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: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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230420T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230420T170000
DTSTAMP:20240212T200226Z
CREATED:20230421T053517Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240212T200226Z
UID:10000022-1681995600-1682010000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 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. \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 6\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@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 Amendments to Commission’s Resolution No. 16 Describing Bay Plan Priority Use Areas (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possible vote on amendments to the Commission’s Resolution No. 16 describing the boundaries of Bay Plan priority use areas. The amendments include minor corrections to boundary descriptions in the Resolution\, and will not result in any changes to Bay Plan-designated priority use areas. The Commission will also receive a briefing on new interactive maps to share priority use area boundaries with the public.(Todd Hallenbeck) [415/352-3667; todd.hallenbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing and Possible Votes on Legislative Proposals (PDF)The Commission will receive a briefing about\, and possibly vote on\, several legislative proposals pending in Sacramento: (1) Senate Bill 272 (Laird)\, Sea level rise: planning and adaptation; (2) Assembly Bill 748 (Villapudua)\, California Abandoned and Derelict Commercial Vessel Program; and (3) 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]Senator Bill 273 Presentation (PDF) // Senator Bill 272 Public Comment Letters (PDF) // Senator Bill 272 Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nBriefing on Strategic PlanThe 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)\nBriefing on Oyster Point Compliance – POSTPONEDThe Commission will receive a briefing on BCDC’s liveaboard policies. The Commission will also receive an update regarding the Oyster Cove Marina liveaboard compliance issue.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications\nApplicants: Dana Beldiman and Justs Karlsons60 Century DriveMill Valley\, CA 94941Permit Application No. M2021.035.00 \nFiled on 02/02/23 \n90th Day on 05/03/23\n \nDescription: Construct\, use\, and maintain a rear yard stairway\, landscaping\, and a 184-square-foot storage shed\, with concrete pads\, retaining walls\, and decking to provide access to the beach from a single-family residence (after-the-fact).\n \nTentative Staff Position: Recommend Approval with Conditions. Adrienne Klein; 415/352-3609 or adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\nApplicant: United States Army Corps of EngineersSan Francisco District450 Golden Gate Avenue\, 4th FloorSan Francisco\, CA 94102-2404BCDC Consistency Determination No. C2022.012.00 \nFiled on 02/17/23 \n75th Day on 05/03/2023 \nLocation: Within the Shoreline Band and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant located in the City of South San Francisco\, San Mateo County. \nDescription: Installation of floodwalls around the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (“WQCP”)\, consisting of approximately 2\,000 linear feet of floodwall\, approximately 3-4.5 feet above the current ground surface on the north side of the WQCP\, and a second floodwall running along approximately 700 linear feet on the south side of the WQCP adjacent to San Francisco Bay\, approximately 4 feet above grade. The goal of the Proposed Project is to prevent flooding of the WQCP during a 100-year storm and as sea levels rise in the future\, for continuous operation of the plant. The project occurs entirely along the shoreline and there is no Bay fill associated with the project. As finalized project plans have not yet been provided\, plan review after project plans are developed will be required. If there are any substantial changes in the project during the design and engineering which would affect the consistency of the project with BCDC’s enforceable state laws and policies\, an amendment to the Letter of Agreement/Concurrence may be needed\, which would be included as a condition of concurrence with the Letter of Agreement. Based upon site conditions\, public access may not be feasible in this area or along the planned Bay Trail alignment\, therefore other access may be required nearby. BCDC staff will continue to work with the City on what constitutes maximum feasible public access consistent with the project. \nTentative Staff Position: Recommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding\, 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\nApplicant: United States Army Corps of EngineersSan Francisco District450 Golden Gate Avenue\, 4th FloorSan Francisco\, CA 94102-2404BCDC Consistency Determination No. C2023.002.00 \nFiled on 03/23/23 \n75th Day on 06/06/23 \nLocation: Within the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, in the shallow waters off of the shorelines of: Mare Island in eastern San Pablo Bay (Solano County)\, Pinole (Contra Costa County)\, Richmond/Albany (Alameda County)\, Hayward/Cogswell/Long Beach (Alameda County)\, and Eden Landing Ecological Reserve (Alameda County). \nDescription: Installation of five temporary data logger monitoring platforms\, each consisting of a six-foot by six-foot steel basket attached on top of four two-inch-diameter steel pipes\, approximately four-to-six feet above mean higher high water (MHHW)\, and equipped with solar panels\, 12-volt batteries\, electronics for data collection\, and an instrument arm running from the electronics to the water. Data will be collected to inform beneficial use of dredged material as part of the 2023 Regional Dredged Material Management Plan (RDMMP)\, and is to include: velocity\, wind\, wave\, suspended sediment concentration\, turbidity\, conductivity\, water quality\, and water currents. Final locations of the platforms will be determined in the field due to vessel access\, tidal constraints\, presence of eelgrass\, and coordination with the USCG. At the end of the monitoring period in June or July of 2023\, the platforms will be removed with the use of a boat operated winch. The project will be conditioned so as to minimize habitat impacts and will include pre- and post-installation eelgrass surveys where appropriate in accordance with the California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (2014). Total temporary net fill resulting from the platforms is 32-square-inches; there is no associated permanent Bay fill. \nTentative Staff Position: Recommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding\, 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing April 7\, 2023\n\nApril 20\, 2023 Commission Meeting\nStaff Report and Recommendation Concerning Amendments to Resolution No. 16 Describing the Commission’s Bay Plan Priority Use Area Boundaries (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing April 14\, 2023\n\n2023-2025 Strategic Plan and its Action Plan (PDF) Strategic Plan Action Plan (PDF)\nDraft Minutes of April 6\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Pending LegislationPublic Comment Letters (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nThe Bay Area’s economy of mud: Dredging concerns threaten jobs\, $100 billion in assets\nA perfect storm: the U.S. city where rising sea levels and racism collide\nThe science behind California’s extremely wet winter\, in maps\nWith ‘horizontal levee\,’ Palo Alto brings new approach to sea-level rise protection\nEven after lawsuit victory\, clock is ticking for Oakland A’s on Howard Terminal stadium\nWhat will it cost to protect the Bay Area from sea level rise? Try $110 billion\, says state agency\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-20-2023-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230413T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230413T120000
DTSTAMP:20231013T043109Z
CREATED:20230414T062530Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231013T043109Z
UID:10000021-1681378200-1681387200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 13\, 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. \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/86161823905?pwd=RkYrdnVYWmo2eENnMEl3aHZhMllMUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID861 6182 3905 \nPasscode550762 \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 Comments (PDF)The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the February 22\, 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]\nRichardson’s Bay Regional Agency Quarterly UpdateRichardson’s Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) representatives will present a quarterly report to the Committee as required by the RBRA-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in 2021. BCDC staff will be available to provide input and answer questions.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]RBRA Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording and Trascript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-13-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Morning\, everyone at \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning. Everyone. As Margie stated\, the time is 9 30\, and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by 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: So our first order of the business of business is to call role. Matthew. Please call the role \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves after response. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Okay\, here we go. Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Commissioner Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a core and present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and\, as indicated on the agenda\, we will now have general public comment on items not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We have received 2 general comments\, and a copy of which has been linked to this agenda item on our website \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants icon at the bottom of your screen\, and look in the box \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: where your name is listed under attendees. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. \nIf you click on the palm\, Icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then dial star 6 on your keypad\, Unmute your phone. When the host asks you. In order to make a comment. \nthe meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order in which they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 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. Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We are here to listen to any individual who request to speak\, but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner\, as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abuse of language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. Once again. This is a call for general public comments on topics that are not on today’s agenda. \nMargie\, do we have any raised hands by the public \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: chair. Deal more. I don’t see any race hence\, but I want to comment \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: attending today for sherry poster is a Geo. Patrick Chuck. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome. Thank you. \nPatrick Tuck\, AGO: Oh\, yes\, thank you for having me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Since there are no public comments\, we are on to item number 4\, which is approval of the draft minutes. For the last meeting \nwe have all been furnished with draft minutes from the last meeting\, which was held on February 20 s\, 2\,023 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: committee members. I’d appreciate a motion motion and a second to approve These \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: so moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I second \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Are there any comments\, extensions\, or \nanything else? \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: This Commissioner ranch? I just wanted to know that I’ve joined. Sorry for arriving late? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you\, welcome. We’re just about to approve the minutes. \nSo \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: are there any objections \nto approving the minutes from February? 20 s 2\,023? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Then the motion to approve. The minutes passes unanimously. Thank you all. \nOkay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 on the agenda is the Enforcement report and enforcement policy manager. Matthew Trio will now provide the Enforcement report. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Take it away\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Thank you. Good morning\, chair. Good morning\, Committee. Members Welcome\, Patrick. Just 2 items on today. Very short. The first item is a case update Since our last meeting on February 20\, s\, 2023. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: So in the last 2 months we’ve received 15 new cases. We’ve result 19 new cases. and as of today there are 79 unresolved cases in the queue. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then the second is an update on our efforts to fill the Cpa to vacancy\, the sorry\, the coastal program panelists to vacancy. We still have received no applications for this position. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: We are working on looking at the posting and see if there’s an issue there. One thing I plan to do is this week i’m going to repost the the position under a more general name\, in hopes that it will help the job to pop up and search is more more frequently right now. It’s called something to be effective \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: journey\, person\, enforcement analyst\, which \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: doesn’t really roll off the song. It probably doesn’t show up in in too many searches when you think about it. So i’m thinking\, scale that back. Call it a program analyst to \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: get some eyes on it. But of course\, any \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: help that you can give in terms of spreading the word to your various contacts is welcome. and that concludes my report. I’ll be happy to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status\, the Enforcement program at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew\, do any committee? Members have questions for Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Hi\, Matthew\, do you have a goal for 2023. As to how many cases you hope to be down to. I know. Where would you say 79 now? And do you have a goal? Or is it Just let’s just do the best we can between now and then. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Well\, that’s an a good question. So short answer is\, No\, there’s no specific goal. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: However. I’ve been spending the first quarter. We’re really working on clearing out kind of the doing a lot of housekeeping\, clearing out the the \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The cases that are still kind of lingering open that don’t really have a purpose anymore. Changing the staticism we’ve trying to client clarifying to still what we’re really looking at the 79 cases that I \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: showed you and those are actually those are cases where \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: you know\, as far as we know\, for you know\, at this\, at this stage \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: we actually have work that needs to do on those cases at various stages\, whether it be\, you know\, starting the case from scratch or collecting fines. My strategy on trying to pair that down even further. And i’m hoping to do\, I I would say\, in terms of like a goal. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: maybe get that down into the fifties \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: through various methods\, such as you know\, trying to catch capture the low hanging fruit. If something has been kind of lingering because \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: we got to a certain stage\, and then we had to turn over and in in employees going back and getting those things wrapped up at the same time for the new cases coming in. We’re trying to continue to push the process that we’ve been developing over the past\, you know\, since 2\,019\, which is putting them on a milestone process\, and keeping that going very robustly. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: And so i’m hoping that in in that vein i’ll be able to get get the cases down. But I Don’t anticipate being able to clear out the case. Load at the backlog this year. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Oh\, no\, I wouldn’t think all of them. But and then my second question about the about the position\, the analysts position. and I don’t know if this is okay to do. But maybe if we could be sent. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: really all the Commissioners sent a job\, a description of the position that we could forward on \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: satisfactorily\, because i’m not sure all the Commissioners are really aware of the need. I mean\, maybe they are. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I let it slip off my that mindset after a while\, so \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: keeping it right there where we could. Oh\, gosh! Now I I’ve thought of somebody I can forward this to. Maybe that would help \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: a little bit. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Sure\, I could definitely try and do that. I’m gonna have to consult with human resource and make sure it’s all up and up. But if that’s possible\, we’ll\, we’ll definitely put that in motion. Thank you for the offer\, Of course. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Bye. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Actually\, I think that was a great suggestion. I I think\, even if we can’t forward it on\, it would be nice to have a distinct \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: copy of the job description\, because I can say to somebody we have an Alice position to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: open\, and then they would ask me. Well\, what does that entail? And I go? Not sure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I think that would be very helpful if if nothing else just a description. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And then I had a question\, Matthew\, When is our next update to the State auditors? Do I keep losing track of that? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I believe it’s an annual process\, and it’s due\, probably in October. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. Thank you. Any other committee questions for Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. \nDo any members of the public have comments on the Enforcement report. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t see any hands raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Thank you\, Margie. \nSo our next agenda item is item 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is a briefing on the anchor out abatement and Eel Grass Restoration Effort in Richardson Bay\, by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, also known as Rbra. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives from the rbra. Please identify themselves for the record. \nJim Malcolm: I’ll go ahead and start. \nI see a hand. \nBrad Gross: Good morning\, chair\, girl. More I’m. Brad Gross. I’m. The executive director of Richardson\, a regional agency\, and \nBrad Gross: with us today I have a Rebecca Shorts\, Lesberg\, our environmental expert\, and Jim Malcolm\, our Harbour master. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great Thank you and welcome. Thank you for being here today and welcome. So now i’m going to invite Adrian Klein\, of B. Cdc. Staff to give her introduction. Adrian. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: good morning. Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Good morning to the committee members. our our colleagues\, and the members of the public who have joined us. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So I’m Adrian Klein. This settlement agreement that requires monthly reporting to Staff. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: It requires quarterly reports to the Enforcement Committee and an annual report to the Commission\, which just occurred on February sixteenth \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: this year. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: today the Richard\, since they\, Richard Sunday Regional Agency\, or Rvra staff will review its accomplishments during the first quarter of 2023 and I’ll provide a brief introduction which will be familiar to most of you\, as it is a condensed version of the staff introduction provided to the mission on February sixteenth. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: just 1 s. \nLet me see. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Yeah. We \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So in September 2\,021 you authorize the executive director to enter into a settlement agreement with the Rna to promote the management of the waters of Richard and Dan in manner that is consistent with the public trust and with the Macro to Petr Sack\, the San Francisco Bay plan and the Richard since based special area plan. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and this is just a quick map to orient everyone. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So the settlement agreement \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: is between B. Cdc. And the Rvra\, which is a joint Powers agreement\, whose members are\, as you know\, we’re in county\, the town of Tiburon\, and the cities of the Mill Valley\, and \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the settlement agreement lays out the steps that will result in the end of an era of allowing long term anchoring of unseat oops\, sorry\, unseaworthy vessels occupied as residences\, and for storage \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the ground tackle\, from which is believed to have resulted in between 50 and 85 acres of damage to the 300 to 650 acres of subtitle\, you know\, breast habitat. In Richardson Bay there is believed to be 2\,400 acres day wide. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and photographs is well known to support herring\, spawn\, and many bird species. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So\, just to quickly summarize the terms of the agreement\, it requires the arbitrary to return the marine County waters and waters of the cities of Tiber on Belvedere and Mill Valley to a public trust. Compliant condition by removing waters. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Excuse me. Vessels occupied as residences\, stored vessels and houseboats\, all anchored offshore\, and not in a Marina. and to cause this removal from richards a day by 2\,020\, \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to prevent the reoccupation of Richards of Bay waters by future anchor out\, by enforcing local ordinances that limit the duration of stay of new influx vessels \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to prevent future adverse impacts\, to subtitle habitats\, including eel grass\, such as by establishing and enforcing no inquiry \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: in the ill grass protection zone \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: for to restore ill-grass habitat that has been damaged by the anchor scour \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: by creating and implementing an ill grass restoration plan that is consistent with the California illness mitigation policy. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and that includes a 10 year adoptive management plan\, and you will be hearing about that progress today to cooperate in regional efforts to identify alternate housing and other supportive resources for the occupants of the vessels anchored on the public trust lands\, and finally to coordinate \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: waterfront management efforts with the city of S. Toledo\, in recognition of the fact that the anchor out on counting waters come ashore through city waters and on to city of S. Toledo \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: lands. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So this slide\, which I hope is legible\, was presented by the our barrier to the commission on February sixteenth\, and it’s a good summary of the actions taken and planned by the AR area to achieve the settlement agreement milestones. And so you can see the due dates \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: in the third column and the status in the fourth column \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: can give you a chance to digest that. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: so I can go to the next slide now. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and this final slide before I turn the floor over\, just raises a few questions that you may wish to consider\, among others. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to discuss with the Ri area following their presentations. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: And with that I will now turn the floor over to Brad Gross\, our our executive director. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to commence the Ri staff presentation. Thank you. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and i’ll be running their slides. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrian. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Andrian. \nBrad Gross: Thank you. Thank you\, Adrian. I appreciate it. Shared Girl. More members of the committee and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to for us to update this committee on our latest activities and our successes. \nBrad Gross: as you all know\, and i’m not gonna \nBrad Gross: gonna give you any history. You’ve heard all the history we’re going to talk about up to date issues\, but we did give our annual presentation with a. Full B Cdc. Committee just 8 weeks ago. So again we’re just gonna cover what has happened very recently and update you on some of our more important initiatives. \nBrad Gross: I’ll provide a few comments\, and then our contract with environmental expert\, Rebecca Schwartz Lesb will give the eel grass update\, followed by our harbor. Master Jim Malcolm\, who will give an update on activities at the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: One of the most exciting updates I get to provide is that we have finally received the funding from the state\, thanks to Senator Gilmour\, so that we can kick off our temporary housing voucher program for those in the anchorage seeking housing assistance. \nBrad Gross: We’ve already contracted with marine housing authority to find the actual housing. \nBrad Gross: and next week\, on the eighteenth\, the county of Marin Board of Supervisors will consider an agreement between our Bra and that red health and human services to provide wraparound services for those in the program. \nBrad Gross: We’ve already had logistics meetings between our Bra Mha. Hhs and the participation of this program\, Starting on May first \nBrad Gross: dovetailing with the temporary housing about your program is a vessel by back program. \nBrad Gross: This program expired on December 30 first 2\,022\, but at tonight’s Rbr. A board of directors meeting\, we will be requesting reinstatement to the vessel by that program to provide additional support for those. Taking advantage of the temporary housing voucher program \nBrad Gross: basically what not border turns in their vessels to our bra\, we have the funding available to pay them up to $150 per foot\, as you’re at the water line of their vessel. \nBrad Gross: and we’re also contracting with the local nonprofit. We’re in link to provide immediate payment. So once the paperwork is completed and the vessel is signed over to Rbr. For disposal. \nBrad Gross: the participant will immediately get a check. We will provide updates on the anticipated success of these programs. The very next time we meet \nBrad Gross: that’s really all I have for updates. And now i’d like to turn it over to this\, for it’s less for to go over the next slides. So the next slide\, please. Adrian \nBrad Gross: Rebecca\, Thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Thank you\, Rad. Good morning. She’ll go More Commissioners Enforcement staff. Good to see you all. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: My name is Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg. I’m. The president of coastal policy\, solutions\, and I’ve been working with our bra to implement their ill grass\, protection and management efforts for the past several years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: As a note. My neighbors are having construction down to their house\, and my dogs have some opinions on that. They’ve been quiet all morning\, but with my luck now will be the time when they express those opinions. So I apologize. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are just. These are some updates on what has been going on since the February sixteenth presentation to the full commission \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: similar to that that presentation. We are continuing implementation of the ill grass\, protection and management plan. So when you see epip\, that’s what that stands for \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: In the past couple of months we received the results from our 2022 side scan sonar survey of richardson bay eel grass. I’ll go over some of the results from that scan in the next couple of slides. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We’ve also concluded our 2\,000 and 22\,023 waterbird monitoring season so that goes from November or October\, through March. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and the report on that we should be getting by the end of June. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We are still waiting to hear from the Coast Guard about a decision on our petition for rule\, Making \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: again that petition for rule making describes Rbras authority to implement the ill grass\, protection zone and other limitations on anchoring in Richardson Bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: As a reminder\, Local Coast Guard staff felt that the existing code of Federal relate regulations provided adequate coverage for our Bra to implement those actions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: But we did submit a petition for rule\, making to clarify that even further. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the Coast Guard confirmed that they received our petition\, and we are waiting to hear what their decision will be. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then ongoing this whole time our community presentations and social media\, and earned media about the importance of ill grass\, and what our bri is doing to protect it and Richards and Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, outside of the epmp implementation as we let the Commission know. In February to me our Bra and its partners were selected for a competitive \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: grant from the Us. EPA. From their San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement fund program. That’s a 2.8 million dollars for a 4 year\, 15 acre yield grass Restoration program in Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the first task of which is to develop the restoration and adaptive management plan that Ms. Climb. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Ms. Glenn referred to earlier in the presentation. So right now we are working with EPA staff. We’ve been selected for the grant. But there’s all of the I’ to to cross developing the work plan the budget. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and all of the required Federal forms. So EPA Staff has everything\, and we should be getting our \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: grad agreement in the next couple of weeks\, depending on how the wheels of Federal Government \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, so the the sides can Sonar survey that I mentioned \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: about every 3 years in Richston Bay. Since 2\,003 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: various partners have conducted a survey to map all of the eel grass in Richards and Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now this differs from the Flyover survey that I shared earlier\, which just focuses on \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: damage to the ill graph from anchor scour. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: In contrast\, this report actually documents the entire extent of your grass and its density throughout Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is done by having a research vessel in the water. It basically runs transact back and forth\, shooting a sonar beam at the bay floor that generates these images of where eel grass is\, and how dense it is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the right of your screen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the green shows where eel grass is present in Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This report did not really have any surprises. We have the same general pattern of ill grass cover\, and interest in bay as previous years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: where we have the densest portion of the bed just off the shore of\, and then it gets \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: less dense as you reach into the shallows. Let’s see. Can you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: You can’t see my mouse\, can you? No. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So that area right along the edge of this L. You know you can see some of the crop circles\, or those anchor scour evidence of anchor scour just off saus alino\, so that’s able to be captured there in the sidescan sonar Survey\, which is what we expected to find\, because. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: while we do see some evidence of recovery in anchor scars where boats have been removed\, as you know\, that’s an ongoing process. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We also have ill West present in those shallow we reaches. So up in that northern and northeastern exactly yeah\, that area of Richardson Bay that’s much shallower than in where the your grass bed is denser. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reasons for that kind of more patchy distribution is that it’s much warmer in the much warmer by your grass standards in in that area. So there’s some thermal stress going on. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and we’ve seen some evidence of you Grass wasting disease. Now your grass wasting disease. It’s a \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: it’s a pathogen that is present throughout California. It has been observed in San Francisco Bay for many years. usually is a very low line pathogen. We don’t see large impacts from it. In some years it does spread more than others. We don’t exactly\, we being the scientific community\, don’t exactly know Why\, some years you’ll grass waste\, and disease is worse than others. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: There are thoughts that it that it can be affected by temperature\, salinity. And so you know what \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the past summer was\, the you know\, before we got all of this \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: cold weather and rain. So it was saltier. It was warmer\, so we could see that change after this winter with our very \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: high rainfall that we’ve seen. \nYeah. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then\, as expected\, there’s a pretty sharp line below which we really don’t see any ill grass that’s in that lower right hand corner. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: That line effectively matches the 5 feet\, I mean lower low water contour\, and that’s very consistent with the depth limits of your grass\, and it’s mostly light limited. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: in total across all cover classes it’s about 956 acres\, of ill grass identified in Richardson Bay this year. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: but only about 400 of those acres are in the 40 to 100 cover class\, and i’ll talk about that a little bit more on the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: And as a note this survey was completed by Merkel and Associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So one of the things that we’re able to do with these data is to look at how eel grass distribution has changed through time. In Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have survey data from if we look at this chart on the right from 200309131419\, and 22 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: 13 and 14. We have very depressed eel grass cover. It was much lower than the other years and and overall we’ve seen it generally increasing trend in a the thing to look at\, though\, so it’s it’s sort of a mixed bag. It’s good news that we’re have that we have more ill grass than we did before. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: There are some concerns\, though\, because this 100\, this so this dashed line \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: is basically tracking a 100% cover equivalency. And so when we talk about cover class \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: that 40 to 100\, that darkest green \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: That’s where the ill grass is dentist\, which is a good proxy for how healthy it is\, and how much ecosystem function. We’re getting from it \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: in those lighter categories. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s sparser\, it’s not providing as good of habitat for fish and invertebrates not able to provide the other ecosystem services\, such as you know\, shoreline stabilization\, sediment\, stabilization\, carbon sequestration. Really\, you know where we’re getting our most bank for our buck with eel grass is in that 40 to 100% \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So that darkest green bar\, as we can see\, is still highly variable through the years that dashed line is\, basically if you take \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: it’s basically a weight of a weighted average and collapsing down. You know\, if you\, if we have \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: about 200 acres in the less than 5% cover class. It’s basically multiplying that 200 acres by point\, 0 5 to getting the 100% equivalency\, I guess \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I could go more into the the math and the science behind that. But basically to see that dashed line is basically where is our really what? What is our really healthy\, dense eel grass trend\, and that’s the dashed line. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So overall this. Serve this side scans on our survey told us a lot of what we expected to see. There’s some good stuff going on out there. There’s you know it’s a in other ways. It’s a bit of a mixed bag and highlights the importance of continuing to track your grass. Transfer time. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Do I have another slide\, Adrian? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Nope. Okay. If you go back\, one slide\, go back to my side. So that’s all that that I have to share about you grass. And then at the end\, happy to take any questions\, so i’ll hand it back to Brad to introduce harbor master. Not them. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Rebecca. I appreciate your effort on this. The next we have a harbor\, Master Malcolm\, who’s got some some very exciting news about our vessels floating home update. Thank you\, Jim. \nJim Malcolm: Thank you very much\, Brad. Good morning\, Chair. Gilmour. Enforcement Committee Commissioners and Enforcement staff. As mentioned\, I’m. Jim Malcolm\, the harbor master for the Richard Bay Regional Agency\, providing this update to update your committee \nJim Malcolm: about the status of the vessels and floating homes on the anchorage. Since the full commission was updated in February\, our current total \nJim Malcolm: vessel floating home count is 52. \nJim Malcolm: That’s reduction in investment counts by 5 since the February update \nJim Malcolm: of those 5\, with this included one floating home\, which\, during the last large March storm\, when adrift and subsequently sunk. \nJim Malcolm: That floating home is actually just been just been recovered from its location\, and is waiting final recovery from the water and disposal \nJim Malcolm: otherwise for vessels. Other incidents. As a result of the brutal winter we’ve been having 2 vessels sunk\, or we’re completely lost due to weather. One vessel\, the the one floating home when it drifting grounded. \nJim Malcolm: Of the of the vessels that were soccer completely lost\, or or of\, as of all vessels that were removed from the anchorage\, there were no personal injuries\, and several vessels broke loose or drug anchor off of the anchorage. \nJim Malcolm: and we’re recovered by the anchor out and brought back to their position on the anchorage. \nJim Malcolm: As mentioned\, our current metrics. \nJim Malcolm: we have a 52 total and 0 new arrivals since the update in February. \nJim Malcolm: and with that that is the short and sweet update on the anchorage. \nJim Malcolm: Now i’ll turn it back over to Director Gross. \nJim Malcolm: Oh\, sorry! One more slide as far as vessels in the eel grass\, protection zone. \nJim Malcolm: the bulk of the storms\, the bulk of the major storms that came through the area were from the south\, so vessels that we’re outside the yogurt Protection zone got pushed to the north\, so hence the the dip to 46 and then back up to 48 for vessels in the you know brass protection zone. \nJim Malcolm: and active active efforts continue to get those vessels removed from the Yogurt Protection zone and back to the southern reaches of the anchorage and out of the \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. I appreciate the information chair\, Gilbert. Where are all 3 of us are available? If there are any questions that we can answer. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for the briefing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So do any Enforcement Committee. Members have any additional questions either for staff or \nthe R. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see any I actually have. \nOh\, sorry! I actually have one question \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given how severe the storms were in the first quarter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the difficulties in the anchor out vessels remaining in place. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Have you noticed any. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess\, softening of some of the positions of the anchor out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to be more receptive to \nsolutions on land? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Because I would imagine that riding out some of those storms must have been terrifying. \nBrad Gross: Thank you for the question chair\, Gil\, more definitely\, definitely a lot of what we’re saying. \nBrad Gross: people it it’s it’s not an easy lifestyle to live on those vessels\, those types of vessels in those conditions. And this was a severe winter\, and I think it opened up a lot of eyes on some of those folks about there. There’s some that are\, you know\, hardy barriers that want to stick it out\, and they’ll stick it out for as long as they can. But I think what’s more important right now is that we have \nBrad Gross: programs that we’ve been talking about for years that are all coming \nBrad Gross: to a starting point. Specifically\, the temporary housing voucher program and reinstating the vessel\, buy back program \nBrad Gross: in combination with the severe storms that we had over the winter we’re going to see. We’ve already been told by the case workers that have been waiting\, that we have people waiting in line to take advantage of some of these opportunities\, and it’s really going to be \nBrad Gross: more of a \nBrad Gross: issue with how many that we can service at one time. I I believe I believe there’s there’s more people willing to step into these programs that we can handle at one time\, so I think it’s good news. And then our next our next meeting. I think we’ll have some good information for you regarding that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, I thank you for that update. I mean that seems like a big change\, because I feel like for years we’ve been hearing that the anchor outs were very resistant to considering land based solutions so hopefully. This marks a real turning point. \nBrad Gross: I I believe\, and I think so. A lot of people will tell you. They believe not everybody. I mean i’m not going to. I’ve got that. I imagine\, by any stake in the may increase. It means that we are going to get everybody as we approach deadlines. We’re going to have push back. We’ll probably have some litigation. We have some litigation now\, but I think we’re going to see some good good move in that direction\, and as we again\, as we approach the deadlines\, it’ll be easier to tell you what we envision the future efforts. You’re going to need. \nThank you. Any committee members have any questions or comments at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we’re going to take public comments on this item\, which is item number 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on the agenda. But first\, Margie\, have we received any written public comments on this item? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No. Can’t deal more. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And do we do you see any members of the public waiting to speak? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: None. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Well\, then\, we will not be having public comment. \nAll right\, so thank you very much to Staff and and the Rbr. For presenting. Do any Enforcement Committee members have any final thoughts or comments on this? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none\, we are ready for item 7\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is adjournment\, and I would like to entertain a motion in a second to adjourn our meeting. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’ll comment on that. I’ll move that we adjourn. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. A motion to adjourn\, made by Commissioner Vasquez. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: second by Commissioner Eisen. All in favor. Just raise your hands \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and thank you very much everyone for your time\, your attention\, and the excellent presentations that we received today have a great rest of your day. Goodbye\, Everyone. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: bye. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-13-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230410T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230410T170000
DTSTAMP:20240213T212150Z
CREATED:20230411T051326Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T212150Z
UID:10000056-1681146000-1681146000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 10\, 2023 Design Review Board and Port of San Francisco Waterfront Design Committee 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/86409335916?pwd=RmhaeGdwWEpxaFQ2R3BHbEF3WElWZz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID864 0933 5916 \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\nFerry Building and Ferry Plaza Alterations in the City of San Francisco\, San Francisco County (First Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board and Port Waterfront Advisory Committee will hold their first 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 \nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				Meeting Summary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording & Transcript\n				\n \nTranscript: \nOkay\, much delay. Thank you for joining us tonight\, for the joint. \nBcdc. Design\, review\, board and port\, waterfront Advisory Committee meeting. \nLike to remind board members to 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. \nBut your audio is disabled. \nOkay. Thank you\, Ashley. My name is Jacinda Mccann\, and I’m the chair of the Bcdc. \nDesign Review Board. I’m looking at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and also those who are participating online. \nAnd I do want to apologise. We’re a few minutes late\, because this is a a joint meeting\, and there have been lots of technical. \nBut we are getting started now for anyone who been patiently holding on and dialed in. \nSo thank you. So our first daughter of business is to call the Role Board members. \nPlease unmute yourselves\, and then mute yourselves again. \nAfter responding\, Ashley\, can you call the roll? \nChair\, Mccann\, Vice chair\, string board\, member Battalion. \nPresent Board\, Member Hall\, present Board\, Member Leader. \nPresent. \nBoard member Pellegrini. \nPresent. \nFor the waterfront Design Advisory Committee. \nThis is and ode I’m going to call role as well. \nLaura\, Crescento. \nPresent Catherine Moore\, present. \nPresent. Thank you. \nOkay\, thank you\, Dan\, and thank you. Ashley. We have a quorum present. \nSo we’re duly constituted to conduct business. I what share some instructions\, how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible for everyone 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 \na webcam. Please make sure it is on\, so everyone can see you for members of the public. \nIf you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do. \nFirst\, if you are here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the podium. \nIf you. \nSpeaker cards are available at the door\, and you will be asked to come up to the podium. \nOne at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your conversation. \nFor members of the public attending our meeting in person in our headquarters building. \nI will ask you to maintain social distance during the meeting wearing masks is optional\, but recommended in this building. \nAfter all\, the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nThe second way\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you’re new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting using the zoom application\, and click the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nThe hand should turn blue when it’s raised. Finally\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and then press star 6 to mute or unmute\, we will call on individuals who have raised their hands in \nthe orders they are raised during the public. \nAfter you were called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nPlease stay your name and 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 remaining. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to. \nOkay. That everyone has the responsibility to act in a we will not tolerate hate. \nSpeech threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abuse of language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines or exceeds the established type. \nFor public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voices\, your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio synthesis and is not synced to the individual. \nIf you would like to add your cost information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project\, please call or email Ashley Tomlin\, who’s contact information is on the screen in front of you or is found on the Bcdc finally\, every now and then you will hear me \nrefer to the meeting host Eurico\, Bcdc. \nStaff are acting as hosts for the meeting behind the scenes sure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nAnd now the Board Secretary will provide a start updates. \nThank you. Chair. Mccann\, I do have a couple quick updates for tonight. \nReminder. If you have not completed your form\, 700. \nIt was due April third\, so please do so soon. \nStaff updates\, I’d like to welcome our newly appointed Bay design Analyst yuriko Jewett Eureko has a background in urban design and planning\, and has been working at the principal waterfront planner for Bcdc and previously \npresented to this board during her time as the shoreline development permit. Analyst. \nComing up with the Commission. There will be a combined working group meeting for rising sea level and financing the future. \nAs the morning of May eighteenth\, the slide deck\, from A the April sixth meeting is available on our website. \nThe board is encouraged to join and ask questions. The zoom link is also available on the BCDC. \nWebsite. Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, May eighth\, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center. \nWe’ll be reviewing a proposal researching development site in Belmont\, and that concludes the Bcdc staff update. \nI’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nThanks\, Ashley\, great report because I’m so excited that you is part of the team so welcome\, and we’re thrilled to have in the team. \nThe team? Does anyone have any questions? \nOkay. Hearing none iphone\, I will turn it over to Dan Hodup for the port staff update. \nThank you. Ashley and Chair Mccann to Rwdac members is great\, and DRB. \nMembers great to see you again in our waterfront design. \nReview\, the Wdas. Meets when a project reaches a level defined in the city code\, requiring review by this\, and due to many factors not occurred for nearly 3 years. \nThe longest break in the history. Of the committee. By far the port welcomes the new hybrid process for the public that we will be using today will encourage public participants more so than the past. \nPlease note that for city committees members are required to attend in person need for reasonable accommodation. \nThe Wdac waterfront design\, advisory may see other projects. \nThis here the piers. 33 proposal\, if it it moves forward and a waterfront resilience program presentation. \nSee wall adaptation. Please look forward to updates on these projects. \nAnd that concludes my comments at this. Are there any questions from? \nThank you. Chair\, Mckinnon. Thanks\, Dan. We’ll move to a public comment period. \nNow\, and that’s a public comment on what you’ve just heard today in the report. \nSo if there’s anyone in the room who has a comment on this part of the meeting\, form a line at the podium. \nAnd I don’t see a line at the podium\, so I think we’ll move on that. \nAnd if there’s anyone online who makes it to make a comment this time\, please do so. \nShow your hands. \nWe have no public comments online. Very good. And for anyone from the public attending online\, I just want to remind you there will be another point for public comment. \nReview of the project. Okay? So we now move on to the next agenda item\, which is the first review of proposed alterations at the Ferry Building and the Ferry plaza. \nThis is a gender. Item 4. And\, as I mentioned\, it is the first\, and we’re going to follow the following order of reviewing the project\, so we’ll start with introductions to the project. \nBy the Bcdc. Import staff. That will be followed by the project proponents. \nPresentation\, and then we’ll follow that with the Board and Committee clarifying questions on the presentation. We’ll then move to a public comment period\, and then we will move to the Board and committee discussion and summary\, and then we will conclude with the project proposed proponent and that’s a brief response. \nAnd so with that the BCDC. Permanent analysts. \nAnd is so I’ll head to cast. \nThank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening board members. \nI’m Katherine Pan\, the shoreline development program manager\, and I’ll be introducing tonight’s project for BCDC. \nBefore I do\, I would like to remind the project\, team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. \nWhen you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your video and mute your microphone so that we minimize distractions on screen. \nNow this is the first review of the Ferry building\, and very plaza alterations project in the city and county of San Francisco. \nThe\, the proposed project is likeated in the ferry building\, or at the ferry building\, a landmark on the San Francisco waterfront\, where Market Street meets the embarcadero just south of pier\, one the ferry building is an active ferry terminal \nand provides vary access to and from Angel Island and north and East Bay Destination. \nThis site is covered by BCDC. San Francisco waterfront. \nSpecial area plan and is part of the plant’s northeastern waterfront geographic area. \nThe ferry building is home to a variety of commercial and office uses\, and at the edge of the and at the edge of the Yacidis financial district\, in downtown area\, is surrounded by many similar uses as well as the waterfronts extensive public recreation and access\, in. \nWe’d like to acknowledge that the project site is in the ancestral territory. \nOf the Yaleamu people of the Ramatush Aloni\, we offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area. \nThe area around a ferry building in Berry closet is covered by a number of existing BCDC. \nPermits\, each with its own public access\, conditions resulting in a layering of different access requirements I’ll summarize these briefly to provide contexts for some of the changes being proposed\, as well. \nAs some surrounding access connections\, as a disclaimer. \nWhat we’re about to show is our best understanding of where these access areas are located\, based on our review of permit files and exhibits in some cases there still may be some questions as to the exact extent of the access areas which will continue to research and work through with the project proponents. \nSo when we talk about the fairy plaza\, we’re referring to this open area on the bay side of the variable. \nWith open area on the bay side of the ferry building\, enclosed by the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal\, and this restaurant structure. \nAll of this is located on the ferry platform\, which is also known as the Bart Platform\, which is also authorized by permit 1\,967. \nThe permit required public access on the perimeter of the platform not required for any ferry operations\, but the area wasn’t specified in any permit. \nExist. \nPermit 1973010 authorize the Restaurant and the Golden Gate Ferry Terminal\, and required access around the restaurant building as well as on areas of the ferry terminal that could be used for public access consistent with very operations the area around the terminal is also not depicted in any permanent exhibit. \nPermit\, 1998 was for a number of roadway improvements along the Embarcadero and for the meeting. \nMetro. It required the dedication of public access area for the embarcadero promenade between Broadway and Harrison’s Amendment 6 approved in 2\,007 authorized the use of a portion of the dedicated access area to be used for outdoor dining\, and these are the 30 foot Wide Cafe market zone shown on either side of the entry portico. \nPermit\, 199707. Authorize additional fills for North and South Ferry portal. \nA publicly accessible sheep pile\, breakwater\, and the promenades around the ferry building\, as well as a demolition of pier. \nOne half the access area is required by the permit include the new northeast and south promenades. \nPr. 14. The Breakwater\, and a concourse through the ferry building. \nAs a legibility. Note\, exhibit A of the permit shows that there is a space between the ferry building and the wedge of public Access reserved along the southern side of the ferry building. \nIt’s not clear in this visual\, due to the end of the area. \nBut that’s the image there! \nSo permit 2\,000 0 one. Authorize the ferry building rehabilitation project and the use of the ferry plaza for the pharmacy. \nThe East promenade was expanded to provide continued uncovered access along the promenade. \nAs the rehab second floor expansion would cover the existing portion. \nThe required public access includes includes the east promenade space to 10 foot wide\, pass through through the ferry building improvements to the path through entrances\, ground floor\, public restrooms\, 24 bike parking spaces and a ferry closet. \nAnd then permit 201601\, authorize new gates for the Wida San Francisco Bay ferries south of the ferry Plaza\, and included public access conditions for the Embcadero Plaza\, or the Wida Paza and a Bayside Promenade connecting the new Farie \ngate. These areas are outside the scope of the current project. \nBut we’re including this information so that you’re aware of these closely connected uses. \nImmediately adjoining the project site. \nI’m sure most\, if not all\, of you\, are already quite familiar with the ferry building in Plaza. \nBut here’s some contextual photos to Orient. \nYou and help you visualize current conditions at the site. \nAnd these photos are all taken on a weekday morning\, actually. \nSo here’s the North Cafe Zone in ourcade\, and here you can see it’s very end got outdoor seating area. \nThe North pass through entrance\, and they’re in the process of setting up additional outdoor seating in the Cafe zone. \nThen the North Arcade here is used by a variety of commercial key. \nAnd then here’s the South Cafe Slash Market Zone\, with the wine merchant seating area and South Pass through\, and the South Arcade\, which is mainly used for storage and farmers. Market operation. \nAnd then here’s the area on the south side of the ferry building which provides access for both pedestrians and vehicles for the ferry plaza\, and here you can see the access or the area reserved for public access along the drive aisle that’s also used by delivery \nand service vehicles\, and these cones and barriers here are\, I believe\, used to control vehicle access in this area. \nAnd then here’s part of the East facade at the very building and you’re looking at is the exit from the central breezeway and the seating area below the cantilevered second floor. \nAnd this area would be part of the proposed Bay front kitchens concept. \nHere’s some additional views of the East Promenade. \nI can see it’s quite active this morning. \nAnd then here’s just 2 quick views of a crowd arriving at the plaza from the Golden Gate ferry. \nSo these are pedestrians in cyclists\, like a good number of cyclists\, all making their way to the south side of the building through the plaza. \nAnd then here are some views of the ferry plaza itself versus a view from the South promenade\, where you can see a lot of the existing furnishings\, including the 30 tables that were put in place during the pandemic this one up here is from the \nGandhi statue\, facing towards the south side of the building\, and then the bottom right is a view of the space on the north side of the plaza\, next to the Golden Gate Ferry terminal. \nWe’re facing east towards the restaurants. Sure. \nSo here’s where our community vulnerability mapping tool showed us about the area downtown. \nSan Francisco is a densely populated diverse community\, and the decreases of social and contamination. \nVulnerability indicated by the tool covered a really broad range\, generally speaking\, indicators associated with higher social\, vulnerability in the areas near the ferry building include renter\, occupancy\, and no vehicle ownership as well as some combination of limited English perficiency very \nlow income\, no high school degree\, disability\, individuals over 65 living alone\, non-us citizens and people of color. \nAnd then regarding potential C level rise\, using current site elevations. \nThis map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nUsing the Ocean Protection Council’s 2\,018 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. \nHigh emissions scenario at mid-century and at this level there is potential for some flooding. During a 100 year. Storm event. \nAnd then this shows what 66 inches this year the sea level rise would look like at the site if it was unchanged. \nThis roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level. \nAt 2\,090\, in the medium to high risk\, aversion\, high emissions\, scenario as well as 100 year storm\, condition in mid-century\, and in this scenario the project site and much of the waterfront would be inundated. \nSo before I pass this over to Port Staff\, I’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff. \nReport that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nFirst\, please consider how this project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcdc’s public access design guidelines\, and then staff has identified some specific questions we’d like to ask the Board about the design at this stage. \nThese are one. How does the project proposal 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? \n2. Do the alteration sufficiently maintain or enhance connectivity\, and along the shoreline are the enhancements compatible with the existing structures and uses in the area. \nAnd are there any potential uses or concerns to be mindful of as the concept develops? \n3. Does the enclosure of the private dining areas on the east promenade for the bayfront kitchens and Hampsh activation and support inviting usable public access areas. \nAnd is it necessary to enclose a private dining area? \n4. Are the alterations of the ferry plaza\, sufficiently flexible to accommodate the variety of proposed programming while maintaining usable public access for existing user\, groups. \n5 are the improvements proposed for the ferry plaza likely to be successful in attracting additional visitors to the space during non-market days. \nAfternoons and evenings. 6. What additional details about the programming of the perimeter easement activation zone and the South Promenade are needed to understand the potential for use conflicts\, circulation issues\, and benefits for public access? \nAnd 7. Are there any additional improvements that could improve the public access? Experience? \nAlright. So I wanna take a moment to check to see if the Board has any clarifying questions for me on anything presented in this staff Introduction. \nAny questions? \nOh\, thank you. So I was reading the staff report\, and it says that the peer says the ground elevation is plus 11 feet and a Bd. \nWhich is the same as the base flood elevation. And that’s sounds about right. I thought the peer deck might have been a little higher than that. \nIs that correct? So that’s based on the elevation shown in the exhibits. \nAnd then also checking the base. What all elevation through the. \nSo that’s the best information we have. Thank you. \nThomas Stephan any questions\, clarifying questions\, no. \nGary. \nLook. I have one question I know it’s not part of this immediately. \nPlaza there are 2 buildings\, the building that has but vince\, and then the. \nYou remind me who is the who owns those buildings\, or who is landlord for those 2 buildings? \nBelieve? Is it the port? Yes\, alright\, Dan can be fine. Hi\, Dan! \nHowodap with the port of San Francisco. \nThose are controlled by the port they were previously leased out that they’ve been returned to the port. \nThe port plans actually going under contract with a broker to find a user. \nFor the restaurant site. The one story portion I’m hoping to do that this year for app. \nThe term on that\, not expecting large capital. \nSo that’s good to anticipate that use coming forward again\, and the circulation that might be a sort. \nAnd the other building is really a very active. There is a building just sits on the north side of it that contains some infrastructure on the ground level\, and it does contain a on the top level. \nA second story is a large dining\, somewhat of a banquet facility. \nCould also be lead. \nThat’s an option on that. \nOkay\, thank you\, Dan. While we’re on the subject\, it did mention somewhere there was mentioned structure upgrades in that area. \nCan you describe what those are? \nDan again Future Infrastructure upgrades are largely going to be about sea level rise\, adaptation\, and I think\, looking at of 11\, the impacts at 24 inches were not significant. \nUnless you. \nThat really the low spot on the waterfront. So the future infrastructure would have to do. \nHow do we protect the ferry Building ferry building? \nWas to be a very high cultural value\, and and the waterfront resilience program went through very extensive outreach. \nAddaptation measures are being developed. \nThe peer enjoys being one of the possibly the last meeting your peer construct out on the same. \nCisco waterfront better condition that many of that are part of the historical. \nThe peer behind the building is not part of the. \nGreat. Thank you. No more questions. \nThank you. So now I pass it back over to Dan Hodap from the port of San Francisco to present the port staff report. \nDan Hodap again regarding the Ferry building project before you this evening\, Hudson\, the leaseholder\, of the ferry building and site area\, will be represented by Carl Cade\, who will introduce the project and design team and then the proposed. \nProject the waterfront Design Advisory Committee staff report includes a waterfront. \nExcuse me. A waterfront plan policy analysis as appendix\, A\, of which staff provided an assessment of those policies. \nPlease observe the presentation\, and ask questions regarding the proposal\, and or of any of the policies Committee is not obligated to re review the many policies\, but may want to focus on policies where you want clarification proposal meets. \nDoes. In addition to the questions that Catherine just went through\, examples of questions could include\, how the collection of improvements\, respect and contribute to the character of the ferry building and its environs\, how the proposal enhances or impacts pedestrian circulation and views of the building. \nDo the improvements enhance the historic\, very building. \nDo the improvements work together as a cohesive collection. \nWe welcome your input and recommendation\, which\, following conclusion of the review process\, are forward to the Port Commission and City Planning Commission. \nThat concludes my comments. Are there any questions on those before I introduce? \nSeeing none. I’d like to introduce Carl Cade. \nOh\, I’m sorry! \nI had a question. My question is\, see a certain amount of public access being we commission for other users. \nDo we have any numbers to see your what’s being taken? \nSecond part of my question is as good I personally observe a significant increase in ferry building riders that Hazel could in the last 4 or 5 years. \nThere’s actually almost congestion on the common promenade people rushing with their bicycle. \nSo by foot to catch a ferry\, including seeing fairies being reassigned to a different booth\, while you’re expecting to depart or arrive on one\, you have to rush over to another\, one which creates additional confusion and takes a lot of space relative to people rushing back and \nforth do we have any metrics? The intensity of failure\, use are we anticipating further increase in use as Treasury Island is being realized\, and other uses along the bay? \nA villain themselves toward a taxi\, and for the water craft youth! \nThose are both great questions. The public access quantity. Once I’m going to refer that to the development team to address that as they go through their presentation regarding us\, the ferry system. \nMy numbers are a little bit old\, but 5 years ago they were saying\, looking at a tripling of ferry ridership. \nOkay. \nTreasure Island capacity bridges\, and the improvements overall to the. \nI don’t have the exact numbers\, but your observation are. \nOf course\, put a real damper and ferry rider ship. \nRunning now I don’t have. \nAs to where they are compared to before the pandemic\, but I know that. \nForecast being provided by the way. Emergency authority otherwise\, are for that very significant. \nWhich is why the whole down. \nIf I may\, my second group of questions speaks to open space as we are assigning specific functions to the parts of the around. The fare building. \nNow\, as the Plaza alteration suggests\, I am wondering if we are adding additional base someplace\, else\, in order to uphold the principle of social and racial equity\, because not everybody will be able to partake in the assigned spaces\, as they are currently being. \nDan Hodap again. That’s a great perspective\, to use when analyzing or evaluating the proposal that you are about to hear. \nThere are no offsite\, public space\, improvements being offered. \nIt’s all within the area. Another\, slightly more deeper reaching question is a dialogue about urban design. \nAs we’re speaking about a more privatized use of what is basically a civic building\, I have always perceived even the transformation of this of the ferry building as an effort to keep the civic nature of this building intact when it was historically a full-fledged transportation terminal \nof ferry building. It was only bought transportation. \nThe incredibly fabulous historic of preservation. \nA number of years ago created a public market out of it\, and what is proposed today seems to shift a little bit more into the restaurant role food hall imageway. \nAnd I’d be curious to hear how we are going to be able to uphold the civic nature of the building that includes the use of the arcades becoming more private and indeed taking a very civic component\, as our arcade away. \nThe city city has few arcades. If you go to Bologna\, Italy\, or some of those places\, you can walk like 50 kilometers of public arcades\, which in certain types of weather is a wonderful experience\, and I personally always use the our cage as such so I’m kind of curious \nabout emphasis on civic meaning of the building as it transforms itself under the current proposal. \nI think that’s great input for our presenters. And I encourage Youtube address that as you go through. \nAnd I think any other types comments about the proposal. \nWe should wait until post public comments\, so that we don’t mix so. Thank you very much. \nAnd with that I conclude my remarks and I’m handing it over to and Connors here. \nCause. Carl Cade just pointed at her. She’s sitting right next to him. \nSo\, yeah\, thank you\, Dan\, for that. Well\, good evening\, board members. \nI’m Jane Connors. I’m the general manager of the Ferry building\, and it’s been an honor to have been part of the ferry building team since its opening in March 22\,003. \nSo it’s been almost. It’s been over 20 years. \nSo in the last 20 years we have learned that\, being nimble and staying relevant is key to the Ferry building’s success. \nThe support. Hudson Pacific properties has provided in the last 3 years is a testament to our stewardship of and dedication. \nTo such remarkable building\, and its diverse community of merchant office tenants and visitors throughout the pandemic. \nThe ferry building and ferry Plaza farmers\, market State opened every day and introduced improvements\, including opening the largest outdoor dining cafe in the city on the ferry plaza. \nDuring the pandemic we worked with merchants to keep them open\, through a generous rent relief program. \nAnd we added many new merchants in the last 3 years\, including reams\, Red Bay Coffee\, peaches\, patties\, and Chalita Linda. \nSome who you will hear from today. The presentation you see today lays the groundwork for the Ferry Building’s future success\, and I am pleased to introduce my colleague\, Carl Kade\, vice president of construction and development at Hansa Pacific who will introduce these Enhancements. \nThank you very much\, Jane\, as Jane mentioned\, I’m Carl Cade. \nI’m Vice President with Hudson Pacific here in our San Francisco office\, a few blocks from where we speak\, halfway to Jane’s office at the Ferry Building. \nI wanted to start off by saying that since Hudson purchased the leasehold in 2018\, with our partners at Allian’s\, we have been very committed to partnering with Jane and her team at the building to the stewards of the ferry building \nand it’s in its important role in this city and ensure the vitality in the vibrancy the city fabric of San Francisco today and in the future. \nToday\, the strong activity that we feel as we walk the Sunday market or shop in the nave during lunchtime is Testament to the resiliency of the merchants and the longtime patrons of the building. \nWe are pleased to announce that we are\, in the final phase of a lengthy\, significant restoration project\, whereby we repaired the sought have been referring to the size and painting. \nThe exterior back to the original color that many of us have never. \nSo until today\, finally today\, we can say that we are proud to announce that the ferry building was recently awarded. \nWeed 0 energy and 0 carbon certifications. \nOne of the first and only building to get both of those designs. \nIn the future\, and with the enhancements we will present today\, we will deliver a civic very plaza that draws people to experience this majestic and historic building. \nThe ferries and the waterfront. 7 days a week. \nMore merchant locations\, with added infrastructure to support the merchants. \nCooking preparation\, retail needs finally\, indoor and outdoor seating that addresses some of the light wind cold that can be discouraging of visitors late in the day. \nHudson\, San Francisco. Portfolio totals more than 2.5 million square feet. \nWe are fighting and investing in the urban life of this city. \nAnd this project is a testament to that commitment we have been pleased to see our city partners willing in a year to join us in finding solutions to the challenges facing the ferry building and our city. \nWe’d like to thank the Port and Bcdc. \nStaff for working with us. To prepare this presentation today. \nFinally\, it’s important to say that when we put together the team to even think about taking this on\, we thought out first of all\, a landscape architect in Einweller Keel\, which is locally based and has a long term commitment in working with shared public space around the \nBayfront\, and even more history with the building\, I would say\, would be Page in Turnbull\, who served as the historic architect in the 2\,003 renovation\, and is now in this guise both our historic architect and our Mayor architect for the project with that i’d like \nto introduce Lana Cochorovsky\, principal at to take us through the project. \nThank you very much. Appreciate it. Commissioners support. I appreciate being here today listening to our presence. \nI’m also proud to be part of the page internal team that has been involved with the ferry building since 1970. \nWhen we first wrote the design re for about the building\, and then continue. The work is preservation. \nThe approvals of the that turned this building into. \nI am too! \nWe think. \nContinue the legacy of the work today and invite. \nSo I would like to take you. \nA quick overview this of our view. A number of historic images. \nHow many changes occurred? \nSince it’s concerned. \nAnd it’s it’s from the time when it became the most\, the busiest transit. \nThe decline of that function in the 3\, it became something. \nAnd it will likely continue to change just to orient everyone with the work that we will be presented today. \nA quick overview. The diagram shows. \nOf the building alone in Barkende. The area that we called. \nThere is\, are improvements planned on the pay size\, with the. \nBoth interior and exterior\, and of course talking a lot today. But. \nSo next slide the site plan and. \nSarah\, Q. \nThank you\, Lana. It is a real pleasure to be here\, and I. \nA little humbled by this opportunity to tell you the truth\, this is a really important project. \nCisco\, but also really for the entire region. It is where I take my relatives when of town\, a lot of us view this as a civic destiny. \nGreat things to eat\, and so as we’ve thought about contributing to the legacy of the devout\, about a lot of the changes that’s happened in the last 20 years\, and there’s some obvious ones\, I think\, like Zoom mobility and Pandemic I also want to call attention. \nPlaza\, which used to be water. And so the relationship. \nThe water also used to be from a site planning perspective than it is today. \nAnd that’s really helps us to organize\, are thinking out where to work and what. \nThe project is a balancing act right? And so our work is primarily focused on Southend of the building and the ferry plaza. \nThere is a little bit of work that’s being done. \nAnd in some ways we started from what’s already working. \nAnd so so the farmers market that happens here on Saturdays is one of the times when very plausibly. \nMake your way from the embarcadero and find it. \nYou can get turned around or pathways to go. And so that became a way to sort of start thinking about what wasn’t working other days. \nAs we looked at the site circulation on Saturday there was a clear way to move along when you exited. \nThis building is the sort of obvious that there was a passage. \nThe south. It was also clear that they were an invitation\, and bcadero. And so\, as we thought about what we. \nBe sure\, the circulation of. \nTo work\, but also to solve this problem on where to go. \nNext slide. \nIn some ways this diagram\, which? \nA a layer over the tower itself. You arrive at the tower. \nEverything you there crossroads there! \nFor us\, adding\, this that happens Saturdays is a crossroads. \nThe water\, along the water’s edge\, linking the very terminal back to the center of the building. \nAnd we wanted to complete that circuit from the inside to the outside and welcome people from the ferry\, but also the ferry. \nReally thinking about this intersection? \nTogether next week? What? \nSo the site plan that I’ll present to you today. \nI’m going to give you a quick overview here. And then I’m gonna in because a lot of the moves that we’re making are small scale. And it’s hard to see. \nWhat you’re seeing is that we are drawing a line at the of the from the embarcadero out towards the water\, trying to adjust to people that there. \nThe Ferry Plaza a non-market day. \nThe water\, which is the new fairies. The South make that a bit like. \nThe water. \nAlongside there\, and there is a small effort being done on number where there is public dining\, that Lao will talk to what I’m gonna. \nThe space a lot. The south side of the building at the back of Very plaza itself. \nThe circulation that we’ve been thinking about building our design out has been continuing to draw all of the transit\, using that are happening here\, continuing to. \nPeople to\, as well as to rush when they need to get somewhere to give you an intuitive inside and outside of the building. And honestly\, one of the things I’ve learned while working on this\, the paza has a lot of. \nVery terminal\, one very plaza and part facility. \nVery pause. Those are all people who what’s happening outside work well for them about that\, too. \nZooming in a little bit\, so you can see the performance clearly. \nThis is along the south end\, the building with the new yeah plaza\, where we are proposing a line of lights from the embarcadero all the way on to the ferry plaza itself. \nIn this location side of the graphic paving and pattern that draws you out. \nAt Ferry Plaza. They’re on the south side\, but it’s one the to draw you from. \nBcadero all the way on to very plaza. \nIn addition to okay\, that’re seeing at Number One\, a new gateway sign that has both wayfinding to give an address. \nVery plausible as well as information. \nHere and some way finding element\, the embarcadero and the light. \nCornerstone Way\, finding. \nSo that’s where to go. \nThis is a light touch. In some ways\, I think there’s a lot that’s already working here. \nAnd we is already a great asset. But we’re trying. \nNext slide. \nThe palette of this is intended to the ferry building\, and to complement the existing gate. \nArchitecture\, but also. \nThe line and. \nWe know more conversations about exactly what color and exactly the. \nTo talk about those in. \nBut we also wanted to of clarify that the goal of this. \nA section taken from the ferry building itself out to Weed Plaza. \nYou can see how there’s a space. Immediately the outside of the ferry building and the light pole with the banners. \nThe way that the sign is allowed trucks to pass under. \nAnd fire trucks. The gateway and the walkway along. \nThe plaza\, and I can clarify that the light polls on the north side align with the light polls on the south side\, but are a different to do. \nThe program that we need them to in. \nWhat that section continues out past the ferry building. \nWater. \nLevel rise that was already present where we step down into the fire lane\, and there’s new site furnishing. \nThe water promote waterfront feeding and view. \nWe’ve rotated the seating\, instead of being south towards the ferry terminal. \nThe long view out to the water and to Treasure Island. \nThe poll lights and the edge of the plaza frame. Strong\, new. \nThese are some renderings to give you a the size of the element. \nThe colors are here are mostly to make things legible rendering. There’s a. \nThe final colors. You see\, is by adding the light poles and adding the signage. \nHere\, here\, there’s a kind of procession or rhythm that yes\, oh\, there’s something out there. \nThere’s somewhere to go layer on what’s already working here next slide. \nYou can also see what that looks like on a market date where the are layered in. And we been talking with food\, wise about how not to meet the location of light poles or other elements. \nBeing able to set up tents and no big tents are\, and how things. \nHave there\, but the goal is to have this be a seamless overlay. Next. \nAnd moving to the back plaza\, you can see the same line of lights banners moving along the south edge of the plaza. \nHere it’s pulling you back and making gesture. \nYou can furniture along the. \nWe’ve also clarified on the back plaza. There’s. \nGate\, ferry are hopefully crossing to a restaurant at one ferry plaza. \nSo we know there’s a lot of move here. There’s a new kiosk element show. \nWhich would outdoor establishment that would have outdoor seating on the We’re really in that as a way to have eyes on platforms. \nSome things that go on here. \nThat cause a lot of cleanup in the morning to have that element. The. \nMore about as a possibility. \nAnd we’re also adding a strong edge to the plaza and dressing up grid of stripes them back by grinding them. \nWe’re really rehabbing the old great\, partly of the carbon\, partly because what we all need about\, you know\, the sea level rise in infrastructure. \nThe balance of feel like the right amount for right now\, and a line of lights parallel to the and the colonnade along the ferry building gives that a strong edge as well. \nOkay. As I mentioned\, there are 3 possible sites that we studying for the Gandhi statue should have had on here a fourth\, which is the remain we’re talking to a lot of people. \nThe San Francisco Arts Commission will need to weigh in is a lot more. \nWe have just flag to you that. \nThe materials on the back plaza are retreatment of the existing concrete\, and a kind of texturization. \nGet a very strong edge. These polls\, a more modern kiosk to really cut the historic architecture\, and then the most important thing about these vendors. \nThat they will be perfect for an outdoor environment. \nSo they won’t rest\, and will be working\, I think\, with a lot of you. \nPortable\, but there’s a kind of gravitas palette that were proposed. \nForward place to feel that way. Next slide. \nSo these are some views of the proposal. This is a view south towards the bridge. \nWhen when we first started this\, the bay lights are up\, and it was. \nStay out of line of the Bay bridge. The quieter bridge compared. \nBut I have a fondness for it. Wanted it to be the show here in some ways\, and so the lights align\, and you can see how they work with the column. \nOne aid describe a walking path on a non-market day. \nAnd then how the market layers into the line of lights and the edge and the pathways that we have here next slide. \nThen for the overall view of the back plaza\, showing you how that new signage element\, says Sherry Plaza\, and there is some discussion\, should say on this that we will to talk about\, but gives you a threshold and a crossroads at that moment. \nCan see the benches along the edge there\, the graphic page you out towards the water\, the grid that we’ve added and the that we added for activation sort of eyes on the plaza. \nNext slide. You can see how we layer into market day\, and can begin to imagine how\, in addition. \nWonderful farmers. Other events to happen out here and have activation. \nThe other of the\, and with that I’m going to pass it back to latter for the rest of the. \nYou very much great overview of the. \nI’m gonna walk you quickly. \nAreas of alteration. \nSo we have images by that. \nRendering\, and really just building on with Sarah. \nWe’re proposing very light touch! \nKnowing that is a huge sorry with the with the entrance portico. \nAll we’re trying to do is enhance the lighting quality and improved lighting. \nYou can see how\, under the. \nImproving\, lighting\, and in theiding people into the. \nAnd moving along the embarcadero. This is the area that we’re calling the North. \nWe are expressing here in the rendering on the right the exterior structure for the being proposed there. \nThese are the lightweight metal structure that are very simple and completely independent. \nFrom the building. The purpose of them is to provide accommodations for that would be needed for the patrons of the restaurants in the and they are designed to transparency through them and into the building facades next stage. \nYou can see them up close inside. \nThey will contain movable furniture\, and that’s that’s for them to be utilized on market days. \nAccommodate market tenth within them. \nNothing fixed in them that cannot be moved. \nAnd we have some public seeing on onboard facing you. \nThe great activation strategy that we’re in. \nOf the key\, and the next image on the right gives you a peek into that area\, would look the inside. \nWhat is being proposed is glass in closure\, that is. \nWe are proposing be able to. \nMoveable glass will be completely moved and hidden behind the pilesters of the. \nOnly be closed in increment weather for a the restaurants are not upgrading\, so night time. \nThe purpose here is also. \nAnd be able. \nSee through\, and and the quality. \nOn the bay side. So we are looking at the bayfront. \nArea that planks the primary circulation. \nSee how we\, removing the non. \n3. By doing that\, we’re opening it up and engaging the public\, providing more training\, transparency\, and. \nOr tenants pieces\, opening up the view by taking the the storefront and moving it about 7 feet. \nClosed 2 base adjustments. \nTo the way on the on the north\, and one day on the right. \nSee. \nRendering in the purpose of this is to be able to maintain the same activity as today. \nBut be able to provide comfortable seating in inclement weather and. \nKnow in the last few months. \nUsual weather pattern when it’s not really comfortable. \nKeep outdoor. So you close the. \nProvide a level of comfort to. \nWould be otherwise\, they would be open and. \nThey are not approaching onto the the public. \nStay behind the relocated 3 columns. \nWith that conclude our. \nAnd let it just one thing. Just add\, I think it’s important\, because we cared deeply about it\, that this project endeavors to maintain the dedicated public access ways through the building. \nAnd so\, for\, like clarifications\, the arcade areas are not dedicated. \nPublic access\, they are subject to our port lease that allows visitors serving rather restaurants and retail uses\, and we also worked closely to make okay through those arcades in the plan that you’d have a view shed that would allow to continue to let’s look down the length of \nthe arcade through the multiple restaurants. And so we can talk more detail about that. \nThe Cafe Zone does. I think Katherine mentioned in her presentation. \nWe’re dedicated under that 1998 permit\, as a 30 foot wide portion. \nBut that promenade specifically called for outdoor dining and market use as an appropriate user. \nAreas. And so we’re following that precedent finally and not so much about access\, but about the historic standards. \nLotta and her colleagues have completed a Secretary of Interior Standards. \nAnalysis\, and find this to be. \nSo important details. I wanted to make sure everyone has thanks for that. \nThe very helpful clarifications. So look with that. \nWe’ll move to public comment. And so\, you know\, the presentations hang on. \nWe will move to clarifying questions from the project present. \nThese clarified questions both? \nThe boards of the committee. So look just to with a lot of people here and some online. \nSo we’re just gonna go down the line here just for clarity. \nSo Bob\, lead off any clarifying questions. \nNo no questions for me. Okay. \nYeah\, lot. I was wondering if you could clarify on the East side under the canopy there\, I noticed there are some pop-outs that are new. \nIs that correct that are enclosed? And then I also want to understand the dropdown from the software. \nThere! \nSure. Thank you. \nSo does that demonstrate? \nHere is the bay that is being. Yes\, there is a so I says\, down to for the. \nMovable panels. \nInside of the of the base. \nThat area. \nSo that would be enclosed to the corner if you had shown it in its closed form. \nThat’s office. This dropdown marks the alright. \nAnd then beyond\, there’s those glass areas that are that is correct. \nOne another. Question. Leave room for others here. The I just want to understand where the farmers market is located. So it’s on the south side of the very building that correct\, and it straddles the ferry buildings and is same amount of square footage. \nYeah\, it’s on the south driveway and the plaza area here\, near the sign that. \nIs? Is it inside and outside the ferry building sign? \nPardon me\, so it’s on the embarcadero side\, and then the market area\, and on the also on the same on the 2 front Embarcadero Plaza driveway\, and very pleasant great. Thank you. \nOkay. Yeah. Chris. \nThank you for that. In depth and very helpful presentation. \nJust a few questions\, Sarah\, is it you said that the plaza isn’t working well for some of the neighbors? \nCan you explain what some of those challenges are? \nI heard from people. A lot of things happen in the. \nYou arrived just that up for an event. \nIn class. There’s a lot of things to out there as well that as you get further away from the ferry building\, eyes on fall away. Okay? So. \nYou know\, really this person’s space\, and not? \nAnd then you mentioned the kiosk was a way to kind of help mitigate. \nPut some eyes on the street on the plaza. Would that be open at night\, or what would the kind of evening programming be? \nThat’s probably a better question. \nYeah\, I mean\, ideally\, we would have this and the whole building activated further into the evening I think you know\, there are stages of success in that. \nAnd if I think today\, you know\, the ferries actually go into the email\, if we could have something if you miss your very\, if we get back to a day of ferry traffic like the past where you might where the Golden Gate very may sell out\, and you have to wait for the next\, one it would be \nnice\, that that not be such a bad thing\, because you can sit and have\, you know\, a beverage or snack while you wait\, and look at one of the best views. \nThat it we have in the city. And so that’s sort of the idea. \nJust one last question was\, and I think it was Slide 28 that you had up before. \nI was wondering. I’m not sure what the nature of sort of public spaces inside the building building and around it. \nI think you know\, outside\, it’s fairly clear that those tables and shares are kind of spill out for the tenants\, except on the west side. \nThere’s some sort of public seating\, that’s popped up over time. \nAnd then inside the ferry building. I think this portion you have here that purple is that kind of public access through. \nBut the wings off to each side of it\, north and south\, kind of act like a pose right now. \nKind of an indoor space\, public space\, and I was wondering if there are any sort of requirements for public user space or square footages\, or anything like that\, or a way that you’re thinking about kind of that public space inside the building. \nYeah\, absolutely. I think\, I mean\, you’re right\, that the area dedicated is and purple on there. \nThe area is next to it have been used in different ways over time\, and our circulation. \nI’m seating. Our plan is to actually have. \nIf you think of a kind of 2 by 2 matrix of dedicated non dedicated indoor and outdoor\, seating more of all types of after this\, and I think that gets to your colleagues point of how people can use different ways is that there were \nbe more. Yes\, it will. \nRestaurants\, but there will also be. \nPlaces where I think that can actually be the at the end zone\, where you all were already experimenting with that. \nBecause once you’ve got your food from your merchant\, you will find a place that in the building that’s helping drive traffic to those areas that are actually. \nSo just to be clear\, is there sort of a commitment to a certain amount of square footage\, or how do you sort of quantify that the most specific quantification in the Bcdc. \nAbout outdoor seating\, and when we are increasing that commitment report\, we plan to exceed that beyond that. \nBut like having a little cushion\, so. \nChange. We still have a little\, you know\, as you know\, different operations happen. \nWe haven’t yet documented a commitment internal\, but. \nThank you. \nOkay. We’ll just move to our online. dB\, members. \nTom\, your hands up! Go ahead! \nHi! Do you have a map of the plaza? \nI just had kind of a overall question. \nJust a moment. \nYeah\, that backup one\, that one. Wait! Wait! I want to just see the whole thing. There. \nThere’s it shows it shows the whole peninsula. \nYeah\, here we go. So my question is probably not a helpful question\, because I’m sure this is not part of your scope. \nBut should there be some consideration for the continuation of the design of the peninsula out to one for a plaza\, very plasit email seems like we’re kind of setting up a precedent here along the south side. \nAnd is there any consideration\, or is there any body that is sort of engaged in thinking about the whole peninsula\, including the rest of it? \nThere are kind of a phase 2. Or when that building has got a tenant\, you know recommendation by this design con merge with what’s further to the east. \nSo yeah\, we think about it all the time. We are deep. \nI don’t think there’s anyone. Well\, we’ll see. \nMaybe there’s someone here more are invested in us and having a successful ferry plaza east. \nWhoever ends up taking over the leasehold\, and we will. \nWe look forward to being great partners\, and yes\, we do think that what we’re doing should extend and interact with that building. \nSome of the things that you heard about today that are driving that include partly the idea of moving the Gandhi statute potentially on site would be drawn a direct line of sight from the primary door that just next to bullet today\, right through the center of the plaza to the front \ndoor of the Pyramid section of Ferry Plaza. \nEast\, also allowing that’s one that’s that’s critically important. \nBut we also think that the placement of the kiosk which we are looking at various opportunities of where it can be to and from is so that it blocks the portion of the building that is\, the park infrastructure and doesn’t block critically the future that will need site lines. \nOkay\, who’s the who’s the lean lord of this whole thing right now? \nI guess I’m just curious who controls that. \nThe port of San Francisco\, the port of San Francisco. \nThe port is the landlord. \nYeah\, I guess the question kind of goes to the port. Then? \nBut I think I understand from standpoint of this applicant. \nThank you. \nThanks. Tom Stefan. \nThank you\, Justintha\, and thanks for all this helpful information tonight. \nMy first question was on regarding to page 33. \nAnd my apologies. If I missed this. But the in this image\, the delineation between the east west path in the plaza. \nSorry if you can go to Number 33\, and packet\, which is the. \nIs the view of the first market plaza. Looking back at the server. \nAre you referring to? Page 33 of the of the. \nI’m looking at the page number in the lower right hand corner. \nThis one is page 28. \nThank you. \nDefine. I think the numbering is the sequence. \nOh\, I see. Sorry I’m looking at that. Yeah\, very pleasant looking north on marketing. \nSorry for the confusion. \nLet’s see\, elevated aerial right\, that you. \nYeah. So I’m there. The drawing shows a red band between the walk and the plaza and I’m sorry if I missed that\, that I was. \nCould you just provide some additional information about that beyond? Is that actually a change in grade? \nIs it a demarcation? If it’s just a materials change. \nThat is an existing curve that is painting painted red because of the fire department requirements. \nOkay. And that’s the condition that it’s in today. \nYes. \nOkay. And then the delineation of the crossbox across this space. \nAre they actually there today? Or is this a proposal to continue to them across the service access? \nThere are 2 delineations there today\, one on center with the south end of the ferry building and one at the promenade. \nUhhuh. \nThere is not a crosswalk today on the foreground of this image\, where there is a ramp. \nOkay? And then my next question has to do with. \nThe. \nProposed canopy structures on the front face of the building. \nI was curious. If you could communicate how? \nTall. Those are intended to be. \nSure. Okay. Lot of customers. So I have the image right there. \nThat’s right. \nDesign to be approximately 15 foot so. But the primary criteria for us coming up with this. \nRight below the water. \nUhhuh. \nBut it is designed to not interfere with the architecture. \nAt about 16 cats. It’s right under there\, and it is tall enough to clear the view. \nOkay\, so type of the structures. \nGreat. Thank you. And then on this same page\, I just there’s couple of things I wanted to make sure I understood the treatment under the arcaded portion of the building. \nI understand that this is outside the public access\, as we sort of look at it. \nBut is the intent that all of that becomes controlled access by restaurants when we see sort of the dashed line or the operable openings on the plan? \nAre we to expect that the that entire logo could potentially be enclosed? \nSo the intent is that I couldn’t quite hear whether you were asking about the arcade or the space. \nThe Cafe Zone in front. \nThe Arcad. It’s. \nYeah. The intent is that the arcade is roughly to restaurants. \nThat the cafe zone in front of it has an area under the well. \nSome of the area under the trellis that would be dedicated outside of market days\, and then would be\, and then there would be additional public seating in various locations. \nOkay. But with regards to the list. Sorry. I’m sorry. \nYes. \nThat regards to the load just based itself\, where you’re showing the glass and the glass and closed spaces. \nYes. \nIs there? Is there any is okay? So none of that space\, understanding that it’s outside of the public access Eement. \nNone of that space where you could pass through today would be allowed in the future. \nIs\, that. \nThat’s that’s correct. I mean\, these are public establishment. \nOkay. \nBut yes\, I think the other thing we did preserve the view. \nCorridor down the front that you get down there. \nOkay. Dude. \nBut that was more of it. Good story! \nGot it. Thank you. And then my last question is related to that\, and just build on what? \nWhat Kristen brought up with regards to the east-west Passage through the central core of the building. \nI just I. It’s not clear from the renderings. \nThis is actually page 40 in the packet title\, Pay front kitchens\, I’m just curious about the the line that shown on the plans that is parallel to the public access email. \nIs that sort of an enclosable partition. A long line is that bar. \nSeating. What\, what\, what is proposed to delineate that space. \nIf anything\, other than a tables in the future. \nYes\, this is Lauda Katrowski. We’re looking at a number of options\, and as. \nSeparating the public promenade from the tenants basis. \nSo what you see in the rendering potentially doors that are similar to Nana walls and something that expands and gets closed in the evening where and we’re looking at various systems that can provide that purpose. \nBut for during the daytime hours it is intended that these opening. \nAnd have connectivity. The main circulation\, the corridor\, the design intent that we’re trying to solve. \nFor here\, if you look at the before picture on the left\, is that the heavy mullions and the glass systems are actually inhibiting the connection with the waterfront when you stand at this place\, which is not only over the water\, but actually quite close to the visibility\, and so the intent here\, is to \ncreate when they’re open to the I mean several open spaces that minimize the amount of surface\, be it glass or heavy mullion\, so that you can stand there at the main cross section within the building and see how close and how connected you are the water. \nThank you for that. And just to clarify the space today at at the back\, at the back is completely open to Kristin’s Point. Correct. \nThe last thing. \nThe the. The transfer does not extend across the back portion of the building today. \nThe Storyfront Module. \nSorry. Do you mean the transcend windows on either side\, on the left\, on the right? \nYeah\, cause the space at the end of the building is actually open right before you go outside to the plaza. \nThat is\, there is one day on. \nAnd so you I think you’re thinking about enclosing that last big and reducing the size potentially reducing the size of that space. \nUnderstanding that it would be a glass or transparent material. \nBut it would be introduced to that last bay. \nOkay. Just I don’t have any other questions. \nBut thank you very much. \nHi! Lotta! I had curiously on the arcade. \nDo you have any additional details on the North Arcade? \nAnd what that system will look like. And then the other question I would have is consistency along the facade. \nBoth the North and the South. Is this something that you’re envisioning across the entirety of the ferry building? \nAnd then a little bit more detail on that pieces. Great question! \nThank you for that. So we are envisioning\, and we’re very much in the early developments of the data. \nBut we’re envisioning this to be a lightweight metal tube system. \nThe size that we’re in. We’re actively working the structure with self. \nI would the\, as I said. You know\, toll structures. \nThe band. If you see their 2 structural members\, horizontal ones that are opportunities. \nIn the future. \nShading devices at the group level of that to provide for. \nIn the comfort control of the heaters for the rainy or not any cold days in San Francisco. \nThat’s about as far as we are the designs. \nIn terms of the North and South. I’m gonna move. \nHere that we are not intending to build out the South. \nBut. \nCan help me answer the question. Understand that the build? \nWhat matter? Yes\, that’s right. That’s under a current lease. \nAnd so with our partner. Food wise\, and that has some change on it. \nBut we’re already talking\, and they’re good tonight. \nWe’ll move on to Catherine. Catherine. \nAny clarifying questions. Yes\, I would like to pick up on the comment or the question asked by Tom Leader regarding the potential future. \nRelationship between one ferry plaza and Third Plaza\, east. \nAt this moment it looks as if beyond drawing there is No Man’s land and since this will be an act of tenant\, it would be nice\, since you are doing the majority of the work\, there will be some desire lines\, some ideas connect the front to the where the hard part\, this is not as much a question as \nan observational lecture chair share. The building is totally dated. \nIt’s looks like an obstruction at the end\, and we have all struggled with this for many\, many years\, asking the same questions and different contexts when we are dealing with the waterfront. \nThere is a technical component which I think is inspired by somewhere underneath that\, and to understand that together with desire lines which come from your project would be\, I think\, conceptually helpful. \nOh\, for the public\, including ourselves\, to understand the overall and overall intensive transformation! \nUltimately you have to vote somebody in to agree with you\, because these people will have realistic expectations. \nHow\, since a restaurant of this size will have to function in an already vari precarious position\, so I would personally like to ask or see conceptual sketches which raise the question that doesn’t mean that you are designing it. \nBut you are to ask questions to them as they are able to ask questions for you\, and sharing them from the get go\, would be very helpful. \nI’d like to leave it with that. That is one demising line I am. \nI would like to see some more ideas. The second question is\, I personally have spent a lot of time. \nDealing with the transcriptation transformation of the waterfront moving in southern direction\, particularly the design of the Vieta Plaza. \nThat took a long\, long time\, and I do personally not see any. \nWe’ll mention in your discussion or in your drawings\, and I’m sure you’ve thought about it. \nI’m not implying that you didn’t how do you deal with that transition? \nThat transition was designed with a lot of intention\, of a smooth flow from the existing building\, and to functions on the east as well as on the west side. \nInto this incredibly important plaza and transportation connections. \nCould you address that\, or have any additional other drawings? \nOf how you thought about it. You’re creating a very\, very highly detailed\, highly refined design approach. \nBut that is a demarcation line\, and together with the fire department\, you have another demarcation line. \nOne has to be there’s the other. One is intentional\, and you choose it. \nCould you please quickly speak to that? Sure we have\, of course\, thought a lot about Wida Plaza and about it. \nElevation\, and also about the microclimate on this side of the building which the sen exposure and felt like the addition of an element that took you from the embarcadero. \nAnd it’s sort of happening with Plaza\, but could be. And you all the way to very Plausa was adding to what was already happening there and building a. \nThat we already see happening now\, but takes a question one step further. \nWhat are your thoughts? I see a very rich material\, palette\, and a very large discussion on the South Promenade\, and the material summary over the years. \nHaving participated in a number of projects in the past. \nI’m not trying to date myself here from Jefferson Street all the way down to the ferry to the cruise terminal\, to the Exploratorium\, and on and on\, also going south. \nSo discussion was almost always stay simple\, hold back\, understate\, but emphasize the connecting character of maritime architecture\, maritime detailing. \nEtc.\, etc. I see a very rich\, very exciting kind of textured suggestion here. \nHow does that reflect on those previous mandates? I think we’re trying to be connecting between things. \nSo we have Wida Plaza\, which is a very\, very luscious palette of granite. \nWe have the existing concrete pavement at the front\, along the embarkidero\, and the ferry plaza\, which is a heavily use space and actually it’s kind of wonderfully\, heavily and you can spill things on it. \nAnd that’s okay. Okay. And we wanted to have a palette that was about texture rather than elevating material. \nIn order to allow that messy life to continue to happen\, I would say\, the pilot that we are proposing is about using using texture rather than using other things way to kind of. \nNumber of things. Mostly our palette is about working in small ways around the edge rather than making big news. \nCan I ask one comment? Are you sure sure that you’re not competing it on a small drawing? \nOne can do very little justice to what is really to be perceived at a significant larger scale. \nIn the drawing. It looks as have you thought about competition? \nI think there is a question about the Graphic\, particularly the wavy\, graphic. \nThat’s sort of representing an artist. Graphic has some question of merit around. \nHow showy should that be the other elements? I feel really confident\, are not competing. \nWe’re building on the existing grid that’s in the ferry plaza. \nWe’re grinding. We’re setting the palette mostly the materials that are already out there. \nIt’s the pavement graphic. That is the kind of unexpected element\, I would say. \nAnd there’s been a lot of talk about it. Should it have color\, should not have color? What should? \nRight now\, it’s really just to make it clear that what happened with pain and there’s play a lot more discussion about it. \nAnd then in terms of the palette for vertical materials\, there’s also been a lot of discussion about how does complement and match that’s already there. \nBut what’s interesting is the palette between things of match. What? \nAnd so been trying to find our own language\, some liberty that our line of late posts\, banners stand out against the yeah. \nJust thought on that side of a way. It is a conversation that. \nColor and material going\, and honestly from at all decided onsite with real materials and a lot of people standing around actually looking at things look different outside and that’s what we hope. \nI appreciate that answer because I do believe it can evolve over time together. \nWhen you find that balance with the existing family of materials and strengths of expression\, I have one comment\, if I may\, Katherine\, just to jump in\, we have a next segment where we are okay\, thank you. \nI will reserve that comfortable\, so we can move on to Laura. \nAlright Laura Kristimano. Thank you for the presentation. \nA couple specific questions. I guess maybe building on the conversation about the light post\, and I appreciate this dance between how much we accept what we see in a rendering and versus what it may be evolving to be. \nI know\, especially in very posa\, quite a few what will look like. \nActually the flash. Can you say\, maybe say anything about how the frequency or the plan for the intent around the number of them? \nYeah\, we’re working our back glass\, though\, and we’re trying to assess\, establishished pathways of light particularly at the edges that are feel comfortable\, particularly if sort of desk hours. \nAnd so there’s a height sort of maximum height that we was comfortable with the bridge. \nThat also worked. \nAround\, 24 feet on. \nAnd then I noticed in the drawings\, but I don’t think it was meant. \nThe loading\, the 9 loading spaces. Can you see to that? \nThere are so many things as you saw in the early permits\, and that happened on this plaza\, and there’s a lot of loading and things that occur today. \nAnd so there are 9 spaces and barriers that occur\, kind of at the edge of the fire lane. \nThat would be preserved in the final. These are existing. \nAnd do you have any images? This might be for a lot of any images when those so our friends are in close. \nDo you have any images? All the images show them open. Do you have any images? \nOf them. Okay. \nThank you. In that particular presentation. \nI’m not sure that they would render in this image much differently. \nIf that makes sense with this level of that\, one may be correct in this one. I think. \nThanks\, Laura. One more question. \nThis may be a question for you\, Dan. Do you know the level of expected traffic for the future potential tech out at the east end of the plaza? \nIs it sort of going to be would it be like vehicle drop off for people coming to and from a restaurant on a regular basis? \nOr is it just more kind of Eva access? \nDownload app with support. The how the restaurant at the east end of Ferry Pier would operate is not yet determined in the past. \nOf course it’s had vehicle access and it may very well happen without vehicle accessing. \nThat’s future\, but it’s not. It’s not set or final. \nSo is the idea around the kind of circulation dedication to enable\, like how much vehicle traffic is sort of being planned for that. \nYeah\, I’m an expert on the deliveries on the back plaza. \nYeah. So the 9 spaces on the back plaza. \nWe worked very closely with the Bcdc. In 2013 to establish the needs not just of the ferry building\, but of very plaza. \nEast Golden Gate very\, and Bart\, as well\, and all of those existing permits with the Bcdc. \nAnd leases with the port do mention particular needs\, you know\, drop offs and delivery. \nSo the compromise was to provide these 9 spaces that not only our tenants and merchants\, but also that the very plaza East Bart\, and Golden Gate very needed. \nAnd I’m actually\, you know\, I’ve been out there a number of times when a car is trying to go down the you know they’re trying to drop off\, and all the pedestrians think it’s a plaza and they’re like\, why\, and so it’s really difficult for \ncars to get through there. So I’m sort of wondering in terms of like how you know how much does that need to look like a driveway? \nSo that people know that it’s okay. If a car drives there versus if it should kind of be more plaza like\, and it doesn’t really need to look like a driveway\, and it can kind of mostly be inhabited by people. \nWell\, it’s definitely required for all of those buildings\, particularly the Bart structure\, and that was something that will\, I think\, always need to be made. \nWe actually probably in the last 6 months\, actually have posted our security at the towards the middle of the driveway\, in order to check people in to make sure they’re supposed to be there\, and they haven’t mistaken it\, you know\, for you know\, place to Park\, or drop off. \nIf they’re not doing something\, you know\, business like at the building. \nSo\, but I do think you know Sarah’s. You know ideas of that. \nYou know the signage and the planters in front with signage that say\, ferry plaza. \nI think it’s very much is messaging. \nThis is not a play\, and this is not a driveway. \nThis is a place. \nOkay. And I just wanna wrap up with a couple of questions. \nColin Jane. I just want to make sure that we have this completely clarified. \nSo that the board discussion stays on track\, but on the Northern colonnades I think I heard you say that the space under the colonnade is not. \nIt’s in your lease\, and it’s not included in the account for public. \nIs that correct? \nYes. Okay. So\, so I just wanna make sure a roll on the same page for that. \nAnd then the second question\, you know\, when you walk along the east. \nWell\, really\, all sides of the you see\, I see quite a variety in the way. \nThe seating and the security tape around the seats to people from wandering through the apple\, seating it. \nThere’s a lot of different approaches at present. Do you have standards\, or a sort of a basic approach that you’re taking\, or would like to take cause. \nI actually think some really don’t look for good\, and others will. \nQuite good. So how are you addressing that? There is standards to being 12 feet from the brick phase? \nYou know there’s standards that we give the tenants\, and one of the beauties of working with all these food artisans is their interpretation of those standards\, and you know\, and sometimes they hit it out of the ballpark. And other times. \nIt’s out of their lease line\, you know. You have to. \nI think\, one of my daily things is going around and putting things in place\, but I think you know\, that is\, you know\, just being more as design concepts progress as people improve their spaces like Hog Island did a big renovation. \n2013\, and they were at we were able to add a more formal barrier around their cafe zone that really enhanced their that experience\, and Glenador 2 has the great\, you know\, windscreen and the built in benches. \nSo you know\, as you know. You see things in renderings and in drawing plans. \nYou hope they come out as as nicely as they hope them to be. \nBut yeah\, I think the idea is to you know\, we work with our tenants very closely to make things better if they don’t come out as we planned\, and I would just add\, as James Co-pilot\, who’s done more tours of this building lately with alongside \nJane\, and sees how often she’s pushing back into their correct location. \nI think you mean having more of the permanent rescue. \nPermanent\, fixed. \nGood. Thing is\, it’s gonna give you a bunch of your week back to not have to tell. \nThe issue is where they have the movable Stan right? \nAnd then it kind of creased\, and sometimes it’s not even the rest of like a somebody’s got. \nOh\, I don’t! I can have more children here. \nI think our long term tenants have figured it out. \nSo there are standards\, but State get interpreted and look just a final question. \nI heard mention from both the designers about light touch to clarify. \nThat is that because of the civic importance of the building\, and we’ve already heard people reference it\, and. \nThe critical. \nWe heard a lot of. \nBut why are you making that like touch? Reference? \nGreat question for that\, I think\, on the we all recognize how important that will landmark. \nI refer to them as White Touch. \nImpact the building. \nTake away from the build. \nIndependent in clearly off today\, contemporary enough to. \nTo not interfere with the. \nStaying away from. \nMaking\, whether it’s the enclosure behind our. \nInsert within the arch\, or use. Stay away from the fabric. \nStructures. \nLayering new\, and that are of their own\, that. \nAn enhancement. \nMaybe I could just landscape architect. Okay\, excellent. \nI think the architecture is more obvious. I think I mean using it in 2. \nOne way is a light touch\, because\, as we’ve heard\, there’s a lot of program that already happened with the farmers market with vehicles. \nLot of people coming and going. And so we need really flexible\, empty space. \nSo we’re not trying to fill. And we’re not trying to reach so I think that’s one\, the meeting\, the other meaning\, I think\, is directly in relation to having read a lot of work about sea level rise. \nAnd things that are likely to happen here\, that there’s a bigger touch coming some infrastructure scale and wanting to kind of right size. \nWhat we’re doing as a way to test circulation. \nReally really usable sort of the near term of sea level rise\, but knowing that there will be. \nSo those are the 2 ways that I’ve been thinking. \nClarification. Okay\, that concludes the questions to clarify the presentation from the Drb. And the Wdac. \nWe’ll move now to public comment. And so we’ll open the meeting to public comment. \nAre there any members of the public attending the meeting in person? \nWho would like to speak\, and you need to notify the board. \nAnd we’ll move to the online. \nBefore we get to the in person comments. I did also wanna say\, Pcdc staff did receive 2 public comment letters that have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the minutes for the meeting. \nThe public comments was submitted from representatives of the Telegraph Hill dwellers and food wise\, the manager of the firm. \nYes\, so that’s very important to recognize both of those we appreciate\, those that quite detailed and. \nThank you so much. \nOkay\, we’ll move to public call. \nGood Evening Commissioners. Port staff project Sponsors. \nMy name is Katherine Patron. I’m here tonight representing San Francisco Architectural heritage. Thank you. \nSo much for the opportunity to comment on this project. I just wanted to give a little clearification about the heritage involvement. \nSo\, couple of weeks ago we had a presentation from the project. \nSponsor we followed up with a letter of our position and a couple of people in the room\, port\, staff and project side have interpreted as a letter of support. \nWe aren’t there yet\, really what it was we issued the letter asking for more clarification on a number of topics that have been discussed in a very interesting and full way. \nThis evening we appreciate that a lot. So it’s not yet a letter of support. \nWe very much look forward to the next conversations and meetings\, and the topics that are of highest priority to San Francisco heritage have to do with public access and public circulation\, and some of the things that we heard about up privateization of might not be the right word \nbut limitation of public space for space\, for people who are also\, we’re really concerned about the balance of uses\, the market hall\, purveyor aspect versus maybe an over abundance of restaurants. \nAnd obviously as a citywide organization\, that really advocates for our city’s historic resources. \nWe’re thinking a lot about the historic value of the ferry building as a historic building. \nAnd really of this special and unique quality that were introduced to reintroduce to the building in 2\,003\, when it became a market hall. \nAnd so we are\, you know\, would like to see that preservation of those characters. \nThank you very much. Thank you. \nGood evening. My name’s Christine Fahren. I’m the executive director for food. \nWise\, well\, formerly\, Quasa\, we’re best known for running the Ferry Plaza farmers\, market. \nWe also run the mission community market and a lot of youth education programs for Sfoc students\, primarily at the ferry building this summer. We’re celebrating our thirtieth year\, and I’ve had the pleasure of working with Jane for food wise for the last 20 years so I have physically \nbeen at the building for 20 years\, and have seen so many changes in those 2 decades of bringing food\, education\, and community and farmers\, markets. \nYou. I’m gonna share something that’s never really not new for any of you. \nWhich is that the market is really this dynamic assemblage of farmers\, food crafters\, chefs\, residents\, and we all come together 3 times a week to really transform this space and turn it into an economic engine community connections. \nIt’s really where the urban and the rule connect and where a lot of climate change solutions take place\, especially in agriculture. \nAnd we consider our job in running the farmers market to be about promoting those changes. \nAnd it’s a huge public community\, and I love seeing at the very building it’s such a gift to work there every day. \nSo I wanna show that we’re largely in support of the concepts. \nBehind the project with our landlord\, Tatson\, and we’ve been in lots and lots of conversations. \nI feel like I’m on a first name with everybody over here at this point. \nWe understand. They want to bring the vitality that we bring 3 days a week already to the ferry building\, and we appreciate that they want to do that. \nAnd I really want this body to carefully consider some of the elements of the projects that are being put forth\, and asked specifically for some more time. \nWe don’t feel that we have enough information to understand the impacts to our market operating. \nI shared it in my written comments. It’s clear that there’s going to be a lot of temporary\, significant\, but temporary changes\, and the impacts relocating sellers. \nThey’ll have to come back once that front North canopy is erected. \nBut we don’t actually know how well the structures going to work for us in the long term we have real needs to understand what the roofing structure\, the ventilation flag\, what the polls\, where they’re going to be placed\, one of the things about farmers marketing everyone thinks they’re \ninfinitely flexible\, but the more fixed structures you have in an element harder it is for us to operate. \nOkay. Thanks. The permanent retail kiosk in the back is our greatest concern\, because the size and the scope and the placement of that is going to significantly. \nOur ability to have a cohesive farmers market with them\, to find more ideal placement. And we also have concerns about the desired proposal for the and when we’re operating it. \nSo there’s a lot of changes\, and that we’re concerned about. \nAnd we just wanted to say that like to have more information\, so that we can assess the permanent. \nWith all of those. If you look at them\, singularly\, we’re totally adaptable. \nWhen you look at them all together and stacks\, it’s not possible for us to have the same number of vendors\, the same robust farmers market that. \nWell\, thank you very much\, and I just want to commend you for your good work. \nThere are many years\, I mean\, what’s your honor? What you? \nYeah\, what you’re in charge of. There is a big distance. \nWe’ll move to online comment. Now\, if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nRemember\, if you are joining our meeting with your phone\, you must use Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, to unmute or mute press star 6. \nYou will be called in the order. Your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak. \nYour Eco. Will note when you have 1 min. Please state your name\, and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. \nIf you would like to add your contact information to to be a future meeting concerning this project\, please call or email. \nAshley do? Oh\, sorry! Here we go! \nWe have 2 hands raised. The first person I have is Alex Bash. \nI like. I’m gonna unmute you\, and you will have 3 min. \nOh\, please state your affiliation\, and you’ll have to. \nAlex\, are you there? \nYes\, I’m here. I have. Unmuted myself\, Alec Bash\, and I’m speaking on behalf of the Gateway Tenants Association. \nWe used to be known as the Golden Gateway\, and are part of the for a redevelopment area log embargo\, golden Gateway redevelopment area right across from the ferry building\, and pier one where the port’s offices are 25 years ago I had \nthe honor of working at the port\, and\, in fact\, one of my projects here was the Rq. \nFor the ferry building\, and I have followed it ever since. \nI continued to participate on the part of the waterfront\, to design advice\, fee. \nThe meeting now known as The. \nMary\, and at the gateway where I now live. We have been very\, very pleased with. \nThe work done under Jane Connors and the owners. \nOf the Sherry building actions before very important to us to see how the very building has cope with all of the difficulties caused by Covid over the past 3 years\, and how will they work to keep tenants there? \nAnd the continued effort to revitalize the ferry building in ways that will keep up with what the demands that are are being placed on it. \nAs the economy of the city have shifted in these past. \nVery strange and tumultuous years\, so well\, we aren’t really prepared to speak to some of the historical qualities that have been talked about here. \nWe do appreciate. I appreciate the concept of having a light touch and understand the importance of it. \nI think that the more openness that is possible within the more public areas of the trade building\, not public access\, but the more public areas\, the more openness that can be continued. \nJust letting you know you have one more minute left. \nThank you very much\, Steve\, more openly. That will be continued\, is very important. \nAt the same time\, it’s important for these patients. So we use under various conditions\, including increment weather. \nAnd I’m sure that the Port and Bcdc. \nStaff are looking at all of those aspects overall\, though I just want to say that those of us living in the area at the gateway apartments we have 1\,254 apartments and town homes. \nThere are very supportive of what has happened here\, and and appreciate the efforts that you\, as designers\, are putting in. \nTo be sure that this is as good of a revitalization as possible\, that. \nThank you. \nThe next speaker is Robert Howard. Robert\, your audio is unmuted\, and please state your affiliation\, and you have 3 min to speak. \nOkay. Can you hear me now? \nCan you hear me? \nOkay. My name is Bob Harr\, and I’m a member of the Board of the Barbara Coast neighborhood is\, and I’ve visited the ferry building many times over the years\, and I’ve always enjoyed my experience. \nI think it’s a real asset to to the city\, and I’m familiar with the the improvements here that the that Hudson is proposing\, and I think that the the improvements do offer the opportunity to expand the Usable space and give you know more \ncomfort to our customers\, to their customers. That would potentially expand the appeal. \nI’m not an architect\, so I’m not that converient in the the historically significant structures and and everything that is associated with the history of this fine building. \nBut I do believe that the the what the proposal has done has been been a light touch\, and I think it’s been very targeted in what they’re trying to to accomplish\, I think it’s appropriate that the large signage at the South end has been recessed appropriately \nso it doesn’t attract from from the appearance right at the at the front of the building\, a bordering on the embarcadero. \nSo in summary. I believe that this project concept does have merit\, and deserves to be moved along\, you know\, with\, obviously\, there’s gonna be some more discussions about details and architectural issues that I’m not conversing in. \nBut again I do believe that this project should hopefully be able to move forward. \nI also think it’s important to note that the city is facing many changes right now with the from the pandemic and all the adjustments that have been occurring since then. \nAna\, and I note that there are 2 other waterfront attractions that are in the that have been proposed for Pierce 30\, 32\, and piers 38\, and 4\, and so I do support from the standpoint of fairness that the ferry building should be able to improve upon its site so \nYeah. One more minute. \nit can broaden its appeal so that they can broaden\, it can broaden its appeal to the wide range of potential customers that they deal with\, and can better compete with other waterfront activities in the future. \nThank you. \nChair. We have no more hands. Okay\, thanks\, very much. \nAppreciate everyone’s public comment before we move to the board. \nDiscussion and advice. I’d like to proposed a 7 min break. \nThis is a very precisely timed break that everyone needs to reserve my watch of my clock iphone for 17. \nIt’s 7\, 17. We will restart because we have lots of people online as well. \nJust to give time for people to run to the bathroom or pick up something and come back\, and then we will start the board discussion. \nOkay. Thank you. \nOkay. We’ll reconvene now\, and I appreciate everyone being very prompt about getting back and thank you for your patience. \nEveryone who’s online. So we’ll reconvene now with our next item item on the agenda is the board discussion and advice. Part of the meeting. \nAnd I just want to remind everyone who is here. This is the point in the meeting where the committee and the Drb. \nHave an opportunity to discuss between us what we think. So the committee and the Board do not ask questions to the proponents. \nWe have had plenty of time to ask clarifying questions. \nIt’s really a time for us to reflect and and ribal out votes and reactions to the presentation. \nA public comment. But we. \nSo I just wanna run through before we start a reminder on the questions that the Drb. \nAsked\, and also the questions that the port has asked us to consider I’m not gonna read them verbatim\, but just a reminder. \nStaff at the at the Bcdc. Have asked us to consider how public the spaces feel\, and that’s a somewhat subjective question. \nBut that’s really fundamental to our role. To make sure that the short. \nNumber of people to also think about connectivity. Are we enhancing sufficient? \nEnhancing connectivity along the shoreline question about the enclosure of the private dining areas on the promenade and the kitchens. \nHey? Prank kitchens is that activating? \nAnd any thoughts on\, whether\, in closing it\, it makes\, and then alterations to the fairy plaza. \nCan we get varied programming there? Thoughts on improvements proposed for the Fairy Plaza? \nAre they going to attract? \nLike a days\, other thoughts on that as well would be welcome. \nThe question. 6. Address. Details about the programming of the perimeter easement. \nActivation zone in the South Promenade. Any conflicts or other thoughts on that. \nAnd any other general additional good enhance public account. Again\, coming to the core of what’s. \nFrom the port also asked the committee. \nSo the following\, the collection of improvements\, they’re aggregated together. \nJust how does that total picture really? \nCultural and the building. Dan also asked the committee to think about access. \nOf access. The proposals\, and then again\, just a specific questioning\, you know what the committee’s view is. \nThe improvements and. \nSo we have lots of questions that have been posed by the staff at both the port and the and the Bcdc. \nSo we should take that as we have our discussion but we’re not going to go through question by question laborious ly\, because we have a lot of people here who need to comment. \nBut what we will do what I would like to ask each member member of the committee member of the Board to do is to speak to the particular aspects of any of these questions that really resonate with them. \nAnd would\, you know\, make them want to talk about that? Are of highest concern to them? \nWe have a lot of experts on the panel and online. \nAnd so I’m sure there will be a number of issues. \nThat are covered by one person. We don’t need to reiterate them and talk about them again and again and again. \nLet’s make sure that we get the maximum value at. \nStaff\, and for the so I’m going to do this in reverse order\, and we’re going to start with the Wdac. \nAnd we’ll start with Laura\, who’s at the far end of the table. \nSo Laura fortunately gets to lead off. Over to you\, Laura. \nThank you. Okay. So though it as part I will just I mean I think I’ll touch on a couple of things broadly and in weighing this one\, as it’s been noted right\, this is very important building and site and experience of San Francisco. \nAnd I think what we’re looking at is the experience of the public and the experience of history. \nHere\, and the waterfront at this site. And so you heard a lot of questions to that end. \nI would say that I have questions about the new enclosures. \nI recognize that there are\, you know\, I think there are boundaries of the least control\, and that you know\, that would have been helpful to have a little bit more clarity. \nI think diagrammatically for\, but I also see that there are some that are going into. \nLet’s see the yeah into the promenade near the ferry plaza. \nAnd so just quiteing really what those trails are that we’re making and what that experience. \nNot just. It’s both of the building where we’re adding these new skin elements and experience of the continuity of the public realm. \nAnd the gesture towards not the non dedicated public space. \nSo I would just kind of flag that as one a big one that I think we are all kind of asking questions around\, and then the other\, I would say\, for for the public space improvements. \nIt does. I understand that this is a kind of strategic\, tactical. \nProject. I do have questions about what ties it together\, and I appreciate the desire to kind of make a bolder move in that pathway\, and I think you already had said this\, Sarah\, but I’m like the drawing don’t get me there yet. \nI doesn’t mean it can’t work\, but I do think I would wanna see on a lot of this I would say I would wanna see the it get to a level of refinement to be able to assess how to Catherine’s point that’s not competing or feeling out of place \nin this context and working together with the other elements. Maybe I’ll start off with those 2 comments and let us keep moving through the conversation. \nLaura. That’s a really good approach\, and we can. We are into dialogue. \nMake their initial. Let’s go to Katherine. \nI don’t know any more where the division between question or observation is. \nSo I’m gonna be asking hypothetical question. \nOne\, and comments. I think the issue of continuity\, transition\, and connectivity extremely important in all aspects of the building. \nThe Ambuladoro side\, north\, south\, as well as east side. \nThat wes the question of equity\, of reassignning\, or we are using space for the different users from farmers\, markets to the public. \nThe reduction in public space per se is of concern\, and requires a single met in order to really create a balance of give and take that at this moment it’s not clear. \nWe? I asked questions about the materiality and details. \nWe\, I think\, got a satisfactory answer. That that would be discussed as we move on. \nSo I’m comfortable with that. There are many good moves. \nUltimately there is so much to think about that I believe we just need to cook together\, spend more time. \nWe’re jumping into this discussion after 3 years of no confusion. \nWhatsoever. And I think we just all have to get used again to rolling up our sleeves and respectfully asking you to other questions and supporting each other in a common goal. \nLet’s go through my comments. Thank you\, Katherine. \nThat’s extremely hard. \nThe. \nSo I’ll hit on kind of 2 points from my and both as kind of user\, I commute using the ferry every day really resonate with a lot of what Carl has to say about getting more activation with the ferry building and with the plaza and with you know\, basically. \nthe kind of post Covid recovery\, and how you basically bring the ferry building. \nOr how do you bring the ferry building back into 2023? \nRealistically right\, like the last intervention that basically turned it into the Festival Market Hall. \nIt’s basically you’re trying to basically evolve. \nYou know the market hall into what? What it needs to be. \nSo I actually really do appreciate a lot of the moves that you’re making. \nI will be very overt and direct\, and say the bold color choices\, which are very helpful for a graphic on the presentation most definitely need to be studied. \nFurther in general\, I will say with our historic landmarks in particular\, with things like signage\, and it should be the building itself. \nThat is the highlight\, not the signage. I know\, which is kind of inverse to what most users want but when you’re dealing with kind of our\, you know\, utmost landmark in the city you know the kind of pinnacle of what is San Francisco you don’t want things \nthat distract from it and so there’s always a balance that I think gets struck between that and that way. \nWe are\, we are able to deal with that kind of component. \nBut I do think realistically think the moves are moving in the right direction. \nI think it’s in the details\, really\, where we will need to. \nKind of\, you know\, move in to see how\, for example\, some of the glazing systems work with the arcades. \nYou know how some of the way finding and signage work with the larger building and so it’s kind of like hitting upon a little bit of what you know\, my colleagues have kind of already stated. \nI think it’s actually going where it needs to go to kind of continue evolving and continue adjusting to quite frankly what is retail today. \nRight? What new retail needs to be you know. And these are a lot of questions that I’ll say that we’re tackling throughout the city period. \nSo it is one of these things that’s nice to. \nA set of evolution. \nOkay. I think we’ll go to our 2 online members. \nDiabi\, next Stefan. I’m going to go to you next. \nIf you’re ready to comment from a discussion standpoint. \nYeah\, no\, thank you. And I’m gonna try to sort of build on sort of what others have said. \nI think one of the things that I’m struggling with is that the the building? \nItself is just very public\, even though the delineation of where the public access is is clear\, and there are sort of a lot of spaces inside the building that are\, I would say\, not 100% public nor 100% private. \nThere’s sort of a liminal space\, and many parts of the building that actually in my mind relate to how people are actually intended to move through the building and the permeability that you have in that the spaces that receive people are bigger at the edges and they sort of channel people into a \nnarrower passages that did kid get bigger\, as you sort of connect back out to the street. \nAnd I think one of the key things to note here which I think is a concern for me. \nIs that the portico is on the front of the building. \nActually\, right now\, allow. The pedestrian to pass through the building\, and then pass through the portico’s before they go back to into the city\, or vice versa\, that you can filter through the portico’s and then go into find your way into the center core of the space and make your way through \nthe building\, and that filtering in this proposal would be lost. \nSo that everybody would channel through the middle entrance\, and that entrance would be right in that the leftover space\, or sort of the space that’s not 100% public work 100% private today it sort of gets transformed into more of a retail oriented corridor and \nso if we sort of took the public space access to this\, where we say\, Hey\, this building has been basically placed inside the shorter line behind\, where you know it. \nIt was placed in the shoreline band before there was a shoreline band. \nI think that we need to sort of think really carefully about how we think about public access through the ground plane of the building. \nIn this location\, and I’m concerned about sort of that. \nThere’s a like a channeling that’s occurring where the access through the building. \nSure\, it gets us to the very building but it’s sole purpose is actually for us to actually pass through retail spaces\, and that is something I think I’m struggling with\, cause. \nThe civic nature of building. I think it actually would be significantly altered by this proposal\, and I can’t speak on the intention of why this building was designed in the way it was\, but I see it a change in the part that I think is it’s it’s concerning from the lens \nof public access\, that I think we should be. \nWe we should alert. We’d be alerted to that. \nAnd then I think just in that theme it was really helpful to hear food wise\, because I think that the farmers market is really is a lens through which the public\, the greater public\, can access continue to access. \nThis site in a way that they’ve managed to not be priced out of the process of this sort of revitalization of this building. \nAnd so I would say that the issues that have that the farmers market has raised about the design changes\, challenging the flexibility or potential function of the farmer’s market\, either in particular locations or across the site in total I think in my mind that raises an issue for us for \nme because the preservation of this space\, as they a space that is really maximum accessible to the public\, I see that\, linked with the farmers market use in some ways. \nAnd so that’s sort of a concern to me. \nThe last thing I sort of want to raise\, which I think is sort of just an issue and sort of an interesting thing is that you know the hard\, scaped presence of the plaza today\, I’m curious. \nIf we should actually question any of that like\, if there’s sort of a layer of greening that could occur through public space and improvements\, that or that we should at least sort of be asking ourselves about Hi\, I did this nature sort of remaining understated being in \ndeference to the building\, I think is is really is really useful\, but that I’m just wondering if there isn’t more space for greening in this environment as a way to make this space actually more livable and hospitable for people to linger in times when there isn’t \nan active programmed use in the space. So that’s I’m gonna end with that sort of question. \nTo my add to my phone on board members. \nSit Stefan. Thank you. That’s very helpful\, and I just want to quickly clarify something on the second point you made about the farmers market. \nCan you just let’s say again\, are you concerned that the farmers market privatizes the space? \nI might have missed her. \nNo. Yeah. I think that the farmers market is a lens through which we can maximize public access to the site. \nIf that’s clear in a way that the way that the businesses function inside the farmer’s market is not is not so opening and welcoming to the public. \nThat the farmers market\, I think\, is from the standpoint of equity. \nIn the same point of that everybody is allowed to go regardless of whether you can afford to buy something\, and that the space is actually sort of presented in that way. \nI think it’s something very valuable. I don’t. \nIt’s having this barber’s market anymore. \nBut I go to the Civic Center Farmers market\, and I think that’s you can see that in play that the sort of maximum use of the public space and the farmers market\, those 2 things are intertwined in my mind because it is sort of an equitable opportunity for everybody to \nparticipate. And so I would say that it’s important for us to try to make sure that we’re not potentially making changes to the space that would hinder the operation of the successful farmers market in this location. \nYeah\, okay\, that’s good. Thanks for clarifying that. Hey? \nJacinda. Can I ask a question? Or\, okay? So I think the to me\, I think the big thing. \nI think we are missing as I shall say in the presentation\, is a little bit of cognition on what the existing space is right like\, particularly as we’re looking at the portico’s and looking at the activity of it\, like you know\, that’s the frame of reference that I’m kind of \nmissing in. Okay\, how does the farmer’s market layouts today? \nHow does farmers market layout in the future? And that way? \nSo that way you can kind of give the board a point of comparison between the 2. You know. \nHow does the portico function? Like? As I understand\, it’s a lot of service spaces so it doesn’t actually have a ton of activation within it\, because there’s nothing in there to engage the public within it. \nYou know? What is it that you want to move forward for the future? \nAnd then that might give a better frame of reference. As we’re kind of exploring a lot of the other comments regarding this\, because\, like\, I’ll say this\, I go to the site every day and night. \nRed Bay is on my jam to go and grab my coffee\, and it’s it’s wonderful\, but you get a sense of this of like\, what’s the site like at 8 am. \nWhat’s the site like? At 5 Pm. What’s the site like? \nAt noon\, and you know\, and that way then you can see what transformation is with regard to the project that you have. \nThat’s very helpful. Look. We’ll keep moving\, Tom\, over to you\, please. \nSo your thoughts for the. \nThanks\, 3 areas of of thoughts. The first one goes back to my previous question. \nI\, honestly\, I really think it’s incumbent on the port not to let 2 different unrelated projects occur on this peninsula. \nI think that there’s gotta be strategies contained within this project that can served to organize the rest of the Peninsula in some way\, and it’s not like it’s gotta be every single thing. \nIt’s like one giant. But the guy beside the links\, something that makes them feel like one place\, one public place publicly linked. \nSecond\, I think I feel like on the building that there are to be ground rules and to me one of those is that you can’t. \nI don’t think you can glass it or cades. \nI think those are are intended\, and function as an area which is between outside and inside\, and strategies. \nThere should have to do with the modifying the climate to make usable and friendly\, and and I definitely loved all the cleaning out of the carbuncles that have been proposed. \nBut I don’t agree with making it and close so that it wouldn’t feel really like a I worry about the privatization sense of that\, and there’s no nothing to kind of receives. \nYou part with the building the way it is now and then. \nThe third thing is\, I was struck by the diagram that was presented that showed the current access axis of the building with the lining up on the\, you know\, from the Market street all the way into the entry to the bill\, and then another access which is being developed now which runs along the side \nand leads people back to the very plus. I think it’s important thing to to acknowledge and to accept that. \nThat’s important. And in accepting that\, I think that there’s got to be some strength to it\, and so that leads me to have a few questions about the light touch. \nAnd I understand why the light touch is the is the idea\, because nothing wants to compete necessarily with the building itself. \nBut I think if you support\, if you kind of accept the this second access there may be\, ought to be a little bit more substance to what structures that access that that means of moving from front to back\, and I think the very components that we’re proposed are all good now I think that the \ncornersstone piece\, the sign at the back\, the promenade\, the Graphic promenade\, and then the treatment of of the plus self. \nOr all the right things to be looking at\, but I would differ a little bit on some of the expression of them. \nThe cornerstone. I wish\, was not planters. I wish it was something more substantial. \nMaybe you should. Maybe the course don’t should be made of stone\, or else not be there. \nBut I think if it’s gonna be a kind of a entry point\, then it should have the substance that isn’t in keeping with the mass and subance of of the. \nBuilding itself\, then also what leads from front to back\, I think there’s too much reliance on the graphic pattern on the ground\, and I think the patterns I mean\, I understand it’s just a surfing suggestion right now. \nBut it’s too elaborate. It feels unrelated to to the context\, and I think that the pattern could be simplified. \nBut I would like to see something done almost vertically. \nMaybe a series of landscapes with more substance than the yellow polls without banners\, something that kind of engages civic sense of architecture\, that leads along this new access from the front to the back. \nMaybe that’s on the Plaza side. Maybe it’s getting too close to third. \nMaybe it oughta be on on the south side and replace or inter interspersed with some of those existing flights. \nSomething that is got a that kind of a more substantial kind of lantern\, and if it was in this self position he could also run all the way the length of the pince all the way to the east Ferry Plaza insert to unite the whole project and then the last thing is \njust on that paving treatments. I think that\, like I was saying\, I feel like the elaborate\, elaborate nature of the promenade is too much. \nAnd then the on the very pause itself is not quite enough. \nI think the very plaza needs a little denser field\, you know\, looking in the rendering\, I I don’t see that it’s going to read enough as a as a clear sort of a field. \nI wish it had more frequency\, more density to the field. \nUsing this idea of just grinding\, existing\, concrete. \nIf that’s what it needs to be. Stain could also be subtly introduced to\, whether it’s color or without color to help Chief semis\, graphic character and something similar. \nMaybe a more intense version of that along the promenade uses grinding and stain would be more permanent. \nI worry about the paint on concrete that you know. \nAfter a couple of years it’ll be ground down a lot to be\, you know. \nRedone\, so often. That’d be kind of falls away. \nBut I do support all the basic planning and strategy that was put forward on the landscape design approach. \nThanks. \nYeah. Thank you\, Tom. Lot of good things to speak up on that. \nGary\, let’s go to you. \nThanks\, so many great things here that folks are talking about. \nI wanna make sure I don’t repeat anything. Well\, first of all\, I mean the ferry building\, you know\, holds such a special place in all of our hearts\, and I appreciate the stewardship that you’re bringing to it. \nAnd clearly\, it’s very important to all of you that this maintains a an important civic asset. \nAnd I actually went there after I got engaged to celebrate. \nI was just there for day lunch\, whatever\, right before this. \nSo it’s\, you know. It’s it’s it’s a favorite place for most people in San Francisco\, and visitors. \nI just wanted to say that I think we it seems like the purpose of these changes is to make it more feasible to continue these retail operations\, and it seems like there’s a kind of intentional shift from a market hall idea towards a kind of a more restaurant idea. \nAnd I think if that would work better if you’re seeing that the market Hall idea isn’t working\, and that the restaurant idea would work better from kind of a tenant perspective\, I think that’s important for us to know. \nBut I also think that it’s not really functioning. \nVery well as a market hall right now. I mean\, there’s a lot of there’s some booths\, you know. \nThere’s some kind of there’s a lot of individual vendors\, but there’s not a lot of public seating\, and most market halls are around the world are kind of a lot of booths around a whole bunch of public seating. \nAnd so it’s difficult right now\, when you go there to buy something\, eat\, to actually find a place\, to sit down to eat it. \nAnd so what\, I wonder\, is\, there could be a little bit more in the in the kind of the way you present these ideas to us. \nSome more clarity around the kind of the public and the private seating areas and I’m wondering if things like on the West Side\, you know\, there’s right now there’s these kind of gardens that spell out of Gods. \nAnd I guess\, what is it? Wine merchant? Now? \nAnd those are clearly private\, because they have the kind of rails around them. \nAnd I wonder if there’s\, you know\, a chance for this seating that you’re showing in that kind of nook there to be public seating instead of privatized seating. \nAnd there’s also a sort of an aesthetic quality. \nThere’s a sort of what is the aesthetic of a civic building\, or this kind of cultural building. \nAnd I think what we love about the ferry building is this kind of gravitas of the arches and the stone\, and and there’s also sort of a fun thing about the ferry building\, which is that there is this kind of like you know the each individual vendor has their own \nexpression they have their own chairs\, they get to kind of brand their own experience within the framework of these stone arches\, right? \nThat there’s there’s a sort of a playfulness to that\, and maybe there needs to be a little bit more clarity around. \nWhat are the public and permanent elements that have a little bit more restraint? \nGravitas scale\, and then the kind of private elements that can be kind of lighter weight and more kind of fun and colorful. \nSo\, for example\, you think of like the Tuary’s garden right in Paris. \nYou know that those chairs are public chairs because they’re all the same. \nThey’re real heavy\, you know. They are always there\, and they’re branded\, you know. \nThey have a little thing on them to say they’re from the garden\, and I’m wondering if there could be more clarity around this kind of public seating\, and to that to that same point\, you know\, the lighting these poles\, these yellow poles and the kind of graphic on the ground I think you’re hearing a \nlot of kind of\, you know\, response to that. And I think for me\, it’s about a civic\, ness civic architecture\, civic landscape design that has a little bit more gravitas and restraint\, and the playfulness gets to be kind of the realm of the inserted \ntemporary things\, but the permanent things have this regime\, and then just one more thing on the Eva access\, or the driveway\, or whatever it is\, I think you know\, it would be really helpful to understand how much that needs to function as a driveway because driveways\, you know exist we need to be \nable to get cars into places sometimes\, and they should be able to get in there when they need to. \nAnd if we can\, I know there’s like\, you know\, 20 foot. \nWhatever you have to do for your fire\, access\, but I don’t think that whole width needs to be always\, you know\, really make it clear what is the in and out part of the driveway\, and then make and let the rest be plaza and pestrian\, if you want it to be a \ndriveway so that it can function in that way\, and I think we would all agree there’s plenty of space here for pedestrians\, and sometimes having a little bit more clarity between. \nWhere do the vehicles go\, and where do the pedestrians and bikes go? \nCan be really helpful for people to just kind of understand when there’s a lot of heavy foot traffic. \nYou know what are kind of the ground rules here\, and I think. \nThe I guess the last comment I’ll make\, and I would defer to the historic folks on this. \nBut on the front I caught the front of the building. I don’t know if everybody thinks of it that way\, but Embarcadero side of the building. \nWe have this kind of you know this\, these distant views right across from Market Street you have these distant views\, and there is a kind of an importance to that facade\, I think\, and the depth of the facade that you can see from behind the arcade\, and seeing that there’s sort of \nthis layer\, which conveys a sort of a passage through the building\, and sort of a gravitas of that facade on the backside or the water side\, which maybe we should think of as the front side\, because it’s the water side. \nBut that’s fine. That is the more modern side. There’s a lot more intervention there\, so that I’m not as bothered by those kinds of interventions on that side to make it a lot more functional for restaurants chosen not to go there for dinner because it was cold and there \nwas no place to sit that felt warm. So the I just that’s one dimension that I think should be considered. \nAnd then I guess the last point is\, I would think it would be a loss if there was. \nLess indoor. That was public for public use. \nYou know these areas that you can get your food and then eat somewhere inside and be warm. \nNot just outside. So I think\, understanding how the balance of those spaces would pan out would be an important component of public access. \nOkay. Thanks. Kristen. Gary\, okay. Yeah. \nI think there’s probably nobody here who doesn’t understand and support the idea that for our preservation goes hand in hand with reinvigoration\, that you know\, we all want to see it activated. \nGreatest hope is that it remains a place for San Francisco as well as for tourists\, and I believe that farmers market really is the heart and soul of the farmers. Market. \nFrom. You know the locals\, even though. But locals also patronize restaurants and it’s a place where tourists and San Francisco are on an equal footing\, and I think that’s a really wonderful thing. \nI hope use that. I wanna talk about the canopies for a moment. \nI think that what’s shown the architects intent it’s very encouraging\, you know. \nThey’re very light. They’re open\, very transparent\, and it implies a kind of mixing of public and private in those areas to capture. \nFor\, you know\, restaurant seating and my observation\, though\, and I think you’ve acknowledged a little bit that once the lease\, begins. You know the leaseholder kind of takes possession spaces\, and there’s creep you know visiting got got \nyesterday\, just walking by. I also how there are these large steel bollards that are bolted to the pavement\, and there’s horizontal steel bars and there’s a sign that says\, you know\, basically God’s only customers. \nOr something like that. There’s also recycling containers which are blanking\, you know. \nEntry on the north to the waterfront. Actually both sides there\, which is not\, which gives the impression of you know I think it incurred. \nYou know\, it’s gives this idea of privatization of the you know\, of the the key areas. \nWhile you know\, the public area seem to be\, or maybe kind of like desirable. \nI hope what’s not happening is that the public areas get pushed to the back off the embarcadero. \nAnd you know\, to the cold side and that warm side facing the city where everybody wants to be for people watching\, because that’s probably the greatest activity of all\, the biggest draw of all people watching that becomes a paid activity for\, you know\, for tourists and high end. \nSo that kind of brings me to the point about the farmers. Market. \nI think it was said earlier that we didn’t have a diagram showing where the farmers market is today\, and square footage. \nIt’s occupying\, and in the renders the farmers market is kind of shoehorned into the triangular area. \nYou know that on the south of the building\, and but it’s it’s also a little bit shadyier than I think. \nThe other. I think it does pick up some building shade\, and I just wonder how that’s going to work. \nI know that you’ve shown\, you know\, market stalls everywhere\, hundreds of them. \nIt seems like all over. So I was a little unclear as to where that\, you know\, the farmer’s market really ends\, you know. At the end of the day. \nAs far as the site. Landscape improvements\, I think really want a second what I’ve heard earlier\, I think that’s a the tall lights\, I mean. \nI was thinking\, like you need a marker to draw people to the rear of the site. \nAnd yet lights. I don’t know if it’s so much of a nighttime place that the lights are really functioning. \nOkay\, well\, they’re really about the 10 years and the banners and I don’t want it to feel like\, you know\, like more tourist waterfront. \nYou know. We know. \nThat was\, and I think that the the polls are. \nI think if we think about the site improvement elements as framing devices rather than as objects\, they seem to tall\, and if they stayed low\, like what Tom was saying\, lanterns\, then they become a framing element for the bay bridge you know a foreground for clash. \nThe the Graphic on the ground. I’m just not concerned about it all\, because I think it’s temporary. \nI think it’s. It’s a test. I think it’s you can test urban design ideas with with graphics and signage\, very low risk. \nBut I think it’s really the verticals and the fixed elements that we should\, you know\, focus on. \nOkay\, zeroing in here. Almost done. Yeah. The arcades definitely. \nThe combining element. I think the glass partitions. If they’re done beautifully\, it could be wonderful. But there are they going to be. \nAre there going to be tracks on the ground? The feel like threshold\, so that you’re? \nI vote for Gandhi at the end of the pier. \nOkay. Thanks. Thanks. Gary. Well\, comments. \nAs an engineer\, I feel a little out of place in terms. \nReece. I’m not clear on the effect on movements. \nThat the Bay front kitchen. \nArcade\, enclosures. \nCanopy have? \nPart of what other people are saying. \nWell! \nAnd look\, and I just want to make a few comments. \nSo I’m try not to echo what other been a lot of 1 0 in on that? \nImportance. \nAnd I think one of the things I’d like to see. \nThe. \nPermanent public\, but in close outside and potentially inside or. \nWhere that and I know there was. There were quantities. Describe. \nHas more than. \nYou know I don’t mean to that the issues\, but you know\, when the. \nBe plenty of spaces for people. \nI just don’t think the balance is\, or it may be there\, but I’m not. \nAnd it applies equally. \nHuman comfort\, very important. \nAnd somebody brought up. You know the my! \nThe so\, you know. \nUp. I think I would like to understand little more about the how the contextual. \nAnd and look you made. \nI think\, even in relation to. \nThat the you know there are cues from the weed upon. \nPart of the. \nQuite correctly used to be water. Now it’s a plaza\, all granite. \nBut you know the other aspects of that\, but might actually be a code. \nI’m thinking of. I would love to see ways in which places. \nBut they’re all part of one. \nThat choices! \nI would echo what others said about the signage. I think. \nWith a a landmark building\, signages of. \nVery thoughtfully done\, and I think what you made when you were presenting about the. \nYou know. I think. \nThat all the. \nWorth thinking! \nAnd that’s in the. \nI I’m not convinced about the kiosk. \nMore of the. \nA comment. Talk about this. \nPublic access. \nI think there needs to be. \nStrategy. \nAnd it could be a really. \nBut I think everyone has. \nThe you know the comments. What about? Well\, I’m going to say safety. \nGoing to happen in the middle of the night. \nBut I I think that just providing. \nHow people. \nThere are many other great comments. \nSort of make a comment about the statue of. And you know\, historically\, it’s another element with very interesting here. \nAnd I just like I’m not convinced any of those. \nThe location on the weed\, applause. \nChair. Okay. \nSo I’m not even sure. \nPerfect\, and I think you know. \nMight be another way to present where it occupies small footprint\, but doesn’t mean. \nAt\, the. \nIf we? \nThere is a. \nAnd I know it’s not good. I’ve always been concerned about the interface with the Golden Gate\, and it’s such a drawback that space and I know it’s not under your control. \nBut I feel like this is part of the process. I know you have a dialogue with everybody\, but I mean even repositioning that statue. \nYou know the I mean\, there are just some very unattractive. \nYou know\, maybe just. \nMaybe there’s a simple fix\, a little bit more dialogue with your friends. It’s called\, and fury terminal\, and it might actually enhance the always felt that it it really diminishes. \nSomething that might help. I think the work that’s being done at the moment for a lot of. \nI really think it’s. \nStrongly permanent. \nUtilizing some higher quality. \nYou know\, just using this as a. \nEnhance the. \nIt doesn’t all have to be. \nIt works great in many ways. I just think that. \nI have a very. \nYou know the Graphic on the road with her different points. \nWould come down on the. \nYeah\, place. Like\, required access. \nI don’t know. \nOn that I get. Why? \nI don’t know. Or maybe there’s another. \nSo! \nSo just want to circle back. We’ve heard a lot from a lot of great comments from. \nHaving Hood. Whatever you anyone weigh in again\, build on something been said. That’s very critical. \nSo about the pavement. \nOkay. \nSo I don’t know. I just slide. \nThat already exist. That’s another way of emphasizing. \nPoint\, but they are accused of. \nCan I say one thing while we’re on the table? \nI don’t know if others notice\, but the you know the wavy pattern of the there are certain views that are shown where you can tell the. \nSo I mean\, Job is not. Our job is just. \nOkay\, so look. \nA long table here for those who are not in. Does anyone else wanna make a final comment? \nJust to address some of what was in our packet. \nWe did review the page in General Memo and I actually think it’s on the right track in terms of compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. \nAnalysis was thoughtful\, but again doubles in the details. \nAt the end of the day. With regard to how some of the features kind of work with the existing historic building\, how you keep it light\, and how you keep it transparent. \nI do think the moves towards making sure that they will access down the promenade. \nI mean in the arcades are really important\, just in terms of\, you know\, keeping that. \nWhat’s historic and what’s important about. \nJust said\, just since I. \nOkay. Anything. Else. \nSomewhere else. Okay\, I’m just gonna make a short summary. \nIt’s going to leave out things that are okay. \nJacinda. I think Stephan had his hand raised. Oh\, sorry\, Stefan. \nSorry go ahead. \nOh\, thanks! I just wanted to just raise one last thing about the lighting\, and because the the sort of path of gold I’ll say datum\, that’s established on Market Street\, you know it does wrap around justin Herman Plaza and then it extends along the \nembarkadero to the north and south\, and it’s pretty civic\, you know\, and I’m wondering if something within that family of lighting should actually extend to the back of the ferry building\, or if there’s an opportunity to sort of think about the civic nature of the \nlighting on the city side of all this stuff and extend this sort of the back of the plaza. \nAnd I just I was sort of think it’s sort of something to consider\, because it doesn’t seem right to go with the a historic fixture in this location. \nBut the the visual data that’s established is really strong. \nComing all the way down market and wrapping around that space\, and I know that the designers of Justin Hermann that was sort of an intentional act to extend that horizontally. \nAnd so I think that I’m just something to consider when thinking about bringing a light standard behind the building and making that a contiguous public space. \nIt’s an excellent point\, Stefan. Thank you. \nOkay. Look\, I’m going to\, just to a very short summary. \nIt’s not a complete summary\, and staff have taken notes and. \nTry and draw out some of the. \nSo I think you know several comments have spoken to\, you know\, greater clarity\, just delineation of. \nA clear picture. What the trade offs are\, what the experience will be. \nAnd then\, you know\, space improvements\, you know\, just even though the work that’s being proposed is right. \nIt’s very tactical\, but making. \nQuestions about comments. I think. \nUnderstand more about everything\, from the the farmers market through to transition spaces through the interior public. \nAnd again metric. \nYou know there was the comments\, lots of comments about the materials. \nNo some refinement taking into the history sorry context\, or refinement\, taking in. \nAreas\, everything. \nI think everyone felt that this\, you know\, a lot of aspects are moving in the right direction. \nMore details needed to really understand\, to work\, get some different opinions on. \nArcade is appropriate. \nPermeability very important\, and I think you know again as sort of a. \nThat was. \nIn this evolution. \nAbout. You know\, historic buildings up. \nIf there is a transition towards more restaurants away from. \nOther activities currently in the. \nIn the middle of it might be hopeful. \nFrom a big picture. \nWhy the future? \nI think. Let’s see. \nYou know. So again\, just on materia materiality. \nSome materials to fill. \nYou know lots of comments about the importance\, Marcus. \nInteresting comment about lighting lanterns. \nWe talked about clarity on public property seating. \nVery important. \nAnd we talked about. I think one of the. \nWe are very sensitive. Okay? \nAnd comfort. \nElements in the plaza. \nExactly. \nSo look\, there were lots of other things. \nThere! \nThis point\, we can move. \nOh\, no\, we do. But yeah\, will they come back\, or are you satisfied? \nLook there was we had while we were at the break. \nI think. \nCritical project\, an important seat. \nSo we will now move to the project. \nThank you so much. Members of for Review Board. \nA lot. Obviously it’s fun to be in a room. \nCare as much about this in the area\, right? And I think we want to spend about 70 more hours. \nNo\, I think I have a little bit of a process question in terms of to the extent we have have yourself. \nSome are in your summary\, recognize disagreements in terms of even opinion amongst the Board members\, and especially to the extent that some are it’s not there yet\, or whatever I think it will be a little bit hard for us to be able to do to fully hit all of those especially if \nthere’s opinion\, I think we will do our best\, and I and there are a number of things that came up as questions after the clarification discussion period was very clear. \nAnswer across that we fully document with that for the team. \nIs there any anything you’d add? I think we’re excited. \nWe know that this is going to be that project that sets the precedent of the next place\, that important building of stature needs to be\, and we’ll knit together the important civic spaces around us\, more cohesive and highly functional site and building space. \nThank you very much. And one of the things that we always do is we\, you know our thoughts are not always completely unified\, so we rely on the expertise. \nThe the staff to be able to interpret what we’re saying and present. \nYou know\, discuss what we. \nMake a refund in one area\, and then you’ll come back. \nWe really rely on the expertise our team. \nThanks so much. We look forward to working to a staff to come back with it. \nDefinitive. \nOkay\, things. \nTalk\, about. \nDan anything else. \nNo\, I think there\, the summary is quite on target. From what I heard here. \nSo thank you very much\, and we are ready to. \nSo just a question. The next step is to adjourn the meeting. \nDo we need 2 motions or one motion to? \nI think we can do it with one motion as long as we include both committees in that motion. \nOkay\, thanks. For that\, Clarice\, Kate so concludes our project. \nReview for the meeting. It’s been really terrific. \nWdac\, and I can’t believe. \nReally helpful\, so I would like to. Oh\, no\, I need someone to pull I’d like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting of the Bcdc. \nSign Review Board and the W. W. Water print Design Advisory Committee. \nSecond. \nHi! \nA second\, the motion. Okay\, all those in favor. Hi\, bye\, bye\, we have a motion. \nSecond\, we have no objection\, so thank you\, everybody\, and good night\, and thank you for coming in person. \nWe really appreciate. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-10-2023-design-review-board-and-port-of-san-francisco-waterfront-design-committee-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:20230406T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230406T170000
DTSTAMP:20250221T234333Z
CREATED:20230407T040607Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250221T234333Z
UID:10000104-1680786000-1680800400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 6\, 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 March 2\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@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]\nClosed Session on Possible LitigationPursuant to Government Code section 11126(e) the Commission will hold a closed session and confer with and receive advice from its legal counsel regarding possible litigation and the possible resolution of such possible litigation. Further identification of this matter might jeopardize the commission’s ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.(Greg Scharff ) [415/352-3655; Greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors (PDF)The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $74\,000 contract with the Resource Legacy Fund to administer funding to BCDC’s Environmental Justice Advisors as payment for their services related to implementing Bay Plan Environmental Justice and Social Equity Policies\, and Bay Adapt.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Strategic Shallow-Water Placement Pilot Project\, in the City of Hayward\, Alameda County; BCDC Federal Consistency Determination No. C2022.011.00 (PDF)The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on a request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for concurrence on its consistency determination for a proposal to take up to 100\,000 cubic yards of sediment dredged from the Port of Redwood City\, and place it in shallow Bay waters to test whether the tides and currents will transport the sediment to the marsh and adjacent mudflat\, to assist them in adapting to sea level rise. The approximately 138-acre placement site is a subtidal area approximately two miles from Whales Tale Marsh lying offshore of the City of Hayward\, in Alameda County.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation (PDF) //  Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)) // Public Comment (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility (FERRF) Levee Improvement Project by West Bay Sanitary District in the City of Menlo Park\, San Mateo County; Application for BCDC Permit 2022.001.00The Commission will hold a public hearing and possible vote on an application for the West Bay Sanitary District to place approximately 3\,700 linear feet of shoreline protection around the existing Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility (FERRF). The proposed shoreline protection project involves installing sheetpile walls around the entire facility and raising the grade of the perimeter berms from the current elevation of +10 feet NAVD 88 (North American Vertical Datum 1988)\, to an elevation of +15 feet NAVD 88\, in order to remove the site from the current 100-year flood zone and protect it against future sea level rise. In addition\, the proposed project includes placing Bay fill for some nature-based shoreline protection elements\, including (1) constructing an ecotone levee along the northern perimeter and over approximately 1.12 acres of existing tidal habitats\, and (2) installing oyster reef structures on the mudflats near the northernmost point of the project site. To offset impacts to existing habitats\, the proposed project will also setback a portion of the northern perimeter levee to create 0.65 acres of new tidal marsh habitat. The ecotone levee is intended to provide migration space for the tidal marsh habitats as sea level rises. The project includes installation of new public access amenities – one bench and an interpretive sign – at the adjacent Bedwell Bayfront Park to create an overlook area of the Bay.(Anniken Lydon) [415/352-3624; anniken.lydon@bcdc.ca.gov]Vicinity Map (PDF) // Site Plan (PDF) // BCDC Jurisdiction (PDF) // Public Access Detour Plan (PDF) // Public Access (PDF) // Habitat Post Project PDF) // Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)  // Presentation (PDF) // Public Comment Letters (PDF) // Revisions to Staff Recommendation (PDF)\nBriefing on 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 Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Enforcement Program improvements and developments that will include an update on the first quarter\, 2023 progress to resolve cases.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications\nApplicantsSailGPOne Liberty Plaza – 165 BroadwayNew York\, New York 10006 \nAND \nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94111 \nPermit Application No. M2023.001.00 \nFiled 03/29/23 \n90th Day 06/28/23 \nLocationIn the Bay and within the 100-foot shoreline band\, at Pier 80\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \nDescriptionThe permit would allow for the temporary use of Pier 80 as a technical base for the 2023 Sail Grand Prix event\, which is scheduled to take place at various locations near St. Francis Yacht Club in San Francisco on May 6 and 7. Pier 80\, an industrial waterfront parcel held by the Port of San Francisco\, will serve as a staging area for the event for approximately 1.5 months\, from April 17 to May 28\, 2023. The technical base will provide space for offices\, boat storage and maintenance\, and related equipment. \nActivities at the project site would include temporary installation of: \nIn the Bay: \n\nEleven moorings\, spaced approximately 150 feet apart\, to secure race boats after they are placed into the water and before they are craned back onto the pier.\nThree floating docks and a gangway\, covering an approximately 6\,000-square-foot area\, to accommodate 26 chase boats within an approximately 35\,000-square-foot area\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band \n\nTwo cranes\, with a maximum height of 250 feet and a maximum working radius of 197 square feet each\, to hoist boats in and out of the Bay.\nShipping containers\, cabins\, tents\, a boom lift vehicle\, and other small structures covering approximately 2\,792 total square feet.\n\nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Jessica Finkel\, Project Manager; 415/352-3614 or jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov \nEmergency Permits\nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicant \nSt. Francis Yacht Club700 Marina BoulevardSan Francisco\, CA 94123 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.002.00 \nEmergency Permit Request Received 01/13/23 \nEmergency Permit Approved via E-mail 01/19/23 and 03/09/23 \nLocation  \nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at 99 Yacht Street\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \nDescription \nConduct emergency repairs to pilings and decking at the St. Francis Yacht Club that were damaged by storm activity on December 14\, 2022. Without repairs the dock and pier structures were in imminent danger of breaking loose and causing damage to all other docks\, piers\, vessels and persons within the larger marina basin. Repair activities include: \n\ninstallation of two new 12-inch-diameter\, 60-foot-long piles at the edge of the East Pier;\nremoval and replacement of four damaged piles;\nremoval of a concrete section of the West Pier; and\nplacement of two temporary wood supports for the remaining wood portion of the West Pier. Replacement of the pier deck at the West Pier will take place at a later date and new authorization. The project will result in a net removal of approximately 237 cubic yards (35 square feet) of Bay fill resulting from placement of new piles that are slightly smaller in diameter than the existing pilings. All described work has been completed\, with construction activities occurring over a total of 11 work days. During this time\, the only closure to public access was a 50-foot-long section of the eight-foot-wide walkway adjacent to the East and West Piers. The walkways both east and west of this area were accessible and a detour was provided along the driveway 40 feet to the north. The project will have no further public access disruptions or closures. On January 19\, 2023 and March 9\, 2023\, BCDC staff granted email approval to St. Francis Yacht Club to conduct the work\, upon receiving approval from the BCDC Commission Chair and Executive Director.\n\nTentative Staff Position \nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding\, Project Manager; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \nMarch 30\, 2023 \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing March 24\, 2023\n\nApril 6\, 2023 Commission Meeting\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments\nConsistency Determination Summary Strategic Aquatic Sediment Placement Pilot Project No. C2022.011.00 (PDF)\nFlow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility Levee Improvement Project Permit Number 2022.001.00 Application Summary (PDF) // Vicinity Map (PDF) // Site Plan (PDF) // BCDC Jurisdiction (PDF) //  Public Access Detour Plan (PDF) // Public Access (PDF) // Habitat Post Project PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing March 30\, 2023\n\nStaff Report and Recommendation on a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors (PDF)\nSea Level Rise Adaptation Funding & Investment Framework: Project Conclusion (PDF)\nSea Level Rise Adaptation Funding & Investment Framework: Project Conclusion (PDF) // Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\nDraft Minutes of March 2\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation West Bay Sanitary District Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility Levee Improvement Project (PDF)Exhibit A (PDF) // Exhibit B (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nCounty’s Largest Public Works Project Ever ‘Passes With Flying Colors’\nAlameda Harbor Seal Haul-Out inspires research in NY\nThis floating community is a rare Bay Area spot for affordable living. Can it survive?\nMarin air tour operation battles mounting state fines\n$1.3B plan to fill last empty pier on Embarcadero may get boost from state\nRodanthe\, North Carolina sees rapid rates of erosion\, rising sea levels – Washington Post\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording First Part \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-06-audio-part-1.mp3 \nAudio Recording Second Part \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-06-audio-part-2.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nBoardroom SX80: It’s a village to raise a chair. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you all. \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy. Will you call the Role Commissioners? Will you unmute to announce your presence? And then we mute yourselves. When you have \nBoardroom SX80: indicated you are present. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Cheer Wasserman here\, Vice Chair Eisen. Here\, Commissioner Annieo here. \nEddie Ahn\, Commissioner: Commissioner on here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, her \nPat Burt\, Commissioner: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Atland. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy \nJohn Gioia\, Commissioner: I’m. Here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther \nAndrew Gunther: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, has here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. Here Commissioner Peskin\, present Commissioner Pine here Commissioner rancho. Here. Commissioner\, show Walter here\, Commissioner M. Mule. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimono. \nBoardroom SX80: Here\, Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Here. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Kitchener. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Van Hughes Vancouver. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: been down here. \nBoardroom SX80: You are Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: and Commissioner Gilmour here. Did I forget anybody. \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Ergy is present. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Jessie! Thank you. Anybody else. \nBoardroom SX80: We have 22 Commissioners present For Forum. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. We have a quorum\, I think\, half of which are present in this room. I thank you for that\, and I\, as I said before\, I do recognize the the difficulties of \nBoardroom SX80: scheduling transportation\, distances and and potential illness or actual illness. \nBoardroom SX80: But I also want to observe\, I think the meetings are more robust. \nBoardroom SX80: Better things happen when we are in person. and to the extent we can do that as we move forward\, I encourage you to attend in person. \nBoardroom SX80: The next item is public comment on items not on our agenda or not matter of public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: and I think we have 2 speakers for public comment\, one here and one in the \nBoardroom SX80: remote audience\, like counting no 2 in the remote. And \nBoardroom SX80: to here I think you have 2 remotely\, and I believe \nBoardroom SX80: i’m not sure if the ones that are here are associated with an agenda. Item. \nBoardroom SX80: So there’s a gentleman. Are you associated with a particular agenda? Item. \nBoardroom SX80: just general public? Will you come down and fill out a card\, please. We’re going to start with the people in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: and i’ll start with John Coleman. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, Executive Director and BCDC. Commissioners. My name is Barbara Tassa. I live in Bayview\, and I live close to Candlestick Point State recreation area. \nBoardroom SX80: I love the State Park\, and I regularly would take my dog there for walks. My 2 kids. We’ve even participated in the first fund run. 2 years ago \nBoardroom SX80: I run\, walk bike\, and sometimes just go there to sit\, watch the water and the ships in the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The park is an important asset for my family and the nearby community. \nBoardroom SX80: Now the park\, as you may or may not know\, has been plagued by years of disinvestment. The public bathrooms have been replaced by portopotties. There is no running water to grab a drink when me or my kids are out there. \nBoardroom SX80: The parking lots are closed\, because the flooding on the road outside the Park has effectively shut down the access to the Park\, and that since December. \nBoardroom SX80: This means that parents with strollers have a hard time getting to the park. It means that seniors who can’t walk long distances to the park cannot easily access the waterfront. It means it’s harder for families to hold their birthday parties at the picnic sites and have a hard time taking their supplies there. \nBoardroom SX80: Everybody nearby is impacted. \nBoardroom SX80: So I am here today to ask BCDC. In its power to help re-establish access to this park and get it funded properly. \nBoardroom SX80: It was 2015 when the nearby candlestick stadium \nBoardroom SX80: was torn out\, and since then the area has fallen by the wayside. It seems the park and the surrounding community have been forgotten \nBoardroom SX80: for the health and recreation of our community. Please put this issue on your priority list\, and with the agencies with responsibility in this area to re establish access and fund it to the standards that we see in more affluent parts of San Francisco. \nBoardroom SX80: And one last thing pictures of the area just Don’t\, do a justice. \nBoardroom SX80: Take the time to go. See for yourselves what we are asking for \nBoardroom SX80: when you experience it for yourself\, trying to get to the waterfront and put yourself in the shoes of the person trying to access the park for outdoor recreation. I think you will quickly see what we are talking about\, both the lack of access and disinvestment. \nBoardroom SX80: but also the beauty of the sight\, and why it should be your priority. Thank you. \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. John Coleman. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman\, Commissioners\, and B. C. D. C. Staff\, I’m. John Coleman\, of the Bay planning Coalition. So nice to be here to see many of you in person. I think that’s great. The reason I’m here is really twofold. \nBoardroom SX80: I have a fault. I My one introduces the team at the Bay planning coalition. One time I was able to introduce Cameron car. I think this is an early \nBoardroom SX80: a year year and a half ago\, Cameron\, Carr and Sophie Douglas. So you probably receive emails from them. I wanted to put a face and a name with who they are\, and know that we enjoy working with you. \nBoardroom SX80: We may not always agree\, but we enjoy working with you\, and have a very collaborative approach to problem solving\, which I really truly appreciate that B. Cdc. Has\, and how they operate. \nBoardroom SX80: And just the real quick thing is going also going to say that we have our spring summit on May 20 fourth at the David Brower Center in Berkeley\, and it’s going to be on emergency planning \nBoardroom SX80: and funding. So that’s applicable to all what you do in all the communities around the San Francisco Bay area. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: our remote public speakers. We have 3 chair. David Lewis is first date after Davis. David is Alison Madden. \nBoardroom SX80: David? Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Thank you and thank you. Commissioners David Lewis\, the executive director at\, say\, the Bay. I want to reflect 2 issues today that are not on your agenda that deserve \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): your urgent attention. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): One is an issue we’ve been raising with you for the last 6 months or more. The ongoing concerns about the 6 million tons of toxic\, bitter and material that Cargo Salt Company is storing \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): in open ponds within the National Wildlife refuge just south of the Dum Martin bridge. and despite this winners intense storms\, adding record precipitation to the ponds \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): and the issues that \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): engineering Criteria Review Board addressed back in November \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): around seismic stability of the burns holding this material from the Bay \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): B. Cdc. And the regional water board is still not directly inspected. These pawns. or the shallow mud firms that are separating this bitter and from San Francisco Bay and a toxic spill\, there \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): to be catastrophic to endangered bay wildlife. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Recently ABC. 7 news documented this problem with an excellent report\, and I think we’ve shared the link with all of you will do that again. I don’t believe that there has been any Commission consideration\, or \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): any information shared with the public from B. C. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Your Engineering Criteria Review Board met last November\, so it is definitely time for action and at minimum an update \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): to the Commission. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Secondly\, you wanted to alert you to very dangerous piece of legislation that’s been introduced and was amended this week to specifically target B. Cdc. And this is a bill that Senator Scott Weiner has introduced it’s sb 2 73\, \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): and this is specifically to RAM through the legislature approval for the proposed development on Pierce 32. This is the third or fourth time that the legislature would have directly mandated a development \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): the previous 3 times it didn’t occur. But the specific danger to BC. DC. Is a provision that’s been added. It basically exempts this project from Bcdc’s \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): review under the Macateer Petrus act for fill considerations\, and the project is proposing to put hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): not on the existing peer\, but to actually rip out the entire existing peer and replace it with a new Peer\, which certainly constitutes Phil that BC. Should be able to review under your statute. So we’d urge the Commission to take a look at this legislation and express \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): it’s opposition as soon as possible. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. David. \nBoardroom SX80: Next is Allison\, Madden Allison\, Go ahead Unmute yourself. You have 3 min\, and after Allison will be Dean Stanford. \nI thank you. Can you hear me? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nAlison Madden: Okay. Thank you very much. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Allison men. I’m an advocate for people being able to live on their boats and for houseboats and houseboat communities. \nAlison Madden: I would like to speak about 3 things today\, so I hope I can segment that to fit it. In the first thing I would like to do is in September fifteenth of last year. You all approved what we kind. We’re calling a safe harbor to allow people leaving Oyster Cove to go over to Oyster Point\, Marina. \nAlison Madden: and at the time there was a pretty \nAlison Madden: lively and vigorous discussion\, and it was really good to hear\, because it seemed like there was some openness to considering raising the 10% cap on liver boards\, and I would like to advocate that you have a public process that involves at least 2 public hearings \nAlison Madden: where people can show up and speak a lot of times. I think that I understand that perhaps the staff might be looking at this and in the background\, just as part of its workload\, and maybe going to \nAlison Madden: make some kind of port back or recommendation in terms of amending the Bay plan\, which I very much \nAlison Madden: appreciate\, and bottom bottom line. Everyone really appreciates the safe harbor\, too\, by the way. And so i’m just advocating that you make that a public process\, and that you prioritize it. \nAlison Madden: I’d like to say i’m i’m a refugee from Doc Town. I didn’t want to leave Redwood City close. Many Marinas and I \nAlison Madden: provided some public comments before the B. C. \nAlison Madden: Played a large role in the outer harbor at Pete’s\, going away as a marina at all\, and it’s completely gone. and it’s very very difficult. I cannot even find a spot \nAlison Madden: for a non-level board i’m living on the upland in Sausalito. Now\, where this I have a World war\, 2 Higgins landing craft. \nAlison Madden: It actually is a \nAlison Madden: moves around a marina with a high-powered electric outboard. It’s a really low impact. It’s visually beautiful. It was built in Sausalito before I was born\, and I cannot even find a non liverboard slip \nAlison Madden: for it. I’m just experiencing real hardship. And \nAlison Madden: so i’m advocating to actually raise the percent to harbor master discretion\, not to exceed 25%. \nAlison Madden: But even if you do 15 or 20 that would be great. But really I would like a public process\, and i’d also like to say that the roll out of the oyster point \nAlison Madden: not below your level like after you approved it. It was. It was quite bumpy and really confusing\, and I really\, I appreciate it now of South City\, and helping recently to clear that up\, but I want to make sure that compliance\, as of October 30 first. \nAlison Madden: If people move their boots over\, compliance is just not staying on it more than 3 nights a week. \nThese displacement scenarios people end up living in alternative scenarios\, and they need a safe\, secure spot for their boat. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Allison \nBoardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Dean Stanford \nDean Stanford: going to read the comments that I emailed to you hopefully. If I go over you want me to extra minute. \nDean Stanford: So I submitted a park proposal during the San Jose Santa Clara. Regional waste water facility\, Master Plan Process in 2\,010. \nDean Stanford: The proposed park includes miles of paved multi-use trails and dirt trails \nDean Stanford: for E. Bikes\, mountain bikes\, 0 Mission recreational vehicles and a new home for display. Santa Clara. \nDean Stanford: I’ll be you next track California State Parks and San Jose Parks\, or it talks for a 1.5 million a year\, Grant for a pilot park. and the larger park is in consideration for 30 million dollars in funding\, and Sb. 155 \nDean Stanford: for a New California State Park \nDean Stanford: for the past 13 years. The Park proposal is included a 3 and a half mile bay loop trail around a former salt pond owned by the cities of San Jose Santa Clara. Although Pond\, a 18\, was initially not part of the South by shoreline Plan Restoration Project. \nDean Stanford: The shoreline Plan intends to remove the Levy Berm surrounding Pond a 18 pending the sale of the Pond to Santa Clara Valley Water district. \nDean Stanford: that’s the gating option of the three-file bay of parks real. I propose that if the sale of popper seeds of these men\, including the levy Berm. All around palm a team is retained by San Jose and Santa Clara. \nDean Stanford: The water district will have the Restoration Acreage desire for the shoreline plan\, and the park trail can be preserved. I support the option of breaching and bridging the levy Berm to restore tile flow \nDean Stanford: as desired. \nDean Stanford: because mitigation for allowing Park users access to 3 and a half mile. Bailey\, for your Habitat Islands going to be constructed within pond to eighteenth \nDean Stanford: I’m. Not asking for the water district or shoreline plant stakeholders to fund construction or maintenance of the pond. 18 levy\, Burm Trail. Habitat Islands\, or bridges. \nDean Stanford: All I ask is that the preservation of the levy Berm\, except for breached. \nDean Stanford: and to be breached in America like you later be bridged. \nDean Stanford: I believe that allowing pond to 1835 mile trail will be proper mitigation for loss of the mind by a bailiff trail of the we’re going to County Park. \nDean Stanford: due to the restoration efforts of the shortened plan. \nDean Stanford: Under the nicotine Petr sack. The B. C. DC. Requires locations for water\, Oriented land uses and increase public access. \nDean Stanford: The shoreline and waters\, and encourages the provision\, maximum\, feasible public access to the bay and shoreline the San Francisco Bay plant and things policies that encourage the development of waterfront recreation facilities \nDean Stanford: and linkages between existing shoreline parks that requires the provision of these opportunities in relation to the biological species. Habitats \nDean Stanford: confused the restoration of \nDean Stanford: although I am enthusiastically in favor of the environmental restorations effort of the shoring plan. I believe the plan is unbalanced and lacking in the maximum feasible public access and recreation \nDean Stanford: disappointed that parts of the shoreline plan are specifically meant to discourage access to the bay and limit public linkage on the new base site. Real segment to exist existing segments of the Patreon. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, sir. If you haven’t already\, you can also submit a a public comment known as as well. \nDean Stanford: Yeah\, I me all this and a couple of catchments. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. No more public speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. That concludes our general public comment period. But we will have public comment on specific items as they come up. And I would note. \nBoardroom SX80: because I think there are some people here who may not be familiar with our procedures in State law \nBoardroom SX80: for items that are discussed in public comment that are not on our agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: We can’t respond because they are not agendized\, and therefore the general public is not aware that we may be considering anything regarding them. \nBoardroom SX80: and the executive director wishes to amplify. I don’t want to amplify that I just want to note that Supervisor Gallagher\, who is the alternate for Supervisor Ramos has joined the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Welcome \nBoardroom SX80: all right. That concludes public comment that brings us to item 4\, which is approval of our minutes of march. Second\, 2023. We have all received copies. Of Those I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve the minutes \nso moved. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Second \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molds Eaters move\, and Commissioner No. \nBoardroom SX80: Gilmore moved. Oh\, Commissioner Gilmore moved. Sorry my ears are not Working Commissioner Gilmore moved. Mr. Kitchimono seconded. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: You second \nBoardroom SX80: Eklin seconded. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you. I didn’t think you heard me. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any who oppose the approval of minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: Know anybody wishes to abstain. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nI \nBoardroom SX80: every now and then I say this: you are fully entitled to abstain. You are not required to abstain \nBoardroom SX80: if you were not here. \nBoardroom SX80: All right\, one \nBoardroom SX80: you\, Mr. Mendanka\, abstains as well. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: I was not present. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nJohn Cota\, Court Reporter: all right\, with those 2 exemptions. The minutes are approved. Sure this is John who’s seen that I have then\, Johnson. Who else? \nJohn Cota\, Court Reporter: You? \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to start my remarks as chair \nBoardroom SX80: with a \nBoardroom SX80: somewhat longer comment that I normally make. which I think will become self. The reasons for it will become self evident. \nBoardroom SX80: In late January \nBoardroom SX80: 2 members of B. C. DC’s Environmental Justice Advisers program and an alternate E. J. Advisor sent an email to the Commission and various members of the public in which they announced their resignations from B. C. DC’s. E. J. Advisors program. \nBoardroom SX80: and accused B. Cdc. Staff of racism against black women. \nBoardroom SX80: We took that very seriously \nBoardroom SX80: and in response our executive director and I asked our general counsel\, Gregg Sharp\, to perform a fact\, finding review to determine \nBoardroom SX80: whether any actions by B. C. DC. Staff working with the E. J. Advisors program Warrant. A formal\, Independent Human Resources Investigation. \nBoardroom SX80: Greg and Peggy Atwell\, B. Cdc’s Administrative Director\, interviewed B Cdc. Staff members. the 4 remaining E. J. Advisors \nBoardroom SX80: and representatives of the Resource Legacy Fund\, the philanthropic organization that has provided funding for the E. J. Advisors program. \nBoardroom SX80: After making several requests to interview the 3 former E. J. Advisors who had made the complaint. \nBoardroom SX80: Greg was able to interview them\, and they were joined \nBoardroom SX80: in that interview by an attorney of their choice. who was present\, but did not formally represent them. \nBoardroom SX80: The executive director and I have carefully reviewed Greg’s report of this review. \nBoardroom SX80: Greg and Peggy found that the former E. J. Advisors charges that PC. DC. Staff committed. Acts of racism against black women \nBoardroom SX80: are unfounded\, and are not substantiated by any evidence. \nBoardroom SX80: That conclusion is supported by statements made to Greg and Peggy by the remaining E. J. Advisors. The report itself is confidential\, because it discusses human relations matters\, and is subject to attorney client privilege. \nBoardroom SX80: Therefore\, under State law\, it cannot be shared. \nBoardroom SX80: Well. I am certainly reassured \nBoardroom SX80: by the findings of the report that our staff did not act in a racist manner\, and did act professionally with the E. J. Advisors. It is also important to keep in mind that we live in a world in which people of color face\, discrimination in a variety of forms. \nBoardroom SX80: that there is institutional racism in our country\, our State and our region. and that as a government agency. \nBoardroom SX80: we need to understand that certain actions made by an institution or its representatives can be perceived as discrimination by people accustomed to experiencing racial oppression from institutions. \nBoardroom SX80: We are carefully reflecting on these accusations \nBoardroom SX80: and examining ways that our agency might have behaved differently. \nBoardroom SX80: and learn from what occurred as we move forward. \nBoardroom SX80: I think it is also important to understand that our E. J. Advisors program is new. \nBoardroom SX80: and that there are very few models of State agencies working proactively to involve the voices of historically and currently under represented and socially and environmentally vulnerable communities. \nBoardroom SX80: to help us in this regard the executive director\, and I believe very strongly that B. Cdc. Needs to strengthen our E. J. Advisors program in a number of ways. including. \nBoardroom SX80: we need to better align the expectations of this Commission and B. Cdc. Staff and the expectations of the environmental justice advisors. \nBoardroom SX80: As an example\, our E. J. Advisors should not be expected to act as professional consultants\, but instead\, as advisors who are paid a stipend for their participation \nBoardroom SX80: and advice to selected B Cdc. Activities. \nBoardroom SX80: their meetings should be managed in ways to ensure that their experience and recommendations are provided and considered in a serious\, professional\, and collaborative manner. \nBoardroom SX80: and P Cdc. Staff \nBoardroom SX80: need to adjust their expectations. as does the J. Advisors \nBoardroom SX80: about the balance of work involved. As the representatives of these communities. \nBoardroom SX80: Pcd. Staff also needs to work with the E. J. Advisors to enable them to better understand how California\, State policy and administrative procedures work \nBoardroom SX80: and staff needs to communicate with the advisors more clearly in ways that in gender respect\, and are more culturally sensitive. As an example. \nBoardroom SX80: as much as B. C. DC. Wishes to\, and is trying to increase. The E. J. Adviser’s stipends. \nBoardroom SX80: given the work that they are eager to perform. \nBoardroom SX80: Doing so requires approval of a contract by State control agencies whose policies and processes are out of our control. \nBoardroom SX80: There is a contract on today’s agenda that does provide for some increase in those stipends\, but it still needs to be approved by the Department of General Services. With regard to policy. I want to note that B. C. Staff \nBoardroom SX80: are developing ways to provide the E. J. Advisors with more real time information about work that is being done at B. C. DC. To enable \nBoardroom SX80: them and their community to become more communications with their community to become more robust\, effective\, and efficient. \nBoardroom SX80:BCDC Staff and the E. J. Advisors should continue to learn from other California State organizations that are using community members to assist in policy development. \nBoardroom SX80: As an example\, the Natural Resources Agency has just published a very comprehensive inventory of ways in which State organizations can embed equity in their systems \nBoardroom SX80: Staff are hard at work on developing a racial equity plan for BCC. Which will lay out specific actions and metrics. \nBoardroom SX80: For how B. Cdc. Can continue to address institutional barriers to equity across the agency not limited to the E. J. Advisors program at all \nBoardroom SX80: staff. \nBoardroom SX80: We expect that Staff will expeditiously complete that effort\, and the Commission will adopt such a plan \nBoardroom SX80: as part of this effort. \nBoardroom SX80: The executive director and I believe that B. C. D. C. And the E. J. Advisors. and the interest that they represent would benefit from our hiring and experienced organizational development\, consultant and facilitator \nBoardroom SX80: with relevant experience in the environmental justice field to help our staff and the E. J. Advisors \nBoardroom SX80: learn ways to move our shared goals forward. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, we had planned to start this process. In the summer. We actually want to move the date forward and begin the process before the end of April. \nBoardroom SX80: We will involve the E. J. Advisors in the process of selecting such a consultant. \nBoardroom SX80: We will agendize this issue as soon as possible\, so the Commission can fully discuss the Ej Advisors program \nBoardroom SX80: going forward \nBoardroom SX80: on a different note. \nBoardroom SX80: This morning we held an interesting and robust and thought-provoking \nBoardroom SX80: meeting\, a combined meeting of our financing the future and rising Sea Level Commissioner working groups. \nBoardroom SX80: The first part of it was on financing we expected the second part to be on the rising sea level piece. The first part was indeed so robust that we didn’t get to the second part. \nBoardroom SX80: So we will have another joint meeting of this group next month. and continue to report to you what we have done. The slide presentation \nBoardroom SX80: you’ll get some sense of\, and will be posted on our site \nBoardroom SX80: this Morning’s effort\, I think\, marked a significant milestone in our efforts \nBoardroom SX80: to understand what we need to do\, how we need to do it. how we’re going to pay for it. \nBoardroom SX80: and as you will see in in some of the slides. That is a very great challenge\, but it’s a challenge. I think we can meet\, as we all work together. \nBoardroom SX80: not only us. \nBoardroom SX80: but our partners in this \nBoardroom SX80: other elected officials. \nBoardroom SX80: and ultimately the public. We have a big challenge to educate the public on what we need to do \nBoardroom SX80: to address rising sea level\, so that we\, in fact\, do not become inundated by the waters that are inevitably going to rise. \nBoardroom SX80: Last month our Commissioner\, working group on sediment and beneficial reuse held its second meeting. and I’m going to ask Commissioner Show Altar to give us a brief report on that meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, it was my pleasure to chair this meeting on Saint Patrick’s day\, which is always a great time to talk about green things\, and really\, in a very broad sense. What we are doing is trying to green the policy of sediment and beneficial reuse. \nBoardroom SX80: The first meeting we had\, I think. \nBoardroom SX80: about 34 participants\, and this meeting we had 34 participants\, and they spanned upwards of 15 organizations or agencies. I’m. Really impressed by both the caliber and the breadth \nBoardroom SX80: and the quantity of participation we’re having in this\, I think that it really is a testament to how important this subject really is. The first the first thing we we did was to welcome Maya Mcinerney\, who is \nBoardroom SX80: a new BCDC. Staff\, who will be leading the beneficial Reuse project\, and she shared \nBoardroom SX80: the Bay plan\, amendment process and the work plan and the project goals with this quickly\, and then Eric went over the second phase of the work plan\, which is the Bay Plan amendment. But the thing that I really want to bring to your attention is the presentation that was given to us by Brenda Gayden\, and the reason I want to bring this to your attention is because you want to have a good background about kind of \nBoardroom SX80: what this process is supposed to be\, and what’s the you know what’s the need of the issue? I would urge you to go to her presentation\, and you can go there. You go on the B Cdc website click on on our homepage. You click on public meetings and go down to a sediment and beneficial reuse working group. Click on that\, and you’ll see all the you know\, all the presentations for the March seventeenth meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: I I would urge you to take a look at that. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: we did have a robust discussion about it\, and we decided at the end that it would be a good idea to vote on the goals and accepting the accepting the proposed goals of the the reuse working group. So we had kind of a decision on that. So we did take a vote on that. \nBoardroom SX80: And and then I wanted to just share that. This is one of those situations where I think probably the more the merrier. So if you are interested in taking part. Please Tune in our next meeting will be \nBoardroom SX80: May nineteenth\, and typically our meetings are the the third Friday of odd numbered months. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: It’s going to take us about \nBoardroom SX80: 2 years to get to the end of this process\, which does seem like a long time\, but it’s a very meaty topic\, and we have a really well thought out way to get there. We will be having a workshop \nBoardroom SX80: later this year. I think it’s in October\, where we’ll be asking as many people as possible to participate. So next next meeting is May nineteenth. It’d be great for as many people to join us as possible. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Pat. The \nBoardroom SX80: sediment\, and particularly beneficial reuse is one of the many important \nBoardroom SX80: and challenging issues that we need \nBoardroom SX80: to address. But it is also a very significant part of how we are going to adapt to rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: The next meeting of this commission will be held in 2 weeks on April twentieth it will be a regular hybrid meeting. But\, as I have said\, I encourage everyone who can to attend in person \nBoardroom SX80: at that meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We expect a public hearing and vote to update the resolution that sets the priority use areas in the Bay plan. \nBoardroom SX80: Consideration of legislative matters in Sacramento. \nBoardroom SX80: Excuse me \nBoardroom SX80: a briefing on compliance at Oyster Point\, Marina\, in San Mateo County\, and a briefing on implementation of our strategic plan \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to the exciting time in our agenda\, where\, if anybody has had ex-partate communications concerning and matter of \nBoardroom SX80: hearing\, not simply policy\, that you have not previously reported in writing\, you may report. You do need to report it in writing under any circumstances. But again\, this is on \nBoardroom SX80: adjudicatory or hearing matters. not simply \nBoardroom SX80: constituent discussions. Any ex-party reports. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none that brings us to the report of the executive Director. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Chair Washington. Let me first say how delighted we all are\, all of us and staff to see so many of our Commissioners sitting here at Metro Center. For those of us who have been sparsely populating this Board room for the past year or so we welcome you with open arms \nBoardroom SX80: on an even more personal note. You all know that I firmly believe that to morrow baseball’s opening day at Oracle Park should be declared a Bay area holiday at least. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition. I also believe that to day April sixth should be declared a national holiday every year throughout America\, if not the world. \nBoardroom SX80: You see\, on April sixth\, 1772\, Catherine\, the great Empress of Russia. ended. Russia’s tax imposed on men with beards \nBoardroom SX80: that was enacted 74 years earlier by Peter the Great for defensive and military reasons. \nHaving worn my beard since I was a junior in college. I now realized that the subject of one of my senior theses at Pomona College should have been on the policy discussion surrounding Catherine’s selfless and noble act \nBoardroom SX80: with regard to budget and staffing on behalf of our overworked human resources team. I am pleased to announce that we have no personal hiring announcements Today\, however\, I want to introduce you to Railina Ruiz. \nBoardroom SX80: who is sitting next to Peggy Atwell Rainless. Put your hand there. You go. \nRailina is transitioning into our director of administration\, as we have but 2 months before Peggy retires. \nBoardroom SX80: and I want to assure you that just as you have recognized that it is Peggy who is in charge of organizing these meetings and all they go with them. Realina has experience in doing the same with the State’s Medical Board. We will all be in great hands. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to note that we are very\, very sorry to lose Onik and Leiden our Bay resources. Permanent manager. After this meeting Onikin\, whom you will see later this afternoon\, has been an outstanding staff member of B. C. DC. For a decade. We wish her well down in San Diego as she enters the private sector and uses all of that wisdom she gained here to further her career. \nBoardroom SX80: For those of you who keep track of the Bay trails progress. I want to let you know that we have updated our representation on the Bay trail board and the Bay trail steering Committee. You remember that Ethan Levine has taken on the new role of assistant regulatory director for climate change. \nSo we’re replacing Ethan\, who has represented B C. DC. So well for so long with Ashley Tommerlin\, our Senior Bay Development design analyst. \nBoardroom SX80: given her work as our technical advisor on public access for both regulatory and planning staff\, including offering design\, guidance and Plan Review for Bay trail sections required by BC. DC. Permits. It’s a natural fit. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’ve asked Catherine Pan\, our shoreline development Program manager\, who has succeeded Ethan to become Ashley’s alternate. \nBoardroom SX80: I had the good fortune before our family vacation to attend Secretary Wade Crowfoot’s Second Resources Agency Directors meeting down in Los Angeles. We were all very pleased to meet in person many of the C. And R. A. Staff department\, directors and board and commission executive directors. For the first time \nBoardroom SX80: the executive officers of the Coastal Commission\, Coastal\, Conservancy\, and the State Lands Commission\, and I sat in one corner of the large conference table set up in a show of coastal solidarity\, which was remarked upon by Secretary crowded \nBoardroom SX80: indeed. Last week the secretary hosted a panel discussion\, featuring those 3 awesome leaders to showcase how women are now leading just about all of our coastal and shoreline state activities. \nAs Wade commented at the meeting. However\, I am the outlier \nBoardroom SX80: this week. I was pleased to distribute to our staff 2 slide decks from that meeting that will definitely assist you and Staff\, as we move forward with our new strategic plan and our in-process racial equity action plan \nBoardroom SX80: i’ll distribute the C. And R. A strategic planning presentation to you next week. It is clearly aligned with our strategic plan\, as you will see\, during our next commission meeting\, when we present our strategic plan’s implementation scheme. \nBoardroom SX80: and I expect that we’ll update you on the B Cdc. Racial equity action plan later this spring or in the early summer\, and we’ll use the Resources Agency’s operationalizing Equity Plan as one of those guide posts. \nBoardroom SX80: During the last couple of meetings you’ve heard about public access issues related to the Klamath the former ferry\, now being used as headquarters for the Bay Area Council that the Commission permitted a while ago. \nBoardroom SX80: The good news is that the Clamis elevator is now working\, and the vessel is finally open to the public. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, we continue to receive reports that there are serious continuing public access issues at the clamour. So Staff will conduct a formal site\, visit\, and be prepared to initiate an enforcement action within the next 30 days\, based upon what they find. \nBoardroom SX80: Finally\, Mr. Chairman\, because it is that time of year \nI have in my hand \nBoardroom SX80: the list of Commissioners alternates Dr. B. And Ecrb. Members who have not yet filed their F Ppc. Financial disclosure formed 700 forms. \nI believe that you all know who you are. \nBoardroom SX80: As usual\, i’ll hand this list to chair\, washerman for a formal reading in our next meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Not today. So you have time. That concludes my report chair. Washington and i’m happy to answer any questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any questions for the executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. \nBoardroom SX80: I want to go back to my remark for just a moment\, because I forgot something. I want to announce the appointment of Commissioner Karl has to the seaport Plan Advisory Committee. Thank you for your agreement to serve that committee is going to be fairly active over the next \nBoardroom SX80: 6 to 9 months\, as they process the amendment to that plan which is \nBoardroom SX80: only about a year overdue. but for good reason. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 7 consideration of administrative matters. Anakin Leyden is here. If you have any questions on the administrative and emergency permit listing which we have received. I note\, as our executive director said\, this is Anakin’s last meeting\, and I \nBoardroom SX80: join in the executive directors. Thank you for your service here\, and wish you well in your future career. \nBoardroom SX80: Yours? \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, sorry any questions. See? She stands up so i’m expecting her to say something. \nBoardroom SX80: There are no questions do you want to ask. There\, there’s no hands raised\, but I just want it on the record. You want to ask if there’s any public comment on administration. No\, I want you to tell me. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, there is a hand grease. \nBoardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. This is more related to administrative manners. \nBoardroom SX80: So go ahead and unmute yourself. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. I just wanted to talk about the beneficial reuse of bridging material. \nDean Stanford: The \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think that’s an administrative matter. I think that’s item number 10. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s item Number 10. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: No hands raised here \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 8\, which is a closed session item\, and I apologize to the public that we are doing this in the middle of a meeting. We try \nBoardroom SX80: not to do that to leave you waiting\, but for procedural reasons. We had to do it now\, so we will temporarily pause this meeting. Well\, the Commission \nBoardroom SX80: adjourns into closed Session Commissioners who are participating remotely. \nBoardroom SX80: When I ask you to do so. and not before. \nBoardroom SX80: Please leave this Zoom Meeting\, as you normally would at adjournment. \nBoardroom SX80: Go to your email in box if you’ve not already done\, so find the email that was sent to you during this meeting from Reggie\, abod of our staff. It includes a zoom link that will take you into our closed session. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioners who are here will move to the Clermont room \nBoardroom SX80: after the closed session has ended. Commissioners who are participating remotely will leave that meeting \nBoardroom SX80: Come back by zoom here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioners\, participating remotely\, should now leave this meeting and join the closed session. Thank you very much. We’ll get back as soon as we can. \nBoardroom SX80: We are back in open session. \nBoardroom SX80: The Commission held the closed session and took no reportable action. So there is no further further action on this matter \nBoardroom SX80: today \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 9 on the Commission agenda Consideration of a contract for Environmental justice advisers \nBoardroom SX80: with resource\, legacy fund. \nBoardroom SX80: Phoenix\, Ourmenta\, our senior manager for climate equity and community engagement will present the staff report and recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Phoenix\, Ourmenta\, and I’m. The senior manager for climate\, equity\, and community engagement for B. C. DC. \nBoardroom SX80: Today I’m. Coming to you with the staff report and recommendation to approve a contract with the resource legacy fund in order to fund our E. J. Advisors program. \nBoardroom SX80: But before I get into the presentation I would like to introduce our new environmental justice specialist\, Lita Bridey \nBoardroom SX80: Lita joins us. Welcome. Lita joins us from the Delta Stewardship Council\, and has over 12 years of community outreach experience in Northern California. They have been with us just over a month\, and have already shown incredible leadership on a variety of Ej projects. We’re excited by this expansion of our Ej program. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you \nBoardroom SX80: slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t know. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Our Ej advisor program was launched in 2021 with generous funding from the Resource Legacy Fund\, a leading philanthropic nonprofit organization. The Ej Advisors program was created to help Bcdc. Implement its environmental justice and equity policies which the Commission adopted as a bay plan amendment in 2\,019. \nBoardroom SX80: The Resource Legacy Fund originally provided 6 E. J. Advisors with annual stipends of $6\,000 per year. \nBoardroom SX80: Our left committed to funding for 3 years of the program. \nBoardroom SX80: with the understanding that B. Cdc. Would gradually take over funding from them and 2022. They provided stipends for 5 advisors\, and in 2023. They plan to provide stipends for 3. E. J. Advisors\, with Bcds received\, making up the remainder of the funding. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide \nBoardroom SX80: we currently have 4 E. J. Advisors with 2 open seats. \nThey are Hula Garcia of rise up South City \nBoardroom SX80: Violet Siena of climate resilient communities. \nBoardroom SX80: Selena Feliciano\, of Sf. Consulting Company\, and Anthony Khalil of the Baby’s 100 Point advocates. \nEach of these E. J advisors have been with the program\, from the beginning\, and they are about to start their third year with V. C. DC. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Early in the project the Ej. Advisors collectively created the foundational values. Of the program they include respect and protect communities whose voices have not been and still are not included in policy conversations \nBoardroom SX80: ensure that B. Cdc’s Decision-making processes are robust\, meaningful\, and equitable. \nBoardroom SX80: prevent harm before it starts and honor the work that has been accomplished and learned from previous mistakes. \nBoardroom SX80: We have worked to follow these values throughout our activities\, and even utilize them as part of our racial equity. Action\, plan process. Next slide \nBoardroom SX80: on this slide we have the overarching goals of the E. J. Advisors program created with the Ej Advisors. They include\, advance and recommend to the Commission how best to embed equity and environmental justice principles throughout Bcdc’s\, programs\, policies\, and processes \nBoardroom SX80: work with the B Cdc. Staff and Commission to develop metrics\, to track the implementation of such changes. \nBoardroom SX80: encourage commission of pointing authorities to select Commissioners and alternates who reflect the diversity of the Bay shoreline and inland communities. \nBoardroom SX80: increase strategies for a more diverse Workplace at Vcdc\, and develop a permitting and planning model that better incorporates meaningful and robust community engagement during development and permitting processes\, especially in areas most vulnerable to rising sea levels. \nBoardroom SX80: These goals are also aligned with our Ej and social equity principles\, our racial equity plan and our strategic plan. Next slide \nBoardroom SX80: over the past 2 years the Ej. Advisors have advised us on a variety of topics to achieve the aforementioned goals. \nBoardroom SX80: They hold monthly meetings and regularly participate in the Commissioner E. J. Working group meeting. They participate. \nBoardroom SX80: participated in a workshop on environmental justice concerns and the permitting process. Their advice on the permitting process continues. As we are working to implement some of their suggestions. \nBoardroom SX80: They also participated in drafting some of the original objectives in the racial equity plan participated in our October racial equity workshop\, and are expected to review\, and the updated draft when it comes out. \nBoardroom SX80: their activities included\, commenting on and making recommendations for the Cbo mapping tool and their most recent project has focused on planning a series of toxic tours for B. Cdc. Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: the plans for which we will\, we will be bringing to the next Commissioner E. J. Working group meeting. These projects are just a few examples of the work that they have done since the program’s inception next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: This contract allows us to pay our part of the contribution for the E. J. Advisor \nBoardroom SX80: program from the grant that we received from the State Coastal Conservancy for Bay adapt work. As I mentioned before\, the Research Legacy Fund is paying for 3 E. J. Advisors this year at a rate of $6\,000 per Advisor \nBoardroom SX80: B. Cdc. Is contributing an additional $74\,000\, which will allow us to pay for the additional advisors\, as well as raise the adviser\, stipend to $10\,000 per year. \nWe decided to raise their stipend to acknowledge that the amount and rate that they were compensated the first year was not adequate for their time and expertise. \nBoardroom SX80: With this contract they will be paid a $125 an hour for 80 h per year. In addition\, there is an opportunity for them to be compensated to participate on various bay adapting committees and host community events \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. This. \nBoardroom SX80: as I mentioned before\, the contract helps us to align the Ej Advisor program with Governor Newsom’s executive order to embed equity into State Government operations. Our strategic plan and the forthcoming racial Equity Action Plan. \nBoardroom SX80: As Chair Wasserman noted in his chair report\, we will be contracting with a facilitator to continue the development of the Ej Advisor program next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: In conclusion\, the staff recommends that the Commission authorized its executive director to enter into a contract of up to $74\,000\, with the Resource Legacy Fund to administer stipends to Bcdc’s\, Ej. Advisors pending approval from the Department of General Services. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. And i’ll take any questions \nBoardroom SX80: any questions from Commissioners \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy\, do we have any \nBoardroom SX80: public comment? No\, I see no hands for his chair \nBoardroom SX80: with no questions and comments. I would entertain a recommendation. Sorry \nBoardroom SX80: you did it all right \nBoardroom SX80: multi- \nBoardroom SX80: motion\, and a second to approve \nBoardroom SX80: of Commissioner Peters and Commissioner Kishimoto beats out commission\, on \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy. Call the roll\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner an enhanced Yes. Commissioner on \nEddie Ahn\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Erin. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner her \nPat Burt\, Commissioner: Yes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Jo. You \nJohn Gioia: I \nBoardroom SX80: Krishna Horn. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner. Hurry. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner has. Yes. Commissioner Moulton Peters. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: hey\, Commissioner Pauline. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, yes. Commissioner Shelter. Yes. \nCommissioner M. Mule. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner T. Shinoto. Yes\, Commissioner Pemberton. \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Yes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Pascal\, Yes. \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: Commissioner Gallagher Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Manhattan. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Hilmore. Yes. Vice chair. Eisen. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Wasserman. Yes. Did I miss anybody? \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Commissioner Gordon? Both. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. Thank you. And hold on a second \nBoardroom SX80: 21. Yes\, no\, no\, no abstention\, as \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Thank you. That brings us to item 10\, which is a public hearing and vote on the Us. Army core of engineers\, strategic\, shallow water placement \nBoardroom SX80: pilot projects that will place dredge materials in the bay to feed a marsh. Brenda Gayden\, our sediment program manager will introduce the item. Good afternoon\, Chairwasherman and commissioners. I am pleased to be here today to present to you the staff recommendation for Federal consistency\, determination\, c. 2\,022\, \nBoardroom SX80: 11 0 0 to pilot the placement of dredge sediment in the bay to support title marshes and the flats next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I \nBoardroom SX80: slides\, please \nBoardroom SX80: pardon. Okay\, perfect. And as described in the staff Summary and recommendation\, the pilot includes placing 100\,000 cubic yards of dredge sediment in 138 acres of subtitle habitat\, with the purpose of testing the ability of tides and currents to move the sediment upshore onto the whales tails\, marsh\, and mudflats. \nBoardroom SX80: The technique is considered a potential tool in sea level rise adaptation over time \nBoardroom SX80: mit Ctl and the Us. Army corbin designers will present the project in further detail\, but I also wanted to mention that this project has been several several years of the making. It began with Sfi and the Us. Army core of engineers\, along with the Ltms program managers working together 150 \nBoardroom SX80: on a strategic placement framework\, a document which outlined several techniques for supporting existing and restored title marshes with drug sediment. \nBoardroom SX80: The first technique was supported by the 2\,016 section 1122 word or Resources Resources and Development Act Beneficial Reuse. Pilot Project Proposal submitted by the State Coastal Conservancy and Bcdc. \nBoardroom SX80: The Us. Army Corps of Engineers accepted the proposal as one of 10 in the United States\, and the project team has moved forward. Since then \nBoardroom SX80: I have had the honor of working with the army core of Engineers team over the last year to make this project reality. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: The Commission’s mission today is to consider whether or not this pilot project is the minimum amount of fill necessary for the project under the Macintosh Act. \nBoardroom SX80: Whether the project is consistent to the maximum extent practical with its fish\, wildlife\, suspicion. Loud light sees the other organ\, or other aquatic organisms and wildlife \nBoardroom SX80: love that title marshes and mudflats\, water quality\, subtitle areas and dredging policies regarding pilot project and sufficient monitoring activities. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, whether or not the impact to the subtitle\, habitat and wildlife is justified by the need to understand this technique. \nBoardroom SX80: And lastly\, whether the project is consistent with the climate change policies regarding adaptation of natural areas next slide. I think that’s my last. So with that I’m going to introduce Rier Jan off with the army for of engineers\, and he’s going to present the project further. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello\, everyone! My name’s aria\, John\, often with the army\, for I’ve got a slide deck. I’m not sure if it’s you that. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I am a planner and environmental manager with the core with the San Francisco district \nand I’m. The planner on our strategic placement project. As Brenda mentioned\, we’ve worked closely \nBoardroom SX80: the Pcdc coast of Conservancy Water Board\, on developing and designing this project. \nBoardroom SX80: So if you could go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This is our project team\, thanks to our project team at you say at the Water board for our sqlite or non-federal sponsor. The coastal conservancy\, as well as technical support \nBoardroom SX80: and contracting support from anchor Qa. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So what is the problem that we’re trying to address. We have a sediment deficit. We have too little sediment in the bay currently in order to help supply ecosystems with needed sediment. To maintain pace with sea level rise \nBoardroom SX80: compounded on that climate change is worsening. Sea level change and sea level rise. So we have a number of marshes and mudflats that are drowning and eroding\, and we need to supply those \nBoardroom SX80: those marshes with sediment. So that’s a great opportunity. We\, the core. We dredge a number of Federal navigation channels. We have a large quantity of sediment that we can supply to help with clients and climate change. Adaptation across the bay \nBoardroom SX80: go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is a graphic to show how much sediment is needed. Moving forward over the course of \nBoardroom SX80: the next 7\, 70 or so years\, and how much sediment in the dark green in the pie chart we can supply\, based on current practices versus how much sediment would be needed\, and how much we can supply with changing management practices in trying to maximize our beneficial use of dredge sediment. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, taking that sediment and trying to adapt to climate change\, how much sediment is required \nBoardroom SX80: If you move forward on that side\, please \nthe \nBoardroom SX80: so. As Brenda mentioned\, this pilot project was \nBoardroom SX80: authorized under Section 1122 of the Water Resources Development Act 2\,016. \nBoardroom SX80: The original proposal was put forward 50 million dollars for both direct and strategic placement\, and we’ve been funded to do both of those things. So this particular pilot project that i’m presenting on right now is the strategic placement portion. But we also have money available for the direct placement to directly \nBoardroom SX80: reconstruct ecosystems and wetlands across the bay. Go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the idea in a natural system is that we have a subtitle and intertidal environment where waves and currents can suspend and transport sediment up onto mudflats and onto marshes. \nBoardroom SX80: and that is\, in in a natural system that can maintain pace with sea level rise. Given that there is enough sediment that’s being supplied to the bay. But as I had mentioned. The problem is that we’re facing a lack of 7 supply. \nBoardroom SX80: So what we are proposing to do in this project you can go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: is because we have this sediment supply limitation. We’re going to be taking material from a navigation channel dredged nearby and placing it in the near-shore environment\, the subtitle environment \nBoardroom SX80: and timing it with the tides to take advantage of those waves and tidal currents. So it’s an engineering with nature approach\, and the idea is that that sediment will be able to make its way up onto the mudflats and marshes and help augment those by flats and marshes that are currently eroding or drowning. \nBoardroom SX80: As a result of sea level rise increased wave action\, erosion. \nBoardroom SX80: So this can help us build resilience \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of climate change\, resilience for these vital ecosystems to the day\, and also strategic placement. We’re we’re hoping to test this as a pilot to be a tool in the toolb so to complement direct placement to complement marsh spraying to \nBoardroom SX80: implement sediment column seating. Those are other types of engineering with nature techniques that we’re hoping to employ in the future to try to maximize beneficial use to the extent possible. If you can go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, since this is a pilot project\, we need to be able to determine how successful it is. So it’s a proof of concept. It’s a science experiment. \nWe’re trying to see if we can \nBoardroom SX80: deliver material from a navigation channel to a near-shore site\, and ultimately\, as I had mentioned\, up on to those mudflats and marshes\, if we can do so while minimizing environmental impacts\, minimizing impacts to biological resources and and \nBoardroom SX80: ecosystems\, endangered species\, and so on and so forth. \nBoardroom SX80: We also consider this to be successful if we avoid taking sediment out of the bay system this day that requires sediment in order to maintain pace with sea level\, rise rather than take into the ocean\, if we can keep that sediment \nBoardroom SX80: in San Francisco Bay and be able to reuse it and leverage natural processes; also a a big challenge that we’re currently working through is but successfully\, so far is being able to contract this. \nBoardroom SX80: So to build this into a contract and have it actually \nBoardroom SX80: be executed. It’s it’s been a really exciting process. I will say I’ve been with the court for a year\, and it’s been really exciting to see this moving forward. \nBoardroom SX80: And ultimately\, if this is a successful project\, then it can be\, as I mentioned\, a tool that we can use moving forward as we’re planning out for sea level\, rise adaptation for climate change\, adaptation that hopefully this can help augment those ecosystems that need that that sediment as a resource \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the the project phases some of the things that we’ve we’ve done. We started out with an initial site selection screening phase. \nBoardroom SX80: and then we moved into\, based on that\, and i’ll run through how we screened out about a dozen sites around the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: We had a sediment modeling exercise where we analyze 2 different locations determined what would be the most successful location for this pilot project. We have undergone all of our environmental compliance and permitting requirements. \nBoardroom SX80: and worked closely with the regulatory agencies. We’ve also had a number of of different outreach meetings\, meetings with stakeholders\, the dredging community with resource agencies\, also with tribes as well as community groups\, and we’ve gone out into the community and discuss this project as well and gathered feedback. \nBoardroom SX80: We have a monitoring plan that was developed alongside us\, Usgs\, as well as a contractor. I’ll get into that in a bit\, and then ultimately looking forward. We’re going to be contracting \nBoardroom SX80: the contracting process\, the solicitation and the bid will be the summer and the implementation the actual placement of material we’re hoping for this fall. So this dredging season in September \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So we started out with these 12 sites around the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and we used this list of criteria in order to screen down to 2 sites and reveal Crescent Marsh and Whales Tail marsh at Eden Landing\, Ecological reserve\, and our proposed action is \nBoardroom SX80: the whales tail near Shore placement offshore of \nBoardroom SX80: So we looked at whether there were marshes that were existing marshes\, whether those marshes were eroding and drowning\, and and left sediment supply \nBoardroom SX80: lacked the sediment necessary to keep pace if it was open to tidal exchange. If it had waves that were sufficient to transport material up onto those mud flats and marshes\, those near a Federal navigation channel. So\, getting to the point of of beneficially using that dredged material. If we could actually get \nBoardroom SX80: those scows that you know\, we’re transporting the dredged material close enough to the mud\, flat and marsh for it to be successful. If we can avoid any impacts to critical species\, endangered species\, biological resources. \nBoardroom SX80: including gale grass beds in your shore reefs\, and also protection for disadvantaged communities and her environmental justice. Considerations next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So when we narrowed down based on those screening criteria to Emoryville\, Crescent\, Marsh\, and Eden Landing Whales tail. Then we employed a modeling framework anchor\, Qa. We our contractor employed a modeling framework where we were looking bay wide at sediment transport processes\, and we \nBoardroom SX80: we tested 100\,000 cubic yard placement at different locations in these placement \nBoardroom SX80: grids that we’re showing here so shallow location\, medium-depth location\, and a deeper location \nBoardroom SX80: and the idea\, of the first round of of of modeling was to determine whether Emoryville Crescent or Eden Landing\, was the more potentially successful pilot for implementation\, and we determined that Ian Landing was going to \nBoardroom SX80: have a higher chance of success. So then we got into the details even further at Eden Landing\, and we looked at what if we have different volumes? If we tested 50\,000 75\,000cubic yards\, 100\,000. 125\,000We looked at seasonal differences. What if we place material in the winter versus in the summer\, based on differences in wind waves. \nBoardroom SX80: We also looked at different sizes of the place of footprint\, and also different source channels which affect the the grain size determines how the sediment is transported. So we looked at taking from from Oakland Harbor versus Redwood City Harbor. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can move to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a a sense of behind the scenes of the modeling. So we we had different bins on the left figure. I’m not going to go through all of the different bins. But we were tracking. Where is the sediment going from these placements? Is it going on to the title Flats? Is it going into the marsh areas. \nBoardroom SX80: Is it going into flood control channels? Is it going back into the Federal navigation channels that we’re dredging right? So we’re trying to maximize certain \nBoardroom SX80: metrics\, and then try to minimize other metrics here and then on the right you can see this is an output after 2 months of the model\, and it’s showing the thickness of deposition\, the thickness of that sediment that is depositing on the bay bottom. \nBoardroom SX80: And what we’re seeing is that a lot of the material is spreading out from the placement footprint\, and some of that material is going. \nBoardroom SX80: This is after a 2 month simulation. So if you extend it out. More\, even more material would make its way up onto those tidal mudflats and and the the salt marshes. And importantly\, the scale here is millimeter to centimeter scale\, which sounds small\, but it is on the \nBoardroom SX80: order of magnitude of the natural process\, and the way that so we’re not going to be entirely blanketing these ecosystems. The idea is that we are mimicking nature here. It’s an engineering major approach \nBoardroom SX80: So ultimately the the proposed action is placing in the near-shore environment. \nBoardroom SX80: as Brenda had mentioned\, between 9 and 12 seat and depths \nBoardroom SX80: tidally timed\, coming from Redwood City \nBoardroom SX80: Federal Harbor Navigation Channel\, placing here at the the the shallowest site possible in the summertime. \nBoardroom SX80: and 100\,000 cubic yards the next side\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and that was determined to be the most successful based on these different criteria. So we have Here we are tracking what percentage relative to the actual placement volume is making its way onto our target mudflats and marshes. So those are our maximizing metrics\, and then reducing how much sediment is making its way into flood control channels. \nBoardroom SX80: making its way back into the source channels. And ultimately we. as I had mentioned\, the 100\,000 cubic yard\, shallow eaten landing site\, showed the best chance of success for this pilot project to be implemented \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, of course\, as part of this as I had mentioned\, You know\, we’ve gone through all the environmental compliance and the permitting. We wanted to minimize impacts to endangered species and critical habitats. So this figure on the left here shows \nBoardroom SX80: the area over which we assume we expect from the modeling that they would be more than a millimeter of deposition. So we use that to help determine effects to physical resources and biological resources\, and so on and so forth\, you know\, across the board\, for all of our different compliance pieces \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And you know one of those just to zoom in eel graphs very important. Our placement footprint relative to where the eel grass resources are off of whales tail marsh\, surrounded by those 45 meter buffers\, so in green there\, and \nBoardroom SX80: the the placement footprint is approximately 2 miles west of the marsh\, and the water depth it’s super shallow there again between 9 and 12 feet when we’re at our highest high tides. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as you can see here\, the placement footprint is is pretty far away from those illegrass resources\, but we will be doing pre and post placement dealgrass surveys in order to ensure that we don’t \naffect these eel grass resources\, and that’s part of a broader monitoring effort. \nBoardroom SX80: So if you go to the next slide\, please. so our monitoring plan\, we don’t\, we don’t anticipate having \nBoardroom SX80: significant substantial environmental impacts as a result of this project. But in order to ensure that we don’t\, we’re going to be monitoring for Ill grass we’re going to be monitoring with Usgs \nBoardroom SX80: a a a number of different metrics\, in order to also help determine whether this project is successful. So we’ll be looking at how much suspended sediment\, what are the wave conditions. What are the existing mud\, flats and marshes? You know what? What’s the background? Erosion or deposition rate? And then ultimately\, what is this project helping \nBoardroom SX80: to do? Is it? Is it helping these mudflats and marshes to gain elevation? Or is there no impact? And then we also will have a magnetic particle tracking study in order to determine. Because we’re we’re trying to find a millimeter to centimeter scale \nBoardroom SX80: deposition here which is obviously going to be challenge challenging. We have a magnetic particle track and study that will determine where that sediment is going to see if we are actually getting it to our target. My. \nto go \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, in terms of our some of the coordination that we’ve done\, we’ve had stakeholder meetings with the dredgers. We’ve had resource agency meetings. We’ve had public meetings as part of our sequel scoping process\, and Nepa. We’ve worked with Cdf. W. South\, by Salt Ponds Statelands Commission. \nBoardroom SX80: Flood control districts city of Hayward. I was fortunate enough to go out to the city of Hayward Street Fair back in August of last year\, and talked to community members\, and there was a lot of excitement\, and is really awesome to get feedback from the local communities as well. \nBoardroom SX80: and we tabled with South Bay salpons. We’ve also conducted tribal consultations\, and we had a site visit in October of last year\, and they’re very excited about the project. \nBoardroom SX80: So go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So in terms of where we are in the environmental compliance. Timeline\, we have \nBoardroom SX80: most of our environmental permits in hand and we’re moving forward and targeting mid-april to have all of our environmental compliance \nBoardroom SX80: and and look forward to to your vote. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: where that fits in the broader scheme of things. We had gone out for public comment on our Nepa. \nBoardroom SX80: our National Environmental Policy Act\, and secret documents. Last fall\, September\, October. The consistency\, consistency\, determination\, request\, was submitted earlier this year. And \nBoardroom SX80: now you know\, we’re we’re here for a vote\, and our final approvals will be needed by April May in order to fit into the contracting timeline and actually executing this project. So\, as I had mentioned\, solicitation and bid for this contract will be the summer June\, July\, and ultimately implementations in September\, October\, November. \nBoardroom SX80: monitoring as part of that monitoring plan. They’ll start this summer in August\, and they’ll be doing pre surveys and then post-placement surveys after the project is implemented\, and then technical report and post data analysis reports will be produced \nBoardroom SX80: as a result to determine how successful this project is\, and whether we can use this as a tool in adapting to climate change and sea level rides moving forward. So with that I will take any questions\, and thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. \nBoardroom SX80: Questions \nBoardroom SX80: from Commissioners\, Mr. Shaw. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. Well\, first a comment\, i’m just really delighted that this has gotten to this point. I served on the project management team maybe 10 years ago\, and I know we talked about this then\, and so\, seeing it come to \nBoardroom SX80: almost fruition this September. That’s that’s pretty exciting. One of the questions I wanted to ask you\, though\, is is about the shallowness that this equipment can work in\, because we also\, you know\, have a lot of salt ponds that are south of the Dunbar and Bridge\, where the bay is considerably less deep. I mean\, I think \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t know if there’s anything 10 feet deep below Dunbarton Bridge\, but most of its \nBoardroom SX80: more like 4 to 6 isn’t it. I think. Yeah\, it’s it’s quite shallow down there. Yeah. So so with this methodology\, if we’re successful here\, how we\, how would you adapt it to using to to further south in the bay\, where we have a lot of salt plants that need to be restored to marshes. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I I think that that’s where. If we\, if it is too shallow\, and we are unable to get scows in that close\, then that’s where we start thinking about other techniques. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s where we start thinking about. Maybe marsh spraying or water column seeding\, or there are other engineering with nature techniques that are\, you know\, being developed. I would also say\, just because I’m also working on our regional dredge material management plan looking day-wide 250 \nBoardroom SX80: the further south you go. There’s also less of a capacity for wind and waves to transport that material. So it’s also challenging on that front. \nBoardroom SX80: So I think that we have to look at like the whole portfolio of options\, and maybe strategic placement isn’t for every location in the bay. Right? It’s. It’s \nBoardroom SX80: strategic in terms of where we want to locate it. And You know we we have to adapt our methods based on the different sites. So I I do think south of Dumbarton Bridge will will probably be challenging. I wouldn’t rule it out. I think it just. It becomes more costly if we’re we’re operating in in very shallow water\, because we have to \nBoardroom SX80: have enough draft for the the tugs as well as the scows. Or maybe we have to consider a different way of getting material over\, maybe by pipeline. But then we also have to look at the environmental impacts of those different alternatives. Right? \nBoardroom SX80: Right? Well\, the other thing I I like to say is\, you know\, this is really augmenting a natural geologic process\, which is what you mentioned\, and I just want to share this story of \nBoardroom SX80: of observing the the the title flow in and out upon a 8\, which is the the pond that is pretty much at the bottom of the bay. So you know the for the south one\, and it was breached all\, maybe 10 years ago\, 8 years ago. I’m not sure. But anyway\, it was breached. \nBoardroom SX80: and the thing that I was so struck from \nBoardroom SX80: all measurements aside\, are the water that goes through that breach when the tide comes in and pushes it into that pond. It’s kind of the color of cafe o lay. \nBoardroom SX80: and then the water that goes out is pretty much crystal clear. So you know that process is bringing in a lot of sediment\, and and it’s just really. If you ever get \nBoardroom SX80: a chance to go down to Alvizo County Park\, you can. You can go and see that it’s it’s just remarkable \nBoardroom SX80: how you can really watch Mother Nature filling in those ponds so. But we\, you know we know that mother and a. There’s a lot of subsidence\, Mother Nature Isn’t necessarily going to fill them in as fast as we need them to be filled in. So you know\, these methodologies to augment are\, are really important. So \nBoardroom SX80: thanks for that answer. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this presentation. I’m very excited. This project. Isn’t: go forward. It is 2 questions. First\, you did. I understand you correctly to say that the implementation of this project. \nAndrew Gunther: which I assume means the actual deposition of segment will begin in this this fall if everything goes on schedule. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nAndrew Gunther: So. And and the wind and wave environment is fundamental to the distribution of the material Right? That’s where you get the erosion when you have the strong winds of waves. \nAndrew Gunther: And so i’m. I’m wondering about deposition if you deposit it during what is really one of the most classic periods in the bay. Then \nAndrew Gunther: are you counting on winter and spring wins to be then moving the material\, and you’ll be monitoring all the way through like next summer to see what happens. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe that at Usgs. So the monitoring efforts here are pre and post. I don’t recall from my head how many months post\, but I know that it’s part of a broader monitoring effort \nBoardroom SX80: around Eden Landing for Usgs. So I know that also\, like I’d mentioned for our regional dredge material management plan. Usgs monitoring will also. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, help to to determine how the sediment is moving\, especially at strategic placement locations here and potentially around the bay. But in terms of your comment on the the wind and wave action. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s true. You know it’s it. It was a a challenge. \nBoardroom SX80: This is this goes to the challenge of the contracting process\, the Dmo sediment\, so suitability\, determination will be coming in toward the end of May. So we need to\, You know. We needed to make sure that the testing schedule\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: delayed as a result of the atmospheric rivers. So some of these things had pushed the project back that were not exactly what we had planned\, because the windiest time of the year\, as you had mentioned in that part of the day. You know\, summertime \nBoardroom SX80: has sufficient wind and wave action. So our modeling effort was built around summertime\, and it was summer versus winter\, as one of\, as you recall\, one of the sensitivity analyses that we did in the second round of modeling. \nBoardroom SX80: and I \nBoardroom SX80: it’s it’s starting in early September\, so I think we can still catch some of the the windiness of summertime \nBoardroom SX80: to transport the material. But the modeling effort only looked 2 months out. \nBoardroom SX80: and the transport of material doesn’t stop after 2 months\, so the material will continue to be reworked\, especially into the winter months. \nBoardroom SX80: so I think it’s. It’s not the the you know. The ideal obviously would have been like earlier in the summer\, but as a result of the the the dredging and contracting schedule. It pushed it out a little bit. Yeah\, yes. And and I’m: I I recognize you’re dealing with multiple factors. I just the reason I asked\, is that \nAndrew Gunther: it is important\, I think\, for you to to help\, as we see the results\, help as we interpret the results that it. There’s a possibility\, given the fact that wind and waves\, and therefore our weather is really what’s going to be very important if we just have one year of \nAndrew Gunther: of of monitoring there will be. It’ll reflect\, whatever the weather was\, and I think that that when we evaluate this\, I want us to be as bold as we can in terms of understanding what’s happened\, so that we do not make \nAndrew Gunther: a a decision about strategic placement \nAndrew Gunther: simply based on a single year’s weather. When really a much more robust program over several years will help us understand the role that this technique can play in adaptation going forward. And I know that you’ve got one year\, and you’ve got all these other constraints. I’m not trying to say that\, should some different. But it’s. I just want you guys to anticipate this\, and I want all of us to understand there’s likely still to be some uncertainty when we \nhere back about the results of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ecklin\, then Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: and then \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: thank you very much. Chair Rosterman. First of all\, Nevada at Hamilton. I watch and participate in the process all the way through the planning as well as the actual preaching of the levy. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: We got a lot of judgment here for the Court of Oakland that we used to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: make a wetland out of the runway out of Hamilton\, and very successful\, very successful. And they use pipes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: They\, because Sam Saint Pavlo Bay is pretty pretty shallow. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: My My question here\, though\, is\, Have Have you engaged the San Francisco at estuary partnership in in this experiment? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, we we have met with San Francisco for a partnership. \nBoardroom SX80: In this I would say it \nBoardroom SX80: again. I I wear a few different hats\, because i’m on a few different projects that probably on the the regional a project that I had mentioned to the Judge material management. \nBoardroom SX80: which I think you know this this is like a subset project of that broader effort. \nSo we have engaged with Sfp\, and \nBoardroom SX80: also a number of other nonprofit \nto the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and you’re going to keep them involved in the project. As this moves along. \nBoardroom SX80: I think. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I think that’s that’s a great idea\, and i’ll certainly take. Take note and take it back to the core. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: I I really would encourage that because this this is going to be a good experiment\, and to see how much of the material does \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: actually help create some wetlands\, so I think it it could be implemented other ways as well in the bay if it is successful. Thank you. Great project. I’m. Looking forward to see it completed and brought back to us. Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you for the clarity of your presentation for the late persons among us. It was really helpful. \nBoardroom SX80: You mentioned direct placement as a sort of an alternate technique to this shallow water placement project. \nBoardroom SX80: What can you just sort of describe? Maybe it’s obvious to everyone else. But what is the benefit of shallow water placement over direct placement\, or or is it just a matter of direct placement? Will work. Some places \nBoardroom SX80: shallow water placement will work better other places. Yeah\, that’s a great question. I so direct. Placement is\, you know\, that’s very efficient\, and it’s great\, especially for areas that are subsided or below sea level that we need to rebuild marsh plane. And in those cases \nBoardroom SX80: strategic placement wouldn’t be a viable option \nBoardroom SX80: if you\, if you have an open water lagoon\, and you are trying to supply sediment to a marsh\, if the marsh doesn’t exist right the way that I see it. I like to think it analogies. It’s like a garden and a hose\, and direct placement is \nBoardroom SX80: building and planting your garden. \nBoardroom SX80: and then you have strategic placement to help it along the way to help supply it with sediment and maintain pace with sea level\, rise in areas specifically where there’s not natural sediment supply right? So it’s it’s a both approach in certain places. In some places direct placement is \nBoardroom SX80: the necessary option. In some places where marshes already exist you wouldn’t in. In that case\, maybe\, like a thin layer placement is another approach that we could take if the march is having trouble maintaining pace with seal. Arise. \nBoardroom SX80: or you can do the a strategic placement approach so as not to bury the existing marsh plane or marsh plants. So in that case\, if there’s a Mars cetera exists\, that’s kind of where strategic placement comes into play is. Now you’re watering your garden. \nBoardroom SX80: because if you don’t have enough sediment and sea levels rising\, and there’s wave action. You could ultimately lose that that marsh. But then the direct placement is important. \nBoardroom SX80: so I I don’t know what percentage of our bay coastline is mudflats and marshes\, but it sounds like to the extent that we have them\, and they are drowning as you described it. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s still a lot of you know where where the eel grass is. You know other things that would stand in the way of using this shallow water placement technique\, even if we \nBoardroom SX80: have the proof of concept that we’re trying to look for right. Is there a lot? If this turns out to be a good technique. Is there a lot of edges to the bay where this is going to be beneficial? \nBoardroom SX80: I I think that there will be\, but we would certainly avoid places where there are large ill-grass beds. That wouldn’t be a viable option. And we actually in the screening Of those 12 sites there was one. \nBoardroom SX80: I forget the name off the top of my head. But in North Bay that had a large ill grass bed\, and that was not considered \nBoardroom SX80: as a strategic placement location \nBoardroom SX80: moving forward for this particular pilot project. And then what techniques would we use in those places? \nBoardroom SX80: I \nBoardroom SX80: I I will admit. So\, coming from New Jersey. I don’t know that part of the day as well\, so I don’t know I can’t speak intelligibly to that particular location. I think if you give me 5 years I might be able to. \nBoardroom SX80: But but you but you think that if we can establish this proof of concept\, there is enough edges to the bay\, where you could use it successfully to improve the drowning situation. \nBoardroom SX80: I: yeah\, we that we do believe that. Okay\, Thank you \nso much. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Hawes. \nThank you. \nBoardroom SX80: This is following along on Commissioner Gunther’s seasonal question. Did I hear you correct? Is there a dredging season? \nBoardroom SX80: September through November? \nBoardroom SX80: Our Our work window ends at the end of November. Okay\, June to November tune in November\, 2 to November. Okay? And is that just because water flow out of the Delta\, or is it contractual? It’s just the impacts to species. And when species\, I think\, are migrating and responding\, okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Gotcha\, just because it did. It does make sense to place it during your window of dredging right because you’ve already got it loaded\, but it \nBoardroom SX80: going forward next year. Let’s say \nBoardroom SX80: I would agree with Commissioner Gunther like the earlier the better. Like as a Windsor for right it’s this: the constant wind every day it would seem like June July placement. You’re going to get a lot more out of right. So okay\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: As a surfer\, I can say\, yeah\, we. I we like to avoid the the summer season because of the way. But maybe I should take up kites from here Winter. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Mold and you you. You may have included this in your marks\, and I miss it. But when might we here\, back from you with results? Are we talking about a year or 2 years\, or what? Just what’s the timeframe? I believe that the the staff recommendation has \nBoardroom SX80: a year and a half. Yeah\, there\, there’s a timeline built in staff recommendation about reporting \nBoardroom SX80: requirements great. I’m. I’m. Very supportive of these kinds of \nBoardroom SX80: innovative ways to reuse sediment and to reduce judging costs\, and I hope that we help with \nBoardroom SX80: speeding permits along for you\, too. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I just have a couple of quick questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I hear correctly that included in this is one year of monitoring is Pre. And post monitoring. Yeah\, what i’m talking about post with i’ll do is that yeah \nBoardroom SX80: post is one year \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think that it’s one year later. I think so. \nBoardroom SX80: So it’s one year I’ve monitored. So the monitoring plan\, which is currently in draft yet to be finalized\, has 3 months for certain portions of it\, and up to a year for one. \nThat’s the \nBoardroom SX80: okay \nBoardroom SX80: that there there’s a different period of time. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s not longer than a year ago for any portion. \nBoardroom SX80: And \nBoardroom SX80: in the same context of Commissioner Eisner\, I’m. Clearly a layman at this \nBoardroom SX80: it is. Is that really sufficient? I mean\, given what you’re talking about about the the course of wave and wind movement. \nBoardroom SX80: This is an experiment \nBoardroom SX80: We in the past have seen some experiments \nBoardroom SX80: where \nBoardroom SX80: monitoring a was not paid for. I’ll get to that in a moment\, and these certainly didn’t go on long enough so that we could get sufficient data to say. \nBoardroom SX80: how \nBoardroom SX80: replicable is this experiment? So I guess I could phrase it another way. Why was this range from 3 months to a year chosen for monitoring? Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: The modeling showed that most of the sediment moves in the first 2 months\, which is why the sediment modeling was within the first 2 months\, and we worked closely with Usgs\, and they have been working in that part of the bay for years now. So so they have a sense of how the sediment moves that that part of the day. \nBoardroom SX80: Excellent answer. Thank you. And I assume the cost of that monitoring is included in the budget. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: if a question in Mr. Gilmour. Okay\, now\, I’m confused. \nBoardroom SX80: So I thought I heard you say that the modeling occurred for placement during the summer months\, when the the wind and the wave. Action was the strongest. \nBoardroom SX80: and then\, for reasons beyond everyone’s control. It’s going to be placed in September when the when and wave action isn’t quite as strong. \nBoardroom SX80: So how do we know at that later date \nBoardroom SX80: that it’s going to move within 2 months\, and not 4 months\, because the win in wave action is \nBoardroom SX80: not as great. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, but I mean it’s. It’s a fair question we did summer versus winter modeling. So in in the winter time. \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, winter is obviously different than fall\, but we did have at least a range of different modeling scenarios in terms of seasonality\, and I think that it’s \nBoardroom SX80: most of the material that is placed at a location. First of all\, it’s very fine-grained material. So when it comes out of the scal it will drop out\, and it will kind of pancake out. But that bump that is on the the bay bed\, which will be\, I mean. \nBoardroom SX80: you know. \nBoardroom SX80: centimeters to a foot high\, will \nBoardroom SX80: did in the scientific term\, diffuse it. It. It will spread out most when the gradient is highest. So I think so. The 2 months\, the assumption that most of the material would move \n2 months. \nBoardroom SX80: It will be affected by season. But some of those things are just related to the nature of placing material in a diffusive system that it wants to disperse the sediment \nBoardroom SX80: and and and get it back to an equilibrium state. \nBoardroom SX80: Does that make sense? Or did I get too technical there. \nBoardroom SX80: you know it. It makes sense. \nBoardroom SX80: But I guess my overall question is. \nBoardroom SX80: shouldn’t the monitoring be longer? Which is what I think a lot of people are trying to get at. Yes\, we know that whenever you place it for the reasons you state it\, it’s going to try to get to equilibrium. But if you’re talking about \nBoardroom SX80: when it’s going to spread the most to get to where we hope it’s going to get shouldn’t\, we be monitoring it a little bit longer. \nBoardroom SX80: So i’m going to just jump in here for a minute. So I think there’s a couple of things. So one the prevailing conditions in that area are land. \nBoardroom SX80: even if it’s not a high season so later in the year\, is not necessarily better\, but it’s not absolutely a failure for. \nBoardroom SX80: And then\, as far as \nBoardroom SX80: the monitoring period\, I think what you guys worked on was how much funding you had. So overall \nBoardroom SX80: the project got 3.6 million dollars from the Federal Government for the development\, the planning for permitting \nBoardroom SX80: and execution. \nBoardroom SX80: including the monitoring. And so \nBoardroom SX80: i’m sure that the army core worked out what needed to where\, as far as funding. But I think part of it\, the limitation is how much funding was allotted for the project overall. So I think that’s probably where the end goes. I’m sure longer. Monitoring would be better for sure\, because we don’t know exactly when all the sediment will move. \nBoardroom SX80: But there is a limitation on the funding\, and \nBoardroom SX80: no\, that’s that’s fine. Thank you. Thanks for answering my question. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haj: Thank you. Just to follow up. Is there timing on spending the funding\, and the question would be\, Why not just do it next? June? Just push it right forward and be at the absolute height. Probability of success. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: I I. The project manager\, would be the person to answer about whether the funding will expire. \nBoardroom SX80: But what I would say is\, I know that it’s been delayed a year already. This is before I was at the quarter; but I think that \nBoardroom SX80: if if we don’t expend the funds\, and we’ve gone through spending all this money to go through environmental compliance\, environmental permitting coordination with resource agencies\, the modeling \nBoardroom SX80: and all of these components\, and then also building it into a contract currently that \nBoardroom SX80: you know it’s not that the money would be wasted because we’re learning things along the way. And this is a pilot program. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s it’s really it’s challenging. It’s a challenging environment to work in and to actually execute. This is this type of thing has been done like on the outer coast coming from New Jersey. They’ve done this. We’ve done this in the near-shore environment in the ocean\, but in the bay is so challenging. \nBoardroom SX80: I think\, like in an ideal world\, it would be great to delay it\, but I think that it would be challenging to justify. Having spent all of the money that we have spent on it\, which has not\, has been a not insignificant number of amount of which is part of the reason why\, as Brenda was saying\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: with the monitoring we were constrained\, and we had to fit it in. And actually\, I I think\, with the monitoring\, we’re actually getting like a \nBoardroom SX80: a great great product for the amount of money that we’re paying and a great time span. But to answer your question\, I think\, in an ideal world it would be great to postpone it. But I don’t think that that we can do that \nBoardroom SX80: at this stage. \nBoardroom SX80: If if the the project manager\, I know that you had meant to come to the meeting. If there is any limitation on when we can expend the money. \nBoardroom SX80: Then I can certainly check with him\, you know\, and that would be a reevaluation. \nBoardroom SX80: But I I know that there the also the attitude is we we would like to like if if you’re trying out something new. \nBoardroom SX80: it If you can’t do it even once you can’t like\, execute it. Get it into a contract and do it once\, then it’s it’s very likely that when you \nBoardroom SX80: be able to be won’t be as an option on the table in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: whereas if we do it once\, and then we learn from it. And we say\, actually\, you know\, we should do this instead. We should improve in this way\, then that makes it easier to to improve on our\, you know. \nSet back in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I just I would. I would say. \nBoardroom SX80: doing it at the height of probability of success. \nBoardroom SX80: So that you do get funded \nBoardroom SX80: right? Right? That’s yeah\, like \nBoardroom SX80: i’ll let you go. Yeah\, okay\, that’s my comment. Thank you. Bre Brenda also just mentioned. An important note is that Redwood City currently is getting dredged by annually. \nBoardroom SX80: so we might have to wait 2 years\, but I know that we’re. I think that the court we’re going to be transitioning to annual at some point. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: i’m going to entertain a short question from Commissioner Show. Also in the short question. It’s it’s just sent. I’m an open the public here. Okay\, it’s just it’s just a short comment\, and my comment is that if for some reason\, you see that the monitoring needs to be extended. \nBoardroom SX80: please let us know\, and we will. We will work on that. I don’t think anybody suggests. Well\, maybe they are. I I certainly am not suggesting that you put this off. I know how much trouble you’ve gone to to go through this laundry list of permits. It’s a huge task. So get going as soon as you can. But if you get to a point\, and you realize that the monitoring needs to go on longer. You know Don’t\, be silent on that. \nBoardroom SX80: Please share it with us\, and that’s what I would like you to take back as a comment from this commission. I hope that there are other people who feel that way is that\, you know\, if scientifically. You know. You see that you know you need to monitor for another 6 months. Let us know. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. I I was just asking about the \nBoardroom SX80: the purpose of this\, I guess there was some discussion of it. So one is that it isn’t working with Nature’s nature based. But is it also to save money as well. It it would be. It’s less expensive to \nBoardroom SX80: to deposit it. You know it rather than during during a direct deposit. \nBoardroom SX80: I I think \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s part of what’s going to come out of this pilot project is. How expensive will it actually be to place the material? And would we be able to realize the cost savings. So I think that would be a lesson learned and potentially be able to reduce costs in the future or not\, and we need to wait for the data to come back on that. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to open the public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I have 2 public speaker cards. One is from John Coleman \nBoardroom SX80: appears to be ready. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not eager\, thank you. Chair Watsman and commissioners. I’m excited about this\, and I hope that you do pass it today back in 2\,016. When we were working on the Water Resources Development Act. \nBoardroom SX80: It was a coalition of Epc. B. Cdc. The Coastal Conservancy. \nBoardroom SX80: the Pacific Institute\, and saved the bay that helped write the language for Section 1122\, which you’re going to be voting on right now. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, it’s a test\, but it’s a test to. We need to to look at doing things differently\, and I applaud the staff from B Cdc. And the agencies such as the core of engineers to be willing to look at\, doing something a little different \nBoardroom SX80: and hopefully it is successful\, and something that we can do more of in the San Francisco Bay. So I encourage your support for this. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Former Commissioner James\, with wrath. \nBoardroom SX80: The only time I could called James is when i’m in trouble\, and \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think i’m in trouble today. So\, Jim. Okay\, good good afternoon. I’m. I’m here in support of this project. \nBoardroom SX80: I I am not representing anybody but myself. I no longer spend my days thinking about sediment and dredging. \nBoardroom SX80: but some of you know that I had something to do with Cinema Baylands and the Hamilton project. \nBoardroom SX80: and before I started working on that I had hair\, and it wasn’t much darker. So \nBoardroom SX80: this is a good day. This morning at the coast of Conservancy\, they gave a grant to Valley transportation to take \nBoardroom SX80: the excavation material from the \nBoardroom SX80: digging of the tunnel and putting it on the bottom of the of the salt pawns. So it’s kind of like we’re trying everything\, and I was here at the beginning\, and I want to remind you just a little bit about the history of this \nBoardroom SX80: back at the state of the Estuary Conference about 30 years ago. I don’t remember exactly when Phil Williams came\, and he said\, we’re in and out of setup. \nBoardroom SX80: and you know I mean that was kind of a gobsmack to me. I i’m a sediment\, Guy\, said I’m a transport civil engineer you if if we’re running out of sediment we need to use it. \nBoardroom SX80: And his observations were followed up by really fine work\, by Usgs\, by Bruce Jaffe and David Shulhammer. That showed\, indeed Phil was right. \nBoardroom SX80: and and that for that \nBoardroom SX80: that was my mental outlook for 16 years at the Board of Oakland. How can we use the sediment \nBoardroom SX80: after we not throw it away in the ocean? How could we make it \nBoardroom SX80: ultimately not just a one off. That depends on Federal funding\, but something that could be done more routinely. \nBoardroom SX80: but it wasn’t just them. I’ve been in the job about 2 years\, when Jeremy Low\, and I think that was before he was at the Escort Institute and Michelle\, or suggested something not entirely different from this. But if if you\, if you recall the leading edge of the whale tale \nBoardroom SX80: is erosion. \nBoardroom SX80: and so what they suggested is placing near shore about the same area\, sandier sediment that would move \nBoardroom SX80: towards the shore and form a beach and slow down the erosion. So you know it’s time. It’s really time to try this and work on and and to the point of figuring out a way to do this\, so it can be done routinely \nBoardroom SX80: rather than requiring special authorization \nBoardroom SX80: by Congress\, which was required for the 42 foot project in the 50. \nBoardroom SX80: And then that final point I want to make. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I want to give kudos to the core when we did Sonoma Baylands I worked with Laura\, Marcus and Lee\, halterman of of Dylan’s office\, and the core was so difficult. It was like \nBoardroom SX80: like that. That old joke about about golfing\, you know\, Hit the ball drag Joe\, who died on the fourth hole. It was hit the ball and dragged the core. They are so different today. \nBoardroom SX80: The presentation was stunning. They hired Julie Beagle\, you know we didn’t have to get anybody replaced at the division office to make enough that which is what it required to make. Sonoma bail hands work\, so they’ve come across\, and they are truly your partner\, and then the final point I want to make is\, we know the physics. \nBoardroom SX80: I remember my old professor talking at at a beach nourishment kind of countries about waves. Certainly the waves are more significant in the summer. \nBoardroom SX80: but they’re always there\, and\, as Joe said\, they just pecked Joe Johnson\, they just pecked \nBoardroom SX80: to pick away edge. So the movement of the sediment is not going to stop. \nBoardroom SX80: and by that kind of monitoring with magnetic\, you’re going to find whether or not the sediment moved not precisely how much it’s hard to do that. But you’re going to find proof of concept. But we really know the physics. That’s how they can model it. \nBoardroom SX80: We know that the waves drag the sediment towards the shore. That’s how it works\, so I hope you approve this\, and I hope it works really well\, and \nBoardroom SX80: that’s why I’m here. Thank you\, Sir Peggy. Do we have any speakers remotely? Yes\, we have 2\, \nBoardroom SX80: Dean Stanford. Thank you for hanging with us now ahead and unmute yourself. Team. You have 3 min. \nDean Stanford: Thank you like Jim. I also wanted to bring up the \nDean Stanford: plan of dumping something like 3 million cubic yards of the Bart tunnel \nDean Stanford: soil into the bay. and i’d also like to know what’s the timeline on that is that going to be delayed until this pilot study is done. and i’d also like to suggest that the \nDean Stanford: proposed park on the bay in San Jose \nDean Stanford: could also use the beneficial use of the sediment. They are going to be restoring something like 800 acres. the sledge drawing pawns. \nDean Stanford: and could use the sentiment or the or the Vta tunnel dirt to cap the \nDean Stanford: sled ponds and create some kind of train for the park \nDean Stanford: to be used to raise the levy Berm\, around Pondy\, 18 for the park trail. \nDean Stanford: and also create Habitat Islands within the pond. \nDean Stanford: Also\, the park is located in the official disadvantage community. \nDean Stanford: Thanks. \nBoardroom SX80: The we have 4 more now at \nBoardroom SX80: Karen. Hi! You’re next. Go ahead\, and you have 3 min \nCarin High: that afternoon. My name is Karen High\, with Citizens Committee to complete the refuge. I just want to say\, in light of the sediment deficit that exists for San Francisco Bay\, and with the threat of sea level rise to tidal Wetlands Citizens Committee is happy to support the proposed project. \nCarin High: We are encouraged to see reuse of suitable dredge material for the benefit of the bay ecosystem. We also feel that it is \nCarin High: vitally important that there is a robust monitoring program. We think that that would be crucial to our understanding of the impacts of the proposed project on the Benthic community fisheries and adjacent eel beds\, as well as \nCarin High: determining the fate of the sediment that is deposited\, and with respect to the biotic component. We’re wondering if that could be extended to more than a few months. We also are very happy to see the use of tracer studies when you’re talking about \nCarin High: a 1 mm increase in elevation. That’s very hard to track\, so it’s important that we have something like a tracer study to track the efficacy of onshore sediment transport \nCarin High: transferred. \nCarin High: and we are looking forward to tracking the progress of the proposed project. We recognize the results of this project will be specific to the conditions of this site. \nCarin High: but they may help reflying questions for future projects. So \nCarin High: yeah\, encouraged to see beneficial reuse. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Charles Schaefer. Go ahead and unmute yourself. \nHi! My name’s Charles Schaffer. I’m with the Sierra Club’s Day alive. Project \nCharles Schafer: We absolutely support the the experiment. \nCharles Schafer: And \nCharles Schafer: well\, for one thing\, we need to build up \nCharles Schafer: the marshes to the best extent we can\, because if we don’t do something to build them up. They’re going to drown as the sea level starts rising more quickly. \nCharles Schafer: especially that’s a case given that we don’t have much room around the date for the marshes to migrate. \nCharles Schafer: and it is absolutely critical that we \nCharles Schafer: extend the amount of marshland that we have around the bay. \nCharles Schafer: and without the \nCharles Schafer: doing anything \nCharles Schafer: like this. We’re actually going to lose that march\, and that’s not a good thing at all. \nCharles Schafer: One other thing to consider is that we don’t have a lot of time to be doing this and experimenting with this. we put this off \nCharles Schafer: it. It’s going to delay anything that we could possibly do with penalty. \nCharles Schafer: and we don’t have that time. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Chair and lost your \nBoardroom SX80: I. \nBoardroom SX80: We have one more. I hope they got that right. Go ahead and unmute yourself. You have 3 min. \nPat Ravasio: Hi! Thanks so much. Just a quick endorsement of this from the town of quarter Madeera. I’m. On the Town Council there\, and we have a climate adaptation group that’s looking seriously at how to protect our many\, many homes along certain roads from \nsea level rise\, and also many of our businesses. So this project seems really right on point for us\, and if there are other \nPat Ravasio: and people who want to do experiments\, you want to come and see what we’re dealing with. We would love to hear from you. So if there’s a chat i’ll put my email address in. But\, Bravo! I I actually came on to listen for something else. But i’m so glad to hear that this is going on. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Pat \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. No more public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner? Sorry. Peskin moves Commissioner\, Show all 2 s \nBoardroom SX80: because I was looking to My! \nBoardroom SX80: Is there any opposition to close in the public hearing? Seeing none? The public hearing is closed. A. \nBoardroom SX80: There were a couple of questions. If you want to address them briefly. I’m happy to have you do so. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s not \nBoardroom SX80: nobody’s raised in the questions from the public hearing \nBoardroom SX80: well the questions regarding Pond 8 8 or pound 18\, and the tunnel muck. So the Tunnel Muck Project that’s actually an official term. We’re not being derogatory about it. Muck is an official technical term. The Vta Tunnel is going to be connecting the Bart system in Lower South Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and there is approximately 3 million cubic yards of sediment coming out of that tunnel. We’re currently along with the water board\, looking at the additives. That will be added to that sediment to help make it slow nicely\, and also hold together\, and whether or not that would have any biological impacts being put in a salt pond. \nBoardroom SX80: we’re currently looking at along with the South bay\, salt ponds\, and the Us. Fish and wildlife service \nBoardroom SX80: ponds\, a 12\, a 13\, a 8\, and potentially a 14. \nBoardroom SX80: A 14 is valley water\, a 12 and 13 are part of the South Bay shoreline Project and pond a 8 as far as the South Bay Salt Pond project\, so they would be placed in \nBoardroom SX80: the current. Look is those 4 Pont\, and they’re looking at feasibility\, and a sequel document will be coming out later this year. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any other questions or comments from commissioners. Before I ask for the recommendation and \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Washington\, we might need to get a request from the army core to accept the conditions. \nBoardroom SX80: That was part of what I said. \nBoardroom SX80: Does the Army court accept the recommendation? \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Commissioners. My name is Alpha Nisha. I’m. With the Us. Army core of Engineers\, San Francisco district\, chief of Navigation Branch\, and on behalf of the \nBoardroom SX80: Us. Army Corps of engineers. We do accept the conditions founded because you see the germination. Thank you very much \nBoardroom SX80: recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Washington and Commissioners staff recommends that the Commission approves the consistency to determination actually concurs with the conditions\, the conditions i’m not going to be able to speak anymore today. The consistency determination by the Army corps of engineers that the \nBoardroom SX80: strategic aquatic placement project is consistent to the maximum extent practicable of the Commission’s San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone management program \nBoardroom SX80: conditions include working within the environmental work windows protective of species monitoring the site\, placement and the target site for success criteria and for impacts to the system\, as well as removal of sediment. Should the project prove to be \nBoardroom SX80: ineffective\, or cause more harm than the removal itself. \nBoardroom SX80: and that we recommend your approval and concurrent. Thank you. I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Bolton. Peter moves \nBoardroom SX80: the motion \nBoardroom SX80: seconds. I \nBoardroom SX80: sorry. Whoever was on screen. I apologize. You were beat by some one in the house. Is someone a reason to be in the house. If you want to be on the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy\, will you call the role Commissioner on? \nYes. \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: Commissioner Aaron. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Burt. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner her. \nBoardroom SX80: We lost him Commissioner. Actually \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy I\, \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Horn. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: I \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, he. \nAndrew Gunther: I \nBoardroom SX80: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. Yes\, Commissioner. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, She’ll Walter. Yes. all right. Commissioner M. Here. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. Yes\, Commissioner Pemberton. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gallagher. \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, and I think your speakers are. No\, it’s not. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I miss anybody? \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, Sorry G. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I miss anybody else just checking to make sure you paying attention \nBoardroom SX80: now? 21 yeses no no\, no abstentions\, for the motion is passed. Thank you for your work. \nBoardroom SX80: God speed! And may the project go. Well\, Thank you. Commissioners will report back with progress. That goes to item 11 public hearing and possible vote \nBoardroom SX80: on the flow. Equalization and resource\, Recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvements Project. \nBoardroom SX80: Say that fast by West Bay\, Sanitary District in Menlo Park. \nBoardroom SX80: Attic\, and Leiden\, our Resources manager will introduce the item. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Shirt Wassaman. Me just share my screen. \nBoardroom SX80: There we go. all right. \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon\, Chairwosterman and Commissioners to day. I’ll be presenting \nBoardroom SX80: to you the application for the West Space sanitary districts flow Equalization and resource\, Recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvement Project. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll present a brief overview of where the project is located and set the stage for the Commission’s consideration of the application. \nBoardroom SX80: Following this\, I’ll turn the presentation over to the West Bay Sanitary District and their consulting team to present the details of the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Today we are joined by multiple staff from the Westpace sanitary district\, including Sergio Ramirez\, the general manager of the West Bay Sanitary District. \nBoardroom SX80: as well as Ferrer bores. He\, Art Hadari and Jed Bear. Then from their consulting team we have SW. Ca\, which includes Lauren Huff and Ben Snyder and the team from prayer\, and Laurietta includes Lorraine\, 2\, and Fernando Monroy. \nBoardroom SX80: As mentioned today\, we will be discussing the flow equalization and resource\, Recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvement Project Project site is located in the southern part of San Mateo County\, off of Bay Shore\, Freeway and marsh road in the city of Menlo Park. \nBoardroom SX80: The map on the right shows the project location which is directly adjacent to Bedwell Day\, Front Park in Menlo Park. \nBoardroom SX80: The map to the right shows the current. They plan\, designate a priority\, use areas that are around the project site which is shown by the red outline \nBoardroom SX80: priority. You series include the adjacent at Well Bay Front Park\, that is\, in a designated waterfront Park beach prior to you Syria\, as well as Greco Island\, which is in in a designated wildlife priority use area and part of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the project site itself\, again shown in the Red. is not located within a bay plan designated priority use area. \nBoardroom SX80: and I also just quickly point out on this map that there it also shows the existing and planned Bay trail near the project site \nBoardroom SX80: B. Cdc’s current jurisdiction within the project area is shown on the figure to the right. \nBoardroom SX80: The site is approximately 30 acres in size\, with about a little over 5 and a half acres of the site within the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, which is shown by the pink dashed line\, and approximately a little over 6 acres within the 100. But and that’s shown in the hatched area \nBoardroom SX80: a 100 feet inland from the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: West Point slew is located to the north of the project site\, and floods flu is located to the west. Additionally\, there are 3 open air overflow basins that are used for overflow capacity for the wastewater conveyance system\, and also shown in this figure. \nBoardroom SX80: There also are many existing habitats on the site that should be noted. There’s title\, slews\, title\, Mud flats\, title Marches and Upland Rural habitats present the specific site\, details\, or the speaks Sorry. Excuse me\, the specific details of the project will be described by the project team\, but generally the project involves levy improvements along the western and northern perimeter levies which include the installation of sheet pile walls into the existing burns\, and raising the elevation of the perimeter levies to 15 feet \nBoardroom SX80: any Vd. 88\, \nBoardroom SX80: constructing an ecoton levy slope on the outboard side of a portion of the existing northern perimeter\, Levy\, setting back a portion of the northern perimeter levy to create new tidal marsh habitat and installing oyster Reef elements along the northern point of the project site along West West Point slew \nBoardroom SX80: this project is an interesting one for the Commission’s consideration. Today it’s the first one of its kind that’s coming before the Commission\, where the specific goal of the project is to provide trolling\, protection and flood flood protection as well as sea level\, rises in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: particularly with including habitat elements that will actually be constructed out into the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: The the Commission has in the past authorize the construction of ecotone levies and habitat transition slopes. But typically these have been authorized in areas of di valence or in former ponds that are not subject to tidal action\, but that were opened up to the bay at a later time. \nBoardroom SX80: So this project is different in that regard. \nBoardroom SX80: I will also quickly note that the project has been approved by all other regulatory and resource agencies Except for B. Cdc. And the Us. Rb. Corps of Engineers. \nBoardroom SX80: This shoreline protection project for this facility could have been accomplished simply by using traditional sheet pile walls and raising the levees. However\, when the applicant began talking with agency staff. \nBoardroom SX80: There was a request that the applicant assessed whether nature based options were feasible to use for shoreline protection. After receiving this feedback\, the applicant reassessed the project design\, and determined that construction of an Ecotone levy was feasible. \nBoardroom SX80: and in addition to placing some oyster reef habitat structures around the site. the applicant then presented the project design to the agencies\, and the ecotone. Levy had a more gradual and covered\, or a more gradual slope\, and covered a larger area of the outboard title Marsh. \nBoardroom SX80: The agency staff had concerns about such a large area of impact on the outboard marsh\, and requested that the applicants look at whether it was feasible to set back any portions of the levy further into the project site to minimize the impacts on the existing marsh. The applicants responded and identified that a portion of their levy near Basin 3 \nBoardroom SX80: could be set back into the basin to allow the creation of new marsh habitat\, and that the slope of the Ecotone levy could be made to be 20 to one. To further reduce the near term habitat impacts and provide long term benefits while still maintaining required capacity for the overflow facility. \nBoardroom SX80: This is the project that you will hear about from the applicant shortly. This panel on the left of this slide shows the modeled habitats and what they will look like in 2\,070\, \nBoardroom SX80: and it compares those various options that I talked about. So on the top. There’s the sheet pile wall only option in the middle. There’s the larger ecotone levy that was originally shown to the agencies\, and the lower panel shows the project that you will hear about today at 2\,070\, with the habitat\, provided. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to mention that the Commission did previously approve construction of a habitat transition zone slope out onto existing marsh and against the Vallejo sanitary district. Facility as part of the Us. Fish and wildlife service project to improve a portion of marsh habitat along the mouth of Sonoma Creek. \nBoardroom SX80: The transition that zone levy for that project covered approximately 10 acres of marsh\, and it was reduced that was actually a reduced footprint from the original project design. After discussions with Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: that project was again specifically done for marsh\, reduce mass\, march restoration and enhancement\, and had a different purpose on the project before you today\, which is shoreline protection with natural nature-based options. \nIt’s \nBoardroom SX80: so to to set a little bit of a site context before the applicants present. \nBoardroom SX80: The project site is located about 0 Point\, 8 miles away from the nearest residences\, and according to the Commission’s community vulnerability\, mapping tool\, and the 2\,020 census data\, the project site itself is not located within an area that has \nBoardroom SX80: any sort of score for social or contamination vulnerability. However\, many of the surrounding areas and areas serviced by the facility are identified as areas that have moderate to high social vulnerability\, and also a low to high contamination vulnerability depending upon the location. \nBoardroom SX80: So in this map the darker areas of\, or the darker great colors actually show higher areas of social vulnerability\, and the applicant will also briefly discuss environmental justice in their presentation. \nSo \nBoardroom SX80: So the facility itself is currently located within the 100 year flood zone\, and the existing burns around the perimeter of the facility you do not prep provide current fema accreditation or sorry. Do not meet current fema standards. The current Berm elevations range from 10 to 12 feet\, and a Vd. 88 \nBoardroom SX80: and will be raised to about 15 feet\, and a. V. D. 88\, as I mentioned previously. The table on the left of this slide is the flood protection or flood elevations table that staff often use to understand the potential for coastal events and projected sea level rise to lead to overtopping and inundation of a site. \nBoardroom SX80: This table compares the current lowest elevation on the site at around 10 feet\, and a. Bd. 88 to the proposed levy height of 15 feet\, and a. Bd. 88 \nBoardroom SX80: over. Topping in this table is is actually shown by the blue shading in the cells\, the darker the blue\, the greater the water depth over the infrastructure. \nBoardroom SX80: as shown. You can see the current levy Berm system is susceptible to overtopping even today\, at a 50 year storm event. \nBoardroom SX80: and the project itself is designed to meet fema accreditation requirements\, and would be resilient to extreme tides. Sea level rise and wave conditions through 2\,050\, which you can see is indicated by there being no blue cells present at the year\, 2\,050 for the proposed project elevation. \nBoardroom SX80: and then at 2\,070. The still water elevations indicate that there is not likely to be overtopping on a daily basis\, or even during a 100 year. Extreme tide event\, however local wave effects may lead to some overtopping \nBoardroom SX80: the relevant Bay plan. Policies for Commission’s consideration when evaluating this permit application today include the policy policy sections highlighted on this slide which include tidal marshes and title flats\, subtitle areas\, fish\, other aquatic organisms and wildlife water quality\, environmental justice and social equity. \nBoardroom SX80: climate change\, shoreline protection safety of fills and public access. \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: so the primary issues raised by the application and by the project are whether the project is consistent with the Macate or Petrus act and the relevant a plan. Policies by including the minimum fill necessary for the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Whether the design of the nature-based shoreline protection is appropriate for the site. Whether the near term impacts of the project are outweighed by the long term benefits of the project. whether the project includes appropriate protections for bay resources and is appropriately designed to be resilient to future extreme tides and sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: and whether the project provides maximum feasible public access consistent with the project. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes staff prejudice\, presentation. And here\, to present the details of the project\, is Lauren Huff\, or Sorry Sergio Ramirez from the West Bay Sanitary district Lauren huff from Swca and Lorraine to from prayer and Loretta. \nOkay. \na second. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: it’s \nBoardroom SX80: all right. Good evening. Commission. This is my name is Sergio Ramirez. I’m. The general manager with West Bay Sanitary district born and raised in the Bay area. So the area native. \nBoardroom SX80: born in Stanford\, Stanford Hospital\, and raised in North Fair Oaks Redwood City. \nBoardroom SX80: Pretty much the project area that we’re talking about today. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have a presentation that’s coming up? Okay. Yeah\, just 1 s. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, it’s getting it’s a little slow. \nBoardroom SX80: Thursday afternoon. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, we’re good. \nBoardroom SX80: all right. So this is. This is an exciting project that West Bay is undertaken. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll mention that Westbury Sanitary district was established in 1\,902\, as the Menlo Park Sanitary district\, and as our sanitary district expanded to cover and provide more sanitation needs for the community. We changed our names in the eighties or so to West Bay Sanitary district\, but we were. We have been around since 1\,902\, serving in an environmental capacity in one way or another. \nBoardroom SX80: If you can go to the next slide \nBoardroom SX80: today’s agenda\, it will be discussing the the project needs and purpose\, and then the project design overview of the project impacts and then \nBoardroom SX80: select project\, Select project Measures monitoring\, which is very important that we’ve heard here all day today\, which we have a plan for and funding\, and then adaptive management\, and then we’ll open it up to questions and and answers \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So in prior to to the \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: at the beginning I should just start 1\,902 wastewater\, just like in many other communities\, would go down to the nearest creek and stream\, and actually flow right into the bay. That was common practice all over the bank. \nBoardroom SX80: So in the 19 thirties or so\, 1940 S. We started building treatment plants to serve as a treat treatment before we released wastewater into the bay. So that was a huge undertaking\, and we did it in 19. In the 1940 S. We acquired this property here\, this parse\, 20 anchor parcel. \nBoardroom SX80: We built the publicly owned treatment plant where we treated waste water so it would no longer flow up or down. The flood slew there on the left of the screen and into the bay\, we would actually capture it in pipes\, and then treat it. That started in 1\,900 fortys\, which caused us to build the original levy. \nBoardroom SX80: and then \nBoardroom SX80: and then i’ll go on to some some more \nBoardroom SX80: history. But this is the project site\, which is covered nicely by staff. These are These are areas of underserved communities there in the in the Redwood City area\, and then East PAL\, Alto and and others East mental park \nBoardroom SX80: and one more slide. So we are sensitive to the\, to those to those areas\, one being a local\, a local\, and then another. Having my parents live adjacent to this park in the the \nBoardroom SX80: In the Menlo Park district. \nBoardroom SX80: In the 19 eighties we converted\, we actually invested in a regional treatment plant called the Silicon Valley Clean water plant\, which you you may be familiar with. \nBoardroom SX80: We helped build that facility\, and then at the same time\, we converted this facility from a treatment plant to a flow equalisation facility\, where we are able to hold roughly 18 million gallons or so of raw wastewater. Whenever the treatment plant is overcome \nBoardroom SX80: by rich stormwater\, so we’ll actually divert flow into the site \nBoardroom SX80: again\, protecting the bay from from from exposure to weight to to waste water. \nSo the the we’ve been doing this since the 1980 S. \nBoardroom SX80: Through these storms\, as you can imagine\, we the Silicon Valley clean water treatment plant. Folks had to divert waste water to these ponds several times throughout the throughout this year’s storms \nBoardroom SX80: in the night\, and the so to just briefly describe the current Conditions Pond. One is our holds. About 10 million gallons of raw wastewater pond. 2 is an emergency emergency facility. That’s there. Just in case pawn. One is full. \nBoardroom SX80: We hadn’t had to use that in about 10 years\, but this year we actually on the New Year’s eve storm as it’s been mentioned. We actually had to \nBoardroom SX80: overflow into pond\, too. Luckily we had Ponto there to hold this waste water back during New Year’s day. Within a couple of days we diverted it back to the treatment plan and and processed it properly. \nBoardroom SX80: Right now we have a warehouse there in the middle of the picture that where we store equipment\, construction\, equipment\, and things to do\, pipeline\, replacement projects and things. \nBoardroom SX80: We also have the part portion of it as that decommissioned plant. We still use the operations room of the treatment plant as our field or secondary corp yard. We have about 12 members of the crew that report to that facility. \nBoardroom SX80: and then also down at the bottom left of that picture is the native plant nursery run by\, save the bay. So we’ve partnered with them\, and they’re actually they have it. We let them borrow a piece of property there. I think they were. We leased it for a dollar or something like that\, but they’re using it\, and they’ve been able to grow plants in this area in this nursery and then \nBoardroom SX80: use them in other areas of the bay\, which is a. Really\, we think it’s a nice partnership. \nBoardroom SX80: We have a stockpile in those green areas of some fresh soil that we plan on use to use for this project to raise our levy and protect the site. And \nBoardroom SX80: so in the ninth\, in the 2\,010 S. Or so we noticed that during king tides. \nBoardroom SX80: The water started getting closer and closer to the top of our of our levy. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, as you can see\, just in the just basic nature of this facility protecting the site is a matter of public health. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s just we’re. We want to protect the bay\, and we also want to protect the facility\, of course. So we’re doing both. Next picture our next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Another thing\, this one. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: we’ll leave it up. We’ll describe it. Well\, thank you. Thank you\, surger for that. Hello\, everyone. My name is Lorraine\, too\, and I’m Prior in Loretta. \nBoardroom SX80: a little of us. Thank you by me. \nBoardroom SX80: all right\, as I said\, my name is Lorraine to and i’m with fire in Loretta. We’re a consultant for West Bay sanitary district. So\, to demonstrate the purpose of this project. We share this photo taken by West Bay Sanitary district in 2\,017\, where it shows \nBoardroom SX80: Flood slew. Starting to come and overtop the levy into pond 2 \nBoardroom SX80: so. and to add to that raising the levy is a priority for West Bay in particular\, as you’ve heard from Sergio\, and we’ve come up with a valuable way to protect the site and create shoreline resiliency next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So in this slide here you can see that we’ve prepared an animation\, model of the inundation of the sites during 100 year\, events in the year\, 2\,073\, without any of the it\, without this project at all. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So our project itself. The design is described in this graphic. Here it’s \nBoardroom SX80: the goal of the project itself is to protect the area from flooding\, and to provide nature-based design and shoreline protection. The project attempts to balance near-term impacts with long-term gains associated with sea level rise resilience \nBoardroom SX80: The design includes both gray engineering as well as the nature based design\, including a sheet pile system to the west and the north. We also have raising the grades at the entrance of the fur facility. The sorry west-based facility to the south at Marsh Road. \nBoardroom SX80: and also to the northeast at Bedwell\, Bayfront Park the site also includes\, as mentioned before\, coming up. The project \nBoardroom SX80: includes coming into the site for about 739 feet of shoreline\, which helps create more tidal marsh. And we’re also featuring creation of \nBoardroom SX80: more marsh area to the north and then towards the point. There you’ll see that we also have quoister reefs as living shoreline. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Speaking of levels. \nBoardroom SX80: Speaking of the oyster reefs\, as mentioned earlier\, the project proposes these to not be the type that I think most people are familiar with seeing what these voicemail reefs that are like more of a ball formation. These are pre-fabricated such structures that are bid to createable they are. \nBoardroom SX80: They are comprised of locally sourced bay mud as well as fabric material and concrete. They’re meant to stay lower to the ground\, but above the bay mud to allow for vegetation to to still grow. \nBoardroom SX80: and as they degrade over time\, the hope is that the oyster shells will remain and start to create that structure and substrate for future oysters. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this slide also shows a rendering\, and of what happens with the project \nthat’s like something \nBoardroom SX80: so very different from the earlier slide where you saw the entire site inundated. This project is doing what we want it to do\, and that’s protecting the facility and protecting the the park to an extent \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So these graphics are somewhat familiar\, but just to point out the top slide there. On this slide the top figure shows what the project is\, with just the sheet pile system\, and the image below shows it with the sheetball system and the ecotone slope\, the colors themselves\, the the the purplish color is open water\, the brown is mud flat. \nBoardroom SX80: the green is the marsh salt marsh\, and there’s yellow for upland. And so\, in comparison you could see with the without the egotone slope we actually the biggest impact is\, you’ll see less of the the tile marsh \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as Sergei had mentioned\, the site is a very active site with the with the daily operations from day to day. It it’s because of that\, and in and to keep it safe\, you know it’s restricted. But as part of this process\, and working with Vcdc. We recognize that there’s a there should be some some elements of that. And so\, in working with the city of Memo Park\, West Bay is going to include here a viewing platform of sorts. \nthe site off of the northeast\, so that the Ecotone slope can be viewed. It’ll include a bench and interpretive signage. \nBoardroom SX80: and with that i’m going to turn it over to Lauren to talk about. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi! Good afternoon. I’m Lauren huff with Snca\, and just a \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, repeating some of what’s already been said. Really\, this project aims to really balance the near term impacts with long-term resiliency the slide you saw just previously\, with the habitat migration. The other option was really to just install the sheet pile walls and raise the levy which could have been the project. \nBoardroom SX80: The agencies showed some interest in having this nature-based solution\, and\, in fact\, they were the ones who originally suggested it in West Bay\, sanitary district took that to heart and really tried to come up with a project that would provide that nature-based solution\, and also allow them to have their site protected from flooding. \nBoardroom SX80: So I think at this point we’ve arrived at a pretty good balance of those near-term impacts and long-term \nBoardroom SX80: resiliency the ecotone slope. So on this slide i’m really just focusing on bay impacts. So I just want to point that out because there will be impacts to uplands as well. But i’m really focusing on those bay impacts and the ecotone slope really only impacts \nBoardroom SX80: permanently point one approximately 0 point\, 1 one acres of of habitat. We have avoided impacting any of West Point slew. So this is really just dendritic channels and mud flats as well as salt marsh. \nBoardroom SX80: and then temporary impacts are approximately 1 point\, one acres\, and then there’ll be a coffer dam\, right at the limit of that disturbance\, to isolate the work area from waters\, and also exclude wildlife species while construction is going on\, and that shouldn’t really add any additional impacts\, but it will\, You know the sheet piles will be driven in at low tide \nBoardroom SX80: right at that limit of disturbance\, and then there’ll also be approximately 1 point\, one acres of oyster reed habitat that you saw at that northern point. \nBoardroom SX80: In order to offset those permanent impacts we’ll be creating \nBoardroom SX80: approximately point 6 5 acres of salt marsh habitat in the uplands\, and I also just wanted to point out that we are still leaving Point 2.6 6 acres of habitat in place\, and will not be disturbing that existing habitat \nBoardroom SX80: slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So the project is subject to numerous permits\, and these are obviously not all of the measures associated with those permits. We. \nBoardroom SX80: the During implementation there is going to be a list of permit measures that will have to be implemented from B. Cdc. Us. Army Corps of Engineers\, Regional Water Quality Control Board Us. Fish and Wildlife Service. Noa Fisheries at State Lands Commission in city of Menlo Park as well\, and these are just some of the select measures\, just to show that you know loss of habitat and species are being considered and will be protected \nBoardroom SX80: during construction so obviously creating that wetland and upland habitat is to offset those near-term impacts conducting pre-construction surveys biological monitoring environmental trainings ensuring the site is excluded during construction\, so no species can enter the work area and then adhering to seasonal restrictions. \nBoardroom SX80: And then\, finally\, the project does have a very robust adaptive management and monitoring strategy. It will look at vegetation\, elevation\, shoreline\, position\, water\, level and quality\, dendritic channel\, evolution and erosion of both onsite \nBoardroom SX80: habitat as well as nearby habitats\, and then also the oyster reefs\, and these will be monitored consistently throughout construction\, in order to track any changes and address any issues immediately. \nBoardroom SX80: And then there are also triggers that will \ncreate a \nBoardroom SX80: a point in time when we would have to look at what’s going to happen\, whether or not we’re on track and implement adaptive management\, and the monitoring plan has some adaptive management recommendations\, but also includes a lot of agency coordination during that time\, in order to ensure we’re really adapting the project appropriately. \nBoardroom SX80: The monitoring will go on for 10 years for most elements. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe the oyster reef monitoring may go on a little bit longer\, and the regulatory agencies will be involved during that entire time. \nBoardroom SX80: And with that I will hand it back to staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. That concludes our presentation on the project. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: I will now open the public hearing on this matter. \nBoardroom SX80: Any member of the public who would like to speak. I don’t have any cards from people in the audience. \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy\, do we have anybody raising their hand on Zoom? \nBoardroom SX80: You have 3 min. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. First of all\, congratulations on being the first to to the eco-tone slope levy I know. That’s also a plan for pond to 18 \nDean Stanford: i’d like to know more about. Why\, Why\, you can’t have a trail around the perimeter. There was a safety issue. \nDean Stanford: I know there’s a there there is. There was a It’s all around Sunny whales\, water treatment plant pawns \nDean Stanford: and \nDean Stanford: the loss of the 9 Mile Bailey trail of out of county partners in \nDean Stanford: huge loss. \nDean Stanford: Maybe this could help mitigate that. \nDean Stanford: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, sir. Next\, Peggy. Thank you. He \nfor me. \nBoardroom SX80: Karen high\, and then Gina Tab\, go ahead\, Karen. \nCarin High: Good afternoon\, Karen. High Citizens Committee to complete the refuge. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. \nCarin High: Let me start by stating we we have actively supported ecotone levies and the use of nature based solutions instead of gray infrastructure wherever possible\, to provide resilience for the bay ecosystem and our communities. \nCarin High: This project is neither of these\, and we strenuously object \nCarin High: to the project being identified as an ecotone levy. We urge B. C. DC. To remove this phrase from any permit authorization issued. Continuing to describe this flood control\, Levy as an ecotone. Levy sets a dangerous and negative precedent \nCarin High: of authorizing the disturbance of high value. Tidal Wetlands under the guise of implementing nature based solutions. The proposed project violates the intent and foundational definition of an ecotone levy\, which is\, that the toe \nCarin High: of such a levee begins at the high tide line and moves landward. From there the intent is to provide existing tidal wetlands space to migrate as sea levels rise by contrast \nCarin High: this project begins well below the high tide line lying damaging existing wetlands. \nCarin High: The proposed project will introduce physical disturbance to over an acre of high value wetlands by being constructed on top of an amid an area of mature stable tidal wetlands that support State and Federal listed species. \nCarin High: The staff\, the staff report acknowledges that the norm for construction of ecotone levees is within Dyke Baylands salt ponds\, or in areas not directly exposed to tidal action. \nCarin High: In contrast this project will be exposed to tidal action and subject to wind and storm-driven waves. \nCarin High: Our concerns are not only focused on the risks associated with erosion of the constructed slope. \nCarin High: but as important the potential for significant adverse impacts to the adjacent wetlands\, including Greco Island\, part of the Refuge. For these reasons we expect B Cdc. To commit to closely following the progress of the project \nCarin High: during and post construction\, it will be imperative that any adverse impacts to the extent of title wetlands adjacent to the project be quickly identified and remedy \nCarin High: in an era where scientists and the environmental community are advocating for the use of nature based solutions instead of great infrastructure to provide sea level\, rise\, resilience\, authorization of the proposed project as an ecotone. Levy sets a dangerous precedent. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Tina. You’re next and then Charles Schaefer. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re a hand\, Gina. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Hello! Can you hear me? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, go ahead. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Great! \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Thank you. Chairman Westman\, and and the commission \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: i’m Gita Dev and I’m. Speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club\, Loma period\, a chapter \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: as well as the 3 Chapter Sea Level Rise Committee. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: as I \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: would like to note\, as Karen hided that we very much support nature based adaptation \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: in every project. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: However\, in this project we \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: we were encouraged to see that nature-based adaptation was being considered. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: However. we want to point out \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: that it is not what we expect when the \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Ecotone levy is actually placed on top of existing tidal wetlands\, which are very valuable. which are important for habitat. It’s right adjacent to Greco Island\, which is part of the wildlife refuge. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: This will be very very disruptive\, and we see no reason why \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the Levy and the Ecoton could not be placed within the property line of the project. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: If they say it\, that it was not possible earlier\, however. Later on we found that they were moving part of it backwards into the property\, as the agencies \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: protested. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: and but we do notice that the Eir did not even include the possibility\, and that may be one reason why they are not looking into it more closely. But there should be no reason why the capacity of the existing fonts could not be increased by raising the height of a levy\, for example\, so we are very concerned \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: that this \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: which is being presented as a nature-based adaptation is really destroying \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: habitat\, which is very mature and adjacent to a very sensitive area. We also wanted to point out for B. C. DC. The that that the trail \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the trail is not very well\, being considered the signage that is considered just not really provide for \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: the people who are using the trails \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: to know that they will be reaching a dead end. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: and they will have to turn back. These are fairly long trails\, so we do expect that the whole issue of signage and the trail need to be examined further. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: including parking for all the construction workers which would take up the very limited parking that’s there now. And finally\, i’d like to point out that a helicopter \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: right next to the Greco Island is not an ideal location for a helicopter. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: and simultaneously the oyster reefs Don’t seem to have any scientific basis. Thank you very much. \nGita Dev\, Sierra Club Loma Prieta: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Wasserman. That’s all the public comment in it. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. We have no more public comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I would welcome a motion and a second to close the public hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, absolutely \nBoardroom SX80: sorry. Show altar moves molten. Peter’s seconds. \nBoardroom SX80: Is there any objection to closing the public hearing. seeing none? \nBoardroom SX80: The public hearing is closed \nBoardroom SX80: now. \nBoardroom SX80: Comments or questions from Commissioner. So \nBoardroom SX80: i’m going to go to this screen first\, uncharacteristically. But I have \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gallagher\, who is \nBoardroom SX80: a new voice\, so we we will honor \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: thank you\, and thank you so much for the presentation. I think I just want to come around in terms of some of the things that were mentioned in public comment\, and see if we could get a a little bit more of an understanding of how this project is \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: echo toned nature based\, You know we did hear some comments around that\, and whether that this actually meets those definitions\, and so I personally need some help. But around that if someone could do a little bit of \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: more explaining there. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, maybe I can start\, and then I can turn it over to the project team. \nBoardroom SX80: I actually do have a slide if you would prefer to see it written. But the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s adaptation Atlas does have \nBoardroom SX80: definitions for what is considered an ecotone levy\, and so i’ll just read that really quick. So Ecotone levies are gentle slopes or ramps. \nBoardroom SX80: with a length and height ratio of about 20 to one or gentler award of the flood risk management levies and land of a tidal marsh. They stretch from the levy crust to the marsh surface\, and they can provide wetland\, upland transition zone habitat. When they properly vegetated with native flonal grasses\, rushes\, and sedges. \nBoardroom SX80: They can also attenuate waves\, provide high tide refuge for march wildlife and allow room for marshes to migrate up slope with sea level rice. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s the definition. I can certainly pull it up if you’d like to to see it \nBoardroom SX80: as we have the discussion. But i’ll also just point out in the same section of the adaptation Atlas\, where they describe ecotone levies. They do recognize that these are\, you know\, transitional zone habitat areas. They can provide a additional flood risk management. \nBoardroom SX80: They say that they’re largely untested in terms of them actually being constructed and built out into the bay\, and that potentially\, they would require considerable volumes of material to construct with high costs\, and that in many places their construction could require. Filling the bay lines\, which is highly regulated \nBoardroom SX80: is is kind of the discussion on that particular type of adaptation strategy. So I think the Ssei adaptation Atlas does at least envision that some of these structures would be built out into the bay on potentially existing valent habitats. \nJoelle Gallagher\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s your computer. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m. Following along on Commissioner Gallagher’s question. I I guess i’d like to understand a little more \nBoardroom SX80: response to the question about the Ecoton Levy this project\, and whether it is impacting \nBoardroom SX80: the existing wetland\, or just how it fits into the strategy and the long-term strategy as well. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I can certainly start and then turn it to the project team. So \nBoardroom SX80: the project\, I mean\, could have accomplished their goal of flood protection without including nature\, based options or habitat elements. That was something. Our shoreline protection policies and the Bay plan do advise that people and projects should first look at nature\, based options and see if they’re feasible. When they first came to the agencies to discuss the project\, they they hadn’t done that\, and so naturally the agencies say\, consider Nature based options first. Please take a look. So they did\, and they went and designed an ecotone levy slope that was much \nBoardroom SX80: larger in terms of the area of impact and extended pretty closely\, I think\, out to West Point slew. So it impact almost the entire area of March that’s outboard of the levy\, or a pretty significant portion of it. \nBoardroom SX80: All of the agencies kind of had a pause with that\, and had some concerns\, and so did ask about\, you know\, setting the levy back\, reducing impacts further. And so that is kind of when they went and reassessed\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we still even include these habitat elements\, and they decided to still include them\, but also have habitat benefits of setting one portion back and allowing title marsh to be created in that area to kind of offset that near term temporary impact for the next few years\, because it’s going to take some time before the Ecotone \nBoardroom SX80: fully vegetates and can buy can provide the same like habitat functionality. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. 2 questions. One is about the Oyster Reef. \nAndrew Gunther: I have been under the impression that in the South Bay. It was very challenging to establish choice to reef because of the presence of oyster drills\, parasites on the oysters\, and I wondered if there was any information about that \nAndrew Gunther: where they good plan for the eventuality of not being able to establish the oysters. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. So I mean\, I can certainly turn it over to them. But the there will be a monitoring plan that requires\, like\, we said\, 10 years of annual monitoring for these structures. They have not currently done any testing to see about\, like the recruitment or levels of recruitment that they might achieve at the site. It does \nBoardroom SX80: look like from some of the literature and guidance documents that have been provided\, that there are oysters that could be present in the South Bay in terms of recruits\, and that they might recruit to the structures\, but \nBoardroom SX80: how long they actually might stay\, or if there’s other issues\, such as the oyster drill that you mentioned is not known at this time\, so it would be something that would have to be closely monitored\, I think\, annually. \nAndrew Gunther: So. So this is proposed \nAndrew Gunther: really as a test of using this kind of nature based \nAndrew Gunther: wave attenuation structure\, I mean\, we don’t we don’t Really. \nAndrew Gunther: there’s no there’s no this is never been done before. At this in this part of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, to my knowledge\, I don’t think it’s been done in this part of the bay. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay\, I can. \nBoardroom SX80: If i’m in my loves. Okay\, so I can just add that really this came about because we have niff with funding for this project. And Niffliffe really wanted to see this living shoreline component added to the project. And we do actually think it would be a really \nBoardroom SX80: add some value to the structure over there\, you know\, if it works. So I think that’s really where it came about\, and it is not actually necessary for the engineering of the project based on the modeling. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay. But this will\, this will in essence give us a test of of utilizing this kind of structure in this part of the bay. Yes\, okay. My second question has to do with \nAndrew Gunther: the sediment. In the presentation you mentioned that there is sediment already on site that can be used to construct \nAndrew Gunther: the the the slope for the levy is is that all the sentiment you need? Or are you going to be needing to find sentiment from other locations as well? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, go ahead so for the for the bay\, for the Ecotone slope portion of it we would only need on-site sources. So we would be using the Bay mud that’s been over excavated to create the Ecotone slope\, and then there’s a stockpile on site that would also be used. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay\, Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Maybe i’ll just add to. There’s gonna be a thin layer of of the bay sediment that’s native. So sediment that’s going to be placed on top along with the Marsh saw to try and \nBoardroom SX80: make the vegetation effort happen much more quickly. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Kishimoto. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Well\, well\, first of all\, thank you for being some pioneers \nBoardroom SX80: in in in this nature based solution. So yeah\, I and I I\, You know I did read the extensive comments that came from the the committee\, for to complete that \nBoardroom SX80: refuge\, and \nBoardroom SX80: I think you know they. So \nBoardroom SX80: I got some some of my questions answered\, but maybe to me maybe some of it might boil down to \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. I’m looking at like pages \nBoardroom SX80: 11 or so where they kind of looked at the wording \nBoardroom SX80: of You know the mitigation\, etc. And so some of it comes down to May versus shell. So \nBoardroom SX80: so so for those of you who don’t have it in front of you\, for example\, they talk about. \nBoardroom SX80: If adverse impacts to the bay are identified during the monitoring period. then compensatory mitigation may be required. \nBoardroom SX80: And would it be possible to change that to shell. \nBoardroom SX80: so that you know\, to reassure during the monitoring period. Because it is\, you know\, it is kind of experiment in the first time that we’re \nBoardroom SX80: really doing this on the scale \nBoardroom SX80: that it’s not just monitored\, but \nBoardroom SX80: the \nBoardroom SX80: public. and can be reassured that there they will. There will be steps taken. \nBoardroom SX80: Let him staff. Think about that. I don’t know if you have any response right now. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, we can certainly add that. I think that is kind of the intent of the language. I think the project team would agree to that as well. But it’s kind of to them to say\, Are you talking about the special conditions\, each one and this kind of the subsequent \nBoardroom SX80: right right there’s yeah\, there’s some \nBoardroom SX80: several conditions. I mean several places on those same pages\, 10 \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, 10\, through 1011\, 12. There’s a number. So so let’s not let’s not. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s be very clear \nBoardroom SX80: about the exact condition. Okay\, and the exact language. Okay\, Given that this is being done on the flaw\, I see. Okay\, all right. Well. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m depending\, you know\, on the homework that was done by the the committee to complete the refuge. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that so i’ll start by looking at page. It says additional comments. It starts on page 9\, but I don’t think there’s anything there. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, one might be on page 10\, so special conditions. H: One mitigation areas. So additional compensatory mitigations shall be required instead of the may \nBoardroom SX80: again. Which special condition? Okay\, it’s\, let me say\, oh\, it’s it’s the it’s it. It must be kind of an introductory paragraph. \nBoardroom SX80: If you’re reading the same letter I’m. Reading. Then there are old headings above each paragraph. That is what we need to know. Okay\, Well\, the first one doesn’t have a letter after it\, says H. One \nBoardroom SX80: mitigation areas and habitat creation \nBoardroom SX80: at the bottom of page 10\, and then and then it goes on to more specific special conditions. H\, one C. Let’s hold it. H: One: okay\, and make sure that the \nBoardroom SX80: staff and \nBoardroom SX80: the applicant know that what? You are talking. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, and so it’s the red. It it is the it is the red \nBoardroom SX80: red line. That’s a \nBoardroom SX80: I apologize for that. for the red line there that says shall be required to offset temporal losses of high value. Title\, wetlands and Tidal Flats habitat. \nBoardroom SX80: Is that is that what you are talking about? Yes\, okay. Well\, well to me\, yeah\, I mean that I think the more important thing is\, shall rather than may I got you. And the second is\, you know this\, the the adding\, the phase about offsetting temporal \nBoardroom SX80: losses is\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: So so so you’re You’re restricting your suggestion to changing May to Shall in that sick. Well\, yes\, I mean if you want. If we can add that second part\, it’s a second. It’s a second priority. But I I think the most important to me is there. There. There are times when this happens. \nBoardroom SX80: but we need to be very careful when we’re doing this from the dais and and in the hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: So I’m. And by asking what your proposed. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: I Well\, to keep it simple\, then I would. Yeah\, just change to shell. Let’s take that one from me to shell\, and that’s for just special condition. H: One. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, that’s where I’m: I can go to others. We’re gonna take them one by one. Come okay. \nBoardroom SX80: next second one. \nBoardroom SX80: Consult amongst yourselves\, and give us an answer for me. Hey! What we’re looking at\, and i’m asking for an answer. We’re looking at the same thing that we agree we’ll change May to the shop from May to shall special condition. H. One third line in the letter page 10. \nBoardroom SX80: The May will be struck. The shell is in red\, and that is the change. Is that is that correct for everybody? \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. One down next one. Okay? \nBoardroom SX80: Well. yeah\, next one would be \nBoardroom SX80: H. H. One \nBoardroom SX80: ye or oyster reefs \nBoardroom SX80: if the success approved success criteria not met by the end of their monitoring period \nBoardroom SX80: from it \nBoardroom SX80: shall be required. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t. And \nBoardroom SX80: so let’s just make sure you’re only talking about the Shall you not talk about the phrase after that goes to agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I mean other other Board members may suggest it\, but i’m i’m just trying to. I’m trying to just keep it as simple as possible. So you so just to make sure that I understand\, and that our staff understands\, and the Commission understands. \nBoardroom SX80: Your A met Year’s proposal is to change the word may to shall. That is the only change to h one. E. Oyster reefs. That’s correct. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Can we agree with that? Thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, and the next one would be the next paragraph. \nBoardroom SX80: If the success criteria in the final a. M. M. And P. Are now method and adaptive management actions shall be required. \nBoardroom SX80: so do I take it that it’s the same as the one above it. That we that you would change may to shall\, and that would be the only change in that paragraph. Special conditions. H: One: F. Geomorphology. That’s correct. \nBoardroom SX80: We agree with that. Okay\, thank you. And then next paragraph is special conditions. H. 5 adaptive management. \nBoardroom SX80: If any adverse impacts to the bay are identified during the monitoring period\, then then \nBoardroom SX80: compensatory mitigations shall be required. So the only Apollo just Commissioner\, just like we do the same thing again. The only change you are recommending is from May to shall in that paragraph nothing else. \nBoardroom SX80: But yes\, okay\, just to be clear. Yes\, so we can agree to that. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: And I I think that’s it. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Any other comments. questions\, suggestions. \nBoardroom SX80: See? Oh\, i’m sorry\, Sanjay. Yeah\, I just want to say I I agree with those suggested changes\, and then wanted to ask. \nBoardroom SX80: Do any corresponding changes need to be made in the findings section or anywhere else. The documents track that \nBoardroom SX80: I think potentially\, I think Staff would have to go through and and look at the findings. But we can make those changes \nBoardroom SX80: to reflect that \nBoardroom SX80: may I make a recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: you may\, which is\, that when the recommendation is made by Staff \nBoardroom SX80: that the recommendation include reference to the I believe it were 4 changes that were made and direct staff to make parallel changes as required in the findings of the permit to align the findings with those changes. \nBoardroom SX80: So be it. \nYes. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other hands. \nBoardroom SX80: We will now take the staff recommendation \nBoardroom SX80: with the \nBoardroom SX80: amendments as articulated by the executive Director \nBoardroom SX80: on the basis of Commissioner Kishimota’s suggestions. \nYep. \nBoardroom SX80: Up. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Just a second. Here. I’m: going to share my screen again. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. So on March thirtieth you were mailed. The staff recommendation for the flow\, Equalization and resource\, recovery\, facility\, Levy Improvement Project. \nBoardroom SX80: The staff recommends that the Commission approved B Cdc. Permit application 202-20-0100\, with conditions to authorize the project. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, staff are requesting to make revisions that were male to you this morning to the staff recommendation and the permit\, which includes a change to the area of coverage for the oyster reef habitat \nBoardroom SX80: from 0 point\, 1 one acres to 0 point\, 1 8 acres\, which was discussed during the presentation today\, and to clarify that the temporary copper dam for the project covers the same footprint as the eco-tone levy. \nBoardroom SX80: These changes would require updates to the permit to specify that the total temporary fill for the project is 1.3 acres rather than 1.2\, 2 due to that increase in the oyster reefs which we did talk about today. \nBoardroom SX80: The staff also requests that the Commission allow the staff to make minor type of graphical grammatical and non-substantive corrections to the permit\, and we will also be sure to include the changes to those special conditions\, which were 2\, \nBoardroom SX80: 2\, H\, one to \nBoardroom SX80: h\, one e\, or H. Sorry\, h\, 3\, e. \nBoardroom SX80: 2\, h\, 3\, F. And I believe 2. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s 5\, 2\, H. 5 is the last one. as condition. The staff believes that the project is consistent with your law and Bay plan policies\, and with that we would recommend that you adopt the staff recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: I would recognize. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you and I’d be happy to make the motion to adopt that staff recommendation as amended. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Do I have a second. So. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, show all 2 s. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other hands\, Peggy\, we call the role\, please. Okay\, Commissioner on the and Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Erin. He \nJesse Arreguin\, Commissioner: yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Akland \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: bye. \nBoardroom SX80: I \nbye. \nBoardroom SX80: What did you? I’m Sorry\, Commissioner \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: I Commissioner\, he. \nAndrew Gunther: I \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Walton Peters. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Pauline. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. Yes. Commissioner show Walter. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Muell. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kin Shimoto. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pemberton \nSheri Pemberton\, Commissioner: Epstein \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Vasquez Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Mandara. \nLenny Mendonca\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gilmore. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Vice chair. Eisen. Yes\, Chair Walserman. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. Did I miss anybody? \nBoardroom SX80: 18? Yes\, no no one abstention. It passed. Thank you very much congratulations to the applicant \nBoardroom SX80: at this stage. There’s a lot of work to do. \nBoardroom SX80: and we are. \nBoardroom SX80: I. You recognize the executive director. I just want to say that that it’s not often that the last time somebody makes a presentation as a staff member to BCDC. That you have to go through a process like we just did. And I just want to say\, on behalf of all staff that we are going to Miss Onik and terribly\, and we look forward to your deciding to become a B C. DC. Staff member again at some point in the future. Thank you. And I’m. I’m \nBoardroom SX80: that line or extending that line\, if you like. I have thanked\, and the Commissioners who are here for being here. I want to thank the staff for being here in terms of making the presentations. That makes a big difference as well. \nBoardroom SX80: So we thank you very much for doing that. \nBoardroom SX80: We are not going to take up items \nBoardroom SX80: 12 and 13. We will take them up at future meetings. \nBoardroom SX80: You got saved from a bunch of rhetoric from me. \nBoardroom SX80: but you’ll get to hear it in the future on it. It’s one of those items. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haz moves commissioners as franchise seconds. \nBoardroom SX80: Anybody want to oppose that one. Anybody want to abstain on that one. \nBoardroom SX80: The motion passes\, we are adjourned. Thank you all for your attention and your efforts. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-6-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230406T103000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230406T120000
DTSTAMP:20231213T024458Z
CREATED:20230407T060720Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231213T024458Z
UID:10000082-1680777000-1680782400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:April 6\, 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/84651614882?pwd=NEZxcnJxNXUyamE0VVpXNVdJc01yUT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID846 5161 4882 \nPasscode035450 \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 Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework The Working Groups will receive a final presentation summarizing the conclusions of the BCDC/MTC-ABAG Sea Level Rise Adaptation Funding and Investment Framework study. The Framework is a high-level analysis of the anticipated costs of adapting to rising sea levels and possible sources of revenues to meet those costs.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\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. The briefing will include an overview of leadership groups\, goals\, and the work plan.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/04/04-06-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, all\, and welcome to our \nBoardroom SX80: P. Cdc. \nBoardroom SX80: Workshop. On financing the future and rising sea level. we are this morning combining 2 working groups. \nBoardroom SX80: You can envision it as where the dollars need to see. \nBoardroom SX80: And as we know\, and as we’re going to hear\, we need a lot of dollars in order to avoid meeting the sea in places where we really don’t want it to be. \nBoardroom SX80: This is one of the very important milestones\, I think\, in our efforts \nBoardroom SX80: to figure out how we are in fact\, going to adapt to rise in sea levels \nBoardroom SX80: in the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: I suspect\, because I cannot help myself that I will have a number of things to say during the morning. But at this moment i’m going to turn it over to \nBoardroom SX80: Peggy to get us started. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. I’m gonna take her all \nBoardroom SX80: here. Vice chair. Eisen \nBoardroom SX80: here\, Commissioner on \nEddie Ahn: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joya. \nJohn Gioia: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gory. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Fine \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, she\, Walter \nBoardroom SX80: here Commissioner\, left for went. \nBoardroom SX80: having a hard time today. Sorry I’ve been up since 4 30\, Did I miss anybody? \nBoardroom SX80: Nope\, it looks like you have 7 commissioners here. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. Sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: All right. I thank you for those who are here in person\, and for those of you who are participating remotely. \nBoardroom SX80: I know I urged everyone to participate \nBoardroom SX80: in person\, both for this and for our commission meeting this afternoon. \nBoardroom SX80: just because we need \nBoardroom SX80: for these important things to get together as much as possible. But I also appreciate. There are \nBoardroom SX80: distance and travel and environmental reasons that support participating remotely. \nBoardroom SX80: So who’s going to start the Dana. Take it away. \nBoardroom SX80: please. Great. Thank you. So we will just jump right in our first agenda. Item is our financing the future agenda item\, which is a presentation on our funding and investment framework that we have been working on with Mtc. A bag. \nBoardroom SX80: So i’ll reintroduce myself. I’m Dana Breckwald\, i’m the assistant planning director for climate adaptation with B. Cdc. And I’m. Joined here today by Rachel Harder Phyllis\, the Resilience planner at Npca. Bag and I also want to. You know that Dave Button\, assistant Director of Major Plans is also here as well. \nBoardroom SX80: So let me get my screen set up. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. So as I mentioned. We’re here today to discuss the conclusion of our sea level rise\, adaptation\, funding\, and investment framework. And this project builds off of major regional planning efforts\, all of which have called for a priority action to fill knowledge gaps in the adaptation funding space. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as a result\, we kicked off the framework here at the bark governing board in December. 2021\, and we’re back here today to conclude the project and summarize our final findings. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as we introduce the final findings of the framework. It’s\, of course\, always important to put them in context. The bay area is defined by its relationship to water with iconic beaches on the outer coasts. \nBoardroom SX80: waterfront parks across the region\, with cliff sides\, wetlands\, playgrounds\, and more vast wetlands and diverse habitats. \nBoardroom SX80: and maritime culture. And commerce \nBoardroom SX80: We also have diverse shoreline communities\, such as bustling downtowns\, tight-net residential neighborhoods\, cozy beach towns and industrial job centers \nBoardroom SX80: spanning across the bay the delta and the outer coast \nBoardroom SX80: and winding across the region\, of course\, are also transportation and infrastructure networks which line the shoreline\, both connecting us to one another as well as supporting the region’s economic vitality. \nBut rising sea levels puts this all at risk. \nBoardroom SX80: So to day we’ll be spotlighting the framework findings on key financial estimates to tackle this challenge\, but it is also important to keep in stake what’s at. \nBoardroom SX80: Keep in mind what’s at stake with sea level rise\, adaptation\, and what adaptation could mean for the people and places that we care about so deeply. \nBoardroom SX80: So i’m not going to go into a deep dive on climate change. I’m sure You’re all familiar with the numbers. But\, needless to say\, sea level rise is happening already. \nBoardroom SX80: The shoreline is already aided\, and is higher than it was at the beginning of the twentieth century\, and coastal flooding is commonplace with king tides and extreme storms\, as you’ve seen over this past winter \nBoardroom SX80: by 2050\, we could be living with 12 to 32 inches of more more of permanent water\, with much\, much more by the end of the century. \nBoardroom SX80: although there’s still a lot of uncertainty at this point. But what we do know is that while this is a California wide coastal issue\, it will be felt most acutely here with 2 thirds of the statewide impacts occurring in the Bay area. \nBoardroom SX80: So clearly there is a need for significant adaptation action to occur in the region\, or we lose much of what we love in the Bay area. It’s not possible to quantify every benefit of adapting Iconic shorelines and the diverse communities that live behind them. But we can spotlight some elements of what’s at risk as waters rise \nBoardroom SX80: first. It’s estimated that 200\,000 jobs and 75\,000 homes may be at risk. \nBoardroom SX80: including over 12\,000 of the vulnerable homes that are in the areas. The region’s most socially vulnerable areas as defined by BCC’s community vulnerability data. \nBoardroom SX80: A regional perspective on this on this issue can ensure that everyone has the opportunity to adapt\, regardless of capacity level. \nBoardroom SX80: And in addition\, we have vulnerable acres at risk\, including the region’s\, rich\, diverse wetlands and tidal marsh habitat. \nBoardroom SX80: while 85 billiondollars estimated\, is at risk in terms of the assessed value of parcels. \nBoardroom SX80: our critical infrastructure will also be exposed. \nBoardroom SX80: These estimates can be mitigated with coordination or multi benefit solutions adapting vulnerable transportation networks with elevation or realignment could cost up to 150 billiondollars. \nBoardroom SX80: Other infrastructures\, such as wastewater and public utilities\, will also be extremely costly To adapt \nBoardroom SX80: adapting to Isentide’s Bay area\, which B. Cdc. Released in 2020 painted a region wide picture of the sea level rise risks\, including areas where there’s a nexus of critical regional systems\, all exposed to flooding. At the same time. \nBoardroom SX80: We call these hotspots\, and they are included. They include areas where transportation\, infrastructure\, vulnerable communities and jobs\, in housing growth or priority development areas or priority conservation areas are all co-located meeting that they pose a significant shared risk for the region. \nBoardroom SX80: but They also represent opportunities where the shoreline adaptation could provide multiple benefits at once. \nBoardroom SX80: Some of these areas are exposed early on\, like Santa Fe Quarter\, Madeera and Martinez\, while others become exposed later on. \nSo let’s keep these hotspots in mind\, as we consider where investments may be prioritized in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: I also want to emphasize here that while there will be a so need for significant investment on the local level by cities\, private landowners and developers. \nBoardroom SX80: local action will not be enough to meet the needs of sea level Rise\, adaptation\, cities\, face tough trade offs in adaptation\, and most critical in the context of this project. Without a region wide approach. We risk competition between cities for funding\, funding\, only going to high capacity cities. \nBoardroom SX80: and we may actually miss adaptation in critical locations like the hotspots you just saw\, because we’re not collectively agreeing on funding priorities. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, just like cities can’t solve sea level rise problems on their own. Our regional agencies also need to coordinate\, to provide the most effective solutions. No single agency has all of the authorities and capacity to address adaptation solutions from all angles \nBoardroom SX80: Over the past several years B. Cdc. Has been coordinating with Mpca. Bag and the San Francisco asteroid partner to align our respective regional plans and coordinate on implementation of the key tasks that we’ve identified. \nAnd this collaboration is the foundation for this Project \nBoardroom SX80: B. C. D. C’s primary plan that informs our steel of a rise work is our Bay Adopt joint platform\, which was published in 2021\, \nBoardroom SX80: and the joint platform contains 9 actions and 21 tasks that overcome barriers\, and paved the way for faster\, more equitable adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: It doesn’t specify shoreline projects but instead\, lays the foundation for more responsive engagement and community-led planning consistent and accessible information\, coordinated and aligned plans. \nBoardroom SX80: projects that hit the ground with fewer snags and more funding and a collective way to measure the region’s progress. \nBoardroom SX80: And I specifically want to call out at Action 6 here\, which is\, figure out how to fund adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: This project helped us to achieve the first task under this action\, which is to expand understanding of the financial costs and revenues associated with regional adaptation and help set the foundation for the next 2 tasks. \nBoardroom SX80: And then\, lastly\, I just want to remind this group that the joint platform is informed by guiding principles that we created with our stakeholders that you can see here. I won’t. Read them at this time\, but just keep in mind that these principles can help guide any future decisions as that we\, as a region make about how we fill the region’s Funding gap\, which you will hear about next. \nBoardroom SX80: So at that i’ll turn it over to Rachel to introduce you to the project and its findings. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Dana Rachel\, Hard to feel this resilience planner at B. C. A. Back. \nBoardroom SX80: and just as a quick refresher on the framework. We’d like to review 3 of the key focus areas of this project. \nBoardroom SX80: The first is to update and improve our regional accounting of anticipated civilized projects. \nBoardroom SX80: and some of the outcomes of this are to update our prior regional analyses with local projects from recent planning efforts\, as well as to estimate the regional steel\, for as adaptation needs through 2050. \nBoardroom SX80: We also have a focus to update and characterize the existing revenue sources for sea level as adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: And to do this. We’ve inventoried and forecasted known revenues for State and Federal public funding programs\, and also characterized how some of these existing adaptation funds are dispersed\, and for what purpose? \nBoardroom SX80: Finally\, a focus area is to study how new revenues for sea levelorize adaptation needs could be raised more equitably. And for this we analyzed a range of possible revenue measures at different scales\, trying to understand the high level equity approaches to close the seal. The rise of funding gap \nBoardroom SX80: next slide \nBoardroom SX80: in support of the first focus area. We’ve created a regional inventory of adaptation needs identifying locally developed projects in various planning stages. \nBoardroom SX80: This inventory was sourced by local plans\, and for B. Cdc’s shoreline Adaptation Project\, mapping program or sap map\, which is an extension of Eco Atlas. \nBoardroom SX80: This inventory was created to help us to develop high level cost estimates for regional adaptation and to begin to identify planning and implementation gaps. We identified approximately 200 locally identified projects and study areas which have less defined adaptation interventions. Many of these with multiple sites among them. \nBoardroom SX80: and to review this inventory in the fall we spoke with local staff across all 9 Bay area counties\, updating over 2 thirds of the inventory and adding additional projects as well. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the data in this inventory was not complete in all cases\, as you can see in this example\, not all projects that are included in the inventory provide the same level of sea levelise protection. For example. \nBoardroom SX80: some less protective projects are shorter term projects\, while others are green projects that provide other flood mitigation\, but are not intended to harden the shoreline at the adaptation development edge \nBoardroom SX80: we were not able to gather flood protection information for approximately 50% of these projects. \nBoardroom SX80: Similarly\, projects were missing. Other details\, such as 20% of the project’s missing project costs. We developed methods to get around some of these data gaps\, including the use of placeholders. \nBoardroom SX80: next slide \nBoardroom SX80: to better quantify the full magnitude of regional need. The inventory also needed a way to account for costs in areas with less advanced advanced adaptation\, planning or project implementation \nBoardroom SX80: or in areas where the projects were missing\, cost information \nBoardroom SX80: to do this placeholder values were created by assuming the protection of the shoreline in place\, including areas that have no known plans\, areas where a study has not yet defined specific projects \nBoardroom SX80: or areas where a project was not confirmed to provide sufficient protection. \nBoardroom SX80: These placeholders should be thought of as project gaps that represent vulnerable segments of the shoreline\, and will be replaced by specific ideas generated from further local adaptation planning in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: And while this is a helpful data data summary of a moment in time which will be making available as an online interactive map later this spring. In the long term we envision B. Cdc’s sat map as the tool through which the region can continue to track adaptation projects \nBoardroom SX80: as such data from the framework will be integrated into that effort from which plans and project data can be updated. As they develop \nBoardroom SX80: in the near term. We’ll integrate this data into regional planning efforts\, such as Plan Bay area\, 2050 plus\, and the regional shoreline adaptation plan \nBoardroom SX80: excite. \nIt’s okay. \nBoardroom SX80: And as mentioned previously\, the inventory has been developed to help us estimate a regional cost. Estimate for shoreline adaptation \nBoardroom SX80: for context. The estimates that we’ll discuss today are presented in year of expenditure \nBoardroom SX80: and the framework builds off of previous work done in Plan Bay area\, 2050\, which estimated the regional need at 19 billiondollars through 2050. \nBoardroom SX80: To update this information for the framework. We’ve made a number of assumptions. As a first step we created updated cost assumptions for different project types\, using the best available data. With this change alone the same set of projects from the previous work would be projected to be just shy of 40 billiondollars. \nBoardroom SX80: We also accounted for increased inflation over the last 3 years \nBoardroom SX80: previous. Analysis\, looked at an inflation rate of 2.2% in the future\, while the framework has assumed a rate of 3% through the study period. \nBoardroom SX80: The framework also measures protection through 4.9 feet of sea level rise to account for both permanent sea level rise projected from the Ocean Protection Council through 2050\, \nBoardroom SX80: as well as a 100 year storm\, which surpasses State guidance recommendations\, and also coincides with many of the local planning assumptions of some of the local efforts here in the region. \nBoardroom SX80: Finally\, where an area was identified with no current adaptation plan nuclear concepts. The framework analysis assumed a default\, adaptation\, action\, or all vulnerable shorelines\, including areas without planning and those in need of augmented plants. \nBoardroom SX80: And when we piece these elements together\, the adaptation estimate through 2050 is a 110 billiondollars expressed in year of expenditure dollars. \nBoardroom SX80: About half of that cost is based on locally identified projects with the remainder estimated as a placeholder value\, including estimates for additional sediment. Management needs \nBoardroom SX80: Partial project funding where known was also subtracted from this total\, but there may be additional projects with partial funding that were not known at the time of the assessment. However\, we like to emphasize that this is not necessarily the value that needs to be raised by governments to adapt \nBoardroom SX80: as a reminder. This estimate accounts for a very conservative approach in place \nBoardroom SX80: a very conservative approach in which we assumed the protection of the shoreline in place for all vulnerable shorelines\, including low density areas. \nBoardroom SX80: This inventory is also a snapshot of a current moment. In time and adaptation. Efforts will continue to develop or shift\, especially for projects that are in the early planning or conceptual stages\, so the costs are likely to change as more information becomes available. \nBoardroom SX80: Other strategies not estimated or assumed through the framework. Analysis will also play a role\, including adaptation without protection\, building code changes or other local policy adjustments. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition\, feature analysis will need to include riverine and groundwater data as it becomes regionally available\, as well as additional adaptation plans such as those made by utilities. \nBoardroom SX80: So now that we’ve seen this total number\, let’s revisit that cost of inaction that we showed you on a previous slide. \nBoardroom SX80: One key finding of this analysis is that even just a partial estimate of the cost of inaction was found to be much higher than the estimated cost of sea level rise. Adaptation projects through mid century. \nBoardroom SX80: Our cost of inaction\, analysis included losses to assessed property\, values of homes and the impacts of inaction on the transportation system\, but did not include more sophisticated estimates\, such as real market value of property losses\, impacts to the environment. \nBoardroom SX80: communities\, businesses\, and more that would certainly increase this cost of inaction. Even further. \nBoardroom SX80: the difference in these values makes it clear that adaptation\, action will be worth while many times over. \nBoardroom SX80: So now that we’ve seen the total number for the region\, let’s dive into some additional details and a few of the distinctions across the counties. \nBoardroom SX80: The analysis has shown that most of the planned projects are hybrid in nature\, representing a regional focus on multiple benefits\, such as levees paired with marsh restoration. \nBoardroom SX80: though the threshold for the amount of nature based solutions needed to be considered\, a hybrid project \nBoardroom SX80: was very low\, meaning that hybrid projects may be over represented here \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of the counties. Alameda and Marin counties have the highest cost estimates with the information that we’ve gathered\, aligning with their anticipated steel of arise Vulnerability. \nBoardroom SX80: notably approximately half of the estimated value comes from placeholders created to develop cost estimates with significant implementation. Gaps identified in alameda Contra Costa and Marin counties. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, this. \nBoardroom SX80: while identifying this implementation gap\, is helpful\, it also does not point out a key nuance between these counties. \nBoardroom SX80: For example\, in Marin County\, while they are still identifying specific projects for vulnerable locations. The county has almost no identified planning gaps\, and\, in fact\, the planning is quite robust and comprehensive \nBoardroom SX80: by contrast. In Contra Costa County. The placeholder value represented here represents a significant implementation and planning gap. \nBoardroom SX80: We anticipate that these distinctions will become clear through future efforts\, such as through the developing sea level\, rise planning guidelines in the Cdc’s regional shoreline adaptation plan and updating project information in plumb area 2050\, and beyond. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s piece these different elements together by taking a deep dive into one county \nBoardroom SX80: on the Hotspot’s map\, one Major Hotspot\, was identified in East Palo Alto. \nBoardroom SX80: This location contained the Dunbarton Bridge touchdown us 101\, \nBoardroom SX80: too\, socially. \nBoardroom SX80: socioeconomically vulnerable communities. The ravens with Pda \nBoardroom SX80: and the Bay Trail as well as the Menlo Park and East Palo Alto Bayland’s priority conservation area. \nBoardroom SX80: When we look at the inventory\, however\, we see that not only has significant planning occurred along this shoreline\, but several adaptation projects and study areas are already underway. \nBoardroom SX80: This means that most of the county wide cost of the 11 billiondollars that we have estimated is based on real costs. With a minority of those representing placeholders. \nBoardroom SX80: We can even dive into one of these projects further and highlight the safer Bay project\, which consists of a series of levies\, dikes\, and restoration projects\, with a priced estimate of over 200 milliondollars. \nBoardroom SX80: diving deeper into each county\, and looking at each shoreline’s\, vulnerabilities\, especially the areas of first and horse\, i. E. Early flooding and areas of interconnected vulnerabilities where key assets are located. \nBoardroom SX80: as well as taking a deeper look at the planning and implementation gaps\, can all help us to shape a more nuanced approach to layering the the local funding with regional or state grants to meet each county’s. Need \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also developed an existing sea level rise\, adaptation\, revenue\, forecast\, to estimate how much revenue the region can anticipate through 2050 from sources that already exist. \nBoardroom SX80: The framework has identified new public funding sources To add to prior revenue estimates in this space\, such as the one in Plumb Bay area\, 2050\, including 30 new adaptation Grant programs from the past 2 years of State and Federal funding. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, despite the influx of new revenue opportunities\, only a small share of the billions of dollars in New State and Federal funds are estimated to be available for both civilized adaptation\, and to be awarded \nBoardroom SX80: in the Bay area. \nBoardroom SX80: What the bay area is likely to receive will be whittled down significantly when we assume a portion for statewide and national funds. \nBoardroom SX80: Additionally\, most of the 30 new funding line items are not specific to sea level rise\, adaptation\, but may support a range of adaptation needs such as wildfire or extreme heat\, and so the revenue must be further bilted down to sea level rise specifically \nBoardroom SX80: when these limitations are accounted for the region should expect only a fraction of new State and Federal funding opportunities \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: and I can pass it back over to Dana to close up this next section. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks\, Rachel. So it it’s in this this context of of funding that we look at exploring new funding sources. \nBoardroom SX80: A part of the closing the gap will be increasing the available revenues\, and while we can and will work to advocate for State and Federal funding\, it may also be beneficial to raise funds at the local county and regional scale to fund projects will provide matching funds to Federal and State opportunities that emerge. \nBoardroom SX80: The framework approached this analysis in a high\, level\, exploratory way\, intended to provide insight for future research and discussion in the years ahead\, not to point to the the right measure. We need to take right now. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s within this context that we research 3 possible new revenue measures at the local county and regional skills to understand how much funding could be raised annually\, what the bond issuance potential is\, or how much \nBoardroom SX80: different funding measures could raise for near term project implementation and initial equity implications specifically\, who would pay versus who benefits \nBoardroom SX80: while many funding options are out there for sea level rise adaptations such as sales\, taxes\, business taxes\, and development fees. Among others. \nBoardroom SX80: these options were filtered for overall feasibility and regional precedence\, and the 3 measures that were selected based on these filters for generating case studies led us to focus on parcel taxes AD blorent property taxes and assessment districts. \nBoardroom SX80: Of course\, our high level findings show that there is no silver bullet. There is no single revenue measure that’s projected to be capable of addressing our funding gap. \nBoardroom SX80: and as such\, additional funding from State and Federal sources will also be necessary \nBoardroom SX80: of the 3 revenue types that we reviewed. Parcel taxes and app floor and property taxes were viewed at the county regional scales\, but we also looked at assessment districts on a sub local basis. For each of these we determined. We looked at high level findings and used regional precedents to determine case studies \nBoardroom SX80: So parcel tax are typically a flat rate tax that Don’t account for the value or size of the property \nBoardroom SX80: an add lower property tax can be a progressive tax\, as higher assessed properties may pay more. However\, we have limitations due to prop 13\, and lastly\, assessment districts are directly tied to specific benefits. With last opportunity to tailor them to account for equity Disparities \nBoardroom SX80: As such. They are most feasible in specific areas\, with either more resources and or more direct impacts of sea level rise \nBoardroom SX80: for case studies. We did do regional estimates. Aside from the assessment districts\, and with our consultants supporting us\, we looked at example\, rates for what taxes could support if raised and bonded at different scales. \nBoardroom SX80: We notice that property\, that par parcel taxes and adulorum property taxes\, the bonding potential is quite different. \nBoardroom SX80: and this is due to the fact that aval or property taxes have a much higher tax rate for highly assessed parcels\, as well as greater regional precedents. \nBoardroom SX80: Again\, just to remind you\, this is an initial review of case studies and its exploratory to set the that set the stage for future conversation and discussion. \nBoardroom SX80: We also looked at all of these tools through the lens of equity focused on who pays versus who benefits \nBoardroom SX80: for these 2 are For this analysis we focused on adulterum and property taxes\, as they are more likely to be scaled at the county and regional levels as opposed to the assessment district which is highly dependent on the community in question. \nBoardroom SX80: So with regards to geographic equity\, Santa Clara\, Alameda\, and San Francisco counties have the largest property tax rate\, while San Francisco or San Mateo and Marin counties\, have a disproportionate share of the risk of sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: However\, the risks to parcel values obscure some additional nuances. For example\, in the context of regional revenue measure\, the protection of key regional infrastructures\, such as us\, 101 in San Mateo and Morin \nBoardroom SX80: would benefit travelers regionally\, not just local residents. \nBoardroom SX80: So our our key finding here is that it will be necessary to use multiple funding sources\, such as AD form or taxes or parcel taxes to help balance the tax burden across the region. \nBoardroom SX80: To look at social equity. We define socially vulnerable areas using BCC’s community vulnerability data which categorizes areas using a number of vulnerability indicators such as income and race. \nBoardroom SX80: And with this information we found that both taxes benefit socially vulnerable areas to a greater extent than the regional share. Therefore\, advancing equity. however\, parcel taxes were found to be less socially equitable and add toil on property. Tax. They they place a higher tax burden on socially vulnerable areas. \nBoardroom SX80: So these are really high-level findings. So If we were\, if county or regional measure were to be considered for sea levelized adaptation. Of course we would need to take additional steps first. Further research creation of guiding principles \nBoardroom SX80: to ensure that measures were specifically tailored to advance equitable outcomes from their Perspective of who pays \nBoardroom SX80: as well as how the Funds are ultimately structured and distributed. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as we conclude\, we’d like to zoom out and review the key findings from this project \nBoardroom SX80: first is that the framework has identified a mix of green and great projects with more than half of the region’s known projects focused on hybrid or multi-benefit solutions. \nBoardroom SX80: These represent just one of the many ways our region \nBoardroom SX80: to adapt our region to rising sea levels\, but it also represents one potential cost range associated with adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also identified a significant funding gap of over 100 billiondollars\, and to address this increasing revenues\, prioritizing or phasing shoreline protection and discouraging development in highly vulnerable areas\, and should all be considered moving forward. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ve also identified key differences across the region with disparity\, both in terms of estimated sea level rise costs\, as well as the level of local planning and implementation due to resource constraints. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’ve determined that multiple funding sources at multiple scales will be determined to \nBoardroom SX80: required to address the funding gap. Even with prioritizing and phasing of adaptation products projects. \nBoardroom SX80: Again\, it’s crucial to prioritize equity\, and in addition to considering funding approaches that reduce the burden on socially vulnerable areas\, we can also utilize shared principles to ensure that our adaptation of decisions are made with equity in the forefront. \nBoardroom SX80: and\, lastly\, all these pieces together make it clear that a regional approach will be a critical piece of the funding and financing puzzle to ensure that we meet regional goals and avoid leaving critical pieces of the adaptation puzzle behind. \nBoardroom SX80: So I do want to point out as we as we saw in San Mateo County. There’s already significant work planned or underway\, so we have started to take a bite from this 110 billiondollars Bill. \nBoardroom SX80: Just 3 examples. Here. Foster City is in the final year of construction for its levy improvement program which will protect the 30\,000 residents of this waterfront community. From sea level rise storms and high tides. \nBoardroom SX80: The Sr. 37 corridor adaptation is currently in planning stages\, and this east west route is critical for the connection of the region connecting the North Bay counties. \nBoardroom SX80: and equity is also a key consideration in this project. Unlike many other regional corridors\, the majority of surveyed drivers on the route are lower income with many in the North Bay\, using the cordark to connect to jobs in Marin\, and beyond \nBoardroom SX80: moving to the East Bay\, the North Richmond shoreline\, living Levy project seeks to provide protection for both key regional infrastructure\, including the West County wastewater district’s. Wastewater treatment plant as well as frontline disadvantaged communities near the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: These and and and our example in san Mateo County are just a handful of the examples that we could share with you. There are many more exciting efforts already happening in communities large and small\, but every step forward is making a difference in the diverse communities and networks across the bay area\, and we can build on these experience and learn\, as we continue to plan for the region’s adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as the framework project concludes\, we’ve identified a number of actions to move these findings forward first to prioritize sea level rise investments in upcoming plans \nBoardroom SX80: such as Mt. C. A. Bags Plan Bay area\, 2050 plus\, and BCC. Shoreline adaptation plan to help identify which projects might require early action and mitch\, which areas might be appropriate for lower cost interventions. \nBoardroom SX80: Second Mtc. A bag will explore how to integrate resilience into envisioned regional measures on affordable housing and transportation to the extent possible. \nBoardroom SX80: Third B. C. DC. Will complete and maintain the development of the shoreline adaptation project. Mapping data to ensure that the region has access to the best possible inventory. \nBoardroom SX80: In light of our initial analysis on the limitations of new revenue measures\, it will be critical to continue to use State and Federal resources to address our funding gap. \nBoardroom SX80: so we should continue to engage and mobilize elected officials to accelerate our State and Federal advocacy to secure a greater portion of funding for the bay area. \nBoardroom SX80: and our last 2 next steps are to fulfill tasks to point \nBoardroom SX80: 6.2 and 6.3 in the joint platform\, and this is to better define\, lead roles for funding plans and projects to ensure that the region is empowered to secure adaptation monies and distribute them equally. \nBoardroom SX80: and lastly\, to identify a path to support cities\, counties\, and the private sector to fill the funding gaps that the region cannot fill alone. \nBoardroom SX80: So at that we’ll thank you for your time and attention and turn it back to chair\, Wasserman to facilitate questions and discussion. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much\, Dana. \nBoardroom SX80: The questions on the screen are illustrative. They are not limiting. \nBoardroom SX80: so I will start with entertaining questions \nBoardroom SX80: or comments from Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Start up here. Honor\, you are attending. As for that could go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: I have a number of questions. \nBoardroom SX80: and I think I heard \nBoardroom SX80: a very similar if not identical presentation at the bark meeting\, and I \nBoardroom SX80: still have questions. I thought I saw on one of your slides that we estimate $125\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: a foot to adapt roads to sea level rice. It was in a footnote in one of the earlier slides. \nBoardroom SX80: Are Are we saying that it costs a 1 million dollars for every 8 feet of roads to adapt them to sea level rise. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s a very good question\, and it is an extremely high level assumption that we’ve made looking at the elevation or realignment of transportation. That is\, a Median cost estimate for that specific type of \nBoardroom SX80: adaptation. So it is one of the higher cost estimates for transportation absolutely. \nBoardroom SX80: So of that 110 billionthat we came to at the end of the day is a lot of that. \nBoardroom SX80: This transportation piece of it. \nBoardroom SX80: I believe \nBoardroom SX80: about \nBoardroom SX80: oh\, somewhere over 50. I think of the estimate\, when it comes down to it just due to \nBoardroom SX80: the nature of how much it costs to work in infrastructure\, especially in the context of the bay\, where so much of our infrastructure is in highly dense areas which makes that cost much much higher. \nBoardroom SX80: So and we I see that we’ve made that adjustment from 2 feet to 4.9 feet on sea level rise is the cost to adapt to sea level rise directly correlated to the level of in in other words\, is \nBoardroom SX80: is it cost twice as much to adapt to 4 feet as it does to 2 feet? Or is it not linear in that way? \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t believe that it’s\, linear and our specific analysis \nBoardroom SX80: wouldn’t have shown that relationship\, even if that was the case\, because we also took a more conservative approach to what was protected. \nBoardroom SX80: So our analysis assumed that everything was protected which in some cases not protecting or using ministry or alternative strategies\, might be \nBoardroom SX80: a different cost\, estimate\, and in some cases less \nBoardroom SX80: so\, in addition to that protect in place assumption and that escalated \nBoardroom SX80: inundation level. Yes\, those 2 things make it a much higher cost. But in terms of whether it’s linear don’t believe we’d be able to say. I guess what i’m trying to understand is \nBoardroom SX80: if if you’re talking about 2 feet of sea level rise. Are you gonna need \nBoardroom SX80: 70 of that? 110 billionjust at 2 feet\, and the other 30\, you know\, for the remaining 2.9 feet\, or \nBoardroom SX80: do you have to? In other words\, are we is the 110 billionwhich is a pretty scary number. Is it? \nBoardroom SX80: Is it something that we can expect to see\, you know\, sooner rather than later\, or it’ll just\, you know\, over the course of time and sea level rise. It’ll just keep adding up. \nBoardroom SX80: if you understand. I I I do. Yes\, so I think that’s related to You know what gets wet then\, and when we’re constructing different projects ultimately\, and in \nBoardroom SX80: the course of this framework the assumptions that we made\, we didn’t have a lot of construction year for different projects\, and so we had to make a lot of assumptions. But through plain bay area 2\,050 plus\, and I believe\, the regional shoreline adaptation plan\, both of those \nBoardroom SX80: efforts. We’ll be able to explore this further\, and I can speak to especially with Plan Bay area\, 2\,050 plus. We plan to look at what gets wet at each layer\, and hopefully start to think about \nBoardroom SX80: what the difference is when we look at prioritizing in that sense in terms of cost. So we should have answers building on this work hopefully in this future efforts. I have 2 more questions\, although they may be a little dense. One of your slides\, and I tried to find slight numbers on the bottom right hand corner\, and some times I could\, and sometimes I couldn’t\, so \nBoardroom SX80: I think it’s somewhere around Slide 15. It was called Adaptation needs additional. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, is it 60? And where you explain sort of the green hybrid and gray projects? And I just need a little more understanding of that. Many\, many people probably understand that very well\, people to the right and left to me. But I but I don’t so can you\, just as you know. \nBoardroom SX80: sort of teach me about the green gray\, hybrid distinctions\, and what that what that tells us \nBoardroom SX80: Sure. And I can start and see if anyone would like to add\, so gray would be \nBoardroom SX80: protection elements such as sea walls or traditional levies as we would consider them. and Green\, I think\, on the other extreme\, would be marsh restoration\, for example\, or other types of infrastructure\, and so\, or adaptations and hybrid would be somewhere in between\, or a combination of those elements. \nBoardroom SX80: Ecotone Levy could be considered hybrid or just marsh restoration. Next to a se wall in one project could also be considered hybrid\, and the threshold\, for whether \nBoardroom SX80: different\, you know. \nBoardroom SX80: project leads or jurisdictions considered something as a hybrid project could be quite low in some cases\, or really different in some cases. So there’s a little ambiguity in terms of the firm lines of \nBoardroom SX80: what hybrid could mean. But it really \nBoardroom SX80: the the green and the gray are more more defined. Different adaptation types. \nBoardroom SX80: I mean in the ideal world. Would they all be green ideally\, but due to the type of development that we have especially so close to the shoreline in some cases \nBoardroom SX80: that won’t protect\, because we don’t have the space for it\, or the type of development that is in that location is not suitable for it. For example\, it wouldn’t make sense to have marsh restoration on the embarkadero shoreline\, and so just due to the nature in which we have developed. \nBoardroom SX80: There are\, you know\, hybrid accommodations that ultimately need to be made if we want protection. Okay. And then maybe this is for Dana\, because you were talking about the taxes and the possibilities of raising revenue through taxes. \nBoardroom SX80: So I don’t know enough about this. But if we are going to try to find funding on a regional basis\, so that once we have the monies\, we can allocate them \nBoardroom SX80: to where the need is without risk\, without regard to how wealthy or not wealthy that community is. \nBoardroom SX80: Are these taxes taxes that we could \nBoardroom SX80: could even be collected on a regional basis and distributed regionally? \nBoardroom SX80: Or are they collected by necessity from count counties or cities\, and therefore they would \nBoardroom SX80: probably be used by that count to your city. \nBoardroom SX80: I can. Yeah. I’m: okay. So PC. Has the the history of doing this\, these types of measures that are regional scale. So I will let \nBoardroom SX80: Rachel \nBoardroom SX80: with the 3 different case studies that we looked at the parcel taxes and AD valorum Property taxes are type tax types that could be raised at the regional scale potentially\, or the county scale\, they so there’s variation in terms of the scale that is available to them. We also looked at assessment districts as \nBoardroom SX80: a case study\, and these are well. Theoretically\, they could be applied at a very high scale\, such as the region. There are almost no examples of that they are typically used at the sub local level. And that’s what we looked at when we were making assumptions about it in the case study. \nBoardroom SX80: So let’s take AD Ballorem\, Texas as an example. So Alameda County would \nBoardroom SX80: assess the tax and Marin County would assess the tax. But what are the chances\, then\, that the monies that are raised in that way could be used to help \nBoardroom SX80: Nap\, or wherever the need is. You see what i’m saying \nBoardroom SX80: it’s my oh\, Thank you. Thank you. As I say\, I knew people to the left \nright \nBoardroom SX80: sure. I mean it just to point out with the San Francisco Bay restoration authority that was created by State statute that allows the money to be collected regionally. \nBoardroom SX80: But the statute also provides an allocation \nBoardroom SX80: mechanism. \nBoardroom SX80: So we have. About 50% goes to based on population\, and 50% goes to highest needs. But this is all right. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: We were reflected by State legislation. Great\, that that’s where I was going. Thank you so much. Everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy \nJohn Gioia: first thanks for the presentation\, then John John John\, Wait\, I apologize. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to recognize the people here. First Commissioner\, show up. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. I have 2 questions. One is just very local. It’s a little hard to read those maps at that. You know the scale. They are so when I saw the placeholder area for the South Bay W. What jurisdictions does that represent is that Moffat Sunnyvale\, or is that include mountain view. \nBoardroom SX80: I I will say that we are going to be publishing our online map later. This in the spring that has that will allow you to zoom in to those project and placeholder locations. So \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, I can\, if you want to answer specifically about that location. But later on you will have access to the map that will allow you to zoom in on in greater detail. \nBoardroom SX80: and i’ll just add that I can’t speak to that area at this moment\, but can certainly look into that for you and you\, said the Moffat \nBoardroom SX80: Moffat. Sunnyvale\, is it? It’s it’s it’s Sunnyvale or Mountain view. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve spent. I’m. I’m spending a lot of time at City Mountain Council meetings\, talking about \nBoardroom SX80: financing our sea level rise protections\, and I just want to make sure that they’re properly reflected here\, anyway. So my second question is about the calculations you did\, I’m. Assuming that you just said that the existing law we have for proposition. 13 is what you did the calculation for. You didn’t do the calculation\, for if we had a split role\, or \nBoardroom SX80: you know even a more significant change in proposition. 13 is just the existing one. Is that correct? \nBoardroom SX80: That is correct. We based our case studies on existing on precedence. And so \nBoardroom SX80: there are other options beyond what this initial study looked at. But for this initial high level assessment we only looked at precedence. \nBoardroom SX80: The proposed changes that Haven’t passed would would Garner\, that we might be able to use for this? Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you. So I was surprised by your forecast that existing public revenues would only be 5 and a half 1 billiondollars over the period \nBoardroom SX80: like when we\, when we look at what the kind of investments that the Us. Army core of engineers making in other regions of the country. \nBoardroom SX80: you know. Can’t we expect more? \nBoardroom SX80: And and 5.5 million? So yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: that’s a a great question. And again\, what we looked at is what the region has historically received in terms of its portion of funding\, and we use those values to project forwards through 2\,050. \nBoardroom SX80: And so it is possible that in the future we might receive a larger portion. But I think that one thing that we’ve learned through this analysis is that the region likely needs to advocate for a larger portion that it than it has historically received to balance what we’re receiving Visa V. The rest of the country \nBoardroom SX80: right? Can I also help answer that question? And I see water in the audience\, and Warner and I have talked about this a number of times. There is something starting with the capital H. That Florida\, New York\, and Texas have \nBoardroom SX80: have been involved with\, or have received that we haven’t. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s called a hurricane. And so those monies are. F. Have been for the most part after the fact monies. And so it’s a really interesting situation\, because I think what we are. What we as staff are suggesting \nBoardroom SX80: is that the advocacy that needs to be done has to be done in preparation for as opposed to as a recovery from. \nBoardroom SX80: because I mean\, I think the challenge here is. \nBoardroom SX80: you know it’s. It’s not foreseeable to me that we can raise 110 billiondollars through local tax measures. That is\, when you need it. It has to be substantial Federal state. \nBoardroom SX80: So for \nBoardroom SX80: just to jump in on that one. It absolutely. \nBoardroom SX80: and this largely leaves out in dollar estimates what \nBoardroom SX80: private developers will provide. Some of the gap will have to be provided by private developers as they build projects \nBoardroom SX80: that they need to protect. and their contributions depending on the project and the location and a bunch of other things. They well extend beyond their own project. \nBoardroom SX80: But those numbers are very hard \nBoardroom SX80: to project \nBoardroom SX80: at this regional level. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Joy. \nJohn Gioia: Thanks. I I do think we need to take the estimates as a \nJohn Gioia: as a range right? I mean\, we know that these are all estimates\, and whatever it is\, it’s a lot of money\, and I think\, getting back to David Pyne’s point. \nJohn Gioia: We we’re gonna have to look at all these different funding opportunities\, Federal\, State and local \nJohn Gioia: and just reflecting. I’ve been elected in local government for 35 years. 25 of those\, with the county and have been involved with regional measures\, with Dave on the Restoration authority double a. With county measures with sub\, you know\, sub county measures. \nJohn Gioia: and I think we we need to be pursuing sort of multiple pathways\, one at a regional level \nJohn Gioia: makes a lot of sense. But also I I think there’s going to be a lot of effort at county levels. \nJohn Gioia: so I sort of see a parallel path of \nJohn Gioia: I mean\, I a lot of my works thinking about. How do we communicate our needs? So the public will vote on it. We can have the we can have the best policy in the world and the best need. But unless we can communicate that need in a politically successful way. We’re not going to get voters to pass it. \nJohn Gioia: you know clearly\, you know\, at \nJohn Gioia: Equity needs to be really at the foundation\, both from standpoint of our of our communities\, our highly impacted communities\, regional equity as well. \nJohn Gioia: So I I think all the work going forward sort of needs to lay out information that we could use \nJohn Gioia: from a regional standpoint for a regional measure and a county by county standpoint. \nJohn Gioia: So your estimates of what the cost will be by county is really important. We’re starting a a planning process that’s going to be more robust and contra costa a lot of work we have cut out for us\, as your own chart shows. \nJohn Gioia: You know\, voters and counties are not going to pay. It’s going to be harder to get them \nJohn Gioia: to pay for something that’s occurring somewhere else. We went through this discussion\, you know. I thought we were very successful in how we design measure double a with as Dave\, as part of it was based on need\, part based on population. People want to see a return to source. \nJohn Gioia: so I I think our effort should also support the the sub regional efforts that will go on around the bay area by county. \nJohn Gioia: and we need leadership in every one of the 9 counties to make this work\, and we also need some regional leadership as well. So that’s sort of my message is. Pursue 2 tracks have information that’s helpful for those of us doing countywide planning processes \nJohn Gioia: as well as\, and and leave it up to those counties to figure what is going to have the best chance of passage\, but at the same time look at a regional measure \nJohn Gioia: as well. That has a pretty broad stakeholder involvement. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John Commissioner Gordon. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Good morning\, everyone\, and I agree with everything that John just said. I have a couple of questions on the speaking to question Number one. How do we get the attention of elected leaders\, and certainly we have many on B. Cdc. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: But can you give us a status report of the local task force that you are convening\, and how you might and involve them in that question. And this larger context \nBoardroom SX80: I can answer that. And then Commissioner Joy is actually the chair of that task force\, so i’ll make space for him. He’d like to respond as well. So we had our initial kickoff meeting on January 20\, fourth. We I’ve been trying to bring on a consultant to help facilitate that particular group. \nBoardroom SX80: That contracting has been taking a a while. So our second meeting has been pushed off a bit\, but we are anticipating that. That will get going again \nBoardroom SX80: in the next month or 2\, \nBoardroom SX80: and then I I think \nBoardroom SX80: we have some slides that demonstrate this and our next\, the rising seal of a working group meeting. But there is a reciprocal relationship\, obviously\, between the task force and this group as evidenced by the fact that Chair Joya is here for both. So I think this is the type of space where we can identify what type of issues we’d like to bring to that task force\, and how we’d like to \nBoardroom SX80: get them in alignment with with what we’re looking at in this working group. So I don’t know if you have anything I mean\, I I think you’re I think it is important to use that regional elected work group to identify the leaders in counties who are willing to step up. I know they’re getting informed \nJohn Gioia: and educated more on the issue from B. Cdc. Staff\, but they’re also expressing. You know where they need and want more information\, and I so I think that is a good starting point. We’ll need more county wide leaders\, but \nJohn Gioia: I think that we can get that’s a good starting point to develop some some leadership around the bay area. We need to do more of that. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: Thanks\, John for sharing that group. I think it might be helpful if the B. C. DC. Commissioners are sort of kept abreast of what information is being presented to the local task force \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and what they’re what they’re thinking and considering\, maybe providing opportunities for them to join us in some joint discussions\, especially regarding financing \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: for the infrastructure around the bay. Obviously I can check in with the 2 folks from Sonoma County\, but I think it might be good to keep that on our radar. And then one final question\, and I know that they Time and John both join me. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and representing the San Francisco Bay Restoration authority\, and opined about how financing has been used to\, I think\, benefits the whole Bay area. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and i’m wondering if we have a category in this report\, or maybe\, in addition to this report\, the pie graphs showing \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: what is being funded\, what is being created and financed and completed throughout the bay area. So you have some pie graphs about\, maybe the the dollars necessary and the strategies necessary\, but what has already been completed to work towards those goals. \nBoardroom SX80: I can speak to some of this\, and then pass it off if there’s additional notes. \nBoardroom SX80: But we only have a partial assessment of what has been completed this far. Some of that was just what we uncovered from the support of local jurisdictions\, and we also have a subset of projects to be identified as completed through the app map\, which was a helpful resources for us as well. And so I would say\, we have a partial sense of what has been done\, but not a very comprehensive one at this time. \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: and I would just end my comments by saying the Restoration authority is getting ready to release a 5 year plan sort of a report card \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: of what was accomplished over the past 5 years\, and it might be a good appendix for this report\, and i’m still thinking about ways to integrate the information \n1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin: about the projects under in in design as well as in completion. So thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Commissioner. Left quits. \nSteve Lefkovits: Thank you\, and thank you\, Staff\, for \nSteve Lefkovits: a wonderful report\, or a very comprehensive and well done. I have a couple of high level questions. Frankly. You know the report that filled me with a little bit of dismay. I thought maybe breaking down some high level things like it was a little bit of hope. I was just curious. If you know heuristically\, or off the top of your heads\, you had any idea of \nSteve Lefkovits: how much of that 110 billiondollar number might be private property projects versus public infrastructure\, public projects\, any directional notion at all. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t think that we have that \nBoardroom SX80: information\, or at least not a good sense of how the the proportion of that information. There’s a few private projects that we’re aware of certain developments like the Treasurer Island\, for example. \nBoardroom SX80: but they are few\, and I would say the majority are either public\, and then also \nBoardroom SX80: a a large portion. As we mentioned earlier\, about 50% of that estimate is placeholder cost estimates\, and so those are certainly unknown. \nSteve Lefkovits: of course\, all right\, and my next question was just about the timing of priorities. Do we. \nSteve Lefkovits: you know? Does it? Would it make any sense to try to prioritize certain\, say marsh and levy projects that might bias time or give further support to other projects that are further inland \nSteve Lefkovits: Is \nSteve Lefkovits: Is is there some benefit to thinking about phasing remediations? \nSteve Lefkovits: So you know we’re not thinking about coming up with this money all in a 10 year period. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, that’s even though we didn’t get into in this project exactly what that criteria would be for prioritizing and phasing. That is one of our key takeaways is that we won’t. Be able to do all this at once\, and \nBoardroom SX80: there are areas that\, as you\, as you pointed out\, for example\, restoration projects need to occur. First. \nBoardroom SX80: there are certain locations along the shoreline that are flooding already today\, so there are a number of criteria that we could use for a prioritization. Moving forward\, we just haven’t gotten to a point in this project where we’ve made any decisions about what that might look like\, and what tools we would use to to implement that prioritization. \nSteve Lefkovits: Fair enough. Thank you. And just one more question. I I just wonder this is such a nice piece of context setting have looking at the larger. Even California. Have you anecdotally or otherwise heard any estimates from other high impact areas. That \nSteve Lefkovits: is La Orange County\, San Diego\, or they going through this process? Are they also going to be calling on State Federal resources? \nSteve Lefkovits: How do we think about. You know how unique we are on this timeline \nBoardroom SX80: good question\, and I am not aware of any other places in California that have done this kind of assessment in terms of what the costs would be. I know there’s been some locations\, for example. I believe San Mateo County has an assessment of what is at risk. \nBoardroom SX80: but in terms of what those costs are\, I believe that we might be the only ones that I know of that have done such an assessment\, and I think that just speaks to the unique vulnerability that we have here. We are susceptible to most of the sea level rise inundation\, and just the amount of shoreline that we have here in the bay makes us very unique in terms of the geography of the rest of the state. \nSteve Lefkovits: Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: just to re-emphasize \nBoardroom SX80: the answer to the last question. I would remind you that one third of the California coastline is within the Bay. and the estimate is that 2 thirds \nBoardroom SX80: of the damage from rising sea level to the State of California will occur inside San Francisco Bay. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. I just want to start by congratulating the staff on attacking with great vigor\, and thought a very\, very difficult question. \nAndrew Gunther: I really see that you guys are devising a method and and an approach for \nAndrew Gunther: organizing us for thinking about this problem. This is\, I think\, the second time that I’ve seen this kind of presentation\, it’s greatly improved. It’s becoming more robust\, and I hope that that will continue. \nAndrew Gunther: My first question is\, do you guys see that we have the resources and the \nAndrew Gunther: regional support \nAndrew Gunther: to continue to refine and update our inventory and our map. \nBoardroom SX80: Very good question. \nBoardroom SX80: I would say that right now\, since. \nBoardroom SX80: These are some of the first assessments that have been done if we did it in Plymouth area 2\,050 a few years ago\, and we built on that through the framework effort. And to \nBoardroom SX80: make this a more robust analysis in the future\, I would\, I would say we would need more resources as of right. Now\, it’s a very small team that does this\, and there’s not really \nBoardroom SX80: a structure for accounting for the different adaptation measures that are going on around the bay at this time\, so it it is a a lengthy effort just to figure out what is being planned\, where and what’s going on\, so I would say more resources would be needed. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: and i’ll just jump in and say that our our staff map program\, which is led by Todd Helenbeck over here is an ongoing program. We do have resources devoted to him and his staff. \nBoardroom SX80: and also if we we have the time to get to it. We’re we’ll be talking about our regional shoreline adaptation plan again\, which we’ve been looking at at ways in which we can have sort of a continual stream of information between cities and counties and the planning and the projects that they’re working on and incorporating that into our regional approaches and our regional tracking. So we we certainly have plans to continue this back and forth of information. \nBoardroom SX80: so that we have more data over time. But as Rachel mentioned it’s\, You know\, we’re working on very few staff and always seeking ways to support and expand these types of programs. \nAndrew Gunther: Okay\, I think that that the effectiveness of this work will be greatly enhanced if we can make sure to be able to continue it. And have you all be the repository of what’s going on. \nAndrew Gunther: so that we have one place that we can look\, and I would ask you to not be bashful about it\, including supporting that \nAndrew Gunther: ongoing effort as a recommendation from your work. \nAndrew Gunther: I was very happy to see you framing this as a return on investment. \nAndrew Gunther: and I am sure frankly that the costs are going to be higher than we think they are now\, but I also think the benefits will be greater\, and and I would encourage you to think about you. You mentioned that \nAndrew Gunther: the this your benefit number\, was just a first cut\, and if we could get that in a little more\, with a little more sophisticated approach that should help us in our communication effort about the value of this. Does your work include the cost of rising groundwater \nBoardroom SX80: at this time? It does not because we did not have robust groundwater information for the entire jurisdiction. Just a subset at this time. \nAndrew Gunther: I understand that. But there’s just one example of how things are going to cost more. Did you think about framing your cost numbers through in the context of operational landscape units? We have seen a lot of of information\, indicating that both understanding our vulnerability and understanding our adaptation options is well. It can be well framed by thinking about these operation Landscape units \nIs it easy for you to look at cost in that way as well? \nBoardroom SX80: Actually\, yes\, it is. That is a layer that we have overlapped with the geographies that we identified. And so that is \nAndrew Gunther: another way that we can cut those numbers right. Do you guys consider that the way we have reached out to the public. The way we have funded work preparing for earthquakes is a frame in which we might be able to approach \nAndrew Gunther: the funding for sea level\, rise and storm surge impacts. \nBoardroom SX80: I I I can jump in on this one. So I actually used to work in the earthquake space. So i’m pretty familiar with that. The way that that’s generally been approached is at a jurisdiction by jurisdiction level\, or at a state level through legislation. So we don’t have any regional precedence for funding earthquake retrofits at a regional level. We could certainly learn from \nBoardroom SX80: lessons. \nBoardroom SX80: you know\, through through that space. And as to what has worked and what Hasn’t and I think we should pull on on multiple fields and arenas\, such as the Restoration space\, which has been quite successful in generating funding for projects. \nBoardroom SX80: So it is an example\, but it still has the challenge of\, you know\, raising funding on a city by city basis through grants from Fema\, or\, you know\, entities like that. \nBoardroom SX80: or occurring at a statewide level where the resources get distributed throughout the State. For example\, in Earthquakes L. A. Was always a major competitor for funds\, and La gets much more of the funds for earthquake retrofit than the bay area does. Similar problem that we might have about not getting our fair share of resources here for adaptation. \nAndrew Gunther: but we did have regional. Do I remember correctly. We have regional tax taxes that have been supporting\, as I understand it\, tens of billions of dollars\, of retrofit to bridges and roads\, and \nAndrew Gunther: and all maybe coordinated by Cal. Trans. But but they\, the public has supported this work and has seen the benefits. Am I correct about that? \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll pass it over to Dave. Hi\, good morning\, everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, they just state your name for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, that’s absolutely true. Regional measures. One and 2 did focus on seismic enhancements for bay area bridges. So that is an example of regional action and the seismic resilience space. But I think you know\, as Dana correctly pointed out. \nBoardroom SX80: you know in general\, those those earthquake actions have occurred to other levels of of government. So I think the question with sea level rise is really what is the right balance between local regional State and Federal investment in this space\, and it’ll probably require some element from all of those different levels of government. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you. And lastly\, just to data. So if there are. Is there information from this report that you think is particularly of of importance to our working group on a sediment beneficial reuse? \nAndrew Gunther: I hope you will make sure to get that information to Brenda\, so that the Commissioner is working in that working group can bring this information in to our deliberations. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, absolutely. \nAndrew Gunther: Thank you. Thank you\, Commissioner Molten Peters. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. I want to thank you for the presentation and and appreciate all the staff work and this working group to begin to get our arms around a really large topic\, a question and a comment. Did the cost estimate include \nBoardroom SX80: relocation of utilities\, preservation\, or modification of reconstruction of the infrastructure of any sort. \nBoardroom SX80: It did not include relocation at this time. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: And then just a a comment building on the the need for partnership with local government that most of the Commissioners County Commissioners have expressed. That’s great to have B. Cdc. The the aggregator\, and and the set guiding principles and priorities\, and in the way that Mtc. Does. \nBoardroom SX80: I also think it’s important to find ways to empower the local counties to do their part in this planning and to and to fund their work as well. So I just want to add that. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Thank you\, Commissioner Joya. \nJohn Gioia: Yeah. One thing I forgot to say is I\, I don’t think we should be taking the storm water off. \nJohn Gioia: be\, or tax off the plate\, because that is\, that is becoming a major issue. Folks who are with the Regional Water Quality Control Board know all the the new permit requirements on development and permits on cities and counties \nJohn Gioia: has come with a very increased cost\, and \nJohn Gioia: those stormwater fees are not exempt under prop. 218\, like water and waste water fees were. So you have to go to the ballot every time you want to raise those fees. So we’re and we’re saying \nJohn Gioia: local\, clean water\, agency cities and counties having greater responsibility in this area\, and it’s related to sea level rise. \nJohn Gioia: So I I really would argue to not take that off the plate \nJohn Gioia: and leave\, and and you know whether it’s done regionally or done county by county. There’s been some efforts\, county by county to look at this. \nJohn Gioia: and you know we can look at how we support it regionally. So I I just want to point that off. It’s it. I I don’t know how we can remove off the plate. Something that which there’s a growing mandate and responsibility to do. \nBoardroom SX80: I think that. concludes Commissioner\, comments Peggy\, are there any \nBoardroom SX80: but he in the audience who wants to speak\, I would note \nBoardroom SX80: that we have a second presentation \nBoardroom SX80: that is related to this\, but focusing on the broader \nBoardroom SX80: sea level rise issue. As I said at the beginning. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no hands in the house of Peggy\, remote public speakers. That was not a discouragement. Guys. \nBoardroom SX80: We do have one person\, Jennifer Chang Henterly. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead and mute yourself. \nBoardroom SX80: You have 3 min \nBoardroom SX80: the public comment. Go ahead. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jennifer Heterley and I’m. Speaking today on behalf of the Sierra Club’s Bay live campaign which advocates for preserving and enhancing bay ecosystems as a necessary resource for ensuring community resilience in the face of sea level rising. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): We’re pleased to see this joint effort to better understand the magnitude of the challenge before us\, and to plan ahead for funding regional sea level rise. Adaptation\, however\, we’d like to see much more clarity and specific attention paid to the investments needed to adapt our natural ecosystems. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): For example\, how are the costs of inaction assessed for these natural assets\, where green strategies are tally\, does it predominantly reflect existing local planning and projects\, or do placeholder projects? Consider everywhere that strong opportunities exist for such strategies. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): The health of our bay communities depends not only on resilience for the built environment and our transportation infrastructure. We also need a healthy bay to help sustain our communities. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): They ecosystems\, provide great value in storm\, water\, retention\, carbon\, sequestration\, and biodiversity\, which research shows is\, it. Critical risk is\, several species are collapsing. This affects us all\, and these natural resources need to be valued and protected as the vital assets. They are \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): too often threats to ecological assets\, get ignored in cost-benefit analyses and play only a minor role in adaptation\, planning. But as climate change worsens we can no longer afford to take them for granted. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): Ecosystem valuations which assign a value to the ecosystem or or the service it provides\, such as water\, filtration\, or wave attenuation are evolving to provide a more sophisticated and acceptable way to assess the benefits the environment brings to an area. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): An example is Art Bay areas work with the natural capital park project. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): We urge you to strengthen the framework with robust attention to resilience for our natural assets\, including ecological costs of inaction and consideration of much needed upland migration pathways as sea level rises. \nJennifer Chang Hetterly (she/her): Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Jennifer. We have no more public comment. Here \nBoardroom SX80: we have one in the audience. Warner. \nBoardroom SX80: Identify yourself for those very few who may not know \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: My name is Warner Chabot. I’m an executive director of the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Sfbi has served local\, regional and state agencies on landscape scale environmental issues for 3 decades. We provide science support data and gis tools to support\, to help monitor\, measure and visualize climate\, adaptation challenges and possible solutions. \nBoardroom SX80: We don’t\, do policy advocacy. This is really a policy issue. You’re dealing with. Therefore my remarks are my own. As a somewhat biased observer. \nBoardroom SX80: the 110 billiondollars challenge is the most consequential public policy issue this region has faced in the last 60 years since the beginning Origin of B. C. D. C. As elected and policy leaders. It may be your most difficult challenge. Over the next decade \nBoardroom SX80: the bay area faces many climate challenges\, including drought\, wildfire\, and extreme heat. However\, the most significant defining issue of our region is the triple threat of sea level rise\, rising groundwater and lowland\, flooding for more extreme and frequent storms. That’s because \nBoardroom SX80: our low and well\, this triple whammy is also the most significant climate equity issue that we face. That’s because our low-income underserved and disadvantaged communities are the most likely to be hit the hardest by rising seas\, rising groundwater and flooding \nBoardroom SX80: as policy leaders. You need to prioritize regional priorities. Obviously influential voices will call for regional 1 billiondollar housing and transportation measures. However\, if we don’t address and solve the triple threat\, those housing and transportation solutions will soon be underwater. \nBoardroom SX80: This shoreline issue is court solving a many of those issues. \nBoardroom SX80: While the solution requires good science and innovative engineering\, this region has those resources in abundance. We have thousands of engineers\, scientists\, and planner types working on this issue\, however. \nBoardroom SX80: 2 areas that may need the most significant vision and innovation are governance and municipal finance to be crude and blunt. This is where you\, as elected regional policy leaders\, have an extraordinarily large and extremely hot potato in your lap. Any funding solution is going to involve local State and Federal actions out. \nBoardroom SX80: I have one local and one Federal action for you to consider at a local level. Please note that we made great progress 8 years ago\, when we passed\, measured double a. We raised 25 million dollars a year for Wetlands restoration. At the same time we made that measure a Los Angeles past measured W. They are now raising 300 milliondollars a year\, 12 to 14 times as much in perpetuity. So it can be done. Local elected bond measures that address local issues are possible at a much greater possibility. \nBoardroom SX80: Then measure double a number 2. The Army Cork. \nBoardroom SX80: New York\, Louisiana\, and Texas are running circles around us and raising each of them\, have a 30 to 50 billiondollars. Proposal in the pipeline to deal with shoreline adaptation. I’m not suggesting. They are concrete\, heavy solutions. But I am suggesting that here in the bay area we have innovative leaders that are moving the army corps into thinking about working with nature\, and we have the possibility of the Bay area being a national leader\, and how an urban region tackles these types of issues with vision and hope \nBoardroom SX80: and and clarity. And I think we should be thinking about a a project process with the army corps of engineers to try to work with them on a 30 to 50 billiondollars. big\, hairy\, audacious goal for the bay area to tackle. This issue because we can also focus on the low-hanging fruit of Nature-based solutions\, such as restoring our wetlands and those are the areas that will also help protect the disadvantaged underserved communities that are going to be hit the hardest. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to make a suggestion. Then a couple of comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to make suggestion first\, just to be clear. \nBoardroom SX80: The program this morning was supposed to now move \nBoardroom SX80: to a report on rising sea level\, and they adapt\, and how we move forward on that in the context of what we just heard. \nBoardroom SX80: That discussion itself \nBoardroom SX80: has a number of important layers that I don’t think we can effectively address in the next 12 min. \nBoardroom SX80: Therefore we’re going to \nBoardroom SX80: reschedule that meeting \nBoardroom SX80: for next month. \nBoardroom SX80: I think we we need to think about it a little bit\, but we will probably do it again as a joint workshop\, because obviously the financial needs and the financial availability of funds. \nBoardroom SX80: our critical part of doing anything. \nBoardroom SX80: couple of comments\, and I will make a few more specific comments when \nBoardroom SX80: we summarize this for the Commission meeting \nBoardroom SX80: in an hour. \nBoardroom SX80: I certainly want to join in in in the chorus of thanking staff for the very hard work on this both agencies and and thank \nBoardroom SX80: the staff of both agencies for the cooperation. \nBoardroom SX80: Certainly there’s been a number of areas of cooperation between B. Cdc. And Mtc. Over the years\, and particularly over the last couple of years\, and particularly in this area. But I think this effort represents a significant step forward which is going to be absolutely \nBoardroom SX80: critical to continue. And indeed accelerate. if we’re going to have success in saving \nBoardroom SX80: our \nBoardroom SX80: natural resources are built resources\, and are people from the threats that are coming. \nBoardroom SX80: I would refer you back to Slide 15. \nBoardroom SX80: This story \nBoardroom SX80: is a story of \nBoardroom SX80: real threat \nBoardroom SX80: and real hope. \nBoardroom SX80: And we need both. \nBoardroom SX80: And that slide is the one that compares \nBoardroom SX80: 230 billiondollars plus of potential damage. And we know that’s low \nBoardroom SX80: to the 110 billioncosts \nBoardroom SX80: of what we can conceive of. Now\, in terms of what we need to do to mitigate \nBoardroom SX80: that cost. It’s not going to eliminate it. We cannot delude ourselves. but it can make a very significant dent if we figure out \nBoardroom SX80: how to raise and effectively spend that money now\, and some of that\, as this presentation has talked about is going on now. \nBoardroom SX80: this is not all conjectural for the future. \nBoardroom SX80: There are a bunch of things we don’t know. \nBoardroom SX80: as has been pointed by questions\, and and and candid and transparent answers which are important. \nBoardroom SX80: and I will go back \nBoardroom SX80: to John Joyous comment that\, I think is absolutely critical. \nBoardroom SX80: We need to continue figuring out how to marshal this information \nBoardroom SX80: and get it out \nBoardroom SX80: to the broader constituency of elected officials\, but even more importantly. \nBoardroom SX80: to the broader constituency of the public. who are going to have to support in a variety of ways. \nBoardroom SX80: not only regional and local bond measures\, but also our efforts \nBoardroom SX80: to affect State and Federal resources. \nBoardroom SX80: to devote to devote more resources to our region to the bay area if we’re going to succeed \nBoardroom SX80: protecting ourselves. \nBoardroom SX80: So I thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: This is an iterate process. We’ve said that from the beginning I will continue to say it. \nBoardroom SX80: What we are doing \nBoardroom SX80: builds step by step\, and builds by bringing in plans and looking at the plans \nBoardroom SX80: from a variety of perspectives and circumstances and locations. \nBoardroom SX80: and we’re just going to have to keep at it. And yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Gunther\, we need more resources \nBoardroom SX80: unless there are any other comments or questions. I think that brings us to adjournment of this session. \nBoardroom SX80: I look forward to seeing most of you at 10’clock for the Commission meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much for being here. Thank you for participating remotely. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/april-6-2023-financing-the-future-working-group-and-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Financing the Future Working Group,Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230330T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230330T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T030822Z
CREATED:20230331T002336Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T030822Z
UID:10000066-1680181200-1680195600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 30\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-30-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230322T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230322T170000
DTSTAMP:20231017T050925Z
CREATED:20230323T042641Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050925Z
UID:10000032-1679472000-1679504400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 22\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-22-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230317T100000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230317T120000
DTSTAMP:20231019T023246Z
CREATED:20230318T022347Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T023246Z
UID:10000078-1679047200-1679054400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 17\, 2023 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF)\nBay Plan Amendment Draft Workplan: Task Descriptions Draft (PDF)\nPresentation Introduction and Workplan (PDF)\nSediment and Beneficial Reuse Grants Core Team (PDF)\nMeeting Summary (PDF)
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-17-2023-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230313T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230313T210000
DTSTAMP:20240213T210508Z
CREATED:20230314T042239Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T210508Z
UID:10000055-1678726800-1678741200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 13\, 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 Street\, San 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/84113245923?pwd=aWRXYkFrcjFEMEZEMHF6Rk9CeVpJdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID841 1324 5923 \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\n620 Airport Boulevard Commercial Development in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County (Second Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by Vassar Properties \ Boca Lake Inc. to redevelop the 3.7-acre site at 620 Airport Boulevard on the Anza Peninsula in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County. The project proposes two eight-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would include a raised plaza area with Bay views and access to an improved Bay Trail to the north of the project area.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govExhibits\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				Summary of the March 13\, 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 attendance included Board Chair Jacinta McCann\, Board Vice Chair Gary Strang and Board Members Bob Battalio \, Tom Leader\, Stephan Pellegrini. \nBCDC staff in attendance included Ashley Tomerlin\, John Creech\, Shruti Sinha\, and Katharine Pan. \n620 Airport Boulevard Project Team: Jeremy Lui\, Development Manager (Vassar Properties\, Inc.)\, Justin Aff\, Project Manager (CMG Landscape Architecture)\, Leticia Moore\, Attorney (Holland and Knight)\, Karin Kuklin\, Principal Architect (DGA Architecture) \n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update on Commission staffing changes. Ethan Lavine\, who has managed Shoreline Development permits team since 2016\, has accepted a new role as Assistant Regulatory Director for Climate Adaptation. Katharine Pan\, who has been the Principal Shoreline Development Analyst since 2021\, has taken over as the Shoreline Development Program Manager. And Jenn Hyman has been appointed as Senior Staff Engineer.\n620 Airport Boulevard Commercial Development in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County (Second Pre-Application Review). The second pre-application review of the proposal by Vassar Properties \ Boca Lake Inc. to redevelop the 3.7-acre site at 620 Airport Boulevard on the Anza Peninsula in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County. The project proposes two eight-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would include a raised plaza area with Bay views and access to an improved Bay Trail to the north of the project area.\n\nStaff Presentation. Shruti Sinha provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Jeremy Liu and Justin Aff provided an overview\, with a slide presentation\, of project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site condition\, and a detailed description of the proposed project.\nPublic Comment. No Public Comment received.\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation.\n\nHow is the design controlling groundwater in parking structure? And where does storm drainage go?\nDo you have a habitat elevation for the living shoreline? Or will it evolve as waters rise.\nAre all the pathways in the network under 5% and what’s the paving material?\nIs there any barrier to public circulation through the site?\nWhat’s the relative confidence in the café happening?\nWhat is informing the parking count\, code or market demand?\nIs the wind analysis just the wind at the building or does it include the landscape\, particularly between buildings?\nHave there been any conversations about signage and wayfinding\, interpretive\, or artist program?\nHow is the project addressing the required existing and new\, more sophisticated maintenance demands? And who will be managing the maintenance program?\nIn pulling the building back 25’\, is that only the ground floor or is it the entire building?\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.The seven objectives for public access are:\n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.Staff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration:\n\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 roadway that will draw users into and through the site to the Bay Trail?\n\n\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues\n\nSite Design\n\nThe site design is a more aggressive use of the shoreline band that we’ve ever seen. The west side is still tight and the wind is going to be difficult on that front corner. The development still seems to maximize site even with the pull back of the buildings. They did respond to DRB comments and made some moves. There was progress with the trail moving back off the shore.\nThe landscape does feel public. A lot of landscape space has been added\, the shoreline penetrates into the site in a significant way creating an important threshold. The narrow paths are great for building workers to gather. The public will likely move through the Bay Trail at a faster pace. The two spaces seem cohesive and complimentary.\n\n\nCafé. The positioning of the Café and the effort to make it highly visible with the grade change will be important. The café is a strong draw but could feel separated. Ensure visibility to the café is maximized.\n\nCirculation\n\nThe Board appreciated the improved public circulation with the widening of the Bay Trail to 18’ and seeing the realignment.\nThe public will not likely walk through the middle of the development\, but feel more comfortable walking the edges.\n\n\nParking\n\nThe underground parking is preferable to surface parking; it isn’t as impactful on the experience of the public access area. It’s a shame the loading dock remains along the western trail. The Board recommends continuing to develop the landscape to minimize the building impacts.\n\n\nInterpretive Program and Wayfinding\n\nWayfinding signage\, especially to the Public Shore Parking will be significant; do everything possible to make it clear the spaces are there.\nThe Board expressed appreciation for the bike parking.\nThere’s a lot of opportunity for the interpretive program and addressing what people are looking at; the planes and birds are a draw.\n\n\nSea Level Rise Adaptation\n\nThe Board encourage the project to be less specific as to the future adaptation approach for the Bay Trail. The exhibits show a retaining wall and the trails will just be raised where there is not sufficient space for migration. Recommend keeping the option open for fill in the bay for a wetland or additional habitat. Board members suggested not being so prescriptive that they must build walls to adapt.\n\n\nPlanting Plan and Landscape Maintenance\n\nThe Board was supportive of enlarging the planting areas and felt that it will contribute to the success of the planting.\nThe Board was appreciative of the planting plan. Success will be about the culture of care for the plants in order to maintain the landscape as envisioned.\nThe Board appreciated the details for landscaping on structure and stated it is important for developer to recognize the additional cost associated with that decision.\n\nThe Design Review Board appreciates the responsiveness of the updated project and was satisfied with the changes\, directing the project team to work with staff. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMeeting Adjournment. Vice Chair Strand made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Itwas seconded by Member Batalio. Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:00 PM.\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Video Recording & Transcript\n				\n\n \nMeeting Transcript: \nWe’re very grateful for the feedback of. \nIn August. \nBoard for a second time. We have taken efforts since that presentation to work with. \nCertain groups\, interested parties. \nCollaborative\, ultimately improve our project. \nPresent something project that has higher quality\, amendment\, and better access. \nThe public to the shoreline. \nThis is what 6 20 Airport Boulevard looks like. \nIt’s a parking lot\, and Trudy described it. \nWell\, 6 20. Airport is rectangular parking lots. \nThe bay trail today sits on top of a strip of land that borders to the north and to the west\, and is owned by state lands. \nMaintained by a separate private third party. Our vision is to combine these 2 parcel. \nTo a 5 acre project site\, 2 objectives. \nThe first is to create a destination for the public\, come and enjoy nature and the shoreline. \nSecond is a destination for the next generation of life. Science companies to create products and services. \nUltimately help us live longer. But the purpose of today is to focus on the first objective with respect to the public. \nOkay. And of the 5 acre site we’re proposing to create 2 acres of public improvements and introduce features to turn what is currently a pass through section of the bay trail to a place for the public to stop at to to eat\, to exercise\, to gather and to otherwise enjoy the shoreline \nin a way that they can to that end we are proposed to activate the shoreline with beautiful landscaping. \nAn outdoor gym\, okay? Creating new ways for people to access those. \nExisting big trail was originally improved decades ago\, maintained by our neighbors over here in the backdrop the the Embassy Suites. \nThe improvements are certainly functional. \nBut perhaps sparse we are affiliated with the Colton Hotel in the backdrop. \nHere and over the decades we have seen our hotel guests\, cyclist runners. \nFamilies and other members of the public. It’s actually quite well visited. \nBut not often do they stop\, and when they do stop\, it’s not for a very long time\, and we have an idea we know how to change that\, and we’d love to run through that. \nI’m gonna touch very briefly\, because Shudi covered this so well and synthesize the feedback that we received from the board. \nHearing in August. Then what I’d like to do is. \nTouch on a menu of changes that we’ve made to respond to that feedback. \nTo walk us through the project design. How the choices we’ve made make this a better project! \nSo first we heard feedback to reduce the building footprint within the BC. DC. \nShoreline we heard a desire to soften the bay edge\, and make the transition from we go into the land more natural. \nWe heard a desire to create more entryway\, better access point from Airport Boulevard\, and finally the board was looking for more. \nAnd I think this is good feedback\, because one of the most technically challenging. \nPerhaps expensive features of project is to put the parking below grade. \nWhat we’ve done here\, additional details on how we’re able to accomplish that. \nWhat I’d like to do. Here is set the table\, actually go through all of 20 design changes but I’ll focus on on the 3\, on 3 of them. \nFirst we reduced the building footprint by 25 feet by bringing it from the northern and back into the back landward. And in its place we’re adding\, okay\, a plaza public bike parking in a way to nicely connect this area with. \nLocated in such a way that it’s always within eyesight. \nOf the public using the trail. \nNumber 2. We changed the philosophy of Bay Trail. \nOriginal design. Following following the Bay trail. \nFollows the contour. \nWe heard the feedback to create and adaptable living shoreline zone and we’ve been able to pull back what we think is the most prime part of the shore\, create a summary foot wide\, adaptable living shorelines area that allows the lagoon the bay to \ngradually melded with land over time\, and it also creates additional zone for ecology\, and then finally\, on the southern edge of the site we’ve created\, let’s say\, a much better way for pedestrians. \nTo access the shoreline through our site. We’ve gotten rid of what circuitous ramp and replace that with a much more direct welcoming and inviting. \nInto the public plaza which offers the front seat. \nThe shoreline. The western side of the added another pass from Airport Boulevard to access public parking\, and that creates a total of or entry points that other 2 being one just to the west of the site the lagoon\, and then another one not on our project through our neighboring property to the \neast through the hotel front door. \nSo with that\, I’m gonna turn this over to Justin Af\, who will walk us through the details of. \nThanks\, Jeremy. Hi! There! I’m Justin at the Cmg. \nLandscape architecture. And I’m going to share more details about the updates that Jeremy just summarized\, and also take you through a little tour of the project. \nAfter we met with you last. We took your comments to heart. \nWe’ve made a lot of changes\, and I think we’ve come out with a better project with respect to public access\, respect to enlarge and reorient open spaces\, and with respect to shoreline ecology\, and how. \nSo I’m going to run through a series of diagrams just highlight. \nSome of the big changes that we’ve in all of these diagrams\, you’ll see a red dashed line. \nAnother request that we had to make clear where the parking garage below was on the site plan. \nRed dash line shows that shows where that is. \nSo first\, as Jeremy mentioned\, we’ve cut back the buildings on the ground floor between 15 and 25 feet. It’s mostly 25 feet\, so it’s quite a large bit of space given back to open space and public. \nShifted the trail inland\, realigned the Bay trail. \nSignificant way\, and this allows for that sort of living shoreline zone that Jeremy mentioned will be set down at a lower elevation project. \nElevation it will allow for future migration of the shoreline\, and. \nYou reduced some of the surface parking\, and we reduced parking lanes as much fire lines as much. \nWe’ve created more direct connections between Airport Boulevard and the project site and the Bay trail\, as well as the other direction between the bay trail. \nWe’ve also taken taken a look at the geometry and shape of all of the planted areas on structure. \nWe’ve enlarged them\, I think\, Will significantly. \nThe ability of plastic driving larger soil\, volume. \nOn top of the. \nWe’ve enlarged and reoriented a lot of the public spaces. \nThe outdoor fitness area. We’ve changed are thinking on that a bit\, making it much larger\, much more likely to be a destination. \nThis area\, so more detail on that later. We’ve added the cafe for the cafe along with bike parking on the east side of the project we’ve reoriented and redesigned somewhat that terrace seating area sort of right size it for this area orienting it more towards the \nnorth\, or San Bruno Mountain\, San Francisco skyline. \nIn the distance\, the airplanes landing\, and we’ve also just made some minor reviews. The picnic area added more bike parking unit tariffs. \nHad some reconsideration\, public\, public and a minor thing. \nBut we’ve added more shade trees along the this was in response to. \nSo I think all of these changes ultimately are gonna make a better project for us. \nBut the main design\, principles that we started with really remain is to create clear\, continuous\, and somewhat seamless act\, visual and physical access through the site to the Bay Shore. \nTo bring the nature of the Bay shore into the site and allow people to experience Bay trail in a more enhanced way by widening it\, bringing it up to today’s standard and so again\, okay\, being sort of the key armature along the bay shore we’ve. \nA variety of programming\, passive and active. Along along the bay trail. \nSite Detail. \nSee here that Number 10 is where we’ve made a direct pathway along the driveway into the site. \nOpen this space out for more landscape\, and created just a direct. \nJeremy mentioned at Number 10. There’s a direct pedestrian between the public parking and. \nThose are some of the key circulation change. And now I’m going to go ahead and just walk through in detail. \nThe enlargement plans and see everything in a little more detail. \nI think it’s worth pointing out again that putting that parking under underground here has allowed us achieve this sort of seamless\, continuous landscape experience through the site and around the site without it being obstructed by a bunch of. \nI think that’s an important thing to dwell on for a second. \nReally do think that? \nReally? \nThe first thing\, starting it from the interior of the site. \nFor today. You see\, at the bottom of this sheet is the turn around and drop off quickly. \nTransitions into these sort of stroll garden\, that seamless connection out to the day. \nAnd this garden is made up of a series of of different types of paths. \nThere are more direct paths that go out to the bay than there. \nSecondary pass that moved through\, of stroll\, garb in kind of a circuit with it’s seating throughout. And then\, as you move towards the bay. \nThis terrorist seating area a sort of bleacher style\, seating that allows you to overlooked the bay towards the water oriented towards. \nHere’s a view of that terrace seating area as it looks north towards\, and Bruno Mountain you can see some Rudo mountain\, and you can watch the airplane planned. \nSo! \nYou can catch up some faint one system. \nThis is going to be A. \nBack the other direction from that. \nYeah. Yeah. Shot of the east building. With these the mounded planting areas in the stroll garden within the plaza\, and then left of the of the image in the distance you can catch a glimpse of this. \nUmbrella at the outdoor. \nAnd this\, this long site section\, through the site illustrates a gentle translation. Transition. \nWe have from the roadway up to the plaza\, with the turnaround and the landscaping throughout the plaza\, back down. \nAnd then cross section through through the plaza\, showing mounted\, planting. \nWe were asked last time around about about details on how you. \nGet a thriving plant\, starting plants and trees. This is an example of a detail details that we’ve been working on for many\, many years at Cmg. \nTo make viable rooftop landscape\, and it’s\, you know\, a fairly point convention. \nBuild up of lightweight\, fill soils\, good drainage\, and in large soil areas for trees\, all the while trying to allow as much new soil volume as you can. \nTrees as much as possible\, to support. \nNow moving a little bit west on the project. This is management plan features\, this new living shoreline zone again. \nIt’s a nice wide zone about 70 feet between the edge of the you edge of the bay trail and the shoreline. \nThis will be set down at a lower elevation\, closer to the current. \nThanks for all elevation. \nAnd we imagine that this will allow for future sea level rise to gradually inundate this zone periodically. \nThis is a ways off on day one. It’s going to be upland planting\, but we see that this will allow for more kind of natural upland. \nThe shoreline and up on migration. \nTo that. We have a picnic area that overlooks overlooks this area. \nOn the left. \nSeating area number 3\, as well as accessible slope locks between the plaza. \nAnother view\, just looking back towards the site from the bay side\, you see that tariffs\, tariffs seating feature again\, you can see the right on the right and left. \nClear-wide connections to the plaza\, into the Cafe. \nSection shows that relationship. \nThe building plaza down to the bay trail\, and then on the bay side of Benched\, where we’re creating this zone is at a lower elevation. \nThe upland plant communities golf scrub\, but eventually will allow for future addicts. \nNow moving back over to the east. Here’s where we have the cafe on the east building\, looking out towards the water. \nYou have a cafe plaza\, we have a direct step set of steps down to the for the bay trail. \nSlope block number 5 that moves around. \n2. We’ve we sort of pick an inspiration from this very successful. \nFitness area and made a space that a little bit larger than that. \nHave a really successful destination. \nSo you’ve taken an opportunity to use this space to make a really sort of impactful and not just a couple. \nNow\, here’s the view you are getting the coffee and going out and having a nice coffee in the morning on the plaza\, looking up the water. \nBe of folks walking down to the bay trail\, slightly elevated. \nTo the water\, be on the left. \nAnother more accurate! \nThat simply shows that. \nFa plaza. \nAnd now we’re going to shift back over to the west side. \nThere was a lot of discussion last time around about this West side. \nAnd we’ll get into some sections. \nIt’s worth pointing out the number 8 on this slide to the left. \nThe plan is the existing public bay trail access very wide\, very clear. \nA bit of public access proving that piece. Do you start widening it out? \nOut of this number 7 public walk from the public parking at number onto the sidewalk. \nYou can also switch back and get down to the beach. \nI did. I’ll never 2. Is our sort identified. \nLocation for public art. Yeah\, public art concept is the ways off. \nWe don’t know. \nBut we took your points last time around about considering more than just kind of what we showed in concept. \nAt grade\, sea\, level\, rise and. \nThere’s something that’s more interactive strengthener could interact with. \nSo we heard you there remain on our radar as we continue. \nYou can see here in red. That’s the outline of the parking garage. \nAt the top of this plan\, quite narrow between the edge of garage and. \nIn the bay trail. And so we’ll look at some sections that see that the green zone above the parking there\, that’s where we’ve taken out certain. \nWith the architects slab\, and that allows us to bring the putting the landscape up and over that slap more than we were before. \nSo as it stands now\, you’ll never see that edge of the garage pop up above. \nThis is what that looks like today. At that corner point there’s a you know\, or so chain like fence on the other side that you see the parking lot on the left\, somewhat degraded planting ice plant. \nExotic species\, 10 foot wide. \nThis is a bit further back from that view\, standing roughly where the path comes down from the on the parking. \nOne\, to one new comparison. But here we are looking at the opposed bay trail that’s 18 feet wide. \nThe details\, and on the right see that? Do some parking up below great parking garage\, and then on the. \nOn the right the building amenities. \nWe measure this zone\, this landscape zone that’s between the bay trail and the parking. \nIt range understanding closer to where the cyclist is\, that ranges from 35 feet to the narrowest. \nAt 6 10 feet wide. \nOffer. In all those cases we have the ability to plant large shrubs\, entries. \nWe larger plantings in here if we want to\, didn’t wanna behind what we’re doing in the background\, we’re confident that. \nSpace to get a robust lamp. \nBut now I’ll go to the section like I said\, the architects of so far depress this lab about a foot or 4. \nWhat we have a lot of headroom in that top parking garage there’s a good chance correct me if I’m wrong\, Karen. \nThat will be able to get that down even further. \nThis is the most is the closest. The garage gets to the base. \nThe press slab in the removed parking space. We have 26 feet of plant in here. \nNow the other type of I’m showing you the worst case scenario here. \nThe other type of Pinch Point here. And the reason I’m doing this because there was a lot of about this before. \nIs the closest\, the narrowest\, the landscape. \n2 feet wide. It comes up over over the very quantum. \nOkay. \nPretty\, confident\, I’m very confident this was going to be a fine experience. \nWalking down this one side of the project\, which\, about a quarter of its. \nSo again\, we’re really excited about the change and we’re grateful for all the comments that you all gave us last time around. \nI think that yeah\, informative project here. \nParking lot and sort of outdated\, somewhat degraded bay trail. \nSort of an active and dynamic. \nHave a lot of things going on. \nStill kind of up to place\, and not. \nOverboard. \nThis area shoreline zone\, writing\, feeding. \nBe a great project. \nExcellent. Well\, thank you very much. That was 3 through the project\, and I do appreciate the where you’ve prepare the graphics communicate\, for you have been so thank you for that. \nWe now move to clarifying questions from the project. \nPresentation\, so we’ll just move through the board\, and she will start with the online folks. \nSo\, Bob\, you’ve got your hand up. Our fine question. \nGo ahead! \nYes\, thank you. Chair\, Mccann. So I\, looking at the plan. \nThank you for making all these revisions. I think it’s definitely responsive\, you know\, at least from my perspective to the comments in the prior meeting. \nIt also allows us to see the underground parking and the elevation differences\, and it leads me to ask the question\, How are you gonna control the groundwater? \nI guess the parking cross is gonna be sealed pretty well\, cause it’s down below the top level or into the tide level. \nAnd then\, secondly\, where does this storm drainage go? \nDoes the city of Berlin game have a storm drainage collection system? \nOr is it just go into the lagoon? \nSo I\, yeah\, those are my questions about the drainage specifically how it relates to the the underground parking structure. \nElevations. \nTurns a principal at Dga\, with the art. \nThe storm drainage. We’ve been working with the city of Berlin game. \nI do believe that. \nHey! \nOh! \nThe drainage is under one shot. \nI thought the question was about how the garage. \nGroundwater. Oh\, and also a question. So the garages will be fully waterproof will be. \nSources of water and and. \nI think the the benefit. \nYou can see it. \nQuite a commitment. \nThey offer? \nYeah. And I’m sorry to interrupt. But if I just wanna say that from my side of things on remotely\, I can’t really hear very well. \nI think it’s probably because I’m remote but if you wouldn’t mind trying to speak a little louder hopefully I’m not speaking too loudly or too softly. \nI can’t tell. \nOkay. Can you hear me? Great Jeremy? Speaking? \nYes. \nAnd if I’m offering some more contact on groundwater\, that’s certainly something that we’ve been thinking about a whole lot. \nAnd so what we did is we drilled a few holds into our site and over time of collective groundwater data and cut to the chase and slightly\, not very surprising. \nThe ground wall\, fluctuates somewhere between\, minus one to one in elevation\, so call that sea level approximately\, but something that’s interesting about our design here is that it’s not the entire garage that’s subject to groundwater because only a portion of it \nis in that zone. Now\, from an engineering perspective\, we would create a backathtub around it. \nWaterproof. The whole thing. We would also consider mechanical pumps\, because it’s certainly an area that has these forces. \nBut I think the key to note here is that it’s not the entire garage that’s subject to to the groundwater level. \nA portion of it. \nYeah\, thank you. I I think you answered my question. \nI I just wanted to bring it up\, and I’m sure you’ll consider it. \nIt’s really more of a design issue. So I don’t know. \nThat it’s I have a real concern about it. \nI mean\, I think it’s something that you can address. \nI hope\, and it sounds like the drainage may not go into the Bay\, or if it does\, maybe it goes through some sort of polishing or something. \nIf you’re puppy. My other question is\, do you have a a particular habitat? \nPipe for the living shoreline that you’ve put in place. \nOr is this something that would evolve once the bay waters get high enough to inundate? \nThat site which I think you’re showing it at. \nIt’s existing elevation around 10\, which is\, yeah? Well\, above high time. \nYeah\, so the conception right now is that it’s at that elevation\, that on day one it’s upland\, coastal\, scrub and grassland. \nAnd so that that habitat type is pretty common\, and we wouldn’t\, you know there would have to be some management of this. \nBut over time then would change\, I think\, a ways off. \nBut on day one it’s upland plant communities that are with layered. \nWe’ve been working with Ht. Harvey on some other projects in this type of a plank community\, and those types of birds and and insects and pollinator that that use it. \nOne of the main things that we’ve learned is just just the layering of shrubs and ground cover. \nOkay\, there’s some pretty basic things that will implement\, I think\, as we get further into the design process in the planting plans will likely be consulting more with. \nSure we’re doing the right thing. \nThank you very much. Appreciate the answers to my questions. \nThanks. Bob\, Tom. \nYeah\, I agree with Bob. I think it’s good project. \nI just have a few quick questions. One is the the looping pathways that create kind of a network as you head toward the plaza\, from from the I’m assuming those are all under 5%. \nAnd I’m wondering what the paving material is. \nI’ll go back to the overall plan here so I can just point to a few things\, so I’ll take this enlargement plan. \nGreat. \nCan you perceive the 2 colors in the plan from where you sit? \nThe idea is that the overall\, the main paving type that’s more of the white\, the lighter gray\, is likely to be concrete with score joints\, and you know\, and some kind of exposed aggregate finish and then the more narrow paths that move through these planted \nHmm! \nRight. \nareas. I think are likely to be accessible\, but they will be stabilized\, stabilize\, crushed stone\, less than 5%\, but they will rise up and down a bit with that slope to allow some of that soil volume to go under them so there’s 2 main paving types \nhere the smaller narrow ones stabilize\, crushed down the larger\, wider ones\, concrete. \nOkay. And people could find their way at under 5% down. \nSome of these pathways I see there are a few stairways. \nYeah\, we have so if you look at the number 7 on this plan\, you can see these are sloping at\, you know\, 4.8. \nGot it? Yep. \nYou like sure\, I’m sure you do this too. You never like to design to the 5% for tolerance. \nBut right now these are measured out at about 4.8%. \nOkay. \nWe have accessible walks as well as stairs\, and unfortunately\, it’s the nature of these slope walk that you sort of have to go sideways to get out. \nRight\, second question. I’m assuming that there’s no barrier to public circulation between the 2 buildings. \nLike\, if you’re coming from the you can move public and move through to the back. \nGot it? \nThat’s correct. There won’t be. The security will be at the building doors\, and there will won’t be any gates or barriers. \nPublic access to. \nOkay? And third question is\, what’s the relative confidence in the cafe happening? \nHi! \nHi! There’s no other\, no other place speaking purely for the private side of the building. \nNot many choices for people. \nTo eat or drink in this currently\, but I think we really focused on on the public side and the placement of the cafe\, so that it’s in probably the most prime part of the site to folks to look out into it. \nAnd hopefully with more visitors. Time\, there’s actually flexible space within the building for that. \nAmenity possibly grow. The area evolves over time. \nBut you. What you’re saying is that the users in the building are gonna need it\, anyway? \nThat’s right\, and I think the public would like that as well. \nOkay. I’m good. \nOkay. Thanks. Tom. Gary. Any questions? Yes\, yes\, I have one question I might have asked this last time. \nI’m sorry\, if it’s redundant\, but can you summarize for us again? \nThe parking count\, and how you get there\, whether that’s by code or by market demand. \nHi the parking count is driven by code. At this point\, and we are at the code which is far below what you would normally see. \nYou know a 2\, 2\, and a half\, or 3 per 1\,000. \nWe’re at about 1.8. \nStrictly driven by the city. Thank you. Sorry if I may add a little bit of color to this. \nGoing to overarching site plan. That’s right. \nSo we are parked at the absolute minimum of code\, and that includes Tdm measures that allow us to be below that feature and we’re certainly both. \nThe market would consider as an appropriate level of parking within our site what we do have a interesting feature of our project\, and that we’re connected to the neighboring site to the east of us\, which is the hotel which was built in the 70 S and is completely overparted in \nfact\, we try to fill up parking spaces by offering parking for $10 a day. \nIs to generate revenue. There ultimately\, what we’re able to do here is share parking\, to create use\, existing underutilized parking. \nRaj\, not within the project\, but Jason to it. If there are\, if there’s a real market demand for more parking\, but that allows us to minimize parking on-site and also to encourage people both on the site and visitors to the site to use alternative means of transfer. \nI didn’t bring it up again in this\, in this round\, but first round we showed there are shuttle stops just to right in front of the hotel. \nThat serve\, call trans. And Bart. There is a public transit. \nThis on? Do you have any questions? \nYeah\, I have 2 quick questions. One is just on the. \nI really appreciate the addition of the wind analysis in the package\, and I was curious if that was looking at just buildings versus wind\, or if the landscaping or the tree planting at the shoreline is expected to have any impact on comfort particularly in between the buildings. \nI believe the the winter\, the wind analysis\, did take into account tree planting. \nI think that you know we we have the opportunity to work with them and adjust the location. \nPrecise location I think there’s a lot of time to do that within the design process. \nIt did. It did take that into account. My understanding. \nBut this was the first round as well\, so we have the opportunity now to make some adjustments\, try to improve when conditions. \nHey\, Jerry! \nBut what we do see\, I think\, is actually fairly the area that actually around the project\, the the buildings actually improve conditions. \nQuite a few spots\, with the exception of. \nSide of the project here\, but the areas around the bay trail. \nHave actually been for the most part improved\, including it. If you look at our cafe spot here. \nGonna be a pretty pretty good spot. It is a very windy site\, and so that is just a nature of the beast. \nWe’ll do everything we can to improve the condition. \nYeah\, I appreciate you guys\, including this and the package and exploring this cause. \nThis is a tough\, a tough location. And then my second question was just with regards to the signage and weight planning program. \nAnd I know that this is actually under concept. But I was curious. \nIf there\, what sort of thing you guys have had either about interpretive signage or and or sort of the artist’s program that you actually are suggesting. \nI think it’s early stages for those for that discussion. \nThe preliminary discussions I’ve mostly been around the blue dots on this map that I’m showing which is the interpretive signage that you know it’s having something related to what we’re doing with the shoreline zone. \nWill be will be interesting. I think there’s an was an idea of having something closer to the plaza level that overlooks the water. \nIt could be the history of Ansa Lagoon. Hey\, Phil? \nAnd just some interesting site history. So we haven’t gotten that far into it. \nBut I think there’s plenty of for some interesting interpretive signage. And the art program that’s going to have to be a collaboration. \nProcess\, getting an artist and figuring out what it is going to be\, and how. \nWill happen at that point. We’ll try to influence decision to make it a site site appropriate in sight. Piece of art. \nBut we just have. Haven’t gotten that far with it yet. \nThank you. \nThanks\, Stefan. I I just have one clarifying questions. \nThe that was mentioned\, made at the beginning of the presentation. \nWhat about the maintenance of the State line parcel being done by? \nWith the enlargement of the adaptation planning area. \nYou know I’m I would anticipate that would be maintenance is being done right now. \nDo you have any way in which? \nI think this is a topic that we haven’t too closely on with Staff\, but I think it’s. \nThat we can do in principle the idea that we would be forever\, at least for the lifetime of the project. \nCertainly with these improvements it will get a little bit more complicated. But I think that the the driving factor here is this is effectively our would be the private side of the development front yard\, and it matters for a a- project to have a plus. \nMaintenance. So I think just natural positioning of the public portion of improvements. \nNext to the private\, would create a very good incentive for us to keep that maintained. \nI would note that the current setup for an external third party to maintain into an agreement by a neighbor to take care of your front yard I’m sure that answers your question. \nOh\, it sounds like you’ve got clear intent to make sure that. \nAppropriately\, since it is an important part. \nI don’t think it’s a very small point\, but in police. \nBetween 15 and 2515 and 25. \nBuilding back the way you delineated the build. \nIs that the that is a. Because there is another\, hang an extension at the ground floor\, extends further out the so I don’t. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear\, but the 2515 to 25 feet was an extent\, and we’ve blocked that off so there \nare some awnings and overhangs in the architectural\, but they’re minimal relative toad. \nAnd so the line that you see on the plan. \nIs the building. So when the comments\, when the presentation is made that it’s been back 15 to 20\, the first floor\, I should have said that in my. \nYeah. \nRight. So we’ve just that that’s been reclaimed for the Cafe Plaza. \nOkay in the perspective\, it wasn’t. \nOkay\, I think that wraps up the board clarifying questions. \nSo we will move on to the next item here\, which is public. \nSo now that we have both the presentations and the board quiz complete\, will open the meeting today. \nAnd any member of the public attending the meeting of can you notify? \nNo\, there are no thanks. Okay. So if you’re attending the meeting online and would like to make a public comment\, I’ll just run through the directions again. \nRaise your virtual hand to speak. Remember\, if you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your prepared to raise your hand to unmute or mute per staff. \n6\, you will be called in the order that your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak. \nJohn will note when you have 1 min. Please state your name and affiliation. \nThe record. \nAs mentioned\, beginning of the meeting would like to add your contact. \nThe party’s list to be notified of future concerning this project. \nPlease\, call\, or eat. \nOkay. \nThere are no hands raised. Chair really wanted to read those. \nBut no public comment. Let’s move straight into board. \nAnd advice\, and we have been given the full\, and\, I think\, even just hearing the dialogue in the clarifying questions. \nSpeaking on behalf of the Board. \nPriority\, and and the if it has been made. \nThis phone. \nThere are 4 questions here\, and we can also. \nAny other observation. \nTo spend a minute or 2. \nBut last time in relation to. \nThe project resulting in public spaces that really? \nIn a development like this. It can be a challenge to have people really. \nSo the question really is asking for is it feeling public? \nAnd do you think the short? \nPeople so gary any comments? Sure I’m happy to kick off here. \nYeah\, the questions that we’re being asked to address there. \nI think the project does really a fantastic job. The landscape and the buildings\, to the extent that we can see the architecture. \nIt does feel very public. You’ve added a lot of landscape space\, and I especially like the way\, it’s organized\, so that you know this very large green area. \nYou know\, the shoreline really penetrates into the site in a very significant way\, and it creates a very\, I think\, an important threshold between\, you know\, the city and the arterial\, and the shoreline\, and it and I love the narrow paths because I think it creates \nintimate spaces for people who work in the buildings to gather\, and it also gives them privacy from\, you know\, from the shoreline\, you know\, from the bay trail\, where I think the public will move through at a faster pace\, and maybe wants larger areas to to inhabit so I think those are 2 \nreally distinct areas that function differently. But\, you know\, appear to be\, you know visually\, you know\, very unified. \nSo I think it’s just exemplary. \nYou know the the things that we’ve been asked has to address. \nDoes it feel public? Is it? \nYes\, visibility access\, you know\, across the site. I mean\, you’ve improved the you know the pedestrian access a lot in. \nI really appreciate. So I I can either make all the comments I have right now\, or I can wait until week. \nLet’s see. \nDo you have comments that deal with the other physically\, or do they all? \nWell\, I the I’ll I’ll just keep going out. \nI think that the you know the way we started the meeting was\, you know\, these are the main questions that the Board had last time\, and number one was to reduce the impact of the building within the shoreline band. \nAnd as much as I you know I love all the things that have been done on the surface\, and visually in terms of usability. \nAnd I just want to acknowledge that it is also probably one of the more aggressive uses of the shoreline band that we’ve ever seen. \nI don’t know. I’m not opposed to that\, but I think it’s an important thing\, maybe\, for the group to discuss and just comment on I don’t know that we have any per view over that. \nBut I think you know\, we’ve made our comment. \nYou know the proponent has responded\, and so I think we’re very clear that you know this is what you need to make the project go so I just wanted to put it out there as as a as a point of discussion. \nAnd and then 2 2 other things\, one minor\, the concrete on structure. \nYou know we in my practice\, I mean we never I don’t think we’ve ever poured concrete on top of the structure before\, because oftentimes even contractors don’t wanna install it because of the liability problems difficulty in accessing your \nwaterproofing. Should you have a problem in the future? \nYou know none of our none of our business\, but I think it’s it’s a long term sustainability issue for for the owner\, and it also it’s not as pleasant for the user. \nYou know\, to have a unit paper that you could remove\, you know\, address the waterproofing problem and then replace. \nSo again. I I don’t even know if that’s in our purview. \nBut and then finally\, I just wanted to say that it was very creative the way you were talking about the parking on the adjacent parcel\, you know\, having the opportunity to share\, and it sounds like you were saying you might have provided even more parking if you didn’t have that opportunity to \nexpand\, you know\, into the adjacent parcel. So I appreciate that I would have loved it if you had said\, we’re sharing this parking\, and so we’ve reduced the parking on our site by 15% or 20% or something. \nI think in the future we’ll see more\, you know\, more creative solution. \nAppreciate it. Okay\, that’s only thank you very much. \nWe might as well just go. \nWant to pick out a response to any of the killer questions. \nOther run through for everyone’s benefit. Again. \nOn that\, you know\, making spaces for public. A great number. \nPeople. Second question. Additional improvements to improve\, probably going to okay. \nThird one also deals with public access\, designed\, that does\, and then number 4 was just. \nLegible connections. \nOkay\, so. \nOh\, yeah\, thank you. I was gonna respond to what Gary was talking about. \nWhich are invited discussion on which I think was item number one. \nI mean\, just for the record. The west side is pretty tight\, the winds\, as we talked about before\, was probably gonna be pretty gusty and difficult on that core\, which you know we see now in the exhibit. \nThat’s the case. And. \nAnd then the development does seem to maximize the site\, even though it’s been pulled back. \nSome certainly the parking is extensive\, you know\, goes pretty close to the short and places so\, but you know they were\, as Gary said. \nThey responded to our comments and made some moves\, and I like the at least we want a little bit here where the trails been pulled back. \nOne spot. So that’s I think that’s progress. \nAnd so I like that part\, but I think it is. \nIt is a kind of a big use of the site going to this second one or the third one. \nThe one thing I think might make the plan better would be to be less specific about the future adaptation of the perimeter walkway. \nPublic Access day trail. With a higher amounts of sea level rise. The exhibit show that there would be a kind of recaining wall\, and the trails would just be lifted vertically where they there wasn’t enough space for a flat enough slope. \nI think that’s you know. Certainly one option. So I think they that’s a path\, you know. \nThat’s a pass that works. \nBut I thought you might wanna just keep the options open and mention what a lot of people don’t like to talk about\, which is maybe fill into the bay and extend and make a wetland. \nOr you know\, fill some of the create\, some habitat\, I mean\, sea level is going to be rising everywhere. \nSo a little bit of a fill for some\, edge. Habitat might be nice might be nice for everyone. \nSo I just like to you know\, they’ve got something that qualifies. \nBut let’s not make it prescriptive that they have to build walls\, you know\, to adapt. \nThat’s finally comment. Otherwise\, I appreciate that. \nThey moved in our direction\, and I’m impressed by how they were able to in process with this maximum development. \nJust go to an explosion. It. Thanks\, Bob. We’ll just keep moving through the board\, Tom. \nThanks. Going. Straight to Gary’s first point\, Damian\, I want to make sure I’m understanding. \nJust sent this question to the applicant where you were asking is that is\, the line is being shown. \nThe footprint\, and then there’s a significant overhang into the shoreline band. \nWhat I thought I heard was that it’s mainly consistent with footprint. \nBut was that right? That that right? \nMy understanding is what we saw before was a pretty big over. \nSpaces. \nThe applicant hasn’t reduced footprint of the bill. \nI see. Okay. Yep. \nI thought I thought\, but the building. \nThe building\, footprint. \nYeah\, well\, we’re getting back to Gary’s Point. Then. \nThat’s set back at the ground floor. It’s the ground floor\, and I think I don’t. I was just looking at. \nSee if there’s a drawing that shows the overhang\, so that you can see that on the ground floor plan. \nI don’t\, but that would clarify it. The building. \nYeah\, because looking at the footprints on Site plan\, it looks like that. \nThey hardly break through the shoreline band at all. \nGot it? \nI believe that’s correct. \nI’m looking at the when I said that I meant the garage. \nYeah. Gary was referring. \nYeah. \nYeah. \nOh\, the garage garage\, I see. Okay\, I’m okay with the grass doing what they’re doing because they’re making a big effort to put that\, you know. \nIt’s true we don’t have to look at a at a above grade garage here they’re gonna go through a lot of to waterproof this whole bathtub situation and so forth. \nSo I kind of appreciate the the boost they made\, and so overall. \nI think the they have been quite respectful now of the shoreline band. \nI think it’s in terms of public access. \nI mean\, you can walk through Central. I don’t think I would. \nI would probably wanna commit from the sides because they feel more kind of less like your eyes are on you for the users\, I suppose\, but I think that’s a common situation that’s been dealt with. \nWell\, I think that the I think Bobby made a good point maybe you don’t wanna build retaining walls or I’d be a flexibility. \nAnd how to do that\, and maybe by the time there\, that’s happening\, this board will say it’s greater. \nDo some fill into the bay to achieve more\, more wetland. \nWhat am I missing? In terms of the questions? I’m a big supporter of the project. \nI think they worked hard to to respond. \nThanks. Tom. \nYeah\, I’ll keep my comments short. I think I just really appreciate the sort of thoughtful response to the Board’s previous comments. \nAnd I think you know\, just thinking about the site\, about what’s there today. \nAnd the invent of what’s there today\, and what actually might be able to emerge through development is a significant improvement. \nAnd sort of seeing things through. That lens\, I think\, is is important. \nSo I really appreciate the just the critical way that team has tried to incorporate and respond to the Board’s comments. \nYeah\, and look\, I just we’ll add a couple of things. \nI think\, see response in terms of the okay. \nLike a real effort to make. \nMake it really visible and attractive for a few. \nAs the. \nThe grade change up. You just want to make that\, and. \nYou know all that\, but in the renderings as well. \nI think that’s a strong. \nI agree with Tom\, I think the fact. \nSo my! \nI be a real. \nAnd the development that far into. \nI still. \nIt’s still pretty shame that the loading does right up there again. \nAnd and then just on the signage. \nSpaces. \nYeah. So again\, just as you move through into. \nReally appreciated what you. \nAnd the interpretation\, and I realise it’s down the track. \nAnd there’s certainly. \nNatural. \nFrom my office of date. \nBut yeah\, and for the we’ve made\, I think the. \nAs proposed. \nIs strong. \nBut it’s. \nSo that concludes my reaction. \nOr add one thing\, so I’m comfortable with the parking garage and light of your you know the comments of the other Board members\, and you know I just wanted to get it out there\, and I think that the project does offer so many different. \nThat you know very reasonable trade-off\, and I also appreciate\, don’t want to go and mention the\, you know\, providing the details for the planting on top of structure. \nI think that’s really important. I know that that the landscape architects know how to do that\, but I also think it’s really important to have it on the record and have the owner be able to acknowledge the extra cost and maintenance it goes into doing a landscape on top \nof that building like that. So I think it’s helpful to have it there\, and the also the fact that the planting plan is\, you know\, is a very thoughtful and attractive\, and it just will face\, of course\, the challenges that we discussed earlier. \nWho’s maintaining it? Do they really know what they’re maintaining? \nDo they know how to keep it alive\, and also these are native plants\, and they’re used to growing and native soil. \nI’m I think it’s also important that we start changing the culture of maintenance or the lack of a culture of maintenance around landscape. \nSoapbox there for 1 s. Okay\, thank you. That’s it. \nThat’s all my comment should follow on on that comment. \nWe’re usually talking about fine being so stressed in the extended drought period. \nHope. Now we\, changing our point of view. \nBut. \nDoug aside. I. \nGood\, but is. \nAny other? \nOkay. \nYou had\, and the staff had in review. \nWe just need direction on that. It will come back. \nOkay\, does anyone feel they need to see this project again? \nNo! \nThanks everyone. Okay. So we don’t need to see it again. \nWe’ll look forward to going down there. \nSo look! With that we moved to the project proposal. \nResponse. So this is an invitation. \nOh\, why I appreciate the feedback and the discussion\, perhaps just the only clarifying remark I would make is is on the\, on the on the setback. \nThe first 4\, just because there was additional discussion on that. And we did pull the building. \nThe first floor of the building back 25 feet\, where the tower is\, currently is also how it was designed in August. \nBut I just would like to express our gratitude for the feedback. \nThat was very helpful. And ultimately we think this is a very symbiotic way of delivering a project. \nWe’ve spent a lot of time here talking about the public realm\, but on the bravest private side of the project we feel that the public piece of it is necessary to create an a-plus environment that’s going to bring some of the most creative and innovative companies to come so we \ndon’t view this necessarily as a burden we view this as a very integral part to making a excellent project be successful for the long term. \nSo thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you very much. \nActually. \nWell\, I also just want to make a comment before we adjourn. \nThis is Ashley’s first meeting as board secretary. \nDone a great job\, John. Thank you very much. \nAnd there’s a lot that can go off the rails so\, and nothing beeps that I arrived. \nYeah. Well done. \nYeah. Great job. Everyone. Okay. So we will. This concludes the and I’d like a motion. \nI will make a motion to adjourn. \nSecond. \nOkay\, are there any objections? \nOkay\, hearing none\, the meeting is adjusted. So thank you all\, and good night. \nRemotely. We’ll see you all soon. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-13-2023-design-review-board-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230309T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230309T170000
DTSTAMP:20231017T051000Z
CREATED:20230310T052405Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T051000Z
UID:10000031-1678348800-1678381200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:March 9\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/march-9-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230222T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230222T120000
DTSTAMP:20231017T051023Z
CREATED:20230223T042117Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T051023Z
UID:10000030-1677058200-1677067200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 22\, 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/89830813202?pwd=SW5lUENkVG13Mnkrb3VobWw3eG5IUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID898 3081 3202 \nPasscode881486 \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 CommentsThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 25\, 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]\nOne-year Update on Actions to Address Shoreline Encampments\, Abandoned and Derelict Vessels and Anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary\, Alameda County.The Committee will receive a briefing on the actions to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda as a follow-up to the discussion and direction provided by the Enforcement Committee during its meetings on February 23\, and March 23\, 2022.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff PresentationPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes (PDF) \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/02/02-22-audio.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: My name is Marie Gilmour\, and I am the chair of this committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, Commissioners\, please ensure that your 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. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. Please call the role Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves After responding. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I can’t hear you\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: can you hear me now? Yes\, okay. I don’t see Commissioner Eisen on my screen\, is she dropped off. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see her\, either. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Okay\, i’m calling the old now starting with Commissioner Eisen \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and Sherry Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a quote quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 0n our agenda\, which is public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda\, we will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me for members of the public if you would like to speak either during the check\, general public comment period or during the public comment period\, for an item on the agenda. Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants icon at the bottom of your screen \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find the small palm icon on the left. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must dial Star 9 to raise your hand and then dial star 6 0n 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 in which they were raised. After you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment. Commenters are limited t0 3Â min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who request to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abuse of language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. So\, Margie\, do we have any hands raised by the public. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We do. Tanya\, boys. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Miss Voice\, you have 3Â min to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes\, yes. \nTanya Boyce: great. Thank you so much. \nTanya Boyce: or allow me to speak. My name is Tony Boyce. I am a long time resident here in East Oakland. and I also am \na coach \nTanya Boyce: at Brooklyn strokes. \nTanya Boyce: I learned to row when I went to college at St. Mary’s College in Moraga\, over the hill\, from where I grew up\, and I developed a great love of rowing. \nTanya Boyce: and after the upheaval of \nthe George Floyd incident and many other things that were happening in our country. \nTanya Boyce: Bookman strokes made the very bold move of opening up \nTanya Boyce: their club to \nTanya Boyce: black and brown\, and disenfranchised people from around \nTanya Boyce: Oakland and throughout the greater bay area. So we’ve made great efforts to bring young people \nTanya Boyce: to the estuary \nTanya Boyce: as a safe place to be\, and to engage them in a sport that can \nTanya Boyce: change their lives as it did my own. Unfortunately\, the estuary has become a horribly \nTanya Boyce: dirty and contaminated place where our students are put in a lot of danger when they’re on the water and on the way to the water. \nTanya Boyce: Some of the students\, in fact\, i’ll be coaching this afternoon are coming to us from a rise High School\, and they actually take the bus\, and they have to walk \nTanya Boyce: down \nTanya Boyce: edge water to get t0 0r i’m Sorry tide what taiway. I’m sorry whatever that’s trees call. You know what I’m talking about to get t0 0ur boat house. \nTanya Boyce: but unfortunately\, the lack of \nTanya Boyce: any kind of enforcement of any kind on the city’s behalf has made this \nan incredibly \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: dangerous walk with this voice. I just want to ask a question. We are discussing the efforts to clean up the estuary on Item 6\, You’re discussing encampments. I’m discussing something a little different right now at open. \nTanya Boyce: I’m: i’m actually talking about the uses that are there that are doing aggregate and trucking\, and the other things other than that I was going to speak on the count. But right now i’m speaking to a different matter. Is it not the appropriate time to speak to something? Not on the agenda? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, it is I. I thank you for clarifying your your intent. And\, Margie\, could you give her a little bit more time because of my my interruption? Thank you \nTanya Boyce: right. \nTanya Boyce: Not operating in accordance with the ordinances we have \nTanya Boyce: trucks that are parked on the public street\, that I’ve broken the the \nTanya Boyce: the sewer lines\, and when I left there last night there was a river of running water from \nTanya Boyce: the sewer that’s just broken and just running into the street. We have trucks that are backed up to take aggregate off that make it impossible for the kids to even approach the waterfront\, much less the things that they’re going to see in the water and on the water edge when they get in the boats\, which is \nTanya Boyce: part of what you’ll be talking about on your other item. But i’m telling you is that the city of Oakland is failing on multiple fronts\, not just the encampment enforcement that makes the estuary a dangerous place to approach. \nTanya Boyce: and an unsafe place to recreate it. And we have to change that as soon as possible\, and I’m here to encourage that\, and I will be bringing my students next time\, so that they can speak for themselves. Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Miss Boyce. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you\, Margie. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Oh\, sorry about that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Benjamin. \nBenjamin: Hello! Can you hear me. \nBenjamin: Yes\, you can. You have 3. \nBenjamin: My name is Benjamin Yamanaka. I’m. The manager of the Oakland Yacht Club. \nBenjamin: and I’m speaking today because I want the B. Cdc. Support and encourage him to take action to the derelict and abandoned boats that have become a substantial problem to the estuary. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think you want to talk about. Item 6\, because that is our our item that relates to abandoned and damage vessels on the estuary. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So can I ask you to hold your comments until we get to that point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Thank you so much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do we have any other public speakers? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: None. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Then we are on to item Number 4 approval of the draft minutes from our last meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioners. We have all been furnished with draft minutes from our last meeting\, and I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these minutes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So moved. Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, moved by Commissioner Eisen\, second by Commissioner Vasquez and all in favor. Just raise your hands. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And i’m going to note for the recorder that the Volt was unanimous to approve the me\, the meeting minutes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So item 5\, which is the Enforcement report \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Enforcement policy manager. Matthew Trio will now provide the Enforcement report. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Thank you. Chair Gilmour. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Today I have a very brief report only 2 items. \nBut first good morning to yourself. Chair Gil Warren. Good morning to the the committee. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The first item is a case update since our last meeting on January 20\, fifth\, 2\,023. I’m happy to report that in the past month we’ve received 5 new cases\, and the good news is that we’ve resolved 11 cases. So\, as of today there are 85 cases in the queue. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: The second is an update on our efforts to fill the current Cpa to vacancy. This has been open for some time. We have been able to upgrade the position to from a 6 month\, as originally \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: advertised to it’s now a 12 month limited term position. \nand so I hope this change will attract more applicants very soon. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and that concludes my report\, and i’d be happy to entertain any follow up questions or comments about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any committee members have any questions for Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: seeing none. Margie\, do we have any members of the public who would like to comment on this item? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, I see. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Tanya voice. \nTanya Boyce: I understand that you have 85. You can’t g0 0ver all of them\, but we’d be anxious to know what you’ve been successful in getting rectified. So thank you very much for your work. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. That’s all we have to gamble. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nWe will now move on to item number 6 \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is a one-year update on actions to address shoreline encampments abandoned and derelict vessels. Yes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yes\, i’m sorry about that. We have a couple of more hands raised \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 0 0n on the and for the Enforcement report. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I I believe. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Actually\, no. They lowered it down. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Okay. So now we are on Item Number 6\, which is the one year update on actions to address shoreline and campus encampments abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor out in the Oakland Alameda estuary located in Alameda County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we are going to be briefed \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on this topic regarding abatement efforts by the cities\, representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And at this point in time I would like the representatives or representatives from the cities of Oakland and Alameda to please\, identify themselves for the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And Margie\, I can’t see any hands on my screen\, so have they raised their hands. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay\, promoting them now. Sorry about that. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: It should be Deputy City administrator\, Jim Debris\, representing Alameda and Lieutenant\, their class representing. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: i’m sorry\, representing Oakland. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, could those individuals\, Margie\, could you please unmute them? And they can introduce themselves for the record\, please. \nif they’re here. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Good afternoon\, Chair\, person. Gilmore. This is Joe de Rees\, a deputy city administrator with the city of Oakland. Can you hear me? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, I can. Thank you. Okay\, Good to see you again. Hope you’re well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you\, too. Do you have anybody else with you today? Or is it just going to be you doing the presentation? \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I do have others that can answer questions. If if\, if if I can’t\, we have outside Council. Actually\, I can’t see your attendee column\, so I don’t know who else from my staff is here. Let me take a quick look\, but I believe I’ve got staff from Opd. And the City Attorney’s office as well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Great. That’s good to know. Thank you. And the representative from the city of Alameda. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Good morning\, Lieutenant Eric costs in the city. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. And and I thank both of you for coming and providing the briefing. Okay. So at this moment\, in time. I’m going to invite Adrian Klein to give her introduction to this item. Adrian. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you very much. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Let’s see. Just get myself situated here. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Okay. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: right? \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Alright\, so my introduction is is brief. I’m merely providing some contacts today \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: by reviewing what happened at the initial briefing on this matter last year\, which also took place in February. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and\, as mentioned\, the floor will then be turned over to the cities of Alameda and Oakland. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: who are doing the hard work to to sell the commitments that they made to \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: that they made last year\, and to implement the direction that you\, the Enforcement Committee provided to them at that February briefing. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: following each of the city’s presentations. As we are all aware\, we have a number of public commenters. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and then\, of course\, there’ll be time for the committee\, discussion and possible direction to the landowners and staff. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So in 2\,021 the Commission received a steady stream of complaints from members of the public regarding the number of vessels\, many being occupied as residences that were anchored on public property in the Oakland. Alam to estuary \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and also Complaints regarding the number of encampments located along the shoreline of the Estuary in B. Cdc’s\, 100 foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, including in b Cdc. Required public access areas. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: These issues were occurring on this\, on the property belonging to the cities of Oakland and Alameda\, and als0 0n property owned by the port of Oakland and the East Bay Regional Park district. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: as well as on privately owned properties. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Those are just a few slides from last year’s presentations identifying locations of the issues last year. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: In response to these public concerns\, Staff scheduled an Enforcement committee briefing. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and the city’s presentations describe the the conditions they were facing at the time \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the resources that were available\, and lacking to enable them to address the encampment and Ankara issues on their properties. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: their plans t0 0vercome the constraints and the timeline to resolve the issues. At that time. You also heard from a number of State agencies\, and one Federal agency listed \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: on the slide about the authority and resources they have to support resolution of these issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Adrian. Just so. You know the only slide that I see is your title page I don’t know. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: Thank you. \nWell\, thank you. Sorry about that. Let me unshare and reshare. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So. Are you still seeing only the title slide? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, no\, you’re fine now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re on. We’re on the slide. Now that I okay. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: thank you. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: This was the showing who presented last year from the local agencies\, and then also from the State and Federal Government. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and I was just reviewing the \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: information that you received from the cities. \nSo these were the city of Oakland commitments which I think I was just about to review for you. So \nlet’s see here \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: so essentially \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: right. Both agencies have had some constraints\, and and the the the the report from the our sister State agencies\, the prior slide\, were \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: included to ensure that we were all aware of the resources available to support the local governments in managing these these challenging issues. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So the city of Oakland. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: at at the time of the presentation a year ago\, had approximately 15 vessels in their waters and shoreline encampments along the bay trail. During that meeting they made a number of commitments \nwhich was to clear the the most significant encampment between Dennis and Livingston streets. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: That is a typo\, it should say\, by March fifteenth 2023. My apologies \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to develop and implement a comprehensive policy for dealing with the ankles both occupied and unoccupied\, and both floating and sunken vessels. \nand to include support from the district attorney to fall through on marine patrol citations. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: They were going to look into secure vessel storage to get both off the water\, because oftentimes there is a lag between\, let’s say\, funding to destroy the boats\, and there is obviously less impact if they can be taken off the water \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: as soon as possible\, and held in a safe place until there is funding available. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and the city was going to explore additional funding for additional marine controls on the water through the port. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So now the city of Alameda commitments were to establish an alternate location for unsheltered people\, so that the shoreline encampments could be cleared \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: or relocated away from the water. They were going to use the division of voting and waterways. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: save funds\, surrendered and abandoned vessel\, exchange program funds to remove the \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: abandoned and derelict vessels in their waters at the time they were going to work with the local marinas to remove abandoned vessels \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: to prevent them from becoming anchor outs\, and there was a vessel on private property\, and they were going to work with that landowner to help remove it. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: At the time of the briefing last year in Alameda there were a few recurring vessel issues at Crowd Cove and incidental beach. and following the meeting\, we received the report that there was a short encampment at the north end of Main Street. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So the direction provided by the Enforcement Committee following the city’s presentations were to cause removal of the ancraft and accountants within a year. So by this or next month. \nadopt the necessary policies to \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: promote prevention and legislate to address gaps. and then to provide ongoing direction to staff and the Enforcement Committee. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: It was a long meeting staff provided you with an update the following month in March to summarize some of the best practices that had been suggested during the presentations. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and we stated that we would urge the cities to consider adoption of some of these best practices. and also Chair Gilmore requested\, in addition to these\, that \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: the Alameda County Sheriff’s marine patrol be involved in these coordination meetings. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: So \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: we have met faithfully every month since last year\, and I can attest that the local agencies are working hard to address these issues. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: The meetings have included the cities of Alameda and Oakland\, as well as representatives from the East Bay Regional Park District\, and the Court of Oakland. However\, unfortunately\, we are not able to \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: indicate that all the issues have been fully addressed. Conditions are improved\, but but issues are not fully resolved. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: We. I believe we only provided you with one briefing during the year that was in September. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: and so we will go ahead. If you would like us to continue with present with briefings this year\, we we will go ahead and schedule those ahead of time. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: These questions on the slide are for your consideration\, following the public comments. And so with that I will now turn the \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: floor over. As this concludes my presentation\, so up next would be Joe Debris\, the Deputy City administrator\, followed by Lieutenant Eric Klaus from Alameda’s Police department. Thank you\, Thank you\, Adrian. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Thank you. Adrian. I I appreciate the the introduction and Shareperson Gilmore. First. I want to apologize\, and that I I don’t have a powerpoint. You may have heard the city was hit with a a pretty significant ransomware attack \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: a week ago\, and many of us are still working from home trying to piece together our old documents. I think I might be back at City Hall tomorrow\, so i’m a little compromised. But I am going to run through what we’ve done\, what we’ve accomplished\, and what’s about to take place. And actually\, I want to also just state \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: from some of the comments I heard earlier from the public. We we recognize that this is not an acceptable circumstance. We do believe the estuary deserves the protection the debate plan offers. We do. We are not happy with the environmental degradation and the impact on people who are using the the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: the estuary legitimately\, like like our rolling clubs. And so all this is to is to to meet that. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: In short\, when we met that we began drafting an opd policy regarding the removal of abandoned vessels last year\, and I just want to remind people. Historically\, this was brought on by a legal claim filed against the city for the removal of an abandoned both that ended \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: with a pretty significant settlement\, and so for abandoned vessels\, and I want to distinguish between abandoned \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and illegal liver boards for abandoned vessels. The city has the authority to remove those those vessels\, but felt strongly after that lawsuit that we needed to develop a more specific \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: opd policy regarding noticing time limits and and just basically a standard operating procedure before we could remove those vessels. Also\, in in the summer we we brought on outside council \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: to help us develop our our our policy end up up upcoming ordinance because of their experience in Richardson Bay\, and it’s also a little \nbegan to post notices on these vessels. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: We actually began. I I know\, Adrian had said\, 15 vegetables\, but we actually estimate closer t0 25 vessels in 2\,022. They were out there. We’ve recently accounted for 18 it. It appears that the initial noticing that Opd. Did\, allowed for 5 Vessels to leave to unknown destinations. So we had voluntary compliance from 5 0f those vessels. 2 vessels were toad or or removed from the water this winter\, more would have been removed. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: but as as the Enforcement staff know\, our boat sucked up to breed during one of those removals\, and was put out a commission for a while. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: otherwise we would have been able to move more of the abandoned vessels \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: we have. We’ve been working with outside Council\, and I think this is the most significant development to is to draft an Ordinance to give opd the authority to address nuisance vessels with people living aboard. And and again we working with outside council. Who’s here today? Gabriel Ross can can speak to this if necessary. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Our municipal code did not give us the authority to enforce on on liva boards\, and so we’ve drafted an ordinance that will give opd that authority that ordinance is scheduled to go before the Public Safety Committee this coming Monday at 1 30. I I encourage anyone who’s interested in this topic to come to that meeting and to speak on on on the issue. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: If it does pass committee successfully\, it will go to the full Council on March seventh. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Once it’s adopted in in regard to what implementation will look like. You know our our marine patrol will will train current auxiliary officers\, and they’ll conduct targeted enforcement operations. First educate those living a board of the new policy\, and to give them time to come up with a plan to leave \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: those who refuse to move the city will implement the new policy and relocate them\, or remove their vegetables from the estuary following the new policy guidelines\, and I I just \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: pause here to comment that this runs very close to the very controversial issues of of of around homelessness in Oakland. And so we’re. We’re very sensitive to how this could play out\, and we’re familiar with what happened in in Richardson Bay and in Sals Alito\, so I I don’t think it’ll be an easy lift\, but it certainly will have the mechanism mechanism in place to do it. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Regarding the storage as as Adrian mentioned\, we we were looking at a at a place to store \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: vessels that are removed from the water. We consider the former crier building site next to Union Plane Park\, but instead have continued to use the Jack London Square Co. Aquatic Center Parking Lot\, which works for Opd. The prior building site is now being considered to be used as a community garden operated by a women’s Recovery group as part of our efforts to bring more positive energy back to Union Plant Park\, and \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: as this committee knows\, Union Point Park is an issue that we’ve worked on together quite a bit. Today’s meeting is not about Union Point part\, but we’ve made a lot of progress there in bringing we have a a a middle school that’s adopted the park. They’re doing regular clean ups. We’ve put in a lot of physical barriers to to prevent some of the unwanted activity\, and so \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: creating a a community garden at the choir building\, felt better as a plan than storing derelict boats. I also want to touch on another issue that Adrian didn’t spend a lot of time while but we really did focus on \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: encampments all along the waterfront. We do have a an encampment at lead drive. It’s primarily our V’s. And I. I want to note that while we’ve done regular cleanings\, and we’ve tried to coordinate with the \nWe are opening a new safe\, Rv. Parking facility at 66 Avenue right now. It’s actually already functioning with 29 parking spaces for rvs that number will grow t0 104\, when we fully open the the facility by about mid-march \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: that will give the city rv parking spaces t0 0ffer people that are illegally encamped\, and the waterfront\, of course\, being up a priority location\, because it’s proximity to the water\, we could see that that encampment actually being closed in the coming months. \nOne thing is\, you know it with the removal of the boats. Now that we’re at the point where we can both remove\, abandoned\, and then\, with the adoption of the ordinance\, remove \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: live awards. We will be seeking about a $150\,000\, and grant money from the State to to to cover the cost. This is triple\, the normal amount that the city asks for\, and it will be a big lift. But I feel like our policy policies will be in place to really make a difference over the coming months. Now that we’ve done our our internal homework. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and that’s that’s my report\, and i’m happy to take questions or invite other staff to speak as you see fit. Thank you. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Your muted chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Thank you very much. I think i’m inclined right now to hear from the city of Alameda before we get into the the question and comment period\, unless there’s \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a committee member who has a burning question right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see that. So let’s go to the city of Alameda. Thank you. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Good morning. I appreciate the time today kind of a brief overall what the city of Alameda has been doing the last course of last year\, and now \nLt. Erik Klaus: our marked 20 has been working diligently for the through. The \nLt. Erik Klaus: Our retail units usually out there twice a week \nLt. Erik Klaus: since very early 2021. It’s been approximately 12 0ver 200Â h on the on the both. \nSince \nLt. Erik Klaus: late October early of February\, 2020 0r January 2021 0ur rainfall is removed just over 17 vessels that were derelict. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and for that work through the tip we work with OP. The Us. Coast Guard and Parker dive to remove these vessels. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We currently have 8 vessels on our \nwaiting list in detail. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and and the list continues to grow daily. I get calls \nLt. Erik Klaus: almost daily on\, You know\, vessels throughout\, not only out or through Oakland\, but across the Bay San Francisco. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Some are from our marinas \nLt. Erik Klaus: as of today. We have spent about 50 $45000 of the $100\,000 for this year’s Grant. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We’ll continue to move forward with that funding. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We continue to work with our communicate\, communicate with our local marine as an Alimeda. We’ve established a communication list for all the Harvard masters. They can stay in on top of any complaints they may have. \nLt. Erik Klaus: You know\, such as v-tip vessels that are in their marines that need to be taken care of. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We’ve also encouraged those harvard masters to communicate with one another. so they can work together to resolve the significant issues that they have \nLt. Erik Klaus: as we progress through the years. I’ve directed my memory full unit to work with our local harbor masters on a monthly basis\, just to make sure things are progressing well in arenas. \nLt. Erik Klaus: They don’t have any vessels that are hazard to the the waterways\, etc.\, or that they need to get rid of \nLt. Erik Klaus: as of yesterday. Only one Marina requested assistance with the V tech vessel they wanted to get rid of throughout all of our morning is in Alameda. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Our\, As you all may know\, our main street quarter\, right across from the port of open was significantly impacted\, or with you on house \nLt. Erik Klaus: individuals that had set up our these makeshift tents\, etc.\, and it was completely packed. It didn’t even park in that parking lot. \nLt. Erik Klaus: Since then\, through our efforts\, using\, you know\, outreach programs such as building features see. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and our newly designed care team to the the fire department. \nWe’ve assisted the on housed population over there to build a path to their own self service. \nLt. Erik Klaus: We currently have 6 best vehicles that are parked there on the main street. They none of them are on the waterways. They are a long \nLt. Erik Klaus: roadway on Main Street\, a away from the waterway. The parking lot is completely out. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and \nLt. Erik Klaus: I really \nLt. Erik Klaus: I I I think it’s important to know that. You know we’ve been working diligently to try to keep. You know the waterways \nLt. Erik Klaus: clear from hazards\, etc.\, but we also want to. I know opd’s got a lot on their hands on their side\, and anything that we can do the system out to to progress. \nwe will certainly welcome to do so. \nLt. Erik Klaus: It’s really all I have. You have any questions on? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, both of you for taking the time to to be here this morning. Are there any questions from committee members? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nThank you. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you to Mr. Debris and Lieutenant Klaus. I’m wondering\, You know\, Adrian put up that very nice slide that said what the commitments were of the 2 cities \nback a year ago. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and I imagine that in your reports you’ve addressed those. But i’m wondering if we could go back to those slides and just get sort of a quick. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: quick summary of where we stand on the various items that we’re not to repeat anything you’ve said\, but just to be sure that we’ve covered all the things that we’re in that slide. That’s one thing I would request\, and the second is\, I don’t have a good sense \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: of how many abandoned vessels and level boards we had a year ago\, and how many we have now. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I I don’t know if that’s easily summarized numerically\, but it would help me to see how much progress \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: has been made\, because I I know from the Richardson Bay situation that it’s often a 2 steps forward\, one step back. \nkind of scenario. So those are the 2 questions I have of the of the cities \nLt. Erik Klaus: i’d be happy to to try to address as far as the advantage or derelict vessels we currently have none. \nLt. Erik Klaus: I don’t know the exact number that we had when we first began\, but I want to say it was 4 0r 5. \nNo \nLt. Erik Klaus: little bit off on that number\, but it was close to that. But I have since got rid of all of them. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay\, and and liverboards. \nLt. Erik Klaus: None that were the the ones that we do have. Little boards are within the marine isn’t there\, following those guidelines of the marines. \nLt. Erik Klaus: but they can \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: all right. Well\, we have a Adrian city of Oakland commitment slide up. I’m wondering\, Mr. Debris\, if you would mine just running through those very quickly. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Sure\, thank you through the chair. So the first one\, the candidate between Dennison and Livingston\, was cleared\, and\, I believe\, is remained in pretty good shape. In fact\, the community. There were some K. Rails put down on the street\, and I think the community did a beautiful job painting them. So they actually had a lot of charm today \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: to the area as far as the comprehensive policy. Again\, we now have a a policy for Opd. For abandoned boats. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and our policy for illegal liver boards requires a new municipal code ordinance which is coming next week. I will be candid that on the the commitment to include support from the district attorney. I have not engaged the district attorney on. I don’t know if Officer Albino\, who’s in the Attendee column has\, if he if he wants to speak to that he could certainly raise his hand. We’ve certainly had a change in the administration there\, and so \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I doubt the new city. The new district attorney has gotten this on their radar yet\, but certainly that’s something we need to work on. Still\, again on the storage area. We we are using the jack on an aquatic square\, parking a aquatic center\, parking lot. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: not the prior building. And then this option of funding additional marine patrols\, you know. This came up through some meetings\, and I I\, to be honest\, I don’t. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I think we’ve been able to quantify what \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: any additional marine patrol needs are\, and I think that’s we’ve had a candid conversation with the port. You know the ports been clear that they they’re funding what they’re funding\, and that if we feel that there’s\, you know\, a need for increased patrol. We we need to have a a separate meeting on that\, as you probably know\, Opd struggled desperately with some of the lowest staffing levels ever in 2000 22021We are making a rebound which is exciting. We\, you know we’re over $700\, \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: officers and and more academies on the way\, but we’ve not fully vetted. The what the need for additional marine patrol is in regard to the number of boats. We actually identified 25 in 2\,022 \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: 18 0f which are left again we we removed 2 and 5 left voluntarily\, but I think the bigger work we did in 2\,022 was to prepare ourselves to have the pro policies and procedures in place\, so that we can do a lot more removals in 2\,023 now. But now that we’re at that point \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and that’s the that’s the abandoned vessels right\, not the liberal works that it’s a combination. Actually. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: thank you. And and i’ll be\, and i’ll be frank. Yeah\, there was one situation where 3 boats were moored together near Union Plane Park\, my understanding Just recently one of them sunk\, one of them half sunk\, and as an anecdotal note. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: a lot of the one of the problems we were experiencing. Union Plant Park in the southern parking lot was \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: stolen\, vehicles being dumped and stripped there\, and I think it’s notable that those vehicles being dumped in strip\, that the incidence of that has gone down to almost 0 since those boats that were moored out there sunk. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and one of the people involved seems to have moved on to go somewhere else. And I think that’s a just a a cause and effect example of why this work is so important both on the water and on the land \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and the 18 that remained. Do you have even a guesstimate? As to when that number will be down t0 0. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: We are seeking additional save grant funds that typically the funding cycle is in April. So we are not in a position to remove Vessels \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: likely until then\, unless opd were to maybe partner with Alameda. If they have money left over\, we could use some of that to remove some really really tricky ones\, and I do want to give Officer Albino the opportunity to speak if you’d like him to\, because he’s really the one on the water doing the heavy lifting. I’m just a guy that gets to show up at meetings and talk. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and I don’t know if the city of Alameda commitments had any issues on it. That lieutenant class was yet to address. But can you pull that up quickly\, Adrian? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Hello. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Adrian. \nLt. Erik Klaus: I can. I’ve got the list in front. I can’t pull it up on the screen. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: oh\, that would be great. Yeah. Established an alternate location for unsheltered people. So City\, can you relocate \nLt. Erik Klaus: our main in camp? It was there\, off of Main Street. \nLt. Erik Klaus: I said. There was 6 vehicles left. All of the other ones have been moved\, and the UN sheltered individuals have been relocated or provided assistance. \nusing safe funds for move. 7 existing abandoned vessels\, like I said\, we have none left at this time \nLt. Erik Klaus: perfect marine is to take abandoned vessels if they are left. If there’s left over safe funding. \nLt. Erik Klaus: you are working with Marinas\, there is one Marina that has one that’s a and then work with private landlords. Remove the sunken vessel. There was a vessel that was stuck sunken in the inner basin \nthat was handled a while back. \nLt. Erik Klaus: and there’s no longer there. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Great! That’s great. And and thank you for going through that exercise. And I just want to add\, before \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I stopped talking\, that I really appreciate the the public and his voices. comments\, and I am enormously \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: concerned and sympathetic with the situation she’s described. I mean. I live in Oakland. I also am a rower\, and I the number of places that folks can have access to the water in Oakland is relatively small\, given the size of the city. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and to have any of them \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: challenged in the way that she described is a real hit to the city and to the its occupants and my neighbors\, and I I I hope that we can make some real progress that will enable people to access the bay \nfrom Oakland in a much more positive way. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Commissioner Vasquez. Did you have any questions or comments? Yeah\, you know\, Slide 6 if you put it back up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know\, Marie\, we’ve heard this over the years about derelict sunk and abandoned vehicles. However\, you want to categorize them. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: It it seems as if we. We just keep approaching at a piecemeal effort. you know. Cal Recycle sometimes has money\, for every one of the 9 beer of county suffers with some kind of \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: vessel or vehicles in the water\, and it’s become a terrible\, terrible issue\, not environmentally\, but just making the waterways passable \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: along with a \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: all the other things that go along with it\, and it seems as if we’ve had these presentations in the past. I don’t know. Maybe it’s BC. DC. That calls for \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: they will. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The 9 counties that come together working with the Da\, so have a more aggressive program in place\, and calling on the State to say\, find the funding for it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: because you know\, as we \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: even our audit\, the audit of B. C. DC. Indicated that we’re not doing enough Well\, nobody’s doing enough because it’s not coordinated\, and we’re always looking for grants and money\, because n0 0ne entity can do it by themselves. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You know \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: you go ahead. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I I was just gonna say I I think that’s a very good point\, and maybe that’s something that the committee needs to agendize. \nso we can talk about it\, and potentially bring it back \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to the full commission for discussion to kind of get the ball rolling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But but having said that\, I don’t think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So that’s that. Mutually exclusive from holding \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the the separate agencies to their commitments that they made to remove derelict and and vessels\, and and anchor out. So I think\, think what i’m saying is\, we should get the ball rolling on the coordinated 9 Bay effort while we still kind of chug along with what we’ve been \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: entity that you know it’s it’s staffing it’s cost. We’re working on it\, you know \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I I don’t know why the legislation hasn’t changed so we can deal with these derelict and abandoned vehicles\, vessels in in the waterways it \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: much more easily. and then the whole thing of recycling them\, or trying to get rid of them. I I know we do it small. Can we deal with them? Just? We just get a handful of those out of the water. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and just the cost\, because a lot of times they’re loaded with stuff that people don’t want oils and pesticides and everything else \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: just dumped in the in the in the Delta or in the bay. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: It just seems that over the years we’ve heard this and heard this. And \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: yeah\, we all know it’s a problem. But you know\, coming with a global solution global by the bay area and the Delta itself\, it doesn’t run \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Delta County is running into the same problem. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So i’m based on your comments. I’m going to suggest to Staff that at a future date we agenda is this for discussion \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: with with the I to presenting it \nto the the full commission to get the ball rolling. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: What I would say about this particular \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: scenario before us\, and and I think Rebecca alluded to it. This reminds me very much of Ssalito and Richard since Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and maybe we need to somewhat handle it in the same way. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So i’m a little bit distressed that we didn’t think about having an inventory a year ago \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of what exactly was in the estuary\, because if you don’t. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: if you don’t measure it. It doesn’t get done right. So my suggestion at least going forward is\, we have an inventory of exactly what’s there\, and and sort of a list of what we’re working to to resolve. So that’s that’s one thing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And then to the general comment that I think Mr. Degrees made about patrolling the estuary \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: part of the problem that we have. So I think it was back in 2\,013. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: There was a a multi agency\, you know\, State Federal attempt\, and we cleaned up the estuary right\, and it looked great for a while. But part of the problem is that there’s no there’s no vigilance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and things are allowed to creep back in\, and then we’re at the same stage that we are now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so what I so to to Mr. Dre’s point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: One of the things you can ask the the folks at the port for is okay. This is why we need \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: more patrols\, because the more patrols we have out there. It’s a deterrence for people dumping stuff illegally\, and also the sooner we find out about it \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the greater the potential for dealing with it in a timely fashion. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and also I’m. I think we’re all frustrated at at the fact that we make progress is\, I think\, somebody said\, it’s 2 steps forward\, one step back\, and I think that’s an area where \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the patrols could could definitely help \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: A. And I understand that you know there there are constraints. We were just sent a couple of pictures of \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: abandoned vessels at at boat slips in public boat slips in Jack London Square. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and to me that’s really frustrating\, because that seems to me that it would be sort of low hanging fruit. The the vessel is abandoned\, and while it’s tied up there\, people who are coming to\, you know. Enjoy Jack London Square boat. Wise\, you know\, can’t tie up because there’s something there. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that\, to me seems like sort of the lowest hanging through\, and and it’s the kind of thing that’s the kind of thing that makes. I think the public really really frustrated\, and make them feel like there’s not a whole lot happening. And and and I agree\, I I agree you guys have done. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and both cities have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: put in some substantial efforts\, you know\, over the last year\, and you are to be commended. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But then\, like I said\, you see the low hanging fruit. You kind of go. Well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: why didn’t they take care of this? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So that that’s sort of one comment. And and I especially want to commend the city of Oakland? Because you saw the need to get your regulations and policies changed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and you’re doing that\, and that’s not easy. So I just\, I\, you know\, want to give you guys a serious pad on the back for doing that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The one other question I have. And this goes back to patrolling. Did anybody check in with the sheriff’s department about their boat\, and what their boats doing. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Well\, n0 0ne’s talking so I will\, you know I would. I would ask Officer Albino\, I I I noticed you promoted him to panelists. I just that’s that’s I don’t have that detail\, and i’m not sure if the lieutenant from Alameda does \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: but good good chance for off for Albino to say hello if he’s available to do so. \nOfc. K. Albino: Good morning\, Good morning to the committee. Thank you for having me here in regards to Alameda County sheriff. They have been out there on the water. They’re also experiencing a big staffing shortage. \nOfc. K. Albino: and they don’t have a full time maritime\, you know. Part of their maritime unit is through their bomb disposal unit. \nso they’re caught up with that as far as their manning goes. \nOfc. K. Albino: and as far as the inventory goes\, I’m. \nOfc. K. Albino: Maybe it was unclear before\, but we started last year with 25 vessels. and ultimately we’re down t0 18 now. i’m going to apply for a $150\,000 and grant funding in April \nOfc. K. Albino: i’m projecting that money to be released int0 0ur hands around July timeframe. \nOfc. K. Albino: and then i’m hoping to do a clean up in late summer\, early fall\, and i’m hoping that 18 turns into a 0 by the end of the year. \nOfc. K. Albino: So that’s my goal for those vessels there. \nOfc. K. Albino: and then a big way to mitigate these vessels from coming out and becoming illegally anchored\, is sh them through the vessel\, turn in program \nOfc. K. Albino: where owners will surrender their vote to the State. That’s where I can kind of catch these boats before they end up in the estuary\, illegally anchor down. and as far as an additional maritime officer we’re not approved yet \nOfc. K. Albino: to have one full time. but we have about 10 auxiliary units \nOfc. K. Albino: to this with these operations on an overtime basis. So that’s kind of how we’re handling that right there. \nOfc. K. Albino: Any other questions for me at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Actually\, I I do have a question. You mentioned the vessel turn in. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: How aware is the voting community about that program? So I guess my question is\, is it more incumbent on you to tell them\, or is it something that they voluntarily say? Hey\, you know my both on its last legs? I want to turn it in. \nOfc. K. Albino: Typically it goes through the harbor\, master. If they’re \nOfc. K. Albino: boat is mechanically failing\, or it’s sinking\, they’ll go to the Harvard Master and the Harvard master. Usually we’ll give them some options on how \nOfc. K. Albino: to mitigate their vessel from becoming some \nOfc. K. Albino: part of that is\, through the division of boating and waterways. I’m listed. My specific name and phone number are listed on the website. \nOfc. K. Albino: so you can go search\, and I believe maybe Lieutenant Klaus or Alameda police is also \nOfc. K. Albino: on that site as well. So I received calls weekly and monthly\, and I have a log \nOfc. K. Albino: of about 11 vessels right now on the waiting list to turn in their votes. So I know that the information is out there because I receive calls pretty frequently. \nOfc. K. Albino: and that’s one way for them to do it. And then for these boats that are anchored out. I also verbally tell them that’s an option for them is to surrender their both to the state of their \nOfc. K. Albino: in over their head. They’re both syncing something like that. \nOkay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. \nCommissioner Isa. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. I I just wanted to add that I I really appreciate Commissioner V. As his comment about \nseeking some kind of a regional approach\, and and the chairs \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: comment that we should agendize this and maybe move it forward to the full commission. To me this whole question about the anchor out and the abandoned vessels and the access \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it’s. It’s shot through with environmental justice issues\, I think. and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: you know some communities have much more ability to address those issues than others\, and if we can work together as a region \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to solve these problems for all of the communities around the bay. I think it would just be\, you know\, so much better for everyone. But \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So I i’m really glad that we’re going to be doing what the chair suggested\, because I think it really does have those issues in it\, and we are committed to doing something about those issues\, and we’ve recommitted to it recently. So i’m glad to see that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: those thoughts Are there. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, any other Commissioner comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Don’t See any? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Well\, now\, we will take public comments on this item\, which is item number 6 0n the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I’m going to make a notation for the record that we have received 8 written comments on this item. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: S0 0nce again\, if you’re a member of the public\, and would like to provide comments. You will need to raise your hand by clicking on the participants\, tab in zoom or by phone\, dialing Star 9 to raise your hand and Star 6 to unmute yourself. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie will then announce you and invite you to comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Comments should be kept t0 3Â min\, and Margie will be keeping track of time\, and this is a request for comments on Item 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I know we have public comments. So\, Margie\, do you want to start us off with the first individual. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, we have Rock the lap first on the list. \nBrock de Lappe: Good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Brock to Lap. To begin with\, it is important to acknowledge the work that the city of Oakland has accomplished during the past 2 years to remove encampments from Union Point Park. \nBrock de Lappe: The open and barked Arrow and the San Francisco Bay trail. \nBrock de Lappe: This was a challenging undertaking\, and it has resulted in a tremendous improvement to the embarked arrow Neighborhood \nBrock de Lappe: Major Credit is due to Joe Debris\, the tonda\, Simmons open public works and the \nBrock de Lappe: bravo. What this does show is that where there is a will there is a way. \nBrock de Lappe: What remains an untouched and growing problem is the Oakland estuary waterfront. which has been severely impacted by a large number of anchor out and abandoned wrecks \nBrock de Lappe: to be clear\, it is illegal to anchor anywhere on the Oakland estuary. \nBrock de Lappe: Nevertheless\, a criminal element has been allowed to totally flaunt this prohibition. The consequences are severe threat to health and safety of the general public. \nBrock de Lappe: This is a clear and present danger. \nBrock de Lappe: Since late December many vessels have sunk or drifted loose unmanned\, creating a serious threat to navigation. \nBrock de Lappe: An anchor out off Union Point Park\, recently caught fire and sank. And now the wreck is an unmarked hazard to navigation\, only visible at low tide. \nBrock de Lappe: Private docks and marinas have derelicts tied up without permission\, and they have not been cited by the Opd. For trespass \nBrock de Lappe: owners have no ability to deal with this unwanted intrusion. \nBrock de Lappe: The condition on the estuary has been allowed to reach a true code red status. I’m. Aware of the new nuisance vessel ordinance that has been created by the city of Oakland. \nBrock de Lappe: It still requires the full approval of the city council. \nBrock de Lappe: This is a necessary step in addressing this problem. \nBrock de Lappe: What wasn’t clear from the text of the document is the source of funding necessary to conduct a cleanup that would remove all anchor outs sunken wrecks and shoreline debris. \nBrock de Lappe: I have tremendous respect for the Oakland Police Department Marine patrol officers\, and I know that if it was up to them conditions on the estuary would never have gotten so bad. \nBrock de Lappe: It is absolutely imperative that the marine patrol unit be properly staffed with certified personnel\, and that they have all the equipment and authorization to undertake the required cleanup and ongoing patrols to prevent a recurrence \nBrock de Lappe: if the required funding is not available from the city or port of Oakland. Efforts should be made t0 0btain the necessary resources from Alameda County\, State of California\, or the Federal Government. \nBrock de Lappe: The EPA provided 3.5 million dollars for the 2\,013 cleanup. and the Department of Homeland Security has assisted the Oakland Police Department with a three-quarter 1 million dollar moose patrol vessel \nBrock de Lappe: they could assist again to meet the need for on the water law enforcement\, especially considering that the port of Oakland is the fourth largest port on the west coast. \nBrock de Lappe: The continued lack of timely on the water law enforcement would be extremely irresponsible. \nBrock de Lappe: I hope I hope\, that we can move forward with this and that we won’t again\, go through another year\, and have the same situation exist as it has during this past year. Thank you. Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next up we have Steve Mcphessel. \nMr. Fessel\, please state your name for the record. \nSteveMeckfessel: My name is Steve Mcfast\, so can you hear me? \nSteveMeckfessel: Yes\, yes\, and I am the manager at Marina Bella Jot Harbor in Alameda. \nSteveMeckfessel: First of all\, I want to say this is one of the most encouraging public hearings I’ve ever attended or been to. I really support all of the comments made by \nChair Gilmour\, as well as the Commissioners\, as well as the speakers. \nSteveMeckfessel: I don’t want to take a lot of your time. I also\, by the way\, want to thank being in Alameda\, the great work that Lieutenant the lieutenant\, has done\, and his team has done. \nSteveMeckfessel: I do want to just emphasize that I concur that this is a huge issue and problem\, and the biggest threat to the estuary in bay that’s out there right now. \nSteveMeckfessel: It seems like we all have people committed to do it\, and I I love the idea of getting the 9 counties together on this and some sort of state fine funding. So I encourage you to all to do what you’re continuing to do. I thank you\, and just one again emphasize that \nSteveMeckfessel: this is really a threat from an environmental standpoint. It’s a threat from a safety standpoint. It’s that a threat to the health of the estuary in the bay. Thank you very much for your efforts. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Tanya voice \ndefinitely. \nTanya Boyce: Hello! Can you hear me. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, we can. \nTanya Boyce: Okay\, great. S0 0nce again I’m Tanya\, Boyce. East Oakland Resident. \nTanya Boyce: I want to say that \nTanya Boyce: I do not think that the city of Oakland has done a great job. I’m grateful that my neighbor \nTanya Boyce: doesn’t have the encampments in his neighborhood anymore\, but I want to let him and everyone know that they move from there over to lead where the cabinet has grown exp potentially\, and I know that my very good friend\, like Joe Devise\, has acknowledged that leap. \nTanya Boyce: It has become an encampment of big problems. But what I don’t understand\, I really can’t understand. Is that \nTanya Boyce: Why is it that the city has bathrooms there for for the people who are camping\, but doesn’t \nTanya Boyce: provide dumpsters. so that \nTanya Boyce: all of their trash is going directly into the water elite every single day. \nTanya Boyce: and if I want to walk past there\, I I can’t even have access to the walkway. That is completely unacceptable\, and I don’t see why we would wait for anything \nTanya Boyce: to fix that situation. Furthermore\, on Denison. \nTanya Boyce: so captors went from \nTanya Boyce: on top of the street to under the bridge. So when I’m. \nTanya Boyce: Rowing down the estuary. I can show you that there are still people living there\, and that’s defecating and throwing things directly into the water. There is a gigantic dump \nTanya Boyce: under the bridge full of stuff that n0 0ne has cleaned up\, and that my row was point that every time that we pass it like wow\, that’s a whole another world down there. \nTanya Boyce: I myself fell into the estuary a few months ago\, when I was trying to park my boat \nTanya Boyce: and became definitely ill\, deathly ill I I was on death’s door for like \nTanya Boyce: 2 and a half weeks. only to find out that I had round worms. \nTanya Boyce: and so we are now exposing \nTanya Boyce: our children and our cells. The Third World diseases \nTanya Boyce: that were since eradicated in our country. \nTanya Boyce: because we are not dealing with homelessness in the way that we need to the lasting point that I want to say\, and hopefully someone will hear me. Is we actually have a campsite \nTanya Boyce: East Bay Regional park runs a campsite. \nTanya Boyce: Why would they allow camping on their property on the waterfront\, instead of moving people to a camp site where there are showers and places for them to burn things and places for people who want to live outside to be outside. \nTanya Boyce: Oaklands \nTanya Boyce: policies are like there of\, have invited everybody from around the world to come here and do whatever they want\, because there’s no enforcement of any kind of any rule \nTanya Boyce: anywhere\, especially in. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Miss Boyce. Next we have Tomas0 0gia. Please stay there. Your name for the record. You have 3Â min. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Mr. Bogea. \nTommaso Boggia: Hi! My name is in the history for 12 years. \nand i’m calling in mostly to caution everyone to speak \nTommaso Boggia: kindly of the people we’re referring to these people that you referred to as the legal are poor people\, probably going through the hardest moments of their lives\, and the a lot of the language used around here is a language of criminalization\, of poverty. \nTommaso Boggia: Specifically\, one of the most egregious uses of this is pictures of the guest Talk with both Spark there\, and my boat is directly across from the guest talk. They’ve never been a problem. People cycle through here. There’s been one of the commissioners mentioned\, both being abandoned there in the guest Talk\, I guess Doc is is free right now. \nTommaso Boggia: It’s it’s been it’s free it it’s like people come in and come out\, and often both keep pictures of votes \non the guest\, Doc\, or being used to make the point that these people are \nTommaso Boggia: taken advantage of the public re of the public realm. They’re not. They just come in and out another point I wanted to make around this issue of criminalizing poverty is there’s this a lot\, this language on crisis. \nTommaso Boggia: It’s there’s definitely an environmental impact of people who do not have access to marina facilities. But if you look at any studies of the major sources of pollution in the bay. It’s not. We call anchor outs. It’s just that we we keep using these dramatic language around them\, but even might just build millions of gallons of sewage into the bay. \nTommaso Boggia: Chevron refinery is constantly spilling oil\, oil dripping from cars is what is the biggest non-source point pollution of the bay. So let’s let’s not pretend this is the biggest environmental problem in the in the estuary. Right now. There’s date on that. Look at that data. \nTommaso Boggia: Finally\, as the previous commenter said\, as a policy of criminalizing and evicting UN sheltered folks. That doesn’t provide solutions for where these people should \nTommaso Boggia: should go \nTommaso Boggia: is not a policy that works. There was one of the Commissioner pointed out that this is what’s at\, what? What’s happening now is what happened in Ssolito. Yeah\, you know why it’s happening here\, because everybody was just cleared out of Saleido without a place to go. And so now they’re coming here. If we clear them out from here\, where do you think they will go? They’ll go to the next place. \nSo we need to. Yes\, a regional solution\, but a regional solution \nTommaso Boggia: based on providing housing for people who need it. \nWe’re in the housing crisis\, and this is just another manifestation of it. Stop criminalizing poverty\, start providing public housing. Thank you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. Next we have Tom\, when \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: yes\, thank you\, i’m unmuted. Now my name is Thank you\, members of the committee. My name is Tom port\, and I’m. The volunteer boat house manager at Jacqueline Aquatic Center. As you know\, Jack Lennon is located at the south end of Jacklin and Square. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and is\, in addition t0 0ther boat houses along the estuary\, such as the open strokes. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: It’s one of the most active public access areas to the estuary literally. There’s hundreds of hours of adult and youth activities that operate out of Jekyll out of J. Lack\, including a rowing dragon voting. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: kayaking\, paddle\, boarding\, and public launch and the public launch ramp. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: So\, with such an active facility\, we are most concerned about the public health and safety of our users\, especially our youth users. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and so well we appreciate many of the comments that we’ve heard this morning. We are very concerned about the impact of the anchor out on the estuary\, both from a health and safety\, environmental and a navigational standpoint. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: Morning and evening the our aquatic users have to navigate through the flotilla of vessels that are more at offshore. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: just offshore in the cove. \nand also\, as you’ve heard along the the the shallows of the estuary\, there are numerous sunken vessels \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: that pose both the environmental and a navigational hazard. Over the last few months Only a couple of those vessels\, including a sailboat\, have been removed. So it’s been since 2019 years since any concerted activity to remove these vessels was accomplished \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: at J. Lack we participate in multiple shoreline cleanups throughout the year. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: where we literally removed tons of cast off garbage\, including hypodermic needles from the shores and beaches along the estuary\, and especially around the Jlac Cove. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: We’ve\, also experienced evidence of human waste being released into the into the water. And while we acknowledged that that’s not the only source of pollution\, the fact that the city of Oakland has closed the public restrooms at the public launch. Ramps really gives the anchor outs now where to go. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: so we do appreciate the recent efforts by the city of Oakland\, and especially the the efforts by the Oakland Marine Division to get a handle on the situation. But I think the 3 things that we really need to continue to see happen is that the city live up to its commitment \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: to deal with the situation. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and we are encouraged by the pending nuisance or ordinance. That’s good progress. But things are happening much too slowly\, and it continues to let it. The current situation grow worse \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: that the comprehensive\, cleanup be moved along quickly and again we we appreciate all Officer Albino saying that he’s planning to clean up the summer into the fall. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and then\, lastly\, that illegal mooring and anchoring of boats be cited\, and that there’d be regular enforcement on the estuary. And then\, lastly\, we are concerned to hear Mr. De. We say that the the J. Like parking lot\, may be used as a temporary storage facility for boat removal. If you were to go down on any given Saturday he would see that the entire parking lot of jailac is full. \ntom horton – East Bay Rowing: and that this would be a significant issue if that becomes a storage area. Thank you very much. Thank you. \nNext we have Libby Adelson. \nLibby Edelson: Good morning. Can you hear me? Thank you. My name is Libby Adelson. I \nLibby Edelson: was a long time resident of Oakland and I’m. A resident currently of Berkeley. \nLibby Edelson: I row at the East Bay Rowing Club \nLibby Edelson: out of Jack London Aquatic Center\, and I wanted to comment that \nLibby Edelson: rowing has significantly changed my life\, and being out on the water \nLibby Edelson: and being able to see our beautiful cities\, Alameda\, Oakland\, Berkeley\, and our ecosystem has inspired me to \nLibby Edelson: give back to both\, to work on behalf of our communities and on behalf of the environment. It’s been very life changing \nLibby Edelson: my concern with anchor outs off the Cov. Of Jack London. Aquatic Center is the danger they present to us as rowers\, especially our youth rowers\, both Oakland Tech and Berkeley High Row out of Jackland and Aquatic Center. \nLibby Edelson: For example\, there is an anchor out there currently that has an underwater rope tied to another boat. This rope is not visible to rowers that presents a significant danger. \nYou can tangled in it \nLibby Edelson: for the swamp\, etc. I’ve also witnessed \nLibby Edelson: people on live aboards come to sure in smaller boats and dump their trash in the Jack London Aquatic Center\, parking lot \nLibby Edelson: in class\, etc. I am not interested in criminalizing poverty in any way. I think it is. It’s ingenuous\, however\, to state that the bigger concern is corporate pollution. Of course that’s a bigger concern. It does not mean \nLibby Edelson: we can’t advocate for individual responsibility as well. So \nLibby Edelson: I am just here to urge \nLibby Edelson: a more timely attention to the matter of illegal anger out and \nLibby Edelson: dangers. They present both to us as individuals\, to the community\, t0 0ur environment. \nLibby Edelson: Thank you. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Matt Briven. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Mr. Bloomin. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You’re muted. \nMatt Bliven: Good morning\, Commissioners. \nMatt Bliven: My name is Matt Blevin. \nMatt Bliven: My wife and I reside on Marina. Drive in Alameda. and our home is on the waterfront of the Oakland title Canal. Between the High Street and the Fruit Bell Avenue or Miller Sweeney Bridge. \nMatt Bliven: there has been a fair amount of attention placed on derelict and abandoned vessels in the estuary. but not much discussion or enforcement activity or action to the legal activity along the shoreline\, including the San Francisco bay trail \nMatt Bliven: across the estuary from our residents. Approximately 15 Rvs are illegally parked along Alameda Avenue. along with numerous abandoned vehicles and piles of trash effectively blocking the bike lanes and interference with traffic \nMatt Bliven: on Alameda Avenue. All of this activity falls within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline. \nMatt Bliven: and I believe it is within BC. DC’s. Enforcement jurisdiction. \nMatt Bliven: Additionally\, on any given day. \nMatt Bliven: There are 3 t0 5 transient or abandoned vehicles parked directly on the bay trail in this vicinity Some of them are up on cinder blocks. Some are leaking oil or hydraulic fluid\, and some have people living in them. \nMatt Bliven: Currently there is an abandoned Jersey barrier which obstructs the day trail near the foot of the Miller Sweeney Bridge. It’s been there for approximately 3 weeks. \nMatt Bliven: There are also long-term unhouse people who are permitted to live beneath the elevated portion of the bay trail. In this location \nMatt Bliven: one who has created a huge garbage mound in the tidal zone directly below the bay trail. including 15 shopping cards. Yes\, 15 shopping cards. \nMatt Bliven: The garbage mound and the shopping carts are immersed twice a day during the normal title cycle. \nThe city of Oakland has previously removed the rbs along Alameda Avenue most recently\, about 3 years ag0 0nly for them to return again a few months later. \nMatt Bliven: The city has also previously dispatched. We could weekly clean up crews along Alameda Avenue\, but that practice is left as well. The San Francisco Bay trail used to be a pleasant place to bicycle\, jog\, or walk your dog\, or with your family. \nMatt Bliven: We called it our bridge to Bridge Walk. Now\, however\, it is unsafe\, unsightly\, and unpleasant to do any of these activities due to the illegal activity that has been allowed t0 0ccur. \nMatt Bliven: Finally. I note that the city of Oakland’s fruitful\, alive project is proceeding. \nMatt Bliven: which includes pedestrian and bicycle enhancements along the fruit Bell corridor\, and also connecting the bay trail between fruit bill avenue and the Jingle Town neighborhood. This project is long overdue\, and an important enhancement for the San Francisco Bay trail\, but its value is effectively diminished. If the problems I have just described are not addressed. \nMatt Bliven: Thank you for your attention today\, and the time and energy you devote to BC. DC. To resolve these issues. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. Next up we have. Val. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Well go ahead. \nVal: Hi! \nVal: 1Â s. \nVal: So my name is Val Hamill\, and I am a rower with the East Bay rowing club out of Jailac\, and I am also a live aboard at Union Point\, Marina. \nI \nVal: I live and have for a long time been in very close contact with the situation \nVal: all over the estuary\, and particularly the anchor out situation near the Coast Guard Island Bridge. \nVal: I want to speak to the history of this issue\, which has been going on for many years. \nVal: A a year ago in February \nthere were many presentations from the city of Oakland and Alameda and other State agencies \nVal: about \nVal: what was going on with the anchor outs\, and there were many commitments made. The cities of Oakland and Alameda \nVal: volunteered to give themselves the generous timeline of one year to complete a clean up of all anchor outs and vessels and sunken vessels \nin the estuary. \nVal: In the March meeting. I’m. Going to read. I’m. Going to quote from the Transcript. \nVal: the city of Oakland committed to develop and implement a comprehensive policy for dealing with anchor outs occupied\, unoccupied\, floating\, and sunken. \nVal: It also also in the march in the march meeting. \nAdrian Klein said that the direction recorded \nVal: from the comments following these briefings was that the cities should cause removal of the anchor outs and dry lined encampments with the one year of the briefing\, or by February 2\,023. \nVal: She also said that staff recommends that a formal and course enforcement proceeding \nVal: be commenced If the anchor outs and encampments remain unaddressed as of that date February 2023. That is the date right now. I’m also going to quote to you from the September \nVal: 2022 meeting\, where the cities of Alameda and Oakland that had committed to give updates every 3 months. \nand didn’t do so. This was the only update that was made by the cities was in September. \nVal: 2\,022. \nVal: The city of Alameda reported that they had completely handled all the anchor outs and derelict vessels and every situation on their side of the estuary and the city of Oakland reported that it had gotten exactly nothing done. \nVal: I quote again from that meeting you very much\, Val. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: Hi! My name is Mary Spicer\, and I founded a \nmary spicer: a story garbage\, clean up organization called Iheart Oakland\, Alameda estuary.com in 2\,016. \nmary spicer: It was initially out of Grand Street boat ramp in Alameda\, and eventually we made ourself to the Jack London Aquatic Center. \nwhere I am the adoptive spot Lead there at Jack\, London Aquatic Center \nmary spicer: we started to clean the Oakland Alameda estuary because of the amount of garbage in our frustration \nmary spicer: I have to see and listening to the initial comments on it being piecemeal. I really do think that we need an overall structure and a whole bunch of agencies coming together to solve this issue. \nI agree with Tanya. I do think that we clean up one area and another. and everyone else will just move all to t0 0ther areas. \nmary spicer: I agree with Tomaso that I think the major garbage issue is the Storm Drain Star drain issues\, and not so much the anchor out\, but I do think that watching the boat sink over and over\, and the the \noil and the gas consistently from the sun. Boats going into the water is extremely painful and tragic to nature. \nmary spicer: I don’t think that the Jack London parking lot would be a great place to bring abandoned boats. I do think that the Jackland and Aquatic Center needs a lot more support. \nI think 150 Grant funding and waiting for April to get that done doesn’t make sense. I think we need major funding to deal with this issue. Now\, I would think that potentially the State of California must be able to give us some support to take care of this environmental issue as as soon as possible. \nmary spicer: Once the boat hits the shores\, at least on the beaches we clean. They usually stay there\, and are eventually taken under and sunk by the high tide. It is extremely painful to watch the boats take on the water\, knowing that they will leak fuel\, oil\, and that all kinds of corrosives\, one to the water. \nmary spicer: Much of the garbage that was on the boat finds its way t0 0ur bay. We pick up lots of restaurant corrosive\, flammable liquid containers\, cans of chemicals\, a few propane tanks\, needles\, and even bags of human waste on the empty shores of the estuary\, often near abandoned. Boats \nmary spicer: having boat sink is tr tragic. It’s not fair t0 0ur nature that we allow this to happen t0 0ur harbor seals\, bat race\, fish\, and shore birds. I do not understand why there is not efficient comprehensive plan to get boat boats off the water before they sink. \nmary spicer: I know many people report the stranded and abandoned boats. Sometimes they are days and weeks before the boats truly sink. It seems like it’s a preventable disaster. Can’t we tow the boats away before they sink? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much\, Miss Vicer. Next we have Chris Leverage. \nKris Leverich: Good morning. My name is Chris Leverage. I am the port captain at a only and yacht club. \nKris Leverich: I also volunteer with the Sea Scouts in the East Bay\, which includes growing as an activity as well as the Coast Guard rowing team at Base Alameto. \nI want to first \nKris Leverich: make sure that we’re not discounting the the factor that Well\, poverty absolutely is a major issue. The housing crisis is really crushing the most vulnerable people in the bay area that does not mean that there isn’t substantial criminal \nKris Leverich: activity\, as well as a legal activity\, or things that are in violation of law that are affecting everybody; and we all have agency in this situation\, and with that\, said \nKris Leverich: some of the enduring concerns\, I have. You’ve noticed a substantial improvement in the engagement of the city of Alameda. But we have not seen the commensurate level \nKris Leverich: of enforcement and remediation is support \nKris Leverich: on the Oakland side of the estuary. and there certainly has been a noted spike of aggregated\, unregistered vessels in a derelict condition. \nKris Leverich: Boats in that situation are not a housing solution. They’re in fact\, the most dangerous possible situation to put anyone or allow anyone to stay in an Rv. Will not sink into the parking lot at 3 in the morning a boat will absolutely do that. \nKris Leverich: and if someone’s a board. There’s certainly a risk of life\, and everything in that vessel\, including the construction of the vessel itself\, poses a hazard. \nKris Leverich: We’ve seen evidence of boats deliberately grounding to Korean\, which is scraping the bottom paint right on to the bottom and waiting for the next tide to float\, instead of properly hauling out \nKris Leverich: numerous instances. A boat dumping in Marinos spike of groundings and sinking\, seeing tragic outcomes. \nKris Leverich: pollution wise with that absence of uniform enforcement and the waterways gives warned anchor outs the game space to balance around the estuary and evade any sort of enforcement outcome\, meaningful enforcement outcome in a lot of cases \nKris Leverich: and a lot of another major concern we have is with a pending recession that hits discretional expenses for working in middle class people first. \nKris Leverich: and the recreational boating is top of the cuts we will be \nKris Leverich: as after the global financial crisis\, there’ll be a flood of quote\, UN\, quote dollar boats coming into the market that are unsailable except for minimal expense\, going to folks who may not have the means to sustain those boats which are probably already have a lot of deferred maintenance. \nKris Leverich: and find their way into the estuary. You may see many more soon. \nKris Leverich: So here’s the ask. Alameda must have partners in Alameda County Government. The o \nKris Leverich: the same degree of commitment\, and to act. Now\, Federal partners are not resourced. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next up we have collect Lucas Conwell. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Hi\, everyone! Thank you for your time. My name is Collette Lucas Conwell. I’m. A board member at East Bay Rowing Club and a Coxon with the Us. Wrong National team\, which trains out of the T. Gary Rogers Rowing center in Oakland. I’ll keep my comments and questions quick. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: First\, I really loved hearing more from the \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Alameda Marine Patrol unit about the monthly meetings that they have with stakeholders. I would encourage them to either invite Oakland\, Pd. And those marinas and stakeholders to them\, or for officer i’ll be you know\, to set up his own\, so that we can kind of share all this information and \nColette Lucas-Conwell: be up to date on what everybody is doing. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Second\, I was concerned by the Assistant City Administrator’s comments that they hadn’t been able to quantify what additional needs the opd Marine Patrol has\, I think\, it’s imperative that they come back to this committee with that information about \nColette Lucas-Conwell: how many more offices they need\, how much more funding is needed. It’s really concerning that they Haven’t \nColette Lucas-Conwell: really broach this topic\, yet with the Opda Marine Patrol unit. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: and then third is for the city of Oakland to also take a look at the measure Dd. Funds\, which was a bond passed back in 2\,002\, whose purpose was to improve water quality\, Provide recreational facilities. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: Restore Oakland’s creeks\, waterfronts estuary. \nColette Lucas-Conwell: you know. There may be some left over funds there\, or projects that haven’t been undertaking yet that could be looked at\, and it would be interesting for the City administrator to come back with information on measured Dd. Funds as well. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. Next we have Damon Taylor. \nDamon Taylor: Hello! \nDamon Taylor: Can you hear me? Yes. \nDamon Taylor: yes\, I am a current agent at the the Jack London Aquatic Center. I just wanted to speak on a few points. I also want to thank everyone that’s putting this together. And now everyone that’s commented so far that’s putting their input to this \nDamon Taylor: as far as the the aquatic center. \nDamon Taylor: I can say that at least in the last month or 2\, that I I personally have tried to sustain some kind of self-pleasing amongst the inkrelats there. \nDamon Taylor: and that there is an asserted effort among the people the few people that are left there. We’ve asked some people to leave because of their dangers to the rowers and whatnot\, and they they have left. \nDamon Taylor: and we’ll continue to do such things as of now as of today. Right\, now there should be a there’s a a clear lane\, all the boats that are anchored out\, which I believe is only 3 \nDamon Taylor: or you about\, so should be 4\, all of which are in working order that can all be started up and moved what needed to be. \nDamon Taylor: And and so\, anyway. we’re all making an effort to communicate with with each other to help each other out if we do have any problems\, and also join together to not only get rid of the \nDamon Taylor: of unwanted or unsafe elements there. This last weekend I gathered 5 0ther people that were liberal boards there\, and we went to round and cleaned up the parking lot\, the aquatic center\, and the and the shoreline\, which was already believe it or not\, relatively clean. \nDamon Taylor: and myself Personally\, I’ve I’ve helped\, I believe\, 4 0r 5 \nDamon Taylor: boats that we’re running around there\, get off the shore\, and and have the both removed. I i’m constantly advising anyone that has a boat that\, or does not have the skill set to be on the water to get the heck off the water\, so that you know that. So we’re we’re not\, and we’re also trying to keep any kind of criminal element which which does exist. \nDamon Taylor: you know\, away from at least the the Jacqueline aquatic center\, because it’s a smaller area\, and it’s it’s a it’s what we know small enough that amongst a few people we can\, we can sell police it Also\, if I didn’t want to come in. There was something about them having \nDamon Taylor: the Jack London\, a product center parking lot. Be a temporary place for for the \nDamon Taylor: to take both out of the water that that parking lot is not only full on weekends\, but also quite a bit \nDamon Taylor: on weekday nights. It’s just. This would be a horrible place to have staging for anything. There’s very little room there when there is a a rowers\, and there’s a a lot of young children around and whatnot\, and also. I just\, you know\, as far as the Aquax\, and I just wanted to spell a lot of the \nDamon Taylor: criminalization and bombs and villains and criminals all that kind of aspect of people there that we are trying My name’s Damon Taylor. I drive a Blue Bo and W. That sometimes park in the parking lot. I have the red boat. Anyone that misinterested it’s free to come. Talk to me personally to address any issues. Anyone that works at the Aquatic Center for the rowers that has a concern. \nDamon Taylor: I’ll be more than happy to address it and handle it for you\, because we want the rollers to be safe as well\, and we want to be able to share. You know we’re we’re in a position that we have to be. We want anyone else to\, and be able to enjoy what they do there. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. John Timothy. Europe \nDamon Taylor: that \nokay? Hi! Can you hear me? \nJohn Timothy: Yes\, we can \nJohn Timothy: just about homelessness\, and \nJohn Timothy: I I am sympathetic to homeless people\, and I it’s a difficult problem. I don’t want to criminalize them. But\, on the other hand. \nJohn Timothy: being homeless\, does not entitle you to put the health and welfare of other residents at risk. And so i’m just going to \ntell you that in the last couple of weeks \nJohn Timothy: a couple of things that happened. One of those anchor outs caught fire in at about 8 30 in the in the evening\, and it the Oakland Fire department was out there in force. I think that finally was put out 45Â min later by a fireboat. But in the meantime there was \nJohn Timothy: the and and of course the boat burned down to the whole. \nJohn Timothy: And then the second thing that happened just about a week ago was that one of those anchor outs\, lost its maureen and was blown over and impacted. One of the \nboats on. The Marina crashed into it. \nJohn Timothy: and then got. We got moved over \nJohn Timothy: a few spaces down to an empty birth\, and was there for a few for a few nights. But those \nJohn Timothy: sorts of incidents are are really dangerous to the health and safety and welfare of the people around the Marina\, and not to mention property. \nJohn Timothy: So the the last thing i’m gonna just notice is that there is right in the same area. There is a boat that is halfway in and halfway out of the water and get semi submerged every time the tide gets high. That that boat has been there for for weeks. \nJohn Timothy: so I \nJohn Timothy: I just don’t understand these are vehicles\, and I don’t understand why they can’t be treated like motor vehicles are treated\, which is\, if there’s something that’s parked illegally\, you put a tag on it. The the police department puts a tag on it 72Â h to to move\, and if it’s not moved\, it is towed away \nJohn Timothy: and I think that rather than having a \nJohn Timothy: the storage place on land. Why don’t\, we just \nJohn Timothy: find a place to buoy off an area and just toe the boats over there. Leave them there\, and if they owners Don’t claim\, and then \nJohn Timothy: put them up for sale. \nJohn Timothy: So that’s my idea. Thank you for listening. I appreciate everybody’s hard work on this. I know it’s a very a difficult problem. \nJohn Timothy: Thanks. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Next we have Hannah Sacrament. \nHannah Zucherman: Good morning. My name is Hannah Zuckerman. I am also a rower with the East\, with East Bay Rowing Club\, and I’m\, also a resident of Jack London Square. \nHannah Zucherman: I want to echo everything that my teammates have said\, and also want to say that you know I am able to walk to the aquatic center from where I live\, but often do not in the morning\, because it doesn’t feel safe. \nHannah Zucherman: and you know I’m. I’m agree with the Thomas\, who who discussion about criminalizing homelessness. But you know I want to be able to\, you know. be able to walk to and from practice not have to drive. \nHannah Zucherman: And also\, you know\, I want to also echo that the aquatic center parking lot is not. It’s even too small for our needs\, and to \nHannah Zucherman: have boats there would be difficult for us to access practice as well as access boats. We use the parking lot often to maneuver our long 8 boats\, so we need that space to be able to do that. \nHannah Zucherman: I also want to mention that you know there’s been a few times that the anchor outs have caught fire during the day\, and we’ve seen that so like the previous commenter\, said there was a boat that was right near the the dock that the generator caught fire\, and s0 0ur coach had to\, you know\, g0 0ut there to see \nHannah Zucherman: if there was someone on board and what was going on\, and that’s\, you know\, really something that we shouldn’t have to feel responsible\, you know\, not only responsible to do\, but you know that’s not necessarily something that \nHannah Zucherman: falls under our coaches description or ours as rowers. And so again\, you know\, I love being on the on the water as a rower. I love being seeing the water as a resident\, and so these are very important discussions. Thank you\, and thank you to all my teammates who have also brought up comments. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Last we have David Smith. \ndavid schmidt: Hello. \ndavid schmidt: Yeah. But everyone has some very good points and what not I’m just gonna for you one of my experiments being on that in that area for so many years \ndavid schmidt: the the \ndavid schmidt: exactly when but it was. could be 20 year ago t0 2 years ago there was a fight on the anchor outboats argument between me. Most people on shore and homeless people on the boats \ndavid schmidt: and the homeless people on shore road out there about a dozen of them. \ndavid schmidt: and with a giant like an 8 foot long metal bar\, and went to beat up the guy out on the anchor out. There was about a dozen of us in the Marina witnessing this \ndavid schmidt: we called the police. We’re immediately put on hold. \ndavid schmidt: stayed on hold for about 5 0r 10Â min. Eventually I had to hang up on the police because my phone on my camera would not work. Well\, it was. The phone was like overloaded. So I started video shipping the fight just after a gunshot was fired. \ndavid schmidt: Just after this guy with the 8 foot pole was swinging it on the guy with the in the boat\, and the guy in the boat came out. I mean they’re all dressed like pirates\, anyways\, but it was kind of \ndavid schmidt: interesting\, but they got comes out literally with a World War Ii dress. So we didn’t start swinging a sword around on the other dozen people. \nand then jumps back in his boat. One guy shoots the gun into the boat. \ndavid schmidt: and then the guy on the boat just goes quiet. \ndavid schmidt: So they roll away. I get on video tape. I’ve got all of the \ndavid schmidt: and assailants. and \ndavid schmidt: we show this to the police When they finally do show up. And they say\, well\, because \ndavid schmidt: you know the actual gunshots we’re not on video tape. There’s nothing we can do. \ndavid schmidt: And I was like\, Well\, there’s a dozen people here that and all the people\, all the homeless people they knew nothing was going to be done. They were just hanging around the shoreline leaning on the handrail. \ndavid schmidt: watching the police talk to us. And \ndavid schmidt: we’ve said that that’s them right there. We can all identify them\, and several of us were willing to testify. \ndavid schmidt: And they’re on this video taped\, and we’re all willing to. You know. We’re willing to testify. \ndavid schmidt: And the police said\, Well\, there’s just nothing we can do about it. \ndavid schmidt: So that’s one example. Another example is this World War Ii. \ndavid schmidt: 60 0r 70 foot boat that sank \ndavid schmidt: about a few weeks before it sank. It was drifting and almost hitting boats in the Marina. I called the Coast Guard with pictures. and they said that\, due to the they wouldn’t do anything\, and I I persisted and went higher and higher to the highest level that I could speak to in the Coast Guard. \ndavid schmidt: and he finally told me\, I said\, Tell me honestly what’s happening\, he said honestly. The situation in open. The political situation in the Oakland \nmakes it such that we can do nothing about this\, and that boat was \ndavid schmidt: blocking. A navigable channel was drifting down towards the parson bridge\, almost hit the parks through bridge\, drifted back and almost hit a bunch of goats in the green. It was nothing that Coast Guard could do \ndavid schmidt: because of the political situation in Oakland. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Next we have East Bay. \nEast Bay: Hi! My name is Denise Martini. I am the president of the Board of East Bay Rowing Club\, and you’ve heard from a number of folks so far. \nEast Bay: I’m. I’m not going to pile on the same comments. But we do have a good size club of 150 0r so adult rowers. \nEast Bay: and among our club\, Berkeley High\, an Artemis rowing\, another several 100 youth rowers. \nEast Bay: and the adults row in the morning in the dark. \nEast Bay: and the youth row in the evening in the dark. \nEast Bay: Everything that we’re talking about here is dangerous to the adults and the children. because you can’t see a lot of these things as well in the dark. \nEast Bay: the issue of unhoused people near Jacqueline and aquatic center Again\, it’s scarier in the dark. \nSo I really encourage for safety that we work on all of these issues. \nEast Bay: We’re trying to encourage more children from around Oakland. Our rowing club is open to any Oakland unified school District High School student anywhere in Oakland. We’re trying to get as many \nEast Bay: kids from around the city down to the boat house to row. \nEast Bay: and there are a lot of parents that look and say\, not sure. I want my kids to be there after dark. It’s a little bit scary\, so I encourage the city of Oakland\, and everybody else to do what they can to \nEast Bay: deal with the unsafe boats in the cove on the estuary\, occasionally tied up at our boat dock overnight \nEast Bay: such that we can have a safe and efficient rowing program. Thanks very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nNext we have Michael. \nMichael Fanfa: Hi\, i’m Michael. \nMichael Fanfa: So about 20 years ago I was in the Saliando Marina. \nMichael Fanfa: and what they used to do with a lot of their boats that they couldn’t get rid of is\, they would haul them up the boat\, launch and move them into their gated area. That was for storage. They bring a big wrecking dump truck \nMichael Fanfa: and a dozer. \nMichael Fanfa: and they would crush these boats and put them in the dump truck. \nMichael Fanfa: and \nMichael Fanfa: what they did after that I don’t know\, because there’s motors and so much good stuff that scrapped\, I would have assumed that they would have disassembled some of the stuff as best they could\, and then the engines that are inside. They could pick up with \nMichael Fanfa: the end of a backhole and take out of the wreckage after everything is smashed\, so that they could get the metal out. \nMichael Fanfa: That being said here in the estuary\, in my opinion\, the best place to take boats out is the old boat yards ramps on the Alameda Island \nMichael Fanfa: that that are still not being used for anything. You slide the boats up\, and then you can fit a dozer in there \nMichael Fanfa: and do the same thing. \nMichael Fanfa: That’s just my thought on up a place to get rid of these these posts that you can finally legally access and and get rid of. Thank you. \nOkay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. \nNext we have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Marjorie. Such call. \nMarjorie Setchko: Sorry I was having trouble unmeting. \nMarjorie Setchko: Yes\, i’m a rowing coach on the estuary\, and I don’t operate out of Jack\, London or Oakland strokes. I operate out of \nMarjorie Setchko: a small club behind Coast Guard Island. and it’s all young people at this club and right alongside of the Coast Guard Island Bridge are frequently a great number of these illegal anger outs. \nMarjorie Setchko: They don’t have any lights on them. They \nMarjorie Setchko: do not more their boats properly\, so that the anchor lines are \nMarjorie Setchko: very long and they’re invisible. \nMarjorie Setchko: So we have these kids out there as a space people have said. \nMarjorie Setchko: But our situation is a little different in that. We have to go by these people. \nMarjorie Setchko: We have to to get in and out of our club. \nMarjorie Setchko: and I have had kids \nMarjorie Setchko: get hung up on those anchor lines and flip in the dark in the estuary\, because there’s no light there. There’s there’s no way to see these people. \nMarjorie Setchko: We’ve asked them. We’ve asked them. Can you move to the side so that we can at least go through some arch of the bridge. They just scream at us and laugh at us. \nThere’s you know. \nMarjorie Setchko: I understand\, that there is a large problem with \nMarjorie Setchko: housing. \nMarjorie Setchko: but if you know we can. We’re willing to work together? They are clearly not so. \nMarjorie Setchko: you know. I know that there are issues with liability for these things. We’ve talked to the police about calling abandoned vessels out. Nobody wants to to have to deal with it. \nMarjorie Setchko: I know that there was a woman who sued the city of Oakland\, and that’s why the city of Oakland is wanting to be super. Hands off with dealing with the anchor outs\, but something has to be done. \nMarjorie Setchko: You know it’s it’s an accessibility issue. If If we’re supposed to be able to enjoy the waterways. \nMarjorie Setchko: protect the waterways\, n0 0ne’s doing anything to enforce all of these wonderful ideas\, and it’s time somebody does something \nMarjorie Setchko: that’s all I have to say about it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you very much. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Chair Gilmore. That’s all we have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Margie and I just want to say thank you to all the members of the public \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who took the time out of their busy day to come down and speak to us. The committee is very\, very appreciative. We do realize this is a big problem\, and so we value your input \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think I speak for all of us. When I say we always learn from members of the public who are our eyes and ears out there. S0 0nce again we are deeply appreciative \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of on the time and the effort that you took today. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Having said that\, Adrian\, can you put up that last slide with \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all the questions for the committee. Thank you. \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: May I orally\, at one question\, that I neglected to include. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sure \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: I should have noted here also that the Enforcement Committee may wish to consider \nwhether there’s a role for its new compliance staff in \nAdrienne Klein\, BCDC Staff: addressing this map. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: i’m gonna lead off with kind of my thoughts about all of this in in no particular order\, and i’d like to hear feedback from the committee members. \nI I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we’ve all commented on the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the similarity that this has to Ssalito and the be our our. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so\, while I acknowledge the fact that both cities\, particularly the city of Alameda\, have made. You know\, some strides. I think we need to maybe restructure how we’re dealing with this. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so I was actually thinking about sending this to the Compliance staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to sort of help guide the cities and and kind of keep them on track. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: personally think that being updated on a monthly basis is probably a little bit too much given. How long some of these actions tend to take? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m leaning towards quarterly reports. Because. \nyeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: i’m hoping that’s enough time to get things done and to spot potential problems before \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: things get you know\, out of hand. \nAnd so that’s kind of where \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: i’m thinking this goes\, and I would leave it up to the Compliance staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to determine a working schedule with the cities. Once they sort of get their feet wet and and get up to speed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So i’m curious to hear what other members of the committee think about this. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I can’t see any hands\, because the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the the slide is up. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Marie. This is John. I would agree with you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Thank you. Anything else \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: for me. No. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you\, Rebecca. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, Larry wants to speak. 0 0kay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: go ahead\, Larry. \nLarry Goldzband: Sorry about that. A couple of things I\, Frank\, is out of the country this week. \nLarry Goldzband: and so I thought I would step in as a senior staffer to say that I tend to agree with Chair Gilmore\, to move this over to \nLarry Goldzband: compliance. I would add a couple of things\, though \nLarry Goldzband: I think that you ought to ask Grab. and we’ll ask Greg to make sure that the Compliance staff comes back to you in 3 months\, which is \nin June \nLarry Goldzband: with a report back. \nLarry Goldzband: I would also \nLarry Goldzband: that I would also suggest that \nthe city of Oakland\, in the city of Alameda \nLarry Goldzband: most definitely has taken notes\, and I would imagine they know what they need to provide you in 3 months in terms of an inventory and the like. \nLarry Goldzband: But I would suggest\, and i’ll be talking with Greg about this. I’m sure Greg will be talking to his compliance staff about this that you schedule them for June. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Larry\, is a point of clarification. \nAre you asking in June that just the Compliance staff give a report. \nLarry Goldzband: or we bringing the cities back? At the same time\, I think you leave that up to. I think you leave that up t0 0ur General Council\, who has both enforcement and compliance underneath him\, to work that through \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: perfect. Thank you. \nLarry Goldzband: Happy to answer any questions from Commissioner Basket as well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Any other committee members want to weigh in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: none. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. so just just a general question for Staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We’ve outlined where we think this should go and have provided direction. Do you have any questions of the committee before we we sign off. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: I I don’t have any questions\, but I think I would like to for clarity just parrot back what I think I’ve heard in terms of next steps. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Okay. So i’m hearing that \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: we’re Now\, i’m reading into this essentially\, but we’re continuing to \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: receive updates from the city\, but that a. A and and and monitor their progress that will be transferred if I I think effective immediately over to Compliance Staff. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and then \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: in June you will receive another update based on you know that continuing\, working together with the city from the Compliance staff and possibly the cities \non on the Progress. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Correct? Okay. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: and I\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and related. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but not directly related\, is\, I want to remind Staff to agendize that discussion on the the 9 Bay Counties\, and and dealing with this problem in a holistic basis. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so we can have that discussion and and maybe forward it. Pass it on to the the full commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Policy Manager: Yes\, we will definitely do that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Any other comments for the good of the order before I look for a a motion to adjourn. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m: going to move adjournment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, and I have 1131. Thank you\, everybody\, for your time and attention today\, and we really appreciate it. 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/february-22-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-2/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230216T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230216T170000
DTSTAMP:20231009T234313Z
CREATED:20230216T094331Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231009T234313Z
UID:10000016-1676552400-1676566800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 16\, 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/82212269394?pwd=VmE2NTNJUks4VE5XNVhySGtjaENGQT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID822 1226 9394 \nPasscode155346 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of January 19\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Peggy Atwell) [415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with Resources Legacy Fund for Environmental Justice Advisors – POSTPONEDThe Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $180\,000 contract with the Resources Legacy Fund to help provide stipends to BCDC’s EJ Advisors. The Resources Legacy Fund will receive the money granted to BCDC from the State Coastal Conservancy and the Ocean Protection Council and pass it through to the EJ Advisors as payment for their services.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Two Sediment Grant Contracts (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into two contracts for scientific\, restoration\, and technical services to assist BCDC staff in its Beneficial Reuse of Sediment and Soils for Wetlands and Adaptation Project funded by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Ocean Protection Council grants. The first contract is with the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture to provide guidance\, advice and technical review in regards to wetland restoration needs. The second contract is with the Aquatic Sciences Center/San Francisco Estuary Institute for advice\, guidance\, and technical review of sediment related issues.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nUpdate on Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and Electeds Task ForceThe Commission will receive a briefing on the recent launch of the Local Electeds Regional Task Force and the status of the Bay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nCity of Sausalito Update on Settlement Agreement ImplementationThe City of Sausalito will provide an annual update on its actions in 2022 to implement the Settlement Agreement between the City of Sausalito and BCDC.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) //  Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nRichardson Bay Regional Agency Update on Settlement Agreement ImplementationThe Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) will provide an annual update on its actions in 2022 to implement the Settlement Agreement between the RBRA and BCDC.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) // Presentation (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Minutes and Audio Recording\n				Minutes\nMeeting Minutes February 16 (PDF) \nAudio\nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/02/02-16-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/february-16-2023-commission-meeting/
LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR