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: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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230803T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230803T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T174912Z
CREATED:20230804T020542Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T174912Z
UID:10000042-1691067600-1691082000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 3\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of August 3\, 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 3\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after August 3\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nGary Spicer801 First Street\, Suite EBenicia\, CA 94501 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.001.00 \nFiled on 07/05/23 \n90th Day on 10/03/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 360 West I Street\, in the City of Benicia\, Solano County. \nDescriptionConstruct\, use\, and maintain in-kind the portion of a new single-family residence within the shoreline band\, including: \n\nA 668-square-foot portion of a new 2\,287-square-foot one-story single-family house;\nA 383-square-foot portion of a new 593-square-foot rear deck; and\nA 50-foot segment of a new 3-foot-wide and 68-foot-long retaining wall.\n\nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions (Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing July 21\, 2023 \n\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nCommission Mailing July 28\, 2023 \nCommission Request to Hire Julie Garren as a Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) in the Regulatory Division (PDF) \nPublic Comment Letters \n\nAdministrative Listing for Applications Pending with the Commission; 360 West I Single-Family House\, in the City of Benicia\, Solano County (PDF)\nPublic meetings on Zoom (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nThis Bay Area city could become a pickleball mecca with a planned waterside sports club\nEfforts to combat Bay Area sea level rise prove costly
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-3-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230726T150000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230726T150000
DTSTAMP:20231018T060918Z
CREATED:20230727T055527Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231018T060918Z
UID:10000060-1690383600-1690383600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 26\, 2023 Joint Meeting Design Review Board and Engineering Criteria Review Board
DESCRIPTION:This joint meeting of the Design Review and Engineering Criteria 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/85846452073?pwd=UkZXTU1SQ3JrbTBqaGhOSVAvdTB0QT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \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\nStaff Briefing on Bay AdaptThe boards will receive a briefing on several key initiatives BCDC staff is undertaking to implement the Bay Adapt Joint Platform\, a consensus-driven regional strategy to protect people and natural and built environments from rising sea levels. The staff will highlight work underway to create a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\, which will build on the Bay Adapt visioning and result in the development of a guidance document for sea level rise adaptation plans for the region. The staff will also highlight its work to improve the permitting process for coastal adaptation projects that meet regional goals\, to develop a long-term equity strategy for the Bay Adapt program\, and to track and measure implementation of actions in line with the Joint Platform.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; danabrechwad@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF) // Shoreline Plan Overview (PDF)\nPublic Comment\nBoard Discussion\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording & Transcript\n				 \nMeeting Transcript \nHere. vice chair\, Jim French. that’s present. board member homes. \nnot present \nboard\, Member Gail Johnson present. or in her Bob B. Italia. \nPresent Board. Member Jima Casali. \nPresident. \nBoard\, Member Rumi Kolesarkey. President. board member Nick Sitar. Yeah. \nBoard member Chris. Nay. \nhere. board member Paula. \nNot present board Member Justin Vander \nhere. Remember\, Dill\, it trevettes \nwe didn’t make it \nEcdc. Staff attending this afternoon include our executive director\, Barry Goldspan\, technical staff including myself\, Ashley\, Tamerlan\, Eerie Jewett and Jen Hyman and our Bay. Adapt folks\, Dean of record\, and Ethan Levine. \nWith that I will turn out meeting instruction on part I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting. So it runs as smoothly as possible for everyone online. And in the meeting room. Please make sure you have your microphones. \nAre your Anna phones muted to avoid background noise for 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 the public comment period\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nFirst\, if you are here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the staff table and speaker cards are available at the door. You will be asked to come up up to the mic one at a time\, to state your name\, your affiliation\, and provide your comments during the meeting. \nAfter all\, individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way\, 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 is raised. Finally\, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press in Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand\, to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. \nWe will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nAfter you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks. You remember you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in civil manner. We will not tolerate hate\, speech threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission for public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voice and your view. Your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option to view in view settings in order to see all the panelists. audio and audio\, for in-person panelists is recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos. \nFinally\, everyone now and then will hear me refer to the meeting host\, Yuri\, Vcdc. Staff are acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. And now I will turn the mic over to our executive director of Larry. We need to declare the meeting with them. And since we have a quorum present\, we are truly constituted to conduct the business. So meeting is declared open. \nWe we can\, we can actually there we go? Okay? and Yuri\, would you please check to make sure that the gallery view is what is set for people who are not here? \nactually\, or Danny had a marvelous view of Tom Leader for about 5 min there\, which was\, you know\, and we like Tom. But you know it’s not necessarily everybody. \nSo thank you all. Thank you all for being here. My name is Larry Goldzband. I’m I have the honor of being executive director of BCDC\, I know some of you\, not all of you\, and I want to explain why that is \nWhen I took this job\, one of the things that I learned really quickly. And one of the things I’d learned actually earlier is to learn very quickly what you don’t want to know or what you don’t need to know. \nand My predecessor\, Will Travis\, who is\, was a professional architect\, still is\, I believe\, was very cognizant of that. \nand I became very cognizant of that\, and I realized early on in my tenure that I could not add anything to a DRB meeting. because I don’t do what you all do\, and I don’t see the world the way you all see. \nAnd candidly\, that’s good. because you all are tremendously creative and tremendously talented at what you do. and I’m simply not part of that. And candidly\, the last thing I am as an engineer. \nAnd so my sitting in and a Dr. On an Ecrb meeting is equivalent to my to. When I started learning Hebrew to be honest with you\, and thankfully you do read from left to right as opposed to right\, to left. \nbut I simply couldn’t really add anything to it. And so what I learned was that I needed to hire people who were really really good at what you all do\, and learn how to lead you. \nWhich is why we have Jed and we have Ashley. because I think they do a tremendous job at helping you help us. and that’s really what we ask you to do \nto help you help us as we move forward as on permits and all sorts of other things. With that being said\, I think it was my idea\, but I’m not positive\, Ashley\, to put you to the DRB and the Ecrb together to start understanding how Bcdc is moving forward with regard to rising sea level in an overall policy context. \nyou see this individually in your meetings. you talk about safety of fills\, and you figure out how in the Permit side a construction project needs to be put together to ensure safety of fills. \nBut you really don’t see the other parts of the project\, and how that really fits into resilience the larger scope. You see this marvelous\, these marvelous examples of how things are put together. But\, unfortunately\, or fortunately\, BCDC. Receives projects on a parcel by partial basis. \nAnd so you don’t have necessarily the. We have not enabled you to look at a larger scope. region-wide sub-regionally about how BCDC. Views resilience. \nYou do a marvelous job at making sure the project is resilient\, and that the project has tremendous public access. But we want you today to start stepping back \nand to think a little bit larger about your jobs \njobs\, not as though we pay you a heck of a lot to be here. But your roles. How can we have\, you help us look at resilience in a larger scale. \nHow can we have you help us think about what resilience means for public access and for safety on a larger scale. How can we be able to work with you in a way that enables you to help us on that larger scale? \nSo what we’re going to do today is introduce you to 2 really tremendous staff members are assistant directors of planning and regulatory for climate change. \nwho have been tasked with the very difficult responsibility of working with the community\, working with stakeholders and working with the Commission \nto help them lead us through the issue of resilience. large scale Bay wide. And we want you to step back and think\, okay\, I’m part of this. Now. \nhow can I help? What does BCDC DC. Need to know. What do our Commissioners need to know? What do our staffs need to know? What questions do we need to ask? \nSo that’s really the purpose of this discussion\, and we want it to be a discussion. I don’t know whether it’s whether Dana\, whether it’s you or Ethan who have discussion\, questions that will be put up. But there will be discussion\, questions put up that we hope you will actually try to answer. \nand if you can answer them. Let us know why you can’t answer them. And what we need to provide more information about\, or whatever to try to get those answers. \nDoes that make sense to everybody? So that’s why we’re asking you to be here. So with that\, I’m going to be quiet and turn it over to Jacinta. \nThank you\, Larry. And thank you\, Ashley\, and thank you. All the team here from BCDC. DC. For staging the meeting today. We really appreciate it\, and I know\, on behalf of the Dr. B. This is something that I think\, as we have been evolving over the last 10 years\, that a number of us had been on the board. \nYou know\, this question of thinking about the bigger picture is something that’s been pretty consuming for us\, and we’ve certainly been evolving in that direction. So I think today’s sessions got to be of incredible value. And we just with the opportunity here today\, because I think we we don’t get together face to face. very often. In fact\, I think this is the first time in 10 years. \nSecond time. Yeah\, maybe I missed the first time somehow. But but I think it’s incredibly important for the different disciplines to get together in this dialogue. \nI don’t think there’s any difficulty amongst any of our DRB. Members in weighing in with questions and asking appropriate questions. And I think these questions of \nresilience and sea level rise\, climate change. The implications for the projects we reviewing have become just more and more compelling\, especially in the last\, I’d say the last\, probably 4 years. \nyou know\, it’s become quite challenging\, reviewing some of the projects with the limitations of the site to\, you know\, to be able to really speak to. So I’m very excited to to be able to have that opportunity with everyone today. And look\, I do want to welcome. We haven’t got everyone here today\, but we do have new board members and alternatives that are just coming on like on board. And we have the \nYou meet An. And with us today a new board member. We also have earlier Chao new board member and alternatives. Patricia Fonte\, Cody Anderson. \nWell. that’s it\, and potentially more alternates. But I really see this. As you know\, we’re talking about resilience in the pay today\, but I think resilience in each of the boards is also really important\, and you know\, 3\, 3 of us \n4 of us. I think it’s been on the board for close to 10 years\, and so I am very excited\, as my colleagues are about having new people come in\, so that we can for carry forward with a lot of strength and become become better as we go forward\, is it these pretty challenging times? So thanks again for organizing today\, and we’re looking forward to it. So \nso the 2\, you see\, I’ll be. \nhey? Thank you\, Jacinta. I’m rods. I was the chair of ecrb and this is a really wonderful opportunity for for all of us to get together. And \nyeah\, think and take that step back that Larry’s talking about to consider sea level rise and other changing conditions that are there that are going to happen. \necr bes goal\, or there\, you know\, our yeah\, our goal has been to look at the safety of fills or individual projects. And \nI think we’ve started to talk about sea level rise and what we need to do. I’ve been is\, you know\, my day job. I’ve \na little concern that sometimes we are overreaching. But I’m here to to learn and talk and kind of share my opinion\, and I’m sure all of our board members \nas well have their opinions\, and we’ve had some pretty good conversations over the last couple of meetings. And you know I welcome this all\, and and and thanks again for organizing. \nSo I’d like to introduce Anna Breckfield and Ethan Mavine\, who will be presenting or presenting the they adapt to briefing today. \nThanks\, Ashley. We’re just getting our presentation set up \n1 s. \nOkay\, \nthanks for having us. Today. I’m Dana Breckwald. I’m the assistant planning director for climate adaptation\, and I oversee our be adopted initiative as well as our adapting to rising tides program. so I’m going to walk you through the first part of the conversation\, and then turn it over to Ethan. \nCould you go to the next. even sitting right next to me for those of you? Not in the room. So if I turn my head a lot\, it’s talk to him in person. so today\, we really want to give you an overview of our major Bay adapt initiatives. How badap came around\, what we’re doing now and then\, as you listen to our presentation. here are our discussion questions we’ve posed\, although\, of course\, the discussion can go really\, any way that we see fit. \nso for you as board members. How and when would you like to engage in the Bay adapt process and the projects that we have going on right now and then. What do we not know about? What resources. Would you recommend to support these initiatives? There’s a lot of information out there that’s already been thought of around adaptation. And we want to make sure that we’re being additive and not duplicative in our work. \nSorry which? Okay\, there we go. So I’m I’m sure you’re all at least somewhat familiar with Felix vulnerability here in the Bay Area. but what I like to remind people at every presentation that I give is that while this is the California coastal wide issue. It will be felt most acutely here in the bay\, with two-thirds of the impact in the state occurring here along our Bay shore line. \nand also that climate change is not just a tomorrow problem. Temporary flooding today at King tides\, signals the areas that will be permanently underwater in the future\, and in addition to overtopping\, we are also facing erosion along our shirling edges\, beaches\, and wetlands and groundwater rides. \nThis is a multifaceted issue that is real for us today. \nwhen we look at the interconnected systems across the bay area that will be impacted if nothing is done\, a stark picture emerges. and as little as 40 years. If we could see impacts to our up to 5 million daily car commuters and 60\,000 \nrail commuters. tens of thousands of existing housing units and planned housing units as well as existing jobs and planned jobs. nearly 30\,000 socially vulnerable residents\, and 20\,000 acres in depression\, wetlands\, lagoons\, and tidal marshes that could drown. \nSo it doesn’t really matter if you personally live near the shoreline. This will impact everyone in the Bay area. \nbut it also is true that in the Bay area many aspects of sea levelized vulnerability have been extensively studied already at with a local and regional level. These maps show what we have called hotspots in our 2020 Art Bay Area report \nor areas where flooding impacts multiple critical assets at once. like transportation infrastructure\, vulnerable communities\, job centers\, housing growth areas and natural conservation areas. \nThe 2 maps on the one on the left shows early hot spots at 24 inches of water\, and what will they merge later? At 48 inches? You notice on the maps pwl stands for total water level\, which is a term that the adapting\, pricing tides program uses in our baseline flood explore to describe any combination of permanent inundation and temporary flooding. So\, for example\, 24 inches. Total water level could mean 24 inches of permanent inundation. \nsimilar to what we may see around 2\,060\, or it could represent 12 inches of inundation and a king tide. which we’ll see sooner before 2020 50. \nSo recently BC. Partners and Pca. Bags to develop a cost estimate for how much this is all going to cost. This study was focused on protecting 4.9 feet of total water level\, which is our best estimate for permanent inundation and a hundred year storm by 2\,050\, \nand the cost estimate was developed by inventorying\, existing and planned projects\, as well as creating hypothetical placeholder projects for areas of the shoreline that would will experience over topping by 2\,050\, but don’t yet have a project identified or planned. \nThe total that we came up with in this study is the a need for 110 billion dollars for strawline adaptation by 2\,050\, which includes 52 billion in known or planned projects and as well as 3 billion for sediment needs \nthis map that you’re seeing here shows the total for the region broken down by project type\, gray\, hybrid\, green or placeholder project as well as by county. \nYeah. Well\, 110 billion may seem like a staggering amount of money. We also know that if we fail to adapt our losses by 2\,050 could be in the magnitude of 230 billion\, or greater\, as private property and infrastructure become flooded and lose their functions. \nSo without a doubt\, sea level rise is going to require a radical reimagining of our base shoreline\, as well as how we make decisions about how to proceed as a region adaptation is already occurring locally\, but it’s not likely to happen fast enough\, efficiently enough\, or in a way that advances our larger regional goals. If it occurs on a site by site or city by city basis. \nThis is largely because flooding doesn’t follow jurisdictional boundaries\, but up on the flip side\, decisions made along one part of the shoreline can have unintentional impacts in neighboring jurisdictions. \nFrontline communities are most impacted and have the fewest resources to adapt without additional support. Central habitats such as wetlands are at the frontline and at risk of being lost. There’s currently a patchwork of approaches along with shoreline\, not a cohesive strategy. \nThere’s a different use and interpretation of quote best available science. there is limited funding available\, and if everyone goes it alone\, there will be greater competition for funding\, and we are less likely to seek collaborative multi-benefit opportunities. \nand ultimately\, without working together to define a shared vision of what we want to achieve. We can’t know if we’re moving towards success\, or what success for our region even means. \nThis is where they adapt comes in in early 2020 BCDC. DC. Started with a hypothesis. and we bring together leaders across a wide variety of sectors\, public\, private community\, nonprofit and academic. \nand come up with a consensus-driven strategy that lays out the actions necessary to adapt the San Francisco based shoreline to rising sea level to protect people and the natural and built environment. \nThe adapt was guided by a set of guiding principles developed by our leadership Advisory Group. And these served as our North star throughout the process and include things like putting socially vulnerable communities\, first \nsolving interconnected problems\, at the same time recognizing that we need to support existing efforts\, but also plans for the long term and also recognizing that strategies will be different in different locations than at different times. \nThe accommodation of the bayed act efforts thus far over the course of 2 years was the adoption of the bayed up joint platform platform. In October 2\,021\, \nwe engage with over 360 participants through public workshops worked with 81 practitioners and experts through multiple working groups. including the local elected officials\, staff and technical advisors. \nWe held focus groups\, including with community-based organizations\, environmental groups\, business groups and planners and gave over 50 presentations around the region. The joint platform identifies 9 actions and 21 tasks \nthat don’t specify specific projects along the shoreline\, but instead are designed to overcome common barriers and set the stage for faster and more equitable adaptations. It has since been endorsed by over 50 cities\, counties\, and special interest groups. \nSince the adoption of the joint platform we’ve identified and received funding for 4 major undertaking to implement the tasks in the joint platform. First building on our equity principles\, we are focusing on frontline communities particularly disadvantaged and low-income communities of color. \nPrimarily at this point\, through the development of a region-wide shoreline leadership Academy. Second\, we are leading the development of a regional shirling adaptation plan which I’ll describe to you next. \nThird\, we’ll focus on regulatory improvements\, and those are from Ethan about this task. And then\, lastly\, we are committed to continuing to serve as what we’re calling the backbone agency for bay adapt. \nThat means keeping the conversations going\, convening\, coordinating\, and tracking\, and reporting our region’s successes and projects and progress. Progress. \nso I want to go into some detail now about the regional shoreline adaptation plan. This is one of the major components. We see. Your 2 boards could potentially offer some valuable insight. \nThe regional shoreline adaptation plan wasn’t actually specifically outlined in the joint platform\, but it is named in BCDC’s 2\,011 climate change policies\, and draws on several tasks in the joint platform. \nsuch as setting a standard vision for what adaptation success looks like for the region supporting local planning to coordinate towards regional goals. linking lots of money towards voluntary compliance with standardized guidance guidelines\, and tracking the region’s progress towards \ntowards this vision that we’ve established \nso the regional shoreline adaptation plan will create common standards\, goals\, and priorities. Aka\, what we’re calling guidelines for multi jurisdictional adaptation plans. the projects identified in these plans\, once they are created\, will together form a comprehensive plan for the Bay shoreline. \nWe’re working with a 40 person advisory group to develop the guidelines based on a long-term regional vision and engaging around the region to ensure that the guidelines enhance rather than hold back adaptation\, planning already underway. \nThere is also active legislation on the table this year that would mandate beef. Cdc. To review and approve sub-regional adaptation plans. It remains to be seen if the plans that we’re outlining here will be voluntary for mandatory. \nIf you think back to the slide that I showed earlier that highlights\, the challenges of not approaching adaptation region wide the regional shoreline adaptation plan is designed to conveniently avoid many of these pitfalls. \nWe think that the shoreline regional shoreline adaptation plan could result in adaptation that coordinates neighboring jurisdictions. and\, in fact\, finds multi-bent multi-benefit from improved collaboration. \nprovides priority\, access to resources to frontline communities. enhances the long-term wealth of health wealth wealth and health of wetlands and increased habitat diversity and abundance. \nprovides a strategy for how implementation should proceed around the regions that it occurs at the right time\, and the right place develops common standards and methods for applying science\, which can be supported by our own data and mapping work \ncreates a funding pipeline that reduces burdens on local jurisdictions and gives us the ability to track and evaluate our collective vision of progress. \nSo rather than a single document or plan. We’re using the term regional straw and adaptation plan to actually describe 3 key parts. The first is developing a regional steel with seal overized adaptation\, planning guidelines. \nThese guidelines will so establish a common approach to local adaptation\, planning and be rooted in our shared vision and region-wide adaptation goals. The second part is providing funding and technical assistance to apply these guidelines towards multiple sub-regional or multi-jurisdictional adaptation plans around the region. And lastly\, we’re developing an online mapping platform that will be used first to help users access relevant regional information. To prepare these sub-regional plans. \nBut once these plans are completed\, the strategies that are locally identified in these plans will be knit together at a regional level to form a comprehensive plan for the entire Bay shore lines. \nThis work will be phased with the creation of the guidelines occurring between now and the end of 2024. Then we’ll transition into the development supporting the development of the plan and the mapping platform will be developed simultaneously with 2 distinct phases\, first\, building the platform as a support tool for developing the original plans\, and then a second phase where the information from the completed sub-regional plan will be sent back into the mapping platform. \nThese sub-regational plans are really a critical piece of the overall puzzle. We’re still working out exactly what they will look like. But we know that each one will include vulnerability assessments that’s somewhat standardized across the region in terms of what science it uses and what it assesses. \nWe know that they will identify and evaluate adaptation options in a way that uses a common set of considerations across the region. and that they should all include a a quote\, final option. \nadaptation\, pathway for all vulnerable sections of shoreline. The final options is what will then be fed back into the region-wide mapping platform. \nSo the guidelines that we’ll be developing should be that should should be comprehensive and standardized while still reflecting local conditions and needs. While this list here is still in flux\, these are the topic areas that we believe the plan should include. So the topics that we will need to develop guidelines on. \nObviously\, each of these topics can contains many facets. \nAnd we’re currently in the process of adding detail. And these topics have been identified because they are responsive to known risks from sea level rise in the bait area. \nThey acknowledged shared land land boundary of flooding impacts for implementation\, coordination and or cross bay impacts. They\, they represent\, they address networked systems or biophysical connectivity. And they reflect our regional priorities. \nI also just want to set out some\, since we don’t have the guidelines yet with some expectations about what we think they actually are and what they are not. So first\, what the guidelines are important to be. I know we use the term guidelines a lot to describe project design guidelines\, but these are guidelines to guide the creation of plans not necessarily projects. \nthey will be best practices for vulnerability assessments identifying an evaluation. You shoreline plan and developing adaptation pathways in that consider issues the region. Things are important. \nthis point\, as I said they\, they are voluntary\, non-enforceable\, incentive\, driven. We want them to be aligned with the existing planning processes\, especially if a city already has some sort of adaptation plan in place. \nAnd\, importantly\, not all guidelines will be applicable everywhere\, so they’re up to only where they’re relevant in the region\, i. I. E. Where our condition exists to the board that the guideline applies to. \nThey said. They’re not project design guidelines. They’re not mandatory or enforceable by BCDC. Permitting or other legal authority. We don’t want them to be an additional burden on top of existing planning processes. \nand they aren’t intended to be top down blanket rules. But don’t consider local conditions needs for values. So lastly\, we have planned significant engagement with stakeholders. As part of the process of developing these guidelines. \nwe have a handful of leadership groups that are are directly helping to guide this process. beginning in August\, we’re kicking off our regional vision and goals phase which will include pop-up events in a public workshop. \nNovember through July. We will actually be drafting these regional guidelines\, which will include number of local meetings as well as 2 additional public workshops\, and we aim to go to public comment in August and September of 2\,024\, \nwe could. It did also do potential additional focus groups presentations as requested. And of course we are looking to see how we can continue to engage with these 2 groups as well as part of our engagement. \nSo at that I will turn it over to Ethan. \nThanks\, Tina. Sorry\, for I’ve been on a few years like I have a hair trigger here on my computer. But good afternoon\, board members. I’m with Mobile\, and they’ll be introducing a a new effort. They’re working on under bay. That’s banner \non regulatory improvements for both BCDC’s program\, and the way that we coordinate with our regulatory partners. \nSo why are regulatory improvements in area of focus? For they adapt and produce it easy. First and foremost\, the need for this work became evident because of the consensus stricken\, planning process that created the bay. That train platform \nand the stakeholders who took part in that effort identified the getting adaptation projects approved by regulatory agencies and getting them built can be a big challenge. So they laid out a vision that permitting should not hold back\, but actually accelerate resilient shoreline adaptation projects that align with regional goals. \nAnd there’s more. There’s a few things that have to do with how BCDCdc. Hopes to grow as an agency. First\, our recently adopted strategic plan. the new strategic plan stresses the importance of closely integrating our regulatory and long-range planning efforts \nto better succeed in adaptation planning. And second\, we’re developing a racial equity action plan that will identify objectives for improving our permitting program to advance equitable outcomes \nand achieve greater community engagement in decision making. \nSo that was all. Why we are working on it\, and the rest of the presentation is going to be about how we’re going to go about it. And when we initially presented this concept to a select group of commissioners. \none caution does that changing? The process isn’t going to be enough and paraphrased a quote by the management consultant Peter Drucker\, who said. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. \nWhat he meant is that establishing new rules\, policies\, or procedures? Option doesn’t work. If the people who apply them or implement them haven’t embraced the mindset behind the changes. \nAnd that’s because people can always have rigid or unrealistic interpretations that frustrate the intended changes. \nSo for all that we admire about these uses culture. recognizing that it needs to evolve in response to the changing world. the question is\, well\, how do we do that? And We came across the study that they’re really happy to see that actually helps us sort of conceptualize how that might work. \nThere was a really fascinating paper published a few months ago by Dr. Amy Nichol\, from Cal. State\, Sacramento. and Dr. Nichol looked at the cutting\, the Green Tape initiative which many of you will have heard of. It’s been embraced by the California Natural resource agencies \nand agency\, and many of the departments and agencies that are that are working in the State. you to BCDC. And cutting green tape aims to increase regulatory and permanent efficiency for multi-benefit environmental restoration projects in California. \nDr. Nickel says that cutting green tape may be on the verge of shifting the paradigm around the problems and setting out to address and to make the case nickel borrows from the work of historian and philosopher of science\, Thomas Kuhn\, who introduced the term paradigm shift. \nI’m just going to describe quickly what Queue’s idea on paradigm shift was. and looking at science. Q\, and said that science doesn’t actually follow a gradual linear evolution towards truth\, but that rather it goes through big changes when established. Theories simply don’t hold up anymore. \nSo the changes in ideas can be rapid and they can turn everything on their head like how scientific thought changed radically with the emergence of germ theory or Darwin’s theory on natural selection. \nHere’s how the process works. It starts with the current\, well-established paradigm. That’s the current way of doing business. and something occurs outside of the paradigm. That that is it. He no longer makes sense. In certain circumstances. \nIt’s initially viewed as an anomaly \nand When there are many anomalies\, people start looking for new explanations in ways of doing things. \nAt some point a tipping point is reached and the current point\, the current paradigm no longer works under the conditions. and there’s a shared perception of an impending crisis. \nPeople respond by developing new ways of thinking and alternative paradigms are developed \neventually\, an alternative idea that does a better job of explaining the anomalies and the current one does emerge and it’s embraced. And in that point a revolution occurs where people embrace the new idea\, and it becomes the usual way of doing things. \nAnd as a result the paradigm shifts and the alternative paradigm replaces the previous one. \nSo how does that hold up with cutting re-tape? Is it shifting the paradigm. You start by defining the current paradigm. It’s the model we’re familiar with for environmental regulation. And it’s behind the types of laws and the frameworks that Bcds uses\, and that many other regulators have \nwhich are based on preventing harm to the environment to restrict enforcement of what can sometimes be a cumbersome regulatory process. and that really really well in the context\, that in which it was created and California was able to avoid significant damage to its environment by instituting a complex set of processes to review projects. \neven if this complexity sometimes came at the cost of time\, effort\, and money for the people trying to get projects built. \nDr. Nichols says that climate change is the anomaly that’s challenging the status quo. It’s harmful effects on people in the environment is already evident\, and will continue to emerge rapidly. \nThe current paradigm does not make sense for restoration and other environmentally beneficial projects that are necessary responses to this threat\, though\, because it’s close them down. we need them fast. \nSo for years our colleagues\, inside and outside of government\, have studied\, written about\, and proposed alternative solutions for how regulators should approach climate adaptation. but also something really interesting about paradigm shifts is that they happen when they’re embodied by practitioners\, not necessarily just theorists or outside critics. \nAnd this point goes back to the comment and culture each strategy. \nDr. Nickel interviewed practitioners and concluded that a tipping point has been reached because they recognize the current paradigm is contributing to the crisis\, and protectioners are including all of us. Here are we need to really evaluate the way that we do our work. \nDr. Nickel thinks this means that we might be entering the final shift to this age. And we’ll know that we’ve achieved a culture ship. \nWhen the agencies permanently reject those aspects of the old way of doing business\, they contribute to problems of filling down environmentally beneficial projects. And it. I really do want to stress here that this is not a throw the baby out with the back water kind of situation. \nIt doesn’t mean eliminating permits or for going analysis necessary to prevent environmental harm. Rather\, it means elevating the goals of effective nature\, based and equitable adaptation \nand ensuring that the old safeguards don’t prevent us from succeeding in the face of the newer challenge. Where they do\, we need to look at how to change them \nso you could look at all this as an effort that we’re trying to do to shift the paradigm here at PC. And to the extent that we can be effective and promoting it more widely within the larger regulatory environment. For San Francisco Bay. \nWe’re trying to make that happen by identifying the anomalies that are challenging our existing program. finding new alternative means of addressing what’s not working well as it needs to. and engaging in discrete projects that will result in shifts in thinking and shifts in action. \nWe’ve identified 5 key actions. \nSorry about that. That. we’re going to focus on in our work. And the first one shown here is that we’re working to make permeating faster and more efficient. So we need to spend less time and fewer resources\, permanent adaptation projects that do align with the regional goals that Dana was discussing. \nInstead of relying on doing things the way they’ve always been done\, we’ll make changes to make our process more efficient and predictable. and the goal is to reduce the amount of time and money that good projects spend in order to obtain. \nWe\, we permit some regulatory approvals. \nSecond\, we’re working to navigate our regulatory program to make it easier to navigate. We don’t want applicants to the public to be uncertain about how BCDC works or what our goals are. \nSo we’ll develop resources so that less time and effort goes into understanding our program. And then more goes into working together to build good projects. \nThird is\, we want to remove roadblocks to effective nature-based adaptation projects we’ve committed through bay adap to prioritize natural infrastructure solutions that benefit ecosystems and the health of the day. \nThese projects prevent some unique challenges for permitting\, because they involve uncertainty whether that’s because the efficacy of certain approaches hasn’t been firmly established yet. \nbut because we may have to consider trade offs between certain ecosystem functions. So we’re planning to put time and effort into addressing the problems\, and we will work to convince the applicants who might undertake these projects that we’re partner to work with\, and not an obstacle that they need to overcome amongst many others. \nFourth\, we’re going to work together with our regulatory partners. we certainly can’t go it alone. You see\, you see\, is just one of many agencies that plays a part in reviewing and approving the adaptation projects \nthe region needs to build. so we can do a better job of coordinating\, aligning our processes\, and possibly even piloting new approaches\, the ghastly streamline. The process adaptation projects need to navigate to in their approvals. \nAnd\, alas! We’re working to reimagine these roles in the region. adaptation presents issues that were never considered. When the legislature wrote the laws that established BCDC’s authority and jurisdiction. \nSo\, building on the outcomes of the regional Showing adaptation plan\, we take a close look at whether the region has the regulatory framework. It needs to ensure equitable and effective adaptation outcomes. \nIf there are gaps that BC\, you could fill\, we’ll work with commissioners\, board members\, and other interested people in organizations to understand how we might evolve as an agency to help implement the region’s adaptation vision. \nThis is a a very simplified version of work plan in the first stage where we’re assessing the current challenges and the methods to address these challenges. \nSo I just want to highlight 2 projects that we’re working on as part of this assessment. the first one is with the Department of Finance\, who we’ve engaged with to conduct a mission based review of our permitting program. \nAnd that mission-based review is going to focus really heavily on finding efficiencies in our existing permitting process. It’s a pretty unique opportunity for us to have a a small expert team come in from the outside and view our program. \nAnd we’re gonna get some recommendations from the really great staff there to help us find improvements in our existing workflow. \nThe second is some background research that one of our newest staffers\, Dominic Mccormick\, who’s in the room. I don’t dummy as you can. has undertaken. He just joined us in May\, but in the last month though\, do right in and analyze a great wealth of research and policy work related to this very challenge. we didn’t want to reinvent the will. \nSo Dominican inv in identified 31 recommendations that provide a menu of options for us to consider as potential avenues for further work. \nfor example\, one of the big lessons that Dominic identified was their very large range of opportunities for us to coordinate permanent review with our other regulatory partners. you know\, these these include everything from aligning policies and practice. \nand\, you know\, could even include implementing new forms of integrated permitting to streamline adaptation projects\, approval processes. \nOkay? So after we assess\, we’re gonna take the findings of the assessment and create a plan that prioritizes key projects and initiatives and defines the needed resources and timelines to undertake these\, and actually sets out a roadmap for implementation. \nAnd then\, of course\, comes the work to advance and implement our projects. so that work involves a work internal to be Cdc. As well as the work of the undertaken joint partnership with the regulatory partners \nto help achieve better outcomes on our notation projects. So that’s where we’re headed. We’ll provide you with updates as we define our priorities and begin to implement our projects. \nAnd of course\, today\, we’re really interested\, as we move into the discussion to hear more about how you think this work\, my interface with the processes that are happening in these 2 boards. \njust to plug. If you want to know more about any of the content you heard about today. or dive in on the joint platform\, they adapt as a updated website that they adapt to work. \nI believe we’re gonna pause here to do public comment. And then\, After the public comment is over\, we’ll put some discussion questions up on the board for you. Thanks. \nThank you\, Ethan and Dina. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nRemember\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9\, or your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment and to unmute yourself. Press star 6. \nIt looks like we have no public comment. \nWe will take it to board clarifying questions and discussions. \nand I’ll just before we start out. Here’s the the discussion questions we’d post for you\, and of course we welcome any other thoughts. But Initially\, we put up as Advisory Board members. How and when would you like to participate? \nCan engage in the efforts we just presented. And what resources would you recommend to support these initiatives? \nOkay\, well\, there’s a great deal to digest there. And thank you both for those excellent presentations. you know\, and even that we\, a couple of us\, had the opportunity to participate in this just \nI don’t know a couple of months ago\, and I can see you’re already\, you know\, making a lot more progress. So reporting prices. Thank you. \nSo I’m just thinking to make this as valuable as possible for the from the Dipp standpoint. I’m sure everyone will have some questions\, but I think one way to get these 2 questions\, and perhaps some other reactions would be to think about the challenges that we have encountered when we’ve been reviewing projects in the last couple of years. And that’s sort of extending out from\, you know\, to the ultimate step in the work that you’re doing. But I really think that in this challenges. \nyou know\, bigger picture thinking to really succeed. You’ve got to be able to move from\, you know\, region down to sites back up to region to test. And I think. \nyou know\, that will be something that we should\, as a board. think about appropriate points to engage with you on\, because\, you know\, we are looking at that type-specific challenge of adaptation all the time. So we could think about that in the context of the timeline that we showed and some key steps. \nI think we’d all be really happy to engage with you at appropriate points along that timeline. there are. There were a couple of things that \nIt’s not exactly addressing those 2 questions\, but a couple of things struck me\, and and it really relates to some of the challenges that we see. And \nI I think the first point I would talk to is is just the subregional adaptation plan for the work that progress that you’re showing there\, and I think one of the struggles we have is you had a slide that showed all the issues that you’re considering in those. And \nI think that’s sort of the fundamental challenge of land use and current land use. Basic designation is something that we struggle with\, you know. Should we even be reviewing a housing project\, you know\, in this position along the bay. \nSo I\, you know\, I’ll just put that out there. We don’t have to talk about this right now. We might want others to weigh in with with other things that struck them. But I do think if we if we’re looking at a sort of a longer term integrated view around the bay. I think this question of of land’s designation becomes really critical. \nAnd then I think 2 other things that strike me because we talk about these issues all the time\, you know\, in the anomalies. you know versus nature. \nthings that are being down versus nature- adaptation. And we talk about this a lot\, and Bob often takes the lead. Thank you\, Bob\, for moving us in that direction so well. \nbut I think there’s often a challenge about. You know the consideration of the 200 foot designations that we have to where we really\, you know\, have the primary responsibility to determine how access is provided. But importantly\, you know how. \nyou know\, a Nature-based adaptation plan might work. And I think sometimes the you know we we we’re not always debating closely about. You know what could be done in that band\, or could extend further on. But I think\, as we get deeper into this process it would be \nit might be good longer\, you know\, looking out \nover the horizon. And the bigger picture this sort of thing is that 200 foot band. How do we think about that? Down the track? And then I think the other question that comes up with us quite often now is \nthis question of fill. And certainly when we all\, 10 years ago\, you know that that was a line you really didn’t cross. You know we didn’t talk about. We tried to avoid filling the bay\, but in nature based \nadaptation solutions. you know. Sometimes I’m sure the Ecrb talks about this a lot\, but the you know the question of\, you know some fill to accomplish a better outcome for Nature-based adaptation could be. \nyou know\, worthwhile thinking about. So I think that that issue is something that we we could spend some time on refining. I love the fact that you’re all reimagining \nwell in the region\, I mean\, I just think\, this is a very exciting time for BC\, DC\, because. you know\, you’re stepping up\, taking a strong leadership role. It’s always hard to see around the corner. You know where it’s misleading. But I think the \nnormally examples that you that diagram we showed us is\, you know\, I I completely agree that we are at the point where we sort of looking around the corner on that diagram to \nwhere a new paradigm shift just the way sustainability was a massive paradigm shift. Back in the early 2 thousands. \nNo one talked about sustainability. Everywhere else in the world people were not everywhere\, but in a lot of developed countries. They had been talking about sustainability for 10 years and doing great work in that area. And then America\, United States got on board. And suddenly this tidal wave of change Tab happened. So you know that anomalies diagram is is very important. \nSo with that\, I’m just going to hand to other members here to Just build on those few points to take other points. If you want to. lead off\, we’ll just come down the line\, I think. \nsir\, I’ll try. I’ll try to go first here. Thank you very much for those presentations. It’s actually really beneficial to have a better understanding of what you all have been working on \nI don’t know how to answer these questions\, but I’d like to build on a couple of things that you said\, and then I just sent in\, and maybe that will raise some other issues. the \none of the key things that comes up for me when thinking about a sub-regional adaptation plan is the vehicle through which that gets implemented. \nand that the jurisdictions we’re setting an expectation. I I think I’m understanding this that they would do some area planning at a at a local level \nthat would actually address these issues\, that you’re providing guidance before locally. And you mentioned vulnerability. shoreline adaptation\, and the notion of creating an adaptation pathway. \nand that. \nyou know\, I in in my other day\, Job\, I see this through the lens of of housing\, you know\, housing production and what the State’s doing to basically accelerate that. And then they’re saying that most planners are actually really greatly overburdened \nthat you don’t have a lot of extra capacity\, and there’s always that notion of like Oh\, my gosh! I have to do another plan like I have to participate in this other thing. I have to deal with this whole other thing that goes beyond \nmy capacity\, but also my area of expertise and sort of look at\, and looking at it through that lens. Those of us who are planners who \nare doing this work\, but we’re not necessarily trained to do this work. and sort of understanding that burden. But I’m also thinking about the notion that \nour our role becomes more important when the difference between what the local jurisdiction is telling the applicant to do and what BCDC. Is telling applicant to do are are far apart from one another. \nAnd this notion of us actually sort of providing discretionary guidance about what happens in that shoreline. By the end it becomes more important when there’s not clarity between those 2 agencies. \nand burling game is a community that they made a \neffort to engage in shoreline planning through their general plan and through their update to their zoning ordinance. \nAll right. \nin a way that you could say it. Actually it. It increases the amount of clarity between what’s being proposed. And this sort of great area that happens a lot where we’re in situations where we raise this question about what should be suitable in the shoreline band. \nand the local jurisdiction says\, Well. you know\, our building setback is actually only 10 feet. and you know this has gone through all of these approvals. So there’s not much we can do at this at this point\, because\, you know\, we’ve given sort of permission. \nSo I guess the \nthe Shoreline adaptation plan being able to reduce the difference between those 2\, or be a mechanism for that\, but also provide some guidance for the jurisdiction. \nThe entity that needs to implement the plan like\, how do they do this? Is it another chapter to the general plan. this Opr provide guidance for that\, so that it’s really easy for them to understand what those executions are. Those are some questions that I think they’re sort of going on in my mind. \nAnd then the last thing I’ll say now and then. maybe I can talk more later. is this this idea that at this\, at least at the state level\, there’s a lot of legislation\, that is. \nit is geared towards incentivizing entities to do the right thing. And so there. I I I basically\, I’m asking this question about. Could there be sort of a pathway to streamlining \nwhere habitat creation and sort of a more objectively defined outcome for what happens in the shoreline? The end would actually result in \nminimizing or reducing the need for discretionary reviews of that project. But there being an incentive to say\, You know what we need to come to the board to make these decisions around permitting \nwhen was happening in the shoreline band is not clear that if 100% of the strongline band is actually being created and reserved for habitat restoration and public access. Does it reduce our role\, or does it reduce the necessity of our role? Or does it actually \npotentially reduce the timeline or. promote a streamlined outcome? It actually can accelerate the the of that project. I’m going to make one more comment\, and then I’ll shut up. \nThe What strikes me to about the sub regional adaptation plan is that the jurisdictions by a role locally in jurisdictions. There are silos that need to be overcome \nin that. Like the shoreline adaptation plan. In some situations it could be entirely on private land owners\, or it could become a land\, use regulatory issue in other situations. It could be\, while 70% of our shoreline band is actually public right away\, public right of ways \nand public works actually needs to be the primary decision maker\, the primary implementer. And we see a lot of projects where. when it gets by the time it gets to us\, the \nthe \nthe the hurdle of crossing the silos at the local jurisdictional level has not been made \nright. We see a project through the lens of planning. You ask a question related to public works\, and they say\, well. we talked about that early on that we\, you know\, there was no way to collaborate within the jurisdiction within the silos\, and so that couldn’t. We couldn’t think more creatively about something like a shortline adaptation. \nand there’s other parts of the of the Bay area where\, \nand railroads retail transportation systems. They they are going to play an outside role in what happens at the shoreline\, and they would sort of need to be involved. \nAnd that’s a big question mark for me about how that happens consistently. and how they can come to the table in a way that actually has a consistently productive outcome. \nThank you. Thank you. Tom. \nthanks. Thanks for your presentation. I’m total concurrence with the company step instead. And I just have really more generalized\, maybe abstract sort of \nyou are the subject. \nI think\, touching on incentives. It’s critically important in this work. \nI think that in motivations have to be understood. \nthe I read it quantified. But why do I want to do this? I don’t understand why I want to do this. What are you supposed to? \nThat’s the problem. Because\, you know\, cancelling a negative. You know that that doesn’t get you anywhere better. And people mayors\, I see people they want to \nenlarge their reputations. They want to\, you know\, have a feather there. Cap or developers want to make money\, or all these kinds of things that actually make projects \nproceed is the is the sense that we’re going to be better off. We’re going to be. Our our growth will be accelerated. We can quantify that. I mean that we can understand dollars and cents. \nhow we will be identified. It benefited an honest\, precise schedule. Otherwise we don’t get on our stand. We’re talking about. We just sort of resources or or understanding for that. So \nI don’t know how that’s done\, exactly how how motivation and incentive these kinds of ways of measuring knowledge of people can enter the this process. But it seems like it’s it’s critical. \nyou know. and people need to envision. what could be which? And this you know\, from the design side\, we we have tools we can use to to energize people \nrenderings\, video stories. things like that that will help him imagine something they haven’t seen yet. It’s always critical. As a designer you have to convince somebody that \nthis really could be. And this is how we can proceed with that and there have to be\, I think\, credible. they have to be credentials. \nIt’s got to be some some increment. or which everybody can say this\, this works and this got done. and we see the path. You can see the benefit and the and the value that we can count up \nhow many people are benefited. You can kind of how much money somebody made. Whatever it is it would get. They would get people out of the chair and really want to do something like\, I don’t know just all the some of the different \ninitiatives we’ve been involved in in the last 10 years. It’s always there’s a somebody\, some voice that is there saying\, you know I don’t. I don’t have time for this. Why do I want it? Why do I want to do this? That’s the basic question. \nAnd I’m not. I’m not very good at identifying all that it’s the policies and and directors they’ll bring that about. But there\, it seems like that’s that’s kind of the key \nhaving credentials that people can in sight. I think it was fiftieth anniversary of 10 years ago now. And \nyeah\, and there was kind of a form of 4 time. I think it was. And Bill Mcdonald came to that. and he was probably probably all heard this\, but he was saying\, You may. It’s just not no good just cancelling a negative. You’ve got. The project has to not only \nhelp people save people\, but it’s got to advance into positive territory. And that’s kind of where I came off thinking that \nthe work we were doing. We had to. We had to do that and his designers. We\, you know\, we do have that potential. We do have the tools. We need. A you get in the hard nosed \nengagement with economics and politics to to generate. You know \nthere is motivation. I think every project needs to answer the question\, Why\, why do I want to do this? Remember\, I’m sorry this is so abstract. And I was just thinking about this for a period of time. Now it’s kind of seems like the without motivation\, because I just \nI see difficulties advancing. \nSo \nthanks\, Tom. Yeah. Very helpful. any any comments? \nI think\, just to start off. I’m thrilled to be here. This is my first hearing\, and I’m still getting my bearings as a design board member. So this is a very exciting presentation. Thank you for All the details that were shared. I’m thrilled to see the vision and the big ambitions of thinking of this holistically as a bay\, and \nthat is some of the roadblock that I see in my day. Job as an urban designer is the very narrow blinders of specific projects that we have. so I have a couple of very specific questions\, the first of which is \naround the sub area plans\, and if there will be guidance that will either lay out a foundation or a framework\, or provide incentives for cross sub area or cross project coordination. \nand how? How can we help streamline that or create systems that different jurisdictions could latch on to so that this can help become a useful tool for \nsome of those silos that both of you were describing. that. And then a second question around. I think\, Dana\, you touched on it remains to be seen how voluntary or mandatory some of these guidance might end up being\, and I’m curious to understand \nwhat the pathway for that decision of the level of peace. But some of these guidance thesis could have is\, and how much of that is already happening and underway\, and what milestones there might be to \nmaking those decisions. and will they\, do you anticipate that they may vary kind of jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Or is it a similar level of teeth for the bay as a whole. I guess just\, you know more \nlooking forward to keeping up with some of this work and on the milestones\, and when and how I think it would be very helpful to hear I was thrilled to hear the lessons learned. There’s been a lot of good thinking\, a lot of work that’s been done day wide by a lot of different jurisdictions. So updates on the lessons\, learned updates on the community meetings that were planned. And the I think \nthose would be great opportune moments to bring together feedback from this board with the conversation in the wider community. Excellent points. Thank you. Thank you. And I don’t think we need to sort of answer the questions right now\, I think what we’ll do is corral all these comments get around the rules. \nOkay\, how are we doing on time? So we need to. \nOkay\, I’ll try and keep it brief. I also very\, very inspiring. You know the the presentation. I have to say I’m really\, really encouraged\, and I as a more of a designer\, mind\, I don’t completely understand the mechanisms for getting there\, but I. But I do understand the diagram for paradigm shift\, and I really want to engage in that. It reminds me very much of \nyou know some things that I’ve read\, that jar and diamond wrote about how an individual who’s having a crisis or a nervous breakdown is the same as a society or an institution or a government which is having a crisis. \nIt involves the honest\, the value on a self-evaluation commit to change throwing out the things that are dragging you down and holding on to the things that are that are working. And I think you’ve already described that that this isn’t a total start over that you’re going to keep the things that are working\, and you’re going to build \nAnd so then\, when you get into how to make the bridge to projects on the ground. I think it becomes much more difficult for the reasons we’ve been hearing. \nI\, Tom\, is kind of inspiring me to to think about. How are all of the projects come before the board\, the short-term goal\, short-term financial plan\, and a schedule\, and everything that you just talked about is about long-term costs. \nand how how can you incorporate? You know\, long-term cost of society from a project? So I from there\, I just want to go to maybe a couple of specific examples of \nproject types that we look at all the time where I come away feeling like. you know\, we’re doing what we can within the rules that exist. But I don’t feel like. you know\, we’re we’re doing enough. Or maybe we’re understanding something that we should even be approving \nthat we don’t have the ability to turn it down and out. Just generally speaking\, I think\, for the last couple of years\, many\, many of the projects that we’ve been looking at are in the part of the bay that is going to suffer the biggest impact. So San Mateo\, Berlin game\, foster city\, so on. \nWhy are we seeing so many projects come before us on the most problematic sites? That’s a question I have. And I think I you know\, I can speculate and try and develop theories\, but that’s a question \nrelated to that is the levies that are being built that I don’t think is broadly known among the public\, or even among the board. \nI’m thinking specifically at Foster City. which is shocking to to go down and look at and drive along there and see these 20 foot walls rising in front of homes that formerly had safe views. \nI’m thinking about a Lisa where there’s a massive project underway right now that I don’t think anybody knows about unless they have a reason to go to a visa for some reason. So I I asked the question. You know\, how is it \nif those projects can happen independently of the kind of oversight that that you’re talking about. and finally\, I think the other is as Jacinta mentioned\, and we’ve talked about many times are I have in my mind to a very separate category for single family projects and condominium projects on day\, you know\, sites that are endangered. \nbecause the cost of implementing the 100 year adaptation plan or building a levy or a Se. Wall later falls on the Homeowners Association. \nand we do approve projects where we’re kicking the can down the road. You’re you’re approving a project. A developer is. it’s making some money. They’re getting out\, and the city or the region\, or somebody is going to be left with a map of massive costs \nwhich is not in. I mean those sites. yeah\, I I feel bad about about The deferred cost of that. So I will leave it at that. Thank you. Yeah\, thanks for all your hard work. \nSo do you want to wrap up the the dab? Yeah\, I’ll be quick. first\, in terms of engaging. Well\, first\, let me say\, thank you for the presentation. It’s great. It’s nice to be in the room. \nBe part of this really appreciate what you’re doing. But in terms of engagement I think it is really valuable for the boards to be updated and informs \nabout what Ecdc. Is is doing that we can do our jobs. And so I think we do that I don’t know. I think it is better to have some meetings and make a show up and listen and talk. \nbecause a lot of us \nI have lots of things to do\, and an email may fall off the list occasionally. \nsecondly\, on resources. \nI think the Ecr. BCDCould be utilized to a broader extent. You know\, the Foster city levees is an example\, I don’t think that came in front of the Ecr because it wasn’t \nNew Base Hill. And but it’s a lot of big detail with geotechnical issues and personal engineering issues. So but I think also\, the other thing to recognize is that the Ecr\, the \nis working with engineering criteria that are not available at a national or even at state level. We have policy\, if you know\, drivers and we have sort of arrived scenarios which are \nfind space by definition. But it’s not. There’s no ase code for that I’m aware of\, for scale will rise for public access versus something over the water versus \na shipping terminal or a very landing\, or anything like that. So we’re kind of making it up when in a way we’re we’re leading\, I think. \nBut I think the Ucrb could help with that perspective. If it’s useful as you go into these regional plans and stuff like. how would that translate to \nlogic design criteria\, you know. also the California Coastal Commission. I think you’re in contact with them. You know\, there’s these coastal groups that talk in the States that I think that they’ve had to deal with \na lot of similar things. And in it\, for example\, a lot of different future conditions mapping. I’ve worked on some of those. And I know Justin’s working on the theme of maps. And and then there’s the cosmos to you. So you have all these maps\, and \nyou know\, what do you do with them? How are they used? And then\, of course\, the applicants to do something else. And you know\, so I think they have a lot of experience. From what I understand in that world \nit might be worth could be some shared benefits. As far as my general comments. I just this is great listening to what the Drd folks said. \nyou know\, I really just want to highlight Tom’s motivations. topic. Because what we realize is that \nthat paradigm\, that different people are different paradigms. Some people are like\, okay\, I I like it because it’s close to the coast. And now I need to build a sea wall. That that’s it\, you know\, if that’s the paradigm \nand Whereas planning might consider other things. And that’s it can be a different. So there’s paradigms within paradigms. And it’s interesting that how you motivate people which I think is \nclassically\, would be to identify those externalities and try to get those internalized into these parcel level local decisions. \nBut you know\, anyway. and then the other thing that that Gary mentioned is what I would call legacy issues. I was going to mention this later. you know. So we designed for something\, and we know it has a life\, and \nyou know it’s got to work economically\, or put it clear\, or whatever. But what happens at the end of that? Because sea level rise is going to continue. And what we’re dealing with now are a lot of legacy issues. \nAnd so it may be in economics. You have a close out consideration. But then. you know\, you don’t want to stop development. So I don’t know. I think that’s a big challenge legacy stuff. And how this plan? \nWhere does it leave us? Recognizing that sea level is going to keep going up? Is it likely? so it’s a couple of quick comments. \nso we’re moving in a we’re living in a moving frame of reference now\, the LAN the census. Talk about the zoning or or land use planning. \nyou know\, we’re every that’s moving that that sees coming up and the shores moving in\, and the groundwater is coming up. And it’s more precipitate\, higher precipitation\, intensity. So it’s blood planes. \nSo you know. that we have. Your plan has the term shoreline. A lot of people use the term shoreline\, which is\, I guess\, an old English navigation thing which is around me in high water\, and that’s how \nour laws are are based in our regulatory framework\, and there is the bay on one side\, and what’s not the bay on the other side\, but in reality it’s all like a flood plane. and so I don’t know if we want to call it. You might want to call it the \nyour plane\, or or the Bloodland\, or there’s a Shoreland or something. But but you’re actually not managing the shoreline necessarily. If you’re really being resilient\, you’re you’re maybe working out into the bay. \nand maybe also likely\, considering landward of the shoreline. So what is that? Where is that? Where is that going to be? So \nthose are. Yeah. I’ll just leave it at that. I could. I could go on forever. But okay\, so good enough\, probably. Thank you. \nOkay\, thanks. Thanks. Bob. And and everybody on the DRB. I there’s a lot of I real I \nunderstand. And I agree with a lot of things that you’re you’re saying. I you know. Personally\, I think this dynamic or this this \nreference frame that Bob just mentioned is really important. \nIf you’ve got a condo association that is trying to replace a a retaining wall. are you? And and say the owners are going to be there for 10 years or 15 years? I don’t know what the the average of home ownership is. But if you’re forcing them to think about \n100 year\, to think a hundred years into the future and pay for that. it doesn’t seem as \nrealistic or equitable if you’re forcing that kind of decision and that kind of resource use on them. I you know I I almost feel like we need to have economists in the room here \ntalking about what\, the how we allocate our resources. If we’re going to be talking about shoreline and and big changes. There’s this whole \neconomic and and that kind of or the and how you fund any of this. \nthe the management of your short one? because\, you know\, I know that things are going to \nthe change. But I just you know\, I think that just it really for me it’s the timeframe of the change\, and what your and if you’re going to build a bridge\, you’re going to want to have a hundred years of of life. \nBut what you do\, what you do at the end of that 100 years\, have you? Just do you just build a new bridge. the tire\, or it that that kind of decision making\, I think\, has to be \npart of this process\, and I think that in terms of what they adapt does. I would really. you know\, like to see that type of thinking and incorporated into it. \nso I’ll \nlet me just. I’ll get out. Well\, one more thing I to answer directly these questions? You know I would really love\, I agree. I I would really love to have regular update meetings and meetings like this\, where we are allowed to hear what your progress is\, and \nyou know to be able to offer some input and guidance from our perspective. \nAnd in terms of the resources Bob mentioned American society civil engineers or design guidelines. I I think they are working on those things\, but they are a long way \noff. you know\, we’re in technical committees\, and we’re just talking about frameworks right now. I know the Navy is putting together workshops or a workshop on dealing with climate change\, not just sea level rise\, but \nthe storm intensities and things like that. And and that’s just an effort that’s starting. But there\, the idea is\, how do they change their design criteria? \nFor there\, you know. relatively important structures or facilities to deal with kind of this uncertainty and changing of the climate. \nSo anyway\, I’ll get off my soap box now when you pass it on to the Chris. \nThank you. and thank you for the presentation. It’s really great to see the progress that has been made. and it was really good to hear you mention rising groundwater. So it’s not just sea level rise. \nIt’s really important. But I really also want to urge you to include precipitation based flooding. I think many communities around the bay are very focused on\, protect\, protect\, protect. \nbuilding the walls like at Foster City. and if they do not consider all of the sources of flooding\, it will be mal adoption. We saw in 2\,02313 back to back storms. \nbomb cyclones. Those bring elevated bay water levels and intense precipitation at the same time. So I think it’s really important to that. We bring that in. \nI also like the components talking about a paradigm shift and anomaly. 2023 is an anomaly. We’re in a wonderful bubble here in the Bay area. \nbut the rest of the world is struggling under intense heat. we’re recording record\, high ocean temperatures\, ice sheet melting. We could have passed tipping points. \nScience right now\, is going at light speed to try and figure out what’s going on. So it’s the work that we are doing. That you are doing is is really incredibly important. \nto go along with the literature on paradigm shift. There is a growing body of literature that’s on transformative adaptation. which is very similar to the process that you discussed. But it is specifically focused on climate adaptation\, equity centered. So I would encourage you to explore that base of literature if you haven’t done it already \n110 billion dollars. I think that’s probably an underestimate But when you think about it\, state level country level\, it’s it’s huge. And at the shoreline. \nwhere we have all of these compounding hazards. It would really be good to see the guidance embrace planned retreat. I feel like \nwe. Really it’s an uncomfortable conversation for people to have. But we need to start having more guidance and discussions on plan retreat\, because we are going to need to do it. \nmaybe by 2050 or sooner. So if we don’t start talking about it now\, we’re not going to be able to get there. I think it’s you know. It’s going to need land use changes. Policy changes \nthings that are outside the engineering criteria Review board. But I think they’re extremely important. And so I would encourage you to include that in the guidance that you’re looking on \nwith that compass a suggestion \ngreat. \nWith respect to the first question\, I I kind of ask myself a separate question of like\, what is the relevance of these activities to the Ecrb in terms of evaluating a project \nand just trying to think of like how these might interface with the Project level Review. and to some extent\, I think some of the things I noted\, you know. Maybe there’s some sorting out of like\, what’s the responsibility of the Cdc staff versus the Ecrb. And and that’s fine. \nbut I was trying to kind of imagine a future world\, a future Youcrb meeting\, where a sub regional implementation plan exists and we’re evaluating a project that kind of fits within that \ncontext. and so I think you know\, one thing that would probably come up would would be sort of how to evaluate an individual project within the context of a of a plan\, you know. Is it consistent? \nHow does it work with other projects and adjacent shoreline areas? thinking about the the feasibility of that project with respect\, you know\, within the plan and its adaptability and things like that. \nAnd then also thinking about. is the project consisting with and compatible with the adaptation pathway that has been laid out in the in the implementation plan. \nso those are a few things that came to mind there \nwith respect to the providing input on safe development of the planning guidelines. I think that potentially there could be a role for Thecrb to \nmaybe provide input like to the extent that the planning guidance would include they suggestions on different types of adaptation options that could be considered in an implementation plan. \nmaybe these here we could provide input on feasibility or suitability of different actions along different parts of the shoreline within the bay\, for example. And then\, with respect to the second question and other resources. I mean\, I’m sure the Dcdc. Staff are \nare as aware\, more aware of. You know things within the Bay area\, but I might just throw out that there’s probably other non bay precedents that could be looked at in other parts of the country where \nyou know. And maybe it’s like state level or regional level plans that have been developed. But just looking at how those kind of regional plans had been laid out. And you know just kind of \nRodney. The perspective. I know the Bay area is usually a leader in the space\, but there may be other examples. It could be pulled in as well. so yeah\, because of my comments. \nI I just like to reiterate a point that Rod made what the struggles we have with how to how to address different types of \nproperties consistently. And in my line of work we work on a variety of projects from new developments\, where we\, I should say\, redeveloping \n2\,000 feet of shoreline\, transforming an industrial wharf into a pedestrian promenade or individual homeowners\, or H ways \nthat are trying to do repairs or large industrial facilities or petrochemical facilities around that that maybe have more money and can afford things \nAnd we we need to find a way to to address these consistently and be able to apply policy to the different types of projects. And that’s where I think we\, as a board struggle. \nAnd I think that’s something that we’d like to get some some guidance from. Ec. DC. On how to address. Thanks. \nyeah. Talking as a geo-technical engineer to a non Geo technical type of topic at sea level rise. I do have a number of comments\, I guess\, as representing representing the engineering Criteria Review Board. \nit seems like engineering criteria\, sea level rise topic per se might be a practical\, tractable problem. I’m not sure that the policy issue there \nas as easily tractable. couple of questions that I have\, that\, I think should be addressed and be useful for the engineering criteria for Thecrb to have in hand is it was talked about best\, best best available science. \nAnd I’m curious. You know how narrow or broad is the best available science is there consensus? Is there a lot of dissent? It was mentioned earlier. \nThe idea that maybe the boards are overreaching. what does that mean? Are we able? And if these are non-mandatory issues it’s sea level\, is there a number that’s mandatory issue? That’s a mandatory number? You have so many feet in in 2\,050 somebody feed in 2\,075. Somebody feed in in 2\,100 \nor \nBut \nand what is the design like who design sides of the design that you have a homeown\, and it’s going to whether they’re an average of 15 years. We normally think of 50 years\, but 50 years is kind of a \na stand in number that says that the last 50 years it’ll last forever. I mean that that’s kind of as far as we can imagine. all right. And and that’s basically stable. But that’s different with sea level rise. Because 50 years from now is different than 25 years now\, and different than 75 years from now. \nSomehow\, someone needs to start thinking about what those who who decides divine life and what is mandated about that? If we’re talking about engineering criteria\, the criteria is a mandate almost \nanonymously. I lot of these issues are not mandates. So what is engineering criteria? Then? I had \na question about probabilistic sorts of studies. Maybe if there’s uncertainty about what sea level rise means As a genetical engineer we deal with earthquakes and earthquakes are. \nin a sense. so the type of number that who knows? How do you put your finger on what’s gonna happen? And we put our finger on that. We thought that the Hayward was going to go again 10 years ago\, and we’re not there yet\, so \nthat we have to design for it. So But you know\, maybe there’s a way that we come up and say\, you know this is the Median number that you want you to design \nfor 2\,050\, which is the one you know\, the one Sigma\, the median plus mean plus one sigma value. And and that’s what single-family residences of that with subdivisions up to 10 units in the that’s what a a sea ball around Foster City for trying about. \nyou know. racy\, just to say\, you know\, engineers\, doctors have it easy. They just risk killing people one at a time. Engineers what \nyou know cities it. So the criteria for Foster City is\, is it? You know what? What’s the statistical number that you’ve got on that it shouldn’t be a Median number. It’s probably not a a a one sign number. \nIt’s probably a 2 segment number or something like that that we think that this \nreally. \nyou know\, something we really don’t want to see a problem with with loving around Foster City. And then I have a question. Some of these things are not mandated. \nWhat is the permit means? If it’s not mandated\, or what is a permit denial? I we need to get forward. you have to figure out what is Mandated? And then what is it \ni’m an engineer\, I don’t deal with it. \ncriteria and management. \nthank you. What a very good exchange here. First of all. it’s almost 50 years to a day. I first got introduced to the Cdc. To a guy named George Maker \nthere. and At that time the mission was to keep the from getting fields. To mention was\, you know\, no more feels But \nI think what we’re talking about is\, how do we keep the day from flooding us out? And so the point that it’s really not shoreline. It’s the coastal flood zone that we really have to consider and what is going to happen within it. \nand that requires a regional approach as an engineer. the engineering solution. If you want 20 food walls. we can build 24 foot walls. Do we want to live in an area \nthat’s basically surrounded by large moats. That’s an option. But I I don’t think it’s a desirable. You know. Hard engineering solutions are possible \nsoft solutions. They require regional approach. We really have to start thinking regionally the jurisdictions. Somehow we have to get the jurisdictions together. Think about it \nholistically. You can’t have San Mateo having one approach in burling them another approach and call it perfect solution for everybody\, obviously one of those. \nThey both may work\, but they don’t lead to the same outcome. So\, as as I said\, from the engineering standpoint. in a way\, once the criteria\, once the societal criteria are established\, it’s really what does the society like? What we we want \nthis to to be and keep in mind. It’s not just the bay little sea level that’s going up. If the base level goes up. the whole delta goes up. We’ve got I once you got flooding there. \nIt’s it’s a system. And and so\, you know\, I heard the suggestions of barriers in the bay like Venice. I’m sorry this is not Venice. This is a much larger area barriers. \nyeah\, you know\, for a few years my pork. But we have a venture like this one that’s gonna work. Okay? So that’s that’s one thing that I was thinking. So looking at the common approach and the issue of 100 year horizon. That’s an interesting point. \nSan Francisco. August system is more than 100 years old. Still working. It’s amazing. We East pay much the same way. It’s amazing what was done to not thinking about a hundred years. But \nas to last. So what we find is a lot of these engineering. you know\, infrastructure solutions. They acquire a of their own\, and we have to sort of think about it. You know\, we have the \na short freeway network. Both sides. \nAt some point there will have to be sea walls around all of those\, or they will have to be elevated and become the levees that everybody’s talking about. So I think \nI I like this idea of engagement\, and and especially looking at it holistically. I think that’s why? Because we need to as engineers. Really\, the society needs to provide some guidance \non what is the outcome? That your desire? Because that can\, you know in the end. It’s money. I’m sorry\, you know. It’s 100 billion or more. But yes\, we can do it. \nBut we have to have a common purpose. That’s the way I see that as an engineer I can help in that process. But I need to for some. you know\, buying from But he questions. Yes\, we’d like to have your help \nrather than being there\, saying\, Not yet. You cannot do this. \nthank you. \nI think the bad part of sitting at the end of the table is\, everybody who is so smart basically steal your thunder. But I think the elephant in the room is a global issue \nthat needs to be addressed on a project level. You can never do that unless you tell people\, hey. you are submitting the permit to Bcdc to do whatever development you want. \nYou have to consider 5 photo of sea level. That’s the only way that you can address it. because you cannot \nhave this being a mandatory or voluntary. you have to address that. If you want to talk about incentives\, you have to what they they are. \nOkay. Tax incentive. The insurance incentives? Are they some sort of a credit against some other people almost like trading carbon incentives? \nSo so I think engineering wise like Nick said. is easy. You put a stupid looking barrier in front of the beauty of the bay. And yeah\, it \ndon’t plot your development. That’s not what any of us want. \nSo I think \nwhat I think is going on here is \nreally \njust a a forum to discuss a global issue. And how do you bring it to I local project levels \nand I don’t think you can. This has to be addressed regionally. There is no other way you can. You can handle this and how that is done is really the 110 billion dollars question. \nwhich I think is probably a lot more than that\, maybe by a factor of 10. \nSo that’s my 2 cents sitting at the end of the table. Thank you. \nWell\, I mean\, you’re very good at. \nanyway. Thank you very much for the presentation. Most of what I had written down were things that I mean just talked about. The only thing I would add to it is also at what Chris shared\, that \nit’s not that sea level rise\, but you know a flood in from other sources is also part of it. Yeah. what \nit’s hard for me. It’s the fact that this time is being looked at on a global level. in a holistic kind of way. \nI think the issue of. you know\, trying to determine what we break to it. It’s we are far from that. we have to get to a point of basically the only way that we can deal with the sea level rise like through a means that has to be original. \nNow\, even if you there was a mandate\, that if you are developing a property on a shoreline and you have to put in a 10 foot tie wall. Well. \nthe C. Is not going to respect that temporal tide. Wall\, it’s going to go around it right? So so you have to cover the whole shoreline\, or you have to cover the whole region \nSo I think that society would have to basically decide that this is a crisis which affects us all and be committed to approaching it \non the suicidal regional national level. I mean\, we talk about climate change. I mean\, part of the challenge that they’ve had is that different countries\, you know\, have different levels of commitment. \nbut the one doesn’t respect the. And so if we in the Us. establishing all these policies to deal with climate change. \nBut China is not. Oh\, Mexico is not. I mean\, we are not being protected. So there has to be a sense of thanks\, there being an agreement. \nyou know\, on a suicidal level that this is so important that we are willing to command resources to dealing with it on the global type of level. \nI think he talked about reimagining our role. I think it’s so true because the things we do now me nothing. If we had to look at things on a global type of level. \nhow we would come in would be join in with everybody else that society is committed to dealing with the issue on a societal level \nwe bring in\, and our expertise\, you know\, and coming up with solutions to address the problem on that level. \nThank you. \nGail\, do you have? And another comment \nthat was\, I was raising my hand on behalf of my colleague\, Mr. French\, here earlier. \nsince we are sharing a camera. \nGary. \nvery quick\, I think. 15 years ago I I I tend to talk about how the manager tree would be solved by insurance companies. And I think in the last couple of weeks we have seen that it’s had a big impact as they pull out. And that is something that I think \nyou know\, transcends our ability. I think it addresses some of the things we’re we’re hearing\, you know you can. We can say as much as we want. What we think is the right thing to do. But I think identifying what mechanisms there are to \nbring into your policy. Evaluations are to inform people who are investing in the shoreline. Maybe maybe there’s something there I I would like to hear has. It’s more knowledgeable about that. \nI’m just looking at timeline here because broad you my one way into actually the screen. just so much really important feedback from everyone. I think we could easily extend this for another couple of hours\, going backwards and forwards. As we focus our minds. \nwe particularly some of the Atlantic comments. That’s What should our plan be? It’s by the clock. So What do you? What do you suggest \nnext on the agenda is adjournment? I think we heard very clearly that everyone is interested in engaging in this process more in the future. And so perhaps \nwe can schedule more dialogues like this. \nI will look to Larry right. I I just wanted to say you know very frequent attendant of the the DRB. I always get to hear \nvery incisive comments at the project level. And it’s It’s just interesting to be talking about such a big issue in here\, these high\, level thoughts and \njust really giving us a lot to think about. So I just wanted to say\, Thank you for for all the comments. \nYeah\, I I mean\, I as much as it would be great fun to talk about this for another couple of hours. I think you probably have a lot to digest\, and we probably also have a lot to suggest. I mean\, we both were taking just pages and pages to know your comments were all just so insightful and thoughtful. Some stuff that we have thought about\, and some stuff we haven’t yet. So \nI’m not 100% sure how how we want to proceed forward. And in terms of coming up with a maybe just a briefing schedule or identify key points where\, you know\, we can bring you just really specific \npieces of information. but it does sound like it would be really mutually beneficial to continue this conversation. maybe just not nice. \nCan I just make a conclusion remark on just on behalf of the DRB. I mean\, I think you are already making really important progress. And you know\, if we think about the beginning of the cycle of a project where a developer comes to you. Maybe a developer comes to you \nright. and they have a project they want to develop. And I think it would be really helpful\, for even at this point to the still something quite simple from everything that’s being studied at a more macro level. \njust to distill to the developer that you know and use language like\, even though it’s not figured out in details. But you know that \nyou know shoreline adaptation that adopts a natural approach is something that you’re going to view very favorably. you know they might be 3 or 4. Keep it simple\, but you know\, based on what you heard today. \nJust things that you could already start in that first meeting with a a developer that might be helpful\, because I completely agree. You know\, these global macro \nissues is something that at a project level\, we can’t necessarily impact. But we can impact. You know\, the next 25\, or 50 years\, and I think we should. you know\, within the realm of what we can do. So \nI think that would. I just would like to suggest that. But we\, you know that we move ahead. We don’t to awake for 2 years before these conversations are held with potential developers and projects. \nSo you know\, I in my day job kind of involved in 7 and a half miles of protecting 7 and a half miles of shoreline \nI and I see how big a job that is. See how hard the you know our staff and our consultants are working to make this all all fit right\, and \nthe the amount of resources involved are just mind mind-blowing. I I And so \nthis is all I think really great. And \nbut I I just it feels like to me. It I see it on a day-to-day basis\, and it feels like just a absolutely impossible task. But I’ve got\, you know. But there are people who are running the program. \nWe’ve got this idea in their head that it’s going to work somehow. So you know I’m I’m very hopeful\, even though personally\, maybe I’m like overwhelmed. \nyou know\, I think this is all super It’s a very noble pursuit. right? And I I really encourage the staff to to think about the things that we’ve brought up. I mean\, I still. \nI still think that you know the timing of the sea level rise of what it means\, you know\, 20 years down the line\, 50 years down the line\, 100 years down the line. \nI I you know that at some point even the tallest\, you know\, 8 foot 9 foot 10 foot wall that you build is going to be overrun at some point. \nAnd what have you? And you’ve made all of these decisions now\, or in the near future that are going to have to play out. And people. The next generations are going to have to live with that. \nAnd so I you know\, I think it really does require a lot of consideration and care on our part right now to to make sure that we’re making you know the best decisions that we can\, but \nalso have some flexibility so that people can pivot. you know\, in 20 years or 25 years. \nNo. sorry I’m getting off my my so box again. \nSo if I can\, a couple of things. I I think the next step is to have a stiff drink. and and I mean that sincerely because this is the kind of discussion that thankfully Rod just said something at the end that I think we all need to hear. There are optimists here. \nI think all of us are optimists here because I don’t think you would volunteer for BCDC. This. You’re optimistic about the way the Bay area can change. And the way the Bay Area needs to change. So with that\, with that being said. \nyou know\, I don’t think we have to have a zolop\, you know concession out the door. I think there’s a reason that we can be optimistic. \nmy suggestion is that Dana and Ethan will compare notes and work hard to try to make something out of those notes that actually gives us \nsome type of organizational framework to use in terms of what the questions are that are really raised by this nationally\, and and Jen will certainly be part of that \nand we’ll share that with the chairs of the DRB. And Ecrb to make sure that they \nthink that that’s somewhat at least consistent with what you heard. So at least we’re working off of a framework that we can that we can use. and then what they’ll have to do. What we’ll have to do is Staff is figure out how those issues \nare going to be raised\, and when they’re going to be raised in this bay adap discussion. And as we do that\, as we see that framework\, we will then come back to you all in preparation for that\, so that you all are prepared for those kinds of discussions to be had. \nnot only probably as part of your meetings\, but as part of you know the Commissioner working group on rising sea level\, to which you will all you know\, to which you are all going to be notified and the like. And and as those issues bubble up to the surface\, we want to make sure that you’re involved with at least understanding how the Commission’s viewing this. \nSo that’s sort of the logistical way that I see this happening. I will end by saying this. regulatory agencies\, such as BCDC. Are created in order to provide certainty of the public. \nThe FDA exists so that the pills we take in the morning don’t kill us. They actually solve things. We get into airplanes that are certified not to fall out of the sky\, and the pilots are trained to make sure that doesn’t happen. \nBCDC is a regulatory agency that is facing an environment that is uncertain and permits are contracts \nand contracts are based upon some kind of certainty. And so one of the things that we need to think through with you all and and and with all due respect. I think the engineers were really totally on target on this\, because they see certainty. That’s what engineers do. Right? You can build a wall that’s going to last for 110 years a certain as long as we give you the specs or the the idea\, you can build whatever you know\, you’ll figure it out. \nbut we don’t know what’s going to be like in 20 years or 80 years\, and for someone who has a 19 year old kid\, and hopes that his grandkids\, you know\, live in a prosperous Bay area\, we have to be adaptable. \nSo all that basically is a mishmash of I don’t know how we’re going to do this. but we’re going to depend upon your input as we move forward to try to figure out how to do it best. \nSo with that\, I want to thank you all for participating\, because it’s something that we haven’t asked you to do before. And now it’s something we’re going to ask you to do more. So we thank you for your help. \nCinder. Would you call it your name? \nIt’s I propose. We had joined the meeting someone. Second me. Thank you. Tom. Meeting 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/july-26-2023-joint-meeting-design-review-board-and-engineering-criteria-review-board/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230726T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230726T170000
DTSTAMP:20231017T050829Z
CREATED:20230727T053936Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050829Z
UID:10000034-1690358400-1690390800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 26\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-26-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230725T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230725T160000
DTSTAMP:20240205T230005Z
CREATED:20230726T063708Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240205T230005Z
UID:10000083-1690290000-1690300800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 25\, 2023 Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
DESCRIPTION:Please note that this meeting notice will be updated as required based on post-COVID-19 changes to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. \nThis meeting will be held in a hybrid format on Zoom and in-person at the \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nThe Advisory Committee will also have a teleconference locations at \n\n675 Seaport Blvd\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\n1997 Elm Street\, Benicia\, CA 94510\nPier 1\, The Embarcadero\, San Francisco\, CA 94111\n111 Grand Ave\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n450 Civic Center Plaza\, Suite 300\, Richmond\, CA 94804\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/86752041701?pwd=RGhBQ1JlVXlodTkzMElVMHp2MDExZz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID867 5204 1701 \nPasscode951349 \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.\nStaff Presentation and Committee Discussion.Staff will make a presentation on the background of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and provide an overview of the new Draft Plan.Draft Seaport Plan // BPA 1-19 Staff Analysis // Comment Letters  // Staff Presentation \nPublic Comment.Upon request\, members of the public will each be allotted up to three minutes to speak before the Committee. Written comments may also be submitted to staff to be shared with the SPAC prior to this meeting (please see below regarding submission requirements for ADA accessibility).\nAdvisory Vote.Committee discussion and vote on a recommendation to the Commission on Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19.\nNext Steps.Staff will present a brief overview and timeline of tasks to complete the Seaport Plan update.\nAdjournment.\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-25-2023-seaport-planning-advisory-committee/
CATEGORIES:Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230721T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230721T120000
DTSTAMP:20231019T053410Z
CREATED:20230722T014334Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T053410Z
UID:10000076-1689933600-1689940800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 21\, 2023 Sediment & Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF)\nPresentation (PDF)\nMeeting Summary (PDF)
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-21-2023-sediment-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230720T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230720T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T210300Z
CREATED:20230721T014255Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T210300Z
UID:10000041-1689858000-1689872400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 20\, 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 \n100 Howe AvenueSuite 100 SouthSacramento\, 916-574-1992 \n675 Texas Street\, 6th Floor\, Suite 6500Conference Room 6002Fairfield\, 707-784-6129 \nNapa County Administration Building\, CEO Office1195 Third Street\, Suite 310Napa\, 707-253-4421 \nMissouri House14150 Highway 128Boonville\, 650-644- 5084 \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 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID833 9488 6410 \nPasscode760263 \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 June 15\, 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]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote for 777 Airport Boulevard Office Development\, in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2022.004.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC Permit No. 2022.004.00 on a proposal by Lincoln Property West to develop a 3.08-acre former hotel site into a life sciences campus with improvements to the existing Bay Trail and shoreline public access area at 777 Airport Boulevard in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit (PDF) //  Letter (PDF) // Staff Recommendation  //  Exhibits A and B (PDF) // Applicant’s Presentation (PDF)  // Staff’s Presentation (PDF) // Revised Exhibits A and B (PDF) //  Revised Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Staff Recommendation Corrections (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Sediment Grant Facilitator Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract for facilitation services to assist BCDC staff in its Sediment for Wetland and Adaptation Project funded by grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Ocean Protection Council. With BCDC staff and the project core team\, the facilitator will co-design a collaborative stakeholder process\, develop a stakeholder workshop\, assist in development and review of workshop materials\, facilitate the workshop\, and help develop a Sediment for Wetlands Roadmap document following the workshop.(Maya McInerney) [415/352-3646; maya.mcinerney@bcdc.ca.govPresentation (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. \nEmergency Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicant \nCity of Santa Rosa69 Stony CircleSanta Rosa\, CA 95401 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.004.00 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s Certain Waterway Jurisdiction\, in the Petaluma River\, in unincorporated Sonoma County. \nDescription \nBCDC staff\, with the approval of the Executive Director and the Chair of the Commission\, issued an emergency permit to the City of Santa Rosa to conduct emergency repairs to levees that were damaged in storms in December 2022. The City determined that the levees were in imminent danger of failure\, which would result in flooding of agricultural land\, and private businesses. To prevent this\, the City proposed the temporary placement of approximately 240 cubic yards of riprap on the existing levees. BCDC staff issued the emergency authorization for the repairs on July 7\, 2023\, with the requirements that (1) the City submit a post-construction report\, (2) the City submit a written permit application for a permanent levee reconstruction project by March 31\, 2024\, (3) the riprap be removed by November 30\, 2024\, and (4) the City comply with standard environmental minimization measures and best practices during construction. The construction commenced July 7\, 2023\, and is expected to be completed by August 31\, 2023. \nRowan Yelton [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicantDirk Ivory90 Century DriveMill Valley\, CA 94941 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2021.034.00 \nFiled on March 10\, 2023 \n90th Day on June 6\, 2023 extended to August 3\, 2023 \nLocation \nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 90 Century Drive\, in the City of Mill Valley\, Marin County. \nDescription \nAfter-the-fact authorization to construct\, use\, and maintain landscaping and a rear yard stairway at a single-family residence and in a dedicated public access area. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions to construct\, use\, and maintain landscaping and a rear yard stairway\, not including the portion of the stairway located within the dedicated public access area. (Adrienne Klein; Principal Enforcement Analyst; 415/352-3609 or adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicant \nSan Rafael Yacht Harbor557 East Francisco BlvdSan Rafael\, CA 94901 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.023.00 \nFiled on June 26\, 2023 \n90th Day on September 26\, 2023 \nLocation \nIn the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at the state and federally approved San Pablo Bay (SF-10) and Alcatraz (SF-11) disposal sites. \nDescription \nDispose of up to 100\,000 cubic yards (cy) of dredged sediment from the San Rafael Harbor\, over a ten-year period\, at the state and federally approved San Pablo Bay (SF-10) disposal site. In the event that the San Pablo Bay site reaches near capacity\, Alcatraz (SF-11) will act as an alternative disposal option. Episode one is expected to remove and dispose of up to 5\,000 cy of sediment from the creek-side docks of the Yacht Harbor. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. (Jaime Lopez\, Environmental Scientist; 415/352-3648 or jaime.lopez@bcdc.ca.gov) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing July 7\, 2023\n\nJuly 20\, 2023 Commission Meeting\nAmended Application Summary 777 Airport Boulevard Life Sciences Redevelopment Project\nExhibit (PDF)  // Letter (PDF)\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\nNotice of Revised Date of Public Hearing for Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17 – San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing July 14\, 2023\n\nDraft Minutes of June 15\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Sediment Grant Facilitator Contract (PDF)\nSupplemental Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Sediment Grant Facilitator Contract (PDF)\nExhibits A and B (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nIt will cost $110 billion to protect San Francisco Bay from rising sea levels\, new study shows\nThe Plan to Save New York From the Next Sandy Will Ruin the Waterfront. It Doesn’t Have To\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/07/07-20-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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-20-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230720T103000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230720T120000
DTSTAMP:20231020T010615Z
CREATED:20230721T010128Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T010615Z
UID:10000087-1689849000-1689854400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 20\, 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/87485518227?pwd=TzhHZ0RrYXJLVEMvT1BLV24vZC8ydz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID874 8551 8227 \nPasscode332410 \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\nPermitting for a Resilient ShorelineThe Bay Adapt Joint Platform set out the goal of refining and accelerating regulatory approval processes. The Working Group will receive an overview of planned BCDC staff efforts to improve the Commission’s permitting and regulatory processes. The Working Group will also hear on research conducted to synthesize existing knowledge on permitting challenges and proposed improvements.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nUpdate on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation PlanThe Working Group will receive an update on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan guidelines development\, including how this project is building on existing state\, regional\, and local resources\, how equity is being centered throughout the process\, and an introduction to developing the regional vision and goals.(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@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/july-20-2023-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230713T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230713T170000
DTSTAMP:20231013T053922Z
CREATED:20230714T053810Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T053922Z
UID:10000033-1689235200-1689267600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 13\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-13-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230710T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230710T170000
DTSTAMP:20231018T055520Z
CREATED:20230711T052548Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231018T055520Z
UID:10000059-1689008400-1689008400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 10\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings will be conducted in a hybrid format.  To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \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/82670260379?pwd=eTAyc1h2S3ViQjV5UkttVldVNzJrdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID826 7026 0379 \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\nFerry Building and Ferry Plaza Alterations in the City of San Francisco\, San Francisco County (Second Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by Hudson Pacific Properties to make interior and exterior alterations to the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ferry Plaza at various locations along the ground floor and the building site.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650 katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit (PDF) // Public Comment Letters (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/july-10-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230706T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230706T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T041652Z
CREATED:20230707T013156Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T041652Z
UID:10000040-1688648400-1688662800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 6\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing June 23\, 2023 \n\nLetter to Commissioner Pat Burt regarding BCDC Guidance on Plant Selection (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nShe lost her home. She doesn’t want to lose her city council seat\nThe Bay Area faces an imminent threat from sea level rise – but it’s different from what you think\nBiden\, in Palo Alto\, announces funding to fight climate change\nPenguins in Your Fridge? These 7-Year-Olds Have Climate Solutions\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative permit applications and minor amendments to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of July 6\, 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 July 6\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after July 6\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife2825 Cordelia Road #100Fairfield CA\, 94534 \nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2023.006.00md \nFiled on 06/19/23 \n90th Day on 09/17/23 \nLocation \nIn the Commission’s Bay and Managed Wetlands jurisdictions and the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh\, at Duck Clubs 515\, 516\, 518 and 535\, in Suisun City\, Solano County. \nDescription \nTo facilitate the management of managed wetlands habitats\, the California Waterfowl Association proposes the installation of three new water control structures on exterior levees and five water control structures on interior levees. The structures all consist of HDPE pipes\, flap gates and support structures. The project will result in approximately 23 cubic yards of fill over 319 square feet in the Bay and the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. The project will minimize adverse environmental effects to the Suisun Marsh and other Bay resources by working in the dry season (between March and September) during spring low tides or when the wetlands are fully drained to avoid any in-water work. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\nMinor Amendments to Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program \nThe Commission has received the following minor amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program for certification since the last listing. \nApplicant \nSuisun Resource Conservation District2516 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \nMinor Amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (BPA 1-23) \nDescription \nOn March 11\, 2022\, the Commission certified a major amendment to the Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) Component of the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (LPP). The amendment included 121 updated Individual Ownership Adaptive Habitat Management Plans (IOAHMPs) for each privately-owned managed wetland within the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. To ensure these plans remain current\, SRCD tracks modifications to operations and updates plans on an ongoing basis. Annually\, SRCD will submit these minor amendments to the LPP for Commission certification. This listing is to notify the Commission that the Executive Director intends to certify the first such minor amendment to the SRCD component to the LPP\, submitted on May 19\, 2023. The amendment submitted by SRCD includes updates to facilities and operations on 34 privately-owned managed wetlands. Examples of activities described in the minor amendment include\, but are not limited to\, repairs\, replacements\, or upgrades to water control structures\, such as flaps and pipes. The activities described in the minor amendment consist of minor repairs and improvements to privately-owned managed wetland facilities and meet the requirements of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 11210-11215. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Certification Erik Buehmann; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov or 415/352-3645
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-6-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230622T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230622T170000
DTSTAMP:20231019T004025Z
CREATED:20230623T002838Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T004025Z
UID:10000069-1687438800-1687453200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 22\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:The meeting will be conducted virtually in accordance with SB 189 (2022) \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/81624366244?pwd=T3A5VE9OTmw4RVpreDVEMXNremFhdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \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\nStaff Updates\nItem of Discussion: Greenwood Bay Condominium Seawall Repair Project (BCDC Permit Amendment Application 1973.015.04) (PDF).The Board will review the Greenwood Bay Condominium Homeowners Association (Applicant) proposed sea wall repair project at One Greenwood Bay Drive in Tiburon. The Board will review the proposed design and installation of the new sea wall\, placement of tie-back anchors\, and removal of the old sea wall. 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.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Greenwood Bay Homeowner’s Association Seawall Repair (PDF) // Greenwood Bay Condominiums Seawall Repair (PDF)  // Greenwood Bay Condominium Homeowners Association Site Pan (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/06/06-22-ECRB-audio-recording.mp3 \nTranscript \nI. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Can you see my title slide? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay. Great \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I believe that. our applicant is here today and we are ready to start the meeting. So I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay? And so I believe that’s \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): my queue Good afternoon\, everybody. I’m welcome to the B. C. DC. Virtual engineering Criteria Review Board meeting my name is Rod Youwasha\, and I’m chair of Dcbc’s engineering Criteria Review Board or Ecr d. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): our first\, or a business is to call the role \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Board members. Please unmute yourselves and respond. then meet yourselves again. After responding\, Jen\, can you please call role? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I will chair. It was she\, though. Vice chair. Jim French. \nJim French: Sure \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: board members. Bob Battalion. \nBob Battalio: Here. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Bill Holmes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: it’s not here. Chris May. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Here \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Gmak Casali. \nGKasali: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Running. Go\, Sarky. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Nick Sitar. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I know next. Not here today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Gail Johnson. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I know Gail is also not here today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thalia Travisaru \nThaleia Travasarou: here. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Dill it \nDilip Trivedi: here \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just in Vandiver. \nJustin Vandever: Here \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is everyone anyone whose name I have not called \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: great. Thanks. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we do have a quorum present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so\, rod you may continue business. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay? And it looks like Somebody is going to show how to raise virtual hands for \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): for public comments. Or maybe we hold that until \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): just before public comment. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): so let’s go through the meeting procedure Review. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): just want to make a few comments or provide some instruction on how we can \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): best participate in this meeting\, and so that it runs smoothly. everyone\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): for board members. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): please make sure your webcam is on so we can see you \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): for members of the public. if you’d like to speak during the public comment period. you can do so in 2 ways. first\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): If you are new to zoom or and you joined our meeting using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen to be just just off to the right of center. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and your hand will turn blue when it’s raised. And the second way\, if you’re joining joining the meeting via phone. you 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 in the order. They are raised during public comment period for the project. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and then. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): after your call on please unmute so you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation\, beginning at the beginning of your remarks. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we will not tolerate Kate speech\, correct me directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And finally. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): every now and then you will. I’ll refer to Grace our Bcd. Scene host \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): who is acting as the host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and thank you for your and in advance for your patience. Okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Next item is ex parte communications \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide the staff with a notice of any written or oral ex parte communications. I invite members who have engaged in any such communications to report them \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen. Has any board member raised their hand? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: not that I can see. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Thanks. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): so I know in the published agenda. We have a public comment period. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): now we’re not. We’re gonna hold that until after the project has been presented. let’s see. And now we’re on to staff updates. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So as part of the agenda\, I like to request \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that our new secretary\, our new the Bcdc. New engineer Jen Hyman\, like the welcome her to the the Ecrv meeting. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): ritual here. and looking forward to working with you\, Jim? Can you update us on recent activities? So \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): B. C. DC. And the future meet meetings that are scheduled for the Ecrb. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yes\, I can thank you. Chair or she death. I would like to provide an update to the Crb on a few items \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: on July 20 sixth\, next month\, at 3 Pm. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The Ecrb will be meeting jointly with the Commission’s Design Review Board to get a briefing from the B Cdc. Planning branch on the Bay Adap program \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and the regional shoreline adaptation study. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: That will be a hybrid meeting held in the B Cdc. Boardroom and on Zoom. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: A social gathering \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of both boards will follow. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and more information on that will be mailed out to everyone shortly. do you save that? on your calendar for July? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: There’s currently nothing agendized for the Ecrb\, July 20\, seventh meeting or the August thirtieth meeting. But please keep those spots on your calendar reserve in case Something does come up \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: until on in September\, on September 20 seventh. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we will be meeting to discuss the design of the San Francisco Airport Trolling protection program. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: As another item. As you know. You see. Rb. Member\, Professor Jack Muley retired from the Ecrb in March. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and there’s been a posting Phyllis position on the Ecrb posted on the B Cdc website for a month\, and we received no applications. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The posting stated\, that a structural engineer employed in public service was preferred. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I did reach out to \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Uc. Berkeley\, Stanford\, San Francisco State\, and the army core. but we did not receive any application\, so I suspect that \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I wrote the posting to narrowly\, or folks are just super busy. But either way\, I’m going to rewrite the posting \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to simply state that we’re looking for an experience structural engineer\, and we post it for another month\, and hopefully we’ll get some applications then\, and I’ll let everybody on the Ecrb know when that gets reposted \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: as I do appreciate your assistance in recruiting for a new structural engineer to replace \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): anything else to like. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Nope\, that’s all I have that commendation. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): on on your screen for for Jack mailing. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I was \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): hoping to read. It’s less than a page\, but I’d like to read the commendation that \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the B Cdc. Or the Commission is is is going to give to the the Jack male or has given to him. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): It is \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay\, right? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Like the the you know\, personally. Thank \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jack\, for 11 years of of service at Ecrb. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and I know\, he said. He said\, a great example for for everyone. so \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I’d like to. I I think it’s important to recognize \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the contributions that Jack has made. and so so in the you’ll bear with me while I reach a commendation that’s been been issued. whereas Dr. Jack Milly\, professor of the graduate School of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): at the University of California. At Berkeley. The served on the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Engineering Criteria \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Review Board since June 2\,012\, without compensation and without complaints. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and whereas Dr. Male has provided research and teaching in structural and earthquake engineering over the last 43 years on the Faculty of Ec. Berkeley. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): where he was the director of the Earthquake Engineering Research Center \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and the founding director of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. That’s been the recipient of scores of awards and honors\, including being elected to the National Academy of Engineering. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): It’s provided invaluable contributions to earthquake resistant design and analysis of building structures as well as leadership \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): in the engineering and engineering education. And whereas Dr. Mayley’s Structural Engineering focused advice to be Cdc. Permit applicants\, as informed and enhanced the viewpoint of the design criteria\, and of many shoreline projects\, and \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): whereas Dr. Male has a raised awareness to applicants on seismic hazards and the design projects inclusive of public access to the day\, and \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): where\, as Dr. Mainly \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): vacated\, his position as a member of the Engineering Criteria Review Board on March fourteenth\, 2\,023\, after 11 years of service. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Now\, therefore\, be it resolved That the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. This here\, by unanimously express on the behalf of the entire Bay area which it serves its deepest appreciation and gratitude to Doctor Jack P. Mainly for his generous and distinguished public service over the past 11 years \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): signed by our Zachary Washington. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So thank you\, Jack. I’m not sure if you’re here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I really do appreciate you \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): contributions. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay? but there any announcements from members of Ecrb. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): hearing none. I think we’re now going to start. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Item. Nope. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): let’s see\, getting lost in my script here. Okay\, the next item is a presentation and discussion of the Greenwood Bay Condominium. See\, while we’re Pierre project at one Greenwood Bay drive in Tiburon. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So for housekeeping. I think I’ve asked\, and I think all the Ecrb members have turned on their video \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and your turn on your microphone when you’re speaking or answering questions. and when you’re not actively engaged with the board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): this is. And so this other part is for the participants. When you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your video so that we minimize distractions on the screen. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And now let’s introduce the subject of this afternoon session. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): face\, are you promoting everybody on the project team to panelists? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And then all that’s going on? Jen\, would you add some introduction to the project? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yes\, I do. Good afternoon. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: chair. I Washita and members of the Engine Criteria Review Board. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: My name is Jen Hyman\, and I’m the senior engineer at Bcdc. Excited to be here for my first meeting\, and I’m also serve as the Secretary of the Ecrb. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This will be the Board’s first review of the Greenwood Day Condominium Seawall repair project \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: B. C. DC. Permit amendment number 1\, 9\, 7\, 3 dot O. 1 5 Dot\, O. 4\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: proposed by the Greenwood Bay Condominium Homeowners Association. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I will start with a brief introduction to the project before the applicants present it in greater detail. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Sam Fielding\, B. Cdc. Permit analyst\, for the project is also here with us in this meeting. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So the 49 unit 3 story Condominium complex\, which originally constructed on Richardson Day in 1\,973 \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: under B Cdc. Permit\, 1973. Dot. O. 1 5 dot. Oh. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: at that time a timber seawall\, approximately 440 feet long\, was constructed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: It’s approximately 20 to 30 feet from the edge of the Condominium buildings and faces a narrow tidal canal. That wall is currently beyond its functional life. In 1\,989 a new timber see well with tie backs was constructed on the bay side of that wall\, which is also starting to fail at the mudline. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: A new fiber reinforced Polymer sheet pow wall will be installed on the up one side of the existing timber walls. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The old timber pilots and wall will be removed completely\, except on the south end\, where the timbers will be replaced. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The applicant has explained that since they consider this project a repair of an existing wall\, the new height will match that of the existing wall. As a result\, the wall is more of a bulkhead than a sea wall holding up the land\, but not providing a hundred year recurrent flood protection. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: In addition\, there is no flood protection on the south or east side of the Condominium\, complex as a shoreline protection project\, the Cdc strongly. Protection policies apply. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: including one C addressing erosion\, control and flood protection. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: However\, the climate change policies do not \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: do not apply\, as it is not considered a larger shoreline project. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Here are the questions we would like the Board to consider in regards to this project. I’m going to bring them up right now. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: on my screen. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: We request that the Board assess the following questions. whether the design criteria of the site are appropriate for the existing site\, hazards and conditions. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: whether current flooding\, and future rising sl impacts on the retaining wall are addressed adequately based on the references and the nature of the project. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and whether there are any design and physical concerns that have not been addressed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: These questions will be discussed further after the presentation. Please make sure any comments during the presentation are clarifying questions. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: since the discussion will take place after public comments that follow the presentation. I would like now to introduce you to Pj. Cosgrove of the Barneget Group\, and Justin\, the engineer\, record from Simpson converts and Hager\, who will present the project today? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And I assume that they will. I will stop sharing my screen \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so that they can share their screen and present their slides. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m wondering\, Rod\, if the Ecrb members also got sent copies of the slides in case they have technical issues with Zoom. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I have not had a chance to check my email. I don’t. I don’t believe so. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, well\, if anyone on the board has any technical issues\, let me know. And I can email them out \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that I’m seeing the slides fine right now. \nDilip Trivedi: Yeah\, you did send them out. Jen\, I do have the presentation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Oh\, okay\, great thanks \nJim French: to review them. \nP.J. Cosgrove: Good afternoon\, Cherry. \nP.J. Cosgrove: Hey\, Shita? And thank you. Jen. This is Pj\, a kind of script with barn\, a good group. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And you hear me. Okay? Yes. \nP.J. Cosgrove: Great. Well\, firstly\, that. Thank you for your time in advance to consider our project. 3 years ago I was retained by the Homeowners Association of Greenwood Bay \nP.J. Cosgrove: to assist them\, and repairing 3 elements of of of their marine or of their \nP.J. Cosgrove: another waterfront project\, 2 of which are one is a pedestrian bridge that connects the strawberry point. \nP.J. Cosgrove: They trail along Let’s call it along the \nP.J. Cosgrove: eastern shore of the proper or the yeah. The eastern shore of the property\, and the other is a fishing \nP.J. Cosgrove: here. \nP.J. Cosgrove: both of which were submitted through B. C. DC. Water quality\, a fishing game Army core. \nP.J. Cosgrove: the Coast Guard for review and approval\, and that project was constructed last year \nP.J. Cosgrove: This project that we have today is the second of what will be the final project of the Greenwood Bay Marine repairs\, and it is\, as Jen mentioned\, a 440 linear feed of \nP.J. Cosgrove: existing seawall as also Jen mentioned\, there’s 2 redundant sea walls. They are one built in 73\, one built\, and 89. The timber lagging that’s in between those 2 is essentially \nP.J. Cosgrove: essentially failing at the mudline. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So the proposed project that we have is to replace the failed timbers with a vinyl pile which Hg. Has has designed\, and we have submitted here in front of you \nP.J. Cosgrove: as well as we’ve also applied. thank you. Justin is is driving the slides behind us. So on the screen in front of you is the Is is the Se. Wall itself. \nP.J. Cosgrove: with the whaler\, and\, as you see\, at the lower portion of the mudline is is the failed timbers. \nP.J. Cosgrove: so that they through my efforts. We we’ve retained Sdh\, as our structural engineer and anchor. Qe. As our permit expedit. \nP.J. Cosgrove: and as well as the \nP.J. Cosgrove: Geo technical investigation is done by our Gh. Consultants. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So moving on a of a visual. The seawall is on the western side of the Greenwood Bay apartment\, or I shouldn’t say apartment and the \nP.J. Cosgrove: the H. A. Complex\, which consists of 9 9 buildings \nBCDC HOST: and \nP.J. Cosgrove: 49 units total \nP.J. Cosgrove: the at the at the southern end is the pedestrian bridge\, that which connects the Strawberry Point School onto the bay trail. \nP.J. Cosgrove: and we go to the next line. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So\, as I mentioned earlier\, our first phase was to repair the pedestrian bridge and the fishing war for what we would\, which by through investigation\, Sg. Found to be unsound and unsafe. So they were closed to the traveling public. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So we we replaced and repaired the existing piles on both structures \nP.J. Cosgrove: with an F. R. P. As system. And again\, this phase 2 is the seawall. Our project did. Did not a jason to to the \nP.J. Cosgrove: well. \nP.J. Cosgrove: the Well\, let’s move on to the next next slide. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So yeah\, that’s a here’s the the the seawall project which we’re referring to on the left\, on the right is the 2 projects repaired prior \nP.J. Cosgrove: next line. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So the the design by Sgh with the seismic parameters of the 2\,019\, 2\,022 \nP.J. Cosgrove: code. \nP.J. Cosgrove: And like\, say\, when when we initially submitted the the project\, it was going to be a 1 one permit for the 3 3 different elements. But we decided\, just for the public travel safety to to break it into 2. So the project was never considered \nP.J. Cosgrove: for sea level rise. \nP.J. Cosgrove: currently the Homeowners Association has \nP.J. Cosgrove: going to each member to the H of A to solicit funds for this repair. we’ve sol solicited contractors. We’ve selected a contractor who was positioned to start the repair work this summer. \nP.J. Cosgrove: we’ve applied for access to the neighboring church. \nP.J. Cosgrove: which is the only access we have to this sea wall is on the through the north \nP.J. Cosgrove: and on the long to the west side of the property. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So we’ve at. We’ve been from from \nP.J. Cosgrove: been given permission to access \nP.J. Cosgrove: our property through the neighboring church property this summer. \nP.J. Cosgrove: We’re currently in in review and waiting on our approval from the county of Marin. for for the \nP.J. Cosgrove: so\, as you see on the on the image\, on the lower portion. \nP.J. Cosgrove: That’s the only access we have to in from this the sea wall to to to remove the existing lagging\, and and to remove the soil that’s play in place. \nP.J. Cosgrove: Our our plan is to replace in kind the the same \nP.J. Cosgrove: same planting and vegetation that that’s currently there. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So again\, that’s just another image of of the sea\, of of the pedestrian bridge that was repaired last year\, and a long looking looking to the north of the existing Se. Wall. \nP.J. Cosgrove: when we solicited contractors for the project. yeah. And so\, historically\, the seawall \nP.J. Cosgrove: or the contractors\, the the deal and marine repairs. We’re not interested for\, say\, in this project\, because of the limited access they could not access the Se. Wall via the Pedestrian bridge\, and being the the title Action of of the Slew that’s there. \nP.J. Cosgrove: So the the the contractor we’re working with as extensive work in Tibetan and Belvedere area. \nP.J. Cosgrove: and the majority of the work will be will be handled from the land side. \nP.J. Cosgrove: Now\, if I can introduce Justin with Sg. H. He will take you through the design criteria of how \nP.J. Cosgrove: develop the project. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Just like to jump in here\, and\, if possible\, I have the speakers turn on their video cameras. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Oh\, yes\, thanks. Justin. Okay\, perfect. \nJustin Pyun: Okay. Thanks. Pj\, \nJustin Pyun: so before I get into the details here\, just wanted to quickly mention that I am a structural engineer. I’ve been working primarily on the structural side of things\, but I’ve got Bill Rudolph here. He’s been working with us as a consultant on the geo-technical side of things. He’s familiar with the geotech report\, and the site has been providing us with guidance and on our approach and and design. So Bill feel feel free to chime in if needed\, or he can answer any good Geo. Technical questions\, I can’t today. \nJustin Pyun: So\, as Pj. Mentioned. The goal of our work here is to provide a seawall\, repair design to restore the structural load\, carrying capacity of the wall without necessarily making any structural improvements or enhancements. So the Se walls most is is actually more of a a bulkhead wall than it is a see wall\, as there’s really no wave action coming in through the Channel. But we’ve kept that terminology to be consistent with the previous repair drawings. \nJustin Pyun: the original se wall that you can see here or in the plan here. kind of highlighted in that orange solid line. \nJustin Pyun: the \nJustin Pyun: it is\, and was or wasn’t is 440 feet long. it was built in 1\,973\, like Pj. Mentioned and consisted of timber\, plum\, and batter piles with tie rods and horizontal lagging. The 1\,989 C. Wall was repaired with a replacement wall constructed outboard of the original C wall\, and that system consisted of 2 wall \nJustin Pyun: types. If you will. you can see in this photo to the right. Here\, segment A and C are a plumb and batter pile system with horizontal lagging and no tie. Rods and segment B consist of vertical timber sheet piling with a whale and tie rods. Those tie rods are the same rods using their original construction\, and are connected to the building foundations for their upland. \nJustin Pyun: And so here we have some representative cross-sections to graphically describe those systems the original with the plumbing batter is on the left\, and the 1\,989 repairs shown on the right. And a key thing to note here is that with the seawall repair both outboard of the original many of those pileings were cut off at the mudline to make way for the repair system that segments A and C the new batter batter and plum piles we’re driven between the original demolished files. \nJustin Pyun: all of the those original plum and battery piles occur at about 7 feet on center and are still there today. at segment B. The whale was replaced with a new steel wide flanch whale\, and the tie rods were extended to connect to those members. \nJustin Pyun: So part of our work included an initial site observation to collect information on the current conditions of the 1989 repair system. \nJustin Pyun: as you can see in these photos many of the timber elements exhibited or exhibit a fairly advanced forms of deterioration primarily due to rot within that title zone. So this is specially evident that the vertical timber sheet piling at segment B\, that you can see here on the right\, but also Pj. Kinda mentioned in the earlier slides\, \nJustin Pyun: and segment. B. The whale also exhibited relatively advanced deterioration. You can see here that the steel is fairly corroded with some locations\, even showing fracture likely due to the continuous wet\, dry exposure of the material. \nJustin Pyun: And I thought it’d be useful to put things into context by also showing a photo of the typical and typical condition at the existing top of grade. As Pj mentioned\, the site\, features are primarily a walking path and landscaping vegetation\, all of which occurs in the backyard of the age of A\, which is close to the public. \nJustin Pyun: so the basis of our wall retained height. Geometry is shown here. The intent of this project is to return the top of grade to the same elevations as previously constructed\, so we use the information in this 1\,988 topographic survey to determine what the top of grade is\, and wall heights relative to the channel bloodline. And so for our repair design\, we’re conservatively considering the highest retained height along the length of the wall\, which is about 5 and a half feet. \nJustin Pyun: The codes and standards we used include the California Building Code A/C\, 716 Army core guidance on cheap pile wall design Fhwa guidance on anchored systems\, and we use these documents to form the basis of our structural design\, and the loads we considered include gravity load for a dead and live search arch\, static and seismic Earth pressures for the geotech report and consideration for some hydrostatic title\, Lag \nJustin Pyun: The Geo. Technical engineer on the project. Rg. H. Consultants provided A to tech report. In May 2\,022. They provided recommendations on Earth pressures\, seismic parameters\, and general site con considerations based on their site. Investigation. the boring log. B\, one \nJustin Pyun: shown here is representative of the general condition at the wall. the composition of the backfill includes an upper layer of heterogeneous fill under lane by Bay mud\, which starts just below the Channel mudline elevation to a depth of about 33 feet below top of grade. \nJustin Pyun: And so regarding the seismic parameters\, I’ve provided a few key excerpts here from the Geo-tech report. The PGA is point 6 g. Rg. H. Mentions in their report that they judge the potential for liquid fashion induced lateral spreading at the site as being low\, and the liquefaction induced settlements as being up to 3 quarters of an inch. But\, given these recommendations\, liquefaction was not \nJustin Pyun: really part of our analysis\, because it was considered so minimal In their report. \nJustin Pyun: Our repair wall is generally composed of the same systems throughout the entire 4\,440 foot length of the wall. \nJustin Pyun: the proposed a proposed repair would be installed landward of the existing 1\,989 seawall repair\, resulting in a net reduction in fill to the bay waters. the what the wall in the whale will be F. Rp. \nJustin Pyun: And the top 4 feet of the back fill will be excavated and replaced with permeable lightweight. Fill to reduce the earth pressures on the wall\, and the top portion of that back fill will be compacted. Fill to allow for re landscaping. Essentially. \nJustin Pyun: one difference in construction along the wall will be that we’re reusing the existing tie rods within segment. B\, that’s that middle section\, and that that’s the only place where those tie rods occur in segments A and C \nJustin Pyun: it’s a little bit of a different current design. So the plan is to excavate and observe the conditions of the tie rods\, for to evaluate them for the suitability of their reuse and where there are no existing tie rods such as that segments A and C only tipping plate. An anchors will be installed at that. At those locations. after the new system and backfill is installed\, the existing timber components will \nJustin Pyun: excuse me\, will be removed down to the mudline. \nJustin Pyun: So really\, quickly\, I’ve just provided some product data here to give you some context on the components that we’re using the products are from creative composites\, group and information\, such as structural capacities which are listed in there. \nJustin Pyun: literature with like factors of safety up to 3\, are we? We’re used in our design\, and so to aid in the handling of the components during construction. you can see here that these sheet piles are fairly lightweight at 4.8 2 pounds per linear foot of piling so hopefully that that kind of aids in the construction process and the material handling \nJustin Pyun: one big design consideration is deflection of the fer P. Members. So we made sure to space out our anchors to an appropriate spacing to control the deflection in the in the whale and the FBI she filings \nJustin Pyun: creative composites also has hardware literature on on the hardware such as spice. components to help us with. properly detailing our sheet pile wall design \nJustin Pyun: as far as anchors go. We’re using the mannerate anchor system. but a substitute such as platypus anchor systems would be acceptable as well. these tipping plate anchors work by driving the anchor into the soil with a small backco or a handheld Jack Hammer\, and pulling the drive steel out of the ground to right the anchor flute and engage the passive resistance of the soil. \nJustin Pyun: Our anchors will be installed at an incline of about 5 degrees downward\, and during the installation\, if the rods need to be extended\, they can be installed with a coupler and added lengths of rod can be installed as necessary. We use the published load load tables. \nJustin Pyun: to determine the appropriate anchor size. And so for our wall\, we’re using the largest anchor size available\, which is the Mrsr model. \nJustin Pyun: Our drawings also specify an anchor load testing program based on the F. Hwa document. we’re requiring 2 anchors to be performance tested and the remaining anchors to be proof tested to a design load of 4.7 kips. \nJustin Pyun: and\, as far as sequence of work goes\, we provide an example sequence in our drawings to ensure the wall is unloaded and loaded in the correct order. but ultimately the contractor is going to be responsible for the means and methods\, and we’ll review their work plans in in their submittals. \nJustin Pyun: so the example sequence would be to excavate the existing backfill\, to unload the existing timber seawall and expose the existing tie rods to assess their condition\, Drive the anchors\, install the couplers as needed\, and then perform the load\, testing Install the f our sheet piling perform periodic observations to make sure that we’re catching any post construction settlement \nJustin Pyun: and then install the whale in the cap after the wall has stabilized install we polls and to textile fabric and backfill with compacted\, permeable lightweight. Fill and then finally remove the existing deteriorated excuse me\, deteriorated se wall components. \nJustin Pyun: All right. So for our analysis and design approach. \nJustin Pyun: we started with an a force equilibrium\, analysis\, method\, to determine the required penetration\, depth of the sheet piling to satisfy the necessary factors of safety for stability. an important thing to note here is that our shepile penetration is based on an anchored wall design and not a cantilever wall design that would require a certain amendment depth to achieve fixity. so the penetration depth here is really just for the passive resistance. \nJustin Pyun: The next step in our design was to pick the appropriate size members based on the published values. we’ve also been in close correspondence with the manufacturer to ensure that the application of components is appropriate. \nJustin Pyun: And then\, following that we performed a bit of a more sophisticated analysis by wall to to just verify our our results. and then also had a informal review by our consulting independent Geo. Technical engineer\, Bill Rudolph. \nJustin Pyun: All right. So as a big disclaimer here\, I just want to point out that we’re much better engineers than artists\, and I realized that the passive resistance shown in this graphic isn’t necessarily drawn to scale. this is more schematic than anything to communicate the types of loading we considered in our analysis. So \nJustin Pyun: just keep that in mind. we use the values in the geo-technical report\, including the seismic lateral pressures. We also calculated the corresponding lightweight fill pressures for use in our analysis. \nJustin Pyun: And so here on this slide\, you can see the results of our py wall analysis\, which was in pretty close agreement with our force. Base approach force balance approach rather. \nJustin Pyun: The the top of the wall displacement was calculated to be less than 0 point 1 inches and the wall toe deflection is calculated to be 0 inches just about 3 inches. kind of reinforcing. We’re verifying that the wall will be stable at the design. Penetration\, depth. \nJustin Pyun: One thing to note here is that our analysis really \nJustin Pyun: doesn’t account for this extra conservatism of the ex. The existing pileings that are present today. In reality\, there’s going to be 2 wall systems with pilots below the mudline\, the original 1\,973 sea wall. Plum and battery piles occur at 7 feet on center. with a penetration depth of 30 feet along the entire length of the wall. Then there’s the 1\,989 sea wall \nJustin Pyun: that has majority of its wall length\, being a continuous system of vertical sheet pileings with a penetration depth of 14 feet And so we recognize that the remnants of the sea walls that are outboard of our repair proposed repair. will likely provide some amount of additional resistance. But as a conservative measure in our design\, we did not include that in our analysis. \nJustin Pyun: and since the sheep piling is so light we expect the skin friction on the of the new repair to be sufficient to resist the vertical axial load demands on the sheets \nJustin Pyun: and summarizing our design. our factor of safety against overturning was calculated to be 2.8 6\, and all the structural limit States considered\, we’re calculated to have a Dcr of less than 1.0\, thereby meeting the building code requirements \nJustin Pyun: alright. So to close the presentation. Here’s a recap of our project as discussed today. \nJustin Pyun: Pj. Mentioned that there are a number of site constraints. Water access is impractical\, due to the channel elevation and the low clearance of the pedestrian bridge\, requiring us to have access primarily on land through the neighboring church property. The types of tools to be used will be limited\, and so\, and as such our design\, considered lighter weight material\, such as frp. \nJustin Pyun: sea level rise\, was not considered. As this project is an amendment to the previous permit\, which included a pair of a timber fishing pier and a pedestrian bridge that did not consider sea level rise\, and the intent of this project is really just to restore the wall with no structural and enhancements. The scope doesn’t include any new development or upgrades to the complex. \nJustin Pyun: We also didn’t consider sea level rise\, because the wall is only along one portion of the west side of the property and doesn’t in. Address the remainder of the shoreline\, where there is no wall to do so. There would need to be a pretty large engineering and construction and development effort to address sea level rise across the entire property which \nJustin Pyun: the H. Of a currently does not have the funding for. We also considered seismic loads for the geotech report. \nJustin Pyun: Equal faction was not considered. because it was recommended to have a very minimal effect\, and our \nJustin Pyun: as a description of our a recap of our system. it consists of a short 5 and a half or 10 height that’s anchored with tie rods and anchors\, and has a 7 foot piling penetration. The materials will be F. Rp. To allow the contractor to more easily install components\, and our calculated overturning backup safety and component Pcrs are satisfactory and therefore satisfying the building code requirements. \nJustin Pyun: And finally\, since we’re constructing the wall landward of the existing wall there will be a nut reduction in. They fill. \nJustin Pyun: So that’s all I have. \nJustin Pyun: I guess. Jen back to you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: thank you. Yeah. I think After your presentation rod will open it up to the public for any questions or comments. So \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Now we would like to see if there are any public comments. When you are called upon\, please state your name and affiliation for the record \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Grace. Are there any? Is there any public comment? \nBCDC HOST: I do not see any hands raised? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. So at this point public comments is closed. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Now we’ll move on to a board discussion. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Let’s see\, I think maybe the the thing to do is\, if you as an Ecrb board member would like to make a comment. Please raise your hand. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and I will call on you. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Bob. \nBob Battalio: Thanks\, Ron. I? \nBob Battalio: I just had a couple of questions from a like a coastal \nBob Battalio: loading perspective. \nBob Battalio: I think I’m guessing that most of the discussion will be Geo. Structural or whatever\, and seems like that’s already been covered pretty well in the presentation\, or very well. \nBob Battalio: But I just had a couple of questions which I think maybe the applicant to or their consultant could answer\, or we could discuss. So first of all. I’ll just go through them the first one is \nBob Battalio: does the water level have an effect on the design loads or the structural performance? In other words\, if the water level is higher. \nBob Battalio: does it make any difference to the structural design. \nBob Battalio: secondly. \nBob Battalio: my second question was answered in the presentation that there really aren’t any wave loads to be concerned about. But I just would like to know \nBob Battalio: is that by inspection\, which you know it is pretty sheltered\, or is has that been documented? And would it make any difference\, you know\, by inspection or otherwise. \nBob Battalio: And my third question is \nBob Battalio: it seems like this is located on a channel which I don’t know if it’s a drainage channel or something. But are there any current loads or currents that could induce scour at the at the toe? And does that make any\, you know\, at the at the base of the wall? And does that make any difference on the \nBob Battalio: passive or pressure resistance\, or whatever? \nBob Battalio: and then I think we should probably should talk about sea level rise at some point. But I I I don’t. \nBob Battalio: That’s not a question that I have for the applicant right now. \nBob Battalio: so I don’t know if you want to. If we should discuss that or just have the applicant responders. \nJustin Pyun: Okay\, let’s see. Well\, the first question. \nJustin Pyun: let’s go back to the site. View. \nJustin Pyun: so does the \nJustin Pyun: does the water level affect the structural \nJustin Pyun: loads that are imparted onto the the wall. so our design. We intentionally designed it to excavate the existing backfill and replace it with permeable drain. Rock with a Geo textile fabric\, and we polls \nJustin Pyun: to mitigate that sort of hydrostatic pressure that might build up on the land side of the wall. so we do consider a certain amount of tidal lag below that level of excavation. But we intentionally did that to reduce the amount of hydrostatic pressures on the wall so hopefully that answers your question on that item. Yeah\, it does. Actually\, that’s what I thought I just wanted to \nBob Battalio: to ask. And here’s your answer\, but I think that goes to also the point that perhaps sea level rise \nBob Battalio: within the context of this wall. Repair. Design it. Perhaps that’s not. The seal rises really that pertinent\, because with the higher water level. \nBob Battalio: as long as you maintain drainage behind the wall. \nBob Battalio: you know\, theoretically\, the the the so I would be saturated\, I guess\, or or perched behind the wall\, and then the tide would drop it. \nBob Battalio: Yeah\, it doesn’t. It doesn’t sound like the high water level is is really a \nBob Battalio: design criterion. it really just reduces your active earth pressure load. In a sense. Yeah. Now go back a little bit to \nJustin Pyun: So regarding sea level rise. If if the water title level would \nJustin Pyun: get that high\, it would be equal title level on both sides of the wall\, because the the remainder of the property\, as you can see on the screen here\, is exposed on to those rising tides. So It’s it’s not like you would have a a big differential immediately. \nJustin Pyun: regarding waves. So Justin’s\, I said\, let me interrupt real quick. What’s the width of your law for rock backfield behind the \nJustin Pyun: yeah. So it’s it’s cut back at one and a half to one\, and it’s 4 feet deep. So I guess it’s 6 feet back. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah. \nJim French: not quite to the bottom of the. Let’s not say stuff. \nJustin Pyun: right? Yeah\, that was just a matter of practicality. so we we tried not\, I mean ideally. We would. We would love to excavate all the way down to the Channel Mudline But\, as Pj. Mentioned\, and\, as you can see in the site\, constraints there’s pretty limited access\, and we’re trying to work within within reason. So we were able to get the the wall to work with this amount of excavation. and everything checked out. \nBill Rudolph: This is this is Bill. I just started to add\, one thing is that Jim\, the reason we \nBill Rudolph: didn’t excavate all the way to the bottom of the wall\, is it? We were trying to \nBill Rudolph: and make it so that it that they did it low tide level that they excavation wouldn’t be. It wouldn’t be filled up with water. We felt that this was a \nBill Rudolph: a an excavation level that was \nBill Rudolph: practical allowed us to reduce the pressures on the wall and and to provide a drainage layer but but also not for that excavation down\, so that we are digging in the wet most of the time. \nBill Rudolph: And\, as Justin has already said\, we’ve we’ve we’ve putting in some fairly sophisticated filtered we polls to\, so that we have full long-term positive drainage of the of the drainage layer. \nBill Rudolph: But in addition to that \nBill Rudolph: you know\, we have assumed that there’ll be a tidal lag within the non excavated portion of the you know\, sort of below the drain rock. So there is a a you know\, a water pressure difference in that portion. So we’ve we’ve kind of tried to \nBill Rudolph: optimize the design from a\, you know\, lowering pressures\, but also a construction\, practical practicality. Point of view. \nBill Rudolph: That answer your question. \nJim French: That does mostly. Thanks. what’s the what’s the backfill? The existing fill consist of? Mostly \nBill Rudolph: Uscs\, I guess\, or something like what what’s there now is? Mainly please\, and clay gravel. It’s a \nBill Rudolph: you know. but it’s it’s a \nBill Rudolph: It’s a fairly. It’s it’s it’s gravely. But there’s enough fines in it to be relatively in permission or have low permit. \nJim French: Let’s let you finish up with a response to bonds. \nBob Battalio: Thanks\, Jim. Yeah. So it sounds like the the the drain holes are \nBob Battalio: reasonably low. I mean\, I guess the groundwater is probably going to be around mean sea level or something\, typically and I don’t know exactly where that is probably below the we pull so\, but so you’ll have at low tide. You’ll have some hydrostatic load loading going out\, you know\, with the active earth pressures\, I guess. \nBob Battalio: But anyway\, going back to my second question was\, \nBob Battalio: is there any documentation\, or what’s the basis of assuming? There’s there’s no way. It’s like\, you know. Obviously the site is pretty sheltered. But there are. you know\, very induced waves that that sometimes have more power than you might expect\, even though they’re \nBob Battalio: small. I’m not sure that that’s. \nBob Battalio: you know\, gonna control the loading or anything it doesn’t seem like it would because you have \nBob Battalio: your load is mostly outward\, and so\, you know\, towards the water. But I just wanted to check on that to see if there’s any. \nJustin Pyun: Yes\, so we had some rep internal discussions. \nJustin Pyun: about what it would mean to have wave loads\, whether it makes sense that there would be wave loads. \nJustin Pyun: to provide some context here the the channel mudline is \nJustin Pyun: around mean sea level. as you can see on this photo or actually the satellite image on the top left there. There’s the mudline extends pretty far out. We’re talking hundreds of feet. So I think one sort of rationale for what? \nJustin Pyun: for the wave loading is that you know there there would be a certain amount of \nJustin Pyun: shallow depth\, for of a pretty great distance outward to the sea. The other thing is that our wall runs \nJustin Pyun: parallel to any incoming waves that might might be present. So \nJustin Pyun: you know with\, with all that kind of considered\, it was by inspection. There\, there wasn’t any like analysis per se. But \nJustin Pyun: yeah. \nBob Battalio: okay\, thank you. That that that that answers my question. I appreciate it. And then my\, the last one was \nBob Battalio: that channel it I I’m assuming it’s some sort of \nBob Battalio: tidal storm drain. \nBob Battalio: They also sort of storm drainage for some inland area\, or something. Is there any concern about \nJustin Pyun: current velocity? Is that it to do scour? Or is that an issue? with the wall design? Yeah\, that’s not an issue that we’ve observed on site in fact\, actually\, we see quite a build up at the toe. So yeah\, that was not something that we considered But that’s based on observational data. \nBob Battalio: Do you? Do you account for the passive earth pressure resistance all the way up to the surface\, or \nBob Battalio: we’re down the\, do you? How we do just yes\, we do. \nJustin Pyun: are are \nJustin Pyun: so we recognize that the the geo-technical report has values for the the bay mud\, passive resistance that are \nJustin Pyun: What we think is somewhat conservative. but we do have a triangular distribution at the penetration. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Keep things moving rod up back to you or somebody else. Thank you. I have a follow up question to what Bob was asking relative to the drainage inflows into that channel. Because I can see there’s 4 culverts that are coming into that channel. Did you do any observations\, after all\, of the rain events we had this winter? Because\, I mean\, we’ve had a lot of drought\, not a lot of rain. But I was just \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): this winter was quite unusual with all the inflows. \nJustin Pyun: Did you do any observations of how that might have changed conditions since we did get a lot of rain \nJustin Pyun: I catch I I catching \nJustin Pyun: in the channel with regards to that. \nJustin Pyun: Hopefully that answers your question. \nOkay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): thanks. Chris. Jim\, did you have any \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): further questions? \nJim French: Yeah\, I do. I have a a handful of questions hopefully\, mostly pretty simple and easy. \nJim French: first of all. I’m just curious. that the end of your presentation says that there was an informal review by Bill Rudolph. \nJim French: And wonder what informal means. Exactly\, and he’s the only geo-technical presenter. I don’t think anybody from our Gh. Is here just curious the relationship to and responsibilities here. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah\, we we brought on a \nJustin Pyun: We we brought on Bill Rudolph to to a review of our calculations\, walk through some design concepts\, and come up with \nJustin Pyun: the most economical and practical design. Given the site constraints so informal meaning. He wasn’t the engineer of record. and yes\, our gh is not on the call today. \nJustin Pyun: but \nJustin Pyun: you Bill Rudolph is pretty familiar with. The content in the geotech report. \nBill Rudolph: The only I want to add\, Jim\, is that rg\, 8 will\, you know\, is we’ll be reviewing the final design\, and in accordance with county requirements. We’ll provide a a letter that the designers according to their recommendations\, and provide their stamp. So there will be a formal. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, geotechnical engineer of record. Review of all this work as well. \nJim French: Are you going to say on board as a on a retainer basis for questions during construction\, or whatever? \nJim French: Okay. \nJim French: liquefaction? The the presentation describes that Lucifaction of impacts to a settlement and lateral spreading\, spreading are minimal \nJim French: and not a concern. And that seems to me it didn’t say anything about how liquefaction might affect factor of safety for toe resistance and or active pressures\, I suppose. \nJim French: Oh. what if you just comment on that? \nBill Rudolph: as I once a dough. \nBill Rudolph: You know\, first of all\, that there was a a dynamic seismic dynamic pressure added to the design So the the the additional active pressure due to seismic \nBill Rudolph: was was added\, and I think relatively\, conservatively. \nBill Rudolph: The other. The other thing \nBill Rudolph: is that you know\, consistent with the detective records recommendation. \nBill Rudolph: The passive resistance that was applied for the seismic design was A was a basically a equivalent fluid pressure. \nBill Rudolph: that was based on you know. So a very\, very conservative kp\, value. But whereas in whereas\, in fact \nBill Rudolph: you know\, under the seismic condition\, you know you’re going to. The passive pressure is going to be more associated with the\, you know\, 2 times the on drain strength of the soil. And so Tai. Passive pressure is a passive resistance\, for seismic is \nBill Rudolph: is quite understated\, in my opinion. Accordingly. \nBill Rudolph: any effects of of seismic softening that you might expect. you know\, to\, you know\, some minor reduction in. So stay\, mud. Strength affecting the passive is\, is kind of \nBill Rudolph: it taken into account by this? By the conservative method of assigning passive pressure to the pay mud. \nJim French: is there any lucifaction potential within that? What’s what’s the depth of embedded in 13 feet or something like that done whatsoever. It’s all day. \nJim French: Okay? \nJim French: question about not geotech exactly\, but construction sequences. I think you said you’re removing the existing wall in front of the new wall. \nJim French: that I if you said it\, I missed it. How deep are you removing that? It goes down quite deep. \nJustin Pyun: Are you just cutting things off at or just below the mudline? Are you trying to pull things out or \nJim French: and leave it in place afterwards. I guess there’s no concerns. Well\, that’s not a Geo technical concern to me\, I guess. Then. \nJim French: okay. \nJim French: but question about you\, said the the the new anchor is going to be put in at 5 degrees\, which is pretty flat and curious. A couple of things about that \nJim French: tier squared groundwater is assumed during \nJim French: you know\, during King tides you’re gonna get they water pretty high looking at the 100 year flood levels or \nJim French: flood maps that I think was included some place it looks like the development becomes an island out there. \nJim French: which I assume means that bay water is pretty close to the ground surface out there \nJim French: feel\, commented that the soil\, the feel soils\, are like clay sounds and gravels with low permeability\, but \nJim French: but sans of gravels\, clay\, and the gravels have variable permeability\, and there’s likely to be some paths of tire permeability right? I would\, I would expect groundwater would be \nJim French: somewhere pretty floats to the ground surface. during highest water. \nJim French: And wondering what that does to the to the passive resistance in front of your Your anchor duck bills. if you\, because they’ve the soil’s going to all be buoyant and wonder if that\, how much that reduces things. \nJim French: I I guess\, are related to that. Then how close\, how long are these anchors\, and how close do they get to the buildings? And they’re looking at the old \nJim French: drawings the plan view shows the existing anchors kind of going splaying\, which which every which direction to miss the corners of buildings and stick a little bit further\, when I got that impact. So let’s do. \nJim French: I guess my ground water was an anchor. Questions with the depth and passive and how close they are in buildings. \nBill Rudolph: Okay\, this I’ll think I’ll take that. The the the flat anchor design \nBill Rudolph: was \nBill Rudolph: trying to balance. you know. The depth of embedded to keep overburden pressures high high as possible. for the conditions that you’re talking about. \nBill Rudolph: but at the same time trying to \nBill Rudolph: land\, they this this fluke anchor \nBill Rudolph: in the fill where we have we where we’re going to have much higher resistance. So we’re You know\, we we we’ve we’ve used the very use the largest anchor possible to get the\, you know\, largest surface area. \nBill Rudolph: And we’ve tried to keep those anchors from being completely in that have that bearing surface be completely within the within the bay mud. \nBill Rudolph: So \nBill Rudolph: I think\, with the the the first of all\, I I I think that the groundwater \nBill Rudolph: condition \nBill Rudolph: it. I think it’s unlikely to be all the way to the\, to the to the ground surface clear back within\, within\, under the building. Because we’re gonna have a \nBill Rudolph: you know\, a title. So title situation where the high tide levels are only going to be high for a matter of hours. There’s going to need to be some sort of time for \nBill Rudolph: deep in to occur and ground water levels to equilibrate. so I I I still\, I think that the groundwater levels may be within several feet of the ground surface. But I don’t think at the ground surface. \nBill Rudolph: so so well\, we haven’t really \nBill Rudolph: specifically gone in and looked at A passive pressure associated with a fully saturated\, gravelly backv. You know\, we relied more on the \nBill Rudolph: the typical design values for these anchors and and proof loading \nBill Rudolph: proof\, loading to to to sort of verify the the anchors capacity\, and the sort of the as as installed condition. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, we we plus\, we’re we’re \nBill Rudolph: calling for and expecting\, you know\, fairly significant factors of safety\, which\, in in my opinion\, should \nBill Rudolph: more than likely \nBill Rudolph: cover this temporary condition that we might get in the event of a \nBill Rudolph: You know\, high water \nBill Rudolph: condition\, and more gravely fill than clay. Fill. And you know it’s it. It seems that this is a. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, kind of a reasonable. \nBill Rudolph: a reasonable a design given all the constraints and factors we have to consider \nJim French: you’re not going to through stress during high water. Quick question\, how long are the anchors? Roughly \nJim French: meaning in part\, I guess. How deep will it be? \nJustin Pyun: They’re 18 feet long. \nJim French: so be \nJim French: So they’re only 2 feet below the ground surface. Done. \nJustin Pyun: I think. Well. it kind of slopes up a little bit. \nJustin Pyun: so there’s a little bit more over\, and the the heads are a foot or 2 below drowns\, or how how low is the whale below? The \nJustin Pyun: the whale itself is 2 and a half feet below \nJim French: 2 and a half. Okay. and the ground slopes up\, and I\, Microsoft\, so it might be 4 or 5 feet down. So like Bill. So it’s \nJim French: going to be getting pretty pretty close\, and you have to be that flatter. Otherwise you then your anchor into the \nJim French: okay. Makes sense. \nJim French: let’s see\, I think I’ve got \nJim French: that’s all my questions\, except I think we’re gonna come back at some point. I’m curious about \nJim French: high water and sea level rise\, and you’re pretty darn close and just curious about\, you know\, before too long. This place is\, gonna \nJim French: you know water in the basement. And I that’s not a cheer. Technical. It’s it’s more of a policy decision\, I guess. But that’s the end of my question. Then\, otherwise. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay\, thank you\, Jim. I wasn’t sure who was next up. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): what is it\, Philip or Thalia. \nDilip Trivedi: you know\, I think. \nDilip Trivedi: oh. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): yeah. So I’ll go a couple of questions. \nDilip Trivedi: I was looking at the sequencing that you know the slide that you had. You know. What I notice is that there’s what about a one foot \nDilip Trivedi: between the existing wall and the new F Rp. Sheets? Is that right? But or so is the \nDilip Trivedi: proposed separation. \nDilip Trivedi: And my question there is so when are the anchor is going to be installed? Sequencing says that the wall is going to be removed. The existing wall at the very end. \nDilip Trivedi: so are the existing anchors driven in through the existing \nDilip Trivedi: cool right now. \nDilip Trivedi: as you have plan. \nJustin Pyun: No\, so the plan is to excavate behind the wall. First. \nJustin Pyun: Drive the sheet. install the anchor. \nJustin Pyun: you know. \nJustin Pyun: I guess not. Not connected to the existing wall\, but behind the because while since we’ve already excavated back so that’ll happen likely\, maybe right before you put in the sheets\, or it could happen after at the sheet\, you have the sheets? \nDilip Trivedi: Okay? \nDilip Trivedi: My second question was\, you know\, yeah\, I was getting more to what Jim was was heading towards. So it’s been designed for \nDilip Trivedi: 5 and a half feet stick up. \nDilip Trivedi: So thinking about project life\, I mean\, I I can imagine that these condos are not going to go away in the next 10 or 15 years\, and so there probably will be \nDilip Trivedi: a project in the future that will come back. \nDilip Trivedi: which will be either extending the existing wall. \nDilip Trivedi: or having another one \nDilip Trivedi: unless they are planning to raise grades\, which again\, I see no\, not being doable. So what is the thought process there. given that if you look at the projections that \nDilip Trivedi: has been using\, which is 2 feet in the next 30 years\, we do the projections we’re being asked to use. they very likely will be a future project coming here in the short term. \nDilip Trivedi: looking at increasing the height of this existing wall that has been going in. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah. And Pj\, feel free to chime in \nJustin Pyun: if you want but From what I understand. the conversation on sea level rise and how to address it\, address it across the entire property. It’s just not occurred within the hoa board or within the residents. it’s not something that they have the funding for right now\, or the time for \nJustin Pyun: I think this project came up because they observed a certain amount of damage at the existing timber sheet pile. Wall. so the idea is to just restore the capacity of that But beyond that I don’t believe that the scope of that project has really been discussed. by the owner. \nDilip Trivedi: Yeah\, but that’s not my question\, you know\, to address sea level rise\, but the same configuration of the wall will very likely be extended upwards\, and so is there enough reserve capacity for this to act with the 7 and a half feet \nDilip Trivedi: stick up instead of a 5 and a half feet. Stick up. and is the F. Rp. Does it lend itself to adding on to it\, and attaching another rp sheet to it. \nJustin Pyun: So in in terms of\, let’s say\, a a rise in hydrostatic loads. The hydrostatic loads would be equal on both sides\, since you know it’s the walls only for a portion of the Western shoreline\, so we expect that any title rises would \nJustin Pyun: kind of\, you know\, be equal\, equally matched on both sides. So in terms of loading we’re not too concerned with that. But we’ve done some back of the napkin calc to see\, you know\, if there is a small amount of differential pressure on the sheet pile. it all\, it would simply just require a different sheet of size. But currently this is designed for \nJustin Pyun: you know. Not necessarily a 50 year life\, but you know the last she pile wall was repaired 1989\, after 1\,973. Then here we are. you know. \nJustin Pyun: not quite a 50 here. So yes\, that question could come up in the future. \nDilip Trivedi: All right\, I think that’s all I have to do. Thanks. Thank you. Della \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): alia. \nThaleia Travasarou: Yes\, I wanted to go back to the issue of faction\, and and asked a couple of questions that were not clear to me from the report from the geotechnical report. \nThaleia Travasarou: So I see that there are 3 explorations in the ge technical report. one of the Cpt suggests presence of liquifiable soils \nThaleia Travasarou: or cilp sense susceptible to the compaction with low tip resistance\, at that of approximately 6 to 9 feet. \nThaleia Travasarou: And there is a statement in the report that liquifable. So is our present in behind the wall. so I was not very clear how the conclusion that lateral spreading is negligible and shouldn’t be taking into consideration how\, This conclusion was arrived that. \nThaleia Travasarou: given the relatively sparse explorations and the fact that one of those suggests that there are licenses behind the wall above the mudline. \nThaleia Travasarou: And so\, because the question is\, could you maybe in in a cross section of the world show where the liquifiable soils were encountered. \nThaleia Travasarou: And then the second is this conclusion really based on an understanding of what is the composition of the field from\, you know\, construction or historical documents other than the existing explorations which which are quite sparse. \nJustin Pyun: might want to pass that over to Bill. \nBill Rudolph: Well\, \nBill Rudolph: I think what you’re getting at is really \nBill Rudolph: and looking at the global stability of the shoreline. \nBill Rudolph: really\, this\, this project has really only really been focused on \nBill Rudolph: the the replacement of of a wall which is really. you know\, to\, is it? It really doesn’t consider\, or or you even look at the the overall seismic stability of the shoreline. It’s just a \nBill Rudolph: replacement of a bulkhead in the condition that that that it existed. I I think that you know the \nBill Rudolph: the consideration of of\, you know\, sort of overall shoreline\, seismic \nBill Rudolph: stability and defamation\, and it’s\, you know\, kind of \nBill Rudolph: beyond the scope of what was is being\, has been looked at and studied in this particular case. \nBill Rudolph: The presence of look\, a fact of of\, you know\, lookifiable layers within the bay mud\, you know\, you know\, 20 some odd feet is really \nBill Rudolph: doesn’t really affect the wall design per se. \nBill Rudolph: that’s that’s much more of a global stability issue. \nThaleia Travasarou: I I think if this is the case\, it’s probably you know the statement in the report which in the Geological report which\, suggests that lateral spreading is negligible. Given the presence of liquifi. So it’s probably the statement should be changed to it’s beyond the scope. The design scope of this this project\, because \nThaleia Travasarou: I don’t see that the calculations or the background is there to to rule out? \nThaleia Travasarou: this? \nBill Rudolph: No\, I I I agree with you and \nBill Rudolph: it. That sort of escaped my view\, because\, like\, I say\, we were pretty much focused on the wall replacement. But \nBill Rudolph: I I think that that is a you know. Maybe we can request in the Geo technicals review of the project plans\, and \nBill Rudolph: that that that \nBill Rudolph: what you just stated\, that that that be clarified\, that this isn’t what’s in the scope of the of the work. I think that’s something that can be done and makes sense to me \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that that was my question. Thank you. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): After after this meeting. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Ronnie. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Hello\, everyone! \nRamin Golesorkhi: I I I like to go back to the question that Jim asks\, which is still \nRamin Golesorkhi: an issue in my mind. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Bill! Why\, I’m known for many years and respect what is I mean? You are the face of the 2 technical response on this presentation. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And \nRamin Golesorkhi: I mean\, are you a peer review? Are you going to at some point. \nRamin Golesorkhi: have some sort of a document saying that you concur with this design. You \nRamin Golesorkhi: agree with the conclusions\, etc. So that’s one question. and the other question\, that I have has to do with the these anchors\, and my concern is \nRamin Golesorkhi: long-term. Creep issues \nRamin Golesorkhi: with sustaining the loads. These things are not very. \nRamin Golesorkhi: They’re not very robust\, I would say so. So. Those those those are the couple of questions I have. \nBill Rudolph: so the the first. The answer to the first question is is that \nBill Rudolph: I think it’s important to to to note that the Geo technical engineer of record will We will ultimately sign off on the design. And \nBill Rudolph: you know the use of their recommendations from the report. I have. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, as you know\, I’ve had a long\, long relationship with Sg. H. And and others\, and have\, you know\, provided them with review. And you know\, it’s sort of opinions on a lot of different projects. \nBill Rudolph: if I’m asked to provide a peer review letter. if that’s appropriate in this case\, I’m happy to do that. But I have no problem with that at all. \nBill Rudolph: so that’s the first question. The \nBill Rudolph: it is us kind of why\, stuttering around a little bit talking to Jim. Is it? The the anchor design is? \nBill Rudolph: I I believe this really kind of trying to balance a a number of different things. Accessibility coming up with a \nBill Rudolph: with a a tie back acre that’s that’s constructable and trying to get an anchor that we can. \nBill Rudolph: you know a reasonable capacity out of\, but but and locate in a way that it’s founded within within the fill. I. My sense is is that \nBill Rudolph: if we are\, if we’re able to which I think we should able to put these anchors within these clay gravel\, the the creep behavior of the anchor should be fine. \nBill Rudolph: I think if we’re if we’re you know\, landing anchors within bay mud\, we’re gonna see problems with capacity. \nBill Rudolph: And we’re gonna have. We may have creed problems. \nBill Rudolph: On the other hand\, we gotta keep in mind that we’re we’re gonna do both proof and performance tests on these anchors and the the \nBill Rudolph: performance of the I get myself mixed up. It’s a proof test. We’ll have a creep on the anchor\, so\, so we will. \nBill Rudolph: I think all those things combined should should address that concern about creep. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And one other thing. Do you have any concerns? Because the way at least \nRamin Golesorkhi: If you go back to the \nRamin Golesorkhi: section of the wall that shows the anchor \nRamin Golesorkhi: how are you gonna install this? \nRamin Golesorkhi: I mean I it seemed like the way I understood it is these are being pushed into the \nRamin Golesorkhi: into the ground. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Some distance\, 18 feet or so. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And how how are you going to? How is that going to be done? \nBill Rudolph: hang. I say\, Justin can can add on\, because I can’t talk to the contractors\, but My understanding is is that \nBill Rudolph: these anchors are going to be installed in relatively short sections with with couplers. and they’ll probably be installed with a with a basically a handheld Jack hammer type type unit. \nBill Rudolph: And so I think the the idea is that the \nBill Rudolph: that there’s going to be this \nBill Rudolph: excavated pit sort of behind the the wall. I really am not exactly clear on the on the precise dimensions of that. But I I’m understanding that there. \nBill Rudolph: gonna \nBill Rudolph: I install these anchors from within this\, this from in this pit and relatively short sex section. So I I don’t know the \nBill Rudolph: so looking at the dimensions\, I don’t know what the dimensions of that that clearance between the the back of the pit that the face of the existing wall and the back of the pit are. But \nBill Rudolph: yeah\, it’s about 7 feet or so. Let’s say. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, excavate something other than that one and a half to one slope at the anchor location. To provide. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, more clearance in order to install these anchors from within that pit \nBill Rudolph: and then what will happen is there’ll be a a couple that’s kind of shown in the picture \nBill Rudolph: near the face of the wall. \nBill Rudolph: and then there’ll be a short connector piece that will \nRamin Golesorkhi: all right. So so this. \nRamin Golesorkhi: the wall is coming after the the anchor. That’s the sequence. Then right? So you you will have. So if I look at this. \nRamin Golesorkhi: the drawing here\, this green section is not going to be there. There’s going to be a \nRamin Golesorkhi: slope cut there\, and this anchor it. \nRamin Golesorkhi: whatever location it needs to be\, is going to be. Jack hammered into the ground. and then a section is \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of sticks out and back pulls around\, and then \nRamin Golesorkhi: the wall is constructive. And I\, \nJustin Pyun: yeah\, and I am. I may have missed spoken earlier when I was saying that the wall might be able to be installed before But that’s right. That’s that’s the concept. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Okay? All right. So that okay\, I’m seeing how you can get into that little slot there to to install these. Okay? \nBill Rudolph: I mean\, I I envisioned that the \nBill Rudolph: that the the the temporary excavation to accomplish this is not going to be this just one and a half to one slope. It’s going to be a a bench and some larger slope back\, just because they’re going to need more room at the anchor locations. But \nBill Rudolph: you know a lot of not be able to hold that slope either at one or half one. Maybe it’s it’s all ladder \nBill Rudolph: it could be could need to be flatter. You know\, the the a lot of these issues were \nBill Rudolph: are somewhat means and methods. But I understand we need to have a concept that’s buildable that \nBill Rudolph: But I I do agree with you that possibly some of the details of the temporary excavations to make this work are not well reflected in the schematics that we have. \nRamin Golesorkhi: and one last question. \nRamin Golesorkhi: are these anchors design bill for \nRamin Golesorkhi: a good. That work for you are specifying St. H. \nJustin Pyun: We are currently specifying it. \nBill Rudolph: But there\, let me be correcting that a little bit\, is it? It is design\, build\, and that there is that they are able to substitute another anchor type. \nBill Rudolph: And there is a there is a performance criteria \nBill Rudolph: in terms of ultimate capacity of as in creep that have to be have to be shown in the in the proof test. So they? You know\, they’re we’re they’re specifying the the the location and and general \nBill Rudolph: function of the anchor. But the actual anchor it\, you know\, itself\, is designed to build. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Thank you. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Thank you for me. \nGKasali: thank you. Raa \nGKasali: So I want to go back to the question about the look of our ball layer that tally a race. And \nGKasali: I agree with her that I think we need to have a section\, you know\, showing what the potential and of trouble \nGKasali: layer thickness is\, you know\, relative to this section \nGKasali: that we are looking at. I want to ask Bell. I mean\, let’s say\, if we have about 3 a 3 foot thick \nGKasali: like. \nGKasali: Do you foresee any potential issues relating to a drag due to like a fraction in the settlement \nGKasali: in that layer I just sent to the the sheet. 5 \nBill Rudolph: you know the \nBill Rudolph: A. A. Drag\, I mean\, I think there could be\, because \nBill Rudolph: there\, there’s several things going on here for first of all. \nBill Rudolph: settlement\, just pure settlement without any lateral translation\, is is just going to cause \nBill Rudolph: the whole system to\, basically \nBill Rudolph: subtle as a unit. There’s no\, I can’t see that anything is going to be held up and and and and have a drag or a down\, drag load be occur because of that\, because the liquifiable zone in that case will be entirely below the new construction. \nBill Rudolph: with\, from a practical point of view. with with regard to the impact of liquefaction\, \nBill Rudolph: of of the of the layer which I really\, I haven’t really focused on. you know it’s a \nBill Rudolph: to. To to a certain extent\, you know\, it’s a the the the the slope is not that by\, you know we only have a 5\, but slow. \nBill Rudolph: and it’s and it’s perforated with \nBill Rudolph: timber piles that\, you know\, penetrate that layer. So the slope to a large degree is is pinned. \nBill Rudolph: So you you know. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, just sort of logically\, it seems that\, you know\, even if there is some liquor faction \nBill Rudolph: and you know factors of safety against global stability are somewhat lower\, and \nBill Rudolph: that the the amount of movement that can really occur because of the hitting effect of these\, you know\, double piles every 7 feet along the whole way. It’s it seems like\, certainly I can’t say that I’ve analyzed it\, or there’s enough information to analyze it\, but it’s just seems like conceptually that \nBill Rudolph: it’s it’s not a configuration that seems to have a very high risk in in my view. \nGKasali: Okay. \nGKasali: has been\, has there been any signs of this press in terms of \nGKasali: you know. out of the of the wall. Oh. thanks! \nGKasali: Fairly radical for the existing. \nJustin Pyun: Yes\, yeah. We didn’t witness any \nJustin Pyun: signs of bulging in fact\, actually\, at the mudline\, you can see that some sections are at like a hundred percent loss\, and the walls still perfectly plum and in deck \nGKasali: you can. \nGKasali: all right. My second question relates to this \nGKasali: detail that we are looking at the lightweight material \nGKasali: that is shown there is that the same material that your content on to serve as a drainage material? \nBill Rudolph: Yeah\, yes\, it is. \nBill Rudolph: this this material is we. We’re actually specifying this material that to come from Lake County lightly material. And \nBill Rudolph: it it is a it is. It is specified and \nBill Rudolph: produced as a as a drainage\, as a drainage material. It’s a \nBill Rudolph: it’s \nBill Rudolph: very popular as a as a drainage material throughout the vineyard. Industry. Believe in or not that all of them\, and the reason that they produce this strange mature\, a lot of lightweight material is because. \nBill Rudolph: the it reduces the transportation costs immensely for these large large drainage projects. So we we can. They they do provide. The the supplier does provide \nBill Rudolph: fact sheets. And you know\, showing that it that it is a \nBill Rudolph: you know\, a certified drainage material. \nGKasali: Okay? So zoom. Then at this \nGKasali: basically poorly graded material. \nBill Rudolph: pardon me. So I miss that \nBill Rudolph: poorly graded material. Yes\, it’s poorly graded material. It has\, you know\, low fines. Content. Yeah\, right? It does. It does have some fines content. But and then\, nonetheless\, it’s \nBill Rudolph: one of the reasons that we’ve actually specified these. \nBill Rudolph: filter. You know\, they’re fairly sophisticated filtered. We pull apparatus that’s going to be installed to make sure that we don’t have any dredging or fiance loss on the small fines\, content through the through the weepage loopholes. \nGKasali: Okay? \nGKasali: Great. So the compact that fell for landscaping is that \nGKasali: plant and soil\, or what kind of material is that \nBill Rudolph: we’re we’re specifying that to be a material like\, I can’t remember the exact spec. But basically\, I think it’s supposed to have\, you know\, probably \nBill Rudolph: 1520% passing it to it. It’s it’s meant to be \nBill Rudolph: not only landscaping\, but it’s meant to be a low permeability cap. \nBill Rudolph: Yeah. So it’s just gonna there’ll be a there’ll be a Geo. Textile fabric to prevent the science from migrating into the drainage material. \nBill Rudolph: The cap is meant to prevent keep surface run off out of the drainage material\, and also to provide the media for planting. \nGKasali: Okay. that’s wonderful. So my last question relates to the passive pressure of what you discuss with Jim. \nGKasali: what a bit. I was kind of wondering. Are you looking at. \nGKasali: you know\, in determining the you know how much of a whatever the maximum cost of pressure. Yes. \nGKasali: you know how much of it is actually mobilized \nGKasali: given the performance of the system \nBill Rudolph: that was done by that was modeled using the py. Why\, why? Wall model\, which \nBill Rudolph: replace the with which which use the passive resistances to develop a passive spring resistance in the py wall model. So you know\, there was both a. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, limit\, equilibrium model used\, which did not look at mobilization of passive pressure\, but just looked at factors and safety. And then then the design was invalidated or for checked against this. you know\, mobilization model using the py wall model. \nGKasali: Okay. \nGKasali: all right\, thanks\, thanks\, Bill. Sure. Thank you. \nBill Rudolph: Good questions. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): thank you. Shima. Justin. \nJustin Vandever: Yes\, thanks. Couple of questions and comments. My first question is\, what what is the anticipated lifespan of the new wall. How long will it? How long is it designed to be in place? \nJustin Pyun: you know\, given past history\, I would say\, probably \nJustin Pyun: 30 to 40 years. \nJustin Vandever: Okay. \nJustin Vandever: and just to follow up on dillips comment about extending the wall. \nJustin Vandever: is that something that’s even possible with the current design and what modifications would be required that might allow that to occur in the future. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah\, so\, \nJustin Pyun: we’re not aware currently of any splicing sort of connection or device that you can use. But one thing to kind of keep in mind is that This is on \nJustin Pyun: a very short portion of this western \nJustin Pyun: prop side of the property\, and this channel extends all the way down here. So whatever the results are of any future global engineered sea level rise study might have an impact on the type of wall selection that you have further up the stream. So I think that can certainly be considered in a couple of different ways. new wall or maybe at the time there’s a a way to splice it on. But that’s not something that we’ve considered at this point. \nJustin Vandever: Okay? \nJustin Vandever: And then from your cross section it\, it does look like the wall will extend higher than the land side\, but behind the wall right. \nJustin Vandever: What is that? What is that height up of the ground behind the wall \nJustin Pyun: this height here. \nJustin Vandever: the height of the top of the wall relative to the compact. So for landscaping. \nJustin Pyun: yeah. So I think it’s about a foot to a foot and a half\, maybe closer to a foot and a half. \nJustin Vandever: Okay\, yeah\, because I was just thinking your your comment about sort of water levels being the same on both sides. I I’m not sure if that would necessarily be the case\, because the ground slow\, it seems like it slopes up to where the condos are. \nJustin Vandever: So \nJustin Vandever: it during a high tide event. I think it’s possible that the water level could be like\, say\, just at the crest of the wall. but that the area behind it would would not be inundated. \nand until it over top. So I think there could be a case where \nJustin Vandever: there could be that additional voting on the water side. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah\, I I see. what you mean. I I think the perspective that I was thinking of is water inundation coming from this side. \nJustin Vandever: Right kind of around the flanking \nJustin Vandever: perpendicular to the wall. Okay. \nJustin Vandever: And and then\, just to comment\, I \nJustin Vandever: I agree with the discussion about probably negligible waves coming from the bay. \nJustin Vandever: But during a storm search event\, with even just a small amount of sea level rise. If you look at the B. C. DC. Flood maps. \nJustin Vandever: There’s actually sort of an interior embayment created by that flooding to the west and to the northwest. And and so\, with the right wind direction there. There could be some small waves that are sort of generated \nJustin Vandever: on the from the interior side\, and I don’t think they would be large enough to cause any issues in terms of like loading\, but \nJustin Vandever: they they could sort of spill over and maybe scour some of the the back fill of the vegetation. so I just wanted to note that there there\, during a you know\, based on current topography\, that there would sort of be this water body out there to the west\, and that there could be some waves generated from that direction \nJustin Pyun: understood. Yup and I got the figure here. It’s 1.1 feet of stick up height beyond the \nJustin Pyun: so \nJustin Vandever: a. And then\, just to confirm it\, it sounded like you were saying that \nJustin Vandever: water would be able to drain through the wall from from them on the back side\, like if \nJustin Vandever: if inundation occurred or over topping occurred\, that when the tide receded that that water wouldn’t be trapped behind the ball\, that it would be able to see back out. Is that right? \nJustin Vandever: Okay. \nJustin Vandever: And then the note about reusing the tie rod. So those are originally installed in in 73. So they’re already 50 years old. \nJustin Pyun: is is that\, are you? You’re anticipating to be able to get another 30 to 40 years of life out of those. I think it really depends on our site observation. it’s something that we put as a requirement in our drawings. to excavate\, expose\, and inspect the current condition of it. There might be ways to mitigate the current damage by replacing sections of it with a new section in a couple of rod. \nJustin Pyun: but we’ll certainly have to address that once we’re in the construction phase. \nJustin Vandever: Okay. \nJustin Vandever: And then just just to comment\, like my experience with with the public\, is that something that looks like a seawall? People? \nJustin Vandever: I think it is\, I see well\, and like a football So I just wanted to\, you know. Note that \nJustin Vandever: the the homeowners should be made aware that this is not a flip protection. Wall\, it’s a retaining wall\, and I know I understand why you’re using the term se wall\, based on the \nJustin Vandever: pass permit and everything but \nJustin Vandever: I just think that that should be made clear that that replacing this is not actually acting as a as a flip protection structure \nJustin Pyun: understood\, no doubt. \nJustin Vandever: and then my last question. I I thought I noted on the drawings or in red\, and the report that the existing wall and piles would be removed. But then I thought you said that maybe they would stay in place. So it just \nJustin Vandever: can you clarify what’s kind of staying and what’s being removed on in front of the new all. \nJustin Pyun: So \nJustin Pyun: this is kind of an exhausted topic at this point. But there are 2 walls. so there’s the 90 73 wall\, and then the 89 wall. So to it’s a good question to clarify. What’s \nJustin Pyun: going on currently is the 1\,973 plumbing batter piles are cut below the mudline\, or in some cases at segment B\, the plum pile is sticking up above the mudline\, but the batter is cut. so that’s what’s there right now? for the current. 1\,989. See? Well\, repair. That’s in place. The plan is to cut that off at the mudline. \nJustin Pyun: So for any segment like\, say\, the 73 plum \nJustin Pyun: plum pile that’s still there\, or the horizontal lagging that would also be removed to the mudline. \nJustin Vandever: Okay. \nJustin Vandever: soon. No components of the prior walls. \nJustin Vandever: What exist? Because I thought you said something about like in the analysis that there would be these piles that would be there. But you didn’t take credit for them. \nJustin Pyun: Yes\, right? Yeah. So what? What I’m referencing there is the amount of piling that exists below the mudline. So in terms of the passive resistance of the sheep pile to there’s \nJustin Vandever: there’s actually going to be something there\, but it’s not something we considered in our design. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Thanks. Those are my questions\, Justin. So \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): just let me jump in real quick\, because I think it was What you had? One of the questions that I had was the design. Why? And is that noted anywhere in calculations or basis of design. \nJustin Pyun: We do not have that noted anywhere. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I I \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): well\, I don’t know. I maybe it’s \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I I think I’d recommend that you. You put something in there or \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and then something\, or add an amendment that it does \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): mentioned that. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay\, Chris\, may. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Yeah. I had a question on the design life as well. I understand that create the timber structures\, you know\, had a 30 year design life or less. But you’re using a material. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Specifically so\, it will have a longer design life. So I think 30 years is probably too short of a design life. for the material choice \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): which makes me question the sea level rise and groundwater conditions and the analysis I know other people have brought up. I know you’ve stated that you know that this development would need to consider a much larger strategy to address sea level rise. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): which would be expensive. But that’s the same situation. It is for every project around the bay\, and most of them do it in a stepwise adaptation\, function\, fashion. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): So if this project did include sea level rise. for at least a 50 year. Design life. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Then you’ve addressed sea level rise for 30% of the shoreline of the development area. So you’re giving them quite a mint a benefit. for their future plans. And this is areas very vulnerable to both civiliz and rising groundwater. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): so I’m wondering if there was at least some kind of estimate of what it would cost to \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): have this address like 2 feet have sea level rise. maybe that’s using you know\, a a thicker well material so that it is\, could provide a higher degree of protection which would also allow it to provide some protection from the existing. You know\, 100 year flood event which this well doesn’t currently cover. \nJustin Pyun: That’s a good question. So the choice of the material while it is very durable. it’s it’s kind of secondary to the main reason\, which was site access\, and you know\, material handling and constructibility. in regards to design life. What we’ve seen is. \nJustin Pyun: yes\, the timber elements are rotting at this this point\, but also the steel elements are and there are some steel components like the anchors. which you know\, we’ll observe when we get its construction\, but also the new ones that might be susceptible to that some same sort of a design life. So that’s kind of where \nJustin Pyun: our sort of perspective was. on on that \nJustin Pyun: in terms of raising the wall. I I mean\, that can certainly be an option. \nJustin Pyun: it’s it’s not something that we’ve considered\, as you know. We’re really just trying to replace the deteriorated wall. But you know that I think that’s a much larger conversation than \nJustin Pyun: And what we’ve had. It’s something that the hoa needs to kind of determine what they’re going to do globally. But yes\, I I I understand your question. And in your comment. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): yeah\, if they’re if they’re not considering\, manage to treat it\, it would be good to address it. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): you know\, at some level with this project\, so they can understand that they’re making a wise investment. \nJustin Pyun: Right? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah. Sorry to recycle back. I have just one more question\, I think\, and that’s I don’t know that I’ve heard anything mentioned about corrosion. The prophet is specifically \nJim French: excluded from the Rg scope. obviously\, for the farps. Corrosion per se is not an issue\, I guess at some point they start to age\, but \nJim French: the anchors are \nJim French: that\, and I think they are galvanized and signed for me. \nJim French: Oh\, Designed for some corrosion. But this environment is pretty salty and pretty aggressive. \nJustin Pyun: I’m sorry. So is the question. The question is\, it has corrosion? How has corrosion been addressed? \nJim French: version of the anchors in particular\, and at the end of the whale\, I guess \nJustin Pyun: right? any metal components. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah. So we do have some margin of factor of safety\, or not factor of safety. I’m sorry. The demand to capacity ratio to allow for any material degradation. \nJustin Pyun: it it it can be considered to address there. \nJustin Pyun: but yeah\, I \nJim French: yeah\, I think it’s not appropriate to address it by factor safety. I think you need to address it by a number of inches of material loss. You’re going to get over \nJim French: whatever the design like this. \nJim French: and and or the thickness of the galvanizing \nJim French: to protect against that. And if there’s going to be any damage of the galvanizing as it’s driving through through gravel. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah\, we don’t have a actual prescribed\, you know. \nJustin Pyun: inch per. or you know\, measurement per \nJustin Pyun: span of life. But \nJustin Pyun: I can’t say that we have a margin within our demand to capacity ratios. \nJim French: Rob\, that said of my questions\, I guess I have you like we often end up with. It’s something we need to to talk about. \nJim French: Are we just approving it as is\, or we have any request? Or do you want to see them again? I have a a couple of requests that I’d like to have them address at some point. I’m not sure if this is the time\, or if you want to. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I think I’ve learned from last time I was running one of these meetings. I asked all my questions. Upfront that \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): she the shoreline quite the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the folks with the see not to see one\, but the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): somebody. Help me out here\, Cardio. Thank you. at the card bill So I I \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So do you have a few questions. and I guess you know the the easy one is \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): is the material for the sheet pile. you be stabilized. And is that something that you’d be worried about. \nJustin Pyun: What I understand. Yes\, but I’d have to go back to creative composites to address that. Whatever specific question you have. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Well\, I just yeah. I’m hoping that there is some component of the stabilization sort of thing doesn’t get brittle \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): right. And I’ve I have discussed in the past. \nJustin Pyun: whether they have certain codings that they would recommend. And I know that there are options. on that front. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay\, yeah. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And then the this is\, I think\, a good slide to have up. But I was curious about the returns\, you know\, with retaining walls. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): sometimes\, and I think it’s good practice to have returns \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): at the ends of the seawall\, for of a retailing one that kind of contain the forces\, and I notice that \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the tie rods\, don’t that they don’t appear to continue at both ends of the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): of the retaining wall. And it was just so. Is it that you’re going to continue to use \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that are piles in those locations? Or \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): is there some other way that it’s being \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know. Fix study. J\, \nJustin Pyun: yes. So segment. B\, let me go back to the plan. \nJustin Pyun: Segment B\, is this middle portion here that already has the tie rods? there’s additional anchors that are being placed and where it doesn’t occur at segment A and C. \nJustin Pyun: The idea is that we would just drive anchors throughout. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and then\, you know\, I don’t know that this is \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): for you\, the designer. But are you? Are you going to recommend some sort of long term monitoring \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): program that looks at the displacement of the wall\, and perhaps you know indications of \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): anchor or tighter rod failure. \nJustin Pyun: Bill\, you might be able to shed some light here\, but as as it currently stands\, we we’re not requiring one or recommending one. \nBill Rudolph: my. \nBill Rudolph: my! My! My feeling is that there should be some \nBill Rudolph: you know\, monitoring to to look at the sort of the long term performance of the of the wall. not only to checking the plumbness of the wall and but \nBill Rudolph: but the I think it’s important that these week that these we polls all are are maintained. The the particular product that we are has specified is a is designed to be maintainable. \nBill Rudolph: And so\, you know\, they\, you know\, a lot of fouling can occur\, and those can get clogged up. So I think there should be. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, some guidelines given to monitoring and maintenance of this of the system over time. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah\, I I would. I would think so as well. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): What is the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): kind of \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): typical or standard tension in the anchors? Are they? Are they going to be\, you know\, post-tensioned after they’ve been tested? Or are they \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): set up \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): but slack pension \nJustin Pyun: there. So there are just a couple of performance tested anchors. But then the rest of them are all proof loaded. And the idea there is to kind of monitor any creep. So it it. You are kind of engaging that passive pressure and then locking it off. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So\, yeah\, and do you know\, I mean\, do you have a right? And what’s the design? Walk offload? I guess 4.7 kips. Okay? \nJustin Pyun: And that’s well. that’s the design load. Yes\, yeah. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Locking it off after your \nproof testing \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): at 4.7 K\, \nJustin Pyun: right and\, Bill\, you might be able to chime in here. But it’s yeah. It’s a cyclic loading. So you actually exceed the 4.7 kips at times. \nJustin Pyun: but they kind of relax. \nBill Rudolph: My my understanding here is that they’re going to be tested to that design load. But I but I do think they are going to be just snugged up\, and you know I I don’t think they’re going to be locked off at any at any. I think they’re just not slack\, but do it. But just snug\, you know. Not not not not pre loaded. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah\, that’s that’s the that’s the question I was thinking about is that when the contractor is off the job\, what’s \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): what’s this tension? And the the anchor rods? \nBill Rudolph: Right? It’s just snug. \nBill Rudolph: okay\, that’s fine. Yeah\, any. Any working tension in the rods will be associated with sort of the whatever \nBill Rudolph: fast\, whatever active and passive pressures develop\, and with some small\, you know\, slight movements of the wall to to actually engage those engage those pressures\, and hence the the tensions and the rod. So I like. I say\, I I don’t. We don’t have a super strict wall movement\, tolerance here. So I I think that they’re going to be just locked through\, just stubbed up and left left the \nBill Rudolph: left in that condition. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And then I I know Justin and Chris talked about it a little bit\, but I just was going to ask in a way that that I was thinking about it. Are they gonna be scuppers. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know\, basically where the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the fill and wall\, or\, yeah kind of meeting\, so that you can drain you know. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Say\, an extreme precipitation of that. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I just \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): where are you? Just retaining? You know that 1.1 for the water that can build up in a big re of that \nJustin Pyun: right? Yeah\, it’s just the the 1.1 feet of water. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and that’s been accounted for in the design. \nJustin Pyun: Yes\, yeah\, we have a certain amount of hydrostatic load. Are are you talking about at the top? Or\, yeah\, you want to find a slide that shows the section. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So yeah\, yeah\, that. So that between the compact with fill for landscaping and the the top of the Rp sheet pile \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that if that’s a triangle\, triangular\, inverted\, triangular load of \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): water there is that has that been \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): accounted for in your design. \nJustin Pyun: Yeah\, I\, \nJustin Pyun: our analysis assumes that it’s permeable. \nJustin Pyun: So there’s a way to to drain through\, you know. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay\, so \nBill Rudolph: my\, my. \nBill Rudolph: my understanding is that \nBill Rudolph: that you know that there is existing surface drainage \nBill Rudolph: on the property. \nBill Rudolph: and that that that that surface drainage which will\, you know\, collect\, and and\, do you know discharge\, the water will will have to be maintained\, so that\, you know I I I don’t. I don’t think we’re going to go there and have. \nBill Rudolph: you know\, pondered water occurring behind here\, that that you know \nBill Rudolph: the the surface green it is going to have to be. We will will be addressed in the final analysis\, I think. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. yeah\, I you know. But if you’re excavating for anchors every 7 feet \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know\, are you? Then\, disrupting whatever surface range you you’ve got\, or \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): just wondering how that water gets out. \nBill Rudolph: No\, I I think you’re right. It’s gonna be gonna be disturbed. But it’s it’s gonna have to be. You know the the grades that \nBill Rudolph: it’s my understanding that they did. It drains now\, and that that ultimately\, when it’s all backfilled\, that the the positive surplus drainage is going to have to be \nBill Rudolph: restored as part of the of the landscaping and \nBill Rudolph: final final back filling operations. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I think I think that’s what I want to do here. So I’m assuming that that is not part of the design as yet. Right? So \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I think that’s the end of my questions\, and I think Jim’s right\, like we have to \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): kind of decide now whether or not we want to hear back from you\, or whether or not you know\, the the Board is satisfied with \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the responses\, and maybe if the the requests for information that we’ve we’ve made our addressable by\, you know\, transmitting like that she’s transmitting\, or \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the applicant transmitting responses to those outstanding questions to B. Cdc. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): what does Bob you get? And Jim\, you get Bob. He gets your hand up. \nBob Battalio: Oh\, yeah\, I was just gonna jump in to start the discussion. It it seemed to me that what I heard there were comments on. \nBob Battalio: you know. There\, there probably should be some sort of discussion by the community or the neighborhood about sea level rise. And what’s going to happen in the future? And and \nBob Battalio: That may not be part of this project. or it might be \nBob Battalio: something that \nBob Battalio: there’d be some notification of that. \nBob Battalio: also\, as as Justin indicated\, it’s not a sea wall\, it’s a retaining wall. And that’s why more of a bulkhead\, I guess\, and \nBob Battalio: that’s why the water level didn’t seem to be the a driver \nBob Battalio: brought based on your what you just said. It sounds like \nBob Battalio: the wall loading should have loading all the way up to the top of the wall. \nBob Battalio: you know\, soil or \nBob Battalio: water\, or something\, you know\, or whatever. The worst condition is for the largest \nBob Battalio: active load on the wall\, because. \nBob Battalio: you know\, it’s gonna either have water behind it or soil behind it at some point\, probably. yeah\, I don’t. I didn’t review it closely enough to see if they consider the \nBob Battalio: And then there’s a question about the project. Live. \nBob Battalio: So\, in my opinion\, if those things are addressed. I don’t think we need to see it again. myself. I mean\, I don’t. \nBob Battalio: just from my perspective. It’s like a civil coastal\, but I’ll just throw that out there unless see if somebody else. \nJim French: yeah. So I would probably be inclined to agree with Bob that I know that’s an Ec. Orb. Needs to see this again. But I do have several on topics that I think should be addressed by the design team \nJim French: prior to approval and probably resubmitted to BC. DC. For staff Review\, just to say\, Yeah\, it’s been adequately\, it’s been addressed. But if you. What we’ve done in the past is if the staff still \nJim French: feels that the responses are beyond their expertise and we can weigh in again. But I’m not inclined to think we need to at this point. \nJim French: that’s the first point \nJim French: was related to liquefaction kind of raised by liquefaction and global stability and some re-related issues that you started with \nJim French: to indicate that somewhere\, and I think Bill was agreeing with this that somewhere it would be appropriate to \nJim French: to indicate that the global stability and lateral spreading really are beyond the scope of their specific analysis. And they’re just looking at \nJim French: the retaining wall stability. and that that should be probably documented. \nJim French: but \nJim French: and it’s all you noted that there was. it would. Looks like there was some liquor faction within the wall depth. \nJim French: it’s kind of interesting that the geotech report plates. let me just see what the plate numbers are of 4 on 5 of the geotech report\, I think. \nJim French: our output from a computer program called \nJim French: all see that fruit? \nJim French: Something a tradition test\, liquefaction analysis. \nJim French: but they don’t show the results of the lipfaction analysis. They do show the results of the thin layer correction. And so you can see that. you know\, it looks like there are some zones within a couple of feet of oh\, of \nJim French: of the sheet files that there is liquid faction\, material types and low\, liquifiable and penetration resistance values that are pretty low. \nJim French: Oh\, and I\, some C values that are pretty low. So all around. It looks like there’s it’s notting. So that’s a that’s an Amen\, I guess\, to that \nJim French: But I think there is lucifaction. I think that the geotech report should include the extra plots from Celic. \nJim French: That show for liquefaction is actually occurring. \nJim French: And the the design team then\, should explicitly look at the impact of liquefaction on the wall\, stability \nJim French: for passive pressure. in particular\, if it’s going to affect active pressure as well. \nJim French: and that that should be documented. \nJim French: I don’t know. It’s that difficult to do that. We need to review it again\, but I think that ought to be in terms of engineering criteria. It should be that they should document\, that they’ve evaluated the faction rather than showing the C liquid for it without showing to see the outfit \nJim French: and then include a comment explicitly. The the liquefaction \nJim French: will not affect wall stability. I think somewhere they need to document what the design life is of the project. \nJim French: and probably impact it. Document someplace\, a statement about sea level rise. however\, they want to document it that it’s not considered\, or that it’ll handle the next 4 years of sea level arise\, or it’s the sea level rise. It’s already exceeded \nJim French: what this projects are really good regarding us or whatever\, but provide some sort of documentation that \nJim French: the script describing sea level rise\, and and how it relates to the project. \nJim French: I think. \nJim French: Probably the the design needs to explicitly address corrosion. Whether that means that Sgh needs to go back and take some samples for corrosion potential and then document it. \nJim French: or whether some conventional numbers out of you know\, you can almost assume that it’s buried in seawater or in bay water. I think there’s some standard values for corrosion potential in that. But in some way \nJim French: corrosion\, I think\, needs to be explicitly addressed. \nJim French: in the design \nJim French: both in what is what the demand is\, as well as how it’s how to be\, how to mitigate \nJim French: from \nJim French: corrosion. \nJim French: And then Rod mentioned \nJim French: UV resistance\, and somehow it needs to be a documentation that that the I. \nJim French: F Rp \nJim French: is will adequately handle UV And this isn’t really a required comment\, I guess. But just to note that I I would recommend that the lock off is probably more than a more than a nominal \nJim French: seeding value\, but probably 50% or something like that\, so that you don’t encourage movement to happen before the wall will take so \nJim French: But I’m open to whether \nJim French: Bill St. On this more than I have\, I’m sure. And then someone else commented\, I guess it’s it’s it’s it’s retaining. Well\, notice. \nJim French: that’s what I have. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that was pretty complete. Exhausted. Are there other \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Items that the board would like to see addressed in the the applicant’s response. Letter to Vc. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): For me. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yes\, I would like \nRamin Golesorkhi: we’ll have a official position on this project for Bill. I mean. honestly\, today\, Bill is the face of the ge technical aspect of this project\, and \nRamin Golesorkhi: that needs to be for a wise in whatever way that 13 \nRamin Golesorkhi: things is appropriate. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay\, Justin. \nJustin Vandever: just wanted to confirm that one of the notes was about \nJustin Vandever: loading on the wall\, either assuming \nJustin Vandever: the water side is at the crest\, and it’s dry on the land side\, and the reverse of that \nJustin Vandever: and that there’s some clarification of the plan to accommodate drainage from behind the wall of water that could get pond it back there\, either from over topping by marine waters\, waves\, or the accumulation of \nJustin Vandever: rainfall run off from behind the wall\, and if there’s a way to either drain it through the wall\, or that the \nJustin Vandever: grading behind the wall can allow it to\, I guess. Drain north south somehow. I. My sense for looking at the pictures is that maybe the current drainage? It just goes through the wall because it’s the timber wall\, and there’s gaps\, and and I don’t think that will be the case with the new ever you will. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. Okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, did you get all of that? Is there anything else? \nBob Battalio: Yeah. I as we were talking. \nBob Battalio: I was thinking that the the statement about sea level rise \nBob Battalio: just to clarify could be like Jim and Chris were saying\, in terms of \nBob Battalio: you know\, future adaptation. and whether or not what vertical capacity the wall has\, and like how many feet of sea level\, rise\, we think the wall could handle. And \nBob Battalio: you know\, I think specifically what Chris was getting to before was. you know\, does it make sense to build something bigger now? \nBob Battalio: because the incremental costs might be favorable. So and that’s probably over the consultant’s head. \nBob Battalio: But it might be something that \nBob Battalio: we want might want to mention for the owners benefit. \nBob Battalio: I don’t know if Jen got that\, but that’s kind of like the sea Level Rise thing \nBob Battalio: deal with that. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I’m I’m hoping that the owner of the Hoa \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know\, is thinking about this. But it is. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah\, I I don’t know. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Well\, I guess \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we yeah\, I it just. They’re on a little peninsula\, right? And when sea level rice comes\, I think managed retreat has been mentioned. That praise has been mentioned a few times. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know I don’t want to point out or make inflammatory statements\, but \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): if there was \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): a a place to see manage your tree \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know\, I’d be assuming that it’s on a little peninsula like this. \nyou know\, there may be other adaptation strategies which \nBob Battalio: I have no idea about the economic viability of this. But maybe they could put the homes on piles\, or\, you know\, build new ones on piles or \nBob Battalio: floating homes\, or\, yeah\, yeah\, I don’t know\, I mean\, but I just feel like\, you know\, just from A\, you know\, they’re coming to DC\, DC. And they’re not\, you know. It’s not serious it over wise. It’s called a sea wall. But I just kind of feel like we should say something like\, Hey. \nBob Battalio: you guys are vulnerable to sea level rise\, but probably obvious. And but if not\, there’s some resources\, and you might want to think about whether or not you do want to invest a little bit more in this wall \nBob Battalio: to save you money later in your adaptation plan. I Chris\, is that you? You’re probably better at this than I am in terms of. Does that make sense to you like \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): that? That absolutely makes sense to me? Yeah\, I should consider that incremental cost. So that day. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): you know\, could potentially be solving. You know\, a portion of their civil rights problem in the long run. I mean\, I know it’s just a piece of the shoreline. But every bit helps. \nBob Battalio: Yeah. And then\, on the other hand\, of course. this is real money for a Homeowners association. So \nBob Battalio: you know. Actually\, I feel like \nBob Battalio: the sea level is not directly a design criteria for this project. It’s more of an indirect criteria in terms of \nBob Battalio: the loading as it relates to drainage. I\, I believe\, is with. And so \nBob Battalio: I I think I feel okay with not including civilized criteria. But I’m not comfortable without clarity that somebody acknowledges that that’s an issue. \nBob Battalio: Yeah. So I mean\, if I and I think thanks for for that \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): other perspective\, because I think if I were the I’d be saying\, I gotta pay how much for for this\, and I’m hitting\, you know. Extra. I’m paying extra now for \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): a a a location that I’m probably not going to be in in 30 years. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): What you you know. So I think. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I would. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I I I I don’t want to split the baby\, but I would think that\, you know\, if there’s some sort of \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): actual statement on sea level rise\, and whether or not it’s I guess they’ve already said that it’s not a pro or not part of the design criteria. I’m not sure that. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and that they recognize that the design. I think that’s why this design life thing is important\, because you can then say\, Okay\, we recognize that we’ve kicked the can down the road. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know. In in 2\,050\, \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we have a a real problem\, or we have. We have to come back and address another problem. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And I think if that’s explicit here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah\, that’s a good point. I mean\, they’ve probably heard this discussion. So \nBob Battalio: anyway\, I didn’t mean to. But I I agree. However\, you want to \nBob Battalio: say it. I was just trying to \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): one last thing here. I mean\, it is a requirement of the permit application\, right? So I’m just \nDilip Trivedi: looking for guidance to us\, for future projects which come in with Savior\, not addressing sea level rise because this is a repair project. Well\, most projects which online improvements on repair projects. \nDilip Trivedi: And so you know what is the precedent that we are setting for ourselves by looking at any shoreline to pair project as not accommodating. \nDilip Trivedi: So I think that issue needs to be addressed. Maybe not\, Ecrb\, but from a permitting perspective. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I I absolutely agree\, because in 1\,973 and 1\,989. The wall high. It was enough. you know. Now\, in 2\,023\, it’s not. and \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): it it is gonna be a big consideration. \nDilip Trivedi: right? And it’s it’s part of our. Our. \nDilip Trivedi: The instructions that we received was to look at this because it is part of the Cdc’s date Plan amendment. \nDilip Trivedi: And so it is a requirement no different than you know many of the other basis of. So \nDilip Trivedi: I can do anything to Jan for at least some guidance as to how do we review future projects \nDilip Trivedi: which do not address sea level rise? Because it is a \nBob Battalio: yeah\, and just just to the the follow up on that discussion. \nBob Battalio: I also think that this\, the sea Level criterion. \nBob Battalio: is not \nBob Battalio: driving the design that going back to my first question. So it’s not just that it’s a repair. \nBob Battalio: It’s just that. \nBob Battalio: you know\, the loading is going to be\, let’s say\, extended to the top of the wall because of granted\, and then the like concerns. \nBob Battalio: But you know\, water pawning on the inside\, and then the tide dropping\, or something like that. but I think that’s more of a civil engineering\, or\, you know\, kind of drainage issue that doesn’t necessarily \nBob Battalio: require that the \nBob Battalio: and in fact\, the yeah. So I I kind of feel like it’s not just a repair project. It’s \nBob Battalio: suitable. \nBob Battalio: The high water level is not necessarily a design criterion for the for the project design. \nBob Battalio: I don’t know if I’m splitting here\, but that’s kind of \nBob Battalio: my rationale for not pushing harder on it\, as I usually do. \nBob Battalio: and I will have to say I’m a little biased because it. You know\, these are homeowners\, and \nBob Battalio: it probably does make sense. I can go above my head here \nBob Battalio: from a public policy standpoint. To have a retaining wall that is upgraded and not doesn’t fail. \nBob Battalio: with people there\, you know. \nBob Battalio: even if it is kind of inefficient in a long-term adaptation to climate change perspective. In other words. \nBob Battalio: I think we’d all rather have this see the sea wall\, intact and functioning\, even if it is the short term. \nBob Battalio: So that’s kind of my my thought. on how I’m \nBob Battalio: not feeling too guilty about letting them off for sea level rise. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay? So I was looking back at the 3 questions that we were supposed to respond or answer \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): today. And \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): it sounds that like the design criteria of the site are appropriate. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): with \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): some more clarification and a bit more work and disclosure. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): whether current\, flooding and future rising. Suitable impacts on the retaining wall are addressed adequately\, based on \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): on the references and the nature of the project\, like we just had that discussion. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and whether there are any design and physical concerns that have not been addressed\, and I don’t think we\, I think we kind of have been pretty complete in our. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know\, assessment of \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): of the project. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): so\, Jen\, you’ve got all of that stuff written down now\, right? Or that I’m assuming that \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Pj. And Bill have have made copious notes as well. and that we’ll see a letter. What is that? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): How does that work\, Jen? Are you going. The the letter will be sent to BC. DC. And will it go out to the members of Vcrb just for review and comment? \nJim French: Think what we need to do is make a motion \nJim French: and vote as a board. that. We agree with all of these points or not. \nJim French: and then we can send that\, and it becomes a motion from in the minutes of this meeting. \nJim French: if you like. I’d like to. if if you consider it in order. I’d like to make a votes\, and I can delay it\, I think\, in it quick form. \nJim French: My summary of the points we got here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yes\, once you go ahead. Yeah. \nJim French: So I would like to make a motion that the board accept the project \nJim French: but required the following additional input from the design team. \nJim French: first related to liquefaction \nJim French: to show the plots from See Lick \nJim French: that’s called Cl. IQ. For whoever is taking minutes \nJim French: and then you value. You explicitly evaluate the impact of those. And \nJim French: it’s appropriate. And a comment that liquefaction won’t affect the wall stability. \nJim French: Second. \nJim French: make a document and make documentation of design life of the project. \nJim French: including a discussion of the relationship to sea level rise. \nJim French: The third require corrosion. \nJim French: evaluation. including in discussion of the demand and mitigation. \nJim French: Fourth document. Use UV resistance of the and include specification requirements as appropriate. \nOh. \nJim French: fourth document that it’s retaining. Well\, not to see well. \nJim French: fifth \nJim French: require a clarification and documentation of Bill Rudolph’s position. and roll on the project. \nJim French: and if I understood this correctly\, then \nJim French: 6\, the time I have to document how to accommodate water that may collect behind the retaining wall. \nJim French: That would be the end of \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the components of my motion\, but also down the road. \nJim French: I like to make a motion while I’ve got the floor here for a second that we request. I think this is what how the discussion was going. Is that the Ecrb request \nJim French: in the form of staff\, or maybe the Drv. To a direct sea level criteria. \nJim French: sea level rise criteria for cases like this\, which are somewhat ambiguous\, and we can talk about engineering criteria. \nJim French: but that’s different than policy. \nBob Battalio: Well\, I just on\, I I think that’s a really good well\, am I out of order? So we have a we have a motion. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and do we have a second\, and then we can have discussion. \nBob Battalio: Oh\, I’ll second. Okay. Thank you. Now\, now\, do we have any discussion? \nBob Battalio: Yeah. Thank you. sorry to be out of order. There\, I really\, I really like what the go up in. Jim brought up \nBob Battalio: until in terms of special cases \nBob Battalio: But I didn’t. I wanted to ask yeah\, that’s a question for BC. DC. It\, whether Jim wanted to address the lock off loading on the \nBob Battalio: on the tiebacks or not. I just had that on my list. That was the only yeah. it’s next\, Bob. I I think that it ought to be done\, but I don’t think that needs to be in \nJim French: our top to the team for the motion. \nBob Battalio: Okay\, thank you. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Any any other discussion? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay\, so \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): let’s have a vote. Let’s vote on this motion. Jen\, do you want to call role? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think Did somebody second the motion? \nDilip Trivedi: Yes\, Bob did. \nyeah\, I will call roll \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: ron. It was Sheeta. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Jima Casali. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): No. Still on me\, too. Ma\, let’s give a \nJim French: just by raising our \nJim French: digital hands. Maybe. \nDilip Trivedi: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Italian. \nThaleia Travasarou: Yes. \nBob Battalio: yes\, and I will raise my hand and speak. No\, I will lower my hand \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just in Vannevar. \nJustin Vandever: Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Ramen Gosurkey. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: file out Italia. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Dill it \nDilip Trivedi: yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and Jim French. \nJim French: Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I Chris May. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Yes. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): no\, Justin\, and g much back off on mute. \nGKasali: Jan. Sorry about that. Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay. Great. I think I got Justin. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Oh\, okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Everyone said\, yes. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Well\, that’s great. Then that motion passes. Thank you\, Jim. Thank you\, Bob. Everybody. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Let’s see \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): there anything else here. \nJim French: One is going to suggest a second motion that we request. we see DC\, either \nJim French: the Commission itself\, the Rb. Or staff to address sea level criteria for \nJim French: on cases like this. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So there is that workshop for that meeting that we’re having next month \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): on rising tides. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): can I suggest we we go through that first\, before we \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we\, we\, we participate in that meeting before we \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): make a motion and vote on something. \nJim French: I’m okay. With that I would suggest that we make the motion just so that we’ve go on record that this is a concern that we have. \nJim French: I don’t think it may well be that the responses adequately performed by that upcoming meeting? \nDilip Trivedi: This idea\, maybe this motion can be a discussion item in that future meeting. \nDilip Trivedi: It might help trigger that discussion. \nBob Battalio: Yeah. \nBob Battalio: yeah\, I kind of with Rod. I mean\, I I think the fact that we brought it up. I think the staff. And I think Steve Goldbeck was on for a while\, so I mean\, I think they’ve heard us. And \nBob Battalio: you know one of the things that occurs to me at Jim. You had mentioned that the seal rise not really an engineering criteria and earth quite serious\, that. And I think that’s true. But that’s \nBob Battalio: really only true\, because California and some other States are way out of the country\, and you know\, as ce etc. has not come\, you know we don’t have a code yet for\, but it doesn’t mean that it’s not important. \nBob Battalio: And and in our practice here\, locally\, it’s it’s\, you know. really considered. So it is a little unusual for us not to address that head on in a strong way\, but I think \nBob Battalio: anyway\, I I I do think it’s a very important question. and one that I wrestled with before the meeting\, you know. Honestly so \nBob Battalio: I think. \nBob Battalio: It would be interesting to see what is being said. And I have some other comments about\, you know \nBob Battalio: the program and how they talk. People talk about total water level and things like that. So I don’t. Yeah. Anyway\, I I’d be okay with not making the motion or making the motion. I’ll leave it up to someone else. \nGKasali: But\, Rob\, maybe. Can you explain why you think we should withhold? Make an emotion now? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So I think Bcdc staff are kind of down going down this path already of \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): how they want to look at \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): or how they’re looking at sea level. Rise. And I’m I’m you know\, just a little. I’m a little nervous that if Ecrb kind of tells. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know B. Cdc. Staff to do something\, or to come up with something that they’re going to come up that they may not. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know\, be as free as they want to be\, to come up with their \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): their application or their \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): interpretation of how or where things need to go. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that that’s my. That’s my concern. But you know I’m hearing that it sounds like folks are wanting. you know\, to be able to \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): have some direction. that we can just look at. And \nBob Battalio: well\, you know\, Roy\, following that. what that comment you may\, which I think is very \nBob Battalio: I mean\, if I was on the staff\, I might say\, wait a minute. What? Why does the ecrb tell us? I mean. \nBob Battalio: yeah\, you know. I mean\, it’s a there’s. There’s a policy question. But there’s also an engineering practice question that that \nBob Battalio: there may be a discussion that needs to happen \nBob Battalio: before a a decision can be made. In other words\, we might have a role in that discussion. So I kinda like the idea of \nBob Battalio: allowing it. There’d be a little bit of a process before we start \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): defining what we want. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know. Be addressed in a project. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): talking with Staff first and giving our \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): our considered opinions on it seems like the right \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): venue\, and I’d rather us not \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): be here kind of separated from from staff. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know\, asking for that clarification right now. \nJim French: it’s actually the motion has not been seconded yet. So we’re not technically not discussing the motion. But \nJim French: I think that \nJim French: it is. My understanding is that the Vcdc requires all applicants to address sea level rise. \nJim French: All right. \nJim French: I I I guess there’s some subtle language in there. \nJim French: about what’s a big project and what’s a new project? And what’s an old what’s it? 6 of an old existing project? But I think there’s to me it’s arguable that we aren’t really meeting the request of B. C. DC\, by not requiring silver rise in this particular case. And we’re basically saying\, Yeah\, we’re taking the word of the applicant that we’ve got a short design lives. And it’s really some kind of funny things that our engineering issues per. Say. \nJim French: if you want us to address sea level rise as any Crb\, then we can talk about the technical issues that’s involved here. \nJim French: but we’re basically saying \nJim French: we’re going to accept the applicants\, request that we not address sea level rise. So it’s a funny position here\, and I would like to just push it back to the \nJim French: Ec. Orb to the you see \nJim French: the Commission\, or the or somebody and make sure that this is a specific question that gets addressed at our meeting to discuss. See that the rise in general. \nJim French: I think this is one of the key issues. \nJim French: that’s why why they should. They should have a meeting at all about the topic. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I I absolutely agree I’d be willing to second the motion on that. And I my concern\, is setting precedent on. This is not a flood protection structure. It is a retaining wall\, and therefore \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I don’t have to address \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): and I I think it is an important issue that we need to discuss. But I do think the Ecrb and the Drb should be engaged in that discussion. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So that’s and that’s my point like\, let’s have that discussion with the rb. yeah\, and staff and and ha\, and then\, you know\, we can address it. We we may have a meeting \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the day after right\, and and certainly within a couple of months \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we will be able to to make that motion and and vote on it. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): But I I I suggest \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that we have that conversation first. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I agree with Rod. I mean\, this issue is on the table. It’s not like. you know. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I understand that the position in this discussion I I appreciate what Jim is saying\, but you know throughout the point\, it’s next month that this is going to be \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of discussed\, and I I hope\, at some point decided on \nDilip Trivedi: the direction\, at least from \nRamin Golesorkhi: this group. \nRamin Golesorkhi: from B. C DC. To all the applicants\, and then we can kind of \nRamin Golesorkhi: make sure that it’s included. \nDilip Trivedi: Yeah\, I mean\, Jen can take that. You know. I I would say that the \nDilip Trivedi: that is not just because it’s a small project versus. There is no definition of a small project\, as far as I know\, in the guidance policy\, but I think the biggest differentiator here is that there is no public access. \nDilip Trivedi: So we were looking at a project which has no public access. \nDilip Trivedi: and it was not specifically for flood protection. And so\, therefore it is one of those special cases. \nDilip Trivedi: And that’s fine. If that’s how \nDilip Trivedi: you know the directions to the Crb are. \nDilip Trivedi: you know\, and Staff might pick it up anywhere. That’s different\, you know. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Yeah. And I think there are nuances like that. They look that may not come out in a kind of. you know\, 1 one policy or a and a policy that \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): yeah. And I. And I think it’s really worth us having this discussion and engaging with staff and Grb about \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know what? Where are the where the Nixon granny is\, where we don’t\, what we’re not going to enforce sea level rise. requirements. \nJim French: I guess I’m still not clear why you’re speaking against the motion. My! The motion that I said was\, I request to request that B\, C. DC. Or staff or Drb \nJim French: address\, sea level rise criteria for cases like this. \nJim French: I think they’re gonna do that in a month. But it’s just this just puts us on record as saying\, Hey\, the question matters to us \nJim French: because it affects how we do our job. So we don’t ask them to do anything different than what’s going to happen next month\, except to say. \nJim French: this is\, you hold this hold Ecrb’s question in your mind as your having having this discussion. \nGKasali: So how about this? I mean\, it’s like\, you know\, we all in the same thing\, I mean\, and the motion be amended to basically say\, you know\, the eclipse is an important issue \nGKasali: what my required join discussion between B. C. DC\, \nGKasali: the \nBob Battalio: I second\, that like the motion amendment. \nDilip Trivedi: So it’s not a motion amendment. It’s a friendly amendment that if I if I and Chris agree to it. \nBob Battalio: and it just becomes I’m not out of order again. I’m gonna go back on you. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I I \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. And it sounds like we’ve already had our discussion. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): so g\, and Jim\, what what is? Do you just state the motion one more time with\, I have a gym or restate it because he had the the revised language. Yeah\, I appreciate if Gemma would repeat it \nGKasali: moves that. there’ be a discussion on the issue of sea level rise \nGKasali: with respect to various projects. and that there’d be a discussion between the B C\, d\, C. R. B. \nGKasali: to come up with a policy on how to address that issue. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. thanks. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I’m okay. If Jim\, it becomes the mover of that motion. \nGKasali: Okay\, I move. That’s my motion. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay\, thank you\, Jim. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay\, everybody in favor. Let’s just raise our virtual hands. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I see \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): It just raised a regular name if you want. Oh\, there you go! Oh. \nGKasali: my computer is not cooperating\, but I have. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I see all 9 members of the Ecrb have their hands raised. in favor. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Great Is there any other business that we need to? That’s one\, too. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay\, if there’s not\, is there a motion to close the meeting? \nJim French: Who moved \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): everybody in favor? Raise your virtual hand again? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): All right. Okay\, thanks everybody. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): great discussion \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): look forward to seeing you next month. And yeah. \nBob Battalio: this was this was fun. \nBob Battalio: Thank you. Great to meet you all\, too. \nBob Battalio: Hi\, Jim! Welcome\, 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/june-22-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230621T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230621T123000
DTSTAMP:20231013T045705Z
CREATED:20230622T001208Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T045705Z
UID:10000024-1687339800-1687350600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 21\, 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. \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/82592592736?pwd=cWZtV0Z3Tkw1aWtUWituc044WGpLUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 9259 2736 \nPasscode679586 \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 May 30\, 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]\nUpdate to the Committee on the Simmons Island Habitat Restoration Project (Enforcement Case 1990.026.00).Representative(s) for the Port of Stockton\, San Joaquin County\, will update the committee on the project timeline\, including the expected completion date\, the progress to-date and the tasks remaining to complete this project and resolve the BCDC enforcement case. Last update: December 21\, 2022.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing to Committee on Regulations Addressing Late-Submitted EvidenceAssistant Attorney General Shari Posner will present to the committee the applicable regulations of Title 14\, Division 5\, Chapter 13 of the California Code of Regulations that address the handling and consideration of late-submitted evidence at enforcement hearings.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/06/06-21-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nIs 9 30\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 933\, and this meeting of the BC. DC. Enforcement Committee is here by a call to order. My name is Marie Gilmour\, and I am the chair of this Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners. Please ensure that the video camera is always on\, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The first order of business is to call the role Matthew. Please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourself while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: good morning. Excuse me. Good morning\, Commissioner Eisen. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner\, rancho Commissioner\, or sorry chair\, Gilmore. \nhere. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and our duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, in accordance with our usual practice\, and is indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on to on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and thus far we have received no general comments. about anything \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for members of the public\, if you would like to speak either during the general comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants\, icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find 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 style Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After you called on. 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: commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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 curious manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: once again\, this is a call for general public comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on items that are not onto \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on today’s agenda. So\, Margie\, do we have any hands raised by the public. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We have no public comments here. Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Okay\, so on to item number 4\, which is approval of the draft minutes from the last meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We have all been furnished draft minutes from our last meeting held on May thirtieth\, 2\,023 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members. I would have. I appreciate a motion in a second to approve these. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: So moved \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Ranchod\, and second by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, Everybody who’s in favor of this. Please raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: notes ext extensions. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 is the Enforcement report enforcement policy manager. Matthew Tre. Here will now provide the enforcement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: thank you. Excuse me\, thank you. And good morning. Chair and committee members. There are 4 items to report out on today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The first item\, as usual\, is a case update. Since my last report on April thirteenth\, 2\,023. I did not give a report on May thirtieth \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: because it was a special meeting\, and we were trying to move things along. So in the past 2 months since April we received \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: 11 new cases\, and we would all 14 cases. And as of today\, there are 75 unresolved cases in the queue\, which is a difference of a minus 4 from the last report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: That means we continue to make progress on drying down the backlog of cases. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The second is an update on our efforts to fill this current. Cpa\, 2. Vacancy\, we still receive no applications for the position. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: rather no qualified applications. It was reposted this past week as an 18 month limited term position\, and I also attempted to make it easier to find in searches by candidates who are looking for jobs outside of San Francisco County exclusively by including the names of the other 8 Bay area counties in the working title. And the location fields. So hopefully\, \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: the idea is that when a potential job seeker is looking for something\, maybe a little closer to home in San Francisco\, maybe from Solano or San Mateo\, one of those areas. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: our job will start to show up in their searches if they do that. At that filtered search. The third item is an update on the se plain investments Llc. Matter that this committee requested that we bring back to them today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: However\, after the May thirtieth special meeting of this committee Greg Sharp asked me to postpone further action on this matter until he returns with vacation at the end of this month. and so with the chairs support\, we have postponed the hearing until at least August\, and in the meantime\, \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Throughout the course of a July we will once more reach. Try to reach a fair settlement of the case. This time \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: under Greg’s direct guidance and direction\, with the goal of being able to bring a stipulated order back to the for approval as opposed to a contested order\, which is what we brought. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: We’re we’re originally going to bring forward on the thirtieth\, but we didn’t get to the last item. they drink fine. Would like to provide a brief update of the staff’s ongoing work with the city of Sauce Toledo on their e grass. Restoration project. Adrian. \nHmm. \nadrienne klein: thanks\, Matthew. Good morning\, everybody. Happy summer solstice. \nadrienne klein: We. \nadrienne klein: The city of satellite settlement. Agreement requires tertiary briefings 3 per year and we just had a bit of a scheduling error. and we should have brought that forward to you today. We’ll bring it forward to you in August with on the same day that we bring the Rvr. A quarterly update. But I did want you to know that \nadrienne klein: we so this phase that we’re at is that the city has prepared a draft eel grass restoration plan. They submitted a draft in June which we’ve reported to you of last year we gave them a response requesting revisions. \nadrienne klein: We received that revised report on May Fourth\, and have provided comments to the city on the report. They’re getting much closer. The initial draft was not settlement agreement compliant\, and we have sent a copy of the letter to technical Experts and Resource agency colleagues. \nadrienne klein: in compliance with the settlement agreement which requires the city to consult with. those parties for their input \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that’s all I wanted to share. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Marth Matthew\, Adrian. Rebecca Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. I have 2 questions. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: could you explain to us again? And I’m sorry for asking this if it’s been asked before. But what does limited term mean in terms of the hiring position we have. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and my second question has to do with the seaplane matter\, and hopefully\, yes\, it can be resolved. But if it’s not resolved. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  let us know as soon as possible prior to that august meeting\, because\, if I remember\, the materials\, for that matter are voluminous\, and we’ll all need the time to. Really\, you know\, do a deep dive on those materials before that meeting. If we need to resolve it ourselves without a settlement \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: understood. And I will definitely do that. Now\, with with regard to that matter\, and I’ll go in reverse order here. My! The ideal is that if we are able to come with with a stipulated agreement. Then we will bring it to you in August. However\, if not \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: it will probably have to be pushed off of that day\, so that we can dedicate an entire \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: meeting to to hearing these matters so that might push it. They’ll definitely would push it into September or beyond \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can I just intercede here for just a second? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: let’s hope that things work out and you are bringing it to us in August. but we should make a quorum check \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: well in advance of both of the potential August meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: because I suspect that there are some commissioners who are going to have difficulty attending \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: understood? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then the \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a question about what does limited term mean? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: So\, as I understand it\, not being an human resources. Expert. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: it is there. There’s \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of 2 ways that we to 2 tracks to to be hired on at Bcd \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a job opening could either be for a permanent position. Which means that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: you\, you’re hired on your \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: You have a year of probation. Then\, after that you’re considered a permanent employee with all the rights and privileges thereup. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Limited term means that it’s just. It’s a set term. So when you get hired\, you know that you have in this case\, for example\, 18 months worth of work. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of guaranteed to you. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: A at at which time \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: after after it’s virus. Rather. We re-evaluate whether we will continue to offer you employment\, or we can at that time terminate your your employment. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: so I’m wondering. I know we’ve had a lot of difficulty filling this position\, or even getting any interest in this position. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And I’m not sure how the decision is made whether to classify it as a \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: well\, I’ll tell you as an employment later. I never use the term permanent employment\, but I guess with the Civil service. It’s a different matter. But I don’t know how that decision is made\, whether it’s permanent or limited term. But is there any concern that calling it a limited term position discourages \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: interest. \nLarry Goldzband: I’ll let Larry feel that question. He’s popped up. Can his hand is raised\, Larry\, if you want to. fill in good thanks very much. The reason this is a limited term position is because B. C. DC. Is afforded by the department of finance. Only a certain number of permanent employee boxes in our organization charge. \nLarry Goldzband: and the and historically one of the one of the boxes in the organizational chart in enforcement is a limited term box \nLarry Goldzband: and that is because we don’t candidly have the authorization for another permanent box. \nLarry Goldzband: A permanent box costs money\, as you know\, over the life of the box\, and we simply don’t have that authority from the Department of Finance\, and we don’t plan. We don’t assume that we’re ever going to get it for enforcement. One of the things that has happened a lot during the past 3 to 5 years\, when we really strengthen the enforcement program \nLarry Goldzband: is that temporary employees or limited term employees move on in other parts of B. C. DC. To become permanent employees because we do have churn. \nLarry Goldzband: and so\, therefore\, we do have the ability to move people\, and for people to apply to be permanent employees. And then\, as Matthew totally correctly says they go through a year’s probation\, and then they become \nLarry Goldzband: what are called permanent employees by the State of California. \nLarry Goldzband: Yes\, the the answer to your question is\, yes\, it is more difficult\, probably\, to hire a limited term person than a permanent person. because people want to know that they’re going to have a job after a year or 18 months. but we can’t do that \nLarry Goldzband: because we don’t have the box to do it. \nLarry Goldzband: And so we we have this\, we basically have to hope for the best and be able to get somebody. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay. \nLarry Goldzband: just keep trying. Then. \nLarry Goldzband: and \nLarry Goldzband: you know one of the things that that I think\, Matthew. \nLarry Goldzband: explain that I think he did really well\, and that I tried to. We we had a little talk about last Thursday is\, you know\, we do have 8\, 7\, or 8 open positions. It’s everybody in the State is having difficulty filling open positions\, whether they are primitive positions or limited term positions. and I know that that’s happening as well on the local and regional side as well. \nLarry Goldzband: and so I would argue. \nLarry Goldzband: based on no data whatsoever. \nLarry Goldzband: that the difficulty in hiring and filling that temporary box is more due to the pay \nLarry Goldzband: and the competitive nature of that kind of entry level position than it is to the 18 month position\, the 18 month. That’s just me. And I could well be wrong. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, Larry. any other committee questions \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: seeing none. Do any members of the public have comments on the Enforcement report? Rg. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I see. No. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: hey? Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will move on to the next agenda item\, which is a briefing on the Simmons Island Habitat Restoration project by anchor Qe. And they represent the port of Stockton \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at this time with the representative or representatives for anchor. Qa. Please identify themselves for the record. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Hello. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: I’m Lynn Turner. I’m an environmental planner at anchor\, Qa. And as mentioned\, we’re here on behalf of the port of Stockton today. I just want to note that their representatives\, Jeff Wingfield and Jason Cashman\, generally do join us as well on these reports\, but Due to vacations. We are giving the Update this time\, but they they send their apologies\, and then also with me as marine\, I mean. Go ahead. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Good morning. Everyone my name is Marine Va\, I’m also with anchor Qa. Representing the port. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and I will start sharing. Since I will be presenting I I’m just gonna share a screen \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and walk you through the presentation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Atrian\, did you have a few words that you wanted to say before we jumped into their presentation? \nadrienne klein: Sure\, thanks\, Chair Gilmore. \nadrienne klein: Should I provide a background? A\, a one sentence. Summary of the project. And why this? Yeah. Okay\, great. So\, this is \nadrienne klein: one of B Cdc’s oldest cases. So you recall that we were providing you regular updates on the the ones that predated 2\,000 and \nadrienne klein: this is one of the most complicated ones that great progress has been made so essentially the location of the \nadrienne klein: well. I don’t want to take over \nadrienne klein: anchor to his presentation\, but it was dredge material from the port of Stockton. It wasn’t able\, it was. It was allowed and authorized to be placed on this duck club in Solano County\, and \nadrienne klein: was never used for beneficial reuse purposes. And we are now. We now have a proposal to beneficially reuse the remaining material to promote habitat services and benefits on site and we’re getting really close to question of crossing the finish line\, so I can provide more information afterwards. If it’s if it’s required \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: so close. We have been working on this for several years now\, and it’s been very collaborative with the port of Stockton\, the Rich Island Club. a whole stakeholder group\, including so soon resource conservation district representatives from the core. B. C. DC. Adrian has been \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: immensely helpful in our efforts to get to a solution on this. So I’m going to pass it off to marine to give you our update in a little more depth. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Sure. Are you able to see my screen\, or is it that just the is? Is it the Powerpoint? \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Okay\, great\, perfect. So as as we said. the the purpose of this project is to \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): report to the Enforcement Committee about this Simmons Island Habitat Restoration project. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Oh. somehow I’m not able to move to the next slide. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA):  I’m sorry. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): not sure what’s going on. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: No worries. Let me know if you can’t get unstuck\, and I can try \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): the presentation outline will go over brief project backgrounds summary\, and the construction schedule and then go over the requested permits and approval. Status \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): So first the project background summary and construction schedule. So the project is located in Sassoon Marsh \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): on Simmons Island. So basically dredge sediment from the Stockton Deepwater Ship channel. there’s regular dredging. It was placed on. So Simmons Island\, between 1986 and 1996. the Duck Club was not able to use all this dredge material for exterior levy maintenance as it \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): as the content of the the material was too sandy. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): a B Cdc Enforcement Act case was open in 2\,007 \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): but parties were not able to reach an agreement on the design. there’s been renewed efforts for resolving this case in 2\,019 and develop a collaborative solution. And finally\, a design has been agreed upon. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): so the the overall purpose of this project is just to regrade the previously placed material. It is to improve and it expand wetland capabilities and and improve water management capabilities. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): So the applicant is the port of Stockton and the Rich Island Duck Club. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): The project sizes about 30 acres\, and the volume of material to be moved 38\,200 cubic yards. grading activities are \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and dissipated to take about 2 months \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and would happen during summer 2024 in one construction season. So there’s been a small change on the construction schedule\, and this is because \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): all permits haven’t not been received to this point. So construction was slated to a cure in 2\,023. But it’s now moved to summer 2024. And this is because there’s just a small window during which the the project can be can be constructed. so it’s moved to a summer of next year. so \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): this is one construction season\, and it. It is anticipated to take during the drier months. As I was saying\, that the window is is quite small. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): in terms of the requested permits and approval status. So we’ve we’ve gone over this table on the previous meeting a few\, probably 6 months ago. there’s updates on the status of approval from each of the agency. So I’ll go over those right now. So all applications were submitted to the agencies. In September of 2\,022 \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the core permit. It is a nationwide permit. 27 that is anticipated. we had. We’ve had the ongoing discussions with the core project manager\, and recently a side visit was conducted on June fifteenth. This side visit included the confirmation of the Wetland delineation that was prepared for this project. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and the core project manager. agreed with the delination. So we do anticipate. that was kind of the wrapping up item to be it to\, so that the permit would be issued. So we do anticipate that permit to be coming very soon. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): The core also consulted with under Section 7 of the endangered species that it consulted with us fish and wildlife. we got a biological opinion that was issued it on a on May 24 \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): of this year. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and then in terms of section 106\, \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): the core had requested a cultural resources assessment assessment\, and this we submitted the the report on December 23. there’s also a sequel compliance. So California environmental quality at compliance. So the the port was the lead agency for sequel compliance\, and they’ve issued or they they have filed a notice of exemption. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): On June fifteenth \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the water board. We anticipate a section 4\, one water quality started vacation to be issued very shortly. The Application was again submitted. In 22 there was a notice of incomplete application. received on December fifteenth\, we submitted a response letter. On January thirtieth. We also hailed a meeting with both the Water Board and the Cdc. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): On that March first of this year to discuss additional questions they had. So The only out sending item was the notice of exemption filed \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): for the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to issue their permits. that has been\, as I was saying\, in the previous slide that’s been submitted on June fifteenth. So we do anticipate that approval\, coming very soon\, too. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): And this in terms of the B Cdc Mars development permit. similar timeframe as the Water Board so application was submitted in September of last year we submitted a response to B. Cdc’s notice of incomplete letter in December of last year\, and we held the same meeting with the Water Board and DC. DC. On March first \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): to discuss additional questions\, and the B. Cdc. Permit cannot be issued until the \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): they see the water board permit. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): So once we have the water board permit\, we will send that on to the B Cdc. Reviewing team\, and they should issue their permits. not long after that\, we hope. \nand then the last approval is the Delta stewardship consistency\, determination. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): and that was obtained in December 2022. So we’ve been making progress over over the years\, over the years of the month and and over the years\, too\, because there’s been a lot of collaboration to get to this point. so we we do anticipate permits. Come coming very soon. and We will keep \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): you posted as we receive them. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): That concludes my presentation\, and if there are any questions we’d be happy to take them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. This was a a very informative and complete briefing. So do any enforcement committee members have any additional questions either for our our guests or for sa. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and can we stop sharing the screen\, please\, because I can’t see. \nMarine Vie (Anchor QEA): Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Could you just educate me as to what a cultural resources assessment is. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Yeah\, absolutely. so a cultural resources assessment usually is is is under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. And so there’s specific guidelines under which those are issued\, and they look at \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: the potential for encountering any historic\, archaeological or tribal resources in a specific area. So an archaeologist\, and and sometimes other experts in those other areas depending on the risks assess whether there have been \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: previous discovery in a specific area\, and then they’ll they’ll provide that information to the agencies that are asking for it\, and they assess the potential for discovery of any you know\, for an inadvertent discovery to happen during construction. This area is very low risk. Just so\, you know\, I think it’s just sort of a. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: you know. It’s a pretty standard. Check the box. exercise\, and if there is a higher potential\, then we also develop things like more detailed inadvertent discovery plans\, so that \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: there’s a specific set of steps during construction. Were there to be any discoveries \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: regardless\, we have set steps set out. you know\, a lot of the historic and cultural resources are not \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: publicly available information about where they are found for me\, probably for obvious reasons\, so that people don’t go out hunting\, basically. So that information is kept on more \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: professional sites that are accessed by archaeologists and agencies. And so those reports are not usually published. so that we don’t. And you know\, in differently release any information ourselves. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So just so I understand when you’re talking about things that might be inadvertently located. Are you talking about things like burial grounds or artifacts\, or what? \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: if it is an area that maybe had historically had other people’s living there. Then they assess the potential for \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: discovering remains or cultural artifacts or or things like that. so it it’s\, you know\, location specific\, what’s included in that. But again\, this area very low risk\, all of the material that we’re going to be regrading is previously placed dredge material. We’re not going down into the native soils at all. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: All of this is just the dredge material that came out of the Sacramento over deep watership channel. So I’m sorry. The the the the previous judging. So \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: yeah\, I think there’s a very low risk of any inadvertent discovery. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: A and one other question I have\, I know. at B. C. DC\, we have \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: started up a program. I think the acronym is Britt \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to accelerate or to coordinate various efforts to get permits from multiple agencies to streamline the process. I don’t know if this project is eligible for that\, or whether it’s a participant in that program. I’m wondering if you know that. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Oh\, go ahead\, Adrian \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Adrian. \nadrienne klein: Well\, I didn’t mean to pre empty. Lynn. If memory serves we. \nadrienne klein: This may have been under way before Britt existed. Commissioner Eisen and I do believe that we checked with Skylar Olson are Britt. \nadrienne klein: go to person\, and we determined that it wasn’t appropriate. \nadrienne klein: But if you have different information\, please feel free to share. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Yeah\, no\, that that that sounds right\, and we were. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: We were hoping to construct this summer. So I think we just sort of went with the \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: readily available past at that moment. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay? And then I just have one last question on the construction window that you mentioned was very small. What are the constraints on when you can construct that. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Yeah\, there are a few overlapping constraints. Some of them are species related\, and then also\, you know\, remote marine mentioned\, it needs to occur during the dryer months. the other piece of this is that because this is an active duck club\, and most of these adjacent areas in sustain. Marsh\, you know\, are these active duck clubs. So we need to complete before the start of waterfowl season. you know\, all these clubs kinda do \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: construction around the same time\, so that there aren’t risks of people out there hunting at the same time. so I I think it’s it’s book ended by a few things. Some of them are our species windows\, species work windows\, and then some of them are \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: you know\, the timing of when they all fled up to start waterfall season. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, thank you. Thank you for all of that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Do any other commissioners have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we can take public comments on this item\, which is item number 6 on the agenda. \nBut first\, Margie\, have we received any written public comments on this item. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We did not check a little more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Okay. Once again\, 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 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or by phone\, by dialing. Star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself. Margie will then announce you and invite you to comment. Comments are limited to 3 min\, and Margie will keep track of the time\, and this is a request for comments. Only on item 6. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we have any public comment? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s no hands raised. Chail. Gil\, more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, thank you and thank you to the anchor Qa. Team for presenting today and answering our questions. Oh\, I see a hand from Adrian before we end this item. \nadrienne klein: Oh\, thank you. Chair Gilmour. Just \nadrienne klein: since it’s you know\, best. Efforts were made to achieve get all the permits this year. But we were not. That wasn’t possible. \nadrienne klein: There’s one item left to file the BC. DC. Application. That’s the Regional board certification. So the permits will be in place. Well\, in advance of the 2024 summer construction schedule. \nadrienne klein: when would the committee like to hear? Back? maybe through Matthew we could let you know when the be DC. Permit is issued\, and then \nadrienne klein: just\, you know\, get back to\, if any \nadrienne klein: events occur that change the construction schedule and maybe report back through through Matthew when \nadrienne klein: constructions about to start\, and then maybe anchor Q. A. A. Could let you know when the project is completed and how it went. That’s just a proposal. \nadrienne klein: It can be flexible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I I think that makes a lot of sense. what is other committee members think \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it sounds like a good schedule to me. \nadrienne klein: Great. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so so that’s a go. Thank you. Everyone. \nLynn Turner\, Anchor QEA: Thank you for having us. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we are on our last item\, item 7\, which is a briefing to the Committee on Regulations. Addressing late submitted evidence \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Assistant Attorney General Sherry Posner will now present to the Committee the applicable regulations of Title 14. Division 5\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: chapter 13\, of the California Code of Regulations that address the handling and consideration of late submitted evidence at Enforcement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I just want to say\, thank you. Sherry\, for putting this together and take it away. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. Can everyone hear me? Okay. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: okay\, I assume we can. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This is Sherry Posner from the Attorney General’s office. just minor correction. Not that it’s a big deal\, but maybe it’s a sounds a Tad\, like a promotion. I’m not an Assistant Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General\, of which there are many many of us. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and I just want to thank Staff up front particular Matthew who helped put the slides together for me because I am My \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: powerpoint skills are primitive \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and which really translates to non-existent \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  And I just want to say good morning to everyone who is in attendance. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  just do a little preface. I’m here today just to go over the the rules that apply to the Enforcement Committee’s determination to accept late evidence. Late submitted evidence when there’s an enforcement hearing. There are a lot of other \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: nuanced rules in the regulations regarding hearings that involve other kinds of evidence. I’m not going to be covering that today \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not going to focus on the timing of the submittal. There are an infinite number of situations that could probably come up \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So we’re not really going to be talking about hypotheticals or actual cases that have been will be our before the Enforcement Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so I’m just going to be working from the general premise that that anything submitted \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: after the staff prepares its violation\, report and complaint. and the statement of defense forms which the respondent provides. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: completed and submitted\, and with the idea being that those could potentially be late unless some other rule applies. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and then\, if they are untimely\, how they’re handled. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So one of the things I think that kind of\, and I’ll ask Matthew to go to the next slide. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I think the question may be in everyone’s mind. Why is this important? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Well\, because section 1\, 1\, 327 J. Which is up on the screen\, provides that is part of the hearing process. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The Enforcement Committee shall rule on any objections to the admissibility of any evidence or the acceptance of late evidence. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The Committee is also responsible to identify any evidence submitted\, but rejected because it was not filed in a timely manner. For example\, if someone’s statement of defense is late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: or it otherwise violates the rule regarding the acceptance of late evidence. It doesn’t satisfy the criteria of being accepted as late evidence. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  there is also a requirement next slide \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: 1\, 1\, 3\, 2\, 4\, which is the provision that relates to the material being distributed before the enforcement. Hearing \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that provides that if there is anything that is submitted with a statement\, a defense form that has been filed in an untimely fashion. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: It should be noted when the materials are distributed. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So I. I just wanted to point that out as well. so let’s go to the next slide. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This is the the\, the the croc city issue. So what should the Enforcement Committee consider in determining whether to accept light evidence? For that we look to Section 1\, 1\, 328 of the regulations? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This section provides that the Enforcement Committee shall not accept \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: any statement of the defense form or any written evidence not filed in a timely manner. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: unless one\, the person seeking to introduce the evidence\, made all reasonable efforts to obtain and submit the evidence in a timely manner. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: but was unable to do so\, and would be substantially prejudiced if the evidence were not admitted. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and then to the second point\, no other party would suffer substantial prejudice by its admission. So\, when faced with evidence \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that could be that is\, untimely and someone it wants it to be admitted into the record. And there is an objection. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The committee needs to look at these factors. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: they might need to ask the individual or party submitting the evidence to provide some at least background information \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to satisfy one\, and whoever is opposing the evidence to satisfy to or there \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and it. But but basically it’s a pretty narrow set of criteria. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: And then the the the last component that I wanted to just go over is who has the final say on the acceptance of \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: material that is later on timely to determine whether or not\, it can be accepted under the criteria of 11328\, and that’s you. The Enforcement Committee\, under 11\,329 next slide\, please. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: As Section D says\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee or the Enforcement Committee here shall have the final authority to determine whether any evidence whose admissibility is challenged by objection\, shall be admitted into evidence and become part of the record. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that’s why there\, we’ve had situations where this has come up and chair? Gilmour asks. You know there’s a there’s a discussion\, and after those deliberations there’s a motion \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: we need a clear record at the end of day\, of what evidence is or is not in the record. And if there is untimely evidence\, there needs to be the determination of whether or not whether or not it’s going to be accepted under 11\,328. So it’s clear for that record. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: now\, I will say \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that kind of brings us back to the first section I was talking about. But but what I wanted to say is\, there are some\, and I don’t think exceptions is quite the right word\, but there are some situations in which \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the regulations indicate that evidence\, for example\, would not be \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: considered like meeting. It wouldn’t fall under the rubric of your having to make a determination under 11 3 to 8\, and I’ll give you a couple examples under the rules. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Let’s say\, in the statement of defense. So Staff has already submitted its violation\, reporting complaint\, and a statement of defense comes in with a declaration of a potential witness. If staff wants to cross-examine that person who submitted the declaration staff. Can that can be noted? And the fact that that’s happening after the staff violation reporting complaint is done is not a situation in which the the cross-examination that comes in is considered late in any way. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Another example would be\, there is the executive director has the discretion under 1\, 1\, 3 to 2 F. To extend the time for someone to submit their statement of defense. So if they’ve gotten that kind of extension\, then the statement of defense is not late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Anything they submit with it is not like \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Another example would be under 1\, 1\, 3\, 2 7 f. And I think\, Matthew\, we have that one if you want to turn to it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: This actually relates to oral testimony. So it’s not written evidence\, but it is called out in the section on late evidence\, and that basically says that if in the hearing the committee decides\, it needs oral testimony \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: because it’s essential to resolve an unresolved factual issue\, that oral testimony would not be considered late evidence. And finally\, if \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the if there’s any desire to cross-examine A declarant or a declaration provided by Staff as part of its violation report. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: If that’s indicated that the statement of defense\, that cross-examination at the hearing that would not be considered late evidence either. So those are some things that the rules sort of point out.  so I mean\, that’s that’s \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: pretty much my presentation. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m happy to answer any questions. Obviously I can’t really respond to hypotheticals again\, like I said in the beginning\, I can’t respond to cases that have been before us or are before us. I have some limitations on what kind of advice I can obviously give \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of retaining privileges with the committee\, but that being said\, I’m happy to discuss any of the rules that we put up\, and I can have Matthew back on the slides. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. Sherry for the presentation. And he one of the questions that I had I’m not going to speak for everybody else. Is that for those of us who come from a A A non BC\, DC world. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  if something is late\, it’s just late and it doesn’t get considered. So one of my big questions going into this was When we got the record from staff There were occasions when we saw exhibits marked as late submissions\, but we still saw them. So this explains why we saw them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Because\, like\, I said\, I’m coming from a different \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  arena\, where\, if something is late\, it’s just late\, and and the body just doesn’t see it or it. It isn’t accepted. So I wanted an answer to that question. So I think maybe that kind of started the ball rolling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I see Commissioner Vasquez with his hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: so that would mean that we’d have to at least hear it before we decide whether we can \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: accept it. Yeah\, how do? How do we? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: If I think I’m sorry? Go ahead. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not. And when you say here it you mean the case\, or or here quote the evidence\, or or more often than not\, it’s actually written evidence\, and and yes\, I mean \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to a certain extent you do have to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: look at it to determine whether or not it might meet the criteria under 11\,328\, and I do believe that the committee could ask again questions like what we might call in courtroom and offer a proof like. Why was it submitted late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: or\, you know\, doesn’t meet any of these criteria. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Why wasn’t it submitted before? Were you unable to split it before?  Would it be substantially prejudicial? But I mean \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: hearing it. I don’t believe that it needs to be the determination about whether or not it’s part of the record would be done before you deliberate. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and and then you would be deliberating on what is in the record. But there’s no way to avoid \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the the the need to at least assess it on a superficial level for lack of a better word. That’s probably not the right word\, but on an evidentiary level to determine whether or not it comes in under the the rule under the 11 3 to 8 rule\, and and that does happen in in regular court\, and and in what these are which are quasi judicial hearings where people are concerned about\, we call ringing the bell\, but it does happen where information is presented and someone objects\, or it has to be determined upfront whether or not it even comes in \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: because I think in this instance it’s not just about an objection. It’s late evidence. There needs to be a determination whether or not it’s part of the record regardless.  So I hope that answers your question. I I think that there’s just no way to to avoid that. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: it’s just part of the process. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, so\, Sherry\, I’m a little confused. I was trying to read those sections as fast as I could while you were presenting. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: but I thought I read that the determination as to whether the evidence is late. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and therefore the determination as to whether or not they could have reasonably found it\, and whether it’s prejudicial \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is made by the chair of the committee\, not by the committee itself\, and not necessarily in a public hearing. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So that’s what I was wondering if. if you know there’s the complaint. There’s the response. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and then the staff\, I assume\, quote objects \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to the late filed evidence. and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I don’t know if the staff then asks for a \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: a statement as to why they couldn’t have presented it earlier\, and whether it’s whether why it’s not prejudicial. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And then Marie could decide it before we ever hear that matter\, and then what would be posted \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: on the public? you know\, the materials that would be posted would simply be whatever. has been concluded by our chair. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it would be the complaint\, the defense\, and if she decides that they’ve met the criteria\, the late evidence. But if she decides that they haven’t\, we’d never see that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: as a body. so \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I could be totally wrong\, and how I read that so quickly. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: But the impression I got is that that is exclusively the province of the chair to decide. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  So I’m I’m happy to respond. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yeah. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I if you\, we and Matt\, you could put up the slides again if that helps \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  So the first slide I mean this is where I think it all starts is the is 1\, 1\, 3\, 2\, 7 j. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: And that is that part of the hearing procedure is that the committee or the Commission well\, in this case is the committee\, because we have a committee. She’ll rule on any objections to the admissibility or the acceptance of late evidence. And then\, Matthew\, I’m sorry to make you jump. But can you go to 11\, 3\, 2\, 9\, \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and that’s where it says the chair or the Enforcement Committee? She’ll have the final authority\, determine whether any evidence \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: challenge. Now\, again. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: you know these regulations. You you have to kind of take them in as a whole.  that refers to a evidence that is objected to. But I still believe that when you read that in combination with 11327 J. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: It’s referring to any evidentiary issues\, and one of those could be \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the submission of late evidence. Going back\, Matthew\, to 11328. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I believe that if evidence is late. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not even sure there has to be an objection. It has to be determined whether or not it comes into the record. And that’s where these determinations are considered. This criteria is considered by the Enforcement Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and I do think again\, it may require\, it may be on the face of the information that it’s you’re able to tell that. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  it doesn’t meet these criteria\, or particularly the first criteria\, but it might require asking questions. I think every situation would be different. But it’s my reading of the regulations that this this all happens as part of the hearing\, because obviously any objections or \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: argument in favor or against the evidence being admitted as late evidence\, because it satisfies in the committee’s determination. The rule has to be part of the record. The official record. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, can you go to the slide just immediately before this? Because I thought it said. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not sure. I mean\, I’ve been jumping around in the slides because I know where they are. But are you referring to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the one. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the very first one Enforcement Committee chair? It? Says the the oh\, I’m sorry. That’s it\, says the chair or the Enforcement Committee chair. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Right? Oh\, I see what you’re saying. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The enforcement right here\, not the committee\, the chair of the committee \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: right? Right? The final authority. Well\, I guess that that would be. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I care what you’re saying on that. I I guess I I was reading it in cut tandem with J\, \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: which talks about the Enforcement Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so that’s that’s why I was reading it as something that’s typically made as a decision by the Committee. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  Hmm. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: yeah\, that’s a that that seems kind of contradictory. So because I was sort of envisioning when I saw Enforcement committee chair \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: that the chair\, before we have a record or a hearing\, would have made that determination\, and then we would. It would either be part of the record that we would consider or wouldn’t depending on her\, her decision. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Well\, I think I’m I’m pretty clear on the fact that that unfortunately that can’t happen because of the otherwise there’d be no record And and the person who ultimately\, if someone were to challenge the enforcement. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the ultimate decision in the case\, because obviously it goes from the Enforcement Committee to the Commission. But if there’s any sort of legal challenge there’d be no record. And it’s and to me that \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: this is a public hearing process. So again\, looking at these rules in total in context\, that’s my understanding of the of the way it’s been done\, and and I believe it’s the way it should be done. you know\, kind of have to work with these regulations. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: like anything else. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so I I was reading those 2\, 11\, 3\, 2\, 9 and 11\, 3\, 2\, 7 together. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I I also noticed that in this 11 \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I mean\, all of this section of the code is applicable to public hearings right \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to enforcement hearings \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to enforcement here. And so I also notice that in 11\, 3\, 2\, 9\, e. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: It says\, in determining whether to admit testimony or exhibits over objection. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the chair or the Enforcement Committee chair shall consult with you. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Well\, I believe that again I the way I read the late evidence rule is\, I’m not sure it requires an objection. If the evidence is late or untimely. There needs to be determination about whether it comes in. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: In the broader context\, there could be objections to other evidence. But that being said\, \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: if there’s a need to consult with with the Attorney General during a live hearing\, obviously for legal advice that can’t be done. So there could be a hypothetical situation where the hearing would have to be continued. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: there would have to be a closed session. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: And then you know that hearing could continue after that closed session. obviously\, if the consultation is just saying. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: what should we do here? I can \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: always provide the advice that you can ask for that offer approved from the person who wants this late evidence in \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: ask some questions. Why is it being submitted now? Why wasn’t it submitted before \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: those kinds of things? I? I don’t think that would be advice in a public forum\, but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: beyond that that kind of consultation\, I don’t think could happen at the open hearing. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The enforcement chair shall consult with the deputy Attorney General. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Right? But that’s into the over objection. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So late. Evidence in itself is not. There’s not necessarily there’s there may not. It doesn’t have to. The objection isn’t the issue. The issue is\, it’s late. So we’re making that determination. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, can I just jump in here for a minute. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sure. so I I think the thing that we are forgetting\, and before we go too far down this rabbit hole \nis that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the decision\, whether or not to let in late evidence has got to be done on the record to provide the respondents the opportunity to challenge that at a later date\, if they so wish to right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So if you read \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all of these regulations together\, you come to the conclusion that you have to do this in public so that they can challenge it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You can’t. I can’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in consultation with Sherry off the record\, come to a decision as to whether or not. This evidence is late. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: then come to an open public hearing and say\, Oh\, I’ve determined the evidence is late. Let’s move on\, because that gives the respondents \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: nothing to challenge. I mean\, there\, there’s there’s no record there as to why the the evidence was not submitted. I was not submitted into the right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I think I think that’s the the overall thing that we need to keep in mind is is what’s on the record for going forward. And also\, the other thing is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Whatever determination we make gets moved to the full commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: they need to have an understanding of why we came to the decision that we did as to whether or not to let in this late submitted evidence. And if it’s just me saying on the record\, no\, it’s it’s it’s not it. Move on. There’s no. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: there’s nothing there for them to to consider. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think Brent has \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that that that that \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I appreciate your Gilmore pointing that out. and that’s an excellent point. again\, you know\, it’s really about having the the full record. there again\, there are instances when the record is \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: pretty clear on its face\, and I I recall incidents in some instances where Chair Gilmore and in the past other chairs we’re able to upfront. Say. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: make a comment\, and obviously everyone had an opportunity to respond to that. So you know it. Sometimes it doesn’t take a lot to make that determination\, and there isn’t a lot of back and forth with the parties\, because it’s clear on the face of the information. But again\, everything has to be taken \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: on a case by case basis\, and we have to look at the regulations in total to make sure that we’re \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: following the the hearing procedures and providing fair hearing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Brent. \nBrent Plater: I’m wondering if it might be of benefit to try and not make this excuse me in either or So \nBrent Plater: we we\, I think we generally see a couple of kinds of late submitted evidence. There’s the kind of late submitted evidence that comes\, you know\, days\, or even weeks before the hearing. And there’s other kinds where it’s just presented the night before\, or even during a hearing\, perhaps for the instances where we have at least\, you know\, several days to consider the late submitted evidence. \nBrent Plater: There might be an opportunity for the Chair to consult with the Attorney General on those kinds of submissions\, and just get a sense\, if there’s any evidence along with the submission to determine if there is criteria worth the committee evaluating as a whole \nBrent Plater: about their admissibility of that late submitted evidence. while still retaining the vote on the public and not just making it solely during that consultation process that might happen at the end. That might also provide the Attorney General with the ability to have a closer look at the the submission as a whole so that \nBrent Plater: the committee doesn’t necessarily have to put itself in this bind where it has to read the evidence to understand if any of the criteria apply for admitting these late submissions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We have Larry\, Larry. I I’m I’m gonna noodle on that one rent\, Larry. \nLarry Goldzband: I I I I only want to ask one question really of sharing \nLarry Goldzband:  it goes to what \nLarry Goldzband: Commissioner Eisen was asking about? Essentially the ruling of the chair. \nLarry Goldzband: Is it the case that \nLarry Goldzband: the enforcement. A member of the Enforcement Committee could always appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that the committee vote on that issue. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Yes\, I mean\, I think so. I mean I \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: yes\, I believe that’s true\, and I don’t think there’s any reason why the chair can’t ask for everybody’s opinion on it\, even if theoretically\, the chair could all could make it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the answer to the question is\, yes\, and I think that’s what we have done in the past \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right\, and we’ve come to some sort of a a consensus that yes\, this is coming in or no\, this isn’t coming in And have moved forward on on that basis. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: thank you. I I believe there’s a need to give a little more clarity to the committee here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: kind of about\, you know\, since these questions are a bit about process\, I just want to clarify that when it comes to the regulations \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: 11\, 3\, 2\, 8 is really the only one that talks about actual late evidence and how it’s dealt with. However. because I I believe that what I’m hearing is this this idea that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: maybe 11\, 3 to 9 applies only to late evidence. It actually doesn’t. This is admissibility of evidence\, generally speaking. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and specifically to Commissioner Eisen\, D. And E are specifically to speaking to evidence whose admissibility is challenged. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then he is. If the chair decides over objection that. Well\, yes\, I heard it the objection of say\, staff\, or responded\, But I’m still gonna admit the evidence \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: before doing so. Sh! The chair would consult with the Deputy attorney\, deputy attorney General. But again\, admissibility of evidence. Generally speaking\, now\, we don’t usually follow this specific step. What we do is we. We generally tend to throughout the process. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: admit all evidence. We bring it. We we we invite\, you know\, evidence supported or brought in by the statement of defense evidence brought in or accompanying the notice of violation. Even stuff submitted late. We bring it in and we don’t generally object to it unless there’s a need \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: But if there was a need\, this is\, that’s when this these 2 I need to object that when these 2 provisions would apply. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I hope that I will say Matthew again. Thank you for that clarification. I think that’s correct\, I mean\, and I I apologize if I created any confusion. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in that I again\, 11329\, is about admissibility and objections. The determination about whether or not evidence that is late or is late submitted\, needs to whether it comes in. That’s an independent issue \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: without an objection having been made. There has to be a determination of whether or not it’s going to be part of the record. someone could make an objection if the determination is that it becomes part of the record and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: or and doesn’t like that\, or vice versa. And then we get into 11329. So I apologize if I made that confusing because I really wanted to focus just on \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: late evidence. there might be a point of time where it might be good to have an overall presentation about. you know\, different aspects of the enforcement hearing process. this is just one little snapshot on one issue. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, I I would agree with that\, especially since\, and and not just for us. But I think it would be useful for the entire Commission\, since we have so many new Commissioners. Sanjay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: actually Commissioner as in first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry that that’s fine. I I I’d like to hear from Sanjay\, because I’m still kind of \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: getting my thought. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: thanks. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I appreciate it. You. You bring this to our attention and helping explain it for us. So so appreciate that. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: The the rule is stated. There is that light submitted evidence is inadmissible \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: right? And then there is an exception to the rule\, which is what we’re talking about. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  I hope that it it’s an opportunity to also make the parties the respondents aware of this rule. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Right? They they should have a very clear understanding that late submitted evidence is not going to be admitted. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: So get your materials together and get it in on time. We’re serious about these deadlines. Yes\, this \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: code section provides for a limited exception. If these circumstances are met. that’s an exception. So \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I feel like we could spend a fair amount of time continue to discuss this\, but as a practical matter. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I I wanna I I think it’s an opportunity to also\, in the process of educating respondents about our procedures\, and some are more sophisticated with\, you know\, more experience counsel than others \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that especially if they’re not represented by Council\, who are experience practicing for us\, that we remind them of these rules so that they can do their best to to get their materials in and comply with the the rules that blind everybody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sanjay\, I think that’s a really good point\, because I’ve had some conversations where one of my biggest concerns is having the exception swallow the rule. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And if that ends up happening. Then what’s the point of having the rule saying that you know you can’t submit late evidence. So that’s a yes\, I totally agree with you\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, so it’s coming into focus. Better for me. So what I was originally concerned about\, and my first question was going to be. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: how do the respondents \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: object or appeal from a decision by the chair that their late evidence can’t come in. And now you’re saying that that’s not the issue\, because it will. The decision about the late evidence will be on the record. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the chair will have consulted with Council of Need be\, and that’s what they would respond to\, but at to Sanjay’s excellent point\, I think\, since we’re gonna see this late evidence. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I thought initially that maybe the rule was there so that we didn’t ever have to see this late evidence. Which could\, you know by us in our decision? but if we’re gonna see it. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The respondents should know that the only thing we want to hear from them \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is why they didn’t find it earlier. And \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: why isn’t there prejudice to bringing it in. Now\, that’s all. We don’t want to hear any argument about how important it is\, etc. We just want to know why they didn’t bring it to a sooner. And why isn’t it prejudicial? And \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So then\, you know\, that’s the record that they can appeal from if they want to. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: well\, that’s exactly right. And I think that goes back to Sherry’s comment about that being the offer of proof. Yeah\, okay\, so I don’t know \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry before John. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Oh. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Maria\, I I think you’re correct. I think we should have a presentation to the rest of the Commission\, so they understand the processes we’re going through. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: because I remember we had one that came back to us 3 times\, because \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the the \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the individual went and spoke to the entire commission\, and and got a little bit of sympathy from them. And so it came back and forth\, and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I think if we can better state why it that we didn’t hear that evidence\, or that it wasn’t presented. And as \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I was stated earlier\, you know\, this sophistication of some of the folks that are coming \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: may not be as good as others. So making that plea to the entire Commission \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: 10 following \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: years that are sympathetic towards that that particular individual. So I I think the better we can state our case. We are us being the Co. The Enforcement Committee to say\, Here’s the procedure that went through. Here’s the things. Here’s the determination. Yes\, sir. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: it was submitted late\, and we reviewed it\, but it didn’t. I shouldn’t say it wouldn’t change our minds\, but Certainly didn’t add any more to the case. But I I think the rest of the commissioners\, knowing that how this\, how this part of the \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The Cdc works is important\, because \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that one we heard 3 times ended up being the same decision 3 times \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right? Right? and I think\, also the the corollary to that\, not not talking about evidence. But if there is a case presented before the Enforcement Committee\, and we\, as Enforcement Commissioners have a hard time following it. Then that means\, in my opinion\, that the Commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: is going to have an even greater difficulty following it. So I I think we’re kind of the you know the canary. I don’t want to say in the coal mine\, but yeah\, share it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to make. I I’m not sure. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that terrorizing that you you stated it wrong. I just want to make sure that it’s clear that the offer is on the side of prejudice. It’s sort of 2 sides. The person presenting the evidence who definitely has to explain \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that they need all reasonable efforts to get it in before\, and we’re unable to do so. They get to make an argument as to why it would be substantially prejudicial if the evidence were not admitted. and and and then anyone\, the on any other party\, would have the opportunity to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: explain why they would to stop\, suffer substantial prejudice. If it isn’t so it’s like a balancing\, basically on that on that particular issue. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: But and I. And again\, I wanna I wanna \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: say that the the that I think the way to look at this I was trying to use avoid using the word exceptions in large part\, just because sometimes it’s they’re baked into statues\, but I think\, describing this as saying that yes\, this evidence is late\, and the exception is bringing in is a really tapped and perfect way of sort of describing it. and then baked within this are provisions that I explained before that say\, okay. If it’s\, for example\, a situation where you all need oral testimony. Then that’s \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: baked into 11328. That’s not considered late because you’d made the determination based on the issues before you\, that there’s unresolved facts\, and you need that. So there’s a lot of layers to it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  I think generally. Again\, you know\, a presentation may be on in general about the enforcement here \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: process the formal \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: process\, and and how the you know hearings go to the full Commission would be helpful\, because again\, they’d have some more appreciation for all the nuances that the committee is dealing with and the 2 terminations it makes\, because technically\, when it goes to the full Commission. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: they’re not supposed to reway any of these things. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and there are a lot of new. I believe. I I can’t keep track a lot of new commissioners. \nYeah\, yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  going back to a point that I think Sanjay made about \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know\, respondents filing their statement of defense. And and whether or not. They have experienced attorneys used to deal with BC. DC. Question for staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: When we send out the violation report and we send out the the form that they’re supposed to fill out with the statement of defense. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we send out with that? any of these regulations dealing with evidence? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I mean is that part of the package? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all the regulations\, or just \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: the part dealing with evidence\, because the Chapter Chapter 13\, which is the enforcement \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Po. regulations. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: so that the evidentiary or the evidence and late evidence regulations are included in that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that both \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: excellent Larry. \nLarry Goldzband: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. 2 things. Number one. \nLarry Goldzband: Happy to put on the commission agenda a review of what I will call the enforcement process\, the lack of a better term \nLarry Goldzband: and We’ll work with Greg and Matthew to figure out when the best time for that is. \nLarry Goldzband: I think that will depend to some extent on number one. \nLarry Goldzband: What cases the Enforcement Committee for sees coming to it\, and when. \nLarry Goldzband: and number 2\, \nLarry Goldzband: knowing that July and August is vacation time for many folks\, you know. Perhaps September would be the best time. But I I want to make sure that we don’t. \nLarry Goldzband: that that that we don’t put ourselves in a bind by doing it too late. So we’ll need to work with Matthew and Greg on that timing. \nLarry Goldzband: My recommendation. And this is the second thing for that that presentation \nLarry Goldzband: is to. And I know you don’t like hypothetical cases. \nLarry Goldzband: not to use a hypothetical case as a case. but simply go chronologically about how the enforcement process works \nLarry Goldzband: and literally starting\, probably Matthew with\, You know the the the call that I get on Saturday afternoon that something is wrong that I then send to Matthew on. You know it. It’s literally starting\, then\, going through the process that you all use to develop case \nLarry Goldzband: going through the process that you use to determine \nLarry Goldzband: the validity of a case. And then what the Commission’s role is \nLarry Goldzband: I I I think\, doing it chronologically\, is probably the best way to do it. \nLarry Goldzband: And I don’t think that you have to get into this kind of discussion that you just had today. I think what you can do is say with regard to evidence. Here is how the Enforcement Committee looks at evidence\, and here is what the Commission can and cannot do with it. I don’t think you want to necessarily get in the weeds\, but I think you want to simply be able to say\, You know\, here’s the process we use. \nLarry Goldzband: So this is literally off \nLarry Goldzband: the top of my head. and and as you all know\, there’s nothing else on the top of my head\, so there’s nothing filtering it whatsoever. \nLarry Goldzband: But it is something that we’re happy to do\, and that I think that Matthew\, you and Greg\, as you develop it\, probably need to make sure that you develop it with members of the Enforcement Committee\, so that you all have a chance to discuss it and see it and make your comments and edit to your heart’s content before it goes to the Commission. \nLarry Goldzband: Happy to talk about this at any time\, of course. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Larry Sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to also point out\, and staff. If I get this wrong\, please correct me. But going back to the question that Sanjay raise\, and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Rebecca raised about the other side. Knowing what these rules are and what’s provided to them. appendix\, I is the statement of defense form in the regulations. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and there is a lot of stuff in capital letters at the top of that. I believe that form in that format is provided to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the respondent \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and in the very first big block capital of paragraph at the bottom\, it says that fairly. It talks about me providing the materials \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to the commission and staff\, and doing it in a timely way\, unless\, of course\, they have some extension\, and it says that \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: you will wave the opportunity to raise any defense or mitigating factors\, or to introduce any evidence that the Enforcement Committee\, your Commission can refuse to consider it\, and and any statements and evidence that you submit at a later date. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So there is that preface at the beginning of Appendix. I mean again it. You know we know from experience. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: People do\, anyway\, submit light evidence. And and as a result. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the committee has to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: make the determination about whether or not it comes in. But that being said I always thought that was a a powerful statement to that\, said Appendix. I \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you’re muted \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: hopefully. for all of your sakes. This is my last question. But so\, assuming as that has happened a couple of times in the past\, where this late evidence is \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is part of the record that we’re looking at\, and the fact that it is late evidence is part of the record that we’re looking at once we get to the hearing \nthat what \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: are we going to take that up at the very first of the hearing? You know they have tried to present late evidence\, and then \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: have them try to demonstrate to us in the hearing that they did everything they could to get it in earlier\, etc. And then we have \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: what? A motion or something to rule on that question\, and then we go forward. After that. Ha! How to? Exactly will that work? Or maybe it will be different case by case. But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: well\, you want me to take that sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I I was\, I would say yes\, I mean I feel like that. Ha! That has been how you chair Gil More\, have handled it. trying to decide upfront what is before us? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah. Because I remember we had \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a while ago. A very long discussion about late submitted evidence\, and I think it was one of the first times that it had been submitted to this committee so generally\, that’s the first thing that we would make a determination on And typically. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I haven’t asked for a motion because we’ve been able to come to consensus on it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But if for the record to be clear\, I need to do that\, then I’m happy to do that but I I I am very clear. I try to be very clear as to whether or not it’s coming in or not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any other questions from Commissioners. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, correct \nBrent Plater: not a question. Just wanted to summarize some of the instruction that I’m hearing to make this process a little easier on the committee members. If that’s okay. \nBrent Plater: So the the first thing I think I’m understanding is that you are not expecting us to raise an objection to late submitted evidence\, because the default rule is that anything that is late will not be included\, and instead that we’ll be moving on to evaluating the object. The the evidence\, the respond is submitting to demonstrate why an exception should be provided. \nBrent Plater: Just wanted to make sure. That’s clear. You’re not expecting to do that for \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that’s my understanding. \nBrent Plater: I that’s what I’m hearing as well. \nBrent Plater: The the other question I will. The other question I have is about how you’d like us to proceed is that sometimes there are late submissions\, or even\, you know\, arguments that are being presented for the first time at the hearing. And I wanted to know\, and I did. That would essentially fall on me to provide some objection on the record to those statements or arguments that have been heard. I just wanted to kind of how you’d like me to do that if you’d like me to do that like \nBrent Plater: as the as arguments being presented. Do you want me to \nBrent Plater: wait until you calling us to? Then object? \nBrent Plater: If you have a you don’t have to answer this right now\, but just to consider how you might like that to to occur if it were to help \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right off the top of my head \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: is that if the respondent starts making some sort of oral argument\, or gets into an oral discussion about evidence that Staff has not seen or heard before. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would like to know that sooner rather than later \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: because I would prefer to stop the respondent and have a discussion as to why this was not presented earlier\, and and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then have the committee make a determination as to whether or not this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: new verbal evidence can come in \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then we kind of proceed\, based on \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: whatever happens at that point in time. I just. I just don’t want to get so far down the road. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The respondent has been speaking for 10 min. It’s now part of the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then we go back and say\, Oh\, no! Disregard all of this\, for whatever reason. So that’s kind of my preference\, and you know we’ll find tune it because every case is different. \nDoes that? Does that help? \nBrent Plater: Yes\, yes\, that’s helpful. So I I can raise my hand\, or something at the very least\, and give you the opportunity to interrupt and call on me\, or\, you know\, take it as a case by case in that way. \nBrent Plater: Okay\, that makes sense to me. And then the last thing just wanted to get some clarification on is this idea of prejudice? because there’s a couple of ways that we could be thinking about it over here. So\, for example\, if we get a late submission that demonstrates that there is not a violation whatsoever. \nBrent Plater: It was just a fact that was overlooked until the last moment. you know\, I I think we have some obligation to to end the prosecution once we have that evidence in front of us. \nBrent Plater: the thing that might be difficult is that if we get that information. You know the day of the hearing. and often\, you know\, sometimes\, especially in the heat of the moment\, some fact that you did not know about before had not been presented before\, seems more damning than it is. If you have to look at it in the in that instant. \nBrent Plater: rather than have some time to reflect on it\, so you know I would almost\, you know. One way I think about the prejudice is that if it would require us to delay the proceeding in order to evaluate it. \nBrent Plater: Well\, that’s almost a type of prejudice in and of itself\, and that what should happen perhaps at that moment is that the committee continues through its deliberations\, and then staff then has some obligation to review before it goes to the full committee a full commission to determine if that you know \nBrent Plater: this positive evidence. it means the prosecution needs to be ended. \nBrent Plater: Something like that. I’m just trying to sort of imagine the you know how we just functionally address these cases where some\, you know\, there’s \nBrent Plater: some amount of prejudice is really just about not having a chance to evaluate. There’s another form of prejudice\, whereas\, like you’re going to lose your case\, and you should lose your case if this comes in and trying to make sure we have\, like different ways to address those 2 different kinds of of evidence. \nI \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t have a response for you on that right now I think you bring up valid points. But once again\, everything is sort of a case by case \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: basis. And I think this is something that we are going to have to work through committee on and staff \non a case by case basis\, because right now\, I don’t think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we’ve had something like that happen frequently enough that we have enough data to be able to determine\, you know. Let’s do this. Let’s do that. so I I think we should all keep it in the back of our minds\, and then just \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: kind of see how it plays out. That’s\, you know. \nBrent Plater: that makes sense to me\, and I think Sherry will tell you. I just tend to worry about these things endlessly\, for not a lot of reason\, even though they never come up so I take that with a it’s a good reinforcement of the message. I appreciate it. Well\, you’re a lawyer\, that’s what we do. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, any other committee comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So we are going to take public comments on this item\, which is Number 7 on the agenda. And Margie\, have we received any written comments on this? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We did not. Ch\, though more \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. And are there any hands raised by the public? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No hands raised? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  so do any enforcement committee members have any final comments or questions. \nOkay\, I just want to. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thanks\, sherry for this presentation. And I want to thank staff. I thought this and committee members. I thought this was a really good and a very productive discussion. and hopefully it has provided some guidance for us as as we move forward. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And answered the questions that you have as of the moment. But I thought it was a job really well done\, and I thought it was a really great example of working collaboratively. So thank you\, everybody. your thoughts and comments were very much appreciated. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? And so with that I’m looking for a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Everybody\, I was. Gonna say\, don’t everybody talk at once? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Moved by Eisen\, seconded by Vasquez. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. Thank you\, everybody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We are adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-21-2023-enforcement/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230615T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230615T170000
DTSTAMP:20240127T022513Z
CREATED:20230616T010511Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240127T022513Z
UID:10000039-1686834000-1686848400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 15\, 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. \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/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \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 (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of June 1\, 2023 Meeting(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive DirectorApproval of Undergraduate Interns (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on Kilroy Oyster Point Life Sciences Complex\, in the City of South San Francisco\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2022.003.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by KR Oyster Point III\, LLC\, to develop an approximately 27-acre Life Sciences Office Campus\, including a waterfront park\, at 385 Oyster Point Boulevard\, in the City of South San Francisco\, San Mateo County.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)  // Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273 – CANCELLEDThe Commission will consider and potentially take positions on pending legislation\, including Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov\nBriefing on BCDC Hiring/ReorganizingBCDC Human Resources staff will give a presentation and provide a briefing with a 10 year overview of BCDC’s positions.(Anu Ragunathan) [415/352-3639; anu.ragunathan@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff 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 \nApplicant \nCity of Millbrae621 Magnolia AvenueMillbrae\, CA 94030 \nPermit Application No.M2022.027.00; Millbrae Nearshore Outfall Restoration \nFiled on 06/05/23 \n90th Day on 09/04/23 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s Bay and Shoreline Band jurisdictions\, at 2-198/1-99 Old Bayshore Highway\, at the intersection of Millbrae Avenue and Old Bayshore Highway in the City of Millbrae\, San Mateo County. \nDescription \nTo restore an existing but unused nearshore outfall to provide emergency discharge capability for the Millbrae Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP)\, by (1) replacing the existing 24-inch outfall pipe with one 26-inch-diameter outfall pipe and one 16-inch storm drain pipe; (2) removing the existing creosote-treated wooden outfall structure and installing an elevated\, pile-supported outfall structure constructed of High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) with fiberglass supports; (3) constructing an outfall apron with approximately 15 cubic yards (200 square feet) of rock slope protection fabric and 6-inch-diameter rock riprap; and (4) temporarily excavating approximately 400 cubic yards of soil for a 95-foot-long\, 10-foot-wide\, and 10-foot-deep trench\, to be backfilled and restored to pre-existing site conditions. Construction and grading activities will result in an anticipated net fill of negative 18 cubic yards of sediment for the project. Temporary public access impacts during the 12 to 16 weeks of construction include the closure of one lane of the Old Bayshore Highway and closure of the sidewalk on the northern end of the Bayfront Park. The project will be conditioned to minimize public access impacts\, and ensure traffic control\, detour plans\, notices\, and signage are provided. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing June 2\, 2023 \n\nApplication Summary Kilroy Oyster Point Life Sciences Complex (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing June 9\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of June 1\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nApproval of Undergraduate Interns (PDF)\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\nStaff Recommendation on Kilroy Oyster Point Life Sciences Complex Project (PDF)Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nHow Sea Level Rise Is Posing a Looming Threat to San Leandro’s Underground Infrastructure \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/06/06-15-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Welcome to our hybrid BCDC. Commission meeting. My name is Rebecca Eisen. I am the vice chair of BCDC. Our esteemed chairs at Wasserman cannot be here today. \nBoardroom SX80: and Larry and I were reminded of the \nBoardroom SX80: famous Yogi Bera comment that if you can’t imitate them\, don’t try to copy them. So I’m not going to try to copy them today. But before we get started I do want to note that item 9 on the agenda has been taken off. It regards pending legislation. It has been cancelled for the day. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to thank. thank Prior Chair Randol\, for offering to step\, step in if I were not able to do this today. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: our first order of business is to call the role commissioners. If you are participating\, participating virtually\, please unmute yourselves and then mute yourselves again after responding. Raylina\, will you play? Please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: vice your eisen \nBoardroom SX80: here. Commissioner Aviation Commissioner on here\, Commissioner Oregon\, President. Commissioner Burt\, here Commissioner Ekland\, present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joya. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: here \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Commissioner Gunther\, here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haz. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Peskin\, present \nDave Pine\, Commissioner: Commissioner Pine. Here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph. \nBoardroom SX80: here Commissioner\, show Walter\, here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Beach. \nBoardroom SX80: present Commissioner Kishimoto \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: here. Sorry about that Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: here \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez\, here \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: Commissioner Nelson\, here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: did I forget anyone? \nBoardroom SX80: 19 Commissioners present? \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Really\, really\, we have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next order of business is public comment. If anyone wants to address the Commission on any matter that is not on the agenda\, or has not yet been. The subject of a public hearing. You can do so now. You have 3 min to do so. Are there any members of the public in the room that wish to speak. \nBoardroom SX80: If so\, please come up to the podium. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. So\, Raylina. Are there any on the phone who want to participate virtually. Yes\, we have one public comment from Mark Zephatello. Thank you. You may begin. You have 3 min to address the commission. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Thank you good morning or Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Mark Sepatello. I submitted written comments and photos concerning the Bay Area Council’s ongoing violations of the public access requirements of the Commission’s permit for the calamit. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Last year the Commission adopted a comprehensive set of amendments to its enforcement regulations to promote transparency\, consistency and fairness and provide standards for the exercises of enforcement\, discretion. One amendments defines the term significant harm to the base resources or existing or future public access\, as determined\, based on both the context and intensity of violations. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Considering those factors\, the Council’s continuing violations are causing significant harm to public access. Context is that the violations are occurring in one of the most highly visible and frequently used locations along the entire shoreline. Hundreds or more pedestrians passed by the calamit every day\, but due to the Council’s Ferry to install any public access signage or required amenities on Pier 9. The public has no way to know that the public access exists \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: as to the intensity of the violations. For 9 months the Commission has failed to provide public access for improvements on the main deck for the upper deck\, public access improvements on Pier 9\, \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: or any public access or wayfaring site \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: way of finding signage. For 6 months the Council failed to provide public access to the root deck. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: These violations have precluded the public’s ability to use required public access\, and if encompassed\, all or large portions of required public access. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: where violations have caused significant harm to public access. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: The Commission’s regulations state that the Executive Director Shale commence Commission and Enforcement proceedings by issuing a violation report and complaint for administrative civil liability. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: I know that the Council has not necessarily gotten a pass on enforcement. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: but with a violator that has knowingly disregarded permit requirements for 9 months\, and has been recalcitrant in responding to staff. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: simply allowing more time as a recipe for more excuses and arguments that staff will have to respond to further delay and piecemeal compliance. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: a lesson that I learned in serving as BCDC’s chief council\, and Larry knows this. Is that the best way to resolve an Enforcement investigation is for the Executive director to issue a violation report and complaint and bring the matter to the Enforcement Committee and the commission. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: There is nothing like it to provide incentive for a violator to work constructively with staff\, and the matter will be fully and finally resolved relatively quickly\, under the time springs established by the regulations. \nMarc ZEPPETELLO: Thank you for your consideration\, and I urge the Commissioners to review the staff’s excellent June twelfth letter\, which discusses violations in addition to those presented in my materials. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Are there any other commenters there is? There is one more public comment from Lucia luck\, Meyer\, please unmute yourself. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): I am a resident at Oyster Cove\, Marina\, and I wanted to bring up the \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): The fact that that many of us \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): have gone to many of the meetings that the Kilroy Company provided\, and we were never apprised of anything happening with oyster covering until we received eviction notices \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): and we had asked multiple times if there would be any kind of movement or anything\, and they said\, Don’t worry\, There’s nothing. Repeatedly we were told there’s nothing to worry about\, and it’s not. It’s not on the the radar. Just don’t worry about it. We even went to South City \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): planning commission\, and we’re told not to worry from them as well. So essentially\, we were brushed aside\, and I do know that they have an item on the agenda\, and I the the equity meeting that you had several months ago just rings in my ears still\, because \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): this is an equity issue. If there ever was one. There’s so many people there that are elderly displaced in so many ways. One of our residents is now in a homeless shelter\, and has been for the last several months. We have \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): mostly older people\, people of color\, people who live on the margins and don’t have you know education who are differently able and and don’t have the skills to get high paying jobs in the Bay area. They had homes. They had great homes\, and those homes are now effectively washed away\, and I know that there some of their \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): rationale for building some of the things that they’re going to be building in that space. That is oyster co for arena. Is that There’ll be. There’ll be \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): possibly digging up and putting pylons in. From what I saw from one of the plans \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): previously. tidline marine group \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): reported that they would. The water there was way\, too contaminated to be messed with. So \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): if they\, if it was too contaminated to dredge the the 3 docs that we were on\, why is it now okay for them to go building things there. And and I’m just. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): I’m still highly upset about it\, because it just seems so wrong. you know\, to take away people’s homes like that\, and and with minimal \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): care and and effort south\, since the city of San Francisco did a lot. But the the property managers and owners themselves\, they didn’t do it. They did the bare minimum\, if that they did what they were compelled to do. And they’re going to put in something pretty. But again\, this is capitalism. Run\, am up\, and it’s distressing and disheartening\, and I hope that you have some \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): You can say something to address some of those things that that come up. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. There are. There is an agenda item later that people will have a chance to comment on. But are there any more comments regarding items that are not on our agenda today? There is one additional comment from Matt Klein. Please unmute yourself. \nmatt klein: Yes. \nmatt klein: Hello! I I guess for Lucia one of the other activists here trying to \nmatt klein: place people who were displaced by Kilroy. \nmatt klein: I want to restate what she said we were to see we had an an agreement with Greenland Corporation. And is this something that we that I should be later commenting on\, I I don’t think so. And the item on the agenda it was just Greenland Corporation would previously own. This \nmatt klein: was agreeing with us\, we would not be displaced\, and\, as Lucy had said\, we were completely brushed aside. we weren’t answered\, we were deceived so that we would not be active. \nmatt klein: you were told it was okay. And the city of South San Francisco was at the original meeting with Greenland. and I told this everything was going to be fine \nmatt klein: where they had worked to ensure that we were not going to be displaced. Then the individual that was at that meeting now he won’t talk to us. \nmatt klein: there’s been a lot of real good hard work done by Commissioner Pine. and members of the City Council of South San Francisco. But I \nmatt klein: you know this is\, it’s just really unsatisfactory. \nmatt klein: and I want you to keep that in mind in your dealings with Kilroy. \nHmm. \nmatt klein: thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Again. We do have an item later on the agenda that there will be an opportunity to comment on. Are there any further comments about items that are not on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: No further public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. All right. The next order of business\, then\, is to approve our draft minutes from our last meeting\, which was June first\, 2\,023\, I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes \nBoardroom SX80: on seconds. Thank you. Commissioner Randolph moves Commissioner on Seconds. Does anybody wish to abstain from this motion? \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: This is Gunther. I’ll abstain. I wasn’t at the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Peskin\, you’re abstaining also. Thank you. Yes\, as Chair Wasserman often reminds us\, you’re not obligated to have been at the last meeting to vote on the minutes\, but you’re perfectly welcome to do so. If you wish to abstain any objections to the motion to adopt the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. Seeing them\, they are adopted. \nBoardroom SX80: The next item on our agenda is the report of the chair. first\, with respect to our rising sea Levels working group. \nBoardroom SX80: I want to remind the Commissioners and the public that we shall hold a virtual meeting of the rising sea levels working group on the morning of July twentieth. \nwhich is the same day as our regular regularly scheduled commission meeting \nBoardroom SX80: the agenda for that working group meeting will center on how our regulatory program will become more aligned with our planning and with our Bay adap programs \namong other issues. And I’m sure that Chair Wasserman is also going to touch on issues of authority and jurisdiction as well. \nBoardroom SX80: executive director goals. Ban has let me know that he will be describing in general terms the logistics of our Commission meeting starting next month\, as the Bagley keen requirements are now returning to pre-pandemic status. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next Bcdc. Meeting is not going to be held on July sixth. That meeting has been cancelled. Our next meeting will be held on July twentieth. It will be a regular hybrid meeting\, as we now understand that term\, and I\, along with our chair. Encourage all of the commissioners to attend that meeting on July twentieth in person. If you can. \nBoardroom SX80: There will be new noticing requirements for those commissioners who attend. Virtually. Larry is going to describe them for us\, and at that July twentieth meeting the agenda may contain some of the following matters\, or all of the following matters. \nBoardroom SX80: one consideration of legislative positions and possible votes thereon\, to consideration of a permit application for a project at 7 7 7 Airport boulevard in Burling game. \nBoardroom SX80: 3. Consideration of a contract for a facilitator to assist with our EPA sediment\, grant \nBoardroom SX80: for a briefing on the recent Us. Supreme Court wetlands ruling\, which we heard a little bit about at our last meeting. \nand 5 a briefing on compliance at the Oyster Point\, Marina\, in South San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to ex-parte communications. If commissioners you have inadvertently forgotten to provide staff with a report on any written or oral exp-party communication commissioners may do so now\, by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any hands in the room. Anybody on the screen. Yeah. \nall right\, seeing none. We will now turn to the executive director’s report. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Chair. \nAlthough our spring weather hasn’t been terribly warm that has not diminished the Bay Area’s demand for ice cream. whether you’re a fan of the artists and products that promote new and innovative flavors. Or\, if you’re like\, I am\, and consistently order a hot fudge Sunday with vanilla ice cream whenever possible. We all need to thank Jacob Fussell of Baltimore. \nBoardroom SX80: Fussle was a dairy farmer who found himself with a surfeit of cream in the spring of 1851. So on this day\, 182 years ago\, he started the first commercial ice cream factory and distribution system\, and for those of you who prefer your frozen dessert in a cone\, and nobody said it better than Charles Shultz\, who once wrote that life is like an ice cream cone. You have to lick it one day at a time. \nBoardroom SX80: as promised. Our 5 undergraduates interns started this week\, and I see at least a few of them in the audience. In many respects they are a very diverse crew\, but I should note that our cohort is made up entirely of women. You each received a memo from me last week listing them\, but just in case you missed it\, let me introduce you to them\, and\, as I call your name\, please do stand up. DC. DC’s diverse undergraduate interns are Olivia Reed\, of Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: and Orange\, from Syracuse University\, working with Angela Noble\, BC. DC’s records manager\, Tolene Cochran\, of Fresno. There you are\, a California Golden Bear is working with Todd Helenbeck in our Gis program\, and Ava Hawkins\, of Anna Cortis. Washington\, also from Cal\, is working with Bcdc’s Environmental Justice staff. \nThe California State University Coast Internship Program is providing us with Roxanne Wilkerson\, of Petaluma\, who is a sea wolf from Sonoma State University\, and is working where they are adapting to rise and tides program and the Gis program. \nBoardroom SX80: Last\, but not least. Alessandra Mohar of Oakland\, is a cardinal from Stanford. She’s working with our E. J. Program as well\, and yes\, they will make a presentation to you in August about their experiences at B. C. DC. They are certainly concerned about that\, but they will before then likely participate in various meetings with commissioners. Speaking of future presentation. Sean Williamson\, our relatively new head of our financial Services group\, will give you a rundown of BCDC’s Budget situation in early fall\, as we usually do. \nfor now I will tell you that the larger than expected staff\, turnover\, and vacant positions has provided B. C. DC. With an extra large buffer of funding this year \nBoardroom SX80: more on that. A little bit later\, speaking of good budget news\, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has just announced its plans to distribute almost 3 billion dollars over the next few years to build climate\, ready coasts under the bipartisan infrastructure law. These grants are designed to increase resilience through landscape scale\, habitat restoration\, and coastal ecosystems\, and promote coastal resilience and underserved coastal communities. \nBcdc. Will receive a portion of these monies and a non-competitive award that we shall use to increase our own capacity to move those types of projects forward along the Bay shoreline. \nIn addition\, we and Senior Coastal Commission and Coastal Conservancy Staff have started to discuss how the California Coastal Zone Management program overall will apply for the competitive portion of these grants. Noah will launch a separate program with other Federal funds that will be made available to non-costal zone management agencies as well. \nBoardroom SX80: It was only a year ago or so that the Commission considered the Bay Plan Amendment proposed by the Oakland Athletics to enable the team to build a new ballpark and mixed use development on Howard Terminal. And may I say? We all know how that went\, how time flies meanwhile\, as promised. Then B Cdc. Is in the process this week of distributing its draft seaport plan update. \nWe have scheduled a meeting of the Seaport Plan Advisory Committee\, chaired by Vice Chair Eisen\, and including Commissioner Haz for the last week of July. I encourage you all to take a look at the draft and see how Corey\, Man and Eric Beaman of our staff have adapted the many lessons that we learned while working on the athletics proposal to the existing seaport planning process. \nAfter both internal and external discussions\, our staff is proposing a host of changes to the current processes and structure\, and we look forward to this facts\, review and suggestions. In addition\, I have a meeting with the Bay Area’s 5 port directors at the end of this month\, so I’ll likely get a preview of their thoughts. \nJust as Peggy at well retired BCDC. Staff completed working with the department of General services to earn our purchasing accreditation. For the next 3 years the Dgs analysts are concluding their review right now. Actually we have submitted an improvement plan to their procurement. Pardon me\, procurement\, office of small business and development and disabled veteran business enterprise services \nto increase our procurement from such organisations\, and we’ll take advantage of various outreach programs to do so. The progress of this review is due to the efforts of Reggie Abbott sitting right over there\, and Janet Williams over the last 4 months BCDC. Looks forward to directing increasing amounts of funds to disadvantage business enterprise in alignment with its strategic equity goals. \nLast Thursday\, B. C. DC. Was notified by the U. S. Fish and wildlife service that at least one geophone block\, the size of a small recreational vehicle had floated up to the surface and rotated along Highway 37. Close to the services Cullen and Restoration project. \nBoardroom SX80: Geophone blocks replaced below the Rod roadway as a lightweight fill to keep the highway from settling on unstable soils. When the Restoration project was undertaken by fish and wildlife \nBoardroom SX80: to ensure that the relatively small portion of the embankment could be restored quickly prior to other portions of the geophone embankment substructure. Failing because they are all connected. Chair washman approved an emergency permit that allowed placement of additional rock on top of the restored embankment. \nNow for the information for which you have all been waiting. Starting on July first. Public access requirements for public meetings held by Bcdc. Will revert to back to pre-pandemic\, badly keen requirements. This means that commission meetings and various advisory boards\, but not for Commissioner. Working groups must include at least one Commissioner present at 375 Beale Street. \nBoardroom SX80: and while commissioners can continue to participate virtually by a zoom. During such meetings the venue from which they are participating must be open to the public\, be accessible\, and it be addressed publicly\, and and it is in its address publicly noticed as part of the Bcdc. Agenda\, no less than 10 days prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: our working groups\, because they are less formal and not quasi adjudicatory\, will continue to be held virtually\, and when we have solid information regarding how we\, along with Mtc. A. Bag and the Air District plan to create publicly available venues in a few different locations around the Bay Area. You will be the first to know \nwe shall distribute a memo to commissioners and alternates next week\, detailing the requirements that B. C. DC. Will follow the it is almost in final form right here. \nBoardroom SX80: Fine\, and I’m happy to answer any questions. Finally\, Chair Randolph\, I have some very good news to report on a B Cdc. Partner. \nPerhaps the greatest legacy of any Coastal Zone management leader is that of Margaret A. Davis. \nBoardroom SX80: Margaret founded Noah’s office for coastal management. \nShe initiated Noah’s climate adaptation work and was a driving force behind countless other endeavors. \nBoardroom SX80: The Association of State Flood. Plain managers recently created the Margaret A. Davidson award for excellence in climate change adaptation. \nand has awarded that first honor to Janelle Kelman\, of the Sasalito City Council. Ms. Kalman\, who was elected the Council in 2\,020\, recognized when she took office\, that Sas Toledo needed to create a comprehensive climate program\, but also discovered that many\, if not most\, other\, elected officials and local decision makers in smaller cities and towns around the Us. Face the same challenge. \nBoardroom SX80: So she founded the center for sea rise solutions\, a nonprofit focused on helping those officials develop and implement coastal resilience plans. Janelle is also a strong champion of engaging women and people of color and coastal resilience. Bcd. She is proud to recognize City Council Member Kelman and looks forward to continuing to work with her and Marin County Supervisor Stephanie molten Peters. As we create a regional shoreline adaptation plan \nthat completes my report chair ice\, and I’m happy to answer any questions. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: I see the generous you chair Joy already\, or or your joy already has his up. I’m one of my favorite subjects. Thanks for that remote participation. As a number of commissioners here know who serve on regional bodies. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: There are already established some sub regional public locations\, and including by by various elected officials themselves or other agencies. And I would strongly recommend that it sounds like you’re doing that. The B Cdc. Reach out and determine those locations. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: because I there\, there is a great interest by regional board members and commissioners to not have to always go into San Francisco\, and I know the North. There’s been a location in the North Bay. There’s been several in the East Bay\, including my office. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: There’s been South Bay\, West Bay\, and I think we should have those in place and options available for people To sometimes not have to duplicate and set up new ones. So sounds like you’re you’re exploring that. And I’m glad to have my office continue to be in East Bay location. \nBoardroom SX80: May I answer? Raelina has already started discussing this with the Mtc. A. Bag and air district folks. and so we hope to have some solid information to you within the next couple of weeks. Certainly. Well\, prior to the July 15 meeting. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: and I apologize. It’s July 20\, not July 15. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Ecklin\, do you have a question of our executive director? actually\, also a statement. I have been using our Nevada \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: administrative building. We have a conference room that is accessible to the public. has. It’s all Ada. And as all buildings are now anyone government buildings\, and I’d be very interested in talking with the executive director about \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: using Nevada or some some place in rent\, because I think that we need to have another location \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it also saves greenhouse gas emissions. And \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: I’ve been really trying to encourage somebody to try to keep track of it. At least\, maybe B Cdc could be the first\, because I think that’s really important for us to. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: We have also the benefit to the environment by everybody not driving in you know\, twice a month. So so\, Larry\, if we could have a chat that would be great \nBoardroom SX80: happy any other comments or questions for our executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And thank you\, and welcome to all of the interns. Thank you for showing up today. It’s very nice to see faces with names. Really appreciate it. Good luck to you. \nBoardroom SX80: The next item on our agenda is consideration of administrative matters. Deputy executive Director Steve Goldbeck is available. If any of you have any questions regarding the administrative listing that we mailed on June ninth. \nBoardroom SX80: Any questions or comments for \ndeputy Executive \nBoardroom SX80: Executive Director Steve Colbeck. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none\, we move to Item 8 on our agenda\, a commission consideration of a permit application at 385 Oyster Point Boulevard in South San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: ethan L. Bye\, who is our assistant regulatory director for climate ad adaptation\, and also our former manager of our Bay Shoreline development team\, is going to introduce the item to us. \nBoardroom SX80: Ethan. you ready? Yes\, thank you. Chair and and commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: On June second you were mailed a summary of an application by Kr. Oyster point 3 Llc. For a 27 acre life science office campus. The project redevelops what is currently a low-rise office park\, originally developed under BCC. Permit 1\,982.0 0 4 B. \nBoardroom SX80: That permit also authorized the oyster coat marina\, which is the marina visible to the left of the red outline on the screen waistcoat. Marina is also owned by the applicants\, and is in the process of being closed. \nBoardroom SX80: The applicants are reconsidering the future of the arena\, and they indicate they will bring forward a proposal to be Cdc. As part of a separate application. \nBoardroom SX80: Therefore this matter concerns only the redevelopment of the upland portion of the site within the Commission’s shoreline band\, and beyond the Commission’s permanent jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: The project is located at Oyster Point\, in the city of South San Francisco. you can see Oyster Point called out in blue on the far left of the image above. as this map is oriented with the south to the left and the north to the right. I just want to point out \nBoardroom SX80: we’re seeing an unusual view of the pay. \nBoardroom SX80: Here is a plan view of Oyster Point. The area outlined in red is the extent of the Kilroy Oyster Point Life Science Office campus. \nIt represents phases 2 through 4 of a master planned waterfront district for Oyster Point. \nBoardroom SX80: The Commission previously approved the earlier phase of the Oyster Point waterfront district in 2\,018\, as part of B. C. DC. Permit 2\,017.0 0 7. \nBoardroom SX80: That phase included an office development\, a hotel in a waterfront park adjacent to the Oyster point Marina\, which is the other marina visible on the screen. \nBoardroom SX80: The project site today includes an approximately 3.7 9 acre public access area\, which was constructed in association with the Pcc. Permit for the existing Low Rise Office Development on the site. \nBoardroom SX80: This area would be entirely redesigned as part of the proposed project to accommodate a wider minimum 20 foot wide bay trail segment flanked by a mix of improvements compatible with the waterfront park\, including open lawn areas\, picnic areas terrace seating a perched beach which is a sandy\, beach-like area that\, unlike a natural beach\, doesn’t touch the water. \n15 public short parking access to their parking spaces \nBoardroom SX80: and other public access facilities \noverall. The original 3.7 9 acre public access area will be expanded by 12 to 4.2 5 acres. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s worth noting that a portion of the shoreline carries a bay plan prior to use area designated as a waterfront park. only uses compatible with the waterfront park are proposed within the prior to use area. \nBoardroom SX80: and all the office campus. Oriented areas are located outside of the waterfront park. Pride use area \nturning to potential flood risk. \nBoardroom SX80: the project would raise the grade of the majority of the site to an elevation at or above 13 feet and a vd. 88. The project\, as projected by the medium high-risk aversion scenario in the State of California’s sea level rise guidance. \nBoardroom SX80: Most of the major elements in the waterfront Park would avoid anticipated flooding for the life of the project through 2\,075. One exception is a small area on the shoreline that is built lower\, so that it will intentionally flood over time and become an area where wetland habitat can be established \nwhile not anticipated to be necessary during the life of the project. Adaptive measures could be incorporated to extend the life of the public access to 2\,100\, or beyond such as by building a protective device along the edge of the bay trail for Project shoreline as illustrated in the cross sections. Here \nthe Commission’s community vulnerability Mapping tool shows the project site is within an area of moderate social vulnerability. \nBoardroom SX80: The athletic conducted outreach that included approximately 41 public meetings between May 2\,017 and summer 2\,021. \nThese included in-person events at an office established near the project site prior to the pandemic and online meetings. In the time since the onset of the pandemic \nBoardroom SX80: feedback received in these meetings help to inform aspects of the Waterfront Park design\, such as introducing\, introducing phasing that reduces disruptions to the Bay trail during construction. \nThe applicant informs us that the only requests from the community that are not incorporated relate to marina facilities which are outside of the scope of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: and with that I’m actually going to hand it over to the applicant team to present a more detailed but overview of the project. So just give me a second while I switch slide presentations. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon. Everyone excited to be here at the stage of the project. My name is Verona Ghattiva. I’m with James Cornerfield operations. We’re the landscape architects on the project\, working with Kilbury Realt\, and I’m here with Julian Blanford and Phil Tate\, with Kilver realt in case there’s any additional questions at the end of the presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: you already saw this. But kind of to orient you\, or to point\, is the last peninsula\, basically\, that can breathe\, but reaches out into the bay enough to see the skyline of of the city\, and many consider it to be kind of a hidden gem as you when you’re driving down the highway. You don’t really know that that this little cove is is down there. \nBoardroom SX80: But as Ethan mentioned\, even though there there are these beautiful pockets of of nature and cluster of trees. The majority of it is single-story. buildings and parking lot. So we’ve worked. the design to celebrate the good things that are in the site\, but obviously enhance it to make it a more diverse and accessible water from park. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, as you all know\, it is part of a full master plan\, of which phase one C and one d. Have already been built\, and phase 2 is under construction\, and today we’ll be reviewing the water from park that connects Phase 3 and 4 of of the Master plan vision. \nBoardroom SX80: So here we are today. the the design and documentation\, of course\, of Phase 3 is is ongoing while on its way\, and we hope to commence construction of phase 3 in quarter 4 of 2\,024. Sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: and our concept from the beginning was kind of to bring oysters back to Oyster Point\, making a nod to the historic qualities. And and Oysters that used to be on the site\, and inspired by the arcs and beards and and barnacles of oysters. We established a strategy to kind of unify the full peninsula. \nBoardroom SX80: using those arcs\, beards\, and barnacles as inspirations for a framework of trails\, canopies\, and and park features. \nBoardroom SX80: and not only in plan\, but also 3 dimensionally\, we were inspired by the geometries of of oysters and nature. creating\, therefore\, a playful mix of points and flats so high points to get to get a better view of of the waterfront and flats of program and activity and play adjacent to the bay trail that meanders through the waterfront park. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is transforming the waterfront park edge that is there today. And as you saw in the existing aerial. It’s it’s rather thin and framed by parking lots and expanding it\, deepening it\, increasing the waterfront by more than 55\, and of course incorporating over 12 new amenities along this edge of the peninsula. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, looking at the existing plan of the phase 3 and 4 \nBoardroom SX80: design\, I’m going to be walking\, you basically south to north\, taking you along the series of amenities. \nBoardroom SX80: starting with the east-west link\, which is this prominent that you see right here \nBoardroom SX80: that promenade connects the existing phase\, one C. Park\, that has already been built to this western side of the peninsula. \nBoardroom SX80: and just to kind of summarize some of the project highlights. As I said\, it increases the publicly accessible water from Park by 55%\, increasing the dedicated public access by 12%. \nBoardroom SX80: Of course\, all construction is outside of the mean high high-water line\, and all of the private structures are outside of the Bcbc Jirt section\, and we’re looking at approximately 16 million dollars in waterfront and public improvements for this\, for these phases of of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, as Ethan mentioned\, Covert has hosted a series of public meetings. since May 4\, 2\,018. We’ve been working with them since 2\,016 on this. water from Park. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’ve incorporated the the comments\, not only from the community\, but also the feedback. of the Bcdc. Staff that has been working with us throughout this process. to enrich the experience throughout the waterfront. \nBoardroom SX80: So again\, this is the view of that on that east-west link. It’s an ample 2520 feet wide. promenade that connects the east and the and the west edges of the of the peninsula\, and that aligns you at its end with views through the San Bruno Hill \nBoardroom SX80: and the the this promenade connects you to the bay trail which me Andrews drew the waterfront from south to north\, connecting a series of spaces\, the first of which is the Wetland Terrace\, is overlook. We wanted to celebrate. A a corner of wetlands that exist there today and also create spaces where\, as sea level rises\, we can retain some of that ecology and quality. \nBoardroom SX80: We continue walking north\, and there’s a a necklace of coastal gardens\, obviously drought\, tolerant plantings that are there to kind of celebrate the the windy conditions of the site\, because it is rather windy with clusters of trees to create nuts for protection. From from these winds \nBoardroom SX80: obviously places for recreation \nBoardroom SX80: and enjoying the the the view. These are the marina steps. So now we’re right in front of Phase 3 and a series of boulders will will enhance that edge so you can sit and look out into the bay\, and San Bruno Hill \nBoardroom SX80: places for leader\, just\, you know\, open flexible lawns where you can throw a blanket\, have a picnic fly\, a kite because the winds are definitely amazing for that at Oyster Point. \nBoardroom SX80: but also places for for picnicking and and larger groups and and and families. \nBoardroom SX80: and all the way to the north we have the beach that Ethan mentioned earlier\, as Ethan mentioned\, contrasting with the phase\, One sea beach\, which is a natural beach. This is elevated from the water’s edge\, and it’s almost like a hidden gem. You. You find it within a cluster\, clusters of trees and plantings that protect you from that that breeze coming off of the San Bruno Hill. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is the kind of the series of of spaces that encompasses the access and open space\, as you can see to the everything that is blue is the publicly accessible spaces along the phase stream 4. And then in in yellow\, the the campus\, oriented spaces which have a very similar look and feel\, but sits slightly elevated from the Bcdc. Trail and water from park. \nBoardroom SX80: going a little bit into the math of things. I won’t dive into too much detail\, but the park The park and development is all raised for for sea level rise\, and\, as I mentioned initially\, the strategy was to\, of course\, raise everything for sea level rise\, but but still celebrate the existing wetlands that are in the edge. \nBoardroom SX80: should I? Oh\, I’ll hurry up. Sorry. So there’s no flooding\, truly to the park throughout 2070. The only area that would flood is the wetland terraces and the bottom left side of the screen. And that’s purposeful. That’s part of the design. A series of terraces that will receive that sea love arise as as it comes up. \nBoardroom SX80: and then this would be 2\,100. You start seeing some flooding at the very edge of the park\, and of course\, the adjacent properties\, which I’m sure at some point will be developed and address\, but outside of our property line \nBoardroom SX80: But when that time comes towards 2\,100. We did do a a silverized assessment\, and came up with a series of strategies \nBoardroom SX80: where we we still try to incorporate that coastal field the materiality of the project\, using rustic edges and boulders to hide any sort of parapet or wall that might be necessary to to respond to the to the rising sea level. Elevations! But\, as you can see\, the the. \nBoardroom SX80: the\, the Bay trail and development\, and the majority of the park is above that elevation. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is a a full matrix\, because there’s more obviously more more spaces along along the full waterfront. So we want it to give you a full mosaic of the mix of spaces\, places for play\, places for leisure\, places for relaxation. But all in in the idea of celebrating that coastal kind of hidden gem. experience that exists on the site today. \nBoardroom SX80: and that would that would be all. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you\, Ms. Rivera\, and thank you\, Ethan. I imagine there will be some questions\, but before we get to that I would like to open the public hearing. Any member of the public who would like to make a public comment either line up at the podium. If there’s anybody in the room. \nor otherwise raise your hand in Zoom. \nBoardroom SX80: really\, and I’m not seeing anybody in the room. Do you have folks on? Zoom? I have one public comment from Alice and Madden. Go ahead 3 min to speak. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead and unmute yourself\, Allison. \nAlison Madden: Yes\, I did. Is it unmuted now? \nAlison Madden: Okay\, thank you. So I did try to raise my hand at the general public comments\, because\, I did advise my my clients that the marine itself is not on the agenda here\, and that’s acknowledged in the presentation. \nAlison Madden: and I’m pretty agnostic on the upland\, you know. I’m I’m a a fan of development\, and I’m sure it’s going to be lovely. But I did want to speak to the Commission about a couple of items. \nAlison Madden: respecting the marina. And right now\, you know\, with sea level impact with the crisis that we’re in with the climate. We’re having a lot of more frequent storms and really severe storms\, and Treasure Island. Marina was pretty much devastated. Fifth Avenue as well. \nAlison Madden: And what what’s going on here at Oyster Cov is? It’s a protected Marina. It’s deep water. It’s a sailors\, Marina. It’s absolutely solid and well maintained\, and it really shouldn’t go away. And so that’s what we were advocating for in general public comments is\, you know\, this is State public trust land. It’s not private title that they own. Yes\, they did. build that\, Marina. And now our understanding is they want to rip out to the Marina\, or retain some of it \nAlison Madden: and have a water taxi or a private ferry. And right now the Weedo ferry is really efficient? And There’s been a loss of marinas in Redwood City Dock Town\, in the outer harbor at Pete’s\, and you know there’s just a dearth of marine is south of San Francisco and we really need to keep them The Macintire Petrus Act speaks of desired fill and docks\, wharves\, ports\, airports. \nAlison Madden: They’re all in there. So under the Petras that mean marinas are desired\, and they’re they’re not undesirable\, and they’re few and far between. And when they’re ripped out and damaged now it’s not easy to bring them back. \nAlison Madden: It’s\, you know\, when a lot of these were built it was a long time ago. It was easier to build them\, and this one is in pristine shape \nAlison Madden: and I’d also like to say that we have a motion for summary judgment pending. Mr. Klein is defending his unlawful detainer\, and on Friday the judge will rule whether the Tenant Protection Act applies to voters living on their boats in Marinas\, and that’s of statewide importance and \nAlison Madden: you know\, an issue of first impression\, and either way that it goes you know\, as often happens with \nAlison Madden: litigation and legal issues either side might appeal\, depending what the judge’s ruling is. But Mr. Klein has stayed there on principle. We appreciate what you’ve done before with oyster point. you know\, having the safe harbor over there. And Mr. Klein really feels that he deserves tenant protection at notice\, because they have to state the specific reason for just cause. \nAlison Madden: And \nAlison Madden: that’s what we’ve been seeking all along. So I wanted to mention that our back and you know\, we really think that you should advocate to keep the marina? Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Allison. sorry\, Lucia\, is the next public commenter. \nBoardroom SX80: And and may I just. add that the public comment should be addressed to this agenda. Item\, I know there is some overlap in folks\, mind\, but this agenda item\, specifically\, is what we’re talking about at this moment. \nBoardroom SX80: Lucille\, go ahead and unmute yourself. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): Thank you very much\, and I’m sorry if I was off base with talking earlier. I wanted to point out that with the the concept of sea level rise the whole east side of Oyster Point. If you go walk along there you’ll see humongous chunks of that grassy area that have just been completely washed away\, and that is. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): that’s nothing compared to what will happen in the future\, so that entire land it’s all fill\, we will become more and more unstable. And it’s it’s something to consider when you’re thinking about approving new buildings on this on this swath of land. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): And the the other thing I wanted to point out was in the comments it went The young lady went by really quickly on what public comments were with the little bubbles\, and I just quickly was able to see one of them said\, need area for for voting and and and we do. And that is something that that if we\, if they’re taking that into consideration\, then they need places and faces for people to keep their votes\, as so many marinas have been closed. \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): So again\, Just something to point out. I really appreciate how beautiful it is\, and I like that\, they said. They’re bringing oysters back\, but not\, you know. The the visuals of it are nice\, but it’s kind of like \nLucia Lachmayr (she/her/ella): that\, you know\, Potemkin village of what is happening here. It’s not really bringing oysters back. It’s it’s doing something pretty and superficial. And you know\, that’s I get it. It’s it’s progress\, but it’s not. It’s not in the service of the humans that live here and have lived here for decades and have been displaced. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s no additional public comment. All right. Thank you very much. \nSo if there is no one else who would like to comment\, I would welcome a motion\, and second\, to close the public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll move that. \nBoardroom SX80: Who is it? Either stupid? \nBoardroom SX80: And then I’ll second the motion. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Aklin \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner molten Peters moves Commissioner Ecklin’s seconds. Please raise your hand if you are in favor of the motion. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Motion carries all right. We will now entertain commission questions\, comments\, discussion regarding this item. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m looking in here. I don’t see any raised hands in the room for alien. Will you call on the Commissioners who have raised their hands on zoom. Yes\, Commissioner Nelson. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: thank you. question for staff \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: In light of the testimony we received in this public hearing and and during the public comment period\, hoping staff can talk about the relationship between the marina and this project and the connection\, if any\, between the marina and our our authority of the public access. in the Project system force. \nYes\, thanks\, Commissioner Nelson. so the the project before us today is is really limited to the upland areas of the site. So within the Commission’s 100 foot shoreline band. \nBoardroom SX80: the marina in question. It has the same ownership\, or at least the the same parent company as the applicants who are seeking to redevelop the office campus \nBoardroom SX80: but they haven’t applied to make any changes to be so easy to the permit that governs that\, Marina. They’ve told us that they’re considering its future\, and they’ll bring a proposal to us in the future. But the application before us today is is just within the 143 line band. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: So unless I mean it. It it does directly that if there was\, if we found there to be something inadequate in the public access proposal in this project\, and we’re pushing the applicant to put more on the table. Maybe there was some sort of a nexus there\, but unless there’s abs of that connection\, there’s no connection between this permit proposal and this permit for stay in that project. Right? \nYes\, I think I think the way to think about it is that the marina itself is permitted under an existing B Cdc\, permit already. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Show. Walter. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Yeah. I wanted to ask a little bit about the Wetlands section \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: and sort of what’s the status of that? And what restoration? efforts are planned\, if any. \nBoardroom SX80: So the project\, the project is all within mean high water lines. So we’re not touching the existing wetland But therefore\, because we know so once silo arises that one len is \nBoardroom SX80: likely to be lost\, we’re creating a series of terraces going into the property in inland with\, \nBoardroom SX80: that will basically help migrate that ecology up upland as the sea level rises. \nBoardroom SX80: So. And that’s we’re not preserving. What is there today? We’re not touching anything outside of the mean high waterline. But we’re creating terraces to kind of allow that ecology to migrate upland as the sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: rises. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Okay? So when you look at that wetland now\, there isn’t There aren’t things that you see that you could do like plantings to fortify it. it’s in good shape. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s in fairly good shape. and it would be a different permit in area\, because it’s outside of our of our property line. to to work within the water. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Okay? Well\, I just\, you know\, we we see little pockets of of possible restoration projects sometimes with when we look at these other development projects\, and this is certainly one that seems to me that. you know\, my \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: might might be good for some restoration attention. So I just wanted to mention that. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yeah\, thank you. I it’s It’s great to see \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: sea level rise adaptation being integrated \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: by by landscape professionals. it’s I. I really I really wanted to to thank you for demonstrating that. so we can see. See how how you’re thinking about it. the question I have relates to the Marina. I’m I’m a little confused. We saw lots of pictures \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: of the project\, and the Marina is in like different stages of being sort of grayed out\, and I’m not clear like\, is it? Is it there\, or is it not? There in your as as you’re looking at the construction of this project a year from that. \nBoardroom SX80: The marina is there today\, and that and all of the representations in in this set show it as the the team has shared. \nBoardroom SX80: What’s the status of the marina within a year? I can have the the the team members speak to that. Timeline is not clear that that design hasn’t occurred. So that’s why\, in every and all of the visuals that you see on screen. the the the marina is there\, and and we have designed this project to be able to accommodate if it if it stays\, but also \naccommodate any any changes that might happen in the future \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: when it comes to grading\, and those type of considerations \nBoardroom SX80: accommodates that. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: There are no other comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I have one question about the hidden gem aspect of the project. Is there any effort that is going to be made to make it less hidden to the public\, so that they know how to access it\, or they know about its availability. Yes\, of course\, there is a a signage strategy meeting all of the Bcdc. Requirements of highlighting connections and access points to to the bay\, including also public parking. \nand and of course\, additional tenants. But there’s there’s already some users. There’s always a gentleman swimming in the beach and phase one C. I would love to see more people there so hopefully as as people kind of know that there’s a new park. We’ll see more community members come out and and enjoy it \nBoardroom SX80: specifically\, talking about phase one C\, which is already but of course the the increase in tenants will therefore increase the use of it and start marking it in peoples and people’s mind as a location to go enjoy. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, good. Yeah. Sure\, isn’t that. May I add? just a comment on the overall signage plan? so the the B Cdc permit. that we recommended approval for today includes a condition requiring the applicants to submit a comprehensive signage program. And it’s just something I I I would like to sort of draw some attention to\, because it’s a a similar condition that we’ve included in a number of recent permits over the last year. \ntrying to be responsive particularly to our environmental justice and social equity policies. And what we’ve been doing over the last year with a number of projects is trying to increase the sort of the number of user groups that are served by our signage programs\, by requiring English and Spanish\, and in many cases an assessment of the nearby community needs for multilingual signage\, and also incorporating elements of universal design which could include braille\, tactile elements or others. \nSo with a lot of the major permits that are coming before you. we’re actually we’re having continued staff involvement after their issuance to come up with a signage program which we think is really going to sort of elevate this data. They are compared to what we’ve been doing over the last 50 years. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s fantastic. And you know a lot of these areas. And I notice that Heron Head is not very far from the site that we’re talking about. \nBoardroom SX80: If you try to go into your GPS and say Haron Head or oyster point\, or something\, unless they have some specific designation. \nBoardroom SX80: you can’t really find them. They are really hard to get to. I know Heron Head is a\, you know\, a huge birding area. So burders all know about it\, but it’s also a lovely spot\, and it looks like it’s just around the bend. \nBoardroom SX80: from this project. So I don’t know if we have any capability of asking that it have a sort of designation that could be located on GPS that would help people find it and know that there’s essentially a public access area there. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. Any other questions\, comments Commissioner Kishimoto. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Yes\, thank you. yeah\, I just wanted to. say that I I also found this a little bit confusing with \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: you know the relationship between this and the Marina\, and also Commissioner\, showed this question about the wetlands. And so is this part of that part of like a larger map. I mean\, if you can. To me it feels a little bit like it’s segmenting a project\, or or is it? \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: But this \nBoardroom SX80: can I answer\, yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: this is a phase phase 3 through 4. So basically\, the western waterfront section of a full master plan. So we did the master plan to make sure there was. There was cohesiveness and design and continuity\, and and detailing and aesthetics and experiences\, and also building up the the. \nBoardroom SX80: the\, the array of of public offerings throughout the peninsula that said everything within that master plan is upland right? the the work that has been performed is within the mean high waterline\, both in phase one C\, and in in this\, in this project before you. \nBoardroom SX80: so that’s why there’s a kind of a divide\, not only in property\, but in phasing and in and and and projects between the upland work\, which is what we’re working on. and the the Marina\, the east coast. Marina. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Hmm. So the Marina. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: Marina\, decision \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: can and will be be made completely separately. Yes\, that is correct. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: and that’s that’s allowed under the the master plan that was already approved. \nBoardroom SX80: No\, the. The the Marina project is separate to the original. master\, plan\, vision\, and it has a a separate design and and timeline to it. \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: And and who who would that be reviewed by \nYoriko Kishimoto\, Commissioner: you all at some point in the future? Okay\, okay. It’s going to come back to us. Okay\, yes\, yes\, I see. Okay\, that’s I guess that’s what I needed to know. All right. Thank oh\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Of course\, Ethan\, did you want to add something to that. I know you’ve already said that that’s permitted. And yeah\, there’s a there’s a permit that covers the existing Marina. And that’s that’s still an effect. And The the previous statement was correct that if there is an action that requires a obesity department or permit amendment that affects the marina going forward that we would have to review that separately. \nBoardroom SX80: And we put. And we don’t have that application. Currently. Correct? All right. Commissioner. Is that okay? Commissioner Kishimoto\, did you have follow up? \nBoardroom SX80: No\, thank you. Thank you. Commissioner\, I Diego\, thank you. Charison. as I wanted to speak to the hidden gem aspect as one of the 68\,000 people that call South San Francisco home. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s my preferred place to walk\, because I like to keep an eye on the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s not so hidden when it comes to people that live locally\, and also the 30\,000 or so people that work in the Bio and Fintech industry. \nBoardroom SX80: so during the week you’ll see a lot of people with their name tags\, taking a little walk in the middle of the day\, and on the weekend it can get quite crowded. We like to think it is windy\, but we like to think of when you’re walking. That wind is refreshing\, and it tends to to motivate you to to keep it warm. And and\, as mentioned\, this area was developed in in the very early eighties. So it’s already 40 \nold. And and really the bay trail is a little undersized and a little ward out around the edges. \nBoardroom SX80: compared to some of the other areas. You move back towards the one on freeway. So it it’s a it’s something that came faster than any of the locals thought. As far as our planning\, we thought that might be one of the last areas to be developed for the industry\, and it is just Exciting to think of what’s going to be there for. Most interested in the local people \nBoardroom SX80: enjoy their hidden gem. But but you’re welcome to charism and the Burders. You’re not. You’re not keeping us out\, are you? No\, there’s any other Commissioner questions\, comments. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Ethan\, would you? present the staff recommendation to us. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. Last Friday we emailed a staff recommendation that recommends that you approve of the staff recommendation with the conditions which include dedicating 4.2 5 acres of public access and requiring a C liberalized adaptation plan in the future. Should one be necessary\, as well as other conditions that are included in the recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: I I do a slide\, but it’s gonna take me about a minute to pull it back up. So I I that I just forgot it. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Ethan is going to pull up the slide. That shows us the staff recommendation. But if any commissioner feels confident that they \nBoardroom SX80: it was in our packet. So if you want to move\, and second\, this particular staff recommendation is a good time to do it and chair it\, it would be my pleasure to make the motion to approve this application with conditions. Commissioner Adiego moves \nSecond \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph Seconds. All right. \nBoardroom SX80: The applicant’s representative. Can you affirm that you have reviewed the staff recommendation and agree with it. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, Commissioners Gillian Blanchard with Rhetor Law Group. I represent Kilroy\, and we have read the staff recommendation and fully support it. Thank you. Thank you. Then\, Raulina\, are you ready? You can call the role in this motion. Yes. Commissioner or Diego. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on \nI \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Oregon. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Burke. Yes. Commissioner Eckland. Aye. \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: Commissioner Joya. Aye. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Commissioner Gunther. Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, has \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: bye \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Moulton Peters. Yes. Commissioner Peskin aye. \nDave Pine\, Commissioner: Commissioner Pine. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph. Yes. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Commissioner\, show Walter. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. Yes. Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez. Yes. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner: Commissioner Nelson \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmour \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Eisen yes. \nBoardroom SX80: 19 yeses unanimously. Thank you. And no abstentions. \nBoardroom SX80: Right? So oh\, on the vote I the Federal call. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. Thank you. The motion passes as indicated earlier agenda. Item 9 is a longer part of our agenda. So we move to our last item. agenda. Item 10. A briefing on B. C. DC. Hiring and Hr. Issues \nBoardroom SX80: our human resources analyst. Anu Raganathan will provide the briefing. And that\, are you here? The news right here and before. Come on up a new and before a new starts I want to let the Commission know what we’re about to do\, which is \nBoardroom SX80: now for something completely different\, as Monty Python would say. \nI’ve been here for a little over 10 years\, and we have never briefed the Commission on the Hr. Strategy\, and how we actually operate. And that’s because\, candidly\, you all don’t really need to know that \nBoardroom SX80: because we handle it\, we handle it well. And if we ever have an Hr problem that requires commission work. We work in the way that we’re supposed to\, and most of you don’t even know about it\, anyway. And that doesn’t happen\, because it’s a great staff. \nBoardroom SX80: at least not very\, very often\, but it has become clear to me as executive director. It has become clear to my peers as Executive Directors of the Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission and other places in State government\, that life has changed over the last 4 years with regard to human resources and staffing and people and needs\, and what is going on. And \nBoardroom SX80: I have made it a a a consistent question. Whenever I talk with other people who lead non-profit organizations or for-profit organizations about how their workforce is doing and how they are doing with their workforces. And many of you \nBoardroom SX80: are part of leaderships of very\, very large public organisations and some private nonprofit. And my bet is that you have faced challenges over the past few years\, and they are coming home to roost in a number of different ways. \nSo what Peggy and I thought about 2 months ago is that we should provide you with an overview of Bcdc’s Hr. Organization and staffing\, and what we are now facing. \nBoardroom SX80: and how we view what we are facing\, so that you have some information about that. We provided this as a rough draft on \nBoardroom SX80: Monday. Thank you. Anu\, on Monday to Chair Washerman\, who had a number of really good questions\, whose answers we’ve incorporated into this\, and who’s done a great job? And he predicted that a few of you will have some questions as well. So that’s why we’re doing this. And as far as I know\, this is really the first time that this has really happened at B. C. DC\, we do a budget one every year. \nand I don’t know if we’re going to do this every year\, but I I hope it provokes discussion about from you all\, as you all think about what we’re facing and what you all are facing as leaders of your organizations. So with that I’ll hand it off to a new. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Larry. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Chair Commissioners\, and everyone. thank you for joining me today and welcome to my presentation on Bcdc’s Hr. Review for the past 10 years. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m happy to be doing this presentation the first ever Hr. Overview like Larry mentioned\, and in this presentation I will share a comprehensive Hr. Related information on various aspects of Hr. And provide an overview of how Bcdc. Has evolved from the Hr front. \nin light of time. I have put together some slides with hr information department by departments\, and I do have a question and answer slide at the end. So\, looking forward to answer that if you may have \nBoardroom SX80: I’d like to keep it simple and stay within the schedule time. So\, moving on next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So these are the overview topics that we are going to be discussing today in today’s presentation. the positions that B Cdc\, Since this is a 10 year. Hr. Review\, we have the position starting from 2\,012 to the current year\, and we have actually broken it down into the \ndifferent department. Like the different units within our department\, like the regulatory planning\, legal and administration\, and how we did with the hiring during pandemic. how the composition of our staff with regard to the tenure\, and also demographic and ethnicity data of our staff. in 2\,023 and of course\, The recruitment challenges that we have faced\, and how or what the accomplishments are so far\, and our ongoing objectives last\, but not the least\, we do have a takeaway slide \nwhere we have for the Commission\, and we are looking for some inputs\, guidance and feedback. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So BCDC. In 2\,012 we started with 40 of our positions\, and 2\,01647\, and in 2023\, with the Opc. Sec. And the EPA grants\, including the limited term positions\, we are at a total head count of 61 currently \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is actually a breakdown of the head counts as per the different units that we have in our in B Cdc\, we? I’m going to be getting into the details of specifics. of each department in the upcoming slides. \nBut this one to kind of\, you know\, give a statistical and also a pictorial representation of how Or the headcount and regulatory planning. Legal administration and executive staff looks like \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So in the regulatory department we started with 17 permanent positions in 2\,012\, in 2\,016. We were at 18 permanent position and one limited term between 2\,022 to 2\,023 we have The enforcement unit \nwith 4 positions which moved into the legal unit. And yet in 2\,023 we have 16 permanent positions\, one limited term\, and 2 positions that we received \nthrough the Opc. Sec. Grant\, even though in here\, between 2\,016 and 2\,023\, the numbers appear to be the same. But even with the move of the enforcement unit into the legal. We we’re still at 19. So which means we gained\, or we had increased positions from between 2\,016 to to 2\,023 \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Planning unit. We were at 9 in 2\,012\, 2\,01611 and 23. We were at 17 positions. Again\, the 17 positions where we are at 11 permanent one limited term\, one position\, even though it’s a two-year limited term for the EPA. Grant and 4 positions on Opc. Sec. Grant\, which is for 3 years \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please \nBoardroom SX80: the legal unit. there is a spike from 2\,012 and 2\,016\, we were at the same numbers\, but there is a big leap between 16 to 2\,023. This reason\, as mentioned in my previous slide\, was due to the enforcement unit which moved from the regulatory into the legal department\, and also in 2\,023 we had\, like \n2 of the compliance positions which were added\, and also to enforcement attorney and manager positions. which were part of the 10 head count and on the existing 3 permanent positions that \nBoardroom SX80: the enforcement unit previously had. So that brings us to a total of 10 \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please \nAdministration Department\, we have actually lost a position between 2\,016 through to 2023. And this is the Ot or the office technician position which was reclassed into the associate government program analysts position. So even though we lost one\, we still are \nkind of\, you know\, able to manage and get things done for our extra head count\, and the growing numbers with the you know the hiring that we have at B Cdc. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please executive staff. This department has remained consistent\, and discomfort comprises of our executive director one deputy director\, and the allocated executive secretary staff\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is which leads to the total of 3\, and there are no changes. that has happened from 2\,012 to 2\,023 \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this slide is to kind of\, you know. Give a summary of the \nBoardroom SX80: total hiring that we did during the pandemic\, which is from 2020 to 2023. to kind of\, you know. Break it down. We Not only did we do new hires\, but those 19 positions are 7 internal promotions also happen? so\, which is about\, you know\, close to 40% of our\, you know the hiring. So that \nBoardroom SX80: leads us to the 19 new hires that we did during the pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this table here just wanted to shed some light on the total tenure of our current staff at B Cdc\, \nBoardroom SX80: so we the less than 5 years. There are about 28\, which \nBoardroom SX80: is including you know which includes me. which is like less than 5 years\, and also with all the attrition and the retirements. And you know the back full of positions and the transfers that happen. So the new hires. So that kind of you know that that’s the reason for the highest. In or less than 5 years 28 employees account \nthat we have here\, and 5 to 5 years\, and about is 13 and 10 years and about\, you know\, we have staff who have been with Vcdc. For over 12 years\, and this I wanted to leave a note that of course\, as the footnote says\, and on my slide. this does not count the 8 waken positions that we have currently and we are in the process of hiring \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So here we wanted to kind of\, you know. Give some information about the total demographics. and of the different classifications. that we have amongst you know\, in B Cdc. And to put some extra spotlight on the last 2 rows. \nwhere the B Cdc permanent staff. It’s about 49% of millennials that explains\, you know\, that’s because of our new hires. you know\, who are like millennial millennials and 34\, our generation eggs and baby boomer\, 7 in person. And we are closer to the States employee person edges. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, which is like 36% of the millennials\, 41\, and baby boomers\, 23 person and a quick Victoria representation\, or a bar chart on the side \nBoardroom SX80: representing the table next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: ethnicity data. there are about 59 of us\, like\, you know\, representing the like women in B Cdc\, and 41% constitute men population which is closer to the Bay area’s total percentage of women and men and also to kind of\, you know\, compare it with the State personages. \nIt’s not too much of a difference\, but we are closer and kind of in or representing the bay areas. \nBoardroom SX80: representation of women and men\, and also. I thought it might be helpful to kind of give a little breakdown of the different ethnicity data with respect to our staff. at B Cdc. \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is actually a a very interesting slide\, and the challenges are like and ongoing and these are just the top 8 that we kind of\, you know. we wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: have for our today’s presentation\, which but which is something that we have been like\, you know\, hearing from The applicants\, or you know the challenges that we have been pacing at the time of the hiring during the hiring process. So look\, pay scale. the kind of in a bureaucratic process that we have with the civil State\, the States and on the hiring procedures. the competencies\, skills that we’re looking for when it comes to\, you know\, specific classifications and the hiring \nBoardroom SX80: knowledge\, transfer professional development. and succession planning and examination process are are some that we thought we would kind of\, you know. use it for today’s presentation \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: even though we have faced with all those challenges\, we do have our accomplishments. one of the greatest or the accomplishments that have been like\, you know\, ongoing for many years\, but finally accomplish between in 2\,022 to 2\,023 is \nhaving the coastal program analyst\, the examination series online. And just not that. But we were also able to get the approvals from Kali Cha regarding the increase in salary for the Cpa series\, which is a coastal program Analyst series. Because\, as we know\, as you know\, there are\, like\, you know\, different levels in the Cpa series\, and also our leadership \ndevelopment plans and the hybrid kind of in working culture that we are trying to make it as a selling or a selling point for our new applicants. \nBoardroom SX80: and you know\, document successes and goal achievements. cultivate growth mindset and also improve and primarily and lower the attrition rate. \neven though we have accomplished all of this\, we do. We are also of been faced with and ongoing objectives. and we wanted to address that in every part of the hiring process. so we wanted to kind of have the recruitment based more on\, you know\, increasing diversity\, and also that would enable us to kind of increase the strength and the retention rates \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. So this is the slide that I wanted to present to the Commission specifically here\, where we are looking for some help. And you know\, from all of you to advocate for us to increase the positions at B Cdc\, and also to kind of\, you know\, spread the word for hard to fill positions and to create the\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: create more awareness about in the public for all the meaningful work we do at PC. DC\, we meaning\, you know\, I’m representing all these staff here at Dcdc. And all all of your tireless efforts in the Commission \nBoardroom SX80: and next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is our\, our our current vacancies. right now\, and we have about 8 vacant positions. \nBoardroom SX80: so. And I just wanted to. you know\, give an idea as to how long we have been posting these positions from\, and how you know we are faced with all these challenges. to kind of\, you know. Give you a fair idea about the midpoint salary\, like I said\, like I mentioned in my previous slide in the challenges. \nthe low pay scale and the the process in the hiring \nBoardroom SX80: in the State service\, and our hiring process is one of the biggest challenges. So just to kind of\, you know. Give some \nBoardroom SX80: information about the vacant positions\, and also why we are kind of\, you know\, looking for the support from all of you to kind of spread the word and help us with filling up these positions. \nBoardroom SX80: And I next slide\, please. That brings us to the final slide\, and I’m open for any questions that you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you so much. And that was a really full body presentation. And I know there are going to be lots of questions. But before we get to that\, I would like to invite anyone from the public who would like to make a public comment regarding this item\, to come to the podium \nor to raise their hand at Zoom. \nBoardroom SX80: I see nobody in the room\, really\, no public comment online. All right. that then\, brings us to the Commissioners who would like to make a comment\, ask a question. \nBoardroom SX80: Question. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Randall. when you\, when you’ve lost candidates on who to other \nBoardroom SX80: other opportunities. Have you been able to have \nBoardroom SX80: kind of like an exit interview like? Do you know where they went? What the competition was? And I’m thinking a little bit about Federal positions in particular. I remember many years ago\, but I kind of I’d been in Federal service. There was gap worked for the State. It was really struck with how abysmal State pay was compared to Federal. So does the Commission tend to lose potential staff to Federal agencies in particular\, or \nBoardroom SX80: what? What are you competing with? \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Commissioner\, for your question. yes\, to We do have. exit interviews. connected at the The time when we\, you know the candidate \nBoardroom SX80: gives us the notice during the notice period\, one challenge\, or one of those repetitive reasons for people transferring or moving out of \nBoardroom SX80: the position has been the lower pay scale and the benefits part because benefits in the State service. In the long run it is\, it is definitely a yes\, but people are looking for currently\, you know\, the higher base salary. That’s one of the reasons the primary reasons people move out. \nBoardroom SX80: and we have been addressing that with\, you know our trying to have them. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’ll stay if \nBoardroom SX80: we would not be able to do anything with the salary structure\, because that has to go through the Cali Chs process. But we have been accommodated\, and they have \nBoardroom SX80: actually shared that the hybrid working was one of those you know\, advantage advantages where other\, not all departments or all companies offer like one day\, right? Currently\, that we do right now. So we\, you know\, that’s one of those\, the lower pay scale and the long process. The hiring process is one of \nBoardroom SX80: the reasons that we hear most often. \nBoardroom SX80: but just as a follow up for the category of of positions that you hire. For what other agencies or entities are you typically competing with? So if if we losing the B Cdc\, do you have any idea where they actually end up going. \nBoardroom SX80: it’s outside of the State service. So it’s private and public sector\, firms and companies majority. \nBoardroom SX80: And if I can add to that local governments and regional governments totally destroy B. C. DC. And State and State government in terms of salary\, I I want to say\, is Ethan still is Do I see Ethan? Is he being head by\, hidden by a new Ethan. Was it you who a few years ago put together the schedule comparison between local government pay scales and the State? I’m trying to remember who did it. I want to say you were part of it\, or at least you and I looked it over. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, yeah\, we We did collect job postings for the course of about a year or so\, and compared them to local salaries and and even other positions within the State. And and that’s absolutely correct. And and basically\, the difference was upwards of 30 to 50% \nBoardroom SX80: And so we have lost over the past 10 years numerous people to different counties\, special districts\, and the like\, not as much to the Federal Government\, but certainly to locals\, and so on. In addition\, one of the things that has reduced some turnover recently has been the ability to have upward mobility. \nBoardroom SX80: and the fact that we have the State\, the the Coastal Conservancy\, and Opc. Grants\, which then opened up a very senior type of position that’s allowed our people to move up into those. And we’re back filling now with less less experienced people\, because we know that one of the reasons people leave is they essentially Max out? And so and and I’ll I’ll name one. I’ll name one \nright now\, and that’s Onik and Leiden\, who was the manager\, you’ll remember\, of the Bay Resources Section and Onikin had moved south and didn’t want to come up once a week\, or twice a week\, or whatever it would end up being\, and she found a marvellous position in the private sector down in San Diego\, and is making an awful lot more money down there than she ever would \nhere in the public sector. And because there was\, and and she had decided ultimately that she was not going to try to become the regulatory director. So she wasn’t interested in moving up in the State service. That’s just one example. Eric has faced that more than once. His Eric Nods has had as head of long-term planning\, and when when he was also a a permit manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmour \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: mine is just more of a comment. I’ve seen this particularly right now at at the county level\, so it’s not only the low pay\, but it is the length of time that the process takes to hire somebody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: So you have people leaving for all sorts of different reasons. You don’t have enough staff to do. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: you know\, to basically do your day to day business. \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: And \nMarie Gilmore\, Commissioner: if somebody walks in the door tomorrow and applies\, at least in in some counties it can take 8 min to almost a year. just to go through the process. and I don’t know what BC. DC’s hiring process is like or how long it takes. But I’m wondering if that is also part of the difficulty. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you\, Commissioner Gilmour\, that’s also one of the reasons. But it’s not specific to \nBoardroom SX80: B Cdc\, it’s just The state in general. The hiring process is an outstidious\, it’s long\, and it takes various steps and the tenure. So The applicants are \nBoardroom SX80: impatient when it comes to \nBoardroom SX80: waiting like a month month and a half before the entire process gets completed\, and a final offer is made. \nBoardroom SX80: So yes\, that that’s one. That is also one of the reasons and the challenges\, as stated in one of the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: and if I can add to that and I don’t know how this works on the county level. But I’d love to find out\, or the city level. If I if if if if Joe Schmo decides to apply to 2 different B. C. DC. Positions. \nBoardroom SX80: he\, she they has to do that twice separately. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s no way that you can actually apply for a position that Eric has open and then basically create what we would argue would be an indeed account. \nBoardroom SX80: and then be able to transfer all that information with a stroke of a pen or the stroke of a keyboard key to the other position. Instead\, you have to go back to the beginning and and apply once again with everything else you’ve got to do. And candidly\, you know\, if I have the choice between doing that or going on\, indeed\, and have doing it once I know where I’m going to go. \nso that so that it is a really difficult process\, and that 6 week to 8 week period that the news talking about isn’t from the time that you start it’s from after the interview. \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, if you’ve got\, if you’ve interviewed\, and and Eric\, or Ethan\, or Jessica\, whoever wants to hire you\, you have to go through a process that Cal Hr has\, which not not only\, and of course everybody has to check references and all that\, but you’re probably going to. If if they’re coming in from outside. They’re they’re probably going to ask for a higher rate of pay than what we would ordinarily do\, because it’s the \nbecause it’s the Bay area which means you have to go through an entire Cal Hr process on that\, and then you have to go through the hiring process itself\, which is not terribly \nBoardroom SX80: How should we say speedy? And so just getting that offer letter out to somebody as part of our process in Calhr takes an awful long time. \nI also want to. But I also want to point out a couple of different things that a new\, that\, a new point that a new talked about that\, I think\, are really important. The first is that about a third of the people now working at B. C. DC. Are in positions. They were not in 3 or 4 years ago. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s something really to think about. I mean\, we have a young staff compared to the State \nBoardroom SX80: and and you saw the tenure of less than 5 years\, basically half the folks at BCDC. And that has huge ramifications for our managers and our senior staff. I’m sure you’re starting to see that other places as well. and \nBoardroom SX80: we mirror to a great extent the Bay Area in terms of demographic information which is really really interesting in terms of the ethnicity and the like\, but it’s not candidly uniform. \nBoardroom SX80: So so And and certainly\, when you have yours truly\, and Steve as the executive director and deputy director\, who are\, and I will say this proudly in our 60 s. And white males. You know that then also contributes to the idea that it’s not an even process \nBoardroom SX80: with or it’s not evenly distributed\, or the ethnicity is not evenly distributed throughout the way. B Cdc works. And that is candidly because historically\, environmental Protection green has been white and only really in the past 10 to 20 years has there been a real \nBoardroom SX80: effort to try to diversify that movement. We thankfully are working hard at that\, but it’s going to take a while to really move it through the system. And so that also is something that I want to make sure that that people that people talk\, that people notice. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner show. Walter. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Yeah\, I have to say. I got a little check\, a lot of you saying you know white males and and working for diversity and racial diversity because I I was part of a cadre of people who tried to just work on gender diversity. And if you look around this room\, you can see we’ve done pretty well actually\, in that\, although there’s always room for improvement. But anyway\, \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: I wanted to ask you you you mentioned the need for advocacy and we always need to know what to ask for\, and so I wondered if you have a number of positions you think we should be lobbying for and or generally\, it seems to me the other take home. Message is that the state process for hiring is too cumbersome and long\, and it needs to be streamlined. \nAre those the 2 messages we’re supposed to have gotten? And what’s the number? \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll take that one a new\, because\, as we\, as we had discussed. So B. C. DC. Has historically worked within the administration\, we will continue to do so. We’re we’re not going to ask you to go out and lobby the halls of the State Assembly to ask for more people. That is not what BC. DC. Does\, and I don’t think it’s what Bcdc. Should do. \nBoardroom SX80: But as we move forward\, and I think the the great example is\, you will start hearing in the next couple of months about the Mission-based review that the Department of Finance is doing on the permitting side. One thing that that Anu did not mention\, but Ethan is probably simmering about a little bit now is that while you saw there’s been a little bit of growth in the regulatory side. \nBoardroom SX80: the permit staff has not grown over the past X number of years\, except for one person\, which is the print person\, and yet the number\, the demand for permits\, the complexity of permits that has grown. And so one of the things we hope the Mission-based Review will help us do is figure out how to do permitting better\, and it may well be that the Department of Finance looks at us and says\, You know\, maybe you do need a few more people we don’t know. \nBoardroom SX80: But that’s why you have an Mbr. Process. and and and so we will keep you informed of that with regard to the actual number. Well\, I mean\, sure\, I’d like some more people on the regulatory side. But we’ll see again what the Mbr process does. And \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: With regard to what was the second question\, Commissioner Shelter? I forgot the I was so so so they come right. Yes\, the minute you want to try to take on the State Government Civil Service process \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: I will be behind you in massive amounts of armor\, all 7. I don’t know\, because that is controlled\, not. And and this is a really interesting thing\, and the the Coastal Commission and the Coast of Conservancy\, and we feel this a lot \nBoardroom SX80: that is controlled in Sacramento by Sacramento people. \nBoardroom SX80: whether it be\, you know\, because that’s where state government is. \nand the. And and we are really fortunate \nBoardroom SX80: to get Raelina. And the reason we’re in addition to her being really nice and good. One of the really nice great things about having Railina is. She has worked within that system. \nBoardroom SX80: And so she’s learned within that larger context of Sacramento how to get things done. \nBoardroom SX80: And it’s different than working in the Bay area where you’re essentially satellite from Sacramento. And so that will help. But it is the Civil Service system and all of its great stuff that we all really think is really marvelous. And I don’t mean that in any snarky way. It’s marvelous that also has with it. It’s it’s cumbersome nature\, and that’s that’s the issue. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: Well\, I bring it up because in in local government we are. You know\, we are facing these issues quite severely as well. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: And one of the things that we’re doing. Of course we have more control over our own Civil service requirements. is trying to you know\, make them to modernize them. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: and which hopefully will streamline them. So talking about\, I I. I do not have any desire to talk to my legislature about You know a a grand scale redo of the State Civil Service system. On the other hand\, in the umbrella of improving state processes. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: thinking about hiring processes and talking about how that’s something they should worry about\, as well as something that I certainly can’t see as a reasonable thing to bring up. \nPat Showalter\, Commissioner: So \nBoardroom SX80: any other comments or questions. I have just a couple \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve asked Larry to just tell. \nBoardroom SX80: those of us who are not intimately familiar with it. A little bit about the terms of these Opc. Scc. Grants\, and my second question \nBoardroom SX80: is really a follow up to Commissioner showalters it. It sounds as if there are many barriers. \nBoardroom SX80: There are many difficulties\, and virtually none of them are within our control. And if there are some that are within our control\, and I think \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, maybe. as you were saying\, I knew\, put the word out about positions that we are recruiting for. \nBoardroom SX80: and If there are others very specific like that\, I I’m sure that the Commissioners will be happy to help in the ways that we can help. But it sounds to me like the those ways are fairly limited. I think the structural ones probably are. So 2 responses. Thank you. Chair Eisen. First\, you’ll remember that the Ocean Protection Council and State Coastal Conservancy grants that were awarded to us \nBoardroom SX80: are upwards of between 2 and a half and 3 and a half years\, depending upon how long they go\, how many we have\, and so on\, and those are providing us with. I’m looking at Jessica 6 new positions which we have all filled at this point. We’ve \nBoardroom SX80: I’m pretty sure we’ve all thought we we have 5 out of the 6 is that I’m trying to remember. Go ahead\, Jessica. We’ve hired 5 out of 6\, and maybe 6 out of the 6\, but depending on whether an offer that was made yesterday\, that’s what that’s what I was one\, and and I hadn’t received words. So it’s either 5 out of 6 or 6 out of 6. And then the the great thing about that is that many of those have been filled by \nBoardroom SX80: existing Bcdc. Staff\, which has allowed for new staff to come in\, and that upward mobility so and so\, but but they will expire\, and so we will be working with the department of Finance and Cnra to make sure that they don’t expire. And that’s that that’s on us\, and we will do so\, and we get we. We certainly hope that because rising sea level isn’t going to stop that support will not stop. \nBoardroom SX80: We have never sent around to commissioners a list of open positions\, saying\, Please spread these around to your people. At least we don’t do it very\, very often we’re happy to do so\, but at the same time I’m cognizant that you\, as 13 local elected officials\, don’t want us poaching your people as \nthis Commissioner on Diego not shakes his head. And so we haven’t done that. But what we will do is and what I will. What I will say that we will do is\, we will certainly consider sending you\, for example\, a few that we think are key\, especially on the senior side\, that you may be interested in seeing\, and\, you know\, sending off to folks whom you do. And of course we do use the Linkedin. \nand you know all of the different ways that we can. We can get people anew is working closely with a corporate. I’m not going to\, I said a corporate recruiter\, because that’s the way I tend to think about this. An Hr. Recruiter for the regulatory director position. So we’re paying extra for that. And we do that on on certain occasions for the senior positions. Just so the word can get out there even more. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, good. That was a wonderful briefing. We all appreciate it very much. We don’t have to take any action with respect to that today. \nSo that brings us to adjournment. I need a motion and a second to adjourn. The meeting \nBoardroom SX80: on moves to adjourn a Diego seconds. Anybody opposed raise your hand\, otherwise we are adjourned. Thank you very much. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-15-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230605T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230605T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T030045Z
CREATED:20230606T052440Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T030045Z
UID:10000058-1685970000-1685984400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 5\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-5-2023-design-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230601T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230601T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T210851Z
CREATED:20230602T053444Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T210851Z
UID:10000038-1685624400-1685638800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 1\, 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. \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/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \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 Letter (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of May 18\, 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]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 557 East Bayshore\, in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2023.004.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC of a 14-acre mixed-use residential and commercial development\, including a public access area\, within the 100-foot shoreline band at 557 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Exhibits (PDF) //  Staff Presentation (PDF) //  Presentation (PDF) //  Revisions to Staff Recommendation (PDF)\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273 (PDF)The Commission will consider and potentially take positions on pending legislation\, including Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Cargill\, Inc. Maintenance and Operations Project\, in Portions of Alameda\, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties; BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00The Commission will receive a briefing on Cargill\, Inc.’s permit application for continuation of its solar salt system maintenance and operations activities for which BCDC is acting as CEQA lead agency.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nClosed Session on Pending Litigation: Greenberg v. Goldzband et. al. (Super. Ct Solano County\, 2022\, No FC058917)\, Commission Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order CCD2022.002.00 – CANCELLEDPursuant to Government Code Section 11126(e)\, the Commission may hold a closed session to consider this matter.(Greg Scharff) [650/686-9303; Greg.Scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nAmports Inc.2000 Center Street\, Suite 303Berkeley\, CA 94704 \nPermit Application No. M1985.019.07 (Non-Material Amendment No. Seven) \nFiled on 04/24/23 \n90th Day on 07/23/23 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at AMPORTS Benicia Wharf\, 1100 Bayshore Rd\, Benicia\, Solano County. \nDescription \nTo replace an approximately 10\,500-square-foot section of a concrete wharf and an approximately 14\,200-square-foot wooden wharf with a 13\,340-square-foot concrete wharf. The existing structures were damaged in a fire in April\, 2022\, and require replacement. The new structures will use concrete\, steel or HDPE piles to replace the creosote treated wooden piles of the old structure\, and will result in a net decrease of 248 square feet of in water fill. To ensure that the new structures are safely designed\, the applicant arranged for an independent review of the plans by qualified engineers. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \nApplicant \nPacific Flyway FundP.O. Box 907Concord\, CA 94522 \nMarsh Development Permit Application No. M2020.023.00md \nFiled on 04/07/23 \n90th Day on 07/06/23 \nLocation \nWithin and along the north-western edge of the Primary Management Area (PMA) of the Suisun Marsh\, in the City of Fairfield\, Solano County; along Ramsey Road parallel to Highway 680 and within the Garibaldi Unit of the Grizzly Island Wildlife Area. \nDescription \nThe Pacific Flyway Fund proposes to construct a 280-acre Pacific Flyway Center development project partially within the PMA and partially in the Secondary Management Area of Suisun Marsh (SMA). The majority of the project is located in the SMA and includes 15 ponds\, an education center\, parking\, public access paths\, interpretative signs\, and plantings. The project will be conducted in two phases. This permit is for Phase 1 of the project that is taking place in the PMA and includes: excavating three managed wetland ponds and an intake swale; installing outflow and intake water control structures and pipelines; constructing public pathways atop the pond levees; and planting native vegetation in the 200-acres located in the PMA. Approximately 26\,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated to create the ponds and swales in the PMA. The excavated soil will be reused on site to construct public pathways and managed wetland features throughout 76 acres of the site. Once constructed\, the three ponds will be filled with a combination of water from adjacent managed wetlands\, partially treated wastewater from the City of Fairfield\, an on-site well\, and rainwater. Initially\, a lift pump will be used to fill Pond A which will supply water to the rest of the 14 ponds in both the PMA and SMA via gravity flow through connecting intake and outtake lines. The ponds’ water will eventually return to the on-site seasonal wetlands through 5 outflow lines and swales located in the PMA. Phase 1 construction is projected to begin this year (2023) and completed within two years. Phase 2 would be constructed within the next 10 years and is not included in this permit. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pascale Soumoy; 415/352-3669 or pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov \nApplicants \nSonoma County Regional Parks2300 County Center Drive\, Suite 120aSanta Rosa\, CA 95430 \nPermit Application No. M2021.006.00 \nFiled on 05/04/23 \n90th Day on 08/02/23 \nLocation \nWithin the Commission’s certain waterway jurisdictions\, at 28000 Skaggs Island Road\, in the City of Sonoma\, Sonoma County. \nDescription \nReplace an existing public boat ramp\, dock and gangway with a new ramp\, dock and gangway and restore tidal marsh habitat. The project will result in a net increase of Bay fill of approximately 406 square feet. The project will mitigate for the increased Bay fill by removing creosote treated wood from the Bay and by restoring 800 square feet of high marsh on-site habitat through plantings. The restored marsh area and the temporarily disturbed tidal marsh around the boat ramp site will be monitored and adaptively managed to ensure success. \nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing May 19\, 2023 \n\n Notice of Revised Date of Public Hearing for Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19\nApplication Summary 557 East Bayshore\n\nCommission Mailing May 26\, 2023 \n\nStaff Recommendation 557 East Bayshore (PDF) // Exhibits (PDF)\nStaff Report on Senate Bill 273 (Wiener) Tidelands and Submerged Lands City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: Mixed-Use Development (PDF)\nDraft Minutes of May 18\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nHow does sea level rise challenge modern notions of property lines?\nHistorical moment’ for California surf schools in wake of shake-up at one Bay Area beach\nNew Map Exposes Critical Gaps in Bay Area’s Readiness for Sea Level Rise\nNew Flood Protection Standard for the Peninsula – KneeDeep Times\nCalifornia Surf Schools\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/06/06-01-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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-1-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230601T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230601T113000
DTSTAMP:20231020T011649Z
CREATED:20230602T053800Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T011649Z
UID:10000080-1685613600-1685619000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 1\, 2023 Environmental Justice Working Group Meetings
DESCRIPTION:In accordance with section 1133(b)1 of SB 189 (2022)\, this Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group meeting will be conducted in a virtual format and will be held online and by teleconference. The public can participate virtually via ZOOM. There will be no physical meeting location for attendees. \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/84258841304?pwd=QXBrUWZCVkFnbndmWFFOY3BHQzBTdz09 \nTeleconference numbers(214) 765-0479 or (888) 278-0296Code: 900680 \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.\nIntroduction of New EJ SpecialistRecently hired EJ Specialist Lita Brydie will introduce themselves.\nEJ Advisors Toxic Tours Planning UpdateEJ Advisor Selena Feliciano will give a presentation on the EJ Advisors’ plans to provide Toxic Tours for the BCDC Commission and Staff.\nEJ Advisors Organizational Development Facilitator UpdatePhoenix Armenta will share updates on the development of RFP to hire an Organizational Development Facilitator to evaluate the EJ Advisors Program.\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary and Presentation\n				Presentation \nToxics Tour Visioning Presentation \nMeeting Summary \nBCDC’s Environmental Justice Working Group members Commissioner Eddie Ahn\, Commissioner Sheri Pemberton\, Commissioner Pat Showalter\, and Commissioner John Vasquez attended the June 1\, 2023\, virtual public meeting at 10 A.M. \nBCDC’s Senior Manager of Climate Equity Phoenix Armenta introduced BCDC’s new EJ Specialist Lita Brydie. Lita introduced themselves and answered questions from the participants about their background and experiences. \nEJ Advisor Selena Feliciano presented on the EJ Advisors plans to create a toxic tour for BCDC Staff and Commissioners. They outlined the concept of the toxic tours and what the EJ Advisors are expecting from the tour. The Working Group members offered to support efforts of the Toxic Tours and brainstormed ideas for logistics. \nPhoenix Armenta presented an update on the EJ Advisors Program’s Organizational Development process that included an RFP for an Organizational Development consultant. The Working Group provided feedback on the qualifications and scope of work for the consultant. BCDC intends to solicit bids via an RFP process this summer. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-1-2023-environmental-justice-working-group-meetings/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230530T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230530T150000
DTSTAMP:20231013T044200Z
CREATED:20230530T234345Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T044200Z
UID:10000023-1685451600-1685458800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 30\, 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. \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/86521688509?pwd=QkU1TVQzaFFUUUJSVTdrYkF3eE5sUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID865 2168 8509 \nPasscode378645 \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 April 13\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2023.003.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2019.063.00).The Committee will hold a public hearing and will vote on whether to recommend to the full Commission the adoption of a proposed Order for Civil Penalties to resolve three violations\, consisting of two violations of the terms and conditions of BCDC Permit No. 1973.014.04 as well as Section 66632(a) of the McAteer-Petris Act\, and one violation of a condition of Permit No. M1985.030.01 by the permittee Seaplane Investments\, Inc.\, operating at 240-242 Redwood Highway Frontage Road\, Mill Valley\, Marin County. If this recommendation is adopted\, Respondent will be liable to pay a total of $21\,170 in administrative civil penalties(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s RED Exhibit A – Proposed Civil Penalty Order // Executive Director’s RED Exhibit B – Complaint for Administrative Civil Penalties // Executive Director’s RED Exhibit C – Statement of Defense // Public Comment // Late Submission 05/25/2023 (PDF) //  Respondent’s Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Vote on an Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision\, including Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order Number CCD2023.002.00 (BCDC Enforcement Case ER2019.063.00)  POSTPONEDThe Committee will hold a public hearing to address the permit violations and unauthorized development in the Bay and shoreline band at 240-242 Redwood Highway Frontage Road\, Mill Valley\, Marin County\, and vote whether to adopt a Recommended Enforcement Decision proposed by the Executive Director\, which includes a proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order to require remedial actions at the site and payment of $180\,000 in administrative civil liability.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s RED Exhibit A – Proposed Cease and Desist Order with Exhibits //  Executive Director’s RED Exhibit B – Violation Report and Complaint with exhibits//  Executive Director’s RED Exhibits C to C9 – Statement of Defense with exhibits //  Late Submission 12/01/2022 (PDF)  //  Public Comment  //  Late Submission 05/25/2023 (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/05/05-30-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nTranscript for items 5 and 7 \nAfternoon\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: good afternoon. The time is by my watch\, 104\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this is a meeting of the B Cdc. Enforcement committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmour\, and I am chair of this committee. So\, fellow committee members\, please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and our first order of business is to call the role. Matthew\, please call the role. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Hey? Good afternoon. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Let’s see Commissioner Eisen. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner basket here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a quorum present and are duly constituted to conduct business. That brings us to item number 3 on our agenda\, which is the public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda\, we will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I don’t believe\, Margie\, we had any comments on items\, not on the agenda. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we did not receive any. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? So just in general for members of the public\, if you would like to speak either during this general comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click that palm icon. It will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must style Star 9 to raise your hand. Then dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone when the host asks you to. In order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting host\, Margie Mailin\, will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called on\, 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: commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak\, but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner\, as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats in direct threats or abuse of language\, and we will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, Margie\, do we have any hands raised by members of the public? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s no hands raised chat deal more\, but I want to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST:  Say\, Hi to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner Ranch has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome\, Sanjay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so no public comment. So we’re moving on to approving the draft minutes from the last me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We’ve all been furnished with our dra draft minutes and committee members. I would prove\, appreciate a motion and a second to approve those. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. Moved by Vasquez\, seconded by Eisen. all in favor. Say aye\, or raise your hand \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  carries the motion carries unanimously with all 4 commissioners voting in favor. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so we are on to item 5\, is a public hearing and a vote on a recommended enforcement decision to adopt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a proposed civil penalty. Order\, Ccd. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2\,023.0 0 3\, to impose a toll of $21\,170 in administrative civil penalties on sleet Se. Plane investment\, Llc. Operating out of Mill Valley and Rin County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: following a hearing on the matters at issue\, this committee will vote on whether to adopt the Executive Director’s recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The record for this matter includes the violation report and complaint. The respondents statement of defense\, the recommended Enforcement decision and proposed order and all other items identified by B. C DC. Regulation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 1\, 1\, 3\, 7\, 0. So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent? please identify yourself \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and your association with the respondent for the record? \nJillian Blanchard: Yes. Hello\, committee members and commissioners. This is Gillian Blanchard with rudder law group we represent se plane investments. Llc. The respondent for both agenda items 5 and 6. I also have here with me Mr. Lou Vasquez and Mallee Richlyn\, who are both managers at seaplane investments and manage the site for any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So before we get started\, a couple of ground rules  one is. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well. let me let me back up \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for the sake of \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Hopefully ease. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m going to call this item for shorthand\, the paper violations \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the item number 6\, the physical violations. Okay? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And let me ask respondents\, how much time do you think you need to present your case on the paper violations? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re muted \nJillian Blanchard: apologies. Thank you. the paper violations. We I can do it. I can squeeze it in\, although I’d like to have 15 min but I can squeeze it in a shorter period\, if necessary. But 15 min would be great. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, and\, Mr. Player\, how long do you think you need for your presentation on the paper violations? \nBrent Plater: thank you. Chair Gilmore. Actually\, Adriene is the lead on this case\, so she’ll be bringing the presenting today in the cases. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Adrian. \nadrienne klein: we have a partially combined presentation\, and I will \nadrienne klein: endeavor to keep it to a total of 30 min. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  I would prefer to take them one at a time. Is it possible for you to split your presentation. because what I’m I’m considering is giving \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presenters 15 min on this item\, and then we can talk about the timeframe for the next item when we get to it. \nadrienne klein: I have a combined timeline of events\, and I was planning to present \nadrienne klein: the 9 violations and then \nadrienne klein: do 2 separate \nadrienne klein: sections for the defenses and the recommendations. defenses\, rebuttals and staff recommendations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, let’s let’s okay. So how about \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry? \nadrienne klein: Well\, I \nadrienne klein: I don’t think I can reorganize \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re breaking up. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re now frozen \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just wanted to note that and Hadrian \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: that for for sake of an administrative record. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: if Adrian had to. If if the \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: B Cdc. Side had to present the timeline twice\, I think that would be okay at the end of the day. These are separate matters\, so they need separate records. So to the extent the the staff can make an adjustment. I think that is going to be what is needed for clarity. The record Chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, I I have no problem with you presenting a combined timeline\, and if you have to do it twice. That’s fine. But I would really prefer to keep the item separate in the to the paper. violations versus the physical violations\, because the record is so voluminous I’m afraid we’re going to get lost. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so how about if we for this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: first item and we’ll revisit it when we get to the second one\, everybody gets 15 min. Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  So you’re going to get 15 min to make your presentations to the committee\, and presentations must be limited to responding to the evidence. That’s already part of the enforcement record and the policy implications of such evidence. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so that that’s one thing. And then the second thing is\, I’m sure everybody received \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in the middle of a holiday weekend a rather voluminous set of of new materials. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point in time\, I want to ask Ms. Blanchard if there was \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: anything in that set of materials that was recently discovered\, or could not have recent reasonably been discovered and presented to the committee. ahead of May 20\, fifth. \nJillian Blanchard: Thank you very much. chair\, Gilmour\, and since your apologies. I myself did not want to have to file a a letter on Saturday of a Memorial Day weekend. I did so because there were some claims raised for the very first time from the statements of fact \nJillian Blanchard: in the record\, recommended enforcement decision related to the 6 Violations. It was also a public comment that was a showed to us for the very first time as part of the agenda package from Edgecom Law\, which was a letter which is set of 2 different letters received by Staff in January and March of this year\, but we never received a copy of it until receiving the agenda package. \nJillian Blanchard: both raising different claims. And so\, in order to clarify the record\, religious to the misstatements of fact in the recommended enforcement decision. And these new letters that we were just seeing. For the first time we felt it necessary to provide highly relevant evidence in the form of the permit application to middle package. It’s been some suggestion. I don’t want to get too much into the substance. Yeah\, please\, please don’t\, because because here’s the thing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: just about all of that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: could have been submitted ahead of time\, and I am not inclined to have that particular set of materials. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: become part of the record. one\, because it’s not timely and 2 because there is no way \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that it was reasonable to expect members of this committee to not only read those documents\, but digest them. \nJillian Blanchard: And so I if I’m very sorry about that\, and I\, what I will do is I will highlight the most relevant pieces in my presentation what I I’m not letting. I’m not letting the information come in. If if it’s information \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that was in your \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: state number of fence. Yes\, then you you may speak to that\, but nothing new. That was in the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: May 25 letter. You may highlight things that were in your statement of defense\, and that’s fine. That’s perfectly acceptable. \nJillian Blanchard: If I could just add one piece\, the They. One critical piece is the permit application supplement that was filed on April of 2\,023\, so it could not have been filed with the statement of defense because it was filed in April of 2\,023 we copied Enforcement staff on it. We expected that they would include it in their recommended Enforcement decision as part of talking about levels of compliance on the part of seaplane investments. \nJillian Blanchard: but it was completely ignored. So it’s critical that this Commission understand what that permitting package includes. And that’s why we\, in addition to you. You’re getting. You’re getting too far into argument. I just wanted to set some ground rules. Okay\, And so let’s \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: let’s get on our way and get into the nuts and bolts. Because\, like I said\, the record is very voluminous. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I think you’re gonna have some questions from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright! so I’m going to invite our principal enforcement analyst Adrian\, client to give her presentation\, summarizing the violation report complaint and recommended enforcement decision. you have 15 min\, and Ms client\, please limit your presentation to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: issues of controversy. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. My screen should be visible. \nadrienne klein: Great \nadrienne klein: good afternoon\, chair\, Gilmore. Just one moment. Please \nadrienne klein: make sure I can drive. \nadrienne klein: Okay \nadrienne klein: for apologies \nadrienne klein: going forward. Not back. \nadrienne klein: Hmm. \nadrienne klein: not sure why I’m having that problem. \nOkay\, I’ve got it sorted. Thank you for your patience. \nadrienne klein: Okay. \nadrienne klein: good afternoon. Chair. Gilmore and committee members. Today’s public hearings will address 9 violations associated with B Cdc. Case enforcement number er \nadrienne klein: 2. 19063. Staff issued a violation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Adrian\, you’re frozen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re still \nadrienne klein:  Margie\, I am. If you want to promote me to a panelist. I joined on the phone. \nadrienne klein: I see that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay\, Adrian\, you’re good to go \nadrienne klein: to get my microphone work. \nadrienne klein: I don’t think you can hear me on the computer \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we can hear you. \nadrienne klein: Margie\, can you mute me on the laptop? So I’m not. \nadrienne klein: And surround sound? \nIs this connection better. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think so. I’m cautiously optimistic. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, your phone is still muted. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I can’t control it on my end. \nadrienne klein: I might have to\, you know. I’ll log out and come back here because I \nadrienne klein: won’t let me use my microphone \nadrienne klein: so. And \nadrienne klein: difficulties. \nadrienne klein: Say. \nadrienne klein: you\, can you hear me \nhere? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nadrienne klein: Can you see me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nokay\, let’s try that again. My apologies. \nadrienne klein: I can hear myself twice. \nadrienne klein: Margie\, can you? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We can’t hear you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Agent \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Asian\, we can see and hear you. \nadrienne klein: Okay? \nadrienne klein: So\, continuing on. \nadrienne klein: we issued the second violation report and complaint in July 2\,022\, to resolve 6 unresolved violations. I’m sorry first\, to resolve 6 on violations. \nadrienne klein: and the second as a complaint for administrative penalties to resolve the penalty portion of 3 violations. \nadrienne klein: So we’ve got an outline that will consolidate the timeline of events\, and I’ll separate the rest as best as possible. \nadrienne klein: So this is a vicinity map to Orient you to the site. The address is 2 4\, 0 2\, 4\, 2 redwood highway frontage road in an unincorporated area of Marin County. \nadrienne klein: This image shows the site looking to the northeast. The site contains a number of businesses and operations that will be described during the presentation. While some of these ground level uses and the Associated still appear to have been ongoing in 1\,965 \nadrienne klein: versus seed plane flights which are not part of these hearings. Any changes to the ongoing use as an associated fill within B Cdc’s jurisdiction\, including maintenance \nadrienne klein: that occurred after an accident of enactment of the Macro chair. Petrus act here and after referred to as the Mpa. \nadrienne klein: Requires A\, B Cdc. Permit or permit amendment. \nadrienne klein: B Cdc. Permits run with the land\, and new owners are responsible for resolving inherited violations in addition to violations\, they undertake themselves. New owners should\, but in this case did not contact the Cdc. As part of a due diligence review to ascertain site status in relation to the law and existing B Cdc. Permits. \nadrienne klein: This aerial image has an overlay of the approximate locations of the 2 privately owned parcels number 164 to the right and 167 to the left\, with street rights of way surrounding them. The docking facility is located on Marin County property. \nadrienne klein: I’ve got 4 slides to review the timeline of events. Starting in August 73\, the 1\,973 permit was issued to Commodore Marina\, and not from it’s been amended. A total of 4 times \nadrienne klein: in 74 permit recorded the restriction to dedicate the public access required by the permit and Marine County \nadrienne klein: in 88 a permit was issued to Walter Landord for the helicopter operations\, whereas the 73 permit pertains primarily to the activities on parcel 167\, \nadrienne klein: and in the wire. \nadrienne klein: sometime before December Cove 3\, an unauthorized fuel tank was installed in the yellow street right of way. plus parking and seaplane storage and repairs and areas reserved for public access \nadrienne klein: some time before 2\,008\, and the unauthorized helicopter landing pad and fill for walkways was placed on parcel 164. \nadrienne klein: During 3 separate occasions between. In the 2 thousands unauthorized expansions and repairs were made to the seaplane\, doking facility. \nadrienne klein: In 2\,019 B. Cdc. Received the first of 2 reports of unauthorized activities at the site and conducted a site visit the following month just prior to the pandemic. \nadrienne klein: We also issued a notice of violation to Commodore Marina and C. Plane adventures\, notifying them of the report we’ve received\, and outlining our understanding of the allegations at that time. \nadrienne klein: After having conducted extensive file review between February and September\, we issued second letter outlining the permits requirements. Our understanding of the onsite violations \nadrienne klein: and providing recommendations\, and how to resolve them. \nadrienne klein: In 2\,020 and 2\,021 we received 3 letters from respondents form of Council\, which provided some useful information\, but none of which resolved any of the violations. \nadrienne klein: We held. A meeting initiated by us virtual due to the pandemic in July 2\,021\, \nadrienne klein: and selected the date of August thirtieth to receive \nadrienne klein: an amendment application which is still a way to resolve the majority of the violations \nadrienne klein: that same month ownership transferred of both privately owned parcels from Commodore to seaplane \nadrienne klein: and no application was received by August the thirtieth\, or even before October 2\,021\, on which date we issued a letter commencing a standardized fine clock\, having not felt that by that time sufficient progress on voluntary resolution had been made \nadrienne klein: our understanding of the violations in that at that time we we cited 5 violations in that letter. \nadrienne klein: at the end of 2\,021\, \nadrienne klein: we receive evidence that the houseboat remodeling project \nadrienne klein: had been completed \nadrienne klein: in January 2\,022\, we received 2 permit assignment violations. Also. That month we issued the Fourth Amendment to the 73 Permit. \nadrienne klein: which fully resolved the unauthorized work \nadrienne klein: occurring at the Marina between permanent expiration and issuance of a retroactive extension of time to complete the house but remodeling project. \nadrienne klein: we received a permit applications\, an abbreviated region-wide permit application\, not a permit amendment application in February 2\,028\, \nadrienne klein: and responded to that application at the end of March\, in the middle of March\, 2 weeks after receiving the permit. Application. \nadrienne klein: Response! We received a report of unauthorized activities occurring at the site I the construction of a new water access ramp. \nadrienne klein: This violation is considered very egregious\, and the day after Vcd. Issued its first executive Director of Order to halt that work \nadrienne klein: and require its removal and site restoration. That \nadrienne klein: Ed order last for 90 days. \nadrienne klein: and was there for re-issued twice. \nadrienne klein: We\, as I think I mentioned\, responded to the application. In February\, in March. \nadrienne klein: in August of 2\,022 3 paper violations had been resolved subject to\, and we’re subject to standardized fines. We issued a letter \nadrienne klein: asking for payment of the standardized fines. \nadrienne klein: In July we issued a violation report and complaint for the 6 unresolved violations. \nadrienne klein: We received a timely statement of defense and waiver of the requirement to have the hearing within 60 days. \nadrienne klein: In September we re-issued the Ud. Order for a second time. \nadrienne klein: and also a final notice requesting payment of the standardized fines to avoid commencement of a second formal enforcement proceeding. \nadrienne klein: we held a failed Settlement Conference on October seventh. \nadrienne klein: and issued a second complaint to resolve the 3 resolve violations in October. \nadrienne klein: We also received a timely filed statement of defense for that complaint we had scheduled to hold these public hearings in December of 2\,022\, \nadrienne klein: but postponed those hearings until today to request so to undertake some of the negotiations \nadrienne klein: which took place during this winter\, and unfortunately failed. That completes the timeline. \nadrienne klein: and now summarize the 2 permits \nadrienne klein: in the bay. The 1\,973 permit authorizes fill placement for a bulkhead. \nadrienne klein: This and that fill is shown in the smaller of the 2 hatched areas near the house. \nadrienne klein: Fill placement on block 167 \nadrienne klein: yellow and Prepa streets for landscape\, public access and landscaping to improve shoreline appearance. Construction of a berm around the Heliport landing pad on Block 164\, and reconstruction of an existing 11 houseboat Marina \nadrienne klein: in the shoreline band. The 73 permit authorizes placement of fill in the larger of the 2 hatched areas to raise the grade for project landscaping landscape\, public access and auto circulation. \nadrienne klein: And note that that filled area goes all the way back to the line of Bolina Street \nadrienne klein: here. \nadrienne klein: So these areas are to be used for public access. \nadrienne klein: not private uses. \nadrienne klein: The permit. Alpha also authorized office building\, renovation for continued office use\, construction of 17 parking places on parentheses. and much for all of the fill authorized to elevate the low-lying site has been washed away over time by frequent title inundation \nadrienne klein: within the stippled area on this image \nadrienne klein: the which is the dedicated public access area. The hermit requires an eighth foot wide\, all weather pathway suitable for pedestrian and bicycle use leading from the Marin County Bike path \nadrienne klein: along the site to the northeast edge of the property. The permit requires landscaping\, parking for the general public. \nadrienne klein: and\, as mentioned\, it should be used only for public access purposes and on the heliport pad for slight control purposes only. \nadrienne klein: The 2 photos on the left show extensive erosion of and title inundation on the required public access pathway on perpetrators\, and a failure to maintain the site to prevent or address these erosive conditions. The photo on the right shows the path near Yellow Street\, and decent condition\, but without any public sure signs. \nadrienne klein: This first photo on the left \nadrienne klein: is is looking from the bay back for the office building\, and you can see the path is eroded to the point of being gone\, and the tidal marsh vegetation is growing in as a result of the erosion of shoreline protection. Here that has not been maintained. The middle photo shows flooding \nadrienne klein: and tidal mud brought in along the pathway surface. \nadrienne klein: The 1\,985 permit authorizes repair of a title\, Flap gate. \nadrienne klein: and in the shoreline band placement of aggregate to protect the heliport landing pad from flooding installation of a fuel. Storage\, tank and fuel containment\, area paving and fill placement. \nadrienne klein: Both permits include commencement and completion. Dates\, and though permits run with the land. They also require preparation of a permit assignment form to transfer the rights and obligations of each permit from the seller to the purchaser. \nadrienne klein: I will now describe the 3 resolved violations relevant because they were subject to standardized fines that responded failed to pay. By October the 20 sixth\, 2\,022 for fitting its opportunity to resolve the penalties by paying 12\,300 in standardized fines\, and resulting in issuance of a complaint for penalties \nadrienne klein: of a larger amount. \nadrienne klein: Violations one and it one and 2\, occurred between August 22\,021\, which is 30 days following the July 20\, first 2\,021 property purchase date. \nadrienne klein: and January the sixth\, 2\,022. The date staff approved. The 2 permit assignment forms \nadrienne klein: the fully executed permit. Assignment. Forms resulted in resolution of the violations on January the sixth\, 2\,022\, but a crude standardized fines were not paid between August second \nadrienne klein: and October 20 sixth \nadrienne klein: violation\, 3 occurred between August 30\, first\, 2\,021\, the date of expiration of the 1\,973 permit. and January the 25\, 2\,022\, the date of issuance of the Fourth Amendment to that permit \nadrienne klein: that issue\, and that amendment resulted in resolution of the violation\, but a crude standardized fines were not paid also. Between August second and October the 20 sixth. \nadrienne klein: I had plan to describe the unresolved violations\, but I could now proceed to the defenses for these 3 resolve violations. That’s what you like me to do\, Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, please. \nadrienne klein: So the item 5 defenses for the 3 resolve violations. Our defense\, one. \nadrienne klein: The requirement to complete a permit assignment form at the time of property transfer is enforceable\, and needs to happen as soon as possible after transfer. Respondent argues that because the permit condition does not include a due date\, they never need to comply with it. \nadrienne klein: They’re incorrect\, and the complaint gives a 30 day grace period \nadrienne klein: for penalty\, assessment from the date of transfer to submittal and approval of the assignment form \nadrienne klein: defense to\, responded to\, not provide to completed assignment forms\, nor halt house\, foot\, remodeling work\, nor submit a filed request to extend the permit. Completion. Date within 35 days of receiving the October 2\,021 letter that initiated standardized fines \nadrienne klein: by the time respondent had filed the compliant documents in January\, the twentieth 2. They had a crude standardized fines. partial resolution of a violation within the 35 day. Grace period means that standardized fines will accrue and be owed \nadrienne klein: defense 3 for 147 days\, between August 30\, first 21\, the expiration date of the 1\,973 permit \nadrienne klein: in January 20 fifth\, 2\,022\, the date of issuance of the Fourth Amendment that retroactively extended the completion date of that 73 permit \nadrienne klein: responded conducted unauthorized hospital remodeling work. Responding clients at B. Cdc. Claims that the project was completed too late\, i. E. After permit expiration\, and too early before extending the completion date. \nadrienne klein: Both conditions are true and respondent conducted unauthorized work \nadrienne klein: defense for \nadrienne klein: the penalty portion in a formal enforcement proceeding is from the date. The violation began to the date of resolution. \nadrienne klein: whereas the penalty period in the standardized fine process commences upon issuance of the letter that starts a standardized fine clock to the date of resolution of the violation or violations. \nadrienne klein: The standardized find time period is less than the total duration of each violation. and also includes a 35 day\, great time\, grace\, time\, period. Pardon me. \nadrienne klein: therefore\, the number of days responded\, is subject to daily penalties\, has changed from 87 to 136 days for the assignment violations\, and from 109 to 147 days for the housebo. Remodeling and relocation project \nadrienne klein: respondent falsely argues that the find should be dismissed\, because staff lengthen the duration of each violation \nadrienne klein: as noted\, the actual duration of each\, but of the 2 by of each of the 3 violations has not changed. but the day subject to administrative penalties\, now covers the entire period of each violation \nadrienne klein: defense. 5 responded incorrectly\, argues that the issuance of the complaint 8 months after\, Staff notified\, responded that the violations had been resolved\, increased the penalty. \nadrienne klein: In fact\, the timing favored respondent\, giving them more time to resolve the penalty portion of the violations with standardized fines than if the complaint had been issued sooner. \nadrienne klein: Defense. 6 \nadrienne klein: B. Cdc. Staff issued 3 letters pertaining to the standardized funds. \nadrienne klein: first\, in October the 21 that commences the standardized fine clock\, second\, in August\, the 22 informing responded to pay the accrued $12\,300 in standardized fines within 30 days. \nadrienne klein: and third\, in September. \nadrienne klein: 2\,022\, a final warning letter to pay the standardized fines within 35 days of that September letter to avoid the commencement of a formal enforcement proceeding \nadrienne klein: on October first\, 2\,022\, the Cdc’s enforcement regulations were Updated \nadrienne klein: citing these newly adopted regulations that were in applicable to the communications issued and procedures applied prior to their adoption\, respondent falsely claims that it was improperly notice of its option to appeal standardized fines\, and or never afforded a proper opportunity to appeal. The fines\, and therefore that the complaint and associated find should be dismissed. \nadrienne klein: responded\, is incorrect\, it was properly noticed\, and penalties are appropriate. \nadrienne klein: Defense. 7. The complaint meets the legal standards of the law and regulations. It cites the actions that constitute the Macintosh Petris\, and permit violations\, responded incorrectly\, argues that the complaint fails to do so\, and should therefore be dismissed. \nadrienne klein: Defense 8. There is one owner of the property\, and that single owner is responsible for resolving the unresolved violations and paying administrative penalties for them. \nadrienne klein: Defense 9 \nadrienne klein: B Cdc. Permits run the land and respondent is responsible for the site conditions as they existed at time of transfer. Whether or not respond was aware of the inherited violations in Leslie Salt versus B. Cdc. The California Court of Appeals found that the Macintosh Petros Act holds landowners strictly liable for unauthorized fill\, placed by third persons on their property. \nadrienne klein: The court determined that strict liability and this is a quote is an appropriate and traditional consequence of the possession and controlled land\, and more than justified because of important public policy objectives. The Mpa. Is designed to achieve end quote. \nadrienne klein: therefore\, respondents defense. That it’s not responsible for inherited violations is not substantiated and responded\, has a legal obligation to resolve each of them. \nadrienne klein: Further. Aaron\, singer\, owner\, and operator of Se. Plane adventures\, has been a constant figure at this site\, formally as a tenant of Commodore Marina\, and now as an owning partner of Se. Plane investment\, Llc. As of July the 20 first\, as shown in this slide\, which lists his name in first position as a 21% interest owner. \nadrienne klein: and also \nadrienne klein: in this slide \nadrienne klein: where he has signed for their building\, and Lou Vasquez have at least one B. C. To see\, permit and have knowledge of the B Cdc. Regulatory requirements. \nadrienne klein: So the staff recommendation for these 3 resolved violations \nadrienne klein: is to pay a $21\,170 administrative civil penalty within 30 days of order issuance. \nadrienne klein: That would be 2 5\,440 penalties for 2 failures to provide a permit assignment form required by standard condition for C of the 73 permit\, and for E of the 85 permit\, between August 2\,021 and January 3\, 2\,022\, and a 10\,290 penalty for failure to complete a House\, but remodeling and relocation project \nadrienne klein: prior to permit expiration and continuing work with an expired permit between August 21 and January the 22. \nadrienne klein: And that concludes the item. 5. Presentation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrian. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Next\, I’m going to invite the respondents\, attorney\, Miss Blanchard\, to present your your side and I’m going to remind you of the time limit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and please stick to the relevant violations or the proposed order and pay particular attention to where their items and controversy. \nJillian Blanchard: Absolutely. Thank you very much. Commissioner Gilmour. committee members. I’ve been trying to share my screen \nJillian Blanchard: here. \nWell. \nJillian Blanchard: and \nJillian Blanchard: there we go\, and everyone see that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nJillian Blanchard: okay\, great. \nJillian Blanchard: I will get started. Okay? So as mentioned\, I’m Jillian Blanchard with Rudder Law group\, and I’ll be talking to you in this agenda. Item about the 3 \nJillian Blanchard: resolved paper violations. \nJillian Blanchard: main points to keep in mind. I am going to try and focus on the areas of controversy. But there are a number of facts that we need clarified for the record that we believe the Commission would take into great consideration as would a reviewing court\, so we’ll make them as clear as we can as fast as we can. Here. \nJillian Blanchard: Seaplane investments is a wholly separate entity from seaplane adventures. First and foremost\, and they have been diligently trying to comply with what we view to be a moving ball of compliance since purchasing the property in July of 2\,021. I note that a good deal of the timeline that was referenced before took place in advance of July of 2\,021. I’ll cover that in the 6 violations\, as you call them\, professional Commissioner Gilmour\, the physical violations that’s how I refer to them as well. \nJillian Blanchard: So the 3 allegations here have had 0 impact on the bay. They’ve been fully resolved for over a year and a half\, and\, as you all know\, Commissioners Bcdc. Is not authorized to le levy either standardized fines or civil penalties for violations that did not take place. So it’s imperative at this\, the very first opportunity to have seaplane investments rights adjudicated\, that you commissioners look to determine whether any violations took place in the first instance. \nJillian Blanchard: I do not want to go into too much detail. Adrian provided a a lot of chronology. I’d like to highlight a few important dates that were missed in the timeline provided by B Cdc. Staff\, first and foremost\, on April sixteenth Vc. 2\,021\, before Se. Plane \nJillian Blanchard: investments took ownership B. Cdc. Issued its extension for the relocation of Houseboat Number 11 to Mr. Harold Huddleman\, who owns the houseboat that was expired on August thirty-first. \nJillian Blanchard: and then in July\, as as you’ve heard\, seaplane investments took ownership. On August ninth. \nJillian Blanchard: Harold Hedleman\, the same party who received the previous extension\, requested another extension 3 weeks in advance of that deadline of August 30\, first. Unfortunately\, B. Cdc. Staff did not respond to that request. \nJillian Blanchard: The only response they did provide was on October eighth\, 2\,021\, which this is a very important fact that can on the record. This is the first point of contact from BC. DC. 2 Se. Plane investments was on October the eighth\, 2\,021\, and in that letter they suggested that the Household extension request was not valid\, even though it had been submitted by the previous party who received the previous extension \nJillian Blanchard: from B Cdc. \nJillian Blanchard: On October. Here’s the most important date that staff may fail to mention in their presentation. On October 20\, eighth\, less than a month after receiving the very first notice from BC. DC. \nJillian Blanchard: So in 20 days seaplane investments ran around\, got the permit assignment form from Mr. Price the previous owner\, which was no mean feat. \nJillian Blanchard: and filed 2 permit assignment forms with BC. DC. One for the 1\,985\, permit one for the 1\,973 permit. Within 20 days. They also filed pictures showing the household relocation as complete\, and asked what additional retroactive authorization they might need\, because they had already filed an extension request. On August ninth \nJillian Blanchard: there was a request for additional information from Bcdc. Staff. Additional paperwork in the form of an operating agreement. And notably\, it’s it’s interesting just mentioning something that Staff just brought up. This idea that Mr. Singer has such a big role to play in se plane investments. In fact\, BC. DC. Did not accept Aaron Singer’s signature on the Permit assignment form and asked one of the things that went back and forth between October and December of 2\,022\, \nJillian Blanchard: was the request to have Mr. Vasquez Lou Vasquez signed the permit assignment form because Mr. Singer owns 4 of the Se. Plane investments. Llc. What you were looking at was an Llc. Operating agreement related to a management company that is partial owner. You don’t want to get into the weeds there\, but the point being that Lou Vasquez is the managing member. \nJillian Blanchard: and then it was all resolved on January sixth\, according to BC. DC. And then also importantly\, on January 20\, fifth B. C. DC. This is really critical. They issued the after the fact authorization for the household relocation\, and made it retroactive to the very valid August ninth. Heddleman request. \nJillian Blanchard: The rest of these chronology is in the statement of defense. \nJillian Blanchard: I just want to highlight here the august second letter Nowhere in that letter is the word appeal used\, which is a requirement for adequate notice. It is not. \nJillian Blanchard: They were not notified that they had the opportunity to appeal these underlying violations\, nor that an appeal period would be closed if they did not respond\, making an appeal request. \nJillian Blanchard: The remaining quota chronology is here as well\, but I want to just highlight a couple of things that become relevant\, not just for these 3 violations\, but for the 6 violations that we’ll be talking about in a minute\, which is the very\, very confusing communication between BC. DC. And C plain investments. During this time \nJillian Blanchard: they received this July violation report at the end of July \nJillian Blanchard: that did not include any of these 3 paper violations. 4 days later they got the august second letter\, saying\, now that standardized fines were due for 3 different violations\, they were under the same enforcement number\, without any reference to the July violation report. \nJillian Blanchard: and then\, while they’re busy filing their statement of defense\, their previous practitioner\, Mr. John Sharp\, filed the statement of defense\, but he was confused as to whether or not it was covering everything or not\, and he specifically reserved the right in that statement of defense to file additional evidence because he was getting conflicting messages from Staff. \nJillian Blanchard: Indeed\, on September sixth B. Cdc’s Enforcement manager\, Mr. Trashilo contacted Mr. Sharp\, and asked them to delay the hearing to reach a resolution for all 9 violations. So here se plane investments feels like they’re getting. They’re moving forward with some form of settlement\, recognizing that they maybe need to file additional evidence if things aren’t resolved. And in the midst of that they receive a final warning letter related to the 3 violations. \nJillian Blanchard: So it was highly confusing\, and I have to admit myself\, even working with B. C. DC. And over 20 years productively with your staff. I was highly confused by these communication between \nJillian Blanchard: Se. Plane and B Cdc. As to whether they were working with them on permitting whether they were issuing violations\, whether they were related to 6 violations or 3 violations\, whether they were delaying a hearing\, whether an appeal period was closing\, it was really really complicated\, and yet we tried it earnest to work with staff on a settlement\, because this \nJillian Blanchard: property owner is the first property owner that Pcdc. Has probably seen in decades that really wants compliance on this site. That is a primary objective for seaplane investments. As Miss Klein mentioned\, Lou Vasquez is a managing member\, and he is very familiar with what needs to be done. He’s helped to build a seventeen-eighter park on the waterfront in South San Francisco\, and he only wants to improve the public access here as well. \nJillian Blanchard: But we’re repeatedly being diverted to defend seaplane investments rights by these violations. So let’s look at the violations because\, rather than being able to reach a settlement that might have involved some fines here \nJillian Blanchard: we now are being forced to adjudicate the rights to say\, did a violation occur? And when you review\, as you know\, commissioners\, whether a permit condition was violated\, actual permit. Language is key. \nJillian Blanchard: Here is the 1\,985 actual permit language related to the assignment of permits. The very first sentence is what you need to read. The rights derived from this amended permit are assignable. \nJillian Blanchard: This is a permissive allowance only. It is not an affirmative duty on either Mr. Price\, the permitee or \nJillian Blanchard: se plain investments\, the permit\, the transferring. \nJillian Blanchard: however\, we recognize the value in need for permits to run with the land\, which is another one of the requirements\, and we also recognize as someone who works with you a lot that of course\, you’ve revised this language in the permits that you issue today. You’ve made it really clear that assignment is required with it a certain period of time\, and it’s because these conditions were permissive only\, and they were unclear. \nJillian Blanchard: So we are not\, as staff suggest\, saying that assignment is not necessary. We are only saying that the language in this permit does not justify an actual violation having occurred. \nJillian Blanchard: and the most important piece to understand is that \nJillian Blanchard: even if this had been required\, seaplane investments filed a permit assignment form within 20 days of receiving its very first notice from Bcdc. \nJillian Blanchard: They’re not saying it wasn’t required. They’re not even trying not to comply. They did their due diligence to try and comply. Within 20 days. Bcd. She asked for additional information they filed that if additional information and things were resolved on January the third\, but that cannot be levied as an actual violation based on this permit condition language\, but seaplane investments is being charged over for an act for no actual violation. \nJillian Blanchard: Very similarly\, when you look at the permit from 1\,973. Again. \nJillian Blanchard: the Commission\, as you know\, and a reviewing court\, will look directly at this permit. Condition. Language to see. Was there an actual violation. That’s what it is\, matters here in adjudicating these rights. \nJillian Blanchard: And here we will acknowledge this is a much more affirmative \nJillian Blanchard: condition\, in that it at least says that assignment is absolutely required. And again\, for the record\, I want to be clear. Se plane investments has never claimed that they are not going to accept\, permit assignment. In fact\, they worked quickly to make it happen. \nJillian Blanchard: All we are saying is that the language here does not justify an assessment of fines or penalties. \nJillian Blanchard: because what happened for the 73 permit. \nJillian Blanchard: While this is an affirmative requirement\, there is absolutely nowhere written that there is a 30 day deadline within which the permit assignment must be completed. \nJillian Blanchard: It just doesn’t exist. And\, as you know\, Commissioner Staff does not authorize to add in language into the perfect conditions themselves. \nJillian Blanchard: So \nJillian Blanchard: also\, importantly\, a permit assignment form was filed within 20 days of receiving the first notice. So permanent assignment is complete. There’s no violation there as soon as permit assignment was done. Actually. \nJillian Blanchard: seaplane investments as we’ll talk about in the next hearing immediately filed a permit application to address what they saw and understood to be any potential feature on the property that required after the fact authorization. So they are in no way suggesting that they don’t need to comply. In fact\, all they want to do is compliance. They’re just constantly being battered by unlawful violations. \nJillian Blanchard: Here they were being charged 5\,000. \nJillian Blanchard: I want to talk really quickly about the household violation\, although I mentioned it a bit. The chronology\, because we believe that the August ninth Household extension request that Bcd. She never responded to is a critical piece of missing information in their timeline. \nJillian Blanchard: It was a valid request\, said\, 3 weeks before the expiration date. They were in the middle of completing the House Bill construction\, and\, as you know\, it can cause additional impacts to the bay to stop a construction project like that that is pretty small. That can be done quickly\, that \nJillian Blanchard: waiting for Bcdc. Staff to respond. We understand that staff is extraordinarily busy\, which is why we give one another grace when I work with permitting Staff a lot on these things\, which is why we’re so surprised that there is such an aggressive stance being taken on this House boat violation\, and the the report says that there’s been a failure to request an extension that is patently false\, and it’s proven by Bcdc’s own correspondence\, in which they issued a household extension \nJillian Blanchard: retroactive back to this very valid August ninth request. and for this they’re being charged over $10\,000. \nJillian Blanchard: We also want to note the previous honor Mr. Price received. 3 different houseboat authorizations could not complete the project. In over 5 years. \nJillian Blanchard: Seaplane investments took charge of the property and completed the project within months\, and then asked\, had filed the valid extension request and work things out with Bcdc. Within months\, and then filed a very valid permit application for what it believed to be unauthorized features which we’ll talk about \nJillian Blanchard: in the next hearing. So 2 min remaining. Thank you. I will tell you that unlawful issuance of fines cannot be supported by the Commission or by a reviewing court\, and courts would look very harshly on the fact that there are unclean hands in this case and that B. C. DC. Delayed \nJillian Blanchard: the response to the houseboat extension request. \nJillian Blanchard: Due process concerns are key here. Nowhere in any of the correspondence is the word appeal used\, or being told that a window would be closing. Instead\, they were told that you can have your rights adjudicated in enforcement hearing\, and they asked. They were asked to delay that hearing\, and this is the first time they’re having the right to adjudicate the underlying violations. \nJillian Blanchard: These are some of the claims that are made in the recommended Enforcement decision that we want to have clarified for the record respondent was not slow to complete paperwork that’s false and provable in the record. On October eighth\, from the first notice they received from Bcdc. They responded in 20 days\, and then they repeatedly responded to an additional information request reaching resolution on January third. The nature and extent of the harm caused is minor. \nJillian Blanchard: I want to just say quickly\, we see a very clear solution here \nJillian Blanchard: fairly adjudicate seaplanes rights. \nJillian Blanchard: These permit conditions weren’t violated. So you must dismiss these. But work with us on compliance and improvements in the 6 Violations\, because that is all se plane investments is looking for here fair adjudication\, fairness\, and due process and a public policy of promoting compliance and protecting bay resources. Because you have a willing property owner who\, for the first time in decades can bring this site into compliance. \nJillian Blanchard: 20 s. \nJillian Blanchard: Thank you. The only thing I want to note in the timing is that Miss Klein was not cut off at a certain time she went farther than 15 min. However\, I am done. I’ll take any of your questions\, and I very much appreciate your time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right committee members. I’m sure there are questions. Who wants to go first? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I just want to understand\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: what Miss Blanchard just said about \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  that one and 2 \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: fines\, or. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if I understand it\, our position is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the owner should have 5. The new owner should have filed a permit assignment \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that because \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the language of the permits did not specifically say that that must be done within 30 days\, it was permissible for the permit assignment to be filed after 30 days. Is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is that a fair summary of what your defense is. \nJillian Blanchard: if I May Commissioner is in. Thank you for your question. it’s essentially a fair assessment. What it is. What we’re saying is that permit assignment is important and necessary\, and in the case of the 73 assignment it was required. But nowhere in either of the 2 permits does it say that it must be completed within 30 days\, and since purpose permit\, assignment was completed within months of transfer of ownership. There is no underlying violation here. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, good. I think I did understand that. And so then my next question Adrian\, the what I think I just heard is that we did not respond at all to this. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: trying to keep on my day straight this August ninth  It’s a request for an extension that that was ignored\, but later acknowledged in the January 20 fifth \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 2\,022 documents \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: where we retroactively allowed for the extension back to August ninth\, 2\,021. Can you just clarify whether or not. We did respond to that. August ninth\, 2\,021. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Request for an extension. \nadrienne klein:  I don’t recall that was not work that I did. \nadrienne klein: I I don’t agree with. Miss Blanchard\, B. Cdc. Included \nadrienne klein: a copy of the Regulations \nadrienne klein: outlining the appeal process\, and it’s October eighth letter. So Miss Blanchard stated that she was not notified of the appeal procedures under the regulations that’s not accurate. She herself stated that the paperwork submitted within 35 days was incomplete\, and did not comply with the assignment requirements\, and was later submitted. \nadrienne klein: we take a different position. That the assignment there was more than 30 day granted. There was time prior to issuance of that October eighth\, 2\,021 letter\, and we didn’t receive a voluntarily submitted assignment form. We only started to receive that paperwork after we commence standardized fines. \nadrienne klein: I believe\, although I’m not a hundred percent sure that Miss Blanchard may be conflating the third amendment with the Fourth Amendment for the extension of time to complete the House Code project. It was very protracted. \nadrienne klein: but I believe that the fourth request was extended\, and staff \nadrienne klein: appears to have made a mistake and issued the Third Amendment to the House vote owner\, not the operator. But that was corrected with the fourth amendment. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I’m not sure. I’m not sure I understand yet. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the position I think Miss Blanchard took was that there was a specific request for an extension on August ninth\, 2\,021 that we did not respond to until \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: much\, much later. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: That’s what I’m trying to learn. Did is that an accurate statement. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I’m sorry I don’t know the answer. At this moment I would have to pull up the violation report and look at the record. Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: anybody else have other questions. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is a John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is a lot of stuff to go through. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know\, it’s almost like. who do we believe in fairness to to both sides. I would certainly like a little more opportunity to think about all this\, and at least \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: you know\, cause the questions are now coming up\, and I’m not even sure how to ask the question. \nYeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: fair enough. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I have a question for staff. somebody. I forget whether it was this Blanchard \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: said something about this goes back to the assignment. I think\, Adrian\, you said that there was an incomplete assignment. and then it didn’t get resolved until January. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so can you walk me through the steps of the incomplete assignment? What was wrong with it? Because my recollection is that? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: They attempted to file the paperwork \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for the assignment within the same month that they got the letter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So what can you found on the circumstances around the incomplete assignment. \nadrienne klein: Sure. \nadrienne klein: there is a form \nadrienne klein: that ideally seller and purchase are both complete. \nadrienne klein: and in addition to that\, that form was submitted within the 35 days of October eighth. But what we didn’t receive until sometime later was the operating agreement\, the ownership interest \nadrienne klein: that was necessary as part of the documentation to affirm \nadrienne klein: who was the new owner. \nadrienne klein: So that documentation is almost more important than the form itself. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Got it? Okay? So so you were missing. So they actually signed the assignment form\, and then later realized that they needed to submit or staff told them that they needed to submit an operating agreement\, and that was not submitted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: until\, let’s say January or late December. \nadrienne klein: Correct. But we did inform respondent that both \nadrienne klein: piece\, both in in both pieces of information were necessary to fully comply with the permit requirement that was outlined in the October eighth letter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? All right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And then the houseboat. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we’ve got\, I guess the owner of the house boat \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: asking for a permit extension before the permit expired. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Right? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: There’s nothing in the record as to what happened to that request. the permit expires at the end of August. and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: what the expectation was that the owners should have stopped work on the house boat. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but they didn’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: They went on and completed the project\, and then\, some time later. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: asked for a permit extension. \nIt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: is that correct? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So so the question that I have is. if the permit was going to expire at the end of August \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the new permit retroactively approve the work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Why didn’t the new permit \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: go back to the date when the old permit would have expired\, but instead\, it goes back to the date \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: when there was a request for a permit extension. \nadrienne klein: I did not make that decision. \nadrienne klein:  I think the relevant point here not to get lost in the weeds is that \nadrienne klein: the permit? He failed to apply in advance a permit expiration for an extension of completion. Time continued work with an expired permit. \nadrienne klein: and completed the project with an expired permit. B. Cdc. Did respond in a favor by issuing a retroactive approval to grant an extension of completion time. \nadrienne klein: and the only reason that finds a crude is because that all took place more slowly than the 35 days after October eighth\, 2\,021. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Am I the only one here who has a problem with the fact that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the person doing the construction \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: attempted to apply for a permit before the permit expired. I mean I I I clearly they were in the wrong. For once the permit expired. Continuing the work\, I get that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But if they asked 3 weeks before the permit expired\, and there was. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for whatever reason\, no response from BC. DC. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Am I the only one who has a problem? With that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you are not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Commissioner is in \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I have a question and I know we can’t get into details about it. But I gather there were settlement discussions. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and were there separate discussions on the 3 resolved issues and a different settlement discussion on the 6 unresolved? Or was there one whole \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: discussion about all 9 of them which didn’t resolve all the issues. And therefore. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  we’re. We’re here at this hearing rather than back in settlement to discussions. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: because it seems to me that the issue of the 3 resolved violations should be easily settled. You know reasonable minds can come together on that. If \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if\, in fact\, they were \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: maybe not on the 6 unresolved. We haven’t heard anything about that yet\, but at least as to those 3\, you would think that some resolution could be reached. I just don’t know if an effort was made \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to separate them in that way. \nJillian Blanchard: Commissioner. Gilmore may respond to that. \nJillian Blanchard: please. Okay\, absolutely\, Commissioner Eisen. They were treated as one whole to try and resolve. The entire thing that is all se plane investments has been wanting to do is to reach a a settlement that won’t cause bankruptcy\, but will allow compliance on the site. So if\, without divulging a privilege settlement confront conversations\, of course I can tell you that we were. even though we believe these fines to be on unauthorized\, we were willing to agree to a certain amount of fines \nJillian Blanchard: in the whole\, to be able to resolve all of the violations and to move forward on on the focus of compliance. \nJillian Blanchard: Unfortunately\, staff it\, we don’t need to get into the details\, but we were unable to reach a number that that was sufficient for staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and I can. I can speak to again. I don’t. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I need to be very careful about getting into the details. But to I guess the second part of question is question.  well\, yes\, we. We did attempt to tackle the entire issue and resolve the entire case just being one case with 2 different components. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  Even within those discussions there was a discussion about how to address the standardized find issue. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: discretely. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. any other Commissioner comments. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: It’s on a different aspect of the you know the issues here\, but in the and \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Commissioner chair. Gomer\, you said earlier we weren’t going to consider \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: material that was submitted late. that there’s some numbers that they only received this morning. Actually. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: but there was a reference in there to the financial standing of \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: yeah\, let’s let’s not get into that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: information in the record \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: prior to any new new submittal by \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: by responding and there to counsel here about the financial standing of see planned investment policy. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: My recollection and somebody can correct me. Was that There was \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: not financial information other than the stated that they would not have an ability to pay the fines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It was a statement \nadrienne klein: that is correct. \nJillian Blanchard: May I address that point just to clarify\, see an effect? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes\, be very careful about your \nJillian Blanchard: May 25 to middle\, because that’s not coming in. I. 100 acknowledged that We did submit the profit and law statement. 2 staff. \nJillian Blanchard: That was that again attached to the May 20\, fifth\, that we’re not talking about. But that profit and law statement should be in the record. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: When do you believe that was something? \nJillian Blanchard: It was between December and March in discussions with Staff? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, wait a minute. So that was part of the settlement negotiations. \nJillian Blanchard: but it was not confidential. It was made public. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. \nadrienne klein: But that would be late submitted evidence. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This is true. All right \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner. Discussions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I oh\, sherry\, please. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I’m not sure. I just want to remind you that about the public part of the hearing\, and I don’t know if you want to do deliberations or \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you for that very timely reminder. Okay\, before we get to deliberations. Are there any public comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here\, Gilmore. No public comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, actually sorry about that. There’s one \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nick. It would. \nnikki wood: Hi\, My name is Nicky Wood\, and I’ve been 3 min. Okay. I’ve been a resident Marin for 20 years\, and I own a business here. \nnikki wood: If you enforce this order you’ll be in some sort of seed plane operations to rip out an essential safety feature and essentially close down. \nnikki wood: I mean\, see planes. It’s one of the only sea plane operations of its kind on the West coast\, and it’s been around since 1947. \nnikki wood: It promotes recreation over the bay and brings tourism down to the county. \nnikki wood: The property owners are going to comply so why would you charge them excess of fines that will prevent them from complying? That that’s like the opposite of your mission. \nnikki wood: It will hurt their resources and the public trust and recreation on the day \nnikki wood: the the the owner didn’t cause any violation\, so why are they being treated like they did? \nnikki wood: I support the dismissal of all violations\, and urge the Commission to work on permitting\, on a permitting approach\, the property owner\, who by all accounts\, wants to work with the B. C. DC. To comply. \nnikki wood: That’s it. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, And Margie\, just for the record\, can you? I just want to state that we have received numerous written public comments. on this item as well as the next item\, and they have been posted to the BC\, DC website. So I’m just trying to make \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: our court reporter’s job a little easier. John. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we have one more public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, okay\, hang on\, John. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: go ahead \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and your public wait. \nandrew wait: Yup! Hi! My name is Andrew. Wait I’ve been a marine resident for about 30 years in a barrier for 40 years\, and \nandrew wait: you know I do appreciate the Commission’s mission. I’m a happy\, grateful user of the bay\, and I’ve seen over the last 40 years huge improvements in the environmental state of the bay. \nandrew wait:  I’m trying to resolve 2 things in my mind. Number one is. \nandrew wait: the the bay isn’t being damaged by any of this huge amount of time\, energy\, and money is being spent \nandrew wait: on something. That sort of isn’t direct alignment with the mission of this of of of your organization. \nandrew wait: But what I also see and I’ve seen it for 30 years now is a pattern of harassment for this particular business. \nandrew wait: Usually there’s a kind of a dark organization in the background that I understand like Edge. Come law like I don’t know what who they are or what their goal is other than to get these guys shut down. So I appreciate what you’re trying to do. But listening to this process\, it feels to me like there’s everyone will be served by negotiating a good faith. \nandrew wait: by getting off of this weirdness of semantics\, replacing or repairing that that ramp\, and to some degree some recognition that all small businesses that we rely on for the quality of our community are fragile financially\, and throwing huge 6 figure fines at them \nandrew wait: is damaging to everything. For example\, they contribute about 170\,000 to local and and and state budgets\, and a productive employer or 15 people \nandrew wait: and our net plus for our community. So I think anything you guys can do to realign with your mission and with the support of an organization that’s been around in good faith\, providing a great service 45 years is is what everybody wants out of this. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Tia Gomer\, that’s all we have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, Margie John. I think I saw you with your hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: just a a question. There. I’m sorry to sherry \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: if we were to postpone the action and set another hearing date and ask everybody to go back and maybe put their thinking caps on. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Could that information that was being requested to be part of the record? Could it come back to us at that time? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so I think there’s no way to. Actually\, if you’re asking me\, could you quote\, continue the hearing and leave it open? I don’t think you can. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: You could send it back to the staff to try and work things out. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and if they can’t work things out\, come back in terms of \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of evidence. I do think it would still be considered late \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: evidence. Obviously\, it’s certainly that stuff that could be considered if there were settlement discussions which is a sort of different animal than the Enforcement hearing procedures. Did that make sense? Yes\, it does. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  committee members. I I I have to tell you I am feeling \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: uncomfortable about some of this particularly the House vote issue. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ms\, Klein. \nadrienne klein: thank you. Chair Gilmore. I was \nadrienne klein: taking a moment to look at the record relating to that issue. So I have the \nadrienne klein: let me lower my hand. Here. I have the extensions of time fold up\, so \nadrienne klein: I I don’t understand the the the concern that’s being raised by Miss Blanchard. we issued 2. \nadrienne klein: Is there an allegation that there’s a gap in time? So each time extension states it. It’s issued on a certain date\, and it states the new completion date of the permit. \nadrienne klein: And \nadrienne klein: yeah\, I’m just unclear on what the issue is\, we extended the completion day\, \nadrienne klein: from August 30\, first\, 2021 \nadrienne klein:  to October 30\, first\, 2021. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, so I I will talk about where my issue is. My issue with that is. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: if indeed\, the owner of the house boat had a plot\, had applied for a permit extension before the permit actually expired. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and had B. C. DC. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Either work well\, had worked on it and and extended the permit that the amount of timing for the fines would not have been as long\, or there may not have been any fines if the permit had been extended before the original permit expired that that that’s my problem. \nadrienne klein: Well\, my recollection is that that initial? \nadrienne klein: So we didn’t include that record as part of this complaint. We included the extensions of time. Looking forward. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it would have been an incomplete complaint\, and we would have responded with the additional information that was required\, and we wouldn’t have received it\, and work would have continued past the expiration date with an unfiled application. Wait\, wait\, wait back up your you! You just confuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Say that again and say it slowly \nadrienne klein: again. I’m going from memory. I’m not looking at the record\, but normally \nadrienne klein: applicants don’t submit a filed application on the first go round. They make the request\, and usually something is missing\, and we will let them know what that is. And once we get \nadrienne klein: the remainder of the information. We’re able to file and act on the request. So \nadrienne klein: perhaps we didn’t get a fee associated with that request for an extension of time. \nadrienne klein: I I again. I don’t have that information in front of me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so I think the conjecture here is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the request for the extension of time on August eighth or ninth or whatever it was\, was incomplete. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and then\, at some point in time in the future it became complete\, and Staff acted on it\, and then retroactively \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: extended the permit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I think everybody agrees here that work should have stopped once the permit expired\, and it didn’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: this\, Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. I just want to correct for the record\, because I have the exhibits to the violation report handy in front of me. There was no request after the August ninth \nJillian Blanchard: extension request. There was no subsequent notification from Bcdc. To the either Mr. Hettleman or Se. Plane investments\, or Mr. Price the permit at the time to say that that was inaccurate. \nJillian Blanchard: it is not a B Cdc. Commission\, of course\, you know\, is not authorized to levy a violation for a conjecture as to whether or not we could have resolved that violation. We were not given the opportunity to resolve any concerns about that houseboat extension request\, and there was no additional information filed in October or November to further support that August ninth request that all that was filed were pictures to show that the construction had been completed. That’s all on the record \nJillian Blanchard: for folks to see\, and it was on only until January 20 fifth that staff then retroactively approved that authorization back to August ninth. But no additional corrections were made to that extension request. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Miss Klein. \nadrienne klein: Thank you. \nadrienne klein: You will recall that we did not receive the operating agreement until December or January\, and that operating agreement was a document that was necessary not only for the permit assignment\, but also to file this \nadrienne klein: fourth request for an extension of completion time \nadrienne klein: as complete. So until we receive that the application was incomplete\, and we did notify\, respondent that this documentation was necessary and missing to file the application is complete. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. I don’t want to go back and forth\, but I’d love to clarify that. Wait! Hold on sherry\, Posner\, please. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. I just wanted to ask that whoever speaking particularly either the Staff\, Pcdc. Staff\, or the respondent to pre say the full date of whatever they’re talking about\, I mean month and year at least\, because this does cover arcs over numerous years\, and \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: for sake of the record it’s confusing if someone says December and January\, and you don’t know what what years are straddling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. I thought I saw you with your hand up. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yeah\, I was gonna say\, I feel\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: similarly\, about this issue to Commissioner Vasquez. I I feel like I could ask more coherent and competent questions if I had. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I think timelines are extraordinarily helpful\, and I appreciate the 2 timelines that we’ve seen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: but having an integrated timeline that the parties can indicate what they agree on and what they don’t agree on for us to study between now and maybe a continued hearing date. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: so that we can really hone in on the \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: as you put it. Originally the disputed issues as opposed to the undisputed issues. So\, for example\, I know that the ownership changed\, or I think I heard that the ownership changed on July 21\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 21\, I think. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: July 21\, 2\,021 but that something else occurred on in July 2\,021\, I think Adrienne mentioned that that the Bcd. She asked for a meeting to discuss the Permit amendment\, so I’m not sure where those 2 dates fit visa v. Each other. So having some kind of a integrated timeline \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: that both sides could work on together and indicate their areas of dispute also might facilitate \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: conversation that could lead to a resolution a resolution or a more \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: coherent hearing either of which would be better than where we sit today. I think. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I just want to remind the committee and the chair that I don’t think there’s a way to leave the hearing open. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: so the options are are the\, you know\, to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: either. Send it back and see if there can come back if there’s no ability to resolve it. but I I’m not sure otherwise it comes back for a new hearing\, I guess\, is what I’m saying. I I I think that the the the options are basically what are listed at the end of the recommended enforcement decision \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: to accept or the recommended decision to decline the recommended decision or to accept it with some conditions. if they \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Enforcement Committee decides that they feel like this is something that parties could try to work on to resolve. I know in the past that’s happened in other proceedings\, and that seems like that’s another. That’s another option. I just wanted to clarify that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, I I appreciate that actually. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, this is gonna sound. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So on this item. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and also on the next item which we haven’t even begun to discuss. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  I I think my preference would be one \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  to send the parties back \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to see if they could work out some sort of a settlement on that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If the settlement negotiations fail. If I heard Sherry correctly\, then it comes back as a new hearing.  but \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a. And if it does come back I think Rebecca’s suggestion of the timeline \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the parties could work on with areas of agreement or actually just disagreement\, would be very helpful to this committee. The other question that I have for sherry is that if this\, if we send it back to staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and settlement\, negotiations fail\, and it comes back as a new hearing. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The record is still the record that we have here today. Is that correct? That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. alright\, thank you. So that’s sort of what I’m thinking about. What? What do you committee members think \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I like it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: John. I see your hand up. I’m sorry. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and we know if we’re not really clear. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: our recommendations will have concerns\, and we push it forward to the entire commission. The generally they’re going to be so confused. And we’ve seen a couple of them. They’ve come back 3 times. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: actually voted as a Commissioner not to send it back to us\, because I thought we done the work. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I would like to be very confident and clear about any decision I would. I want to move forward. So I I I think I agree with you in that if if we sent it back \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and bring it back as a new a new hearing\, that would be the best. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Sanjay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  yeah\, I was gonna say that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the record for this is pretty voluminous. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  even for Somebody who’s an attorney. this is difficult to comprehend and piece together\, especially when there appear to still be disputed \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: aspects of the facts. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: So I I think to the extent that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  We asked the parties to resume discussions\, to try to resolve these. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: these issues. It would be helpful if there can be agreement on a statement of facts and a comprehensive timeline\, so that everybody’s \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: clear about what occurred when \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and try to narrow the issues in dispute and focus on \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: those allegations where they’re really has been demonstrable. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: impact. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I I do want to say I I can tell that Staff has done a tremendous amount of work on these matters\, and it is confusing\, and the timeline dates back beyond when current folks were involved in many instances. So that makes it difficult. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: And I appreciate all the time that’s gone into this and working this up for the committee’s consideration today. So I I \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I know people have been working hard on this and \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I appreciate the intent of both sides to try to reach an agreement here. So that’s not always the case. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: When we have enforcement matters. sometimes it’s it’s not clear that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  that the respondent is interested in \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and ultimately remeding this situation in and doing right by \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: what we need for the bay\, so I I think I would support your direction. Share. Go more to \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: as the parties to continue to work on this\, and see if they can narrow the issues at least narrow the issues\, even if they’re not able to fully resolve them. So that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: when it comes back to this committee. We can \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  be more clear about \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: what? What? We feel comfortable and confident in recommending to the full commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Sanjay. I appreciate that. And and I don’t want Staff to think that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: are sending it back means that you did not prepare an adequate record. because I think you guys did an incredible amount of work on it. And it shows. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think\, the problem that we’re having here is that staff works with this day in and day out\, and it’s like a second language to you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It’s not to us. and that makes it very\, very difficult. And I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John was right when he made the comment about \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  If if \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: if we’re having this much trouble trying to piece together what’s going on. it’s gonna be twice as bad before the entire Commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I would really want to be in the position that whatever this committee recommends to the full Commission we can stand behind it and explain why we did what we did. Because people are going to want to know. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Brent. \nBrent Plater: thank you for that. It’s very helpful advice on how we can present this and make it more clear for you\, and I’ll also for the Commission one possible additional way we can do that is perhaps narrow the areas for these 3 violations that we need to discuss with the respondent. I. What I am hearing so far is that the the committee members have concerns about violation 3 \nBrent Plater: which deals with the House vote remodeling\, and the possibility that there was some potentially some delay in B Cdc. Responding to a application for a extension of time for their permit. \nBrent Plater: but I have not heard the same concerns for the violation. One in violation. 2. That’s for the 2 violations where the permit assignment form for the 2 different permits that apply in this case. \nBrent Plater: did not\, were not submitted to us in a timely fashion. I thought that Adrian had addressed the concerns initially raised by explaining how we need both a signature and also some evidence to document that the person signing the form is\, in fact\, authorized to make that representation on behalf of the the new owners. \nBrent Plater: so if that if that’s the case\, then perhaps those 2 violations can be resolved today\, and the third one can can return for additional consideration. if that’s not the case\, if there’s some additional clarity that you need us to provide on those 2 violations\, that would be a welcome welcome instruction. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: yeah\, I I do have questions about one and 2. That’s why I asked the I asked the whether the argument \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: was that the permit language itself is not clear as to what exactly is needed when there is a transfer of ownership \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that it \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it is certainly is not clear about how much time needs to elapse between when the ownership transfers and that new permit amendment is is filed. So I \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I do have questions about that. Whether that can be \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: clarified. It doesn’t. It’s not so much a timeline question\, or as a interpretation of the Permit language. I think that what was pointed out to us is that the language in terms of the transfer is different in the 2 permits that are before us. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that the second one is clearer than the first\, but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: or maybe it was the first one that was clear in the second. But but it neither of them say you have x number of days? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and if the staff said to the owner\, now that now that there’s a change in ownership\, you have X days to do this\, and they didn’t do it within that timeframe. That’s another. that’s another \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: matter. But if they were supposed to know from reading the permit that they had 30 days\, that the permit doesn’t\, in fact. have that language in it. So I do have some questions about those things that maybe could get \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: clarified or resolved or narrowed down. in a conversation between the parties. \nBrent Plater: That’s very helpful\, Commissioner is in\, and if I may just to let you know how we have been thinking about it\, so that we can further narrow down the next steps. to make sure that we\, you understand how we were thinking about it\, and you can give us some additional direction as needed. as we read these assignment requirements in these permits. \nBrent Plater: they do not have a date that says you must do it within X number of days after the transfer occurs\, and so that could be read in one of 2 ways\, it could be read to. Well\, it can. You can do it when you get around to it as the new owner\, which is more or less what we hear from the respondent at the moment. we did in a couple of months. That should be good enough. \nBrent Plater: or the other way you can read about it is that it applies immediately that as soon as the transfer occurs without the the assignment form being submitted\, it’s a violation immediately. Right? Those are the those are the boundaries of how you could think about it. \nBrent Plater: And so what we did in this case\, and trying to calculate those violations was split. That difference where we said\, All right\, if you count the permit assignment form as being that permit assignment term is being violated immediately upon transfer\, without submission of the form. but then give them 30 days for free. This is why\, in the calculation we subtracted 30 days from the totality \nBrent Plater: to give them a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance with that requirement\, then we calculate the penalty that way\, sort of to build in some some accommodation\, for the \nBrent Plater: you know. Most the most likely scenario is that people won’t do that immediately upon transfer it. Something that’s going to come out through subsequent disclosures or something like that. \nBrent Plater: So that’s how we’ve been thinking about. It is to\, you know\, essentially \nBrent Plater: approach the penalty. Calculation on a daily basis in that way. because the alternative\, which is\, you know\, is too amorphous that we’ll always have this debate where you know any subsequent \nBrent Plater: return of an assignment form will be arguably consistent with a provision that just has no date\, and therefore it can be whatever the respondent thinks is the appropriate time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Adrian. \nadrienne klein: thank you. Joe Gilmore. \nadrienne klein:  just wanted to remind you that \nadrienne klein: permits. Never submit an appeal of the standardized finds for these 3 resolved violations\, or responded\, never submitted an appeal. All of these arguments could have been made and considered by the Executive Director and the Commission chair. It’s part of an appeal of the standardized find. That process was completely unavailed of \nadrienne klein: property transfer took place on July 20\, first\, in the year of 2\,021. As everyone is aware\, Staff did not issue our letter starting standardized fines \nadrienne klein: July\, August\, September\, October\, until almost 3 months later October early October of the year 2\,021. \nadrienne klein: The burden\, I would say so. The no due diligence call was made to be Cdc. A time of transfer\, or prior to transfer to \nadrienne klein: ask for a a\, a compliance status on the permits\, although we were actively engaged in enforcing the violations. \nadrienne klein: so \nadrienne klein: when we issued the October letter starting the clock respondent. And and I’ve looked at that October letter today\, and we clearly outlined the documentation. And that’s in your record complaint exhibit\, I believe\, to D\, or E or F. \nadrienne klein: We. We specifically outline the documentation required to complete the assignment process in very clear details\, Commissioner\, is in that. Not all of the details are included in our permit conditions. But we. That’s why we’re here. This. That’s what we do. As the staff. We answer all those questions. \nadrienne klein: Miss Blanchard mentioned that\, you know Staff is here to serve the permitees and the public\, and that is what we do we? We don’t want to bring items before you. We do everything we can to prevent coming to this stage. \nadrienne klein: So I think those are the points I wanted to make. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Miss Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: thank you very much\, Commissioner Chair. I just wanted to clarify a couple of quick points. if it’s helpful. The the notion of splitting the difference with respect to the 30 day requirement. It is requirement under the law that the language be in the permit condition staff is not authorized to write that in. \nJillian Blanchard: But\, more importantly\, it is very much the case that all of your permits coming out of your staff permitting analyst staff today does include a very clear 30 day requirement. In fact\, I’ll be coming before you next month with a permit. that will be reviewed that has a very clear permit assignment clause that has a 30 day requirement and is very clear about what needs to be filed and the \nJillian Blanchard: permit assignment form that was filed with staff. On October 20 eighth\, was signed by a member of the Llc. Who is authorized to sign on behalf of the Llc. Bcd. He asked for an operating agreement which we timely provided to establish that. But the permit assignment form \nJillian Blanchard: was filed within 20 days\, and the operating agreement was filed within a couple of weeks after that\, when we learned that they wanted additional information. And the only other point I want to make in consideration of this is that C. Plane is trying to comply. They might need\, as Miss Client said\, they need guidance from staff to figure out\, okay\, what exact documents are we looking for? Because it’s not in the condition. \nJillian Blanchard: But the other piece to keep in mind is that there are 2 parties they needed to get the signed form from Mr. Price. \nJillian Blanchard: and Mr. Price is not mentioned anywhere in any of these violations. \nJillian Blanchard: and he\, ostensibly\, according to Staff\, had the same affirmative duty to complete a permit assignment form. \nJillian Blanchard: that’s all. I wanted to add. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Anybody else have anything that they want to say. Oh\, Sanjay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Just following up on this point about the assignment forms\, so \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Can somebody clarify for me? What was the incomplete aspect of the assignment forms \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: at the point that they were actually submitted for the first time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Adrian. \nadrienne klein: the documentation showing \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: it it is that in so the operating agreement was not submitted with the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: with the forms\, and then that was subsequently provided a couple of weeks later\, as \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: council is \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: just stated \nadrienne klein: weeks or more. I have to look at my timeline\, but it was provided subsequently\, and after standardized fines after the 35 day Grace period had run run. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: they\, they resolved their violation on January third\, 2\,022 2 executed permanent assignment forms and the executed operating agreement. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and by then they had a crude \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: to standardize fines of \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Well\, 3\,000 each for violations\, one and 2\, according to the the \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: the letter that we had sent asking for standardized fine\, stated October second\, 2\,022. I mean\, sorry. August second\, 2\,022. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I have a question about permit amendments. So let’s say\, somebody had a permit in 1\,975 to build a dock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and they come to us again\, and they want to amend the permit because they need to do repairs and enlarge the dock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the attorney. We want to know what what does that look like? Do you attach the original permit? And then the amendment is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: specifically to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: what it is they want to do\, I mean\, or does the amendment give you an opportunity to go back and clean up language \nadrienne klein: both. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we just issue to permit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And what was it? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: January? Well\, actually late 2\,022\, and I think in early 2\,023\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we left in the same language \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: about timing and and of assignments and things. \nadrienne klein: okay\, I I’ve got it\, Commissioner Gilmore. \nadrienne klein: We haven’t issued an amendment in 2\,023\, just to be clear. So the fourth amendment\, extending the completion. Time for the houseboat project was early. \nadrienne klein: was in the month of January\, in the year of 2\,022. No amendments has been issue since then\, when we issue mostly\, as you all know\, when we issue amendments\, we update the Inline Body text of the amendment. However\, when we issue extensions of commencement and completion time\, we issue a separate document. So it is \nadrienne klein: a permit amendment\, but it’s not in one\, and therefore no changes to the existing permit language take place. We only change the start or completion date whatever has been requested\, and we make clear what that changes\, and then\, the next time we do a substantial update to the permit \nadrienne klein: we incorporate that I \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that extension of completion time in this case to be specific. \nthis applies only to \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: this timeline\, and that’s it. There is no to answer your question\, no copy attached to the full permit. It is a simple statement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. That was that was very helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And see once again. This is you guys deal with this every day\, and you would never think to ask yourself that question. But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we don’t. And so I wanted to know what it looks like. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so let’s move on. Anybody have anything else to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: say. \nadrienne klein: May I just point you to exhibit \nadrienne klein: 2 B\, C\, d\, and E of the complaint\, and on my screen\, those are on pages \nadrienne klein: 40 through 44 about. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Why don’t you keep talking while we try to put them up? If that would be helpful? That would be very helpful. \nadrienne klein: Okay. \nadrienne klein: so I could go up and show you the back end of the 1\,973 permit. So I’m just showing you the back of it. Now you can see all this underlying text \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  struck through an underlying\, we’re in the standard condition section this would have been removed. \nadrienne klein: text newly added text the standing text would not have been outlined. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Got it? And then \nadrienne klein: here is the second extension of completion time. \nadrienne klein: So it’s a stand alone. Communication\, and the same is true for \nadrienne klein: the corrected Second Amendment. the Third Amendment and the First Amendment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you. That was very helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I thought I saw before you start sharing your screen that John had his hand up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you. I’m still a little confused about not having a timeline. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I mean. you said that we assume there’s the 30 day grace period. How does the applicant know that? \nBrent Plater: Oh\, so I I should. Maybe I misspoke on the assumption\, you know. So the \nBrent Plater: the the terms and conditions in the permit. for a variety of reasons often aren’t up to date the most standard version that we have in the in our permitting department. \nBrent Plater: but the the 30 days grace period\, essentially\, that we applied in this case for calculating penalties was to make it consonant with this process we have for this updated process we have for getting these assignment forms in. So we were making it consistent with Bcd’s existing practice. by eliminating those extra 30 days of penalties when we made this penalty calculation. So there’s a column in the violation report and complaint that \nBrent Plater: establishes that there are 136 days of violations\, which with and it spells out how it subtracts the 30 days following acquisition of the property to help explicate that for for you And the record that we’ve had in the communications with the respondents is also we’ve been. We’ve been reflecting that throughout the entire \nBrent Plater: process that this has been an ongoing concern\, including the the portion\, the time period\, that we were trying to resolve it uniformly through the standardized fine process. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can I just jump in here for a second? I’m not sure I heard the answer to John’s question. I think he’s talking about in the original instance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right before the assignment is filed. Staff has this expectation that you’re going to complete the assignment within 30 days. \nBrent Plater: But how would the applicant know that\, or or the new\, the new purchaser of the property? How? How would they know that? Where would they find out that information? So I as I\, as I read our permits\, and you know I I would appreciate your direction on this\, but as I read these terms. \nBrent Plater: I read them as saying\, it’s required immediately. as you as you are selling the property to another person\, you need to be processing these \nBrent Plater: these forms along with the sale and submitting them to be Cdc\, right? We don’t read them as saying you have the permit gives you an extra 30 days to do this or anything like that. It’s it\, it it’s all it’s required immediately. Right now\, what we do provide when they come in to\, so to request the the forms\, or to find out how they actually do. This \nBrent Plater: is on those forms. We have a form that says\, you know\, submit the signature\, the documentation 30 days to do it on that form. And so\, when we were \nBrent Plater: none of that happened in this case\, like we are doing everything after the fact\, and so to ensure. We weren’t providing additional penalties beyond what would have been imposed had they actually complied with the existing procedures that have these built in timeframes in them. We just subtracted 30 days from the total number of violations\, so we wouldn’t have to argue about whether that was unduly pet unduly penalizing the respondents in this case to give them a a similar kind of \nprocess. \nBrent Plater: so yeah\, that’s that’s how we read it. We we read this term\, I think\, and I think that’s similar with how we re read most permit terms. If there is no date specified\, it’s due immediately\, not whenever they want to get to it. \nBrent Plater: Those are really the the 2 options. And if it’s the and I think that’s consistent with how we’ve read Bcd’s permits from from all kinds of terms and conditions that are that specify \nBrent Plater: requirements without deadlines attached to them. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And I I would I would like to add something to that explanation\, if I may. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: it is a hundred percent correct\, but kind of moving on from that. When it comes to this idea around this specific \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: instance of violation. when it was determined that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: this was a violation\, they didn’t comply with the the at least the spirit of the of the permit. We sent out the 35 day letter and the 35 day letter is just that it gives a respondents. Notice that within 35 days they need to take corrective action\, to correct a violation of a permit. The law\, what have you? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And if you can do that within 35 days. then you will not be charged a fine. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: So that letter was set. stating that very say thing. On October 8\, 2021 It went into great detail as to what they needed to do to resolve this violation\, to correct this problem\, those identified. And they had 35 days as they. You know\, it’s built into the regulations. It’s a grace period\, I call it \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: to provide us that before finds even kicked in \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: when they fail to do that within the 35 days They racked up a fine. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a standard\, fine as outlined in in in the letter\, but also outlined in the regulations\, and when they were failed\, or when they refused to pay that standardized fine. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Then we had to issue the violation report and complaint which essentially takes the the matter out of the 35 Day letter kind of territory takes it out of the standardized by and territories\, and now becomes part of \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: a violation that we\, like any other violation that that is part of the in order where we apply the standard of you know\, laid out in the back to your Petris act  but in terms of notice they had \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: plenty of notice to get this done. They had a period of not just 30\, but 35 days. To resolve this. They didn’t do it in the 35 days when they finally did do it. It wasn’t the fines hadn’t maxed out. They had not provided. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then they refused to pay the fine. Sorry they had racked up a fine of\, as I mentioned before\, $3\,000 per violation\, which is standard because of the date that the the the Re. The violation\, was ultimately resolved\, and they refused to pay that. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And that’s why we’re here. Because when somebody refuses to pay a standardized fine. We have to collect through an order. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: That’s what this is. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, I just want to be \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: clear and understanding what Brent and Matthew just said. So. The ownership on this property changed on July 2120\, 21. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I think what you’re saying\, Brand\, is that what we would expect is that this assignment be filed? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Essentially\, then? July 2120\, 21 \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  and it wasn’t. And we ultimately sent a letter on October 8\, 2021\, saying\, you have 35 days to get this \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner:  permit assignment \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: completed\, and this is what you need to put in it to make sure it’s completed. And then\, in that 35 days following October eighth\, 2\,021\, those documents were not filed \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: correct\, since they were not filed within the 35 days we go back to where we could have filed that we could have started running the penalties\, and that made the start date on the penalties \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 30 days after July 2120\, 21\, when the ownership changed. So on August 31 the penalties began to accrue because they were didn’t take advantage of the 35\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you know. get out of jail free card that we gave them. Is that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: up up to the point where? I believe\, said we go back to. So how the standardized fine work is? It’s it’s broken out into kind of spans of days. So at day 36\, because 35 days of the grace period at day 36 finds kick in between day 36\, and say\, day\, I think 60. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: There’s a set of fine\, and then between 60 and 90 or 95\, there’s another set\, 5\, and then\, after a hundred 25 days. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  then we are able to abandon the standardized fine process and take them forward. We did not do that. We gave them. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: In fact\, we didn’t have to\, because they were able to settle it all by January third\, which put them\, I believe\, in the 60 day range\, and that’s how we assess the fine of $3\,000\, because that’s what the regulation set. So we sent them a letter. Go ahead. \nadrienne klein: Just just tell me what the start date is they find that we’re assessing\, what is the yeah. 30 days after July 20\, first year\, 2\,021. So we one question or or adjustment I would make to how you phrase that last piece that you said Commissioner Eisen\, was that \nadrienne klein: it’s not that they accrued. It’s that we were following the provisions of the law that outlines that there should be penalties for each day. A violation occurs for persists\, and we knocked off 30 days. \nadrienne klein: and started and and calculated the duration of that violation at which we assessed\, I believe\, a daily penalty of $40\, which\, ironically\, is possibly less than at the \nadrienne klein: the per day. Penalty \nadrienne klein: for the standardized clients period. But the duration is longer\, so the total comes out higher. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So 831\, 21 is the start date that we are calculating the penalties from. \nBrent Plater: I believe it’s ever take a day. \nBrent Plater: August 2020\, 21\, which is 30 days after\, by 2120\, 21\, \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the date they acquired the property. Okay\, okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Miss Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: Yes\, I I appreciate the conversation and the attempts to to clarify the facts. I’d like to just make a couple things clear that I’ve just looked up in the record. And\, by the way\, I I commiserate with you\, Commissioners\, on how confusing the timeline is\, because it was very confusing to see plain investments in trying to comply. \nJillian Blanchard: one. There was issue with Mr. Player\, saying that these are implied requirements\, as I’m sure you know\, Commissioners\, it’s unlawful to Levy finds on implied requirements. But more importantly\, this suggestion that Se. Plane was not trying to comply in earnest or did not comply. An artist \nJillian Blanchard: is not correct. The October 20 Eighth Submittal included\, assigned permit assignment form to which I have in my records\, and can share this with you\, Miss Klein responded\, saying you needed to provide the operating agreement as well which Mr. Sharp\, their previous council provided on November first\, within the 35 day period. So if that was the big concern it was complied with. \nJillian Blanchard: So then? They asked. They reviewed the operating agreement\, took them some time to do that\, and then they asked to have someone else sign the permit assignment form\, which is B. Cdc’s prerogative. But it’s not something that should be levied against se plane investments who is trying to diligently comply. \nJillian Blanchard: In January we received emails to say everything was absolutely resolved\, and it was not until August\, after the concern about the Se. Plane ramp that we received a letter saying the standardized finds would now apply \nJillian Blanchard: when we thought they were completely resolved. The other piece I want to add in here is this question about whether or not the appeal period closed. even if they had been given adequate notice\, which they had not. The word appeal was never included in the notifications \nJillian Blanchard: they\, Mr. Truhilo\, had called Mr. Sharp\, and asked him the beginning of September during this appeal period. to wave the hearing requirement\, to work out resolutions. So if you’re a rational practitioner trying to defend your respondent. You might think\, okay\, great. We’ll work out settlement. There’s no reason to file some sort of reservation for an appeal here. \nJillian Blanchard: It’s very understandable that nothing additional what was filed because there was request to wave the enforcement hearing where such rights would be adjudicated. These are just important facts that I want to make sure are in your consideration as we work through these things. But we’re very happy to work out a statement of facts with B Cdc staff that you can review if that would be helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would be very helpful. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so I I get the sense we’re going to have to make a motion on this one is to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  send the matter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to staff for settlement talks in. If that is not successful\, then it comes back to us with exactly the record that we have today. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we have requested a a mutual timeline \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we want \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the issued issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of disagreement narrowed down and and and specific. So we could. We could hone in on those specific issues. But I leave anything out. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: It is this one just for for 5. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yeah\, I’m I’m gonna make. I’m gonna make the same motion for 6. But I think I have to open the public hearing for that one. So \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Rebecca. And I think it’s also important for us to have some discussion on 6\, because if we have the same motion for 6. I think it will be helpful to staff and respond\, and to know what our issues are on 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: as well. Exactly\, exactly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. So I guess I’ll make that motion to somebody. Wanna second it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Rebecca\, second in that and we are going to have to take a a roll call vote so\, Margie. \nJohn Cota: can someone recite the motion? We’re getting on. \nJohn Cota: madam Chair. Could you try to be as concise as you can as to what \nJohn Cota: your motion actually is. I know it’s difficult\, but it it would help me out tremendously. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Sending the matter back to staff and respondents to conduct \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to see if they can resolve the issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If that fails. it comes back to us \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: with exactly \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the evidence before us today. No new evidence.  the parties are going to. I guess the word is negotiate or stipulate a timeline \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and they are going to narrow down issues of disagreement. \nJohn Cota: and that motion was seconded by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, yes\, thank you so much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Margie. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Information\, or is it? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner\, best guess \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Tia Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you very much. That was\, item 5. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: now\, we’re on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is a public hearing and a vote on a recommended enforcement decision to adopt a proposed cease and assist civil penalty. Order\, Ccd. 23.0 0 2.0 0 to address the permit violations and unauthorized development in the bay and 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdictions \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at 24 sorry 242 redwood highway frontage road mill valley in Marin County\, and vote whether to adopt a recommended Enforcement decision proposed by the Executive Director. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which includes a proposed season to this civil penalty. Order to require remedial actions at the site and payment of a hundred $80\,000 in administrative liability. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The record for this matter includes the violation report and complaint responded statement of defense\, the recommended Enforcement decision and proposed order and all other items identified by BC. DC. Regulation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 1\, 1\, 3\, 7\, 0 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and just for the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: will the representative for the respondent. Please identify yourself and your relationship to the respondent. Thank you. \nJillian Blanchard: Certainly. good afternoon\, Commissioner. Chair and committee members. This is Gillian Blanchard\, with rudder log group representing se plane investments\, Llc. For item Number 6. I also have with me Lou Vasquez and Valley Richland to managing members of the seaplane investment site. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? do we think that we can do the presentations in 15 min\, Miss Blanchard. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for this one \nJillian Blanchard: I would love to tell you. Yes\, but there is a lot here\, as you might imagine. I can do my level best. But there is a lot of contested issues to cover. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, let’s let’s start with 20. Miss Klein\, you get 20 also. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  and I’m going to ask you once again\, both sides to limit the presentations to the evidence that’s already made part of the Enforcement record and the policy implications of that evidence\, and I’m going to now invite principal enforcement analysts Adrian Klein to give her presentation\, which is going to summarize the violation Report. The complaint and recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  yes\, pardon me\, but Sherry has her hand up. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry I can’t see it. sherry. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: Hi\, chair\, Gomer\, I just wanted to make sure we’re now. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: The meeting was scheduled for one to 3 or 3 15\, and I’m just concerned about whether or not you’ll be able to have complete what you’re trying to complete \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and not end up with a half of a hearing. I realized there could be a result that was similar to the in the first hearing\, but nonetheless I I don’t know what. If you know how long your corn will last. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I guess\, is what I’m asking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That is a very good question. Does anybody have Commission members committee members? I’m sorry. Does anybody have time limits? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: This is John. I do. I have to leave it for. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, anybody else. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I have a hard stop at 3\, 45. I’m sorry. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That’s okay. So we will be losing forum. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sherry. What do you suggest? We do? \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  I I again. I don’t believe there’s any really provision in the regulations for having half a hearing are continuing at open hearing. So \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I guess \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: he did probably best to continue the hearing\, but I don’t see why you couldn’t do that with direction to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  whatever direction the \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the body would like to give to the parties on when this matter comes back. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I it just seems to me that there’s be very unlikely. It sounds like there could be close to an hour of presentation. So and that does me include questions\, public comment\, deliberations. So sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, good point! so we could continue this and have it come back \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to do what we just did with with item 5. Because I I think it’s going to be helpful for Staff and see this. This is difficult\, though\, because if we continue this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I think it’ll be difficult for both sides to enter into robust discussions because they will not have had our input on this. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But maybe I’m wrong. does the staff or the respondents. Attorney want to weigh in on that? \nadrienne klein: Oh\, apologies! More than 10 ish minutes. I just have to summarize the 6 violations\, the defenses\, and the rebuttals. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Miss Blanchard. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, she already said\, she’s okay. Never mind. Brent. \nBrent Plater: I just do want to note that we have tried to resolve this once before\, so we have some sense of where the difficulties will lie in trying a second time. \nBrent Plater: so you know\, I wouldn’t say that I’m particularly hopeful that the outcome would be any different. But perhaps there’ll be a way in between that we can at least put together some something that helps helps the committee members understand more precisely which issues are\, in fact\, contested and relevant to the arguments we’re presenting to you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I take that to mean that you are in favor of continuing this item to another date. \nBrent Plater: Is that what I’m hearing? \nBrent Plater: you know we could schedule the A follow up? \nBrent Plater: you know\, with some time built into try and build some some clarity between the \nBrent Plater: the the staff and the respondent on the specific facts that we agree upon and how to isolate the issues more concretely for you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I I would suggest that you \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that you follow the blueprint that we laid out in the last item. You know the Consolidated lot timeline and the greed state and agreed upon statement of facts. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Miss Blanchard. \nJillian Blanchard: Yeah\, I just want to flag for the record. I want to make sure that se plane investments rights are fairly adjudicated. I definitely hear the time constraints and respect that significantly\, and I appreciate you taking the time already. \nJillian Blanchard: I don’t feel as pessimistic as Mr. Plater about the opportunity to discuss with particularly Mr. Sharp\, some for settlement. so I think if the Commissioners were able to give us some direction on certain things that might be helpful\, one in particular that we’d like some direction on because our complaint\, as you’ll you’d hear\, is really\, with respect to \nJillian Blanchard: unauthorized fines. We have absolutely no problem with permit compliance\, timelines for compliance\, and everything that is required to bring that site into compliance. I just want that to be very\, very clear. So if the direction from the Commission could be 2 staff\, that that is the focus\, instead of potentially bankrupting a small company with unauthorized finds when they didn’t commit any of these violations \nJillian Blanchard: that would absolutely move the needle. And let us work towards a very clear opportunity for compliance that would protect Bay resources. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That is a very lawyer like statement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I commend you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: yeah\, I just wanted to lend my support to. I guess Brett’s position\, and I think that the continuance is \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Best? And and given the circumstances \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay share. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: I was. Gonna say\, I think tier Gil more. It’d be helpful that if because we’ve sort of introduced the item. So I think if you want to make a motion similar to the motion\, I mean\, I realize there may be more discussion when the time comes\, and saying\, Let’s there should be a motion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, yeah\, yeah. I I figured I’m just trying to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: kind of get a sense of of what staff want some next steps before I make a motion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So this question is\, sh! So we’ve started to discuss. Item 6. But we haven’t opened the public hearing yet. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I don’t think so. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: not yet. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So can we continue this to \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: another date\, and maybe one before the whole group meets again over all this. Say\, maybe next week\, if we\, if we can find a time very quickly to hear it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: so that we have an opportunity. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know they have a cup. Well\, the last one lasts a couple of hours to speak on this one. It’s just a single item itself. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: So I’m going to try and unpack that Commissioner basket. I think that we did introduce the item. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: but I don’t think that actual presentations have been made\, there has been some little back and forth that one would sit\, could say was argumentative by both sides\, but I don’t think that the presentations have been made. So I do think that if someone wanted to entertain a motion \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: of some kind that would be a continuance\, I think that we’re not in the middle of the hearing proper. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and that really the public wouldn’t have much to comment on\, substantively speaking\, because there haven’t been presentations made \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: in terms of timing. I\, personally can’t obviously comment on. Speak to that\, but it sounds to me what you’re saying is\, you would like to have \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: the parties present before. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and then provide some guidance and then have them. I’m trying to understand the process that you’re envisioning as opposed to \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice:  giving them more time than a week. There\, I and I guess that’s again up to the committee that I to me. I think that it’s up. However\, you guys fashion it. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: and whatever works for people schedules and make sense to get the productive kind of result you would like. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I’m saying that we bring this one back\, for you know\, scheduled meeting just the item itself. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: We can then give our input. They have plenty of time\, then\, to do the presentation\, we have plenty of time for discussion\, and then\, if it\, if \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: if the kind of things we’re looking for similar to item 5\, \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: we find that in item 6\, and then staff and and the applicant have\, or the have\, an opportunity to kind of work all that together rather than I\, I’d rather push it off a little farther\, but I want to have this hearing \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: as soon as possible\, so that \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: there is some guidance to item 6 itself like we do with 105. I I hope that makes sense. \nShari B. Posner\, CA Dept. of Justice: You’re asking me from a procedural standpoint. Would that be an option that would be an option. I think you. you just need to decide which option you’re going to go down as as a committee. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Okay? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner:  I believe we have the next Enforcement Committee hearing scheduled for June eighth. I don’t know if we can continue this to \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that agenda\, or if there’s a procedural \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: pick up with that\, but that could be one option. It’s not too far out. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and I think it also would give the party some time \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: to reconsider their positions \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: on the open issues. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: And if\, as it has been conferred. one of the big \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: it issues here to we to making further progress on resolving the items in this matter \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: is\, in fact\, the penalty amount in the context of confidential settlement discussions. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: The parties can are the the responding can provide more information about their financial status. and I think Staff can take into account the sense of the committee here\, and the discussions we’ve had over the last 2 h. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: but it can somebody clarify whether that’s an option procedurally to continue this. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  But. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Mr. Eisen\, if you would prefer to speak before I. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: The only thing I have to say is that I’ve already let Margie know that June eighth is probably not going to work for me because of some surgery. so\, and as long as we have a quorum\, I guess you you could proceed without my input\, although I would. you know\, like it\, especially since I’ve heard everything so far to be able to participate\, if possible. So \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: that so that’s what I was going to say. June eighth. we’ve learned as of today\, we don’t have a quorum There is also the consideration of proper notice. Now\, the regulations do say that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager:  Notice of a further hearing can be given at this hearing. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: but in order to do that we would need very specific date and time\, otherwise we would be\, we would have to send the the notice in writing 10 days prior to any hearing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Since June eighth\, we do not have a quorum. What about June 20? First\, it’s our next regularly\, or the meeting after June eighth. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: We do have a quorum for that date\, and we have 2 items on the agenda both briefings. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: at least with tentatively. We we we have to coordinate because \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: sorry those items were originally meant to go on the eighth. Now we’re looking at putting them on the twenty-first. But we could probably push those off as maybe. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So let’s do this. Let us continue this item. This is item number 6 to June 20\, our June 20\, first meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Add on your that. A motion yeah\, that’ll that’ll be a motion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Motion by Gilmore. seconded by Vasquez. We will need a roll call. Vote for this. \nJohn Cota: madam. Chair. I have dates here. I heard the June 20\, fourth\, and then you just mentioned the June 20 first. I’m a little\, not clear on that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It’s June twenty-first. If I said the twenty-fourth\, I misspoke. That’s a Saturday\, and none of us are going to be here on set. And does that a 9\, 30\, or 10’clock meeting \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that is a 9 30\, regularly scheduled meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you for that. So so the motion is to continue this item to June 20\, first at our regularly scheduled time of 9 30. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And that was my motion. And that was my second yeah\, and Commissioner to ask a second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, Margie\, can you call the role\, please. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner\, best guess \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Commissioner. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So we have officially. continue this item. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: just making see if I have any other. All right. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so that is it for us today I want to. Just thank \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: staff and Respondents Council. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the record on this is voluminous. I think everybody did their best to make it as coherent as possible. I just want to thank all of you for your efforts and We will see you on the 20 first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: let’s see\, I need a motion in a second to adjourn the meeting \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: so moved \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that I guess \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that’s guest moves eisen seconds\, all in favor. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Hey? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you\, everyone. We are now adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-30-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230524T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230524T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T030151Z
CREATED:20230525T002530Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T030151Z
UID:10000068-1684933200-1684947600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 24\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-24-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230519T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230519T120000
DTSTAMP:20231213T025553Z
CREATED:20230520T021212Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231213T025553Z
UID:10000077-1684490400-1684497600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 19\, 2023 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF)\nPresentation (PDF)\nMeeting Summary (PDF)
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-19-2023-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230518T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230518T170000
DTSTAMP:20240213T185552Z
CREATED:20230519T035529Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T185552Z
UID:10000037-1684414800-1684429200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 18\, 2023 Revised 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. \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/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \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 May 4\, 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]\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273The Commission will consider and potentially take positions on pending legislation\, including Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Document Translations and Interpreter ContractThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $90\,000 contract to provide services for translation and interpreter services. Presentation.(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 777 Airport Boulevard in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2022.004.00 (PDF)Postponed until June 15\, 2023The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC Permit No. 2022.004.00 on a proposal by Lincoln Property West to develop a 3.08-acre former hotel site into a life sciences campus with improvements to the existing Bay Trail and shoreline public access area at 777 Airport Boulevard in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of BCDC’s 2021 and 2022 Annual ReportsThe Commission will consider approving both the 2021 and 2022 annual reports.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing May 5\, 2023 \n\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments and issued Permits and Received Permit Applications\nApplication Summary 777 Airport Boulevard Life Sciences Redevelopment Project\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/05/05-18-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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-18-2023-revised-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230508T050000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230508T050000
DTSTAMP:20240213T224211Z
CREATED:20230509T051935Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T224211Z
UID:10000057-1683522000-1683522000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 8\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:The Design Review Board meetings 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 below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nYerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83638159063?pwd=YTl1LzNjcWQ1ekFFbXZ6SXdQTlVrdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID836 3815 9063 \nPasscode460758 \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\nStaff Update\nB9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County (First Pre-Application Review)The Design Review Board will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant 12.67-acre site at 300\, 400\, and 301 Island Parkway and 800 Clipper Drive with three 9 to 13-level office buildings and a new 12-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.govPresentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				Draft Summary of the May 8\, 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.\nBCDC Board Members in atendance included Board Chair Jacinta McCann\, Board Vice Chair Gary Strang and Board Members Bob Batalio\, Kristen Hall\, Stephan Pellegrini. \nBCDC staff in atendance included Ashley Tomerlin\, Yuriko Jewet\, Shruti Sinha\, and Katharine Pan. \nB9 Island Parkway Project Team: Ethan Warsh\, BioMed Realty; Marcel Wilson\, Bionic Landscape Architects; Ellie Knecht\, WRA; Geoff Smick\, WRA; and Cecily Barclay\, Perkins Coie \n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update to the Board Member Recruitment and announced the selection committee’s recommendations for appointment\, Leo Chow for the Architect Board Member\, Patricia Fonseca Flores\, for the Landscape Architect Alternate\, Guneet Anand for the Urban Design Alternate\, and Cody Anderson for the Engineer Alternate.\nB9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County (First Pre-Application Review). The first pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant 12.67-acre site at 300\, 400\, and 301 Island Parkway and 800 Clipper Drive with three 9 to 13-level office buildings and a new 12-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.\n\nStaff Presentation. Shruti Sinha provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Ethan Warsh and Marcel Wilson provided an overview\, with a slide presentation\, of project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site conditions\, and a detailed description of the proposed project.\nPublic Comment. Gita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter. Submited a leter in addition to calling in. The comments included concern for the site proximity to the Redwood Shores Nature Preserve; the facades seem very glossy so please apply bird safe design\, and minimize night lighting from building and exterior lighting as it’s adjacent to the slough. Additionally\, she expressed concerns with the bio safety levels of the development and wanted to make sure the building is not up to a level 3. She also stated she understood the large plate design needs\, but in light of OneShoreline and other requirements\, it’s important to respect the 100’ setback and have a gentler slope like 20:1.\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation\n\nClarification on intensity of site development between existing authorizations and proposed project.\nClarification on risk levels and applicable building code requirements related to bio safety levels.\nClarification on site vehicular circulation including loading access\, passenger drop offs\, and parking.\nClarification on location of lobbies in relation to the roundabout and ground floor uses where adjacent to public access areas.\nClarification on the public access space required by the City and if there is distinction between green/gray spaces and does it include/exclude emergency vehicle access route.\nClarification on TMA/TDM requirements.\nClarification on existing flooding conditions on site.\nClarification on requirements for an emergency access plan related to flooding.\nClarification on designed life of project and buildings.\nClarification on extent of improvements along Concourse and Island Parkway; existing bicycle circulation and access from Oracle bridge.\nClarification on whether developer will hold or sell site.\nClarification on food and beverage services and tenants.\nClarification on phasing of development and when public access is constructed.\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.\nThe 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.\n\nStaff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration: \n\nHow does the project proposal result in public spaces that “feel public\,” and does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people?\nWhat additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline?\nAre the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adaptive to sea level rise in balance with ensuring high-quality public access opportunities?\nDoes the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike/pedestrian networks to draw users into and through the site to the O’Neill Slough Trail and shoreline?\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues\n\nSite Design\n\nThe site is located in a particularly ecologically interesting place with the nearby nature preserve and existing habitat value. It is hard to reconcile a much-loved recreation complex\, the ecological significance\, and the proposed massing and paving of the project immediately adjacent to those uses.\nThere is so much building on site that the vehicular circulation doubles as the public walkways. The Board questioned whether this would truly feel like a public space. The 25’ foot path is really adjacent to the building face. There needs to be a greater horizontal buffer and mediation between building mass and the public access area at the ground plane – use bigger trees to lower perception of adjacent buildings.\nThe project should be consistent with larger regional goals and ecological wellbeing of the area. The site is tight and developing a site so heavily doesn’t leave room for adaptation and creates a situation that will demand a future levee and there are already so many levees.\nThe Board understands the pressures\, complexity\, and numbers for development but it’s the DRB’s job to push back to maximize public benefit. Board recommends pulling Building 2 away from the shoreline to relieve the pinch point\, provide greater buffer for public spaces and habitat\, and provide greater capacity for future adaptation for sea level rise. Consider shifting building towards the road or changing configuration of drop off to create space. Until you have an adaptation strategy\, maintain the space and capacity for future adaptation.\nPublic Comment letter: Understand needs for large plate design\, but in consideration of the OneShoreline and other requirements – it’s important to respect the 100’ setback and have a gentler slope like 20:1. \n\nThere is a lot of parking\, it seems that there is 1 spot per employee (400 SF/employee). Explore opportunities to reduce number of parking spaces and define shared needs between Campus and City uses. Parking demands for the Campus and City uses don’t seem incompatible and could be better coordinated. For example\, can more City parking be accommodated within the garage outside of business hours?\nThe Public Access seems to be encroaching into the marsh where typically we want to give more buffer to sensitive areas.\nBuildings\n\nThe public frontage along the promenade needs animation and an active ground floor use seems unlikely as shown. Explore a layered approach or give more attention to ground plane and the building edges: create seating areas\, explore articulation of façade to provide depth\, and enhance areas of landscaping to make it a more interesting experience. A more permeable design could benefit the project in terms of complementary ground floor uses (cafes etc.) that may benefit the overall project.\nThe height of the buildings compared to what is immediately adjacent is concerning. What is happening with shadows and public space? There is good southern/western exposure\, but what happens with the wind? It is necessary to understand and design with the microclimates of public access areas.\nPublic Comment Letter: The facades seem very glossy. This site is adjacent to the Redwood Shores Nature Preserve; maintain bird safe design\, and minimize night lighting from building and exterior lighting as it’s adjacent to the slough.\n\n\n\n\nCirculation. The introduction of more connectivity along slough is welcome. This is not the Bay Trail but it directly connects into the trail network and is well used even as an unimproved trail.\nSite Arrival\n\nThe scale of the north vehicle drop off is not necessary and should not be used as the placemaking feature of the site. Central entry/drop off should be minimized.\nWhen driving to the site from Island Parkway\, the first entry you encounter is the entry into the parking structure and it doesn’t feel like an entry experience. With the size of the garage and the assumption that employees will be driving themselves\, explore reducing the size of the north drop off area and enhancing the south arrival point. There is a lot of current use at the existing surface lot; explore enhancing this arrival point.\n\n\nOnsite Circulation\n\nExplore the opportunities of reducing the surface lot and shrinking the north drop off to create more significant public spaces\, improve connections\, and allow for a softer slope at the shoreline. The city-owned parking lot should be a more significant connection to the Bay Trail at the south. The public access terminates at the garage.\nThere’s a clear opportunity with a 12-story garage to reduce the need for surface parking; project needs to identify the needs for all the site use. Explore reducing the size of the surface lot in order to provide better connections with the trail network and the Bay Trail.\nIt is strange to see a public walkway turn into the loading dock of buildings. Board questioned if approaching from the street\, does someone really want to cross the loading areas.\n\n\nStreet Circulation\n\nThe Board questioned why Island Parkway was so wide.\nThe Board noted the potential for conflict where cycle tracks cross vehicular areas\, explore moving track or going with conventional lanes on north side of Concourse.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nA slope of 2:1 for a living shoreline is not something you would consider as a natural geomorphic slope for an edge and will limit ecological value. With sea level rise. the higher marsh plants may migrate up\, but the lower portions may not facilitate lower marsh migration.\nThe plant palette does not seem to be native or appropriate for marsh.\nThe Board wanted clarification on whether the elevations shown accounted for settlement.\nThe Board recommends consideration of other flooding sources beyond shoreline overtopping\, ensure higher water levels are being studied.\nThe Board stated it is important to frame plans in the context of bigger adaptation strategies for the sloughs.\nThe Board wants to see the plans and sections. Water comes in from all directions.\n\n\nPublic Access\n\nThe Board supported the opportunity of creating a more open and welcoming public access along the slough. There are a lot of amenities and opportunity for a good landscape.\nThe Plan is generally consistent with BCDC guidelines albeit scrunched up and tight. Ensure adaptative capacity.\nThe Board requested clarification on whether the Master Plan envisioned an EVA counting toward public access.\nThe deck is an effective focal point/terminus. As the frame/bird blind comes to life\, explore additional uses/animations to provide more justification. The precedent image of the bird blind is interesting\, but question whether the design is appropriate to this project.\n\n\nCommunity Engagement. No environmental groups listed on interested parties; since the Sierra Club wrote a leter\, we encourage reaching out to them.\nThe Design Review board directed the project to come back for a second review. \n\n\n\n\n\nMeeting Adjournment. Vice Chair Strand made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Member Hall. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 PM.\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording & Transcript\n				\n \nTranscript \nDRB Meeting Room: Board members. Please speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. \nAnd please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nOkay\, thank you\, Ashley. \nDRB Meeting Room: So let’s start the meeting. Welcome everyone. My name is Jacinda Mccann and I’m. The chair of the B. Cdc’s Design Review Board \nI’m located here at the Metro Center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who may be participating online. Although I think we have everyone here \nwhich is terrific. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. Can you call the rolls. Please \nchair\, Mccann. Present vice-chair string \nboard Member Battalion. Is it? Board? Member Hall present board Member Pellegrini right and staff attending tonight. Are myself Ashley\, Tamerlan. \nYeri Jewett Katherine Penn and Trouti-senha \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, very good. \nWe have a quorum. So we at the meeting up. \nSo thanks\, Ashley. \nDRB Meeting Room: Let’s \nstart with some instruction. and i’m going to read them\, because quite long. So I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nfor everyone who is participating online and in the meeting room. please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board members. If you have a webcam. Please make sure that it is on. So everyone can see you \nfor members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period this evening. You will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nDRB Meeting Room: for members of the public who are attending our meeting in person in our Headquarters building. Please complete a comment card found at the meeting room door. \nThe Board Secretary will call you up to the podium for public comments \nDRB Meeting Room: wearing masks is optional\, but recommended in this building. \nyou will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom and you join our meeting. The zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. \nWe will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised during the public comment period for each process. \nDRB Meeting Room: After you are called on you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nPlease state your name. An affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. but everyone has a responsibility to add in a civil Atlanta. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abuse its language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission for online public comments. Please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled \nDRB Meeting Room: if you are attending the meeting in person on the Zoom. If excuse me if you’re intending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists \naudio. For in-person Panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced 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 concerning these projects. \nplease call or email Ashley\, Tommy and his contact information the screen\, and can also be found on the \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, every now and again you’ll hear me refer to the meeting host. \nYuri. you’re use our B Cdc. And up Bcbc. Staff are acting as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us needed. And now the Board secretary will provide us staff. \nThank you\, Chair Mccan. I do have a couple of updates tonight. First\, an update on the board member recruitment. The selection committee has been busy over the last few months working on identifying candidates to recommend for the board and alternate opening. \nWe received 17 sets of qualifications\, and interviewed 10 candidates for the 4 openings. The committee has the following recommendations for appointments. \nVo chao of som for the architect\, board member. Patricia Fonzeka Flores\, formerly with a calm Esa and Wendy for the landscape architect\, alternate \nthe neat amount of site lab for the urban design alternate. and Cody Anderson from Sherwood for the engineer alternate. You will be giving\, with the recommendations to the chair of the Commission \nfor concurrence at the May eighteenth meeting\, and the new appointees should begin their terms in June. \nDRB Meeting Room: Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, June Fifth. \nand will be a review of the Port of Oakland\, Middle Harbor\, Shoreline Park\, Seventh Street Connection. This was previously went to the Board last October \nDRB Meeting Room: for newly reopened public access. The breakwater trail at Loch Lom and Marina and Janathob has recently reopened \nthe project\, raised the elevation of the trail 2 and a half feet to 9.5\, and installed a 100 foot long boardwalk with bird viewing platform \nfor for project updates. We have 3 previously reviewed projects going to the Commission for permits in May and June. Oyster Point phases 3 and 4 in South San Francisco. 5 5 7\, Bashore and Redwood City\, and 7 7 7 airport Boulevard and Berlin game are scheduled to be presented to the Commission in the upcoming meeting. \nThat\, concludes the staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board\, and if there are none. then we can move on to the next item. \nI’m just going to jump in for a minute. So our board members and I first of all just want to say thank you to Ashley and Gary Gary for being on the interview committee with me and Ashley for organizing quite a series of \ncomplex scheduling to get everyone together for the interviews. and we had really high quality candidates. I just want to thank all of you for putting forward ideas \nit makes. And so I think you know\, we’ve got a \nDRB Meeting Room: a slate here of recommendation recommended candidates that are really going to see the Board through into the next era \nboard. Members \nthat of a sort of roll off in coming years roll off so to be able to have this \nany comments from anyone. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, anyway\, thanks for you to\, since it for \nthe charge\, and we’re super happy with how it turned out\, and as he said. we’ve got a couple of people who are going to really show up. you know\, are going to bring a lot. \nThis conversation. looking forward to that being a deeper in. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: very happy about that. \nAnd so actually\, these will be likely approved\, and the candidates will be\, or these recommended candidates are being notified. Yes. not yet. They have been notified. They stated that they were still interested in serving\, and so we brought the recommendations here\, and then the recommendations will go to the Commission \non the administrative listing or the chairs report\, so it’s \nthere. There will not be a vote on it. \nAnd so\, just thinking in terms of timeline\, we might be able to see the architect at our \nDRB Meeting Room: July\, June\, July\, possibly June\, but certainly July \nfor meetings. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, the terms are supposed to start in June\, and the June Drb. Is June sixth\, so that might be a tight turnaround. That’s what July meeting. I would definitely want to have the architect on board. Yeah. \nExcellent. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: good. \nSo we’ll move to the next item on the agenda\, which is public comment on what on the board Secretary’s report. If anyone attending \nyeah online would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak and remember all of the guidelines that I just said before\, is there anyone raising their hands for public comments? \nWe have no public comments. Okay\, thanks very much. Good. Okay\, that gets all of the administrative things out of the way\, and we can move to the next agenda item\, which is the first review of B. 9 Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project in Belmont. \nand really appreciate being the team here in person. \nDRB Meeting Room: and we will begin our review on the gender item. For now it’s this: it’s the \nfirst review correct correct \nDRB Meeting Room: of B. 9 Island Parkway development in San Mateo County. So we will be doing the following here in terms of the review. There’ll be a staffer introduction\, followed by the project proponent presentation. \nfollowed by board\, clarifying questions in public comments. then board\, discussion and summary. and then a project proponent respond to brief response optional. But \nyou know\, always welcome. And with that the B Cdc. Permanent analyst\, shudy Sinha will introduce to\, thanks to thanks a shreddy. Go ahead. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair Mccain. \nWe just need a couple of more minutes. \nBeen a while. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you again. Chair\, Mcken\, and Good Evening Design Review Board Members. \nMy name is Shrizi Sinha\, and I am a shoreline development analyst. At Dcdc. Before I present the staff introduction. I would like to remind the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you are speaking or answering questions. \nWhen you are not actively engaged with the board. Please turn off your video and mute your microphone so that you minimize distractions on screen. \nDRB Meeting Room: And now i’d like to introduce the project for tonight’s review\, which is the redevelopment of a 12.6 acre\, former oracle campus\, located at 300 301 \nand 400 island pathway\, and 800 Clifford drives. \nDRB Meeting Room: This project is proposed by developer \nbiomed realty. Biomed realty has submitted its application to the the city of Belmont\, received comments and just recently resubmitted an update to their application. \nThe city of Dumont will commence the Sqla Environmental Review process this spring \nDRB Meeting Room: Tonight is the project’s first Drb Review. \nDRB Meeting Room: We would like to begin by acknowledging that the project area was once \nwater and historic tidal flats located near Lampson. The unseeded ancestral homeland of the Ramitosh Boloni. we offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples \nwho are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the bay area. \nDRB Meeting Room: The project is located in the city of Belmont\, just outside of the redwood shore’s waterfront community. \nIt sits at the confluence of Foster City\, Belmont and Redwood City. It also sits at the confluence of the O’neal and Belmont sleeves. The 2 schools wrap around the properties surrounding the project site such that they create a moat-like enclosure of the area\, within. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this area is called Island Park\, by the project that developed the area in the Mid 80 S. \nDRB Meeting Room: The site is surrounded by office campuses\, a Hotel\, and a residential community. \nTo the north\, to the southwest is the Belmont Sports Complex\, owned by the city of belmont \nDRB Meeting Room: pedestrian and bicycle access to this so-called island is provided \nby 3 foot bridges\, circled in yellow along the south of Islands Park. also circled in yellow\, is the land bridge to the northwest of Island Park and the Bay trail at the northeast. \nDRB Meeting Room: The only vehicular access to Island Park is provided \nvia Island Parkway. A pile supported 5 Lane Bridge. \nDRB Meeting Room: which crosses over O’neal’s food from the south\, and terminates at the project site. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here’s some regional context for public parks and trails. \nThis map is taken from the Bay Trail Division of the Metropolitan Transportation. The Bay Trail is shown in dark green. Note that no portion of the bay trail lies within the project site. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map doesn’t show it\, but there is a short line pedestrian path within the project limits \nit. It is an approximately 500 linear foot segment of what is locally called the O’neal Flu Trail. \nDRB Meeting Room: This slide contains\, if you cite photos taken by the applicant. \nDRB Meeting Room: except for the public streets and a parking lot owned by the city of Beaumont. The project site is unimproved for public use. \nExisting use of the site includes pedestrian traffic along the Project’s northwestern Shoreline via the O’neal Free Trail\, and parking on the 400 Island Parkway parcel. \nAssociated with events at the Sports complex. \nDRB Meeting Room: the existing permit was issued to the Oracle Corporation. \nDRB Meeting Room: Although Oracle built out the buildings that exist today \nat 3 0 1 4\, one and 501 Island Parkway\, it did not construct the buildings authorized for 300 400 islands. Approximately half of \nthe authorized project was never built out. \nDRB Meeting Room: Likewise\, the public access conditions required by the permit \nseem to have only been partially fulfilled. based on recent satellite imagery. It appears that some of the above-mentioned public access requirements were implemented and exist today some were implemented and later abandoned\, and others \nwere never implemented. \nJust \nDRB Meeting Room: slide. \nI’ll try to go through the several \nDRB Meeting Room: public access requirements in the existing permit to give you a sense of \nwhat the Commission thought was commensurate with the type of development that would cover this area. \nSo \nDRB Meeting Room: so these are the addresses. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the \nthe shoreline band. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the trail. \nIt’s a pedestrian path that was supposed to go all around the island. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it’s mostly built out \nin one way in one form or another. \nDRB Meeting Room: over a 100\,000 square feet of landscaping was also required. \nA raised turf area at the the Cul de Sacs. a on either side of Concourse Place. \nDRB Meeting Room: 5 foot wide\, bike lanes on Concourse and Island parkways. \nDRB Meeting Room: If I put wide access path to the Bridge plaza. \nDRB Meeting Room: public shore\, parking along \nConcourse Place and \n80 evening and weekend parking spaces in the 400 Island park\, wait lot for \nDRB Meeting Room: for events associated with the sports complex \nDRB Meeting Room: 2 foot bridges \nacross Onio\, Flu and Delamont flu \nDRB Meeting Room: 10 foot wide and 8 foot wide. \nDRB Meeting Room: and that appears to be it. \nand then \nDRB Meeting Room: off to the side. There’s \nsee that there’s signage lighting. picnic tables\, benches. trash with obstacles and restrooms. minimum numbers for those required. \nSo \nDRB Meeting Room: that was for the project was that was only half built. \nDRB Meeting Room: Pcbc’s community vulnerability mapping tool shows the majority of the project site as having moderate \nsocial vulnerability based on based upon the 2\,014 to 2\,018 census data gathered by Bcd. In 2\,020. The social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile for this census block include children under 5 years of age. \nsingle-parent household people who are not us citizens and people who are severely housing costs burdened \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding the potential sea level rise. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level\, sea level rise and using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nwe use the medium to high risk aversion scenario for the public access improvements. The bottom row shows what equivalent future total water level. This map corresponds to for each risk. Scenario \nfor the medium to high-risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean high high water level along with 2050 sea level rise\, which would also not cause \nflooding on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if it remained unchanged. \nI shaded the project site in yellow because red represents overtopping. according to this key for the medium to high-risk aversion scenario. 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent \nto mean higher high water in the year 2\,090 or the 100 year storm events at mid-century. \nDRB Meeting Room: the San Francisco estuary and institute adaptation mapping tool recommends existing and potential tidal marsh \nand hold your management as nature based as nature-based adaptation opportunities. \nDRB Meeting Room: Lastly\, i’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff report that \nyou’d like the Board to consider in your in its review. First\, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in B. Cbc’s public access design guidelines. \nthen staff has that it identified some specific questions. We would like to ask the Board about the design at this stage. These are \none. \nDRB Meeting Room: How does the project propose a result in 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: What additional improvements would improve the public access experience to and along the shoreline \n3 are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level\, rise and balance with ensuring high quality\, public access opportunities. and 4. \nDoes the design provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike and pedestrian networks to draw users into and through the site to the O’neal food trail and shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: At this point I would like to check to see if the Board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this introduction. \nYeah\, I I do. Could you go back to the the diagram that shows the permit or the permit requirements? Can you switch back to that \nthat you I just want to double check. So when the permit was originally given to oracle for a development of this site. the green area up on the list that \nit says 40\,000 47\,000 square feet of landscape was that part of the permit. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, that that is required in the permit that’s in the public. \nAnd then the second thing I wanted to ask was the line that delineates the 100 foot shoreline band was that in the permit. Originally \nDRB Meeting Room: I \nDRB Meeting Room: it might have been in the exhibits\, but that that’s an approximate that we put in. Okay. \nbut it would have been discussed at the time. The 100 foot shoreline band was clearly in place at the time the person was Yeah. So it would be understood that any development approach. Proposal needs to \nfollows the requirements for the 100 foot shoreline band and provide that 47\,000. It is green space. Is that correct. correct. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Any other clarifying questions. \nThank you for the presentation. I was wondering. \nDRB Meeting Room: The boundary on the exhibits \ndoes it? It seems\, to include sometimes the parcel linking all the way to the Belmont flu \nDRB Meeting Room: Is that part of the site\, or is that not included? \nDRB Meeting Room: So this is the extent of the project \nthat’s being proposed today. \nDRB Meeting Room: Biomed realty actually owns \nYou can’t see my cursor\, but where it says 301 Islands Parkway\, that’s part of the project. But biomed realty owns the the the area\, the campus south of that also \nat \nDRB Meeting Room: it doesn’t show the the \nI believe it’s 401 and 501. Yeah. but that’s not part of this project within the scope of this project\, but all the areas shaded in red are \npart of the project\, including the there’s this little section\, this parking lot at the South. next to the sports complex that’s a city-owned parking lot. \nand the applicant is part of their. It’s part of their project at. I I believe\, as a part of their agreement with the city to \nredevelop that do some like surface redevelopment to that parking area. In some of the exhibits it shows building. One included in the boundaries \nand some of these good T-shirt. I just want to confirm. That’s not part of the \nDRB Meeting Room: so if you flip forward a few slides \nDRB Meeting Room: it it going all the way to \nDRB Meeting Room: oh. \none more \nDRB Meeting Room: like in this one. \nso that that building is not part of it. Okay\, just one \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the other question. \nNever mind that’s it. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I have one question. Can you go back to the \nto the permit drawing that you have at previously? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s the one \nso \non the right it shows a 10 foot wide\, oracle footbridge across Belmont. With \nDRB Meeting Room: that that doesn’t exist. Oh\, it does. \nOkay. \nThat’s already been constructed. \nYes\, 3 foot bridges have been constructed. The pro this shows what required in the permit\, but so you’ll see one \nat on on the onial side of the the slew. which is required to be 8 foot. Wide wooden pile supported foot bridge that’s been built\, and then there’s another one \non that side. so that 2 on the O’neal flu side\, and then the oracle footbridge have all been constructed. \nOkay\, Thank you. \nYeah. I have a question. The sea level rise diagram\, what we showed. I just want to clarify. I understood that at the 100 years storm \nat mid century the this entire area in blue would be underwater. It would be over time. \nDRB Meeting Room: No that \nno \nDRB Meeting Room: 66 inches. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, maybe you could just run run me \nby that one more time. What is the condition? Mid-century? 100 years so \nDRB Meeting Room: 2050 \nsea level rise plus 100 years storm. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, thank you. \nThis is if the site remains unchanged. Right? So i’m looking at the surrounding areas. Yeah. I know we’ll hear about the site. Surely I was kind of just wondering about the access. \nDRB Meeting Room: the \nsorry to backtrack. But can you go back to the permitting diagrams? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, I. I just wanted to clarify those picked to Grants down the left hand side. Were they part of the permit as well? 24 benches\, etc.\, etc.\, \nand 2 toilets that that that indicate some sort of restroom. Yes. \nokay. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. Any other clarifying questions. \nall good. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, it’s really thanks very much for providing that information \nvery helpful. So we’ll go to the next item on the agenda\, which is the project proponent presentation. So we’ll hand to \nthank you. \nHello. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Good evening. \nEveryone can hear me. Okay. My name is Ethan Warsh. I’m. A director of development with biomed realt \njust to one sentence on biomed biomed realty is a leading provider of real estate solutions. For the \nwe focus. We focus exclusively on the \nSo I want to take a moment and introduce my team. I’m. Joined here tonight by Marcel Wilson\, with Bionic landscape architects. Jeff Smith and Ellie Nekt\, with \nCecily Barkley\, our Land use Council with Perkins\, Kui \nespecially. and my colleagues solely and actually hear me both with biomed Marcel and I are going to be presenting our Island Park project to you this evening\, and others on the team will be available to answer questions. And so with that i’d like to hand things over to myself. \nDRB Meeting Room: Good evening to be here \nDRB Meeting Room: just to orient everyone the Island Parkway life\, science campus \nin in Belmont. So\, Jason to the one to one freeway. You may recognize the in the oracle towers. \nsurrounded to the north by a hotel and a dealership. There is a residential community close by\, and then to the and then existing segments of the annual slew trail run to the new. \nDRB Meeting Room: The project say it’s generally flat. \nof mostly disturbed disturbed area and compacted gravel. It’s developed portions of the project includes existing office space and parking areas. \n3 street trees and land. \nDRB Meeting Room: and aside from the public streets\, city owns \nparking lot. At the south end of the project site. The project location is currently not open to the public. However\, people informally use the area to traverse the western edge of the to connect the O’neal slew trail. \nand it’s through the through a gap through the site. If you look at the image on the lower left\, you can see the there’s some carpeting that’s been put down there by users to \ntraverses. So this is A. And then there’s another part of the site which is a parking area to the south end. and that is also in the in the\, in the \nDRB Meeting Room: a variety of trails and infrastructure. The bridges there’s \nto tunnel converge on this site. and their the conditions of those trails are all. \nDRB Meeting Room: The bay trail is located on the east side of the island. That’s the \nyou know. New O’neal slew trail is in green. It’s not designated as Bay trail\, but it surrounds the rest of the perimeter of the island. With the exception of the trail gap that crosses the 800 \nclipper property\, the Dash. \nThis. This is an identified gap\, and you can see the 100 foot set back is indicated in blue. and so along the slew. That’s in the upper part of the drawing\, and then on the lower part of the drawing you see the area shaded in blue. That’s the \nsports complex parking lot which I supports \nDRB Meeting Room: the \nthe future circulation. Here will be bicycles and pedestrians\, which are will move along with kind of orange lines. The larger pink lines are for primary access to the to the shoreline. \nThese circulation routes connect existing trail networks and provide users with site accesses to Delmont and Redwood shores in the greater bay area. So this is a this site can really act. \nIt’s kind of like a a trail head for a much larger\, wider trail that. although it is \nDRB Meeting Room: even is going to walk through the building. \nSo before Marcel walks you through the details of the shoreline design. I wanted to provide a broader overview of the project. So the project i’m about to describe is what’s included in our to the city of Belmont\, and reflects months of close enough. \nDRB Meeting Room: So Bmr. Is proposing approximately 860\,000 square feet of life. Sciences. Space \nspread across 3 different buildings and one parking structure with ground ground floor amenity programming as well. We call our buildings\, building one in the middle there building 2 planned north and building 3 planned east \nbuilding\, 3 includes podium parking. So is self-sufficient. From that perspective\, and the parking structure will serve buildings one and 2\, and also includes ground floor. Amenity programming directly adjacent \nsports complex. All of our buildings are shorter than the the highest point of the \nand one detail I wanted to highlight is that the parking structure also includes 80 parking spaces available to the sports\, complexes\, sports\, complex users. and we are proposing an additional 6 spaces that are specifically designated for users. \nand one other item I wanted to pause on that I wasn’t planning on just because our the rest of the presentation doesn’t cover it\, and I saw it come up earlier is the the bike lanes. And so we are proposing significant bike lane infrastructure as part of the project\, so that includes \nprotected class 2 bike lanes all the way down Island Parkway\, and then on Concourse Place\, sort of connecting the both sides of the island. We’re proposing a protected for a bike lane\, as well as \njust painted class 2 around the \nso filling in all of the you know. would be a very robust. \nDRB Meeting Room: So this was covered briefly by Marcel\, but this slide shows the BC. DC. Shoreline band in relation to our proposed project in blue. You can see that there are 2 areas of overlap\, one which is the primary subject of this project \nadjacent to our building to plan north. The other is within the surface parking lot plan set The this parking lot is existing\, owned by the city of Belmont\, and associated with their sports complex. \nWe are not proposing a new use here\, but the city has asked that we reconfigure their lot in order to streamline the access from the street. and so it interfaces more coherently with our lot\, which\, if you recall\, they will \nto\, and so they really will in many ways operate\, you know\, for the for the same users you can’t find a spot in the surface parking lot. You may want to to jump over parking lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: As a result of the reconfiguration the city will also gain an additional 15 spaces on the surface. Parking lot. They’ll also \nwill benefit from a much improved \ncity and sports complex. \nDRB Meeting Room: So before I hand things back over. I would like to focus for one moment on the portion of the shoreline band that is adjacent to our building\, too. \nthis area of the project\, and specifically the interface and proposed overlap between building 2 and the shoreline band is something that the team has spent a lot of time talking and thinking about. \nwhile our proposal to include a portion of building to within the shoreline band is an allowable use. We also understand the importance of balancing that placement with the need to provide meaningful\, attractive\, inviting\, and adaptable shoreline. \nAnd so with that in mind we approach this site specifically\, this building to site. But you know broadly as well with\, and all of its constraints with a few objectives. So one is that you know \nwe have an objective to build a building that is viable for our tenants. You know our ability to build a campus that attracts high-quality life. Science\, tenants is at the core of our business. and is also what allows us to make the all of these proposals \nto place making and access. We believe that strong place making will make our project a success for our tenants\, for trail users. for nearby residents and users of sports\, complex and clear trail and sports. Complex access is central to our place\, making. \nand 3 harmony with adjacent. So we we do seek to build a project with an interface that makes sense. Given the diverse other nearby uses\, including \nso the proposed building to design. we think\, achieves those objectives in the following ways. \nDRB Meeting Room: The building design is viable for our tenants by providing a floor\, plate\, size\, core design\, and layout and ground floor loading plan that supports their needs. \nOur proposal supports place basic place\, making by focusing on a well-designed ground plane and strong access to the shoreline trail and the sports complex for pedestrians\, bicycles\, and vehicles\, and we do that a couple of ways. \nOne is that we locate. We’ve located building to loading plan north\, so along that eastern that top property line on the on the map there. rather than between buildings\, one and by doing that \nthe area between building one and 2 becomes a central access point for the shoreline sports complex and our buildings and taken together with adjacent spaces\, becomes a dynamic\, multi-purpose open space that really is \nthe central plaza. \nDRB Meeting Room: And lastly\, to create harmony between uses. We’ve ensured with this design that trucks can access the loading area of building 2 without having to loop around the island through the resident. \nwhich is is important to us from the get go. So with that i’ll hand things back over \nDRB Meeting Room: to \ntalk about the improvements. It makes sense to zoom way back and talk about them from outside the and it first. \nCurrently there are views to the slew you can see on the lower left corner of from Concourse Place. There’s big\, wide\, open view aligned to Concourse place\, and and to the \nnew buildings. One and 2 are going to be cited\, as you can see\, in the bottom right corner\, so that there’s a very wide aperture in a sense of the bay Beyond is \nwill be telegraph to people passively. They use the sidewalks. crosswalks to to access the trail. proposed improvements of sidewalks\, crosswalks\, pedestrian safety bike lanes will kind of be aligned \nalso to these buildings\, just sort of reinforcing a the kind of intuitive way finding for the access. \nDRB Meeting Room: These drawings illustrate a a kind of a a visitor or sequence \nto the trail. You’d be able to access the trail from the north\, the east and the south. So so\, and O’neal slew is sort of interesting in its own right as a vestige of a much larger system. There’s a lot there to explore. \nI want to Also\, just point out to you in the plan. Drawing on the left\, you can see that there’s a bend in the trail. and and we’ll talk about that bandit\, how it the sequence. \nSo in in the view one you’re all the way back down down the this kind of multi-purpose trail. It’s at least 26 feet wide\, paves the entire way ada accessible \nand the sports complex is on. and as you move more closely in in. In the second view that you see this trail consistency \nas wide. There’s amendments along the sides of the trail view. 3 actually looks at it from approaching on Concourse Place. big\, wide view to the bay and view 4 looks back at the sports complex. \nwhere again you can see certain the nature-based solutions to sea level rise on the bank. I’ll talk about a little bit more about that later\, and amenities to kind of stop and pause. \nIt’s at this point that you can in view 5 that you can see this kind of vertical element that we created at that turning point. It’s a large frame. It’s meant to in a in a big deck. There’ll be an observation point there\, and it’s really a vertical marker to indicate that the trail does move on from \neither perspective from north or south\, and it’s kind of an invitation to continue through the trail and make it very clear that it’s it’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: This next set of views are\, Show a little bit more of the architectural character\, and give you a \nof what the experience might be. So this is is demonstrating just the the kind of generosity of the street. and the kind of planting and massing of the buildings. \nthe big\, wider views as you. This is on Concourse place\, looking west. the building on the corner building one have a more kind of an iconic presence. you know\, and it it sort of announces itself as the \nI can’t answer. And then the you look at them. The relationship between building one and 2 big\, wide opening. I would say. \nthis is looking from kind of the slew back to the east. This is the plaza where you would arrive. This is where sidewalks and a vehicle drop off All arrive at a kind of public ceiling. Plaza. \nyou’ll notice on the slew edge. There are decks. kind of areas that will welcome people as they arrive to walk right out to that edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then this is a view from from the sports complex doing a pretty good job of showing how\, between the sports complex and \nthe parking garage. There’ll be a very active edge there. and it’s a long continuous connector closing that gap in the system. And then this is at eye level along \nalong the parking garage on the right and the sports complex on the left\, so people would be able to come here\, park. unload and go to the sports complex or continue on \nthe trail. There will be some amenities in the base of the garage activating \nand the sports complex is very popular\, and you \nDRB Meeting Room: and then finally of you. Looking back from this observation deck to the Sports complex \nbuilding 2\, unless you can just see there’s a generous set back at least 26 feet of of trail width there\, and in addition to some. then the the slope of the bank. \nDRB Meeting Room: There’s been some conversation already about the adaptation to sea level rise\, the project will be adapted to or designed initially\, to meet\, projections to 2\,080\, \nand then there are death. Adaptation approaches in scenarios allow us to adapt up till 2\,100\, and this is also sort of pegged to the life of \nbuilding. of of the buildings. \nDRB Meeting Room: It it might be helpful to know that towards the top of the drawing that’s lower and towards the bottom of the drawing that’s higher. The average site elevation right now \non the low side is about 13. That’ll be real 2 to 15. There’s a variety of \nDRB Meeting Room: our our team has developed various options that \nkeep the public shoreline accessible through your 2\,100\, with a couple of different adaptations. scenarios. I’ll show you in in sections later how those \nwork! And it’s anticipated that that potential flooding from other off-site properties could occur in the future there’s a bypass. It’s a bypass to the north\, with a levy only on one side and not the other. \nAnd so these are beyond the control of the project\, but it’s anticipated that this project will be able to respond to any improvements that are made along that edge. In the diagrams that were shown \nDRB Meeting Room: shows that there’s no over topping there\, because there is no ready to. \nIt’s an anomaly in the \nDRB Meeting Room: These next slides show typical sections. I won’t talk through them all. But these 2 are important to note just the general nature-based approach to elevating the site and the existing bank. \nThis project does not do any work in the bay. We have no in water work. but we will be raising the site and planting that edge with with natives and adaptive species. \nAnd then\, if you see at the top of in each of those sections it shows a band that’s approximately 5 feet wide\, and that is a zone where in the future\, if \nadaptation scenarios called for something even taller than what we’ve projected. We can accommodate within that. But right now would would be a a \nkind of future proofing the site through 2\,080. These are other sections in the drawing package I won’t speak to them much more than to say\, Notice the sort of flatness and the ease of transition \nfrom the public streets drop off areas as you go towards the towards the slew on the left. Very easy to get there. Not a lot of visual instructions. \nDRB Meeting Room: Again a couple of additional sections of the condition. \nI will \nDRB Meeting Room: happy to come back to \nDRB Meeting Room: to summarize this. The drawing on the top shows today’s conditions and what we’re proposing to build initially. The drawing on the bottom shows \nhow all of the access and the amenities that are being built will be but I a future proofs through 2\,100. That’s the 2\,100 scenario on that. \nBut \nDRB Meeting Room: the the the decks\, the trail\, the seating areas. \nthe access to the access all be adapted to \nDRB Meeting Room: this is going to be a great place to \nto sort of transition out of a vehicle and onto a bike or your feet to explore the trail system. being sort of gracious to all the visitors that we’re anticipating\, though we’re planning on a variety of amenities. This is where you might \npump up your tires\, fill your water bottle\, get some orientation or information. and then set out on on the trail \nDRB Meeting Room: the surfacing will be on the on. The main alignment of the trail is going to be cast concrete \nin other sort of special areas or off to the sides there will be cast con or concrete pairs\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: and then along the \nblue edge of the trail. The the idea is that that has a variety of different areas to stop and pause. They’re all sort of different for different shaped sort of bodies and in sizes and ages and and just experience \nexperiences to kind of observe. Observe the slew and all that’s going panorama. So. \nand then the nature-based Adaptation. Approach of raising that bank and replanting with natives and adaptives. is\, we refer to it as the kind of native garden. In addition to that\, there will be some interpretation. Opportunities \nabout about the about the flora\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: and there is a a preliminary plant\, palette of adaptive and native \nspecies. This is not. This is for the whole project. but I would maybe point out that we’re fully anticipated paying that aquatic species might migrate up to bank\, and the \nslopes and species that we’re choosing are are all well sued for. \nDRB Meeting Room: and I will now pass back to even \ntalk about the public outreach. \nSo just one note on the amenities that I wanted to add is that you know we are proposing at the ground floor of that parking structure 15\,000 of the that would be open to the public. You know where we envision it now is \nbeverage like amenity in talks with the city and talks with complex users. is what they’re most about. You know \na lot of us at that sports complex. If you go there any given weekday evening\, you know there’s hundreds of people different fields\, and so. the idea being asset to them\, you know. \nYou know\, after a game. etc.\, you know. \nand celebrated. get back together. Talk about the game \nwe’re also providing we’re also proposing a small cafe space \nuse and build 3\, which we also \nthere really is no. except for the hotel and \ndealership on the one. And so we \nand i’ll talk more\, you know. That’s a good segue for me to talk about. \nAnd so to date we’ve hosted an informational session with development. Belmont sports complex users\, and that really kicked off our community outreach this week. We’ll be sending a mailer out to all residential addresses on the island advertising and open house that we’ll be hosting at the sports complex on J. \n7. Following that meeting we’ll also be reaching out to 2 communities on the other side of one on one from our project sterling Downs and home View\, and we will seek to present at their regular fea meetings. But if we need to\, we will also \nspecifically to present our project. And lastly\, we’ll also complete outreach to Residents shores\, although a different jurisdiction\, obviously extremely close to this project\, and we’ll either reach out \nto their Hoa or a separate community organization. \nIn all cases we’ll be providing an email address and other contact information likely my personal email now in phone number\, so individuals can convey their comments or concerns to the project team\, and we will \nconduct additional meetings where follow up is right. \nDRB Meeting Room: So with that i’ll wrap it up. Thank you so much for your time and consideration tonight\, and the whole team is available to answer any questions. \nOkay\, thank you very much. Eton and myself very clear. I’m sure we have a few clarifying questions \nlike to go through this fault. Go ahead. \nThank you. \nSo let’s see. \nDRB Meeting Room: I was looking at the project summary and the exhibits\, and \nI think I calculated\, did I calculate\, 800 square feet of of space building space\, and whereas on the permit drawing it was something \nclose to really \nDRB Meeting Room: 200\,000. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we are proposing 860\,000 square feet. I think the original permit for these \nsites was closer to 235\,000 very different look and feel and quality of \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah\, I Just wanted to make sure I had that. I mean it’s it’s a \nkind of an upgrade\, I guess you would say. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then i’m not super familiar with what is involved in \nbiomedical facilities\, or whatever the term is. But does that mean that you handle\, or whoever on the tenants would handle contagious \nthings like Covid and and the like. And and is there a risk of \nDRB Meeting Room: of that like any kind of a release or anything? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So the types of tenants that we work with handle a wide \nactivities. You know\, that fits under sort of the very broad umbrella. \nSo you know\, we have tenants like lucid motors or \nresearch all the way to the \nyou know\, curing \nDRB Meeting Room: generally\, we’re. Our tenants are regulated by something called biosafety levels\, of which there are for bio safety level\, one being those \nsort of the least risk to human health and safety and bio for being things like that. Ebola. \nDRB Meeting Room: but that are really only dealt with \nin government \nright now. There are discussions going on at the county level about. and if the local on the peninsula about which bio safety levels to allow\, and so we’re closely tracking that\, and obviously we’ll comply with the \nput in place here. Typically\, you know\, we see the majority of our tenants within the bio safety level. We \nDRB Meeting Room: and I’ll just add to that they are also a highly regulated industry. And so there are a number of Federal and State \nagencies that do you know\, ensure that. \nYeah\, Thank you for that answer. And I appreciate the education it’s not something i’m\, that familiar with. But I am familiar with what’s somewhat familiar with the building codes based on \nthe level of life safety risk. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I was wondering what level this building\, being a biomedical\, potentially biomedical activities. \nlocation. Is is there a significant risk to life safety that would raise the risk level to a 3 or 4? The critical facility in the \nengineering architectural Jordan. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, this Isn’t on my area of expertise. But i’ll typically say\, I will say typically\, no. You know the one area that we are\, You know\, sort of you’ll see \ntypically how the building code will interact with us is for lab space and chemical storage. And so that is dealt with in the California building code. And again\, it’s \nlife safety. like how many chemicals can elevation\, you know\, just risk to hazard. And so we comply. We we comply with all. Yeah\, the reason why i’m asking is because \nwe haven’t. I didn’t see a Ge a technical report. But the area is\, you know\, in in the Bay\, and the soils that are typically weak bay Mods and bill. And so if there’s a seismic of that. \nyou know\, that could cause a a structural load that more critical facilities that are associated with life\, safety\, or high density would require \na more conservative or strong\, or more capable of being able to handle an event like that and not collapse. let’s say. And likewise there’s it brings in the risk of a tsunami like flood. \nwhich would penetrate the site if there was one. So that’s why i’m wondering what what level of facility would be from an engineering building code standpoint. And \nit’s okay. If you don’t have the answer for that\, because I I I think it’s just. It’s probably a special case that i’m not familiar with. But that’s why I’m asking\, and I think it’s. It’s important. I think we’re all a little sensitive to the. \nto the virus issue\, and also these are big buildings that may have enough people that raise the risk level. I’m not sure. \nDRB Meeting Room: We are a seismic importance Level \n2. So which is the your typical commercial building. When we have an assembly space increased it. 3. Okay. But we would very rarely in no cases. \nunless you know\, we do have a case for this. \nthat elevator. \nDRB Meeting Room: Oh\, typically we’re it\, too\, and I will also just note that this is a very proven asset class. San Francisco is the \nbehind the bait behind the Boston Bridge area the largest science cluster in the world\, I think. And so and certainly in the country. And so there are a lot of \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. No\, I appreciate that. Thank you for educating me on that. I I sorry to take so much time. \nNot sure. I’m totally comfortable with us\, being in the lead\, and in terms of all that. But I think it’s great that that I have a better understanding. Now\, Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, I have a clarifying question. \nThank you for the presentation\, and the extra background\, too\, on the bike. LAN. I think that was helpful. And I was wondering\, Can you kind of just describe the vehicular circulation on site \nand like\, where is the parking and loading access for the buildings? And then how does the drop off work with parking like? Do you drop off and then go drive to the parking garage or just helping us understand where where cars are and where pedestrians are. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, please \nDRB Meeting Room: always control. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: especially page 8 is probably a good place to be. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So Island Park is one way in and one way out which is planned south there. So you cross the bridge over \non Island Parkway\, across the bridge. \nheaded Plan North \nDRB Meeting Room: Building one and building 2 are both served by parking by the main parking structure on your left there. \nAnd so the majority of of us \nwould take I first\, or \ninto the \nto access that parking structure. That’s also how you access. The loading area for building \nbetween the parking structure and the \nDRB Meeting Room: users of the sports complex would use that same \nfirst entrance to the parking structure as \nto where access \nDRB Meeting Room: users of building 3 would make the first right \nDRB Meeting Room: off of Island Parkway before getting to concourse onto this \ncoding and parking structure. Loading is located in that same so occurring in building \nby taking a look off the bylaw \nbefore getting to \nbuilding 2\, is really the only \nDRB Meeting Room: site that requires people to \npenetrates the the residential area at all. And so you’d come up to the section of concourse the left. If you were a truck loading\, you would make that first right to clipper and then a left into the \nyou\, and to building two’s loads like I mentioned before. What we really wanted to avoid was a truck. You is required a truck to make a right on concourse\, and a left and circle of \nclipper to access the the rear of building \nfor folks getting dropped off. \nDRB Meeting Room: you would. Each building has a drop off a designated drop off area. \nSo for building 3 you would pull up past that first right for parking\, and the drop off area is located on Island Parkway. On that planned west \nto be dropped off at building 2. You would go up to concourse\, make a left. and enter into that roundabout and drop off there\, and we’ve made sure that that that roundabout is generously \nthe confluence of the different types. Users can\, if need be\, stacked 2 or 3 cars. So folks using building 2 and and likely building\, one also would get dropped off there. Additionally\, there is a drop off area for building a. \nIf you were to go back around that roundabout head back on Island Parkway and pull off to the right to be \nthe right Turn on. \nso there’s no cars going from the round about to the parking structure along the sort of slew front along the slew front. No\, you cannot access like the roundabout and the pathway that circles the parking structure\, or can’t be accessed. \nThat’s good. And then the it is a \nso \nDRB Meeting Room: for building one loading\, so we do show \nthe entire parking structure circled by\, you know\, vehicle access. However\, the vehicle access on the planned west of the parking structure is only Eva\, and very occasional \nloading traffic for trucks that you know\, are bolt gas delivery for building occasional and that loop\, but otherwise that area adjacent to the parking structure and and and \nsports complex is really imagined as a multi-purpose. So it will be designed with the materiality signals shared space. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you for that. And then for buildings\, one and 2 \nthere. Do they have lobbies directly. I imagine\, on that round about the drop off \nDRB Meeting Room: building 2\, does the building. One lobby is \nright now\, I mean\, these are preliminary designs. But right now the building one lobby is imagined \nDRB Meeting Room: for the in the center of the building a long \nOkay. And can you just kind of describe\, like the ground floor active uses on buildings\, one and 2 \nDRB Meeting Room: for building\, one and 2. So typically our buildings are. Our ground floor or a ground up building \nare 18 feet \nforward\, feeling on the first floor\, and then 6 to feet above that for every other floor. That’s one of the unique aspects building \non the ground floor. The the uses are taken up largely by the lobby and by area\, and potentially by utility areas like interior transfer transformer. leaving limited tenant space or \nthe ground floor. But there is some tendency \nfor building 2 and building one. We currently don’t\, have planned any in any space\, or we typically don’t. Put retail space on the ground floor of our buildings. I’m. Building 3. We do have that \nso like building one has this plaza out front. Is that sort of a plaza in front of a blank wall\, or what sort of nature of that. So i’ll be glazing. I think you want to go back to some. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then it was mentioned that the \nthe whole master plan for this area had a certain amount of public space square footage that was required. Do you know how much public square footage space you’re required to provide\, and how much this \nis proposing. I believe the number that was. What do you something 1\,000 in here? We’re we’re proposing\, I think 1.8\, \n40\, somebody. Okay. just a follow up clarification. Yeah. But can you break that down? What’s the breakdown between green space and \nbut that \nDRB Meeting Room: approximately. \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean looking at the drawing. What would you? Your \nright? \nBut let’s not include that\, because it \nit’d be good to clarify that \nalso. Just wondering. \nDRB Meeting Room: Is there any kind of Tdm required\, or Tma that you have to participate in with the shuttle that’s in the area\, or anything like that? \nThere is a Tdm required will be submitted with the. you know\, for our sequel documentation. and that obviously \nforward. And we get tenants\, etc. One of the measures is. Yeah\, I know that \narea called \non our rate. Okay? And then do you know what the Tbm requirement is? The percent reduction required? \nWe don’t have the exact number\, but we we know that we meet requirement. Yeah. So you don’t know what the number is\, but you know you’re below it. We targeted to be both. I know that\, like \nit’s better than \nGood afternoon evening. I’m Cesley Barkley and I wanted to clarify. We have hired a company called hexagon to do all of our transportation. They’ve prepared a local transportation analysis. \na vehicle\, miles traveled analysis and a separate Tdm program that looks at 25 ways points that we could earn to get \nthat are viable for this project we need to have at least 18 to meet the city’s requirements. I don’t remember right now\, if it’s like 2025. But there is a number. and we have plenty of opportunities \nto meet that number. And One of them is to Okay\, and the shuttle is even mentioned. So we’ve submitted that to the city in our most recent on April nineteenth\, and \nMexican works a lot with the city and their traffic engineers. \nJason said. As this develops\, we’ll have a little more detail\, and we can get you this production. Okay\, but that’s helpful to 20 to 25. Yes\, thank you. \nLast question. I’m. Just looking at the B Cdc’s adapting your eyes inside maps\, and it it looks like this whole area is probably experiencing some flooding today. Do you know\, if there’s any flooding happening in the neighborhood that you’re aware of \nit’s by the neighborhood. You mean. Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: they’re certainly flooding risks. \nand to the north they just finish widening culverts raising the \nthey built a the seawall on top of the Di. \nIt wouldn’t\, because that below. \non the southern edge of the \nDRB Meeting Room: bypass \nthere’s a things levy \nin there \nDRB Meeting Room: so \nthere could be \ninto the \nin today’s. \nAnd to the that one day \nby passes \nproves we don’t know what now. But \nthis project has. \nor whatever that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So there’s no sort of adaptation strategy \narea at a higher level. That would probably I believe that the flight control district question. \nAnd it happens just off of this. \nYeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay. \nOne shoreline is that \nwhole region \nanecdotal. \nI know that ours encounter any flooding. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, Well\, it’s just it’s all connected right? So if you guys raise everything\, but nobody else does it doesn’t \nhelp you so just wondering if you’re kind of aware of a larger or not\, or if there is a one. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t know that. There\, I I think that there I mean I I don’t. I will say I don’t know \naffirmatively\, but I think that there are a lot of people looking. \nbut are looking at this whole region\, and and I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the levy\, the the \nit’s along this \nplanned north. \nDRB Meeting Room: but increase whether or not Belmont right now \nit’s set aside to do it that I don’t know. \nGo ahead. \nI wanted to mention a couple of things just if you saw the if we go back. Don’t need to go back to the flooding\, but when you do\, Island Park itself is out and the sports complex and much of the parking structure. I can’t remember how much you 501 \nas you come up on the island. It’s actually and we don’t ever have a problem until you get up closer to where the shoreline band is\, and then we’ll raise that. And \njust right outside this picture Foster City is putting in a levy for just now. So when you listen a little bit to this talk. there does need to be a levy of some sort or raising of the edge of the island \naround\, and there is a connection between the reservoir in the middle. and there’s a \nDRB Meeting Room: underground culvert that goes out\, and there are ways to manage that covert with gates. \nThe islands so well. This doesn’t\, because our whole site will be high enough. happens to be where the site is\, and then these improvements are on the edge of the high. That’s good\, but I think there will be lots that \nbeing paid but to kind of get the whole park\, and then\, as everybody is noting that Blue went a lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, further than just the island. It goes quite broadly\, and \nyou mentioned one shoreline and and other agencies \nnecessarily paying a lot of \nDRB Meeting Room: to this as our \nyou and your entire \nthanks? No more question. \nOther questions. Sorry\, yes. \nIs there any accommodation for like a emergency access plan in the event of flooding\, since seems like that could happen in 2\,050\, some regularity. So \nsomething that would happen. Is there a way to evacuate? Or if you are\, you required to deal with that\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: we have? We are not\, as far as I know\, required to. \nI think the one thing that we are doing is raving the not only the line area that \nthe floor level of all of \n28\, 100 years level. So we do think that residents in the bill \nwe don’t anticipate. We we hope that we are anticipated condition that \nfor our participants firm \ncannot be saved on site. \nAnd then there was a mention about the life cycle of the project as tied to the projected sea level like now. Okay. \nDRB Meeting Room: i’m not sure that we have like a \nspecific. I think I don’t think we have a \nI don’t think we have a very specific license \nmore broad. L. \nIt’s curious. What is that in in this? In your in terms of \nfuture planning? What do you? How far ahead do you look before you is out. It’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. I mean it’s extremely hard to tell\, but obviously like I said. \nwe’re we’re we’re adapting to a 28 \n60 years from now\, you know\, because we’re dealing with life\, sign \nthe cutting edge of technology that intermittently with have to make upgrades to it to make sure that \nDRB Meeting Room: for them. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, it’s not a perfect question\, but it’s \nnot a perfect answer. No\, it it’s not a your question. I’m just trying to to educate myself on that. Thank you. \nOther questions. \nand because you \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe briefly just \ndescribe the extent of the improvements along Concourse and Island Parkway that are essentially offsite. You mentioned at 1 point a class for Bike Lane \nand I’m. Trying to read the drawings. I believe it’s on the south side of concourse. Is that correct? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So we’re proposing so our our so typically the streets will work the same way. But we are proposing I’ll just start from the bottom of the plan. So when you come on dial in Parkway \nwe are proposing a hawk signal in order for existing existing bike lanes\, existing bike pads adjacent to the you can see sort of the gray outsport field at the very bottom of the plan. There \nthe bike lane that circles that and cuts across for people who want to access between. We’re proposing a hawk signal for that crossing. We’re proposing protected class 2 bike lanes\, more or less from the edge of the plan on the bottom of the plan there\, all the way up to Concourse Place \nat Concourse Place\, like you mentioned\, we are proposing a class for Bike Lane. So essentially a you know\, protected 2 way cycle track planned north. So if you would cross the street. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry you’re right. Plan plants out so on that side of the street that would connect essentially folks who have access to bay trail from that oracle bridge \nand want a short cut across to the area. And then for the loop that goes on clipper drive. So if you go\, you know\, to the right of the plan\, through the residential area and back around to our building\, too. \nWe’re proposing class 2 typical class 2. \nAnd then essentially\, if you’re on the I guess it’s an extension of the bay trail or the Flew trail. You can pass under Island Parkway if you’re traveling from east to west. \nCorrect. If you were to cross the Oracle Bridge and hook a left. you would go under under Island Parkway. And can you just sort of describe to me sort of if you were coming from that direction\, or from the Oracle direction on a bicycle \ntrying to reach building one or building to you that system along the western side basically would come onto the new promenade. Sure\, if you so\, if you were coming\, let’s say\, from the oracle campus. Now \nyou cross over that bridge to get to building one or building 2. You can make a right and then jump on to that class for a psychopath\, the the cycle track that we were just discussing\, or you can make a left and take the path that exists. \nGo under Island Parkway. You would end up at the sports complex surface parking area at that point right after you pass their parking lot\, and you see a small building that’s they call that the Sports Complex Conference Center. \nYou could make a right there\, and there is a path that travels on the Belmont sports complex site\, more or less following the line of our property line\, to connect with \nwith our proposed path more or less. We’re\, you know\, adjacent to building one or right\, we see that blue shoreline band pick up. That would be a mixed youth mixed. Use path\, or you could circle around \nthe the complex and pick it up in Exactly. \nI believe the city has. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you for the clarification. \nOkay\, and just a couple more questions for me. Sorry to wrap up. Could we go back actually? Could you just go back to the rendering for building to the ground level. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: I just want to make sure I understand \nyou \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: that that that’s \nwe could probably discuss it here. So you can see this one was little. This is \nyeah in the \nDRB Meeting Room: but it this would be okay. \nPause here for a minute. So inside there\, that’s the space you refer to. That would be a some type of \nIs that correct and just question\, do you? I’m not familiar with your company. Do you hold the assets when you develop these projects. Or do you sell them on? \nWe are typically long-term owners. We are developers long-term owners. Operators. It’s part of a sure key component of our brand. \nSo would you manage the tenancies? It’s like a ground for it\, or cafe or yeah. So for for ground floor space in this market\, Typically\, because we we know that these are amenities that our tenants require \nmarket to our tenants going to be at. We don’t take a risk with making me like 4 leads retail space. Rather\, we enter into a contract with \namenity\, food\, and beverage operator\, and so we can guarantee that the services that were telling them will be there are there. \nAnd \nDRB Meeting Room: could you comment on\, just have you thought about how the project would be faced? Where would you start? \nYeah\, right now\, I mean. Obviously\, everything is somewhat subject to market forces. But right now we imagine that phase one building\, what we’re calling\, building one and the parking structure phase 2 would probably include building 2\, because it’s \nby the same parking structure that we bills. And then phase 3 would be building 3. And typically you know\, things like these. \nDRB Meeting Room: We are proposing to build these \npublic amenities\, including amenities as part of phase. One. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. And just I. I just want to check. Is there a ground level rendering similar to that for building 2? \nThe package there is on the \nDRB Meeting Room: more focused on the trail experience. But you can see building 2 to the left. \nmaybe goes rendering. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know\, the other one \nwith high quality. \nNow that these are \nDRB Meeting Room: you towards the end\, like right past the \nmoving to \nso on the list there\, and I know it’s early days in design. But on the list we see. Can you describe what that is we’re seeing in at ground level\, and \nI mean\, or something. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So here we’re I mean\, this is really sort of a renderers interpretation of something that a tenant could be doing in there. We are corn shell developers\, and so we don’t program. \nYou know all of the space except that in core building space. So lobbies. you know\, elevate \nlike this. So we would. We would have to. That. Would that would be at the \nDRB Meeting Room: the tenant would get \nExactly. Okay. So the umbrellas and the outdoor representation for the sorry I missed I misinterpreted that I thought so. Interior would be at the tenants \non the exterior\, and we haven’t gotten to the level of programming yet of Carrier Ss: and you things like this. But you know we could and typically do with the ground floor program things like \nfurniture. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. But there isn’t a cafe. \nNo\, the cafe would be farther up at the right when you hit the corner of the parking structure. Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, that concludes clarifying questions \nfrom the Board. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ll move to public comment \non the presentation of presentation. So we’ll open up the meeting to public comment. Any members of the public attending the meeting in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. \nany comments. \nOkay. And if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual head to speak. \nDRB Meeting Room: We do have one public comment. \nDRB Meeting Room: Kita des i’m going to unmute you. \nand you will have 3 min. \nGita Dev: Good Evening Board members. My name is Peter Dev. I’m with the Sierra Cloud\, and I did send in a short letter \nGita Dev: on Friday\, which I hope you had a chance to take a look at. \nGita Dev: I I want to thank everyone for a wonderful presentation. and as an architect myself I can appreciate a lot of the work that’s gone into it. \nGita Dev: I do have a few comments \nGita Dev: that I hope that the Board will consider. \nGita Dev: and I hope that the that the owner will consider\, too. \nGita Dev: One of them is that this is very close to the Redwood shores\, ecological reserve\, which is all along Redwood shores\, and all along Belmont slew it’s a Federal reserve. It’s a very rich bird watching area. It has a lot of species. You should see the website. It’s really fun. \nGita Dev: So bird\, safe design is a really important issue\, and in looking at the facades they are extremely glassy about the parking. \nGita Dev: and it is very important that we do bird safe design\, and that we \nGita Dev: maintain the lighting\, so that I know that biotech labs often stay up all night. They steal it all night. \nGita Dev: however\, where they are facing onto the slew it’s really important that we have automatic shades that come down. So we do get nocturnal creatures that \nGita Dev: can feed at night. and also for exterior lighting to be sensitive to the purge safe design standards. We’d be happy to provide you more information on that. \nGita Dev: I do want to thank someone for raising the issue of fire\, safety. Life sciences\, labs are bio hazardous. and these are not issues that our codes have caught up with As an architect. I’m very familiar with the codes. \nGita Dev: and even with the State Fire Marshall’s office. \nGita Dev: They are very familiar for a 100 years of chemical hazards and radiological hazards\, but bio hazards are so new that they have not caught up with them. They don’t maintain a database. \nGita Dev: So the 4 bio safety levels. as the client pointed out by a safety level\, 3 and 4 deal with very infectious agents \nGita Dev: and most of the labs do not deal with by a safety level 3. \nGita Dev: But we would like to make sure that \nGita Dev: in such a hazardous area we Don’t get involved in such a serious biohazard that cannot be contained in the event of you know\, serious seismic events flooding events\, interruption of power. \nGita Dev: I just want to let you know. \nThank you. Okay. \nGita Dev: 1 min left. Very good. \nGita Dev: The the last point i’d like to make is that while truly understanding the issue of a large plate design for for tenants. \nGita Dev: I do feel it’s really important from one shoreline’s policy point of view\, and from a safety point of view to maintain the 100 feet of setback. \nGita Dev: and to provide a much gentleness\, slope on the water side. \nGita Dev: The one shoreline recommends a 100 feet set back from the water’s edge. \nand to keep the trail at the land side of that 100 foot\, so as to allow it very gentle slope \nGita Dev: to allow migration of species upland on a gentleness. Look\, then 2 to one\, an eco-tone slope is 20 to one\, but something more than 2 to one would be a much much desirable. I think there may be a way to \nGita Dev: thank you. \nGita Dev: I appreciate your efforts\, and \nGita Dev: and from the Board to manage the design process. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, Thank you very much for that comment. We appreciate it. They are important issues. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, is that the end of public comments? \nDRB Meeting Room: There are no more public comments. Okay\, thank you. \nGood. Okay. We’ll move to the next item on the agenda\, which is for discussion and advice. And so the stage where of the meeting with the Board \nDiscuss with this\, amongst ourselves\, we have been given 4 questions by the staff to consider in our discussion. and the first one is just to make sure that we have maximum sense of feeling of publicness along the shoreline\, so \non that. and commenting the second area just to comment on anything that we could see that might improve public access along the shore. The third one is \nDRB Meeting Room: to make sure\, yeah to our thoughts on the public areas and \nresidency and adaptation. Given what lies ahead. the sea level rise. And then the fourth area was really focused more on connections and adequacy and legibility of quick connections for bikes. \npedestrians from the adjacent by pedestrian networks\, and from the so we’re all very familiar with those \nareas. And so we can build \nDRB Meeting Room: the dialogue around \nthese 4 questions and other things that we think are important. So \nDRB Meeting Room: we set. \nI don’t think we’ll Well\, we we could stop by \nDRB Meeting Room: going down the questions\, if you like\, for 4 questions\, or we could just go by person and have a \npeople come in on what they Thank you important in. But \nI think we might do it that way today. This project. So who would like to lead off? Well. yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: thank you. \nYeah\, thanks for the presentation and and and the answers to our questions really appreciate that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I will may have a list of \nthoughts \nDRB Meeting Room: for our Board discussion \nthat cover \nseveral of the questions. \nMy first comment is a slope with 2 to one\, which I think is the slope where the living shoreline is not something that you would consider a geographically natural slope on a \na wetland \nin the inner title. So I I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, as sea level rises the \nhigher marsh plants could migrate up\, but I think the lower part of the slope would be steep. unvegetated slope\, you know. Once they got to the depth. That core dress couldn’t grow like I see you have. Wra\, so I think they’re going to get on that \nand and work with you on that. But I think the bottom line is a flatter slope would be better. and if it’s not a flatter slope\, i’m not really sure it’s a live in shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: even though they may\, it may have some benefit at the upper part of the \nslow in terms of you know\, some up when habitat. \nDRB Meeting Room: my next comment is. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. The exhibits on page 7 and 8 show the building to encroaching into the shoreline band. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: that\, combined with the the massive \nsquare footage\, makes me wonder if that building could \nDRB Meeting Room: back out of the shoreline\, Dan\, to provide room again for \nflattening the slope on that living shoreline\, and providing kind of more space \nDRB Meeting Room: for adaptation\, but also just for people within. The \nMy next question comment is. this is kind of a funny one. Exhibit 27 be \nDRB Meeting Room: that bird blind looks really interesting\, but I just \nI guess that’s just a generic bird blind it. It didn’t look like the ones I normally see around here. I don’t know. \nLook like you could see people through it which so I \nDRB Meeting Room: not an expert on bird blinds \nit looked. It looked cool\, though. Let’s see the exhibit. 26 A. It shows a boardwalk with people sitting on the edge over the water. \nwhich is something that I think you know people like to sit on the edge of the board walk around the day. I’ve heard \nDRB Meeting Room: that was an engineering joke. I don’t know if you remember this all \nsitting at the dog. Okay\, so. but I have to explain it so. But I don’t know it. Just seems like you might want to have railings or have maybe have that floating\, or have some sort of down ramp. \nyou know\, or something\, just because you don’t really want people to stumble off of that at night\, so I I guess that’s an artistic kind of thing. It isn’t necessarily what you’re going to do. \nLet’s see. \nTalked about the 2 to one slope. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, I think the question about \nother than they water level flood sources. whether it be direct precipitation. run off groundwater. I don’t think groundwater is going to be an issue with your \nhigh grades\, but I think all those factors will probably be considered later in the design\, and I would assume that the applicant would be responsible to \nupgrade there elevation criteria to conform to any additional higher water levels. \nDRB Meeting Room: Exhibit 28 marsh plants \ndidn’t seem to be \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah\, i’m not a botanist\, but they just didn’t seem to be quite the \nnative plants to me. So I assume that’s going to change \nexhibit 29. I didn’t see any environmental groups mentioned\, and the Sierra Club provided some comments\, so I suggest it might be worth reaching out to some broader than just the residents \nand neighbors in the city. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then you know again\, this Hasn’t been under engineering your view. If this is new\, fill \nit would go to the engineering Criteria Review board. But I don’t think it is\, and so \nDRB Meeting Room: there is a question as to whether or not the fill elevations or post settlement. \nbecause you’re adding a lot of hill\, and then\, of course\, around here the certainly the \nDRB Meeting Room: they mud below the fill consolidates with the extra overburden. \nYou get some settlement that can be substantial. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know it could be 2030% of the fill thickness. I don’t know. I mean it’s possible. \nSo I think that’s something that I I would suggest that staff have you check as you move on into your work. So those are all my comments. I guess the main one is\, I like the idea of the living living shoreline. \nI I do think you could move the shore back and flatten that slope. but it might require you to reduce your building footprint on building 2. I think it is\, and maybe some other ones. \nYeah\, thanks\, Bob\, and we will\, as we continue through\, and we’ll probably come back to some of those points of very helpful Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: Do you want to \ncomment on some of the questions or other things? \nDRB Meeting Room: Sure\, I think \nyou know\, welcome others to sort of build on this. I think \nyou know. \nDRB Meeting Room: I I want to say that I I like the opportunity of \ncreating a \nDRB Meeting Room: more open welcoming public access along this blue. \nand that’s you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s the western side of the project. It’s got good solar access. \nIt’s sort of \nDRB Meeting Room: makes a lot of sense to me. I’m \ntrying to figure out why you wouldn’t make a stronger public connection to the Bay trail. with the understanding that the \nDRB Meeting Room: majority of the public accesses with the southern portion of \nthis conference. And there’s this really strong statement that’s being made in front of this project. and it sort of stops \nat the southern edge. You can know that \nDRB Meeting Room: the way it we’re understanding is that the \ncity parking lot is being repaved. So it seems like there’s a really strong opportunity there. It seems crazy to \nDRB Meeting Room: invest in a twelve-level parking garage\, and not figure out how to \nDRB Meeting Room: share that ability with \na \nDRB Meeting Room: as a as this boot field. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t understand why \nthere’s why we still need a surface lot. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it’s I don’t know. \nMaybe there’s enough demand on weekends\, but I can imagine that the majority of the \nDRB Meeting Room: like that there’s got to be sort of a perfect demand relationship between when \na sports facility means parking\, and when people are actually working \nI don’t know it Just even if you could actually make the parking lot a little smaller and create a more significant public space where the patrol comes into \nthis new promenade that’s being created. It seems like there’s a real opportunity there\, and that’s like the fourth point. I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: the staff mentioned \nthe \nin the letter. \nand then I I I I I like the attention to the sort of \nDRB Meeting Room: public frontage and the experience against along this promenade \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: the like animation of that space. \nIt’s a to be a sort of active. unlikely. \nDRB Meeting Room: since i’m wondering if there’s \nlike sort of another more layered approach. I could sort of imagine a little bit of retail or restaurant activity\, but it also seems like \nDRB Meeting Room: more attention to the ground plane. \nWhether it’s. You know. edges of the building that can sort of become seeding areas\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, some articulation of the depth of the building of the ground plane \nDRB Meeting Room: areas of landscaping on the building side\, just things that can sort of make that more an interesting 2 sized experience for pedestrians. \nI think I would \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe appreciate some attention to that. \nAnd then \nDRB Meeting Room: I I I always have a concern with you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Life\, Science buildings actually are really tall. \nor their their. \nDRB Meeting Room: They really talk \ncompared to what’s around. They’re less significantly taller. And so I would always sort of want to sort of understand \nwhat’s happening \nDRB Meeting Room: with shadow and public space. I think we have good again. \ngood Southern and Western exposure on here. But i’m curious about what happens with the wind. and if there are \nissue with orientation to the bay\, and sort of significant down drafts that would be occurring on the public spaces that are occurring that sometimes that’s sort of a \nI think important thing to think about when we’re thinking about the quality of the public experience in these cases. \ni’ll stop there. Thank you. Thanks. Everyone \nDRB Meeting Room: some really good points right there. I think we’ll keep going along. Everyone can get their key points on the table\, and then we can \nbuild on that. \nYeah\, go ahead. \nYeah. Good point. And I think I think it’s important to put these plans into the kind of bigger picture or planning context. And it seems like we don’t necessarily know exactly what the bigger picture is in terms of the adaptation strategies \nfor the slues. I think that’s helpful to kind of get that understanding of kind of conceptually what’s happening so lacking that\, you know\, if we look at the master plan\, the whole island has\, like a 100 foot set back. \nand this would be the first place on the island to break it. That sort of gives an opportunity to create those levies and have more room for adaptation. and we’ve seen this. \nyou know\, on a number of projects where \nI completely understand the R. And D. Buildings have a very inflexible floor\, plate and dimensions\, and all of that. And then you combine that with the 100 Footstep Academy\, and then the setbacks on the streets and the grade to be able to get up to the higher level and all that\, and I understand it. It becomes constrained \nparticularly for that building\, one building\, 2. It’s just it’s really. It’s kind of jammed in there. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I wonder if \nI just seems like that’s a a big pinch point\, and I wonder if there’s opportunities to minimize that pinch point as much as possible. \nso that there could be more room for more adaptation areas. And maybe you just have one place where it’s sort of pinched. But there’s a lot more other space where you can be more generous with this kind of ecotone levy idea\, and I don’t know if the If B. Cdc. Has \nguidance on exactly what in cotton Levy needs to look like\, or what slope dimensions should be one to one\, or whatever to the one\, whatever it is. But I think that would be helpful. \nDRB Meeting Room: and it just \nDRB Meeting Room: it it Everything’s getting so jammed that\, like public access\, is now kind of encroaching into this March marsh area\, and the slope is really steep. And \nyou know\, when we talk about habitat areas\, we’re generally wanting to create more of a buffer between the kind of the public access and the wetland. And those are things that require space. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know if there’s something to do there around pushing the building close to the road\, or minimizing the drop off area\, or something that could give you more space to kind of minimize that pinch point \nDRB Meeting Room: i’ll. I’ll also just say \nthe I agree with Stefan’s comments about the access to the bay trail at the southern end being sort of lost in this parking lot\, and then an entrance into the parking structure. \nAnd besides the sort of bay trail there’s not a clear. \nThere’s not a very big\, clear kind of public access entry into this trail system. \nso I think that could be improved. and I also \nDRB Meeting Room: I I don’t know it. \nI don’t think you can consider this Eva area that has loading access on it part of a trail. Specifically\, if there are vehicles coming through there. I don’t know if that counts as public access \nin the way the master Plan conceptualizes it \nDRB Meeting Room: also. Just say cycle tracks are really good for t intersections where they they can be not interrupted\, but where cycle tracks are crossed by roads. \nit creates like a 6 way intersection that can be dangerous for the cyclists\, so I don’t know. Maybe move the cycle track to the north side of that street where you can manage those intersections a little more cleanly\, or just do \na bike lane that’s more kind of a typical condition\, maybe. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then the last thing i’ll say is. \nthere’s just there’s just a lot of parking. A lot of like the arrival to the site is just going to be a lot K. A huge parking structure\, and then building 3 with the however\, many levels of parking below it\, and \nI I \nDRB Meeting Room: I know that those aren’t areas aren’t in the B Cdc. Jurisdiction and all that. But \nI would just encourage you to try to reduce parking if you can\, by using some of those Tma Tdm measures. It looks like you have one space per employee offered right now if I do my math about 400 square feet per employee. \nso I don’t know if there’s some ways to reduce that\, but I think it just. It’s a very to step on’s point. There’s just so much density here\, and I love density. but a lot of the density is in the parking mass. \nwhich \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think sort of. \nyou know\, impacts the public ground experience quite a bit. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, these are. These are all great comments. I’m going to try hard not to be redundant\, but I I agree with so much of what has been said. \nThe West \nexperience\, you know. I think there’s an opportunity for a really wonderful landscape. And you know\, I think\, that you know that’s been demonstrated in this presentation. There are a lot of amenities\, and that are put forward\, and the connection to the trail system\, I think\, is also\, you know\, a big benefit. \nWhat What i’m concerned about a little bit is that you know\, when you when you do get to the West it is. It was a nice experience\, and i’m glad you brought up Stephen with the idea of the South \nfocal point\, because\, you know\, you really have to go deep into the site to get to the turnaround entry plaza. You know where you really have a point of arrival. and the you know the entry experience \ncoming up Island Parkway\, I mean. This is a tremendously wide road\, like an arterial serving the side\, and I I kind of have a question about why why it’s so wide\, and even in the renders \nit seems like I could use more mediating elements\, something between the scale of the very tall buildings and the rather flat ground planes. You know\, more large trees\, or some kind of architectural gesture to make a more human scale experience on your way \nto the the shoreline area. and when you do get to the point of arrival\, you know it’s described as a plaza. There’s a tremendous amount of paving in order to get to the plaza\, and then\, when you get there. \nyou know\, I think there’s a question about whether maybe the plaza is better as a you know as the magnetism. the green burden space\, which is the gateway to the you know\, to the to the water print. \nDRB Meeting Room: I like the you know the deck as a as a kind of a terminus and a focal point at the north end of the \nthe open space. I think that’s really nice\, I think\, is that maybe Bobble\, you’re referring to as the bird blind\, or whatever\, which I think is actually a side sculpture\, you know. \nof sorts\, and and it’s interesting that you were wondering what that was\, and I and I was thinking. Maybe there’s a way of. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, as that thing comes to life that it maybe has a. \nyou know\, sheltering function and starts to do a whole bunch of different things. you know\, for people to pause there. so I I like having a focal point there. It just seems like maybe \nto be. i’m sure it will become more justified as as it goes on. \nYou know the there’s just a lot of paving throughout\, and the and I think the 2 to one slope has been mentioned\, you know\, as an indication that the site is tight. and you know I don’t. I don’t think that \nDRB Meeting Room: the Design Review Board should make a habit of of. \nYou know. endorsing buildings which are inside the shoreline band\, and there are so many converging site\, condition. and sea level rise issues and access issues that I\, I agree with Christine and others that there needs to be \nmore space. you know\, to adapt in the future\, given that there is no future adaptive adaptation plan in place. and i’m sure you know\, something will happen. But \nyou know we really don’t know what economic conditions and timelines. you know\, is is ahead of us. So you know\, it seems very\, you know\, very helpful\, very optimistic\, that that will be solved. I think that \nyou know to date the way those problems are being solved on the bay is with levees. and I need to see more levies around the bay. We’ve seen some really big ones in Foster City and burling game and \nbuilding\, you know\, building a site like this so so happily\, I think it creates more demand for. So \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, given given the times that that it would be great if this if the project had a narrative which was all about. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think i’ll just. I’ll just send it to that. \nThank you. \nIt looks thanks\, Gary\, and I just put a few ideas forward. \nreally stemming from. I think you know one of the early comments in the presentation. I don’t think Staff have made this point as well is\, You know this site located in a particularly interesting ecological area with the confluence of these 2. \nAnd \nyou know you. The \npublic comment and their submission made some very strong points \nhow to And so \nDRB Meeting Room: and when we looked at the permitting diagram. \ngreen spaces. 47\,000 seat\, I think\, in the original permit the there was probably it was envisaged. I’m sure that it’s the green space. \nYou know this is not bay trails per se that connects into a network of trails that connect to the Bay trail. So it’s got some significance. And when I was down \non site the weekend before that. and walking\, there is no question\, as the proponents said\, but this is well used\, and you know the magic on the unformed trail \nbeing tested outside. I was walking along\, and there are cyclists trying to cycle through there and and then. You know the sports park very well used\, in fact. \non the plan. The little white rectangles. It’s a little white square there\, that’s the the small brick building where the volunteer parents serve the hot dogs \nbaseball there in the afternoon\, and and it was just\, you know. I was looking at the site plan on site next to the bleaches where I sat and ate my hot dog and \ncontemplated the drawings\, and and it just. It’s very hard to reconcile a much loved recreation area. \nDRB Meeting Room: and the environmental significance of the adjacent sleuths with the amount of hardscape that’s immediately adjacent\, and and \nif you we’ve got 25 feet right \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean it’s within probably 8 to 10 feet of that little brick building where \nand I was going to hop down and and you know. And so the age to to the point about. you know\, raised in those questions. You know how public this public space field. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know. I think there needs to be more down to just green\, more green space. \nthe site softening the interface with the building talking structure. I mean\, we’ve all worked on many\, many projects over the years space as a promised \nthe ground floor. That will be welcoming\, and uses that \nDRB Meeting Room: may not materialize. \nor it’s originally envisaged. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I do\, you know\, just on building 2\, I \nI just. \nDRB Meeting Room: I really struggle to lift away the \nentry. You know the the loop around the the tree and the green in the middle. I I think that should be absolutely minimized to the minimum amount needed to come in \ndrop set down. You know we see all sorts of configurations and projects \nnecessarily like that. I think the challenge in this project is\, there is so much \nDRB Meeting Room: building on the site that you know the Eda access and truck access really has to \ncircle encircled all of these buildings. So you end up with. you know. basically\, all circulation \nDRB Meeting Room: doubling\, as you know\, the the public \nwalkways. So you know\, I struggle with this proposal as it is currently presenting to really feel public. I you know I struggle\, I I just. \nI think they need to. If you\, if you on question. \nyou know\, if you are improving public experience along the shoreline. I think it’s very hard to see how you can do match with the the current. You know where the 25 \nhuh? \nBasically adjacent to the even with start building too right? \nI think we’ve talked about resiliency and adaptation. \nand I think \nDRB Meeting Room: the point is really well made\, particularly about on the southern entrance. \nYou know there are really 2 entry points here. There’s like \npredominantly. Staff entries to the parking structure 31\, and then there’s the building to drop off that it just seems that the area to the south did you see \nthe city parking lot is. \nDRB Meeting Room: and and there are plenty of people parking there on the weekends. \nSome of probably the neighbors may be great. Go. but there’s definitely uses talking. So you know the city parking lot. I get it. but putting it\, you know\, as you. \nif I\, you know\, right next to really big parking garage. you know. Can there be more synergy between the 2\, and it’s it’s just sort of strange to see the the public \nwalkway sort of turning back into to to \nDRB Meeting Room: it. I find that hard\, you know\, if you’re coming in from the stream. \nwould you really intuitively feel that\, you know. \nacross the \ndelivery area to get to the walking trails? It seems \nSo \nso that sort of where. I think\, if what I’m hearing you say is that that tightness of the sort of promenade and the limitation of the \nyou know \nthe \nDRB Meeting Room: buildings coming right up to that line\, that there’s sort of a real limited \nspace. That is sort of linear that you just described 2 spaces where that could actually broaden out into the larger public space that might be more appropriate for gathering and testing\, and not be so dependent on ground for activity\, and one would be \nreconfiguring at least a portion of the \nDRB Meeting Room: the cities \nparking lot\, a surface lot of the South. But the other one would be shrinking the drop off and looking for a larger public space to emerge at that end. \nYou could be thinking about that. proud to add more sort of a connector between 2 larger\, more significant public spaces. and those are both connecting back \nto the primary access point into the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: not to mention that just the idea of \nDRB Meeting Room: softening the prominent and giving some relief to that space still seems to be desirable. \nAnd can I jump in on that? I mean\, I think there is some space around the turnaround \nDRB Meeting Room: which I think is what you’re referring to when you \nyou can say the plaza and and to flatten the slope without impacting the building. and I think that would still be in the 100 foot band. But I do \nthink I understand all this this isn’t what I do\, but I understand that there’s a need to have or turn around there for vehicular access. I understand it is. but it does seem like they’re \nall along that west side of left side of building 2 \ndown to the turnaround promenade area. There is a space for. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, flattening the slope\, and and providing\, you know\, maybe letting the water in a little bit \nas the whole rises. maybe doing something interesting. so that you can still have the trails that apply. Then maybe you can get down to the water \nin there\, or just passively observed \nWildlife \ndown there\, and then provide more space. And and I think you have more of an Ec tone because below the emergent marsh vegetation is typically mud flat\, and you have a 2 to one slow and \nthe water level. So \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, midslope or higher\, you just have \nwhat their but right\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s not a high energy area\, so it might not a road\, but I just don’t think it’s really. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, for the long term. I don’t think it’s going to be \nall that attractive. \nYou know. We review lots of campus projects. and it is interesting that you know most to see here on the plan on \nIsland Parkway\, which is developed. \nIt is right now. But the first entry you’re going to arrive to is the entry to the parking structure and building one\, and there are lots of campuses where that might be the only entry and building\, too. \nwould walk to building 2 from that first entry point. \nDRB Meeting Room: And so you could imagine \nanother scenario where you actually downplay that Northern circular. But you might. \nand loading access if you have to. but really play down that so that you. you know\, not just trying to think creatively\, how do you catch it \nback? Because we also see lots of sit down with. Nobody ever uses it\, because the staff all park in the garage\, and so \nDRB Meeting Room: there could be some \npotential A with the \ndown to modified \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, it. And i’m still interested in this idea that the \nbuilding square footage is over 80\,000. Where is the the permit? 800? I’m. Sorry. 800. Yes\, I should know that \n800\,000 over 800\,000 square feet versus the old permit drawing to something like 200 and 30\,000 your feet. I was well. and then I realized\, oh\, yeah\, the buildings are a lot bigger. \nbut it does seem like there should be some \nDRB Meeting Room: room economically to move the buildings out of the \nthe line band and create some space. I don’t i’m not a developer\, but it just. My intuition is that that’s something that’s not unreasonable for us to ask for. \nor at least to be considered. especially if it provides \nDRB Meeting Room: ecological benefits\, adaptation\, benefits\, and public access. And you know all the things that \nVc. DC’s. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: I mean\, I can imagine that \nwhen that permit was approved\, however long ago\, that that probably was a feasible project and cost of construction have gone way up and probably all of the geo-technical stuff you talked about\, like I don’t know how many piles you’re going to have to put into this ground\, and i’m sure that makes it \nvery expensively in the develop. Just the fact of the vulnerability\, sea level rise\, vulnerability\, and having to add surplus weighed on on top\, you know more so. And that’s all very expensive. \nand i’m sure that’s one of the things that’s driving you to try to seek water\, square footage to be able to pay for the horizontal stuff that’s happening. I mean the the building. and I know to like \nthese R. And D. Buildings. They like they’re very rigid\, right? And and I think there’s a lot of factors here that are pushing these buildings. you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: into that shoreline band. \nbut it’s our job to push back on that. And it’s our job to be looking out for future adaptation strategies for these areas and ensuring that there’s enough room for those adaptation strategies to happen \nand ensuring that it’s happening in a way that is \nconsistent with kind of larger regional goals and visions and the the ecological Well\, being of these areas. So I think\, Understand? \nI I think it’s safe to say that we understand the pressures. And also there’s there are these other pressures. Hmm. Sort of have to look out for on this board\, so I think \nDRB Meeting Room: that’s sort of a bigger picture view of it. I also think some of these ideas about like\, do you have to have a big automobile drop off as the place making idea for \nyour campus. I think you’re hearing from us that that may not be the best place making idea\, and that would also allow you to have some opportunities to give more space to the \nthe levy and the resilience strategies within the campus. \nDRB Meeting Room: Look\, I think we’ve \nwe’re all in pretty close agreement in terms of the concerns we have. I don’t. I think it’s fairly clear\, so I don’t think I need to go back and recap. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is our first review\, and obviously we’re getting to know the project. And and I just want to echo. What Kristen said. You know we completely understand the complexity of developing \nin the bay area. and we understand the factors that are driving the amount of square foot each. You. you know\, to you would like on the side \nright? \nI think we’ve given you just \nDRB Meeting Room: clear as clearer feedback as we can on the the issues that are of interest to us \nand of interested Ecdc. So. But I think you know we we can end the Board at this point. and \nI think. but the next step is \nsome response from the proponents. \nYou know there’s there’s a lot but looks very good in the project. It sounds like. you know\, phrase a lot of concerns. But there is a lot that looks really good\, and I think some of the positives. But \nclearly there is\, you know\, introducing some greatly enhanced and much-needed connectivity along the sleuths of the history in cycles \nDRB Meeting Room: really applaud you on a number of the things you’re doing. \nBut we are really concerned about. but issues people I Middle East shoot \ngoing to be facing every project we’re reviewing. Now\, that is new development. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, when we talk about mid century we are in 2023 now. So you know\, this is not \nsomething that really off South Eastern it’s something that everyone will be. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. \nProbably everyone at the table now will still be \nDRB Meeting Room: around in mid-century\, you know. So it’s it’s these\, are. \nyou know\, very \nDRB Meeting Room: immediate. \nSo it’s \nsuch seriousness. \nYes. so normally. I’m. I’m. Asking for more accommodation and and and I should have mentioned this. I think your plan is consistent with \nDRB Meeting Room: the Pcbc guidelines. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’ll be at the you know\, scrunched up and tight on that side\, and and with the \nkind of \nDRB Meeting Room: anyway the other comments we already have\, but I but I think that you know\, filling the side as much as you are planning to. \nand raising the the floor elevations for 28 \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: 100 year event\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: having some adaptation. \nplan and capacity. is consistent with the guidelines. especially at the medium high risk\, a version level so. \nand then\, as far as yeah. One of the comments I was going to make as an engineer was what happens to the drainage that comes off the site as you raise it. You know the kind of floor plane management stuff we think about\, but the site’s already higher than the other ones\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: so I don’t know that that applies here. And then also we \nthis is something I don’t think any of us have quite figured out\, and\, as you point out\, one shoreline is looking at. How do you put all this together? You know? How do you make an integrated plan with a bunch of private parcels and \nand over. I think you know I kind of feel like your civil rise Plan is is pretty reasonable. It must be pretty expensive to \nI just follow that for a second. Yeah. Does it follow DC. DC. Guidelines? I mean\, I I see the adaptation strategies put forward\, which is \na couple of typical sections of how they would be adapted. But I I think that we always should ask for a plan of the adaptation plan as well as the section\, because. \nyou know. I think it’s mentioned. You know water comes in from everywhere. and although I think it’s a suggest here\, it’s the best we can do with the information we have. I don’t think that that \nis an effective plan without others\, you know\, stepping in and making some major move\, so I don’t know. I just want to say\, but I just want to moderate your enthusiasm for the adaptation plan. I I didn’t realize I sounded enthusiastic\, but \nbut I I actually just here I just wanted to jump into. I really appreciate your earlier comment about how the I paraphrase the email\, so you can correct me. But \nit seemed like \nDRB Meeting Room: you felt like the development didn’t seem to quite necessarily fit in some ways \nin the bigger picture\, in terms of perhaps instigating more levies than the like\, and I think that’s a really good comment and valid comment. I just don’t know that we have \nfigured out how the hands \nDRB Meeting Room: at least\, I I haven’t figured out \nadaptation strategies. But until you really have an adaptation strategy\, I think you can do it with landscape\, and you can do it with the initial building. The you know\, the architecture that we have tomorrow. Not. \nyou know\, plan on something coming along to save the day and 20 years. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, good. I think that concludes our \ndiscussions. So the next item on the agenda is project proponent response\, and we the project. He like to respond to that call just into you know \nwe’re confirming they’re coming back\, or you’d like to see them again. I think we would. Yes. \ni’ll keep it brief\, just because there’s a lot to respond to\, and I was \nmuch more than \nfirst. I’ll just say thank you\, an extremely long list of thoughtful comments. I’m impressed by your guys as a board and as a bay area resident. even if it’s affecting me. Not necessarily \nthis moment\, and very. I heartened to see the level of sophistication that’s brought to me. \nYou’ve brought up a lot of of of of really good points\, and all of which we’ve we’ve talked about is \nthe hypothesis. you know\, for how we thought we might solve it\, while also that we want to build that we think is \nright. You know the right product for our tenants and the right ecosystem that they’re attracted to. But obviously we have a of work to do. And I think in all of these areas. You’ve had everything that there’s \nSo we’re happy to go back and and \nwith building 2\, I think you a few of you nailed it. I mean all of you brought it up\, and you know I think it was mentioned that this is a pretty constrained site\, and you know we do need to. We can’t. It’s harder to just shrink. It’s harder than just shrinking the floor plate right to shrink the building because the floor plate has to work\, you know. \nand so I can’t just make a smaller floor plane. \nIt’s a it’s a and so that’s what something we’ve been struggling with\, and we’ll bring that we’ll\, we’ll take another look at that\, and we’ll bring that back to the board for a potential system. I think we can with the the loading area\, too. I heard that as a \nthat we look at again. We had a hypothesis about how that might work and feedback from you guys that’s actionable. and we can come back with another. \nand then the southern end\, I think\, is a a different sort of challenge\, just because it is is not ours that interfaces the bay trail. \nIt’s something that we’ll take on hard. Look at to see what we can do with within our project bound. \nAnd then\, obviously\, there’s \nDRB Meeting Room: a lot of other comments. \nBut those are the big bullets that I took away is sort of central area on. and we’ll do it. So okay. thank you very much anything else \nbefore we adjust. \nThere’s nothing else. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay? \nWell\, that concludes our project review for the meeting. I would like to have a motion to adjourn the meeting. I will make a motion to adjourn. Thanks\, Gary. Second \nDRB Meeting Room: Second. \nThank you. Kristen. Okay. Any objections. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hearing none. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks\, everyone. Good night. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-8-2023-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:20230504T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230504T130000
DTSTAMP:20231020T045110Z
CREATED:20230505T034541Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T045110Z
UID:10000036-1683205200-1683205200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 4\, 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. \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/83188598478?pwd=Ri9pQzJSVjYrb0ZBcXVERFQ0V2d4UT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 8859 8478 \nPasscode173712 \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 April 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 MattersThere are no administrative listings (Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nA Discussion of\, and Possible Votes Concerning\, Legislative Activity in Sacramento\, Including SB 273After a public discussion on the April 20\, 2023 Commission meeting\, the Commission appointed a small\, short duration\, ad hoc committee to pursue modifications to Senate Bill 273 (Wiener)\, Tidelands and submerged lands: City and County of San Francisco: Piers 30-32: mixed-use development.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on BCDC/MTC/ABAG’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework (PDF)The Commission will receive a briefing on the Funding and Investment Framework\, a joint initiative between BCDC and MTC/ABAG to (1) update and improve regional accounting of anticipated sea level rise adaptation projects\, (2) study how revenues for sea level rise adaptation can be raised most equitably\, and (3) explore how existing and future funding mechanisms can advance adaptation planning and implementation.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on the California Natural Resources Agency’s Pathways to 30×30: Accelerating Conservation of California’s NatureRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency will present the Newsom Administration’s efforts to conserve 30 percent of the state’s land and coastal waters by 2030 (commonly known as 30×30).(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Strategic Plan (PDF)The Commission will be briefed on the final version of the 2023-2025 Strategic Plan and its Action Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Strategic Plan Action Plan (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of BCDC’s 2021 Annual Report – POSTPONEDThe Commission will consider approving the 2021 annual report.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Enforcement Program improvements and developments that will include an update of the first quarter 2023 progress on resolving cases. This item was continued from the April 6\, 2023 Commission meeting.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing April 21\, 2023 \n\n2023-2025 Strategic Plan and its Action Plan (PDF)\nBriefing on BCDC/MTC/ABAG’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework (PDF)\nBriefing on the California Natural Resources Agency’s Pathways to 30×30: Accelerating Conservation of California’s Nature\n\nCommission Mailing April 28\, 2023 \nDraft Minutes of April 20\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF) \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nCalifornia Overhauls Its Sea Level Rise Plan as Climate Change Reshapes Coastal Life\n‘Bay Area Sports Guy’ Analysis / Costs of Sea Level Rise / New Series “Have you met…?”\nCalifornia Today: What Makes California the Most Biodiverse State in the Nation\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording\n				  \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/05-04-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.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-4-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230504T103000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230504T120000
DTSTAMP:20231020T010818Z
CREATED:20230505T054542Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T010818Z
UID:10000081-1683196200-1683201600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 4\, 2023 Financing the Future Working Group and Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:The 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 below.  Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterBoard 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/82351767285?pwd=NDE0TXIwTFQ2dk9uaHg2eFJ4d2Fhdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID823 5176 7285 \nPasscode699907 \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\nBriefing on Bay Adapt and Regional Shoreline Adaptation PlanThe Working Groups will receive a briefing on the progress of the Bay Adapt initiative including the development of a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and regulatory improvements.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]05-04-ftf-rising-sea-level-presentation\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/may-4-2023-financing-the-future-working-group-and-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230426T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230426T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T030307Z
CREATED:20230427T002442Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T030307Z
UID:10000067-1682514000-1682528400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 26\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-26-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR