reach 17 with the system that you are designing for it has the right demand on it. \nCrestron: II can answer that. And again it it sounds like something we should look a little bit closer at\, but from purely a \nseismic demand again\, from a structural perspective. The flood case \nCrestron: is significantly more than we’re seeing. Again\, from an inertial standpoint. \nView\, increase the Pgna Pg\, or say PGA\, or the each reach again\, we can ultimately check that during the design\, or probably\, you know\, during the final design that will be a check. My anticipation is\, the flooding case will still control the structural design \nby an order of magnitude. If I’m incorrect\, the way to address that will be essentially thickened. The wall thickness\, and A. Z. 19700 is not a particularly thick \nsheet pile. Wall it\, that is again driven by the economics\, and also our flood demands. But if we do ever run into a case where the values of seismic inertial \ndemands are much higher\, we have a way to address that. Okay\, thank you. \nCrestron: Nick. Nick\, you had your hand up. \nCrestron: Okay\, since \nCrestron: yeah\, since the \nquestion here is resiliency against flooding. \nCrestron: I think it was your slide 28. But I’m not quite clear you indicated that there is a potential \nin certain settings to have inundation at I don’t know which one hit the inundation map. from\, I think\, was San Bruno reach \nCrestron: Channel. \nAnd my question is that\, yeah. Okay. So it would be 55\, is it? \nCrestron: Yeah\, this 1 56. \nCrestron: What provisions you? You indicated that \nyou know you think that the current. whatever pumping stations there are to evacuate the water are sufficient. But have you really carefully looked at that these are \nproperly resilient? I’m I’m thinking. You know\, it’s not exactly the same thing. Fukushima power plant had plenty of pumps. The power supply for those pumps was flooded. \nand therefore those pumps didn’t work\, and 30 cm of water on the runway effectively shut down. A few centimeters of water on the runway. Shut down the airport. So? My question is\, have you\, you know\, in the overall evaluation of resiliency against flooding? Have you carefully looked at that those \nelements are\, in fact. well \nCrestron: situated\, so that you can prevent \ndamage to those elements that are critical to keep the water out\, should there be overtopping by whatever means? \nNo\, it’s a very good point. again what our analysis showed\, and it was a very detailed combination of an interior drainage analysis performed by H. And TV and Lotus\, our consultant\, looking again at the Riverine\, this analysis was again driven as part of Fema’s \nrequirement for a Colomar Lomar package. You have to look at all flood sources. Beinga put the airport on the map due to coastal flooding. However\, we have to make sure we have addressed coastal flooding and all our all other sources \nin this particular case. The river\, and analysis\, as indicated on the slide\, has shown a couple of spill points. We’ve taken those and inputted those into the interior drainage model H and TV ran and calculated and reran the analysis and showed the current pump systems can handle that \nflooding. Now\, as far as the resiliency of those as part of the Clomar and package of the Lomar Package airport is required to prepare an operation maintenance manual. \nidentifying many of the topics you’ve you’ve brought up that these pumps will be operational when they’re needed. That’s part of. They will not give you a letter of map revision unless they have confidence that your system will be there when it needs to be there\, and that includes the operations of the pump systems. \nIn particular\, we have identified\, you know\, the vulnerabilities of the airport flooding much of the power\, and the transformers are within this perimeter without the flood wall. You know they’re very vulnerable. Hence this project. \nonce the flood wall’s there that does provide. The major source of flooding being coastal will now be cut off. Now we’re dealing with interior drainage situation\, which is again\, that’s something they’re living with right now. They have their interior drainage system has been effective\, it has been maintained. It has a proven sort of history to that. \nSo the expectation is the operation and maintenance that’s in place right now\, which has effectively kept those pumps running for the better part of 30\, 40 years\, will be effective in the future. \nso that’s our position. Having having worked on the project here in California\, upwardly. expectations were. and nobody actually looked at what the reality was. \nI would suggest that some consideration be given about making sure that the elevations of all these elements are above any potential flood flood\, hazard the fact that they worked today. \nIt’s fantastic. I’m happy to hear that. but we’re looking at future. And so it’s a while elevating the runway. Might be a much more difficult problem because you can’t maintain the \noperational operation of the airport. Elevating the power supplies above any potential inundation level is a relatively minor things that would be easily easy to do. So what I’m saying is that looking backwards \nis not really the way to address this issue. The the issue should be address. Looking forward. That would be my recommendation. Definitely understood again\, from a philosophical approach\, the airport essentially had choices. \nOne take all the critical elements and raise them up and just accept flooding across the airport. They’ve chosen option 2\, which is to is that essentially protect against the coastal flooding \nby building the wall. So I aren’t completely understand. But the idea of all these critical pieces of infrastructure are now going to be located behind this wall which is providing the flood protection. There may be absolutely benefits to consider raising critical pieces. And that’s something \nwe’ll discuss with Sfo. But again\, the fundamental. I definitely understand I’ve seen both approaches. But this case\, they decided investing in raising all these pieces of equipment. We’re gonna protect the entire area. Because again. There’s a lot of benefits beyond even those critical and elements. \nthe wider spread Sfo getting it off the flood map. \nCrestron: Gail\, I think you’re next up. \nYeah\, a few questions. so it sounds like you’re saying that seismics just flat out\, not governing anything. I would say from us a structural engineer’s standpoint. \nIt’s not a significant from a loading standpoint\, flooding out ways from a Geo technical soil structure in action. It’s very important. I just I did note\, Bob\, you mentioned \nyou were looking at Dcrs based on mild steel. but it looked like you’re basis of design\, was specifying 50 or 60 ksi steel for the sheet pile walls. So it’s even more conservative. Right? \nYeah\, the comparisons that I’ve made \nCrestron: very conservative because we compared the moment demand to a \ncapacity is actually an allowable moment \nCrestron: based based on a mile steel. And indeed\, you’re planning a stronger. Is that correct? Yeah\, it is correct. Again\, given a little bit of the uncertainty. Still\, with Cpt data\, we didn’t want to go too far if you conserve it at this stage. \nAnd I also understand. So \nCrestron: there’s very few areas where there’s going to be \nsoil behind the actual sheep bells are mostly just cantilevered sticking up. Yes\, that’s correct. I actually can’t think of any particular area where we’re retaining any soil of significance. \nOkay? So that takes care of that. Can you go to your slide where you showed the extent of lateral displacement. It was like\, Slide 39 on the dropped when you said. \nYeah\, I think you had one for each but 6 and one for each 7. Yeah. What? What is the lateral? What is the horizontal distance? Going back to? How? Where? You’re having 2 feet of displacement? I was having trouble reading the scales. \nCrestron: Oh\, oh\, it’s \nyeah. nominally. \nCrestron: Yeah. \nCrestron: at 20 or 30 feet of 2 feet. \nOkay? And what? \nCrestron: What? What are you? What are you impacting at this point\, I mean\, are you like \nhitting the edges of the runway\, or what kind of are you in terms of? I’m just looking at the performance. How local\, how local are the displacements? That’s where I’m going with this. \nCrestron: And and and this is Reach 7 that we’re looking at here. That that was the analysis for reach 7. So this is \nnot not typical floodwall. But this is the the reach\, 7 floodwall. And and we we analyze that cheap file being in the in the center\, as I recall\, of the perimeter diet. \nand I believe the the top width of that was \nCrestron: nom nominally 30 feet or so\, so that that particular\, that particular setback\, I think. \n20 or 30 feet\, so that it it\, that setback is probably 10 or 15 feet scale from the edge. So how far\, how far back. \nCrestron: how far back away from the cheapel wall \ndo you have to get before you would actually start impacting any operations. That’s what that’s kind of. So maybe a better slide with the overall airport map. Majority of these are\, you know\, away from the runway. \nso the the nearest physical element of that’s being used by the airport is the vehicle Service road. You know\, and there’s also sort of a curve. There is locations. The vehicle service road will be very close\, basically adjacent within 5 to 10 feet of the wall. \nSo there those are locations where there could be some localize cracking of the payment\, so on. But the actual runways are further away now. With that in mind again\, our wall\, our project and our focus of our analysis is on the flood wall. \nWe haven’t analyzed behaviors further back\, much further back from I seismic standpoint\, if you understand\, like looking at liquid faction across the wider air field. Yeah. Yeah. But but \nas far as the impact of the seawall goes. it sounds like it. It truly won’t impact operations. Yeah\, ultimately\, the in the wall itself. If we built the wall tomorrow and then had the big earthquake the day\, after all you would be doing is returning to your current situation today. \nRight? There’s a flood risk. The flood risk will be restored \nCrestron: in the future. The flood risks are increasing over time with sea level rise. So it does become. You know\, the performance of the wall does start to become a little bit more critical to operations because it reintroduces a flood risk. It doesn’t. The behavior of it seismically \nhas no impact on anything else on the airport other than the flood risk component to it. Okay. I was curious. Going back to actually remains very first question about \nusing 475 years. It sounded like you said\, it’ll have a big cost impact\, but everything else I’m hearing sounds like it will have almost no cost impact again. I may have misspoke in the sense of if we are my thinking on. That was if we were trying to prevent \nany sort of lateral or liquifaction behavior\, and to a very high case. \nCrestron: the cost of ground improvement over a much\, much broader sense. There’s significant cost \nBob. And our approach right now is to be more selective\, based on Cpt data where the most benefit to the airport for ground improvement will be obtained. And again\, it’s a cost balance ratio. \nStructurally. yeah\, you can throw a bigger earthquake\, and it will be fine geotechnically. So a structure in action is where there’s\, you know\, some concern\, the bigger event you look. \nOkay. \nCrestron: II think that pretty much takes care of my question. \nJustin. I think you’re next up. \nHi\, Justin Vandiver. I wanted to start with just kind of a general comment about the sea. Over rise criteria and the adoption of 3 and a half feet which seems like an appropriate \nnumber for kind of an initial build. and that essentially\, what’s documented in the report is that the risk that the airport is taking on of sea level rise exceeding that amount is essentially \njust loss of fema accreditation initially. and then\, as it gets higher\, then you have potential person wave overtopping and maybe flooding. so that all seems fine. \nCrestron: I wanted to ask if the \nif it’s billed as proposed. and sea level rise does exceed 3 and a half feet. \nCrestron: and there’s no additional adaptation implemented. Has that water level and wave loading been assessed for higher sea level rise on the as built conditions? \nLet’s hit the wall could accommodate those loads with no further adaptation. Action. \nCrestron: And in essence we have looked at sort of these stream\, I think\, as a 750 year sort of flooding event. \nThe wall and it’s in itself\, in a certain sense\, controls a load. So once the water reaches a certain height and goes over the top. There’s no load on that wall\, right? So if we don’t adapt it \nthat\, extra water is going to go over the top and cause issues of flooding\, you know\, hopefully be handled by the interior pump system. But that’s not our intent. So from a structural standpoint \nonce the water reaches the top\, it can’t really introduce more load to the wall. Now we have looked at adaptable potential adaptation on the sheet piled by adding\, Let’s say\, a concrete cap. Right now we have a bent plate\, partly for seismic performance. We’re trying to. If we get seismic moving\, having a rigid seismic cap on it \ncreates sort of locked in behavior. We want to have a certain level of flexibility to dissipate the energies and also make it easier to repair. But in the future\, again\, the site flooding risk starts out weighing that we could add a concrete cap. If you’ve seen the Foster City project \nessentially what they built there that can easily gain a foot and a half 2 feet extra height in the future\, if necessary. So no other modifications would be needed to the wall. \nNo. Again\, ultimately\, during the final design\, these are some of the criteria will establish for the the design builder. As far as performance criteria. They would have to consider that case if there was an adaptation when they designed the sheet \nto make sure they build that in and pick appropriate thickness of the sheet to accommodate additional height and additional flood forces water forces on the wall. \nCrestron: and then\, in terms of the \nfema accreditation\, I just wanted to note that it\, you know\, based on the information presented. It appear that Pre. Board and conditions are appropriate to attain. \nSee my accreditation. and that I appreciated that incorporation\, see overize into the analysis as opposed to just adding it. They split elevations. \nCrestron: so thanks for that. \nA just to go back to the discussion about\, like the combined sort of co-occurrence of a seismic and flood event. can you just for to describe\, like. \nwhat is that post-sismic condition of the wall. Look like you talked about lateral displacement. Is there any like vertical change or settlement of the wall\, or like separation? \nThey could allow water to pass into the airfield. Not not like if a hundred year event were to occur\, but just like a king tide\, or some like a much more common event \nare there gaps or a drop in the wall? It could result in flooding\, even in the absence of like a severe coastal storm event. \nCrestron: Again. This is a problem that gets worse over time. So again\, in today’s case\, you need close to the 100 Year Flood event to flood us\, though \nthat’s a bit less. But you know you need to get closer when you start looking at 2050\, or 2085 end of service life. That’s where you could potentially get king tides or small storms\, causing kind of a turnaround and a flooding event. \nMaybe\, Bob\, I’ll I’ll let you respond a little bit. You’ve been looking at kind of post performance. And what’s the expected damage after\, say\, 475 year event? \nYes\, \nCrestron: we. We have looked at the post performance\, we we focus on the lateral movement. And I and I think the the primary movement that we’re we’re dealing with here. \nIs lateral\, although there\, you know\, there there may be some down shaking of the of the fill. It itself course. The pile is driven through the fill. \nCrestron: Having having said that the the pile is deep\, it it goes through the pill\, it goes into the 10 feet into the underlying \nyoung Baymont. So we we believe the \nCrestron: you know\, the the thing that \nyou know\, the primary movement that that’s going to occur is lateral \nCrestron: as far as damage to the sheep piles. I think the \nthe the potential\, for we’ve looked at the the stress conditions in the sheet files and and and and that assumes that it’s essentially a plate\, if if you will\, in the in the process analysis. So \nwe th\, there is some potential\, and particularly at sharp turns\, if you will\, for for the interlocks to\, to. to\, to be compromised. And and I think that you know that that would be a potential for \na need for a repair. You know\, following the earthquake. But we do think that that would fall into a repairable category. \nCrestron: That’s pretty much a summary of. And the kind of that post performance\, and how very air program reacting. And it’s still being and discussed. But our expectation is after a post \nevents. Right now. We’re reintroducing a flood risk. addition to\, I’m sure some of the other issues they’re addressing at Sfo. After a large sizing event like this. The expectation is you can bring in \nfan sandbags. Things like that look for the gaps that may form again. If we have some differential movements where the wall changes directions to temporarily fill that again at re\, add back in some level of flood protection\, to provide \nan interim period until more long term permanent repairs can occur. But that was our our belief. And again. the immediate next 25 years going to be very rare\, but it will increase. So having that sort of plan in action is is something we have been discussing with us about. \nOkay. yeah\, just think it could be good to sort of document the thinking around the potential\, for I mean when you read it\, and you say\, Well\, what’s the likelihood of a large earthquake\, followed by a hundred year coastal storm. You’re like\, yeah\, that seems really unlikely. \nBut the possibility of a king tide with 3 feet of sea level rise. And that’s a much higher water level than it is today. \nCrestron: Flooding through. I mean\, that would be a lot of water coming through. \nYeah\, we have actually ran some of those scenarios and shared with us. \nYeah\, let me just observe that we were sort of aiming for 30’clock\, and it’s 12 min after 30’clock we started\, maybe 12 or 15 min late\, but \nsee if we can wrap up quickly. Ramen\, you got your hand up again. \nCrestron: I wanna be making sure that I’m clear \nCrestron: as you\, said James. Flooding is one thing\, soil structure\, interaction in terms of movements\, and the \nCrestron: performance of the system is a different thing. \nCrestron: Do I understand correctly \nthat \nCrestron: one set of \ndeep soil runs were run at. preach 6\, \nCrestron: and that form the entire basis for all the other analyses. Am I correct? \nYes\, okay. so. And then the comment was made that that soil column. the response at the top of the old bay clay \nwas taken as input. In all the Plaxis runs \nthe the ground motions at that level. At that. Yeah\, the the ground oceans at the rock were defined. and then what they \nand turned out to be at that particular level was documented. And that was the input to the and that’s from Reach 6. \nCrestron: That’s that’s correct. \nOkay? So that begs the question that whatever is between rock and the top of the old bay clay is seen everywhere else. \nCrestron: What is the basis of that \nCrestron: conclusion\, or that assessment? Or that point? \nCrestron: The \nkeep keeping in mind that the focus of the the analysis\, the 2 dimensional plexus analysis where reaches 6 and 7\, that that is a a localized area that we’re dealing with. \nCrestron: that that \nkeeping\, that in mind. We we so SSI was only done at reaches 6 and 7. That that’s right. The blacks analysis that you saw was only done at 6 and 7. \nCrestron: Then whatever results that came out of that was applied \neverywhere else \nCrestron: for structural evaluation\, for ground deformation\, evaluation. \nhazard evaluation. \nCrestron: So\, Bob\, maybe I’ll add\, at least from our perspective\, from instruct. Again\, the airport itself. \nentire airport\, and all these reaches is was filled like going back to the original shoreline. so the that layer in question. It\, you know\, varies in thickness. Bob and his team calculated\, you know\, the depth to the top of young Bay mud. \nCrestron: The rest of it is assumed. \nYou know there there may be differences within the bill\, but within the kind of the aggregate of this project we felt that was a good representation of that material. And so kind of you have this young bay mud layer \nstill layer surface\, and that’s why we felt that reach 6 and 7 was appropriate. When you look at reaches one to 15\, all of them have that same layering effect. \nCrestron: I understand that. But \nthen\, what was the criterion in terms of calling one area reach one versus the next one\, reach 2. Was it just thickness of the fill\, and be my well\, the reaches are actually more driven by physical structure. When this project was laid out\, there was trying to sort of manage the description and presentation \n7 and over 7 miles a wall. It’s kind of hard to get your head around. So there was a breakup of the reaches more driven by what you’re physically seeing there currently on the surface versus any sort of subsurface designation. So the link between the reaches and what’s the soil properties is not a \nthat wasn’t the driver. It was more of like reach\, one along the North San Breno Canal. You go outreach to around the fuel farms\, reach Fors Coastguard quite honestly. That’s how we divided it. \nNow. Bob and his team looked at every reach to identify the thicknesses of the bay mud and the bills. And then through that basically said\, you know what reach 607 at this stage\, in the analysis\, is representative for us to create a representative design that we can present and say\, you know\, generally\, the expectation this behavior is going to hold \nacross. Now\, there may be variances based on local\, but not to the point where we feel our design is presented would no longer apply. That’s understandable that the where it wouldn’t wouldn’t work. Our DC. Ratios would go from point 7 to 1.3 from a structural standpoint. \nCrestron: I think you’re planning to do some additional analysis. Right? You’re you’re pushing a whole lot more cones\, and I think there’ll be a better definition of the thickness of bay mud\, tops\, and top and bottom of bay mud\, so I can’t can’t speak to this from the timing\, and one that occurs is still being discussed with Sfo. Again\, this is a progressive design build project. \nCrestron: Ultimately there will be a design build team \ncomes in and finalize the design. The timing of that. it’s going to occur. Whether it happens under our team or this\, follow follow on \nthat will be to be determined. So as as the Ecr. We don’t care about the timing exactly as long as we would like to. By the time the project is built and impacting the bay. \nthat the appropriate design criteria has been implemented throughout. And I think what you’re suggesting remain is that by the time all is said and done. We want to make sure that you know\, reach 6 may or may not be the the most representative\, and that there may need to be some additional specific analyses at other specific profiles \nto to confirm that that there’s appropriate pgas or other depth ground motion site responses. I fully concur. The the long term plan. As a you know\, the engineer of record\, not our team. \nThat expectation is\, they have to look at every reach. And there is data gaps in the Cpt’s that we have identified. We’ve used the information we have to extrapolate the behavior. But\, as Bob has\, you know\, mentioned and presented. \nthere is a clear cap. The expectation is more cpted\, but there’s also subsequent reanalysis that would. \nWe’re expecting to be appropriate to perform kind of suggesting that. And also \nCrestron: there is a basis that you chose. A system for a particular reach. \nIs that being looked at completely in a specific way to say\, Yeah\, this is the right system for reach number\, whatever \nCrestron: ye? Yes. And again\, we’ve looked at that for each of the reaches to date\, and our best \nbased on where we are with the data we have key pile works for reaches 2 through 14 concrete retaining walls reaches one and 15 is currently where we’re at during the final design. \nAgain\, there’s boundaries on what could be changed to. But generally it’s gonna fall into one of those 2 categories. For the majority being. Still\, she piles that final design team will be the designers a record signing stamp in order to do that more geotechnical data\, and produce much more calculations than we have at this stage. Thank you. \nCrestron: Keeping your head. How you might formulate that as a motion for the end. I think \nwhat we’re gonna need to do. Aima\, you had your hand up. \nOkay\, I have a few just short question. \nCrestron: the first one is\, for Jim is kind of related to the question that Dilla passed to you about corrosion effects. \nCrestron: I think you had indicated that the rate of corrosion. I mean\, you basically determine how much corrosion would take place. \nAnd you’ve sort of a concept for that in your on the highest. \nCrestron: That is correct. We use the Caltrans guidance\, I think. \nrecently updated in 2021. They give frozen rates. piles\, steel piles\, and sheep piles \nCrestron: in a atmospheric splash zone commercial use those rates. We also use army Us. Navy guidance on kind of durability of coding\, and that kind of our basis. \nCrestron: So my suggestion would be\, I mean \nkind of dog sweat \nCrestron: corrosion related to salt there\, I mean\, which is what \nthe issue is here the rate of corrosion changes is very site specific. So \nCrestron: a generic \nrate of corrosion. It’s fine. But I think that project size you want to be \nCrestron: site specific\, and maybe the services of corrosion engineers. It’s required to make sure \nthe salt air. \nCrestron: basically model that they are using. \nIt’s applicable to this location. \nCrestron: no\, definitely noted corrosion rates are very hard to predict. What we are recommending. Airport is again a durable marine coding on the sheets. \nThen the corrosion rates hopefully\, it is maintained as anticipated. So the corrosion that we’re going to calculate \nCrestron: conservative. \nThat’s \nCrestron: coding will be maintained. You’ll never see the \npoint well taken. \nCrestron: Alright. Ii looked at the details. I \nI was kind of interested in what the existing conditions before you do your \npause \nconstruction. I don’t see any existing walls in terms of the sheet pile. It looks like\, what do you have? Is mostly a firm type \nCrestron: structure\, or it’s actually a mix within the basis of design documents. We we submitted so images of each of the reaches. There are some reaches where a vinyl sheet calls \nwas built\, particularly around reaches 14 that provide current level protection. There’s concrete flood walls along other reaches. Some are urban firms\, and some\, for instance\, outreach for the Coast Guard is essentially unprotected. Central Coast Guard\, straight town of the bay. \nCrestron: Okay. So your new construction is going to be outboard \nof all these existing \nCrestron: it’s sort of a mix match. But it’s going to be very close to alignment\, and the idea is that whatever gets built you’re not removing the flood protection there \nuntil the new one goes in\, because we don’t want to reintroduce less protection during construction. \nCrestron: That’s the intent right now. If you go through the drawings you can see \nthe location of the existing structures. Okay. \nCrestron: thank you. So for Bob. I think you had mentioned. You know you were discussing the availability of this wealth of information. \nSoft surface information \nCrestron: is that related to the Defund \nrunway extension that \nCrestron: was done by Fugro 3 years ago. Yes. \nthat data is \nCrestron: yes\, I that that is the study. \nand it was\, I think\, related to airport expansion\, but it but \nCrestron: and and that that that is the the data and the reports that are you able to lay hands on? Yes\, yeah. Because \nI was familiar with what they were doing. I mean\, they were actually doing pull in swab from the ground and testing them \nCrestron: on that on that book\, you know\, that was \nabort. So \nCrestron: right they had that information. Then I think that’s a great \nwealth of information \nCrestron: using that. That’s correct. That’s that’s the primary source of the engineering property data. Okay? \nSo the other question I had is related to the actual installation of the sheet file. \nCrestron: From my experience at the airport \na lot of the fill other than the hydraulic fill was from the San Bruno mountains. \nCrestron: Okay? And they had large pieces of \nrock in in some cases in the Phil. So so you need to be aware of that in terms of. you know. Drive-in sheet pops. \nCrestron: you know. You might want to look more into the historical call \ndata. With respect to the characteristics of the material \nCrestron: into which we are going to be driving this sheet file \na. Absolutely. This is a consideration. I part of the other benefits of the future. Cpt is to try to see if there is difficulty. That’ll be an indicator \nwe have in re meeting and researching what sheets have been driven at the airport in the past. Again\, there has been final sheets. \nCrestron: admittedly\, are not always the most robust in the airport. Generally had successes there. We’ve had\, made a couple visits to Foster City and their plug protection wall. \nvery similar type of \nCrestron: construction. And we they had a procedure where \nthey had a crew ready to pre drill out ahead as they were driving the sheets to keep the production line moving again\, being a design built means and methods ultimately decided. But you’re very correct. It’s a it’s something we’re considering \nand then finally\, for Bob\, I mean\, you mentioned deep compaction for \nCrestron: the I was kind of curious. I mean\, what kind of material that you \nthinking of using ourselves \nCrestron: for? For the the new field being placed. Our intent is to have \ngranular material\, and this would be dredge filled that would be brought into \nCrestron: for the the fill behind the dyke. That that would be dredge material that would be brought in for the \nfor the dike itself. We have in mind using questions question for that. and that would be quarry material. So I mean\, the deep compaction is for \nthe dyke\, or this. I think it’s it’s amenable to to both. In in the system that \nCrestron: that we’re thinking of. It’s it’s essentially for long\, heavy duty \nH. Piles that are have have a weight and vibrates itself into the ground. Yeah\, I mean\, I was just curious\, I mean\, with the horrid material probably would work. But if you’ve got \na lot of fines and \nCrestron: the material that’s behind it died. \nI mean\, that might not be an effective way to. \nCrestron: you know\, compact that material. \nII think the the the properties of the fill that we expect\, and we’ll of course it will be specified. It will be an imported material. I think it’s it is so. The quality \nsimilar to that. This was. use the Treasure island where this technique has been used within the the the general bill. Okay. Alright\, thank you. \nCrestron: Thanks. \na. \nCrestron: I guess we need to wrap up pretty quickly here. \nI\, too. Maybe one quick\, quick\, quick question. It seems like what you’ve got is up to 100 to 250 feet of fill that’s extending out in some places. Is that \nCrestron: I mean\, in 10 years on the Ecr we cringe when someone puts a layer of ripped wrap in because it’s kind of encroaching into the bay fill. \nJust to observe\, this is kind of an extraordinary fill over the last\, you know\, since they stopped randomly filling and dumping refuse in the bay. \nI guess you’ve addressed all that properly with in other places besides the Ecr. I think it’s not really our purview\, but just just to make that observation and passing that this is kind of an extraordinary event in the San Francisco Bay in recent decades. \nCrestron: We do have to mitigate that bill\, and we’re working with the army corps the water board of Ddc\, on that\, putting together a mitigation package. Okay\, good enough. \nAnd I think then the the deep compaction that you’re talking about it sounds like it’s relatively preliminary in your design considerations\, and so \npossibly you’ll address that further\, or possibly that it would go to the design\, build people to address that further. \nCrestron: This this is preliminary for sure\, and it it needs to be addressed further by the \nduring during the final design. \nCrestron: So fellow board members\, what do we think\, are we done\, or we wanna see it again? \nJim\, I just like to point out the questions that I put in the staff report for the board. Consider alright. I didn’t present those earlier scenarios and design criteria in the geotechical stability analysis appropriate for the site\, hazards and conditions and site criticality. \nCrestron: Our current and future flooding concerns\, IE. From groundwater\, coastal and rivering\, flooding sea level rise\, address adequately based on the references and the nature of the project \nCrestron: as the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts to adjacent properties \nCrestron: from the project have been minimized in the design. \nCrestron: You know\, I need to share screen. I guess. \nOkay. \nCrestron: is there any data monitoring you recommend Vcd. To require the applicant to enhance the future safety of the project in light of its projected 60 year\, estimated lifespan. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nCrestron: So I think that we’ve talked through pretty much all of these without \nreferencing these specific bullets. But it seems to me that there’s probably some additional things that need to be done\, at least before it goes to construction. Whether it happens \nafter it goes out to the design build team\, or what happens before. I think is not necessarily within our control. But I think that probably we have a few questions that we would like to \nsee addressed before we sign off on the project for the final time. Fair enough. I wonder if we can. \nCrestron: just throw out a little bullet list of things that we’d like to see. I’ve got \n2\, maybe\, and the rest of you can throw some other things out. I think there would be a motion. Then I would entertain at some point in the Mo. In the near future. \nOne is that we would see some. I think\, probably basically present further documentation of the database you’ve got and how you analyze\, reduce\, analyze\, and reduce the data to develop design parameters. \nCrestron: and then that would be combined with the subsequent subsurface investigation\, with whatever subsequent or related \nhow lab testing is performed \nfair enough. \nCrestron: probably geotext. \nAnd I would add that \nCrestron: at least present more site specific if you will\, conclusions that \na system and a set of analyses that were done were appropriate for a particular reach. \nCrestron: That’s a second point. I think \nit’s not unrelated\, but but it’s distinct. The analyses would be not lump things together too broadly\, but and make sure that \nanalyses and recommendations are appropriate. Reach by reach \nsomething to that effect. \nNick’s got his finger on the button. May I\, Mr. Chairman? There is one aspect that you just \nCrestron: briefly touched it to very\, very end. But we really didn’t discuss\, and I’m not sure whether we need to\, and that is the has the applicant demonstrated at first impact mitigation which we really did not discuss \nin this meeting. \nCrestron: So that that is 1 point \nCrestron: may not be in our purview. Others may be looking at it. But okay. what what I’m saying is that the point about the demonstration of mitigation or the adverse impact \nwe didn’t really discuss at this point. \nHa! Maybe I can quickly answer that part of the lomark package to Fema is they specifically look at that. Any flood protection elements needs to demonstrate. You’re not creating additional flood impacts or flooding issues. I’m not sure if that’s the point. No\, the the Bcd see\, specifically adverse impacts are on the environment of the San Francisco Bay. Not \nthat’s the encroachment that was raised by \nCrestron: Zoom friendship\, the very end. But I think maybe \nDavid Re responded to that\, saying that you’re addressing that with waterboard. And so it’s It’s a \nfuzzy on our \nCrestron: within or without our appropriate \nand and so and just so that you know our we completed the Eir process on this\, and that was completed back in June. So we’ve analyzed all the environmental impacts required by sequel. \nYeah? So so I think it’s potentially within our purview. But it’s being addressed by others at this point. So like\, we’ll just accept that \nCrestron: other points that we want to request additional \ninput from the team on \nCrestron: so specific to bullet 2 there\, I think. you know\, I mean\, I look through the basis of design and the plans itself\, and \nCrestron: and I’d like to see a little bit more on the alternatives\, analysis. \nand not just in the material treatment\, steel versus concrete\, but alternative edges that are being created\, so new edges wherever they are being created which are significant. \nYou know what was the process that you followed through\, you know\, particularly in cases like the end of Runway 19\, where you’re already putting in a large amount of fill. \nWhy would you put a wall there? Why would you not just raise perimeter \nCrestron: like the existing perimeter itself\, rather than you know\, create a dyke and then have a wall there just for the free board part of it. Things like that again you don’t have to necessarily answer\, but well\, I can quickly answer that one we did look at again. Earthen kind of \nfirms\, but it creates more bay fill cause you have to go further out to support it. So the higher you go\, the further we go out\, and with the runways\, with that location is set by the like. We had to have the wall. The height at a certain point couldn’t not be any closer runways\, but we didn’t want to go any further\, because that’s creating more fill and more mitigation. \nSo when we did look at Earth in type structures\, it created more bay fill. So that was ultimately why we went with the steel sheet pile solution because it minimized those impacts. \nCrestron: And so I think the emphasis has been on meeting the fema obligations which I agree\, you know that is the first \nCrestron: part of that process with Sfo several years ago. So that definitely is. But I think going beyond that\, which is what I think bullet 2 is getting at \nis you know\, is the treatment appropriate for situations where\, for example\, you have a sustained tide that is going to be higher than the \nelevations on the airport side\, on the runway side. \nCrestron: And so that flood wall is now really acting as the only barrier. \nRight? So it is \nCrestron: very different than Foster City and many of the other treatments where you have a wall on top of a levy. Right? So these are becoming flood walls that are \nCrestron: effectively like the New Orleans type of\, you know\, walls so \nlike to see\, you know\, just some of that thinking and the alternatives analysis. Maybe the Eir has addressed it\, perhaps as part of the alternative for B one\, or \nI’d like to see some of that. \nNo understood. Again\, our sheet piles\, our experience. We’ve designed a lot of coffer dams. It’d be d watered\, and so they are generally effective as retaining structures for water. So we felt that in the future cases where they would be truly holding back on a daily tide which is quite late in the project they should perform effectively. But the point is taken and to look at the interlocks in the you know the seepage of that \nright and simple adaptation\, such as raising the berm on the inside right? So that gets you at least some amount of protection. If there is so delete\, maybe we can just leave that because we’re late here. But I think there’s an appropriate request for additional discussion. Maybe it’s happened in house behind doors\, but \nwe’d like to see a presentation\, maybe of it. Additional discussion\, presentation of alternatives. Analysis without trying to at this point \nCrestron: seems to me like there’s maybe 3 points right now that we’ve got \nit would be additional presentation of data data analysis and how design parameters were developed from technical perspective. In particular. \nCrestron: second\, additional analyses. \nincluding potentially site response ground motions\, deformation analyses. First reach specific and consider whether ha! How much\, how broadly you can lump things together. \nAnd third additional discussion of of alternatives analyses. \nRamin Golesorkhi: is that a good summary of what we’ve got here? Someone like to make a move? \nCrestron: We got too many people going here\, so did I hear it so moved by Ramen. \nYes. there! A second to the motion. I’ll second second moved by remain seconded by Nick. Is there any further discussion of the motion? \nCrestron: Hearing no further discussion\, all those in favor say\, aye. \naye\, aye. any opposed? \nCrestron: Oh\, let’s say\, source but \nBCDC HOST: chair. This is the host. If you all can speak up a little louder on the next item \nBCDC HOST: that would be great. It was very hard to hear you all speak. \nBCDC HOST: Sorry guys. Like\, it’s very low. \nMy\, my. \nokay\, so \nCrestron: so the public is invited to address concerns. \nAbout this project about any issue related to this project. \nCrestron: So \npublic present\, I don’t see any hands raised here in the room. Grace\, do you see anyone online that’s expressing interest. \nBCDC HOST: I do not see any \nand \nBCDC HOST: or anyone wishing to speak. \nCrestron: Okay\, I think then with that we will \ntransition. Take a maybe a short 5 min. Break and be back in 3\, 48 sharp and Rod will resume \nchairmanship of of the remainder of the meeting. Thanks. \nthank you. \nAnd where \nBCDC HOST: what happened? Kasami. \nBCDC HOST: won’t you go over? \nCrestron: Okay\, everybody. \nCrestron: can we? Can we? \nprepare to get started here\, please. \nYeah\, I don’t know \nCrestron: how we doing? \nHmm. \nCrestron: Grace\, can you please promote \nthis meeting is being recorded. \nCrestron: Our next speaker. \nCrestron: Bernard Ware. \nto a panelist. \nCrestron: Okay. \nCrestron: agenda. Item. Now\, I guess this is Number 4\, \nOr 5. Item of discussion. the Oakland Harbor turning Basins. Widening project. We are now considering the Oakland Harbor. Turning basins widening project. \nThe project proponents for for this project are the Us. Army corps of engineers and the port of Oakland. Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from DC. DC. Will make a short presentation \nwith some background information on the issues before the Board today. followed by a presentation by the core on the engineering issues related to the in water structures. \nCrestron: I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking. \nwe’re answering questions when you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your video so that we minimize distractions on the screen. I would like to ask the board if you can please save discussions until after the presentation. \nClarifying questions can be asked during the presentation\, if needed. At the end of the presentation we will pause for public comments related to the engineering issues in the presentation followed by \nboard discussion. \nCrestron: One board discussion once board discussion is concluded. \nwe will take public comments on the project not related to the presentation. Okay\, Jen. \nCrestron: thank you. Good afternoon. Chair washed and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the Oakland Harbor turning basins. Widening project. \nI have some background information on the project to share to you. \nCrestron: This project \nwould widen 2 turning basins. or the port of Oakland. one in the outer harbor shown in the photo\, the picture on the left. \nand one in the inner harbor \nCrestron: and larger picture on the right\, on the slide. \nthe outer harbor widening impacts\, only subtitle habitat. \nCrestron: the inner harbor widening impacts 3 areas on the land. \nMr. Steele Howard Terminal. the port of Oakland\, and a warehouse site in Alameda. This is not a permit application\, it is a phase\, consistency\, determination. \nCrestron: So what is a consistency? Determination \nunder the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1 72\, as amended Federal projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Region’s Coastal Zone management program. \nCrestron: Ecdc. Has a federally approved amended Coastal Zone management program for the San Francisco Bay Segment of the California Coastal Zone \nfor Federal projects. The Commission reviews a project for potential effects to the Coastal Zone and consistency with the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone Management program. \nThis is the consistency\, determination. The Mcateer Petrus Act and the Bay Plan are a significant portion of the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone management program \nCrestron: for this project. The Us. Army Corps has requested a phased consistency determination \npresenting information in the feasibility stage of the project today. \nCrestron: which will be heard by the Commission at the November Sixteenth\, 2023 meeting. The Us. Army Corps is requesting consistency at this time \nto support the submission of the project or the chiefs report\, and then proposed authorization and appropriations by Congress \nCrestron: once authorized and funds appropriated. \nthe Us. Army Corps would request further consistency review in the planning\, engineering and design phase. \nCrestron: The proposed schedule for the project commences construction in 2027\, and completion in 2 and a half years. \nCrestron: So the Oakland Harbor training basins widening project both the inner and outer harbor areas involve deepening and widening the turning basins to negative 50 feet mean low low water. \nThank you. \nCrestron: I apologize. My slides were not advancing. \nCrestron: The proposed area in the outer harbor \nis currently negative. 5 feet mean low\, low water. a shallow subtitle area covering about 21 acres. The inner harbor area involves excavating fast land and dredging to negative 50 \nmean the low water about 20 acres in size. \nCrestron: In these areas \nmean low low water is used as an elevation\, and that is about equal to the elevation in the datum nav. 88. \nCrestron: The inner harbor turning base in widening is the one that includes 3 new Earth support structures. \nThe first one number one in this figure. is an underwater bulkhead wall\, just off the shoreline of Schnitzer steel \nCrestron: number 2. In this figure is a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at the port’s Howard terminal \nand removal of the wharf. A portion of the wharf that has 3 cranes on it. \nCrestron: the third \nmark 3 in this figure on the Alameda side. as a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at a warehouse site in Alameda. and removal of a portion of the wharf and land there. \nThese structures are not designed for flood risk reduction. \nCrestron: So the questions for the Board to consider in the presentation. Today \none are the scenarios and design criteria in the geotechnical stability analyses for the new 3 to one dredge slope appropriate for the site\, hazards\, conditions and site criticality. \nCrestron: 2 are the structural engineering design criteria. \nincluding seismic criteria and design loads for the 3 new bulkhead wall structures appropriate for the site hazards\, conditions and site criticality \nCrestron: free our current and future flooding concerns\, IE. From groundwater and coastal flooding address adequately based on the site\, hazards\, and the nature of the project? \nCrestron: 4. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nCrestron: And lastly\, 5. Do you recommend a future Ecrv meeting for this project? \nCrestron: Now? \nthe army corps will give their presentation. \nCrestron: It says\, I’m sharing. \nI’m sorry. \nCrestron: Okay\, is it? Gonna show up there. \nCrestron: Nice dark background. \nCrestron: thanks\, Jen\, and thanks to the board for allowing us to present our project to you. As Jen said\, \nwe are in the very early stages of our project. You know we’re we are looking for a phase. Consistency. Determination \nwas. \nSo I did want to start just by introducing some of our partners with port of Oakland. We have Justin Tosser. Kamloole\, Chopp. Pauline Leung\, Sammy\, you and I offer this \nfirst week of support. Welcome\, welcome we also have\, Eric Jolly from on record of engineers. Who is our environmental planner. \nCrestron: I did just want to start by talking a little bit about our our process. It’s I think it’s a little different than what you may be \nused to\, especially after that last presentation was very technical. like\, I said\, we\, we are in our feasibility. Study portion of this project. \nThe basic goals of this is to determine if there’s federal interest in this study. So we’re going to look at the economic benefits and the environmental and social impacts \nthan the costs. So we at the end of the study\, we’re looking for a solution that’s technically feasible\, environmentally justified or economically justified and environmentally acceptable. \nCrestron: What do we mean by economically feasible. What we do is we look at the \nbenefits. So in this case it’s increased maritime efficiency versus the cost of the project. And if we have a positive benefit. if it’s a cost ratio\, it is economically justifiable for the Army corps to move forward the project. \nAt this stage. We are looking at a total project construction cost of over 500 million. But there’s also the benefits are about 30 million dollars annualized. \nSo it has a benefits cost ratio about 2.5\, so it will pay it for itself. And so that’s looked as very positive. \nCrestron: At the end of our feasibility study. We are going to have about a 10 to 30% plan set. \nAnd so it’s it’s not as far as the advances. The presentation that we just saw before this. \nCrestron: Our goal is to submit our final report to headquarters uses headquarters \nin January 2024. And then after that\, we’re gonna hopefully get kind of congressional authorization to proceed. And then we’ll move into the pre-construction engineering and design phase. Hopefully\, in the 2\,025 range \nwith the start of construction around 2027. \nCrestron: this says a 2 year construction duration\, our estimates closer to 2.5 years. \nCrestron: and just the reason why we’re doing this. I see. When we previously widened the turning basin in the early 2 thousands. \nthe design vessel was 1\,139 feet long. Today vessels are calling the port are much bigger. They’re about 13 110 feet long. \nCrestron: This is a overview of the port of Oakland. and there’s 2 turning basins. If you can see my pointer. This is the outer harbor turning basin. \nand then the inner harbor turning basin. So these are the 2 areas that dictate what size of ships can call to the port? This\, these are the areas where they can turn around. \nCrestron: So this is the outer harbor turning basin. Currently\, what it looks like is the diameter is about 1\,650 feet. \nThe entire area is dredged to elevation minus 50 feet. with 3 to one side slopes over here. One other important \nCrestron: thing to recognize is that during basing goes all the way to the edge of the wharf \nduring this project we’re going to move it further away\, because when there is a ship berth there\, it basically limits the or shrinks the size of the turning basin \nthe effects of sizes. \nCrestron: It wasn’t really apparent from that last picture\, but this is the symmetry. So you can see the this is the Federal channel that stretched every year and maintained at minus 50 feet. \nAnd so the turning basin is widened in that area. \nCrestron: and what we are planning to do is no additional dredging \nalong this part. The dash part of the circle that’s already dredged annually to minus 50 feet. We are looking at expanding the turning basin to the northwest \nout in this area with again 3 to one side slopes. \nCrestron: This is just a plan with the showing\, some existing subsurface information. So there is not a lot in the where the actual cut will be made. But we are planning on doing additional exploration out there during the ped phase of the project. \nCrestron: There. There was a fair amount of explorations done within the turning basin area in the past for environmental sampling and disposal dredge material as well as during the minus 50 foot project. \noccurred in the early 2\,000. \nCrestron: So there there are additional Cpt’s and boring. In this area. There \nthey’re shown as smaller dots just to make the figure a little less busy \nCrestron: but this entire area\, all the bay mud has been removed\, and we’re down into the denser San Antonio formation all throughout this area. \nCrestron: And so this is just a cross section. \nGo back and cut right through this area if you can see my pointer. \nCrestron: And so there’s the existing 3 to one slope. \nCrestron: and we’re moving that all the way back here. Sorry for the lag. \nSo we’re just going to create another 3 to one slope out in this area. And this will be the edge of the new Federal channel. And so what we do annually is we come. So when we build this project\, we will dredge \nthis entire area\, including the including the slopes. \nCrestron: but on an annual basis. We’ll come through and dredge everything inboard of that \ndown to minus 50 feet. So we don’t dredge the slopes on an annual basis. \nCrestron: and I just just want to show \nsome of the engineering analysis. \nCrestron: So we looked at\, you know\, circular failures going through the tow. We looked at more wedge type failures that are shallow. And then we looked at deep seated failures. \nIt’s not shown here. We also looked at block failures as well. They came up with higher pressure safety. So I’m not showing them. As I said\, we we don’t have a lot of geotech information where the actual 3\, one cut slopes being made. So we selected what I think are fairly conservative strength parameters. \nand \nCrestron: we’re getting acceptable results of the the only ones that are below. 3 \nare the very shallow wedge failures which you know over time. Those may occur. And if if you know\, shower special soils\, do slide into the turning base\, and they’ll just be dredged out annually. \nCrestron: This is the last slide on the outer turning basin. So \nif there’s any questions. Please stop me. I know I’m going which we’re on time. So I’m going a little fast. \nCrestron: Okay? So the inner harbor there’s 3 areas that we’re looking at \nin the Northwest. This is the steel property. \nCrestron: and we’re I’m going to go over these individually. \nSo the Schnitzer steel. And then we’re looking at doing work within this cove area between Schnitzer Steel and Howard Terminal. This is the Howard terminal. And then down here is the allometer or the fist property. \nCrestron: What’s shown in blue is the Bcd shoreline band jurisdiction. \nIt was kind of complicated through these areas. There’s several different things. So out in this area. We’re \nCrestron: the dash. Green line \nis the 1965 shoreline. And so the jurisdiction extends \nCrestron: 100 feet in from that. Then\, as we go here there’s a bulkhead wall \nand \nCrestron: is so. The jurisdiction sends 50 feet from the bulkhead\, and we transition into a slope. \nand it’s the shoreline is marked by the mean low\, low water point\, or mean high water point. and it’s a extends in 50 feet from there. \nor sorry a hundred feet. \nCrestron: and then there is an existing bulkhead. Wall here that’s buried that was constructed in 1\,915\, \nand I guess there’s some previous \nCrestron: What do you call it? \nCrestron: principles that this is that \nthe shoreline band extends inboard from that 1915 wall. \nCrestron: And then on this side\, similarly\, there. \nthere’s a 3 to one slope here. I’ll talk about this wharf later. but there’s a slope that comes up and ends beneath this wharf. That’s why the band starts not the edge of the wharf\, but somewhat inboard of that. \nCrestron: And then there’s a bulkhead wall that was constructed as part of that \nminus 50 foot project right along here. \nCrestron: Everyone see my pointer. I realize it’s \nand heart disease. \nCrestron: So I’m going to talk individually about each of those 3 areas. Ask a question on that previous slide there. \nbut it shows 3 to one along the Howard terminal. \nCrestron: Is it really 3 to one? Does the port not dredge \nfor the birds also to 50 feet there along the terminal face? \nCrestron: I think that is actually not 100% accurate. There it stretched to\, I think\, minus 42 feet right along \nthe base of that \nCrestron: good catch. \nCrestron: So this is the Alameda side in. I’ve I’ve \nCrestron: drawn in where the wharf structures are since is an aerial photo from 1\,939. And so you can see that this is all former marshland \nalong the south side of the Channel. \nCrestron: and sometime between \n1939 and 1946. The war from the warehouse structures were constructed. \nCrestron: So here by 1946. These are in place\, plus. \nThese bursts have been dredged into. This is a area called Bay ship and yacht. So all these areas have been deepened by 1\,946\, \nCrestron: and then moving forward. This is 2\,000\, which is just before our minus 50 foot deepening project\, you can see those. \nThe wharf and structures are still in place. \nand then\, after the project we came through\, and we constructed a bulkhead wall right along through this area and trimmed off a portion of that wharf structure and several of the phase of the warehouse. \nCrestron: this wharf is a hundred percent pile supported as are the buildings. \nBut it’s not the basically\, the southern two-thirds are sitting on land. whereas the there’s about a 5 foot gap under the northern portion of the wharf \nhere\, so you can walk underneath this wharf. \nCrestron: and this is just a typical or a detail of the structure that was constructed as part of the minus 50 foot project. So it’s \nIt’s vertical sheet piles \nCrestron: vertical sheet piles down to so 75 feet long\, tipping out elevation minus \nminus 70. \nCrestron: There’s battered piles in front\, 24 inch diameter\, steel piles \nat 11 feet on center. Add a 2 to one batter \nJesus. \nCrestron: and they’re they’re partially filled with concrete. So the the lower portion up to elevation minus 30. \nSo basically\, the lower two-thirds are filled with concrete. \nCrestron: and it retains about 32 feet\, and then in front of it there’s a \n1.5 to one slope with a 4 foot layer of rip\, rapper\, rock\, slope\, protection. \nCrestron: Here we go. So this is proposed condition. So all we’re proposing is doing is building a very similar wall \nback in this area so as far as construction\, sequencing demolishing the warehouse buildings install. This bulkhead wall\, the vertical \nand excavate in front of it. Remove the Rip wraps install battered files similar to what you saw in that detail\, and then the last thing will be to install the \nriprap\, which is the up yellow areas. \nCrestron: So this is just a rough cross-section. \nI realize\, kind of at the end that we didn’t hadn’t drawn these files long enough. \nCrestron: So these files actually extend \nas shown here. And so basically. you know\, in our feasibility level analysis\, we’re we’re we haven’t really redesigned this entire wall\, we’re saying\, we’re we’re going to build something very similar to what was built. \nAnd so it’s offset back pretty far here during our ped analysis we will go and do some additional boring back in this area. \nCrestron: So I think there. \nwe’ll do some. at least here\, where there’s a space. Be on this side of the warehouse. and then in between the warehouse. we’ll try to get at least one \nCrestron: along the alignment of the wall \nCrestron: the only other thing in this area is\, there is room to kind of \n3 to one slope here without impacting the existing wall. But there won’t be any structure here. Just a excavated slope. \nCrestron: And so that’s the last slide about Alameda. Are there any questions? \nCrestron: I’ll I’ll keep going. \nCrestron: So this is the Howard Terminal. So \nthese are the existing conditions plus \nCrestron: borings that were done out there. Most of the \nblack dots were just probes that were done prior to construction of Howard terminal. So basically\, they just drilled down till they felt firm material and logged that. So they aren’t very detailed logs. \nCrestron: this shaded area here. \nI realize this looks very monochromatic is the outline of the existing rock dyke \nCrestron: just shown here. \nSo it’s a \nCrestron: fairly massive rock dyke. We’ve got 1.5 to one slopes. \nand then \nCrestron: 24 inch octagonal piles were driven through it. \nThis rock dyke is constructed of material. It’s up to 12 inches in diameter. \nCrestron: Then this entire area behind it was hydraulically placed sandy fill \nwhich is going to be an issue. There was a history of liquifaction during the 19 90 99 earthquake at Howard Terminal the only effects were settlement of up to about 6 inches. \nCrestron: so we know it is hydroly place fill. We know it’s liquefiable. We are going to explore it more. Starting in a few weeks. We have some. Cpt. \nCrestron: Let’s see. So this is the proposed condition we are looking at building a bulkhead wall. \nand it’s mostly behind that rock dyke. It does first through the rock dyke at the very end here. \nCrestron: and just at the feasibility level. We’re we’re thinking this is \nIf the material behind it is not liquefiwall\, the wall will look very similar to what the wall looked like on the almet side. There’s only we only have one cpt in the backfill zone right now\, and it \nshown that the that material is fairly loose and can liquefy. So we are going to explore that more in the next few weeks. \nCrestron: And so this is just a cross section going through. And \nCrestron: as was pointed out\, it’s not a 3 to one slope right in front. It is cut down at minus 4 to 2 feet. \nCrestron: and so \nthis is where we’re planning on building that new bulkhead wall\, you know\, as I said\, you know\, it’s probably gonna look fairly similar to the wall on the Alameda side. The question is\, are we gonna have to do any ground improvement on the backside of it \nthrough the liquid viable soils? \nCrestron: So that’s the last slide on Howard. Any questions about the Howard terminal side. \nCrestron: that folder. \nCrestron: Yeah\, but it it is a curved structure. So it it changes as you go along the alignment. \nSo in in this area\, we’re removing the entire rock dike \nCrestron: up until here some of it will remain. \nCrestron: I did. I did have this one question on this\, given\, that \nthe dike has worked\, and successfully\, and it even went through structure similar to that was\, has not been considered as a new edge for the turning basin here. \nCrestron: No\, it hasn’t. We are trying to stay on the inboard side of this green line\, which is that 1\,950 playwall there is\, contaminated soil on that side of the wall\, so we are trying not to excavate very far \nCrestron: is this project contingent on the Oakland is moving to Vegas. \nCrestron: No one of our constraints was to stay on the west side of their entitlement line. Okay. \nyes. And and there’s been. And as part of the A’s studies that have been done\, there’s no more data on Howard Terminal. It’s part of that study available to you guys. Yeah\, as part of that study\, there’s the Cpt right about here. \nAnd so that’s the only existing Cpt that we have in this area. \nCrestron: And then there’s there’s one’s further in \nthat also show lucifiable soils. \nCrestron: Okay\, so this is the this is the cove to the west of \nPower terminal. \nCrestron: What we’re trying to avoid touching this the snitcher steel property again\, there’s we don’t own it\, or the poor rope doesn’t own it\, and there’s contamination. \nThere. So we’re trying. What we proposed is a varied bulkhead wall or buried retaining structure where we where we get close might be easier just to show a cross-section before we go into this. \nCrestron: So this is the proposed edge of our turning basin. \nCrestron: and if if we were to \ncut a 3 to one slope we’d be\, we’d risk undermining the existing bulkhead. Wall. So what we’re proposing is a inboard retaining structure. Not quite sure what it’s going to look like yet \nit could be driven concrete or steel piles in a row \nCrestron: drill drill piles maybe a drilled secant wall. So there! There are many options. We don’t know quite what that wall is going to look like. \nWe just know about where it’s going to be. \nCan I just ask a quick question? Since you mentioned ownership and contamination on the port of Oakland side? Does the port of Oakland own the Alameda side. No\, they don’t. That’s private property\, and I would assume\, based on legacy land uses and bay ship and yacht that that is also contaminated land. \nI don’t know. I’ll put that to Justin the camera. \nCrestron: Okay\, but I guess if there is contamination it will be dealt with appropriately during construction. Oh\, yes. \nCrestron: yeah\, so sinister steel. This is \nthe wall kind of what the geometry looks like. \nCrestron: And then\, as you get further away\, there is room to cut a conventional slope in this area. \nCrestron: These slides are out of order. So we have some upcoming work. \nWe are\, gonna do some environmental sampling throughout that cove area. and \nCrestron: through that will also\, you know\, be able to tell the geologic contact between the Software Bay mud and the underlying dense San Antonio formation. \nWe’re going to do some Cpt’s at Howard Terminal along the alignment to show the the depth and consistency of the field that’s out there. \nThen we’re going to do a geophysical survey of this entire curve area atov area. \nCrestron: And so what that the geophysical survey is gonna do \nasymmetry size scan sonar\, which is shown here as an example. Magnetomer survey and a sub bottom profiler. So the what we’re really looking for is \nburied obstructions throughout this area\, then the sub bottom profiler will not only tell us very obstructions\, but it can will also tell us the thickness of the looser deposit. So this is further down the channel. \nwhere everything has been excavated down to hard material. Except for the there is some looser deposits in this area\, as you can see \nCrestron: as shown right here. \nCrestron: So we’re hoping to get a better handle on the depth of bay mud in that covariance. That’s really one area where we don’t have a lot of information. \nCrestron: And then this is our sea level rise analysis. I didn’t do this\, so I’ll have to go to my notes. \nso the core engineers\, as I mentioned earlier\, we we looked at things as a 50 year analysis period. and then we look for adaptability out to the 100 year timeline. \nCrestron: And we look at 3 sea level rise curves that \narmy corps engineers created. I know they’re different than the State of California curves. \nCrestron: What this is showing \nis that \nCrestron: this top figure is showing sea level rise based on title current data from 1\,992 on. \nand showing about \nCrestron: point 8 7 rise per year\, or about. That’s about 3 hundredths of an inch \nCrestron: per year. For our study. Our base year is 2\,030\, \nwhich would represent about the end of construction and going through 2080. \nCrestron: The the one thing I take away from the sea level change. Analysis is that. \nyeah\, we’re looking at changing the shoreline only in 2 areas. And Howard Terminal and at the Alameda side. and both those structures. The Alameda’s about elevation 13 and a half. \nyou know\, Howard\, we’re about elevation 12 and a half to 13. So even at the \nCrestron: before. We start overtopping those areas. It’s quite a ways out. So so I think this is \nsea level rise plus \nCrestron: King tides. \nIt’s all the way out till \n2095 before you start overtopping either of those structures\, and that’s on the highest curve only. \nCrestron: And then\, considering extreme events. It’s all the way out to like 2050 before you start overtopping those structures. \nAnd again\, that’s on the highest sea level rise curve. \nCrestron: And that’s my last slide on sea level rise. I know we have some extra work in the room\, so hopefully. \nhopefully\, there aren’t too many questions on. \nCrestron: Well\, I would just say\, I mean. \nI don’t know. You probably can’t change it in chief support if you’re submitting it in January. Looking at Alameda’s tag gates for such a sort period. Probably isn’t at all gonna go with sea level\, rise trends and sea level rise with \nsuppressed for a long time by the Pacific decadal oscillation. I would encourage you to look at the 2022 Federal Civil Rights Technical report which the Army Corps is a co-author. \nand it includes projections of sea level rise based on satellite data and tide gauge data to 2050. It shows that \nin the bay area. It’s tracking with the Federal intermediate low curve which is about the Army Corps intermediate curve. Just for reference we are. We do have lower sea level rise here than a lot of other areas in the country\, which is good. But \nyeah\, when it goes into like further design\, probably use kind of the latest Federal science. \nCrestron: Okay? I’ll mention that to our coastal engineer. Also\, the coastal appendix is posted. So if you do have \nfurther questions or comments. Yeah\, I’m sure we’d love to. \nCrestron: Let me ask\, with regards to sea level rise \nlike on the Alameda side\, what are your what would your commitment be? And maybe this is for Jen. What’s the \nCrestron: what are? What are they required to do to protect like the wharf? Because the the wharf you can’t \nraise up. and I know\, for the further down where it’s being developed for Alamine Landing. They set up the barrier behind the wharf\, and they raised the elevation of all the new buildings behind it. \nAnd the wharf is basically staying where it is. So what do you? \nCrestron: What are what are these guys supposed to do? \nWhat’s their commitment to do? Even if the wharf is inundated due to sea level rise. \nWell\, I would say\, for for the consistency determination which looks at if the project’s consistent with our policies. this \nCrestron: this is probably similar\, and we haven’t had a big talk about it internally yet. \nBut the one of the last projects the Ecr heard was run one greenwood\, which was also a bulkhead wall. and I remember Chris May had the comment that even though bulkhead walls aren’t designed for flood protection. \nthey may be missing an opportunity for an incremental cost to provide additional flood protection on top of that. But it’s because it’s not part of the project purpose. \nCrestron: It doesn’t have a flood protection \nstandard to me \nCrestron: as far as Vcdcs. \nWe’ll probably look at it. \nCrestron: But it it may be valid comment that there may be a missed opportunity here\, depending on what the regional \nplan is for sea level rise in the area. \nCrestron: Okay? \nactually\, that was my last slide. Jennifer encouraged me to put some questions in here. \nCrestron: so one thing I thought of is you know\, there\, there’s a lot of research and kind of the late. \nyou know\, around 12\,008\, 2\,010 about seismic Earth pressures. And honestly\, there was just so much stuff coming out. I haven’t kept up on it. So I was wondering\, you know if the board had any input on. \nYou know what the latest and greatest is. I know we have Professor Sitar here\, worked on a lot of that material. \nCrestron: too many of them. \nWell. I think. Yes\, we. There are publications on this at page WA. Actually as incorporate some of it in their manuals. \nand the latest fema document on it is pretty good. \nCrestron: and we can certainly share on this. \nThe liquefaction is pretty straightforward. \nCrestron: slow\, liquid pressure. \nOh. if you go back to your profile to to suggest that \nCrestron: support for the I guess it’s the yeah. That’s one \none more forward. \nCrestron: Those are standard books. There is nothing really there. But if you go to\, I think it’s the Schnitzer steel where you have the \ndouble next one. Yeah\, this one \nCrestron: that that that really becomes a slow stability problem. \nYes\, and these things should be analyzed as a sort of stability problem. Because if the material mobilizes. you really are putting. It’s not really a seismic. \nCrestron: So my recommendation would be that this would be carefully looked at as a slop stability problem. \nCrestron: Yeah. \nfor this particular. I guess I was asked to speak so again\, let me repeat that that these should be analyzed as a slope stability problems rather than just seismic or pressure. The seismic first pressure generally \nis not much of a problem. Once you consider the full pressure of Baymud. the basically the static pressure. When you have clay backfill. You get already very high pressures. \nand what is often missed is the slope stability aspect of this. Because you have a you have a slope there that may yield. and if that yields\, then you’re \nokay\, of course\, doesn’t have the passive support that you are counting on. \nCrestron: and that would be the place to look at. \nThat’s a sort of off the I saw your question earlier. So I did think about it. But that’s basically a short answer to your question. We can\, of course\, have longer discussion. \nAnybody\, you know\, I can make a presentation. Of course\, we’d be happy to. \nCrestron: So that was my last slide. So \nif there are any questions. \nplease. okay\, so \nCrestron: At this point of the meeting we would like to receive public comments on the presentation. \nWhen called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. You have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. \nPlease keep your comments respectful. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nHate speech. threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language will not be tolerated. Anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits \nwithout permission\, will be muted. \nSo \nCrestron: is there any public comments \non the presentation in the room. \nCrestron: See any hands \ngreat? Do we have any? I see none. \nBCDC HOST: There are no\, there are no public comments on my end. \nCrestron: Okay\, thank you very much. \nOkay\, so public comments. On the presentation is closed at this point\, let’s have a \nCrestron: board discussion. Are there any \nitems that \nCrestron: we need to \nlooks like Rameen has a question or a comment. \nCrestron: I have a question. \nI’m actually pretty surprised that the 3\, 2\, one slope is stable. is. Is any of those dredge slopes? That you talked about? Do you have the symmetry of \nwhat is the inclination of those? Is it? Yeah. So \nCrestron: the reason why I think 3.1 is pretty tried and true. Design is. \nthere is\, you know\, over 2 miles on of slope that is cut and has stayed for a long time. We do have what I showed you in that \nthe blue slide is a full bathymetry survey. That was done in 2\,019\, and you don’t see any failures. Several times a year before and after dredging we do \nthe symmetry along our channels. which extend\, you know\, we usually send 20 to 30 feet beyond. So you know\, we have 10 years of data that shows\, you know the bottoms of those slopes\, or. \nCrestron: okay\, II have another question. \nYou assigned a strength parameter to the bay much\, and it increases about 12 pounds per square foot per foot. Considering this is normally consolidating material. Say. \nstress ratio is about point 2 5\, maybe 2.3. \nCrestron: If I take the 12\, and divided by your effective \nunit weight of the Baymont\, which is about 28 pounds for school per cubic foot. \nCrestron: So you get a ratio of 12 over 28\, which is more like point 4 something. \nCrestron: What is the basis? How? How is that justified? in this case? Site? Specifically\, it is justified. There’s volunteer data \nin not only this area\, but all along the alignment. That shows that it is a fairly consistent relationship. \nCrestron: there’s theoretical basis\, as well\, you know. \nThe Chancellor procedures\, you know. and but for an Ocr. Of one in Bay MoD\, you get pointfour\, I’m a little surprised. We’re cutting. And so you have less effective stress. So \nhigher. Ocr\, in those areas. \nCrestron: I would ask you\, do\, do you? I I’ve seen 12 Pcf use \nincrease 12 in many other areas\, have you? Well\, what I’m saying is\, the the stress ratio becomes about pointfour. \nCrestron: yeah. Su\, over P\, or to get it really technical. Yes. \nthen that that to me sounds high\, pretty high for Baymont. \n8 or 10. I have seen 8 pounds per square foot per foot. which is around a factor of point 3. \nCrestron: Yeah\, I mean\, point 3 is the commonly used number \nCrestron: our static analysis is showing factor safety of 3. \nSo II agree. If if we back down the number that we use\, we may get a lower fracture. Safety was still stable. I \nCrestron: okay\, I can follow up with\, you know\, data to kind of yeah. \nback up our number. Thank you. \nCrestron: Okay\, any \nanybody. Oh\, looks like Jim’s got his microphone on. \nCrestron: So this is a pretty early presentation from what we’re usually seeing. And it’s so different questions\, maybe\, than what we usually are are trying to address. \nCrestron: I think you’re kind of asking. You know what \nwhat particular approaches ought to be used. And I would point just for starters. I guess I would point to port of Oakland\, especially Alameda\, less\, maybe port of Oakland has a lot of studies that have been done pretty extensively. \nCrestron: In the 90 S. And into the early 2\,000 in particular\, with a lot of data. Subsurface consultants. \nyou know. Make sure you have everything that subsurface consultants done from the port of open \nCrestron: they have a ton of data\, you know. See if you can \nCrestron: dredge up\, so to speak. \nsome of their their Gis databases. I think they’ve got everything pretty neatly put together and packed up. And that’s Fugro now. So I’m not sure what Google is going to charge to try and borrow some other old data. \nOh\, we we do have those Sci reports\, and so we’ve digitized\, you know database from them. And then the port of Oakland Wharf and Embankment strengthening program also \nshould have some some good. \nCrestron: a \ndatabases as well as extensive \na static\, but focusing on seismic stability and deformations. \nCrestron: first met Gale\, I guess. Huh! \nCrestron: What? The West project? Yeah. Early. 2\,000 \na and \nCrestron: well\, there was just one other thing I was thinking of\, anyway. So it’s a lot of extensive data to make sure that you’re familiar with\, not just the databases\, but also the analysis and what those results have been \nCrestron: in all those analyses that were done back. Then \nthey were done for 3 to one slope\, or even steeper. You know they proposed. \nCrestron: Once you get into the San Antonio\, even steepening it. \nCrestron: Yeah. So so one of the things that’s gonna be tricky is\, you know\, like\, for instance\, if you’re removing a dike and moving things backwards and putting a wall in place. \nthere’s a little bit of material removal\, and so there’s a little bit of over consolidation\, which will give you a little bit better strength. \nCrestron: Whether that reduces your at rest\, earth pressures or active earth pressures is\, is a is an interesting question\, I guess. \nbut just encourage some. you know\, especially looking at bay mud pretty sensitive to stress paths\, and what the latest \nCrestron: the the latest\, most current conditions are. What’s the state of drainage as you’re excavating things are gonna strange \nstrain \nCrestron: slowly\, as they drain. So I think you got some really interesting \ncomplex analysis that needs to be done. Especially with \nCrestron: time related aspects of excavations\, and how things are disturbed. But pile driving\, and so on. \nOh\, \nCrestron: Following up on \non what Jim was saying\, I’d say. Also take a look at and report might have access to the work that was done for the Howard terminal \nCrestron: expansion. I think Ngo really did do a deep dive to look at a lot of the prior data that existed. \nincluding the original construction of the raft. Right? There might be some data there. Yeah\, we have the the geotech reports that were done prior to the rock dyke\, and then the plans for the rock dyke. \nWe have looked at that \nCrestron: underneath the rock deck all the bay mud has been removed. \nCrestron: and and the only other recognizing that. Yes\, this is fairly early on. And so you’re probably looking more to us\, which is what we would be looking at \nin the future. you know\, following up on what Chris said\, I would imagine that the local community would probably \nCrestron: look at some form of flood improvements in the future. \npretty much along the same \nCrestron: footprint of whatever the bulkheads are. \nand so just keeping that in in mind\, you know\, if there is wall extension of of an existing pile cap that might occur in the future. There’s opportunities. \nJust something we would. \nJim. Yeah\, just to follow. And I think maybe you were here during our previous presentation. \nCrestron: When you come back to us again at the next stage. \nOne of the questions that we’re gonna want to know is\, you know\, you just said you have all this old data from Wasp and from Sci gym\, matrix has a lot of studies from the port of Oakland. Also \njust make sure that you give us a documentation of all the steps along the way. Not just say\, yeah\, we have that data. It’s extensive. But but show us and we’re not. Gonna \nCrestron: we don’t recheck all of your calculations. But we do want to see that you’ve done those calculations. So so just kind of walk us through the the process. I think that’s what we’re \nwe’re gonna want to see how you develop your engineering criteria. Definitely\, we’ll we’ll do that. is. \nCrestron: you know\, these engineering and parent appendix to feasibility studies are just kind of supposed to represent the final. So they don’t want us to put all the. \nIt’s supposed to be a very short document. So yeah\, there’s a \nCrestron: inconsistency that we can do that. You know\, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on your backup information\, but we want to be able to glance at it and see. Yeah\, there. It’s it’s in order. \nThank you\, Jim. Anybody else. Lima. anything? \nCrestron: Just a quick question you. You going to be doing some seismic analysis of these slopes. \nWe we’ve done some kind of screening level analysis. It wasn’t in the \nCrestron: appendix that was submitted\, which was a \nfew months ago. Basically the seismic analysis we did was starting with the Usgs hazard tool. We ran it for a site class C\, which would be represented kind of the top of the \nSan Antonio. Yeah. And then we looked at published report that was done for the quarter to San Francisco. There. including amplification ratios through bay mud. You know they they had different ratios for \ndepending on depth of bedrock and thickness of mud. That was kind of how we did back of the envelope. Okay. \nCrestron: alright. \nCrestron: Okay\, Philip. \nSorry I had one more\, you know. Looks like you’re you’re starting a campaign. Pretty vigorous campaign of exploration and geophysical and sonar and stuff. I didn’t see any boring’s in there. On either side Malameda or Oakland. Would that be something that that would happen during the frequency construction and engineering side. Basically. \nCrestron: Okay\, I’m looking right. I’m looking left. \nI don’t see any more red lights except for mine. let’s see \nCrestron: to do. Okay\, Jen\, do you have those questions that you can put back at. Let’s just make sure we’re \nCrestron: we’re addressing those. \nAnd then we’ve addressed them. \nCrestron: Okay\, so \nCrestron: quick glance here \nsounds like \nwe have. \nCrestron: answered. I think we’ve got answers to all these questions. Jen. \nokay. so \nCrestron: are there motions? Is there a motion that’s appropriate? \nCrestron: Thank you. I’m not sure we have much of a detailed. \nI’m not sure we have much of a detailed motion other than to say. This is not our the final time. We want to see the project. \nCrestron: which is\, I think\, was you said that at the beginning\, I think more in in essence. So \nCrestron: we agree. Okay. \nCrestron: is that a motion? I don’t know beneath the motion \nthat well\, just to invite them back\, invite you back when you’re ready at the next phase next step. \nOkay. is there a second \nCrestron: second? All right\, all in favor. \nAlright. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Passes. Oh\, all opposed. Any opposed? Okay. \nthank you. \nCrestron: And now we move to \npublic comments not prefer items not on are not on the project\, but not related to the presentation. Anybody in the room. Is there anyone present who would like to make a comment on the project \nnot related to the presentation? \nCrestron: Okay\, I don’t see. But any hands raised in the room. Grace\, is there anybody online who’s got their hand raised? \nNo one has raised their hands. \nCrestron: Okay? Well\, then\, I think that closes the item. And \nwe did a very good job of doing this in about an hour and close finishing up on time. Well\, do we have a motion to adjourn. \nCrestron: Okay. Second\, all in favor. Alright. Any opposed. \nCrestron: Okay\, we’re closed at 5 PM. \nThank you. Everybody. Next other place \nCrestron: go there. And what? \nYeah. But I think that heading now more and more towards \nCrestron: well\, they’re gonna they’re gonna have to do that because they’re kicking out. \nCrestron: Yeah. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-27-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR