BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.16.5//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:20231207T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231207T170000 DTSTAMP:20240206T212147Z 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:20240213T235959Z 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:20240131T055858Z 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:20240319T204543Z 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:20250320T224326Z 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:20240205T202531Z 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:20240131T073313Z 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:20240206T225609Z 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:20240213T235455Z 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:20250320T225222Z 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:20240131T055618Z 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:20250320T225949Z 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:20240131T055514Z 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:20231121T060424Z 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:20240130T063904Z 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:20231121T025555Z 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:20231020T010122Z 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:20231019T011109Z 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 BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230927T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230927T120000 DTSTAMP:20240206T224955Z CREATED:20240131T052857Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T224955Z UID:10000165-1695807000-1695816000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 27\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center1st Floor – Yerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \nSolano County Government Center675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533(707-784-6129) \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/83719850693?pwd=MzNsRDhHcm5wSlpSQVZ5bXVVTmZ4QT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID899 6979 5128 \nPasscode052719 \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 August 23\, 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]\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue.\nThe Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.govPublic Comment \n\nAdjournment\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/354/2024/01/09-27-EC-Audio-Recording.mp3 \nAudio \nShe stated\, it is 9 35\, and this meeting of the Bcd. Enforcement Committee is hereby call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee. \nAnd I’m just gonna ask\, since I’m a little bit away from the microphone. Can everybody hear me? \nCreston: Yes\, yes\, yes\, thumbs up. \nCreston: Okay\, cool. \nalright. For commissioners\, including those who are attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nCreston: Our first order of business today is to call the role \nMatthew. Please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves. While he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Good morning. Let’s see. We’ll start with Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nThank you. Commissioner Vasquez here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and chair. Gilmour. \nCreston: here. \nCreston: Okay\, we have a corn present and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nand that’s going to bring us to Item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment \nCreston: 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. \nWe have received one general comment. and a copy has been linked to this agenda item on our website or 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. \nplease 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. \nFind the 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 \nand then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone when the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nCreston: The meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised \nafter you were called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself first by first and last name for the record before making your comment. \nor members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the speaker’s podium \nat your location\, and wait to be called upon to speak. \nCreston: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nCreston: We will not tolerate hate\, speech. \ndirect threats. indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nCreston: Margie\, do we have any commentators? \nWe have any comments? \nCreston: Public comments? \nNo public comments. Share. Gilmore. Okay\, Commissioner Vasquez\, do we have any members of the public at your location that wish to make general comments? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, we don’t \nCreston: thank you. And let the record reflect that Commissioner Ransott has joined us. \nWelcome. \nCreston: Okay\, so next item of business is\, item number 4\, approval of the draft minutes for the last meeting. \nWe have all been furnished draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nCreston: I so moved to approve. Second. \nokay\, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Bielin\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. And I want to note for the record that I have reviewed the minutes of the \nCreston: the the meeting\, and I will be voting on this. \nSo let’s we have a motion in a second\, and if there are any objections to approving the minutes\, please speak out. Now. \nCreston: hearing no objections\, the minutes are approved unanimously. \nI’m sorry. \nSorry. \nCreston: Okay\, that brings us to Item Number 5. The Enforcement Report \nand Enforcement policy Manager Matthew Trujillo will now provide the Enforcement report. Good morning\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Good morning\, chair good morning committee members. Only 2 items to report out today \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: in the first one being a case update as per usual since our last meeting on August 20\, third in the last month we received 7 new cases and resolved 9 cases. And so that brings our total as of today to 79 unresolved cases\, which is a net difference of negative 3 from last month. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: So small progress. But you know\, just imagine what we can do with a fully staffed unit. Second\, an update on the status of compliance with issued orders by the Commission. This is in response to a \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: request \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: that we regularly update this Committee on the the compliance status of commission issued orders. So \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: we did receive a complaint yesterday of new homeless accountants being established within Union Point Park\, which\, as you may recall most of you is under a compliance monitoring for Commission Order number Ccd 2021 dot 0 0. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: I went ahead and referred that complaint to the compliance team for follow up\, and you will see it today as a general public comment that was submitted for this meeting. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and at a future meeting we’ll update you on the compliance or legal actions that we may take \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: to to to get them back in compliance with their order \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and \nthat concludes my report. So I’m available for any. Follow up questions you may have. \nCreston: Thank you. Do any committee members have any questions for Matthew? \nCreston: Hmm. \nDo we have any members of the public located in this room who have any questions for Matthew. \nCreston: John. Do you have anybody at your location who has any public comments for Matthew? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, and II don’t have anyone from the public\, either. you know. That’s good to know. Thank you. \nCreston: All right. \nyes. \nplease go ahead on on this item. \nAnon: Yes. Hi\, I’m wondering why it’s not been enforcement on the encampments and Union Park. There is one near the corner of Denison and Coastguard Island\, along the shore near the abandoned \nAnon: vessels that are up on the rocks\, the ones with graffiti on them. There’s an encampment that’s been there for \nAnon: I don’t know over a year\, and it’s gotten bigger. It’s very. It’s I’ve reported it several times\, and nothing has happened. \nAnon: I don’t know what else I can do. That’s what I had understood was my job as a \nAnon: as a resident of this Marina was to report when things were showing up\, and I was promised that things would be handled\, and that one has not been handled. \nAnon: I’m wondering why\, thank you very much. \nCreston: Next we have Joe de breeze. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Hi! I’m actually here to present along with Miss Simmons from the city of Oakland. But I’m in the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: whatever spectator box. So I wanted to make sure you guys knew I was here. That’s why I have my hand raised. \nCreston: Thank you very much. I’ll promote you. \nCreston: Thank you. Are there any more comments on item number 5 before we move on to Item Number 6\, which is a briefing on the Oakland Alameda estuary and encampment issue. \nSeeing none. Okay. \nCreston: excuse me\, then we will move on to Item number 6. \nThis committee will now receive a briefing on actions taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor outs in the Oakland Alameda estuary by the cities of Alameda and Oakland \nat this time. Will the representative or representative for the cities please identify themselves for the record\, and we’ll start with the city of Alameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. It’s Sergeant Siebert with the city of Alameda Police department. \nCreston: Thank you. And welcome City of Oakland. \nLaTonda Simmons: Oh\, good morning. It’s \nCreston: okay. Thank you. Everyone for attending\, and welcome. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: II do. Wanna by my apologies. Chair\, Gilmore\, I do want to also acknowledge Officer Albino is raised to sanity is here to present as well. \nExcellent. Okay. Now\, I’m going to invite compliance. Analyst John Creech to give his introduction. John \nJ. Creech: Morning. Thank you very much chair. I’m John Creech. I’m on your \nJ. Creech: compliance team. I’ve been working closely with Adrian Klein\, principal enforcement analyst to meet regularly with the cities of Oakland and Alameda. \nJ. Creech: we recognize that the this issue\, that \nJ. Creech: the Oakland Alameda estuary issue is \nJ. Creech: has received a lot of attention and \nJ. Creech: We are very excited about the progress that has been made. So first\, I would like to have \nJ. Creech: Sergeant Cybert\, go ahead and present. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. Thank you very much. As far as anchor outs on on our side of the estuary and Alameda\, we currently do not have any boats that are that are anchored out \nAPD T. Siebert: we also currently do not have any encampments that are along the shoreline. \nAPD T. Siebert: I know our boat was out of service for about 2\, 2 and a half months\, just due to some maintenance issues and getting some some back\, basically backlog and parts to get the motors back up to \nAPD T. Siebert: back\, up to stuff and running properly to get the boat back in the water. \nAPD T. Siebert: We were just back out on the water. Sunday September 20\, fourth\, and just confirmed\, and no anchor outs and no encampments along our along our shoreline. \nAPD T. Siebert: During our current. Save grant. That we currently have. We have a hundred $1\,000 that was granted to us. For that. We have used that money\, and removed 7 vessels from the water. Both turned in as well as sunken vessels\, and we also assisted the city of Oakland by removing 5 vessels that they had at the aquatic center. \nAPD T. Siebert: We applied for save grants for the coming up cycle\, and we have just gotten approval for $200\,000 in the New Save Grant cycle\, and again plan to \nAPD T. Siebert: help the city of Open with removing some of the vessels that they need help with. \nAPD T. Siebert: And I think that is right. Now. \nCreston: Sorry we’re having some technical difficulties. \nCreston: Can you hear me? \nJ. Creech: Yeah\, people are not hips. \nThis might be picking up. \nAPD T. Siebert: Were you guys able to hear me? \nJ. Creech: Yes\, online\, we could. \nOkay. \nCreston: okay\, I’m sorry\, Mr. Devreeze\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Sure. Good morning. And actually\, we when we met with Staff. We wanted to both cover shoreline encampments and anchor outs\, and that’s why our assistant city administrators here\, and we have a Powerpoint that Miss Simmons has\, and she’s gonna start out to talk about encampments\, and then I’ll talk about \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: what’s happening with the anchor outs\, and then\, of course\, we have our officer of\, you know. Here is the man on the ground or in the water. Who can answer some of the operational questions. And so if she can be given host access or \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: ability to share screen\, that’d be great. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Once I think you should be able to share. If you click the share screen button at the bottom of your window. \nLaTonda Simmons: Good morning. I wanted to make sure that I had the Powerpoint set for presentation\, which is also tricky in this environment. Good morning. And thank you \nLaTonda Simmons: for allowing us to come and present some information in terms of city of open activities in terms of encampment management. So my greetings\, the honorable members of the BC. DC. Will move through this presentation\, at which I will start a portion of it\, and Mr. Debris will \nLaTonda Simmons: engage another portion of it. And so we ask your patience. See that there’s technical difficulties today. And I hope\, the technical guides are gonna work with me. And some of the presentation overall intense to address Bcd Enforcement activities. And specifically those along the shorelines related to encampments. And obviously. \nLaTonda Simmons: okay\, that’s alright. The overview of this presentation will cover the encampment management policy. Specific encampment management operations\, and of course\, then move to the nuisance vessel policy and the nuisance. Special operations \nLaTonda Simmons: just to quickly level set on the conditions in terms of homelessness. We wanted to make sure that the Commission the committee understood\, if you will\, the level of homelessness that the city of Oakland is grappling with. According to the most recent point in time\, count of 2022. You see\, there has been a substantial growth in homelessness\, specifically unsheltered as well as sheltered homelessness \nLaTonda Simmons: that modality breaks down across tents. Cars are these streets and abandoned buildings. Accordingly\, seeing that there’s been a 31. Excuse me. \nLaTonda Simmons: there’s been a 32% increase \nLaTonda Simmons: impact in our tent encampment. But there has been a 31% increase in our vehicular encampment in terms of cars and bands. And of course\, a 27% increase \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of Rb’s. We believe just to be very candid that these are under counted \nLaTonda Simmons: wanna recognize that the 2022 point in time. Count was a makeup point in time. Count from the 2021 point to time count when it should happen during the pandemic we also see. \nLaTonda Simmons: there’s been a slight reduction in street and \nLaTonda Simmons: street\, and outside encampment activity in terms of people lying sleeping and see sits line sleeping and sitting directly on our streets\, and there is a 1% difference with respect to abandoned buildings. \nLaTonda Simmons: So \nLaTonda Simmons: we also wanted to highlight that \nLaTonda Simmons: as it currently stands \nLaTonda Simmons: the capacity of our shelter systems have a significant limitation in terms of the number of beds available. We cited\, that there’s about 1\,700 individuals that are in a that are homeless and and sheltered. \nLaTonda Simmons: These numbers in terms of the number of beds here\, reflect\, if you will\, a combination of resources from Alameda County\, as well as those that the city has stood up itself. In terms of the city’s inventory. It’s probably just just north of 12\,012\, 1\,200 beds that have been stood up. \nLaTonda Simmons: The encampment management policy\, as you all well know\, of course\, isn’t guide\, is guided much of this work\, however\, there is a number of intersecting policies that have also had a significant impact on the operations. Of course Martin Voise stands at the top of the list\, and that would be the component in terms of the Nice Circuit Course district decision that requires that there be an adequate offer of shelter \nLaTonda Simmons: for every encampment that is closed. And you can imagine\, just from the prior side slides of seeing approximately 1\,700 bids seeing a number of individuals who are sheltered\, and then seeing more than 3\,000 individuals who are unsheltered\, that this is pose to significant challenge for the city. In addition\, the city is also whether it’s some litigation \nLaTonda Simmons: which has also hyper extended some of the requirements to be able to close encampments providing longer terms of constructive notice\, extended terms in terms of the \nLaTonda Simmons: storage of personal belongings\, and then some calculus\, as it relates to the conditions under which we can perform encampment closures associated with the weather. For instance. \nLaTonda Simmons: should we find that the weather reaches more than one inch of rain accumulated over an operation we may be required to shut down. These new factors absolutely have impacted the city’s ability to hyper\, mobilize our response to encampments. Other other policies that help us would be the emergency shelter ordinance\, that the city is adopted\, and it expedites our ability to stand up intervention so that we can expand our shelter. Bad capacity\, however\, that is tethered to relevant \nLaTonda Simmons: state\, local and federal laws and resources. And to the extent that we have tapped our resources\, we are capped at the numbers that we have\, we are still pursuing additional \nLaTonda Simmons: resources to be able to expand our capacity\, and\, of course\, other operational policies\, as it relates to public works\, Osha requirements\, their sops\, other elements as it relates to dots\, enforcement\, authority\, the police departments\, enforcement\, authority\, all of those individuals will come together to be able to assist with the encampment management process\, and I skipped over Cdc. Guidance. But it really begins to \nLaTonda Simmons: elucidate or rather demystify the conditions associated with health and safety conditions. Should the Cdc make a determination about communicable diseases\, it could have an impact \nLaTonda Simmons: on our ability to close that encampment. Typically the Cdc will hold the position that you cannot disband an encampment if specific communicable diseases are within that encampment and other elements that provide us information\, of course\, most recently mentioned was the 2022 point time count. That shows us the census over all of our encampment community and our unhoused community \nLaTonda Simmons: home together\, which is a strategy to end homelessness. Proposals\, if you will\, and concepts centering equity and the design of homelessness systems. And of course\, the Alameda County continuum of care and their policies that advance our ability. \nLaTonda Simmons: Yeah\, it’s with the resources that they provide. \nLaTonda Simmons: You. All are very familiar with the encampment management policy. II know\, of course. This. This Commission is\, has had a number of issues with respect to the encampments along the shorelines\, the policy was adopted to assist all open. This\, of course\, sheltered and on shelter\, to be able to manage the adverse in first impact of encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: and it intended to balance the interest of our residents in terms of the unhous house businesses in the community\, and even special districts and bodies such as yourself. The goal\, of course\, was to focus on mitigating and negative impacts in terms of health and safety. And this is continue to be the basis by which the \nLaTonda Simmons: Emt is exercising their authority. To abating candidates. So I’ll move a little bit more quickly. \nLaTonda Simmons: These 2 sensitivity areas just intend to give some detail in terms of the proximity\, and how the city set forth\, if you will\, in order of magnitude\, to focus on encampments and their removals\, those in high sensitivity areas where health and safety impacts obviously would impact businesses. \nLaTonda Simmons:  egress routes\, emergency circumstances\, rights of way. \nLaTonda Simmons: I would say that that\, of course\, is where most of the BC. DC. Including other proximity elements. Encampments are in terms of along the wide waterways. Low sensitivity areas would be like your underpasses and things like that where imp. Perhaps some of your industrial areas where the encampments are not necessarily directly associated or more heavily associated with impacts to residences and businesses. \nLaTonda Simmons: The details of the sensitivity areas have been sort of laid out pretty clearly. I just wanted to highlight obviously that the most essential component\, as it relates to the BC. DC. In addition to these other elements\, would be those within 50 feet of a protected waterway as established by any governing body. In addition\, of course\, just wanted to mention that the Public Works Department is also monitoring conditions in terms of \nLaTonda Simmons: activities that would be contaminants to waterways areas\, and their barrier is about one within 500 feet of protected waterways. \nLaTonda Simmons: Low sensitivity compliance also includes many of the things that are actually associated with high sensitivity conditions in terms of health and safety factors. But just quickly wanted to highlight that. Obviously the debris and the dumping of gray and black water. As it affects our waterways and our storm drains\, of course\, is very essential to the conversation that we are having today \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of our operations. We wanted to show you that\, based on the intersecting policies that were described earlier\, that there’s a significant amount of work that goes into planning the closure of an encampment. First and foremost. \nLaTonda Simmons: it is most certainly about the assembly of the teams\, but more so \nLaTonda Simmons: from intake to verification\, verifying the conditions and assembling the teams proper to abate those specific conditions\, but also the availability of those shelter beds. currently\, the city of Oakland \nLaTonda Simmons: obviously has less shelter beds available than we have on house on the streets\, and I would say that the movement of individuals out of those shelter systems are a factor in terms of the vacancies there. Once we accumulate a number of beds\, we are able to go out and closing encampment\, and that has been challenging. Given the amount of homelessness that we see on the streets\, and the low number of shelter beds that we have \nLaTonda Simmons: just to give you a sample of what it is just a snapshot of the number of requests that we receive. And 2021 when undertaking this work we had approximately 2\,400 requests. In year 2\,022. That number grew to about 3\,500 requests just south of it\, and just counting through the end of June. \nLaTonda Simmons: We are already at above a reasonable high mark of the prior year. At about 2\,100 requests. It’s important to note that even this number is lower than what we can track. We had some issues with respect to the city of Oaklands. \nLaTonda Simmons: Ransomware incident. And as a result of that\, many systems that we were used to using to track reports of encampments. Of course\, 311 was impacted\, and there was some data lost in so this number\, probably in actuality\, in terms of the number of complaints that have been file are probably close to about 2\,700. \nLaTonda Simmons: Just to give you a sense of the reported number of encampments. In 2022\, at the adoption of the policy. It was projected that there was\, you know\, just north of 140 encampments\, possibly about 150. That was the assumed number. However\, by the time that we got to the end of 2021 the number of reported encampments had increased to 635\, and by 2022 \nLaTonda Simmons: to 1\,006\, and of course\, just to date with well\, just to June thirtieth\, we see the reported number of encampments escalated to be at 1\,381. I just wanted to include that in encampment is counted from the body of one\, and that is because the Martin B. Voicey requirements require that if I close an encampment of one person I have to make a shelter offer\, even if it is just simply one person\, and so obviously \nLaTonda Simmons: this this count provides a very significant picture of the impact of homelessness here in the city of Oakland. \nLaTonda Simmons: And just to also underscore the high sensitivity and low sensitivity divide. You’ll see that approximately 90% of our encampments are rated at high sensitivity in terms of their location. And just just\, you know\, I’d say about 11% \nLaTonda Simmons:  are\, are\, you know\, a little bit over our low sensitivity areas. The reason that we share this slide with you is because the intent of the encampment management policy at the time that it had contemplated the lower number of you can be at about 150. You know\, these criteria pieces intended to allow for a prioritization specifically for waterways\, construction areas\, parks. \nLaTonda Simmons: specific areas in the rights of way and egress\, pointing sidewalks\, as you can see\, based on the number of encampments and their sensitivity designations. The city is \nLaTonda Simmons: struggling to keep up with the amount of encampment. The growth of encampments\, the abatement of encampments\, and it is struggling to apply this prioritization. Given the large number of encampments that we are seeing \nLaTonda Simmons: just to be clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: Since the 2021 implementation of this policy the city has completed up through June thirtieth\, 725 operations. Those operations consist of closures and the cleanings. Cleanings intend to address circumstances where we cannot close to date. However\, I can tell you that that number is probably at approximately 825 operations. The city\, as an example in 2\,020 \nLaTonda Simmons: based on the pandemic conditions could only execute approximately 64 operations. And so I just wanted to show you the intensity in which we’re pursuing this work \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of that breakout across districts. We thought it would be helpful for you to see that our service requests based on the demand\, have been apportioned in terms of our response to be measured accordingly\, a number of the districts in terms of \nLaTonda Simmons: and \nLaTonda Simmons: D 6 and d. 7 and and D 12 aren’t quite seeing\, if you will\, the proportionate share of support based on the number of complaints that we have\, and that is because the metrics of the encampment management policy. Are more prominently in in terms of the spread of the health and safety conditions. And the demand which is a metrics component \nLaTonda Simmons: is\, is\, is providing for a large amount of service in the district 3 area. The city has met with our equity department\, and we intend to adjust our service. \nLaTonda Simmons: response to be with more equitably support the departments. Excuse me. The the district that have high\, that have higher needs than the amount of service that we are providing. And so you will see a redistribution of our activities across the district and certainly across the waterways nearest to the waterways. There is a high rate of occurrence. Reoccurrence and that is because \nLaTonda Simmons: for every area that we clear\, given the number of unhouse that we have on the streets \nLaTonda Simmons: the new\, the remaining members in the community will often see a cleared area as a prime opportunity to rein camp. Other factors also include that specific areas are much more difficult to maintain\, such as our parks. Any area that’s sprawling and large. \nLaTonda Simmons: and particularly attributed to open space very difficult to keep clear. You can see Mosswood Park has had a large number of operations. I’ll tell you to date. We’ve probably been back there 14 times. \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of the number of operations. And there’s has to be some consideration given to better fortification of these specific areas. As you know\, this also aligns with the interest associated with Union Point Park\, where the recent re encampment has come to our attention. We’re directing resources to that location to be able to remove the individuals that are there. And again\, we regularly respond \nLaTonda Simmons: very swiftly\, typically with enforcement authority to remove encampments when they show up at Union Point Park. We do not wish to allow those conditions to restore themselves based on where they were. In March of 2021. \nLaTonda Simmons: The obvious. \nLaTonda Simmons: the obvious outcomes and challenges to the work is the city certainly next \nLaTonda Simmons: sufficient shelter and housing for the unsheltered population which is necessary to comply with the Federal requirements of providing shelter before you close an encampment\, and those low inventories of shelter have made made this work very challenging for the encampment management team\, and it has directly impacted our ability to have seamless and continuous \nLaTonda Simmons: and focus activity with respect to outreach to be able to perform the shelter offers\, and to close certainly more encampments\, which is the goal of the encampment management policy. The other thing is that I just wanted to underscore that \nLaTonda Simmons: in addition to the \nLaTonda Simmons: low inventories of shelter and housing\, you know\, it is also not being matched in terms of the investments\, that growth of our bids\, and our shelter is not growing at the same rate that our encampments\, the reported number of encampments\, are increasing at this point. \nLaTonda Simmons: From the estimate of a hundred 50 we have increased by 9.2 times that value\, reaching 1\,381 as reference in an earlier slide. The other issue that you all are also probably well aware of is that our encampments are seeing higher levels of criminal activity. \nLaTonda Simmons: which means that these conditions aren’t just dangerous\, based on the general health and safety factors\, but because drug dealing violence\, shootings\, stolen cars and chopped up vehicles are also being centered in our encampments as as activities as \nLaTonda Simmons: these criminal elements see that these are prime spaces to use\, to exploit the unhouse and to and they recognize that the city is challenged with closing encampments as fast as we would like to. \nLaTonda Simmons: And obviously we talked about the recurrence patterns in terms of their increases\, and I don’t have to underscore that. And the the obvious point is that you know encampment support in terms of resources has not been scaled to meet the increased number of homeless encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: And of course\, in terms of its demographics\, opens homelessness\, continues to be disproportionately African\, American\, and unhoused residents. Those residents need additional supports to transition from encampments to shelter. \nLaTonda Simmons: And this is where I will hand it over to Joe\, and you can \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: thank you system. City administrator Simmons is a tough act to follow\, but I’ll give it my best shot. So on the vessel. policy and background. I just wanted to to kind of remind the Enforcement community where we are\, you know\, in 2\,020 the City Hall to the removal of vessels due to a claim after Opd. Destroyed and abandoned both. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and while I think a lot of us who knew the details of the case\, felt some displeasure at settling based on the the mounting\, you know\, legal fees and the potential for liability. We not only settled that that claim. We we halted operations\, which is what started to see some of that accumulation until we could rewrite the policy. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: you know\, in 2022 we did hire outside council that had expertise from the conditions to assist us. And because they felt that\, you know\, no matter what internal policy Opd developed\, we really needed authority at the local level through our municipal code so they helped us in drafting the new ordinance to present to the City Council. 22 was an election year and so we introduced the the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: the the ordinance in 2\,023 and you know\, even though we’ve rewritten the the the internal opd policy\, we really felt that we needed to bring a full ordinance to the council. Let’s hope that you can advance that \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: so at the end of 2\,022 we identify 25 vessels that were either abandoned or illegally anchored in the estuary Opd. Did remove 2 vessels in late in 2\,022 they were halted in that operation\, due to damage to the marine unit. after early outreach after outreach and early 23 5 host did leave voluntarily \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: brought the number down to 18. But again. We knew we needed the ordinance just to fully roll out our our abatement program\, which is about to happen next slide\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: So the nuisance vessel. Ordinance was adopted in March on the twenty-first it adds sections 8.7 to the municipal code it provides further procedures for the payment of abandoned vessels. Whether whether people live on them or or not\, they’re declared nuisance vessels it establishes a distinct timeline time limits in terms of how long someone can use the public docs or be in the estuary of anchor. Oh. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: where was that? There we go! So the good news is we did apply for save grant funding. Yeah\, to implement the ordinance in the spring opd\, during the summer. Held internal training with our certified marine unit officers and and conducted targeted enforcement really to educate people to get them ready for what? What’s coming \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and go to the next slide \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: so currently\, we learned just last week. We’ve been awarded $166\,000 and save Grant funding to remove vessels. We need to accept that those funds\, and we’re trying to fast track that to the city Council in October so that Opd can get get down to business \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: first. Obedi will start with the cleanup of abandoned boats. That’ll commence in late October early November the same time noticing of le ill legal\, livable board vessels will occur in November. The goal is to have all of them notice before Thanksgiving with the scheduled removal in December\, and I know officer of\, you know\, can fill in a lot of details. But we are seeking additional staffing to be dedicated to a 90 Day \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Operations plan so we’ll be reaching out to to Opd leadership to see that they have that support. And I know that Opd is seeking and has been given an offer of assistance from Alameda\, Pd. And the Us. Coast Guard. We really appreciate the partnership. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I think that is that last slide. Okay. So oh\, go ahead\, Latana\, you want to do the next steps. \nLaTonda Simmons: Well\, yes\, and and thank you. Joe just wanted to underscore that. There are also some next steps with respect to encampment activities. Mari Collins\, who has served as the deputy\, homeless administrators currently this week\, actually performing a deep cleaning of Alameda Avenue\, lifting debris the goal would be to lift debris in anticipation of a deeper operation coming in October. \nLaTonda Simmons: which would be the full closure of that encampment. We had to do a substantial amount of work to try to work on mitigation strategies in advance of the closure similar to the comments that I made under prior slides. \nLaTonda Simmons: These are areas that are very difficult to keep clear. Because of its geo geographic kind of elements. In addition\, we’re continuing to support Union Point Park to prevent re encampment by quickly taking down anything that we see. That we are made aware of in terms of having been stood up after we cleared it. We’re focused on some planning for lead drive\, which is an area that is also deeply impacted by vehicular encampment. The city \nLaTonda Simmons: and I just wanna give Joe debris kudos here\, having worked to set up another intervention\, but specifically for parking support for rbs\, that \nLaTonda Simmons: resource will be leveraged to be able to perform a closure at lead in Baldwin Court. Baldwin is listed because they tend to go between the 2 locations. If we close lead and they decline the services\, they’ll go to Baldwin\, and then\, if we should take action at Baldwin Court. They’ll come back to lead\, so the goal will be to address both locations. And also there’s planning under way for Park which is\, you know\, which is\, has a water way \nLaTonda Simmons: as well\, but a significant impact. \nLaTonda Simmons: Based on the number of individuals who can encamp under the breeze way very close to those waterways who we have sometimes had to tell to stop bathing in the water. In terms of the unhouse when we both encampments there. We’re gonna also do the reworking of the geomapping that we had begun to prepare \nLaTonda Simmons: for encampments near the waterways and citywide the city had under to in terms of the encampment management team\, the use of the 3\, 1 one system and city works to be able to incorporate it as both the reporting medium\, but also as a work management tool. The ransomware incident of February \nLaTonda Simmons: knocked out about 8 months of really hard work to build that as a workflow. And the city is now redoing that work. It is within city works\, and also 3\, 1 one that Lin\, Geo\, mapping \nLaTonda Simmons: elements in terms of the systems tools that we’re \nLaTonda Simmons: and then\, of course\, we’re gonna continue our work\, you know\, despite the number of encampments that we are seeing in terms of recorded encampments and the amount of work that it takes. I would say that the encampment management team\, you know\, remains committed to keeping the areas clean and clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: We’re working to identify more resources specifically for outreach\, because we know that the sooner that we can get people out there to start those conversations\, even before the team can mobilize to get here. It becomes important in terms of moving people along\, and there were more slides. But what we wanted to do is respect the committee’s time. Because there are conversations being had about the expansion of bits with the county and the State. \nLaTonda Simmons: There are meetings underway. Of course\, those bids are essential to closing more encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: I’m gonna hand it back to you\, Joe. Oh\, just a slide to let you know who’s in the homelessness division. \nLaTonda Simmons: and if there is a need to report encampments\, the 311 systems are still back up. Please use the 311 system to report encampments. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: And really\, just it’s it’s I don’t have a whole lot more to add. I think we’re again on the on the nuisance vessels. We are really poised \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: to to to operationalize things. And and we’re we’re excited about that. You know\, and certainly again. Also\, Albino is doing the line share the workout on the water\, and with with his team. And yeah\, happy to take any questions. \nCreston: Thank you. This committee really wants to thank the representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland. For these very informative briefings today. \nAnd right now\, I’m going to ask if any members of the Enforcement Committee have questions for our guests. \nCreston: Cause\, I sure. Do. \nCreston: Okay\, Sanjay. \nI was encouraged to hear. There\, there is a grant that’s been received and is going to be made available. It sounds like in October\, assuming the Council approves. Can you not hear\, Adrienne? \nOkay. is that better? \nCreston: Okay\, II was encouraged to hear that there’s a grant that’s been received\, and should be made available sounds like the next month or so. \nAssuming the Council approves. Is there a likelihood of further grant or other funding being received in the near term\, say during Q. 4\, at some point \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: a. As I understand it\, we have the opportunity to apply for save grant funding every year\, and I think that in the past I think Oakland has applied for funding based on our resources\, our ability to execute. But we realize\, with the the growth of the number of vessels that we needed to apply for more. So this is a large larger amount that we apply for\, I imagine next spring depending on how things go this winter\, we would apply for more. \nCreston: Was that it\, Sanjay \nCreston: any other committee members? \nCreston: Okay. So to follow up on the Save Grant. I believe you said it was $166\,000. \nHow many vessels do you think that that amount of money would cover in terms of renewal. Can you give a ballpark? \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I will ask Officer Albino to to speak on that\, since he’s he’s the operations\, Guy. \nKaleo Albino: Yes\, I do want to say a quick thank you to Latonda and Joe for your really in-depth perspective of this whole \nKaleo Albino: issue that we’re tackling. But the $166\,000 that I applied for. We’re specifically for approximately 21 vessels. \nKaleo Albino: and it will depend on exactly what is on those vessels as far as engines. \nKaleo Albino: hazardous materials that are costly to dispose of\, so it will to be dependent upon the vessels button. I’m assuming that 95% of the vessels that are out there now will be removed from the estuary. \nCreston: That’s excellent news\, and I’m assuming that none of those vessels that are out there are in the navigable waters\, because\, other than if it were\, then the Coast Guard would be involved. Is that correct? \nKaleo Albino: There can be a technicality on what is an avocable water way? But the majority of the waterways are clear for barges and cargo ships. \nKaleo Albino: but it is impacting recreational activities\, such as rowing \nKaleo Albino: other rowing teams that we have out there\, and the youth sailing teams as well. \nCreston: Okay\, well\, that’s good to know. \nCreston: okay\, the other question that I had\, and it would be for \nboth of the officers in terms of your police boats. because we’ve had a lot of complaints from people who live along the estuary of \nincidents that originate on the water\, where people are coming down in boats and basically vandalizing or robbing the liver boards and the marinas. And so my question to both of you is\, how frequently do you patrol? And are any of those patrols during the evening or early morning hours. \nKaleo Albino: I can answer for Oakland\, Pd. First the approximate hours that we’re actually on the water. So I’m the only full-time maritime officer could you. Could you speak into the microphone a little bit closer\, please. Yeah. \nis that better? \nKaleo Albino: Okay. \nKaleo Albino: So\, me being the only full time maritime officer\, a lot of my job is administrative of trying to gather funding for boats\, doing maintenance\, doing trainings with other departments in the Coast Guard in the area. \nKaleo Albino: I’m able to get out on the water approximately 20 to 30 HA week. and then I also adjust my schedule around to try\, and I give the perception that we are out there \nKaleo Albino: during all hours of the day. So I have been doing night patrols. I’m today. I’m doing an afternoon patrol. \nKaleo Albino: Yesterday was a morning patrol. \nKaleo Albino: and I’m trying to get eyes on during all hours of the day. Not just \nKaleo Albino: 6 A. M. To 4 PM. \nCreston: Thank you. \nAlameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: yeah\, for the city of Alvamita. Our marine unit is an ancillary duty for for everybody involved. \nAPD T. Siebert: so we don’t have any full-time officers on the marine unit at this point in time\, when we put our boat back in full time service starting next month. \nAPD T. Siebert: we are being allowed 60 personnel hours per month \nAPD T. Siebert: we staff our boat with a minimum of 2 persons at all times\, so that it will allow us to put as of right now\, will allow us to put our boat back in the water 3 days a month. \nAPD T. Siebert: And we do vary our patrols during the week on the weekends daytime as well as nighttime. We’ll stay out as late as about 2 45 in the morning. \nCreston: Thank you.  So I want to be really sensitive to the challenges that the city of Oakland is facing in terms of the homeless crisis \nand the homeless encampments\, and how that spills out into people thinking that boats are a method of housing. \nClearly. the problem has vastly outstripped your current resources to deal with it.  that being said\, I understand the frustration of the people who actually live on the water because it’s impacting them and their daily lives. And there’s this tendency. If something is excess\, we are laser focused on it\, whereas the city of Oakland has to focus on the entire city. Not just the waterfront. \n But having said all of that I’m wondering if there’s any way that the cities of Oakland and Alameda can partner together in terms of sharing resources\, obtaining more resources. To put more patrols out on the water. \nespecially during the \nCreston: the evening hours\, where it seems like a lot of the vandalism and everything else tends to occur based on \nthe reports and the complaints that we’ve heard. So I’m sort of tossing that out there. And then the other thing I wanted some clarification on was the city of Oakland mentioned that they were looking for more resources. \nboth to help with the to help with the encampments and the homelessness issue. Could you? Is it possible to give us a brief synopsis? Of what kind of resources you’re looking at\, and what the timeline might be for finding out whether or not you’re successful. \nKaleo Albino: Yeah. do a portion of that\, too. \nLaTonda Simmons: I was. But I was going to ask\, did you want us to take those questions in the way that you actually laid them out. And so I was gonna let the officers speak first \nLaTonda Simmons: about collaboration in terms between the jurisdictions for more enforcement and then speak to. \nLaTonda Simmons: I would speak to the resources that we are seeking. \nCreston: Yes\, let’s have the officers speak first\, and then we’ll talk about the more general homeless encampments. Thank you. \nKaleo Albino: So in regards to patrols and increasing \nour footprint on the waterway. \nKaleo Albino: I’ve been training approximately 10 \nKaleo Albino: maritime officers who are dedicated to another assignment. But the merit marine unit is an auxilary assignment for them. \nKaleo Albino: So I’m physically teaching them how to drive the boat\, how to safely operate it on a waterway\, how to approach an anchor it out vessel safely. \nKaleo Albino: and I’m what I’m hoping to do is have the boat available on a 24 7 basis based off of these officers spread out. Most of them are working patrol. so they’re able to take a break from patrol\, go down to the boats. \nKaleo Albino: do a short patrol of the estuary\, and we’re able to expand our footprint that way. \nKaleo Albino: We have already actually collaborated with the Alameda Police Department and the Coast Guard as well. The Alameda Police Department has graciously given us $30\,000 in the last 6 months \nKaleo Albino: to help eradicate some of the anchored out vessels that have already been out there \nKaleo Albino: and then. Chief\, the chief of Alameda police chief Joshi contacted me last week and offered \nKaleo Albino: part of their save Grant to help \nKaleo Albino:  combat all the vessels that we have on our side of the estuary\, so I’m grateful for that funding as well. And then I think Commander Shoop is also listening in from the Coast Guard. \nKaleo Albino: She has reached out and is I think\, just recently sent an email to collaborate with all law enforcement assets in the area to specifically handle these anchor out issues in a team effort. \nKaleo Albino: Approach to this. And then if Alameda please\, if you guys want to speak to this as well. \nAPD T. Siebert: yeah\, I think you covered off on everything. We always try to partner with Albino as much as we can as well as a Sergeant Matthews with the San Francisco \nAPD T. Siebert: marine unit. We do do training with them as as well. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then like Albino\, said our chief offered some of our save grant this coming cycle as well as last cycle\, to partner with them\, to remove some of their sunken and abandoned vessels within the waterways. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then\, like\, I say\, we are limited as far as personnel hours\, and we are all ancillary as well on our marine unit. \nAPD T. Siebert: But any time that there’s a an operation that needs to take place. We can always get our boat out there and team up with open or the Coast Guard or San Francisco to get that job done. \nCreston: Thank you. I’m I’m very gratified to hear about the close cooperation. Be between the law enforcement offices. I think that’s the kind of thing that we want to see. \nIt happened all across the board\, and I also wanna make a comment that I’ve read. And I understand this is no different in Alameda\, in Oakland that it has been very difficult to hire police officers for a variety of different reasons\, particularly since everybody everywhere is looking for police officers. So it’s not just \nan issue of finding the money. It’s also an issue of finding the personnel but II wanna once again commend you for your your joint efforts. \nThank you. \nCreston: Ms. Simmons. \nLaTonda Simmons: Yes\, and thank you. With respect to the city. We’ll first start talking about the authorities and resources within our control. \nLaTonda Simmons: In the Powerpoint deck\, we I indicated that the encampment management team would be working with the units of \nLaTonda Simmons: open public works dot and Opd. \nLaTonda Simmons: With respect to public works\, we are working with public works specifically\, and with their cleaning teams and their watershed division to examine the code authorities that would allow for the closure of encampments under emergency conditions whereby we can \nLaTonda Simmons: see and catch people in the active\, performing specific things that would provide notification to the appropriate teams\, and they would be able to mobilize more swiftly \nLaTonda Simmons: to close those encampments. We see that is common in the areas about Avenue where I talked about and other waterways where we know as soon as people set up we would be able to use those emergency authorities particularly based on the protected codes for waterways to close those encampments more swiftly. That has also risen to the attention of the City Administrators Office \nLaTonda Simmons: to the extent City administrator\, working with our team to plan a second team \nLaTonda Simmons: an expansion of the team to be able to mobilize. Given the number of the in canvas that we have\, the current team’s capacity certainly limits their ability to respond to swiftly and to actually abate accountants more swiftly and to clean it more prestigiously. \nLaTonda Simmons: We are also meeting with Alameda County\, who has come to the table\, recognizing that \nLaTonda Simmons: with Oakland having more than 50% of the encampments in the entire county\, that there is a need to change the disproportionate\, the well\, the proportionate share of resources. \nLaTonda Simmons: would be for the counties to do not to not only provide additional health. \nLaTonda Simmons: support\, and and health services\, but to avail additional resources that would mobilize outreach and the ability to close encampments just to be clear. And I talked about us having a much more comprehensive presentation. But\, the open population in terms of the unhouse\, 46% have issues of mental health and or severe emotional issues. Another 41. Have Ptsd\, another 12 \nLaTonda Simmons: have a traumatic brain injury\, and this means that when you are engaging the unhouse you have to be prepared for de-escalation\, and really all the tools for trauma informed circumstances such as these. So those contributions from the county are going to be significant. Just to be clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: the county’s declaration of a local emergency expands their ability to release more resources and to get support from Federal agencies\, and most recently you may have heard that the county did issue that declaration of a local emergency last week. So we’re anticipating hearing more from them in terms of the timeline and the strategy by which they would deploy. Resources. And we’ll report back\, perhaps\, what that would look like. \nLaTonda Simmons: The other thing that the county has been able to do and it’s similar to what Open has done. \nLaTonda Simmons: obviously\, it takes more bits and more housing to be able to close encampments based on the Federal requirements. The city earlier this year actually committed to afford commitment of measure. You dollars to focus on the development of affordable housing units that would fall within the spectrum of the needs of the unhouse \nLaTonda Simmons: those units would be at about. \nLaTonda Simmons: you know\, 30% of the area Median income and below\, because the in house community typically is not \nLaTonda Simmons: it does not have high income streams\, and it’s most certainly a challenge. In terms of affordability.  Alameda County is also advancing a housing bond. \nLaTonda Simmons: The significance of Alamo County advancing a housing bond is that it would raise capital to be able to capitalize more projects\, and that would be a contribution to city of Oakland projects. That means we would increase the amount of affordable housing development as a target. So we’re excited about that as well. \nLaTonda Simmons: The city is also meeting directly with the governor’s office. For those of you that are that are municipal and government sort of \nLaTonda Simmons: pundits and walks if you will. The loss of the redevelopment agency funding for cities across the State has been significant. \nLaTonda Simmons: The city of Oakland\, and I had another job as the clerk. So I have a lot of detail here. \nLaTonda Simmons: the city of Oakland at the time that the redevelopment agencies were dissolved\, lost approximately 700. Excuse me\, 376 million dollars as an annual allocation of redevelopment agency funds. We are now in year 11\, \nLaTonda Simmons: of not having 376 million dollars\, or what would be the calculus each year that divestment has had a correlating impact to the ability to afford to advance affordable housing development. And we also see that there’s a correlation in the increase of homelessness since redevelopment agency dollars went away. And so that intends to anchor that the city of Oakland is working directly with the Governor’s office. We are not the only city \nLaTonda Simmons: to restore ongoing funding for housing as well as ongoing\, funding for homelessness. We’re not going to be able to address these situations \nLaTonda Simmons: robustly. With what we are using as competitive services. Yes. \nLaTonda Simmons: rather competitive sources. Yes\, there’s home key. Yes\, there’s half dollars\, but those are competitive dollars\, and so we don’t get an ongoing stream. And some of those sources are being questioned. \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of their ability to continue for the next few years\, based on deficits that the State is facing. And so structurally\, we have to address this in terms of funding. It has to be more \nLaTonda Simmons: a greater commitment from State and Federal resources. And to that end we’re also looking at the Federal\, all in plan which proposed a reduction in homelessness by 2025. What we see is the secretary of Housing \nLaTonda Simmons: and is is also issuing tranches of dollars. They are competitive\, but it’s more money than we’ve seen in a long time coming from Federal Government. We are seeking some direct allocations. Recognizing that some of the prominent \nLaTonda Simmons: political figures in the White House come from the Bay Area. We hope to leverage our relationships there to figure out what we can do\, and then I’ll stop there. \nCreston: Thank you very much. Speaking of the demise of of redevelopment\, it has certainly had \nshall we say? Many unintended consequences? So thank you very much. \nCreston: cities of Alameda and Oakland for your presentations today I thought it was very informative and very well done\, and before I go to public comment\, are there any members of the committee who have questions \nor comments? \nOkay\, seeing none. We will now take public comments on this item. And I believe we have received one written public comment on this item. Margie\, has anything else come in? \nCreston: Cheryl Gomor\, correction. We received for public comment for item 6. \nOh\, okay. okay\, thank you. Okay. Once again\, if we have any online attendees\, if you would like to provide comments at this time\, you will need to raise your hand by clicking on the participants. Tab in zoom or by phone\, by dialing star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself. \nMargie will then announce you and invite you to comment. Comments are limited to 3 min\, and Margie will be keeping track of time\, and this is a request for comments only on this item and chairs. Prerogative\, we’re going to start with people who are in the room. \nYes. \nCreston: go ahead and make a \nform\, a line. \nCreston: Each of you will have 3 min. Please state your name for the record. \nCreston: Good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Brock. The lab \na decade ago\, in 2013 there was a near 8 million dollars multi-agency cleanup of all illegal anchor outs on the Oakland estuary. The Bcdc. Was an important partner in this project. \nWhen it was over. all of the participating agencies that provided funding said that it wouldn’t be repeated if the estuary was to remain clean. it would be dependent upon diligent monitoring and enforcement. \nThis did not occur. \nCreston: The consequences of this failure are clear. To see. \nThe open shoreline of the estuary is littered with sunken wrecks and derelict end of life vessels. Crime has risen to truly intolerable levels. \nCreston: Multiple vessels have been stolen and ransacked. \nvictims have had to resort to personally confronting the criminals to recover their property without the benefit of police support \nCreston: this\, and is this an appropriate activity for a 79 year old senior. \nCreston: The Oakland estuary is populated by marinas with over 3\,000 slips. \nAll of these boat owners pay annual property taxes to Alameda county. The shoreline also has several new multimillion\, and in one case multibillion dollar residential developments. \nOne can only imagine the tax revenue that these produce. and yet what law enforcement services are provided to the estuary. \nCreston: The Alameda County sheriff’s department has disbanded \nthe county’s marine patrol unit. \nCreston: The Oakland Police Department has only one dedicated Marine Patrol officer. \nThe port of Oakland\, at the mouth of the estuary\, is the fourth largest port on the west coast. \nCreston: Is it reasonable that there was only one law enforcement officer to provide on the water protection \nfor this critical regional resource. \nCreston: It is unfortunate that has required international press coverage to generate a focus on this problem. \nI have asked Bcd. C. If there is any other issue that currently proposes poses a greater threat to San Francisco Bay. then what is occurring in the estuary. \nI was told. No. this is the top problem that Bcd faces. So my final question is \nCreston: given the current conditions that\, given that the current conditions did not occur overnight\, but rather have grown over many years. \nIs the BC. DC. Doing all that it can to protect this precious resource on San Francisco Bay. and my concern is is\, if we have another repeat Cleanup. \nwhich I am very optimistically hopeful that that will occur if there is no follow up with ongoing enforcement\, we’ll repeat this cycle endlessly. And II would also emphasize that housing unhoused people in derelict end of life vessels is a threat to them. \nIt’s a threat to the environment. and it’s a threat to the general public\, and it should not be allowed. Thank you very much. \nGood morning. My name is Cammy Richards. I’m with Alameda community sailing center\, and I have a couple of points. and I guess one of the things that I learned today is that a homeless encampment is apparently defined as just one person \nsleeping in a sleeping bag. \nCreston:  That seems like a a bad use of the term encampment\, and we were on a delightful late afternoon sail in the Oakland estuary yesterday on a little 20 foot sailboat\, and we sailed by \nEstuary Park\, Jack\, London Square\, where Jlac is. and I can’t imagine what would be required to remove \nall those people \nCreston: if one person is there. It’s a homeless encampment. \nOur business pineapple sales used to be at 1 23 s Street in Oakland. We would go down there for lunch in the shade of beautiful sycamore trees. Nice park. \nclean tables. \nCreston: I can’t imagine taking my granddaughter there. \nThe whole place is just invested. and I have great sadness for people who don’t have housing. But I have 0 respect for people who just make a complete mess of things. \nOkay\, Alameda\, community salient center is a organization for teaching young kids how to sale. We have \nCreston: a group of 8 safety boats which are required. We have one safety boat for every 6 sailboats that are on the water. \nso if we don’t have enough safety boats\, we can’t put enough kids on the water. We in one night we had 4 of those boats stolen out of the water over at Belina Isle. \nand that’s half of our fleet. We basically had an all hands on deck. Call to go and retrieve this stuff. We \nCreston: it took 36 h to get a police report \nnumber from the Alameda Police Department. called them right after the thing\, they said\, well\, wait. We’ll send an officer. Well\, okay\, it’s dinner time. Still\, no officer. Well\, maybe later tonight it was lunchtime the next day to get a report filed. \nand the police said\, You know we really can’t help you. Our best advice is\, if you find your boats don’t approach the perpetrators. The boats cost 25 to $35\,000 apiece. \nThey are rigid fiberglass holes with a tube around the outside\, so you can go up and connect to the little kids and talk to them face to face. And we cannot imagine a way where we can just be handing off $35\,000 boats to thieves and doing nothing about it. \nWe call the Oakland Police. Oakland police said. Well\, if the boats were stolen from Alameda. It’s Alameda problem\, the Alameda police say\, well\, if the boat is in Oakland we were at Union Point\, looking at our boats tied up to derelict boats \n  \nCreston: 200 yards away. \nCoast Guard Island. not their problem either. So it becomes our problem. And we we eventually just simply got out in other motor boats went around and we collected all 4 of our stolen boats. \nand we collect them by confronting the people who said\, well\, that is my boat\, because I found it adrift. Well\, yeah\, of course you did. We collected a boat that belonged to. Am I over? I’m sorry. \nThank you very much. \nNext. \nRamona Cota: sir. Could you identify yourself? Please? \nCreston: Sorry. My name is Cammie Richards. \nAlameda Community Sailing Center. \nRamona Cota: Thank you. \nGood morning. My name is Steven Norris. I’m harbor master over at Marina Bay Yacht Harbor in Richmond. My name is Steven Oris. I’m harbor master at Marita Bay Yacht Harbor\, in Richmond. so I’ve been following this situation with\, you know\, great concern. \nand I would like to emphasize that I think it would be critical\, when\, as the Commission works with their partners on solutions that they consider this on a region wide basis. And it’s not just an estuary problem. Just as it was not just to Richardson Bay problem that we don’t want. Situation where. \nyou know\, we just move it from one part of the bay to the other\, and so forth\, and then on industry wide\, that keep in mind that this has the potential to become a growing issue as \nboats get older. There could be one\, you know. one or 2 economic downturns away to be a flood of abandoned derelict boats. So the solution becomes a\, you know\, a greater issue of working with state and other partners in order to find appropriate disposal aspects for end of life vessels. \nThank you. \nCreston: Thank you very much. \nThank you\, Margie. Do we have any other public commenters? We have about 4 public comments online. \nCreston: First\, up\, we have \nTracy regalman. \nTracy Reigelman: Exactly. Hello! Can you hear me? \nCreston: Yes\, we can please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you. My name is Tracy Regalman. I am a resident of Alameda\, specifically Marina Village. I work in Marina Village\, and I am the rear commodore at Oakland Yacht Club. \nTracy Reigelman: Before I get into my comments I would like to thank Officer Albino\, Officer Siebert and Miss Simonds for their work and efforts in a very challenging and difficult situation. \nTracy Reigelman: It’s it’s appreciated to hear your hear the efforts that you’re putting in. I would like to clarify some comments that I heard at the start of the meeting \nTracy Reigelman: the issue of the anchor outs and the boats is a very\, very large part of this issue. It’s probably about 50% of the problem \nTracy Reigelman: the encampments are a large part of the problem as well. \nTracy Reigelman: However\, there is also some work going on through the county of Alameda to provide support \nTracy Reigelman: for unhoused individuals in facilities that are not permitted for that use\, and that are not up to current building codes and compliance. And those \nTracy Reigelman: people in the situation that they’re in right now are at risk of losing their lives. And they are creating problems with the public. \nTracy Reigelman: so the fears are not just the live aboard. The fears are the residents\, businesses\, users of the Bay trail\, and the residents of Eddie’s place\, which people are put there to try to help. \nTracy Reigelman: There are encampments in Alameda. If you drive along Main Street and look along Main Street. There’s encampments along there. There’s encampments in the mainstream street Ferry terminal\, and there are also encampments in front of the Alameda Community sailing center at the end. \nTracy Reigelman: All of this needs to be addressed and looked at\, and it is unfathomable to me that that lack of maintenance and the destruction of the shore. Side facilities and infrastructure would be left to the point where a lawless and wild West environment could occur. \nTracy Reigelman: People are at risk of hurting themselves. \nTracy Reigelman: People are at risk of confrontation. \nTracy Reigelman: The police departments are unstaffed\, but we need more help and more support. \nTracy Reigelman: The overall Oakland and Alameda estuary is ignored. \nTracy Reigelman: and that ignorance is creating a a hazard to the public. And II do appreciate the efforts\, the limited efforts of Apd and Opd. It needs to be more. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you very much. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you. \nNext we have Anan \nCreston: and please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \nAnon: I I’m sorry. I would like to testify anonymously\, because I live here at Union Point and the anchor outs know who I am. They know my name. They know my car. I have fear of retaliation. \nAnon: Can I do that? \nYes. \nAnon: okay. So \nAnon: I really appreciate the presentations. My Ms\, Simmons and Mr. Devaries. Today we all understand that the problem is enormous. \nAnon: II also say\, I live here on the estuary. I also row in the estuary daily\, and I gotta say I see them. I’ll meet a marine patrol unit out here often. I see it several times a week. \nAnon: but I never see the Opd. Ever see the Oakland Police \nAnon: Marine Patrol unit ever I have personally given up calling the Oakland police about harassment and fights on the water and \nAnon:  incursions into the Marina. I have filed at least 2 dozen reports\, and never had anything be done. If they come out here\, they say. Well\, it’s out on the water. There’s nothing we can do. \nAnon: I live with \nAnon: I live with generators going at all hours of the day of the night I live with a raw sewage floating past my vessel. Several times a month I have called around and tried to report the raw sewage. I remember one time I called \nAnon: the coastguard\, reported the Ross sewage. Sorry I called the Oakland Police Department. They told me to call the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard gave me 2 numbers. One of them I left a message and never heard back\, and the other one said\, Thank you very much for reporting this. We’re going to call the Coast Guard. \nAnon: I wanna tell you about an instance when late at night in the pitch black\, I hear faint calls coming from the estuary. If somebody’s yelling. \nAnon: you know\, help me\, please\, please. Anybody help me! And I go out there\, and Mike Kayak\, with a headlamp\, and there is a \nAnon: there’s a sailboat drifting down the estuary\, and with my kayak I towed it to shore. There was a panicked and terrified young man on that boat who told me \nAnon: that he’d had a \nAnon: horrible fight and been yelled at and abused by one of the other anchor outs\, who then cut his line? If there had been any wind at the time I wouldn’t have been able to go out there and rescue this young man who had no motor and no ability to sail that boat. \nAnon:  I have at least a dozen times had boats pull their anchors and crash into me. \nAnon: During storms. Winter is coming again. Last winter resulted in \nAnon: so many sunken and stranded vessels\, each one of which is an enormous cost\, and does enormous environmental damage. People’s lives are at risk\, who are living out there on the boats in these winter storms. I beg the city of Oakland to handle this completely before the winter storms return. \nAnon:  thank you very much. Your time is up. Thank you. \nCreston: Next we have Deborah Lun. \nCreston: Deborah\, please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \ndeborah.lunn: Thank you. My name is Deborah Lun. I’m the property director here at Altastar Harbor\, which is is a new complex that opened up a re\, an adaptive reuse of the old Del Monte Canyon. \nDid we lose her. Deborah? \ndeborah.lunn: I’m sorry. Can you hear me now. There\, you are sorry. \ndeborah.lunn: Sorry. My name is Deborah Lun. I’m the property director here at Altestar Harbor\, which is the old Del Monte Canning Warehouse. \ndeborah.lunn: and I just wanted to state that the the issues are not just on the water. But now they’re on land and they’re impacting the businesses up and down the estuary. We opened our doors here on December nineteenth of 2\,022\, with our first move Ins. \ndeborah.lunn: And as of August sixth\, starting August sixth\, we have had stolen 3 trucks\, 3 cars\, one U-haul and 4 bicycles within our facility. \ndeborah.lunn: So one of these trucks actually was found at a chop house in the High Street encampment area in Oakland. \ndeborah.lunn: So I just wanna say a lot of our residents move here from Oakland and from San Francisco because of safety issues. They think\, you know\, it’s quiet here. It’s safe here\, and we want them to keep feeling that way. And we we don’t. Wanna. We don’t wanna be able. You know\, we we obviously pay a lot of tax dollars and just want our residents to feel safe here. \nThank you. Thanks. Thank you\, Deborah. \nNext we have Brad Gras \nCreston: Brad. \nBrad Gross: Yes\, thank you. I’m sorry I was looking for the unmute button. This is Brad Gross\, executive director with a regional agency. And I wanna commend everybody for their presentations today and their their comments. \nBrad Gross: What I have to say is\, is\, basically\, I guess it would be a stream of consciousness based on on what I heard\, and \nBrad Gross: oh. \nBrad Gross: and what I’ve heard from it\, especially from Mr. Dilap. I want to thank him for putting this out into the public and and actually into the industry\, so that we can address these issues \nBrad Gross: and as presentations indicate. It seems that all areas in the Oakland Alamo area seems to be suffering from the same homeless problems\, whether it be land\, side \nBrad Gross: or waterside. And \nBrad Gross: I want to encourage everybody that they they treat their illegal Liverpool same as error. I need to treat these landside encampment encampments heard comment about the save Grant. But I don’t believe\, save Grant is the panacea that you believe. It may be \nBrad Gross: because I haven’t heard anything as far as housing programs \nBrad Gross: working side by side with addressing these illegal out anchor outs. \nBrad Gross: The the Grant program is wonderful for removing abandoned vessels and debris you may find on the shore side\, but you still have people illegally living and anchoring on their vessels in the anchor in the estuary. I’m also concerned that the 90 day enforcement. \nBrad Gross: An abatement program that was discussed will simply shift the Oakland Alvina problems to other jurisdictions. Specifically\, Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross:  Finally\, I do want to offer to those who are working on the best one to reabate men. If Rb. Assistants or they believe we may be help be helpful. We’re always willing to \nBrad Gross: land what we have learned over the years with programs like this. \nBrad Gross: And with that. Thank you very much. \nThank you\, Brad. Next we have Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: Mary. Yeah. Hi\, you might want to reset the clock. \nmary spicer: I think. Anyways\, look Miss Simmons and our marine patrol. I really wanna say\, thank you. My name’s Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: I am the one of the founders of. I heard Oakland Alameda estuary. We’ve been cleaning the Oakland Alameda estuary since 2\,017. We started on kayaks and stand up paddle boards going to the shorelines that are deeply impacted by extreme garbage and getting that garbage via partnerships with California canoe in kayaks \nmary spicer: and East Bay Row Club. We’re a large community. We have participants from both sides of Oakland and Alameda\, and people really come out to clean and really care about the estuary. \nmary spicer: Last year at Towel Coastal\, we and 2 and a half hours\, cleared 3\,000 pounds of garbage in 2 and a half hours with our community\, and that is only a fraction of the amount of garbage that’s along the estuary. We also clean Jack Linden\, aquatic center and Estuary Park\, and unfortunately canceled the cleanup this year because of safety concerns at one of the unhoused community. One of the encampment sites at Jlac. There’s been some violent incidences in there. \nmary spicer: and unfortunately I don’t feel comfortable bringing children to the site until those are addressed by the city of Oakland. I’m currently talking to people about that via the city. So that’s good. \nmary spicer: I’m asking for holistic solutions\, because besides just the crime and the the sun votes and the the \nmary spicer: the unhoused issues which mo usually during our clean ups\, the unhouse joiner clean ups we\, you know\, we we really wanna open up our space for that. \nmary spicer: but our shorelines are paying the price. Via the storms. Last February a lot of the boats the the boats got smashed into the shorelines. And then all of that debris literally ends up on the shore\, and I feel like everyone’s so busy worrying about the sun boats and the crime. Nobody’s really even paying attention to the amount of garbage and marine debris on the shores of the Oakland estuary. \nmary spicer: I’ve been working with some people at the port\, some people at the city to find out. Who do I call? If I can’t go and clean some of the shorelines. Who do I call to actually get this shoreline garbage enforced. I really would love to have an answer for that. And then there is the Noah marine debris grants just recently released. They’re huge. I took the \nmary spicer: the cal representative for Noah out\, and she said that she thinks Oakland is a great candidate for some of these huge 1 million dollar grants\, so I really hope that we would that the city might consider going for those. \nCreston: Thank you\, Mary. \nthat’s all we have here. Go more. \nCreston: Thank you. Do any other committee members have any comments. \nCreston: Anybody. \nCommissioner Rancho. \nI just wanted to thank the members of the public who came here today\, and you also took their time to submit public comments via zoom would appreciate you sharing your \nexperiences\, which are concerning and disturbing\, and clearly continue to reflect to to me at least an unacceptable situation that needs additional resources from \nlocal governments. And so to the extent that that our committee can support any of those efforts. II think we are. We are ready to \nappreciate suggestions for how we can do more within our jurisdiction. \nCheeky Gilmore\, we have Georgia. Vice would like to speak. Okay\, very quickly\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. I just wanted to lift up the comments of that last public speaker and ask that she reach out to me directly via email about that grant opportunity\, because our sustainability team could look at it. You know this that team oversees our our climate change\, our climate mitigation work. And we have some great grant writers. And so II would love to have that. And I just wanna thank her for noting the importance of a holistic approach. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I am meeting with a with a a club that’s looking at potentially using our old crier building site to try to create some positive activity there\, which is just way\, negative activity. And I do think that that’s part of this process\, not just an enforcement app opportunity\, but the more positive energy and activities we bring to the shoreline. The more we can push out that negative work. So I I’d like to pursue that from that last speaker. \nThank you. Any other commissioners. I thought I saw a hand up online. Maybe that was just Joe. I definitely wanna heartily concur with Commissioner Ranshod comments and sentiments\, and I do have a quick question for staff. \nWe’ve had complaints and incidences about sewage and other undesirable things being put into the bay. Is is that an issue for the Water Board? Who should people be calling when they see something like that? Do we know? \nYes\, the Water Board does have \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: jurisdiction for that. I forget where\, in our law or policy or regulations that that specified. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: but it is specified \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: documents\, and I could follow up with you with the specific \ncitation. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: We should\, of course\, be aware of \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: any reports that they make\, so they should continue to submit reports to us. But definitely loop in the water port when it comes to water quality issues. \nOkay\, is there a way to? I don’t know. Publicize either an email or or a phone number\, some sort of contact information where members of the public\, if they see something\, they can say something to the relevant authority. I mean\, it’s great that they contact us. And you know we pass it on\, but \nyou know I think it would be just as effective\, if not more effective\, if they could contact the waterboard. Whoever’s responsible for this directly. \nCreston: So maybe that’s something that that we need to look into. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Yeah\, we can look into\, maybe putting if it’s not already\, there links on the website. We certainly do make those recommendations to reporters when they call in I take a look at every report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and if it maybe implicates another jurisdiction overlapping jurisdiction\, or maybe is better suited towards. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: say\, the locals\, Oakland\, Dd. Or Water Board. II will certainly mention that to the reporter\, and as well as make a report myself. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Oftentimes \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: we can look at doing a better date. \nGreat! Thank you. Thank you so much. And if there are no other comments from members of the committee or the public\, I’m going to conclude this item. \nAnd so now\, committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I’m going to adjourn that second. \nOh\, wow!  Did did I see a hand from a staff member. \nCreston: Adrian\, are you nodding your head? Yes. \nbefore we adjourn? Okay\, so we have a motion by Commissioner Bellin\, and a second by Commissioner Ranchod. But before we vote on it Miss Klein has a comment. \nAdrienne Klein: Well\, I just wanted to forecast what Staff had plan for next steps which was to come back \nAdrienne Klein: with come back to you. At your first December meeting\, which would be the fourteenth I believe that’s a Thursday. Assuming that we can obtain a quorum \nAdrienne Klein: to hear an update from the city status of the effort on the water and also to the cities both addressed to today\, but \nAdrienne Klein: plans for \nAdrienne Klein: long term management\, and prevention going forward as the cities are able to resolve these issues just wanted to conclude with that parting comment. Thank you\, and apologies to delay the conclusion of the meeting. \nCreston: No\, thank you. I actually should have asked when our next update was gonna be so thank you for providing that information. \nCreston: Okay\, so we have a motion\, and a second on the floor to adjourn. Do I hear any objections to that? \nCreston: Hearing? None. This meeting is adjourned at 1108. \nThank you. Everybody presenters and guests. And thank you very much for attending today. \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-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230921T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230921T170000 DTSTAMP:20240213T175630Z CREATED:20230922T035148Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T175630Z UID:10000045-1695301200-1695315600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 21\, 2023 Commission Meetings (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 September 21\, 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 September 29\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after September 29\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nPacific Gas and Electric Company245 Market StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.020.00 \nFiled on 09/14/23 \n90th Day on 12/13/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at four locations in Marin and Sonoma Counties: \n\nAt Tower 3/29\, north of the Petaluma River (Sonoma County; 38.112097 °N\, -122.491998 °W)\nAt Tower 3/28\, south of the Petaluma River (Marin County; 38.110117 °N\, -122.494483 °W)\nAt Tower 2/21\, north of Novato Creek (Marin County; 38.092283 °N\, -122.497717 °W)\nAt Tower 2/20\, south of Novato Creek (Marin County\, 38.873806 °N\, -122.498064 °W)\n\nDescriptionThe project would replace four existing electrical towers. Two towers will be removed from tidal marsh habitat in Bay Jurisdiction\, two towers will be removed from 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction. One new tower would be constructed in the Bay\, and two towers would be constructed partially in the 100-foot Shoreline Band. To access the sites for tower removal and installation\, 1.84 acres of construction matting will be temporarily placed in the 100-foot Shoreline Band\, 3.13 acres of construction matting will be temporarily placed in tidal marsh habitat in the Bay\, and two barge landings\, supported by a total of 91 steel piles and covering 1\,200 square feet will be temporarily constructed in the Bay. After construction of the new towers and removal of the existing towers and the temporary construction matting and barge landings is complete\, the applicant shall restore all tidal marsh areas\, and monitor them for success over at least five years. The project will result in a net removal of towers from BCDC jurisdiction to outside of BCDC jurisdiction\, and from the Bay to 100-foot Shoreline Band. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsRich Island Duck ClubP.O. Box 5064Walnut Creek\, CA 94596 \nAND \nPort of Stockton2201 West Washington StreetStockton CA 95203 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.024.00md \nFiled on 06/27/23 \n90th Day on 09/25/23 \nLocationIn the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh\, at the Southern Portion of Simmons Island\, unincorporated Solano County \nDescriptionRestore approximately 30 acres of managed wetland\, open water and upland areas on a managed wetland island in the Suisun Marsh. The project site is hydrologically connected to the other existing managed wetlands on Simmons Island\, and the project would restore this site through regrading and vegetation management and planting. The project will result in a net gain in open water and wetland habitat\, and a reduction in upland habitat. This project is the culmination of a long-standing enforcement violation of BCDC Consistency Determination No. C1985.006\, which required the Port of Stockton to beneficially reuse dredged sediment that was placed on Simmons Island between 1986 and 1996. This project will resolve the enforcement case ER1990.026.00 by reusing the dredged sediment for habitat restoration. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsBandwidth IG\, LLC530 Lakeside Drive\, Suite 190Sunnyvale CA\, 94085 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.001.00 \nFiled: This application has not been filed\, as the City of San Leandro discretionary approval for a lease of land required for the project will be voted on at a City Council meeting September 18\, 2023. If the lease is not approved\, this administrative listing will be rescinded. \n90th Day – N/A \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, in the City of Brisbane at the southern corner of Lagoon Rd and Sierra Point Parkway\, and the City of San Leandro\, at the Bay Trail\, west of the Tony Lema Golf Course and South of the Marina Dog Park\, and along the Bay floor between those two sites. \nDescriptionThe project would install approximately 86\,800 linear feet of two 2-inch-diameter fiber optic cables in the Bay\, between underground landing vaults in the 100-foot Shoreline Bands in San Leandro and Brisbane. The project would result in approximately 5\,000 cubic yards and 30\,400 square feet of fill in the Bay. The project would not result in any public access impacts. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsThe Island Club\, Inc6227 Virgo RdOakland CA 93611 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.011.00md \nFiled on 07/17/23 \n90th Day on 10/16/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at Duck Club No. 501 in the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. \nDescriptionInstall two 24-inch-diameter HDPE water management drains with stainless steel flap gates through an exterior levee at the managed wetland. The project will result in approximately 100 square feet of solid fill. The purpose of the project is to improve the ability of the Club to manage their wetland. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing September 8\, 2023 \n\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nCommission Mailing September 15\, 2023 \n\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nOakland pirates becoming more brazen as several ships stolen in span of a week\nPoverty Rate Soared in 2022 as Aid Ended and Prices Rose\nFisherman’s Wharf is in trouble. But it’s still more than a tourist trap URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-21-2023-commission-meetings-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230915T100000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230915T120000 DTSTAMP:20231019T021148Z CREATED:20230916T013325Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T021148Z UID:10000075-1694772000-1694779200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 15\, 2023 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meetings DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF)\nPresentation (PDF) \nMeeting Summary (PDF) URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-15-2023-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meetings/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230914T080000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230914T170000 DTSTAMP:20240131T052558Z CREATED:20240131T052558Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T052558Z UID:10000163-1694678400-1694710800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-14-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000 DTSTAMP:20240213T235013Z CREATED:20230912T062516Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235013Z UID:10000062-1694451600-1694451600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 11\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board Members are located at the primary physical location. If\, after a meeting notice or agenda is published\, a Board Member wants to change the location from which they originally planned to participate in the meeting\, that Member must participate from one of the noticed teleconference locations in the meeting notice or agenda (including the meeting’s primary physical location). Furthermore\, all noticed teleconference locations listed below must remain open and publicly accessible for the duration of the Board meeting regardless of whether any Board Member is actually at such location\, including the location originally listed by the Board Member who decided to change locations. 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 CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 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/88589468132?pwd=MG9kbWlSYUdIUVZuVlArQkJScDNKdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID885 8946 8132 \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 March 13\, 2023 (PDF) and May 8\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project\, City and County of San Francisco; Second Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will review the design by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department for its proposed India Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project. The project would involve restoring and enhancing the existing\, approximately 5.6-acre India Basin Shoreline Park\, located at 900 Innes Avenue in the City and County of San Francisco. The redesigned park would include a large recreational pier and floating dock\, a large lawn\, a gravel beach\, shoreline pathways including a Bay Trail segment\, fitness and play areas\, basketball courts\, restrooms and parking\, and other amenities. This is the Board’s second pre-application review of the project.(Schuyler Olsson) [415-352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Summary\n Draft Summary of the September 11\, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting \n\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom\, at approximately 5:00 p.m.DRB Board Members. Chair Jacinta McCann\, Bob Battalio\, Leo Chow\, Patricia Fonseca Flores\, Kristen Hall\, and Stefan Pellegrini were present in person.\n\nBCDC Staff. Ashley Tomerlin\, Yuriko Jewett\, and Schuyler Olsson were present in person.\nProject Proponents. David Froehlich (SFRPD); Christine Boudreau (Boudreau Associates\, LLC); Katherine Liss (GGN Ltd.); Chihiro Shinohara (GGN Ltd.); Katie Chamberlin (Anchor QEA); Sean Hart (Moffat & Nichole)\, Dilip Trivedi (Moffat & Nichol).\n\n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update on the recently completed Bay Trail gap closure project along Doolittle Drive in East Oakland as part of MLK Regional Shoreline Park and new boat launch facilities. The DRB reviewed the East Bay Regional Parks District project back in 2016.\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park (Second Pre-Application Review). The project involves the redevelopment of the existing India Basin Shoreline Park. It would include building the park on a system of terraces\, with a sloping lawn in the center that would terminate at a gravel shore beach\, held in place by two Mixed-Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls. The Project would include a variety of site improvements and support diverse recreational and educational opportunities\, including walking/jogging\, bicycling\, fishing\, basketball and other sports\, nature viewing\, and outdoor picnics and barbecues. Water access would be provided at the gravel beach and at a large recreational pier and floating dock. The Project would also include shoreline recontouring\, shoreline protection\, and marsh creation and enhancement. The Project is eligible for funding under Measure AA from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority\, and the pre-application process is underway with the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT)\, an interagency team with representatives from BCDC and five other regulatory agencies\, to obtain agency feedback on the project design.\n\nStaff Presentation. Schuyler Olsson provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Katherine Liss\, designer with GGN\, Ltd. provided an overview of the project with a slide presentation. The presentation focused on the project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site conditions\, and a detailed description of the proposed project design.\nPublic Comment. Eight public comments were received for the project.\n\nLily Brown\, Transportation Planner\, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Bay Trail (by email ).\n\nMTC appreciates the proposed gap closure and creation of a continuous shoreline trail experience along India Basin.\nWould like clarity of the proposed width of the Bay Trail through India Basin Shoreline Park. The trails in this area are likely to have a higher level of use due to the proposed amenities. MTC recommends that all Bay Trail segments be designed with a 26-foot width.\nMTC appreciates that the proposed project has many amenities. To add to the amenities for trail users\, consider adding drinking fountains with bottle fill stations as well as bicycle repair stations.\n\n\nJackie Flynn (now Jackie Bryant)\, Executive Director of A. Philip Randolph Institute (in person)\n\nSupports the project noting that SFRPD continues to capture community feedback on the project.\nIn terms of equitable development\, members have gone through trades programming to work on site or in other projects in San Francisco and work with youth programing.\nThe project is inspiring the next generation of park stewards. Everyone in the community are park people and they need park spaces. A tech hub/community innovation space was created to support this area. This space is essential to our community members. APRI plans to continue leading the way to bring community voices to the park project.\n\n\nElsworth Jennison\, neighborhood resident for 43 years (in person)\n\nMain concern is the project impact to habitat and would like to see it protected. Notes that the site currently hosts snowy white egrets and herons.\nThe proposed floating dock is not in a good location given the mudflats at the site that extends to Heron’s Head. India Basin Shoreline Park is unprotected and in mud. It is not safe for children. The 900 Inness site would be better for a dock.\nHas concerns regarding maintenance of the site. The boulders at Heron’s Head Park were exposed only six months after construction. The park would be best suited for green grass or walkways and not much more\, like Dolores Park.\n\n\nJill Fox\, India Basin Neighborhood Association/neighborhood resident (online)\n\nComments are her own and is not speaking on behalf of the association.\nLongtime neighbor and advocate for the park and is happy to see improvements are being made to the site. Noted that a neighborhood improvement is ultimately a regional improvement.\nFeels that access is important and there needs to be more parking. The availability of parking is not enough now\, and the new project appears to provide the same amount and will not accommodate growth. Currently\, people drive on the grass to get to the basketball court\, for example. Need to provide better bicycle access. Need to consider water access like water taxis connecting from the ferry building to the neighborhood. Better transit will allow for tourism. Support bikes and more bike parking further down into the site and near the program areas. Bikes are better for nature and the neighborhood.\n\n\nMaya Rogers\, San Francisco Parks Alliance (virtual)\n\nWorks on the Blue Greenway project and lifelong resident of Bayview Hunters Point and is showing support for the project.\nThe project transformation of the neighborhood and the equitable development plan supports the neighborhood\, it works for the community and the project. Creates spaces and preserves cultures\, welcoming to everyone. The balance developed by this partnership has created a synergy.\n\n\nSarka Volejnkova\, Trust for Public Land (virtual)\n\nTPL has been working for many years with SFRPD and Parks Alliance to design and implement this park\, along with the landscape architecture consultants. It is important to the community and an important landmark park for the City.\nNotes that the project will continue to provide recreational access to the waterfront especially along the south end of the community. The design is in line with what the community wanted and has many elements that were important to the community.\nAppreciates the access connected with this park and good to integrate water activities for San Franciscans and likes that the habitat areas are integrated into the design. The park is very usable by multigenerational visitors. There’s something for everyone to enjoy.\n\n\nStephanie Troyon\, San Francisco Parks Alliance\n\nAs a partner\, Parks Alliance has been working with SFRPD and others to implement the 13-mile Blue Greenway. This park is integral to the connections and will close a critical gap in the Bay Trail. The park will transform areas to a usable space.\n\n\n\n\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation\n\nKristen Hall noted this is an area of low car ownership and asked for clarification of bicycle parking locations. The project team stated that bicycle parking for the project is proposed in three locations: near the “porches” near Hunters Point Boulevard; the turnaround area in the parking lot near the boathouse; and in the basketball court area.\nKristen Hall requested status of the soil on the site. Is remediation required? The project team stated that unlike the neighboring site at 900 Innes\, this area was not used for industry and shipbuilding. The filled lands here were always for park use and soil testing showed that the site did not require remediation.\nKristen Hall commented that it appears that the connection from India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head Park will flood by 2050. How will this connection be maintained? SFRPD stated they are working to partner with property owners (PGE\, Port\, and private owners) to coordinate maintenance of continuous access\, but details are not available yet. The project goal has always been to have the site read as one continuous shoreline.\nBob Battalio commented that the floating dock will be exposed to waves probably up to 2-to-3 feet\, much larger than what you experience in a marina\, for example. Is the design of the dock able to withstand these conditions? the project team stated the stability of the floating dock has been reviewed by the coastal engineer and it should withstand such conditions.\nBob Battalio asked whether the team considered a less lawn-like space between the Bay Trail and gravel beach? Waves can push gravel up and have it flatten-out and in nature there is often a transition zone. The gravel beach could be larger and travel further upslope. The project team stated they had looked into it and can look into it again.\nSeveral Board members had clarifying questions related to the Bay Trail\, including connectivity to the adjacent 900 Innes site\, grade transitions\, materiality\, trail width and specific amenities that the project will provide along the trail. The project team stated there is a smooth transition between the two parks and the trail has grades of approximately 4%. Materials include exposed aggregate paving in both parks. The width ranges from 12 feet to 14 feet with 2- foot shoulders on each side. There will be fixed benches along the Bay trail.\nStefan Pellegrini asked if there has been coordination between the improvements being made to the right-of-way in this area and the frontage of the park. The project team stated there will be a new sidewalk at the frontage of the park and that is included in the scope of the project. Raised crosswalks and curb ramps at Hudson and Hunters Point are also part of this project in partnership with DPW; MTA is currently implementing a road diet pilot project with K-Rails and a multiuse path on each side as part of the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. PGE is also implementing work along Hunter’s Point Boulevard that will result in right-of-way improvements; and The 700 Innes development project is required to make streetscape improvements in this area\, including new curb rumps\, raised crossings\, and signalized intersections.\nStefan Pellegrini requested clarification of other amenities the project will provide related to water access at the site beyond the boathouse and dock. The project team stated the project will provide a boat washing station. Feasibility of providing open water swimming is being discussed with stakeholders\, and SFRPD is working with the Port to develop policies related to fishing. Heron’s Head currently offers fishing and there is a desire to continue that program at India Basin Shoreline Park as well.\nPatricia Fonseca Flores asked for clarification on the adaptive capacity of the pier and floating dock; what is the life span of the materials for the dock? The project team stated the materiality of the floating dock has been designed for a 50-year lifespan.\nLeo Chow asked how much seating is provided along the Bay Trail. Formal seating is important\, and a bench count is important. The project team stated there are benches along the Bay Trail\, as well as the nature pathways throughout the park. Benches provided on intermediate pier\, where paths cross\, and seating is provided adjacent to program entry. Count: 37 benches including swings.\nLeo Chow requested further detail on the windy conditions at this site\, especially in the late afternoons. Is there a digital analysis of this condition available? The project team stated the site can be windy at times with winds coming from the west. The decks are level with the street\, however there is a 4 to 5-foot grade change to the lawn area so that the landform will provide protection as you make you way to the water. Programs such as the basketball area and the playground are on lower terraces\, tucked into the slope to allow for more comfort from the wind. The team has not modeled the site digitally for wind and there is no wind consultant on the project.\nLeo Chow expressed concern about the geese at the site and requested clarification for how this will be addressed with the new design. The lawn should be useable and other projects reviewed by the Board have identified the difficulty of managing geese population. The project team acknowledged there is a geese population at the park now. The project team will have to investigate this topic more as it relates to maintenance.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification for arrival zones at the site. It appears the same number of parking spaces are provided\, but the project is aiming for a lot more activation. While activation is a good thing\, understanding how sports teams\, large parties of people carrying heavy things\, will transition to using the site is a concern. The project team stated the parking lot will have 24-26 spots and there is turn around for drop off. Dropoff at 900 Innes site is also possible. There is also on-street parking along Hunter’s Point Boulevard to the south. The project team is working with community/MTA to implement a shuttle program to better connect the neighborhood. MTA will be the agency to plan and implement the transit stops.\nJacinta McCann clarified that native planting is proposed for the site\, but asked if the park will have irrigation. How will the planting be maintained? The project team stated that irrigation is included with the design and the maintenance building at 900 Innes site and will serve both parks.\nJacinta McCann asked if there is an education program planned for the site? The project team stated there is a special events and programming plan required as a condition of the BCDC permit for the 900 Innes site. The shipwright cottage community center serves as the visitor center. There will be a community classroom and a shop building to accommodate community activities\, arts\, and crafts\, etc. All of the open spaces have potential to be programmed. SFRPD is still working on logistics and whether the programs will be implemented with inhouse or with outside vendors.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification on the planting categories and if a tree list will be included and if they will also be native species. The project team stated the trees will be native species and a list will be provided in a later submittal.\nJacinta McCann asked if the park is fully funded? The project team stated the project is close to reaching its goal. The India Basin Waterfront Park initiative consists of both sites to make up one park and totals approximately $200M. This includes $15M for the development and implementation of the equitable development plan. 85% of the initiative has been funded so far. The 900 Innes phase is fully funded and the shoreline park that we are reviewing now is close to 80-90% funded.\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.The seven objectives for public access are:\n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.Staff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration:\n\n\nDoes the project successfully complete the India Basin shoreline system in a cohesive and inviting manner?\nAre park programs and spaces sited so as to minimize potential conflicts between the design objectives and planned uses?\nAre the scale and design of the water-oriented public access features (gravel beach\, associated Marineway wall\, and recreational pier and floating dock) necessary and appropriate for the success of the water access objective?\nAre the water access elements designed in a way to minimize future required maintenance needs?\nDoes the shoreline protection strategy adequately address current and future site resilience? Is there opportunity to use more natural and nature-based shoreline protection features in areas where riprap is proposed?\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues and Board Comments\n\nOverall Site Design\n\nBoard members agreed that the project successfully completes the India Basin Park Shoreline. General comments included that the design is thoughtful and appears to be built on a community process to meet the design goals on a small site.\nThe Board agreed that pulling the hardscape inland from the shoreline edge makes for an attractive design.\nThe Board appreciated the programming of the site\, underscoring that basketballs won’t bounce into BBQ areas for example. The concept to “stack” the programs throughout the park works and helps protect activities from the elements such as wind.\nThe Board noted that the sightlines to the water were generous and that the ability to get to the shoreline was clear. Better understanding how the sightlines work at night was requested\, there could be some safety concerns for some areas.\n\n\nSite Arrival Zones\n\nThe Board expressed concern around the arrival zones of the park\, specifically noting that large groups arriving at the site will have a difficult time getting to where they need to go. Sports teams\, large parties for picnics arriving by car will have a lot of distance to travel across the lawn area. The drop off area near the boat house does not seem sufficient for vehicle access.\nOne Board member noted that part of the adventure of visiting a park is to travel there; no one wants to picnic right next to a restroom or parking area. Consider ways to make that long journey more successful with key elements that provide smaller moves of activation or elements for play on the lawn\, such as the red chairs at Presidio Tunnel Tops\, or example.\nThe curbside access with the K-rail and temporary bike path that is there now also seems to invite conflict of users getting to the site. Board members requested that be looked at again since the condition is part of a pilot program.\nAnother Board member noted that the upper section of the park appears to feature a lot of secondary paths\, potentially creating superfluous movements that don’t have the same meaning as intended.\nThe Board appreciated the coordination with other agencies and emphasized how important timing of the implementation of the overall improvements will be key with the opening of the park.\n\n\nBay Trail\n\nThe Board discussed the Bay Trail width and if it is sufficient for the site. Board members noted that the Bay Trail is an offroad condition that the city bicycle network does not always offer. There are design moves the project could do to slow the bikes down and better share the trail with slower moving travel\, while the city bike route could be the “faster” mode of travel. A narrow trail can accomplish this\, but too narrow and there will be conflicts with a variety of modes sharing one trail. The Board recommended not going less than 20 feet to avoid creating user conflicts.\nThe Board noted the proximity of the playground and the Bay Trail and the Hudson ROW and making sure there’s a way to keep these programs separate. Not necessarily fencing\, but planting and other methods of containment could be accomplished here. The Board also suggested moving the trail upland in the lawn area to create a better edge condition and help mitigate conflicts between habitat and public access; it is important to get this balance correct.\n\n\nPublic Dock\n\nFeedback on the dock were generally favorable\, noting that boating is an opportunity for community stewardship of the park. There are few opportunities to get people out that far on a dock. Offering the opportunity to picnic at the end of the dock for example is a unique feature and not present at most parks in the city.\nThe Board expressed concerns regarding the stability of the dock in this location due to waves and requested further study.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nThe gravel beach seems too narrow and the Board recommended possibly expanding it. The EcoAtlas shows an extensive beach for this area of the Bay\, and here it is between two walls. If the paths and trails are set back even further you will have more success to get the ecotone in there now and provide scrub brushes as a buffer between the lawn and beach.\nThe Board felt that the shoreline protection seems reasonable; it does provide a hard edge to establish the upper planting area and the park could go with a low- risk adaptation scenario on the elements that are outboard of Bay Trail.\nThe Board also noted that the Marineway walls seem like a big investment. Another thing to consider here is that the walls may reflect some of the strong waves to other shorelines. If that wall goes in\, the patterns of sediment in that cove may change in unforeseen ways but the walls are necessary to frame the beach and maintain beach material.\nThe Board felt the beach will be a popular recreational site.\nWhile the PGE site is adjacent to the park and outside the scope of this project\, it is worth noting that it is a critical piece of shoreline that can connect the India Basin neighborhood to Heron’s Head. There is an opportunity for a gravel beach and back beach area at that parcel. A Board member recommended looking at the overall habitat programming for this section of shoreline and weighing the benefits\, a gravel beach at this location would help protect marsh at that site.\n\n\nLandscape and Planting\n\nThe Board encouraged the project to seize the opportunity for nurturing park stewardship through volunteer programs to enhance the native planting and engaging the community during construction.\nThe Board requested the project better analyze the distribution of shade throughout the park\, such as shade structures in the BBQ area and especially encourage further study of the trees.\nRelated comment regarding soil amendment and understanding the salinity of the site. Large gaps can be created through the loss of 2-3 trees so maintaining plant health will be essential to success.\nThe Board also requested that the appropriate caliper trees are budgeted to allow for immediate wind protection and long-term success. While striving for a complete native palette is a good goal\, note that the melaleuca trees on site are healthy and while not native\, are providing good protection now.\n\n\n\n\nComments from Project Proponents\n\nThe project proponents clarified that while the comment to provide a gravel beach to enhance the connection between India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head is a thoughtful one\, this area is not in the scope of this project.\nConcerns of managing the geese in the lawn area have been heard and will continue to be studied by SFRPD.\n\n\nConclusion and Meeting Adjournment. The Board stated the project has completed its Board review and design refinements can continue at the staff level. Board member Kristin Hall moved to adjourn the meeting. Board member Bob Batallio seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/09-11_DRB-Audio.mp3\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. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n 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. \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 \n[ZOOM LINK HERE] \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID[ZOOM ID HERE ] \nPasscode[ZOOM PASSWORD HERE] \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-11-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230907T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230907T170000 DTSTAMP:20250310T155937Z CREATED:20230908T032917Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250310T155937Z UID:10000044-1694091600-1694106000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 7\, 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. \nOffice of Contra Costa CountySupervisor John Gioa11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite DEl Cerrito\, 510-942-2220 \nCounty Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, 707-565-2241 \n100 Howe AvenueSuite 100 SouthSacramento\, 916-574-1992 \nCounty Government Building70 W Hedding StreetEast Wing 10th FloorSan Jose\, 408-299-5030 \nNorth Star15 Commercial Street ExtensionLouisbourg\, NS B1C 2J4\, 902-733-2080 \n176 BlithedaleMill Valley\, 415-531-2770 \n675 Texas Street\, 6th Floor\, Suite 6004Fairfield\, 707-784-6129 \nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, Room 15-230 (Mountain View Room)Oakland\, 925-250-5593 \nNapa County Administration Building\, CEO Office1195 Third Street\, Suite 310Napa\, 707-253-4421 \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/83169214197?pwd=cW52bXpZbWVHSi92NjFDOHJFVG8rUT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 6921 4197 \nPasscode673599 \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 of July 20\, 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(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Legislation (PDF)The Commission may consider and take positions on legislation\, including SB 544 (Laird) Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act: teleconferencing.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSummer Interns BriefingBCDC’s five summer undergraduate interns will present to the Commission a summary of their internship accomplishments\, along with recommendations for BCDC’s internship program.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Mission-Based Review of BCDC’s Permitting ProgramStaff from the Department of Finance will brief the Commission on their work to conduct a Mission-Based Review of BCDC’s permitting program. The Mission-Based Review will focus on streamlining and updating the Commission’s permitting process\, as well as BCDC’s coordination with other permitting agencies\, and clarity and enforceability of permits.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Oyster Point ComplianceThe Commission will receive a briefing on BCDC’s liveaboard policies. The Commission will also receive an update regarding the Oyster Cove Marina liveaboard compliance issue. (John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Liveaboard Boats PresentationCity of South San Francisco PresentationPublic Comment\nBriefing on the BCDC Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Enforcement Program\, including an overview of the enforcement process as well as a quarterly update on the ongoing program improvements and developments since the last briefing in April 2023.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing August 25\, 2023 \n\nNotice of Revised Date of Public Hearing for Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Rescheduled Hearing to November 2\, 2023\, Concerning Proposed San Francisco Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 to Review and Possibly Revise Bay Plan and Seaport Plan Port Findings\, Policies and Designations\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Pending Legislation (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing September 1\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of July 20\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nPirate crime spree\, vigilantes throw Oakland estuary into lawlessness\nFostering Fairness in Flood Risk Management\nWho’s on First at the SF Seawall?\nAttention California Boaters – expired marine flare collection events at multiple counties in August and September 2023\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-7-2023-commission-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230830T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230830T170000 DTSTAMP:20240127T080732Z CREATED:20230831T004031Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240127T080732Z UID:10000070-1693400400-1693414800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 30\, 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 CenterRedwood Room\, Fifth Floor375 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/83409862703?pwd=QmRJNEdRaUE2TjlqeTQvSE5HRytZUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID834 0986 2703 \nPasscode755718 \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\nStaff Updates\nPublic Comment Period for Items not on the Agenda\nItem of Discussion: Cargill’s Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project – Berm Stability (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00) (PDF).The Board will review geotechnical reports and data on berm stability\, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first meeting with the Applicant of November 16\, 2022. These documents are related to the Cargill’s application to the Commission for the “Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project” (O&M Project)\, BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00\, to continue maintenance and operational activities at Cargill’s solar salt facilities located in Newark\, Fremont and Redwood City over a ten-year authorization period. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the berm stability specifically for Ponds P2-12 and P2-13 due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Attachment A (PDF) // Attachment B (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/08/08-30-Audio.mp3 \nMeeting Transcript \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We are recording. Proceed. Great. Thank you. Guys. I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission engineering criteria for today’s August thirtieth. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): 2023. This meeting will be recorded. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we are meeting here in Vcbcs. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the floor conference room today. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and the public can join \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): either here in person or on the zoom link \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): everyone who is here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): From the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Rob\, do you wanna go? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Sure. Okay. So good afternoon. Welcome to this \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): virtual Bcd C. And in person as well. Bc. DC engineering criteria review board meeting. \nI’m Rod Iwashta. I’m the chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Our first order of business is to call the role Board members. Please unmute yourselves\, and to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, please call the roll \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Rob\, you Rushka! \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Jim! French vice chair of the board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): What’s that? \nJim French: So that’s the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: alright got it? \nYes. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Bob Batalio. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): it’s not present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and also not present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Jima Kasawi. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): present \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: precise \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Marlene Gossorki \nRamin Golesorkhi: present \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Maya Travisaro. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I know she couldn’t be here today. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Nick Sutar here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Gail Johnson. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m participating as a public attendee because I’m \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): presence here. Okay? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And Philip Travetti. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I know he is absent \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and just Samantha \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: applicant cargo today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And we have so we are doing to conduct business. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Alright. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Wanna share some instructions on how we can participate in this meeting \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): so that it runs as smoothly as possible. First\, everyone\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure it is on so that everyone can \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): period. That is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways. First\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): if 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 raised \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the second way. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We will call on individuals who have raised their hands and the order they were raised during public comment period for each project. Finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host Grace. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Please be patient with us if it’s needed so a little bit about ex parte communications Board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): staff BC. DC. Staff\, with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. I invite members who have engaged in any such communications to report on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, has any board member raised his or her hand. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I see none. Okay\, great. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. On to agenda. Item\, 3. Staff updates. Jen\, you have staff updates. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yes\, thank you\, Cheri Rushka. I’d like to provide an update on a few items. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: On September twenty-seventh next month. I believe we will be meeting to discuss 2 permanent applications \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: with the design of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection program. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and also the consistency determination for the Us. Army corps of Engineers\, Oakland Harbor\, turning basins\, lightning project. and also hopefully\, we will have an engineer to recommend to you to fill the vacant alternate spot on the board. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: There currently no permit applications signed up for the October or November meetings\, but that could change. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): On December sixth the Ecr meeting scheduled for them. India\, based in Shoreline Park is currently on the agenda \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and all future Ecrb meetings. After this one will be held on the first floor up of this building in the year Bergwina Conference room. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And that’s it. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, on to other announcements. Are there any announcements from any members of the board? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, so now move on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Can I take a moment just real quick? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): as the ecr I’m II had always thought that we were not able to even attend meetings. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): But \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know Justin’s here\, and I’m just curious if \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that is \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): now allowed\, or if this is just or what \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): michael and I went over this \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): participants. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah\, I think it’s fine \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: or \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Justin. Justin’s\, Chris\, hey? I think you’re gonna be refused from participating in at all. I think we had given the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: suggestion that if someone else was able to provide the presentation that providing that would be\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, I think\, ideal. But ultimately\, you know\, it’s Cargill’s call on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that. And I think\, as an advisory body to the Commission. Ultimately\, you know. There’s not a significant conflict of interest issue that\, you know \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is going to. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, undermine the ultimate decision here. I think the Commission. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: if and when you know this permanent application is brought to the Commission\, don’t be made aware of that Justin is an Ecr member\, but was used from participating. But provided Cardel’s presentation before the Ecrb. When it made its recommendation to the Commission. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay onto agenda. Item number 3\, public comment period for items\, not on the agenda. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So right now we will take any public comments for items\, not on the agenda for public comments on the Cargill presentation. Please wait until after the presentation. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): After you are called on\, you will be unmuted so that you can share your comment. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a 3 a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): please 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. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is there any public comment? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Is there anyone online remotely to make a public comment? There’s nobody here in person. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see any hands raised on the attendees. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): No hands are raised. Okay. Great \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): onto agenda. Item number 4 the item of discussion. Cargill\, Solar Sea salt system\, maintenance and Operations project mixed. See salts\, ponds\, berm stability. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So let’s see\, first up. Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from BCDC. Will make a short presentation with some background information on the issues \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): before the Board today\, followed by Cargill’s presentation. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking\, and answer or answering questions \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): when you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your videos so that we minimize distractions on the screen. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, it’s on to you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you. Good afternoon very much to the members of the engineering criteria Review Board. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m Jenna\, and I’m a senior engineer here at PC. DC. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board\, and this will be the Board’s second review of the cargo system\, maintenance and Operations project. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I have some background information on the project to share with you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Solar system maintenance operation permit meeting today. This is the agenda for the meeting. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: We already took public comments on the agenda. I’m going to give up presentation on background information with your presentation by Cargill and their representatives. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we will take public comment on the presentation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and then there can be discussion by the engineering criteria view board and applicant team\, and then we will adjourn \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: carcass maintenance and operations permit. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): was originally issued by BC. DC. In as a 10 year permit. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Authorization has been extended. Numerous times \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: has applied for a new 10 year permit. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Ecdc. Is preparing an environmental assessment for Ea to comply with sequa\, assessing the potential impacts\, continued maintenance and operational activities. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The Ecr meeting today focusing on the stability and safety of the earth and Burns surrounding ponds and at Cargill’s Newark Plant 2. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: These ponds store mixed sea salts \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: due to its high salinity\, and the fact that it’s ionic imbalance differs from day water \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: mixed sea salts could contribute \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to potential environmental impacts if overtopping\, scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the Bay. And that’s a quote from a report by acom from 2021. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This figure shows the location of the 2. Mix sea salt ponds\, p. 2\, 12\, and p. 2\, 13. It’s located \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just south of the Dumbarton Bridge\, on the east side of the bay in Newark. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: circled here in red. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This is also an aerial photo of the 2 mixed sea salt ponds and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: taken from Google Maps. And you can see surrounding the ponds are tidal wetlands. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: On June seventh \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I took a tour of the mix sea salt ponds at the Cargill facility. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And this is a photo of the berm along p. 2\, 12\, that faces the bay \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and see the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: reddish water \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of pond on the left\, and the tidal marsh on the right side of the berm. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Aecom’s 2021 sea level rise. Assessment of the Cargill facilities for Cargill \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: includes this figure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This figure shows \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: pond overtopping and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: inundation \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: during a scenario of 100 year storm tide\, plus 6 inches of sea level rise. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Vcdc. Staff proposes that the new 10 year permit authorization period lasts 10 years\, from 2024 to 2034\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and sea level rise at 2030 is estimated at 6 inches. Acom’s sea level rise. Risk assessment for Carville shows some overtopping of the mixy salt palm berms \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in this scenario of a hundred year storm tide\, plus 6 inches of sea level rise\, and it’s indicated in this figure by the yellow lines along the berms around the ponds. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So a little bit of a review of the Ecr’s review of this of the Cargill Mixy Salt Pond Burns \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and the Ucr. Had their first meeting on the topic of the stability of the mixed sea salt. Pom. Burns\, on November sixteenth\, 2022\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in a follow up meeting in a follow up to that meeting. The ECRB. Requested that Cargill provide 7 different things. I’ll read them off now. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: A geotechnical investigation of the firms. site-specific surveys and Cross-sections of the Firms. History of mixed Sea Saltburn maintenance. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Static Condition. Assessment of the Burns analyzing daily Operations. Ties and Seepage on Berm Stability seismic analysis of burn stability with earthquake scenarios\, including 100 year flood\, base flood event\, scenario. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: an ecological risk assessment due to potential release of mixed sea salt into the environment \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: describing expected impacts from berm failures on adjacent communities or human developments. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Second\, presentation to the Ecrv which this is and an updated sea level rise\, risk assessment\, including wave run up wave-induced sperm erosion \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and the risk of groundwater on berm stability. The Cargill submitted reports on items\, one through 5 A\, B and C\, which are the focus of discussion today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Cargo will make a presentation also on Item 7. Today\, the updated seal or as risk assessment. But this report has not yet been submitted to Pcpc. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So in my staff report to the board \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: providing the information on today’s presentation\, I ask the 7 questions for the Board to consider to day \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic firm stability. assessment adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at Ponds\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do the static and seismic stability calculations for the Burns adequately characterize and model the berm’s civility. Stability. Considering the available geologic data and berm history\, including any berm raising to address subsidence and sea level rise in 6 inches of sea level rise predicted for 2030. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Does the scope and the Geotechnical Work plan provide data to increase the confidence of the geologic model and used instability modeling? And do you recommend updating the Burn Stability modeling. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Following the execution of the work plan. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: does the updated Cross section memo with the 2 cross sections adequately address the Ecrb request for site\, specific surveys and cross sections of the Burns. Considering the risks of worm failure related to both seismic stability and erosion from overtopping \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: does the summary of the history of p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. Firms adequately address the request for this information. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do you agree that the results of the berm stability modeling indicate that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So that’s the end of my presentation. And now we’ll hear from \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Carpel’s presentation going up to the minute. Let’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you probably do. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Then Michael Willange be on the phone. \nThat’s okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you for your patience while we \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: get Cargill presenters added to the zoom. \nBCDC HOST: I think I moved them all over. The only one \nBCDC HOST: I see that doesn’t move over is Gina young? \nBCDC HOST: Okay. \nGayle Johnson: if they’re presenting\, we’re not hearing anything online. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: send the environment \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and also explored some conceptual sea level Rise adaptation strategies that could be implemented \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to continue operations at the facility for the seal Brice scenarios that were evaluated as part of that assessment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and as follow up to the fall meeting with the Ecr. PC. DC. Requested\, the Cargill. Evaluate the impacts of wave run-up and overtopping\, including the effects of C-level rise \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: on the bayfront berms. And that is what is being presented today. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think we might have gone. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. So the purpose of this assessment\, was first acknowledging that the prior study focused primarily on the impacts of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extreme tides and storm surge on the berms and so this assessment includes consideration of the effects of wave run up and overtopping \non the berms for existing and future conditions\, with sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the way that we approached this was by looking at 2 metrics to characterize the exposure of the berms\, to wave overtopping \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the first is tabulating the duration of berm toe exceedance during conditions for wave height. At the toe the berm exceeds a threshold of one foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that was quantified in terms of average hours per year. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the second was looking at the frequency of berm crest overtopping by waves\, and that was quantified by characterizing the return period of the coastal storm event that would result in overtopping of the berm crest. So we I’ll I’ll get into that in a little bit more detail. But I just wanted to kind of emphasize that there’s these 2 metrics that we’re looking at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so all of the analysis and the maps that are included in this presentation are focused on sort of presenting graphically\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the results of that analysis. And these 2 metrics. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the results of this will help Cargill identify the burn segments that may experience increased exposure to wave impacts in the future due to sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the approach that I’ll provide an overview of today and our plans to follow up with a more detailed memo and technical documentation\, outlining the data sources and methods and findings for Re review by Vcdc. And Vcrb. But the steps that we follow there’s 6 steps that are outlined here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: first laying out the wave analysis\, transect layout. which are essentially locations along the base shoreline where the analysis was performed. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then extracted bithymmetry and topography\, elevation profiles at each of those locations\, and that was used to identify key sort of geometric and geomorphic \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: parameters on the berm’s\, including the berm toe and the berm crest elevations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then subdivided the shoreline into approximately 300 foot segments\, and assigned a representative wave analysis transect to each of those segments. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then used a a long time series of simulated water level and wave model output data. to characterize water level and wait conditions at each point along the shoreline \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and construct a time series of wave runup on each of those locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then we performed a statistical analysis on that data to estimate \nexceedance levels for wave run of elevations \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that we’re then used to compare to the burn\, tow\, and burn crest elevations to assess the potential for overtopping and the frequency of which that would occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then those results were tabulated. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then translate it in Gis onto maps\, depicting segments that could be exposed to You know each of these 2 metrics that we used \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so we have those figures as well. Just in the bottom left is that wave run up plus water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so the figure on the bottom left. The blue line is showing the still water level\, the Tide Time series\, and then the red is is sort of the corresponding wave hype \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so this figure does not yet combine everything. But the middle figure does show the total water level time series. And those are just kind of example plots. But I have some more specific. \nCases we can look at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. so this slide shows the process to lay out the transacts for the wave analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The wave analysis transacts. These are oned transsex that are shown in yellow they’re numbered along the New York shoreline here from one to 37. And so the way of run-up analysis was conducted at each of these locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the transects were placed to capture variations along the shoreline in terms of the shoreline orientation and wave exposure. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The presence or absence of fronting marsh in front of the berm. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Whether or not the shoreline is armored or unarmoured. So in some cases that required a higher density of transsex\, because those conditions were changing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: along the shoreline pretty rapidly\, and in other cases where you had sort of straight uniform stretches\, the transact layout is a little bit more sparse. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the other thing I want to point out here is all of the Orange dots. Show the locations of the Wave and Water Level Model Time Series data. That we extracted from the Fema coastal flood study for San Francisco Bay. And so each wave analysis transect is essentially paired with a model output point\, and those water level and wave conditions from that point are then used for the way they run up analysis at each transect. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And similarly\, this shows the transect layout for the Redwood City shoreline. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s a much smaller area. So there’s fewer transacts here. But you can see that in total\, we have 48 analysis locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: throughout the cartel facility. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay? So this slide shows that next step of assigning a representative transect to each of the segments of berm. So we recognize that there’s variability in the berm press elevations along the shoreline \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And through some kind of evaluation of that variability and and testing. We’ve decided on a 300 foot binning \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: of the firm. And so the orange line show all of the subdivisions of each of the firm segments in some cases like\, where you see the transition from 2 to 3 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there was\, you know\, a single segment might contain a segment of unarmored firm and a piece of armoured berm. So we added additional subdivisions in there. So there’s some subdivisions that are \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: shorter than that 300 foot segment. But in general\, that was how the scrolling was partitioned\, and within each of those segments we use the Lidar data that was available to calculate the average crest elevation \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: within that segment and assigned it to be representative of the Berm Crest elevation within that segment. So if you go to the next slide. It kind of shows how \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: each of those transects is mapped. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so\, for example\, analysis transact\, one is assigned to those first few segments at the north end\, and 2 is assigned to the next view\, and then you hit 3\, which is representative of an armoured segment. So that’s kind of representing the the red color segment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this was basically a bookkeeping exercise\, and this allowed us to use to know which wave run up results to assign to each segment of firm. So we did this for the whole shoreline. But this is just a snapshot showing what the process looks like. At the northern end of the Newark Ponds \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Phony Directional. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But I guess it’s a few slides back. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, maybe if you go back to this slide with the transact layout. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you get one more that should show it. Yeah. So the so the orange points are where the waiting one level. They are. The wave data from the model is directional \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so we’re using the way period and wave direction from all of it\, and then bring those pay conditions in to the yeah. \nNicholas SITAR: Excuse me\, may I ask in all of these analyses. \nNicholas SITAR: are you taking into account long-term settlement? Do you have data on the crest settlement of these levies of these farms? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So the question was whether this analysis accounts for 700 firm is not. We’re we’re taking that existing crest elevation average along that segment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And and using that as a \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we can jump back. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nso this slide \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: sort of defined some terminology. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Just to kind of Orient everyone. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We’re talking about wave run up\, which is commonly referred to as the total water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and it’s called total water level\, because it encapsulates all of the various coastal processes that contribute to flooding at the shoreline. So that includes the astronomical tide \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: storm surge\, which which accounts for low\, you know\, low atmospheric pressure that can result in a rise in the water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Wind effects. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know. Periodic El Nino effects. They can also elevate water levels at the shoreline. So all of those effects of the tide and the storm surge\, or sort of already accounted for in the in the hydro dynamic model that was developed as part of the Fema study. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then we add the wave analysis pieces at each of those transect locations which include wave setup\, which is a super elevation of the water level of the shoreline\, due to the presence of breaking waves\, which kind of pile water level up against the shore\, and then wave run up\, which is that last piece of the wave actually breaking\, and then running up the base of the berm. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so the the relative magnitudes of each of these components are are shown here. And so when we’re talking about these extreme total water level events events that occur with\, say\, a return period of say\, you know\, every 10 years\, 50 years\, 100 years. Those events\, and these\, like annual maxima that we’re using in our analysis\, are on the order of 10 to 15 feet. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: elevation relative to the nabd Kba\, datum. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So yeah\, the schematic here kind of shows the waves coming in. In some cases we have a marsh plane. In some cases there’s there’s no marsh and the berm. The face of the berm sort of intersects a mud plaque\, and there and and in those cases the berm is generally armored \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so we’re accounting for the wave breaking at the burn tow and looking at that wave height\, and that feeds into the wave runoff calculation\, and then calculating the the elevation of that total water level \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: on the face of the berm\, and comparing it to the berm crest elevation\, to determine whether or not overtopping is occurring. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Other. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So just to clarify\, I think everything else you’ll hear today is focused on the Mss. Pause. The request for the wave run up. Study was to do that for the entire facility. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So so all the neurons and legacy are available. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I have a question\, too\, back on the slide that you were on \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: schematic. It shows the overtopping with no water going into the pond. It’s just ending at the pond. Did you also analyze the amount of water that how much could make it all the way over the burn into the pond? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes\, so we haven’t calculated any of our talking volumes. We’ve mainly been looking at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: sort of the number of exceedances and duration that overtopping would occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we haven’t looked at\, say. overtpping volumes or velocity of water \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extent\, to which \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: overtpping with travel across the top. I mean\, in general\, the firm presss are relatively wide. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So wouldn’t expect that there would be a huge volume flowing down the back. But certainly for larger. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: See? Otherized scenarios and large volumes of overtopping. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: This. This is a okay. So finally\, to get to that question\, this is a a typical section showing some of the typical dimensions. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: In this case\, we’re we’re flip now\, so the bay is on the right side\, and the phones are on the left side. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m just sort of showing the the relative width of the Berm press \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: relative to the\, you know\, kind of side slopes and hype. So so they’re generally relatively wide compared to the hype. So I think there’d be more discussion with this later. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so to get that John\, into your question about the Total Water Level Time Series. This is an example \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: showing the time series of total water level at transept 2 which is at the northern end of the Newark ponds. \nAnd there’s a couple of things I wanted to point out. Here. One is the the model that I’ve been mentioning. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The model that was developed for the Fema crystal flood study has a 50 year\, 54 year on cast \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: of water level and weight conditions with hourly data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so you can see\, you know\, we’re capturing all of this kind of daily seasonal inter annual fluctuations in the water level and rate conditions\, and in general\, the kind of annual Max run of events that are shown here are these red dots\, and they’re on the order of like 9 to 10 feet elevation at this site. And you know\, it’s really only those kind of like perfectly aligned combinations of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: high tide\, storm\, surge\, wind from the right direction\, the result in the really high run of events. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so you can see the the firm crest. Elevation at this location is approximately. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: say\, 13 or 13 and a half feet and so you can see that over that 54 year Time series\, there’s a couple of events around the 1\,982\, 83 Amenio\, where we’ve run up would have been projected to kind of approach platform press elevation. So essentially\, what we’re doing at each of these transact locations is creating a time series like this. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then using it as the basis for the extreme value analysis to estimate the elevations associated with those extreme run up events\, and then also comparing those to the Berm toe elevation and the Berm Press elevation to get it. Those 2 metrics \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that are used to kind of characterize the way run up exposure. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Question. Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: one only to 2010. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Oh\, that’s when that’s basically when the the modeling effort \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: was was done for the Dean of Whistle Force study. So there is no data beyond 22. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, there certainly is data. But this modeling \nsoftware 2010. It’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that was just when the work was done. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So so we’ve we’ve leveraged that prior modeling study. We haven’t done \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you had to demand of modeling data specifically for this \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: purposes of this assessment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So in fact. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any climate change\, recent climate change. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the insights \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m not in here\, right? I would say yes and no. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re we’re adding in this levelized piece\, so we’ve conducted this analysis\, using the baseline time series \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then repeated it for 3 c levelize scenarios 6 inches 12 inches and 36 inches. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just the sea level rise piece of climate change is included. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But storms are getting more intense\, too\, because I see that a lot. So my question is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: his date\, or Wendy goes to 2 things. I’m not clear is this data or this model \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: modeling? So I’m not the one. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So if it’s only modeling\, that’s one thing. But is this data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s a model driven by observational data. So the the record of water levels in the model. The model is driven by 0 tides at the San Francisco tide station. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s also driven by observed. When data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: various airports around the bay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So it’s it’s it’s it’s a model. But it’s intended to be a model that simulates the historical conditions as they occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m very familiar with \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is not well calibrated for waves\, because there’s not a lot of data available in San Francisco Bay to calibrate a full San Francisco Bay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and I don’t know. I’m gonna ask this question later. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and my experience in working now with the storms that occur \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: from New Jersey and through March\, particularly during the huge bomb cyclos. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Many cities in the bay had wave heights overtopping and flooding\, that exceeded anything that occurred during the 54 year period. Amazing. The videos that people have collected is that the wave dynamics? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So I don’t know if you guys have looked at the data or tried to model some of the events that happened after 2\,010. But I would definitely encourage you \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to do that\, is it? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, it is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: since\, particularly since this way modeling. And it was not calibrated. But we now have some storm events with very good ways to kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: kind of look at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So your analysis is basically closed 2020\, 2020\, 2020\, 21. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, the the analysis goes through 2010\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we are to wrivings \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extreme value statistics from the slime cast. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So your data was 2010. Wasn’t your analysis performed in 2\,021? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: right? So they 2021. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, this this analysis is new\, right? The 2\,021. They just looked at new analysis\, looking at like. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But it \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: but it’s just not. It’s based on the model. It was completed in 2010. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any events that happen after 2010 \nnot be \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: represented in the slides. That’s true. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the reliability of this particular model beyond 2010 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: who is bad or indifferent? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t think it’s bad. I mean\, I think it’s some of the best available modeling data that’s out there. It’s one of the most comprehensive modeling studies that’s been done for San Francisco Bay \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: already saying it should be up there and based on \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: should be updated by current by recent observations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s a very significant model. I don’t think the model could be rerun through present day to take for account. And I agree that it’s like the most conference of data that we have for today. Absolutely. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But I think\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think the team still could look at individual events that have occurred\, and add them into the analysis\, just to see what it would be with these bigger storm events. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and how that might affect some of the the \nyeah. Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Another question on simple question\, what’s the date on the Survey date survey for the tops of rooms? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I will double check\, but I believe it’s 2016 Lidar data \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: project specific record of engineers. It’s not project specific. It was collected for another purpose\, but it was. It was purchased from the vendor \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: towards 2020 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: point of view. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think it was me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nso we’ve been talking a little bit about this \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: historical time series of data \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at each location\, and the next step in the process was to extract the annual maximum events and perform a statistical analysis \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to estimate return carriers associated with total water levels of different elevations at each wave analysis transact. And so what we did was we use the 54 year time series. The annual maximum from those and estimated \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: essentially a a total water level exceedance curve \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where we we came up with estimates of extreme total water levels renew from a one year event all the way up to a 500 year. Event. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then we looked at those those 2 metrics that I mentioned. So the first one is is essentially \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: intersecting the Berm Press elevation at each of those 300 foot segments with that quota water level curve to estimate the return period\, total water level event that would cause overtopping with the berm \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so that could be like\, maybe under current conditions. It would take a hundred year event to overtop the firm. If you add 6 inches of sea level rise. Maybe now it’s a 50 year event. You got another 6 inches. Maybe it’s a 25 year event. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this analysis kind of allows us to project that sort of relative decrease in the level of protection provided by the firm over time due to sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then the second metric is looking at kind of the \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we were trying to characterize the potential for wave impact directly on the face of the firms. And so the metric that was analyzed was basically counting up \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: for this 54 year time series\, counting up the total number of hours for which the berm toe was exceeded by way of run up. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: coupled with a wave hype greater than one foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then divided by the length of the time series to calculate the average annual hours of burn to exceedance with waypipe graded at one foot\, and that was done for. Each of the transsex. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just to give an example of kind of what the output looks like that. You just have 3 example transsex here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Where we’re showing just the 10 year total water level event and you can see how\, as you add successive sea level rise\, that 10 year event increases. So it turns out to it’s like\, roughly 10 feet today\, increasing to about 12 feet 13 feet\, and then up to 16 feet. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: As you add higher amounts of sea level. Rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we have tables that have all of the results\, for you know all of the transacts and all the different return periods as well. So that was used. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so that was kind of like the tabulation of the results. And then what we did was we took that that data and mapped it spatially\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: onto a berm crest delineation. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so this is the metric that depicts the return period that would result in \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: crest overtopping of each of the berm segments. And so these figures show a couple different things. The first is a delineation of the berm crest\, and that’s the colored line. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The second is the the black hatching shows \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: existing armoring along the burns. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so what you can see is as you progress. So if we pick one spot like the where it says so upon 5 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the the the bar on the bottom is covering up the labeling on the panels. But it basically goes \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: current conditions. 6 inches of sea level rise 12 inches of C over eyes and 36 inches of sea level rise. Those are the 4 panels. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I just wanna note that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is not current conditions. That’s the year 2\,000. We’re almost at 2030 now. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we should not be same deal with residents\, 0 as current conditions anymore. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So\, okay\, so to. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this is 0 added to the model \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: time series\, which is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: 2010. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So split hairs a little bit. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, the sea level rise\, numbers are intended to be added to year. 2\,000 baseline conditions. \nNicholas SITAR: Well\, III just out of curiosity\, what has been the sea level arise between 2\,010. And now\, as far as the base concerned. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: how much is it? Yeah\, it’s hard to to tease out a term in such a short time. Period. I’ve I’ve looked at it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: You fit a line to the data over a couple of decades. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t have that here\, but I \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I believe\, if you like\, did a trend line at this point\, but that would be worth \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: they actually looked at observers up to 2020 using satellite and time pages. And then they also did \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: an extrapolation of what is most likely to happen by 2050 based on current trends. They don’t go past 2050 because it. you know\, not experiencing a lot of other dynamics. So I think you can get that information without doing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I just wonder if that’s done. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Does that consider \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the historical data before \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the year 2\,000? Or is it like recent. That is done from 1970 to 2020. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So a longer time period. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s yeah\, it’s pretty robust. And you can download all of the analysis online. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: What does that suggest for me? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, I mean\, it definitely shows that we’re on track to to meet or exceed the 6 inches. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think\, by 2030. I think we’ve had about 5 inches of seal of arise so far \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: since 2\,000. So yeah\, maybe 3 inches since 5 inches since 2\,000. We’re now in a but time of sea level rise is currently accelerating on the West Coast. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s looking like 5 inches in the last 23 years. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And I think\, if you \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so so yeah\, these are a series of of figures that essentially show the results of that analysis. what I wanted to kind of step through was\, just if you kind of look at one location. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you can like\, for example. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’ll do t 2\, 12. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, we’ll okay\, yeah\, we’ll do. We’ll talk. Okay. So for the in the top left panel \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there’s generally generally greens and yellows which imply overtopping\, which we kind of qualitatively qualit\, qualitatively characterize as rare to very rare. So something greater than a 10 year. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maybe even greater than a hundred year event to result in overtopping. \nAnd then\, as you progress through the sea level\, rise scenarios\, you’re getting more oranges. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then\, of course\, it’s 36 inches of sea level rise. That would be a very frequent event\, something \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: annual or less than a 2 year event. So that’s the intent of these graphics is to kind of show \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the progression of that exposure under the different seal rice scenarios. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think it would be helpful to bring to that 10 to 100 here \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: down\, and do like an additional bin\, unless those numbers are like very close to each other. I’m sure that’s all documented what the numbers and stuff are in that report\, but it’s like it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Do you like. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: orange? And so does that mean a lot of what was yellow and 0 was probably closer to the 10. And I think. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, we so we could. Add another another. \nNicholas SITAR: May I ask the a question in a different direction. \nNicholas SITAR: What are the consequences of the burn being over topped \nNicholas SITAR: and looking at it in terms of firm stability? Stand point\, duration of a specific storm. \nNicholas SITAR: and high water \nNicholas SITAR: really is a concern in terms of erosion of the structure. \nNicholas SITAR: If it’s over topped its water on the other side. \nNicholas SITAR: you have to dispose of it. You have to have provision to deal with it\, but that doesn’t necessarily impact the stability of the structure. So what am I missing here? \nNicholas SITAR: It can result in erosion on the back side\, so you can get erosion potentially at both. Oh\, that’s why I’m looking at. It’s the it’s the duration of the event and potential for erosion of a specific location. But that’s more tied to a specific \nNicholas SITAR: duration. So one has to look at a duration of a wave run up \nNicholas SITAR: of this critical event \nNicholas SITAR: more than \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: how many times it happens. \nNicholas SITAR: Because\, though how many times it happens\, that’s how many times you have to repair it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But \nNicholas SITAR: when it does happen. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: what are the potential consequences? And obviously consequences is breach of the breach of the levy. And what are what is the problem\, what are the \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, yeah\, I mean\, I think\, you know\, that’s a fairly tough \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: perspective. You have to look at that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at every location. So it’s pretty variable. And so so I mean. the the analysis that we’ve done was \nNicholas SITAR: facility by\, you know\, high level both parameters. We haven’t gotten to a level of detail looking at it. But you already show \nNicholas SITAR: locations that are more likely to be over topped\, based on your analysis. So it seems to me that one could take it in that direction and say\, since these are the areas that are more likely to be over top\, let’s do a more detailed analysis on these\, because they’re clearly are going to be critical. \nNicholas SITAR: Could others be overtocked in a extreme event\, of course. but you already have identified what may be the sort of weak links in this \nNicholas SITAR: in this\, basically\, what you have a longitudinal structure that you know is quite challenging. And I accept that. \nNicholas SITAR: Yeah. And I agree\, because even with 0\, if we just look at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the 12\, it has some spots that are. you know\, orange. So they’re already in that moderate level. So those are probably your lowest click week link areas. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, I wanna propose that you would do that kind of site specific analysis on all of the fun\, but it would be helpful to do it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know\, like at p. 12\, for this purpose. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and just for a maintenance perspective. So following large storm events like\, for example\, the last this past winter\, after any large summer event card\, you’ll just go out and inspect and monitor the firms and I believe the only overtopping we observed was further up north\, near Pond one\, and it was minor overtopping. There was no emergency repair or major erosion that we needed to address. \nOh. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I noticed that there maintenance is out there monitoring everything. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and they do yearly helicopter tours \nNicholas SITAR: last \nNicholas SITAR: and response as well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: II appreciate that\, and I\, of course we expect that. But but but what I’m what I was driving at is\, if the maintenance does not know where the critical areas are. They don’t. They don’t know where to look. There is a red spot\, and there is no red spot is not necessarily going to lead you to a point where you say you know what this place didn’t overtop. But you better look at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: shoreline. Make sure that there’s no erosion\, because we know this is a critical segment. So I’m more a \nNicholas SITAR: suggesting that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a maintenance also in inspection should be also focused unknown \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: right that need to be inspected first or or paid special attention to. That would be my. Of course they have experience and they retire. \nNicholas SITAR: That’s right. So the the the point is\, you know\, it has to be documented some place where it says\, you know\, here is your priority list\, and it’s not just space. Because \nNicholas SITAR: person A has been here for 30 years and knows by experience. We also have data that suggests that this is an area we should be looking at. So that’s that’s that’s where I’m sort of having experience. People\, of course. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think\, like you all are saying\, map maps like this could help identify where some of those thoughts might be. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Of course it’s gonna be very particular to the characteristics of the given storm\, you know\, direct to where we come from\, things like that. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: see also\, I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there are \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: be nothing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it would all be done like after\, which is aimed \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: confusing to me if we’re having. Here’s a problem. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But we’re not. Gonna \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): we don’t have to do anything about it until down the road. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t think that was the intent. The intent was to utilize this next 10 years to do investigations like we’re doing now and more\, and to prioritize \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a large firm like this\, a large system is going to take some time to develop the process like which areas do we need? Can we raise them the same way we do now\, or do we need different methods? And then also\, there’s got to be budgeting large \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: company like that has\, like every other government entity\, you’ve got to go through a process to prove. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know why you’re extending that like making these expenditures and doing different methods. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we were hoping that we could use that time really again and make sure what what \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re identifying as a me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s actually technically feasible in an economical way as well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. And I think when we say raising the burns\, I think that’s is it? 6 inches? Well\, right now we\, we understand. Well\, inch left is what is maintained all the time. And Mss\, we’re gonna get to that later. But what we’re saying is that within our maintenance projections this year we can accommodate that within the standard maintenance methods and volume. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we knew that in the Mss. We could handle that under the next. Get get that? Get that? At least a foot left done \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: while we’re processing and analyzing and investigating best ways to do things and and to what we’ll say we don’t wanna say to raise\, because raising to us needs going above a foot lift \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maintenance methods. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And and that’s what we’re trying to separate that vocabulary. When we say we’re raising\, it’s over a foot. It would need to be over a foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that takes a little bit more engineering\, as you will\, and that’s why we’re here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But in my view\, I think the predicament \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re all in as society is that this sea level rise and climate change is happening in real time. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: As we sit here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So it’s trying to catch up to it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: 18. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s kind of like catching up. So I think it needs to be understood \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: what the impacts are like\, Nick was suggesting. Then then you can focus where where the vulnerable spots on and then say\, Okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re gonna look for it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We don’t concentrate so that we we don’t have an impact or a negative impact on the day and on your facilities as well. So I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that appreciation needs to be on the table \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: cannot be looking at data from 50 years ago and say\, it’s okay\, because we are. Storms are getting more intense. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: deliberate happen. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And if we are already at 5\, 2030\, more than likely is more than 6. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean. that’s kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that’s the the issue that I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: every project of this nature has to be looking at because it’s it’s happening in real time. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: All these changes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and we cannot depend on on information that is sold. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, I haven’t \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: thinking that. you know there’s no guidance. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: really\, for changing climate\, right for design criteria. So. And that’s why the Crv is here. Right. We have judgment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know\, subject matter experts in our field \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to help provide this kind of guidance. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so I think that that’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay. Let’s see where this all goes\, where this discussion goes\, I think maybe we should continue the presentation. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And but but yeah\, just keep in mind that I think that in terms of. you know\, saying specifically\, Okay\, well\, we have to include. But this year storms into a data set. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s probably not realistic. And \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at at this point. But I but I agree that there are some good points that have been made about \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: focusing inspection work or strengthening \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But yeah\, what can we \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: claim the board. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think there’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, just to kind of close out the the presentation. There’s just another another set of maps here related to that other metric. I think if you go one more. So these are kind of organized in the same way. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where we’re basically mapping that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: metric around exceedance of the berm toe kind of impact on the berm face\, and these are these are characterized in terms of the average \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: annual number of hours per year\, where the total water level exceeds that burn toe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so yeah\, like in in Redwood City\, you know\, it’s very sheltered. Greco Island blocks a lot of the wave energy. So you would expect\, you know\, that that condition of having a large wave high\, you know\, to to be pretty infrequent\, and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: as the results show. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it shows up is very rare. So a lot of green\, some yellow there and then contrast that where\, if you go back. One. \nyou know\, there\, as we talked about\, there’s some segments where \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: actually\, can you go back one more \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where there’s already armoring? The firm comes down and intersects the mud flat. So the toe is relatively low. So there’s a lot of impact on the firm face. Of course\, where you see red. You also see the hatching which indicates that those segments are already armored. So it’s not necessarily an issue in terms of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: erosion of the berms. But then you see that there are some unarmer segments. That kind of go to that same transition of like green to red as you add sea level rise. Which would be expected\, as you kind of inundate the marsh\, and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: those type of events become more frequent. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so I think that’s all we had to \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: present on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And as I mentioned\, we’re working technically. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just. And I mean. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean\, I know there are a lot of different practice we’re looking at. But have you developed \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a set of generalized conclusions and based on all this modeling that you have done? Maybe in terms of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the presence or absence of time\, or you know what the impact that in terms of over the top and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: no they need generalized \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: observations or conclusions that you develop based on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think that’s so. Fun. Well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: drawing conclusions from\, say\, the overtopping analysis \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you have to recognize that that analysis assumes that no further raising or modifications of the burns would occur. Right? We’re showing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: increased frequency of overtopping. Assuming no action was taken. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so I think that would be one thing to to keep in mind is that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay\, you know. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: as you know\, as most spots are observed or minor erosion occurs\, general maintenance. using these maps to identify some of these weak links as as they were referred to. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think all of those things will result in raising of the raising of the burns over time. so I think that the maps kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: provide a little bit of a preview of what would happen under a no action scenario. I think this is useful from that perspective. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I just\, you know. The more I looked at him II felt like the results kind of made sense\, you know\, areas that are generally more sheltered and protected by Marsh today \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: become more exposed in the future with sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that’s another caveat. This analysis is good. We’ve assumed the marsh is static and just becomes inundated. We know that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: marshals accumulate sediment and grow to some extent over time whether or not they can keep pace to see all Verizon there question but to the extent that they do keep pace they could offset \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: some of those impacts that we’re projecting. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So yeah\, I don’t think there were necessarily any like big big surprises. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: progression of impacts kind of made sense to me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I have one other question and one of the photos that Jen took like photos 6. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s just interior brought per rip wrap on on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Has that to do with \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like erosion that’s developing from waves in the pond. Is that why you have to armor it on the inside? Or is that due to something else? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think that’s correct. Yeah\, Matt Pitcher would be able to answer that in more detail. But cause there are very large ponds. We do get waves\, large waves in those sometimes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, not a whole lot of maintenance is needed for the inboard sections\, but there is some armoring required \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any other questions on the sea level rise analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: if not\, is Michael. Yeah. So one quick question you. You mentioned that he’s invited data from 2\,016 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: for the elevation of the park. You know the level of accuracy of that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like that data\, because it wasn’t specific to your site to purchase. You know\, data that had been around for \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at the current project. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So there is a \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a tech technical documentation associated with the Lidar where they do like the ground checks and everything\, and characterize the accuracy. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: My sense is that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s probably fairly accurate on crests. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Because there’s no vegetation on the crest of the burns in other locations like \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where there’s marsh in front or vegetation on the toe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it\, you know\, there’s gonna be like. It’s gonna be less accurate there. But my sense is that the the definition of the crest elevations is probably pretty reasonable\, especially when you consider that we’re \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that we. We’ve averaged \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: some some links. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to the extent that there’s uncertainty in those estimates \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we would be averaging\, accompanied by what the level of currency is. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know that? Oh. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maybe you can check \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: if not\, is Michael Whalen \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: think he’s a panelist? Yeah\, I’m I’m right here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: not really like a couple. People have their \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like son and Christine\, I think you came up a little bit soft in. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m talking with alright \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: someone who’s listening somewhere else. So maybe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’ll just turn on mics. Or\, yeah. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: are we all gonna listen to Michael for your speaker\, or we should turn our speakers on the desk phone dial in. And \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: good question. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: or a Turner. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, that might help just keep your mics. Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: okay. testing testing. How does it sound? Is it working \nMichael Whelan: for everybody? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes\, go ahead. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: very good. Thank you. Everybody. \nMichael Whelan: thank you for this opportunity to speak. I’m Michael Whalen\, with anchor. Qa. My colleague\, Andrew Baird\, is also listening in and our colleague Cole Bales assisted with this. I’m going to present static and seismic \nMichael Whelan: stability of the of the berms \nMichael Whelan: specifically the berms at the mix sea salt ponds and \nMichael Whelan: and specifically on the next slide. Let me tell you what I’m going to tell you. \nMichael Whelan: give a short sight overview. I think a lot of that’s probably \nMichael Whelan: redundant\, but I I’ll cover it briefly. I’ll talk about available site and subsurface particularly subsurface information \nMichael Whelan: that we’ve made use of in the analysis \nMichael Whelan: that I’m presenting will talk about and show \nMichael Whelan: cross-sectional geometry of the of the berms and interest of interest. \nMichael Whelan: I’ll discuss our interpretation of sub service conditions. \nMichael Whelan: The engineering parameters that we’ve assigned to the subservice conditions and the water levels \nMichael Whelan: from this. I’ll I’ll make note of the analysis of static stability of these terms under normal conditions. \nMichael Whelan: Then we’ll spend a little more time on the on the seismic conditions\, both in terms of what is an appropriate seismic event. Magnitude. To apply to these analysis\, and then given the answer that we’ve developed to that question the results of that \nMichael Whelan: of that analysis. all of which we’ve concluded show that these berms do\, in fact\, remain \nstable \nMichael Whelan: under these conditions. That said I’ll conclude by talking about our thoughts and proposal for some additional explorations \nMichael Whelan: at ponds and 13. \nSo let’s let’s jump into this a little bit more introductory stuff. Here’s the the ponds that we’re \nMichael Whelan: specifically talking about here. As I’ll mentioned in just a moment. This is all \nMichael Whelan: directly following from our meeting with with you folks on the Ecrb last November and your subsequent correspondence from December. So we’re focusing on these. \nMichael Whelan: Justin talked a little bit about well\, actually\, quite a bit about the use of Lidar survey\, we made use of the same Lidar survey in our own evaluations \nMichael Whelan: of these. Of these berms for these ponds. Let’s go to the the next. I wanna give a real short overview of the fact that there is a lot of existing geotechnical information around this \nMichael Whelan: area and the surrounding region. Folks who may remember us talking a bit about this back in November. I’ll get a little more detail on this shortly\, but there’s a lot of information available\, and it is\, of course\, helped us \nMichael Whelan: to perform these analyses in a meaningful way. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s and I’ll talk about that in more detail. Here’s the our own picture of one representative spot along \nMichael Whelan: the berms one of the berms. They are built out of native soils as a as was reported in in Jen’s statement\, and as I think we all recognize \nover time they have been compacted. \nMichael Whelan: they’re wide enough to accommodate vehicle traffic. When conditions are \nMichael Whelan: are are dry\, the top is flat. \nMichael Whelan: They’re they’re graded for that vehicle access. \nMichael Whelan: and on the left side you see the interior of the pond as it appeared on on this day\, and on the right\, you see an example of the of the tidal marshes that are \nMichael Whelan: frequently prevalent on the outside of the of the ponds. So just again\, this is just for general context. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s go to the to the next. Here. I mentioned the origin of of the specifics of the study I’m presenting\, and this does go back to the letter from \nMichael Whelan: Bcd’s Ecrb back on December twentieth item for a conduct\, a static condition assessment. \nMichael Whelan: including daily operations\, routine tides\, and so forth. \nMichael Whelan: I’ll mention that item 5 a in that letter was\, regarding \nMichael Whelan: the seismic risk\, assessment and occurrence with base flood event and just an understanding of a full range of scenarios. So this this really this text. \nMichael Whelan: really was our our guide post towards what we proceeded with \nMichael Whelan: studying here. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, I think I’ve set the stage now. I guess I’ll I’ll start talking about things a little more specificity. \nMichael Whelan: I showed that map a moment ago about the variety of sub service explorations in the region. But specifically here\, at these ponds there is \nMichael Whelan: a lot of \nMichael Whelan: there. There have been a lot of investigations around these particular ponds. I’ll show a picture that in in a moment as we talked about last November they had. These berms \nMichael Whelan: have performed very well for over a century. They’ve ever since they were originally built. We’ve talked about Cargill’s \nongoing inspections \nMichael Whelan: and maintenance work\, but the the these terms have held up well\, including through all the seismic events that have occurred during that time span\, and and of course there are occasions where cargo will perform routine maintenance. So II think that’s \nMichael Whelan: been pretty well established. The keying point. I’ll I’ll show that in a minute in some of our cross sections. \nMichael Whelan: Now let’s look on this next slide at the the Geo. Technical information that is\, in fact\, available. That circle in the middle is where that picture I showed a few minutes ago was taken. \nMichael Whelan: Cargill’s done a number of \nMichael Whelan: of explorations \nMichael Whelan: on these berms. 24 borings to relatively shallow depths sufficient to get through the burns into the underlying\, pre-existing native materials. \nMichael Whelan: They’ve done a few borings that are deeper to over 80 feet in a couple of spots \nand a lot of the explorations also have been augmented by cone penetration tests \nMichael Whelan: with hydraulic profiling tools\, which\, of course\, is useful for a a fuller understanding of the subsurface conditions that \nMichael Whelan: that I will. I will lay out here\, in fact\, next slide. \nMichael Whelan: we we see 3 basic sole units here under these ponds. And in fact\, we see these \nbasic soil units existing throughout the region in\, in\, in\, including\, in the explorations that were done. \nMichael Whelan: not in these ponds\, but in neighboring areas. \nMichael Whelan: We’ve got the berms themselves which are built of what we’re calling a densified fill. It’s again\, it’s native material that was \nMichael Whelan: that was trenched from adjacent and place to build the berms\, and then has been used to to carry vehicle \nMichael Whelan: traffic over all these years since. \nMichael Whelan: And then below that\, the pre-existing and still existing native sub service materials are are a classic sequence throughout the region of bay muds. \nMichael Whelan: and we see that here young bay mud\, which is relatively softer grading to old Baymud\, which is \nMichael Whelan: not not a soft. I’ll I’ll put some specific numbers to that in a minute. \nMichael Whelan: You saw this in one edition of this in in Justin’s talk. Again. This is based on the Lidar survey \nMichael Whelan: the Justin reference that we’ve also used. We’ve I guess you might say ground truth it from our own on site observations. This is a vertically exaggerated scale. If if that wasn’t apparent to you already. So it’s it’s exaggerated. But \nMichael Whelan: the scaling is is appropriate\, and you see the the berm itself made of densified fill. You see\, it’s sitting on top of \nMichael Whelan: Young Bay mud that extends down about 10 to 15 feet\, and then below that is old bay mud\, which extends well below the bottom of this \nMichael Whelan: of this section\, and of course\, the mixed sea salts on the left\, and \nMichael Whelan: tid tidally influenced flood flood influence to waters on the right in the next slide. You see the same thing\, except that we’ve added the fact that Cargill does perform the keying or corring or core compaction. There’s a couple of different terms that have been used for this\, but that is \nMichael Whelan: where Cargill’s done that where they excavate through the middle of the berm \nMichael Whelan: to a depth of some 8 to 9 feet and put back compacted densified soils \nMichael Whelan: as a as a means of \nMichael Whelan: avoiding seepage. So that’s what that one is showing \nMichael Whelan: now. The memo we wrote. Everything I’m talking about here is is a summarization of our memo which we put forth. It’s dated the very end of July\, I think\, was our our date on it\, and \nMichael Whelan: attached to that memo was a compilation of \nMichael Whelan: all of these subservice explorations that I mentioned\, not just the ones at the 2 ponds and 13\, but also stranding areas as well that are relevant. And \nMichael Whelan: I know\, for you folks are well familiar with \nMichael Whelan: sub service logs\, and and our memo kind of gives for folks who are maybe less familiar with them. A little bit detail on what they’re seeing. Here’s one of many examples \nMichael Whelan: and and what this is showing\, if you look closely\, is the presence of of clay\, silt\, silty clay\, basically the bay muds that are again prevalent through the area. \nMichael Whelan: the this particular pair of logs\, and the other ones. We looked at closely \nMichael Whelan: did not reveal to us. any significant sand lenses of any connectivity. And the reason I mention that is because \nMichael Whelan: that that tends to be a pretty important thing to look for when you’re evaluating potential for liquefaction. So I’ll mention that when I\, when I get to seismic in a few minutes. \nMichael Whelan: And here’s some some other logs that show similar things. \nMichael Whelan: So there\, there’s all these logs we’ve put together and integrated and and looked at and what we did was \nMichael Whelan: we assigned \nMichael Whelan: what we believe to be reasonable or or reasonably conservative \nMichael Whelan: engineering properties to these 3 soil types. The densified berm filled the young bay mud \nMichael Whelan: in the old bay mud and this is really based on a compilation of of the blow counts\, and the descriptions and the laboratory tests were done in a number of places for sheer strength and compressive strength\, and and those of you who’ve been involved with that process recognize that you tend to get a lot of scattering the data. And and it’s the engineers job to distill that down into \nMichael Whelan: are reasonable values. \nMichael Whelan: These are\, these are the values we’ve assigned for these materials. They’re all established as cohesive soils\, that is to say\, they behave in an undrained \nMichael Whelan: manner we felt that was most appropriate for the material types and and the kind of potential risk of failure that we’re interested in. So that’s why\, you see cohesion applied. You see\, in each case we’ve applied a a linear increase in cohesion with depth throughout these \nMichael Whelan: soil types. \nMichael Whelan: And I\, whoever’s controlling this\, you can go to the the next slide. I \nMichael Whelan: wait a minute. Is that the one I okay. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Bef\, the next stay right there. The next 2 slides will go back to that table. \nMichael Whelan: I wanted to put a little more emphasis on how we derived geotechnical properties for the Bay muds. And this is a plot from us. Stress versus strain tests that should put kind of a classic \nMichael Whelan: development of strain in a in a testing regime. \nMichael Whelan: And are part of the the rationale we use from an engineering perspective \nMichael Whelan: to select \nMichael Whelan: the the strength properties\, though cohesion properties that we did\, and so on the next slide you’ll see that summarize for \nMichael Whelan: well\, for for everything. There\, there’s the young bay mud again. Cohesion at the top of. We’ve assigned 300 pounds per square foot\, increasing with depth down to 1\,000 pounds per square foot at the base of the unit\, and then the next slide just highlights\, the same \nMichael Whelan: but higher values \nincreasing with depth \nMichael Whelan: for old bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: The last thing I want to say about this? Is that someone had a question. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yeah. May I ask a question? \nMichael Whelan: Yep. \nMichael Whelan: are you? Yeah. You might have gone back on mute. There. \nRamin Golesorkhi: let me get that code. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I was curious how you go from \nRamin Golesorkhi: 300 Psf. Cohesion at the top\, which is reasonable to me\, and 8 pounds per square foot per foot is also reasonable for a normally consolidated play\, like \nRamin Golesorkhi: the Bay mud \nRamin Golesorkhi: and the thickness of your layers\, and your cross section was about 10 to 15 feet\, even if I put 15 feet at 8 pounds per square foot per foot \nRamin Golesorkhi: and add it to 300. I get something like 400. Psf\, how do you get 1\,000? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, you don’t get a thousand that that quick\, do you? I think what what may maybe a better clarification on this table would be that \nMichael Whelan: that that cohesion of 1\,000 is actually would apply well below the base of the young bay mud. You’re right at the at the very base\, down at the 10 to 15 foot mark. Your cohesion is more on the 400 to 500 Psf. Range\, based on that increase with depth. \nMichael Whelan: So it may\, it may be that the \nMichael Whelan: the 1\,000 at the base unit isn’t actually what you’re getting at the at the base of the young bay \nMichael Whelan: young Bay mode. That’s kind of a a maximum at a greater depth. \nRamin Golesorkhi: So you’re using actually the 300 plus 8 per foot rather than \nRamin Golesorkhi: some sort of linear interpolation up to 1\,000 at the bottom of the layer. That’s right\, yeah\, is\, in fact\, increasing by 8 per foot. So it’s by the time you transition to the old Bay mud contact\, you’re not actually up to 1\,000. You’re actually quite a ways from it. You’re right about that. I would agree with your math. \nMichael Whelan: We can. We can clarify the what what we mean by that\, or perhaps just modify to reflect what happens at the depth at the base of the Ybm. \nMichael Whelan: okay? \nMichael Whelan: Other questions\, I mean\, I was going to make one more comment on the properties\, and I’m going to shift into \nMichael Whelan: the seismic analysis. Before I do that I’ll see if there’s any other questions the other the other point I was just gonna offer on these \nMichael Whelan: properties is\, yeah. We we took all this site information and boiled it down and integrated and chosen. But we also looked at it in terms of what have we used and other projects in and around the San Francisco Bay Area? And you know\, use that as a reality check and it and it did seem to us that you know these seem pretty reasonable here\, and and consistent in our view\, with \nMichael Whelan: with with the overall region. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, any anything else. Before I go into seismic? \nMichael Whelan: you’ll notice I skipped right over static we’ll get back to static in a few minutes. They. The reason is because the the factors\, if you’re really high \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: under static conditions. So we we really focused here on what’s going on in seismic events. And what\, in fact\, are the appropriate events? One more question. \nMichael Whelan: Okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Michael. I mean\, I haven’t looked closely at your boring logs. But what’s the variation in terms of moisture? Content \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: between the the compacted fell and and the natural. uncompacted baymat? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: What kind of moisture contents were you? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, \nMichael Whelan: I have. I haven’t tabulated the answer. That question in a handy place. II will say that the moisture contents to our eyes did appear consistent with the notion that \nMichael Whelan: the the berm fill is in a much more compacted state. then the the the higher void ratios present below it. \nMichael Whelan: in the in the younger bay muds. \nMichael Whelan: It’s\, in other words\, a lower moisture content. But II can’t say I’ve got the a handy tabulation of that right here with me\, although that \nMichael Whelan: I could see that being a useful furthering of the rationale\, for how we distinguish between the densified state of the berms and what’s below it. \nMichael Whelan: That kind of what you’re getting at is\, is that consistent with our interpretation of these properties? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. So III remember the the basic premise there. But III don’t have the the numbers in a handy place to \nMichael Whelan: to recite them at the moment\, or the range. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, did you? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Did they do a lot of moisture content? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Best of all. on the \nMichael Whelan: what? What were you asking if there were a lot of moisture contents available there. There were quite a few. If that was a question. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, I was trying to look at the logs. It’s kind of difficult to \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: see. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: yeah\, I’ve got the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and it was\, go ahead. \nMichael Whelan: I’m taking a scan through the the logs myself. \nMichael Whelan: When we talk. I mean the logs. \nMichael Whelan: Well\, there\, there’s there’s a lot of logs\, but like if you were to look at \nMichael Whelan: appendix B\, 2\, to the memo \nMichael Whelan: which which is part of the the exploration is done around the \nMichael Whelan: the ponds. You’ll see \nMichael Whelan: you’ll see a number of moisture contents with pretty pretty wide ranging values. \nMichael Whelan: and generally seem to be most frequently done in the underlying bay muds and less frequently above. \nMichael Whelan: But given in like the 20 to 30% range. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: But I admit that’s just. That’s me. Looking through a few pages at the moment. There’s there’s more in there to that we could tabulate. \nMichael Whelan: and\, to be honest\, I mean what we att fixed in that attachment is the boring logs\, and \nMichael Whelan: doesn’t include the full set of laboratory data. So there may be some further laboratory data that was part of those explorations that we that we didn’t include. Just because we were kind of curating the overall \nMichael Whelan: batch that’s presented in that attachment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you can go ahead. \nMichael Whelan: Okay. Alrighty. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s let’s talk about earthquake evaluation. the. The the purpose here that we undertook was to derive \nMichael Whelan: a meaningful and appropriate peak ground acceleration corresponding to a design level earthquake\, or\, in fact\, design level earth \nMichael Whelan: quakes now. here\, we felt that it would\, it would be \nMichael Whelan: reasonable and even and even potentially conservative. potentially. \nto use the the return periods \nMichael Whelan: that appear in motems \nMichael Whelan: design criteria for marine terminals. Now\, of course\, this is not a marine terminal\, but th that that seemed like a good baseline to use\, because it’s \nMichael Whelan: it’s it’s got It’s it’s been used elsewhere. It’s been used for facilities with a high level level of critical nature and and it allows us to look at 2 different return periods. And and so that’s what this is \nMichael Whelan: explaining. So we looked at what motems terms and operating level earthquake\, which is essentially a 50 year return period. \nand and and a larger. \nMichael Whelan: less frequent \nMichael Whelan: contingency. Level earthquake. Again\, terms from motems which has a statistical 475 year return period. So \nMichael Whelan: those are what we used\, and I’ll and I’ll describe the numbers we came up with from them. And the other point is that we selected a site class of E \nMichael Whelan: for basically for soft deposits\, which is. \nMichael Whelan: we feel appropriate. Given the preponderance of bay muds. So those those are the 2 return periods. That’s site class and so did a couple of things. First of all\, we determined a a base PGA Peak ground acceleration\, using the unified hazard tool from Usgs. \nMichael Whelan: You folks familiar with that? I mean\, that’s a basically an integration of risk from a variety of \nMichael Whelan: regional fault centers and distances and so forth and and then overall distillation of that. \nMichael Whelan: and just to jump to the punch line from the hazard tool for the contingency level earthquake. The larger 475 year event. We get a base \nMichael Whelan: peak ground acceleration of about point 5 5G\, \nMichael Whelan: then\, on the next slide\, we took that. \nMichael Whelan: and using the site class of E\, we apply. And this is following ashto seismic design guidance. \nMichael Whelan: we applied a site factor \nMichael Whelan: based on this table here that \nMichael Whelan: takes into account the site class of E and the base peak ground acceleration I just mentioned. And \nMichael Whelan: and and that’s the basic mathematics. That’s the formula that we applied the and the answer we get from this and that we have applied for the for the contingency level earthquake for the larger \nMichael Whelan: seismic event\, the less frequent one is point 5G\, that’s the \nMichael Whelan: that’s the third bullet here. \nMichael Whelan: And for the smaller\, more frequent operating level event we end up with a PGA of 0 point 3 4G\, \nMichael Whelan: so\, as you guys all know\, these are really important values for this analysis\, they really kind of drive\, what comes of our analysis\, and that those are the values we’ve selected \nMichael Whelan: for this for those 2 return periods. And and actually\, as you’ll see in a minute. We really focused our attention on the larger one again\, which we felt to be \nMichael Whelan: on the conservative side. But you know\, in in design and engineering it. \nMichael Whelan: that that’s usually a a good way to to go. So that’s that’s where we took our analyses. \nMichael Whelan: And I’m gonna show you the results of our analysis. Any any any questions about what I just laid out there on the development of these \nMichael Whelan: pgas? \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, well\, let me describe our analysis and what we came up with. So we we selected the different places along these \nMichael Whelan: berms. We use the Lidar survey we constructed mock up cross sections. \nMichael Whelan: Michael\, can I ask one more question? Going backwards now? A little bit couple of slides ago you had 4 75 that you got from Motems\, and you also had a 50 year return interval. Where did that come from? \nJim French: And what did you do with that? \nMichael Whelan: That is the what it did. \nMichael Whelan: 50% chance of exceeding a hundred year interval. which you know nominally is 50 year return\, interval. \nMichael Whelan: or 50 year return period. \nMichael Whelan: and what we did with it is not. I’m so pretty honest. But where did that come from? Is that a \nJim French: some some other code? \nMichael Whelan: I believe that’s also from the motemps code. \nJim French: Okay\, I don’t remember that \nJim French: 31 apple black all the time. Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: now. So in some cases I’ve seen that referred to as a 72 72 year return interval just based on the \nMichael Whelan: on the statistics. But the prospect of defining that \nMichael Whelan: percentage of exceedance in a hundred year event as an operating level of earthquake. I think that’s directly from the motemps code. \nJim French: If 50 years\, like a 67% chance at Cedenson 50 years or something like that. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: might have been appropriate \nJim French: definitely. So so what did you do with this? \nMichael Whelan: Well\, to be honest\, most of our work\, we we use the 475 year event. But in both cases we use those to derive pgas \nMichael Whelan: to apply to our seismic. 4\, 75\, I think. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. So the the 475 gave us a PGA of up point 5. And most of what I’m going to show you was using that one. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: okay? Yeah. So the analysis we did using slide 2 software\, we\, we ran 5 different \nMichael Whelan: as we saw at representative locations along these berms \nMichael Whelan: we use the Lidar data ground truth by our own observations to construct these. \nMichael Whelan: let’s go to the next. So the next. The next part of this is to determine what is the. As you guys know\, the slope stability analyses result in a factor of safety \nMichael Whelan: at at their at their simplest level. Now\, there’s other analyses one can apply in terms of deflections and so forth. But we ran to see what are the factors of safety we’re getting. \nMichael Whelan: and\, in fact. what what factors the safety do we want to get? \nAnd here we relied on Astro guidance \nMichael Whelan: again. A a good and and well established \nMichael Whelan: design type guidance that’s out there. And essentially\, what we \nMichael Whelan: concluded was that for static conditions. \nMichael Whelan: depending on the long or short term durations as defined by Ashto. \nMichael Whelan: You could use a 1.5 target fat or safety\, or 1.3 3 \nMichael Whelan: 1.3 3 target factor safety we chose. Let’s look\, let’s let’s aim for 1.5 and and use that as our basic criteria. It’s the worst case for static conditions\, for seismic conditions. We followed a sto guidance recommending a factor\, safety of 1.1 \nMichael Whelan: for for finite length. seismic events. \nMichael Whelan: So those those are the target factors of safety we were bearing in mind as we performed our \nMichael Whelan: our analyses. \nMichael Whelan: And I will\, I will stop at this table. I’ll tell you about this table\, and then I’ll I’ll stop and see if anyone has some questions. Then I’ll show you some example. \nMichael Whelan: Model runs. But he! Here’s the take away. So this is a compilation of of several of the runs we did. It’s not necessarily all of them\, but this is a we felt a good handy way to boil them down. \nMichael Whelan: and the 3 rightmost columns are the key\, the the fourth column\, static fos\, static factor\, safety. Our numbers were above 2.5\, sometimes well above 2.5 every time. \nMichael Whelan: even even when we applied. What you might think of is somewhat out outlandish scenarios. The static fact\, save it was just. It’s it’s high. These look very stable under normal circumstances. It’s the seismic \nMichael Whelan: that is more interesting. And when you look at the rightmost 2 columns\, you can see that. \nMichael Whelan: the right most column\, the sixth column. That’s where we applied the \nMichael Whelan: Pj. That pertains to the 475 year event. And you see those numbers range from 1 point \nMichael Whelan: 6 down to 1.2. So they’re above our criteria\, the criteria of 1.1 which suggests to us that the this is sufficiently stable even in the 475 year event. \nMichael Whelan: the the in between column. The fifth one is the is the 50 year event. II would I would tend to agree which what I think Jim might have been saying that you could perhaps more mathematically\, correctly call us to 72 year event. But regardless\, it’s the smaller one that \nMichael Whelan: that occurs. you know\, within a century\, statistically speaking\, and and those numbers are are well above 1.1. They’re they’re 1.7 and higher. So \nMichael Whelan: the the the overall conclusion we draw from these \nanalyses is that \nMichael Whelan: these berms \nMichael Whelan: are very stable under static conditions\, and even under seismic conditions\, even under a 475 return period\, which is\, is a long time in a in a \nMichael Whelan: buy. Our reckoning is is a pretty large quake. even under those conditions. \nMichael Whelan: These berms are stable\, and the other comment I’ll make\, and then I’ll pause for a minute. Is that you see in this table we ran the analyses at different \nMichael Whelan: tide stages high and low \nMichael Whelan: at flood\, an interpretation of the of the theme of flood stage when the water is higher yet. \nMichael Whelan: and and and that’s what encapsulates the overall numbers \nMichael Whelan: farmer analysis. So before before we go to the the next set of slides \nMichael Whelan: which is just running through a bunch of model results. Let me stop and see if folks have reactions or questions to about this. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I just wanna make sure\, Michael\, that you verify that \nRamin Golesorkhi: very high strength was not assigned to the bottom of the bay. Not layer\, because all the seismic failure services. Obviously it’s kind of failing at the base. Oh\, sorry. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Your 8 pounds per square foot per foot. Kind of increase in strength was really used in your \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: stability analysis. Specifically\, the seismic stability analysis. \nJim French: So please make sure that that you verify that\, because kind of is concerning to me the one that we discussed before. \nMichael Whelan: Ii yup\, III can verify that right here by saying\, that is indeed the case. \nMichael Whelan: And I do understand the the nature of your question\, because that would have a really significant impact on what kind of stability values we wouldn’t want to have \nMichael Whelan: that 1\,000 at the base of the young bay mud artificially driving up these factors. Safety. So II totally understand that. And it’s it’s a matter of correcting the table and not changing the analysis. \nNicholas SITAR: can I before\, before we move on questions exactly about the geometry of\, and especially what circles were being considered\, because. \nNicholas SITAR: frankly looking at the analysis suggests\, you know the whole \nNicholas SITAR: levy is failing. That’s not\, as far as I can see\, they’re concerned. \nNicholas SITAR: A toll failure on an embankment is the most common failure that one gets. And that’s really the critical failure during a major storm or whatever. And \nNicholas SITAR: I’m not sure how slide does it? But most \nNicholas SITAR: of these codes do the search algorithm and immediately do a deep seated failure circle\, which I don’t believe is a realistic failure. Scenario for this \nNicholas SITAR: Toe circle should have been considered. And typically\, you get very shallow failures on these things. But the consequence of a shallow failure is that now your effective crest of the levy is much less. \nNicholas SITAR: and this is essentially and then and that\, as far as I can see\, or consideration of that was completely missing from here. So I do not consider \nNicholas SITAR: these failure circles of actually being \nNicholas SITAR: of any consequence to the actual performance of these structures. That’s not what we see. That’s my concern. There would be do you have any way to report? \nJim French: What your search methodology are? Methodologies\, were the search criteria I know with slope W. At least you can \nJim French: plot where your entry and exit points are\, or where the bottom tangent points are. And there’s nothing that indicated how you searched on this\, I think \nMichael Whelan: slide does slide has that as a output possibility. But I don’t think that was reported\, at least in the limited slides that we have. Right? Okay\, let let’s talk a little bit more about this. Let’s jump ahead \nMichael Whelan: this next slide. I don’t want to linger on too much\, because it’s a little strange. I admit this. This was just part of our parametric analyses of water levels at different heights. I don’t want this to be interpreted as a \nMichael Whelan: an actual flood stage over the room is just a a means by which we look to see what are the effects of different variables. And it’s just one example of a static condition. \nMichael Whelan: but not really representing a true flood scenario. I II do think it would be useful to let’s go to the \nMichael Whelan: I wanna talk about these circles\, these failure circles. Okay? So \nMichael Whelan: here’s one under seismic conditions. And quite a couple couple folks have asked. \nMichael Whelan: how did we \nMichael Whelan: limit the \nMichael Whelan: search mechanism for failure circles? \nMichael Whelan: We were pretty ex. And yeah\, you you you do have various ways of kind of limiting or bounding\, or or widening your \nMichael Whelan: your search profiles\, and and even\, you know\, semi-circular \nMichael Whelan: failure arcs like this one or or non circular arcs\, and we were pretty expansive in what we offered the program. The ability to to derive \nMichael Whelan: including the with the the notion. I think it might have been Nicholas talking about\, you know. \nMichael Whelan: toe failures or or or failures kind of at at the at the front face of it. \nMichael Whelan: That was that was part of the the searches we set up. \nMichael Whelan: and I mean\, what we’re showing in these series is the slides\, which is admittedly a again kind of a curated selection of them. \nMichael Whelan: But we found here was the the worst cases \nMichael Whelan: in each. In each analysis. Now There! There was some commentary that you you weren’t convinced this was the \nMichael Whelan: really the most high risk scenario for for failure. \nNicholas SITAR: That that that’s correct. II would I would submit that first of all\, you’re going to have a vertical face at the at the edge of the fill\, and you will have a non circular failure surface. So I would consider Spencer \nNicholas SITAR: method with a series of non circular surfaces that follow. Layering in the in the bay. Mud \nNicholas SITAR: is the most critical. For some reason we all kind of fall into this trap of assuming that because it is. \nNicholas SITAR: quote unquote clay that\, you will get a circle of failure surface. But it’s a layered medium. \nNicholas SITAR: There are interbeds of silt and clay\, and I have seen quite a few failures in this material that follow basically a distinct bedding plane. So I would \nNicholas SITAR: like to see a series of\, you know\, sensitivity analysis to see what happens if you consider that kind of a that kind of a scenario \nNicholas SITAR: rather than just purely. \nNicholas SITAR: even if you have a very extensive search\, purely circle or failure surface. Because that’s not what we see in a\, in a\, in a embankment of this type \nNicholas SITAR: compacted embankment. It doesn’t fail along \nNicholas SITAR: circle of failure. Surface the scarp is gonna be almost vertical because it’s contacted material and the material below may or may not ever circle failure surface. So I would like to see a little more nuanced \nNicholas SITAR: approach to this\, and and you may find it convince everybody and yourself that\, in fact\, that is\, this is the \nNicholas SITAR: most likely scenario. But at the moment I I’m skeptical\, right? \nNicholas SITAR: I it’s fairly sensitive to the thickness or height of the levy itself\, and the thickness or depth of the bay mud of the young bay mud itself. \nNicholas SITAR: and so I think these are plausible circles as being critical. But I agree with Nick that it would be nice if you could see what your search for charity was with the search limits limits were\, and see what was \nNicholas SITAR: my. My question is\, gonna be generic circles shown in the plots here\, but looks like your bay mud thickness here is something like \nJim French: 7 feet or 8 feet\, or something like that\, as little as 5 feet\, and a couple on the right side of this particular image\, and as deep as you know\, 7 or 8 feet\, or something like that. And if I look at the Cpt’s from \nJim French: Appendix B\, 3 and one of your data packets\, I think. There’s some Cpt’s that look like bay mud goes at least to 20 feet\, which is the bottom of the plots that are shown. \nJim French: If I looked at the II don’t remember where I got this. I think it was part of the packet of information that was sent by BBC. DC. An old Gmatrix report \nJim French: that shows Isopax of bay mud that suggests\, through most of Pons. E. \nJim French: A. A. Ponds\, P. 2\, 12 and 13. It should be \nJim French: least 10 feet\, and really more like 15 to 20 feet in most locations. And \nJim French: you know\, I’m you know the the yeah. Obviously\, we’re\, you know. \nJim French: the the enviable position of being volunteers on this type of work here\, and haven’t spent as many hours\, perhaps\, as I would like to have. But the little data that I’ve been able to look at. It looks like the bay mud is really more like 15 to 20 feet\, or maybe more\, like 25\, even based on the geometric isopax. \nJim French: and everything you’ve shown here. \nJim French: suggests that the bay mud is only a you know. \nJim French: 5 to 5 to 8 feet\, or something like that\, and that will be completely critical and sensitive your your stability analysis\, both \nJim French: static as well as dynamic seismic. So curious what your thoughts are about that. \nJim French: And incidentally the bay mud\, the the \nJim French: the Cpt’s look like the the strengths are going to be on the order of 300 ish\, maybe 400 ish down to 20 feet\, which is consistent with the model that you use\, but not with the geometry. \nJim French: Yeah\, Michael\, why answering that question \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the question. The larger question I was going to ask was\, How did you determine where your cross sections. you know? To be taken? Are these the critical cross sections in your view. And what are the factors dictating that \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: those are the most critical cross sections? Right? \nMichael Whelan: Okay? Well\, III picked up 3 distinct questions. There\, let me let me touch on each of them in turn. So the first one about \nMichael Whelan: circular failures. Yeah\, it’s true. All of these are all these figures show circular failures. We did run it with non circular failures. I think. Nicholas\, your point about\, you know\, a vertical failure. Service and then kinda \nMichael Whelan: sliding along the plane. II I’m hearing that I’m thinking of one variation on a \nMichael Whelan: more like a non-circular. \nMichael Whelan: Or\, or\, you know \nMichael Whelan: wedge type of failure. It would be the way II would imagine that in what we’ve seen is expressed in this in this type of monarch\, so we \nMichael Whelan: when we have done those\, we just didn’t show any of them here\, cause they weren’t turning out to be the more \nMichael Whelan: critical values. But II do understand the interest in that. II understand your point about. Might that not\, in fact\, be. \nMichael Whelan: you know\, a a worst case to be looked at\, and \nMichael Whelan: it would seem appropriate to share variations on that with you all as well. So so you see that we did more than the arc failures \nMichael Whelan: the The question about the the young bay mud \nMichael Whelan: thickness\, and the and the point where it changes from young bay mud to older bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: It it does vary from place to place\, I mean\, I think that was Jim. Your your comment was in what you’re seeing. That seems to be \nMichael Whelan: appearing here and and and matching the base of the of the failure sources\, of course\, as less than 10 to 15 feet deep. \nMichael Whelan: O over all. It’s our intention with these was to match really what we see in the borrings from ground surface downward. \nMichael Whelan: And and so II feel like it is\, in fact\, consistent. I mean it does. It does vary from place to place. I do understand the point at the very least\, that you know. Let’s make sure we’re presenting the \nMichael Whelan: a parametric analysis of this\, because that that may be\, in fact\, the the most critical \nMichael Whelan: factor of them all. I mean\, we’ve talked about the strength of the of the young Bay mud\, and and you’ve expressed your concerns about making sure we’ve correctly identified how we \nMichael Whelan: numerically defined those strengths\, but the depth of it is also important. So I feel like what we’ve shown here is representative of the of the borings that we used \nMichael Whelan: and and looked at. \nMichael Whelan: But II understand the point\, and that perhaps a further clarification of that to satisfy you all\, it could be appropriate. And then the the third. \nMichael Whelan: The third question was\, how did we choose our our sections? Our 5 sections? \nMichael Whelan: That was primarily from looking at the Berm heights and the berm geometry from from the Lidar Survey \nMichael Whelan: and to some degree based on the sub service conditions. But II would say it was\, and and then just kind of looking to obtain a reasonable geographic spread. There wasn’t \nMichael Whelan: in any of those conditions whether it’s a lidar or the subservience neither of those really I think\, put up like a flashing red light like oh\, gosh! You know there’s a place we really need to \nMichael Whelan: focusing on at the expense of other places. So \nMichael Whelan: it was\, it was really largely driven\, just trying to get a \nMichael Whelan: spread of different sorts of conditions throughout the the berm complex. \nJim French: hey\, Michael\, let me let me let me jump in if I may. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I’m gonna snatch green and share mine \nJim French: you. You don’t have to do anything. I’ll just take it over\, I think. \nJim French: and sick. Hello! \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Oh\, I can’t. Sorry you have to. You have to stop\, sure. \nJim French: Oh. \nJim French: oh. \nJim French: okay. So here’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I need 2 monitors. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Here’s the Isapack map from the Gym matrix report that I mentioned earlier. And you could see\, II think our ponds are \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: somewhere right here. \nJim French: Yeah\, it’s 5\, 1015\, 20 2025 years. So we’re kind of in that range of 10 \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 1520. I wonder if it’d be useful and not too difficult for you to take one of your figures and create. You know \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, this is a \nJim French: as I don’t see. \nJim French: I \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: gis \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: block! It’s been digitized and all that. But if you just \nJim French: even have a overlay\, the location of your Cpt’s or the ideal or boring. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: really quickly answer all of our questions. In about 30 s \nJim French: to heal a longer figure\, but the that would be I think\, really instructive for the critical sections\, and we’re certainly gonna be saying the thickest bay. MoD is gonna be the criticalist sections. Among the ones that need be considered. \nJim French: And I I’m not sure where yours came from. Exactly if you’re using the with just Cpt’s or a little bit preferred for picking the tops and bottoms of bay mud in particular\, because \nJim French: it’s a little transition that boring so often have trouble with \nJim French: automatically mud. You know the the next layer is \nJim French: will start to get any bit stronger\, but it still is stained black\, typically \nJim French: some of your boring thickness of the of the stronger material. \nJim French: So then\, the Cpt’s that you show \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: suggested the thickness of the stronger material is maybe 3 or 4\, or even 5 feet like that\, and it tails off pretty rapidly. And I think your cross section suggests that the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the thickness of you know you call it densified fill\, which is basically\, you know\, they must just had an opportunity to drain and be above water level of a above bay level for a few years. \nJim French: Until it drains enough that it’s strong enough to add another foot\, and then let it drain for month or 2\, and then they put another foot. So densified is kind of an overstated term\, I guess\, but but it looks like from your cpt’s actually\, I think I can. \nJim French: are. \nJim French: do I have that? Yeah. So here’s here’s some of the Cpt’s. \nJim French: I’m not sure exact locations of these. But you can see down in here. \nJim French: You know the these numbers here are something like equivalent to 300 350 Psf\, und sheer strength\, maybe something that range it’s going down to 20 feet\, which is the bottom shown on these plots \nJim French: and it doesn’t pick up at 20 feet. So we’re not sure where it goes. But this is pretty consistent with \nJim French: you know\, some of these actually are starting to get better at 18. This might be the bottom of bay mud here. \nJim French: right? This is the bottom of bay mud. \nJim French: but anyway\, so it looks like they mud\, you know\, at least on the Cpt’s that I have here here. \nJim French: You know lot thicker bay mud than what what is suggested in the \nJim French: in the half dozen cross sections that you show for your stability. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, this is a series that I think pretty consistently reach about 20 feet \nMichael Whelan: throughout these. Cpt’s right\, and\, as you say\, some of them\, many of them can \nMichael Whelan: don’t really show up much of a trend as you get to the bottom of them like this one here on screen. Right? Yeah. Yeah. So this one\, this one doesn’t. This one doesn’t hit the bottom of bay mud. This one\, doesn’t this one doesn’t. \nJim French: This one may be trying to pick up this one\, doesn’t \nJim French: this one? Yeah. Here’s 2\, then that are\, you know this bay\, maybe the bottom of bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. \nJim French: here’s bottom. They might a little bit higher here. This is you know\, 16 feet. \nJim French: This one doesn’t hit the bottom. \nJim French: anyway. So I didn’t go back and \nJim French: look where each of these individual ones were. But \nMichael Whelan: sure \nMichael Whelan: and no. Then the the iso pack you were shown earlier is is good. I mean. One thing we were pondering was\, how does the presence of these \nMichael Whelan: berms sitting atop the young bay mud effect \nMichael Whelan: what we see today under \nMichael Whelan: the berms in terms of young Bay mud. And in other words\, you know\, we we gave some thought to. Was there some? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, I think\, probably taken from the old. \nJim French: or they’ve probably started at least with that old \nJim French: Cdm. G. Used to be called California Division of Mines and geologies. I think it’s 1958 green book we call it. \nJim French: That has 2 maps. It has an isopact map when it has a bottom of a mud \nJim French: map\, and the bottom of May. Mud won’t change by adding burns to the top of it and the settlement. It looks like \nJim French: like\, I said from the Cpt’s that I was looking at that were just looking at a minute ago. here! \nJim French: Well\, here\, here it looks like the bay mud is it looks like the it. You’re getting really good strengthening up here. you know. These ones are\, you know\, getting strong down to maybe 10 feet. There’s some improvement. This one here is getting improvement really good improvement\, only down to 2\, 3 feet\, and minimal improvement down to\, you know\, 6 or 10. So in terms of the Isopac. \nJim French: Some of this\, you know\, this is the fill that’s been placed\, maybe\, and this is where it’s consolidating underneath it and getting a little bit denser because it has some dry fill sitting on top of it. \nJim French: Same thing here\, here\, here’s where your your your fill thickness. \nJim French: I think you’re calling densified is really 2 feet thick or or so\, and then there’s a little bit of improvement\, because there’s some consolidation due to the drier berm sitting on top of it. \nJim French: Same thing here\, you know. Here’s you probably got 4 feet of fill placed on top\, and a little bit of densification for the next 4 feet. \nJim French: Same thing you got. You have. you know\, 3 feet of fill with another 3 4 feet of slightly improved material. Incidentally\, the \nJim French: the 1250. Is that what you used for the fill strength corresponds to a value about right in here\, where my arrow is here. So anything that’s to the left of the air left of about 8. This is the A 10 TSF. Line. Here. \nJim French: Converting the tip resistance value into the \nJim French: into the sheer strength. This is about where this sheer strength of of a 1250 lands\, and you know 3 or 400 is down in here. \nJim French: so I think I think you gotta look carefully at how how thick of of a berm you assume over the top of it\, and how deep the bottom\, and and most importantly\, how deep the bottom they might is. \nJim French: And to to Nick’s question about the shape of the circles. The thickness of the berm will absolutely. very strongly influence whether you’re going to get failures that can pass through the toe\, or through the middle of of the crest\, and Alpha \nJim French: little beyond the tower\, whether they try to go deeper to the bottom of payment. So these geometry. Questions\, I think\, are really critical \nhonestly. \nJim French: and maybe maybe you’ve done some of that. But it wasn’t. In the presentation which I understand. A presentation is \nJim French: is a mere an an hour\, so to speak\, a couple of hours \nJim French: which we’ve exceeded\, you know. But \nJim French: But you know\, maybe useful to submit also a geotechnical report along with the alongside the the presentation\, so that we can review where you’ve documented some of your assumptions and methods and search criteria\, and so on. Sure\, sure. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Well\, I mean\, I would agree. When you look at these\, Cpt’s the the conclusion does suggest that you have very soft young bay mud to a \nMichael Whelan: the depth that exceeds in some cases below the Cpt depths. \nMichael Whelan: The numbers we selected don’t entirely take. They? They don’t take these only into account. Obviously\, I mean\, we we looked at the borings and the bull counts from the various borings that were done. \nMichael Whelan: We looked at the lab testing and the and the the triaxial work that was done on selected samples. The the slide I showed with the stress train curves earlier was \nMichael Whelan: was a large part of our are thinking as well\, and and selecting the overall parameters\, I mean\, I know Jim\, kind of what you’re showing here\, as we as we focus on these\, Cpt’s might suggest that we’re using \nMichael Whelan: or applying strength parameters that are that are on the high side \nMichael Whelan: or or the thicknesses\, thicknesses that are on the low side\, particularly or think this is the ybm on on the low side\, now\, II do\, I do acknowledge that conclusion. And \nMichael Whelan: and and and II would I would say that the reason \nMichael Whelan: that our numbers don’t \nMichael Whelan: completely reflect what you see here is driven in in part by the the results of the of the laboratory testing. \nNicholas SITAR: I would probably believe Cpt’s over. \nJim French: If there’s a disagreement between lab testing and Cpt’s. If there’s there’s a stark disagreement. I would believe the Cpt’s because there’s many ways that you can \nJim French: get lab data have problems with lab data. If there’s a subtle improvement over the lab data that it suggests\, there’s a little bit of\, you know\, there’s still still\, still\, it’s it’s it’s pretty tricky. I think it’s tough to \nJim French: override cpt data like this. \nNicholas SITAR: if I may follow up Anjem absolutely. I averaging data in this kind of situation somehow doesn’t make sense. \nNicholas SITAR: Because you ha again have to\, as we discuss\, as I suggested earlier\, have to look at the critical section. So you cannot just look at the average section. You have to look at the critical section here\, and that means critical section in terms of \nNicholas SITAR: bemot strength. I don’t see any \nNicholas SITAR: strength regain over that distance? Typically does not \nNicholas SITAR: my experience. \nNicholas SITAR: And the other thing is that you know\, that’s going that’s going to govern. So I agree with Jim that gone trumps\, whatever else there may be\, especially older laboratory data\, as much as it may have been done with the you know\, best possible procedure. \nNicholas SITAR: Unless you you can show that you collect that thing. Wall samples test for them within 24 h in underneath tests. Perhaps. \nNicholas SITAR: But con data is very difficult to trump. So my suggestion again\, just to follow up is identify the critical locations. \nNicholas SITAR: either very thin that that is a critical tool\, because then you basically force the slide surface to follow a defined plane or the deeper sections where you\, in fact\, have a much greater chance of getting a circle of failure as you as you analyze. So I think those are sort of the the sort of the end points of what you have to look at in in my view \nJim French: along the same lines. This is jumping ahead a few slides\, fewer slides. I think we’ll get to it pretty soon\, like you’ve proposed 4 borings and one Cpt. And I would probably cut it down to a boring\, or may maybe even one boring\, and for the same for the same price. 2 dozen Cpt. And make sure all the cpt’s hit the bottom of bay mud. It’s you know. It’s an extra \nJim French: $50 per cpt. It’s like it’s it’s nothing. Once you’re down there. \nJim French: they are fast\, actually a close eye on it until the till the strength starts to climb a tiny bit\, and that’s get 5 feet of strength. Climb. \nJim French: and that’s the bottom of bay mud\, and we don’t care what happens. Below the bottom of bay mud. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And to next point I think we talked about before. But the run up analyses. There are critical sections there. How do those areas compare with \nRamin Golesorkhi: the slope stability sections that \nRamin Golesorkhi: that considered. So I think. \nRamin Golesorkhi: need to kind of tie in everything together\, so that we’re not missing \nRamin Golesorkhi: so that everything has a comprehensive look to it. \nNicholas SITAR: Yeah\, to follow up\, basically\, you have to consider a scenario. \nNicholas SITAR: The worst scenario is that you have a maximum credible earthquake at the time when we have a big storm. Now the probabilities of that are pretty low\, but\, as we have learned. \nNicholas SITAR: unfortunate things happen at the worst possible time pretty easily have a major storm within the 2 years. \nJim French: which statistically gets pretty complicated. But I don’t know how fast you’re gonna repair all these after big earthquake. How fast. how I have a priority these berms are gonna have \nJim French: after a big earthquake that everybody’s busy doing and repairing. falling down houses and freeways and stuff. \nMichael Whelan: Well\, the the sl \nMichael Whelan: sections we used here were derived independently from the wave. Run up analysis. So your your observations to that they’re they’re not the same. \nMichael Whelan: They were selected based on different considerations. \nMichael Whelan: That’s not say they can’t be integrated. So they’re presenting or looking at consistent sections\, but \nMichael Whelan: we did consider those independently from the the run up. Analysis. \nMichael Whelan: Is it worth looking for a moment\, then\, at our proposed \nMichael Whelan: our proposal for additional boardings. Jim\, you’ve made a comment about how you would see that being \nMichael Whelan: conducted. \nMichael Whelan: okay\, yeah\, this. This is the Jim. This was the figure you were referring to where we have 4 borings and one co-located Cpt. \nMichael Whelan: We. We do intend to use these to get to greater depth. As I said earlier the the majority of these explorations\, and in fact\, a lot of the ones we’re looking at earlier \nMichael Whelan: go to like 20 feet or so. So this is an opportunity to go to greater depths. \nMichael Whelan: And\, Jim I you were. You were pointing out that you could do \nMichael Whelan: a number of Cpt’s A. A quicker than you could do a number of boardings. That that is certainly true. \nMichael Whelan: Are there any other comments on the on the proposed additional explorations that we’ve put forth here. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, can we go back just to just for a moment here? I did. Wanna II know we’ve talked in some detail\, or you folks have commented in some detail on the \nMichael Whelan: selection of soul properties\, the the\, the\, the strategy underneath the berms just for the good of the order. Let me\, if there\, if time allows\, if you go back \nMichael Whelan: a couple of slides here. Yeah\, go back one more. Yes\, right there. \nMichael Whelan: This was just W. Some of the reasons we we chose to show. The ones that we show is just show the effects of different parameters. And \nMichael Whelan: this is a case where\, at the same location the the difference in factor safety derived from our analyses \nMichael Whelan: for the the larger 475 year return earthquake\, and then on the next slide is the same \nMichael Whelan: area with the with the 50 year. So it’s it’s just showing some of the parameters selected parameters that we that we ran through\, and a lot of what I’m taking away from this conversation is just the importance of \nMichael Whelan: further presentation of the parametric analysis that we performed\, I mean what these ones show is \nMichael Whelan: affects the water level and affects earthquake size. But there are also \nMichael Whelan: parametric analysis to be presented\, which which we did do\, and I think can be presented more thoroughly in terms of selected thickness of of younger bay mud. I mean\, you see\, some variations as you go through this sequence. But \nMichael Whelan: we haven’t put together like right next to each other. 2 examples. What difference does it make? Because it does? It does make a difference. The deeper it goes\, the \nMichael Whelan: the the the more of an effect it has on factor safety. So I guess one of the takeaways for me is to \nMichael Whelan: present that in a way that everyone recognizes how how it plays a role in our conclusions \nJim French: right? And and to just point out again\, these are about 7 foot thick of bay mud. \nJim French: I \nJim French: from the ground surface to the bottom of bay mud beneath the the berms. It’s a little bit less because the berm is consolidated. The upper portions of bay mud\, although I would say the bottom half of the Burma\, as you’ve shown\, it is probably not full strength there. \nJim French: But if you were to make this bay mud 20 feet thick. say\, or even 15. that Those contours of safety factor \nJim French: would get\, you know\, Oranger and Oranger\, as you move further down\, as the circle gets deeper and deeper. And so I don’t know if it’s gonna hit \nJim French: one or 1.1 or 1.3\, it’s going to become\, you know\, the the the contours of\, of\, say\, 2 factor are going to change. If you deepen the bay mud \nNicholas SITAR: well\, and if I may\, to follow up on Jim. I \nNicholas SITAR: III guess the question is\, how did you select the proposed locations for boreholes? II do not believe that boreholes these days is the way to go. I think Ct. Should be the driving tool\, and the reason you might want to collect deep samples if you have some suspicion of there is something odd about the deep bay\, you know. The old bay mud underneath which\, \nNicholas SITAR: we don’t believe is is an issue. Looking at this kind of analysis\, but tying your cross sections to the critical sections that may be over topped and possibly doing investigations in those areas. Would make sense. So basically targeted investigation that ties this \nNicholas SITAR: and these analyses together in a kind of a consistent and and holistic way\, so that you can convince yourself\, not just us \nNicholas SITAR: that\, in fact\, you looked at the critical problems and and you analyzed them. And you have the data to support your conclusions. So that would be my sort of \nNicholas SITAR: take on what I have seen 400 foot boring. You could do a lot of 20 Cpt’s and one boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: and Cpt’s don’t need to go\, most of them at least more than 20 or 30 feet. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Maybe you want to put one to a hundred feet to get a \nRamin Golesorkhi: The average shearwater velocity to 100 feet. Yeah. but you but you could do that with a Cpt easier\, faster\, cheaper than you \nRamin Golesorkhi: do a couple of them. If you want to get a range. \nMichael Whelan: Sure. Yeah\, that that depth target is consistent with our thinking about confirming the shearwave velocity with the at least one deep exploration. But I would agree they don’t all need to go \nMichael Whelan: that deep. It’s really a matter of confirming or \nMichael Whelan: or furthering our understanding of how deep does the the young bay mud extend. \nRamin Golesorkhi: and say\, if you were to do any boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: the intent would be to get some very high quality samples to do consolidation tests\, so that you can understand the settlement characteristics of of the Baymag. The young Baymag. \nRamin Golesorkhi: in terms of \nRamin Golesorkhi: firm kind of operational if you will. \nRamin Golesorkhi: maintenance issues with time to having to raise it\, etc. II don’t see I don’t see any \nRamin Golesorkhi: real value in strength. I think Cpt will do pretty good job at that. and \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think if you do boring\, you should consider at least taking some \nRamin Golesorkhi: d and M type samplers and things like that. To to run some \nRamin Golesorkhi: dissipation would be adequate to give you that kind of information. \nNicholas SITAR: There’s a question. These these terms are. \nNicholas SITAR: how old? 70 years 80 years old. Something like that most are since the 18 sixties and Ms. S. From \nMichael Whelan: shall we follow up or finish up with our \nMichael Whelan: final slides. \nMichael Whelan: Jump ahead to \nRamin Golesorkhi: and yeah\, do do some piston sampler samplers or ramen\, said DM\, DM\, samplers. There’s there’s number of types of pistons that you could use \nRamin Golesorkhi: but I’m not sure you need to emphasize that a lot. I think one or 2 would be great to supplement like Nick is talking about and get poor pressure dissipation tests. you know a a handful of them. At least\, I’m not sure that that’s the the most critical part of the whole of this project\, or the sickness \nRamin Golesorkhi: of the bay mud\, and the and the strength of the bay mud that you can get from correlations on the Cpt’s\, I think\, is. should suffice for this type of project. Mostly. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I agree. II \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think\, very limited. If borings are going to be drilled. then that’s what my suggestion was. \nRamin Golesorkhi: It’s not imperative. But if you are planning to do boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: then I think that the value of the borrowings are in terms of getting \nRamin Golesorkhi: good samples into Baymont and seeing the consolidation characteristic of the Bay mountain. Yeah\, get get the samples sealed nicely and protected\, and that. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Get the undisturbed samples \nMichael Whelan: suitable for undisturbed testing of strength and compressibility. Right? \nMichael Whelan: And what there was comment about poor pressure dissipation \nNicholas SITAR: test these days. You can run it relatively quickly\, takes. \nNicholas SITAR: depending on the hydraulic conductivity of the bay mud from less than an hour to maybe a little longer than an hour per interval. \nNicholas SITAR: But you get the consolidation characters. You get the hydraulic conductivity\, get the consolidation\, and it’s in situ test. So you don’t collect any salad. You don’t \nNicholas SITAR: pull any samples. You’re not doing additional testing. It’s it’s been used very successfully\, and all the congratulations on hiring. \nMichael Whelan: I mean\, II missed the tail end of the congratulations. Comment \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the board members. Some of the board members Nick talked about \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know the layer and and the potential\, for \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, wedge type failure. We’ve talked about some of the terms actually have court section where? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah? Actually\, quite true. And then you compacted material \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to minimize the potential for. And I’m wondering whether the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: vertical interface between \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, and the material which is already there introduces another potential for the failure surface created by this interface. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Alright. So I’m wondering whether to be useful to look at one of those sections as part of the analysis. \nMichael Whelan: II understand. Does. Does the the the presence of the of the cord or the keyed interior present? A. I think. What you’re \nMichael Whelan: pondering was\, does that present a \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: an an additional failure. Opportunity. \nMichael Whelan: do you see? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, well\, I think that’s a lot of \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: very expensive consulting that you just received for free. Are there any more? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: It’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay. And so looks. It looks like we’re at the. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: are we? At the end of the presentation\, or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: well\, I have a \nMichael Whelan: but you know that that says \nMichael Whelan: we\, we conclude sufficient stability. But the commentary here is putting forth some questions about the underlying assumptions I get. That \nNicholas SITAR: may may I make one more comment on this? Throughout the the \nNicholas SITAR: you mean the speaker. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: my microphone is unmuted. Yeah. \nNicholas SITAR: Okay\, \nNicholas SITAR: okay. Throughout the various reports. There are references to 1\,906 earthquake. \nNicholas SITAR: and we’ll upgrade our earthquake. 1906. \nNicholas SITAR: Completely different scenario is nothing to do with the performance in 1906\, the height of these \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: structures and everything \nNicholas SITAR: was so insignificant it really has no bearing. \nNicholas SITAR: what are these \nNicholas SITAR: structures are going for fall. Well\, now. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in present\, and the same thing \nNicholas SITAR: lower grade. I was \nNicholas SITAR: in terms of magnitude\, a big earthquake. It was about the shortest possible duration earthquake you can have for the magnitude. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: It really is not representative of \nNicholas SITAR: anything that is significant. Typical magnitude. \nNicholas SITAR: earthquake of that size. If it \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: zippers all the way across\, it’s gonna be 20 cents. This. This was offensive. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: We\, we agree. \nNicholas SITAR: patting ourselves on the back\, saying that these things perform well in a 1906\, which I really\, you know\, is a completely different \nNicholas SITAR: lifetime. It’s lifetime away. And and Loma Prieta is not a representative of what we would expect. So I’m I’m simply saying to tone down that time. hey\, we’ve done well in the past earthquakes. Therefore we’re okay. Recommendation. \nMichael Whelan: We we? We do acknowledge that and and agree with it\, and in fact\, I mean \nMichael Whelan: II may have. I know I mentioned their performance. I don’t want to completely ignore that. But no doubt the whole point of this analysis was to say alright\, how are they going to do in future earthquakes? And it does lead \nMichael Whelan: to one question. I guess I I’m interested in in all of your reaction to our use of a 475 year earthquake event I mean \nMichael Whelan: by by to our way of thinking that that right there is the single \nMichael Whelan: biggest element of conservativeness. In this analysis. I mean it. It is true we can. \nMichael Whelan: We can look at the variability of the young bay mud strengths and thicknesses\, and that all play a role. But \nMichael Whelan: is\, isn’t it. Doesn’t it also seem that the application of that particular earthquake sizes itself a significantly conservative assumption? I mean\, never. I agree. Let’s never mind what happened in the \npast 100 years that may or may not be of any relevance. But looking ahead. \nMichael Whelan: that is that is a big earthquake for us to be focusing ourselves on and and part of me wonders if it’s if if it’s above and beyond what really should go into this analysis\, and that the the operating level earthquake may be a little bit more of a meaningful \nMichael Whelan: re recognition of of the timeline towards Cargill’s activities. Is there any commentary on that \nRamin Golesorkhi: on that portion of this analysis. We haven’t really focused. \nRamin Golesorkhi: You know\, before we get along. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yeah\, yes\, yes\, we know. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, 25 years now. So \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, in terms of design criteria. And you know\, we’re saying\, comparing \nRamin Golesorkhi: the berms here to marine oil terminal\, or. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, buildings that are subject to as TE. 7. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Is this appropriate for berms? \nRamin Golesorkhi: You know that that are. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, retaining \nRamin Golesorkhi: material that is\, you know\, toxic right or not. I don’t know how you characterize it. But \nRamin Golesorkhi: unnatural\, natural. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Okay\, Johnson\, one of our board members is in the audience. Is there a way that \nRamin Golesorkhi: we can get him to \nRamin Golesorkhi: weigh in on this as well in terms of \nNicholas SITAR: you know. What \nNicholas SITAR: with other. \nMichael Whelan: what other side am I? Okay. \nGayle Johnson: yeah\, just just so. Just so. Folks know. The only reason I’m not there in person is because I got Covid last week. So I was told to participate as a public \nGayle Johnson: public participant today. \nGayle Johnson: I. When I when I heard you \nGayle Johnson: characterizing 4\, 75 as like extremely conservative. I \nGayle Johnson: I do \nGayle Johnson: disagree with that characterization. That’s not a a large number compared to what we use all the time in the Bay area. or \nGayle Johnson: any kind of assessments of existing facilities. \nGayle Johnson: So I think that’s that’s \nGayle Johnson: II don’t think I don’t think that’s appropriate \nGayle Johnson: characterize it that way. \nGayle Johnson: However\, having said that one thing that I think is the context that’s missing here. That II don’t know if any of us understand is. \nGayle Johnson: if you can\, you describe the failure modes that occur\, and then what are the actual consequences in terms of. \nGayle Johnson: you know. is is seepage an issue? Does it take collapse of the whole \nGayle Johnson: berm and pouring out of. \nGayle Johnson: you know the water inside \nGayle Johnson: to cause a problem. How how sensitive are we? And that’s something I don’t really have have a good feel for to \nGayle Johnson: identify how conservative this is. I don’t know if that’s something \nMichael Whelan: you’re able to address Michael or somebody else could. Well\, I would. I’ll tell you what I mean. We were looking prepared to look at that exact kind of question. You know. Okay\, how much. \nMichael Whelan: what kind of failure we’re gonna see over. What length of berm are we gonna see it? How quickly is it going to occur? You know those sort of questions that would all feed into a you know\, an evaluation of ecological risk. \nMichael Whelan: But the analysis I’ve I’ve shown you folks\, you know\, I \nMichael Whelan: acknowledging your commentary on the selection of parameters and and and thickness of materials. \nMichael Whelan: The analysis we did here led us to conclude that that isn’t gonna happen. And so it it W. What we came out of this believing was that we have an absence of a failure. And so there wasn’t really a cause for us to go down the road of \nokay. You know how much. \nMichael Whelan: what mechanism of failure. Really\, we came at this from the from the beginning point of \nMichael Whelan: is there going to be a failure. And \nMichael Whelan: you know\, let ourselves to conclude that that isn’t what’s gonna happen. So that that’s really where we ended up with on those kind of questions\, Gail\, I mean\, we were prepared to look at that exact \nMichael Whelan: a sort of evaluation until we came up with the results that we did \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: well\, just and just for a point of reference\, and the charge was\, you know\, in terms of what we are trying to \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: answer\, based on what the Crb had given you. You know. Yes\, to analyze any expected damage that may occur. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and any expected associated release of Mss. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And my question is\, I mean. What you’ve shown us is limit\, equilibrium \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: type of analysis. Don’t you think it would be more appropriate to also do a displacement type of analysis because he might not have a failure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But you could get displacement \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that doesn’t result in. If you have\, there is no display. \nMichael Whelan: I mean I right\, I mean III hear you. I mean\, we’ve we’ve done that kind of analysis in cases where we find a low factor of safety\, and we believe me. We’ve had \nMichael Whelan: plenty of projects where we’ve come to that conclusion to say\, Okay\, well\, we got a fatter safety of of one \nMichael Whelan: point 9\, or you know something that indicates failure. And then. \nyeah\, we’ve applied various sliding block or other displacement sorts of analysis to understand. Okay\, what did that mean? What actually moved. How much did it move? And \nMichael Whelan: if if we III would imagine we would have done that exact sort of thing had we been coming up with low factors of safety here. But \nMichael Whelan: we we haven’t at this point. So we did not apply the the displacement analyses. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so if you know\, based on the comments you’ve received. You know\, if you’re looking at 24 thick layout \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: they might. and your factor of safety is lower than what you are currently reporting. Are you going to do a displacement analysis? Then \nMichael Whelan: II would think that’d be the only way to draw a meaningful conclusion about what it’s telling us. Yeah\, I would. I would think so. \nMichael Whelan: I mean\, that would be my intention. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So Michael. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: going back to your question about is 4\, 75. Appropriate. I think that there’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so I guess I have 2 questions back to you or the team. What’s the design line \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of the project or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: design criteria\, you know. Do you want to have no room failures? Are you? Life\, safety. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and what is being protected? Are we protecting? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: You’re nice and concentrated salts from getting diluted by a little bit of overtopping waves. You know. That’s worth very much\, Fenbergs to do that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: If you’re worried about spilling some of your well\, that’s another issue. If there are subdivisions behind your \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: your pawns that would potentially be afforded. then that’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: another issue also. So I’d be interested in\, you know\, having some sort of maybe a simple bulleted list of what’s what’s the design life we want? We want to protect it for \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 10 years\, 30 years\, 50 years. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: year 2\,100 \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: whatever and what are the things that are being protected\, whether it’s a failure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: maybe address that last time. Last presentation. A little bit more\, maybe \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Monkey was wondering. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: but but some of that goes into 475 appropriate \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and whether 4 75 is the right number. It’s certainly the right number\, if there’s any consequences\, and maybe you could argue\, the consequences are relatively \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: modest here. I would think that a 72 year return interval is probably a pretty low number. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: living 4 miles from the Hayward fault\, or 6 miles from Hayward. Fault\, or whatever you are down there \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: at Newark. but maybe a 2\, 25 would be an arguable number. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So I think the 225 is something that we can expect in the next 30 years. The next 15 years from the usages reports. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Think we’re gonna get some big events \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: during whatever your design like this. If your design life is 20 years or 30 years\, I think there’s a good chance. We’re gonna get something that’s relatively close to 2\,225 year terminople. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: one person in 50 years\, or \nMichael Whelan: well\, I wonder if the marine terminal guidance \nMichael Whelan: provide some \nMichael Whelan: some \nMichael Whelan: thoughts toward that right? I mean just the very terminology that they apply with the operating level \nMichael Whelan: event\, the ole\, which is essentially I I’m admittedly oversimplifying a bit when I say this\, but the idea being that for a \nMichael Whelan: the\, the\, the\, the operating level earthquake is one that the facility needs to be able to handle and not be \nMichael Whelan: damaged\, whereas the contingency level earthquake\, the Cl. The 475 year event is is one where \nMichael Whelan: it has to be reparable. It doesn’t. And again\, I’m talking about motems\, and I know this is not \nMichael Whelan: well. We’re this project is not a Motems project\, but \nMichael Whelan: I do think the the concepts are useful that there may be damage in a in a contingency level earthquake\, but it can’t be catastrophic. It has to be reparable damage. That’s really the way. \nMichael Whelan: Th\, that’d be my summarization of the way motems \nMichael Whelan: lays those out. And I mean\, II feel like what we’re doing here is we’re applying the contingency\, level earthquake\, 475 year event\, and looking to see\, is there any damage or not? \nMichael Whelan: And again\, the conclusions we’ve been presenting\, or that we don’t see that there is damage. Now \nMichael Whelan: you’ve offered a lot of comments about some of the underlying assumptions that that may change that \nMichael Whelan: it. Maybe they don’t it might. It might come down to the understanding of deflection analysis that might come out of it. Perhaps we end up in the same place. I’m not sure\, but I guess I’m just offering \nMichael Whelan: the the motems example as as one way that that large earthquake can be addressed. \nMichael Whelan: Is there risk\, I mean. Well\, yeah\, I mean\, I don’t know. I’m not an ecologist\, but certainly that’s forefront. The minds of the motems \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 2 25 is probably not too bad of a number to use. If\, before that presented the reason why you say \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and not enormous dollar value\, wants to gamble their own money on a smaller earthquake\, and that’s \nRamin Golesorkhi: then that’s their prerogative. II think as long as there’s no life safety involved. \nRamin Golesorkhi: But I don’t think 2 25 is probably a better number to use. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Okay. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I tend to think. First of all\, I think the conclusions reached here \nRamin Golesorkhi: are based on the analyses that have been performed. \nRamin Golesorkhi: We have to discuss that there may be \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Hello. \nRamin Golesorkhi: analysis that could be more critical and may not result in the same conclusions. I think the 475 level of shaking in a pseudo static sense \nRamin Golesorkhi: half a G. That’s pretty significant. If the same conclusions can be reached with more critical sections. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Then I think the 4 75 is pretty \nRamin Golesorkhi: good level of shaking that these \nRamin Golesorkhi: firms are being analyzed for. \nRamin Golesorkhi: No\, I don’t know. III suspect we are not looking at the most critical \nRamin Golesorkhi: sections that may result in \nRamin Golesorkhi: other types of conclusions. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think 2\, 25. It’s probably more \nRamin Golesorkhi: appropriate for a Hayward scenario type kind of level of shaking. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And that’s something that maybe deterministically looking at it. That could be. And that kind of \nRamin Golesorkhi: also is consistent with level of hazard that everybody is talking about in the Bay area. that \nRamin Golesorkhi: more than likely all of us will be experiencing it \nRamin Golesorkhi: in our lifetime so hopefully not. But but I think that that puts a little more context in terms of \nRamin Golesorkhi: is this a more appropriate level rather than just saying 72 year or not. \nRamin Golesorkhi: So so I think my suggestion would be for the lower level 2\, 25 kind of makes sense. But I think you can also compare it to a deterministic scenario. Hayward type\, the magnitudes. \nRamin Golesorkhi: 7. Something at whatever distance you are\, and then \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of considering the amplification of software deposits. And where the site is that sort of thing\, then that kind of gives you a little more \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of context and perspective of kind of this is more real and how real it is\, and how does it compare with \nRamin Golesorkhi: what everybody thinks that the Bay Area is going to be subjected to in the next. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Whatever number of years near future\, I would say. \nGayle Johnson: you’re not actually referencing motems correctly. \nGayle Johnson: They don’t have Ole and Cl. They have level one and level 2. So just \nGayle Johnson: to be aware of that \nMichael Whelan: I may be confusing port port design with motems and the oily designation. \nGayle Johnson: And then and then one thing about motems that actually could work to your advantage is that \nGayle Johnson: the reason the reason they have \nGayle Johnson: different? They have different return periods for different risk levels. \nGayle Johnson: So\, depending on how much oil you’re exposed to you\, could you could classify it as a low medium or high risk. and the range for the level. 2 earthquake goes from 4\, 75 years for a high risk \nGayle Johnson: to 2\, 24 for a low risk. So it’s 10% and 50 years. Medium is 15% and 50 years \nGayle Johnson: and low as 20% in 50 years. And the O in the level\, one earthquake\, or ole\, as you call it also goes down from 50\, 65\, 70\, 75%. \nGayle Johnson: So I think if you want to use motions as a reference. \nGayle Johnson: it’s probably not a bad reference\, because it’s in the building code\, and it’s risk based. \nGayle Johnson: But I would suggest\, if you have a even a qualitative reason for tying the risk to the return peer\, do you choose? \nGayle Johnson: that that would be \nGayle Johnson: defensible. I think \nMichael Whelan: that makes sense. \nMichael Whelan: That makes sense. \nMichael Whelan: Okay? \nMichael Whelan: Good comment. \nMichael Whelan: Huh? \nMichael Whelan: Well\, it’s a good thing I write fast because I’ve been taking a lot of notes \nJim French: looking at with Cp. Is not only the depth to the bottom of bay mud. But look at the thickness of the \nJim French: berm itself. \nJim French: And the thickness of improved bay mud below the broom. I think you’re gonna find that the fill is gonna have a distinct\, you know\, 1250 might be a pretty good number for that \nJim French: and I think there’s gonna be a rapidly attenuating strength as you get below the actual fill that’s placed because the berm has densified has caused a little bit of consolidation. \nJim French: And \nJim French: and you might take take a look if you can. At what? \nJim French: what the \nJim French: firm geometry looks like beyond the toe. It’s a little bit tough to see sometimes I know\, because \nJim French: these burns were created by reaching out with a long arm backhoe and a scooping up. \nJim French: and so there’s often a ditch in front of the toes of the Bermms that may or may not show up in Lidar\, if it’s if it’s water filled. \nJim French: The \nJim French: the \nJim French: bay mud below the toe of the berm will densify a little bit\, but not as well as it densifies underneath the middle of the berm. So some of that stuff has been looked at in previous reports. I suspect you can find some old\, maybe tow excavations\, or reaching out with the \nJim French: a canoe and a and a and a stick see how how deep things are out there\, but that those are some things \nJim French: can make some difference\, and \nJim French: we should be considered at least\, and see if you can see if you make some estimates. So what you know. If there are any ditches you borrow ditches in front of out beyond the toes of Burns\, and so on. Yeah\, are there still dishes that that still exist there? And I and and I didn’t \nMichael Whelan: feature this in the slide\, but we would expect that as part of the additional explorations we’d also be doing \nMichael Whelan: visual observations of what’s going on at and past the broom toe\, and probably some \nMichael Whelan: shallow may maybe just hand auger type work to understand. Is there a significant difference in in Ybm properties outside or at the toe of the berm than what we see directly underneath it\, because II would tend to think it would be a bit different \nMichael Whelan: without the loading. So that actually is part of our our approach for the additional explorations. Now\, you know\, we’ve talked about various refinements and further parametric analyses that that you folks have put forth\, I mean is. \nMichael Whelan: is\, is it? Is it your \nMichael Whelan: opinion that \nMichael Whelan: that is\, that is \nMichael Whelan: appropriate to do? Following the additional explorations that ha! How? How would you see that fitting? And I mean\, I guess I guess that’s kind of what I would imagine. But I’m I’m not sure what everyone’s opinion is there. \nNicholas SITAR: But it’s fine. \nNicholas SITAR: I may. I think. You know\, we we sort of focus on suggestion suggesting that you identify the critical areas \nNicholas SITAR: and in those critical areas\, then focus your investigation. \nNicholas SITAR: And in that context\, I think Jim’s point is very well taken. Nobody ever documents these borrow areas because the maintenance goes out there\, and \nNicholas SITAR: few years later nobody knows where the pit was dug for this\, for the stuff and vegetation fills it in. So on those sections that you then analyze \nNicholas SITAR: and identify as critical. Try to do\, a really detailed geometry of the of the of the \nNicholas SITAR: of the ground in front of the under. \nNicholas SITAR: say\, base side of the levy\, and on the other side\, and it can be done. Very simple\, as Jim said. You go out there with the boat and measuring stick\, and just get get the actual profile of the ground rather than guessing it from \nNicholas SITAR: you know everything else you have\, and \nNicholas SITAR: if you focus it on series of sections\, it’s not a major problem to do it\, you know\, if you had to do it along the entire section. Of course\, it becomes a problem unless you identify \nNicholas SITAR: ahead of time that you already know where there are some of these borrow areas. You know it’s a classic on river levies that. The borough areas are on the river side and create problems that nobody thought about\, you know. And \nJim French: these firms. Think you might have retired a couple. Pat. What’s Pat’s last name? \nJim French: Yeah\, talk\, talk\, talk to him. \nNicholas SITAR: The idea is to focus your attention rather than disperse it over the whole thing\, and say\, You know\, from overtopping analysis\, you already know. \nNicholas SITAR: Then you can look at it from terms of depth of Bay mud. The geometry get the geometry in those locations\, and I think that can make a very compelling \nNicholas SITAR: case. And then\, in terms of the seismic\, I agree with Jim that you know 4\, 75. We use 4\, 75 routinely for significant earthquakes\, but in terms of your \nNicholas SITAR: performance\, objectives in a kind of more \nNicholas SITAR: expect an you know more likely occurred. Scenario to 2 25 is is a good one \nto look at. \nMichael Whelan: That’s \nJim French: okay. \nJim French: We’ve had a lot of I mean a lot of advice. I think it. We’re kind of. We’re at the point where we should have public comment. \nJim French: So how do we run public comment. Jen. \nJim French: let’s ask \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: ask anybody online if they have public comment to raise their hand. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and we’ll see if any hands are raised \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: for all the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: there are no people from the public in the meeting in person. So I just wanna open it up. Is there. Is there anybody online? Who would like to make a public comment? Please raise your hand in the zoom. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m not seeing anybody. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay. Well. \nBCDC HOST: I think we could get if Gail wanted to make one final comment. \nGayle Johnson: No\, II think I’m good. Thanks \nproposal. \nBCDC HOST: I think there’s one public that’s trying to raise her hand\, but it goes away. It is \nBCDC HOST: Gail. I’m not sure the pro. The last name Ravi\, RABE\, with CCCR. \nBCDC HOST: I will allow her to talk\, cause I think she’s trying to raise her hand. But it goes away. \nBCDC HOST: Do you agree? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you\, Grace? \nGail Raabe CCCR: Can you hear me. This is Gail Robbie. \nBCDC HOST: Yes\, we hear you for the record. Please state your name and your affiliation\, and you have 3 min. \nGail Raabe CCCR: You may\, you may proceed. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Alright. My name is Gail Robbie. I’m Co. Chair for the Citizens Committee to complete the Refuge. Good afternoon\, Chairman Iwashita and Board Members. \nGail Raabe CCCR: We submitted a joint letter with\, Save the bay for your November 2022. Meeting. \nGail Raabe CCCR: expressing a number of concerns and questions related to pawns\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2 13. \nGail Raabe CCCR: It appears that some of the questions we raise remain unanswered. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Additionally\, I was unable to locate. The Boudro associates. Cover letter to Bcd. C. Referenced in the staff report\, and I’d appreciate it if you could make that correspondence available. \nGail Raabe CCCR: analyzing the integrity of these specific pond levies under various risk scenarios is extremely important \nGail Raabe CCCR: to make sure. Adjacent wetlands and slews are protected. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Potential future increases in the volume of stored Mss. In these 2 ponds over an extended period of time is especially problematic \nGail Raabe CCCR: and should be factored into the various risk assessments. Citizens Committee appreciates the Board’s time and attention in evaluating the information Cargill has provided. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Please ensure that the final reports answer all questions\, that the studies are sufficient\, and that the conclusions are based on good data. Thank you very much. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Thank you. I wanna acknowledge that we received a letter \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: from save the day this morning the email and it was it was too late to share the letter with \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: everybody in advance. But I did bring a copy of the letter to this meeting\, and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: print it out and circulate it to each board member that was here in person as well as to the Cargill representatives. We will post the letter on the meeting notice \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: on our website for this meeting. Notice? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And we’ll work to answer the questions in it. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Very good. Thank you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Make sure. Your comment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay\, well\, now\, time for board discussion. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think we \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: this\, and maybe we’ll just kinda go around the Horn. Yep\, you wanna start \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: question first\, I mean. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, I mean\, discussion going to cover both. What Justin presented are we focusing on? I think it’s for both sections of \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: recitation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I have no further comment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Chris. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think my only further comment\, if it hasn’t already been addressed\, is that \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I know they didn’t address the what the consequences would be of a breach in the sailing water getting out into the environment? Because they didn’t think that was an issue. But it would be good to describe that\, so that we fully understand the the impacts. And that will also help determine that. Yes\, 4\, 75 is \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): is an appropriate earthquake. \nSo \nRamin Golesorkhi: thank you. I think. \nRamin Golesorkhi: her name. No. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think just one other quick thing. In your additional exploration to say you’re gonna evaluate. Among other things in the faction potential \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: reiterate. What we said about Cpt is probably being preferable to emphasize rather than boring’s. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And in particular\, great job. \nMichael Whelan: Was that a question for me? I mean\, II agreed to what you said. That is a good way to assess it. I I wasn’t sure if that was question for me to respond to. But II heard it. \nGayle Johnson: Everyone’s muted. Not sure if anyone’s talking. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, I just said II agreed that Cpt’s are a good way to \nMichael Whelan: further evaluate look of action. Potential. \nMichael Whelan: Fair enough. You and I aren’t hearing anything. Okay? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay? Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So so you know\, additional information on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: this core construction would be helpful. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and and that maybe \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: also kind of well\, you need to look at if there are impacts \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to the there being\, you know\, kind of a differential different \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: set of material along that plane. And if that causes issues with the berm. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah\, stability. Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I had one more thing also about the Lidar \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think the really useful light Lidar is usually quite reliable in terms of getting shape. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But in this particular case. It’s not just the shape of the birds we care about this\, the absolute elevation that we care about \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: because we’re talking about sea level fish. It was all a cost specification and your office extensions. It’s still the right shape that might make a difference. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So do a couple. There’s a couple of ways to look into that\, maybe just check and see where is the nearest ground? Truth? Aye. to anchor the Lidar nearby. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: having 82\, or wherever. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: probably preferably to do a couple of spot checks on terms. Just shoot some a couple of phrase after I make sure that the elevations that they’re doing right elevations. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: if they if they get off a little bit on that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, a little bit. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, I think\, Jen relating to that. I mean\, if you order the light you know\, because down in a few times they would actually give you \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the quality quality \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: report on what the level of accuracy is\, I think in this case they bought \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the lighter data which was flown for some other purpose. So I mean\, you can either approach the vendor who sold you the data and see whether they had well. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the level of accuracy report. II think we we have the reporting and initiative kind of quality \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: report associate with that. Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay\, okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so so make sure you’re checking\, though\, Justin. Not just there. not just the shapes\, but the absolutely width of David. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the actual elevation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thanks. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and make sure that the items are correct. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, I’m certain it is. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I would actually like to see. Like\, where versus channel. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, Jen\, thank you for putting the the questions that we’re \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we had at the beginning of the meeting back up. I think this is just a good prompt. Are there any other comments or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: issues that \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: need to be raised here? I think we’re getting down to the the item 7. Any other concerns. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: from the level of discussion and the questions and the suggestions that we’ve had\, it sounds like we are going to need another \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: presentation from you after you’ve had a chance to work on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: all of these issues \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is that kind of a general consensus. So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: motion for them. Yes\, please. So moved. Second. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: second\, that. and then all in favor unanimous. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I \nyeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do you want them to come back after they do the geotech or or before with an updated work plan. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think. Well again\, this is another item for discussion. Then I think a work plan can be distributed \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to the board members for comment. I don’t that we need to go through another one of these sessions at that point. It’s actually problematic to distribute to us for a week. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So having actually be a meeting\, oh. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so hmm! \nNicholas SITAR: May I suggest. \nNicholas SITAR: unless we have a reason to think that somehow the guidance that was offered fell on deaf ears. We\, you know\, professionals\, and I would trust them to proceed with the you know their their take care about making sure that they get \nNicholas SITAR: and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: alright\, it’s too much different. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And they can say\, Yeah\, looks like it’s good\, or you know\, let’s just continue this. But \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I thought that the Board is asking for. I think it’s it’s acceptable allowable \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: month of rest\, and we can do whatever we want. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So he said he was calling in on phone or something. but I but I think it’s possible for Jen to talk a week \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: talk to talk to other staff\, but also talk to. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: She attached it \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just source of some. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So not really a board meeting. It doesn’t so much time\, but \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: otherwise I’m not. I’m not sure I need the \nyeah. Bye\, bye. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Well\, well\, how about how about this? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, submitted. And Jen looks at it. She can use her judgement as the weather\, and she can talk to Staff Staff\, and then she can use her judgement whether \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: she thinks they’re discrepancies with what got discussed here today. What’s what’s on the paper? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And if there is\, then okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that sounds good. And I will sort of try to summarize in a formal communication. To the applicant. The main points in our discussion today. And I think there were a number \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: adoption. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, well\, let’s see\, where are we now? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think we’re at adjournment. Honestly. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah. Adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn all favor? Okay\, thank you. Everybody. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. thank you. \nMichael Whelan: Thank you. Folks. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Take care. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-30-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board/ LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230823T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230823T150000 DTSTAMP:20231020T004939Z CREATED:20230824T004525Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T004939Z UID:10000084-1692795600-1692802800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 23\, 2023 Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF) URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-23-2023-bay-adapt-local-electeds-regional-task-force/ CATEGORIES:Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230823T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230823T120000 DTSTAMP:20231012T014123Z CREATED:20230824T012352Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231012T014123Z UID:10000026-1692783000-1692792000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 23\, 2023 Enforcement Committee 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. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nSolano County Government Center675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533\, 707-784-6129 \n197 Palmer AveFalmouth\, MA 02540 \n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83719850693?pwd=MzNsRDhHcm5wSlpSQVZ5bXVVTmZ4QT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID837 1985 0693 \nPasscode123244 \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 (PDF)The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the June 21\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)\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]\nStaff Briefing on Actions to Address Shoreline Encampments\, Abandoned and Derelict Vessels and Anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary\, Alameda CountyBCDC staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the actions taken between February 2023 and the present to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the City of Sausalito – First 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2018.018.00)The City of Sausalito staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the City’s progress implementing the Sausalito-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in December 2020 to address anchored out vessels and restoration of subtidal habitat impacts.(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF) // City of Sausalito Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency – Second 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2010.038)Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the RBRA’s progress implementing the RBRA-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in 2021. As part of this briefing\, staff will seek the EC’s approval to extend the October 15\, 2023\, date to remove the post-2019 vessels to October 15\, 2024.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Extension Request Provisional Approval (PDF) // Settlement Agreement (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-23-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/ LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230817T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230817T170000 DTSTAMP:20250320T174601Z CREATED:20230818T032346Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T174601Z UID:10000043-1692277200-1692291600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 17\, 2023 Commission Meetings (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of August 17\, 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 August 17\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after August 17\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nSteve ChappelleLower Joice Island Suisun Resource Conservation District2544 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \nClaude GrilloGolden Gate – Pacific Flyway CenterP.O. Box 907Concord\, CA 94522 \nAndrew BoganThe Teal Club25840 Vinedo LaneLos Altos Hills\, CA 94022 \nMike LenziArnold Ranch4886 Northwood DriveFairfield\, CA 94534 \nLarry NewhallJoice Island Mallard Farms1993 Rockville RoadFairfield\, CA 94534 \nChris BessetteThe Island Club201 Ewing TerraceSan Francisco\, CA 94118 \nMike DeSimoni\, Mallard Inn Duck Club100 West Cutting Blvd.Richmond\, CA 94804 \nEdward Jonat\, SprigatealP.O. Box 2602Suisun City\, CA 94585 \nArmand Butticci\, RBM Land Co.2804 Velvet WayWalnut Creek\, CA 94596 \nKyle Peacock Mallard Haven3421 Golden Gate WayLafayette\, CA 94549 \nLeen MadsenVolanti Duck Club4600 E. Hidden Valley Dr.Reno\, NV 89502 \nCarl Koehler\, Arnold Ranch2222 Bryce LaneDavis\, CA 95616 \nMike TempsMontezuma Gun Club12885 Alcosta Blvd.\, Ste ASan Ramon\, CA 95483 \nLeonard GiannoThe Honker Club380 Via Palo LindaFairfield\, CA 94534 \nJohn EudyWheeler Island Land Company300 Victorian LaneDanville\, CA 94526 \nPaul ZhengSan Francisco Club1255 26th Ave.San Francisco\, CA 94122 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.005.00md \nFiled on 7/18/23 \n90th Day on 10/16/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay\, 100-foot shoreline band and managed wetland jurisdiction and within the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area. \nDescriptionIn the Bay and Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh \nConduct in-kind repair and maintenance along 36\,109 linear feet of exterior levees through placement of dredged sediment along the levee backslope and crown in multiple locations at fifteen managed wetlands known as Mallard Inn Duck Club\, The Teal Club\, Arnold Ranch\, Joice Island Mallard Farms\, Pacific Flyway – Golden Gate Duck Club\, Sprigateal\, RBM Land Company\, Lower Joice Island\, The Island Club\, Montezuma Gun Club\, Honker Farms\, The San Francisco Club\, Volanti Duck Club\, Mallard Haven and Wheeler Island. The sediment used for the levee maintenance shall be mechanically dredged and consists of: (1) 21\,165 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from multiple locations within the Suisun Marsh Habitat Management\, Preservation and Restoration Plan’s Regions 1 and 2 “minor sloughs;” (2) 8\,342 cy of sediment from multiple locations within Regions 1\, 2 and 4 “Dredger’s Cut;” (3) 656 cy of sediment from one location within Montezuma Slough’s “Dredger Cut;” and (4) 1\,883 cy from one location in Region 2 “major slough\,” altogether totaling 32\,046 cy of sediment dredged from approximately 12.63 acres of tidal sloughs adjacent to the managed wetlands. \nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions Pascale Soumoy; 415/352-3669 or pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing August 11\, 2023 \n\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nFostering Fairness in Flood Risk Management\nWho’s on First at the SF Seawall?\nAttention California Boaters – expired marine flare collection events at multiple counties in August and September 2023\nAt a summit she helped start\, an absent Sen. Dianne Feinstein is honored in Lake Tahoe URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-17-2023-commission-meetings-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230810T080000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230810T170000 DTSTAMP:20231017T050756Z CREATED:20230811T054041Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050756Z UID:10000035-1691654400-1691686800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 10\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-10-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000 DTSTAMP:20240213T225743Z CREATED:20230808T061539Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T225743Z UID:10000061-1691427600-1691427600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 7\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board members are located at the primary physical location. 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 CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 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/84698619387?pwd=Q2xuV0dSOFJlaTBKKzJMQlp2ZDFadz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID846 9861 9387 \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 December 12\, 2022 (PDF) and April 10\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\n1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold its first 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 \nSan Leandro Shoreline Development Project\, City of San Leandro\, Alameda County; (Fourth Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold their fourth pre-application review of a proposal by Cal Coast Companies\, LLC and the City of San Leandro to redevelop the San Leandro Marina and surrounding land. The proposed project would include a waterfront park\, hotel\, restaurant\, residential and condominium buildings\, and a commercial building. The project has undergone significant design and land use changes since the second review in 2016.(Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \n \nMeeting Transcript \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, are we ready to go? \nOkay. Good evening. My name is Gary Strang. I am the vice chair of the B. C. DC. Design Review Board. I’m going in tonight for just into the can who could not be here. But she sends her regards\, especially to the new Board members \nwho are joining us tonight for the first time\, Leo Chow\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: and so \nShe wish she could be here. But she is following along. \nDRB Meeting Room: we are located at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who are participating online. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. So\, Ashley\, please feel free to call a roll \nacting chair\, strain. present board\, member or not present board member\, Chow. \nboard\, member leader here. board\, member Pellegrini present. \nBcbc. Staff attending tonight\, or myself\, Ashley\, Tamerlan. Kerry Jewett\, Kathryn\, Pan Shutti\, Sinha\, and Jess Sinkle. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum presence. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nand I appreciate everyone’s patience as we go through some protocol for 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 is on\, so everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nFirst\, if you are here and with us in person\, we’ll ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. Speaker\, cards are available at the door. You asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation. Prior \nproviding comments during the meeting. After all of the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hands in the 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. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad \nto raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. you will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nDRB Meeting Room: After you’re called on you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nPlease state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of the remark. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nDRB Meeting Room: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. \nbut everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. It will not tolerate hate\, speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time with it \nwithout permission for public comments. If you’re attending online. Please note. we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you’re attending the medium. The meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists. Audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings \nconcerning these projects. Please call her email Ashley\, Tom Orlyn. His contact information is on the screen or is found on the Cdc’s website. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting post Yuri\, our Bctc. Staff \nare acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the next order of business is to approve the \nthe minutes from the previous 2 meetings or \nDRB Meeting Room: and so board members. We’ve all been given draft minutes of our December twelfth \n2\,022 meeting and a draft summary of our April the eighth\, 2\,023 meeting. Are there any comments or corrections that anyone would like to make? \nDRB Meeting Room: I would appreciate? \nYes. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, so let’s go ahead with comments. this would just be for the board members who attended those meetings. Obviously. \nDRB Meeting Room: Stefan. \nanyone else? No\, comments. \nCf\, I so since I had a comments minor comment\, crafting some language. see? \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. She gave me a comment. But I’m not sure which of the meeting notes \nfirst 2. She had made a general statement \nDRB Meeting Room: chair. Mccann mentioned that this was very sad. I think we were saying goodbye to \nAndre. At this point she said\, \nDRB Meeting Room: She mentioned that this was a very sad evening for everyone on the Drp. And she stated the Graphic that you have shared\, and she lined out \nand replaced it with clearly shows \nDRB Meeting Room: the incredible impact that you have had on the Dr. B’s work. So minor. But \nit’s important to crop that line. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you didn’t get that\, we can catch up on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. \nSo like to make a motion to adopt the minutes\, then can someone make a motion \nDRB Meeting Room: move to the \nokay\, and if there are no no issues with that\, then the minutes will be approved and amended as noted. \nDRB Meeting Room: And now the Board Secretary will provide staff update. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair. \nI’m going to keep this brief tonight. Thank you. To the Board members who attended the July 20 sixth they adapt Briefing staff\, found it to be an incredibly rich conversation\, and we look forward to working with the boards as the projects develop \nfor newly reopened public access. Foster City Phase 2 is now open\, and Phase 3 is on track for opening later this month. This time there are approximately 4 and a half of the 6 and a half miles available for public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: The picture shown is one of the levy access trails. \nOur next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, September eleventh\, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center we will be holding our third review for the India\, based in Shoreline Park and our first review of the proposed office development site in Oakland. \nThat concludes the B. Cdc. Staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. \nthere is none. So we can move on to the next item. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, the next item is public comments for items not on tonight’s agenda. We’ll start with those members of the public and our headquarters building here today. Please form a line near the podium. If you have a public comment. \nAfter all\, the individuals who are present make their comments. We’ll call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: seeing no comments here in the room. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment. \nplease raise your virtual hand. Remember\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press\, star 9\, and your keypad. Raise your hand to make a comment to mute or unmute press\, star 6. It will be called on. Your your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak \nhere. You will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comments \nDRB Meeting Room: just mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified to future meetings. \nPlease call or email. Actually. \nDRB Meeting Room: we have no public comments here. \nDRB Meeting Room: In that case we can move on to the first review of \nproposed Project 1\,301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development in the city of Belmont. in San Mateo County. \nDRB Meeting Room: The first review \nand just to remind everybody of how the meeting is scheduled\, they’ll be \nDRB Meeting Room: Dcdc. Staff introductions. \nA project proponent presentation followed by clarifying questions from the Board. A period of public comment \nDRB Meeting Room: which will then be followed by a board discussion and summary. \nand then an opportunity for the project proponent to briefly respond. \nDRB Meeting Room: And so with that. DC. DC\, permit analysts. \nIntroduce the project. 50. \nThank you. Acting chair Strang\, and good evening board members. My name is Shutti Sina. I am a permit analyst at BC. DC. The first project for review tonight is a Life Sciences Redevelopment project in Belmont\, proposed by 4 Corners properties \nDRB Meeting Room: before we discuss the project\, we would like to begin by acknowledging that the majority of the land in this area was once water in historic tidal flats located near lantern\, the unseeded ancestral homeland of the ramitous Olone. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay Area. \nDRB Meeting Room: 1\,301. Shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1\,301 shore road in the city of Belmont\, San Mateo County\, just outside the Redwood Shores waterfront Community. \nThe project site is bounded by Sam Lane to the northwest Shoreway road to the southwest. a Pg. And E. Substation to the south and the Belmont Creek to the east. \nThe site shares the Belmont Creek shoreline with 10 twin Dolphin and 200 twin dolphin\, both recently reviewed by the Drb. In 2 in 2\,022 \nShoreway road is adjacent to\, and runs parallel with Highway 101. \nDRB Meeting Room: The existing permit for the project site \nB. C. DC. Permit number M. 1\,981 point 6 4 point 0 2 was originally issued on May eighteenth\, 1\,982\, in association with the construction of \na 48\,000 square foot building\, which is now a medical offices building. The permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court and 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 and an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court or the Sports Court. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a Google Street view capture of the site from Shoreway Road. To this\, to the right\, you can see the vehicular entrance of the site\, and a 4 story. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry \nthis. This \ncapture is taken from Highway 101\, which runs parallel to show railroad. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is another Google Street view capture of the site from Semlene to the right you can see the parking lot of the 1\,301 Shoreway campus. To the left is the pedestrian entrance to the the trail from Sam Lane. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a photo of the Belmont Creek at the site from a staff visit \nlast year. The building on the left is the existing building on the former oracle campus across the creek. \nDRB Meeting Room: This slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas. The existing Bay trail alignment is shown as a green line. The Belmont flew as a light blue Line \nHighway 101 and Highway 82 as dark blue lines\, Cal. Train as the pink line and nearby parks in green. \nDRB Meeting Room: With respect to the social setting of the project location. The area is largely dominated by office buildings \nand B. Cdc’s vulnerability mapping tools shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability associated with lower contamination vulnerability. In this area\, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle\, people with a disability. People of color\, people with limited English proficiency\, and people with very low income. \nNote that there is some. There is an area to the West that has a higher social vulnerability. Vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile. For this area includes children under 5 people over 65\, and alone\, people with no high school degree people with limited English proficiency\, and people who are not Us. Citizens \nDRB Meeting Room: moving on to sea level rise. \nI note that Belmont Creek is a tidal waterway and using current site elevations. This map\, with the projects I outlined in red shows that shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remain unchanged \nfor the medium to high risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level\, which would also not cause any flooding on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if unchanged. \nHere the project site is outlined in yellow\, but the medium to high-risk aversion scenario 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid-century\, and mean higher high water in the year 2\,090\, \nDRB Meeting Room: and you can see that there is inundation throughout the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: To conclude this introduction\, we’ve summarized the Bay Plan policy and guideline questions that apply to this project. In addition\, we have also included some questions by staff that we would like the Board to consider. \nPlease note that the staff report had identified the proposed courtyard as publicly accessible. However\, the project team has indicated that the courtyard would\, in fact\, be private. \nDoes the Board have any clarifying questions at this point? \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s like no questions. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. With that I will hand it over to rich Ying of 4 Corners properties to present the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hello\, everyone board members and staff. My name is rich in the 4 Corners representing Project ownership. \nRene here\, will go through to the presentation on me. I’m just going to give a pref and trump \nDRB Meeting Room: with me in person. Here are Renee Connor and Daniel\, from SW. A. \nCraig\, from Dga. Raquel\, from Bkf. Villa\, from Moffat Nichols. \nDRB Meeting Room: and I think joining us remotely\, is Karen and Dj. As well. \nDRB Meeting Room: So before I turn over to Rene\, who will go into the project details\, I just wanted to give a brief overview of who we are. So 4 corners started almost 20 years ago. \nAnd since inception we’ve been Bay\, area-based and B area focused. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, our ownership. History \nhas solely been concentrated on the Bay Area from San Francisco to San Jose. In fact\, one of my partners and I are both barrier born and very raised. So you know\, we have a pretty \ndeep commitment to building high-quality projects in our backyard \nDRB Meeting Room: for context. We purchased the property back in December of 21 with our capital partner. and since then we’ve been working with the city \nand B Cdc. Staff on the design and necessary approvals for each relevant component and I just wanted to note that while nobody from the Sbca\, I don’t think is on tonight. Remotely\, we did forward a letter to staff \nfrom Sbca. Endorsing there. support for our \nDRB Meeting Room: proposed improvements. \nAnd with that I’ll turn over to Rene. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, if I got that part Russian\, easy \nGood evening. Distinguished Commissioners\, board members\, and BC. DC. Staff. My name is Renee Bian\, managing partner of SW. A. San Francisco \nstudio. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s an honor to present the 1\,301 Shoreway project this today. This evening. \nI represent one small part of a team that I think has a very deep bench in this area. And if questions get technical later on\, we may have to call some of those \nto the mic. I’d also like to give a warm shout out to Shrew T. And Ashley\, who’s been great thought partners for us over the last several months and highly professional in guiding us through this process. \n13 or one sure way\, I’ll try to not be too redundant with the overview that Truty gave. But It’s in the city of Belmont\, and it’s adjacent to the Belmont Creek site as shrew teeth navigated \nthe site\, although our site itself is fairly small\, I think it combines beautifully with both the 200 twin dolphin site and the 10 twin dolphin site kind of\, you know the parts adding up to a a bigger whole. \nsuper. Important to recognize that. Our site is\, in fact\, the on the creek side\, and it does not correct. Connect directly to the larger bay trail system. However\, with the advantage of 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin\, it will connect through those those sites. \nDRB Meeting Room: also. to note that. the site\, the DC DC jurisdiction area is only half owned by our client. 4 corners. The other half is owned by Sbc. A. And as Rich said\, they’ve been very supportive. And albeit last minute they did draft a very supportive letter today. \nother kind of important contextual things is that to the west some lane is a private street owned by the city of Belmont. To the east is the Pg. And E. Substation quite an unsightly mess. \nand then we have both the one one freeway and shoreline to the south. As Shruti mentioned\, the site was originally approved in 1\,981\, and then in 1\,985\, a modification to add up a tennis court adjacent to the site. \nagain\, the trail head for our site begins currently at the end of Sam Lane. There’s a small sign and a \ntrailhead. However\, there’s no public walkway that connects from Shoreway to the trail head itself. The site will eventually\, as I said\, connect to the north side of the creek itself\, and from the north side will have connections both through the 200 twin Dolphin and the 10 twin dolphin projects. \nDRB Meeting Room: oops. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry. existing condition of the site. You know. I’m just gonna be frank. It’s not great. the in addition to the 101 freeway and Shoreway Road. There’s a 70 foot wide. Utility easement to the south side of the site. The Pg. And e substation is is currently \nonerous\, to say the least. Some lane only has one access into the existing surface parking lot. And again\, the current access to the actual trail head is is not great. \nimages from the 101. There are no indicators that there is\, you know\, a a water body\, natural system from the 101 itself \nas you get in a little closer to one I want sure way. same thing. You know\, it’s about 5 to 600 feet from Shoreway to the actual trail itself\, and there are no visible indicators that really show you\, you know. \nGo here\, so to speak. the site itself in the upper right that is the trail head and the sign. But again\, no public access to that trail head \nThe creek is. The condition is currently. you know\, pretty much in disrepair\, with the benches and the trash and the other amenities overgrown. And even that vegetation\, you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: implemented several decades ago\, is not\, is not great. the. It’s also\, I think\, a little bit of an incoherent Site plan in terms of There are not enough indicators to help clarify. You know\, the directionality of the path. How do you get from one place to the other. the shaping of the spaces. Everything feels just a little bit hunky\, Tonk\, and maybe not\, as on par with the other amenities that we see in the Bay area for this this level of of site. \nDRB Meeting Room: this is the flood map and we covered that briefly. But I want to give my oops. \nSorry\, a quick indicator of numbers here and again\, if there are specific technical questions\, we can come back to that. But the creek. Yeah. The creek trail itself \ncurrently meets a resiliency standard to mid-century based on a king tide of 7 9 plus 2 feet sea level rise. So worst case scenario 9.9. \nThe Belmont Creek is currently at 11 to 11.8 feet in elevation\, which exceeds the 9.9 the trail can be adapted to handle the 1 100 year storm event. \nand for good measure we’re proposing to raise it to 12.2\, so existing building is it 15. Existing elevation of the shoreline is 11 to eleven-five\, and the trail fluctuates from 10.9 to 11.5 in its existing condition. \nSo we’re going to switch a little bit to talk about flood adaptation\, and how we intend to address that both short term and long term. first of all along the creek itself\, as I said\, for good measure. \nwe’re going to raise the trail to 12.5 from its current standard of 10.9 and 11.5. The building elevations will be set at 12 per the city of Belmont and we’re also going to do some shaping to the berm that I’m gonna get to here. \nDRB Meeting Room: So left to right\, I’m I’m sorry. In the upper right hand corner you’ll see some section keys\, and if you follow the those through the series of sections\, it should be pretty clear what we’re doing. So building pads are going to elevation 12 existing curb and gutter to remain at 10.3 and then the trail and the planted area\, and the \nhead of the berm itself will raise to 12.5 at the high level \nDRB Meeting Room: next section. Cut a little bit further down as you’re into that proposed courtyard itself. the again. The berm will be elevated from it’s currently at 11 2 to 12.5. \nThe Graphic is a slightly off on on this one. If you read the the actual numerical at 12\, it should be 12.5. It looks a little bit higher than that. I apologize. But \nDRB Meeting Room: Then the section at the garage itself\, again elevating the levy to 12.5\, and keeping the building at 12 and existing courtyard fluctuates with that flow of the grading itself. \nlong term\, and for that 2\,100 mark we feel that there’s plenty of room to build up to the high\, high level of. We have about 50 feet to deal with\, and which gives us enough time enough room to burn up\, to get the access to the site\, and then to return back before we hit the downslope to the creek itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: So\, switching now to a program and kind of the amenities package\, so to speak. \nstarting back at Shoreway. we are proposing to add a 6 foot wide sock sidewalk. with proper signage at the intersection of Sam and Shoreway. \nThe walk continues all the way down to the site itself\, where you’ll meet a improved trail head\, 10 bite parking stalls\, 3 vehicular parking stalls\, and then a series of both passive and active seating nodes along the trail itself at a rhythm of about 100 150 feet each. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the signage again\, both pulling it out to Shoreway Boulevard. I think\, particularly for hotel guests in the adjacent room. That’s where they’re gonna want to kind of see it and kind of pick it up and go down to it\, and then improving the signage and bringing more of an informational signage to the trail\, head itself at the creek. \nSo existing condition. where then? Not a through street sign is to the right will be the new walkway to the left\, at the hotel that walkway does not continue all the way down. \nso it would be 6 foot high side walkway. And again the informational graphics \nDRB Meeting Room: and a planting buffer between the walkway and the proposed building. \nDRB Meeting Room: once you get to the trail head itself. As I said\, there’s a series of different nodes. One is kind of to build on that existing athletic program nodes. So a bicycle repair station\, obviously bike parking\, but also kind of high quality exercise stations in half of the nodes that are being provided. \nThe other half of the nodes will be more passive seating node for bird watching. Or you know\, quiet phone calls You know\, we want this to be a a trail and an amenity that’s for people of all ages and all economic groups. we want it to be inclusive. So we’re we’re proposing as much variety as we think is kind of reasonable on the the site here. \nBut also\, you know\, the nodes aren’t one-liners. Obviously\, if there’s exercise stations\, it’ll be paired with a quality seating that gives people good orientation\, not just to the creek\, but to the to the surrounding landscape \nDRB Meeting Room: again\, you know just a so simple and accessible node next to the adjacent path\, and looking down the the slew itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the fourth node is slightly larger\, and it would include\, obviously\, community\, more community style tables and chairs where people could have meetings or \nhave their launch\, or\, you know\, do something that’s a little bit more socially engaged \nDRB Meeting Room: just a slight blow up of these areas again that as you’re looking at it 3 new designated parking stalls\, there are 0 now. 10 class 2 bike parking. There are 0 now\, a new walkway to connect to the trail head and improved educational signage. and then which kind of brings you around to the first \nseating burning node there. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the existing condition again. No parking\, no bikes\, no connectivity \nto the proposed condition. I should also point out that to the left\, here in the center of the screen. That’s the official bay trail. we’ve also included a secondary trail adjacent to the parking structure\, so that there’s 2 ways to kind of navigate through the through the project itself. \nA slight blow up of both that active node\, the fitness node above\, and the more passive trail seating below. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then finally the largest node at the end. It’s it would be a fitness node a meeting node to the center or above the the tennis court\, and a fitness node below. So the 2 nodes combine\, and there’s an additional seating node in the back\, which is a part of the existing \nwalkway system behind the courts themselves. \nBlow up looking you’re looking across at 10 twin Dolphin drive the future 10 to the dolphin drive. and an example again\, of the scale and the materiality of of these nodes. \nDRB Meeting Room: existing vegetation. Again\, it’s not great. The trees are listed in either every tree is listed either as poor or extremely poor conditions. Several are already dead\, very few natives\, and we would be replacing that with a more \nindigenous. plant pellet. We’re clearly wanting to complement and build off of the plant palette that both 200 twin dolphin and 10 to involve and have done for a bigger\, larger ecological impact \nto the Overall creek itself. hopefully. the material palette looks familiar to most of you\, but this would be the look and the scale that we’d be looking for. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the ground covers. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that’s a presentation. Thank you very much. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much\, Renee\, for that very clear and comprehensive presentation and and graphics that are really easy to comprehend. So we’ve got a we’re going to take a moment here to see if there’s any questions from the board\, clarifying questions on the proponents. Presentation. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you have a question\, please. \non your mic. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. Nice presentation. this is a new\, newly constructed parking day along the \nhe’s in the creek. Are there a. C. 3 stormwater requirements they handled in there somewhere. \nDRB Meeting Room: for the the development itself\, for for the\, for the parking strip that’s within the yeah\, that that will all drain to the private development itself. Yeah. \nright\, Raquel. \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: that I I will say that for the private development we’re using pretty much the same plant palette and the same strategy kind of tying the 2 ecologies together. So the the C 3 requirement is actually kind of a feature of the \na private courtyard. \nI had one question about just to make sure I was reading the illustrations correctly. The adaptation zone for a future as well as the nodes that you were showing. \nDo those fall outside of your client’s property. Ownership \nDRB Meeting Room: is that within the other property ownership that you established at the beginning of the presentation? \nit’s really designed as as one zone. The nodes are within the twelve-five adaptation area\, though\, if I understand your question. \nDRB Meeting Room: so they’ll be above twelve-. \nOkay\, is that was that the question. the question is more about the property lines. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s a that’s \ngood question. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it. So that property line is indicating everything east of it is the Sbc 8. Okay\, thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Anyone else. \nYeah. maybe 2 questions. If you could help us with one. Is you heard the question from Staff about the the quality of publicness of the central court. \nSo it’d be great to hear a little bit more about the thresholds \nDRB Meeting Room: entering and exiting that court\, and how that is made to feel welcoming. \nAnd then maybe the second question is. there’s a larger cluster seating adjacent to the court\, which perhaps reflects the current condition. \nIs there any thought about how the changes to the uses on the land side effects where people are more likely to gather or not? \nYeah. So your first question is\, how are we making it more public the court\, the making it welcoming for the public to move through the court\, because my understanding is that that is considered part of the public access. Oh\, the private court\, as a part of the development. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the question the question is\, how is the courtyard with what’s your attitude on the publicness of the courtyard that’s being created by the 3 building? If I could Just clarify that there are 2 things that might be. we’re being referred to as a court. There is an inner court yard which is part of the proposal. and then there is a \nsports court\, which is a an existing feature on the site both of which are are private and intended to remain. So. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe you can handle the \ntouch on the the gathering by the private court\, the the sports court. Okay? Why\, there’s a larger one there. Given the changes on the land side. Okay? so in on the \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: more or less\, this is it. \nthat’s the largest area right now. And if you look at the Site plan\, I mean one of that one of that I think benefits to the to the greater public is that this parcel line kind of triangulates in front of the Pg. And E substation. \nSo the planting and the landscape that goes there will help screen that at least from short way drive. And so there’s there’s benefit there that larger gathering space there is about the size of the existing gathering space that’s currently there. So there’s a larger space there. The other nodes are distributed. I guess they would add up to allow a larger space. \nBut I’m trying to. \nDRB Meeting Room: Your question is\, why? Why? Why is the big space where it is now? Versus later? Yeah\, I think it has more to do with the geometry and the fact that there’s more area to work with there because the space can pull in adjacent to the to the Sports court. \nI mean\, if there was a desire to make one of the other nodes larger\, we could. I mean\, there’s nothing precluding it. This is not a trail that currently gets a lot of use because it it’s somewhat dead ends on some lane. So we don’t want to over scale these spaces. We want it to feel comfortable. \nbut the the largest space is adjacent to the tennis court\, just because there’s more flat landmass to to deal with there. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much for the presentation. \nhave a \nDRB Meeting Room: couple of questions\, and then I think\, as some clarifications would be helpful about something in the staff report. \nmaybe we could start with that. There’s the discussion I have a levy \nDRB Meeting Room: and the justification for why the levy improvements are sort of outside the purview of this project. and I would love it if you could provide us some more context as to where that levy is \nDRB Meeting Room: and in its relationship to what’s actually being improved. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, can I? Do you mind just killing your microphone? \nCan someone else help me with that one? \nGo back to the see my map. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, my name is Rachel Phones. I’m from Bkf engineers. so the actual creek is outside of the property. \nin. we are basically just enhancing it. since it’s outside of our property. \nDRB Meeting Room: I know if that answers your question\, and it’s about maybe 30 feet away from the property line. \nDRB Meeting Room: But there is a levy on the \non the inland side of the creek. The you know. It’s a berm. It’s not technically a levy in in in the staff report\, and this might be a question for staff. \nThe discussion of this levy is\, is that what you are referring to? Yes\, the trail\, the Belmont Creek trail on both sides\, on the 1\,301 Charlotte Showway side\, and on the 201 dolphin intent on dolphin side. are both on a what we’ve understood from those projects to be a fema\, certified Levy. So the the trail \nthe pedestrian trail. They are actually on top of the levy and From those the the prior projects we’ve learned that because it is there on a a fema certified levy. any changes \nto to the those those areas would require action from several other agencies and municipalities. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the strategy is to have the individual property owners gling the 2 that we’ve previously seen\, and this one to improve to a new base plot elevation outside of the physical levy. \nand that sort of further down the road there could be a agency-driven fled control project within the creek corridor. \nBut yeah\, but but the idea is that we’re just looking at the per view. I see. Actually\, you’re not in your head. Okay\, yeah\, I just want to make sure that we sort of understood that in the context of what we’re sort of talking about\, Stefan. I also would like to add that I think the levy that you may be referring to should also mentioned. It’s that dash black line. Yes\, that is on the other side. Yes\, that’s \non the other side of the quick\, which is not part of this improvements. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. So in that context. And this might be a question for today. again. But we’re talking about the sort of connectivity and synergy that can come from \nthis project in the context of the twin dolphin improvements. So for someone to actually access the trail and cross the creek corridor. \ncan you provide some guidance for actually how that actually would happen for a production\, either on this side to reach the bay trail side or from somebody on the twin Dolphin side to actually come over to this side of the creek. \nSo currently the trail head starts here. and continues and connects to the north side. Here it’s sure way. So you come here. There’s no bridge or structure that goes over the creek until you hit shoreline\, so then you would follow shoreline to the north side of the creek\, and either you know\, cross here to the bay trail or come down to this end \nto hit the bay trail. \nand the \nDRB Meeting Room: context that are providing additional connectivity between these sites in this location \nis due to the fact that the \nDRB Meeting Room: creek is lying outside the jurisdiction. \nThat’s really what we’re looking at like. If\, for example\, like a pedestrian bridge or something that would create synergy or provide opportunities for these amenities to be more easily accessed between sites. It’s this jurisdictional issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m sorry I don’t understand your question like why you couldn’t propose like a pedestrian bridge across the creek that actually would provide a more direct connection between where the improvements are actually happening. \nFor example. \nyeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the creek\, it’s not part of our property. And I mean it’ also trigger all their agencies like you\, said Fema. And they are out of our control. Yeah\, right? Yeah. I mean the the context for my questions is\, if it\, the access to this portion \nof the jurisdiction is is still pretty challenged. And so I I just try to sort of address that. And then Have you had any discussion with Staff about \nany \nDRB Meeting Room: shared use happening in the adjacent \nopen spaces to the public access. For example\, either the Sports Court or the Larger Development Court. Has there been any discussion about potential for shared use\, maintaining privacy on those sites but opening them up under certain terms \nor uses or activities to the the broader public. \nDRB Meeting Room: because of that nature of the building itself is like science security is definitely an an issue\, and the owner is kind of adamant that the court itself\, although visually accessible and ecologically accessible\, not be physically accessible. \nAnd then this force that goes for the Sports Court that’s adjacent to the trail as well. Well\, I think the preference would be to keep the it’s it’s not as hard line. But I think the preference would be to keep the sports chord private. Okay\, thank you very much for the additional contacts. Appreciate it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \na couple of questions I have. So the 12.5\, the berm or the levy whatever calling it when you get to the ends. Is there any indication of\, you know connection at the at the ends or \nyou know. I guess we’re always interested to\, you know\, when you look at it in section. It looks like you have protection when you look at it in plan\, you know. Not as much protection until you know the levy continues. \nDRB Meeting Room: so is a question that when you get to the end\, do you know\, work to go? Where to continue? Well? Does it? Does it close off\, you know. Does it turn back on the property lines to protect or or is it? Is it only effective when the adjacent properties complete the the thought\, and \nyou know\, related to that also is just the the finish floor of the existing building set at 12\, you said\, which was by the city\, the set by the city. Yeah. Okay. And I was just curious where you know the what\, what sets that? What are the guidelines they’re going from or the the \nI don’t know. The criteria that sets that when those guidelines were written\, perhaps is is maybe more to the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, maybe someone else has a better answer. But I think they use the fema guideline\, the city of Belmont. \nDid you know \nDRB Meeting Room: I actually just did it here. So the city of Belmont required us to. We’re on flat Zone X\, which there is no a specific base\, flat elevation\, but the city of a Belmont. they said that they would like us to set it at 12\, just because. \nwe’re right next to the phone\, ae\, with base flight elevation 10. And they wanted to make sure that we are accommodating for the 24 inches\, probably the sea level rise. So then\, they said\, please set it to 12. So that’s where that came from. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah. And I I guess my question is\, you know\, was there any consideration about going higher\, or what is longevity of the 12 So we’re trying to make sure that we’re able to conform to the streets because the streets same lane and also the short way road. So I think based on the guidelines the city gave us. That’s probably the most so we can go right now\, otherwise it will be hard for us to create more challenging to confirm to the assistant streets that are not going to be raised. \nYeah\, thank you. It’s it’s pretty much maxed out right now. \nDRB Meeting Room: just for accessibility on the\, on the issue about what happens at the end of the trail. I don’t have the history of when it was proved\, but the adjacent property adjacent to Pg. And E. Seems to have had a recent \nimprovement\, and it’s pretty nice when you get there. You know you feel like you just continue on in terms of the feel of of the nodes themselves on on our property. They’re intended to be able to look 360\, not just like\, you know. Look there\, and we’re turning the back on that on the project itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great\, thank you. Yeah\, I realize it’s a regional problem. But I was just curious. Any thoughts you have on how you how it transitions into the future. Yeah. The the other thing I thought I heard you ask\, but I think it’s an important point. Any is that we’re not dependent on 200 twin dolphin or 10 twin Dolphin to have a successful project because our loop goes to Shoreway. when when our project is built in our trail is\, you know\, it’s kind of a standalone piece improved. Obviously\, when the neighborhood improves but not dependent on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: because because the whole property is raised\, you’re protected. Yeah. \ngot it? Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. If there is no further questions\, then I think we can move on to \npublic comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: like to open the meeting to the public. Any member of the public attending. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. if you do\, does it look like you have comments. If so\, I’ll read the instructions again. \nDRB Meeting Room: There are no comments online here. \nOkay. okay\, hold on. We did receive one letter of support from the project or for the project from the Redwood Shores business agency. \nRegarding the proposed shoreline trail improvements. The comments have been forwarded to the Board and will be included in the meeting summary. \nOkay\, thank you. Then\, at this time we can have a board discussion. I think this is\, oh\, did you have something? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, quickly. I would like to \ncorrect something I told in. I I said in response to board member Pellegrini’s question about the levy I just spoke with dillip survey of mafia and nickel which is consulting the applicant. \nThe the project team on sea level rise and and flooding assessments. and I’ve just been told that \nthis side of the the the Belmont Creek the \nDRB Meeting Room: it is not a fema certified levy. It is on the twin dolphin side\, but not on on the 1\,301 sure way side\, not on the side that this project falls on \nso presumably this means that it can it it. \nDRB Meeting Room: There is a possibility of \nplacing\, fill\, or or or conducting other activities on this side of what is basically a berm \nDRB Meeting Room: which would not have been possible without agency. \nFurther agency action on the other side of the creek\, on the twin dolphin side. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great. Thank you. Troy. So yeah\, we have an opportunity to bring forward any comments that the Board has at this time any advice. \nAnd \nDRB Meeting Room: what we can do is \nI think we want to answer the questions in the context of the \nDRB Meeting Room: the issues that we are asked to address as a board. There are 7 objectives for public access. \nMake the public access. I feel public\, make it usable. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and the shoreline. \nmaintain and enhance the visual quality of the day. Shoreline and adjacent developments provide connections and continuity along the shoreline. take advantage of the base setting \nDRB Meeting Room: and ensure that public access is compatible with wildlife through citing design and management strategies. So those are those are issues that we’re asked to \naddress for every project. And then\, in addition to that\, there’s a few other more specific comments that are coming to us from staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: How does the project proposal result in the public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people. \nDRB Meeting Room: Proposal includes both passive and active public spaces along the shoreline integrated with campus-oriented uses. \nlike the sports court and parking does. The sighting of these public and campus-oriented programs enhance and activate the shoreline in a manner that is inviting to public users \nDRB Meeting Room: what additional improvements could enhance the public access experience from the publicly accessible courtyard \nto and along the shoreline \nDRB Meeting Room: and that I believe that’s not correct\, right? It’s not a publicly accessible courier. \nSo I say that again\, what additional improvements could enhance the public experience from the \nDRB Meeting Room: courtyard 2. And along the shoreline. And this is referring to the large courtyard. Correct? And I could I ask if we do? We have a an enlargement of that area since that’s one of the main questions. I think that would be helpful to \nput that up as possible. given the increase in scale and size of the buildings on site. That’s the proposed design. Provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike pedestrian networks \nto draw users into and through the site. The Belmont Creek trail and shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level rise \nin balance with ensuring high quality\, public space. public access\, opportunity. So I know that’s a lot. we can come back to those if if needed. But maybe we’re just \nso we just start at the end of the table there. Stefan\, and we’ll work our way. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, I’ll try to do my best to go first. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think in a I’ll start by saying in the context of the other projects that we’ve seen in this area. \nI think that just \nDRB Meeting Room: from a starting point. The idea that there is new development that’s happening that actually can enhance the public realm is like a huge positive \nbecause the sort of the previous generation of development that happen in this area. It’s it’s ready for some renewal. And so I think that actually is really positive. \nthat there’s an opportunity to enhance the sort of public space in this location\, and particularly when there’s multiple projects that are adjacent to one another. \nso I I’m that’s I think that’s a big plus sort of a benefit. Here. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m gonna look at the rest of my my team members here. I the this one\, I think\, is a little bit tricky\, because the \nDRB Meeting Room: as I mentioned\, like the access in this \nlocation\, this is sort of not great. It’s not well connected. It’s sort of shoe horned in between the freeway and the other amenities that are basically on the other side of the waterway in this location? \nand so I think\, trying to sort of understand or look at it through. That context is important\, like\, what are we trying to do by maximizing public access in this location? \nDRB Meeting Room: I guess one thing that’s going through my mind is that the way that it seems to be set up is that it’s looking at \nassembling as a enhanced access point for the community that you basically can find your way onto the site with bike and the the 3 public parking spaces \nat the entry where you actually enter into the project that’s enhanced\, you have better signage. It’s you’re directed into that location. And then you could sort of get off of your vehicle or your bicycle at that location and find yourself basically into the the larger public network. \nso I think that’s sort of a positive it is potentially sort of better connected to the network than you would the situation that you have today. but I’m sort of curious or sort of looking at it through that lens of \nif this does become sort of a enhanced gateway for this neighborhood to get into the Bay trail system. How much public access do we need? \nAnd so that’s I don’t know if I have the answer to that. but it does seem like that’s just sort of my context as sort of how I would look at that. Look at this in this location. \nI think. \nso on one hand\, like clear signage. clear understanding of where you are\, what you can get to. that getting to the amenities in this area. You still have to take this kind of roundabout way \nto get there. But this idea that you’re passing through nodes to get you from 1 point to the next\, I think\, is actually very positive. there’s improvements on the Pg. And that we talked about. That’s also positive. \nSome things I’m sort of wondering about is To what extent can you benefit from \nDRB Meeting Room: having visual connections to the larger open space network\, even if they’re not going to be publicly accessible. \nAnd so I’m just curious about that like can the landscape? To what extent can the landscape continue across the parking lane. can you sort of visually be in a space? What’s the edge of the public courtyard like \nthat? You can clearly\, visually access that you would not be allowed to sort of go into And those things\, maybe. \nDRB Meeting Room: they’re not well communicated by the really great set of design that we have sort of in the proposal. So I’m curious about that. \nThe Sports Court seems like a great opportunity to sort of enhance public access in that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s a fairly prominent site. It’s elevated. \nThere’s an opportunity for habitat\, probably some views in that location. and I’m just curious if there’s sort of a way to kind of push the envelope there and \nDRB Meeting Room: and get some increased public access. \nin that location. So I’ll stop. Yeah\, thank you \nDRB Meeting Room: please see on \nyeah. Actually\, maybe 2 parts. one. Stefan\, in terms of your question about general accessibility and connectivity to the broader district. \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t. I didn’t hear it. I didn’t know if it’s a possibility that there is signage at the end of some lane \nwhere there could be something as simple as a trail map\, indicating all the trails in the area. So at least there’s raising the awareness of what the public amenities in the district are that people could access. \nand I think with that kind of simple \nDRB Meeting Room: amenity\, would help people really maybe become aware of and encourage\, and perhaps spread the word any. And then the second \nthing it is\, I guess I I was asking the question about the larger seating area next to the court sports court in part\, because \nDRB Meeting Room: in its original condition\, that it was at the end of a \na driveway from Shoreway Road\, and so it felt pretty connected back out to Shoreway Road. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, in its current configuration\, where that of parking on the east side of the property is really a dead end loop now \nstarts to feel more remote and perhaps less available to to folks. So I just wonder if maybe that \nDRB Meeting Room: seating could be spread out more. Perhaps there’s a a node that is closer to the actual entry point. Now\, because I think \nthe configuration really shifts all of the entry to the north end. \nThank you. Okay. \nthank you for the presentation. I I agree with stuff on your framing and understanding of the context. And Gary\, as you read off \nthe goals of the lenses through which we’re viewing this\, it’s interesting that the visual connection aspect to the bay or the regional connectivity are sort of limited by conditions outside of the \ncontrol of this project. And there’s lots of limitations. And so acknowledging that the focus of this discussion primarily becomes the publicness of the trail. And \nI think that’s really where a lot \nDRB Meeting Room: of the comments that I’m hearing and where I’m going to is \nthe tennis court is a real opportunity to create something that is an anchor for public shared use\, as you know\, in your presentation running. You even describe this isn’t necessarily a popular or doesn’t see the levels of use that you might expect. So having \nsomething that signals to visitors or pastors\, by that this is intended as a place for public use or rest. and it could maybe even paired with something as simple as a water fountain. Or you know\, I mean drinking water fountain or something that’s an amenity for a public user. \nI think\, and create that signal quite successfully. I really appreciate and enjoy the concept of the fitness\, nodes and the idea of thinking of this is a cohesive trail\, and you encounter these moments\, that kind of reinforce that witness theme. \nso I think those are really successful\, and\, you know\, can add an element of playfulness. It is where I’m getting caught\, too\, is a lot of this is. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, what could be perceived as \nbehind the building. Kind of\, you know\, we’ve all been in places that feel like it is designed publicly\, but still gives you cues that you’ve chanced upon something that maybe you’re not supposed to be there. So \nthink with \nDRB Meeting Room: signage or way\, finding that even \nalong Semlene. earlier on\, before you get to the trail to be able to have these signals. That gesture towards there is a public amenity back there and encouraging people. could go a long way. So \nreally I I guess the \nDRB Meeting Room: majority of my comments are about the power of the small moves of way finding or small public amenities\, and embracing those aspects more fully. But thank you for the presentation. \nI think it’s a pretty straightforward project. I think it’s well handled. I just have 3 comments just to add on top. I think number one is\, I think the tree would be nice at the trailhead. We come down Sam Lane \nto have a \nDRB Meeting Room: a clear explanation. How in the world are we going to get to the \nDRB Meeting Room: vitriol from here? It’s it’s quite circuitous. So \nsome may have explained that it was going to be a long way. Maybe a drinking fountain would be nice. Is it going to get the receipt by time to get there? And I also. I believe I’m not sure if the crosswalk \ncoming over from private courtyard it’s a traffic table\, but I think that’d be beneficial. \nDRB Meeting Room: And the third thing is\, I I just think this \nprivate sports court \nDRB Meeting Room: not very nice idea. I think it should be. \nI think the applicant should strongly consider the the benefit that would accrue to them by making that public. especially if it’s surrounded with fitness\, equipment. These are things. But you can’t. But why can’t I go in there? Well\, it’s private\, you know it. \nIt doesn’t disintegrate message\, and I think it’s not a big deal. Don’t let the public use that thing as well. \nOkay\, thank you. Thanks all for your comments. yeah. So steps. You can jump in if you have any comment on this. But I I I think that the work that we’re being shown is is really fantastic\, and you know it looks like it’s been \nvery well done\, and and and pretty thoughtful within these constraints. But I I can’t remember that we typically review projects without getting a better picture of what’s going on with the side planning of the buildings\, because\, even though we have a hundred foot shoreline band \nso that our per view is is sort of limited. You know\, the visual and physical access to the to the bay is really the major charge that we have. So usually\, we start these discussions by\, you know\, talking about the you know the arterials that serve the property\, and where the property lines are\, and what street frontage looks like\, and what’s your experience of approaching the building\, traveling down Sam Lane\, where the utilities and \nthe parking garage and and so I guess I had expected to to hear more about the courtyard\, and how that interface with the\, you know\, with the outdoor space. Is there a fence? Is there a wall? Is it \ncompletely open? And on many projects that we’ve looked at. You know\, there are building responses. And the what I think we’ve seen about the buildings is provocative. The buildings look\, you know. \nlike they’re really thoughtfully done. And sometimes we review buildings\, and there’s like a. you know\, like a recess or an overlook or kind of a third level porch\, or something like that\, that that kind of mediates the scale of the building as it pushes up against the the shoreline band\, you know \nthe Bay trail. So I I would love to. You know we don’t review the building\, so you don’t really have much to say about that. But we we do have the ability to comment on things that we think would improve the public experience. \nAnd and the buildings are so have great opportunities. you know\, for views\, and I just like to see more about how that interface looks\, because it\, although this strip of land is is very nice. You know\, there is a \nI don’t know. 20\, 40 foot wide parking lot\, and then and then not far away\, is the wall of the building. So. when when the project comes back\, and I think that it should come back. Of course this is just a preliminary review\, and these are very general \npreliminary comments. I think it’d be great to see that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So \nwith that\, I think we concludes our comments and our recommendations\, and the project proponent is welcome to make any statements or responses to those comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: thank you for the comments. really clear and very helpful. I think if the project has to come back\, then we don’t really have any comments at this point\, we’ll just address it as a part of the process. We’ll continue with this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ll continue working with stuff. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think. You know\, I I I personally\, I apologize for excluding the building. That was a little bit on me. I thought that \nwe didn’t want to focus much on the buildings and really kind of focus just on the on the landscape work itself. So my apologies. I think the other stuff\, you know. a map at some lane. Absolutely. It would be great to work with staff\, and maybe we can get \n210\, and you know\, to kind of. We can work together and have a comprehensive package\, because I agree it would be great if the district was was better connected for sure. \nAnd you know the comment on that exercise station that there’s another. There’s a passive note on the other side of that \nsports court\, which is equal in size to the exercise station. maybe that that wasn’t clear\, but we can clarify that \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the other comments are pretty\, you know. It’s pretty clear. \nWell\, I I totally appreciate your comments\, and it you know we it is kind of a gray area about what are you know what we’re addressing here? I think that we are an advisory group. We make comments about really anything that we think \nthe experience of being on the shoreline. And then\, you know\, it’s filtered through staff and the Commission. There are legal restrictions on what you know what can be \ndetermined. Yeah. But I think at this point I think we’re just talking conceptually about the project and trying to. you know\, \nDRB Meeting Room: make what improvements we can. And I think buildings are a huge part of that. And you know\, sometimes we talk about brood safe glass\, or you know\, reflections or \nyou know what is the you know? Shadows cast. you know\, from the buildings\, and so on. \nDRB Meeting Room: What one question I \nclarifying question I wanted to ask was\, I think you had a question for comment about \nDRB Meeting Room: what it \nexisting. I guess \nDRB Meeting Room: accessibility is in terms of \nfrom the main frontage\, presumably from Shoreway Road. It was it. \nDRB Meeting Room: was it what the existing view corridors are like\, and that I wasn’t quite clear\, because we did \nin the beginning. And and maybe we just kind of brushed over too quickly. But there\, there were some use of what the existing conditions are like relative to where the trail is in the front. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah\, no\, absolutely. I I think. \nI’m just thinking that the \nDRB Meeting Room: the present you know you have. You did some big big context. And then we we went right to the shoreline. And I think this middle piece of the site planning and the building would be great to just get a better picture of how it all fits together. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: that concludes our our \ncomments. And \nDRB Meeting Room: can we do we have any other business before we \nduring the meeting. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, okay. \nadjourned this meeting. Sorry my language. But yes\, I I am aware \nDRB Meeting Room: we can take a 5 min break to transition between the process. \nI think we’re ready to get started. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ll now begin our review on Agenda item Number 5\, which is the fourth review of the proposed San Lee Andro Shoreline Development Project \nfor the city of San Leandro and Alameda County \nDRB Meeting Room: to remind you of the Project Review order. We’ll have B. C. DC. Staff introductions and project proponent. We’ll make a presentation. \nWe’ll have clarifying questions from the board. Brief period of public comment\, and then the board discussion and summary. followed by a response from the proponent. \nSo with that \nDRB Meeting Room: just think all \nProject analyst will introduce the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Acting chair string. Good evening\, board members again. My name is Jessica Finkel. I’m a shoreline development analyst at BC. DC. And and tonight I’ll be introducing the second project for tonight’s review. This is the fourth review of the Stanley and a Shoreline development Project\, also sometimes called the Monarch Bay Shoreline Development Project in the city of San Liandro\, in Alameda county. \nDRB Meeting Room: Before I continue\, we’d like to acknowledge that the land in this area is unseeded. Lish on territory\, the ancestral homelands of the Chicago-speaking Aloni peoples. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area. \nDRB Meeting Room: The proposed project is located at the Stanley Andrew Marina\, in the city of San Leandro\, about one miles south of Oakland\, International Airport\, and 2 miles southwest of downtown San Leandro and the San Antonio Park Station. \nThe Marina is situated between 2 other recreational areas\, oyster points so regional shoreline to the north and Marina Park\, immediately across the channel to the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to Orient you to the project site and vicinity. Here you can see Sam Andrew Marina to the west of Monarch Bay\, drive \n2 peninsula around the Marina Mulford Point\, to the north and west\, and Pescadur Point to the south. The portions of the project within B cdc’s jurisdiction are on the Marina side of Monarch Bay Drive. \nThis is where the project project proponents are proposing a public park\, some new commercial buildings\, and a new multi-family residential building to the east is the Marina golf course\, where new single-family homes and town homes are being proposed. \nThe project site is accessible for Monarch Bay Drive\, which becomes Marina boulevard in the north\, and eventually connects to I 8 80\, about a mile away\, and the site can also be accessed by a fairway drive from the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to provide some additional context about the current site conditions. This area to the west of Monarch Bay Drive is approximately 36 acres\, not including the water area and approximately 59 acres with the water area \nexisting. Commercial uses include Horatio’s Restaurant\, El Torito Restaurant and the Marina. In there are also public fishing peer and boat ramp\, and about 1\,800 surface parking spaces throughout the site. \nA few other landmarks of clothes like the blue Dolphin restaurant which has been demolished\, and the Sandly Andro and spinach or yacht clubs. \nDRB Meeting Room: The Marina itself closed at the beginning of this year\, and there have been some challenges at the site. Since the last time the Drb. Saw the project \nthere’s been an increase in vandalism and some other nuisances that have prompted the city to close Mulford Point and Pescutter points to vehicle traffic and staff is currently working with the city to address these issues in the short term while they continue working on the overall redevelopment plan \nDRB Meeting Room: briefly about public access facilities is on the site. The municipal marina dates back to the early 1960 S. And it’s generally been accessible to the public. But there are several\, as you can see\, existing Dcdc. Permits that provide for public access facilities. \nthe staff report goes into more detail. But there are some pathways and green spaces\, as well as the boat ramp and the bottom. Right off of Pescetera Point some public access was tied to projects that were never completed\, like the relocated boat launch on Mulford Point and the Conference center at the Blue Dolphin. \nDRB Meeting Room: In addition\, there is an existing On-street Bay trail segment along the Marina golf course on Monarch Bay Drive. That’s not connected to a permit \nthat segment connects to striped facilities south of Fairway drive and on Marina Boulevard to the north. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’ll briefly go through several photos and images to give you a general sense of the site as it currently exists. \nThis aerial view of the site from July 2022 provides a nice overview\, and it highlights that the site is mostly paved over. \nDRB Meeting Room: This shows the approach to the arena coming from the north on Monarch Bay Drive. \nThe proposed hotel would be straight ahead as you follow the roadway and the sidewalk on the right would connect to the bay trail and would continue along the shoreline north of the hotel. \nDRB Meeting Room: These images are from Mulford Point Drive\, looking towards the Marina\, heading towards the Bend and at the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: and these photos are from Pescatur Point Drive. They show the southern approach on Monarch Bay\, Drive\, heading west towards the point and the public access area and fishing pier at the end. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the fourth review of the project. The last review was in December 2022. \nAnd this is a brief look at an earlier iteration of the project from 2\,016\, which would have placed a lot of development on the Peninsula side of Monarch Bay drives\, including residential office\, commercial and hotel uses\, and some active recreation areas included in the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: And this is the site plan. From last December \nthe major difference between the 2 16 and December 22. Design\, which is similar to the current proposal\, is the decreased intensity of development on the Peninsula with most private development. Moving east of Monarch Bay Drive and a bigger focus on continuous public access on the western side. \nThere’s also a decrease in the amount of in-water construction. For example\, they’re no longer. There’s no longer a bridge connecting the 2 points\, the beach or the repurposed boat slips \nDRB Meeting Room: at the December meeting. The Drb. Was pleased to see the private development was largely outside the shoreline band\, but expressed concerns about the rip\, wrap along the shoreline the amount of parking the landscape plan\, the lack of safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists and future sea level rise adaptation. \nThe Board also urged the project team to explore ways to activate the basin after the marina facilities are removed\, and to give the public a better interim park experience. The project team will describe the changes that they’ve made in more detail. But in general they’ve replaced the uniform lawn areas with zones for native grasses and pollinator gardens divided bank plantings along the coastal edge and interior basin. \nIt expanded the boat launch facilities at Pescador Point\, reconfigured the bay\, overlooked points and trails\, and added pedestrian crossings along Monarch Bay Drive to improve pedestrian circulation. They’ve also revised the facing plans to \nprovide public amenities earlier in the project timeline. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here’s a look at the community vulnerability mapping tool output to the area. The tool identified some block groups as having highest and high-social vulnerability as well as the census tract with highest contamination. Vulnerability. \nThe relevant factors vary\, but some common ones include the rate of renter households\, people of color\, individuals over 65\, living alone. Limited English proficiency. Non Us. Citizens and low-income households. \nContamination vulnerabilities attributed to things like the presence of hazardous cleanup and water cleanup activities in the area\, solid waste sites and hazardous waste facilities as well as an impaired water body\, which is the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level rise using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if a site remained unchanged. \nusing the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 sea level rise. Guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high-risk aversion. High emissions\, scenario at mid-century. \nAt this level there’s some potential for over topping on site\, as indicated by the red lines along Wilford Point\, as well as inundation around the edges of the peninsula around the existing rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like. It’s the site if it were unchanged. This roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level at 2\,090\, in the medium to high-risk aversion\, high emissions\, scenario\, as well as the one hundred-year storm condition. At mid-century. \nIn this scenario much of the back end would be flooded in much of the marina area as well\, although some higher areas in the middle of the Peninsula might not be flooded. \nDRB Meeting Room: The San Francisco Estuary Institute’s adaptation Atlas identifies nature based. Adaptation opportunities along the shoreline. These are areas that are well suited for interventions or actions that can help both address flooding and provide ecological benefits \nat the project site. The Atlas indicates suitability for eel grass in the Channel shoreline Beach\, along the outside of Mulford Point upland title\, marsh\, and preparation for upland habitat migration. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, here’s a summary of the questions\, and the staff report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nFirst\, please consider how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcd’s public access design guidelines. And then staff has identified particular areas we’d like the Board to address\, including\, does the Peninsula feel public does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s previous concerns? \nAre there safe and clear connections and way finding to the shoreline does the proposed shoreline protection approach enhance the experience of the shoreline. Does the proposed design adequately provide for existing and contemplated future uses\, such as fishing a private water shuttle\, and recreational use? \nDRB Meeting Room: And does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections? Before I introduce the project proponents\, does the Board have any clarifying questions on the staff introductions. \nActually\, I do have one question for staff. our purview is the 100 foot shoreline band. What about the water itself? What is our preview. With that \nyou may speak to any site aspect that involves or contributes to the public’s experience of the area that goes beyond the shoreline band connectivity from adjacent roadways to the shoreline\, but also \nDRB Meeting Room: a big water body that’s in the middle of the site. \nOkay? \nBut also\, if it helps \nDRB Meeting Room: it is so. They is a key part of Pcd’s jurisdiction. And so anything that you’d like to say about it\, please\, please do. \nhey? I think we can proceed\, then\, with the proponent presentation. That right? Okay? So from the project team today\, we have John Hughes with Griffin structures and Chuck Ardella from gates and associates presented. \nThank you\, everyone. My name is John Hughes. I am the project manager for the city of San Diego. For this project I’m going to be introducing some of the key goals and objectives of the project before I invite \nChuck Cardella from gates and associates to go through the design iterations that you see before you that we feel addressed the concerns and questions that we heard last time we were here \nto recap the goals of the project on behalf of the city. the city seeks to enhance the community engagement with the bay. Through this project this project seeks to mitigate against sea level rise. \nDRB Meeting Room: This project seeks to \nprovide natural restoration of a blighted site. Right now\, it’s a very\, very challenged site. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’re trying to enhance public access into the water\, not just around and about it\, but actually in it. \nDRB Meeting Room: and provide a park for cultural reflection. \nThe appreciation of nature and family enjoyment. \nDRB Meeting Room: as you may recall from our last presentation and the reports that have been provided to you that the the city has done extensive community outreach. We’ve had over half a dozen community outreach events we’ve \nsent out. I think\, 7\,000 emails to solicit interest. We’ve had pop up events. We’ve met with the Kymanu Canoe Club. We have met with the tribal community. We have met with the Lost Boat Memorial Society. \nand in all of that\, over 13 years we feel that the goals that we just listed represent what the community is looking for. that this project \nDRB Meeting Room: is delivering 100% of the bay. \nthe the B. C DC. Jurisdiction Landside\, B. C. DC. Jurisdiction to the community. There is not a single portion of the B Cdc. Jurisdiction that is excluding the community or the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: 13 years of development negotiations with calcos development\, where you saw we have pulled out all of the buildings that we’re within the 100 foot band. Because we we share in your goal \nthat we want to bring the community to this park. And we want to take an area that has suffered for decades and turn it into a gym of a park. \nDRB Meeting Room: So with that\, I’m going to hand it off to chuck to take you through some of the changes. We’ve taken a lot of your comments to heart. \nWe think that they’ve really helped us and enhance this project both in the the phasing in the design and the aesthetic theme. and I’ll leave it to chuck to share some of that with you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, John. \nDRB Meeting Room: So to give you a quick overview of These are a lot of the slides that you’ve seen in the past\, just kind of overview of the existing context of the site location adjacent to the Oakland International Airport in relation to other green space around the community. \nDRB Meeting Room: this slide just shows the some of the graphics that were already covered\, showing the the finalized\, the face. This was the original plan that submitted in December \nof 22\, and so we’ll go through and highlight\, the revisions\, and what we’ve heard from your comments in the past. And this is showing the revised site plan as submitted today. And we’ll get into a little more detail as we go through these \ntouching base on the public access. So going back to where those existing Bcdc permits do exist. we are going to be taking those and enhancing public access and retaining all those areas shown in yellow \nas well as developing everything in green. There will be fully\, publicly accessible. there are parking lots as well that will be publicly accessible. and then there will be shared parking with the hotel restaurants and apartments and market \nas well. \nDRB Meeting Room: going through of what we heard and how we responded to Bcdc’s comments. \nThere were some discussions about providing additional circulation on the top left. So we’ve increased the circulation here. We’ve added a lower terraced trail system \nas well as provide an additional trail connection. The Bcd seeds trail system runs up on the west and north side of the Mulford Point\, so we’ve provided some additional circulation routes. \non the site plan on Mulford Point. One of the big comments was about softening the interior of the lagoon in this area. So in in lieu of using rip wrap\, we’ve been consulting with dill up with a booth and nickel \nabout\, planting the interior base of the edge with planting\, so all of the elevation within the interior lagoon will be planted and not utilize rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: There was other comments related to parking\, and\, you know\, pulling back the the imprint\, the footprint of the parking lot within the center of the site. So we’ve shifted everything to the north \napproximately 50 feet and then reorganize the layout of the Hammerhead to integrate the Hammerhead layout into a public plaza that highlights the restroom facade. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ve also looked at some ways to activate the basin the lower terrace trail would utilize the existing grades that are out there now. We would maintain a trail along the shoreline edge on the interior of the basin. \nWe’ve also created an additional overlook at Pescador Point\, at this place. and then increased the fishing and watercraft docks by about 1\,300 square feet. \nat this lower location here\, where the boat R is going to be added \nDRB Meeting Room: from a connectivity standpoint. There was lots of discussion of increasing connectivity\, so we’ve included the additional crosswalks \nalong the roadway here. so that the residential development on the east can easily connect to the west. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then looking at creating some landscape diversity with the planting palette that we’ll get into a little further as well by creating additional pollinator gardens and habitat. \nDRB Meeting Room: So one of the big key factors of the design. So we’ve utilized the the Monarch butterfly as kind of the main design theme\, and integrated the butterfly wing in kind of this colorful \ndesign layout. You see here. and so we’re using that to mimic and create little nodes of color that we’ll get into a little further. But this is showing what has changed in the phase one graphic. So in the prior December \npresentation this was a very simple phase one\, and so we’ve taken your comments and integrated a additional overlook. at the northern part of Mulford Point. We’ve also added about approximately 33 trees where they will not be impacted by future phase 2 construction. \nWe’ve added that secondary loop path along the lower lagoon edge. the terrorist path we’ve integrated seating nodes along the exterior bay trail \nhere so that will enhance and maintain the existing fishing access that fishermen do use along the side of the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: and then working with Wra. We developed some native pollinator hydroseeds \nalong this area\, and trending developed this to be a very colorful in a playful experience for the public. So it’s not just a a barren field of hydrogen. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have an interim overlook at the lower southern portion of Mulford Point. \nand then the the boat ramps and Kayak would be the kayak launch and fishing areas would be expanded by 1\,300 square feet\, as previously discussed. \nDRB Meeting Room: from an interim connection of phase one\, we would place a shared use bike path\, pedestrian trail on the roadway. Here \nthat way we are ensured public access from the existing bay trail. and then\, as well down to muffered points\, both \nDRB Meeting Room: looking at the phase\, 2 revisions \nof what we’ve changed. this is\, you can see the overlay of red items. It’s really hard to see at this scale just given the size of this project. but everything in red was the original December presentation. \nbut we’ve revised the layout of the overlook here to mimic the butterfly theme. That goes for the other posit that’s shown behind the Zoom toolbar. Here. \nWe’ve also \nDRB Meeting Room: pulled in the the plaza and the parking lot area at this location revised a parking circle \nthe secondary paths. and we’ll get into a little more of these in the blow ups as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the image of the existing Bay trail system that exists today. So we have the existing \nA on Street Bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive and the planned access out to Multiple Point \nDRB Meeting Room: as part of our placement of the Bay trail. We were still looking at utilizing a eastern edge alignment \nof the Bay trail. The reason behind that is there was only 2 pedestrian roadway conflicts with driveways on the eastern side versus the western edge has 7 driveway crossings. \nSo that was one of the elements we use to locate the Monarch Bay Trail in discussion with our engineering team. \nDRB Meeting Room: That Bay trail does come around and make a loop on Mulford Point. connecting back to a kind of a traffic circle for pedestrians and bikes \nto make that circular route. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then we also have additional pedestrian connections \nalong the lower edge of the lagoon. Here \nDRB Meeting Room: the construction phasing plan we touched debate a bit on this already\, but this was just showing those \nproposed shared. Use walkways \nDRB Meeting Room: at number 17\, and then 16 as well. So 16 would be a class 2 and 17 would be a shared use by claim. and those would be protected with \ndelineators and striping and planters as well. so that we’d have a a protected pedestrian edge for that experience from the public right away all the way into the park \nDRB Meeting Room: here. This is just showing the overview of the phase 2. Development. \nas we as phase one\, is built out\, these would be existing. and Phase 2 would come in and develop the entirety of Mulford Point. we would at that time do the final tree planting shrub\, planting irrigation systems. \nstormwater treatment\, and then build out all the overlooks to their 100% a development. There’s an overlook at this location as well as well as build out the rest of the bay trail segments in coordination with the apartment development that is being developed by Cal. Coast. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a rendering of the hotel development that coast is proposing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this Graphic for some reason not showing the hotel background. But this building. The hotel sits within this white space here \nthe hotel access only that is the pool area. So that is the only area of private access at the pool zone is at the pool zone. There’s an exterior courtyard for the hotel that is fully\, publicly accessible. There’s no gates or fencing in between these. \nThis is the overlook in the boardwalk here\, and the bay trail comes down from the north and actually heads this direction as well. so there would be a seamless flow of \nthe public space flowing into the hotel. And through these areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the development of the single family homes and the town homes to the East. \nHere\, there. This is just showing the circulation related to the sidewalks that they’re proposing. and then the additional crosswalks that it will be proposed to provide uninterrupted circulation for the pedestrians and bikes to the park development. \nDRB Meeting Room: Now we’re going to get a little more into the details of the park itself. \nso we’re going to skip over this and go to some of the enlargements and details of signage. There is a at the top here which I don’t know if I can \nget rid of this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here \nwe do have a bay trail signage and a number one is a gateway monument. So this is existing as an art piece with some Us. flying birds as well as a big Marina Bay sign that would get replaced. \nand we’d also have a public shore access and mile marker signage. Come along the entire bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive. We would have park signs \nas well as directional science\, to ensure that the public is very aware that this is a public facility\, and we’re not trying to hide the park from them. So we’re trying to make the signage as visible as possible and provide signage up on the monarch. They drive \nand then provide directories at key points\, such as the restroom in the overlook areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So from a programming standpoint\, we’ve \nare developing a \nDRB Meeting Room: variation of on the pollinator gardens. So we’ve actually\, instead of a a solid hydroxide or \nshrubs and grasses we’ve actually focused in creating these habitat generation zones along here and using those to kind of play on the the butterfly wing theme\, as well as creating those highlighted focal areas \nalong the perimeters of these pathways and the nodes. so that helps create some identity and clarification as to entry these\, there’s some small pathways\, a secondary pathways of circulation through these spaces. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then at the overlooks as well as creating the the garden spaces within those overlooked spaces here \nDRB Meeting Room: the tree palettes would be developed further \nas the project progresses\, utilizing. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, the expertise of Wra’s landscape architects and the Restoration specialists \nfor this project. we’ve been \nDRB Meeting Room: looking and considering\, you know the views and not blocking views and then maintaining. \nyou know\, when buffers were feasible within some of these other areas\, because that was a concern as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: here we’re showing the develop revisions of the interior basin planting. So this is that coastal edge planting. So in lieu of ripper. \nthat entire interior basin gets raised and gets planted with landscape versus rip wrap. So that also goes to this protected part of the lagoon \nhere on the interior side\, and then all of the interior. We’re going to this place. The exterior of the lagoon. in discussion with Dyla cannot be planted or landscaped. There’s too much erosion\, and wave action that would lead to failure in those areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So we did. We did explore a lot of options. And that was the \ndiscussion and outcome of those \nDRB Meeting Room: next just plant palette images. I’m sure you’re \nthese are similar on the \nDRB Meeting Room: from the last presentation. \nand I’ll hand it over to Liz. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, everyone for those who don’t know me. My name is Liz Allen. I’m a regulatory permitting specialist at wra environmental consultants \nand we helped out putting together the seed mixed palette. So this seed mix would be used for the phase one in the hydro seed mix\, and it was designed by our botanist and restoration landscape architects. And it’s designed so that \nall of these species\, if you’re not familiar\, are native to the Bay area and are appropriate for this region. These color palettes have also been designed so that they won’t just be up during a certain time of the year. We selected species that would bloom consistently throughout the year\, so that color would always be present. \nsince we acknowledged that the phase\, one condition\, will be there for a bit before the ultimate project is completed\, wanted to make sure that it looked nice. During that phase of the work \nthe site will be treated ahead of time to make sure the soils are suitable to ensure success of these species\, and there will be irrigation applied as needed to make sure that these seeds do turn into the plants that they are supposed to turn into. \nThe other thing is this\, planting palette was put together with input from one of our Phd level entomologists who specializes in pollinator habitat design and she confirmed that all of these species are \nexpected to to attract the pollinators that we want to arrive so it won’t just look good. It’ll also be there to help provide legitimate pollinator habitats. What’s really interesting is that by clumping colors together. She told us that that actually is better for a lot of the butterflies\, including the monarchs that are known to occur in the area\, but we also were careful to exclude species that could disrupt the overwintering of the monarch butterflies that are known to occur in the area. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then on this slide. I’m going to talk about. What about the lagoon portion of the project? We heard your comment that you guys are interested in hearing how the lagoon is going to be activated. \nWhat we’re focusing on here is the fact that just by removing all of the existing Marina infrastructure our biologists on staff expect there to be a substantial increase in shore shorebird activity in the area\, because part of the reason this marina is getting decommissioned \nis the fact that the basin experiences high rates of sedimentation that mean that dredging currently was needed consistently because of that sedimentation without all the docks and peers. This lagoon turns into a really nice flood mud flat even during a typical low tide. Today it’s very exposed and creates great foraging habitat for these species. \nThe bird species listed here\, most of which are known to be mud flat foraging specialists. in our local to the Bay area. Some of them are even endangered. \nor on this state like us\, fish and wildlife service birds of conservation concerns \nDRB Meeting Room: the. As you guys probably know\, the existing Marina infrastructure has a lot of creos out treated wood that is known to impact water quality. So the removal of that infrastructure is expected to \nimprove the water quality of the basin to better support these species. In addition\, the existing peers provide predator purchase for predators that then preclude these species from being present. It’s actually a very common comment from wildlife agencies to remove predator purchase\, such as pilings when they’re unnecessary\, because they often \nthe predation that they have on the fish and the other birds in the area limits the function\, the habitat function of the whole system. the green that’s noted on the edges here is some limited cord grass that we’ve seen that was observed in the lagoon area. \nwe’re not sure but it’s likely that this chord grass is the non-native Spartina. Largely because this area is not a historic marsh. Even before this \nthe original fill went in\, and the invasive species tends to be the one that shows up where Marsh hasn’t shown up before. unfortunately\, that iding this type of chord grass and differentiating it from the native typically requires \ngenetic analysis or expert eyes. But we’re plan on partnering with the invasive of our China project to determine if it’s the native. or if it’s the invasive\, and if it’s invasive\, the project plans to remove that spark China\, to prevent it from spreading further. If it surprises us\, and it happens to be the native\, we are going to retain it in place\, but it should be noted that it’s pretty sparse as it is\, which further suggests that it’s likely that non-native variety or a hybrid with the native\, which is also considered to be harmful. \nI would also add that I specialize in eel grass. So if you guys want to talk about the suitability of eel grass in this area. I’m happy to talk about that\, but I can just I’ll put it out there that it’s not considered very suitable habitat within the basin for Yale grass. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Liz. So here we’re getting into the enlargements and detail of the pieces of the plan. So we can further. Look at those. \nso here is Neptune drive. We have our main pedestrian connection. In order to accommodate the sea level rise\, we will be coming up in grade from about 8.2 up to 16. So we have an eight-foot fill \nthat’s going in in this area. So this we’ve looked at the grades. We are definitely accessible. we were looking at creating a different material. That was a comment\, so that the bay trail \nis clearly evident\, and the the secondary maintenance access to the Sewer pump station that’s existing to remain will be a differentiated. So there’s a clear delineation there. This is our project signage. And then we’re also utilizing the. There’s some existing palm trees in the road is playing with it\, utilizing that same theme to capture those palm trees and \ntry to maximize the view as much as possible\, although the grades will be a challenge in that area. \nDRB Meeting Room: Just quick sections \nwant to just fly through these\, so we can get through the presentation. this is the hotel. Overlook this. Everything you see here is publicly accessible. We did revise the design layout of this area. \nso the calcos development. The hotel lobby sits here and there’s a door here. The entire pathway is focused on the door and then to the lobby. And so we’re playing\, utilizing that theme in creating a kind of a terminus overlook at this point \nas well as focusing on the trail Bay trail alignments. So we’re kind of creating an intersection\, if you will\, in developing some places for large groups\, smaller areas\, and then \nsmaller groups down in along the edges. Here. We pulled this back so it’s not protruding over the water’s edge as well to reduce costs. \nand then simplified the overall design and layout of the overlook here at the hotel \nDRB Meeting Room: general sections. parking lot sections. This has not changed since \nyou’ve last seen it \nhere. We’re at the Overlook at Mulford Point\, at the knuckle. Here we’ve revised the Overlook layout to follow a little more of a called modern butterfly wing themed utilizing benches that create some nodes\, nodes\, and individual spaces in between these areas \nproviding opportunity for an art piece at this location. Here we have that secondary path that has been added that provides a little closer access to the water’s edge \nas well\, and then we’ve shifted some of the burns to provide a visual buffer from the vehicles as well as they come in through this area. Here\, you see this. This is the existing rip\, wrap\, and then we have our planted coastal edge here \nthis planting on the outside on the bay side. this would incumb incorporate the new rip\, wrap\, and then everything above the new rep rap line would be landscaped as well. \nAnd that’s what’s shown here on this section of do rip\, rap\, and then coastal edge planting on bay and on the interior side existing riprop with all new landscape. Where the sea level rise fill is required. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a detailed blow up of the revised restroom maintenance building layout. \nHere we’ve adjusted the Eva turnaround to integrate it into the plaza design and then created a focal point at the roundabout at this location\, so that we’re able to utilize this space and turn around both for \npublic use in public as well as for Eva and maintenance truck turnaround for this space. we’re also located the memorial here. This is the lost boat Memorial\, which is the giant torpedo \nwith some seeding nodes at this point of inflection. and then creating the habitat pollinator planting that’s shown in the bright oranges and yellows. Here again we have the additional \ntrail system that’s behind the building. and then our seeding nodes that occur\, but approximately every 150 feet or so along the bay trail edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: and those those are going to be used for additional maintain the fishing access. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is lower area the where the used to be just the giant lawn. So this has been revised to native grasses\, and then we utilize the pollinator and habitat planting. It’s hard to see. But underneath the trees \nin these areas\, defining those edges of the pathways. again\, the seeding nodes for fishing and public access\, and the viewing along the bay trail. \nand here we have the cultural overlook zone that would be pay tribute to the the ingenuous tribes\, as well as provide some signage and educational signage to the historical aspect of that. \nDRB Meeting Room: And here\, at the tip of Mulford Point\, this is the revised overlook again adjusted to follow modern butterfly \nwing. We’ve utilize that secondary trail since we have to go down from about 15.5 down to 9\, which is the existing grade. At this location. \nwe would be sloping down to that rip\, rap edge\, and following that with a bay trail \nDRB Meeting Room: pretty much following the existing rip\, rap alignment at that Point location. \nwe would have a sloped bank of landscape above that\, with some additional seating nodes along that lower terrace trail system. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then here we would still utilize a a large area of in in phase 2. This is not\, hide your seat anymore. This is actual shrub planting. \nof following the pollinator habitat working in coordination with a Wra specialists. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have the landscape burns for wind control. We’re trying to maintain those at a \na height of\, you know\, maximum 3 feet. There is a lot of septed visibility issues with police surveillance and crime that’s currently being that challenge out on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here we have the Pescador Point overlook and boat launch. \nSo we’ve been working with the Kamano. Canoe Club of what their needs are for their launching facilities. We’ve added dry onland storage for kayaks. \nAnd we’ve increased these areas by about 1\,300 square feet of kayak and fishing deck access. In this location. Here we have the restroom building\, as what was previously shown. But we’ve added a additional overlook public space \nto the rear of that building\, so that the views to the West can still be had at that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the traffic circle at the apartments. This has not really changed since the last presentation\, with the exception of \ncoastal planting on both sides\, where fill or where Rip rap was previously shown. \nDRB Meeting Room: and at the lower part of Monarch Bay Apartments\, Pescador Point is just to our north. Looking here at the key map. \nwe’ve revised and simplified. This overlook to be completely on grade and then creating some pinch points for access\, so that those material changes so that the overlooks are clearly defined from the Bay trail circulation\, that these are movements out of the active circulation. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then just the general materials following city of Stanley Andrew standards for benches and trash cans\, etc. \nDRB Meeting Room: that is it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you for that very\, very detailed presentation. \nI can have some clarifying questions from the board here\, and I thought I would just maybe kick it off. that you know you’ve done an incredible amount of work\, and the graphics are really clear\, and I commend you on that. And there’s no question that this is the maps \nimprovement from what’s out there today\, and I think we recognize that of the comments\, or at least I recognize from the comments we gave you last time. I think you’ve picked up the vast majority of them. And I just wanted to. \nyou know\, with with that as a backdrop to say\, there is a couple of comments that we’re at the top of the list of the board\, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment \non really\, the the basin. you know the mudsl and the rip wrap. The thought was\, is there anything that can be done to kind of aid in the succession of the of the mud. And \nthere was some suggestions about stepping the elevation\, you know\, like removing Rip graph and stepping the elevations. And I completely understand that you’re adding planting \nabove the rip wrap of the ripe. So it’s really not a criticism. It’s more in the interest of clarification\, complete the presentation. I I think the city did \nmake it really clear that\, you know there are lots of good reasons why you’ve ended up where you are\, and I just wanted to see if you could share that with the group so maybe that could. Just. I don’t know. We can \nDRB Meeting Room: get that out\, you know we’ll start and I’ll hand it up to you guys. So thank you for that. Yes\, we took that to heart. This team \nwent through an an an extensive analysis of various options\, looking at steps\, looking at slopes\, looking at beaches\, looking at ramps. \nAnd I’m gonna let Dill up from off at a nickel as well as Liz\, from to kind of articulate. The decision points as to some of the challenges associated with those\, and why we ultimately landed on the design that we have. But\, I can assure you that \nas much as you. We want to activate this space as much as possible\, as much as feasible\, and in a way that is sustainable\, both environmentally and financially\, for the long term. And so I’ll hand it off to maybe you guys to get into some of the details. \nThank you. in terms of the repr. You know\, it is a pretty steep. It was built as a Marina\, right? So this was an artificial\, artificially created peninsula\, very specifically to provide protection for a marina basin. \nAnd so the slopes are pretty steep. wave action is not very significant\, and so the rock size demonstrates that it’s generally small\, you know\, smaller rock size on the \non the inside. however\, something is needed. Erosion. Protection is going to be needed\, you know. If not rock\, it would be some other kind of hard structural elements. \nDRB Meeting Room: unless\, of course\, you bring in a lot of fill \nand flatten the side slopes. or you cut back into this. You know very narrow Mall peninsula that you have and so\, wherever possible\, you know\, above \nthe elevation of \nDRB Meeting Room: erosion protection we have gone with as flat of a slope as possible for the grading of the fill for the park itself. \nThose will all be vegetated. \nin terms of the basin. Sure. We looked at\, you know. We looked at bringing back some amount of recreation. You know. What can we do with sailing\, or or canoes or kayaks? \nit’s very limited in terms of its water depth\, availability itself\, you know\, you can see that that is not a rendering. That’s an actual photograph which shows the channel. \nDRB Meeting Room: it. It’s a high amount of sediment load. \nHowever\, it’s not high enough to sustain a pickle in Marsh that would\, you know\, come on its own. I think. between rising sees that our pay sediment and the deficit of sediment that we’re seeing in San Francisco Bay. There just isn’t enough sediment to sustain a build from a mud flat. So we do expect that the mud flight will continue Acc. Creating. \nit will probably very likely\, for the foreseeable future mid-century remain a month flat \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of others\, you know. Yes\, maybe List can speak. We looked at islands. We looked at Beaches. We looked at\, you know\, large restoration projects. I think the project \nthe Marina project. Probably \nDRB Meeting Room: you know it. It were difficult to add a large restoration project onto a Marina Park project itself. There are other avenues\, you know\, so I don’t think the door is closed on future restoration projects. If there is. \nit’s Stewart. If there is a proponent\, you know\, and there is some funds to bring in restoration elements of title fringe marshes you can have for it \nDRB Meeting Room: in certain areas. \nYeah\, I can. There’s Allen again from Wa I can speak more to some of the other considerations we had. We looked into putting out peers that potentially people could launch from We looked at putting out Bird Islands. The reason that we didn’t add any public peers or retain any of the existing structures is directly related to the saltation that’s experienced at the site currently\, where \nthere’s concern that people would get stranded during low tide. Since it’s not just during extreme low tides\, it’s during typical low tides that the majority of that lagoon becomes a mud flat. In terms of the Bird Islands we looked into\, whether putting out structures for birds would be suitable. But from my project experience\, working with East Bay\, Regional Park district and other projects that are fundamentally restoration projects. \nyou have to be careful about creating unintended conflicts between nesting bird habitat and the public And so the concern would be if we put out islands. And then Sushi started nesting\, such as what happened not too far from here\, with least turns in East Bay Park’s favorite marsh project you could lead to conflicts between when they’re nesting and the buffer zones that they need. And so \nthis habitat is really suitable foraging habitat in its current form. It’s not highly suitable nesting habitat\, and I see that as a good thing for this project to maintain or not create unnecessary conflicts. \nand that same comment would be true for other restoration in the area. The existing choreographs\, regardless of whether it’s native or not\, does indicate that there might be potential for some fringe. \nOther cordgrass marsh in this area. But I do have concerns about whether it’s worth putting the effort of restoring that habitat in an area where the marsh has no room to move with sea level rise. \nAnd in addition\, I\, the other agencies that all have the opportunity to issue comments on this project before we receive permits. they typically expect around 10 years of monitoring\, of restoration projects like that. And that’s a cost that the city is not willing to take on\, and would potentially \ncause reductions in other portions of the scope. It’s just a major addition to the project to add that level of restoration\, especially when the longevity of that restoration past the next couple of decades is in question. \nbecause in the current form there’s a nice mud flat. But\, as Philip said. despite the fact that sediment settles really nicely here. That’s largely\, as I understand it\, to the shape of the system\, but that’s expected to reach an equilibrium\, and the sedimentation is not expected to keep up with sea level rise\, and so restoring a marsh here where there was not one previously\, and where it wouldn’t have room to grow up to move up slope just doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise. \nI think. supporting this area by just improving the habitat for the short birds which are known to love. The South Bay mud flats as it is. is A is a really great option\, and as I referenced when I spoke previously\, this area is currently too shallow for illegraph. It’s possible that by mid century that that’s a different story. But this is not too shallow for subtitle vegetation as well\, and eel grass is really the only \nsubtitle vegetation that that’s known in the direct region. I’ll add one more thing to that I forgot to mention earlier\, which is that lower trail that Chuck presented is intended to give people a better viewing opportunity of this lagoon to have better bird watching opportunities. \nSo so those birds that you’re showing they’re using the site now\, or some portion of them. Yes. These birds are based on local observations\, personal experience from Wre’s staff biologists\, as well as data collected on I naturalists. So yes\, these are known to occur either locally to the lagoon or in within a mile known to forage and mud flat. I \nwould expect it only a couple of the more common species\, likely frequent area in its current form\, because it’s has a bunch of infrastructure that attracts predators that dissuades a lot of these \nbirds from showing up as well as the nuisance activities that have been prevalent out there. It’s we’re focused more on the fact that these birds are expected to be more prevalent once the lagoon is a more naturalized system. \nOkay? So in summary\, is it fair to say that in order to do what the board was suggesting\, it would take a massive amount of fill which is beyond the \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. There’s one other thing I would add to that\, too\, which is that when it comes to the other agencies as currently designed\, the project is expected to be self mitigating\, and not need compensatory mitigation. \nTo bring in the fill that would be required to soften these slopes would require compensatory mitigation\, which is upwards of a million dollars an acre for cost. So it’s it’s just a it’s a massive burden for a project that’s not whose primary goal is not to restore tidal habitat\, but it could be a great opportunity for a future project proponent or the scientific community to look into. \nOkay\, thank you. I think there is great education for board. okay\, one other thing. And then I’m going to open up to others here. the that one of the early diagrams\, you know\, showed the single family home area. \nyou know\, severely impacted by flooding at mid-century. so I just wanted to. I think that’s something that is coming up more and more when there’s privately owned property in an area like that which is endangered where this may be beyond their capability to mitigate as Homeers Association. are there guidelines\, or for the development of that property? That will? \nOkay\, yes\, the the developer has agreed in writing in the Development Agreement\, and as the project is entitled with the city\, that all of the residential units that you see here are going to be raised to 2\,070 levels\, just like everything we’re doing on the Park as well as the Hotel and multi-family. \nDRB Meeting Room: So they will be addressing \nanyone else\, please. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a just a couple of questions\, and thank you very much for the presentation\, and \nI remember going to see the site with Gary in 2\,016\, and I really appreciate all of the efforts that you’re making. \nDRB Meeting Room: 2 questions. One was about maintenance \nand about what the city is. \nDRB Meeting Room: how the city is expecting to kind of maintain this area\, especially with this sort of new approach to landscaping\, it’ll be helpful to understand. Are there other parts of your \npark system where there’s similar stuff that you’re dealing with? Or is this kind of a new venture? And then the other one was something that you brought up\, which was crime prevention. \nso sort of natural surveillance in the site. I’m curious about lighting. and if you could sort of speak to those 2 things which seem to be intertwined \nthank you. sure. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I’ll start with the maintenance. \nSo as part of this project\, the city has\, pardon me. put together a community facilities district to fund and finance the maintenance required for this project. \nWe’ve also worked very closely with the city’s Public Works Department\, who maintains their own projects. And so this project has been designed to be as efficient as possible for the maintenance of the project. \nIt’s specifically designed to be able to facilitate their vehicles\, their tools\, their contractors\, and that central node area where the restroom is\, is designed to also function as a maintenance facility where they can have real time\, access\, and immediate presence. To be able to maintain this. This facility. They have a lot of lessons learned from projects in the direct\, the city just to the south \nas well as across town\, and so this will be utilizing some of the the most late up to date\, latest and maintenance technology that we’ll be working closely with them to implement on the project. \nAnd there’s and there’s funding already in place to finance it in perpetuity. \nRelated to the septed principles and lighting. So generally. The park is lit\, you know\, within the hotels and the apartments areas. These areas are lit. \nbut everything within past this parking lot\, down into this area would close at dusk support to all the other park facilities in the city. These would only have. \nyou know\, possibly some ambient lighting as needed\, like around around the buildings. But there’s not intended to be full lighting at night through the park. \nDRB Meeting Room: some of the the vandalism issues don’t even occur at night. It’s middle of the day out here right now. So it’s not the night time. Only element. One of our things we are doing is providing vehicular gates. \nSo when the park does close\, these areas can be closed off to prevent\, you know\, after hours Rvs and side shows from happening out here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And we also have been working closely with the San Diego police department to design this park so that has maximum visibility. So \nNot only do the the the viewing goals that this body has for the public those same goals hold true for public safety\, so that they can have good sight lines throughout the park. That’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to minimize the amount of obstructions and keep it as as low profile as possible\, because that facilitates law enforcement. The gates have been located with their guidance in mind. And and and of course\, then in the areas where there’s parking lots\, there’ll be \nThe code requires that there’s continuous lighting there. So where we need the lighting for crime prevention\, we will have it\, and where we’ve been advised by public safety to close off the park at certain hours we’ve followed their guidance. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a couple of questions. One. Could you speak a little bit to the eastern edge of the the marina and the connectivity of the \npublic access areas to that interface. And then second. and this is this is on buildings. So I don’t know how much of this is within the jurisdiction. But \ndid you have any consideration of providing \nDRB Meeting Room: retail or areas that would be accessible to the public \nin either the hotel or the apartment building\, and I’m particularly looking at some of those interfaces that are at the entry points of the apartment in the northeast corner of the northwest instead of \nedges that are kind of treated as buffered from public. If they could be enhanced through some kind of program at the ground floor of the building that can make it a little bit more inviting. So \nany any thinking behind the location of retail and public uses. \nI think \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’re asking about the area right in the middle of the project. Right? That’s that’s grayed out that we’re not touching right \nfor the first question. \nDRB Meeting Room: On the upper edge of that is a restaurant called Horatios\, on the southern edge of that is an existing hotel called the Marina end \nthat is currently not a part of this project. There are\, however\, existing acts of public access permits in place that will remain in place continuously throughout the project. \nthose are under current ground lease agreements with the city that last for a number of years. and so for us to make improvements at that stage. At this stage it would delay the project as much as a decade or more. \nSo what we’re doing in this project is basically focusing on the areas that we can improve. the city is currently in negotiations of those ground leases to put conditions in place\, to be able to make sure that those areas themselves mitigate against sea level rise\, and the existing public access permits and requirements will remain intact throughout the duration of both the construction and and continuous\, so the existing condition will remain unchanged. \nDRB Meeting Room: as it relates to or retail. \nSo if you look on there\, you’ll see \nI’m wondering with the regrading of the public access improvements that are happening to the north and south of that area. How how would that connect? And it’s tricky? And and we have our civil engineer to explain it. But there’s going to be some unusual contours where you’re going to be a little bit higher and have to slope down into the parking lots right? There might even be there might even need to be a retaining wall. I don’t know but it there might be a situation where we have to raise the grade and then contour down to land where they are. \nThe good news is in in in certain areas here. They’re actually higher there than where we need to build or where the developer is building the hotel. So we believe that there are \nsolutions that are Ada accessible that allow for continuous pedestrian interaction in there. But it’s something that it does have to be further studied because we’re going to have some interesting driveway approaches to make sure that we are still maintaining the existing grades where we’re not raising the sea level\, right or mitigating sea level rise while also addressing areas where we’re not or where we are\, I should say. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: retail. And other access. If you go to the other. \nthat that \nDRB Meeting Room: go to the one that shows all the buildings\, the whole\, the whole set. There you go perfect. \nSo number 3 is the hotel\, as you know. Number 4 is a restaurant open to the public like any other restaurant. There’s a El Torrido there now. So we’re essentially providing a new restaurant where an old one exists\, it’ll be open to the public. It won’t be restricted by the hotel in any way. The Associated parking for that is open to the public. \nNumber 5 is a market. So as part of the development agreement\, the city\, like like you’ve wondered as as is requiring that the developer build a market\, it’ll probably be a place where. \nYeah. it might be like a trader. Joe’sish kind of place. You see where you where we that we that the city\, believe that it. It’s it’s the kind of place a family can go to and get snacks and sandwiches in a picnic basket\, and then go to the park. \nor you can stop on your way as you’re riding your bike on the bay trail. Get a drink\, have something to eat\, so there’s a retail component at both of those. And then\, of course\, the hotel is open to the public. But it’s a hotel. \nOkay? \nDRB Meeting Room: And the hotel will also have a restaurant as well. \nYeah. \nwell\, first of all\, thank you for the presentation. Very detailed. And it’s great that you brought a team with with experts with you. It really helps us understand and have confidence in what’s being shared with us today. \ncouple of questions. One is. Well\, first of all\, I’d say\, I think. What’s I appreciate about the approach here is that it’s not your traditional. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, nineteenth century Park. It’s really looking to naturalize as much of this \nhistoric piece of infrastructure as possible. So I think that’s really wonderful. And it stands in contrast to perhaps some of this open spaces nearby. as such as kind of. It’s kind of a little piece of ecology unto itself. And \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’ve answered a lot of my questions regarding your grass and mud flats and and things like that. So that’s that’s great. \nOne question I did have\, though\, was with the shore birds\, and the proximity to airport is that perceived as any potential conflict. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s not expected to create any additional conflict beyond what I already exist\, and that’s mainly because larger concerns happen \nI should back up. The mudflat. Specialist species are not typically the same species as what creates conflict with airports. That’s typically typically what we see is marsh habitat. And the actually\, it’s actually a good point that it’s another reason the creation of true marsh habitat could become the problem. \nwe’re far enough away from the airport that it’s not a direct constraint on the project\, and that the airport doesn’t have say over it\, and that also goes to the fact that this project sequence document is already complete. Where they would have the opportunity to comment. But no\, the increase in foraging habitat that already exists is not expected to create any new conflicts. \nand then maybe this is more\, for landscape is Has there been a study of the prevailing winds\, as you mentioned firms being put up. and how the prevailing\, how those respond to prevailing when? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So a lot of the prevailing winds come from the west. \nit’s typical in the bay\, headed towards the east in this direction. So where we’re looking at placing firms is primarily on the western side of the park\, so that the \nrecreation zones\, ie. The native ones. Areas are protected from the wind. somewhat. It is when I’ve been out on the site. It is usually very windy. and \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, short of building a wall\, there’s not going to be a lot we can do to it. And then we’re also trying to mitigate the pay attention to the Sept as well\, and not creating very tall burns. We’re looking at 3 foot high burns on that western edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: Can you go to the section that shows the \nokay. \nthe lower tier \nDRB Meeting Room: or the \nyeah. Oh\, you were. You were close. \nOkay\, if you look at the section there\, at the bottom there is about a 5 foot. elevation difference between the lower tier and the upper tier. \nWe anticipate placing benches up against backing up against that tier. Now we know wind has a way of getting around\, but we’re doing our best to kind of create a bit of a wind shelter\, so that the folks that are on that lower tier that want to take a break do some bird watching and sit on a bench\, do have some protection from the wind at their back. \nPerfect thanks. \nAnd this is probably a question comment which you start to address\, which is that? I think it was mentioned about the seating areas on the west side of \nthe Peninsula for fishing being every 150 feet. I was curious. There’s there’s a extensive other system of paths where there’s no seating or other kinds of amenities indicated at this point is that something that is part of future development of the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: we can definitely look into it. A lot of the circulation pathways inside was more about producing or or providing for movement. Throughout the park \nwe placed the benches where we think they maximize the views\, maximize interaction with the water\, and specifically on the west side of of the Mufer point. There\, where Number 2 is. \nwe have found\, at the city\, and just a personal observation as well as the city’s years of observing the existing fishing pier\, that folks don’t use it for fishing. They \nscramble out on the on the western side of the edge and fish out into the open bay. So rather than fight nature\, we want to place the benches in place the fishing availability where it’s best for fishing. That said we did it. Extend the docks at the launching the boat launch. \nSo if there was someone out there that loved to fish in that spot. They still can. But it’s our understanding that it’s not ideal fishing right there. Given the siltation and the in the lack of movement. \nYeah. And if I might follow up with that\, I think. But there’s other reasons for seating along the trail you mentioned the bird watching. So I was just curious if there was other. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ve placed some where where we where we think they make sense benches are easy to add right? And I mean\, I can even see a scenario where the city observes the usage and realizes that certain areas might deserve a bench where we’re not \nA lot of it is observing how it gets used. We want to be able to allow people to enjoy the grasses and have a picnic and lay down a blanket. we also want to allow them an opportunity to maximize these to the views and the bird watching them. So \nthat’s kind of at this early stage. That’s that’s kind of our decision point or our our direct. \nthe and the way we’re headed\, I guess. But we’re open\, you know. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further questions from the board. Yeah\, just one more \nback to the water. I totally understand what you’ve explained. \nDRB Meeting Room: kind of morphologically\, I guess. so. My\, so my question is. \nis there going to be active management of this mud flat. or could anything happen? And are there bad things that could happen there would need to be fixed or mitigate\, or something like that. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m having trouble thinking of what bad things could happen. I think that what will happen\, as I said previously is that the depths will increase here\, and eventually\, mid century or late century. There \nmay not. It’ll might be deep enough for other vegetation or other habitats to develop like you. I can’t think of any concerns or management needs \nfor what you would manage\, for in this space\, and other than just making sure people\, I I guess\, because you mentioned about invasive species\, oh\, and and trying to encourage something that made me think that there was going to be active management. \nDRB Meeting Room: The invasive Spartina is really the only \nspecies I can think of. And there’s it’s extent in this location is limited enough that it should be reasonable to get rid of it here at this time. That’s not the case in other parts of the bay\, where it’s become intertwined in existing marshes. \nOther invasive species it’s really the only one I can think of that would take advantage of this area and those Mars species. Part of why we’re not proposing the vegetation is because even if they do arrive they won’t last. But the Spartan is really the the only marsh invasive species. That’s it. More of a generalist than the species it competes with that I could see arriving here. And I would imagine that if we’re removing it as part of the project\, that the city would see that through and make sure that if it shows up again it’s taken care of. But the invasive for China project is a great \nnonprofit partner on all those efforts throughout the bay to help make sure that it’s managed and eradicated. Where possible. \nis there? \nI mean\, mitigation project would have monitored and stuff like that. But we’re not in that category right? \nRight? typically\, the removal of vegetation. It’s possible that other agencies\, namely\, the waterboard and the army core of engineers\, particularly the water board in this case\, may ask for some \nmonitoring to make sure that if the Spartan is removed\, that it’s truly removed\, but that would be done in coordination with the invasive part time\, a project\, and may even be led by them as this part of the project. We’re not at that stage\, since we don’t even know if this is the invasive or not\, but we will be working with them to determine that I again\, I think it’s likely that it is. But since this is the only plant species that’s out there\, and it’s very limited. \nThat’s a pretty straightforward eradication project compared to what they usually contend with. It’s don’t have to discriminate between other plants. You can just go in and get it out of there\, and there’s enough. It’s there’s just not that much of it compared to other projects. I work on that deal with it in a much more challenging capacity. \nSo just to make sure I understand. dear an invasive maybe coming in. other species may come in after that\, as saltation builds up. \nand then\, as sea level rises\, they may go away\, and they may get back to open water with the R \nDRB Meeting Room: in a point like a 2030\, 40 years from now. \nAre you asking if it would become open water? Yeah\, would it be return to open water. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know someone\, I would say the first part to your question. Yes\, there will be some management. There will be management or debris at the very minimum. There’s going to be management of floats and and debris that is in the bay. \nthat the city would be\, you know. as part of their maintenance function here. \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of sedimentation and and the progressive build up of vegetation. It’s \npossible that \nDRB Meeting Room: that the good variety of chordgrass. \nif it can be encouraged. not planted\, but encouraged. \nDRB Meeting Room: can lend itself to better retention of sediment from the suspended water column when tides come in in the future\, and so it could build its way out further. \nthat would be the goal. And then\, I think\, at some point \nDRB Meeting Room: just like with Bunker Marsh\, and just like with the other marshes on. You know\, this side of the bay itself. there will be collaboration with regional efforts. You know\, the invasive part on our project is a large project that is\, coastal conservancy\, sponsored and funded. Easter. A park district pays into it. \nIt’s possible that the city\, you know\, would become a partner in that also. This is not the only mar they have Bunker Marsh\, which is a very large one\, just out of here. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, I think that’s the adaptation at this point. It is not a \ndeliberate action to bring material in and create marshes\, because I think that itself is getting to be a pretty large action. That one was not covered in sqa to the Restoration Agency is really lash on to something like that and say\, if you’re building something\, you need to monitor it. \nand then\, you know\, there are \nDRB Meeting Room: our success criteria and goals\, and if you don’t meet those\, you know you get dinged for doing something good. \nCould there be odors from the mudflat that could be offensive? \nYes\, I think in the existing condition it would be the same as the proposed condition\, and that yes\, there are likely existing low tide odors from the exposed mud flat. But again\, with sea level rise. This mud flat is not expected to last to \npast till when do you think it will? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. But I would say the order issue is associated with with outfalls and discharge and things like that. There isn’t \na historic marsh here that generates hydrogen sulfide\, which really is\, you know\, the issue with many of these historic \nDRB Meeting Room: this is sediment that’s coming in. \nIt’s \nDRB Meeting Room: words and sediment that you know\, falling out of the water column itself. with the Bmps \nwith all the other stormwater treatment that is planned. \nDRB Meeting Room: The rest from outfalls\, I think\, are going back to the source system itself. There’s no so in general\, it would be far better than the Marina. The marina itself\, I think\, is probably the biggest source of condemnance right now \nDRB Meeting Room: within the basin\, so removing that. \nyou know\, it’s going to help with water quality improvements. \nDRB Meeting Room: And generally\, I think\, with the use an attraction by the local\, you know\, feel birds. \nand I want to make sure you caught what Dill Up said about the hydrogen sulfide\, because it’s a really good point that the rotten egg smell you typically think of with exposed areas at low tide comes from the sulfide that’s released by vegetation. So that’s why marshy areas tend to think more. It’s it’s a direct chemical. \nThat’s where it comes from. So he’s right to say that it’s I can’t say directly how what what the current state is. I don’t expect it to change. And yeah\, the vegetation is actually the main reason for that odor. All other odors are the man-made variety. \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s it’s a great opportunity. I’ll tell you this. If I had\, it’s a great restoration opportunity. I would love to do what I’ve done at Bear Island\, and what I’m doing in Hamilton and at Belmar and Keys and others\, you know\, there’s a lot of you know. There’s there’s a \na a complete set of different agencies and goals that come in with the Restoration project\, and I think bringing the 2 together at this point might offset the schedule for this project substantially. \nWhat? But I think we can still keep it open\, and I think that’s what we would recommend in the city that you know they stay open\, and. you know\, pursue \nDRB Meeting Room: double a grants pursue other sort of\, you know\, opportunities with agencies to see if there is someone who would like to create a wetland here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I might add\, I mean\, the city school is to solve a problem now as soon as possible. \nand restore an area that right now is an attractive nuisance for crime\, and make it into a place that the entire community can enjoy\, while at the same time not doing anything that precludes us from doing something in the future that could restore this project. So what we’re trying to do is do the most we can right now\, and leaving the most available options for the future. \nGreat! Thank you so much for all that. That was one of the more extensive question and answer periods with that. so let’s see\, I think that concludes the board questions. Unless anyone has anything else. \nwe can open the meeting to the public public comment. If there’s any member of the public attending in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to comment. \nand if you’re attending online please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nDRB Meeting Room: There’s no public comment\, but we did receive a letter from Bay Trail staff that I will summarize at the moment. The comments have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the meeting summary. But to summarize the Mtc. Staff recommendations. \nthe Bay trail provided\, or should provide more of a loop experience than the out and back elements. Alignments that are currently shown with the high potential use at the site designing the bay trail consistently at 26 feet wide. \nwould be recommended\, the 18 feet being the minimum width per vital guidelines. \nDRB Meeting Room: all Betra are all proposed. Betrayal. Improvements be completed in phase one\, and not split between the 2 phases \nand the addition of the other trail amenities\, such as drinking fountains with bottle\, fill stations and bicycle repair stations would be much appreciated. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that concludes patrol comments \nDRB Meeting Room: right? And the letter was proposing essentially a trail on the inside of the basin right? Going around pretty much the entire basin. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, they. They wanted a loop experience. Not just the out and back. Yeah. Facing inward to the basement basin. \nOkay\, great. Thank you. If there’s no other comments we can move on to the board discussion for the board discussion. I’d like to ask everyone except the Board members to turn off their cameras so there could be a focus discussion. \nClarification is necessary during the discussion the representative of the project team may speak briefly to the clarification at the discretion of the board chair. So \nagain. I’ll just summarize The 7 objectives for public access\, make public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: feel public\, make public access usable. \nprovide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and shoreline. maintain and enhance the visual quality of the bay\, shoreline and adjacent developments. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide connections to and continuity along the shoreline. \nTake advantage of the base setting. \nDRB Meeting Room: ensure that public access is compatible with a wildlife through citing design and management strategies. \nAnd then \nDRB Meeting Room: staff questions specific to this project. \nDoes the Peninsula feel public and allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people space inviting with sufficient facilities to support public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s concern about making the space feel usable and welcoming before the project is fully completed. \nDRB Meeting Room: are there clear connections and way finding to the shoreline from the Community and Monarch Bay Drive? Does the proposed bay trail alignment\, a long monarch\, drive Monarch Bay\, drive\, complement the current and planned \npedestrian and bicycle circulation networks. Does the phase one design adequately provide for southbound Bay trail of traffic? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed shoreline protection approach \nenhance the experience of the shoreline? How could the design improve these physical and visual connections? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed design provide adequate opportunities for fishing without creating points of conflict with other users? Is the design of Pescador Point and the boat dock adequate to accommodate current and anticipated user groups. \nincluding public recreational use and a commercial water taxi service. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think \nI hope that works generally to consider all those factors\, and for each board member to provide their provide their their comments\, and then I don’t know. Ashley May\, if you feel like we haven’t addressed some of these adequately. Maybe at the end we can do a wrap up\, or something. \nDRB Meeting Room: Would anyone like to kick off? \nDRB Meeting Room: well\, I I listen to the whole presentation\, and and I thought \nI didn’t hear any part of it that seemed to have big holes or flaws honestly in terms of the basic landscape design circulation. I was not really in favor of what \nthe patriarchal folks were saying about ringing every single shoreline with \nDRB Meeting Room: the trail\, because I’m always more concerned about \nbikes and dogs and kids conflicts. so \nto support with some of those things coming up there. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t know. I I I just think that there was a you know\, a good good faith\, effort here to to address everything we brought up. \nI was awesomely impressed that Dill and and \nfrom Wsa. yeah. really thought this through\, and I was expecting to be like. No\, you just can’t just say nothing. Nature take its course. This is just back during it\, but I I am convinced now. \nfinally\, about the proper taking the part\, of course. So personally\, I’m generally satisfied. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Tom. \nCan a building what? Tom? Saying? just thinking about this betrayal access issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m a little torn\, because. \nI think\, thinking about the Bay trail as a sort of recreational access versus something that would encourage all users all multimodal users to basically access the site. \nthe attention that you made to sort of orienting the market and the restaurant to Mulford Point drive and having that sort of be a new \nDRB Meeting Room: entrance on into the site\, I think is really good. \nthere’s a class 3 by claim there. But I wonder about that piece\, and about sort of making that \nDRB Meeting Room: it you sort of a multimodal usable front door for everybody. \nAnd that feels in many ways sort of more important than the \nDRB Meeting Room: Pascad or Point drive \nconnection in terms of closing that loop. particularly if that’s just a residential building in that location. This idea about sort of putting the public access on the parameter is \nmore in keeping with the way you think about the bay trail in this part of the same the intro But So here’s a question that I’d like to think about is \nDRB Meeting Room: in the next phase. \nor when in the adaptation strategy that you sort of think about down the line when Horatio is on the hotel\, basically turn over. Does it make sense to you actually shift the bay trail \nto the west side of Monarch Bay\, drive onto the shorter line in that location. and when you do that\, then is that when you actually want to get a loop created. So instead of bringing the bay trail \nall the way to Monarch B Drive\, now\, where the connectivity in that location may not be the best thing. Do you do it in the future when you actually can complete that loop \naround? the entire \nformer Marina. But does that mean that you want to think about again that multi-point drive connection a little bit differently. because \nDRB Meeting Room: right now it does make sense to sort of push people to the edge. But in the future \nyou actually might want to get people across Multiple Point\, drive along sort of a newly activated front door. Once ratios goes away once\, you know\, once that’s it turns over \nAnd if I follow through getting to the point that the maybe that makes the northwest corner of the apartment building more important than \nthe northeast corner in terms of activating that for future public use. \nWell\, while we’re on that subject? Can we bring up a an image so that we can see? So we can look at some monarch day drive. And some of these circulation issues easier to visualize. And and then I just wanted to ask \nstuff on \nDRB Meeting Room: You know\, they’ve they’ve addressed the issue of crosswalks that we that we brought up\, and at the same time the Bay trail issue that you’re mentioning requires a criss crossing of Monarch Bay to get to the shoreline\, because it’s on the east side of the road. \nSo I understand that the they all these driveway curb cuts to provide a conflict. There’s a there’s a diagram that has the little red dots showing all. Yeah\, if you go to page 18\, I think that’s probably the most useful \nsort of regional diagram\, or it’s page 18 in the lower right hand corner. Yeah\, that one. Yeah. Yeah. So I want to focus. And I think the other question there\, too\, is that there’s this breaking up of the big block. \nwe on the the hotel site\, and I think that’s beneficial. But then. \nDRB Meeting Room: trying to sort of understand? \nDRB Meeting Room: how that actually would be used. \nYou know the pedestrian access from the roundabout getting to the shoreline\, getting around sort of the front edge of those buildings. And so another way to sort of think about making that \nDRB Meeting Room: increasing the multi-modal access in that area would just be to rethink that section of of multi-point drive. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, beyond just a class 3 facility. on that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m looking at it through the lens of. \nyou know. \nDRB Meeting Room: if I took my kids to the shoreline on my extra cycle. \nand we needed to make that stop because they were hungry. \nI would just go to. I would. I would take Mo. 4 point drive on my bicycle because there is a portion of that where it needs to be a non recreational experience. but I know that\, you know. \nthere’s a great variety of sort of public that actually needs to access that point. \nDRB Meeting Room: How about it? Yeah. \nWell\, I I think you raised a good point\, and I think for me\, one of the the big questions on the bay trail was less the question of the loop and more the the continuity along the shoreline \nnorth of this project and south of this project\, as you can see from understanding this correctly. \nDRB Meeting Room: the bay trail north and south of us is on the west side. \nand so I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t hear if there was any reason other than the driveways for not locating it on the West side\, because it just. It just seems to me that \nDRB Meeting Room: for reasons of continuity\, the reasons of not having to cross Monarch Bay Drive\, which is going to be busier than any of the driveways\, I would imagine\, because it’s cumulative traffic. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then all the public amenities are on the West Side as well\, so I think it would be worth considering and and seeing\, because I think it will feel more public\, Frank. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then I think the other comment I would have\, and this was related to my question about seating \nis right now. It seems like \nDRB Meeting Room: The trails south and west of the apartment. \nthe trails between \nDRB Meeting Room: the the the fishing\, the west edge of Mullfer Point and the hotel\, and from the hotel back up to the access point on Monarch Bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: They see all of those walkways seem very much at the scale of the car. There is the street\, there’s occasional trees \nand the amenities. The places for people to actually enjoy that space are very far apart\, and they feel like what they were described as which was kind of like through put places and connections. And I think that really the reality is that when you’re on foot \nDRB Meeting Room: people tend to move at a different pace. They look for interest and activity at a different interval than one might find in a car. So I think \nin the next phase\, I think it’d be great to see some more talks about that. It may be seating. It may be amenities. and I also think that there is opportunities for more cross connectivity \nfrom the \nDRB Meeting Room: the bayside to the \nI guess the the cove the question for both days. So the small bay on the east side to the the but the San Francisco Bay that there’s these parallel trails\, and it just seems like there’s more opportunity to provide connectivity back and forth. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then the last detail on that is \nin my understanding it correctly. It looks like on the south side of Pescador Point that there’s no trail there which? Yeah\, so and that’s that’s actually where \npedestrians are getting out of cars and buses. It looks like. And so\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: boat trailers. And so it just seems like\, that’s where people are arriving at the site. There should be a trail along that southern edge to connect everything. \nThank you. Thank you. Good evening. \nYeah\, I \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m \nI’m torn on the loop. But I guess just to start. Thank you for the presentation\, and it’s really\, I think\, amendable to see the before and after with the aerial\, how much gray and asphalt as kind of being turned over to soft space and usable public \nspace. The outlier is a little bit. You know\, the area that Leo is just talking about Southern piece does feel like it’s still pretty vehicular in its focus. And I wonder about \nDRB Meeting Room: plaza moment at the toes of \nthe southern trail\, and if there’s a softer a space that is made to be softer and more generous\, paired with that as \nmore usable area. And on the loop\, I think \nit’s \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m getting caught up on where the gray dash line is shown. I understand the re-grading and the challenges to connect \nBut I also think\, as pedestrians\, if there was\, if there were attaining walls or things that felt like they were cutting off access. It would make some of these great improvements that you are doing. \nbecause you would be forced as a pedestrian to then walk all the way up or find other routes. that are less convenient\, or make you feel like you should just get in a car and drive \nout into those areas. And so if there is a way for the lower trail\, forget what it was called the Lower Basin trail\, I believe\, on the northern side. If there is a way for that to connect \neven if not the higher ground\, and all of the extent\, I think\, that could go a long way in making that feel more seamless. and \nDRB Meeting Room: to the extent that \nthere may I\, you mentioned \nDRB Meeting Room: bike\, repair facility? Or if there’s consideration of those types of programming. I think the apartment building having one of the corners. \nand I’m kind of going back and forth now between\, is it the Northwestern. Is it kind of one of the other on the southern\, where you have already have the lobby and courtyard areas? just to help make more usable that space that is quite generous with seeding and planting paired with the apartment building. \nSo those would be my 2 kind of focal areas of. \nDRB Meeting Room: but really great and very \nreally inspiring to see with all the constraints\, and thank you for explaining all those challenges as well. \nOkay\, so I I have a comment about this bike lane on on Monarch\, and I I don’t know if this is a valid comment or not\, but it just seems like one \n2 smaller bike lanes\, one on each side of Monarch Bay instead of the 18 footer\, would be more. What’s that? A a class\, 2 facility instead of a class 3. \nYeah\, yeah\, I mean\, it seems important to have something over there for the scenario you describe stuff on. I mean\, I I \nDRB Meeting Room: I do. I would be concerned about trying to cross that that road on bicycle. \nIt’s hard enough for an adult. If you have kids. you know it seems like it can lead a problem. Anyway. I I don’t know how you arrived at that\, and whose jurisdiction it is to determine \nthose things. But that’s one thing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then I think a lot of the other comments that I \nhad it been covered. Well\, I just wanted to say there was one comment about the single family homes would comply with the 2\,070 guidelines for sea level rise. \nand just wondering if that’s\, you know\, 50 years is an adequate lifespan\, you know\, for a single family home\, you know. I don’t. I don’t know if it would. It would ratch it up as the guidelines change\, or if that’s locked in it. \nBut you know\, by the time it’s built\, you know\, you’ll be pretty close to a lot closer to 2\,070 \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m not sure how. How\, again\, out of our purview. But it’s something that comes to mind\, you know\, building on sensitive sites that are influenced by the bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay. Are there any other comments? Or Ashley? Do you have anything that you want to \naddress? \nDRB Meeting Room: If you could speak more to possible user conflicts\, or if the Shoreline Bay trail\, the exterior Bay trail is meeting those needs with the notes for anglers. \nDRB Meeting Room: and pedestrians and bikes. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: oh\, And the \nboat\, Doc. \nDRB Meeting Room: If it’s adequate to provide for \nrecreation users and water taxi. \nand what that might trigger on the lands. \nI don’t. I don’t know if I I’ve seen enough detail and understand the scale enough to really be able to address that I mean\, we’re looking at this thing very globally at the moment and not. And these are \nDRB Meeting Room: questions about whether something is scaled or scaled appropriately. I’m not sure \nthat I can cover that\, that I would be that I have a \nDRB Meeting Room: valid thoughts on that at this moment. \nDRB Meeting Room: hmm! \nWhat about the land side services that would be associated with those 2 different user groups. Is there adequate passenger loading? What facilities might be needed on the land side to accommodate those different uses. If you have any recommendations for that. \nDRB Meeting Room: just to clarify what different uses are you talking? This is the water taxi plus the boat launch users. So the contemplated uses at the boat ramp \nare non-motorized small boats. Kaya. there is the Outrigger Club. There’s motorized boat ramp. There is a proposed or a contemplated water taxi. \nsmall water shuttles. and fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it? Okay\, thank you. \nIs it possible to see a detail of that area. \nI wonder if it might be the topic of a part of a subsequent presentation is helping us understand what the anticipated and intensity of uses for each of those different user groups are. \nit’s hard to say. You know\, water taxi is. it could be many different things. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think you know\, the specific design of that would be be helpful to understand what are the use groups and what the anticipated load from each of them is. \nDRB Meeting Room: on 1 point. I’m not an expert fisherman\, but I have to say I would imagine fish probably are not going to congregate around a boat. R. \nSo it’s there for recreation as was mentioned. So whether it’s fishing or recreation that \nit seems. Okay. \nDRB Meeting Room: there’s other \naccommodations of the meeting for fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s valid point\, are there other areas? actually\, that we should focus on like this? Because I think when you see it at the scale and you have a minute to to to think about it\, that we can get better comments \nif there’s any way we can do this with without having the proponent come back for another presentation\, and they could work with staff on those areas. I think that would be better for my point of view. But but I think if \nwith your recommendation\, we could probably go either way. \nDRB Meeting Room: So if we maybe we could identify areas that would require some further study \nwith Staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: you can direct them to work with staff further on these \nspecific areas. and we’ll work with them on that. Okay\, I think we’re all eager to to move it along. Yeah\, I think so. yeah\, I think it would be great. I I think it’s a really important point that’s being raised here. I just don’t feel like we’ve had the time or the detail and the scale to figure to really focus on that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know\, I think\, are there other \nchannels for soliciting board advice on isolated items. I think we’ve discussed that in the past. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. \nI think we can reach out unofficially. And you guys are always welcome to follow up with the follow up a board meeting with comments email to us and we’ll share them on. Okay\, great. Thank you. \nI just think on the water taxi question. we we we could identify. The applicant could identify what kind of both can fit in there\, and what kind cannot \nI mean. \nDRB Meeting Room: and which ones are likely to be used\, and which ones are seem unlikely? \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further comments? \nIf not\, then that would conclude our comments and recommendations. And if the proponent would like to speak on any of these issues\, please feel free. \nDRB Meeting Room: just a couple of things. Thank you for your offer. I hope everyone agrees that we can work with Staff to keep going\, because we’re anxious to to get this project built. So thank you for that. \nThese are all very good points. I know the city also wants to put the bay trail on the west side of Monarch Bay Drive\, and if that ends up being a condition for approval\, we’ll do it. I will say to the point about the bay trail loop \nif you. We don’t have to go back to this slide. But what we are proposing is about 100% more bay trail than what’s in the Bay trail plan now. So we are adding Bay trail around the hotel where the Bay trail currently is not envisioned. \nWe’re adding Bay trail around the apartment buildings\, and the evening is over\, you know. So we take. We definitely take their points to to heart. We care about bringing bikes to the market as well. We. I want to feed my kids when I’m out there\, too. \nbut we are trying to maximize the bay trail access more than what the bay trail guidelines have given us. so yeah\, we would. And and the the usage of the of the boat launch. It is a work in progress\, we expect it to be the majority of the used to be the non-motorized craft. It gets very little motorized boat used now very little \nthat will get very\, very rare training exercises for the county fire to to launch. and the city is currently negotiating the terms and conditions for a potential water taxi service. But we need time to flesh that out. And so your offer to let that work out with staff as we approach the the final stage would would help us a lot. \nSo those are our only comments. We very much take your comments to heart. We want to maximize access to this to the people and provide a safe biking environment as well as a safe pedestrian environment as well as a a scalable pedestrian experience. It’s a very large space. We’re doing everything we can with the resources we have\, and we thank you for your guidance. So thank you. \nYeah\, thank you so much for all your really hard work and all the people here who contributed. Yeah\, thank you. And if I have Ashley’s permission to adjourn this meeting. I can entertain a motion to do so. \nSecond. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, I believe. \nPardon. Tom has made a motion and move to adjourn somebody. Second. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, if there are no objections\, this meeting is 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/august-7-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR