BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.15.19//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:America/Los_Angeles BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20220313T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20221106T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20230312T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20231105T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20240310T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20241103T090000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:UTC BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:UTC DTSTART:20220101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231116T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231116T113000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20240205T201658Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240205T202531Z UID:10000175-1700128800-1700134200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 16\, 2023 Environmental Justice Working Group Meeting DESCRIPTION:Join the meeting via ZOOMhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84258841304?pwd=QXBrUWZCVkFnbndmWFFOY3BHQzBTdz09 \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID842 5884 1304 \nPasscode415352 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Roll Call\, Introductions and Approval of AgendaWorking Group member roll will be called and introductions from visitors and staff will be made.\nRacial Equity Action PlanLita Brydie\, Assistant Manager for Climate Equity and Community Engagement\, will report back on development of BCDC’s Racial Equity Action Plan.(Lita Brydie) [415/352-3626; lita.brydie@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommissioner Toxic Tour SurveyEJ Advisor Anthony Khalil will present a survey for the EJ Working Group Commissioners on the plan for Toxic Tours.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-16-2023-environmental-justice-working-group-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231109T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231109T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20231019T011513Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T073313Z UID:10000073-1699534800-1699549200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 9\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-9-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231109T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231109T120000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20240131T060305Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T225609Z UID:10000170-1699522200-1699531200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 9\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION:his Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83980384080?pwd=YmlaazJCOE56MzdjUjBra1dyVUxqUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID839 8038 4080 \nPasscode824357 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the September 27\, 2023\, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nHearing and Vote to Recommend Approval of Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00The Committee will review\, discuss\, and vote whether to recommend to the full Commission for approval two stipulated orders to resolve BCDC Enforcement Case No. ER2019.063.00 against Seaplane Investments LLC alleging unauthorized development activities and violations of BCDC permits 1973.014.04 and M1985.030.01 in Sausalito\, Marin County.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov];(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision with exhibits // Staff Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Meeting Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/11-09-EC-Audio-Recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Eating of the beast. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The Bcd. C. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am the chair of this Committee for Commissioners\, including those attending at Field Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Our first order of business is to call the role. Matthew. Please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Mr. Bieland. \nBoardroom SX80: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Gilmore. I’m sorry. Share it\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and\, as far as I know\, we have received no general public comments in advance of this meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants\, icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then Dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order in which they were raised. After you are called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please queue up at the speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: since I’m I myself at my location\, I have no commenters. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Any anybody else zooming in as public speakers. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Chair\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: nobody’s at my location\, either. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so that brings us on to Item Number 4\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is approval of draft minutes. From the last meeting. We have all been furnished with draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved \nBoardroom SX80: second \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Billen and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody opposed to this motion \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any extensions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 is the Enforcement report. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Enforcement policy manager Matthew Trujillo will now provide the Enforcement report. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: I have 3 items to report out on today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: First\, the case update since our last meeting on September twenty-seventh. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: In the past 43 days we received 7 new cases\, resolved 11 cases\, and as of today\, there are 74 unresolved cases in the queue\, which is a net change of negative 5. Since my last report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: second\, is an update on the status of compliance with issued orders by the Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Tony Daysau\, one of our company’s analysts reports that he has been monitoring compliance with Ccd. 2022 0 0 3\, which was issued to the port of Oakland in july 2022\, to address public access maintenance issues at Jacqueline Square. He notes that there are no issues of concern. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: John Creech reports that he’s been monitoring compliance with Ccd 2\,020 dot 0 0 2 \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: issue to Param and Amande Dylan for illegal filling in white\, slew in Bolivo also for an authorized fill at the Family Gun Club and the Zoom\, March \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and Ccd 2020 dot 0 0 1 issue to the city of Oakland for failing to maintain the public access and shoreline areas at Union Point Park. He reports that there are no issues of concern with the Dillon and Family Gun Club orders\, and that the City of Open has not responded to his outreach efforts lately. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Finally\, I’m pleased to report that\, thanks to the fine investigative work of Rachel Cohen\, of our Enforcement staff and the negotiations led by former chief counsel\, Mark Zapatelo\, who\, generous\, generously donated his time to assist us in its resolution. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The case against the Bay Area Council for failing to abide by the terms and conditions of its permits. 2021 dot 0 0 one\, which was to redevelop the historic ferry boat climate for public access of tier 9 in San Francisco has been settled. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The settlement agreement was executed by our executive director on November seventh\, and the settlement establishes a timeline by which the Council must complete his public access obligations under its permit\, and pay a fine of $50\,000. Executive director gold span will provide further comments on the settlement at the next Commission meeting on the sixteenth\, where\, incidentally\, I am scheduled to deliver my third quarterly report on the status of the Enforcement program to the full Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and this concludes my report. I’d be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions that you may have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew\, do any members of the Enforcement Committee. Have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. I’m just curious. I think you said we got 7 new cases and settled 11\, and we’re still down minus 5 instead of minus 4. Is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: because something dropped off somehow? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  I believe that that report\, probably incorporates cases that yes\, have been either combined or were closed\, and we didn’t get to it right away. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Sometimes those things happen. It’s a pretty big \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  database\, and we don’t really have a systematic way of\, you know\, tracking everything in real time. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay\, great thanks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other committee members have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do we have any public comment on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Vasquez has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome\, Commissioner. Good morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Wasn’t raining cats and dogs\, but I cats and dogs problem this morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I know how that happens. So just for the record. Do you have any members of the public at your location. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda is item number 6\, which is seaplane investments. Llc. Stipulated orders. This is going to be a briefing and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt 2 stipulated Cease and assist orders to be issued to seaplane investments. Llc. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Porto\, Madera\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either or both of these stipulated orders than the recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which includes the orders\, will be put up for a vote for approval or rejection by the full Commission at its December seventh\, 2023\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco. Beginning at one Pm. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After Vcdc. Staff gives its opening remarks\, I will ask the respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and then afterwards the committee shall hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives or the responded please identify themselves for the record. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Good morning\, Commissioners. This is Gillian Blanchard with Rudder log group\, and I represent seaplane investments. Llc. The respondent. \nLou Vasquez: Thank you very much and welcome\, and I have with me here today\, Lou Vasquez\, the managing member seaplane investments. Lllc. Morning\, everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning and thank you both for being here. \nKey. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I. Now I’m going to ask general counsel\, Greg Sharff and principal enforcement analyst\, Adrian Klein\, to begin their opening remarks. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you\, Chair Gilmore. So I first wanted to start off by just really thanking the respondents\, Lou Vasquez and Milly Ricklin\, as well as their counsel\, Gillian Blanchard\, for really their hard work in resolving this matter. \nGreg Scharff: You know it wasn’t easy\, but we worked through all the issues\, and II thought we did it in an open and collaborative manner that resolved all of the outstanding issues. \nGreg Scharff: And I just wanted you to know that that was very helpful. And it was sort of unusual. And I’m feeling really positive about \nGreg Scharff: see plan on a going forward basis that they’ll get all the work done they’ve promised to do\, and that they’ll honor their their agreement. Adrian Klein will provide the highlights of the settlement for you and I and Ms. Blanchard are available to answer any questions that you may have regarding the settlement. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Adrian. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: good morning. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Everyone can see this screen and hear me. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, yes. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: thanks for confirming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: in in July of 2022\, Staff issued a violation reporting complaint to resolve 6 unresolved violations\, and in October of 2022 staff issued a complaint for administrative penalties to resolve the penalty portion of 3 resolved violations \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: during a public hearing or 2\, rather on May thirtieth\, 2023\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the Enforcement Committee directed Staff to enter into settlement negotiations\, and today’s public hearing provides an Enforcement committee\, recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed\, stipulated\, cease and assist orders. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Let’s see here. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m just. Oh\, there we go! I’m so sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So\, for \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the presentation will cover the site location. Describe the 9 violations and summarize the staff recommendation. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and for some reason my progression is not occurring. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Hmm! \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Pardon me. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Matthew\, since I seem to be stuck. Do you wanna share the screen instead of me? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Yes\, I’m gonna need to open it up one moment. Let me try one more time. I’m really sorry about this \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: works fine when I’m not sharing. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Oh\, thanks\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: So third slide\, third slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Sorry about that. Everyone. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: this one \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bingo\, so the red PIN on the vicinity map shows the location where the violations occurred and are occurring\, known as 240242 Redwood highway frontage road\, in an unincorporated area of Marin County. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next. the image on the left shows the site looking to the northeast. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The site contains a number of businesses and operations\, while some of the ground level uses and the associated fill appear to have been ongoing in 1965. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: At the time of enactment of the Mackette\, Petr Sack changes to the ongoing uses and associated fill within Bcd’s jurisdiction\, including maintenance that occurred after the law was enacted\, require A\, BC. DC. Permit or amendment. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Vcdc. Permits run with the land\, and new owners are responsible for resolving inherited violations and also violations that they themselves undertake \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: as new owners. Respondents should have. But did not contact. Bcd see as part of a due diligence review to obtain site status in relation to the law\, and existing\, permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the image on the right has an overlay of the approximate locations of the 2 privately owned parcels number 164 and 167\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: with the street rights of way that surround them. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The docking facility is located on Marin County property. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 6 unresolved violations that would be the next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: violation. One respondent is violating special condition. 2 C. Public access of permit\, 197301404. By failing to provide the public shore signage and the public access connection from the site to the Marin County public access west of the site. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 2. Respondent is violating special condition 2 c. 2. Maintenance. By failing to maintain the existing required public short pathways and landscaping. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The bulkhead. Apparepa Street is severely eroded\, and the adjacent public shoreline pathway is frequently inundated by tides. The northeastern tip of this area is eroded to the point of being gone\, and the remainder is collapsing into the Bay. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 3 respondent is violating mackature. Petrus act section 6\, 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a. By placing unauthorized fill in San Francisco Bay and or the shoreline band on Yolo Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The unauthorized fill includes vehicle\, parking and or equipment\, storage. seaplane\, storage\, repair and maintenance\, seaplane fueling tank and elevated asphalt path across yellow street to allow access during \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to the to the seaplane. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m sorry to the Healyport launching area. During high tides. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Some of this unauthorized fill also violates special condition to the use of solid fill of the 1973 permit\, by using filled areas at designated to be used only for landscaping\, landscape\, public access and pedestrian and bicycle pathways for private use. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation for respondent is violating the Mac at your Petrus act by placing unauthorized fill in Bcd’s jurisdiction\, consisting of an unauthorized helicopter landing pad \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 4 paved walkways on block 1\, 6\, 4. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 5. Respondent is violating the mackature Petrus Act by placing unauthorized\, fill in the bay on Marin county property by expanding an existing U-shaped floating dock during 3 separate episodes with new floating\, fill 2 pilings and relocating an on water fueling station. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and finally\, violation. 6. Respondent is violating the Macer Petras Act by placing unauthorized fill in BC. DC. Jurisdiction\, consisting of excavation and fill to construct a new concrete and rebar water access ramp in the yellow street right of way. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: This completes the violation summary of the 6 unresolved violations. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 3 resolved violations next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to our respondents. Failure to take assignment of both the 1973 and the 1\,985 permits\, and the third is\, respondents\, failure to complete a project prior to the permit\, expiration\, date\, and continuing work with an expired permit \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So the staff recommendation for the 6 unresolved violations\, will be covered in the following 4 slides. So first\, there is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an agreement by respondent to cease and desist from violating the Macintosh Petras Act\, and both the 1\,973\, and the 1\,985 permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: by the thirtieth of June 2024 respondents has stipulated to comply with the existing permits as follows\, by maintaining the permit required public access along the existing shoreline pathway within respondents. Current property \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street\, from the termination of the shirlin pathway located within the dedicated public access area within respondents\, property to stripe and maintain by restriving is often as necessary to maintain a clearly delineated public shirling pathway \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an 8 foot wide. Accessible path of travel\, as shown on a plan that will be attached to the order \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to install a total of 8 public shore signs\, consisting of 5 directional arrows on Belina Street\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: And one sign each on prefa and yellow streets\, and a back-to-back sign visible from the Mill Valley \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bike path. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 3 additional public shore signs \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: respondent agrees to permanently relocate accessible parking to the west side of Elena Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street to Rou to remove the asphalt path constructed. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and to confirm with Bp. B Cdc. Staff\, which helicopter pads and walkways are covered within the existing permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: within 12 months of the date of the order to file a complete application. to amend the 1973 permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That would include revised landscaping for areas adjacent to the required public access \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: that includes installation and maintenance of several picnic tables. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That will be Ada accessible. And if new public access is proposed\, in a following section\, that that those amenities will be included on the revised landscaping plans. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and also to request\, after the fact authorization for any heliport pads\, fuel tanks\, and walkways not otherwise permitted. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The 3 unauthorized finger piers that are part of the docking system. The unauthorized \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: launch ramp next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Respondent also agrees to provide additional public access. Which would either be provision of the existing required connection to the Marin County bike path from the site. If local approval is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: obtained. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: or if it is not to provide alternate access on site \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: finally respond and agrees to prepare and submit a sea level rise\, risk assessment that addresses potential sea level rise in all permit\, required public access areas \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and and in additional public access series \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: described above\, and to implement that plan within time frames to be specified. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and it shall include adoptive measures to maintain the Peripa Street public access that is frequently flooded and eroded\, and adaptive measures to maintain public access for the life of the project\, or until 2050. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That concludes the injunctive relief in the next slide outlines the penalty\, which is 43\,800 10\,000 of which to be paid within 60 days of order issues 16\,900 do within 12 months of order\, issuance\, and 16\,900 do within 24 months of order issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So that concludes the terms of the stipulation for the 6 unresolved violations\, and for the 3 resolve violations. The next slide outlines the administrative civil penalty of $5\,000\, half of which is due within 12Â s half\, is due within 12 months of order\, issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So together\, the 2 recommendations result in a total penny penalty of 48\,000 and $800. And this concludes the staff presentation. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Adrienne. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  now\, I would like to ask respondents to affirm their agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the stipulated orders. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ccd. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 202-30-0200 and Ccd\, 202-30-0300. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Thank you\, Commissioner Gilmore. Yes\, I first wanna say\, thank you very much to staff working with Mr. Sharf. Mr. Trujillo has been very\, very collaborative and we appreciate the opportunity to resolve this matter and move forward with compliance. And I can say\, on behalf of seplain investments\, that we do agree to all the terms and the stipulated orders. And I’ll just to ask \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Mr. Vasquez to come off mute and confirm as well. \nLou Vasquez: Yeah\, I also want to thank Staff for their cooperation and and help in resolving these issues. And we do agree to the stipulated terms. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Now\, before we turn to public comment. I wanna ask if any of the Commissioners have any clarifying questions? Not discussion\, just clarifying questions at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I am not seeing any Commissioner hands raised? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time we will take public comments on this item. First of all\, Margie\, have we received any written comments. \nBoardroom SX80: No\, we did not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Do we have any public speakers? I don’t see anybody in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, no\, nobody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Nobody in the room and nobody online. \nBoardroom SX80: Correct? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Then. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I guess I was a little bit ahead of myself. I since \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I need a motion to close the public hearing. So somebody wanna okay\, Commissioner Eisen? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did I see Commissioner Blynn raise her hand \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So now that we’ve done that\, are there any? I’m gonna open it up to discussion from committee members. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Well\, I wanna join in the thanks to our staff\, and also to the respondent and the Respondents Council for getting done what was seeming back when we last heard about it\, to be a very difficult and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: almost intractable problem. So you have done fantastic work getting this done. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: My understanding is that the first thing that will happen in terms of whether we know whether enforcement has occurred is the 60 days penalty that will be due. That will be the first indication of \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: whether we’re going to be able to stay on track with all of the different settlement requirements\, and but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I am certainly hoping that we never have to really answer this question. But I am curious\, Greg\, if you could explain to us \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if for some reason \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the settlement agreement were not was not complied with either whole or part. \nGreg Scharff: So what would be the steps then? Are we back to square one\, or would we be able to go directly to some kind of enforcement mechanism to make sure the settlement agreement is complied with. So it’s actually not a settlement agreement. It’s a stipulated order. \nGreg Scharff: So what we would do\, we would turn it over to the Attorney General’s office in the worst case\, and they would then prosecute it. \nGreg Scharff: and then fines could be up to $2\,000 a day \nGreg Scharff: for not being in compliance. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it would not come back to this Enforcement Committee. That’s correct. It would not great. Okay\, thanks for that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anyone else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I just want to echo the comments and thanks to both the respondents and staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This has been a set of issues going back a long time. I’m just gonna make comment for the record that some of the issues occurred before the respondents. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: bought the property. So that’s that’s always an issue. And just it the length of time that this has gone on and the complexity of the issues. So I wanna say I really appreciate staff and response willingness to work together in a very\, very positive manner. And I’m thankful and grateful for this very positive outcome. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m going to look for a motion and a second to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Accept the recommended Enforcement decision and move it on to the full commission. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’ll move it \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: second. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and need to hear the recommendation before we vote\, or that’s a good point. We do \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Keeping me on the straight and narrow here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, staff \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: break. You want me to make the recommendation. Yes\, go ahead\, Adrian. so I’m assuming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: you don’t want me to go into the details\, so the recommendation would be to adopt. The Enforcement Committee recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed stipulated Cease and desist orders to resolve \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: 6 unresolved\, and 3 resolved violations. Is that adequate? \nGreg Scharff: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you. So once again the staff recommendation was moved by Commissioner Vasquez and seconded by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so now we will take a roll call vote. I believe that’s Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. Commissioner Bielin. \nYes. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Vasquez. chair. Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Everyone. The motion passes unanimously\, and once again thank you. To everyone involved great work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And now\, committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez\, and I will note for the record that it is 1001 Am. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, everybody. This meeting is now adjourned. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Thank you. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-9-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231106T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231106T210000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20231019T002240Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235455Z UID:10000064-1699290000-1699304400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 6\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85438410738?pwd=cH3_YSGq54uFndlO4_vkkut948dABA.pmVE-cNEVYy1Zz5n \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 259552 \nMeeting ID854 3841 0738 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for August 7\, 2023  and September 11\, 2023  Meetings\nStaff Update\n1499 Bayshore\, Burlingame\, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by King Street Properties to redevelop an approximately 384-foot-long portion of the shoreline along Mills Creek with a new 8-story Life Science/Research and Development (R&D) building and a freestanding 7-story parking garage. The project proposal includes an approximately 7\,000-square-foot public plaza and an approximately 400-linear-foot public trail.(Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nBioMed Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; Second Pre-Application ReviewPOSTPONEDThe Design Review Board will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant site in the City of Belmont with three 8 to 11-level office buildings and a new 10-story parking garage. The project would make improvements to the O’Neill Slough Trail and create a publicly accessible plaza with public art installations\, diverse seating areas\, and native gardens\, and provide public shore parking spaces.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govExhibits // Public Comment Letter\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-6-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231102T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231102T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20231017T045353Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225222Z UID:10000048-1698930000-1698944400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes for October 19\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)\n(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nRecommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)\nThe Commission will hold a public hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, an amendment to the Bay Plan to update the findings\, policies\, and map designations of the Seaport Plan.\n(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nDraft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities \nPOSTPONED\nThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.\n(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Resilient State Route 37 Projects\nPOSTPONED\nThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of Caltrans State Route 37 interim and long-term highway improvements and developments projects along the corridor\, from Highway US 101 (Novato\, Marin) in the west to I-80 in the east (Mare Island\, Vallejo).\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3670; [larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing October 20\, 2023 \n\nSan Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Draft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 27\, 2023 \n\nNovember 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting – POSTPONED Agenda Item 9\nDraft Minutes of October 19\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nWhat Does ‘Unavoidable’ West Antarctic Ice Shelf Melt Mean for the Bay Area?\nThe sea is rising — and the clock is ticking\nGiant Ferris wheel closes at Golden Gate Park. It will return for APEC in new location\nCalifornia Mandates Coastal Cities Plan for Future Sea-Level Rise\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/11-02-CM-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND RECORDING \nIN PROGRESS\, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM \nTHE CHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, LET ME TAKE CARE OF A COUPLE OF AGENDA \nITEMS. WE ARE GOING TO DELAY OUR DISCUSSION OF THE UPCOMING CONTRACT \nWITH THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT TO FINISHED WATERFRONT PLANNING ACTIVITIES. \nSTAFF HOPES TO BRING THAT CONTRACTITOUS AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN EARLY DECEMBER. \nIN ADDITION TO THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE \nIN NOVEMBER THAT WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA. WE WILL DELAY ON THIS AGENDA \n— OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS\, IF YOU \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF TO ANSWER AND THEN \nMUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN. AFTER RESPOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR WASSERMAN? \n>>ZACK WASSERMAN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? >>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: BEACH? >>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nEL-TAWANSY? >>DINA EL-TAWANSY: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GILLMOR? >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? >>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nRANDOLPH? RAN. >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ZAPEDA? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I MISS \nANYONE? GORIN? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE HAVE QUORUM AND CONDUCT BUSINESS. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEM THREE\, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION ON A MATTER NOT ON OUR AGENDA\, OR WE HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC \nHEARING MAY DO SO NOW AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \nPRIOR TO STARTING THE COMMENT\, I DO WANT TO REEMPHASIZE WHAT WAS SAID IN \nTHE VIDEO. WE HAVE\, UNFORTUNATELY\, ACROSS OUR REGION IN THE COUNTRY\, \nEXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN A TOMORROW I WOULD JUST AS SOON NOT KNOW\, ZOOM \nBOMBING\, IN WHICH PEOPLE UTILIZE TIME TO ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH\, PERSONAL \nATTACKS\, OR THREATS. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT AS CHAIR THAT WILL NOT \nBE TOLERATED\, AND PEOPLE WILL BE CUT OFF QUICKLY. \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT\, I’M GOING TO START WITH PEOPLE HERE IN OUR HEADQUARTERS \nBUILDING. PEOPLE HAVE SUBMITTED CARDS. IF YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK AND HAVE NOT\, \nPLEASE SEE REYLINA. AND THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER IS SUNG LEE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I APOLOGIZE. SORRY. SORRY. OH\, IT’S \nALL — HOLD ON. MY APOLOGY. I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MESSAGE. \nWE ONLY HAVE ONE COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM\, JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSER COMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF. FOR \nTHOSE WHO DON’T KNOW ME I’M THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROFFICER. EVERYBODY \nSHOULD GET THEIR SECOND OR THIRD SHOT IF THAT’S NECESSARY. _ HERE HERE TO \nINTRODUCE A NEW PERSON ON OUR STAFF. ROBERT ROGERS TO MY RIGHT IS A NEW \nPOLICY ASSOCIATE HE COMES FROM SONOMA WATER. HE HAS A BACKGROUND IN WATER \nRESOURCES AS WELL AS LEGISLATION\, AND I WAS ABLE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO SOME OF \nYOU HERE AND CLEARLY SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN. I COULDN’T INTRODUCE \nYOU TO HIM. BUT WE WELCOME HIM AND YOU WILL \nPROBABLY SEE OR HEAR FROM HIM AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I ASKED HIM IF \nHE WANTED TO SPEAK NOW AND HE SAID NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT. \nOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH BCDC\, 11\, 12 YEARS AGO\, I THINK THOSE AROUND CAN \nATTEST TO THE FACT THAT IT’S MUCH DIFFERENT NOW. \nWE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE\, THAT’S FINE. MY WIFE AND I DON’T ALWAYS AGREE \nEITHER. WE WORK THROUGH ISSUES WHEN ISSUES COME UP IN A COLLABORATIVE \nMATTER TO SUPPORT HOPEFULLY ISSUES COMING UP BEFORE YOU. WE BELIEVE THAT \nBCDC PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN NOT ONLY PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT BUT THE \nECONOMY OF OUR REGION. THAT’S WHAT WE ENJOY AND WHY WE’RE HERE. IF WE TOUCH \nTHE WATER OR DRIVE OVER THE WATER WE WANT TO MAKE SURE RESOURCES ARE \nPROTECTED FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. \nWITH THAT\, AGAIN\, ROBERT ROGERS. AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, JOHN. WELCOME TO THE COMMUNITY\, ROBERT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO WE \nHAVE REMOTE SPEAKERS\, REYLINA? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRINGS US TO ITEM FOUR\, APPROVAL OF \nTHE MINUTES OF OUR OCTOBER 19TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED \nDRAFT MINUTES. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE \nMINUTES. DO I HEAR A MOTION? \n>>PAT EK LUND: I’LL MOVE IT. \nANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. IS ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION \nOR WISHES TO ABSTAIN FROM THE MINUTES. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL ABSTAIN. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMINUTES ARE APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE\, MY REPORT. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS \nINTRODUCE ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE AND WATCHING\, \nTO A MARVELOUS NEW VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN CREATED AS PART OF OUR BAY ADAPT \nREGIONAL SHORELINE OUTREACH PROGRAM. IT HAS BEEN CAREFULLY WORKED ON. \nI’M SURE YOU COULD FIND SOMETHING TO IMPROVE IN IT THERE’S\, ALWAYS \nSOMETHING TO IMPROVE. BUT IT’S GOOD AND IT HELPS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT \nAND WE’RE GOING TO SHARE IT. I THINK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ANGELA? [ VIDEO PLAYING ] \n>>SPEAKER: EXERCISE WITH STUNNING VIEWS WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE \nHOME TO FISH\, FREEWAYS AND TRANSIT AND BAY TRAIL LEAD US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER \nPOWER LINES AND WATER LINES PROVIDE CRUCIAL SERVICES WHERE DIVERSE \nCOMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER TO LIVE\, WORK\, AND PLAY\, MAKING THE BAY AREA A \nONE-OF-A-KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME. >>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK \nAS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUND WATER BENEATH US TO \nRISE. WITHOUT ACTION\, THOSE RISING WATERS \nWILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE \nGROCERY STORE EVEN ING TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS\, BART\, \nAND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE WILL ALL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE \nDON’T LIVE IF A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME EFFECTS ARE LEAD HERE. IN RECENT \nYEARS RISING GROUNDWATER HAVE LED TO FLOODING. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING\, \nOUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO \nNEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE. \nIF WE DON’T ACT\, 190\,000 JOBS\, 83\,000 HOMES\, AND 20\,000 ACRES ARE WET LANDS \nARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960s WHEN \nTHE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCERNED \nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY FOUNDING SAFETY SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. NOW BCDC IS ORGANIZING \nAROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY \nPARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING \nOTHERS TO GET STARTED. WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE\, WE CAN \nPLAN FOR A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT CREATES NEW WALKING AND BICYCLE TRAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES AURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE. \n>>SPEAKER: SOME AREAS HAVE HIGHER RISK OR ALREADY AT PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR \nDUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST. _. \n>>SPEAKER: WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING. \nBECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE. \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT \nCAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO LEARN AND WORK TOGETHER \nOVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS \nUNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US \nFOR GENERATIONS TO COME. (END OF VIDEO) \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT SHOULD BE \nPOSTED SHORTLY ON THE WEB SITE. IT IS THERE NOW. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE \nA COPY FOR DISTRIBUTION\, PLEASE CONTACT LARRY OR STAFF\, WE WILL GET THAT TO \nYOU. MY NEXT PIECE IS THE NOMINATION OF A NEW MEMBER OF THE ENGINEERING \nCRITERIA REVIEW BOARD AS AN ALTERNATE. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, ONE OF MY DUTIES AS \nCHAIR IS APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE ECRB. WE HAVE A VACANCY\, AND HAVE GONE \nTHROUGH A PROCESS TO FIND A NEW ALTERNATE. JENN HYMA\, IN OUR CHIEF \nENGINEER DID A SEARCH PROFITED ON THE BCDC WEB SITE LINKEDIN AND REACHED OUT \nTO LOCAL UNIVERSITIES UC BERKELEY\, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND SAN FRANCISCO \nSTATE AND SENT TO LOCAL CHAPTERS OF SOCIETY OF WOMEN ENGINEERS\, SOCIETY OF \nHISPANIC ENGINEERS AND SOCIETY OF BLACK ENGINEERS WITH COMPLEX PROJECTS IN AND \nNEAR THE BAY AND BROADENING DIVERSITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH \nTHE COMMISSION RECENTLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY GUIDING PRINCIPLES. AFTER THE SCREENING\, AN INTERVIEW \nPROCESS THERE\, IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT PATRICK RYAN BE APPOINTED TO THE OPEN \nALTERNATE POSITION. MR. RYAN IS A LICENSED SPECIAL INFRASTRUCTURE \nENGINEER AND PRINCIPLE COFOUNDER OF RYAN JOY STRUCTURAL DESIGN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM. \nHE HAS 31 YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE\, MANAGING BAY AREA PROJECTS \nWITH STRUCTURES ON LAND ALONG THE SHORELINE\, AND IN THE BAY. HE SERVED \nAS A STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE EXPLORATORIA RENOVATION\, AND SEISMIC \nRETROFIT AT PEERS 15 AND 17 AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENTS IN MISSION BAY AND OYSTER \nPOINT. HAS RECENT DESIGN WORK APPEARS AT SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE\, HE IS \nCONSTRUCTION NEAR ON THE ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SERVES ON \nBOARDS OF AIA\, SAN FRANCISCO\, AND SAN FRANCISCO SPECIFICATION IN SAN \nFRANCISCO. I CONCUR THIS RECOMMENDATION UNLESS I HEAR AN \nOBJECTION I WILL APPOINT MR. RYAN TO THE ECRB. \nSEEING\, HEARING NONE. HE IS SO APPOINTED. THANK YOU\, JENN\, FOR YOUR \nWORK. WE CONTINUE AS THE VIDEO INDICATED \nADVANCING BAY ADAPT FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CAN DO\, STAFF IS WORKING HARD ON \nTHE IMPLEMENTATION AND ROLLING OUT UNDER RESPONSIBILITIES OF SB272. \n_ I AM GLAD TO SEE SO MANY COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM. AND HOPE \nTHAT OTHERS WILL JOIN US FOR OUR POST MEETING GET TOGETHER SOCIAL HOUR IN \nTHE TEMESCAL ROOM\, RIGHT OVER THERE. AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR MEETING. \nNO DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESS UNDER BCDC JURISDICTION WILL OCCUR AT \nTHE SOCIAL GATHERING SO IT IS NOT A MEETING SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nBAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETINGS ACT BUT IT’S A CHANCE FOR US TO TALK TO EACH OTHER\, \nINCLUDING ALTERNATINGS\, SENIOR STAFF\, AND SENIOR STAFF WHO ARE HERE ARE \nWELCOME. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD NOVEMBER 16TH HERE AT THE METRO \nCENTER. AT THAT MEETING WE HOPE TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS CONTRACT \nWITH PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT AREA WATER \nPLAN DISCUSSION ON THE PROGRAM TO RECONSTRUCT STATE ROUTE 37 IN THE \nNORTH BAY AND UPDATE ON OUR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM\, AND A BRIEFING ON OUR CURRENT \nAND PAST YEAR’S BUDGET. WE EXPECT TO HOLD ALL OF OUR REGULAR \nSCHEDULED MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS YEAR\, INCLUDING A MEETING ON \nA.M. SO\, PLEASE KEEP THOSE ON YOUR CALENDAR AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE \nAVAILABLE. WE WILL PROBABLY NOT MEET ON JANUARY 4TH OF 2024. \nTHIS BRINGS US TO THE ALWAYS EXCITING EX PARTE REPORTS F ANY OF YOU HAVE HAD \nDISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION MEETINGS ON MATTERS THAT ARE \nADJUDICATORY OR YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO DISCLOSE. YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO \nDISCLOSE THOSE IN WRITING. IF YOU HAVE DONE SO\, OR FOR OTHER REASONS WISH TO \nDO SO VERBALLY\, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT BUT AGAIN YOU MUST DO IT IN \nWRITING. ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? SEEING NONE. \nWE MISSED THAT EXCITEMENT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. TAKE IT AWAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. ONE THING WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN AS MANAGERS\, LEADERS COLLEAGUES\, \nPARENTS OR FRIENDS IS THAT SIMPLY SOMETIMES THINGS JUST GO WRONG. \nSOMETIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T THOUGHT THROUGH ALL POSSIBLE \nRAMIFICATIONS OF AN IDEA. OTHER TIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE OVERPLAY OUR HANDS AND \nTHINK WE’RE JUST SMARTER THAN THE OTHER GUY OTHER AND TIMES IT’S SOMETHING \nTOTALLY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE\, ON THIS DAY IN 1948\, PRESIDENT HARRY \nTRUMAN WON AN ASTOUNDINGLY SURPRISING REELECTION BID. BUT WHAT WE ALL \nREMEMBER ISN’T HOW WE WON IT\, BUT THAT AFTER THE ELECTION WAS CALLED\, HE WAS \nPHOTOGRAPHED HOLDING THE FRONT PAGE OF THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE WITH THE \nHEADLINE “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.” OR WHY DID CORNELL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE \nROBERT MORRIS DECIDE ON DECEMBER 2ND\, 1988 THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO LET \nLOOSE HAS MORRIS WORM FROM MIT COMPUTER NETWORK TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. \nCOSTING PROBABLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FIX THE UNINTENDED RAMIFICATIONS OF \nTHE FIRST WORM EVER LET LOOSE ON THE INTERNET. \nI BRING THESE EXAMPLES UP BECAUSE OF TODAY’S VERY SHORT AGENDA. WE HAD \nPLANNED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA INCLUDING \nDISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 37 IN THE NORTH BAY\, AND A CONTRACT TO MOVE FORWARD \nSAN FRANCISCO’S WATERFRONT PLANNING PROGRAM\, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE ISSUES \nCOULD MOVE FORWARD IN TIME. SO\, WE PLEAD FOR YOUR INDULGENCE AND WANT TO \nLET YOU KNOW THAT WE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PLAN BETTER THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER \nOF THE YEAR AND BEYOND. AND I WANT TO REINFORCE SOMETHING THAT CHAIR \nWASSERMAN JUST SAID\, WE WILL HAVE COMMISSION MEETINGS TWICE IN NOVEMBER\, \nAND TWICE IN DECEMBER\, AS PLANNED. AND WE NEED YOU AT EACH OF THEM. \nDECEMBER WILL BRING A CONTENTIOUS PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN A VOTE TWO \nWEEKS LATER. I WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT \nI HAVE MADE A DECISION TO REQUIRE OUR STAFF TO WORK IN THE OFFICE TWO DAYS \nPER WEEK STARTING IN JANUARY\, AN INCREASE FROM THE CURRENT ONE DAY PER \nWEEK. ONE OF THOSE TWO DAYS WILL BE ON THURSDAYS EACH WEEK WHEN OUR ENTIRE \nSTAFF WILL COME INTO IS THE OFFICE TO MAXIMIZE INTERDIVISION WORK AND ALIGN \nWITH COMMISSION MEETING DAYS. TIM COOK CALLS THIS AN ANCHOR DAY. \nWHILE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET WORK COMPLETED AND WELL WHILE WORKING \nREMOTELY I BELIEVE WE CAN PRODUCTIVITY GAINS IF WE WORK PHYSICALLY ONE CHA \nDAY PER WEEK. NOT INCREASING BCDC COLLABORATIVE CULTURE EXPANDING \nABILITY TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER _ FORMALLY AS WELL AS INFORMALLY AND \nCAPITALIZING ON SOCIAL ASPECTS OF ALL IN FAVOR LEAD TO A PRODUCTIVE AND \nINSIGHTFUL STAFF. THE STATE’S CURRENT SYSTEM FAVORS ENABLING OUR STAFF TO \nCOME INTO THE OFFICE TWO DAYS PER WEEK AND I HAVE NO PLANS TO INCREASE THAT \nANY FURTHER. OF COURSE\, WE SHALL REMAIN AS FLEXIBLE AS WE ALWAYS HAVE \nBEEN REGARDING ATTENDING FAMILY AND CARE — OR OTHER PARTS OF THE BAY \nAREA\, I RECOGNIZE THIS MAY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND RECRUIT STAFF \nBUT I BELIEVE THE ADVANTAGES FAR OUTWEIGH RISKS INVOLVED I’M HAPPY TO \nDISCUSS THIS WITH ANY OF YOU AS COMMISSIONERS JUST AS I’M DOING WITH \nSTAFF THIS WEEK AND NEXT. GIVEN THE COMMISSION AND COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY HAVE STARTED BRINGING BACK STAFF TWO DAYS PER WEEK I DO NOT \nANTICIPATE OUR BARGAINING UNITS WILL OPPOSE THE CHANGE. HAPPY TO REPORT WE \nHOSTED OVER 180 PARTICIPANTS IN BCDC FIRST BAY ADAPT REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN GUIDANCE WORKSHOP. THAT A MOUTHFUL TO BE SURE AND I WANT \nTO LET YOU KNOW IT WAS REMARKABLY ACTIVE VIRTUAL WORKSHOP LOTS OF \nDISCUSSION ABOUT THE BAY SB272 DEFINITION OF REGIONAL PLANS \nEVERYTHING STAFF BRIEFED YOU ON TWO WEEKS AGO. TERRIBLY EXCITING. NOW \nFOR DISAPPOINTING NEWS FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND MAYBE FOR \nYOU. STARTING IN JANUARY\, STATE LAW WILL AGAIN REQUIRE COMMISSIONERS WHO \nARE NOT PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET DURING OUR FULL COMMISSION MEETINGS TO \nPROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH THE ADDRESSES FROM WHICH THEY WILL BE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. AND OUR REMOTE PARTICIPANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO SO IN A \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND NOTICED PHYSICAL SPACE. \nWHILE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACT THAT ESTABLISHES THE BAGLEY-KEENE ACT \nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION — ONLY IF MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT \nHERE AT METRO CENTER. STAFF CANNOT ENSURE THAT A MAJORITY OF \nCOMMISSIONERS WILL BE PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET FOR ANY GIVEN MEETING AND \nWE WILL NOT RUN THE RISK OF NOT HAVING A QUORUM AS FOR THE COMMISSION’S \nADVISORY BODIES WE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH LOCATIONS OF ADVISORY BODY \nREMOTELY SO LONG AS ONE STAFF MEMBER IS PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET AT THE \nMEETING THAT ISN’T AN EASY BAR TO CLEAR. THAT COMPLETES HIGH REPORT \nCHAIR HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: LARRY\, I’M GLAD TO \nHEAR YOU ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE TO COME IN TWICE A WEEK. \nTHIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS \nTHAT I AM ON THE BOARDS OF\, AND EXECUTIVES SEEM TO BE KIND OF COMING \nBACK TO THAT PLACE. HOWEVER\, I’M QUITE AWARE OF IT\, THAT IT’S REALLY \nCOMFORTABLE FOR THOSE IN MY GENERATION. BUT THE YOUNGER GENERATION\, I HAVE \nHAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM WHO INSIST PRODUCTIVITY. _ I WOULD ASK YOU TO \nSHARE WITH US IN 3 TO 6 MONTHS HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND I HAVE \nEXPERIENCED SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY\, YAY\, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE OFFICE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: GREAT QUESTION YES WE WILL. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT\, IF WE \nFIGURE IT OUT\, WE’LL TELL YOU. THIS HAS BEEN REALLY\, FROM AN \nORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR PERSPECTIVE\, FROM A LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE\, THIS \nHAS BEEN ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING — AND I MEAN THAT NOT IN AN OBFUSCATE \nWAY BUT AN INTERESTING PROCESS FOR ME. \nI AM\, I’LL TELL YOU ALL\, I NOW CARRY A MEDICARE CARD AS OF THIS YEAR WHICH \nHAS AFFECTED ME GREATLY IN A LOT OF WAYS. BUT THE POINT IS THAT I GREW UP \nPROFESSIONALLY IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, OF 40 OR \nMAYBE UNDER 30 HAVE NOT. AND THAT’S COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAD A \nPANDEMIC IN WHICH EVERYBODY CHANGED THE WAY THEY BEHAVE IN TERMS OF HOW WE \nWORKED. AND SO\, I THINK THAT THE REALLY INTERESTING POINT ABOUT THIS IS \nTHAT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITH OUR FRIENDS WHO ARE ALSO IN \nTHE WORKING WORLD ON SATURDAY NIGHTS OR AT DINNER PARTIES OR WHATEVER\, IT \nREVOLVES AROUND THIS. WE’RE ALL INTERESTED IN HOW WE WORK NOW. \nAND I HAVE BEEN REALLY GRATIFIED THAT A NUMBER OF OUR STAFF WHO ARE YOUNGER\, \nLESS VETERAN THAN WE ARE\, BY FAR\, ARE EAGER TO COME BACK INTO THE OFFICE A \nCOUPLE OF DAYS A WEEK AND A COUPLE HAVE GONE SO FAR AS TO SAY I REALLY WANT TO \nMEET EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T MET EVERYBODY. AND SO BECAUSE WE \nHIRED A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A RELATIVE WAY\, OVER THE PANDEMIC\, AND \nOVER THE PAST YEAR. AND SO THE THURSDAY ANCHOR DAY I THINK IS GOING \nTO BE REALLY\, REALLY PERSONALITY. AND I DO THINK\, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT \nIN THE DAYS THAT I’M IN THE OFFICE THREE DAYS A WEEK\, THAT WHEN PEOPLE \nARE SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER\, THEY TALK WITH EACH OTHER\, AND THEY WILL \nRUN INTO EACH OTHER\, AND I HAVE SEEN INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, \nWOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE\, HAD THEY NOT BEEN IN THE OFFICE\, AND THEY’RE \nLEARNING THINGS FROM THEIR COLLEAGUES. \nI’M LEARNING FROM THEM. SO\, I THINK IT’S REALLY\, REALLY IMPORTANT TO DO \nTHIS. IT’S ONLY TWO DAYS A WEEK\, COMPARED TO FIVE DAYS PRE-PANDEMIC\, \nAND WE WILL GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY — \nWELL\, MAXIMUM IS THE WRONG WORD — WE’LL GIVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY ON \nTHAT SECOND IS DAY. WE’LL LET THE MANAGERS CHOOSE WHEN THAT’S GOING TO \nBE AND THEY WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT’S BEST FOR THEIR TEAMS. SO THERE WILL BE \nFLEXIBILITY THAT WAY TOO. SO WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED. \nYOU KNOW\, PRODUCTIVITY IS NOT MEASURED AT P PG&E? IT’S NOT MEASURED BY \nWIDGETS AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE\, IT’S NOT AS IF YOU CAN QUANTIFY — \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER — OR INCREASE A \nSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PERMITS THAT WE ISSUE BECAUSE WE’RE HERE. THAT’S NOT \nTHE WAY THE WORLD WORKS. BUT PRODUCTIVITY CAN WELL BE MEASURED BY \nINCREASING CULTURE\, BY INCREASING SOCIAL ASPECTS AT WORK AND THE LIKE. \nSO\, I THINK BY DOING THIS WE WILL INCREASE OUR GENERAL PRODUCTIVITY. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. >>SPEAKER: I’LL ALSO POINT OUT MY \nEXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS THAT — THAT THOSE WHO SUFFER \nGREATLY FROM REMOTE WORK ARE THE YOUNGEST STAFF MEMBERS WHO ENDS UP NOT \nHAVING ANY KIND OF REGULAR MENTORING THAT HAPPENS JUST KIND OF ELBOW TO \nELBOW WITH PEOPLE. AND I WOULD SUGGEST MR. CHAIRMAN WE CONSIDER POSSIBLY \nHAVING ANCHOR MEETINGS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER GIOIA? WHO DISAPPEARED. \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH. WE’LL COME \nBACK TO COMMISSIONER GIOIA. >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE BEEN BACK NOW\, AT \nMY ORGANIZATION 2\, 2 DAYS A WEEK\, BUT THE TREND IS TOWARD THREE. AND WE’RE \nCLEARLY A BETTER TEAM AND WE’RE EFFECTIVE WHEN WE’RE TOGETHER AND \nHAVING THOSE KIND OF INTERACTIONS. AND I THINK WHAT YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO \nSEE IS A TREND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. \nIT’S TWO DAYS A WEEK NOW\, BUT TRENDING TOWARD THREE\, AND PROBABLY FOUR DAYS \nOVER THE NEXT MAYBE TWO YEARS. IT’S NEGOTIATION\, IT’S A CULTURAL SHIFT. \nWITH US\, AS WELL\, AND MY YOUNGER WORKERS. BUT AFTER A SPUTTERING \nATTEMPT TO DO THIS IN 2022\, I THINK YOU’RE SEEING MORE OF A CONSENSUS IN \nPRIVATE INDUSTRY THAT WE’RE BETTER TOGETHER AND\, SORT OF\, ACTUAL \nSTANDARDS BEING ENFORCED BY COMPANIES TO ENSURE — I’M NOT SUGGESTING THIS \nFOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT THAT\, YOU KNOW\, PEOPLE’S SALARIES\, THEIR VALUATION OR \nEMPLOYMENT WILL DEPEND ON ACTUALLY BEING IN OVER TIME. SO\, I THINK WHAT \nYOU’RE DOING NOW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION WE’RE SEEING IN THE PRIVATE \nSECTOR. AND IT’S A TRANSITION\, BUT I THINK OVER PROBABLY THE NEXT TWO \nYEARS\, MAYBE THREE\, PROBABLY WE’LL ALL BE BACK 3 TO 4 DAYS. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I RESPOND TO THAT FOR A SECOND? BECAUSE I WANT TO EDUCATE THE \nCOMMISSION ABOUT SOMETHING WITH CAL HR AND THE WAY WE WORK WITH THE STATE. \nYOU KNOW THIS. I MENTIONED IN MY REPORT\, THERE IS \nTHIS SPLIT WITHIN THE STATE IN TERMS OF HOW THE STATE LOOKS AT TWO DAYS VERSUS \nTHREE DAYS. WHAT THE STATE DID WHEN PEOPLE WERE \nCOMING BACK\, WHEN STATE WORKERS WERE COMING BACK WAS PROVIDE A STIPEND\, AND \nTHIS’S THE AMOUNT OF THAT STIPEND DEPENDS UPON WHETHER YOU ARE EITHER \nOFFICE CENTRIC OR REMOTE CENTRIC. AND YOU’RE OFFICE CENTRIC IF YOU ARE LESS \nTHAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE\, AND YOU’RE REMOTE CENTRIC IF \nYOU ARE MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. WE DON’T HAVE TIME \nAND A HALF AT BCDC THAT BASICALLY MEANS TWO VERSUS THREE. I FIGURED\, AND I \nTHINK THIS IS RIGHT\, AND I THINK THIS IS FAIR _ I DON’T WANT TO GET IN FRONT \nOF THE STATE F THE STATE DECIDES TO CHANGE THE 2/3 SPLIT INTO SOMETHING \nELSE IF THE NEXT GOVERNOR DECIDES TO DO THAT\, I DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT. \nBUT AT THIS POINT SINCE EVERYBODY AT BCDC IS REMOTE CENTRIC WITH EXCEPTION \nOF ME BECAUSE I COME IN THREE DAYS A WEEK AND EVERYONE ELSE IS COPYING IN \nTWO DAYS A WEEK I’M NOT GOING TO GO PAST TWO DAYS THAT’S HOW THE STIPEND \nWORKS WITHIN CAL RHR AND IT’S A 2/3 SPLIT. YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE COMING IN \nCERTAIN DAYS. >>SPEAKER: YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT \nLARRY IT DEPENDS ON THE BUSINESS NEEDS AND EVERY DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT \nDEPENDING ON NEEDS. OUR CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN FIVE \nDAYS A WEEK THEY NEED TO BE. OTHER DIVISIONS WE’RE ASKING THEM TO COME \nINTO THE OFFICE MINIMUM OF TWO DAYS. THIS IS A DISTRICT FOUR OR BAY AREA \nDIRECTION. WE SEE DEFINITELY THERE IS A NEED WITH A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE \nCOMING INTO THE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT ANY PRIOR EXPERIENCE. WE WANT TO BE \nABLE TO DO SOME TEAM BUILDING\, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO GET TO KNOW \nTHEIR TEAMMATES\, AND ASK QUESTIONS FACE-TO-FACE. THERE IS A LOT OF VALUE \nIN HAVING PEOPLE INTERACT FACE-TO-FACE. SO THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SO \nFAR. AND WE’RE GOING TO BE REEVALUATING EVERY SIX MONTHS OR SO TO \nSEE IF WE’RE ON POINT OR NOT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: I JUST WANT TO SAY WHEN \nWE GET INTO JANUARY AND THE REGIONAL CENTERS I’M WILLING TO HAVE MY OFFICE \nBE A REGIONAL LOCATION\, JUST LIKE WE CURRENTLY ARE FOR THE AIR DISTRICT AND \nTHE SAN 47ING BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY. SO WE GET OTHER BOARD \nMEMBERS IN THE AIR DISTRICT COMING TO MY OFFICE. \nBECAUSE WE ARE HAVE STAFF THAT CAN RUN THIS WHETHER I’M HERE OR NOT\, BUT I \nWILL USUALLY BE HERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT \nTHERE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE DOING WHAT THE AIR DISTRICT IS DOING AND\, \nYOU KNOW\, AND WORKING WITH CURRENT MEMBERS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH \nAGENCIES WHERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC OFFICES. AND I SEE MY FRIEND COUNCIL \nMEMBER ZEPEDA HERE\, CESAR CAN COME UP TO MY OFFICE OR WE CAN TAKE THE FERRY \nTO SAN FRANCISCO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT I’M SURE. \nMY COMMENT IS IT’S PARALLEL IN PART TO THE COMMENT ABOUT EMPLOYEES COMING IN\, \nAND THAT’S ABOUT OUR MEETING IN-PERSON\, VERSUS THESE HYBRID MEETINGS. \nONE\, THERE IS JUST AS MUCH UNCERTAINTY AND EXPERIMENTATION GOING ON IN THAT \nAS THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SERVE ON OTHER REGIONAL \nBOARDS KNOW. I THINK\, IN PARTICULAR\, THEY HAVE NOT — THEY\, THE LEGISLATURE \n— HAVE NOT LOOKED VERY CLOSELY AT THE DIFFERENCES FOR REGIONAL BOARDS SUCH \nAS OURS. BECAUSE\, AS MUCH AS I THINK HAVING \nPEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM MAKES A DIFFERENCE\, TO WIT OUR SOCIAL HOUR \nAFTER THIS MEETING\, THERE ARE ALSO OTHER FACTORS. \nRANGING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL TO\, PLAIN AND SIMPLE\, EFFICIENCY\, WHEN YOU HAVE \nGOT PEOPLE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE BAY AREA. \nAND MY HOPE IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL CONTINUE REVIEWING THIS AND\, \nPERHAPS\, COME TO SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN THE LEGISLATION THAT WILL TAKE \nEFFECT IN 2024\, IT APPEARS\, AT LEAST TO ME. \nOKAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS. OH\, PAT? \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE CONCEPT ANCHOR MEETINGS AND I \nPRESUME THAT’S A MEETING THAT WE EXPECT EVERYBODY TO SHOW UP TO IN-PERSON. \nAND HAVING SERVED ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS\, I HAVE \nOBSERVED THAT IF YOU HAVE AN ANCHOR MEETING EVERY QUARTER OR EVERY SIX \nMONTHS\, YOU CAN DO YOUR WORK PRETTY WELL OVER THE PHONE OR BY ZOOM. THOSE \nANCHOR MEETINGS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD BE AGENDAIZED WELL IN ADVANCE \nSO WE CAN PLAN FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TIME. AND\, OF COURSE\, THEY SHOULD \nINCLUDE A SOCIAL HOUR. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS WHERE\, FOR THE \nSECOND TIME IN A ROW\, ARE STILL MODERATELY NEW STAFF MEMBER HARRIET \nROSS GETS OFF EASY. ITEM EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE\, BAY PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 119. \nTHE COMMISSION WILL NOW HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT PLAN TO UPDATE \nTHE FINDINGS\, TELLSES\, AND MAP DESIGNATIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN. WE \nHAVE NOT SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THIS ITEM TODAY TO ENSURE THAT COMMISSION STAFF \nAND MEMBERS CAN ANALYZE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INCLUDE THE FINAL DRAFT PROPOSAL. \nANY IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATE CHANGES. \nBEFORE WE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT FROM PRINCIPLE WATERFRONT PLANNER CORY \nMANN\, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE VICE CHAIR EISEN WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE SEAPORT \nPLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT IF SHE DESIRES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SHE DOES DESIRE. I WAS GRATEFUL CHAIR \nWASSERMAN IS ASKING ME TO SPEAK IT GAVE ME TIME TO TAKE A TRIP DOWN MEMORY \nLANE IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. IT WAS BACK IN JANUARY 2019 WHEN THE COMMISSION \nWAS ASKED TO CONSIDER TWO BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS. ONE IS THIS ONE TO REVISE \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN\, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO REMOVE HOWARD TERMINAL FROM THE \nPORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION THAT COVERED IT. FOR REASONS OUR CHAIR \nKNOWS VERY WELL\, WE CHOSE TO ADDRESS THE HOWARD TERMINAL AMENDMENT FIRST. \nAND DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CONTENTIOUS HEARINGS? \n[LAUGHTER] SO IT WAS — THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD \nISSUE A TRIGGER WARNING BEFORE I MENTIONED HOWARD TERMINAL. BUT \nLOOKING BACK ON IT\, IT FEELS SOMETIMES IT WAS AN EXERCISE\, IT PROLONGED \nEXERCISE IN IF YOU TILLITY BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER WE \nREACHED OUR CONCLUSION IN JUNE 2022. IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT TO REVISE THE SEAPORT PLAN IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE LEARNED A LOT \nDURING THAT PROCESS. WE LEARNED A LOT THAT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY HELPFUL IN \nWHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING NEXT. FOR EXAMPLE\, WE LEARNED ABOUT THE SPECK\, \nTHE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE EXPERTISE WE HAVE THERE _ AND \nHOW IMPORTANT THEY PLAY A ROLE IN ADVISING THIS COMMISSION. I HOPE \nTHERE IS SOMETHING SPAC MEMBERS HERE TODAY. WE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE \nPORTS. A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE PORTS AND DIFFICULTIES IN PLANNING AND \nMAKING SURE THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THIS HUGE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE BAY \nAREA. WE LEARNED MORE THAN I EVER THOUGHT I WOULD KNOW ABOUT CARGO \nFORECAST\, AND HOW DIFFICULT LONG-TERM PLANNING IS. AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS \nTO UPDATE THESE LONG-TERM PLANS REGULARLY SO THAT WHEN WE DO GET \nCALLED ON TO MAKE DECISIONS\, WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN REALLY USE AND \nRELY UPON. AND THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT WAS \nREALLY IMPORTANT IN THAT PROCESS IS WE LEARNED\, OR RELEARNED HOW IMPORTANT IT \nIS WHEN WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS TO INVOLVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITIES\, \nAND THE EQUITY COMMUNITIES IN THE PROCESS. \nAND I WAS REALLY HAPPY WHEN I SAW THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS \nAGO\, I GUESS IT IS NOW\, JESSICA. IT WAS CLEAR THAT OUR STAFF HAS TAKEN \nEVERY ONE OF THOSE LESSONS TO HEART AND HAS INCORPORATED THEM IN THE DRAFT \nSEAPORT PLAN THAT WE’RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IN A SECOND\, AND IN THE PROCESS \nOF CREATING THAT DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, IT WAS NOT ALL FOR NOT. IN FACT\, \nI THINK IT ACTUALLY PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN WHAT WE’RE GOING TO \nBE DOING NEXT. THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEARN \nFROM HISTORY. I WOULD NOW ASK CORY MAN TO PRESENT \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN DRAFT. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \nTHANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. \nI’LL GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE PRESENTATION. \nAND I’LL ASSUME THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THE PRESENTATION OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE’RE GOOD. \n>>CORY MANN: WELL\, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I AM EXCITED TO GIVE YOU A \nPRESENTATION ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT PLAN. \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1982\, AND AS YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE BEEN \nUNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PLAN. \nIN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S MEETING\, STAFF CIRCULATED A NEW DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN \nALONG WITH A STAFF REPORT\, A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT\, AS WELL AS \nAN ADDENDUM TO THE CARGO FORECAST AND I BELIEVE CAT IS GOING TO ADD A LINK TO \nTHE ZOOM DOCUMENTS SO YOU CAN REFER TO THEM. THIS IS A PRESENTATION OF 30 \nMINUTES BUT I’M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. \nAPOLOGIES IF THIS IS ON THE LONGER SIDE BUT THERE IS A LOT TO COVER TODAY AND \nWE’LL HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. \nHERE IS A PREVIEW OF WHAT I’LL BE TALKING THROUGH. FIRST GOING THROUGH \nBASIC BACKGROUND ABOUT THE SEAPORT PLAN LIKE THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AND HOW \nBCDC HAS BEEN USING IT IN THE PAST AND HOW WE’RE WORKING TO UPDATE. \nAND THEN I’LL GET TO THE DRAFT PLAN ITSELF. I’LL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF \nPROPOSED CHANGES TO THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO GO \nINTO DEPTH OF EVERY POLICY IN THE PRESENTATION I’LL DISCUSS THE LEVEL OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGE IN THE DRAFT BUT MORE THAN HAPPY TO \nANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY POLICY INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT. \nAFTER THAT I’LL SHARE — I’LL TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I’LL \nSHARE MORE ABOUT PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART TWO OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AND \nTHAT’S THE MAPPED BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND SOME RELATED POLICIES. AND THEN FINALLY I WILL OUTLINE NEXT \nSTEPS. SO\, FIRST JUST SOME BACKGROUND ABOUT \nTHE HISTORICAL AND\, LIKE\, LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN. MOST \nSIMPLY YOU CAN THINK OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AS A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. SO THE BAY PLAN HAS A SECTION OF FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES SPECIFIC TO THE PORTS. AND THOSE FINDINGS STATE\, I’LL PARAPHRASE\, \nTHAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CENTRAL AGENCY TO COORDINATE THE PLANNING AND \nDEVELOPMENT OF BAY AREA SEAPORT TERMINALS\, THERE IS A RISK OF \nUNNECESSARY BAY FILL. THEN IT GOES ON TO STATE THAT A \nSEAPORT PLAN IS BASICALLY THEREFORE NEEDED TO COORDINATE THE PORT \nDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE RISK FILL. \nIN THE 1980s ACTUALLY LATE 1970S BCDC BEGAN TO WORK WITH THE PORTS AS WELL \nAS THE SEAPORT PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE\, AND I’LL TALK MORE ABOUT \nTHE COMMITTEE IN THIS PRESENTATION\, TO CREATE THE FIRST SEAPORT PLAN\, IT WAS \nPUBLISHED IN 1982. THE EXISTED PLANNING WAS ACTUALLY \nPUBLISHED IN 1996. AND AS YOU WILL LEARN DURING THIS PRESENTATION IT TOOK \nA PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR MARINE TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT\, KIND OF \nON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS\, BUT AGAIN WITH THAT GOAL OF MINIMIZING BAY \nFILL. OF COURSE\, A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE \n1996 AND BECAUSE MANY OF THE PLAN’S POLICIES ARE OUTDATED\, THE COMMISSION \nDECIDED THERE WAS A NEED TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND THAT’S WHAT \nWE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO\, SOME FAMILIAR \nTHINGS HERE. BUT THAT’STHAT’S CONTEXT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN I WANT TO EXPLAIN \nHOW IT WORKS AND HOW IT FITS INTO BCDC’S AUTHORITY. AS YOU KNOW \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT ENABLES THE PETITION TO ENABLE WATERWAY FOR ORIENTED USES \nONE OF THOSE IS FOR PORTS THESE ARE CALLED PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. \nWITHIN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ONLY USES ARE BASICALLY FOR PORT PURPOSES \nOR TEMPORARY OTHER USES. AND THE INTENT OF THIS DESIGNATION IS \nTHAT BY RESERVING SPECIFIC AREAS FOR MARITIME CARGO AS A REGION WE CAN MAKE \nSURE THOSE AREAS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PORT USE THEREBY MINIMIZING AMOUNT OF BAY \nFILL THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT. SEAPORT PLAN \nDESIGNATES THESE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ACROSS THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS. \nAND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE THAT INCLUDES THE PORTS OF BENECIA\, \nOAKLAND\, SAN FRANCISCO\, RICHMOND\, AND REDWOOD CITY. \nTHERE ARE ALSO TWO RESERVE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WERE NEVER \nDEVELOPED. THAT’S SELBY AND THE CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND I’LL \nTALK MORE ABOUT THOSE AND APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES TO THESE AREAS. \nAS YOU MIGHT RECALL FROM PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS THE FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES IN THE PLAN ARE UNDERPINNED BY A REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST THAT HELPS \nUS UNDERSTAND CARGO GROWTH AND CAPACITY ACROSS THE BAY AREA. \nSO THE PREVIOUS CARGO FORECAST EXPIRED IN 2020 THAT WAS ANOTHER IMPETUS FOR \nUPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER SOME OF THIS\, \nBUT BCDC WORKED WITH A PRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP A NEW CARGO \nFORECAST WITH THE PORTS PROVIDING SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CARGO \nACTIVITIES OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS IN 2019 AND 2020. \nTHE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS APPROVED BY THE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE IN MAY OF 2020 AND IT’S A 30 YEAR FORECAST. SO IT UNSETS IN 2050 \nNOW. WE HAVE CIRCULATED AN ADDENDUM WITH THE CARGO FORECAST WITH MATERIALS \nTHAT REFLECTS INFORMATION CONCERNING DURING THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 2019. \nYOU MIGHT RECALL IT FORECASTS THREE TYPES OF CARGO THAT MOVE THROUGH THE \nBAY AREA PORTS CONTAINER CARGO\, ROLL ON\, ROLL OFF\, ROLL ROW VEHICLE CARGO\, \nAND THE THIRD IS DRIVE OFF CARGO\, AND THAT AFFECTS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. \nIN ADDITION TO DEMAND AND GROWTH FORECAST IT HAS HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF \nCAPACITY WITHIN BCDC EXISTING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS DESCRIBES WHERE \nTHERE IS ROOM FOR EXPANSION AT THE EXISTING MARINE TERMINALS IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WITHIN BCDCEE JURISDICTION. \nSO FOR BCDC STAFF\, THE CARGO FORECAST IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL PROVIDING DATA TO \nEVALUATE PORTS BASED ON POLICIES AND THE FORECAST ANTICIPATES GROWTH ACROSS \nALL THREE TYPES OF CARGO TYPES THROUGH 2050 WHICH REQUIRES AS A REGION TO \nPLAN CAREFULLY FOR THE FUTURE. SO\, BCDC HAS A SEAPORT PLANNING \nADVISORY COMMITTEE\, OR SPAC. AND THE SPAC OVERSAW DEVELOPMENT OF \nTHE ORIGINAL SEAPORT PLAN IN 1982\, AND ALL OF ITS CONSEQUENTLY UPDATES\, \nINCLUDING THIS ONE. SPAC IS AS AN ADVISORY BODY TO THE \nCOMMISSION AND PROVIDES STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON SEAPORT RELATED MATTERS. \nSPAC IS COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS\, BCDC \nCOMMISSIONERS\, MTC AND ABAG\, THE SAN FRANCISCO MARINA EXCHANGE CALTRANS AND \nSAVE THE BAY. AS PART OF THE UPDATE WE’RE PROPOSING REVISIONS TO THE \nCOMPOSITION OF THE SPAC AND I’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. \nCOMMISSIONER REBECCA EISEN IS CHAIRING THE SPAC AND COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS \nSTEPPED IN AS VICE CHAIR I WANT TO THANK THEM BOTH FOR PROVIDING FEEDBACK \nON THE DRAFT PLAN. COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS TAKEN IN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT \nPROVIDING VALUABLE EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS. AT THIS POINT IF THERE \nARE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S PROBABLY BECAUSE I MANAGED TO \nREINTRODUCE THEM AFTER COMMISSIONER EISEN FIXED THEM. _ WITH THAT GENERAL \nOVERVIEW IN MIND I’LL RECAP MAJOR REASONS FOR UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN \nNOW. WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THE REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST. WE NEEDED TO REMOVE \nOUTDATED INFORMATION AND UPDATE THE PLAN’S FINDINGS AND POLICIES. WE \nWANTED TO INTRODUCE SOME NEW TOPIC AREAS ESPECIALLY ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND \nON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT PLAN WITH \nCHANGES TO THE BAY PLAN THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. \nWE WANTED TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FROM THE PORTS TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. MOST OF THAT’S TO REFLECT ON THE GROUND \nCHANGES TO CARGO ACTIVITY THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE SEAPORT PLAN WAS \nLAST UPDATED. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE WANTED TO GENERAL REALIGN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO BETTER REFLECT THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S AUTHORITY AND TO \nENCOURAGE MORE REGIONAL COORDINATION. THOSE TRANSLATED TO GOALS FOR OUR WORK \nON THE PLAN. FIRST WE WANT TO HAVE POLICIES IN THE PLAN THAT PROVIDE \nCLEAR AND STREAMLINED GUIDANCE FOR PORTS ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE \nFOR BCDC WHEN THEY HAVE A PROJECT OR WHEN THEY WANT TO REQUEST A CHANGE FOR \nPORT PRIORITY USE BONDRIES TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING AND PLANS FOR \nTHE PORTS AND ALSO TO GIVE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO BCDC STAFF WHEN THEY \nEVALUATE THOSE PROPOSALS. WE WANT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR HOW PORTS \nDEVELOPMENT WHILE MINIMIZING BAY FILL AND MAKE SURE WE’RE RETAINING IT \nCAPACITY FOR OUR PORT SYSTEM. WE WANT POLICIES THAT ARE MORE FIRMLY \nROOTED IN BCDC’S AUTHORITY TO MINIMIZE BAY FILL PROMOTE WATER ORIENT THE USES \nAND MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESSES TO THE BAY. AND WE WANT TO SEAPORT PLAN THAT \nIS CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH POLICIES THAT ARE GOING STAY \nUP-TO-DATE AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS COME AND GO. \nALTHOUGH IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLAN TO BE TIMELESS THOSE ARE IDEAS WE TRIED \nTO KEEP IN MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN REMOVING OUTDATED POLICIES AND DRAFTING NEW \nONES. TAKEN TOGETHER THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE AND STREAM PERMITTING FOR \nPORT PROJECTS BY MAKING THE PLAN EASIER TO READ AND USE. AND WE BELIEVE THE \nDRAFT PLAN ACHIEVES THAT VISION. SO NEXT I’LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT \nTHE TIMELINE\, WHICH HAS BEEN PROLONGED AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY CONDENSED \nVERSION. BUT AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO INITIATE A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN \nIN 2019. BCDC STAFF THEN BEGAN TO WORK WITH A \nPRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP THE CARGO FORECAST\, AGAIN WITH THE GUIDANCE OF \nINDIVIDUAL PORTS\, AS WELL AS THE SPAC\, AND THE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS \nPUBLISHED IN MAY OF 2020. AFTER THAT STAFF BEGAN TO WORK WITH \nTHE PORTS ON SPECIFIC REQUESTS THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTING TO MODIFY THE \nBOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. I’LL SHOW YOU THE MAP IN A FEW \nMINUTES. THAT PROCESS WAS ONGOING IN 2021 BUT AS MENTIONED EARLIER\, WE HAD \nTO PAUSE WORK ON THE BAY PLAN WHILE CONSIDERING BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 219 \nBECAUSE THAT HAD A LEGISLATIVE TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH T WE WERE ABLE TO \nREMOVE WORK ON THE SEAPORT PLAN LAST FALL AND WE BEGAN BY REACHING OUT TO \nPORT AND PORT STAFF REMOVING MAP CHANGES AND WERE ABLE TO START \nDRAFTING NEW FINDINGS AND POLICIES FOR THE PLAN OF THE WE FIRST CIRCULATED \nTHE PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE NEW SEAPORT PLAN THIS JULY — SDPSH HELD A PUBLIC \nMEETING OF THE SPAC TO REVIEW THE DRAFT. SPAC VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO \nAPPROVE THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN IN THAT MEETING WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT BCDC \nSTAFF WOULD BE INCORPORATING REVISIONS AND FEEDBACK THAT CAME UP BOTH BEFORE \nAND AT THAT MEETING. SO\, WE DID EXACTLY THAT. WE \nINCORPORATED SOME CHIANGS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE PLAN\, BASED ON INPUT FROM \nSPAC MEMBERS\, FROM THE PORTS\, AND FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WHO PROVIDED PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. AND THERE IS A SECTION IN TODAY’S STAFF REPORT THAT DESCRIBES \nEXACTLY WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE. WE HAVE SENT THE REVISED DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN TO YOU AT THEN OF SEPTEMBER AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE PRESENT. SO \nAFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING\, WE’LL UNDERTAKE A FINAL ROUND OF REVISIONS \nTO THE PLAN AS NEEDED AND THEN CIRCULATE A FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nTHAT DESCRIBES LAST NEW CHANGES RAINING A COPY OF THE DRAFT PLAN. LASTLY \nWE’LL HOLD ONE MORE PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A VOTE ON THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN. IT’S BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL PROCESS WE HAVE HAD FIVE \nPUBLIC MEETINGS OF OUR SEAPORT PLAN MEETING BRIEFINGS TO STAKEHOLDERS AND \nINDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH PORT AND PORT STAFF TOO BUT ALL HAS SUBSTANTIALLY \nIMPROVED THE DRAFT PLAN AND WE’RE EXCITED TO SHARE IT WITH YOU TODAY. \nBEFORE I GET INTO CONTENT OF THE NEW DRAFT PLAN I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO \nDISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE SEPARATE AMENDMENT. AS YOU MAY RECALL THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA FROM THE HOWARD \nTERMINAL SITE AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IN JUNE OF 2022. AT THE REQUEST OF THE \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS ALONG WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND. \nHOWEVER\, HOWARD TERMINAL REMAINS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF ASSEMBLY \nBILL 1191. SO\, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A RELEVANT PROVISION OF THIS BILL\, AND \nSORRY FOR THE SMALL TEXT BUT I WILL READ IT. IT STATES IF THE PORT AND \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT BY JANUARY 1ST\, \n2025\, THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OAKLAND SPORTS AND MIXED USE \nPROJECT THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED ON THE HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DELETED \nPURSUANT TO BCDC’S SEAPORT PLAN AND BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THE REMOVAL OF THAT DESIGNATION FROM HOWARD TERMINAL WAS A \nSEPARATE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSED SEAPORT PLAN THE \nCOMMISSION ACTED ON LAST SUMMER SO BCDC STAFF DOESN’T TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO \nTHE CURRENT STATUS OF HOWARD TERMINAL AS PART OF THE GENERAL UPDATE TO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. HOWEVER SHOULD AN AGREEMENT NOT BE REACHED REGARDING THE \nPORT AND BETWEEN THE PORT AND OAKLAND ATHLETICS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2025\, AT \nTHAT TIME\, BCDC STAFF WILL REVERT THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BACK TO HOWARD \nTERMINAL PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nTHE FIRST DRAFT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WAS CIRCULATED BACK IN JULY \nDIDN’T INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL AND SOME OF THE SEAPORT PLANS TABLES THAT \nCONCERNED SOME STAKEHOLDERS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HOWARD TERMINAL MAY GO BACK \nTO PRIORITY USE. DUE TO COMMENTS STAFF REVISED THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN THAT WE \nSENT TO YOU TODAY TO INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL IN THE RELEVANT TABLE OF THE \nPLAN\, THAT LISTS OUT MARINE TERM NAT EXPANSION SITES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, \nWITH A FOOTNOTE TO DESCRIBE ITS UNIQUE STATUS. \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BCDC STAFF HAVE INTENTIONALLY USED A LIGHT TOUCH HERE \nIN THE UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN REGARDING HOWARD TERMINAL IN A PROCESS \nTO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE PLAN IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION MUST \nREVERT TO PORT PRIORITY USE ON JANUARY 25\, ’20. \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SIMPLE AND EASY TO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO PORT \nPRIORITY USE NOT TRYING TO CREATE BARRIERS IN REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nSORRY THAT’S A LOT. BUT THAT’S AN \nOVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE TO DATE. SO NOW I’M GOING TO SHIFT TO \nCONTENT AND PREVIEW PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN. YOU \nKNOW\, THIS UPDATE IT’S TECHNICALLY A REVISION TO THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT WE’RE REVAMPING THE ENTIRE PLAN. IT’S GOING TO BE A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW \nOF TOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED FROM THE 1996 PLAN TO THE NEW \nDRAFT. BUT AGAIN HAPPY TO GO INTO DEPTH ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR POLICIES \nAFTER THE PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. \nSO\, FIRST\, AS I MENTIONED\, THE ENTIRETY OF THE SEAPORT PLAN HAS BEEN REWRITTEN \nINTRODUCTION TO THE 1996 PLAN IF YOU LOOK AT IT IT’S REALLY TECHNICAL AND \nWE TRIED TO SCALE THAT BACK IN THE NEW DRAFT PLAN TO IMPROVE THE PLAN’S \nGENERAL READABILITY AND CLARITY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S A \nREGULATORY DOCUMENT AND MANY PEOPLE WHO ACCESS IT ARE LIKELY TO BE PORT STAFF \nOR OTHER BCDC APPLICANTS. WE WANTED TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO \nMAKE SURE THAT ANYONE WHO PICKS THIS UP CAN LEARN ABOUT BCDC\, UNDERSTAND BCDC \nROLE AS IT RELATES TO THE PORTS\, AND LEARN SOME BASIC INFORMATIONS ABOUT \nTHE FIVE PORTS AND WHY THEY’RE VITAL TO THE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY. SO \nTHE INTRODUCTION WITH SOME MAJOR GOALS OF THE PLAN AND IT EXPLAINS BCDC \nAUTHORITY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PLAN AND HOW IT WAS UPDATED \nTHEN THERE ARE NICE SUMMARIES OF EACH OF THE FIVE PORTS AND THEIR \nACTIVITIES. THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PORTS THEMSELVES WHICH \nWAS REALLY NICE OF THEM. AND THEN THERE IS A HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE \n2050 CARGO FORECAST. THEN WE GET TO THE ACTUAL POLICY TOPIC \nAREAS. IN EACH OF THESE TOPIC AREAS THERE ARE NUMEROUS FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES. I’LL GO INTO EACH TOPIC AREA IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. AS AN \nOVERVIEW YOU SEE THERE ARE FOUR NEW TOPIC AREAS. ONE IS ON THE SEAPORT \nPLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ITSELF AND THEN CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY AND REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN \nUPDATES. WE ARE ALSO RETAINING A COUPLE OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND RECITATION THEM IN THE NEW PLAN. ONE OF THOSE IS ON \nPRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND THE OTHER ARE THE \nPOLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. AND THEN FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE TWO TOPIC AREAS\, NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUES THEMSELVES ARE UNIMPORTANT\, BUT \nJUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY BECOME OUTDATED AND REDUNDANT WITH \nOTHER REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS OR OTHER EFFORTS THAT BCDC HAS \nUNDERTAKEN. BUT WE ACTUALLY RETAIN STILL A COUPLE OF POLICIES \nPARTICULARLY RELATED TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION. BUT HAVE BROUGHT THEM \nOVER TO THE NEW SECTION ABOUT REGIONAL COORDINATION. \nTHAT’S A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE TOPIC AREAS. \nSO\, THE FIRST NEW TOPIC AREA\, IT’S SPECIFIC TO THE SPAC ITSELF. THE SPAC \nWAS ESTABLISHED\, ORIGINALLY\, THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING\, AN MOU\, \nBETWEEN BCDC IN 1978\, THE SEAPORT PLAN NICKS INCONSISTENCIES PLAN DOESN’T \nHAVE FINDINGS OR POLICIES THAT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE PURPOSE \nAND ROLE OF THE SPAC. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THIS \nTO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF. WE ADDED FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES TO IDENTIFY COMPOSITION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SPAC. \nPREPSED CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPAC. I KNOW THIS SLIDE IS A BIT \nHARD TO READ YOU ABOUT BASICALLY WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE A COUPLE OF \nDEFUNCT POSITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE IS AN APPOINTMENT FOR SOMEONE \nFROMENSENAL TERMINALS WHICH DOESN’T EXIST ANYMORE. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO REBALANCE BCDC AND MTC AND ABAG APPOINTMENTS\, AND WE’RE \nSUGGESTING TO ADD TWO NEW MEMBERS FROM COMMUNITY-BASED AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND ONE FROM A MARITIME INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER. \nWE HOPE THESE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE GOING TO STRENGTHEN THE SPAC’S ROLE AS \nAN EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP TO THE COMMISSION. BUT I ALSO WANT TO \nEMPHASIZE\, AND THIS IS ALSO DESCRIBED IN A FINDING ABOUT THE SPAC THAT THE \nPURPOSE OF THE SPAC IS TO PROVIDE BASICALLY EXPERT TECHNICAL ADVICE TO \nTHE COMMISSION. THE SPAC PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME STAKEHOLDERS TO \nADVISE THE COMMISSION ON PORT RELATED TOPICS\, BUT CONSULTATION WITH THE SPAC \nIS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT OF PORT COMMUNITIES IN \nDECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. Y IS EMPHASIS OF THE COMMITTEE IS ON \nTECHNICAL EXPERTISE. NEXT ABOUT POLICIES OF THE FORECAST WE \nHAVE WRITTEN FINDINGS THAT SUMMARIZE CONCLUSIONINGS OF THE CARGO FORECAST. \nTHERE ARE TWO POLICIES IN THIS TOPIC AREAS. \nFIRST DESCRIBES HOW THE FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED AND THE SECOND DESCRIBES \nHOW THE SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD IMPLEMENT AND RELY ON THE FORECAST. \nSO THOSE POLICIES IN PART STATE THAT THE CARGO FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED \nAT LEAST ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS BUT THERE ARE ALSO ALLOWANCES FOR UPDATES \nBASICALLY BASED ON THE COMMISSION’S DISCRETION. \nNEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT THE POLICIES FOR THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. SO THESE \nARE THE BULK OF POLICIES THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON WHEN A PORT OR ENTITY NEEDS \nA PERMIT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO SIMPLIFY FOUR TOPIC AREAS FROM THE 1996 PLAN BY COMBINING \nTHEM INTO A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED\, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY \nUSE TOPIC. THE 1996 PLAN HAD SOME OUTDATED CARGO SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT \nWERE BASICALLY WANTING TO REMOVE IN A SINGLE TOPIC AREA THAT’S ALIGN WITH \nBCDC’S SCOPE MISSION AND AUTHORITY. _ THIS TOPIC AREA HAS A RANGE EVER \nPOLICIES. MOST RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT OR ALLOWABLE USES IN PORT PRIORITY USE \nAREAS. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ALL THIS INCLUDES POLICY FOR ADDING OR \nREMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS\, FILL\, USING TERMINALS TOPICS LIKE INTERIM \nUSES\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, FERRIES AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS. \nHAPPY TO ANSWER ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THESE POLICIES \nAGAIN. YOU KNOW\, IN THIS SECTION\, STAFF BASICALLY SOUGHT TO IMPROVE THE \nCLARITY OF THE FINDINGS AND\, ESPECIALLY\, THE DEFINITIONS OF \nDIFFERENT TERMS. THERE IS ALSO A GENERAL FOCUS ON THE PROCESS AND \nSTANDARDS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPLY TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. \nSO\, COMBINED\, WE HOPE THESE CHANGES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO \nPORTS\, AS WELL AS FOR BCDC STAFF TO USE TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS. BASICALLY\, \nLIKE\, HERE IS THE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE IN AN APPLICATION\, AND HERE IS \nWHAT THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO SHOW TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN. \nSO TRYING TO REMOVE ANY AMBIGUITY AND HOPE TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING. \nWE’RE HOPES PROPOSING A NEW TOPIC ON ADDING CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT \nADDRESSED IN THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN THE INTENT IS TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN WITH POLICIES. THIS IS BRIEF RECOGNIZING THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF IS \nUNLIKELY TO BE A DRIVING FORCE FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA\, \nRATHER FINDINGS AND POLICIES ARE INTENDED TO BRIDGE AND REFERENCE OUT \nTO EXISTING AND PLANNED EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE. SO THEY’RE \nNOT NECESSARILY NEW REQUIREMENTS BUT INSTEAD THEY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS THAT \nARE ALREADY LAID OUT IN THE BAY PLAN POLICIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE. \nSO\, THERE ARE FOUR NEW FINDINGS THERE THAT SUMMARIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF \nPORTS\, GENERAL VULNERABILITIES\, BCDC LED ADAPTATION EFFORTS AND THE ROLE OF \nTHE PORTS IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE. AND THERE ARE THREE NEW POLICIES THAT YOU \nCAN SEE ON THE SLIDE\, THEY SPEAK TO THE NEED TO INCLUDE PORTS AS CRITICAL \nSTAKEHOLDERS IN ADAPTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nNEED TO INCORPORATE SEA LEVEL RISE CONSIDERATIONS INTO ANY FUTURE UPDATES \nTO THE SEAPORT PLAN OR THE CARGO FORECAST. AND NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE \nROLE OF THE PORTS IN DISASTER RESPONSE. \nSO WE RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OF THE PORTS ARE UNDERGOING THEIR OWN SEA LEVEL \nRISE PLANNING PROCESSES THOSE ARE RAMMED RAPIDLY EVOLVING AT DIFFERENT \nSTAGES. BAY ADAPT IS GOING TO IMPACT HOW LOCAL PORTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLAN \nFOR RISE IN SEA LEVEL. NOW THAT IS. B 272 HAS PASSED THAT’S GOING TO BE A \nPRIMARY FOCUS FOR BCDC WORK. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PORTS ARE INFORMED AS \nPART OF THE PROCESS AND WE WANT POLICIES TO ACT AS A BRIDGE TO PROVIDE \nGUIDANCE WHILE WE SEE HOW THE LANDS SCAPE EVOLVES OVER THE NEXT FEW \nYEARS. WE HAVE INTRODUCED A NEW TOPIC AREA ON \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY. THIS IS\, AGAIN\, TO ALIGN THE \nBAY PLAN POLICIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY THAT WERE \nADOPTED IN 2019. SO\, AS YOU KNOW\, THE BAY PLAN REQUIRES \nEQUITABLE\, CULTURALLY RELEVANT COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT TO \nBE CONDUCTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT APPLICANTS TO MEANINGFULLY \nINVOLVE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN \nUNDERREPRESENTED\, VULNERABLE\, OR IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. SO THOSE \nPOLICIES ALSO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL DISPROPORTIONATE \nIMPACTS OF PROJECTS AND TAKE MEASURES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND \nPERMITTING PROCESSES TO REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ANY DISPROPORTIONATE \nADVERSE PROJECT IMPACTS. SO\, THOSE REQUIREMENTS\, OF COURSE\, \nALSO APPLY TO ANY ACTIVITIES IN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN\, WE HAVE INTRODUCED THREE NEW FINDINGS THAT DESCRIBE GENERAL \nPORT RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS\, EFFORTS TO REDUCE \nENVIRONMENTSAL BURDENS AND ROLE AND AUTHORITY THAT BCDC OTHER AND AGENCIES \nAND MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IN REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS. \nWE HAVE INTRODUCED 33 NEW POLICIES HERE — FIRST ONE INTRODUCES PLANS AND \nPOLICIES\, PROJECTS REDUCE AIR MUSICIANS\, REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND \nSEAPORT PLAN UPDATES AND STREAMLINE PROJECTS FOR SOAR POWER IMPROVEMENTS \nOR INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED IN THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS. AND THIRD SPEAKS TO REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND FUTURE PLAN \nUPDATES. _ IMPORTANTLY\, THERE ARE OTHER POLICIES IN THE DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN THAT HAVE EJ RELATED REQUIREMENTS\, BUT SOMETIMES THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE \nWOVEN INTO THE APPROPRIATE RELEVANT POLICIES THEMSELVES. \nFOR EXAMPLE\, THE POLICY FOR ADDING OR REMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WILL \nNOW HAVE A REQUIREMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE BAY PLAN FOR APPLICANTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT IN CONSISTENCY WITH EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY \nPOLICIES. AS I MENTIONED\, WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE DREDGING AND NAVIGATION FINDINGS AND POLICIES FROM THE EXISTING SEAPORT \nPLAN. BOTH POLICIES WERE WRITTEN PRIOR TO \nTHE COMPLETION OF THE BAY AREA LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OR LTMS \nFOR DREDGING BACK IN 2001. SO THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE AND THE \nBAY PLAN ALREADY CONTAINS POLICIES ON DREDGING. SO WE LOOKED AT THIS AND \nDIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY COVERED BY THE BAY PLAN\, LTMS \nOR OTHER EXISTING EFFORTS SO WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT SECTION FROM THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO REMOVE REDUNDANCY. THIS DOESN’T AFFECT PLANS FOR DREDGING \nPROJECTS THIS IS CLEAN UP OF OUTDATED INFORMATION. \nAND FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO DELETE A TOPIC AREA THAT INCLUDES SOME GROUND \nTRANSPORTATION POLICIES THAT SPOKE MORE DIRECTLY TO MTC’S PRIOR ROLE IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. INSTEAD WE HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW TOPIC \nAREA CALLED REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN SEEP UPDATES TO \nBETTER REFLECT BCDC ROLE IN JURISDICTION. SO THE FIRST TWO \nPOLICIES IN HERE WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION TOPIC AREA OF \nTHE PLAN AND WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE PLAN WITH MINOR REVISIONS. FIRST \nSPEAKS TO THE NEED TO PRESERVE _ ACCESS TO MARINE TERMINALS AND SECOND FOCUS \nIS ON MITIGATION RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC. \nPOLICY THREE HERE IS NEW. IT ENCOURAGES BCDC AND MTC TO COORDINATE \nREGARDING MAP CHANGES WHEN EITHER BCDC UPDATES THE SEAPORT PLAN OR MTC \nUPDATES PLANNED BAY AREA. SO\, BASICALLY BCDC AND MTC WANT TO MAKE \nSURE THAT WE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO ALIGN OUR REGIONAL THINKING AND REDUCE \nANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS IN THESE KIND OF DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES. \nAND FINALLY POLICY FOUR HERE SETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING THE \nSEAPORT PLAN AND ENCOURAGES FUTURE UPDATES WE DO TO BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH \nTIMING OF MTC’S SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN AND/OR PLANNED BAY \nAREA UPDATES WHEN POSSIBLE. NEXT TIME WE GO TO UPDATE THE CEQA PLAN WE HOPE \nTO PLAN AND COORDINATE THE TIMING OF THAT WITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. \nSO\, THAT’S AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE POLICY CHANGES TO THE PLAN. \nBEFORE I TALK ABOUT PART TWO OF THE PLAN\, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS THE MAPS OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND SOME POLICIES RELATED TO SOMETHING CALLED \nMARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS\, I THOUGHT I SHOULD PAUSE HERE\, JUST TO ANSWER IF \nTHERE ARE ANY BRIEF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ABOUT \nJUST WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR. SO\, I’LL BRIEFLY STOP SHARING MY SCREEN SO \nI CAN SEE YOU ALL. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS THUS FAR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>SPEAKER: YOU HAD SAID THAT THE \nCARGO FORECAST IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE PLAN. AND MY MEMORY\, FROM OUR \nPREVIOUS HEARINGS WAS THAT THERE WAS REALLY UNAVOIDABLE UNCERTAINTY IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST. LIKE\, I REMEMBER PARTICULARLY PROJECTIONS OF ROLO CARGO \nWERE SOMETHING LIKE TESLA WOULD MAKE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WAS THE FORECAST \nPROVES INACCURATE? AND WAS THERE A PREVIOUS FORECAST THAT WE WERE ABLE TO \nLOOK AT AND SEE HOW ACCURATE THE PROJECTIONS WERE? \n>>CORY MANN: GREAT QUESTION. THANKS. I THINK THAT’S RIGHT. \nTHERE IS INHERENT UNCERTAINTY TO FORECASTING. IT’S DEFINITELY REALLY \nCHALLENGING AND ESPECIALLY DOING SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THE BAY AREA \nREGION. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT \nIN MIND IN OUR DECISION-MAKING. WE REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT WHEN MAKING \nNEW POLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. SO\, ONE OF THE POLICIES CALLS \nFOR THE COMMISSION IN THE SPAC IN COORDINATION WITH THE PORTS TO TRY TO \nMONITOR THE REGION’S CARGO VOLUMES\, MARINE TERMINAL USES AND SHIP CALLS AS \nNEEDED. AND\, ALSO\, TO KEEP AN EYE ON EMERGING \nTRENDS THAT COULD IMPACT THE REGION’S CARGO CAPACITY. FOR EXAMPLE\, LIKE\, \nINFRASTRUCTURE FOR ZERO-EMISSIONS TRUCK CHARGING\, OFFSHORE WIND HAS COME UP\, \nAND TRYING TO KIND OF CONTINUOUSLY COLLECT AND ASSESS THAT DATA. \nWE ALSO ADDED A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SEAPORT PLAN FOR FIRST THE \nCOMMISSION TO REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATES TO THE CARGO FORECAST IF \nGROWTH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATING FROM EXPECTED TRENDS OR IF\, YOU KNOW\, A \nPARTICULAR CHANGE\, LIKE ADDING OR REMOVING A PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nCOULD IMPACT A REGION’S CAPACITY FOR CARGO GROWTH. \nTHERE IS QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION IN THERE\, THERE IS ANOTHER POLICY WE \nADDED IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CARGO FORECAST. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER IT \nHAS DIFFERENT GROWTH SCENARIOS AND HAS A MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO WHICH WAS \nDEVELOPED BASICALLY AS THE BASELINE FORECAST\, AND SO WE HAVE PUT A POLICY \nIN THERE SAYING SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD GENERALLY RELIES ON THE \nBASELINE FORECAST BUT THE COMMISSION CAN ALWAYS CONSIDER NEW INFORMATION ON \nCARGO GROWTH\, YOU KNOW\, IF IT’S DEVIATING FROM THAT TREND IN ORDER TO \nSUPPLEMENT THE CARGO FORECAST. AND WE ALSO SAID WHEN POSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE \nUPDATED PRIOR TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THOSE ARE THINGS WE TRIED TO THINK \nABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE FOR THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER THEN \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THIS WAS REALLY \nVERY\, VERY FASCINATING. AND I WANT TO MAKE MAINLY A FEW \nCOMMENTS AND I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS TO. ONE COMMENT IS THIS IS A SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT IS REALLY A CARGO — A SEAPORT PLAN RELATED TO CARGO. SEAPORTS DO OTHER \nTHINGS IN OUR WORLD BESIDES JUST FOR CARGO\, THEY’RE USED FOR RECREATION\, \nAND THEY’RE — YOU KNOW\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, THERE IS OTHERS THINGS THAT WE USE OUR \nSEAPORTS FOR. AND WIND POWER WAS MENTIONED AS LOCATIONS AT SEAPORTS \nBECAUSE IT’S OFTEN WINDY AT THE EDGES OF WATER BODIES. ANOTHER THING I WANT \nTO MENTION IN THE LARGE VIEW TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE\, WE HAVE TALKED \nABOUT HOW TO PROTECT THE SEAPORTS. BUT ANOTHER THING I THINK WE WANT TO TALK \nABOUT IN A SENSE IS HOW DO THE SEAPORTS PROTECT US. BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK \nABOUT THE ENERGY THAT’S INVOLVED IN MOVING CARGO\, IT’S MUCH\, MUCH MORE \nEFFICIENT TO MOVE IT BY BARGE THAN IT IS BY AIRPLANE. AND PARTICULARLY FROM \nGHG EMISSIONS. NOW THAT\, IT DEPENDS A LOT ON HOW THE SHIPS ARE\, YOU KNOW\, \nARE POWERED\, BUT THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT TO BE IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WHEN WE THINK OF \nCONTRIBUTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPROVEMENTS\, THIS ISN’T SO MUCH OF AN \nADAPTATION THING\, IT’S A MITIGATION\, A HUGE MITIGATION\, ALLOWING THIS CARGO \nINDUSTRY TO PERSIST AND PROSPER IN OUR AREA IS JUST A LONG-TERM BIG \nMITIGATION. SO\, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT JUST \nTHESE STRUCTURES\, THESE SEAPORTS THEMSELVES\, THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE \nINFRASTRUCTURE. I MEAN\, THEY DO FUNCTION THAT WAY. THE ROADS INSIDE \nTHEM OFTEN FUNCTIONS AS LEVIES FOR FLOODING. WE DON’T USUALLY THINK \nABOUT IT THAT WAY BUT IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE BAY AREA\, IT’S REALLY CLEAR \n_ THAT OUR ROADS ARE\, SORT OF\, A — THE ULTIMATE LEVEES. AND THEN ANOTHER \nTHING I WANTED TO MENTION THAT IS\, SORT OF\, THE OPPOSITE IS FROM AN ENDANGERED \nSPECIES PROTECTION POINT OF VIEW. CARGO SHIPS HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD ACTOR \nOVER TIME IN BRINGING IN INVEGAS INVASIVE SPECIES IN THEIR HULLS. HOW \nWE OPERATE SEAPORTS CAN BE PROTECTIVE OF\, YOU KNOW\, OF THE NATURAL — OUR \nNATURAL BIODIVERSITY. NOW\, I PRESUME THAT NOAA FISHERIES IS TAKING CARE OF \nTHAT. WE’RE NOT TAKING CARE OF THAT. I WANT TO MENTION IT AS ANOTHER \nENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT’S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS\, THAT WE SHOULD — YOU KNOW\, \nI THINK WE SHOULD JUST BE KEEPING IN MIND IN THE BIG PICTURE. \nAND THEN I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I\, JUST AS A QUESTION\, THAT THE — \nTHIS IS SILENT ON DREDGING. AND THAT’S BECAUSE\, OF COURSE\, OF THE LTMS\, SINCE \n2001\, AND IT’S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE POLICY WORK THAT WE’RE DOING IN THE \nSEDIMENT\, WORKING GROUP\, RIGHT NOW\, TO PRODUCE NEW POLICIES FOR THE BAY PLAN. \nSO\, THAT IS BEING DEALT IN A DETAILED MANNER SOMEWHERE ELSE. \nI WANTED TO CONFIRM\, EVERYBODY\, YEAH\, THAT’S THE CASE. OKAY. \nTHEN MY OTHER QUESTION\, MORE DETAILED\, IS ABOUT POLICY FIVE. \nPOLICY FIVE IS\, CORY\, IS BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE TERMINALS. \nAND WHEN I READ POLICY FIVE\, GRANTED IT DOES HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SEEMS SIMILAR \nTO THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT\, BUT IT ALSO SEEMS VERY RESTRICTIVE ALL AVAILABLE \nBERTHS WILL HAVE BEEN USED\, ALL REASONABLE INVESTMENTS\, NO OTHER \nFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES. I MEAN\, DOES THAT GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE \nMAY NEED IN THE FUTURE? >>SPEAKER: DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER \nTHAT? >>CORY MANN: I CAN START. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. THERE ARE TWO RELATED POLICIES NEXT TO EAR OTHER \nTHERE\, THERE IS THE BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE POLICY\, AND BAY FILL TO DEVELOP \nEXISTING MARINE TERMINAL SITES. POLICY FIVE THERE\, BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE \nTERMINALS IS BASICALLY — THAT POLICY IS ORIENTED TOWARD IF A \nBRAND-NEW MARINE TERMINAL WAS TO BE PROPOSED. WHERE ONE DOESN’T CURRENTLY \nEXIST SO THAT’S THE KIND OF PROJECT WHERE YOU WOULD BE CONTEMPLATING \nLARGER VOLUMES OF BAY FILL THAN A SITE THAT’S BEING REDEVELOPED. \nAND\, SO THAT’S WHY THE STANDARD THERE IS HIGH. \nAND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ERIK. \n>>SPEAKER: I CAN SAY IT ECHOES THE MAC TEAR PET RICK REQUIREMENTS. WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT BAY FILL FOR PORT USE. MCATEER-PETRIS ACT HAS TO DO WITH \nEXCEEDING THE FILL\, WATER USE WATER FILL NECESSARY AND NO ALTERNATIVE \nLOCATION. WHEN WE’RE DOING WITH PRIORITY USE AREAS IN MARINE TERMINALS \nTHAT COULD EXIST OUTSIDE OF THOSE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WE WANT TO BE \nTHINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS THAT’S WHY WE’RE USE THE PRIORITY USE \nAREAS FOR INFILL FOR SOME PLACE THAT ALREADY HAS A LOCATION. _ THAT’S WHY \nWE DRAFTED IT THAT WAY. THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS COULD BE ADDED TO \nOR CHANGED BASED ON REGIONAL NEEDS OVER TIME. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD \nRECOMMEND IN THAT CASE BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSORRY. A LITTLE BIT OF A CATERING ISSUE FOR THE SOCIAL HOUR. \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. ONE COMMENT\, ON THE BCDC APPOINTMENTS TO THE SPAC\, ONE OF THEM \nSAYS COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION\, \nAPPOINTED BY BCDC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN JUST ADD \nTO THAT DESCRIPTION\, A CBO\, OR EJ ORGANIZATION FROM A COMMUNITY IMPACTED \nBY THE — BY ONE OF THE PORTS. WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE IS\, LET’S SAY \nSOMEONE APPLIES THAT’S NEAR THE PORT OF OAKLAND\, VERSUS SOMEONE WHO MAY COME \nFROM AN EJ COMMUNITY THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR A PORT. SO\, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE \nIF WEEKEND ADD THAT DESCRIPTOR THAT IT WOULD BE\, YOU KNOW\, ONE OF THOSE \nORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY A PORT. CAN WE DO THAT? \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: YEAH. THANK YOU FOR \nTHAT RECOMMENDATION. >>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION? \nWE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO WELCOME COMMENTS \nFROM ANY MEMBERS — >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE PART TWO? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M SORRY. CORY. YOU HAVE PART TWO. \n>>CORY MANN: SORRY. IT’S A LONG PRESENTATION. \n[LAUGHTER] NO PROBLEM. I’LL DO PART TWO NOW. \nPART TWO IS SHORTER\, TOO. OKAY. I’LL ASSUME EVERYONE CAN SEE MY \nSLIDES AGAIN. THANKS FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. NEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT\, THIS \nIS BOTH PART TWO OF THE PRESENTATION\, AND PART TOFT SEAPORT PLAN. THIS PART \nOF THE SEAPORT PLAN IS CALLED THE MARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS. \nAND WE’RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF HOW WE APPROACH THIS IN THE \nNEW DRAFT PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY I’LL REVIEW THE MAPS OF THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS THEMSELVES AND CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PORTS. \nANOTHER RELATIVELY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW BUT OF COURSE I’M HAPPY TO TAKE \nQUESTIONS AGAIN ON ANYTHING SPECIFIC. FIRST I’LL TALK ABOUT THE MARINE \nTERMINAL DESIGNATIONS WHICH ARE PART OF THE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN. THIS IS A BIT \nIN THE WEEDS BUT A BIG COMPONENT ABOUT HOW THE 1996 PLAN WORKS. I WANTED TO \nMAKE SURE TO DESCRIBE HOW THIS IS CHANGING. SO\, I MENTIONED AT THE \nBEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES \nTO THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. AND IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, IT BASICALLY \nALLOCATES PROJECTED CARGO VOLUMES TO EVERY MARINE TERMINAL IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. SO I HAVE INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE TABLE \nFROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND UP ON THIS SLIDE\, BUT IT WORKS THE SAME FOR ANY \nOF THE PORTS. AND THIS TABLE BASICALLY ASSIGNS OUT \nCARGO VOLUMES AND CARGO TYPES TO EACH OF THE BOARDS BASED ON THE CARGO \nFORECAST PROJECTIONS. THEN THERE’S A POLICY THAT ACCOMPANIES EACH TABLE \nTHAT SAYS EACH OF THE MARINE TERMINALS SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING CARGO BY \n2020. AT THE TIME WE COULD ACCURATELY PROJECT CARGO VOLUME AND ASSIGN TO THE \nPORTS AND ANTICIPATE WHERE BAY FILL WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED TO MEET THE \nREGION’S NEEDS. BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE\, IN PRACTICE\, ALLOCATING \nSPECIFIC CARGO TYPES AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO INDIVIDUAL TERMINALS IS \nVERY DIFFICULT FOR A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU KNOW\, FIRST\, AND THIS \nKIND OF ALREADY CAME UP\, BUT UNLESS THE CARGO FORECAST AND THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS ARE UPDATED VERY FREQUENTLY. THIS INFORMATION IS GOING \nTO BE OUTDATED BY THE TIME A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR PERMIT ARISES. AND INDEED \nTHESE TABLES HAVEN’T BEEN UPDATED IN QUITE SOMETIME. \nSECOND\, AS I WAS GETTING TO\, THIS APPROACH MAKES ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHERE \nFUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND BAY FILL MIGHT OCCUR AND THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE ALSO \nUNLIKELY TO BE ACCURATE AS CONDITIONS AND AS TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER THINGS \nCHANGE. SO THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF IS BASICALLY TO REMOVE THOSE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS TO SIMPLIFY THE SEAPORT PLAN\, PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE \nFLEXIBILITY FOR THE PORTS\, BUT WE DON’T THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE LOSING \nANYTHING BY MAKING THIS CHANGE. WE ALREADY HAVE POLICIES IN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING ABOUT PERMITS OR ABOUT \nPROJECTS THAT MIGHT BE REQUESTED BY THE PORTS. AND WE HAVE WORKED TO MAKE \nTHESE POLICIES MORE ROBUST AND MORE CLEAR IN THE UPDATE. AND OF COURSE\, \nWE CAN STILL RELY ON INFORMATION FROM THE CARGO FORECAST TO MAKE DECISIONS. \nBUT BY NOT HAVING ALL OF THESE TABLES IN THE PLAN IT’S GOING TO SIMPLIFY THE \nSEE PORT PLAN HOW IT READS MAKE IT MORE APPROACHABLE TO UNDERSTAND. SO THAT \nIS OUR SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR THAT. AND SO FINALLY I’LL GET TO THE ACTUAL \nMAPS THEMSELVES. BEGINNING IN 2021\, BCDC RECEIVED \nREQUESTS TO MODIFY THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BOUNDARIES FROM THE PORT OF \nREDWOOD CITY\, THE PORT OF RICHMOND\, THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO\, AS WELL AS THE \nCITY OF OAKLAND. BCDC ALSO RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS REQUESTING TO REMOVE \nCELLY STATUS AS A RESERVE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA. \nSO\, WHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER\, THE ONLY ALLOWABLE \nUSES IN PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ARE FOR CARGO OR OTHER RELATED USES. \nSO\, ADDING THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BASICALLY PROTECTS A SITE \nFOR PORT USES. CONVERSELY\, HOWEVER\, REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION FROM A SITE\, IT DOESN’T ACTUALLY PREVENT PORTS FROM \nUSING THAT AREA FOR CARGO PURPOSES. THEY CAN CERTAINLY STILL DO THAT\, BUT \nIT DOES FREE THE SITE UP TO POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR NON-PORT USE. \nSO\, THAT’S THE KIND OF\, LIKE\, WHY IT MATTERS. AND\, SO\, AT ITS MARCH 2021 \nMEETING\, THE SPAC RECEIVED A PRESENTATION BY BCDC STAFF SUMMARIZING \nSTAFF’S ANALYSIS OF THESE CHANGES. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, DELETIONS OF PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH BCDC’S POLICIES FOR REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, GENERAL POLICY FOUR IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, AND IT STATES \nTHAT DELETION SHOULD NOT RETRACT FROM THE ABILITY TO MEET THE GROWTH IN \nCARGO. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT ANALYSIS\, STAFF ALSO SUMMARIZED \nINFORMATION ON SOME OTHER RELEVANT TOPICS\, INCLUDING PORT PLANNING AND \nOPERATIONS\, LAND USE CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, AND BAY FILL TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL \nCONTEXT FOR THE SPAC IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION ON THE PORT’S REQUESTS. \nPOTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS \nASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES HAVE ALSO BEEN ANALYZED IN THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTED IN SEPTEMBER. AND THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN ANY SUBSTANTIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. \nTHE CARGO FORECAST DIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY OF THE AREAS BEING REQUESTED FOR \nREMOVAL FROM PORT PRIORITY USE AS BEING FEASIBLE SITES FOR CARGO HANDLING. \nAND THUS STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE \nSEAPORT PLAN POLICY. IN EFFECT\, IT MEANS THESE REMOVALS \nWERE ACCOUNTED FOR ALREADY IN THE CARGO FORECAST SINCE THESE WEREN’T ACTIVE \nSITES AND MAKING THESE CHANGES WON’T IMPACT WHAT THE CARGO FORECAST SAYS. \nSTAFF ALSO ASKED THE PORTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE \nCOMMUNITIES\, COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATURE OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY \nREQUESTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES. SOME PORTS HAD ALREADY TAKEN \nUNDER\, LIKE\, AN OUTREACH RELATED TO THEIR OWN PROCESSES OR THEIR OWN \nREQUIREMENTS\, THEIR OWN MEETINGS\, THEIR OWN BOARDS AND SOME UNDERTOOK OUTREACH \nTO BCDC REQUEST THAT IS SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT NEITHER THE PORTS \nNOR BCDC STAFF IDENTIFIED ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED MAP \nCHANGES. AND\, FINALLY\, THE SPAC VOTED IN FAVOR \nOF THE PROPOSED CHANGES\, BOTH AT ITS MARCH 2021 MEETING\, AND THEN THEN THIS \nJULY WHEN APPROVING THE DRAFT PLAN. I’LL RUN THROUGH EACH OF THE FOUR \nREQUESTS. FIRST THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY IS PLANNING A FUTURE EXPANSION OF \nA WHARF TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW OMNI TERMINAL THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE DRIVE \nOFF OR RAIL CARGOS TO ENSURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE THE \nPORT IS ADDING 1.3 ACRES TO THE WHARF\, OR TO AN AREA SOUTH OF WHARF FIVE TO \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION. AND STAFF ANALYZED THAT REQUEST IN \n2021 AND RECOMMENDED AND STILL RECOMMEND APPROVING IT. \nTHE CITY OF RICHMOND HAS REQUESTED REMOVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nFROM THE ENGRAVING DOCKS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING SOUTH OF THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDUE TO HISTORIC STATUS AS WELL AS A SITE AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF \nHARBOR WAY SOUTH ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. \nTHOSE DOC DOCKS ARE PART OF THE ROSY THE RIVETER NATIONAL PARK AND THE SITE \nIS ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LAT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL\, OFFERS PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND A FISHING PEER AND CONNECTS TO THE BAY TRAIL THOSE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS \nBEING VIABLE FOR CONTINUED CARGO USE AND STAFF RECOMMENDED AND CONTINUED TO \nRECOMMEND APPROVING THAT REQUEST. A FEW DIFFERENT CHANGES FOR THE PORT \nOF SAN FRANCISCO. PEER 48 UP THE NORTH THERE\, AND A RELATED AREA WERE \nACTUALLY ALREADY REMOVED FROM PORT PRIORITY USE IN 2016. PER AN ASSEMBLY \nBILL THAT FOUND THAT THE PIER IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE EMBARCADERO \nHISTORIC DISTRICT AND NO LONGER VIABLE FOR CARGO OPERATIONS. SO IN THAT CASE \nWE’RE UPDATING THE MAPS. THE PORT REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE \nPORT AT PIER 50 NO LONGER VIABLE FOR BULK OPERATIONS BUT THE PORT IS \nRESERVING FOR MARITIME PURPOSES SUCH AS PORT MAINTENANCE. PORT 70 REQUESTED \nTO REMOVE SIX ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT INCLUDES A PIER THAT WAS \nPHYSICALLY REMOVED AS WELL AS AN AREA THAT ENCOMPASSES PARKING. \nFINALLY THE PORT REQUESTED TO REMOVE ABOUT TEN ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE \nFROM PIER 94 DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A WETLAND AS WELL AS 15 ACRES FROM \nUPLAND SITES\, BASICALLY DUE TO THEIR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ELEVATION \nRELATIVE TO THE MARINE TERMINAL. THEY ALSO REQUESTED TO ADD TEN ACRES \nBETWEEN PIERS 92 AND 94 TO REFLECT WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY DRY \nBULK OPERATIONS BUT TO MAKE SURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE. \nTHIS WAS ANALYZED IN 2021 AND STAFF \nFOUND NONE OF THOSE SITES REQUESTED FOR APPROVAL IDENTIFIED AS SITES FOR CARGO \nHANDLING AND CONTINUED TO HANDLING REQUESTS. _ FINALLY 20 TOUR BCDC HAD \nREQUEST TO SPOP PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT’S FOR ANCILLARY USE\, SPAPD AN \nADDITIONAL 1.2 ACRINGS OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT REQUESTS STEMS BACK TO \nAN EARLY 2000s AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PORT THAT THEY BOTH MADE \nTO PROVIDE TRUCK PARKING WHEN THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE WAS REDEVELOPED. SO \nTHE SITE THE CITY WANTS TO REDESIGNATE FOR PORT PRIORS USE HAS BETTER \nLOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE AREAS FOR MARITIME SERVICES THAN \nTHE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AREA. BOTH AREAS PROPOSING TO BE ADDED OR REMOVED \nARE INLAND FROM THE MARINE TERMINALS NEITHER SITE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST FOR HANDLING BOTH SITES ARE WELL OUTSIDE BCDC PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION. IF BCDC SEES APPROVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE SWAP HERE ONE \nWAY OR THE OTHER IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE CITY OF OAKLAND’S ABLE FOR TRUCK \nPARKING. BECAUSE USES OF THE SITE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PORT PRIORITY USE \nDESIGNATION THAN THE CURRENT ONE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVING THAT REQUEST. \nFINALLY\, SO I MENTIONED THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN 96 PLAN DESIGNATED TWO \nPORT PRIORITY USE SITES CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND SELBY. CONCORD \nRESERVE AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY A NAVY MILITARY BASE CALLED CONCORD NAVAL \nWEAPONS STATION. IN 2005 THE NAVY TRANSFERRED PART OF \nTHE BASE TO THE ARMY\, AND IT’S NOW OCCUPIED BY THE MILITARY OCEAN CONCORD \nMOTCO. AND THEN THE SELBY SITE ON THE RIGHT \nTHERE IT WAS ANOTHER RESERVE AREA\, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE SITE OF A SMELTING \nOPERATION THAT PRODUCED SWAG AS A WASTE PRODUCT AND _ DEPOSITED ON THE SITE \nTHAT SITE IS UNDERGOING REMEDIATION FOR EXTENSIVE HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION. \nBCDC RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS IN THE AREA \nNEAR SELBY REQUESTING WE MOVEMENT THAT SITE FOR PORT PRIORITY USE. STAFF \nLOOKED AT BOTH OF THESE SITES BOTH DESIGNATED FOR PORT PRIORITY USE IN \n1982 AS POSSIBLE RESERVE SITES THAT THE REGION COULD POTENTIALLY ACTIVATE AND \nDEVELOP IF NEEDED FOR CARGO HANDLING BUT NO PLANS TO DEVELOP EITHER SITE \nFOR PORT USE HAVE EMERGED IN THE 40 YEARS SINCE. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING \nTO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORS USE STINGS FROM BOTH SITES. TIMELINE OF \nFEASIBILITY OF REDEVELOPING EITHER FOR CARGO USE IS UNCLEAR. OF COURSE\, \nEITHER SITE COULD BE ADDED BACK INTO PORT USE INTO THE FUTURE BUT AT THIS \nPOINT WE’RE RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSION ESPECIALLY TO OCCUR AS TO \nTHE PROCESS IN THE FUTURE IF IT ENDS UP WARRANTED. _ THOSE ARE THE LAST OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE BOUNDARIES. FINALLY TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT’S \nHAPPENING HERE AFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING STAFF WILL WORK TO REVISE THE \nDRAFT PLAN IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER FEEDBACK OR PUBLIC COMMENTS. \nAFTER THAT WE’LL RELEASE A FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN ALONG WITH THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND SOME OTHER INFORMATION \nTHAT MAKES UP THE FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. \nTENTATIVELY THOSE ITEMS MIGHT BE MAILED ON NOVEMBER 10TH OF THE FINALLY THERE \nWILL BE ANOTHER COMMISSION MEETING TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO ADOPT THE NEW \nSEAPORT PLAN WE’LL VOTE AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 16TH \nDEPENDING ON REQUESTED REVISIONS. I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY THANKING EVERYONE \nWHO HAS CONTRIBUTED THEIR TIME ON GETTING TO THIS POINT. THIS WAS A \nCHALLENGING PROJECT. THERE WERE DELAYS. AND SO I REALLY \nWANT TO THANK THE FIVE BAY AREA BOARDS AND THEIR STAFF FOR WORK STICKING WITH \nBCDC ON THIS PROJECT\, PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND COMMENT ALONG THE WAY\, AS WELL AS \nSEAPORT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, AND STAFF WANT TO EXTEND \nGRATITUDE TO OUR FORMER COMMISSIONER TO JIM McGRATH FOR SUPPORT DURING EARLIER \nPHASES OF THIS PROJECT AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LATE COMMISSIONER ANNE \nHALSTED WHO CHAIRED WHEN THIS WAS LAUNCHED AND THIS WOULDN’T HAVE \nHAPPENED WITHOUT HER LEADERSHIP. THAT’S IT FOR ME AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHERE MAY BE QUESTIONS\, BUT WE’RE ACTUALLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, GOING TO OPEN \nTHE HEARING. UNLESS THERE IS A THIRD PART? \nAND I WOULD LIKE TO START BY OFFERING ANY MEMBERS OF THE SPAC OR ANY PORT \nREPRESENTATIVES\, IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS. \nANYBODY OUT THERE IN PUBLIC LAND\, REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ALL RIGHT. THEN\, I THINK WE WILL GO — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. THAT’S WHAT I WAS GOING TO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD. \n>>SPEAKER: I HAD ONE COMMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ONE \nQUESTION\, IN THE DOCUMENTS WE GOT IT STATED THERE WASN’T ANY EVIDENCE \nBEFORE BCDC OF FAILED PROPOSAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED SEAPORT \nPLAN UPDATE. AND I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT’S STILL THE CASE F STAFF CAN \nCONFIRM THAT? >>SPEAKER: I CAN PROBABLY FIELD THAT \nQUESTION. MICHAEL AMES STAFF ATTORNEY FILLING IN FOR GREG SCHARFF TODAY. \nDISCUSSION OF SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE POA \nDESIGNATIONS IS RELATED TO A CONCEPT IN CEQA\, BASICALLY EVALUATING THE \nINDIRECT EFFECTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT\, YOU KNOW\, IS \nBEFORE YOU TODAY\, UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, OBVIOUSLY THOSE PROJECTS \nARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT\, THE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE. BUT THERE HAS TO \nBE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER\, YOU KNOW\, THERE WILL BE\, SORT OF\, THESE INDIRECT \nEFFECTS\, VIS-A-VIS\, THOSE PROJECTS AS A RESULT OF WHEN WE’RE DOING TODAY. AND \nBASED ON OUR WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT\, YOU KNOW\, THE EVALUATION WAS BASICALLY \nTHAT THOSE PROJECTS\, WHILE\, YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE GENERAL DISCUSSION OR \nIDEAS FLOATING OUT IN THE ETHER ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY’RE \nNOT THE KEY TERM OF ART IS THEY’RE NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF \nWHAT WE’RE DOING. YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE SOME IMPETUS TO PURSUE THOSE \nPROJECTS BUT IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING THAT THOSE PROJECTS WILL \nBE REALIZED OR THE LEAD AGENCIES WILL BE PURSUING THOSE PROJECTS. THAT’S \nWHERE THAT STATEMENT COMES FROM. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. I WILL NOW GO TO THE SPEAKERS IN THE \nROOM AND NOW WE’LL START ON THE APPROPRIATE ITEM WITH SUNG LEE. \n>>SPEAKER: BEFORE YOU MAKE MY REMARKIS JUST WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE \nCOMMISSION AND STAFF FOR THIS WONDERFUL REPORT. \nSOMEBODY FROM THE TRADE COMMUNITY. IF I COULD GIVE YOU IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK\, \nVERY GOOD JOB\, LOOKS AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. SO\, MY NAME IS SUNG LEE. \nI AM THE PRESIDENT OF CB\, ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE AN \nINTERNATIONAL TRADE PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTING CLIENTS BEFORE YOU. \nOUR CLIENT COMPRISES OF IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUCH \nAS RETAILERS\, FARMERS AND MANUFACTURES. IT IS OUR POSITION TO SUPPORT STAFF \nAMENDED BPA 1-19 TO INCLUDE STIPULATION THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT \nEXECUTED BETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AS\, PORT AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY \n1ST\, 2025 THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED FOR MARITIME AT HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY. I AM ALSO VICE \nCHAIR OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL A PRIVATE INDUSTRY ADVISORY \nBOARD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A POSITION OF EXPERT COUNSEL ADVISORY \nBOARD THAT BCDC SUPPORT MARITIME BUSINESS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS\, MANDATE CLEAN TRUCKS\, CLEAN \nPORT OPERATIONS\, AND ALSO CLEAN CONTAINER SHIPS CALLING THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND. AND TO THAT END\, PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL HAS \nPROVIDE HAS PROVIDED UPGRADES TO THE COMMUNITY. THE GOALS SET BEFORE US WE \nASK BCDC TO CONTINUE TO AND GIVE THE ADMINISTERED — \nDEMONSTRATED WITH THIS REPORT THAT YOU ALL\, THE GOALS OF THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT\, STATE GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES TO PROMOTE\, EXPORT AND TRADE WITH OUR \nTRADE PARTNERS ALLIES OVERSEAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: EVY WANG. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS BUTTON. OKAY. I HAVE PRESSED THE BUTTON. MY NAME IS \nEVY WONG. I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE CUSTOM [INDISCERNIBLE] ASSOCIATION OF \nCALIFORNIA\, A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER WAS SUNG LEE. I WANT TO COMMEND CORY MANN \nAND THE SUPPORT PLANNING STAFF. WHAT AN OUTSTANDING REPORT. AND I \nUNDERLINED REWRITTEN FOR READABILITY AND CLARITY\, THAT IS SUPER. THANK YOU \nSO MUCH. SO\, I — WE ARE USERS AND SUPPORTERS \nOF THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND RELATED MARITIME SERVICES. WE CONTINUE TO \nSHOW UP BECAUSE AS SEAPORT STAKEHOLDERS WHO CARE DEEPLY FOR OUR HOME PORTS \nFUTURE\, I WANT TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEAPORT PLAN TO \nINCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2024\, THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL BE REINSTATED BACK TO HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTY. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT ANY PROPOSAL FOR THE HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTIES\, OR ANY OTHER PORT ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES\, THAT IT MIGHT BE \nCONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR CONTRARY TO MARITIME SERVICES THAT THEY UNDER \nGO THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY\, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION\, WE’RE GRATEFUL BCDC FOR ITS CONTINUED \nTHOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR STATE LANDS IN RELATION TO MARITIME \nSERVICES. AT AND ADJACENT PORT LANDS WHICH IS \nREALLY IMPORTANT. LET’S KEEP THE BUSINESS AT THE PORT\, LET’S GROW \nCENTRIC AND SUSTAINABLE INTO THE FUTURE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF \nTHE WORK THAT IS DONE FOR OUR PUBLIC USE AND MARITIME AT THE PORT OF OAK. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. NEXT IS BILL DOW WHO WILL \nBE FOLLOWED BY BILL DOW. >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS \nBILL TAO\, LOCAL SIX RETIRED MEMBER OF OUR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT \nCOUNCIL. OAKLAND IS A WORKING PORT. NOT\, YOU \nKNOW\, IT — IT’S TOO — PARDON ME FOR A SECOND. I’M WATCHING \nTHIS CLOCK. IT INTIMIDATES ME. BUT ANYWAY\, OAKLAND\, I’M HERE HERE TO URGE \nYOU TO REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, TO PUT PORT DESIGNATION BACK ON HOWARD \nTERMINAL. WHEN YOU REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG \nINFORMATION TO THE MARITIME INDUSTRY\, YOU SAY YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED IN PORTS \nANYMORE. PORT OF OAKLAND IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR US IN THE AREA\, FOR \nWORKING — IT’S A WORKING CLASS PORT. AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AND \nBY REMOVING THE PORT DESIGNATION YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG MESSAGE. PUT IT \nBACK ON\, SEND OUT THE MESSAGE THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. MELVIN MCKAY FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE \nRANSON >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. \nLONG TIME COMING. YOU KNOW? LIKE BILL SAID\, WE SENT THE WRONG MESSAGE OUT TO \nA LOT OF OUR SHIPPERS AND LABOR. WHEN WE STARTED THIS\, WE HIRED OVER A \nTHOUSAND PEOPLE TO WORK IN THESE PORTS WE LOST A LOT OF COMMODITY HERE. I \nHEARD SOMETHING DISTURBING WE USED TO BE 3 AND 4 IN THE WORLD NOW WE’RE \nNUMBER TEN TO GEORGIA. WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THIS \nSTARTED. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. SUZANNE RANSON FOLLOWED BY MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: IS THERE A BUTTON TO PUSH \nHERE? IT’S ON. HELLO I’M SUSAN SSA TERMINAL THE LARGEST PORT TENANT WITH \nPORT OF OAK AND WE’RE ON THE INNER HARBOR. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY LISTENING TO COMMENTS REGARDING \nIMPORTANCE EVER UPDATING EPA 1-19 TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT\, AND A \nTHIRD TIME WE’RE GOING TO SAY THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED \nBETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1\, 2025 THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REINSTATED AT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS REQUESTED TO SPAC AT OUR LAST MEETING. WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO BEING AT THE TABLE AND SUPPORTING THE PORT OF OAKLAND ON \nIDEAS FOR USAGE OF HOWARD TERMINAL THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO GROWING THE \nECONOMY\, A WIN-WIN FOR THE PORT\, ESTATE\, ENVIRONMENTALISTS\, AND \nMARITIME STAKEHOLDERS. AS THE AS HAVE MADE THEIR INTENTIONS CLEAR AFTER \nPUTTING EVERYONE THROUGH THE RINGER\, WE ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ACCEPT SPAC’S \nRECOMMENDATION AND SEVEN. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN. IT REALLY IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. \nLAST TWO COMMENTS\, COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER\, I PERSONALLY INVITE YOU TO \nSSA TERMINAL TO SHOW YOU THE GREAT STRIDES WE HAVE MADE\, ENVIRONMENTALLY\, \nWE HAVE INVESTED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ENVIRONMENTAL — \nEXCUSE ME — CLEAN UP IN TANDEM WITH THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nEVERYBODY ON THIS COMMISSION CAN COME TO SSA TERMINAL\, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE \nIMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AND YOU REALLY NEED TO COME AND SEE WHAT \nTHE TERMINALS ARE DOING. FOR YOU I’M LEAVING MY CARD PLEASE FEEL FREE TO \nGIVE MY E-MAIL AND PHONE NUMBER TO EVERYBODY HERE. \nLASTLY AS YOU KNOW PART OF HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FOR \nTHE TOURNEY BASIN WHICH IS SO FAR MOVING FORWARD WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT \nTHAT. THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS A HUGE CHEER LEADER FOR THAT\, THANK YOU. \nPLEASE COME SEE ME AT THE TERMINAL. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN\, MIKE JACOB WE REPRESENT \nOCEAN CARRIERS\, ALL OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PORTS INCLUDING PORT OF \nOAKLAND. WE DID SUBMIT EXTENSIVE COMMENTS TO SPAC AT THE JULY MEETING \nBUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING WE SUBMITTED COMMENTS THAT ARE PRETTY EXTENSIVE AT \nMOST OF THE SPAC MEETINGS GOING BACK OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. IT WAS A \nLONG PROCESS. I’M GLAD THE STAFF RECOGNIZED THE EFFORTS OF BOTH THE \nFORMER CHAIRS IN THIS PROCESS. IT TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN \nDUE TO SOME DISTRACTIONS BUT THE PRODUCT IN FRONT OF YOU IS NOT ONLY \nSOUND IN TERMS OF THE FACTS\, BASED ON A VERY ROBUST\, AND WE THINK WELL DONE \nCARGO FORECAST IN EXERCISE\, BUT THE STAFF THEN WAS ABLE TO SYNTHESIZE \nTHOSE IN IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR CURRENT PLAN. WE SUBMITTED A LOT OF COMMENTS. \nAND THOSE COMMENTS REALLY DID RANGE \nFROM SMALL SCALE\, NIT-PICKY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO HOW INDIVIDUAL POLICIES \nWOULD BE ADDRESSED VERSUS OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER THE SCOPE IN \nTHE LAST FOUR YEARS WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKET SPACE INCLUDING NEW OFFSHORE \nDEVELOPMENT PRESSURES WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS\, \nADDITIONAL PRESSURES ON DEDICATION OF PORT PROPERTY\, FOR THINGS SUCH AS \nCHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PORT TRUCKS. THOSE ARE NEW DEVELOPMENTS\, \nNEW PRESSURES ON PROPERTY THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. THEY DO EXIST NOW. SO\, \nTHE PROCESS THAT WAS SET UP IN PROPOSING THIS PLAN\, TAKE THOSE INTO \nACCOUNT\, PROVIDE A PATHWAY NOT JUST FOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC AND \nFOR PORTS TO MAINTAIN OUR IMPORTANT PLACE IN THE FABRIC OF THE BAY\, WHICH \nIS OUR WATER DEPENDENT USES FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES THAT CANNOT BE \nREPLICATED. WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO ANYWHERE ELSE\, EXCEPT IN THE AREAS \nTHAT YOU DESIGNATE. THOSE ARE NOT GETTING BIGGER\, AND WE \nDO NOT ANTICIPATE THEY WILL BE GETTING BIGGER OVER TIME SO WE HAVE TO USE \nWHAT WE HAVE MORE EFFICIENTLY E EFFECTIVELY AND MOVE MORE PRODUCT AS \nTHE ECONOMY GROWS AS WE ADD MORE PEOPLE BUT ALSO ADDING DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEM \nINCLUDING ENERGY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK. WE \nAPPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US ON MAKING THIS A BETTER PLAN MOVING \nFORWARD\, AND\, OF COURSE\, I DON’T THINK IT SHOULD GO UNRECOGNIZED THAT YOU ARE \nSTILL HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE WE’RE HERE AND WE CARE ABOUT THIS \nPROCESS AND OUR PORT INVESTMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH ONE \nPARCEL. [LAUGHTER] \nIN ONE PORT. THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN COMMISSIONERS. I USUALLY DON’T SPEAK \nAT MEETINGS NOR TWICE. I WANT TO THANK BCDC ON THIS PROCESS. I HEARD THE \nINITIAL PRESENTATION AT A SPAC MEETING. I REACHED OUT TO LARRY GOLDZBAND\, AND \nCORY AND ERIK MADE A PRESENTATION WHO OUR MEMBERS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT OUR MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF WHAT YOU’RE DOING SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE \nISSUE WE HAD A DECADE AGO WITH THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS AND WE DID NOT HAVE \nNEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS ON THIS\, AND I THINK THAT’S KUDOS TO THE \nHARD WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND SPAC HAVE DONE IN PRAYING TO EMBRACE \nDIFFERENT ISSUES THAT EXIST OUT THERE. \nAND SINCE I HAVE TWO MINUTES AND 14 SECONDS LEFT\, THE PORTS PLAY A \nCRITICAL ROLE TO THE ECONOMY NOT ONLY OF OUR REGION\, OUR STATE\, AND OUR \nNATION. THE AMOUNT OF GOODS THAT GO IN AND OUT OF OUR PORTS DRIVE THE ECONOMY \nTO A VERY LARGE EXTENT OF CALIFORNIA\, THE TAX REVENUE AS GENERATED BY THE \nPORTS IS HUGE FOR OUR ECONOMY. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR STATE AND FEDERAL \nMONEY COMING IN\, WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CLEAN THE PORTS UP AS THEY NEEDED TO \nBE CLEANED UP IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. AND DREDGING GOES ALONG \nWITH THAT. IF WE DON’T DREDGE WE’RE NOT GOING TO GET THE BIG SHIPS IN FF \nWE DON’T GET THE BIG SHIPS IN THEY’RE GOING TO GO ELSEWHERE AND THAT DOESN’T \nHELP US BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT ARE HIGH PAYING \nUNION JOBS THAT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES AT THE PORT AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT \nALL THE PORTS IN THE REGION ARE BENEFITTING\, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PORTS IN OUR REGION. AND I \nBELIEVE THAT THIS SEAPORT PLAN ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES. AND\, AGAIN\, \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. KRISTINE ZINTMAN. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. KRISTINE \nZORTMAN\, I AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE PORT. THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT PROCESS \nFROM OUR PERSPECTIVE _ AS MR. COLEMAN MENTIONED\, YOU KNOW\, PORTS ON AN \nECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THIS REGION\, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\, \nTHERE ARE 11 MUNICIPAL PORTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE PORTS \nTHAT ARE IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, FOUR OF THOSE PORTS\, ONE IS PRIVATE\, BUT \nFOUR OF THOSE PORTS ARE IN YOUR JURISDICTION\, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT \nTHROUGH THIS PROCESS I HAVE TRULY APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH. \nI KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULTY THERE SOMETIMES\, BUT I \nTHINK THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH\, IN PARTICULAR\, I WANT TO DEFINITELY \nRECOGNIZE CORY AND ERIK\, BECAUSE — AND OTHER BCDC STAFF\, IN REACHING OUT TO \nMEMBERS OF THE SPAC\, IN REACHING OUT TO PORT STAFF\, AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT WHAT WAS COMING INTO THIS PLAN IS TRULY A PLAN THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL \nBE PROUD OF\, AND WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THE COLLABORATION AND THE COOPERATION \nTHAT EXISTS. AND SO WITH THAT\, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nANY SPEAKERS REMOTELY? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>SPEAKER: I FIRST WANT TO THANK \nEVERYBODY WHO TOOK THE TIME TO COME HERE AND TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE. \nTHAT’S REALLY — THAT’S ALWAYS NICE TO HEAR. \nBUT OF COURSE COMMISSIONERS LIKE ME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. \nTHAT’S RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF AND ALL OF YOU WORKING TOGETHER AND I’M JUST \nREALLY\, REALLY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT\, YOU KNOW\, THAT WHILE I’M SURE THERE \nWERE DISAGREEMENTS\, THAT EVERYBODY FEELS HEARD\, RESPECTED AND \nCOLLABORATED WITH\, AND THAT THAT’S GOING TO SERVE AS GOING FORWARD. SO \nTHAT’S REALLY WONDERFUL. CORY\, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENT — ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE AMONG OUR PORTS? \nAND I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS ABOUT THIS\, THAT I WAS SURPRISED AT \nONE POINT TO LEARN THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS ACTUALLY LESS VULNERABLE \nTHAN I EXPECTED BECAUSE [INDISCERNIBLE] \nWERE RISEN _ YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT? \n>>CORY MANN. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I’LL SEE IF STAFF WANT TO \nJUMP IN\, OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG PORTS IN TERMS OF \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE. I THINK THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK FOR \nUS TO DO AT BCDC IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB272 AND OUR \nPLANNING PROCESSES AS IT RELATES TO PORTS. TO BE HONEST WE DIDN’T \nUNDERTAKE REALLY IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND MAKING \nTHE POLICIES FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN THOSE POLICIES ARE A BRIDGE TOWARDS EFFORTS \nTHAT WE’RE WORKING ON NOW. I’M NOT SURE IF I HAVE ANY PARTICULARLY GOOD \nINSIGHTS OTHER THAN TO SAY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: CAN I JUST ADD\, THERE WASN’T A BIG\, SORT OF\, RESILIENCE OR \nRISK ASSESSMENT TAKEN TO THE PORTS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. THE PROCESS WAS \nDRIVEN BY THE THE CARGO FORECAST BEING\, SORT OF\, OUTDATED. THE PREVIOUS CARGO \nFORECAST THAT GOVERNED THE PLAN AND TO DO A NEW CARGO FORECAST AND UPDATE THE \nPOLICIES. WE ACKNOWLEDGED WHILE WORKING THROUGH IT THAT THE PLANNING \nLANDSCAPE ESPECIALLY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE IS SHIFTING A LOT. \nOBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SB272\, BAY ADAPT\, AND ALSO THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT \nREQUIRES THE PORTS TO INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH A RISK ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS \nFOR SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THAT WAS\, SORT OF\, ONGOING AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE \nDOING THIS PROCESS. SO WE THINK IT’S VERY LIKELY ESPECIALLY WITH SB272 AND \nSOME OF THE SUBREGIONAL PLANS THAT WILL BE CREATED THROUGH BAY ADAPT\, THAT \nWE’LL BE LOOKING AT THIS IN MORE DETAIL IN TERMS OF RESILIENCE TO THE PORTS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING ASK YOU TO GO \nTO JESSICA. >>SPEAKER: I WANT GOING ADD ON \nSPECIFICS TO THE PORTS THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION THERE WAS A LAW THAT STATE \nLANDS COMMISSION REQUIRED EACH OF THE PORTS TO PREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION PLAN. IN ADDITION OUR BAY AREA REPORT LOOKED ACROSS THE REGION \nOF THE PORTS WHAT WE FOUND IS AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IT’S \nTRUE THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE RISKS TO PORT OPERATIONS THAT YOU MAY EXPECT \nBUT AS YOU LOOK OUT TO THE HIGHER NUMBERS OF COURSE THESE ARE AREAS ON \nWATER GOING TO BE INUNDATED WITH CONNECTIONS AND BEHIND PORTS SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS IMPORTANT AND PORTS CAN’T RETREAT _ WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THOSE FUNCTIONAL IT’S NOT OVER TOPPING AT THE TERMINALS \nIT’S WATER COMING IN FROM OTHER WAYS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: . >>SPEAKER: I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE \nPORTS ARE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE NEIGHBORING LOWER LANDS THAT MIGHT \nHAVE VULNERABILITY ALTERS AND I ASSUME THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR ANALYSIS OF \nEQUITY IN THE PLAN. _. >>SPEAKER: YES\, THANK YOU. YOU KNOW\, \nI — SO\, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THIS DECISION TO RENAME\, TAKE AWAY THAT \nSECTION THAT WAS ON GROUNDS TRANSPORTATION AND RENAME IT TO \nREGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATES. I WAS ASKING \nMYSELF WHAT BOTHERED ME ABOUT IT AND PART OF IT IS\, YOU KNOW\, JUST THINKING \nABOUT WHAT BCDC’S ROLE\, WHICH IS — I MEAN IT’S KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE 100 \nFOOT BAN AND BAY FILL\, AND I GET THAT\, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE \nCARGO FORECAST\, YOU’RE KIND OF LOOKING AT IT\, THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY MOSTLY \nFROM THE WATER SIDE. BUT I DON’T SEE AS MUCH ANALYSIS\, YOU KNOW\, FROM THE \nLAND SIDE IN TERMS OF\, YOU KNOW\, THE — AND I KNOW THERE IS MANY OTHER \nAGENCIES INVOLVED IN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIFICATION\, AND \nTHAT’S GREAT. BUT THERE IS NOT A LOT ABOUT THE MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND \nDO WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR\, YOU KNOW\, ALL THE STAGING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE \nPLACE THERE\, BUT\, SO\, I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH THOUGHT HAS GONE \nINTO THE LAND SIDE PLANNING FOR THE 100 FOOT BAN FOR THE PORTS. BAND FOR THE \nWORDS. _. >>CORY MANN: THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT \nQUESTION. THERE ARE ORIGINS TO THE SEAPORT PLAN AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE \nWITH THE UPDATE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. \nOF COURSE\, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SHIFTS\, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST SEAPORT \nPLAN WAS PUBLISHED BUT IN LAST VERSIONS\, IN TERMS OF REGIONAL \nPLANNING IN HOW DIFFERENT AGENCIES ARE COORDINATING ON THAT KIND OF WORK. \nEARLIER VERSIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN WERE DEVELOPED AS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT \nORIGINALLY BETWEEN BCDC AND MTC. SO THAT A SEAPORT PLAN CONSTITUTED \nMARITIME MANAGEMENT PLAN AND USED BY TO MAKE PROJECT FUNDING DECISIONS \nSENTENCE THEN MTC HAS SHIFTED ITS FOCUS AND HAS PUBLISHED SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nGOODS MOVEMENT PLAN WHICH IS THE PLAN THAT SPEAKS MOST TO THE QUESTIONS \nYOU’RE RAISING PLANNED BAY AREA. AND SO THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF HAS NOT \nBEEN AN EFFECTIVE DRIVER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WE\, OF COURSE\, WORK WITH MTC ON UPDATING THE PLAN\, BUT THE KIND \nOF THE SCOPE OF THE UPDATE HAS BEEN MORE FOCUSED ON BCDC’S SPECIFIC KIND \nOF LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY PLAN. \nSO THOSE EFFORTS HAVE CHANGED. BUT THAT’S ALSO WHY WE INCLUDED A POLICY \nIN THAT SECTION ON REGIONAL COORDINATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY \nTO TIME THE TIMING OF FUTURE UPDATES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN TO SYNCHRONIZE THAT \nWITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH MTC STAFF ABOUT THAT. WE \nTHINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO WORK TOGETHER AND MIGHT HELP US TO LEVERAGE \nSUPPORT FOR THINGS LIKE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THAT KIND OF \nTHING. SO THAT’S SOME OF THE THINK THAT’S GONE INTO THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT BCDC WILL BE A BIG PARTNER OR PARTICIPANT \nIN THE GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN? >>CORE M: I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO. \nYEAH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nCOMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER MOVED. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD SECONDS. \nIF THERE IS NO OPPOSITION\, AND SEEING NONE\, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED\, AS \nWE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED\, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS TODAY\, BUT WE DO LOOK \nFORWARD TO IT COMING BACK TO US WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMENTS AND \nQUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND RAISED. \nWITH THAT\, AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT BOTH ITEMS 9 AND 10 ARE \nPOSTPONED\, WE COME TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \nREMINDING EVERYONE\, PLEASE\, TO ADJOURN TO THE TEM TEMESCAL ROOM FOR SOCIAL \nTIME. MOTION TO ADJOURN? COMMISSIONER \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-2-2023-commission-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231025T080000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231025T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20240131T055618Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055618Z UID:10000167-1698220800-1698253200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 25\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-25-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231019T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231019T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20230920T040845Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225949Z UID:10000047-1697720400-1697734800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 19\, 2023 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nConsideration of an Environmental Justice Advisors Organizational Development Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract of up to $45\,000 with MIG\, Inc. and Benchmarq Consulting\, LLC to provide organizational development support for the Environmental Justice Advisors Program.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance – POSTPONEDRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nRegional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Presentation and DiscussionThe Commission will hear an update on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan’s vision and goals phase\, including initial takeaways from pop-up events throughout the region and the online survey. The update will include the most recent Bay Adapt website improvements and Commissioners may discuss considerations of the next phase of the project\, including how subregional plans should be organized.(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Commission Strategic Plan ProgressSenior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94105 \nSkyStar Wheel\, LLC1610 Des Peres Road\, Suite 130St. Louis\, MO 63131 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.023.00 \nFiled on 10/13/23 \n90th Day on 01/11/24 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at Seawall Lot 301 between The Embarcadero and Jefferson Street\, in the City and County of San Francisco \nDescriptionTemporarily install and operate a ferris wheel and associated facilities within a footprint of approximately 5\,634 square feet for a period of six months\, with the option to extend the authorization for up to an additional 18 months. The project will include: \n\nConstructing an approximately 148-foot-tall ferris wheel with 36 fully enclosed gondolas that hold six people each; and\nConstructing support structures including an operations office\, a retail and photo pick-up tent\, an employee break room\, a storage container\, an emergency back-up generator\, ADA-accessible ramps\, 10 concrete planters\, bicycle and scooter parking\, a photo capture tent\, a queuing area with stanchions\, a ticketing counter/kiosk\, a temporary diesel generator\, informational and wayfinding signage\, and security fencing.Tentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. Please note that the City of San Francisco’s environmental review of the project is still in progress and is anticipated to be completed by October 20\, 2023.Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\nEmergency PermitsThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicantReclamation District1607 4301 Inverness DrivePittsburg\, CA 94565 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.005.00 \nFiled on 08/28/2023 \n90th Day on 11/26/2023 \nLocationIn the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh at Van Sickle Island\, on the Sacramento River in Solano County. \nDescriptionRepair a 500-linear-foot section of a breached exterior levee by placing 1\,100 cubic yards of rip rap and 3\,400 cubic yards of imported fill to replace material that had been lost after storm damage in December 2022. The fill will not extend or increase fill in the Bay beyond what existed prior to the damage. The project was authorized via email on August 18\, 2023. The permit includes special conditions requiring the permittee to monitor the levees over the next rainy season and submit a permit application for further repairs to the Island’s levees by March 31\, 2024 to forestall the need for future emergency permitting at this Island. \nRowan Yelton [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing October 6\, 2023 \n\n Staff Report and Recommendation on a Contract for Environmental Justice Advisors Organization Development (PDF)\nA joint statement on Senator Feinstein’s passing (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 13\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nIssued Permits and Received Permit Applications\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments\nPublic Comment Letters (PDF) – Sierra Club letter regarding Oakland Trash Diversion\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nA big cleanup is underway on San Francisco Bay. Here’s what’s involved\nS.F. power plant set to become new ‘neighborhood’ with 2\,600 homes\, 1.6 million feet of commercial space\nAt the end of the Mississippi\, a saltwater wedge overwhelms a community\nIn the battle over hate speech at Bay Area public meetings\, are the Zoombombers winning?\nSeverely congested Bay Area highway is about to see first phase of $1.6 billion revamp\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/10-19-cm-audio.mp3 \nTranscript \nUNDER TELECONFERENCE RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETING ACT. \nCOMMISSIONERS ARE LOCATED BOTH AT METRO CENTER AND AT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE \nVENUES THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AS SPECIFIED ON THE MEETING NOTICE. \nCOMMISSIONERS WHO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY WILL KEEP THEIR CAMERAS ON THROUGHOUT \nTHE MEETING SO THEY WILL BE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \nATTENDING VIRTUALLY\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE PUBLIC \nCOMMENT PERIOD\, WHICH IS ITEM THREE ON THE AGENDA OR DURING A PERIOD RESERVED \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM YOU WILL NEED TO DO SO IN \nONE OF TWO WAYS. FIRST IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM\, PLEASE \nRAISE YOUR HAND IN ZOOM. TO DO SO CLICK THE PARTICIPANTS ICON \nAT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN\, FIND YOUR NAME AND THE SMALL HAND TO THE LEFT \nAND CLICK ON THAT HAND. IF YOU ARE JOINING OUR MEETING VIA PHONE\, YOU \nMUST PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR KEY PAD TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE TO MAKE A COMMENT. \nINDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THEY HAVE \nBEEN RAISED AND THEY WILL BE UNMUTED. ATTENDING THIS MEETING IN-PERSON \nEITHER AT METRO CENTER OR AT A PUBLICLY NOTICED TELECONFERENCE LOCATION WHO \nWANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL AT YOUR LOCATION. \nTHOSE ATTENDING THE MEETING AT THE \nMETRO CENTER WILL USE THE PODIUM ON THEIR RIGHT. \nWHEREVER YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND FROM PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME TO PROVIDE YOUR \nCOMMENTS. ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. \nCOMMENTS MUST BE RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \nTO ACT IN A CIVIL MANNER WITHOUT USING HATE SPEECH DIRECTOR\, INDIRECT \nTHREATS\, AND/OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. BCDC HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED AN E-MAIL ADDRESS \nTO COMPILE PUBLIC COMMENTS ITS ADDRESS PUBLIC COMMENT AT BCDC@CA.GOV. \nE-MAILS RECEIVED BEFORE TEN THIS MORNING HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ANY RECEIVED SINCE THEN WILL ALSO BE SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND WELCOME TO \nOUR HYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM THE \nCHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, I DO WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE \nWILL POSTPONE OUR DISCUSSION OF THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE \nBECAUSE THE OCCASION PROTECTION COUNCIL HAS NOT YET PUBLISHED ITS DRAFT OF \nTHAT POLICY. WE HOPE TO LEARN ABOUT THAT FORECAST AND HOW BCDC MAY \nIMPLEMENT IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AS ALWAYS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \nCOMMISSIONERS IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF WHEN \nYOU ARE CALLED THEN UNMUTE YOURSELF AFTER RESPONDING. REYLINA\, WELCOME \nBACK. IT’S GOOD TO HAVE YOU. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ANUP DID A SPLENDID \nJOB IN YOUR ABSENCE. PLEASE CALLING THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR \nEISEN? >>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? >>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: RAMOS? >>BELIA RAMOS: HERE\, 95 THIRD STREET. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I FORGET ANYONE? BAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: >>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER NELSON IS HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT ITEM IS THREE PUBLIC COMMENT IF \nANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A MATTER THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA \nOR ON WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, YOU WILL HAVE THREE \nMINUTES TO DO SO. PRIOR TO STARTING PUBLIC COMMENT I WANT TO REEMPHASIZE \nONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTRODUCTION. AND WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE INCREASE IN A PHENOMENON THAT UNFORTUNATELY NOW \nHAS ITS OWN NAME\, ZOOM BOMBING\, IT IS MAKING RACIST OR HATE COMMENTS BY ZOOM \nAT PUBLIC AND LOCAL AND REGIONAL MEETINGS. \nAS STATED IN THAT VIDEO\, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY FORM OF HATE SPEECH OR \nTHREATS AGAINST ANY GROUP OR ANY INDIVIDUALS. AND AS CHAIR\, I WANT TO \nLET EVERYONE KNOW THAT I WILL ENFORCE THAT RIGIDLY. \nI HOPE NOT TO HAVE TO DO SO. I AM GOING TO START WITH MEMBERS OF \nTHE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE. REYLINA\, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS FROM \nPEOPLE IN THE ROOM? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO CARDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO PUBLIC CARDS. \nAND ANY HANDS FROM PEOPLE ON ZOOM WHO WISH TO ADDRESS US FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ALLISON \nMADDEN. LET ME GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: OKAY THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M REALLY SAD ABOUT THE ZOOM BOMBING TOO. I WANTED \nTO BE THERE IN-PERSON TODAY BECAUSE I WANTED TO THANK YOU\, AND I WANTED TO \nSHOW THAT EXTRA EFFORT TO BE THERE IN-PERSON. NOT ONLY BECAUSE I’M \nINTERESTED IN ALL OF THE CONTENT OF YOUR MEETINGS\, BUT DUE TO HOW \nCOMPASSIONATE YOUR DISCUSSION WAS ON SEPTEMBER 7TH\, AGENDA ITEM 11 NOT JUST \nON LIVEABOARD POLICIES BUT ON OYSTER COVE SITUATION IN GENERAL ALSO THE \nDISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESENTATION WAS REALLY SOPHISTICATED \nPOLICY ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING YOU ALL HAVE OF THE \nPUBLIC TRUST AS POLICY MAKERS BOTH ELECTED AND APPOINTED\, AND OF THE \nNUANCES\, NOT JUST OF THE PUBLIC TRUST\, BUT THE BCDC UNDERLYING POLICIES. \nAND\, SO\, WERE REALLY ENCOURAGED BY THAT. DURING THIS YEAR\, WHICH IS \nBOOKENDED BY SEPTEMBER 15TH OF 2022 WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT OYSTER COVE \nAND TALKING ABOUT THE LIVEABOARD POLICIES IN SEPTEMBER 7TH OF THIS \nYEAR\, YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE TRIED TO SHOP AND SPEAK\, NOT TOO MUCH\, AND NOT TOO \nLITTLE BUT TO ASK FOR THAT PUBLIC PROCESS BUT BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE \nINFORMATION THAT IT SEEMS LIKE COMMISSIONERS WERE ASKING ABOUT THE \nDATA WOULD REALLY COME FORTH IN A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT INCLUDES THE \nPUBLIC ACCIDENT UPLANDOWNERS\, LIVEABOARDS\, HASH BORE AND MARINA \nOWNERS AND OPERATORS AT HARBOR MASTERS ET CETERA\, AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE \nBEEN SPEAKING WERE AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF DOZENS OF LIVEABOARDS \nWE HAVE BEEN MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR AND SOME OF US WORKING ON THIS FOR \nEVEN OVER A DECADE AND REALLY WANTED TO PARSE OUT IN THAT PUBLIC PROCESS HOW \nMUCH LIVEABOARD COMMUNITIES SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST WHICH IS WHY I’M KIND OF \nSAD HOW PRIMARILY IT’S TIED TO THE RECREATION POLICY. \nBECAUSE A LOT OF LIVEABOARDS HAVE A SEPARATE RECREATIONAL BOAT THAT THEY \nTAKE OUT. SO THERE\, IS SO MUCH INFORMATION TO CONVEY. BUT ONE OF THE \nTHINGS I WANT TO SAY IS\, ONE OF THE LAST THINGS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DID\, \nTHE LAST BILLS HE SIGNED BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE WAS A FUNDING BILL FOR THE \nCOAST GUARD AND THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEER THAT PRESERVED 1500 \nHOUSEBOATS ON THE TVA PROPERTIES ON THE 13 SOUTHEASTERN STATES IN THE UNITED \nSTATES\, AND AT FIRST IT WAS THE REPUBLICS THAT CAME TO THE AID OF THE \nPEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO BE DISPOSSESSED\, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS \nDID IT TOO\, BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNANIMOUSLY OVERWHELMINGLY \nTHEY GRAND FATHERED TO PRESERVE ALL OF THAT WHICH AVOIDED THE KIND OF CARNAGE \nTHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH OUR LOSS OF MARINAS SO WE’RE OFFERING TO BE A \nCONDUIT OF THE INFORMATION WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT \nTHE MARINAS AND LIVEABOARDS OVER THE LAST YEAR SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE \nCONTINUING THE DISCUSSION YOU HAD LAST TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. YOU\, CERTAINLY\, WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC \nITEMS ON THE AGENDA AS THEY COME UP. ITEM FOUR IS THE APPROVAL OF THE \nMINUTES OF OUR SEPTEMBER 7TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED DRAFT \nMINUTES OF THAT MEETING. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE THE MINUTES. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE \nMOTION. >>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PESKIN MOVES. AND? \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO SECONDS. \nDO I HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OR ABSTENTIONS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I ABSTAIN? CHAIR\, [INDISCERNIBLE] HAS ABSTAINED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO — >>SPEAKER: THIS IS THE COURT \nREPORTER\, WHO WAS THE FIRST ABSTENTION? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA\, THE NEW \nCOMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER ECKERLE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MY FIRST \nITEM IS TO RECOGNIZE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER JESSE \nARREQUIN WILL NO LONGER BE REPRESENTING THE EAST BAY ON BEHALF OF ABAG\, AND \nABAG HAS APPOINTED RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SEIZURE CESAR ZEPEDA AS \nTHE REPLACEMENT\, NO STRANGER TO BCDC HE IS A MEMBER OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED TASK \nFORCE THAT HAS BEEN HELPING OUR BCDC PREPARE OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN STARTING WITH OUR GUIDELINES I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT HIS \nALTERNATE IS RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HELIA BANA\, AND WE WILL BE \nHEARING MORE ABOUT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN LATERED IN \nTHE MEETING. CESAR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE. \nRICHMOND DOES HAVE 32 MILES OF SHORELINE THE MOST OUT OF ANY OTHER \nBAY AREA CITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HAS \nAPPOINTED STEVEN BEN SENAS ITS NEW COMMISSIONER\, THE DEPARTMENT’S NEW \nPRINCIPAL PROGRAM BUDGET ANALYST FOR THE SECTION THAT INCLUDES BCDC. WE \nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING CLOSELY WITH HIM AND HIS STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: HE TOLD ME BEFORE THE MEETING HE CANNOT ATTEND THIS MEETING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HE CANNOT \nATTEND THIS MEETING BUT I AM SURE HE WILL ATTEND FUTURE ONES. \nI WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SOME SADNESS\, BUT NOT TOTALLY SAD\, TO SAY A \nFEW WORDS ABOUT DIANNE FEINSTEINFEINSTEIN. WITH HER PASSING\, \nWE HAVE LOST A TRUE PUBLIC SERVANT. ONE OF HER MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE \nBAY AND ITS PEOPLE WAS HER INVOLVEMENT IN MEASURE AA. TO THE FRUSTRATION OF \nSOME OF ITS SUPPORTERS. SHE PUSHED TO MAKE IT BETTER. AND SHE DID MAKE IT \nBETTER AND SHE HELPED SUPPORT IT AND TO PASS IT AND IT’S A VERY IMPORTANT PART \nOF OUR EFFORTS TO BOTH PRESERVE THE BAY AND TO PROTECT IT. \nI ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE SOME LESS RECOGNIZED CONTRIBUTIONS THAT SHE MADE \nOVER THE YEARS TO A NUMBER OF BLACK ORGANIZATIONS. \nSHE HOSTED THE FIRST ANNUAL RETREAT FOR BLACK WOMEN ORGANIZED FOR POLITICAL \nACTION. ONE OF THE — A STRONG LOCAL AND LONG \nINVOLVED ORGANIZATIONS. AND SHE\, WHICH HAS BEEN A STRONG VOICE \nFOR BLACK WOMEN THROUGH THE OUR COMMUNITIES AND SHE WAS ONE OF THE \nORIGINAL SUPPORTERS OF BLACK AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA \nFOUNDATIONED BY PERCY PINKNEY WHO WORKED ON HER STAFF. BUT MOST OF ALL\, \nI WANT TO RECOGNIZE HER STEADY\, COMMITTED\, AND DEDICATED LEADERSHIP\, \nAS SAN FRANCISCO’S MAYOR AND AS OUR UNITED STATES SENATOR. TO SOME SHE \nWAS NOT AS AGGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE AS THEY WOULD LIKE YET SHE WAS NOT ONLY \nTHE AUTHOR BUT REALLY THE CHAMPION OF THE 1994 FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN \nAND HEAVEN ARE KNOWS WE NEED MORE OF THOSE. SHE BROKE THROUGH SO MANY \nGLASS SEALINGS\, I CAN’T COUNT THEM SHE WAS A CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE AND SHE \nWILL BE MISSED. AS YOU KNOW\, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE LAIRD BILL SB272\, \nAND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATIONS WHO HELPED SUPPORT THAT \nAND PERSUADE THE GOVERNOR THAT THIS TIME ROUND\, YOU REALLY SHOULD SIGN IT \nAND IT WORKED. AND WE WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT \nIN THIS MEETING AND IN FUTURE MEETINGS. IT’S GOING GIVE US SOME VERY NEEDED \nHELP IN BOTH PROVIDING GUIDANCE\, BUT\, ALSO\, BEING ABLE TO PUSH LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT THE PLANS THAT ARE VERY NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR BAY. \nI WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT LARRY AND I \nHAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE LEADERS OF MTC AND ABAG AND THE CALIFORNIA \nCONSERVANCY TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY\, TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN COORDINATE \nEFFORTS IN SEEKING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ADAPTING TO RISING SEA LEVEL. THE \nGOAL IS TO MAKE US MORE EFFECTIVE AND TO ENSURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THAT \nLOCAL COMPETITION DOESN’T HURT US. WE HAD A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF THIS WITH \nTHE APPLICATION TO NOAA FOR LOCAL FUNDS THAT WE ARE HOPEFUL WILL BE SUCCESSFUL \nSO WE KNOW IT CAN WORK BUT WE NEED TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE VIGOROUS AND MUCH \nMORE THOUGHTFULLY COORDINATED. YOU WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THESE \nEFFORTS AT FUTURE MEETINGS. I HOPE WE’LL GET A MAJORITY OF OUR \nCOMMISSIONERS HERE IN PHYSICAL PRESENCE FOR OUR NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING. I’LL BE \nHOSTING A GET-TOGETHER HERE AT 375 BEALE STREET AFTER OUR COMMISSION \nMEETING\, FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS\, AND SENIOR STAFF\, SO THAT WE CAN TALK A \nLITTLE\, AND SOCIALIZE AND RENEW OUR BONDS WITH EACH OTHER AS WE\, MORE OR \nLESS\, COME OUT OF COVID. SO\, HOPEFULLY THAT YOU CAN COME FOR \nTHAT. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON NOVEMBER \n2ND\, AND AT THAT MEETING\, WE EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS. \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING THE \nSAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE UPDATED \nDRAFT SEAPORT PLAN\, A BRIEFING AND STATUS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENTS \nCONCERNING HIGHWAY 37. AND THIS IS THE MOMENT IN TIME WHEN \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY REPORT ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE NOT \nREPORTED IN WRITING\, REMEMBERING THAT YOU DO NEED TO REPORT THEM IN WRITING \nANYWAY. SO\, IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO MAKE A REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS\, \nTHEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE ON MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION\, NOW IS \nTHE TIME TO DO SO. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I DO NOT \nSEE ANY HANDS. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX\, THE — \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PASSING OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN. AS MANY \nOF YOU KNOW I WAS SENIOR MEMBER OF SENATOR PETE WILSON’S GUBERNATORIAL \nCAMPAIGN IN 1989 AND 1990 SO I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT MAYOR FEINSTEIN \nTHEN WITHOUT TELLING LONGER STORIES I CAN SAY THAT EACH CANDIDATE HAD \nRESPECT FOR OTHERS GIVEN THEY WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL BIG CITY MAYORS. MY \nFAVORITE SENATOR FEINSTEIN STORY\, HOWEVER\, OCCURRED FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN \nI WAS LAST IN WASHINGTON\, D.C. I WAS WAITING FOR OUR FLIGHT BACK TO SAN \nFRANCISCO WHEN THE SENATOR CAME INTO THE GATE AREA SHE WAS GREETED BY THE \nVIRGIN AMERICA STAFF WHO OBVIOUSLY KNEW HER TRAVEL HABITS VERY WELL. \nWHILE WE WERE WAITING FOR OUR BOARD DELAYED FLIGHT I SCREWED UP MY COURAGE \nAND WALKED OVER TO HER AND INTRODUCED MYSELF AS BCDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND \nAS A FORMER FELLOW. NOT A SECOND AFTER I DID AND THANKED HER FOR BEING SUCH A \nVISIBLE SUPPORTER OF THE COMMISSION SHE BROKE ENTER A BIG SMILE AND LET ME \nKNOW IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS HOW MUCH SHE ADMIRED BCDC AND HOW MUCH SHE ENJOYED \nBEING A COMMISSIONER SHE OBVIOUSLY LOVED THE BAY AND ASKED ME A COUPLE OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT OUR WORK DURING THE PAST 20 YEARS I HAVE MET WITH SEVERAL \nSTAFF MEMBERS AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY THE \nREPORTS THAT HER STAFF HAD TO WORK VERY HARD TO KEEP UP WITH HER. SHE WAS \nTREMENDOUSLY GRACIOUS THAT EVENING AND MAY HER WORK AND DEVOTION TO WHAT WE \nDO KEEP HER AS A BLESSED MEMORY FOR ALL ASSOCIATED WITH BCDC. \nFOR THE FIRST TIME IN BCDC HISTORY STAFF HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE \nCALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORP TO PLACE CORP MEMBER ROSE ONE VELAZQUEZ AT BCDC \nAS AN INTERN TO BE PAID FOR BY THE CONSERVATION CORP. ROSE ONE HAS BEEN \nA CORP MEMBER FOR 18 MONTHS DURING WHICH SHE HAS CANDIES EXPERIENCE IN \nTRAIL BUILDING SALAMON RESTORATION AND FUEL REDUCTION AND NOW IS ON THE FIRE \nCREW MAYBE WE COULD HAVE USED HER THIS MORNING DURING THE EARTHQUAKE DRILL. \nA HORN ET FROM FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE GRAD FROM \n>>MARY SACKETT: STATE UNIVERSITY FROM WHICH SHE EARNED BACHELOR OF SCIENCE \nIN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES WITH MINOR IN SPANISH AND CERTIFICATE IN HEALTH CARE \nSPANISH ROSY WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND \nWILL HELP US GROW OUR SMALL SOCIAL MEDIA PRINCES CONCURRENTLY AND WE’RE \nPLEASED SHE VOLL TIERED TO JOIN US. ALSO INTRODUCING A MEMBER OF OUR \nCLIMATE POLICY FOR THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HARRIET ROSS HAS JOINED AS \nBCDC REGULATORY DIRECTOR YOU WILL SEE HER IN A MOMENT SHE WONDERED WHETHER \nTHERE WILL BE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING. BCDC HAS \nPOWED TO PARTNER WITH THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY SAVE THE BAY\, BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY PROGRAM ESTUARY INSTITUTE \nDUCKS UNLIMITED AND BAY JOINT VENTURE TO ISSUE A COLLABORATIVE COMPREHENSIVE \nSTATEMENT AFTER SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S PASSING IT’S BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO EACH \nOF YOU AND IS POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE AS WELL. I WANT TO NOTE COMMISSIONER \nJENN ECKERLE HAS BECOME A NUMBER OF THE NOAA’S NEW NA RENE AND COASTAL AREA \nBASED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NATIONAL BODY ADVISES UNDER SECRETARY \nOF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS ATMOSPHERE ON SCIENCE BASED APPROACHES TO AREA BASED \nPROTECTION CONSERVATION RESTORATION MANAGEMENT COASTAL MARINE AREAS ITS \nMEMBERSHIP REPRESENTS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA’S OCEAN \nCOASTAL AND GREAT LAKES COMMUNITIES RELYING ON INCLUDING RESOURCE MANAGERS \nCOMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USERS AND SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS INDIAN TRIBES AND \nINDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES PHILANTHROPIC NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND EDUCATORS \nIN SHORT A TERRIFIC PLACE FOR CALIFORNIA POLICY MAKERS AND WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT ITS WORK LAST MONTH BCDC WAS PLEASED TO SUPPORT THE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY’S REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nAUTHORIZING COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE NINE COUNTIES SHORELINE OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WHICH WOULD HELP THE REGION PREPARE AND ADAPT TO RISING SEA \nLEVELS. OCTOBER 9TH IN THE ABSENCE OF CHAIR WASSERMAN VICE CHAIR EISEN \nAPPROVED AN EMERGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION FROM THE OWNERS OF A HOUSE \nBUILT ON PILES OVER THE BAY IN TIBURON WHILE DOING OTHER WORK ON THE HOUSE \nENGINEERS FOUND THAT THE ROCK SEA WALL UNDER THEIR HOUSE HAD BEEN \nDESTABILIZED ALONG ITS ENTIRE LENGTH DUE TO WAVE ACTION AND MAY FAIL \nCOMPLETELY AT ANY TIME WHICH WOULD RESULTED IN CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF \nHOUSE FOUNDATION THE ENGINEERS ALSO ADVISED THE OWNERS TO VACATE THE HOUSE \nIMMEDIATELY. I WANT TO THANK VICE CHAIR EISEN FOR WILLINGNESS TO STEP \nINTO THE CHAIR’S SHOWALTER SHOES SO THE REPAIRS COULD BEGIN. \nFINALLY I’M PLEASED TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT THE BCDC BOCCE \nTEAM\, THE MEAN HIGH TIDES EMERGED AS VICTORS IN THE WEDNESDAY FERRY \nBUILDING BOCCE LEAGUE PLAY OFFS. BCDC’S TEAM WHICH INCLUDES STALWARTS \nTOLL HALLENBECK\, JIM\, KATHARINE PAN AND STEVE GOLDBECK AMONG OTHERS THE PLAY \nOFF GAMES AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND POVERTY \nSAN FRANCISCO WEREN’T GRUDGE MATCHES OR ANYTHING STEVE IS ACTUALLY SHOWING THE \nMEDAL THAT EVERYBODY RECEIVED AFTER WINNING. HAPPY TO REPORT THAT OUR \nFRIENDS WHO PLAY FOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION TEAM THERE’S A GRUDGE MATCH \nLOANED BCDC SUPPORT IN A TERRIFIC DISPLAY OF COLLABORATION WHICH NO \nDOUBT PRESTAGES COLLABORATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT \nSB272. THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR ON HIS REPORT? >>SPEAKER: NOT A QUESTION. BUT A \nCOMPLIMENT. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMING OUT TO \nOUR MARIN MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GATHERING LAST MONTH AND GIVING A \nFABULOUS BCDC 101 AND THEN ENGAGING ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AFTERWARDS. IT WAS \nFANTASTIC\, LARRY. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I WANT TO \nMAKE A BRIEF COMMENT ON THE EMERGENCY PERMIT. I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS \nWITH SOME CONTRACTORS AND OTHERS\, AND I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT CAUSED THE NEED \nFOR THAT EMERGENCY PERMIT IS NOT UNCOMMON. \nAND I’M NOT SURE THERE IS A LOT WE CAN DO. BUT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nPURCHASED HOUSES OVER THE WATER\, PARTICULARLY IN MARIN\, NOT \nEXCLUSIVELY\, THERE ARE SOME IN CONTRA COSTA AND ELSEWHERE\, DON’T EVEN KNOW \nTHEY HAVE PERMITS FROM BCDC OR THAT THEY’RE REQUIRED\, AND THEY MAY WELL \nNOT KNOW THAT THE WORK THAT WAS DONE PURSUANT TO THOSE PERMITS MAY HAVE \nBEEN UNDERMINED. SO\, I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE A LITTLE \nBIT OF THOUGHT ABOUT HOW WE CAN PUBLICIZE THAT AND ALERT THEM SO THAT \nWE DON’T FACE A RASH OF EMERGENCY PERMITS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE RECEIVED A POSTING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND AS LARRY \nSAID\, OUR NEW HEAD OF REGULATORY MATTERS\, HARRIET ROSS IS HERE\, EAGER \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. \nNOBODY WANTS TO JUMP IN. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU GET OFF EASY. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISERS PROGRAM. \nPHOENIX ARMENTA\, OUR SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMATE EQUITY AND COMMUNITY \nENGAGEMENT WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. >>PHOENIX ARMENTA: THANK YOU\, CHAIR\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. AGAIN I’M PHOENIX ARMENTA\, SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMB \nEQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR CONSIDERATION OF \nAN ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE ADVISERS ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. \nNEXT SLIDE. THE EJ ADVISORS PROGRAM RECENTLY \nCOMPLETED ITS SECOND YEAR THE PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED AFTER THE CREATION OF \nOUR EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES IN 2019. BCDC CREATED THE PROGRAM \nBECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR EJ POLICIES WERE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE \nHELP OF OUR PARTNERS. THIS EJ ADVISERS PROGRAM IS A PILOT PROGRAM AND A \nUNIQUE MODEL BEING EMULATED BY OTHER AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE. THE \nPROGRAM WAS CODEVELOPED WITH EJ ADVISORS AND OVER THE TWO YEARS HAS \nSEEN MANY SUCCESSES WHICH INCLUDE HELPING US TO DEVELOP OUR RACIAL \nEQUITY ACTION PLAN\, ADVISING US ON CREATING AN EQUITY PROCESS AND BAY \nADAPT WORK\, ALSO SEEN CHALLENGES OVER THE YEARS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE RECENT \nRESIGNATION OF THREE ADVISORS. WITH ANY PROGRAM IT’S IMPORTANT TO \nEVALUATE HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING AND ASSESS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO \nIN THE FUTURE\, ISSUING RFP FOR ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT \nTO CONDUCT ANALYSIS OF THE EJ PROGRAM AND HELP DESIGN THE PROGRAM FOR \nMAXIMUM IMPACT. NEXT SLIDE. THROUGH A COMPETITIVE \nBIDDING PROCESS STAFF HAS SELECTED MIG\, INC. IN COLLABORATION WITH BENCHMARQ \nCONSULTING LLC. MIG HAS FOUR DECADES OF PLANNING RESEARCH AND STRATEGY \nSUPPORT TO A DIVERSE ARRAY OF PARTNERS THEIR BACKGROUND INCLUDES WORKING WITH \nPUBLIC AGENCIES COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS FACILITATING THESE \nINSTITUTIONS UNDERSTANDING EQUITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION WHILE LEADING \nCOLLECTIVE CULTURAL SHIFTS TO COLLABORATIVE DYNAMIC BETWEEN \nGOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WORKING DIRECTLY WITH \nBCDC AND EJ ADVISERS IN THE BAY AREA. \nWORKING WITH 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGH IMPLEMENTING SPECIALIZED TRAINING \nSOLUTIONS FOCUSING ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nDIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES. \nCONSULTING IS A FORM PARTNERING ON THIS CONTRACT. I’LL OPEN UP TO ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER? I WOULD \n— I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION. I WOULD MAKE ONE COMMENT. NOT SO MUCH \nRECENTLY BUT OVER THE YEARS WITH A NUMBER OF PUBLIC AGENCIES I HAVE \nREPRESENTED I WORKED WITH MIG AND FOUNDATION THEM TO BE AN EFFECTIVE \nCREATIVE ORGANIZATION ASSISTING PUBLIC AGENCIES. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR \nWORKING ON THIS PROJECT. SEEING NO QUESTIONS. STAFF — \nOH\, PUBLIC. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC — >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nYOU CAN PUT UP THE SLIDE FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? \nOKAY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES ITS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT UP TO $45\,000 CONTRACT WITH \nMIG INC. PARTNERSHIP WITH BENCHMARQ CONSULTING \nHLLC PROVIDING THE COMMISSION FACILITATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL \nDEVELOPMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORS PROGRAM OVER A PERIOD \nFROM OCTOBER 19TH\, 2023 THROUGH MARCH 1ST\, 2024 STAFF FURTHER RECOMMENDS \nTHAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE \nCONTRACT AS NECESSARY INCLUDING REVISING THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF \nTHE AGREEMENT. >>SPEAKER: I WILL MOVE THE ITEM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PETERS MAKES THE MOTION. \nCOMMISSIONER AHN SECONDS. CALL THE ROLL\, PLEASE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? COMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? >>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BURKE? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER LEE? \n>>OTTO LEE: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? >>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? >>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 17 YESES\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. NO-NOS HEARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. \nWE LOOK FORWARD TO THE WORK GOING FORWARD. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, SINCE ITEM NINE HAS BEEN POSTPONED. THIS IS AN \nUPDATE ON THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN’S VISION AND GOALS \nPHASE. JACKIE MENDOSKY OUR SENIOR CLIMATE \nADAPTATION PLANNER WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BEFORE JACKIE STARTS\, I JUST — I HAVE RECEIVED \nQUESTIONS FROM\, NOW\, THREE COMMISSIONERS SAY WHEN ARE WE GOING TO \nTALK ABOUT 272. [LAUGHTER] \nPAY ATTENTION TO JACKIE\, PLEASE. >>JACLYN MANDOSKE: ALL RIGHT LET ME \nGO AHEAD AND GET MY SCREEN SLIDES UP. OOPS. \nSORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. \nGOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JACLYN \nMANDOSKE\, I AM A SENIOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNER HERE AT BCDC AND \nTHE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN HERE TO \nSHARE AN UPDATE ON OUR PROGRESS TOWARDS DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR O A REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. YOU LAST HEARD UPDATE ON THIS PROJECT BACK IN \nFEBRUARY WHEN WE INTRODUCED THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND \nWE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF EXCITING WORK SINCE THEN. I WANT TO REMIND US \nWHY WE’RE HERE AND WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE. AS WE ALL KNOW RISING SEA \nLEVEL AND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER WILL AFFECT ALL OF US WHO LIVE NEAR AND \nEVEN FAR FROM THE BAY SHORELINE AND WHILE LOCAL ADAPTATION IS OCCURRING \nIT’S HAPPENING UNEVENLY AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SHORELINE FACE DIFFERENT \nRISKS AND DIFFERENT RESOURCES TO RESPOND JURISDICTIONS ARE WELL ON \nTHEIR WAY WHILE OTHERS HAVE NOT YET GUN WHILE FLOODING DOESN’T CARE ABOUT \nJURISDICTION AT BOUNDARIES PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE \nWILL REQUIRE US TO ACT TOGETHER AS A CONNECTED REGION THAT WE ARE IN WAYS \nTHAT ARE COORDINATED AND CONSISTENT THIS IS WHY WE’RE DEVELOPING A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS A REMINDER THIS THIS PROJECT IS WOW OF \nMANY WAYS WE’RE IMPLEMENTING THE BAY ADAPT JOINT PLATFORM IT’S FUNDED BY \nTHE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL AND THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND IS \nENVISIONED TO SERVE AS A MODEL FOR HOW REGIONS IN CALIFORNIA CAN PLAN \nCOLLECTIVELY FOR CLIMATE IMPACTS AS COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR LARRY GOLDZBAND SAID IN THE OPENING REMARKS WE HAVE VERY EXCITING \nNEWS ON OCTOBER 7TH GOVERNOR OF — HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR WORK WHAT DOES IT \nCHANGE? THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS AND WE’LL ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS LATER IN \nTHE PRESENTATION. STAY TUNED. I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE WORK \nTHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO DEVELOP THESE GUIDELINES. \nWHEN WE USE THE TERM REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT \nIS THREE MAIN PARTS FIRST PART IS CREATING GUIDELINES THIS WORK WE’RE \nDOING WILL INCLUDE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THAT WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE \nSUBREGIONAL PLANS FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES THE NEXT STEP IS \nSUPPORTING LOCAL JURISDICTION THROUGH POLICY AND TECHNICAL STANZAS IN \nCREATING THEIR OWN SUBREGIONAL PLANS LASTLY DEVELOPING AN ONLINE MAPPING \nPLATFORM TO SUPPORT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND COMMUNITIES TO ACCESS GUIDELINES \nTO ALLOW US TO TRACK PROGRESS ON ADAPTATION SO WE CONDITIONED HOW AND \nWHERE THE REGION IS WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE SHARED SUCCESS. WHERE ARE WE \nIN THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES? WE’RE HERE IN LATE \nOCTOBER AND HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE LAST TWO MONTHS CONDUCTING OUTREACH WITH \nPRACTITIONERS PLANNERING RESIDENTS AND MORE TO ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR VISION \nSUPERVISOR VALUES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BAY SHORELINE WE HAVE HELD MEETINGS \nWITH OUR EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP ATTENDED LOCAL COMMUNITY EVENTS AND CURRENTLY \nHAVE A SURVEY OUT TOGETHER FOR FEEDBACK ON THE VISION WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST \nPUBLIC WORKSHOP TO HELP US WRAP THE VISION A BIT LATER I’M LOOKING HERD \nYOU CAN SEE IN THE TRANSITION DEPENDING GUIDELINES IN THE COMING MONTHS. \nEQUITY STRATEGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THIS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND EQUITY SUBCOMMITTEE STRATEGY ALLOWS US TO TRANSPARENTLY \nDOCUMENT PRACTICES OF EQUITY THAT WE’RE FOLLOWING IN THIS WORK IT CONTAINS TWO \nPARTS\, PROCESS HOW WE PAY OUR EQUITY REPRESENTATIVES\, CONDUCT OUTREACH WORK \nIN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITIES DEVELOP GUIDELINES AND SECOND PART IS ENSURING \nTHAT WE’RE EVALUATING AT EACH STAGE OF THE PROCESS AND HOW AND WHERE EQUITY \nIS BEING INTEGRATED ACROSS THE OUTCOMES OF OUR WORK. DEVELOPING VISIONS FOR \nTHE FUTURE WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE GUIDELINES REFLECT OUR \nVALUES AS A REGION AND ARE COLLECTIVE ACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE SUBREGIONAL \nPLANS ADDING UP TO SHARED OUTCOMES WE HAVE DEFINED. \nTOPICS AND ISSUES WE’RE PLANNING INCLUDE GUIDELINES\, PEOPLE AND HEALTH \nECOSYSTEMS RESILIENCE DEVELOPMENT AND MORE WILL BE DEVELOPING VISION \nSTATEMENTS GUIDELINES WILL BE WRITTEN TO GET US TOWARDS THESE MEASURES\, \nCONTINUING TO ELEVATE EQUITY ALONG WITH EVALUATING PRIORITIES PRIORITIES SUCH \nAS IMPROVING NATURE-BASED INITIATION AND ADAPTATION\, ACHIEVING MULTIPLE \nBENEFITS. WE HAVE ATTENDED NINE COMMUNITIES EVENTS IN THE LAST TWO \nMONTHS AND WE HAVE ONE MORE COMING UP THIS WEEKEND WE HAVE BEEN OUT IN \nCOMMUNITIES EVERY WEEKEND SINCE SEPTEMBER. WE HAVE BEEN ALL OVER FROM \nTHE NORTH BAY TO THE CENTRAL BAY AND THE SOUTH BAY. AND I WANT TO NOTE \nTHAT WE WERE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN EACH OF THESE EVENTS THROUGH \nPARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING THROUGH THE SUPPORT OF MANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS\, \nAS WELL AS ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED’S \nREGIONAL TASK FORCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY WHO \nHELPED US GET INTO THE EVENTS THEY HAVE BEEN REALLY SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT \nEXPERIENCES. YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL HOPEFULLY RECEIVED \nAN E-MAIL FROM US THIS MORNING THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT E-MAIL WITH A LINK TO \nTHIS SURVEY. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY THAT WE’RE CAPTURING FEEDBACK ON THE \nVISION. IF YOU DIDN’T GET THAT E-MAIL PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I AM HAPPY TO \nRESEND. I’LL MAYBE PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT AND ASK FOLKS IF THEY WOULD \nLIKE TO TAKE THEIR PHONES OUT AND SCAN THE QR CODE. SAVE IT FOR LATER. \nTHE SURVEY IS ABOUT 5 TO 7 MINUTES SO MAYBE AFTER THE MEETING TODAY. WE \nENCOURAGE ALL OF TO YOU TAKE IT AND SHARE IT WITH YOUR NETWORKS AND \nCOMMUNITIES. WE’LL BE CLOSING THE SURVEY AT THE END OF THIS MONTH ON \nOCTOBER 31ST. SO\, WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING AT ALL OF \nTHESE EVENTS? WE HAVE TALKED TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. \nWE HAVE HAD OVER 250 INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE INTERACT WITH OUR — OR ENGAGE ON OUR \nINTERACTIVE BOARD. AND ON THIS BOARD\, WHICH YOU CAN SEE A BIT IN THESE \nPHOTOS\, WE ASK PEOPLE WHAT’S IMPORTANT TO YOU. WE PROVIDED A SERIES OF VALUE \nSTATEMENTS AND ASKED PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY THE TOP THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO \nTHEM RIGHT NOW. AND WE ALSO ASKED THEM THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO THEM FOR \nFUTURE GENERATIONS. WE USED THIS ACTIVITY TO INITIATE CONVERSATIONS AND \nSHARE THE CONTEXT THAT SEA LEVEL RISE WILL HAVE LONG-TERM GENERATIONAL EXACT \nIMPACTS AND CHOICES TODAY WILL AFFECT OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. \nINCLUDING TOP PRIORITIES FROM ALL NINE COMMUNITIES BOTH IN RIGHT NOW AND FOR \nTHE FUTURE. UNSURPRISINGLY RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE \nTHINKING ABOUT THE DAY-TO-DAY ISSUES INCLUDING COST OF LIVING AND HOUSING \nAFFORDABILITY. WE SAW THAT PEOPLE VALUE PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING \nOF BAY AREA RESIDENTS IT WAS A HIGH PRIORITY TODAY AND FOR FUTURE \nGENERATIONS AS WE LOOK AT PRIORITIES HELD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS WE SEE \nVALUES CHANGED A BIT. YES FOLKS ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT COST OF LIVING \nBUT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE FUTURE BY FAR IS PROTECTING NATURAL HABITATS \nAND WILDLIFE. IT’S REMARKABLE THAT NEARLY EVERY COMMUNITY PRIORITIZED \nTHIS FOR THE FUTURE. WHILE THIS ACTIVITY WAS NOT INTENDED \nTO BE AN OFFICIAL SURVEY WE WILL USE THESE RESULTS TO HELP US VERIFY OUR \nVISION STATEMENTS. THROUGH THE EVENTS WE INTERACTED WITH A BROAD RANGE OF \nPEOPLE WITH VARYING LEVELS OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE TOPIC SOME HAD \nNEVER HEARD OF SEA LEVEL RISE. WE TALKED WITH KIDS AND ADULTS WE HAD \nMATERIALS AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH AND WE FORMED RELATIONSHIPS \nWHICH WE HOPE WILL BE PART OF OUR PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. WE HAVE BEEN \nGATHERING FEEDBACK FROM OUR ONLINE SURVEY WHICH YOU ALL HAVE THE QR CODE \nON YOUR PHONE. AMONG MANY QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY WE ASKED PEOPLE TO SHARE IN \nTHEIR OWN WORDS THEIR VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE SHORELINE. I WON’T READ \nALL OF THEM BUT DRAW ON I A COUPLE OF THEMES THAT STOOD OUT TO ME. \nPEOPLE ARE ENVISIONING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS AT ALL \nLEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER TOWARDS THE SAME SET OF BOLD \nOBJECTIVES THAT SEA LEVEL RISE CLIMATE CHANGE OFFER OPPORTUNITY TO RETHINK \nOUR CURRENT SYSTEMS AND FOSTER HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER AND THE \nNATURAL WORLD. SO FAR THE SURVEY HAS GENERATED 170 RESPONSES AND WILL CLOSE \nIN OCTOBER THIS INFORMATION ALSO IS BEING USED TO CONFIRM OUR VISION \nSTATEMENTS AND VALIDATE AND GATHER VOICES FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE REGION. \nLASTLY WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT THURSDAY OCTOBER 26TH ON \nZOOM PLEASE TENANTS IN THE MORNING THIS MORNING’S E-MAIL YOU RECEIVED A ZOOM \nREGISTRATION LINK FOR THIS WORKSHOP. IT WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO \nLEARN ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT DEBUTING CHALLENGES \nOPPORTUNITIES AND BAY AREA ADAPTATION SHARING MORE RESULTS FROM ALL FEEDBACK \nWE HAVE BEEN GATHERING IN THIS PHASE\, AS WE BEGIN TRANSITIONING INTO THE \nNEXT PHASE WHICH IS DEFINING SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS. \nWHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN WE HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT \nTHIS THROUGH A COUPLE OF MAJOR BUCKETS. 50 FIRST IS WHAT’S IN THE PLAN\, \nWHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE AND WHAT ARE GOOD PLANS THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS \nHAVE BEEN DOING THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM. NEXT THINKING ABOUT WHAT’S THE \nPROCESS FOR HOW THESE PLANS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. IMPORTANT PART OF THE \nQUESTION IS WHAT’S THE SCALE OF THE PLAN OR SUBREGION\, WHO LEADS AND \nIMPLEMENTS IT: THERE ARE IDEAS FOR HOW WE MIGHT CONSIDER SCALE OF PLANS FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE’LL BE EXPLORING MULTIPLE SCALES CITIES COUNTIES OPERATIONAL \nLANDSCAPE UNITS EVALUATING TRADE-OFFS DIFFERENT APPROACHES LASTLY THINKING \nABOUT PLANS ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTED WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WILL BE \nTACKLING THESE QUESTIONS WITH US WE’LL BRING THESE QUESTIONS TO OUR RISING \nSEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AS WELL AS CONSIDERING FOCUS \nGROUPS TO ENSURE THE WAY WE DEFINE THESE PLANS IS RESPONSIVE TO \nCHALLENGES AT HAND. NOW WE’RE HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE LAIRD BILL. OUR \nNEXT STEP IN SUBREGIONAL PLANS IS EXCITING WITH THE PASSAGE OF SB272. \nWHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY DO? IT REQUIRES LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ALONG THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE TO DEVELOP SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE RESILIENCY \nPLANS. THESE ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE BILL BUT ARE BEING DEFINED THROUGH OUR \nPROJECT. THIS IS A STATEWIDE BILL FOR THE OUTER COAST\, THE CALIFORNIA \nCOASTAL COMMISSION HAS EQUIVALENT RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH THEIR LOCAL \nCOASTAL PROGRAM AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO ENSURE ALIGN. THIS BILL REQUIRES BCDC TO DEVELOP \nGUIDELINES BY THE END OF 2024 WHICH WE’RE CURRENTLY DOING AND SPECIFICALLY \nCALLS OUT THAT THE GUIDELINES WILL BE BUILT ON BAY ADAPT’S GUIDING \nPRINCIPLES. IT REQUIRES THAT SUBREGIONAL PLANS ARE \nSUBMITTED TO BCDC FOR APPROVAL BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH GUIDELINES AND SETS \nUP IMPORTANT PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPROVED PLANS \nWILL BE PRIORITIZED FOR STATE FUNDING. \nSETS A TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF SUBREGIONAL PLANS BY JANUARY 2034 \nALTHOUGH WE’RE HOPING TO EXCEED THAT TIMELINE IN THE BAY AREA. \nWHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF SB272 FOR ADVANCING SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION? \nIT HELPS US ACHIEVE OUR GOALS FOR REGIONAL PREPARATION. AS I MENTIONED \nEARLIER A RISING BAY DOESN’T FOLLOW JURISDICTIONAL LINES AND ONE DECISION \nIN ONE LOCATION CAN HAVE CASCADING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ACROSS THE BAY AREA \nBAY ADAPT SB272 WILL HELP SOLVE THOSE THREATS BY ESTABLISHING COMMON \nREGION-WIDE STANDARDS SUPPORTING PLANS THAT TRANSCEND JURISDICTIONS. THE \nSAME IS TRUE ACROSS THE ENTIRE CALIFORNIA COAST THIS BILL COMPELS ALL \nCOMMUNITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA TO PREPARE ADAPTATION PLANS THAT \nPRIORITIZE DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES\, IS BASED ON SCIENCE AND PROTECTS \nCRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEIR NEIGHBORS OR \nHABITATS AND CREATES A PRIORITY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION AND FUNDING. A \nRECENT MTC BCDC REPORT ESTIMATES IT WILL COST $110 BILLION IN THE BAY AREA \nALONE TO ADAPT TO MID-CENTURY SEA LEVEL RISE. SB272 WILL HELP US PLAN WHERE \nWE NEED SMART INVESTMENTS TO PRIORITIZE AT RISK LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES NATURAL \nAREAS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS LINK THOSE PLANS TO STATE \nFUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THEM. WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE \nBILL\, SETS MINIMUM STANDARDS INCLUDING USE OF BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE LOCAL \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT INCLUDES EFFORTS TO ENSURE EQUITY FOR AT RISK \nCOMMUNITIES THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES \nRECOMMENDED PROJECTS IDENTIFICATION OF LEAD PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES \nA TIMELINE FOR UPDATES AS NEEDED AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN \nAGREEMENT WITH BCDC OR THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF \nANALYSIS OF AT LEAST COST FOR CRITICAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDED \nAPPROACHES FOR IMPLEMENTING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES PROJECTS THROUGH OUR \nCURRENT WORK WE INTEND TO NOT ONLY MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS BUT ALSO EXCEED \nTHEM. WE’RE INCLUDING A BROADER RANGE OF TOPIC AREAS IN OUR GUIDELINES \nWORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND ELEVATING EQUITY IN \nNATURE-BASED ADAPTATION SOLUTIONS THE GOOD NEWS\, WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED AND \nARE WELL ON OUR WAY BCDC REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDELINES \nWILL ADDRESS MINIMUM STANDARDS AND MORE. \nADAPTING REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN SB272 ARE ALIGNED ON TRACK AND \nLINK FUNDING WE’RE ALIGNED WITH THIS BILL BCDC WORKED CLOSELY WITH SENATOR \nLAIRD AND A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP SB 272 AND THE COMMISSION AND \nMANY OTHERS ARE AROUND THE REGION TOOK SUPPORT VISION SUPPORT POSITIONS ON \nTHE BILL AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE ANTICIPATED THE ADOPTION OF SB272 WE \nSTARTED MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS EVEN BEFORE THE BILL WAS SIGNED AND THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DEVELOPED LAST YEAR AS YOU CAN SEE IN \nTHE BLUEPRINT OF SB272 OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE WORKED \nCOLLABORATIVELY WITH THE VOLUNTARY BAY AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIONAL \nPARTNERS TO DEVELOP BAY ADAPT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS WE IMPLEMENT THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL. WE WILL ALSO BE PROVIDING POLICY TECHNICAL \nASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS THEY APPLY THE GUIDELINES AND \nDEVELOP THESE PLANS WE’RE ON TRACK TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES BY THE END OF \n2024 IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE BILL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPORTANTLY THIS BILL \nIS RANKED TO FUNDING AND THIS IS NOT AN UNFUNDED MANDATE FOR LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS A GRANT FOR FUNDING DEVELOPING BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPLANS WILL ISSUE AVAILABLE STARTING AT THE END OF 2023 FROM THE OCEAN \nPROTECTION COUNCIL AND OTHER POTS COULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS PURPOSE AS WELL\, O \nTHIS. PC HAS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR PHASING AND IMPLEMENTING \nPLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION WORK WITH OPC ON THE CURRENT GRANT ON THEIR \nCURRENT GRANT CRITERIA ONCE THESE GUIDELINES ARE COMPLETE WE WILL WORK \nWITH OPC TO UPDATE THOSE FUTURE ROUNDS THESE ARE HISTORIC LEVELS OF FUNDING \nFOR ADAPTATION SO IT IS IN JURISDICTIONS BEST INTEREST TO GET \nTHESE PLANS DEVELOPED SOON THE STATE HAS ALLOCATED $690 MILLION IN \nMULTI-YEAR FUNDING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BETWEEN NOW AND 2050. \nWHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US? SB272 PRESENTS CHALLENGES AND \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR BCDC IN THE BAY AREA WE’LL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES \nAND NOW HAVE SB272 BEHIND IT WHILE THE BILL CALLS FOR SUBREGIONAL PLANS TO BE \nCOMPLETED BY 2034 WE THINK THE REGION CANNOT WAIT THAT LONG TO PLAN FOR IT. \nWE CAN COLLECTIVELY WORK TOGETHER TO ADOPT PLANS SOONER ONE WAY IS BCDC \nWILL ESTABLISH AS I MENTIONED A SUPPORTIVE FLEXIBLE POLICY AND \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO MEET CITIES AND COUNTIES WHERE THEY ARE \nCONNECT THEM TO FUNDING AND REDUCE BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL PLANNING COSTS WE \nWILL CONTINUE TO DEFINE THE SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ENSURE LOCAL PLAN APPROVAL \nPROCESS CLEAR AND CODIFIED SO THAT GOVERNMENTS KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. \nFINALLY BCDC STRATEGIC PLAN FORESEES A UNIFIED CONSISTENT REGIONAL APPROACH \nACROSS BCDC PLANNING AND REGULATORY FUNCTIONS IN LIGHT OF RISING SEA LEVEL \nAND DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER BCDC REGULATORY AND PLANNING \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO FOSTER LARGER SCALE \nADAPTATION EFFORTS. AS BCDC IMPLEMENTING SB272 WE’LL HOLD \nPUBLIC DISCUSSIONS WHETHER AND HOW TO CHANGE OUR LAWS AND POLICIES TO BEST \nIMPLEMENT THIS NEW BILL. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. I’M \nSURE YOU HAVE LOTS MUCH QUESTIONS. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AND WILL GO AHEAD \nAND TURN IT BACK OVER TO COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN. THANK YOU \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS? \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, JESSE. THAT WAS FANTASTIC. \nTHE 272 REFERS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND YOU SAID IN ONE OF YOUR EARLIER \nSLIDES THAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN COULD BE BASED ON THE CITY\, THE COUNTY\, OR AN \nOLU\, I THINK IS THE TERM WE’RE NOW USING. WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION? \nOAKLAND AND ALAMEDA COULD EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PLAN? OR THEY COULD DO IT \nON A COUNTY-WIDE BASIS OR AS PART OF AN LOU? WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? \n>>SPEAKER: RIGHT NOW OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS THROUGH AS I MENTIONED OUR \nADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS WORKING WITH OUR RISING SEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP AND FOCUS GROUPS ACTUALLY TO COME UP WITH THAT DECISION IN THE PROCESS \nTO DEFINE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN IS AND THAT INCLUDES ANY KIND OF \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ASPECTS SO OUR INTENTION AT THIS POINT IS NOT THAT \nEVERYBODY POSSIBLY GETS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ALTHOUGH WE WANT TO EXPLORE \nAND ENSURE WHEN PEOPLE ARE PLANNING THEY’RE DOING SO IN WAYS THAT REALLY \nSUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION\, AT THIS POINT WE DON’T INTEND EVERYBODY GETS \nTO CHOOSE ON THEIR OWN BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PHASES OF THE PROJECT \nWE’LL BE EVALUATING THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET INTO \nTHE DEVELOPING OF GUIDELINES WE’LL HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROACH THAT WE’LL BE \nUSING. >>SPEAKER: ADDING TO THAT\, WE’LL \nINCLUDE IN THE GUIDELINES WHAT THE DEFINITION OF SUBREGION IS. WE WON’T \nLEAVE IT OPEN AND WE’LL BRING THAT BACK TO YOU AS COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH IN ON \nAS WELL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU. WELL\, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ADD\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK JACKIE AND TODD HALLENBECK FOR COMING TO MOUNTAIN \nVIEW’S BIRTHDAY PARTY FOR SHORELINE PARK. IT WAS OUR 40th ANNIVERSARY AND \nFOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON’T KNOW\, SHORELINE PARK WAS BUILT UPON A — \nABOUT A 30-YEAR LANDFILL THAT WAS BUILT WITH SAN FRANCISCO GARBAGE. AND IT’S \nREALLY QUITE AN INTERESTING PUBLIC WORKS SUCCESS STORY. \nIT’S A BEAUTIFUL 700 FIRST ACRE REGIONAL PARK NOW. BUT WE DO HAVE \nFOREVER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS LANDFILL THAT’S UNDERNEATH IT\, BUT ON THE GOOD \nSIDE\, IT RAISED THE SURFACE ELEVATION OF THE AREA OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ADJACENT \nTO THE BAY BY NINE FEET. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT THE REST OF THE \nWAY IS A LITTLE LESS THAN SOME PEOPLE IN OTHER AREAS MAY HAVE TO DO. \nANYWAY\, I WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL THANK THEM FOR COMING. PEOPLE WERE HAVING A \nGREAT TIME. TODD TOOK SOME FOLKS OUT ON TOUR OF RESTORATIONS THAT ARE GOING \nON AND JACKIE WAS VERY BUSY ASKING QUESTIONS SO WE REALLY APPRECIATED THE \nINVOLVEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY CELEBRATION. THEN I WANT TO ASK ABOUT \nTHIS WHAT IS SUBREGIONAL. THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DEVELOPED A PLAN\, AND \nABOUT 2013\, AND WE REVISED IT A FEW TIMES. IT HAS 14 PROJECTS THAT WE \nNEED TO DO. AND WE COORDINATE WITH PALO ALTO AND \nSUNNYVALE AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT\, AND THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AND ALL SORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. BUT WE — \nYOU KNOW\, I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO BUILD ON THAT PLAN. SO\, I’M REALLY \nINTERESTED IN SEEING HOW THIS SUBREGION GETS DEFINED AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE \nBUILD ON WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE\, EVEN THOUGH IT’S — I KNOW THE \nPLANNING IS QUITE UNEVEN THROUGHOUT THE AREA. SO\, MY QUESTION\, REALLY\, IS \nJUST\, GENERALLY\, HOW ARE WE PLANNING TO DO THAT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THIS IS DANA BRECHWALD\, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR \nFOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION WE’RE IN THE BEGINNING PHASES OF DEFINING THAT \nRIGHT NOW\, I WANT TO REASSURE PEOPLE WE DON’T HAVE A FINAL OUTCOME IN MIND \nRIGHT NOW IT WILL BE A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WE’LL HAVE A WORKING GROUP AND \nBACK TO THE SEA LEVEL RISE WORKING GROUP AND BRING IT BACK TO THE \nCOMMISSION WE’LL HAVE SOME FOCUS GROUPS TO HELP DEFINE THAT\, LOOKING AT THE \nPROCESS AND BUILDINGS ON THE PLANNING THAT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE. SO WE \nDON’T HAVE ANY FINAL ANSWER. [LAUGHTER] \nFOR YOU AT THIS TIME. BUT YOU DO RAISE GOOD POINTS AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nGOING TO CONSIDER AS WE COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN \nS >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: GREAT. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS\, AROUND THE BAY\, WHO \nHAS\, SORT OF\, JURISDICTION FOR FLOOD PROTECTION\, WHICH IS WHAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE PROTECTION S REALLY IT’S COASTAL FLOOD PROTECTION FROM COASTAL FLOODING \nAND IT VARIES ALL OVER THE MAP IT’S LIKE A PATCHWORK QUILT I WANT TO MAKE \nSURE YOU’RE INCLUDING THE FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCIES AS WELL IN THIS \nGROUP. RIGHT? THAT YOU’RE TALKING TO. ARE THEY — \nYOU DIDN’T MENTION THEM IN THE SPECIFICALLY IN THE PRESENTATION\, BUT \nI AM SURE THEY’RE PART OF THE MIX. IS THAT CORRECT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE HAVE AN ADVISORY GROUP OF 40 INDIVIDUALS THAT PANT \nGAMUT OF PRACTITIONERS WE HAVE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ON THAT \nWE’RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE MORE FOCUS GROUPS AND MAKE SURE THAT \nAT DIFFERENT PARTS TO ENSURE THAT WE’RE CAPTURING THOSE EXPERT VOICES\, THAT WE \nCREATE SPACES IN THIS PROCESS TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OH YES THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THAT. I KNOW \nSEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING ON THAT EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP. THAT FILLS \nTHAT BILL. THANKS VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: THANKS. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THE BRIEFING AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF\, ESPECIALLY LARRY AND SPECIFICALLY STEVE AS WELL\, SB272 \nIS A REAL STEP FORWARD FOR THE COMMISSION\, JUST A MILESTONE I THINK \nWE SHOULD RECOGNIZE. WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST \nSEVERAL YEARS ABOUT THE SORT OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HELP US WITH \nADAPTATION EFFORTS AND 272 REALLY TICKS A LOT OF THOSE BOXES SO IT’S IMPORTANT \nAS A STEP FORWARD AS REGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS COME TOGETHER AND WE \nTHINK ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR \nESPECIALLY FOR THE LEGISLATURE WHETHER IT’S FOR POLICY LEGISLATION REGARDING \nIMPLEMENTATION OR ESPECIALLY NEXT STEPS ON FINANCING AND FUNDING ADAPTING A \nEFFORTS\, THE FACT THAT WE’RE DOING ALL OF THIS WORK IN RESPONSE TO A MANDATE \nFROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE\, AS OPPOSED TO DOING IT JUST BECAUSE THE \nCOMMISSION THINKS IT’S A GOOD IDEA\, IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO\, I JUST WANTED \nTO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS STEP. AND\, REALLY\, THANK STAFF AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF FOR MAKING SURE THAT THIS BILL IS SO CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH \nOUR THINKING AND OUR EXISTING EFFORTS. AND I THINK IT WILL REALLY GIVE US A \nBOOST. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS CHAIR WASSERMAN. THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR \nTHIS EXCELLENT COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION. \nOBVIOUSLY THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING MOMENT TO BE N AS I’M THINKING ABOUT \nTHIS QUESTION OF SUBREGIONAL\, HOW TO DEFINE SUBREGIONAL. THERE IS ALREADY \nI THINK IT YOU HAVE HEARD PEOPLE ALREADY IDENTIFYING DIFFERENT STARTING \nPOINTS DIFFERENT RESOURCES DIFFERENT PRIORITIES AMONG ALL THE DIFFERENT \nACTORS AND I THINK FRANKLY IN SOME CASES DIFFERING LEVELS OF TRUST \nBETWEEN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF WHOM I CONSTITUTE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL \nJURISDICTION LOOKS LIKE SO WHAT OCCURS TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT ALSO BE THINKING \nABOUT AS YOU’RE CONSIDERING HOW TO DEFINE SUBKNEE REGIONAL IS ALSO HOW TO \nTHINK ABOUT ENSURING INTEGRITY ACROSS SUBREGIONAL PLANS SO WE HAVE A KIND OF \nSECONDARY WAY TO BACKSTOP ANY GAPS IN THE SYSTEM. WHICH THIS LEGISLATION \nWAS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GIVES BCDC THE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY HOLD THE \nWHOLE PICTURE SO CONSIDERING YOU CAN DO THAT IN A WAY THAT MATCHES UP WITH \nDEFINING AREAS I THINK WILL BE IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER NELSON. YOU STILL HAVE \nYOUR HAND UP. DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SHOT? OR YOU JUST HAVEN’T PULLED IT \nDOWN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ECKERLE RELATED TO THIS. \nAND THAT IS IF YOU CAN GIVE US ANY SENSE OF THE TIMING OF THE ROLE ROLL \nOUT ON THE FUNDING FROM OPC FOR THESE PLANNING EFFORTS. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO GIVE AN \nOVERARCHING REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION\, THE \nOCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL’S SB1 GRANT PROGRAM WHICH IS WHERE THIS 95 MILLION \nWILL LIVE IS GOING TO OFFER TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS FOR FUNDING ONE FOR \nPLANNING ONE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SO EXAMPLES OF PLANNING PROJECTS \nINCLUDE COMMUNITY VISIONING VULNERABLE ASSESSMENTS DATA COLLECTION ADAPTATION \nPLANS AND ELIGIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS INCLUDE NATURE-BASED GREEN \nGRAY HYBRID ADAPTATION PROJECTS FEASIBILITY STUDIES PROJECT DESIGN SO \nYOU HAVE HEARD THAT THIS PROGRAM INCLUDES A SET OF ADAPTATION CRITERIA \nWHICH ARE THE STANDARDIZED SET OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WANT TO \nSEE\, THE CRITERIA DRAFT STANDS NOW AIMING TO ESTABLISH BEST PRACTICES AND \nCONSISTENCY ACROSS OUR ADAPTATION EFFORTS WE DEVELOPED IN THAT CLOSE \nCOORDINATION WITH STAFF FROM BCDC AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND OTHER \nMEMBER AGENCIES OF OUR STATE. SEA LEVEL RISE COLLABORATIVE SO THAT FINAL \nCRITERIA FOR THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR GRANT PROGRAM SOLICITATION WHICH \nWE ANTICIPATE RELEASING BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. SO ONCE THE SOLICITATION \nIS RELEASED WE INTEND TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE PLANNING PROJECTS THROUGH \nROLLING QUARTERLY NON-COMPETITIVE PROCESS PROVIDING THEY SATISFY THE \nREQUIREMENTS IN THE FINAL SEA LEVEL RISE CRITERIA AND WE WILL BEGIN \nACCEPTING IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS IN THE COMET PETATIVE PROCESS MID-TO LATE \n2024 THEN ONE OTHER NOTE THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR EQUITY WORK WE ARE \nENSURING THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO THIS FUNDING OPC IS SIMULTANEOUSLY \nLAUNCHING A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL PROVIDE DIRECT GRANT \nAPPLICATION SERVICES TO LOCAL REGIONAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES SO TO QUALIFY FOR THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nAPPLICANTS MUST MEET SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT CRITERIA IS CURRENTLY UNDER \nDEVELOPED BUT THE GOAL IS TO PRIORITIZE FUNDING TO COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nUNDERRESOURCED AND ARE LACKING NECESSARY CAPACITY TO COMPETE FOR THIS \nFUNDING. SO INTERESTED LOCAL AND REGIONAL AND TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS TO \nMEET THAT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CRITERIA CAN APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE THAT \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT SO I’M COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE COMMISSION \nAPPRISED ON THE NEXT STEPS AND ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN \nLEARNING MORE ABOUT BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT WHEN OUR FUNDING BECOMES \nAVAILABLE TO VISIT OPC’S WEB SITE AT WWW.OPC.CA.GOV. AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BURKE? >>SPEAKER: I WANT TO ECHO \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S POINT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE’RE ENGAGING WITH \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES SO FOR EXAMPLE\, THE SAN FRANCISCO SIS QUIT OWE CREEK \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTS BOTH SAN MATEO\, SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE \nCITIES EAST OF PALO ALTO\, BECAUSE SOUTH OF THE CREEK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY \nPALO ALTO\, ALLEY WATER AND MOUNTAIN VIEW ARE IN COLLABORATION TOGETHER \nNORTH OF THE CREEK SAN MATEO COUNTY EAST PALO ALTO DID NOT HAVE THE \nRESOURCES AND SAN MATEO COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE ESSENTIALLY FLOOD CONTROL \nDISTRICT AND FUNDING SO THE FLOOD CONTROL JOINT POWER AUTHORITY HAS \nASSUMED THE LEADS ROLE ON THE BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION INITIATIVE FOR \nEAST PALO ALTO. SO\, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE \n— ARE WORKING TOGETHER\, HAS BEEN MORPHING BASED UPON KIND OF ORGANIC \nCIRCUMSTANCES. AND IT WON’T BE EASY SORTING ALL THAT OUT. BUT THE FLOOD \nCONTROL AGENCIES\, CERTAINLY\, ARE\, I THINK\, MAYBE MORE IMPORTANT PLAYERS \nTHAN WE HAVE APPRECIATED. THANKS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS? I HAVE GOT A COUPLE BEFORE WE GO TO THE PUBLIC. \nONE\, I CERTAINLY ECHO THOSE REMARKS\, AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ON AND OFF \nWITH STAFF ABOUT INVOLVING THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS. NOT AN EASY TASK\, \nJUST TO NOTE. BUT A CRITICAL ONE\, INCLUDING THE FACT \nTHAT\, OVER THE LONG RANGE\, THEY MAY BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE FUNDING GAP. \nBECAUSE AS SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER\, \nTHERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT IN THE PAST TO PUT A MEASURE ON THE STATEWIDE BALLOT \nTO CHANGE THE WAY THEY COLLECT FEES TO MAKE THEM MORE LIKE THE UTILITIES \nREQUIRING ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE INSTEAD OF A TWO THIRD’S VOTE. SO\, FOR A \nRANGE EVER REASONS\, THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT. \nI WANT TO EMPHASIZE COMMISSIONER ECKERLY’S REMARKS AS WELL AS THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION. THE FUND THAT’S OUT THERE IS NOT COMING ALL AT ONCE IT’S \nGOING TO BE A ROLLING PROCESS IT’S BEING PUT IN PLACE FORMULATED AND SOME \nOF THE EFFORTS REGARDING THAT GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS \nABOUT WORKING TO BETTER COORDINATE THE PROCESS OF THE VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS \nGOING AFTER THAT FUNDING SO THAT WE ARE HELPING EACH OTHER AND NOT HURTING \nEACH OTHER. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nREYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU’RE NOT FROM THE PUBLIC. YES YOU \nMAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES. \nYOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WHEN THE GOVERNOR SIGNED 272 STEVE SOMEHOW FOUND THAT \nOUT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY\, AND E-MAILED ME\, AND I THINK THE REST OF SENIOR \nSTAFF AT THE SAME TIME. AND I WANT TO SAY\, FIRST OF ALL\, THAT THIS BILL \nWOULD NOT BE WHAT IT IS WITHOUT STEVE. HE DID AN ABSOLUTELY SUPERB JOB \nLEADING THE EFFORT AND WORKING WITH SENATOR LAIRD’S STAFF\, WORKING WITH \nCOMMITTEE STAFF\, MAKING SURE THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION KNEW WHAT WE WERE \nDOING\, MAKING SURE THAT WE KNEW WHAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WAS DOING. \nHE HAD A LOT OF HELP FROM JESSICA AND DANA AND JACKIE AND SOME FROM ME AND \nCERTAINLY FROM MICHAEL AND GREG. BUT STEVE DESERVES TREMENDOUS PRAISE FOR \nHIS WORK ON THIS. WE WOULDN’T BE HERE WITHOUT WHAT HE DID. \nTO ANSWER COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S QUESTION\, WHICH IS HOW\, AND ALSO \nCOMMISSIONER BURKE’S AND EVERYBODY’S\, HOW WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS WITH \nREGIONAL SHORELINE PLANNING. MY ANSWER IS\, WITH GREAT LACRITY. \nTHERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF COMPLEXITY ALONG THE SHORELINE WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT. THERE WILL BE SURPRISES DURING THE NEXT YEAR\, YEAR \nAND A QUARTER AS WE DO THIS BUT WE ARE GETTING OUR DUCKS IN A ROW INTERNALLY \nTO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW HOW WE CAN FORECAST AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE \nSO THERE ARE AS FEW SURPRISES AS POSSIBLE. \nWITH REGARD TO THE OPC’S FUNDING\, I THINK COMMISSIONER ECKERLE WOULD \nEXPECT ME TO SAY THIS BUT I HAVEN’T CLEARED IT WITH HER. LET ME — THANK \nGOD SHE’S SMILING. LET IT BE STATED HERE THAT AS SOON AS WE HEAR ANYTHING \nABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, \nBECAUSE WE WILL NO DOUBT DISTRIBUTE IT JUST AS THE OPC WILL. AND WE WILL\, \nALSO — I HAVE AUTHORITY\, THE DISTRICT WRITTEN MYSELF A NOTE PUT THE OPC WEB \nSITE ON MY COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY TODAY SO THAT YOU ALL CAN JUST CLICK \nAND FIND OUT JUST AS MUCH AS YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH FUNDING. \nFINALLY\, I WANT TO SAY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVED THE CLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENTS BACK IN 2011. SO\, THAT WAS \nA DOZEN YEARS AGO. IT HAS TAKEN US A DOZEN YEARS TO GET TO 272. BUT I \nDON’T THINK THAT CANDIDLY IS NECESSARY TOO LONG. I THINK THAT SO MUCH HAS \nHAPPENED OVER THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS THAT HAS CHANGED THE CONTEXT TO \nWHICH PEOPLE VIEW CLIMATE CHANGE AND RISING SEA LEVEL THAT WE PROBABLY \nCOULDN’T EVEN HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING A 272 BACK IN 2017 OR 2018. AND I \nWANT TO THANK ALL OF THE FOLKS WHO BEEN WITH US OVER THE PAST DOZEN YEARS. \nAND I WAS REMINDED OF THIS YESTERDAY AS I WAS DRIVING AND LISTENING TO OF ALL \nTHINGS\, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND THOUSAND DOLLARS THUNDER ROAD. THERE IS A LINE \nIN THERE AS HE LOOKS AT MARY AND SAYS — THEY WANT TO ESCAPE THAT TOWN\, BUT \nTHE DOOR IS OPEN BUT THE RIDE AIN’T FREE SO WE HAVE EARNED THIS DOOR BEING \nOPENED\, THE RIDE IS GOING TO BE COMPLEX. BUT WE’RE GOING TO GET IT \nDONE WITH YOUR HELP INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU \nFOR ALWAYS COMING TO BCDC AND PUTTING ON YOUR REGIONAL HAT DISTINGUISH — \nBECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO TAKE. \nWITH THAT CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR \nLEADERSHIP FOR HELPING US GET TO 2272 AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AS IMPATIENT AS I NORMALLY AM\, I’M ALMOST \nINCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE TIMING OF 272. \nI DO WANT TO REPEAT MY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AND ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT \nSUPPORTED GETTING 272 SIGNED THIS ROUND\, INCLUDING THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS \nWHO\, IN MANY WAYS\, REPRESENT THE LARGEST MOST ORGANIZED PART OF WHAT I \nVIEW AS OUR CONSTITUENCIES\, SAFETY BAY AND THE BAY PLANNING COALITION. IT \nWAS A UNITED AND COMMUNITY EFFORT THAT GOT THAT DONE. SO\, I THANK YOU ALL. \nWITH THAT\, WE WILL TURN TO ITEM 11. THANK YOU VERY MUCH\, JACKIE\, FOR AN \nEXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANKS\, STAFF\, FOR THE WORK. \nAND\, YEAH\, THE RIDE AIN’T FREE\, AND IT AIN’T OVER YET. \nALMOST 11 IS A BRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK TO IMPLEMENT THE \nCOMMISSION’S 2023 STRATEGIC PLAN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOLDZBAND WILL \nSTART THE BRIEFING. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: SO THIS FLOWS \nRIGHT FROM 272. BELIEVE IT OR NOT T REALLY DOES. AND IT FLOWS FROM BAY \nADAPT. I DON’T KNOW WHO HAS THE PRESENTATION\, BUT IF SOMEBODY COULD \nSTART BRINGING IT UP\, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE PROMISED YOU WHEN YOU ALL \nADOPTED THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN THE SPRING\, THAT WE WOULD COME AT YOU IN \nTHE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. \nWELL\, AUGUST DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE WE COULDN’T MEET IN AUGUST AND WE ONLY \nHAD ONE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. SO WE’RE HERE IN OCTOBER AND WILL BE BACK TO \nYOU IN EITHER DECEMBER OR JANUARY WITH AN UPDATE AS WELL. \nBUT THIS IS\, I THINK\, BASICALLY\, DUE TO\, IN GREAT PART\, CHAIR WASSERMAN’S \nINSISTENCE\, A REAL WAY FOR US TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON JUST PARTS OF \nTHE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE THINK YOU MIGHT WELL BE MOST INTERESTED IN\, AND \nTHAT WE\, CERTAINLY\, ARE INTERESTED IN\, AS WELL AS GIVING YOU A LARGER SCALE \nUPDATE. SO\, JESSICA\, ARE YOU GOING TO DO THIS OR AM I GOING TO DO THIS? \nI’M GOING TO DO THIS? THANK YOU. YOU CAN TELL WE PRACTICED THIS. BUT I \nWANT TO THANK JESSICA FAIN A LOT BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN TREMENDOUS IN \nPUTTING THIS TOGETHER. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: WE’RE ALL GOING TO DO THIS LARRY. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WE’LL ALL BE DOING THIS BUT I’LL START IT OFF. YOU \nREMEMBER THAT WE CREATED YOU ALL WITH OUR HELP CREATED A NEW VISION WE HAVE \nFIVE GOALS EACH WITH ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES THIS IS NOT NEWS TO YOU \nNOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH REGARD TO THE GOALS OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. THE CORE VALUES REMAIN\, EQUITABLE AND \nINCLUSIVE SCIENCE BASED AND DATA-DRIVEN\, AGILE AND PROACTIVE\, \nALACRITY IS IN THERE\, INCLUSIVE SERVICE ORIENTED TRUSTED ACCOUNTABLE AND WE \nWANT TO LIVE UP TO THAT ON A DAILY BASIS. NEXT SLIDE. \nWE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND YOU WILL REMEMBER \nTHAT WE HAVE FIVE GOALS SOME OF SOMETHING LIKE 24 OR 25 DIFFERENT \nOBJECTIVES WITHIN THEM. YOU WILL SEE A HISTORY OF WHAT WE SINGLE ON TRACK\, \nTHERE HAVE BEEN A FEW DELAYS OR BASICALLY ISSUES\, A COUP EL \nTHATHAVEN’T BEEN COMPLETED AND A BUNCH THAT HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN STARTED YET. \nTHESE ARE BASED UPON THE DIFFERENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WHICH THEN \nHAVE UNDERNEATH THEM A SERIES OF ACTIONS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE. \nSO THIS HISTOGRAM ISN’T THE GOALS\, IT’S NOT THE OBJECTIVE\, IT’S THE ACTUAL \nACTIONS THAT WILL COMPLETE THOSE OBJECTIVES AND GET US TO THAT GOAL. \nSO THAT’S WHY YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE 70 OR SO\, 65\, OR 70 DIFFERENT ACTIONS \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH 65 OR 70 ACTIONS\, GOD FORBID\, BECAUSE WE \nWANT YOU TO STAY AWAKE. BUT WHAT WE WILL DO IS LEAD YOU THROUGH A COUPLE \nOF THOSE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES EACH OF THOSE FIVE GOALS SO YOU CAN SEE HOW WE \nARE PROGRESSING. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WHICH IS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE \n1.1. SO THAT’S WHERE I THROW IT OVER TO JESSICA. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANKS LARRY. SO\, STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.1 IS HOW WE \nSUCCESSFULLY LEAD OUR BAY ADAPT PROGRAM. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THIS \nPAST QUART INCLUDE ACTUALLY COMPLETING ONE OF THE TASKS IN THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM. WE PUBLISHED WITH MTC A REPORT CALLED THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK THAT WE BRIEFED YOU ON\, WE \nHAVE KICKED OFF LEADERSHIP GROUPS TO GUIDE BAY ADAPT IMPLEMENTATION \nINCLUDING OUR ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE AND IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSE \nPARTICIPATION IN THE VARIOUS BAY ADAPT GROUPS AND FOCUSED ON COMMUNICATIONS \nUPDATED OUR WEB SITE\, WE STARTED A BLOG THANKS TO SOME SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE \nFROM SOME CONSULTANTS TO REALLY UP OUR COMMUNICATIONS GAME. \nONE OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT — SOME OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT WE’LL BE \nFACING ARE COMING OUT OF THAT FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK\, HOW DO WE \nACTUALLY PULL TOGETHER AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS AND AGREEMENT TO HELP FILL \nTHAT GAP. SO WE’RE WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS AT \nTHE BAY AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION\, MISSISSIPPI ABAG REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATIVE TO UNDERSTAND ACROSS OUR AGENCIES TO TRY TO SOLVE THIS. WE’RE \nALSO — WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE HOW WE’RE DOING ON BAY ADAPT SO OUR \nTEAM IS DEVELOPING METRICS ON HOW TO MEASURE PROGRESS. \nFINALLY ONE THING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO NEXT SUMMER IS TO HOST AN ANNUAL \nFORUM ON REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION. THIS WILL BE A NEW EVENT \nWE’RE JUST STARTING TO SCOPE IT OUT. IF YOU HAVE IDEAS LET US KNOW BUT \nTHAT’S SOMETHING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO. NEXT SLIDE. \nANOTHER STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OF GOAL ONE IS AROUND OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO MUCH DETAIL HERE YOU HEARD A LOT \nFROM JACKIE ON THIS. NEEDLESS TO SAY WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT\, \nWE’RE HOSTING A PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT WEEK AND HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS \nAROUND THIS PHASE WHICH IS BACKGROUND VISION AND MEASURING OUR SUCCESS. \nMOVING FORWARD AS WE ENTER INTO OUR NEXT PHASE AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED \nDEFINING WHAT THESE SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS ARE DEVELOPING THOSE \nGUIDELINES AND INTEGRATING SB272 INTO THIS. I THINK I TURN IT OVER TO \nHARRIET. >>HARRIET ROSS: I’M NEXT. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES\, 2.1. THAT’S MINE. THAT REALLY SPEAKS TO \nDETERMINING — >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THAT’S THE NEXT \nSLIDE. >>HARRIET ROSS: SORRY. NEXT SLIDE. \nREALLY SPEAKS TO DETERMINING IF AND HOW BCDC AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD \nBE EXPANDED TO FOSTER THESE LARGER SCALE ADAPTATION EFFORTS WHICH ARE WE \nHAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY. LUCKY ME\, I’M NEW\, SO I GET TO SHARE \nTHE GREAT WORK AND THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT MY REGULATORY TEAM HAS BEEN \nWORKING ON. SO\, SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS WORKING TOWARDS THIS \nSTRATEGY REALLY INCLUDES UNDERTAKING A COACH OF COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF OUR \nPERMITTING PROGRAM. WE REVIEWED 15 MAJOR STUDIES LOOKING AT REGULATORY \nCHALLENGES POSED BY ADAPTATION AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OVER 30 MAJOR \nRECOMMENDATIONS FOR BCDC AND OUR REGULATORY PARTNERS TO CONSIDER. \nWE’LL BE TAKING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THESE STUDIES AND USING THEM TO INFORM \nSPECIFIC PROJECTS THE REGULATORY TEAM CAN PURSUE IN THE COMING YEARS. AND \nWE HAVE ALSO DEVOTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE DEPARTMENT \nFINANCE LED EMISSION BASED REVIEW FOR OUR PERMITTING PROGRAM\, WHICH YOU \nHEARD ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING. WE\, AND ALMOST EVERY MEMBER OF OUR \nREGULATORY TEAM IS PROVIDING INPUT AND EXPERTISE ON THAT REVIEW. THE PROJECT \nWILL RESULT IN A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFINANCE STAFF ON HOW BCDC CAN BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN \nPERMITTING AGENCY REALLY READY TO TACKLE MAJOR ADAPTATION PROJECTS \nCOMING AHEAD OF US. SOME OF OUR UPCOMING WORK INCLUDES \nSCOPING OUT A PROPOSAL FOR REIMAGINED BCDC JURISDICTION THAT WILL ALLOW THE \nCOMMISSION TO IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS WE HAVE \nTALKED ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE PLAN IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT WORK IS \nTO DEVELOP THE INCLUDING REGULATORY STAFF AS WELL AS THE GOAL FOR OUR \nULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS THE COMMISSION’S FUTURE REGULATORY PROGRAM \nTO REFLECT THE PRIORITIES DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THAT PLAN AND LASTLY WE’LL \nBE WORKING WITH A REGULATORY PARTNER TO SCOPE OUT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE \nIMPROVED MULTI-YEAR AGENCY ADAPTATION OVER THE COMING YEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE A NEW GROUP COMPLIANCE. AND COMPLIANCE SITS \nBETWEEN PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT. AND THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO INTEGRATE \nTHE COMPLIANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND INTO THE REGULATORY PROGRAM. \nAND I GOT TO SAY\, THE GOOD NEWS IS COMPLIANCE IS UP AND RUNNING\, DOING A \nGREAT JOB. WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATED THEM BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT \nAND PERMITTING\, POSITIVE RESULTS HAVE BEEN SEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND BY \nPERMITTEES\, AND IN OTHER — AND IN DIVERSIONS FROM FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT. LESS ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AND MORE IN COMPLIANCE WHICH IS THE \nGOAL HERE. IT’S INTERESTING IN DISCUSSIONS AT TIME WHEN WE SEND \nSOMETHING TO COMPLIANCE\, COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN LOOKING AT OUR PERMITS WHICH HAVE \nA WHOLE RANGE OF THINGS OVER TIME AND IT’S THE TIME THAT MAKES COMPALESTINES \nHAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND WHEN THINGS START TO FALL OFF COMPLIANCE CAN OFTEN \nGET THINGS BACK ON TRACK. I WOULD SAY THAT’S GOING REALLY WELL. \nCOORDINATION MEETINGS BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE WHICH IS \nGREAT REALLY OPERATING THERE AND FIVE MONTHLY MEETINGS BETWEEN COMPLIANCE \nAND REGULATORY TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE PERMITTING ISSUES MAKING THEM \nENFORCEABLE AND MAKING THINGS MORE COMPLIANT ALSO HOW TO TAKE SOME OF THE \nLOAD OFF OF PERMITTING. OUR NEXT CHALLENGE AND GRAY AREAS\, DOCUMENTING \nAND PROCESS AND RESOLVING THOSE AREAS. LAST PART IS HOW TO MEASURE THOSE \nEFFICIENCY GAINS SEEING WE’RE ACTUALLY GETTING BENEFITS FROM HAVING OUR \nCOMPLIANCE TEAM AND BEING ABLE TO SHOW MEASURABLE BENEFITS THOSE ARE OUR \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN 2.4. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.2 HIGHLIGHTS THE WORK ON BCDC RACIAL EQUITY PLAN SINCE \nLAST WE CAME TO YOU WE HAVE HAD REVIEW FROM SENIOR STAFF AND HAVE BEEN \nWORKING TO INTEGRATE COMMENTS WE HAVE ALSO BEEN REVIEWING ACTIONS WITH \nSUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS EVEN THOUGH THE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED WE MADE A \nLOT OF PROGRESS ON SEVERAL ACTIONS INCLUDING INCREASING FUNDING TO THE \nADVISERS BEGINNING BIANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROGRAM CURRENTLY WORKING ON \nFINAL DRAFT AND WILL BRING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR AND \nTO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL IN WINTER OF 2024. \nNEXT SLIDE. 3.3 FOCUSES ON STRENGTHENING COMMISSIONER EQUITY \nAWARENESS BRINGING TRAININGS TO ALL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AGENCY STAFF. \nSENIOR STAFF AT OUR AGENCIES HAVE REGISTERED ARE PLANNING TO GO TO \nTRAINING BEYOND LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT\, AFTER TRAINING WE’RE GOING TO INVITE \nTHE RESOURCES GROUP TO GIVE TRAINING TO ALL STAFF. WE ALSO CONTINUE TO HAVE \nEJ OFFICE HOURS FOR STAFF EVERY TWO WEEKS AND A MONTHLY RACIAL EQUITY \nMEDIA CLUB WE’RE READING THIS BOOK EVOLUTION OF A MOVEMENT ABOUT THE \nHISTORIED OF CALIFORNIA EJ MOVEMENT WE’RE PLANNING A SERIES OF EJ AND \nTRAVEL ENGAGEMENT TRAININGS IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND TRAINING WORK PLAN WITH \nCOASTAL COMMISSION AND STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR CDMA STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AS YOU CAN TELL \nMOST SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS HAVE A PARTICULAR GOAL FOR WHICH THEY ARE \nRESPONSIBLE PLUS PHOENIX ON THE EJ. MINE IS GOAL FOUR. AND YOU WILL \nREMEMBER THAT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.1 BASICALLY SAYS WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER \nJOB WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION AND WE NEED TO BE MORE \nACCESSIBLE. WE NEED TO INCREASE AWARENESS AND WE HAVE TO FOSTER \nSUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY DIALOGUES. WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS \nAS PART OF BAY ADAPT WE HAVE HELD TWO ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE MEETINGS \nAND WE HAVE HAD A SERIES OF POP-UP COMMUNITY EVENTS AND YOU SAW THE \nRESULTS OF THAT EARLIER TODAY WHEN JACKIE SHOWED YOU THE COMMENTS ON \nVISIONING AND THE LIKE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD WITH A GREAT \nGROUP OF STAFF ON DEVELOPING A NEW WEB SITE THAT WILL BE FAR MORE USER \nFOCUSED. WE JUST FOUND OUT THIS WEEK THAT THE \nMIGRATION HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED\, WHICH DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE GOING TO SEE A NEW \nWEB SITE TOMORROW\, BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT AT LEAST THE WEB SITE WILL BE UP \nAND RUNNING WE CERTAINLY THINK BY THE END — CERTAINLY WITHIN NOVEMBER. \nAND WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE FIRST EVER TRANSLATION SERVICES CONTRACT\, WHICH \nYOU HAVE APPROVED TO PROVIDE MORE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC ACCESS TO COMMISSION \nDOCUMENTS. SO OUR NEXT CHALLENGE IS\, ESSENTIALLY TO FINISH THE FIRST PART \nOF THE NEW WEB SITE\, PUT IT UP\, AND THEN CORRECT T BECAUSE WE KNOW IT’S \nNOT GOING TO BE PERFECT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO BRIEFINGS AT \nTHE COUNTY AND CITY LEVELS ABOUT BCDC AND THE BAY\, WHETHER THEY BE IN MARIN \nOR IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND OR WHEREVER THEY ARE\, AND WE ACCEPT ALL \nINVITATIONS AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO ASK MORE OF YOU IN ASSISTING WITH \nOUTREACH. BECAUSE YOU ARE GREAT PROSITIZERS\, AND GREAT VEHICLES FOR US \nTO GET PLACES. NEXT SLIDE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.2 WAS REALLY SIMPLE. HIRE A PIO. \nWELL\, WE HAVEN’T. BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT CNRA\, \nTHAT THE RESOURCES AGENCIES APPROVE THE DRAFT SENIOR LEVEL POSITION CALLED \nBCDC DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THAT DUTY STATEMENT BASICALLY SAYS \nTHAT THAT PERSON WILL BE A PART-TIME PAI\, PART-TIME LEGISLATIVE LIAISON \nPART-TIME CMA EXPERT AND BASICALLY ENSURING THAT AS WE LOOK OUTSIDE BCDC \nWE HAVE A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO CONNECT THOSE DOTS AND WE ARE LOOKING \nFORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CNRA TO GET THAT FUNDED. WE HAVE STARTED \nDISCUSSIONING WITH THEM AND WE ASSUME WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE AND HEADING OFF TO GOAL FIVE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES OF \nGOAL FIVE WAS TO HAVE OUR STAFF REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF THE BAY AREA WE HAVE \nBEEN ABLE TO MOVE TOWARDS BY CONTINUING TO RECRUIT GREAT TALENT FOR POSITIONS \nAND WE’RE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING SPECIAL SALARY INCREASES FOR SEVERAL \nCLASSIFICATIONS USED AT BCDC. NEXT QUARTER WE’RE CONDUCTING AN \nORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY AND INCLUDING A SEPARATE SURVEY ON RACIAL \nEQUITY. NEXT SLIDE. ANOTHER OBJECTIVE OF GOAL FIVE IS TO \nIMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGICAL UPGRADES TO IMPROVE PROCESSES. \nOUR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ANDREW CHEN DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF WORKING \nWITH NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY TO ON BOARD THEIR SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER \nWHICH ENHANCES OUR OVERALL CYBER SECURITY BY PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING \nSECURITY THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES ANDREW WORKED WITH THE CALIFORNIA \nMILITARY DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE OUR BIANNUAL IT SECURITY ASSESSMENT WHICH \nIS A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TO MEASURE CYBER SECURITY INCLUDING \nVULNERABILITY\, FIRE WALL ANALYSIS PHISHING SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MORE. \nLASTLY WE INITIATED THE WATCHED HOSTING SERVICES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF \nTECHNOLOGY WHICH PROVIDES A STANDARDIZED STATE WEB SITE TEMP PLATT \nAND ENHANCES SECURITY AND IMPROVES CONTENT MAINTENANCE. \nTHIS QUARTER WE REVIEWING FINDINGS FROM IT ASSESSMENT ENSURING WE ADDRESS ANY \nCONCERNS THEN WE’LL BE WORKING ON FINALIZING THE NEW WEB SITE WHICH WILL \nALSO INCLUDE A PAYMENT PORTAL TO ALLOW FOR ONLINE PAYMENT OF FINES AND PERMIT \nFEES. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: NEXT SLIDE. \nSO THAT\, IS AN OVERVIEW. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE\, IF YOU \nWOULD LIKE IT\, THE FULL ACTION PLAN\, WITH ALL — I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY — \n75\, 85 DIFFERENT ACTIONS\, EACH OF WHICH HAS BEEN COLOR-CODED\, GREEN\, YELLOW\, \nRED OR BLUE. IF YOU ARE CERTAINLY INTERESTED. \nBUT WE’RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI SEE NONE. OH OF COURSE. WHEN I SAY QUESTIONS I \nMEAN COMMENTS\, AS WELL. >>SPEAKER: OKAY. I SHOULD KNOW THAT \nBY NOW. LARRY\, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF. YOU ARE MAKING TANGIBLE \nPROGRESS ON ALL THESE GOALS AND IT WAS GREAT TO SEE HOW YOU ALL BROKE IT DOWN \nTODAY. THANK YOU. GOOD TO SEE THE PROGRESS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nBECAUSE THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHAT I MEAN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. I SHARE IN THE \nCONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYBODY FOR THE PRESENTATION\, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY \nTHAN THE PRESENTATION\, THE WORK ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND EVALUATING IT AND \nMONITORING IT. I THINK WE ARE MAKING GREAT STRIDES. WE MAY HAVE TO THINK \nABOUT A LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID FOR 272 FOR OUR PIO \nFUNDING. I SAY THAT ONLY SEMI FACETIOUSLY BECAUSE IN FACT IT IS A \n  \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-19-2023-commission-meeting-2/ LOCATION:Webinar CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231012T080000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231012T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20240131T055514Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055514Z UID:10000166-1697097600-1697130000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 12\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-12-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231011T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231011T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20231012T011242Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T060424Z UID:10000072-1697029200-1697043600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 11\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-11-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231010T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231010T210000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20231011T000424Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T063904Z UID:10000063-1696957200-1696971600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 10\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-10-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231005T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231005T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20231006T035810Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T025555Z UID:10000046-1696510800-1696525200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 5\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative permit applications that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of October 5\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to October 5\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after October 5\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nCalifornia State Lands Commission100 Howe Avenue\, Suite 100 SouthSacramento\, CA 95825 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.018.00 \nFiled on 09/22/2023 \n90th Day on 12/21/2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, approximately seven hundred and fifty feet west of the Eckley Pier\, near Crockett\, in Contra Costa County (parcel number 354-030-009-6). \nDescriptionTo remove and dispose of approximately 432 derelict timber piles and deck debris in an area from near the shoreline to approximately two hundred feet offshore\, and approximately seven hundred and fifty feet long\, parallel to the shoreline. The removal and disposal of the piles will be completed by barge in the Carquinez Strait\, with no land-based removal operations. The piles will be taken to CS Marine’s Mare Island facility and then disposed of at an approved facility. The project will be conditioned to ensure appropriate minimization measures are implemented to protect subtidal habitats and aquatic species\, including using a vibratory hammer where feasible\, the use of a floating debris boom during work activity\, and conducting pre- and post-construction eelgrass surveys and subsequent monitoring. The proposed project will have no impacts to existing public access at the Eckley Pier. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicant \nJohn Muir Land TrustP.O. Box 31Martinez\, CA 94533 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.004.00 \nFiled on 09/20/2023 \n90th Day on 12/19/2023 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Site (lat./long. 38.030758\, -122.087820) along Waterfront Road in Martinez\, Contra Costa County. \nDescriptionThe proposed Pacheco Marsh Public Access project would involve constructing a range of public access amenities at the Lower Walnut Creek Restoration Site in Martinez\, CA\, which was breached and restored in 2021. The Commission issued a separate permit in December\, 2020\, (BCDC Permit No. 2019.005.00) for the original restoration project to the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“District”). The public access special conditions associated with that permit required that the District either transfer ownership of the site to another entity that would construct public access amenities at the site within three years of transfer or construct public access improvements at the site consistent with a plan improved by the Commission. Pursuant to this condition\, the District transferred the lands to the John Muir Land Trust\, who are proposing to construct the public access improvements at the site. The improvements would include a system of trails\, bridges connecting the trails over tidal channels\, a small watercraft launch\, an interpretive center\, picnic areas\, parking\, and restrooms. \nSpecial Conditions would be included to ensure that the project is constructed in a manner that is protective of Bay resources and water quality\, and that appropriate wayfinding\, interpretive\, and sensitive habitat signage is installed at the site. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Schuyler Olsson; 415-352-3668 or schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov) \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing September 21\, 2023 \n\n Commission Request to Hire Ujjayan Siuddarth\n\nCommission Mailing September 29\, 2023 \n\nCommission Request to Hire Maya McInerney as an Environmental Scientist in the Planning Division (PDF)\nSan Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Draft Seaport Plan (PDF)// Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nA hidden climate danger threatens U.S. coastal communities\nOpinion: Governor should help California cities protect against flooding\nMaking Roads Work for Transit\nSB 272 Sea Level Rise: Planning and Adaptation – SUPPORT\nThey’re Ultrarich Techies\, and They Want to Build a City From Scratch. What Could Go Wrong?\nCalifornia tops FEMA’s new list of areas vulnerable to weather disasters. What does it mean for the Bay Area?\nFish and Wildlife to Award Millions to Improve California Boat Access? \nThe Port of Oakland took on massive debt for an expansion that some say went bust. Is the same mistake possible? URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-5-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231005T103000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231005T120000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20231006T005602Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T010122Z UID:10000086-1696501800-1696507200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 5\, 2023 Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group Meeting DESCRIPTION:If you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88238694520?pwd=abzysBuwWf7ypamHEPYjKGWPyOFm3l.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID882 3869 4520 \nPasscode415889 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nChair Reports from Local Electeds Task Force\, Bay Adapt Implementation Coordinating Group\, and Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Advisory GroupWorking Group members will hear progress on various other leadership groups involved in Bay Adapt and the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan from each group chair to learn how the various efforts are receiving input and feedback from key advisors.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald @bcdc.ca.gov]\nRegional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Presentation and DiscussionWorking Group members will hear an update on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan’s vision and goals phase\, including initial takeaways from pop-up events throughout the region and the online survey. They will hear about the most recent Bay Adapt website improvements and discuss considerations of the next phase of the project\, including how subregional plans should be organized.(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nPermitting for a Resilient Shoreline UpdateThe Bay Adapt Joint Platform set out the goal of refining and accelerating regulatory approval processes. The Working Group will receive a brief update on BCDC staff efforts to improve the Commission’s permitting and regulatory processes.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-5-2023-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group-meeting/ LOCATION:Webinar CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230927T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230927T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20230928T005030Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T011109Z UID:10000071-1695819600-1695834000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 27\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board DESCRIPTION:The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, in person and virtually. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85411509355?pwd=QzFVWkNlenZvdU5tNTZ3QUYyYTVRZz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID854 1150 9355 \nPasscode580200 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review\nPublic Comment Period (10 minutes) \nStaff Updates\nAppointment of New Alternate Member (10 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Shoreline Protection Project (Pre- Application). (100 minutes) (PDF).The Board will review the SFO (Applicant) proposed Shoreline Protection Project\, designed to address coastal flooding and sea level rise out to 2085. The Board will review the proposed design of the new sea wall and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the sea wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.(Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nItem of Discussion: Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, (Consistency Determination). (100 minutes)The Board will review the US Army Corps of Engineers (Applicant) and Port of Oakland proposed Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project\, designed to enhance the safety for large ships that need to turn around in two places along the Port of Oakland. The Board will review the design criteria and conceptual design for the new bulkhead walls and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the bulkhead wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/09-27-ECRB-audio-recording.mp3 \nMeeting Transcript \nCrestron: I believe all the Board members have been promoted. \nBCDC HOST: I think the recording is on now. \nCrestron: Thank you\, Grace. \nCrestron: I’ll turn my microphone off. \nso that Rod can start the meeting. \nCrestron: Okay? So good afternoon. And welcome to this virtual Bcdc \nengineering criteria review board meeting my name is Rod Iwashta. I’m chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. Our first order of business is to call the role \nBoard members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, please call the roll. \nCrestron: Roddy. Watchdog chair. Here. \nJim French vice chair. Here Bob Battalio is here\, but he’s recused from both meetings. Since he’ll be presenting for Sfo today. \nCrestron: Bill Holmes \nis absent. He is on vacation today. Jima Kasalli \nnot present. Chris May. \nCrestron: I know Chris May is here\, but is recused also from the first agenda. Item. \nSfo. \nCrestron: Ramen Gosarky \npresent \nCrestron: Nick Satar. \nyeah. \nCrestron: Gail Johnson \npresent \nCrestron: Malia Travisaru. \nShe’s not here. \nCrestron: Phillip Trevetti. \nyeah. \nCrestron: And Justin Van Buren \nhere. \nOkay. thank you. Jen\, we have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nCrestron: Okay. \nwe’ve got a half page text read here. So thank you. Everyone. I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nCrestron: First\, everyone make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nfor board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on so that everyone can see you. For members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. \nThat is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways. \nCrestron: First\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised \nCrestron: the second way. If you are joining the meeting via phone. \nyou must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make comment. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period for each project. \nCrestron: and finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host. \nGrace\, Bcds host\, who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. \nCrestron: Okay\, this part is for board members \nex parte communications in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a notice of on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nI invite members who have engaged in any such comic communications to report on on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. Jen. Has any board member raised his or her hand. \nCrestron: I do not see any. Raise hands. \nOkay. so now we’re on to agenda. Item number 2 staff updates. \nCrestron: Right now\, we are going to switch the order of a couple of items on the agenda. \nFirst\, we are going to do staff updates. which was number 3 on the published agenda. also agenda. Item 4. Appointment of new alternate member \nwas put on the agenda by mistake\, since it is the Commission who confirms the recommended Board appointments. we have time set aside for hearing public comment on items not on the agenda for each of the 2 projects being heard today. \nSan Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project and the Oakland Harbor turning basins widening project. \nCrestron: But we are going to have this occur in conjunction with each of the presentations. \nCrestron: so the order of \neach presentation will be to hear the presentation from the applicant. Have board discussion. \nCrestron: hear any comments from the public \nrelated to the presentation\, and then at the end. we will hear public comments not related to the presentation or engineering issues on the project following staff updates. \nthe first presentation will be for the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project. The second present presentation will be the Oakland Harbor interturbing reasons. Widening project \nwhich could begin around 3 Pm. Jen\, please provide any staff Updates that you have. \nCrestron: Thank you. Chair Washeda. I would like to provide an update on a few items \nregarding upcoming engineering criteria Review board meetings. Next month’s October meeting is canceled. since there was nothing on the agenda. There are currently no items on the agenda for the November meeting. \nbut something may still come up. So board members\, please keep that time open for now. and on December sixth we will. We will be meeting to discuss the permit application for the India Basin \nShoreline Park Project. \nCrestron: The applicant for that is the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Yeah. Ecrb meeting dates have been set for next year for 2024 and are posted on the Vcvc website. \nCrestron: Lastly\, an update on the recruitment for our open alternate board member seats. The position was posted for several months. \nI did outreach to colleagues as well as numerous local universities and engineering societies\, including the Society of Women Engineers. the National Society of Black Engineers\, and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers. \nWe received 2 applications after interviewing the 2 qualified candidates\, the nominating committee that consisted of the chair and the vice chair has recommended for appointment\, Patrick Ryan. \nStructural Engineer and principal of the firm\, Ryan Royce. Structural Design. \nCrestron: We will be giving the recommendation to the chair of the Commission for concurrence at an upcoming meeting\, and the new appointee should begin their term \nat the next Ecrb meetings. \nOkay\, thank you\, Jen. Are there any announcements from the Board? \nCrestron: Okay. \nseeing none. \nCrestron: Let’s move on to agenda. Item 3\, \nand I have to recuse myself since I’m a city of San Francisco employee. \nCrestron: so I will step aside into the audience\, and Jim French will take over. \nCrestron: Thank you\, Rob. \nCrestron: I will chair this portion of the meeting while Rod joins the public \nsection of the Zoom Meeting room. I guess the virtual Zoom Meeting is over there\, too. \nvirtually. \nCrestron: just let everyone know any board member with a potential conflict of interest on any given project must be refused from participating in the Ecrb review \nof that project\, but they may join the public section of the meeting. and they may make comments as members of the public\, if they so desire. I will apologize for my mask\, so you can’t see mics. \nimpressions. \nCrestron: and my! My voice comes out muffled. I had a potential covid exposure 5 days ago. I’ve been testing negative every time\, including this morning\, and I’m symptom free. But \nremaining math just to be be cautious. This portion \nCrestron: of the meeting will proceed according to the following agenda\, first up\, Jen Hyman. \nsenior engineer from Bcd. C. Will make a short presentation on the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project\, followed by the presentation by the airport team \nCrestron: during the presentation. It’s fine for board members \nto ask short questions and have limited discussions. At the end of the present presentation we’ll open the meeting for public comments initially just related to the engineering issues in the presentation. \nafter hearing comments from the public. Ecrb will resume our discussion with questions and comments. At the end of the discussion. I will ask \nCrestron: for final comments and motions\, and then close our con. Our consideration of this project. Following all that we will make\, we will take public comments on aspects of the project\, not under consideration by the BC. By the Ecrb. In other words\, not \nspecifically related to engineering criteria. \nCrestron: I’d like to remind the Board members and other participants to please. Please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions. When you’re not actively engaged with the discussion. Please turn off your video \nso that we minimize the distract distractions on the screen. I’ll now ask Jen Hyman to provide an introduction to the project. \nCrestron: So do you wanna ask Re\, retake that part of the role\, and just get Jima to \nacknowledge that he’s present in participating. \nCrestron: So\, Jimmy\, you are present and not recused from this meeting. I think. Right. \nCrestron: Hello\, Grace\, can you \npromote Jima once his name comes up. Thank you. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see them yet. \nBCDC HOST: Jen board Member Cassali zon out \nI’ll add to our role. Jima Kasali if you’re here. Turn the microphone on and say\, yes. yes. \nCrestron: that’s great. Thank you. \nAlright. Good afternoon\, chair. French and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. My name is Jen Hyman. I am the senior engineer at Bcd. C. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection Project. \nI have some background information on the project to share with you. \nCrestron: Hmm. \nCrestron: San Francisco International Airport. \nAlso referred to in this meeting as Sfo has will be applying for a permit for their shoreline protection project. \nCrestron: I’ll tell you in a lot more detail about that in their presentation. \nBut overview of it is that their shoreline protection project is a seawall to surround the airport designed to comply with fema requirements for a hundred year flood protection \nand eliminate the probability of substantial inundation. At the airport from coastal flooding through the year 2\,085\, \nCrestron: the Sri Lankan Protection Project has been divided into 15 reaches. \nCrestron: and each reach has its own unique design. \nCrestron: San Francisco Airport International Airport has submitted pre-application materials and will submit a permit application to BC. DC\, possibly later this year. Now\, I will turn it over to the airport team who will present the project to you today. \nCrestron: Good afternoon board members. My name is David Kim. I’m the senior environmental planner for Sfo. \nWe’re gonna be talking to you about today about our shoreline protection program slide. \nCrestron: This is this is the agenda for our presentation. Today \nI’m going to be starting out with the introduction and the project purpose. And then I’m going to be followed by our technical experts. On the technical analyses\, and then we’ll be followed by questions \nCrestron: I will be representing as a foe today\, joined by Environmental Science Associates. \nCoe Tera engineers\, and Geosynch. \nso put it succinctly the airports here to develop a shoreline protection program under a hundred year flood events pretty much. Most of the airfield and airport property will be inundated as shown on this photo. \nThis image next slide. \nCrestron: So what we’re gonna do is plan. On developing a seawall around the perimeter\, the sea shoreline perimeter of the airport. As you’ll see on your hard copy handouts\, it’s divided into 15 individual reaches starting from reach\, one at the north side to reach 15 on the southern end. And these are just a little \nexamples of what that construction would look like of the wall. And we can go into more detail into that. In our technical analysis \nCrestron: we have a number of project objectives that we want to accomplish with our shoreline protection program. First and foremost is to protect travelers and workers\, airport operations and city assets. \nSecondly\, we want to remove the airport from the 100 year fema floodplain via the clomer process. Third\, we want to make sure our protection system is adaptable to future projections of sea level rise. \nWe don’t know exactly where sea level rise is gonna hit in the future. But we wanna make sure it’s adaptable. \nCrestron: Fourth\, we want to create a protection system that poses no safety hazards to airport operations\, maintains runway capacity and satisfies Faa design standards as a public use airport. There are a number of requirements\, rules that we have to comply with under the Faa to keep operating safely \nnumber 5. We want to enhance emergency vehicle access near our fuel tank Farm. This is around reach 2 6. We want to make sure we minimize hazardous wildlife attractants to prevent bird strikes. \nThis is a constant hazard that we have to deal with. We wanna make sure that whatever protection system we develop helps minimize that that hazard. \nCrestron: And lastly\, we want to create a protection system as expeditiously as possible for the safe and continuous airport operations and and minimize disruption to aircraft operations during the construction of this project \nCrestron: just going to go over briefly what our project description is. \nWe’re going to be removing our existing shoreline protection\, and that consists mainly of some concrete walls\, vinyl\, sheepaw walls\, concrete debris\, and some other associated elements. \nand also remove the existing infrastructure in areas where it conflicts with the shoreline protection program. \nCrestron: We’re gonna be constructing the new shoreline protection system. And this is gonna be largely\, mostly steel sheet pile walls with some reinforced concrete walls at reach one and reach 15 with some armor rock revent and open water. Fill \nthe shoreline. Protection is gonna be approximately 7.6 miles long. It’s going to be about 3.9 to 13 feet high above \nabove existing and newly graded ground surfaces. and the sheet piles will go down to a maximum depth of 50 feet \nCrestron: we’ll be creating a new perimeter dike around reaches 7 and 8. \nThese are off our runway 19 ends to extend the shoreline protection an additional 100 to 215 feet beyond the existing shoreline into the bay. This is to maintain our existing runway. Capacity. \nCrestron: Armor\, rock revetment will be used in tandem with the walls to dissipate wave energy and prevent sediment. Scour. \nThere will be some open water fill\, intended to stabilize the shoreline and create a necessary slope for the support of the shoreline protection system. And we do propose filling in the wetlands and reach sub subreach to be. This is near our fuel Tank Farm. \nand our reach 14 areas to push out our vehicle Service Road slide. \nCrestron: Speaking of our vehicle Service road as part of our associated improvements that go along with this project. \nwe’ll be relocating our vehicle service road\, approximately 12 to 140 feet towards the bay. This is to make sure that we are in line with Faa design standards \nfor distance from our taxiways for safe operation \nCrestron: existing infrastructure will be retrofitted and rerouted. This is\, namely\, our storm drain pump station outfalls. Make sure that they go up and over our new seawalls. \nA lighting stress at the end of Runway 19 left at reach 7 will be demolished to accommodate the construction of the new perimeter dike in that area\, and then that new lighting trestle will be reconstructed in the same area. \nAnd finally\, there’ll be some floodgates and other access control gates that will be installed associated with the program. \nCrestron: So I’m going to hand this over to James Connolly at Coe\, and he’s going to go over the structural analysis. \nThank you\, David. Hopefully\, everyone can hear me. Okay. next slide\, please. \nCrestron: As David and mentioned\, we’ve broken the project into 15 reaches this is partly just given the different topography different elements along the shoreline\, and and to make it a little bit more manageable from a design and design perspective. \nNext week our next slide. So in the bottom left there you’ll see again the the alignment of the reaches with some color coding. The orange is reaches one and 15. These are concrete type T walls is the current design for those areas. \nThe green is a sheet pile wall be installed right at the edge of the existing shoreline. This will be replacing existing flood protection elements. There’s \ncertain reaches with existing vinyl sheets\, others with Burns. Essentially\, it will be a cantilevered sheet pile wall along those reaches \nCrestron: the blue area is at the end of Reach 7 and 8 again\, as David mentioned. Is that a a that push out \nat the end of the runway in order to accommodate the height of the wall and still have safe aviation off that runway. Essentially\, the construction at the completion of that will look like all the other sort of green segments. It’ll be a sheet pile wall at the edge of the shoreline. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: From a design basis standpoint we looked at the flood wall looking at 2 sort of major \ndesign considerations flooding which we use. The army corps em 111-02-2502\, or the design criteria \nfor the seismic performance. We looked at Fema 5\, 4\, 3\, which is a performance based design methodology. Looking at the risk and the performance next slide. \nI won’t go into all the various load combinations. We can come back to this if there’s particular questions. But we did look at a variety of different cases\, both from a flooding and from a seismic standpoint to \nCrestron: prior to the preliminary design. \nNext slide \nCrestron: from a seismic perspective. We looked at the 72 year and 475 year seismic events \nand then establish performance criteria based on the fema guidance \nCrestron: for the 72 year event. Essentially\, we’re looking for mild \nwhich represents essentially no structural damage for the 475 year. We’re looking at a moderate\, basically repairable damage\, essentially \nglobally\, sort of minimal sort of moderate damage. There could be some localized bit more severe damage\, but it would all be repairable after the sizing event. like slide \nCrestron: from the wave perspective. Again we looked at the 10 year 100 year\, which is the Fema flood standard. But we also looked at a 750 year resiliency check \nfor the floodwall next slide. \nCrestron: Again. I won’t go into detail here\, but this is all the various loads that we looked at and the diagrams for the cheap power wall and the concrete wall next slide \nCrestron: from an analysis approach for the steel sheet piles. We use a variety of different analysis methods. \nWe use py wall\, and including corroded properties. Again\, we’re looking at a wall to last to 2\,085. So for the non-seismic load cases. \nessentially the flood cases. We use Pywall for the seismic cases. We use the mix of inertial plexus\, 2D. And we also considered liquid faction\, Bob and his presentation later will go into much more detail in these analysis \nCrestron: on the T wall. The concrete wall \nCrestron: lost the screen up there. \nCrestron: Thank you. \nFor the concrete\, we again designing to the army core standards\, essentially mostly sort of hand\, counts mathcat calculations\, looking at a variety of limit states and evaluating factors of safety against sliding. \nbearing capacities\, rotation\, and so on. Next slide \nCrestron: as far as the actual results. \nSorry little bit of coverage there. for the steel sheet piles again representing reaches 2 through 14 currently. And again\, this is the preliminary design. This will eventually be a design build project. So final design details we determined by that team. But we’ve sized the wall as an AV. 19700 or a Nz 19 \nwith grade grade\, 60 steel we have a minimum of 10 feet of embedded into the bay mud\, which approximately is minus 35. Again\, Bob\, we’ll go into that in more detail \nas far as the T. Wall. Again\, it’s a conventional T. Wall\, reinforced concrete construction. Next slide \nCrestron: as far as our checks at this stage again\, these are based on for the steel sheet pile\, considering the \nsort of final service life. So it does include corrosion. We are maximum DC range we are aiming for was point 9 at this stage in the project for the T. Wall. Again\, we’re looking at variety of factors to safety. And again\, the solution that we presented here meet all of the design criteria that we’ve established essentially for the flooding case. \nThere is no damage for any of the low cases for the seismic for the inertial. There’s no damage. Again\, when we bring in soil structure interaction\, and Bob will present that there is some localized damage that’s expected during the liquifiable case. But again\, it’s within the performance criteria that we’ve established \nnext slide. \nCrestron: I’ll touch on now our coastal. How we develop the the wave loads and the essentially the flood load cases. \nThis project was built off of the female club maps. Again\, David have pointed out the pro er I suppose\, within the flood zone for Fema. And so we use that as part of our basis to look at the 100 year flood case building off of the baker Ecom study. That was the basis of Fema’s maps. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: Essentially\, we took the the storm events transformed them to from offshore to near shore\, converted those considerations\, for for wave run up and perform the extreme. \nStatistics! Analysis! Looking at a sort of a 31 year time history to generate what is a hundred year\, storm event\, and essentially and converted that to design load next slide. \nThrough this analysis we also established the height of the wall. Again\, the total water height. To get off of a fema flood map you need to exceed the one still water elevation for the total water elevation. It’s \nwith a set free board. You need 2 feet above still water elevation or one foot above total water elevation that’s at our base. And then we building in that resiliency and sort of long-term\, with sea level rise. \nprojecting out 42 inches of additional height. Into the walls. We established the wall height along Sfo shoreline. The table on the right is real small to read\, but that those are the design heights along the perimeter \nnext slide. \nCrestron: David mentioned. We also have riprap along the majority of the shoreline. Currently there is riprap out there. There is a few reaches with none. Currently with the new shoreline and new seawall. We are placing riprap \ntoll to prevent future erosion\, and also to knock down the ways again\, helping reduce the height of the wall\, and sort of overtopping that you would get with reflection of the waves smashing into a vertical surface versus one with riffraff and some run-up \nnext slide. \nCrestron: So with that I’ll turn it to Bob. \nCrestron: Thank you\, James. \nAnd I’m joined today by John Lim\, who’s with Tara and his help. A lot on liquid action analysis. \nTurn my camera on. Thank you. Sorry. \nCrestron: Great. \nYeah. And I’m joined today by John Lim. Who so with Tara and his help\, quite a bit with the liquid faction analysis\, and in particular by one Pascana. who’s with us in Tech\, and has been working with with Tara and Koe for quite some time \non on the project. next slide\, please. \nCrestron: So just for some highlights\, I’ll be covering the subsurface conditions at the site site seismicity and the site response analysis. the seismic performance of this of the sheep. How walls at the Shoreline Protection Project. \nAnd then I’ll talk briefly about the geotechnical design associated with the infill area or the the field area where the service roads are being pushed out into the bay at reach number 7 \nnext slide. \nCrestron: of course. The the airport footprint that we’ve you’ve seen now already was created by placing fill within within the bay and the marshlands. \nNext slide\, please. This bill is shown here on a generalized cross section that reaches from it goes from reach 5 to to reach 7. We have nominally\, you know\, 15 or 20 feet of pill that overlies young bay mud. \nThat young bay mud extends to elevation minus 50 elevation\, minus 75\, depending on the location. We have Franciscan bedrock at great depth\, 225 feet or so. \nand the bedrock\, and the problem solves\, you might say\, from the fill and the and young bay mode is separated by some very competent older sediments next slide. \nThere’s been a lot of really a wealth of geotechnical investigations that have been completed at the airport. Many of these done\, and around the year 2\,000 by a big study by \nthe airport Development engineering consortium. Looking at here the location of previous explorations\, the orange dots are boring. \nThe green squares are cone panentrometer test locations. \nCrestron: next slide\, please. \nCrestron: This is a zoom in to reach Number 6\, \nand what we’ve done when we looked at the soil conditions. As for the various you have other borings or phone kind of trauma pros. You’ve flagged key elevations. This happens to be the elevation of the top of the young bay mud. \ntypically at about elevation\, minus 15. The next slide is the same base map\, but it’s showing how we tag the elevation of the the bottom of the young bay mud\, and that does vary from elevation minus 50. On the left portion of the slide\, reach 5 and \nhalf half of 6\, and then it goes down to elevation minus 75 on reach 6 and 7\, and it turns out to reach 6 is really the the critical section in terms of the greatest thickness \nof the of the young Baymont at the project next slide. \nCrestron: With regard with regard to site seismicity. As James mentioned\, the 475 year return period has been selected \nas the design earthquake based on fema guidance. We’ve we’ve developed a hazard curve for that design earthquake using a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. The controlling earthquake is the San Andreas event. In and 19 6\, \nthe 7 time. Hist were developed from our dynamic analysis chosen from the peer database. And for those 7 time histories include\, a pulse \ncharacteristics next slide \nCrestron: in in our report. There’s a table that’s reproduced here showing characteristics of those earthquakes \nnext slide\, please. Perhaps more informative is this graph. It shows a response\, spectrum presentation of the design criteria. The target has it. Curve is shown in red. \nAnd then the jagged traces that you see there represent the response vector associated with those 7 selected time histories. They were scaled to match. I mean our mean value with the target spectra. \nAnd and that’s shown as a dotted line. Next slide\, please. \nCrestron: We did a site response analysis\, one dimensional site response analysis input\, at the base on the rock. There’s 7 ground motions \npropagated it. Through the the model that the deep saw model that was used. We we see the peak peak ground acceleration\, the panel on the left. It starts at about point 3 5 at the rock. \npropagates through the through the swell profile at\, but at the ground surface it’s at approximately 0 point 2 g. \nProbably worth noting that at the top of the young bay mud we’re also at about point 3 5G. And that’s actually a horizon that we use as the the input horizon for our ground motions in the analytical models. \nNext slide. \nCrestron: As far as the analytical work was concerned\, we use 2 dimensional plexus analysis. \nanalyzing reach 6 and also reach 7. Reach 7 is special because it has that fill that’s been added. So we looked at both of those as as kind of the controlling design sections. \nWe studied separately the liquefaction displacements and and then we evaluated both and combined and considered the combined inform performance based on the plexus analysis \nand the liquefaction and these lateral displacements. \nCrestron: And I’ll talk about that now next slide\, please. \nSo as far as plexus is concerned. This is the model for the reach. 6. We see the sheet pile driven through the existing conditions there. It extends through the bill \nand penetrates 10 feet below the bottom of the fill and into the young bay mud. The ground motions in the model were in input at the top of the old bay clay. \nand the sole profile is shown here is consistent with the in information that we have\, and and the primarily from those\, of course\, the the solar borrings \nand engineering properties come largely from the Adac study\, which was done in the year 2\,000 next slide. \nCrestron: These are the results. The \nfor those 7 ground motions. The average lateral displacement at the top of the sheet pile was 1.2 feet standard deviation\, a half a foot. \nCrestron: What we’re looking at. There are the contours of lateral displacement. The \nthe the Red Zone to the right of the sheep pile has got about 1.8 feet of maximum movement in that zone next slide. \nCrestron: This is the model\, the plexus model for the reach 7\, where the the field moves out. \nThe I’ll talk about that in a bit more detail later. The results\, though shown on the next slide\, we have a calculated average displacement of just over 2 feet. \nWith a standard deviation of that movement of 0 point 7 feet. I might note that the grounded this situation. The build area will be treated to mitigate liquid vaccine \nnext slide. \nCrestron: I’ll I’ll get to that. But the it’s it’s a \nsome vibrating beams that go into the ground. They’ve been used successfully at treasure. \nCrestron: The Jfk technology. \nthe \nCrestron: this is a summary of the performance of the sheet pile in terms comparing the moment demand \nto the to the moment capacity. And it’s an envelope that we’re showing on the left for reach 6 and on the right for reach 7 all 7 ground motions\, or in normal and reverse polarity\, are summarized here. What we found was the \nthe the maximum moment demand occurs at the at the as you’d expect at the top of the young Bay mud. It’s about 20 k. Feet. At that location. We compared it rather conservatively to the \na an allowable stress from a from the design sheet pile that we’ve used with a with a yield stress of 36 ksi \nand based on that we’re only 25. The demand\, the maximum demand is only 25% of the allowable capacity for that 36 K assign material. \nCrestron: If we look at the right-hand side for the reach. 7 similar analysis show that the maximum demand is about 40% \nof the mild steel sheet pile allowable capacity. Next slide. \nwe analyzed separate that the plexus analysis didn’t include liquefaction and just movements. We analyze those separately. The peak ground acceleration was based on the site response analysis for Reach 6 that we showed a slide on earlier. \nthe factor of safety against liquefaction and the relative density came from Cpt data analysis of Cpt data. and we use belongier and address to estimate the maximum cyclic shear strains that occur in the profile. \nThis was an input we followed a empirical method developed by Zangedol. which allows you to take those maximum shear strains and scale them to the position that you’re at \nrelative to the to the edge of the film. And we used A\, we evaluated that performance based on a conservative assumption regarding the side slopes of the of the shoreline bill. \nNext slide\, please. We did that analysis. The Zeng type analysis for each of 62 combinatorometer tests that are located around the perimeter of the site. \nCrestron: So essentially\, what when we do these calculations\, we’re assuming that the sole \nproperties associated with that particular Cpt infinitely and lateral direction. So it’s\, you know\, one estimate at a time that that we made of the lateral displacements\, that liquefaction lateral displacements. Ld. \nnext slide. \nCrestron: And we. This is a summary of those results. So it’s a \nlooking at the right-hand panel. This is the design earthquake. So what we’re looking at is for those 62 data. How how do those calculated lateral displacements for the 62 cpt stack up. \nWe we looked at the mean sea level. That’s the solid line and a couple of cases where the groundwater levels were at elevation. And that’s elevation plus 4. We looked at elevation plus 6 and elevation 0. Those are the \nthe\, the data to the right and the left that are summarized. But focusing on groundwater\, it means sea level\, which is where we find it in the air field. Now. we\, the fiftieth percentile estimated\, lateral displacement is a half a foot. \nand the the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacements is is 2 feet. the next slide indicates and shows how that those displacements are distributed along the various reaches. The 7 or 8 miles that we have. \nSo what we have is on the vertical axis is the estimated movement\, and on the horizontal axis the station that occurs. \nthe fiftieth percent\, the vectors\, the vertical vectors that we have there represent calculations at a particular Cpt tip of the arrow is what the estimated displacement is at that location. \nand the fiftieth percentile and ninetieth percentile values of a half a foot and and 2 feet are are shown there for for reference. Next slide\, please. \nCrestron: So then\, we look to combine the performance of the shupa walls\, considering plaxis and the zhang type\, lip perfection studies the keeping in mind that the maximum \nCrestron: moment demand or or stress\, if you will for the \nanalysis. Every 6 was 27 of the allowable that’s really as I mentioned\, that moment occurs at the top of the young Bay mud. \nIt’s it’s related to the amount of rotation that occurs in the young Bay mud which in turn is related to the displacement within the field. As you go from the bottom to the top of the young day mud. So that displacement was 0 point 4 feet \nin our plexus analysis. If we compare that to the median value of the induced displacement. Ld. Within the the liquefaction and new settlement. That’s that’s a half a foot which compares to that point 4. \nIf you simply combine those 2 point 9 feet and use that that’s allows you to scale the rotation at the bottom. And the moment. So that would bring the moment demand up to 60% of allowable. \nIf if we use a Ld of one foot that boost that moment demand up to 95% of the allowable keeping in mind that allowable stress calculation is very conservative. It’s based on miles\, 2 \nnext slide. \nNow\, indeed\, the the Ld that controls the performance at a particular location on the sheepile is really the average ground conditions around\, not not one from a single \nCpt. although we have 62 Cpt’s\, which sounds like a lot\, and it is\, I think it gives us a good overview. In fact\, considering that we’re talking about 7 miles of shoreline. It’s not a lot of Cp. \nCrestron: so we we really need to complete closely spaced Cpt to delineate \nareas problem areas\, if you will\, where the calculated Ld\, based on average values might be greater than a foot and in those areas\, they may indeed require ground improvement or upgrading the the steel sections. \nand that’s something that in order to meet our damage or performance criteria. So that’s something that needs needs to be done. \nCrestron: Pardon me. \nCrestron: those additional Cpt’s would be in reach 6 primarily. No\, they would be along the entire waterfront. \nAnd we’re we’re planning to explore it in a rather uniform way\, because the we we expect the liquefaction problem within the fill is everywhere. It’s not just Route 6\, so we will be looking at that all along this road. \nCrestron: W. 1. One of the things that’s also important for\, and we considered was certainly along the alignment of the sheet pile\, there going to be some differential movements. It won’t all be one value or another\, and that’ll lead to some elongation strains that need to be managed with within the wall. And that’s one of the strengths of the Z-type pile is that through a rotation of interlocks \nwe’ve looked at that. And it can handle lateral strains of about 5%. And we think that that we’ll we’ll mitigate and handle the the differential zones next slide. \nCrestron: So moving on to fill placement at reach 7. it’s it’s it’s in a way\, it’s a complicated process\, but it’s one that’s very well understood and has been many\, many times in the past. \nand involved at that facilities like ours. Here at the airport\, it involves dredging and construction of a perimeter dike filling behind that installing wic trains. and following that with a preload\, fill with the wick drains accelerating the settlement. \nand then\, followed by deep compaction of the fill and the perimeter dike to mitigate liquefaction potential. And then finally\, with the installation of a sheepaw floodwall \nwithin the the perimeter type. Next slide. \nCrestron: This is a picture of of the extent of that \noutward movement of the service road. As David mentioned. the the dotted red line is the limits of the outside limits of the perimeter pill. The solid red line is the sheepaw wall itself. \nNext slide\, please. \nCrestron: To the right is is the maximum section. This\, this is at the end of the runway\, where the where it extends out the furthest. \nand it’s illustrating the geometry of the concept. There \nCrestron: the the dredging extends 20 people or the mudline \nthe perimeter dike is crushed rock\, and that would be crust stone\, and that would be placed. That’s the yellow with place within the the dredge zone that we’ve taken \ndug out to to give us a stronger material at the base behind. That would be till that would be placed that fill and would be \nCrestron: The the whole system would be treated by \nconstructing a preload fill\, which is shown in violet\, and prior to doing that\, though we would install those vertical wick drains which extend completely through the young bay mud and into the \nthe upper layered sediments. \nCrestron: And as I mentioned the \nthe compaction method we have in mind\, and still it’s early to choose. But at at Treasure Island they they use a vibrating beam. It’s 4 beams that vibrate in\, and that that had quite a bit of success. We haven’t mind using that for \nfor the deep compaction of the second. \nCrestron: So with that I think that’s the end of my story. I’ll turn it all over to \ncommand. \nCan you? \nCrestron: Thank you? \nGood afternoon. My name is Matt Brandon\, with Esa along with my colleague\, Bob Batalio\, and using a lot of input from the other technical experts. Here today\, we worked on the adaptation plan for \ntelorized flood hazards. I’m going to give a quick overview of that for the project. \nCrestron: As James mentioned earlier\, the \ncurrent design\, sea level rise criteria is 3 and a half feet that’s shown as a solid green line on the left side that tracks across the panel of seal of seal rise projection. \nand certainly with 3 and a half years it will rise. There will be significant consequences for the airport’s flooding in terms of the depths and extents\, as shown on the right with some inundation mapping of the 100 year flood with 3 and a half years ago\, Verizon. \n3 and a half feet of civil rise is projected to occur somewhere between 2\,070\, under the medium-high risk projection curves from the State to about 2\,100\, at the low risk. Aversion curves to the state \nCrestron: in addition to the and and this is 3 and a half years civil rise with maintaining fema accreditation for 3 and a half years civil rise. \nThe project also considers its adaptive capacity for 6.9 feet of seal rise\, which is the yellow line on the left curve\, and you see that takes you to 2\,100 under the medium High Risk \nscenario. \nCrestron: So here’s a look at how those work in terms of the crest elevations. \nSo the reaches are listed down by the rows with their proposed design elevations. Here\, in the third column. this sea level\, still water level is the augmented still water level from today’s present day by 3 and a half feet\, and you can see the free board \nfor these still water levels are all above to maintaining that fema accreditation with 3 and a half feet still arise. The next column over is the total water level. Calculated independently for each of the reaches\, and you can see there the \ntotal water Level Free board remains above the one foot requirement for fema accreditation. \nCrestron: I’ll draw your eye to reach 7\, which is sort of in the middle here\, where the free boards are significantly larger than the other amounts. Reach 7 is the one that Bob Kirby just talked about. That includes fill out in the bay and that has these. \nyou know\, multiple conflicts going on\, of working with sea level rise\, planning and flood assessments\, dealing with faa flight paths and with putting fill in the bay so that one is proposed to have a little bit more allowance and resilience for sea level rise\, so it wouldn’t have to be augmented and adapted as soon as the other reaches\, given its complications. \nCrestron: So this is a table sort of going forward from that condition I showed you this proposed design condition. \nSo the first row of this table is that 3 and a half feet of seal arise that was detailed in the prior slide. You can see\, as I noted\, that would go is projected to occur between 2\,100\, or as early as 2070 \nand as I showed that provides the fema accreditation of 2 feet of still water level and one foot of total water level free board. and then the table goes down with sort of incrementally more seal horizon about one foot increments. \nwith an additional foot of seal\, arise to 4 and a half feet. that’s when you would. The the project would no longer meet female accreditation\, but would really be only susceptible potentially to some wave over wash because of the total wall being a few tenths of a foot \nfrom the top. 5 and a half feet is when the free board would go to 0 for the still water levels. That’s kind of what we think of as the threshold for really being substantial consequences. If sea level rise goes higher. \nand \nCrestron: so to get from there from 5.5 to the 6.9. So the next step up. That’s about a foot and a half higher. That’s the point at which \nsince the freeboards would be going negative. At that point some sort of structural modification around the reaches would be probably needed\, something like adding a foot and a half or so cap to most of the reaches\, as I pointed out\, reach 7 has some additional capacity\, so wouldn’t need a cap as soon for that additional amount of \nto to reach that amount? Question\, Matt\, yeah. On the previous table\, the Twl column does that include is that with 3.5 feet of sea level rise. That’s with 3.5 cso. Rise. And as James mentioned\, it’s also starting the the total water level calculations\, you know\, offshore with additional seal rise\, so that added to like the wave depth and the propagation. \nCrestron: And so these are \nfrom the Fema study\, right? The the existing twl has not been recalculated. \nyou know\, to the offshore water levels additional water depth and then bring the waves sort of from the near shore in. \nCrestron: I can add to that also a essentially what we did was we took the the Fema model \nand we ran it to make sure our model calibrated. So we match today’s case that airport on the map. And we reran that model with the wall because it’s the structural element that changed and see what impacts that had on the behavior of the total water elevation \nand made some adjustments. And then\, as Matt mentioned\, we did then\, look at\, you know\, would things change in the future would sea level rise. and we ran it that also. And so that’s ultimately how we arrived at the total water and set our wall height. \nCrestron: I’m going to go a little bit more briefly onto these slides\, but you know we can certainly come back to them if you all have questions. The project\, as David mentioned\, is looking to get out of the theme floodplain that will fire a letter of map\, revision the the Clomar\, the the conditional letter of map provision process is currently underway in the airports and meeting with \nFema they’ve been looking at the inboard drainage side of things\, and so there’s been a series of models from the hydrology watershed models to riverine models that route the flow sort of around the backside and just to the north and south of the airport\, and then also taking input from that and precipitation to look at the \nstormwater system\, and how that performs. \nCrestron: So just give you a quick snapshot of those. So this is a snapshot of the results of some of the storm water modeling. You’ll see here that that \neven for cases which include extreme participation event\, and as those blue arrows indicate\, some overtopping from the adjoining riverine channels. the storm water system is capable of maintaining the water depths below a foot. \nbecause of that one of the sort of programmatic level ideas that’s been included in this project\, which is called reach 16 sort of along the western side is thought to not necessarily not be needed in terms of\, because the amount of discharge into the site would be small enough to be handled by the storm drain system. \nCrestron: here’s some more details on that sort of connection between the riverine system and the storm drain system\, which is\, you know\, using a model to go from the in this case this is flowing around the north side\, up by reach one of San Bruno Creek\, and there is a few areas of overtopping\, but they kind of pond in shallow areas and don’t extend over the entire site. \nCrestron: Similarly\, it reached 15 here the proposed where it flows just along the \nthe the the channel actually of Samuel Barry Canal channel flows right by reach 15\, and that floodwall would prevent inundation from coming onto the airport. Basically\, that green area that currently is at risk from being inundated\, would no longer be inundated with the proposed project. \nCrestron: The site also \nis is. you know\, as Bob pointed out\, built on former marshland\, and not that high above the groundwater table there’s been some hazard mapping that’s been done for groundwater at a regional level. Here’s \n2 2 of those mapping efforts by may it all and point blue in the Usgs\, showing that the site is sort of just \nsort of about 3 feet down is where the water table lies below the ground surface. Elevation\, certainly with seal rise\, has potential\, for there being some inundation hazards from groundwater. \nCrestron: the project\, the airport as part of this project has been monitoring groundwall on the site. \nThis plot here shows an example out. The light blue line is the title elevation from the bay\, and then there’s 3 other lines are 3 sites in profile along the shoreline there reach 6\, and that inset image \nyou can see in general\, that sea level is about 4 feet. As Bob mentioned before. the water levels are a bit below that\, and they remain roughly below that 8 foot ground surface elevation\, you see tagged on the upper left. So you know it is \nconsistent with those maps that you know a few feet below the ground surface. \nCrestron: So recognizing that\, recognizing some of the risks to the \nseismic hazard. the price the airport is looking at\, doing\, continuing to monitor ground water and develop it as part of and manage it. But that would be something that’d be an adaptation to this project\, not part of the current project and go into more detail on this. \nif you’d like \nCrestron: That takes us to the end of our presentation. And I didn’t quite get the order of public versus board questions. But we’ll leave \nyou all. \nCrestron: Yeah\, thanks\, Matt and team. \nAnd I think what we’re going to do next next is invite the public to. If the public has any comments regarding engineering type of criteria engineering issues or the presentation specifically \nthat they could go now and then the board will jump in with our comments. So I guess I ask anybody in the room. That’s part of the public who would like to present\, or grace if you have any anyone has raised their hands. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see any public with raised hands. \nCrestron: and I don’t see any others in the room with raised hands\, either physical raised hands. \nSo then we’ll go on to the board. I’ll invite anyone that has a questions. Comments eventually move on to motion. But just for the time being questions and comments. \nThat’s the only \nI have a commitment. Let let me just let’s see\, remember to turn your your speaker on. Make sure your face is showing on the zoom \nBCDC HOST: chair. Can I request something? \nAye. \nCrestron: is that Grace? Yes\, this is me\, Grace. If \nBCDC HOST: the public and the board members\, and the reps when they speak\, can they speak more into the mic on my end? It’s very hard to hear. \nBCDC HOST: So if we can speak a little louder or closer to the mics\, that will be great. \nsure. Thanks. \nI have a number of questions. But I think the board member \nCrestron: how\, considering Sfo is a lifeline facility. \nHow was the 4 75 level of ground shaking. determined to be appropriate for design. \nBob\, you want me to start this off. Then? Again we looked at again the fema guidance\, and looking at the requirements for this. Floodwall. \nThe idea\, again\, is essentially it is a flood wall is its primary purpose. That’s the problem that I suppose\, facing immediately. And they are currently on a flood zone need to \nget it off the map. So\, looking at that and the primary focus there\, we made sure that for all flood load cases\, 100% resilient\, no damage. We started looking at the seismic performance. \nAgain\, there’s a sort of small table here on the right. Again\, they give different criteria looking at performance. Again\, this coming out of the Fema 543 \nrecommendations. And essentially. we picked a 475 or 475 year event\, representing a sort of a typical waterfront structure that you would normally see and checking its capacity against that and its performance. \nWith the understanding that this wall in essence is again focused on blood protection. So if you were to build it and had a large sizing event and had some damage to the wall. There isn’t an immediate risk to the airport \nin the sense that it’s not retaining any in the sense that it’s not retaining any water on every given day. Now there is an increased risk of flooding. Again\, you would be basically essentially bringing back the fema flood risk that we have today. And admittedly it does get worse over time. \nSo that was the idea of the wall. So as as in the future\, that flood risk is gonna increase. So we need to build the wall to prevent it. The seismic vulnerability then increases concurrently in a sense\, because in the future that flood risk is more and more common. So you do want to have a wall that essentially \nperform as well and can be quickly rebuilt. Looking at the more extreme cases\, the sort of we would see for an essential facility\, often felt that \nagain focusing on the wall\, for that case was difficult choice\, and it would require probably much more impactful and costly improvements to address that particular item\, and it wouldn’t address anything sort of behind the wall\, back on the airfield\, which are essentially would be the main areas of concern from an operational life safety standpoint. \nCrestron: There’s a very long\, rambling answer\, but hopefully\, is an idea how we got there. I don’t\, Bob. You want to add to that. \njust might add that. And and and this is covered in a tech memo that we haven’t actually have as an appendix to our geotech report. It’s \nIt’s appendix B\, But we we also have to look at the performance group. But what? What is what is the required performance of the facility? So\, looking at combining \nthe design event with the with the performance requirement. The th\, the the 475 year return period. Earthquake. When combined with \nwhat we viewed as a performance Group 3 structure and A and a performance requirement per the fema guidelines of moderate damage. So those factors all fit together. So it’s a risk and performance-based \nassessments that that led to that. But my concern is in your presentation. You mentioned that the maximum demand capacity ratio for design is point 9 under the Dbe level. \nStructurally speaking. so so are you reaching those levels of demand capacity ratios\, because that doesn’t give you a lot of margin once something bigger happens right \nCrestron: couple of points to that. And I think Bob’s analysis showed again from \nmuch of the size and behavior. Essentially\, this wall is a cantilevered wall. There’s no soil or basically air on both sides from a seismic perspective quite honest\, the walls just going along for the ride\, for whatever the soil does \nCrestron: so. The soil is really the main driver\, and Bob’s analysis has shown \nthe stresses\, the differential movements across the length of the wall during those seismic events is actually quite small\, because again\, the wall just kind of rides with the soil. Now you do get kind of over a long enough period. You do get a chance of differential displacement\, causing interlock breakage. But the wall itself is not gonna just fall over because there’s really no \nlateral load applied to it\, going with the soil. So that’s why\, from an inertial seismic standpoint. Again\, we are not seeing \nmuch more demand again from that. And again the DC ratios of the point 9. Those are all flood based cases\, the inertial. We have those in our calculation package. They’re actually quite a bit lower from a seismic cause. It’s self-weight. \nreally sees no outside lateral load. \nCrestron: So \nif you were\, did you even consider higher level just to check? See if you have enough margin. I’ll ask my colleague\, Evan\, who’s online again\, we can perform that check if necessary. I’m just Evan. I’m not sure if we did run that calc again given the DC ratios for the seismic were quite low from an inertial standpoint. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So we we did not end up checking anything that was past the 475 year. But we\, when when doing the calculations with the 475 year\, the forces that we were seeing were\, I mean\, significantly\, significantly\, less than anything that we were seeing for the flood loading \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): cause that\, as James mentioned\, it’s it’s the self weight of the sheet pile. So if you’re doing that on a you know per foot basis\, you’ve got\, you know\, your your 3 inch 3 8 inch thick sheet \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): times the height \nat\, you know. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): and that was about it. Whereas the the flood cases with the wave loading and everything were. \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): you know\, 200 to 400\, you know\, pounds per square inch pressure against the side were significantly larger than anything that the self weight was gonna create. \nI have few other questions\, but I’ll wait for others. Let me follow up on your comments there. Ramine. I had some questions about that also on page 19 of your presentation\, you had the the maximum d over C. \nRotational stability was point 9 point 9 0 for the sheet pile wall for the T wall bearing capacity was 0 point 9 9. Is that a structural? So that was a if you look at the I think you might have an older version. \nwe. We did make a correction on that\, because it did not logically make sense. Essentially\, again\, it’s an army corps looking at factors of safety. Essentially\, they are requiring a level of factor safety. And but we were writing like\, well\, we met it. We’re point 9. We’re right on that. So essentially under bearing capacity\, we have a 3.5. \nOkay\, Evan\, can you help me with that? \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): Yeah. So that that point 9 9 that was shown there. Originally was. It’s the ratio of the calculated technical safety factor 1.1 1 \nthat was the that was the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): yeah\, basically it was. It was the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): oh\, man. Sorry. I’m trying to remember here. So it was. It was taking the \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): the depth of the of step to fixity ratios. That we were providing versus actual \nEvan Vinyard (COWI): that we were calculating out. \nCrestron: I guess. What do I say? We’ll probably come back to you on that\, and give you a little more clarity. But essentially\, and from Bob’s analysis with the wall was found to be stable at the depths going 10 feet into the bay. Mud \nagain under inertial loading effects and flood cases. That’s about an embedded of roughly 35 feet with a stick up of anywhere between. I think the numbers are about 5 to 13 feet. \nYou know\, ratuing that we essentially had enough tip elevation and again looking at a liquid. Ca faction case. Now the whole soil masses sort of moving in the wall is slightly going along for the ride. We do not see any indication of the wall with \npotentially rotate and collapse. And it’s sort of a more severe manner. We can revisit that and give a little bit more clarity on that point. Walls don’t rotate and collapse if you have a safety factor of 1\, 3 \nbut that’s not a conventional design\, acceptable design safety factor understood. And so I’d be interested in seeing an actual safety factor\, or you can turn upside down and have it be a \nthe performance factor. reduction factor\, whatever you want to do. But point point 9\, II think what you’re saying is somehow the the depth is. you know\, point \n9. You know the the death required divided by point 9. So you’ve added an extra few feet or something like that which isn’t a safety factor. You’re correct. \nCrestron: along that same line makes since I have the the floor here\, and since I’m the chair and no one can take it away from me. \nLet let me let me follow up a little bit on that is II got interested in the point 9\, and maybe that point 9 is not exactly what I was thinking it meant. But there was nothing really that showed II there’s a ton of C of Cpt data. I assume there’s a lot of lab data. I didn’t see it in any of the \nPdfs that were forwarded to us. This showed how that data was reduced\, except for a few averages and some plots of cumulative values\, and so on. But I’d be interested in seeing \nsomething that shows how the data was reduced and how you came up with your design values. And actually\, what were the strength values that were used in somebody’s analyses. You know I see the analyses. I assume that behind that there’s a lot of maybe Appendix B in the Jutec report was something that that was not provided to us. \nCrestron: Ye yes\, II can speak to that. \nCrestron: There! There was a study done from about 1\,998 to 2\,001 on the \nThe. \nIt was looking at the airport development at at the time\, and it was done by Fugro and and muffin and nickel. They were the joint venture. and and most of the Cpt’s that that you saw in Bayside and along the perimeter. And what have you? Those were actually done as part of that that program. \nAnd and the and the program included extensive\, very extensive laboratory testing\, including a lot of focus on dynamic properties. \nAnd and this is what was available to us and was\, is a wealth of information in that regard. And so we drew from that database \nto to develop the engineering properties that we used in in our analysis. And and you had that live database\, you could analyze it yourselves rather than just taking their summary plots\, and so on. \nCrestron: We that we had there. We didn’t have a a live database. In a sense\, we we had reams and rings of appendices and tables\, and and the like\, which we which we reviewed. \nand and one pistana who has worked with us on on all of the plexus kind of analysis\, and selecting the dynamic properties \ngot got quite involved with with that review as well. And. Juan\, maybe I could ask you to speak a bit to the to the soil properties\, if \nif you don’t mind. \nCrestron: So how would one do that? \nThey’re not \nJuan M Pestana: can you hear me. Can you \nJuan M Pestana: see me? \nHey? Everyone? Yeah\, we got you. Thanks. Nice to see you. So the \nJuan M Pestana: so that’s a you know. Very extensive question about the properties. I mean. \nJuan M Pestana: we actually have gone through all the cycle characterization\, going from a strength to a stiffness to share modules reduction. So do name it\, except there is a very\, very dense database \nJuan M Pestana: for for that particular case. So II think your question is a valid one. It would be helpful if you narrow down a little bit\, the the concern would be \nJuan M Pestana: the particular property that you may be looking at. \nJuan M Pestana: But of course\, asking a question with the properties of soil\, is like. \nJuan M Pestana: you know\, asking for a 3 h lecture and install property. So you know\, it would be helpful to \nJuan M Pestana: specific about the question have you had in mind? Does it make sense? \nCrestron: Yeah. And and one\, I think we would just. \nBut I thought you might want to speak to the. to the wealth or to the depth and breadth of the information. But it it it’s it’s a extraordinarily extensive. \nyeah\, yeah. So so I guess my request would be of the design team. That I that I kind of assumed it looked like from the way you’d done what you had presented that there was a lot behind it that wasn’t presented. But I think. \nas ecr be reviewer\, I’d be interested in seeing that I’m not gonna spend a lot of time going into it. But just see. the criteria that you used for how you selected properties\, how you average\, how you pick standard deviations or outliers\, and \nand so on. \nCrestron: We know that the criteria that we would like to see has. \nII know\, you guys. \nJuan M Pestana: that’s that’s an excellent question. That’s an excellent question. So III can tell you of\, on the properties\, the the purpose. We’re extensively not that. And and you would be surprised. But some of those properties are actually quite quite well behaved. And the \nJuan M Pestana: yes\, of course there are always outliers\, but of course\, they are those outliers. So we we tend to look at the at the behavior. We tend to look at the \nJuan M Pestana: characteristics of soils. So we we have a lot of database\, so as far as testing is concerned\, to support or deny the validity of someone else data points. And and of course\, as a modeler\, I mean speaking now for myself as a model\, you\, you tend to develop a lot of criteria to see how reasonable. \nJuan M Pestana: The relationship between the properties are properties. So the the report was very\, very well documented\, and and I can attest to \nJuan M Pestana: to Bob’s a comment that there was a well from information there\, and it seemed to be consistent with several of the reports that we have not for other projects. So\, rather than being \nJuan M Pestana: in the San Francisco Bay Area things like the Threshold island. They Berkeley report some you know\, some properties for San Francisco Bay matter\, and so forth. So II do think they are very well established\, I mean\, if definitely\, if you\, if you need some clarification\, any specific issue? \nJuan M Pestana: and how\, for example\, we determine we use base average base value\, based estimates. And when appropriate. And this was a performance\, base analysis. But in some cases\, for example\, for strength\, we use the typical\, you know\, 30% \nJuan M Pestana: and you know\, characteristics. So so again. \nJuan M Pestana: I would be delighted to go at length in any of any of those any of those aspects. \nJuan M Pestana: Bob\, is that\, Tom? What you had in mind. \nCrestron: Yes\, thank thank you\, Juan. \nDid you have? Yes\, I think that’s fine\, I think just to go ahead. I think\, Juan\, you cited extensive documentation evaluation of that\, and maybe just submit some of that to to Jen to the Bcdc\, I just so that we have it on record that. Yeah\, it’s all been followed. Re related that one follow-on question\, one more on page 44. I think of your presentation. \nYou show the the fiftieth percentile and nineteenth percentile. And then a handful of points that are larger deformations than that. \nI. \nCrestron: And you know\, obviously\, we don’t want to have the average wall to perform well\, and only fail in \n4% of the locations. and let let me clarify. So what what we indicate is that II think this gives a good overview of of what the general field conditions are. \nBut we we have recommended to the airport that we we do as a large number of additional Cpt’s. where we would \nreally do a rolling average of calculated values of Ld. As we move along the shoreline. \nCrestron: identify areas that \nbased on that rolling average lead to \nCrestron: special attention and as a preliminary matter\, we were thinking that \nhaving a an average Ld of a foot is an area that we look more carefully at and consider either ground improvement \nalong those areas or upgrading the the steel\, but And we we have discussed with the airport about ground improvement as a as an included to assure the \nthe moderate damage performance. Criterias\, Matt. \nCrestron: we would. We wouldn’t leave that behind. And we do understand that we need to look \nvery carefully. You know. \nCrestron: You know\, every few 100 feet\, if you will. I mean not not not not right. \nAlthough 62 Cpt’s are a lot. It’s a big distance that we have. \nCrestron: Okay. \nreally\, if you got go ahead. \nthank you for the presentation. Very nice\, very clear. A few questions. If my biggest one really is the selection of seal sheet file \nCrestron: right for a \nproject that clearly is \nCrestron: 2085\, and beyond\, and adapting to it with \nso what was the thought process? And were there other alternatives considered to steal\, that was one. and then a follow on to that is that I would imagine that with steel \nCrestron: is there a \nCatholic protection system that is being included as part of the design. If not\, I would imagine that it’s probably with the section loss. You’re probably bulking it up right? And so with that bulk up section. \nYour Dcrs are still in the just at about one\, or is it substantially greater than one because of the thicker section anticipating section loss in the future. \nCrestron: So maybe I’ll stop with that and few other questions which are different topics. Right? So for the the first item as far as alternatives there was an alternatives\, analysis\, phase\, which is actually performed by a different consulting group before we came on board the report looked at a variety of different types of blood protection\, Perth and levies \nsteel sheet piles concrete\, retaining walls\, concrete panel sheet piles again\, a wide variety of different alternatives through that analysis. And looking at sort of the the life and the kind of looking at cost today versus future they made a determination at that time that they still sheet pile\, while with a a coding\, was the most economical solution for them \nfor this project. Again\, thinking through the period of 2085 leading into that sort of the second part of your questions\, we are planning to have a coating on the steel sheet piles on the above portion. We’ll extend it a short distance into the ground. \nThat coating and the wall itself again. The majority of the time is right at the edge of the shoreline. It will be accessible by foot. On either side of the wall. There is no flood waters\, there is no soil retain tension on it\, so it is accessible. So the expectation is\, if the airport chooses to do so\, and a maintenance program\, they could maintain the coating over the life of the wall to further extend it. \nWe\, as a kind of a design approach to date. We’ve assumed that they will not maintain the wall again. This is not their decision that you know. Very likely they will. But for conservatism\, we assume no \nmaintenance. So the coding we gave a life of\, I believe\, about 10 to 15 years. At that point we calculated the corrosion rates we’d expected\, based on exposure and and use those for the calculations. The DC. Ratios you were seeing in that table at end of service life 2085 against \nthe full design loads. So they are much better. DC ratios. you know\, in the first 2030\, 40 years they’re much better\, and then they get less and less towards the end. \nCrestron: Thank you. Yeah\, thanks for that. \nyou know. And and so it wasn’t just from that. You know\, my\, my other biggest question concern is the Cpg. Right? So cpige is a very large piece of any kind of fema floodwall\, particularly in segments where \nthe backland is just about at present day. Bfe! So in the future\, even with a modest amount of sea level rise. the steel barrier is the only \nseparation from the base. \nCrestron: So Matt had alluded to it in one of his slides. So currently\, as far as this project is concerned. Again\, with the media goal of getting Fema getting essentially off the fema map. \nwe are driving our sheet piles to a distance into the young bay mud to act as a deterrent to groundwater from coming under but obviously over a long enough period of time. With sea level rise. The expectation is\, the groundwater interior will will increase\, and there could be some potential for seepage. \nkind of a long-term projection is eventually again an add on project\, not district project. There will be a drainage system. Would it tie into the interior drainage system at the airport and handle sort of that seepage issue? We’re extending the sheets down in preparation for the eventuality that a system like that may be needed. \nBut again\, for this particular project. It’s not needed today\, but for sure in the future. And so again. Immediate need is\, let’s get off the map. \nOkay. My second question was\, I didn’t see a plan. I saw only at the end of runway 19\, where there is some fill that is taking place. But I see\, I think\, on Slide 2 \nCrestron: There are roads being pushed out also up to what 120 feet or so so. \nand that is in Reach’s. \nCrestron: Oh\, is it between reaches 7 and 13? I guess your slide says. \nand so \nCrestron: is that a new perimeter system that is being created? \nWell\, David has stepped out\, but I’ll do my best as essentially\, that’s the Vehicle Service Road. There’s an existing vehicle service road at the airport the current road in certain areas is required does not meet faa requirements. \nThere is a waiver that they have to request. I’m not sure if that’s annually\, but they have to get an exemption from Faa. It is too close to the taxiways\, the wing tips. \nThe idea of the movement of the Vs. Our vehicle service road is to come in conformance with with that\, the idea being that if this project goes forth we don’t want to permanently lock in a deviation from the Faa\, and that is essentially the reason for those \nshifts in the Vsr. So\, David\, there was a question about the Vsr\, so hopefully I covered it. Yeah\, my question was\, is the Vsr within the existing footprint of the runway? 28 area? Or is it a new edge that is being created for the Vsr. \nHmm. Well\, the the existing Bsr along the runway. 19. Excuse me\, runway 19 right? And then also around both the 2\, 8\, yeah\, 28 as well. So those will all be also be shifted out \nagain. My question is\, when you say shifted out\, are they on new fill in the bay? Which means the new perimeter is being created\, or is it within the footprint of the existing \nCrestron: shown here would have to be implemented \nin order to ship that the the Dsr. \nCrestron: If you can go to slide 5\, \nyou know\, my question is really on the other reaches on reaches 13 and 14. Is there a new perimeter being created for the Vsr. \nCrestron: The answer is\, yes\, very nominal. We’re minimizing it to the maximum extent possible. It’s much less than at the end of the runways. \nBut there is at certain components certain areas. We are pushing out a little bit to accommodate that Vsr outboard of the existing dyke system. Correct correct \nCrestron: that. So it is a large retention structure. Now at that point\, right? I mean\, it’s not just a flood wall like in the other reaches. No. There again\, when when the wall gets installed essentially\, that shoreline will look just the same\, or just \nsliding it out. And so the wall itself again does not have differential loading of significance. You know there’s maybe a foot or 2 here and there on each side of the wall\, but there’s no reach where it’s essentially holding back and retaining soil of significance. \nI see \nCrestron: I don’t know. Last question was\, and I think there’s some other stuff. Maybe Gail might speak to it\, but I did see that? \nWhat was it? 90%. So the ninetieth percentile of the lateral displacement of the Ld is at about 2 feet. \nwhich \nCrestron: you know. So 10% is is still substantial\, you know\, that will need to be treated. Are you thinking? Tie backs\, or are you thinking? \nJust continue with the cantilever assumption and just go deeper \nCrestron: cool. Do you mind? Take this? Yeah\, from a structural standpoint. You know\, once we treat the soil locally. \nyou know\, any sort of seismic risk really starts to go away right. Our our risk is the liquefaction\, the the soil interaction with the sheets. So the ideas would be more of ground improvement methodologies. \nbecause again\, in the ultimate\, the wall itself will not be retaining any soil. It’s purely there to wait for the flood waters to come\, which you know\, aren’t there often\, but it has no retention. So we’re not anticipating adding to any structural elements to be purely ground improvement methods to strengthen the soil locally. \nCrestron: Thank you. That’s what I had. Can I take 1 s to? Get a better answer to you about the point 9 on the rotational. So II got the facts from Evan. Here I sent you are correct. We designed the wall to meet a requirement of 1.3 against rotational stability. \nOur wall\, as currently designed\, is 1.4 5\, is our rotation factor. Safety 1.3 over 1.4 5 is point 9. Not typical way to present it. So apologize for that. But that is our design. \nCrestron: We fixed. We we fixed one. We didn’t fix the other. You’re correct. \nIf I understood it correctly. you said you use the PGA at reach 6 for liquefaction analyses \nCrestron: what was the basis of that. \nand I also think I heard that Beach 6 has the thickest payment. which I would expect to have a lot of reductions in terms of pgas. At this at the surface. \nAnd considering the 19 reaches\, which means 19 significantly different subsurface conditions to consider what is the basis there. \nCrestron: And also\, it’s very curious that \nreach 6 gave the highest lateral deformations. \nCrestron: And why would \nyou know\, go through all of this analysis that you did\, and you chose one result from one reach to consider for the whole project. \nCrestron: have some other questions\, but \nwe we select to reach 6 \nCrestron: be because of the the large depth that is the the reach with the with the thickest layer of of yoga. MoD\, \nwe we did our plexus analysis in in that reach. and our expectation is\, and I\, \nCrestron: that that\, based on the \nand and the the lateral deformations that come out of the plexus analysis are primarily driven by the shear strains within the underlying young bay mud. And and it’s for that reason we \nwe we felt that that that was the the critical section for the for the for the plexus analysis. we. \nCrestron: We followed \nsuit on that and and the this one dimensional site response analysis that we’re doing here. It was done for a couple of reasons\, of course\, and well\, it’s supporting. Reach 6. Our expectation that reach 6 is the critical section. \nOverall for the the lateral displacements. Now keep keeping in mind that the that the plexus analysis didn’t explicitly consider the the liquefaction. But it\, you know\, really driven by the \nby\, the the young bay mud. So the site response analysis was done at Read 6. It was used to \nCrestron: develop the the motions at the base of the Paxis model\, the \nto to translate the ground motions from the the rock to the base of the plexus model. It was done to using deep soil to compare that to to the re response of the one dimensional plaxis model. So it was a calibration kind of activity. \nCrestron: and and we did then as as we \nsubsequently did\, the the liquid faction assessment we anchored\, if you will\, on the on the on the on the PGA of of about point 2. \nThat’s there at reach 6 now\, there has been some some discussion about expanding that to to to look at different soil profiles and variation of PGA at the ground surface\, as it relates to the lip of action \nassessments. At the analysis that we’ve done to date on the on the liquifaction assessment has used the the site\, response analysis and Mpga based on on reach. \nCrestron: So I think that Ramen is is the point leading up to that \nthicker bay mud will give you will will shake a tall building worse than thinner bay mud\, but it will give you it will\, and it will amplify weak ground motions. But W. Is likely to attenuate really strong ground motions like you’re going to have from a 5 or 6 kilometer away. \nSan Andreas event\, and so \nCrestron: for PGA specifically reach 6 may may be unconservative \nfor the design level earthquake of the 7\, 8 at 6 kilometers. Hmm. \nJuan M Pestana: may I interject? There\, just for a second? \nYes\, please. \nJuan M Pestana: Yeah. So II think I have perhaps a simpler answer. \nJuan M Pestana: So what we were looking at the behavior for the day month. \nJuan M Pestana: So it made sense to analyze \nJuan M Pestana: reach 6. And then\, when we analyze local faction. If we wanted to somehow see how to combine we did it for for reach 6. And then we we wanted to expand that. So we use the the point to more like \nJuan M Pestana: for equality \nJuan M Pestana: over evaluation\, because the the PGA for each individual Cbt\, which has a very different\, we have a different sole profile is different. \nJuan M Pestana: So it would have been need the the analysis on the evaluation of the results much more difficult. So II think the idea here was to use that as a screening tool \nJuan M Pestana: for the system\, and to see which areas which of the reaches we’re more vulnerable and then focus the attention of \nJuan M Pestana: the site investigation to narrow down the \nJuan M Pestana: the areas where they have so many Asian needs to be done. I mean all the areas where remediation may not be necessary. So \nJuan M Pestana: II do. II do agree with you that there was the first of all\, this was not a combined analysis. We we did not do sideways pause with all combined\, which could have been done for one of those reaches at one specific location for one particular set of conditions\, but it wouldn’t be able to be done for 62 of them even less for more. \nJuan M Pestana: So I think you have to understand that graph as a screening tool tool says\, if you were to use point to which was consistent for the reach 6 that we analyze. \nJuan M Pestana: then this is what we’d see for all the other ones. Yes\, absolutely. All the older locations will have a different. So profile will have a different \nJuan M Pestana: Ega will have a different amplification\, and so forth. And that was not possible to do it systematically. So the choice was made to do it that way. And and then what that gave is to give a very clear indication that their phone areas they’re more susceptible than others. And that’s where we should focus \nJuan M Pestana: you sign investigation. \nJuan M Pestana: And for those areas\, then we can have a representative combined so profile of the Bay mode and the \nJuan M Pestana: characteristics on the fill that we can analyze together\, and then you could. It’s very difficult\, as you will know\, to add 2 things that are no wind. So the the response of the fell adding\, the map is essentially a screening tool is not\, should not be viewed. \nJuan M Pestana: So that’s the answer. But it’s a very good screening tool. \nJuan M Pestana: And so once we have those areas fully defined\, then you can do something that is more specific. And then we do a service\, pause by information analysis with the profile. So that that’s my take on on the question. So I hope that \nJuan M Pestana: then perhaps shed some light on the\, on the choices. \nCrestron: but I think it’s also could \nacknowledging the conditions change\, and our different. and you may get different answers\, different places from a system that \nis structural. \nFor the most part. \nCrestron: then it begs the question\, that is\, that an appropriate level of demand that is being considered for these particular \nsegment or reaches. so that you make sure that reach 17 with the system that you are designing for it has the right demand on it. \nCrestron: II can answer that. And again it it sounds like something we should look a little bit closer at\, but from purely a \nseismic demand again\, from a structural perspective. The flood case \nCrestron: is significantly more than we’re seeing. Again\, from an inertial standpoint. \nView\, increase the Pgna Pg\, or say PGA\, or the each reach again\, we can ultimately check that during the design\, or probably\, you know\, during the final design that will be a check. My anticipation is\, the flooding case will still control the structural design \nby an order of magnitude. If I’m incorrect\, the way to address that will be essentially thickened. The wall thickness\, and A. Z. 19700 is not a particularly thick \nsheet pile. Wall it\, that is again driven by the economics\, and also our flood demands. But if we do ever run into a case where the values of seismic inertial \ndemands are much higher\, we have a way to address that. Okay\, thank you. \nCrestron: Nick. Nick\, you had your hand up. \nCrestron: Okay\, since \nCrestron: yeah\, since the \nquestion here is resiliency against flooding. \nCrestron: I think it was your slide 28. But I’m not quite clear you indicated that there is a potential \nin certain settings to have inundation at I don’t know which one hit the inundation map. from\, I think\, was San Bruno reach \nCrestron: Channel. \nAnd my question is that\, yeah. Okay. So it would be 55\, is it? \nCrestron: Yeah\, this 1 56. \nCrestron: What provisions you? You indicated that \nyou know you think that the current. whatever pumping stations there are to evacuate the water are sufficient. But have you really carefully looked at that these are \nproperly resilient? I’m I’m thinking. You know\, it’s not exactly the same thing. Fukushima power plant had plenty of pumps. The power supply for those pumps was flooded. \nand therefore those pumps didn’t work\, and 30 cm of water on the runway effectively shut down. A few centimeters of water on the runway. Shut down the airport. So? My question is\, have you\, you know\, in the overall evaluation of resiliency against flooding? Have you carefully looked at that those \nelements are\, in fact. well \nCrestron: situated\, so that you can prevent \ndamage to those elements that are critical to keep the water out\, should there be overtopping by whatever means? \nNo\, it’s a very good point. again what our analysis showed\, and it was a very detailed combination of an interior drainage analysis performed by H. And TV and Lotus\, our consultant\, looking again at the Riverine\, this analysis was again driven as part of Fema’s \nrequirement for a Colomar Lomar package. You have to look at all flood sources. Beinga put the airport on the map due to coastal flooding. However\, we have to make sure we have addressed coastal flooding and all our all other sources \nin this particular case. The river\, and analysis\, as indicated on the slide\, has shown a couple of spill points. We’ve taken those and inputted those into the interior drainage model H and TV ran and calculated and reran the analysis and showed the current pump systems can handle that \nflooding. Now\, as far as the resiliency of those as part of the Clomar and package of the Lomar Package airport is required to prepare an operation maintenance manual. \nidentifying many of the topics you’ve you’ve brought up that these pumps will be operational when they’re needed. That’s part of. They will not give you a letter of map revision unless they have confidence that your system will be there when it needs to be there\, and that includes the operations of the pump systems. \nIn particular\, we have identified\, you know\, the vulnerabilities of the airport flooding much of the power\, and the transformers are within this perimeter without the flood wall. You know they’re very vulnerable. Hence this project. \nonce the flood wall’s there that does provide. The major source of flooding being coastal will now be cut off. Now we’re dealing with interior drainage situation\, which is again\, that’s something they’re living with right now. They have their interior drainage system has been effective\, it has been maintained. It has a proven sort of history to that. \nSo the expectation is the operation and maintenance that’s in place right now\, which has effectively kept those pumps running for the better part of 30\, 40 years\, will be effective in the future. \nso that’s our position. Having having worked on the project here in California\, upwardly. expectations were. and nobody actually looked at what the reality was. \nI would suggest that some consideration be given about making sure that the elevations of all these elements are above any potential flood flood\, hazard the fact that they worked today. \nIt’s fantastic. I’m happy to hear that. but we’re looking at future. And so it’s a while elevating the runway. Might be a much more difficult problem because you can’t maintain the \noperational operation of the airport. Elevating the power supplies above any potential inundation level is a relatively minor things that would be easily easy to do. So what I’m saying is that looking backwards \nis not really the way to address this issue. The the issue should be address. Looking forward. That would be my recommendation. Definitely understood again\, from a philosophical approach\, the airport essentially had choices. \nOne take all the critical elements and raise them up and just accept flooding across the airport. They’ve chosen option 2\, which is to is that essentially protect against the coastal flooding \nby building the wall. So I aren’t completely understand. But the idea of all these critical pieces of infrastructure are now going to be located behind this wall which is providing the flood protection. There may be absolutely benefits to consider raising critical pieces. And that’s something \nwe’ll discuss with Sfo. But again\, the fundamental. I definitely understand I’ve seen both approaches. But this case\, they decided investing in raising all these pieces of equipment. We’re gonna protect the entire area. Because again. There’s a lot of benefits beyond even those critical and elements. \nthe wider spread Sfo getting it off the flood map. \nCrestron: Gail\, I think you’re next up. \nYeah\, a few questions. so it sounds like you’re saying that seismics just flat out\, not governing anything. I would say from us a structural engineer’s standpoint. \nIt’s not a significant from a loading standpoint\, flooding out ways from a Geo technical soil structure in action. It’s very important. I just I did note\, Bob\, you mentioned \nyou were looking at Dcrs based on mild steel. but it looked like you’re basis of design\, was specifying 50 or 60 ksi steel for the sheet pile walls. So it’s even more conservative. Right? \nYeah\, the comparisons that I’ve made \nCrestron: very conservative because we compared the moment demand to a \ncapacity is actually an allowable moment \nCrestron: based based on a mile steel. And indeed\, you’re planning a stronger. Is that correct? Yeah\, it is correct. Again\, given a little bit of the uncertainty. Still\, with Cpt data\, we didn’t want to go too far if you conserve it at this stage. \nAnd I also understand. So \nCrestron: there’s very few areas where there’s going to be \nsoil behind the actual sheep bells are mostly just cantilevered sticking up. Yes\, that’s correct. I actually can’t think of any particular area where we’re retaining any soil of significance. \nOkay? So that takes care of that. Can you go to your slide where you showed the extent of lateral displacement. It was like\, Slide 39 on the dropped when you said. \nYeah\, I think you had one for each but 6 and one for each 7. Yeah. What? What is the lateral? What is the horizontal distance? Going back to? How? Where? You’re having 2 feet of displacement? I was having trouble reading the scales. \nCrestron: Oh\, oh\, it’s \nyeah. nominally. \nCrestron: Yeah. \nCrestron: at 20 or 30 feet of 2 feet. \nOkay? And what? \nCrestron: What? What are you? What are you impacting at this point\, I mean\, are you like \nhitting the edges of the runway\, or what kind of are you in terms of? I’m just looking at the performance. How local\, how local are the displacements? That’s where I’m going with this. \nCrestron: And and and this is Reach 7 that we’re looking at here. That that was the analysis for reach 7. So this is \nnot not typical floodwall. But this is the the reach\, 7 floodwall. And and we we analyze that cheap file being in the in the center\, as I recall\, of the perimeter diet. \nand I believe the the top width of that was \nCrestron: nom nominally 30 feet or so\, so that that particular\, that particular setback\, I think. \n20 or 30 feet\, so that it it\, that setback is probably 10 or 15 feet scale from the edge. So how far\, how far back. \nCrestron: how far back away from the cheapel wall \ndo you have to get before you would actually start impacting any operations. That’s what that’s kind of. So maybe a better slide with the overall airport map. Majority of these are\, you know\, away from the runway. \nso the the nearest physical element of that’s being used by the airport is the vehicle Service road. You know\, and there’s also sort of a curve. There is locations. The vehicle service road will be very close\, basically adjacent within 5 to 10 feet of the wall. \nSo there those are locations where there could be some localize cracking of the payment\, so on. But the actual runways are further away now. With that in mind again\, our wall\, our project and our focus of our analysis is on the flood wall. \nWe haven’t analyzed behaviors further back\, much further back from I seismic standpoint\, if you understand\, like looking at liquid faction across the wider air field. Yeah. Yeah. But but \nas far as the impact of the seawall goes. it sounds like it. It truly won’t impact operations. Yeah\, ultimately\, the in the wall itself. If we built the wall tomorrow and then had the big earthquake the day\, after all you would be doing is returning to your current situation today. \nRight? There’s a flood risk. The flood risk will be restored \nCrestron: in the future. The flood risks are increasing over time with sea level rise. So it does become. You know\, the performance of the wall does start to become a little bit more critical to operations because it reintroduces a flood risk. It doesn’t. The behavior of it seismically \nhas no impact on anything else on the airport other than the flood risk component to it. Okay. I was curious. Going back to actually remains very first question about \nusing 475 years. It sounded like you said\, it’ll have a big cost impact\, but everything else I’m hearing sounds like it will have almost no cost impact again. I may have misspoke in the sense of if we are my thinking on. That was if we were trying to prevent \nany sort of lateral or liquifaction behavior\, and to a very high case. \nCrestron: the cost of ground improvement over a much\, much broader sense. There’s significant cost \nBob. And our approach right now is to be more selective\, based on Cpt data where the most benefit to the airport for ground improvement will be obtained. And again\, it’s a cost balance ratio. \nStructurally. yeah\, you can throw a bigger earthquake\, and it will be fine geotechnically. So a structure in action is where there’s\, you know\, some concern\, the bigger event you look. \nOkay. \nCrestron: II think that pretty much takes care of my question. \nJustin. I think you’re next up. \nHi\, Justin Vandiver. I wanted to start with just kind of a general comment about the sea. Over rise criteria and the adoption of 3 and a half feet which seems like an appropriate \nnumber for kind of an initial build. and that essentially\, what’s documented in the report is that the risk that the airport is taking on of sea level rise exceeding that amount is essentially \njust loss of fema accreditation initially. and then\, as it gets higher\, then you have potential person wave overtopping and maybe flooding. so that all seems fine. \nCrestron: I wanted to ask if the \nif it’s billed as proposed. and sea level rise does exceed 3 and a half feet. \nCrestron: and there’s no additional adaptation implemented. Has that water level and wave loading been assessed for higher sea level rise on the as built conditions? \nLet’s hit the wall could accommodate those loads with no further adaptation. Action. \nCrestron: And in essence we have looked at sort of these stream\, I think\, as a 750 year sort of flooding event. \nThe wall and it’s in itself\, in a certain sense\, controls a load. So once the water reaches a certain height and goes over the top. There’s no load on that wall\, right? So if we don’t adapt it \nthat\, extra water is going to go over the top and cause issues of flooding\, you know\, hopefully be handled by the interior pump system. But that’s not our intent. So from a structural standpoint \nonce the water reaches the top\, it can’t really introduce more load to the wall. Now we have looked at adaptable potential adaptation on the sheet piled by adding\, Let’s say\, a concrete cap. Right now we have a bent plate\, partly for seismic performance. We’re trying to. If we get seismic moving\, having a rigid seismic cap on it \ncreates sort of locked in behavior. We want to have a certain level of flexibility to dissipate the energies and also make it easier to repair. But in the future\, again\, the site flooding risk starts out weighing that we could add a concrete cap. If you’ve seen the Foster City project \nessentially what they built there that can easily gain a foot and a half 2 feet extra height in the future\, if necessary. So no other modifications would be needed to the wall. \nNo. Again\, ultimately\, during the final design\, these are some of the criteria will establish for the the design builder. As far as performance criteria. They would have to consider that case if there was an adaptation when they designed the sheet \nto make sure they build that in and pick appropriate thickness of the sheet to accommodate additional height and additional flood forces water forces on the wall. \nCrestron: and then\, in terms of the \nfema accreditation\, I just wanted to note that it\, you know\, based on the information presented. It appear that Pre. Board and conditions are appropriate to attain. \nSee my accreditation. and that I appreciated that incorporation\, see overize into the analysis as opposed to just adding it. They split elevations. \nCrestron: so thanks for that. \nA just to go back to the discussion about\, like the combined sort of co-occurrence of a seismic and flood event. can you just for to describe\, like. \nwhat is that post-sismic condition of the wall. Look like you talked about lateral displacement. Is there any like vertical change or settlement of the wall\, or like separation? \nThey could allow water to pass into the airfield. Not not like if a hundred year event were to occur\, but just like a king tide\, or some like a much more common event \nare there gaps or a drop in the wall? It could result in flooding\, even in the absence of like a severe coastal storm event. \nCrestron: Again. This is a problem that gets worse over time. So again\, in today’s case\, you need close to the 100 Year Flood event to flood us\, though \nthat’s a bit less. But you know you need to get closer when you start looking at 2050\, or 2085 end of service life. That’s where you could potentially get king tides or small storms\, causing kind of a turnaround and a flooding event. \nMaybe\, Bob\, I’ll I’ll let you respond a little bit. You’ve been looking at kind of post performance. And what’s the expected damage after\, say\, 475 year event? \nYes\, \nCrestron: we. We have looked at the post performance\, we we focus on the lateral movement. And I and I think the the primary movement that we’re we’re dealing with here. \nIs lateral\, although there\, you know\, there there may be some down shaking of the of the fill. It itself course. The pile is driven through the fill. \nCrestron: Having having said that the the pile is deep\, it it goes through the pill\, it goes into the 10 feet into the underlying \nyoung Baymont. So we we believe the \nCrestron: you know\, the the thing that \nyou know\, the primary movement that that’s going to occur is lateral \nCrestron: as far as damage to the sheep piles. I think the \nthe the potential\, for we’ve looked at the the stress conditions in the sheet files and and and and that assumes that it’s essentially a plate\, if if you will\, in the in the process analysis. So \nwe th\, there is some potential\, and particularly at sharp turns\, if you will\, for for the interlocks to\, to. to\, to be compromised. And and I think that you know that that would be a potential for \na need for a repair. You know\, following the earthquake. But we do think that that would fall into a repairable category. \nCrestron: That’s pretty much a summary of. And the kind of that post performance\, and how very air program reacting. And it’s still being and discussed. But our expectation is after a post \nevents. Right now. We’re reintroducing a flood risk. addition to\, I’m sure some of the other issues they’re addressing at Sfo. After a large sizing event like this. The expectation is you can bring in \nfan sandbags. Things like that look for the gaps that may form again. If we have some differential movements where the wall changes directions to temporarily fill that again at re\, add back in some level of flood protection\, to provide \nan interim period until more long term permanent repairs can occur. But that was our our belief. And again. the immediate next 25 years going to be very rare\, but it will increase. So having that sort of plan in action is is something we have been discussing with us about. \nOkay. yeah\, just think it could be good to sort of document the thinking around the potential\, for I mean when you read it\, and you say\, Well\, what’s the likelihood of a large earthquake\, followed by a hundred year coastal storm. You’re like\, yeah\, that seems really unlikely. \nBut the possibility of a king tide with 3 feet of sea level rise. And that’s a much higher water level than it is today. \nCrestron: Flooding through. I mean\, that would be a lot of water coming through. \nYeah\, we have actually ran some of those scenarios and shared with us. \nYeah\, let me just observe that we were sort of aiming for 30’clock\, and it’s 12 min after 30’clock we started\, maybe 12 or 15 min late\, but \nsee if we can wrap up quickly. Ramen\, you got your hand up again. \nCrestron: I wanna be making sure that I’m clear \nCrestron: as you\, said James. Flooding is one thing\, soil structure\, interaction in terms of movements\, and the \nCrestron: performance of the system is a different thing. \nCrestron: Do I understand correctly \nthat \nCrestron: one set of \ndeep soil runs were run at. preach 6\, \nCrestron: and that form the entire basis for all the other analyses. Am I correct? \nYes\, okay. so. And then the comment was made that that soil column. the response at the top of the old bay clay \nwas taken as input. In all the Plaxis runs \nthe the ground motions at that level. At that. Yeah\, the the ground oceans at the rock were defined. and then what they \nand turned out to be at that particular level was documented. And that was the input to the and that’s from Reach 6. \nCrestron: That’s that’s correct. \nOkay? So that begs the question that whatever is between rock and the top of the old bay clay is seen everywhere else. \nCrestron: What is the basis of that \nCrestron: conclusion\, or that assessment? Or that point? \nCrestron: The \nkeep keeping in mind that the focus of the the analysis\, the 2 dimensional plexus analysis where reaches 6 and 7\, that that is a a localized area that we’re dealing with. \nCrestron: that that \nkeeping\, that in mind. We we so SSI was only done at reaches 6 and 7. That that’s right. The blacks analysis that you saw was only done at 6 and 7. \nCrestron: Then whatever results that came out of that was applied \neverywhere else \nCrestron: for structural evaluation\, for ground deformation\, evaluation. \nhazard evaluation. \nCrestron: So\, Bob\, maybe I’ll add\, at least from our perspective\, from instruct. Again\, the airport itself. \nentire airport\, and all these reaches is was filled like going back to the original shoreline. so the that layer in question. It\, you know\, varies in thickness. Bob and his team calculated\, you know\, the depth to the top of young Bay mud. \nCrestron: The rest of it is assumed. \nYou know there there may be differences within the bill\, but within the kind of the aggregate of this project we felt that was a good representation of that material. And so kind of you have this young bay mud layer \nstill layer surface\, and that’s why we felt that reach 6 and 7 was appropriate. When you look at reaches one to 15\, all of them have that same layering effect. \nCrestron: I understand that. But \nthen\, what was the criterion in terms of calling one area reach one versus the next one\, reach 2. Was it just thickness of the fill\, and be my well\, the reaches are actually more driven by physical structure. When this project was laid out\, there was trying to sort of manage the description and presentation \n7 and over 7 miles a wall. It’s kind of hard to get your head around. So there was a breakup of the reaches more driven by what you’re physically seeing there currently on the surface versus any sort of subsurface designation. So the link between the reaches and what’s the soil properties is not a \nthat wasn’t the driver. It was more of like reach\, one along the North San Breno Canal. You go outreach to around the fuel farms\, reach Fors Coastguard quite honestly. That’s how we divided it. \nNow. Bob and his team looked at every reach to identify the thicknesses of the bay mud and the bills. And then through that basically said\, you know what reach 607 at this stage\, in the analysis\, is representative for us to create a representative design that we can present and say\, you know\, generally\, the expectation this behavior is going to hold \nacross. Now\, there may be variances based on local\, but not to the point where we feel our design is presented would no longer apply. That’s understandable that the where it wouldn’t wouldn’t work. Our DC. Ratios would go from point 7 to 1.3 from a structural standpoint. \nCrestron: I think you’re planning to do some additional analysis. Right? You’re you’re pushing a whole lot more cones\, and I think there’ll be a better definition of the thickness of bay mud\, tops\, and top and bottom of bay mud\, so I can’t can’t speak to this from the timing\, and one that occurs is still being discussed with Sfo. Again\, this is a progressive design build project. \nCrestron: Ultimately there will be a design build team \ncomes in and finalize the design. The timing of that. it’s going to occur. Whether it happens under our team or this\, follow follow on \nthat will be to be determined. So as as the Ecr. We don’t care about the timing exactly as long as we would like to. By the time the project is built and impacting the bay. \nthat the appropriate design criteria has been implemented throughout. And I think what you’re suggesting remain is that by the time all is said and done. We want to make sure that you know\, reach 6 may or may not be the the most representative\, and that there may need to be some additional specific analyses at other specific profiles \nto to confirm that that there’s appropriate pgas or other depth ground motion site responses. I fully concur. The the long term plan. As a you know\, the engineer of record\, not our team. \nThat expectation is\, they have to look at every reach. And there is data gaps in the Cpt’s that we have identified. We’ve used the information we have to extrapolate the behavior. But\, as Bob has\, you know\, mentioned and presented. \nthere is a clear cap. The expectation is more cpted\, but there’s also subsequent reanalysis that would. \nWe’re expecting to be appropriate to perform kind of suggesting that. And also \nCrestron: there is a basis that you chose. A system for a particular reach. \nIs that being looked at completely in a specific way to say\, Yeah\, this is the right system for reach number\, whatever \nCrestron: ye? Yes. And again\, we’ve looked at that for each of the reaches to date\, and our best \nbased on where we are with the data we have key pile works for reaches 2 through 14 concrete retaining walls reaches one and 15 is currently where we’re at during the final design. \nAgain\, there’s boundaries on what could be changed to. But generally it’s gonna fall into one of those 2 categories. For the majority being. Still\, she piles that final design team will be the designers a record signing stamp in order to do that more geotechnical data\, and produce much more calculations than we have at this stage. Thank you. \nCrestron: Keeping your head. How you might formulate that as a motion for the end. I think \nwhat we’re gonna need to do. Aima\, you had your hand up. \nOkay\, I have a few just short question. \nCrestron: the first one is\, for Jim is kind of related to the question that Dilla passed to you about corrosion effects. \nCrestron: I think you had indicated that the rate of corrosion. I mean\, you basically determine how much corrosion would take place. \nAnd you’ve sort of a concept for that in your on the highest. \nCrestron: That is correct. We use the Caltrans guidance\, I think. \nrecently updated in 2021. They give frozen rates. piles\, steel piles\, and sheep piles \nCrestron: in a atmospheric splash zone commercial use those rates. We also use army Us. Navy guidance on kind of durability of coding\, and that kind of our basis. \nCrestron: So my suggestion would be\, I mean \nkind of dog sweat \nCrestron: corrosion related to salt there\, I mean\, which is what \nthe issue is here the rate of corrosion changes is very site specific. So \nCrestron: a generic \nrate of corrosion. It’s fine. But I think that project size you want to be \nCrestron: site specific\, and maybe the services of corrosion engineers. It’s required to make sure \nthe salt air. \nCrestron: basically model that they are using. \nIt’s applicable to this location. \nCrestron: no\, definitely noted corrosion rates are very hard to predict. What we are recommending. Airport is again a durable marine coding on the sheets. \nThen the corrosion rates hopefully\, it is maintained as anticipated. So the corrosion that we’re going to calculate \nCrestron: conservative. \nThat’s \nCrestron: coding will be maintained. You’ll never see the \npoint well taken. \nCrestron: Alright. Ii looked at the details. I \nI was kind of interested in what the existing conditions before you do your \npause \nconstruction. I don’t see any existing walls in terms of the sheet pile. It looks like\, what do you have? Is mostly a firm type \nCrestron: structure\, or it’s actually a mix within the basis of design documents. We we submitted so images of each of the reaches. There are some reaches where a vinyl sheet calls \nwas built\, particularly around reaches 14 that provide current level protection. There’s concrete flood walls along other reaches. Some are urban firms\, and some\, for instance\, outreach for the Coast Guard is essentially unprotected. Central Coast Guard\, straight town of the bay. \nCrestron: Okay. So your new construction is going to be outboard \nof all these existing \nCrestron: it’s sort of a mix match. But it’s going to be very close to alignment\, and the idea is that whatever gets built you’re not removing the flood protection there \nuntil the new one goes in\, because we don’t want to reintroduce less protection during construction. \nCrestron: That’s the intent right now. If you go through the drawings you can see \nthe location of the existing structures. Okay. \nCrestron: thank you. So for Bob. I think you had mentioned. You know you were discussing the availability of this wealth of information. \nSoft surface information \nCrestron: is that related to the Defund \nrunway extension that \nCrestron: was done by Fugro 3 years ago. Yes. \nthat data is \nCrestron: yes\, I that that is the study. \nand it was\, I think\, related to airport expansion\, but it but \nCrestron: and and that that that is the the data and the reports that are you able to lay hands on? Yes\, yeah. Because \nI was familiar with what they were doing. I mean\, they were actually doing pull in swab from the ground and testing them \nCrestron: on that on that book\, you know\, that was \nabort. So \nCrestron: right they had that information. Then I think that’s a great \nwealth of information \nCrestron: using that. That’s correct. That’s that’s the primary source of the engineering property data. Okay? \nSo the other question I had is related to the actual installation of the sheet file. \nCrestron: From my experience at the airport \na lot of the fill other than the hydraulic fill was from the San Bruno mountains. \nCrestron: Okay? And they had large pieces of \nrock in in some cases in the Phil. So so you need to be aware of that in terms of. you know. Drive-in sheet pops. \nCrestron: you know. You might want to look more into the historical call \ndata. With respect to the characteristics of the material \nCrestron: into which we are going to be driving this sheet file \na. Absolutely. This is a consideration. I part of the other benefits of the future. Cpt is to try to see if there is difficulty. That’ll be an indicator \nwe have in re meeting and researching what sheets have been driven at the airport in the past. Again\, there has been final sheets. \nCrestron: admittedly\, are not always the most robust in the airport. Generally had successes there. We’ve had\, made a couple visits to Foster City and their plug protection wall. \nvery similar type of \nCrestron: construction. And we they had a procedure where \nthey had a crew ready to pre drill out ahead as they were driving the sheets to keep the production line moving again\, being a design built means and methods ultimately decided. But you’re very correct. It’s a it’s something we’re considering \nand then finally\, for Bob\, I mean\, you mentioned deep compaction for \nCrestron: the I was kind of curious. I mean\, what kind of material that you \nthinking of using ourselves \nCrestron: for? For the the new field being placed. Our intent is to have \ngranular material\, and this would be dredge filled that would be brought into \nCrestron: for the the fill behind the dyke. That that would be dredge material that would be brought in for the \nfor the dike itself. We have in mind using questions question for that. and that would be quarry material. So I mean\, the deep compaction is for \nthe dyke\, or this. I think it’s it’s amenable to to both. In in the system that \nCrestron: that we’re thinking of. It’s it’s essentially for long\, heavy duty \nH. Piles that are have have a weight and vibrates itself into the ground. Yeah\, I mean\, I was just curious\, I mean\, with the horrid material probably would work. But if you’ve got \na lot of fines and \nCrestron: the material that’s behind it died. \nI mean\, that might not be an effective way to. \nCrestron: you know\, compact that material. \nII think the the the properties of the fill that we expect\, and we’ll of course it will be specified. It will be an imported material. I think it’s it is so. The quality \nsimilar to that. This was. use the Treasure island where this technique has been used within the the the general bill. Okay. Alright\, thank you. \nCrestron: Thanks. \na. \nCrestron: I guess we need to wrap up pretty quickly here. \nI\, too. Maybe one quick\, quick\, quick question. It seems like what you’ve got is up to 100 to 250 feet of fill that’s extending out in some places. Is that \nCrestron: I mean\, in 10 years on the Ecr we cringe when someone puts a layer of ripped wrap in because it’s kind of encroaching into the bay fill. \nJust to observe\, this is kind of an extraordinary fill over the last\, you know\, since they stopped randomly filling and dumping refuse in the bay. \nI guess you’ve addressed all that properly with in other places besides the Ecr. I think it’s not really our purview\, but just just to make that observation and passing that this is kind of an extraordinary event in the San Francisco Bay in recent decades. \nCrestron: We do have to mitigate that bill\, and we’re working with the army corps the water board of Ddc\, on that\, putting together a mitigation package. Okay\, good enough. \nAnd I think then the the deep compaction that you’re talking about it sounds like it’s relatively preliminary in your design considerations\, and so \npossibly you’ll address that further\, or possibly that it would go to the design\, build people to address that further. \nCrestron: This this is preliminary for sure\, and it it needs to be addressed further by the \nduring during the final design. \nCrestron: So fellow board members\, what do we think\, are we done\, or we wanna see it again? \nJim\, I just like to point out the questions that I put in the staff report for the board. Consider alright. I didn’t present those earlier scenarios and design criteria in the geotechical stability analysis appropriate for the site\, hazards and conditions and site criticality. \nCrestron: Our current and future flooding concerns\, IE. From groundwater\, coastal and rivering\, flooding sea level rise\, address adequately based on the references and the nature of the project \nCrestron: as the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts to adjacent properties \nCrestron: from the project have been minimized in the design. \nCrestron: You know\, I need to share screen. I guess. \nOkay. \nCrestron: is there any data monitoring you recommend Vcd. To require the applicant to enhance the future safety of the project in light of its projected 60 year\, estimated lifespan. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nCrestron: So I think that we’ve talked through pretty much all of these without \nreferencing these specific bullets. But it seems to me that there’s probably some additional things that need to be done\, at least before it goes to construction. Whether it happens \nafter it goes out to the design build team\, or what happens before. I think is not necessarily within our control. But I think that probably we have a few questions that we would like to \nsee addressed before we sign off on the project for the final time. Fair enough. I wonder if we can. \nCrestron: just throw out a little bullet list of things that we’d like to see. I’ve got \n2\, maybe\, and the rest of you can throw some other things out. I think there would be a motion. Then I would entertain at some point in the Mo. In the near future. \nOne is that we would see some. I think\, probably basically present further documentation of the database you’ve got and how you analyze\, reduce\, analyze\, and reduce the data to develop design parameters. \nCrestron: and then that would be combined with the subsequent subsurface investigation\, with whatever subsequent or related \nhow lab testing is performed \nfair enough. \nCrestron: probably geotext. \nAnd I would add that \nCrestron: at least present more site specific if you will\, conclusions that \na system and a set of analyses that were done were appropriate for a particular reach. \nCrestron: That’s a second point. I think \nit’s not unrelated\, but but it’s distinct. The analyses would be not lump things together too broadly\, but and make sure that \nanalyses and recommendations are appropriate. Reach by reach \nsomething to that effect. \nNick’s got his finger on the button. May I\, Mr. Chairman? There is one aspect that you just \nCrestron: briefly touched it to very\, very end. But we really didn’t discuss\, and I’m not sure whether we need to\, and that is the has the applicant demonstrated at first impact mitigation which we really did not discuss \nin this meeting. \nCrestron: So that that is 1 point \nCrestron: may not be in our purview. Others may be looking at it. But okay. what what I’m saying is that the point about the demonstration of mitigation or the adverse impact \nwe didn’t really discuss at this point. \nHa! Maybe I can quickly answer that part of the lomark package to Fema is they specifically look at that. Any flood protection elements needs to demonstrate. You’re not creating additional flood impacts or flooding issues. I’m not sure if that’s the point. No\, the the Bcd see\, specifically adverse impacts are on the environment of the San Francisco Bay. Not \nthat’s the encroachment that was raised by \nCrestron: Zoom friendship\, the very end. But I think maybe \nDavid Re responded to that\, saying that you’re addressing that with waterboard. And so it’s It’s a \nfuzzy on our \nCrestron: within or without our appropriate \nand and so and just so that you know our we completed the Eir process on this\, and that was completed back in June. So we’ve analyzed all the environmental impacts required by sequel. \nYeah? So so I think it’s potentially within our purview. But it’s being addressed by others at this point. So like\, we’ll just accept that \nCrestron: other points that we want to request additional \ninput from the team on \nCrestron: so specific to bullet 2 there\, I think. you know\, I mean\, I look through the basis of design and the plans itself\, and \nCrestron: and I’d like to see a little bit more on the alternatives\, analysis. \nand not just in the material treatment\, steel versus concrete\, but alternative edges that are being created\, so new edges wherever they are being created which are significant. \nYou know what was the process that you followed through\, you know\, particularly in cases like the end of Runway 19\, where you’re already putting in a large amount of fill. \nWhy would you put a wall there? Why would you not just raise perimeter \nCrestron: like the existing perimeter itself\, rather than you know\, create a dyke and then have a wall there just for the free board part of it. Things like that again you don’t have to necessarily answer\, but well\, I can quickly answer that one we did look at again. Earthen kind of \nfirms\, but it creates more bay fill cause you have to go further out to support it. So the higher you go\, the further we go out\, and with the runways\, with that location is set by the like. We had to have the wall. The height at a certain point couldn’t not be any closer runways\, but we didn’t want to go any further\, because that’s creating more fill and more mitigation. \nSo when we did look at Earth in type structures\, it created more bay fill. So that was ultimately why we went with the steel sheet pile solution because it minimized those impacts. \nCrestron: And so I think the emphasis has been on meeting the fema obligations which I agree\, you know that is the first \nCrestron: part of that process with Sfo several years ago. So that definitely is. But I think going beyond that\, which is what I think bullet 2 is getting at \nis you know\, is the treatment appropriate for situations where\, for example\, you have a sustained tide that is going to be higher than the \nelevations on the airport side\, on the runway side. \nCrestron: And so that flood wall is now really acting as the only barrier. \nRight? So it is \nCrestron: very different than Foster City and many of the other treatments where you have a wall on top of a levy. Right? So these are becoming flood walls that are \nCrestron: effectively like the New Orleans type of\, you know\, walls so \nlike to see\, you know\, just some of that thinking and the alternatives analysis. Maybe the Eir has addressed it\, perhaps as part of the alternative for B one\, or \nI’d like to see some of that. \nNo understood. Again\, our sheet piles\, our experience. We’ve designed a lot of coffer dams. It’d be d watered\, and so they are generally effective as retaining structures for water. So we felt that in the future cases where they would be truly holding back on a daily tide which is quite late in the project they should perform effectively. But the point is taken and to look at the interlocks in the you know the seepage of that \nright and simple adaptation\, such as raising the berm on the inside right? So that gets you at least some amount of protection. If there is so delete\, maybe we can just leave that because we’re late here. But I think there’s an appropriate request for additional discussion. Maybe it’s happened in house behind doors\, but \nwe’d like to see a presentation\, maybe of it. Additional discussion\, presentation of alternatives. Analysis without trying to at this point \nCrestron: seems to me like there’s maybe 3 points right now that we’ve got \nit would be additional presentation of data data analysis and how design parameters were developed from technical perspective. In particular. \nCrestron: second\, additional analyses. \nincluding potentially site response ground motions\, deformation analyses. First reach specific and consider whether ha! How much\, how broadly you can lump things together. \nAnd third additional discussion of of alternatives analyses. \nRamin Golesorkhi: is that a good summary of what we’ve got here? Someone like to make a move? \nCrestron: We got too many people going here\, so did I hear it so moved by Ramen. \nYes. there! A second to the motion. I’ll second second moved by remain seconded by Nick. Is there any further discussion of the motion? \nCrestron: Hearing no further discussion\, all those in favor say\, aye. \naye\, aye. any opposed? \nCrestron: Oh\, let’s say\, source but \nBCDC HOST: chair. This is the host. If you all can speak up a little louder on the next item \nBCDC HOST: that would be great. It was very hard to hear you all speak. \nBCDC HOST: Sorry guys. Like\, it’s very low. \nMy\, my. \nokay\, so \nCrestron: so the public is invited to address concerns. \nAbout this project about any issue related to this project. \nCrestron: So \npublic present\, I don’t see any hands raised here in the room. Grace\, do you see anyone online that’s expressing interest. \nBCDC HOST: I do not see any \nand \nBCDC HOST: or anyone wishing to speak. \nCrestron: Okay\, I think then with that we will \ntransition. Take a maybe a short 5 min. Break and be back in 3\, 48 sharp and Rod will resume \nchairmanship of of the remainder of the meeting. Thanks. \nthank you. \nAnd where \nBCDC HOST: what happened? Kasami. \nBCDC HOST: won’t you go over? \nCrestron: Okay\, everybody. \nCrestron: can we? Can we? \nprepare to get started here\, please. \nYeah\, I don’t know \nCrestron: how we doing? \nHmm. \nCrestron: Grace\, can you please promote \nthis meeting is being recorded. \nCrestron: Our next speaker. \nCrestron: Bernard Ware. \nto a panelist. \nCrestron: Okay. \nCrestron: agenda. Item. Now\, I guess this is Number 4\, \nOr 5. Item of discussion. the Oakland Harbor turning Basins. Widening project. We are now considering the Oakland Harbor. Turning basins widening project. \nThe project proponents for for this project are the Us. Army corps of engineers and the port of Oakland. Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from DC. DC. Will make a short presentation \nwith some background information on the issues before the Board today. followed by a presentation by the core on the engineering issues related to the in water structures. \nCrestron: I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking. \nwe’re answering questions when you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your video so that we minimize distractions on the screen. I would like to ask the board if you can please save discussions until after the presentation. \nClarifying questions can be asked during the presentation\, if needed. At the end of the presentation we will pause for public comments related to the engineering issues in the presentation followed by \nboard discussion. \nCrestron: One board discussion once board discussion is concluded. \nwe will take public comments on the project not related to the presentation. Okay\, Jen. \nCrestron: thank you. Good afternoon. Chair washed and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. This will be the Board’s first review of the Oakland Harbor turning basins. Widening project. \nI have some background information on the project to share to you. \nCrestron: This project \nwould widen 2 turning basins. or the port of Oakland. one in the outer harbor shown in the photo\, the picture on the left. \nand one in the inner harbor \nCrestron: and larger picture on the right\, on the slide. \nthe outer harbor widening impacts\, only subtitle habitat. \nCrestron: the inner harbor widening impacts 3 areas on the land. \nMr. Steele Howard Terminal. the port of Oakland\, and a warehouse site in Alameda. This is not a permit application\, it is a phase\, consistency\, determination. \nCrestron: So what is a consistency? Determination \nunder the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1 72\, as amended Federal projects must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Region’s Coastal Zone management program. \nCrestron: Ecdc. Has a federally approved amended Coastal Zone management program for the San Francisco Bay Segment of the California Coastal Zone \nfor Federal projects. The Commission reviews a project for potential effects to the Coastal Zone and consistency with the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone Management program. \nThis is the consistency\, determination. The Mcateer Petrus Act and the Bay Plan are a significant portion of the San Francisco Bay Coastal Zone management program \nCrestron: for this project. The Us. Army Corps has requested a phased consistency determination \npresenting information in the feasibility stage of the project today. \nCrestron: which will be heard by the Commission at the November Sixteenth\, 2023 meeting. The Us. Army Corps is requesting consistency at this time \nto support the submission of the project or the chiefs report\, and then proposed authorization and appropriations by Congress \nCrestron: once authorized and funds appropriated. \nthe Us. Army Corps would request further consistency review in the planning\, engineering and design phase. \nCrestron: The proposed schedule for the project commences construction in 2027\, and completion in 2 and a half years. \nCrestron: So the Oakland Harbor training basins widening project both the inner and outer harbor areas involve deepening and widening the turning basins to negative 50 feet mean low low water. \nThank you. \nCrestron: I apologize. My slides were not advancing. \nCrestron: The proposed area in the outer harbor \nis currently negative. 5 feet mean low\, low water. a shallow subtitle area covering about 21 acres. The inner harbor area involves excavating fast land and dredging to negative 50 \nmean the low water about 20 acres in size. \nCrestron: In these areas \nmean low low water is used as an elevation\, and that is about equal to the elevation in the datum nav. 88. \nCrestron: The inner harbor turning base in widening is the one that includes 3 new Earth support structures. \nThe first one number one in this figure. is an underwater bulkhead wall\, just off the shoreline of Schnitzer steel \nCrestron: number 2. In this figure is a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at the port’s Howard terminal \nand removal of the wharf. A portion of the wharf that has 3 cranes on it. \nCrestron: the third \nmark 3 in this figure on the Alameda side. as a bulkhead wall to support the shoreline at a warehouse site in Alameda. and removal of a portion of the wharf and land there. \nThese structures are not designed for flood risk reduction. \nCrestron: So the questions for the Board to consider in the presentation. Today \none are the scenarios and design criteria in the geotechnical stability analyses for the new 3 to one dredge slope appropriate for the site\, hazards\, conditions and site criticality. \nCrestron: 2 are the structural engineering design criteria. \nincluding seismic criteria and design loads for the 3 new bulkhead wall structures appropriate for the site hazards\, conditions and site criticality \nCrestron: free our current and future flooding concerns\, IE. From groundwater and coastal flooding address adequately based on the site\, hazards\, and the nature of the project? \nCrestron: 4. Are there any other design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nCrestron: And lastly\, 5. Do you recommend a future Ecrv meeting for this project? \nCrestron: Now? \nthe army corps will give their presentation. \nCrestron: It says\, I’m sharing. \nI’m sorry. \nCrestron: Okay\, is it? Gonna show up there. \nCrestron: Nice dark background. \nCrestron: thanks\, Jen\, and thanks to the board for allowing us to present our project to you. As Jen said\, \nwe are in the very early stages of our project. You know we’re we are looking for a phase. Consistency. Determination \nwas. \nSo I did want to start just by introducing some of our partners with port of Oakland. We have Justin Tosser. Kamloole\, Chopp. Pauline Leung\, Sammy\, you and I offer this \nfirst week of support. Welcome\, welcome we also have\, Eric Jolly from on record of engineers. Who is our environmental planner. \nCrestron: I did just want to start by talking a little bit about our our process. It’s I think it’s a little different than what you may be \nused to\, especially after that last presentation was very technical. like\, I said\, we\, we are in our feasibility. Study portion of this project. \nThe basic goals of this is to determine if there’s federal interest in this study. So we’re going to look at the economic benefits and the environmental and social impacts \nthan the costs. So we at the end of the study\, we’re looking for a solution that’s technically feasible\, environmentally justified or economically justified and environmentally acceptable. \nCrestron: What do we mean by economically feasible. What we do is we look at the \nbenefits. So in this case it’s increased maritime efficiency versus the cost of the project. And if we have a positive benefit. if it’s a cost ratio\, it is economically justifiable for the Army corps to move forward the project. \nAt this stage. We are looking at a total project construction cost of over 500 million. But there’s also the benefits are about 30 million dollars annualized. \nSo it has a benefits cost ratio about 2.5\, so it will pay it for itself. And so that’s looked as very positive. \nCrestron: At the end of our feasibility study. We are going to have about a 10 to 30% plan set. \nAnd so it’s it’s not as far as the advances. The presentation that we just saw before this. \nCrestron: Our goal is to submit our final report to headquarters uses headquarters \nin January 2024. And then after that\, we’re gonna hopefully get kind of congressional authorization to proceed. And then we’ll move into the pre-construction engineering and design phase. Hopefully\, in the 2\,025 range \nwith the start of construction around 2027. \nCrestron: this says a 2 year construction duration\, our estimates closer to 2.5 years. \nCrestron: and just the reason why we’re doing this. I see. When we previously widened the turning basin in the early 2 thousands. \nthe design vessel was 1\,139 feet long. Today vessels are calling the port are much bigger. They’re about 13 110 feet long. \nCrestron: This is a overview of the port of Oakland. and there’s 2 turning basins. If you can see my pointer. This is the outer harbor turning basin. \nand then the inner harbor turning basin. So these are the 2 areas that dictate what size of ships can call to the port? This\, these are the areas where they can turn around. \nCrestron: So this is the outer harbor turning basin. Currently\, what it looks like is the diameter is about 1\,650 feet. \nThe entire area is dredged to elevation minus 50 feet. with 3 to one side slopes over here. One other important \nCrestron: thing to recognize is that during basing goes all the way to the edge of the wharf \nduring this project we’re going to move it further away\, because when there is a ship berth there\, it basically limits the or shrinks the size of the turning basin \nthe effects of sizes. \nCrestron: It wasn’t really apparent from that last picture\, but this is the symmetry. So you can see the this is the Federal channel that stretched every year and maintained at minus 50 feet. \nAnd so the turning basin is widened in that area. \nCrestron: and what we are planning to do is no additional dredging \nalong this part. The dash part of the circle that’s already dredged annually to minus 50 feet. We are looking at expanding the turning basin to the northwest \nout in this area with again 3 to one side slopes. \nCrestron: This is just a plan with the showing\, some existing subsurface information. So there is not a lot in the where the actual cut will be made. But we are planning on doing additional exploration out there during the ped phase of the project. \nCrestron: There. There was a fair amount of explorations done within the turning basin area in the past for environmental sampling and disposal dredge material as well as during the minus 50 foot project. \noccurred in the early 2\,000. \nCrestron: So there there are additional Cpt’s and boring. In this area. There \nthey’re shown as smaller dots just to make the figure a little less busy \nCrestron: but this entire area\, all the bay mud has been removed\, and we’re down into the denser San Antonio formation all throughout this area. \nCrestron: And so this is just a cross section. \nGo back and cut right through this area if you can see my pointer. \nCrestron: And so there’s the existing 3 to one slope. \nCrestron: and we’re moving that all the way back here. Sorry for the lag. \nSo we’re just going to create another 3 to one slope out in this area. And this will be the edge of the new Federal channel. And so what we do annually is we come. So when we build this project\, we will dredge \nthis entire area\, including the including the slopes. \nCrestron: but on an annual basis. We’ll come through and dredge everything inboard of that \ndown to minus 50 feet. So we don’t dredge the slopes on an annual basis. \nCrestron: and I just just want to show \nsome of the engineering analysis. \nCrestron: So we looked at\, you know\, circular failures going through the tow. We looked at more wedge type failures that are shallow. And then we looked at deep seated failures. \nIt’s not shown here. We also looked at block failures as well. They came up with higher pressure safety. So I’m not showing them. As I said\, we we don’t have a lot of geotech information where the actual 3\, one cut slopes being made. So we selected what I think are fairly conservative strength parameters. \nand \nCrestron: we’re getting acceptable results of the the only ones that are below. 3 \nare the very shallow wedge failures which you know over time. Those may occur. And if if you know\, shower special soils\, do slide into the turning base\, and they’ll just be dredged out annually. \nCrestron: This is the last slide on the outer turning basin. So \nif there’s any questions. Please stop me. I know I’m going which we’re on time. So I’m going a little fast. \nCrestron: Okay? So the inner harbor there’s 3 areas that we’re looking at \nin the Northwest. This is the steel property. \nCrestron: and we’re I’m going to go over these individually. \nSo the Schnitzer steel. And then we’re looking at doing work within this cove area between Schnitzer Steel and Howard Terminal. This is the Howard terminal. And then down here is the allometer or the fist property. \nCrestron: What’s shown in blue is the Bcd shoreline band jurisdiction. \nIt was kind of complicated through these areas. There’s several different things. So out in this area. We’re \nCrestron: the dash. Green line \nis the 1965 shoreline. And so the jurisdiction extends \nCrestron: 100 feet in from that. Then\, as we go here there’s a bulkhead wall \nand \nCrestron: is so. The jurisdiction sends 50 feet from the bulkhead\, and we transition into a slope. \nand it’s the shoreline is marked by the mean low\, low water point\, or mean high water point. and it’s a extends in 50 feet from there. \nor sorry a hundred feet. \nCrestron: and then there is an existing bulkhead. Wall here that’s buried that was constructed in 1\,915\, \nand I guess there’s some previous \nCrestron: What do you call it? \nCrestron: principles that this is that \nthe shoreline band extends inboard from that 1915 wall. \nCrestron: And then on this side\, similarly\, there. \nthere’s a 3 to one slope here. I’ll talk about this wharf later. but there’s a slope that comes up and ends beneath this wharf. That’s why the band starts not the edge of the wharf\, but somewhat inboard of that. \nCrestron: And then there’s a bulkhead wall that was constructed as part of that \nminus 50 foot project right along here. \nCrestron: Everyone see my pointer. I realize it’s \nand heart disease. \nCrestron: So I’m going to talk individually about each of those 3 areas. Ask a question on that previous slide there. \nbut it shows 3 to one along the Howard terminal. \nCrestron: Is it really 3 to one? Does the port not dredge \nfor the birds also to 50 feet there along the terminal face? \nCrestron: I think that is actually not 100% accurate. There it stretched to\, I think\, minus 42 feet right along \nthe base of that \nCrestron: good catch. \nCrestron: So this is the Alameda side in. I’ve I’ve \nCrestron: drawn in where the wharf structures are since is an aerial photo from 1\,939. And so you can see that this is all former marshland \nalong the south side of the Channel. \nCrestron: and sometime between \n1939 and 1946. The war from the warehouse structures were constructed. \nCrestron: So here by 1946. These are in place\, plus. \nThese bursts have been dredged into. This is a area called Bay ship and yacht. So all these areas have been deepened by 1\,946\, \nCrestron: and then moving forward. This is 2\,000\, which is just before our minus 50 foot deepening project\, you can see those. \nThe wharf and structures are still in place. \nand then\, after the project we came through\, and we constructed a bulkhead wall right along through this area and trimmed off a portion of that wharf structure and several of the phase of the warehouse. \nCrestron: this wharf is a hundred percent pile supported as are the buildings. \nBut it’s not the basically\, the southern two-thirds are sitting on land. whereas the there’s about a 5 foot gap under the northern portion of the wharf \nhere\, so you can walk underneath this wharf. \nCrestron: and this is just a typical or a detail of the structure that was constructed as part of the minus 50 foot project. So it’s \nIt’s vertical sheet piles \nCrestron: vertical sheet piles down to so 75 feet long\, tipping out elevation minus \nminus 70. \nCrestron: There’s battered piles in front\, 24 inch diameter\, steel piles \nat 11 feet on center. Add a 2 to one batter \nJesus. \nCrestron: and they’re they’re partially filled with concrete. So the the lower portion up to elevation minus 30. \nSo basically\, the lower two-thirds are filled with concrete. \nCrestron: and it retains about 32 feet\, and then in front of it there’s a \n1.5 to one slope with a 4 foot layer of rip\, rapper\, rock\, slope\, protection. \nCrestron: Here we go. So this is proposed condition. So all we’re proposing is doing is building a very similar wall \nback in this area so as far as construction\, sequencing demolishing the warehouse buildings install. This bulkhead wall\, the vertical \nand excavate in front of it. Remove the Rip wraps install battered files similar to what you saw in that detail\, and then the last thing will be to install the \nriprap\, which is the up yellow areas. \nCrestron: So this is just a rough cross-section. \nI realize\, kind of at the end that we didn’t hadn’t drawn these files long enough. \nCrestron: So these files actually extend \nas shown here. And so basically. you know\, in our feasibility level analysis\, we’re we’re we haven’t really redesigned this entire wall\, we’re saying\, we’re we’re going to build something very similar to what was built. \nAnd so it’s offset back pretty far here during our ped analysis we will go and do some additional boring back in this area. \nCrestron: So I think there. \nwe’ll do some. at least here\, where there’s a space. Be on this side of the warehouse. and then in between the warehouse. we’ll try to get at least one \nCrestron: along the alignment of the wall \nCrestron: the only other thing in this area is\, there is room to kind of \n3 to one slope here without impacting the existing wall. But there won’t be any structure here. Just a excavated slope. \nCrestron: And so that’s the last slide about Alameda. Are there any questions? \nCrestron: I’ll I’ll keep going. \nCrestron: So this is the Howard Terminal. So \nthese are the existing conditions plus \nCrestron: borings that were done out there. Most of the \nblack dots were just probes that were done prior to construction of Howard terminal. So basically\, they just drilled down till they felt firm material and logged that. So they aren’t very detailed logs. \nCrestron: this shaded area here. \nI realize this looks very monochromatic is the outline of the existing rock dyke \nCrestron: just shown here. \nSo it’s a \nCrestron: fairly massive rock dyke. We’ve got 1.5 to one slopes. \nand then \nCrestron: 24 inch octagonal piles were driven through it. \nThis rock dyke is constructed of material. It’s up to 12 inches in diameter. \nCrestron: Then this entire area behind it was hydraulically placed sandy fill \nwhich is going to be an issue. There was a history of liquifaction during the 19 90 99 earthquake at Howard Terminal the only effects were settlement of up to about 6 inches. \nCrestron: so we know it is hydroly place fill. We know it’s liquefiable. We are going to explore it more. Starting in a few weeks. We have some. Cpt. \nCrestron: Let’s see. So this is the proposed condition we are looking at building a bulkhead wall. \nand it’s mostly behind that rock dyke. It does first through the rock dyke at the very end here. \nCrestron: and just at the feasibility level. We’re we’re thinking this is \nIf the material behind it is not liquefiwall\, the wall will look very similar to what the wall looked like on the almet side. There’s only we only have one cpt in the backfill zone right now\, and it \nshown that the that material is fairly loose and can liquefy. So we are going to explore that more in the next few weeks. \nCrestron: And so this is just a cross section going through. And \nCrestron: as was pointed out\, it’s not a 3 to one slope right in front. It is cut down at minus 4 to 2 feet. \nCrestron: and so \nthis is where we’re planning on building that new bulkhead wall\, you know\, as I said\, you know\, it’s probably gonna look fairly similar to the wall on the Alameda side. The question is\, are we gonna have to do any ground improvement on the backside of it \nthrough the liquid viable soils? \nCrestron: So that’s the last slide on Howard. Any questions about the Howard terminal side. \nCrestron: that folder. \nCrestron: Yeah\, but it it is a curved structure. So it it changes as you go along the alignment. \nSo in in this area\, we’re removing the entire rock dike \nCrestron: up until here some of it will remain. \nCrestron: I did. I did have this one question on this\, given\, that \nthe dike has worked\, and successfully\, and it even went through structure similar to that was\, has not been considered as a new edge for the turning basin here. \nCrestron: No\, it hasn’t. We are trying to stay on the inboard side of this green line\, which is that 1\,950 playwall there is\, contaminated soil on that side of the wall\, so we are trying not to excavate very far \nCrestron: is this project contingent on the Oakland is moving to Vegas. \nCrestron: No one of our constraints was to stay on the west side of their entitlement line. Okay. \nyes. And and there’s been. And as part of the A’s studies that have been done\, there’s no more data on Howard Terminal. It’s part of that study available to you guys. Yeah\, as part of that study\, there’s the Cpt right about here. \nAnd so that’s the only existing Cpt that we have in this area. \nCrestron: And then there’s there’s one’s further in \nthat also show lucifiable soils. \nCrestron: Okay\, so this is the this is the cove to the west of \nPower terminal. \nCrestron: What we’re trying to avoid touching this the snitcher steel property again\, there’s we don’t own it\, or the poor rope doesn’t own it\, and there’s contamination. \nThere. So we’re trying. What we proposed is a varied bulkhead wall or buried retaining structure where we where we get close might be easier just to show a cross-section before we go into this. \nCrestron: So this is the proposed edge of our turning basin. \nCrestron: and if if we were to \ncut a 3 to one slope we’d be\, we’d risk undermining the existing bulkhead. Wall. So what we’re proposing is a inboard retaining structure. Not quite sure what it’s going to look like yet \nit could be driven concrete or steel piles in a row \nCrestron: drill drill piles maybe a drilled secant wall. So there! There are many options. We don’t know quite what that wall is going to look like. \nWe just know about where it’s going to be. \nCan I just ask a quick question? Since you mentioned ownership and contamination on the port of Oakland side? Does the port of Oakland own the Alameda side. No\, they don’t. That’s private property\, and I would assume\, based on legacy land uses and bay ship and yacht that that is also contaminated land. \nI don’t know. I’ll put that to Justin the camera. \nCrestron: Okay\, but I guess if there is contamination it will be dealt with appropriately during construction. Oh\, yes. \nCrestron: yeah\, so sinister steel. This is \nthe wall kind of what the geometry looks like. \nCrestron: And then\, as you get further away\, there is room to cut a conventional slope in this area. \nCrestron: These slides are out of order. So we have some upcoming work. \nWe are\, gonna do some environmental sampling throughout that cove area. and \nCrestron: through that will also\, you know\, be able to tell the geologic contact between the Software Bay mud and the underlying dense San Antonio formation. \nWe’re going to do some Cpt’s at Howard Terminal along the alignment to show the the depth and consistency of the field that’s out there. \nThen we’re going to do a geophysical survey of this entire curve area atov area. \nCrestron: And so what that the geophysical survey is gonna do \nasymmetry size scan sonar\, which is shown here as an example. Magnetomer survey and a sub bottom profiler. So the what we’re really looking for is \nburied obstructions throughout this area\, then the sub bottom profiler will not only tell us very obstructions\, but it can will also tell us the thickness of the looser deposit. So this is further down the channel. \nwhere everything has been excavated down to hard material. Except for the there is some looser deposits in this area\, as you can see \nCrestron: as shown right here. \nCrestron: So we’re hoping to get a better handle on the depth of bay mud in that covariance. That’s really one area where we don’t have a lot of information. \nCrestron: And then this is our sea level rise analysis. I didn’t do this\, so I’ll have to go to my notes. \nso the core engineers\, as I mentioned earlier\, we we looked at things as a 50 year analysis period. and then we look for adaptability out to the 100 year timeline. \nCrestron: And we look at 3 sea level rise curves that \narmy corps engineers created. I know they’re different than the State of California curves. \nCrestron: What this is showing \nis that \nCrestron: this top figure is showing sea level rise based on title current data from 1\,992 on. \nand showing about \nCrestron: point 8 7 rise per year\, or about. That’s about 3 hundredths of an inch \nCrestron: per year. For our study. Our base year is 2\,030\, \nwhich would represent about the end of construction and going through 2080. \nCrestron: The the one thing I take away from the sea level change. Analysis is that. \nyeah\, we’re looking at changing the shoreline only in 2 areas. And Howard Terminal and at the Alameda side. and both those structures. The Alameda’s about elevation 13 and a half. \nyou know\, Howard\, we’re about elevation 12 and a half to 13. So even at the \nCrestron: before. We start overtopping those areas. It’s quite a ways out. So so I think this is \nsea level rise plus \nCrestron: King tides. \nIt’s all the way out till \n2095 before you start overtopping either of those structures\, and that’s on the highest curve only. \nCrestron: And then\, considering extreme events. It’s all the way out to like 2050 before you start overtopping those structures. \nAnd again\, that’s on the highest sea level rise curve. \nCrestron: And that’s my last slide on sea level rise. I know we have some extra work in the room\, so hopefully. \nhopefully\, there aren’t too many questions on. \nCrestron: Well\, I would just say\, I mean. \nI don’t know. You probably can’t change it in chief support if you’re submitting it in January. Looking at Alameda’s tag gates for such a sort period. Probably isn’t at all gonna go with sea level\, rise trends and sea level rise with \nsuppressed for a long time by the Pacific decadal oscillation. I would encourage you to look at the 2022 Federal Civil Rights Technical report which the Army Corps is a co-author. \nand it includes projections of sea level rise based on satellite data and tide gauge data to 2050. It shows that \nin the bay area. It’s tracking with the Federal intermediate low curve which is about the Army Corps intermediate curve. Just for reference we are. We do have lower sea level rise here than a lot of other areas in the country\, which is good. But \nyeah\, when it goes into like further design\, probably use kind of the latest Federal science. \nCrestron: Okay? I’ll mention that to our coastal engineer. Also\, the coastal appendix is posted. So if you do have \nfurther questions or comments. Yeah\, I’m sure we’d love to. \nCrestron: Let me ask\, with regards to sea level rise \nlike on the Alameda side\, what are your what would your commitment be? And maybe this is for Jen. What’s the \nCrestron: what are? What are they required to do to protect like the wharf? Because the the wharf you can’t \nraise up. and I know\, for the further down where it’s being developed for Alamine Landing. They set up the barrier behind the wharf\, and they raised the elevation of all the new buildings behind it. \nAnd the wharf is basically staying where it is. So what do you? \nCrestron: What are what are these guys supposed to do? \nWhat’s their commitment to do? Even if the wharf is inundated due to sea level rise. \nWell\, I would say\, for for the consistency determination which looks at if the project’s consistent with our policies. this \nCrestron: this is probably similar\, and we haven’t had a big talk about it internally yet. \nBut the one of the last projects the Ecr heard was run one greenwood\, which was also a bulkhead wall. and I remember Chris May had the comment that even though bulkhead walls aren’t designed for flood protection. \nthey may be missing an opportunity for an incremental cost to provide additional flood protection on top of that. But it’s because it’s not part of the project purpose. \nCrestron: It doesn’t have a flood protection \nstandard to me \nCrestron: as far as Vcdcs. \nWe’ll probably look at it. \nCrestron: But it it may be valid comment that there may be a missed opportunity here\, depending on what the regional \nplan is for sea level rise in the area. \nCrestron: Okay? \nactually\, that was my last slide. Jennifer encouraged me to put some questions in here. \nCrestron: so one thing I thought of is you know\, there\, there’s a lot of research and kind of the late. \nyou know\, around 12\,008\, 2\,010 about seismic Earth pressures. And honestly\, there was just so much stuff coming out. I haven’t kept up on it. So I was wondering\, you know if the board had any input on. \nYou know what the latest and greatest is. I know we have Professor Sitar here\, worked on a lot of that material. \nCrestron: too many of them. \nWell. I think. Yes\, we. There are publications on this at page WA. Actually as incorporate some of it in their manuals. \nand the latest fema document on it is pretty good. \nCrestron: and we can certainly share on this. \nThe liquefaction is pretty straightforward. \nCrestron: slow\, liquid pressure. \nOh. if you go back to your profile to to suggest that \nCrestron: support for the I guess it’s the yeah. That’s one \none more forward. \nCrestron: Those are standard books. There is nothing really there. But if you go to\, I think it’s the Schnitzer steel where you have the \ndouble next one. Yeah\, this one \nCrestron: that that that really becomes a slow stability problem. \nYes\, and these things should be analyzed as a sort of stability problem. Because if the material mobilizes. you really are putting. It’s not really a seismic. \nCrestron: So my recommendation would be that this would be carefully looked at as a slop stability problem. \nCrestron: Yeah. \nfor this particular. I guess I was asked to speak so again\, let me repeat that that these should be analyzed as a slope stability problems rather than just seismic or pressure. The seismic first pressure generally \nis not much of a problem. Once you consider the full pressure of Baymud. the basically the static pressure. When you have clay backfill. You get already very high pressures. \nand what is often missed is the slope stability aspect of this. Because you have a you have a slope there that may yield. and if that yields\, then you’re \nokay\, of course\, doesn’t have the passive support that you are counting on. \nCrestron: and that would be the place to look at. \nThat’s a sort of off the I saw your question earlier. So I did think about it. But that’s basically a short answer to your question. We can\, of course\, have longer discussion. \nAnybody\, you know\, I can make a presentation. Of course\, we’d be happy to. \nCrestron: So that was my last slide. So \nif there are any questions. \nplease. okay\, so \nCrestron: At this point of the meeting we would like to receive public comments on the presentation. \nWhen called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. You have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. \nPlease keep your comments respectful. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nHate speech. threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language will not be tolerated. Anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits \nwithout permission\, will be muted. \nSo \nCrestron: is there any public comments \non the presentation in the room. \nCrestron: See any hands \ngreat? Do we have any? I see none. \nBCDC HOST: There are no\, there are no public comments on my end. \nCrestron: Okay\, thank you very much. \nOkay\, so public comments. On the presentation is closed at this point\, let’s have a \nCrestron: board discussion. Are there any \nitems that \nCrestron: we need to \nlooks like Rameen has a question or a comment. \nCrestron: I have a question. \nI’m actually pretty surprised that the 3\, 2\, one slope is stable. is. Is any of those dredge slopes? That you talked about? Do you have the symmetry of \nwhat is the inclination of those? Is it? Yeah. So \nCrestron: the reason why I think 3.1 is pretty tried and true. Design is. \nthere is\, you know\, over 2 miles on of slope that is cut and has stayed for a long time. We do have what I showed you in that \nthe blue slide is a full bathymetry survey. That was done in 2\,019\, and you don’t see any failures. Several times a year before and after dredging we do \nthe symmetry along our channels. which extend\, you know\, we usually send 20 to 30 feet beyond. So you know\, we have 10 years of data that shows\, you know the bottoms of those slopes\, or. \nCrestron: okay\, II have another question. \nYou assigned a strength parameter to the bay much\, and it increases about 12 pounds per square foot per foot. Considering this is normally consolidating material. Say. \nstress ratio is about point 2 5\, maybe 2.3. \nCrestron: If I take the 12\, and divided by your effective \nunit weight of the Baymont\, which is about 28 pounds for school per cubic foot. \nCrestron: So you get a ratio of 12 over 28\, which is more like point 4 something. \nCrestron: What is the basis? How? How is that justified? in this case? Site? Specifically\, it is justified. There’s volunteer data \nin not only this area\, but all along the alignment. That shows that it is a fairly consistent relationship. \nCrestron: there’s theoretical basis\, as well\, you know. \nThe Chancellor procedures\, you know. and but for an Ocr. Of one in Bay MoD\, you get pointfour\, I’m a little surprised. We’re cutting. And so you have less effective stress. So \nhigher. Ocr\, in those areas. \nCrestron: I would ask you\, do\, do you? I I’ve seen 12 Pcf use \nincrease 12 in many other areas\, have you? Well\, what I’m saying is\, the the stress ratio becomes about pointfour. \nCrestron: yeah. Su\, over P\, or to get it really technical. Yes. \nthen that that to me sounds high\, pretty high for Baymont. \n8 or 10. I have seen 8 pounds per square foot per foot. which is around a factor of point 3. \nCrestron: Yeah\, I mean\, point 3 is the commonly used number \nCrestron: our static analysis is showing factor safety of 3. \nSo II agree. If if we back down the number that we use\, we may get a lower fracture. Safety was still stable. I \nCrestron: okay\, I can follow up with\, you know\, data to kind of yeah. \nback up our number. Thank you. \nCrestron: Okay\, any \nanybody. Oh\, looks like Jim’s got his microphone on. \nCrestron: So this is a pretty early presentation from what we’re usually seeing. And it’s so different questions\, maybe\, than what we usually are are trying to address. \nCrestron: I think you’re kind of asking. You know what \nwhat particular approaches ought to be used. And I would point just for starters. I guess I would point to port of Oakland\, especially Alameda\, less\, maybe port of Oakland has a lot of studies that have been done pretty extensively. \nCrestron: In the 90 S. And into the early 2\,000 in particular\, with a lot of data. Subsurface consultants. \nyou know. Make sure you have everything that subsurface consultants done from the port of open \nCrestron: they have a ton of data\, you know. See if you can \nCrestron: dredge up\, so to speak. \nsome of their their Gis databases. I think they’ve got everything pretty neatly put together and packed up. And that’s Fugro now. So I’m not sure what Google is going to charge to try and borrow some other old data. \nOh\, we we do have those Sci reports\, and so we’ve digitized\, you know database from them. And then the port of Oakland Wharf and Embankment strengthening program also \nshould have some some good. \nCrestron: a \ndatabases as well as extensive \na static\, but focusing on seismic stability and deformations. \nCrestron: first met Gale\, I guess. Huh! \nCrestron: What? The West project? Yeah. Early. 2\,000 \na and \nCrestron: well\, there was just one other thing I was thinking of\, anyway. So it’s a lot of extensive data to make sure that you’re familiar with\, not just the databases\, but also the analysis and what those results have been \nCrestron: in all those analyses that were done back. Then \nthey were done for 3 to one slope\, or even steeper. You know they proposed. \nCrestron: Once you get into the San Antonio\, even steepening it. \nCrestron: Yeah. So so one of the things that’s gonna be tricky is\, you know\, like\, for instance\, if you’re removing a dike and moving things backwards and putting a wall in place. \nthere’s a little bit of material removal\, and so there’s a little bit of over consolidation\, which will give you a little bit better strength. \nCrestron: Whether that reduces your at rest\, earth pressures or active earth pressures is\, is a is an interesting question\, I guess. \nbut just encourage some. you know\, especially looking at bay mud pretty sensitive to stress paths\, and what the latest \nCrestron: the the latest\, most current conditions are. What’s the state of drainage as you’re excavating things are gonna strange \nstrain \nCrestron: slowly\, as they drain. So I think you got some really interesting \ncomplex analysis that needs to be done. Especially with \nCrestron: time related aspects of excavations\, and how things are disturbed. But pile driving\, and so on. \nOh\, \nCrestron: Following up on \non what Jim was saying\, I’d say. Also take a look at and report might have access to the work that was done for the Howard terminal \nCrestron: expansion. I think Ngo really did do a deep dive to look at a lot of the prior data that existed. \nincluding the original construction of the raft. Right? There might be some data there. Yeah\, we have the the geotech reports that were done prior to the rock dyke\, and then the plans for the rock dyke. \nWe have looked at that \nCrestron: underneath the rock deck all the bay mud has been removed. \nCrestron: and and the only other recognizing that. Yes\, this is fairly early on. And so you’re probably looking more to us\, which is what we would be looking at \nin the future. you know\, following up on what Chris said\, I would imagine that the local community would probably \nCrestron: look at some form of flood improvements in the future. \npretty much along the same \nCrestron: footprint of whatever the bulkheads are. \nand so just keeping that in in mind\, you know\, if there is wall extension of of an existing pile cap that might occur in the future. There’s opportunities. \nJust something we would. \nJim. Yeah\, just to follow. And I think maybe you were here during our previous presentation. \nCrestron: When you come back to us again at the next stage. \nOne of the questions that we’re gonna want to know is\, you know\, you just said you have all this old data from Wasp and from Sci gym\, matrix has a lot of studies from the port of Oakland. Also \njust make sure that you give us a documentation of all the steps along the way. Not just say\, yeah\, we have that data. It’s extensive. But but show us and we’re not. Gonna \nCrestron: we don’t recheck all of your calculations. But we do want to see that you’ve done those calculations. So so just kind of walk us through the the process. I think that’s what we’re \nwe’re gonna want to see how you develop your engineering criteria. Definitely\, we’ll we’ll do that. is. \nCrestron: you know\, these engineering and parent appendix to feasibility studies are just kind of supposed to represent the final. So they don’t want us to put all the. \nIt’s supposed to be a very short document. So yeah\, there’s a \nCrestron: inconsistency that we can do that. You know\, we’re not going to spend a lot of time on your backup information\, but we want to be able to glance at it and see. Yeah\, there. It’s it’s in order. \nThank you\, Jim. Anybody else. Lima. anything? \nCrestron: Just a quick question you. You going to be doing some seismic analysis of these slopes. \nWe we’ve done some kind of screening level analysis. It wasn’t in the \nCrestron: appendix that was submitted\, which was a \nfew months ago. Basically the seismic analysis we did was starting with the Usgs hazard tool. We ran it for a site class C\, which would be represented kind of the top of the \nSan Antonio. Yeah. And then we looked at published report that was done for the quarter to San Francisco. There. including amplification ratios through bay mud. You know they they had different ratios for \ndepending on depth of bedrock and thickness of mud. That was kind of how we did back of the envelope. Okay. \nCrestron: alright. \nCrestron: Okay\, Philip. \nSorry I had one more\, you know. Looks like you’re you’re starting a campaign. Pretty vigorous campaign of exploration and geophysical and sonar and stuff. I didn’t see any boring’s in there. On either side Malameda or Oakland. Would that be something that that would happen during the frequency construction and engineering side. Basically. \nCrestron: Okay\, I’m looking right. I’m looking left. \nI don’t see any more red lights except for mine. let’s see \nCrestron: to do. Okay\, Jen\, do you have those questions that you can put back at. Let’s just make sure we’re \nCrestron: we’re addressing those. \nAnd then we’ve addressed them. \nCrestron: Okay\, so \nCrestron: quick glance here \nsounds like \nwe have. \nCrestron: answered. I think we’ve got answers to all these questions. Jen. \nokay. so \nCrestron: are there motions? Is there a motion that’s appropriate? \nCrestron: Thank you. I’m not sure we have much of a detailed. \nI’m not sure we have much of a detailed motion other than to say. This is not our the final time. We want to see the project. \nCrestron: which is\, I think\, was you said that at the beginning\, I think more in in essence. So \nCrestron: we agree. Okay. \nCrestron: is that a motion? I don’t know beneath the motion \nthat well\, just to invite them back\, invite you back when you’re ready at the next phase next step. \nOkay. is there a second \nCrestron: second? All right\, all in favor. \nAlright. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Passes. Oh\, all opposed. Any opposed? Okay. \nthank you. \nCrestron: And now we move to \npublic comments not prefer items not on are not on the project\, but not related to the presentation. Anybody in the room. Is there anyone present who would like to make a comment on the project \nnot related to the presentation? \nCrestron: Okay\, I don’t see. But any hands raised in the room. Grace\, is there anybody online who’s got their hand raised? \nNo one has raised their hands. \nCrestron: Okay? Well\, then\, I think that closes the item. And \nwe did a very good job of doing this in about an hour and close finishing up on time. Well\, do we have a motion to adjourn. \nCrestron: Okay. Second\, all in favor. Alright. Any opposed. \nCrestron: Okay\, we’re closed at 5 PM. \nThank you. Everybody. Next other place \nCrestron: go there. And what? \nYeah. But I think that heading now more and more towards \nCrestron: well\, they’re gonna they’re gonna have to do that because they’re kicking out. \nCrestron: Yeah. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-27-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230927T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230927T120000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20240131T052857Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T224955Z UID:10000165-1695807000-1695816000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 27\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Commissioners are located at the primary physical location and may be located at the teleconference locations specified below\, all of which are publicly accessible. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center1st Floor – Yerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \nSolano County Government Center675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533(707-784-6129) \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83719850693?pwd=MzNsRDhHcm5wSlpSQVZ5bXVVTmZ4QT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID899 6979 5128 \nPasscode052719 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the August 23\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue.\nThe Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels\, and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.govPublic Comment \n\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Meeting Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/09-27-EC-Audio-Recording.mp3 \nAudio \nShe stated\, it is 9 35\, and this meeting of the Bcd. Enforcement Committee is hereby call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee. \nAnd I’m just gonna ask\, since I’m a little bit away from the microphone. Can everybody hear me? \nCreston: Yes\, yes\, yes\, thumbs up. \nCreston: Okay\, cool. \nalright. For commissioners\, including those who are attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nCreston: Our first order of business today is to call the role \nMatthew. Please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves. While he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Good morning. Let’s see. We’ll start with Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nThank you. Commissioner Vasquez here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and chair. Gilmour. \nCreston: here. \nCreston: Okay\, we have a corn present and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nand that’s going to bring us to Item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment \nCreston: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda\, we will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda. \nWe have received one general comment. and a copy has been linked to this agenda item on our website or members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak\, either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nplease raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen\, and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. \nFind the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone. you must dial Star 9 to raise your hand \nand then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone when the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nCreston: The meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised \nafter you were called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself first by first and last name for the record before making your comment. \nor members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the speaker’s podium \nat your location\, and wait to be called upon to speak. \nCreston: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nCreston: We will not tolerate hate\, speech. \ndirect threats. indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nCreston: Margie\, do we have any commentators? \nWe have any comments? \nCreston: Public comments? \nNo public comments. Share. Gilmore. Okay\, Commissioner Vasquez\, do we have any members of the public at your location that wish to make general comments? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, we don’t \nCreston: thank you. And let the record reflect that Commissioner Ransott has joined us. \nWelcome. \nCreston: Okay\, so next item of business is\, item number 4\, approval of the draft minutes for the last meeting. \nWe have all been furnished draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nCreston: I so moved to approve. Second. \nokay\, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Bielin\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. And I want to note for the record that I have reviewed the minutes of the \nCreston: the the meeting\, and I will be voting on this. \nSo let’s we have a motion in a second\, and if there are any objections to approving the minutes\, please speak out. Now. \nCreston: hearing no objections\, the minutes are approved unanimously. \nI’m sorry. \nSorry. \nCreston: Okay\, that brings us to Item Number 5. The Enforcement Report \nand Enforcement policy Manager Matthew Trujillo will now provide the Enforcement report. Good morning\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Good morning\, chair good morning committee members. Only 2 items to report out today \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: in the first one being a case update as per usual since our last meeting on August 20\, third in the last month we received 7 new cases and resolved 9 cases. And so that brings our total as of today to 79 unresolved cases\, which is a net difference of negative 3 from last month. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: So small progress. But you know\, just imagine what we can do with a fully staffed unit. Second\, an update on the status of compliance with issued orders by the Commission. This is in response to a \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: request \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: that we regularly update this Committee on the the compliance status of commission issued orders. So \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: we did receive a complaint yesterday of new homeless accountants being established within Union Point Park\, which\, as you may recall most of you is under a compliance monitoring for Commission Order number Ccd 2021 dot 0 0. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: I went ahead and referred that complaint to the compliance team for follow up\, and you will see it today as a general public comment that was submitted for this meeting. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and at a future meeting we’ll update you on the compliance or legal actions that we may take \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: to to to get them back in compliance with their order \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and \nthat concludes my report. So I’m available for any. Follow up questions you may have. \nCreston: Thank you. Do any committee members have any questions for Matthew? \nCreston: Hmm. \nDo we have any members of the public located in this room who have any questions for Matthew. \nCreston: John. Do you have anybody at your location who has any public comments for Matthew? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, and II don’t have anyone from the public\, either. you know. That’s good to know. Thank you. \nCreston: All right. \nyes. \nplease go ahead on on this item. \nAnon: Yes. Hi\, I’m wondering why it’s not been enforcement on the encampments and Union Park. There is one near the corner of Denison and Coastguard Island\, along the shore near the abandoned \nAnon: vessels that are up on the rocks\, the ones with graffiti on them. There’s an encampment that’s been there for \nAnon: I don’t know over a year\, and it’s gotten bigger. It’s very. It’s I’ve reported it several times\, and nothing has happened. \nAnon: I don’t know what else I can do. That’s what I had understood was my job as a \nAnon: as a resident of this Marina was to report when things were showing up\, and I was promised that things would be handled\, and that one has not been handled. \nAnon: I’m wondering why\, thank you very much. \nCreston: Next we have Joe de breeze. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Hi! I’m actually here to present along with Miss Simmons from the city of Oakland. But I’m in the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: whatever spectator box. So I wanted to make sure you guys knew I was here. That’s why I have my hand raised. \nCreston: Thank you very much. I’ll promote you. \nCreston: Thank you. Are there any more comments on item number 5 before we move on to Item Number 6\, which is a briefing on the Oakland Alameda estuary and encampment issue. \nSeeing none. Okay. \nCreston: excuse me\, then we will move on to Item number 6. \nThis committee will now receive a briefing on actions taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor outs in the Oakland Alameda estuary by the cities of Alameda and Oakland \nat this time. Will the representative or representative for the cities please identify themselves for the record\, and we’ll start with the city of Alameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. It’s Sergeant Siebert with the city of Alameda Police department. \nCreston: Thank you. And welcome City of Oakland. \nLaTonda Simmons: Oh\, good morning. It’s \nCreston: okay. Thank you. Everyone for attending\, and welcome. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: II do. Wanna by my apologies. Chair\, Gilmore\, I do want to also acknowledge Officer Albino is raised to sanity is here to present as well. \nExcellent. Okay. Now\, I’m going to invite compliance. Analyst John Creech to give his introduction. John \nJ. Creech: Morning. Thank you very much chair. I’m John Creech. I’m on your \nJ. Creech: compliance team. I’ve been working closely with Adrian Klein\, principal enforcement analyst to meet regularly with the cities of Oakland and Alameda. \nJ. Creech: we recognize that the this issue\, that \nJ. Creech: the Oakland Alameda estuary issue is \nJ. Creech: has received a lot of attention and \nJ. Creech: We are very excited about the progress that has been made. So first\, I would like to have \nJ. Creech: Sergeant Cybert\, go ahead and present. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. Thank you very much. As far as anchor outs on on our side of the estuary and Alameda\, we currently do not have any boats that are that are anchored out \nAPD T. Siebert: we also currently do not have any encampments that are along the shoreline. \nAPD T. Siebert: I know our boat was out of service for about 2\, 2 and a half months\, just due to some maintenance issues and getting some some back\, basically backlog and parts to get the motors back up to \nAPD T. Siebert: back\, up to stuff and running properly to get the boat back in the water. \nAPD T. Siebert: We were just back out on the water. Sunday September 20\, fourth\, and just confirmed\, and no anchor outs and no encampments along our along our shoreline. \nAPD T. Siebert: During our current. Save grant. That we currently have. We have a hundred $1\,000 that was granted to us. For that. We have used that money\, and removed 7 vessels from the water. Both turned in as well as sunken vessels\, and we also assisted the city of Oakland by removing 5 vessels that they had at the aquatic center. \nAPD T. Siebert: We applied for save grants for the coming up cycle\, and we have just gotten approval for $200\,000 in the New Save Grant cycle\, and again plan to \nAPD T. Siebert: help the city of Open with removing some of the vessels that they need help with. \nAPD T. Siebert: And I think that is right. Now. \nCreston: Sorry we’re having some technical difficulties. \nCreston: Can you hear me? \nJ. Creech: Yeah\, people are not hips. \nThis might be picking up. \nAPD T. Siebert: Were you guys able to hear me? \nJ. Creech: Yes\, online\, we could. \nOkay. \nCreston: okay\, I’m sorry\, Mr. Devreeze\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Sure. Good morning. And actually\, we when we met with Staff. We wanted to both cover shoreline encampments and anchor outs\, and that’s why our assistant city administrators here\, and we have a Powerpoint that Miss Simmons has\, and she’s gonna start out to talk about encampments\, and then I’ll talk about \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: what’s happening with the anchor outs\, and then\, of course\, we have our officer of\, you know. Here is the man on the ground or in the water. Who can answer some of the operational questions. And so if she can be given host access or \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: ability to share screen\, that’d be great. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Once I think you should be able to share. If you click the share screen button at the bottom of your window. \nLaTonda Simmons: Good morning. I wanted to make sure that I had the Powerpoint set for presentation\, which is also tricky in this environment. Good morning. And thank you \nLaTonda Simmons: for allowing us to come and present some information in terms of city of open activities in terms of encampment management. So my greetings\, the honorable members of the BC. DC. Will move through this presentation\, at which I will start a portion of it\, and Mr. Debris will \nLaTonda Simmons: engage another portion of it. And so we ask your patience. See that there’s technical difficulties today. And I hope\, the technical guides are gonna work with me. And some of the presentation overall intense to address Bcd Enforcement activities. And specifically those along the shorelines related to encampments. And obviously. \nLaTonda Simmons: okay\, that’s alright. The overview of this presentation will cover the encampment management policy. Specific encampment management operations\, and of course\, then move to the nuisance vessel policy and the nuisance. Special operations \nLaTonda Simmons: just to quickly level set on the conditions in terms of homelessness. We wanted to make sure that the Commission the committee understood\, if you will\, the level of homelessness that the city of Oakland is grappling with. According to the most recent point in time\, count of 2022. You see\, there has been a substantial growth in homelessness\, specifically unsheltered as well as sheltered homelessness \nLaTonda Simmons: that modality breaks down across tents. Cars are these streets and abandoned buildings. Accordingly\, seeing that there’s been a 31. Excuse me. \nLaTonda Simmons: there’s been a 32% increase \nLaTonda Simmons: impact in our tent encampment. But there has been a 31% increase in our vehicular encampment in terms of cars and bands. And of course\, a 27% increase \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of Rb’s. We believe just to be very candid that these are under counted \nLaTonda Simmons: wanna recognize that the 2022 point in time. Count was a makeup point in time. Count from the 2021 point to time count when it should happen during the pandemic we also see. \nLaTonda Simmons: there’s been a slight reduction in street and \nLaTonda Simmons: street\, and outside encampment activity in terms of people lying sleeping and see sits line sleeping and sitting directly on our streets\, and there is a 1% difference with respect to abandoned buildings. \nLaTonda Simmons: So \nLaTonda Simmons: we also wanted to highlight that \nLaTonda Simmons: as it currently stands \nLaTonda Simmons: the capacity of our shelter systems have a significant limitation in terms of the number of beds available. We cited\, that there’s about 1\,700 individuals that are in a that are homeless and and sheltered. \nLaTonda Simmons: These numbers in terms of the number of beds here\, reflect\, if you will\, a combination of resources from Alameda County\, as well as those that the city has stood up itself. In terms of the city’s inventory. It’s probably just just north of 12\,012\, 1\,200 beds that have been stood up. \nLaTonda Simmons: The encampment management policy\, as you all well know\, of course\, isn’t guide\, is guided much of this work\, however\, there is a number of intersecting policies that have also had a significant impact on the operations. Of course Martin Voise stands at the top of the list\, and that would be the component in terms of the Nice Circuit Course district decision that requires that there be an adequate offer of shelter \nLaTonda Simmons: for every encampment that is closed. And you can imagine\, just from the prior side slides of seeing approximately 1\,700 bids seeing a number of individuals who are sheltered\, and then seeing more than 3\,000 individuals who are unsheltered\, that this is pose to significant challenge for the city. In addition\, the city is also whether it’s some litigation \nLaTonda Simmons: which has also hyper extended some of the requirements to be able to close encampments providing longer terms of constructive notice\, extended terms in terms of the \nLaTonda Simmons: storage of personal belongings\, and then some calculus\, as it relates to the conditions under which we can perform encampment closures associated with the weather. For instance. \nLaTonda Simmons: should we find that the weather reaches more than one inch of rain accumulated over an operation we may be required to shut down. These new factors absolutely have impacted the city’s ability to hyper\, mobilize our response to encampments. Other other policies that help us would be the emergency shelter ordinance\, that the city is adopted\, and it expedites our ability to stand up intervention so that we can expand our shelter. Bad capacity\, however\, that is tethered to relevant \nLaTonda Simmons: state\, local and federal laws and resources. And to the extent that we have tapped our resources\, we are capped at the numbers that we have\, we are still pursuing additional \nLaTonda Simmons: resources to be able to expand our capacity\, and\, of course\, other operational policies\, as it relates to public works\, Osha requirements\, their sops\, other elements as it relates to dots\, enforcement\, authority\, the police departments\, enforcement\, authority\, all of those individuals will come together to be able to assist with the encampment management process\, and I skipped over Cdc. Guidance. But it really begins to \nLaTonda Simmons: elucidate or rather demystify the conditions associated with health and safety conditions. Should the Cdc make a determination about communicable diseases\, it could have an impact \nLaTonda Simmons: on our ability to close that encampment. Typically the Cdc will hold the position that you cannot disband an encampment if specific communicable diseases are within that encampment and other elements that provide us information\, of course\, most recently mentioned was the 2022 point time count. That shows us the census over all of our encampment community and our unhoused community \nLaTonda Simmons: home together\, which is a strategy to end homelessness. Proposals\, if you will\, and concepts centering equity and the design of homelessness systems. And of course\, the Alameda County continuum of care and their policies that advance our ability. \nLaTonda Simmons: Yeah\, it’s with the resources that they provide. \nLaTonda Simmons: You. All are very familiar with the encampment management policy. II know\, of course. This. This Commission is\, has had a number of issues with respect to the encampments along the shorelines\, the policy was adopted to assist all open. This\, of course\, sheltered and on shelter\, to be able to manage the adverse in first impact of encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: and it intended to balance the interest of our residents in terms of the unhous house businesses in the community\, and even special districts and bodies such as yourself. The goal\, of course\, was to focus on mitigating and negative impacts in terms of health and safety. And this is continue to be the basis by which the \nLaTonda Simmons: Emt is exercising their authority. To abating candidates. So I’ll move a little bit more quickly. \nLaTonda Simmons: These 2 sensitivity areas just intend to give some detail in terms of the proximity\, and how the city set forth\, if you will\, in order of magnitude\, to focus on encampments and their removals\, those in high sensitivity areas where health and safety impacts obviously would impact businesses. \nLaTonda Simmons:  egress routes\, emergency circumstances\, rights of way. \nLaTonda Simmons: I would say that that\, of course\, is where most of the BC. DC. Including other proximity elements. Encampments are in terms of along the wide waterways. Low sensitivity areas would be like your underpasses and things like that where imp. Perhaps some of your industrial areas where the encampments are not necessarily directly associated or more heavily associated with impacts to residences and businesses. \nLaTonda Simmons: The details of the sensitivity areas have been sort of laid out pretty clearly. I just wanted to highlight obviously that the most essential component\, as it relates to the BC. DC. In addition to these other elements\, would be those within 50 feet of a protected waterway as established by any governing body. In addition\, of course\, just wanted to mention that the Public Works Department is also monitoring conditions in terms of \nLaTonda Simmons: activities that would be contaminants to waterways areas\, and their barrier is about one within 500 feet of protected waterways. \nLaTonda Simmons: Low sensitivity compliance also includes many of the things that are actually associated with high sensitivity conditions in terms of health and safety factors. But just quickly wanted to highlight that. Obviously the debris and the dumping of gray and black water. As it affects our waterways and our storm drains\, of course\, is very essential to the conversation that we are having today \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of our operations. We wanted to show you that\, based on the intersecting policies that were described earlier\, that there’s a significant amount of work that goes into planning the closure of an encampment. First and foremost. \nLaTonda Simmons: it is most certainly about the assembly of the teams\, but more so \nLaTonda Simmons: from intake to verification\, verifying the conditions and assembling the teams proper to abate those specific conditions\, but also the availability of those shelter beds. currently\, the city of Oakland \nLaTonda Simmons: obviously has less shelter beds available than we have on house on the streets\, and I would say that the movement of individuals out of those shelter systems are a factor in terms of the vacancies there. Once we accumulate a number of beds\, we are able to go out and closing encampment\, and that has been challenging. Given the amount of homelessness that we see on the streets\, and the low number of shelter beds that we have \nLaTonda Simmons: just to give you a sample of what it is just a snapshot of the number of requests that we receive. And 2021 when undertaking this work we had approximately 2\,400 requests. In year 2\,022. That number grew to about 3\,500 requests just south of it\, and just counting through the end of June. \nLaTonda Simmons: We are already at above a reasonable high mark of the prior year. At about 2\,100 requests. It’s important to note that even this number is lower than what we can track. We had some issues with respect to the city of Oaklands. \nLaTonda Simmons: Ransomware incident. And as a result of that\, many systems that we were used to using to track reports of encampments. Of course\, 311 was impacted\, and there was some data lost in so this number\, probably in actuality\, in terms of the number of complaints that have been file are probably close to about 2\,700. \nLaTonda Simmons: Just to give you a sense of the reported number of encampments. In 2022\, at the adoption of the policy. It was projected that there was\, you know\, just north of 140 encampments\, possibly about 150. That was the assumed number. However\, by the time that we got to the end of 2021 the number of reported encampments had increased to 635\, and by 2022 \nLaTonda Simmons: to 1\,006\, and of course\, just to date with well\, just to June thirtieth\, we see the reported number of encampments escalated to be at 1\,381. I just wanted to include that in encampment is counted from the body of one\, and that is because the Martin B. Voicey requirements require that if I close an encampment of one person I have to make a shelter offer\, even if it is just simply one person\, and so obviously \nLaTonda Simmons: this this count provides a very significant picture of the impact of homelessness here in the city of Oakland. \nLaTonda Simmons: And just to also underscore the high sensitivity and low sensitivity divide. You’ll see that approximately 90% of our encampments are rated at high sensitivity in terms of their location. And just just\, you know\, I’d say about 11% \nLaTonda Simmons:  are\, are\, you know\, a little bit over our low sensitivity areas. The reason that we share this slide with you is because the intent of the encampment management policy at the time that it had contemplated the lower number of you can be at about 150. You know\, these criteria pieces intended to allow for a prioritization specifically for waterways\, construction areas\, parks. \nLaTonda Simmons: specific areas in the rights of way and egress\, pointing sidewalks\, as you can see\, based on the number of encampments and their sensitivity designations. The city is \nLaTonda Simmons: struggling to keep up with the amount of encampment. The growth of encampments\, the abatement of encampments\, and it is struggling to apply this prioritization. Given the large number of encampments that we are seeing \nLaTonda Simmons: just to be clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: Since the 2021 implementation of this policy the city has completed up through June thirtieth\, 725 operations. Those operations consist of closures and the cleanings. Cleanings intend to address circumstances where we cannot close to date. However\, I can tell you that that number is probably at approximately 825 operations. The city\, as an example in 2\,020 \nLaTonda Simmons: based on the pandemic conditions could only execute approximately 64 operations. And so I just wanted to show you the intensity in which we’re pursuing this work \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of that breakout across districts. We thought it would be helpful for you to see that our service requests based on the demand\, have been apportioned in terms of our response to be measured accordingly\, a number of the districts in terms of \nLaTonda Simmons: and \nLaTonda Simmons: D 6 and d. 7 and and D 12 aren’t quite seeing\, if you will\, the proportionate share of support based on the number of complaints that we have\, and that is because the metrics of the encampment management policy. Are more prominently in in terms of the spread of the health and safety conditions. And the demand which is a metrics component \nLaTonda Simmons: is\, is\, is providing for a large amount of service in the district 3 area. The city has met with our equity department\, and we intend to adjust our service. \nLaTonda Simmons: response to be with more equitably support the departments. Excuse me. The the district that have high\, that have higher needs than the amount of service that we are providing. And so you will see a redistribution of our activities across the district and certainly across the waterways nearest to the waterways. There is a high rate of occurrence. Reoccurrence and that is because \nLaTonda Simmons: for every area that we clear\, given the number of unhouse that we have on the streets \nLaTonda Simmons: the new\, the remaining members in the community will often see a cleared area as a prime opportunity to rein camp. Other factors also include that specific areas are much more difficult to maintain\, such as our parks. Any area that’s sprawling and large. \nLaTonda Simmons: and particularly attributed to open space very difficult to keep clear. You can see Mosswood Park has had a large number of operations. I’ll tell you to date. We’ve probably been back there 14 times. \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of the number of operations. And there’s has to be some consideration given to better fortification of these specific areas. As you know\, this also aligns with the interest associated with Union Point Park\, where the recent re encampment has come to our attention. We’re directing resources to that location to be able to remove the individuals that are there. And again\, we regularly respond \nLaTonda Simmons: very swiftly\, typically with enforcement authority to remove encampments when they show up at Union Point Park. We do not wish to allow those conditions to restore themselves based on where they were. In March of 2021. \nLaTonda Simmons: The obvious. \nLaTonda Simmons: the obvious outcomes and challenges to the work is the city certainly next \nLaTonda Simmons: sufficient shelter and housing for the unsheltered population which is necessary to comply with the Federal requirements of providing shelter before you close an encampment\, and those low inventories of shelter have made made this work very challenging for the encampment management team\, and it has directly impacted our ability to have seamless and continuous \nLaTonda Simmons: and focus activity with respect to outreach to be able to perform the shelter offers\, and to close certainly more encampments\, which is the goal of the encampment management policy. The other thing is that I just wanted to underscore that \nLaTonda Simmons: in addition to the \nLaTonda Simmons: low inventories of shelter and housing\, you know\, it is also not being matched in terms of the investments\, that growth of our bids\, and our shelter is not growing at the same rate that our encampments\, the reported number of encampments\, are increasing at this point. \nLaTonda Simmons: From the estimate of a hundred 50 we have increased by 9.2 times that value\, reaching 1\,381 as reference in an earlier slide. The other issue that you all are also probably well aware of is that our encampments are seeing higher levels of criminal activity. \nLaTonda Simmons: which means that these conditions aren’t just dangerous\, based on the general health and safety factors\, but because drug dealing violence\, shootings\, stolen cars and chopped up vehicles are also being centered in our encampments as as activities as \nLaTonda Simmons: these criminal elements see that these are prime spaces to use\, to exploit the unhouse and to and they recognize that the city is challenged with closing encampments as fast as we would like to. \nLaTonda Simmons: And obviously we talked about the recurrence patterns in terms of their increases\, and I don’t have to underscore that. And the the obvious point is that you know encampment support in terms of resources has not been scaled to meet the increased number of homeless encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: And of course\, in terms of its demographics\, opens homelessness\, continues to be disproportionately African\, American\, and unhoused residents. Those residents need additional supports to transition from encampments to shelter. \nLaTonda Simmons: And this is where I will hand it over to Joe\, and you can \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: thank you system. City administrator Simmons is a tough act to follow\, but I’ll give it my best shot. So on the vessel. policy and background. I just wanted to to kind of remind the Enforcement community where we are\, you know\, in 2\,020 the City Hall to the removal of vessels due to a claim after Opd. Destroyed and abandoned both. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and while I think a lot of us who knew the details of the case\, felt some displeasure at settling based on the the mounting\, you know\, legal fees and the potential for liability. We not only settled that that claim. We we halted operations\, which is what started to see some of that accumulation until we could rewrite the policy. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: you know\, in 2022 we did hire outside council that had expertise from the conditions to assist us. And because they felt that\, you know\, no matter what internal policy Opd developed\, we really needed authority at the local level through our municipal code so they helped us in drafting the new ordinance to present to the City Council. 22 was an election year and so we introduced the the \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: the the ordinance in 2\,023 and you know\, even though we’ve rewritten the the the internal opd policy\, we really felt that we needed to bring a full ordinance to the council. Let’s hope that you can advance that \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: so at the end of 2\,022 we identify 25 vessels that were either abandoned or illegally anchored in the estuary Opd. Did remove 2 vessels in late in 2\,022 they were halted in that operation\, due to damage to the marine unit. after early outreach after outreach and early 23 5 host did leave voluntarily \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: brought the number down to 18. But again. We knew we needed the ordinance just to fully roll out our our abatement program\, which is about to happen next slide\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: So the nuisance vessel. Ordinance was adopted in March on the twenty-first it adds sections 8.7 to the municipal code it provides further procedures for the payment of abandoned vessels. Whether whether people live on them or or not\, they’re declared nuisance vessels it establishes a distinct timeline time limits in terms of how long someone can use the public docs or be in the estuary of anchor. Oh. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: where was that? There we go! So the good news is we did apply for save grant funding. Yeah\, to implement the ordinance in the spring opd\, during the summer. Held internal training with our certified marine unit officers and and conducted targeted enforcement really to educate people to get them ready for what? What’s coming \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: and go to the next slide \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: so currently\, we learned just last week. We’ve been awarded $166\,000 and save Grant funding to remove vessels. We need to accept that those funds\, and we’re trying to fast track that to the city Council in October so that Opd can get get down to business \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: first. Obedi will start with the cleanup of abandoned boats. That’ll commence in late October early November the same time noticing of le ill legal\, livable board vessels will occur in November. The goal is to have all of them notice before Thanksgiving with the scheduled removal in December\, and I know officer of\, you know\, can fill in a lot of details. But we are seeking additional staffing to be dedicated to a 90 Day \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Operations plan so we’ll be reaching out to to Opd leadership to see that they have that support. And I know that Opd is seeking and has been given an offer of assistance from Alameda\, Pd. And the Us. Coast Guard. We really appreciate the partnership. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I think that is that last slide. Okay. So oh\, go ahead\, Latana\, you want to do the next steps. \nLaTonda Simmons: Well\, yes\, and and thank you. Joe just wanted to underscore that. There are also some next steps with respect to encampment activities. Mari Collins\, who has served as the deputy\, homeless administrators currently this week\, actually performing a deep cleaning of Alameda Avenue\, lifting debris the goal would be to lift debris in anticipation of a deeper operation coming in October. \nLaTonda Simmons: which would be the full closure of that encampment. We had to do a substantial amount of work to try to work on mitigation strategies in advance of the closure similar to the comments that I made under prior slides. \nLaTonda Simmons: These are areas that are very difficult to keep clear. Because of its geo geographic kind of elements. In addition\, we’re continuing to support Union Point Park to prevent re encampment by quickly taking down anything that we see. That we are made aware of in terms of having been stood up after we cleared it. We’re focused on some planning for lead drive\, which is an area that is also deeply impacted by vehicular encampment. The city \nLaTonda Simmons: and I just wanna give Joe debris kudos here\, having worked to set up another intervention\, but specifically for parking support for rbs\, that \nLaTonda Simmons: resource will be leveraged to be able to perform a closure at lead in Baldwin Court. Baldwin is listed because they tend to go between the 2 locations. If we close lead and they decline the services\, they’ll go to Baldwin\, and then\, if we should take action at Baldwin Court. They’ll come back to lead\, so the goal will be to address both locations. And also there’s planning under way for Park which is\, you know\, which is\, has a water way \nLaTonda Simmons: as well\, but a significant impact. \nLaTonda Simmons: Based on the number of individuals who can encamp under the breeze way very close to those waterways who we have sometimes had to tell to stop bathing in the water. In terms of the unhouse when we both encampments there. We’re gonna also do the reworking of the geomapping that we had begun to prepare \nLaTonda Simmons: for encampments near the waterways and citywide the city had under to in terms of the encampment management team\, the use of the 3\, 1 one system and city works to be able to incorporate it as both the reporting medium\, but also as a work management tool. The ransomware incident of February \nLaTonda Simmons: knocked out about 8 months of really hard work to build that as a workflow. And the city is now redoing that work. It is within city works\, and also 3\, 1 one that Lin\, Geo\, mapping \nLaTonda Simmons: elements in terms of the systems tools that we’re \nLaTonda Simmons: and then\, of course\, we’re gonna continue our work\, you know\, despite the number of encampments that we are seeing in terms of recorded encampments and the amount of work that it takes. I would say that the encampment management team\, you know\, remains committed to keeping the areas clean and clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: We’re working to identify more resources specifically for outreach\, because we know that the sooner that we can get people out there to start those conversations\, even before the team can mobilize to get here. It becomes important in terms of moving people along\, and there were more slides. But what we wanted to do is respect the committee’s time. Because there are conversations being had about the expansion of bits with the county and the State. \nLaTonda Simmons: There are meetings underway. Of course\, those bids are essential to closing more encampments. \nLaTonda Simmons: I’m gonna hand it back to you\, Joe. Oh\, just a slide to let you know who’s in the homelessness division. \nLaTonda Simmons: and if there is a need to report encampments\, the 311 systems are still back up. Please use the 311 system to report encampments. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: And really\, just it’s it’s I don’t have a whole lot more to add. I think we’re again on the on the nuisance vessels. We are really poised \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: to to to operationalize things. And and we’re we’re excited about that. You know\, and certainly again. Also\, Albino is doing the line share the workout on the water\, and with with his team. And yeah\, happy to take any questions. \nCreston: Thank you. This committee really wants to thank the representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland. For these very informative briefings today. \nAnd right now\, I’m going to ask if any members of the Enforcement Committee have questions for our guests. \nCreston: Cause\, I sure. Do. \nCreston: Okay\, Sanjay. \nI was encouraged to hear. There\, there is a grant that’s been received and is going to be made available. It sounds like in October\, assuming the Council approves. Can you not hear\, Adrienne? \nOkay. is that better? \nCreston: Okay\, II was encouraged to hear that there’s a grant that’s been received\, and should be made available sounds like the next month or so. \nAssuming the Council approves. Is there a likelihood of further grant or other funding being received in the near term\, say during Q. 4\, at some point \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: a. As I understand it\, we have the opportunity to apply for save grant funding every year\, and I think that in the past I think Oakland has applied for funding based on our resources\, our ability to execute. But we realize\, with the the growth of the number of vessels that we needed to apply for more. So this is a large larger amount that we apply for\, I imagine next spring depending on how things go this winter\, we would apply for more. \nCreston: Was that it\, Sanjay \nCreston: any other committee members? \nCreston: Okay. So to follow up on the Save Grant. I believe you said it was $166\,000. \nHow many vessels do you think that that amount of money would cover in terms of renewal. Can you give a ballpark? \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I will ask Officer Albino to to speak on that\, since he’s he’s the operations\, Guy. \nKaleo Albino: Yes\, I do want to say a quick thank you to Latonda and Joe for your really in-depth perspective of this whole \nKaleo Albino: issue that we’re tackling. But the $166\,000 that I applied for. We’re specifically for approximately 21 vessels. \nKaleo Albino: and it will depend on exactly what is on those vessels as far as engines. \nKaleo Albino: hazardous materials that are costly to dispose of\, so it will to be dependent upon the vessels button. I’m assuming that 95% of the vessels that are out there now will be removed from the estuary. \nCreston: That’s excellent news\, and I’m assuming that none of those vessels that are out there are in the navigable waters\, because\, other than if it were\, then the Coast Guard would be involved. Is that correct? \nKaleo Albino: There can be a technicality on what is an avocable water way? But the majority of the waterways are clear for barges and cargo ships. \nKaleo Albino: but it is impacting recreational activities\, such as rowing \nKaleo Albino: other rowing teams that we have out there\, and the youth sailing teams as well. \nCreston: Okay\, well\, that’s good to know. \nCreston: okay\, the other question that I had\, and it would be for \nboth of the officers in terms of your police boats. because we’ve had a lot of complaints from people who live along the estuary of \nincidents that originate on the water\, where people are coming down in boats and basically vandalizing or robbing the liver boards and the marinas. And so my question to both of you is\, how frequently do you patrol? And are any of those patrols during the evening or early morning hours. \nKaleo Albino: I can answer for Oakland\, Pd. First the approximate hours that we’re actually on the water. So I’m the only full-time maritime officer could you. Could you speak into the microphone a little bit closer\, please. Yeah. \nis that better? \nKaleo Albino: Okay. \nKaleo Albino: So\, me being the only full time maritime officer\, a lot of my job is administrative of trying to gather funding for boats\, doing maintenance\, doing trainings with other departments in the Coast Guard in the area. \nKaleo Albino: I’m able to get out on the water approximately 20 to 30 HA week. and then I also adjust my schedule around to try\, and I give the perception that we are out there \nKaleo Albino: during all hours of the day. So I have been doing night patrols. I’m today. I’m doing an afternoon patrol. \nKaleo Albino: Yesterday was a morning patrol. \nKaleo Albino: and I’m trying to get eyes on during all hours of the day. Not just \nKaleo Albino: 6 A. M. To 4 PM. \nCreston: Thank you. \nAlameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: yeah\, for the city of Alvamita. Our marine unit is an ancillary duty for for everybody involved. \nAPD T. Siebert: so we don’t have any full-time officers on the marine unit at this point in time\, when we put our boat back in full time service starting next month. \nAPD T. Siebert: we are being allowed 60 personnel hours per month \nAPD T. Siebert: we staff our boat with a minimum of 2 persons at all times\, so that it will allow us to put as of right now\, will allow us to put our boat back in the water 3 days a month. \nAPD T. Siebert: And we do vary our patrols during the week on the weekends daytime as well as nighttime. We’ll stay out as late as about 2 45 in the morning. \nCreston: Thank you.  So I want to be really sensitive to the challenges that the city of Oakland is facing in terms of the homeless crisis \nand the homeless encampments\, and how that spills out into people thinking that boats are a method of housing. \nClearly. the problem has vastly outstripped your current resources to deal with it.  that being said\, I understand the frustration of the people who actually live on the water because it’s impacting them and their daily lives. And there’s this tendency. If something is excess\, we are laser focused on it\, whereas the city of Oakland has to focus on the entire city. Not just the waterfront. \n But having said all of that I’m wondering if there’s any way that the cities of Oakland and Alameda can partner together in terms of sharing resources\, obtaining more resources. To put more patrols out on the water. \nespecially during the \nCreston: the evening hours\, where it seems like a lot of the vandalism and everything else tends to occur based on \nthe reports and the complaints that we’ve heard. So I’m sort of tossing that out there. And then the other thing I wanted some clarification on was the city of Oakland mentioned that they were looking for more resources. \nboth to help with the to help with the encampments and the homelessness issue. Could you? Is it possible to give us a brief synopsis? Of what kind of resources you’re looking at\, and what the timeline might be for finding out whether or not you’re successful. \nKaleo Albino: Yeah. do a portion of that\, too. \nLaTonda Simmons: I was. But I was going to ask\, did you want us to take those questions in the way that you actually laid them out. And so I was gonna let the officers speak first \nLaTonda Simmons: about collaboration in terms between the jurisdictions for more enforcement and then speak to. \nLaTonda Simmons: I would speak to the resources that we are seeking. \nCreston: Yes\, let’s have the officers speak first\, and then we’ll talk about the more general homeless encampments. Thank you. \nKaleo Albino: So in regards to patrols and increasing \nour footprint on the waterway. \nKaleo Albino: I’ve been training approximately 10 \nKaleo Albino: maritime officers who are dedicated to another assignment. But the merit marine unit is an auxilary assignment for them. \nKaleo Albino: So I’m physically teaching them how to drive the boat\, how to safely operate it on a waterway\, how to approach an anchor it out vessel safely. \nKaleo Albino: and I’m what I’m hoping to do is have the boat available on a 24 7 basis based off of these officers spread out. Most of them are working patrol. so they’re able to take a break from patrol\, go down to the boats. \nKaleo Albino: do a short patrol of the estuary\, and we’re able to expand our footprint that way. \nKaleo Albino: We have already actually collaborated with the Alameda Police Department and the Coast Guard as well. The Alameda Police Department has graciously given us $30\,000 in the last 6 months \nKaleo Albino: to help eradicate some of the anchored out vessels that have already been out there \nKaleo Albino: and then. Chief\, the chief of Alameda police chief Joshi contacted me last week and offered \nKaleo Albino: part of their save Grant to help \nKaleo Albino:  combat all the vessels that we have on our side of the estuary\, so I’m grateful for that funding as well. And then I think Commander Shoop is also listening in from the Coast Guard. \nKaleo Albino: She has reached out and is I think\, just recently sent an email to collaborate with all law enforcement assets in the area to specifically handle these anchor out issues in a team effort. \nKaleo Albino: Approach to this. And then if Alameda please\, if you guys want to speak to this as well. \nAPD T. Siebert: yeah\, I think you covered off on everything. We always try to partner with Albino as much as we can as well as a Sergeant Matthews with the San Francisco \nAPD T. Siebert: marine unit. We do do training with them as as well. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then like Albino\, said our chief offered some of our save grant this coming cycle as well as last cycle\, to partner with them\, to remove some of their sunken and abandoned vessels within the waterways. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then\, like\, I say\, we are limited as far as personnel hours\, and we are all ancillary as well on our marine unit. \nAPD T. Siebert: But any time that there’s a an operation that needs to take place. We can always get our boat out there and team up with open or the Coast Guard or San Francisco to get that job done. \nCreston: Thank you. I’m I’m very gratified to hear about the close cooperation. Be between the law enforcement offices. I think that’s the kind of thing that we want to see. \nIt happened all across the board\, and I also wanna make a comment that I’ve read. And I understand this is no different in Alameda\, in Oakland that it has been very difficult to hire police officers for a variety of different reasons\, particularly since everybody everywhere is looking for police officers. So it’s not just \nan issue of finding the money. It’s also an issue of finding the personnel but II wanna once again commend you for your your joint efforts. \nThank you. \nCreston: Ms. Simmons. \nLaTonda Simmons: Yes\, and thank you. With respect to the city. We’ll first start talking about the authorities and resources within our control. \nLaTonda Simmons: In the Powerpoint deck\, we I indicated that the encampment management team would be working with the units of \nLaTonda Simmons: open public works dot and Opd. \nLaTonda Simmons: With respect to public works\, we are working with public works specifically\, and with their cleaning teams and their watershed division to examine the code authorities that would allow for the closure of encampments under emergency conditions whereby we can \nLaTonda Simmons: see and catch people in the active\, performing specific things that would provide notification to the appropriate teams\, and they would be able to mobilize more swiftly \nLaTonda Simmons: to close those encampments. We see that is common in the areas about Avenue where I talked about and other waterways where we know as soon as people set up we would be able to use those emergency authorities particularly based on the protected codes for waterways to close those encampments more swiftly. That has also risen to the attention of the City Administrators Office \nLaTonda Simmons: to the extent City administrator\, working with our team to plan a second team \nLaTonda Simmons: an expansion of the team to be able to mobilize. Given the number of the in canvas that we have\, the current team’s capacity certainly limits their ability to respond to swiftly and to actually abate accountants more swiftly and to clean it more prestigiously. \nLaTonda Simmons: We are also meeting with Alameda County\, who has come to the table\, recognizing that \nLaTonda Simmons: with Oakland having more than 50% of the encampments in the entire county\, that there is a need to change the disproportionate\, the well\, the proportionate share of resources. \nLaTonda Simmons: would be for the counties to do not to not only provide additional health. \nLaTonda Simmons: support\, and and health services\, but to avail additional resources that would mobilize outreach and the ability to close encampments just to be clear. And I talked about us having a much more comprehensive presentation. But\, the open population in terms of the unhouse\, 46% have issues of mental health and or severe emotional issues. Another 41. Have Ptsd\, another 12 \nLaTonda Simmons: have a traumatic brain injury\, and this means that when you are engaging the unhouse you have to be prepared for de-escalation\, and really all the tools for trauma informed circumstances such as these. So those contributions from the county are going to be significant. Just to be clear. \nLaTonda Simmons: the county’s declaration of a local emergency expands their ability to release more resources and to get support from Federal agencies\, and most recently you may have heard that the county did issue that declaration of a local emergency last week. So we’re anticipating hearing more from them in terms of the timeline and the strategy by which they would deploy. Resources. And we’ll report back\, perhaps\, what that would look like. \nLaTonda Simmons: The other thing that the county has been able to do and it’s similar to what Open has done. \nLaTonda Simmons: obviously\, it takes more bits and more housing to be able to close encampments based on the Federal requirements. The city earlier this year actually committed to afford commitment of measure. You dollars to focus on the development of affordable housing units that would fall within the spectrum of the needs of the unhouse \nLaTonda Simmons: those units would be at about. \nLaTonda Simmons: you know\, 30% of the area Median income and below\, because the in house community typically is not \nLaTonda Simmons: it does not have high income streams\, and it’s most certainly a challenge. In terms of affordability.  Alameda County is also advancing a housing bond. \nLaTonda Simmons: The significance of Alamo County advancing a housing bond is that it would raise capital to be able to capitalize more projects\, and that would be a contribution to city of Oakland projects. That means we would increase the amount of affordable housing development as a target. So we’re excited about that as well. \nLaTonda Simmons: The city is also meeting directly with the governor’s office. For those of you that are that are municipal and government sort of \nLaTonda Simmons: pundits and walks if you will. The loss of the redevelopment agency funding for cities across the State has been significant. \nLaTonda Simmons: The city of Oakland\, and I had another job as the clerk. So I have a lot of detail here. \nLaTonda Simmons: the city of Oakland at the time that the redevelopment agencies were dissolved\, lost approximately 700. Excuse me\, 376 million dollars as an annual allocation of redevelopment agency funds. We are now in year 11\, \nLaTonda Simmons: of not having 376 million dollars\, or what would be the calculus each year that divestment has had a correlating impact to the ability to afford to advance affordable housing development. And we also see that there’s a correlation in the increase of homelessness since redevelopment agency dollars went away. And so that intends to anchor that the city of Oakland is working directly with the Governor’s office. We are not the only city \nLaTonda Simmons: to restore ongoing funding for housing as well as ongoing\, funding for homelessness. We’re not going to be able to address these situations \nLaTonda Simmons: robustly. With what we are using as competitive services. Yes. \nLaTonda Simmons: rather competitive sources. Yes\, there’s home key. Yes\, there’s half dollars\, but those are competitive dollars\, and so we don’t get an ongoing stream. And some of those sources are being questioned. \nLaTonda Simmons: in terms of their ability to continue for the next few years\, based on deficits that the State is facing. And so structurally\, we have to address this in terms of funding. It has to be more \nLaTonda Simmons: a greater commitment from State and Federal resources. And to that end we’re also looking at the Federal\, all in plan which proposed a reduction in homelessness by 2025. What we see is the secretary of Housing \nLaTonda Simmons: and is is also issuing tranches of dollars. They are competitive\, but it’s more money than we’ve seen in a long time coming from Federal Government. We are seeking some direct allocations. Recognizing that some of the prominent \nLaTonda Simmons: political figures in the White House come from the Bay Area. We hope to leverage our relationships there to figure out what we can do\, and then I’ll stop there. \nCreston: Thank you very much. Speaking of the demise of of redevelopment\, it has certainly had \nshall we say? Many unintended consequences? So thank you very much. \nCreston: cities of Alameda and Oakland for your presentations today I thought it was very informative and very well done\, and before I go to public comment\, are there any members of the committee who have questions \nor comments? \nOkay\, seeing none. We will now take public comments on this item. And I believe we have received one written public comment on this item. Margie\, has anything else come in? \nCreston: Cheryl Gomor\, correction. We received for public comment for item 6. \nOh\, okay. okay\, thank you. Okay. Once again\, if we have any online attendees\, if you would like to provide comments at this time\, you will need to raise your hand by clicking on the participants. Tab in zoom or by phone\, by dialing star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute yourself. \nMargie will then announce you and invite you to comment. Comments are limited to 3 min\, and Margie will be keeping track of time\, and this is a request for comments only on this item and chairs. Prerogative\, we’re going to start with people who are in the room. \nYes. \nCreston: go ahead and make a \nform\, a line. \nCreston: Each of you will have 3 min. Please state your name for the record. \nCreston: Good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Brock. The lab \na decade ago\, in 2013 there was a near 8 million dollars multi-agency cleanup of all illegal anchor outs on the Oakland estuary. The Bcdc. Was an important partner in this project. \nWhen it was over. all of the participating agencies that provided funding said that it wouldn’t be repeated if the estuary was to remain clean. it would be dependent upon diligent monitoring and enforcement. \nThis did not occur. \nCreston: The consequences of this failure are clear. To see. \nThe open shoreline of the estuary is littered with sunken wrecks and derelict end of life vessels. Crime has risen to truly intolerable levels. \nCreston: Multiple vessels have been stolen and ransacked. \nvictims have had to resort to personally confronting the criminals to recover their property without the benefit of police support \nCreston: this\, and is this an appropriate activity for a 79 year old senior. \nCreston: The Oakland estuary is populated by marinas with over 3\,000 slips. \nAll of these boat owners pay annual property taxes to Alameda county. The shoreline also has several new multimillion\, and in one case multibillion dollar residential developments. \nOne can only imagine the tax revenue that these produce. and yet what law enforcement services are provided to the estuary. \nCreston: The Alameda County sheriff’s department has disbanded \nthe county’s marine patrol unit. \nCreston: The Oakland Police Department has only one dedicated Marine Patrol officer. \nThe port of Oakland\, at the mouth of the estuary\, is the fourth largest port on the west coast. \nCreston: Is it reasonable that there was only one law enforcement officer to provide on the water protection \nfor this critical regional resource. \nCreston: It is unfortunate that has required international press coverage to generate a focus on this problem. \nI have asked Bcd. C. If there is any other issue that currently proposes poses a greater threat to San Francisco Bay. then what is occurring in the estuary. \nI was told. No. this is the top problem that Bcd faces. So my final question is \nCreston: given the current conditions that\, given that the current conditions did not occur overnight\, but rather have grown over many years. \nIs the BC. DC. Doing all that it can to protect this precious resource on San Francisco Bay. and my concern is is\, if we have another repeat Cleanup. \nwhich I am very optimistically hopeful that that will occur if there is no follow up with ongoing enforcement\, we’ll repeat this cycle endlessly. And II would also emphasize that housing unhoused people in derelict end of life vessels is a threat to them. \nIt’s a threat to the environment. and it’s a threat to the general public\, and it should not be allowed. Thank you very much. \nGood morning. My name is Cammy Richards. I’m with Alameda community sailing center\, and I have a couple of points. and I guess one of the things that I learned today is that a homeless encampment is apparently defined as just one person \nsleeping in a sleeping bag. \nCreston:  That seems like a a bad use of the term encampment\, and we were on a delightful late afternoon sail in the Oakland estuary yesterday on a little 20 foot sailboat\, and we sailed by \nEstuary Park\, Jack\, London Square\, where Jlac is. and I can’t imagine what would be required to remove \nall those people \nCreston: if one person is there. It’s a homeless encampment. \nOur business pineapple sales used to be at 1 23 s Street in Oakland. We would go down there for lunch in the shade of beautiful sycamore trees. Nice park. \nclean tables. \nCreston: I can’t imagine taking my granddaughter there. \nThe whole place is just invested. and I have great sadness for people who don’t have housing. But I have 0 respect for people who just make a complete mess of things. \nOkay\, Alameda\, community salient center is a organization for teaching young kids how to sale. We have \nCreston: a group of 8 safety boats which are required. We have one safety boat for every 6 sailboats that are on the water. \nso if we don’t have enough safety boats\, we can’t put enough kids on the water. We in one night we had 4 of those boats stolen out of the water over at Belina Isle. \nand that’s half of our fleet. We basically had an all hands on deck. Call to go and retrieve this stuff. We \nCreston: it took 36 h to get a police report \nnumber from the Alameda Police Department. called them right after the thing\, they said\, well\, wait. We’ll send an officer. Well\, okay\, it’s dinner time. Still\, no officer. Well\, maybe later tonight it was lunchtime the next day to get a report filed. \nand the police said\, You know we really can’t help you. Our best advice is\, if you find your boats don’t approach the perpetrators. The boats cost 25 to $35\,000 apiece. \nThey are rigid fiberglass holes with a tube around the outside\, so you can go up and connect to the little kids and talk to them face to face. And we cannot imagine a way where we can just be handing off $35\,000 boats to thieves and doing nothing about it. \nWe call the Oakland Police. Oakland police said. Well\, if the boats were stolen from Alameda. It’s Alameda problem\, the Alameda police say\, well\, if the boat is in Oakland we were at Union Point\, looking at our boats tied up to derelict boats \n  \nCreston: 200 yards away. \nCoast Guard Island. not their problem either. So it becomes our problem. And we we eventually just simply got out in other motor boats went around and we collected all 4 of our stolen boats. \nand we collect them by confronting the people who said\, well\, that is my boat\, because I found it adrift. Well\, yeah\, of course you did. We collected a boat that belonged to. Am I over? I’m sorry. \nThank you very much. \nNext. \nRamona Cota: sir. Could you identify yourself? Please? \nCreston: Sorry. My name is Cammie Richards. \nAlameda Community Sailing Center. \nRamona Cota: Thank you. \nGood morning. My name is Steven Norris. I’m harbor master over at Marina Bay Yacht Harbor in Richmond. My name is Steven Oris. I’m harbor master at Marita Bay Yacht Harbor\, in Richmond. so I’ve been following this situation with\, you know\, great concern. \nand I would like to emphasize that I think it would be critical\, when\, as the Commission works with their partners on solutions that they consider this on a region wide basis. And it’s not just an estuary problem. Just as it was not just to Richardson Bay problem that we don’t want. Situation where. \nyou know\, we just move it from one part of the bay to the other\, and so forth\, and then on industry wide\, that keep in mind that this has the potential to become a growing issue as \nboats get older. There could be one\, you know. one or 2 economic downturns away to be a flood of abandoned derelict boats. So the solution becomes a\, you know\, a greater issue of working with state and other partners in order to find appropriate disposal aspects for end of life vessels. \nThank you. \nCreston: Thank you very much. \nThank you\, Margie. Do we have any other public commenters? We have about 4 public comments online. \nCreston: First\, up\, we have \nTracy regalman. \nTracy Reigelman: Exactly. Hello! Can you hear me? \nCreston: Yes\, we can please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you. My name is Tracy Regalman. I am a resident of Alameda\, specifically Marina Village. I work in Marina Village\, and I am the rear commodore at Oakland Yacht Club. \nTracy Reigelman: Before I get into my comments I would like to thank Officer Albino\, Officer Siebert and Miss Simonds for their work and efforts in a very challenging and difficult situation. \nTracy Reigelman: It’s it’s appreciated to hear your hear the efforts that you’re putting in. I would like to clarify some comments that I heard at the start of the meeting \nTracy Reigelman: the issue of the anchor outs and the boats is a very\, very large part of this issue. It’s probably about 50% of the problem \nTracy Reigelman: the encampments are a large part of the problem as well. \nTracy Reigelman: However\, there is also some work going on through the county of Alameda to provide support \nTracy Reigelman: for unhoused individuals in facilities that are not permitted for that use\, and that are not up to current building codes and compliance. And those \nTracy Reigelman: people in the situation that they’re in right now are at risk of losing their lives. And they are creating problems with the public. \nTracy Reigelman: so the fears are not just the live aboard. The fears are the residents\, businesses\, users of the Bay trail\, and the residents of Eddie’s place\, which people are put there to try to help. \nTracy Reigelman: There are encampments in Alameda. If you drive along Main Street and look along Main Street. There’s encampments along there. There’s encampments in the mainstream street Ferry terminal\, and there are also encampments in front of the Alameda Community sailing center at the end. \nTracy Reigelman: All of this needs to be addressed and looked at\, and it is unfathomable to me that that lack of maintenance and the destruction of the shore. Side facilities and infrastructure would be left to the point where a lawless and wild West environment could occur. \nTracy Reigelman: People are at risk of hurting themselves. \nTracy Reigelman: People are at risk of confrontation. \nTracy Reigelman: The police departments are unstaffed\, but we need more help and more support. \nTracy Reigelman: The overall Oakland and Alameda estuary is ignored. \nTracy Reigelman: and that ignorance is creating a a hazard to the public. And II do appreciate the efforts\, the limited efforts of Apd and Opd. It needs to be more. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you very much. \nTracy Reigelman: Thank you. \nNext we have Anan \nCreston: and please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \nAnon: I I’m sorry. I would like to testify anonymously\, because I live here at Union Point and the anchor outs know who I am. They know my name. They know my car. I have fear of retaliation. \nAnon: Can I do that? \nYes. \nAnon: okay. So \nAnon: I really appreciate the presentations. My Ms\, Simmons and Mr. Devaries. Today we all understand that the problem is enormous. \nAnon: II also say\, I live here on the estuary. I also row in the estuary daily\, and I gotta say I see them. I’ll meet a marine patrol unit out here often. I see it several times a week. \nAnon: but I never see the Opd. Ever see the Oakland Police \nAnon: Marine Patrol unit ever I have personally given up calling the Oakland police about harassment and fights on the water and \nAnon:  incursions into the Marina. I have filed at least 2 dozen reports\, and never had anything be done. If they come out here\, they say. Well\, it’s out on the water. There’s nothing we can do. \nAnon: I live with \nAnon: I live with generators going at all hours of the day of the night I live with a raw sewage floating past my vessel. Several times a month I have called around and tried to report the raw sewage. I remember one time I called \nAnon: the coastguard\, reported the Ross sewage. Sorry I called the Oakland Police Department. They told me to call the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard gave me 2 numbers. One of them I left a message and never heard back\, and the other one said\, Thank you very much for reporting this. We’re going to call the Coast Guard. \nAnon: I wanna tell you about an instance when late at night in the pitch black\, I hear faint calls coming from the estuary. If somebody’s yelling. \nAnon: you know\, help me\, please\, please. Anybody help me! And I go out there\, and Mike Kayak\, with a headlamp\, and there is a \nAnon: there’s a sailboat drifting down the estuary\, and with my kayak I towed it to shore. There was a panicked and terrified young man on that boat who told me \nAnon: that he’d had a \nAnon: horrible fight and been yelled at and abused by one of the other anchor outs\, who then cut his line? If there had been any wind at the time I wouldn’t have been able to go out there and rescue this young man who had no motor and no ability to sail that boat. \nAnon:  I have at least a dozen times had boats pull their anchors and crash into me. \nAnon: During storms. Winter is coming again. Last winter resulted in \nAnon: so many sunken and stranded vessels\, each one of which is an enormous cost\, and does enormous environmental damage. People’s lives are at risk\, who are living out there on the boats in these winter storms. I beg the city of Oakland to handle this completely before the winter storms return. \nAnon:  thank you very much. Your time is up. Thank you. \nCreston: Next we have Deborah Lun. \nCreston: Deborah\, please state your name for the record\, and you have 3 min. \ndeborah.lunn: Thank you. My name is Deborah Lun. I’m the property director here at Altastar Harbor\, which is is a new complex that opened up a re\, an adaptive reuse of the old Del Monte Canyon. \nDid we lose her. Deborah? \ndeborah.lunn: I’m sorry. Can you hear me now. There\, you are sorry. \ndeborah.lunn: Sorry. My name is Deborah Lun. I’m the property director here at Altestar Harbor\, which is the old Del Monte Canning Warehouse. \ndeborah.lunn: and I just wanted to state that the the issues are not just on the water. But now they’re on land and they’re impacting the businesses up and down the estuary. We opened our doors here on December nineteenth of 2\,022\, with our first move Ins. \ndeborah.lunn: And as of August sixth\, starting August sixth\, we have had stolen 3 trucks\, 3 cars\, one U-haul and 4 bicycles within our facility. \ndeborah.lunn: So one of these trucks actually was found at a chop house in the High Street encampment area in Oakland. \ndeborah.lunn: So I just wanna say a lot of our residents move here from Oakland and from San Francisco because of safety issues. They think\, you know\, it’s quiet here. It’s safe here\, and we want them to keep feeling that way. And we we don’t. Wanna. We don’t wanna be able. You know\, we we obviously pay a lot of tax dollars and just want our residents to feel safe here. \nThank you. Thanks. Thank you\, Deborah. \nNext we have Brad Gras \nCreston: Brad. \nBrad Gross: Yes\, thank you. I’m sorry I was looking for the unmute button. This is Brad Gross\, executive director with a regional agency. And I wanna commend everybody for their presentations today and their their comments. \nBrad Gross: What I have to say is\, is\, basically\, I guess it would be a stream of consciousness based on on what I heard\, and \nBrad Gross: oh. \nBrad Gross: and what I’ve heard from it\, especially from Mr. Dilap. I want to thank him for putting this out into the public and and actually into the industry\, so that we can address these issues \nBrad Gross: and as presentations indicate. It seems that all areas in the Oakland Alamo area seems to be suffering from the same homeless problems\, whether it be land\, side \nBrad Gross: or waterside. And \nBrad Gross: I want to encourage everybody that they they treat their illegal Liverpool same as error. I need to treat these landside encampment encampments heard comment about the save Grant. But I don’t believe\, save Grant is the panacea that you believe. It may be \nBrad Gross: because I haven’t heard anything as far as housing programs \nBrad Gross: working side by side with addressing these illegal out anchor outs. \nBrad Gross: The the Grant program is wonderful for removing abandoned vessels and debris you may find on the shore side\, but you still have people illegally living and anchoring on their vessels in the anchor in the estuary. I’m also concerned that the 90 day enforcement. \nBrad Gross: An abatement program that was discussed will simply shift the Oakland Alvina problems to other jurisdictions. Specifically\, Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross:  Finally\, I do want to offer to those who are working on the best one to reabate men. If Rb. Assistants or they believe we may be help be helpful. We’re always willing to \nBrad Gross: land what we have learned over the years with programs like this. \nBrad Gross: And with that. Thank you very much. \nThank you\, Brad. Next we have Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: Mary. Yeah. Hi\, you might want to reset the clock. \nmary spicer: I think. Anyways\, look Miss Simmons and our marine patrol. I really wanna say\, thank you. My name’s Mary Spicer. \nmary spicer: I am the one of the founders of. I heard Oakland Alameda estuary. We’ve been cleaning the Oakland Alameda estuary since 2\,017. We started on kayaks and stand up paddle boards going to the shorelines that are deeply impacted by extreme garbage and getting that garbage via partnerships with California canoe in kayaks \nmary spicer: and East Bay Row Club. We’re a large community. We have participants from both sides of Oakland and Alameda\, and people really come out to clean and really care about the estuary. \nmary spicer: Last year at Towel Coastal\, we and 2 and a half hours\, cleared 3\,000 pounds of garbage in 2 and a half hours with our community\, and that is only a fraction of the amount of garbage that’s along the estuary. We also clean Jack Linden\, aquatic center and Estuary Park\, and unfortunately canceled the cleanup this year because of safety concerns at one of the unhoused community. One of the encampment sites at Jlac. There’s been some violent incidences in there. \nmary spicer: and unfortunately I don’t feel comfortable bringing children to the site until those are addressed by the city of Oakland. I’m currently talking to people about that via the city. So that’s good. \nmary spicer: I’m asking for holistic solutions\, because besides just the crime and the the sun votes and the the \nmary spicer: the unhoused issues which mo usually during our clean ups\, the unhouse joiner clean ups we\, you know\, we we really wanna open up our space for that. \nmary spicer: but our shorelines are paying the price. Via the storms. Last February a lot of the boats the the boats got smashed into the shorelines. And then all of that debris literally ends up on the shore\, and I feel like everyone’s so busy worrying about the sun boats and the crime. Nobody’s really even paying attention to the amount of garbage and marine debris on the shores of the Oakland estuary. \nmary spicer: I’ve been working with some people at the port\, some people at the city to find out. Who do I call? If I can’t go and clean some of the shorelines. Who do I call to actually get this shoreline garbage enforced. I really would love to have an answer for that. And then there is the Noah marine debris grants just recently released. They’re huge. I took the \nmary spicer: the cal representative for Noah out\, and she said that she thinks Oakland is a great candidate for some of these huge 1 million dollar grants\, so I really hope that we would that the city might consider going for those. \nCreston: Thank you\, Mary. \nthat’s all we have here. Go more. \nCreston: Thank you. Do any other committee members have any comments. \nCreston: Anybody. \nCommissioner Rancho. \nI just wanted to thank the members of the public who came here today\, and you also took their time to submit public comments via zoom would appreciate you sharing your \nexperiences\, which are concerning and disturbing\, and clearly continue to reflect to to me at least an unacceptable situation that needs additional resources from \nlocal governments. And so to the extent that that our committee can support any of those efforts. II think we are. We are ready to \nappreciate suggestions for how we can do more within our jurisdiction. \nCheeky Gilmore\, we have Georgia. Vice would like to speak. Okay\, very quickly\, please. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. I just wanted to lift up the comments of that last public speaker and ask that she reach out to me directly via email about that grant opportunity\, because our sustainability team could look at it. You know this that team oversees our our climate change\, our climate mitigation work. And we have some great grant writers. And so II would love to have that. And I just wanna thank her for noting the importance of a holistic approach. \nJoe DeVries\, City of Oakland: I am meeting with a with a a club that’s looking at potentially using our old crier building site to try to create some positive activity there\, which is just way\, negative activity. And I do think that that’s part of this process\, not just an enforcement app opportunity\, but the more positive energy and activities we bring to the shoreline. The more we can push out that negative work. So I I’d like to pursue that from that last speaker. \nThank you. Any other commissioners. I thought I saw a hand up online. Maybe that was just Joe. I definitely wanna heartily concur with Commissioner Ranshod comments and sentiments\, and I do have a quick question for staff. \nWe’ve had complaints and incidences about sewage and other undesirable things being put into the bay. Is is that an issue for the Water Board? Who should people be calling when they see something like that? Do we know? \nYes\, the Water Board does have \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: jurisdiction for that. I forget where\, in our law or policy or regulations that that specified. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: but it is specified \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: documents\, and I could follow up with you with the specific \ncitation. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: We should\, of course\, be aware of \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: any reports that they make\, so they should continue to submit reports to us. But definitely loop in the water port when it comes to water quality issues. \nOkay\, is there a way to? I don’t know. Publicize either an email or or a phone number\, some sort of contact information where members of the public\, if they see something\, they can say something to the relevant authority. I mean\, it’s great that they contact us. And you know we pass it on\, but \nyou know I think it would be just as effective\, if not more effective\, if they could contact the waterboard. Whoever’s responsible for this directly. \nCreston: So maybe that’s something that that we need to look into. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Yeah\, we can look into\, maybe putting if it’s not already\, there links on the website. We certainly do make those recommendations to reporters when they call in I take a look at every report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: and if it maybe implicates another jurisdiction overlapping jurisdiction\, or maybe is better suited towards. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: say\, the locals\, Oakland\, Dd. Or Water Board. II will certainly mention that to the reporter\, and as well as make a report myself. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: Oftentimes \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enforcement Manager: we can look at doing a better date. \nGreat! Thank you. Thank you so much. And if there are no other comments from members of the committee or the public\, I’m going to conclude this item. \nAnd so now\, committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I’m going to adjourn that second. \nOh\, wow!  Did did I see a hand from a staff member. \nCreston: Adrian\, are you nodding your head? Yes. \nbefore we adjourn? Okay\, so we have a motion by Commissioner Bellin\, and a second by Commissioner Ranchod. But before we vote on it Miss Klein has a comment. \nAdrienne Klein: Well\, I just wanted to forecast what Staff had plan for next steps which was to come back \nAdrienne Klein: with come back to you. At your first December meeting\, which would be the fourteenth I believe that’s a Thursday. Assuming that we can obtain a quorum \nAdrienne Klein: to hear an update from the city status of the effort on the water and also to the cities both addressed to today\, but \nAdrienne Klein: plans for \nAdrienne Klein: long term management\, and prevention going forward as the cities are able to resolve these issues just wanted to conclude with that parting comment. Thank you\, and apologies to delay the conclusion of the meeting. \nCreston: No\, thank you. I actually should have asked when our next update was gonna be so thank you for providing that information. \nCreston: Okay\, so we have a motion\, and a second on the floor to adjourn. Do I hear any objections to that? \nCreston: Hearing? None. This meeting is adjourned at 1108. \nThank you. Everybody presenters and guests. And thank you very much for attending today. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-27-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230921T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230921T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20230922T035148Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T175630Z UID:10000045-1695301200-1695315600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 21\, 2023 Commission Meetings (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative permit applications that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of September 21\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to September 29\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after September 29\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nPacific Gas and Electric Company245 Market StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.020.00 \nFiled on 09/14/23 \n90th Day on 12/13/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at four locations in Marin and Sonoma Counties: \n\nAt Tower 3/29\, north of the Petaluma River (Sonoma County; 38.112097 °N\, -122.491998 °W)\nAt Tower 3/28\, south of the Petaluma River (Marin County; 38.110117 °N\, -122.494483 °W)\nAt Tower 2/21\, north of Novato Creek (Marin County; 38.092283 °N\, -122.497717 °W)\nAt Tower 2/20\, south of Novato Creek (Marin County\, 38.873806 °N\, -122.498064 °W)\n\nDescriptionThe project would replace four existing electrical towers. Two towers will be removed from tidal marsh habitat in Bay Jurisdiction\, two towers will be removed from 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction. One new tower would be constructed in the Bay\, and two towers would be constructed partially in the 100-foot Shoreline Band. To access the sites for tower removal and installation\, 1.84 acres of construction matting will be temporarily placed in the 100-foot Shoreline Band\, 3.13 acres of construction matting will be temporarily placed in tidal marsh habitat in the Bay\, and two barge landings\, supported by a total of 91 steel piles and covering 1\,200 square feet will be temporarily constructed in the Bay. After construction of the new towers and removal of the existing towers and the temporary construction matting and barge landings is complete\, the applicant shall restore all tidal marsh areas\, and monitor them for success over at least five years. The project will result in a net removal of towers from BCDC jurisdiction to outside of BCDC jurisdiction\, and from the Bay to 100-foot Shoreline Band. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsRich Island Duck ClubP.O. Box 5064Walnut Creek\, CA 94596 \nAND \nPort of Stockton2201 West Washington StreetStockton CA 95203 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.024.00md \nFiled on 06/27/23 \n90th Day on 09/25/23 \nLocationIn the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh\, at the Southern Portion of Simmons Island\, unincorporated Solano County \nDescriptionRestore approximately 30 acres of managed wetland\, open water and upland areas on a managed wetland island in the Suisun Marsh. The project site is hydrologically connected to the other existing managed wetlands on Simmons Island\, and the project would restore this site through regrading and vegetation management and planting. The project will result in a net gain in open water and wetland habitat\, and a reduction in upland habitat. This project is the culmination of a long-standing enforcement violation of BCDC Consistency Determination No. C1985.006\, which required the Port of Stockton to beneficially reuse dredged sediment that was placed on Simmons Island between 1986 and 1996. This project will resolve the enforcement case ER1990.026.00 by reusing the dredged sediment for habitat restoration. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsBandwidth IG\, LLC530 Lakeside Drive\, Suite 190Sunnyvale CA\, 94085 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.001.00 \nFiled: This application has not been filed\, as the City of San Leandro discretionary approval for a lease of land required for the project will be voted on at a City Council meeting September 18\, 2023. If the lease is not approved\, this administrative listing will be rescinded. \n90th Day – N/A \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, in the City of Brisbane at the southern corner of Lagoon Rd and Sierra Point Parkway\, and the City of San Leandro\, at the Bay Trail\, west of the Tony Lema Golf Course and South of the Marina Dog Park\, and along the Bay floor between those two sites. \nDescriptionThe project would install approximately 86\,800 linear feet of two 2-inch-diameter fiber optic cables in the Bay\, between underground landing vaults in the 100-foot Shoreline Bands in San Leandro and Brisbane. The project would result in approximately 5\,000 cubic yards and 30\,400 square feet of fill in the Bay. The project would not result in any public access impacts. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \nApplicantsThe Island Club\, Inc6227 Virgo RdOakland CA 93611 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.011.00md \nFiled on 07/17/23 \n90th Day on 10/16/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at Duck Club No. 501 in the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. \nDescriptionInstall two 24-inch-diameter HDPE water management drains with stainless steel flap gates through an exterior levee at the managed wetland. The project will result in approximately 100 square feet of solid fill. The purpose of the project is to improve the ability of the Club to manage their wetland. \nTentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. (Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing September 8\, 2023 \n\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nCommission Mailing September 15\, 2023 \n\nListing of Pending Administrative Matters\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nOakland pirates becoming more brazen as several ships stolen in span of a week\nPoverty Rate Soared in 2022 as Aid Ended and Prices Rose\nFisherman’s Wharf is in trouble. But it’s still more than a tourist trap URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-21-2023-commission-meetings-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230915T100000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230915T120000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055130 CREATED:20230916T013325Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T021148Z UID:10000075-1694772000-1694779200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 15\, 2023 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meetings DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF)\nPresentation (PDF) \nMeeting Summary (PDF) URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-15-2023-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meetings/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230914T080000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230914T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20240131T052558Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T052558Z UID:10000163-1694678400-1694710800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-14-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230911T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230912T062516Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235013Z UID:10000062-1694451600-1694451600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 11\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board Members are located at the primary physical location. If\, after a meeting notice or agenda is published\, a Board Member wants to change the location from which they originally planned to participate in the meeting\, that Member must participate from one of the noticed teleconference locations in the meeting notice or agenda (including the meeting’s primary physical location). Furthermore\, all noticed teleconference locations listed below must remain open and publicly accessible for the duration of the Board meeting regardless of whether any Board Member is actually at such location\, including the location originally listed by the Board Member who decided to change locations. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88589468132?pwd=MG9kbWlSYUdIUVZuVlArQkJScDNKdz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID885 8946 8132 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for March 13\, 2023 (PDF) and May 8\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project\, City and County of San Francisco; Second Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will review the design by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department for its proposed India Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project. The project would involve restoring and enhancing the existing\, approximately 5.6-acre India Basin Shoreline Park\, located at 900 Innes Avenue in the City and County of San Francisco. The redesigned park would include a large recreational pier and floating dock\, a large lawn\, a gravel beach\, shoreline pathways including a Bay Trail segment\, fitness and play areas\, basketball courts\, restrooms and parking\, and other amenities. This is the Board’s second pre-application review of the project.(Schuyler Olsson) [415-352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Summary\n Draft Summary of the September 11\, 2023 BCDC Design Review Board Meeting \n\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review. Design Review Board (DRB) Chair Jacinta McCann called the hybrid meeting to order on Zoom\, at approximately 5:00 p.m.DRB Board Members. Chair Jacinta McCann\, Bob Battalio\, Leo Chow\, Patricia Fonseca Flores\, Kristen Hall\, and Stefan Pellegrini were present in person.\n\nBCDC Staff. Ashley Tomerlin\, Yuriko Jewett\, and Schuyler Olsson were present in person.\nProject Proponents. David Froehlich (SFRPD); Christine Boudreau (Boudreau Associates\, LLC); Katherine Liss (GGN Ltd.); Chihiro Shinohara (GGN Ltd.); Katie Chamberlin (Anchor QEA); Sean Hart (Moffat & Nichole)\, Dilip Trivedi (Moffat & Nichol).\n\n\nStaff Update. Ashley Tomerlin provided an update on the recently completed Bay Trail gap closure project along Doolittle Drive in East Oakland as part of MLK Regional Shoreline Park and new boat launch facilities. The DRB reviewed the East Bay Regional Parks District project back in 2016.\nIndia Basin Shoreline Park (Second Pre-Application Review). The project involves the redevelopment of the existing India Basin Shoreline Park. It would include building the park on a system of terraces\, with a sloping lawn in the center that would terminate at a gravel shore beach\, held in place by two Mixed-Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls. The Project would include a variety of site improvements and support diverse recreational and educational opportunities\, including walking/jogging\, bicycling\, fishing\, basketball and other sports\, nature viewing\, and outdoor picnics and barbecues. Water access would be provided at the gravel beach and at a large recreational pier and floating dock. The Project would also include shoreline recontouring\, shoreline protection\, and marsh creation and enhancement. The Project is eligible for funding under Measure AA from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority\, and the pre-application process is underway with the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT)\, an interagency team with representatives from BCDC and five other regulatory agencies\, to obtain agency feedback on the project design.\n\nStaff Presentation. Schuyler Olsson provided a staff introduction to the project site and context.\nProject Presentation. Katherine Liss\, designer with GGN\, Ltd. provided an overview of the project with a slide presentation. The presentation focused on the project goals\, background\, local context\, existing site conditions\, and a detailed description of the proposed project design.\nPublic Comment. Eight public comments were received for the project.\n\nLily Brown\, Transportation Planner\, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)/Bay Trail (by email ).\n\nMTC appreciates the proposed gap closure and creation of a continuous shoreline trail experience along India Basin.\nWould like clarity of the proposed width of the Bay Trail through India Basin Shoreline Park. The trails in this area are likely to have a higher level of use due to the proposed amenities. MTC recommends that all Bay Trail segments be designed with a 26-foot width.\nMTC appreciates that the proposed project has many amenities. To add to the amenities for trail users\, consider adding drinking fountains with bottle fill stations as well as bicycle repair stations.\n\n\nJackie Flynn (now Jackie Bryant)\, Executive Director of A. Philip Randolph Institute (in person)\n\nSupports the project noting that SFRPD continues to capture community feedback on the project.\nIn terms of equitable development\, members have gone through trades programming to work on site or in other projects in San Francisco and work with youth programing.\nThe project is inspiring the next generation of park stewards. Everyone in the community are park people and they need park spaces. A tech hub/community innovation space was created to support this area. This space is essential to our community members. APRI plans to continue leading the way to bring community voices to the park project.\n\n\nElsworth Jennison\, neighborhood resident for 43 years (in person)\n\nMain concern is the project impact to habitat and would like to see it protected. Notes that the site currently hosts snowy white egrets and herons.\nThe proposed floating dock is not in a good location given the mudflats at the site that extends to Heron’s Head. India Basin Shoreline Park is unprotected and in mud. It is not safe for children. The 900 Inness site would be better for a dock.\nHas concerns regarding maintenance of the site. The boulders at Heron’s Head Park were exposed only six months after construction. The park would be best suited for green grass or walkways and not much more\, like Dolores Park.\n\n\nJill Fox\, India Basin Neighborhood Association/neighborhood resident (online)\n\nComments are her own and is not speaking on behalf of the association.\nLongtime neighbor and advocate for the park and is happy to see improvements are being made to the site. Noted that a neighborhood improvement is ultimately a regional improvement.\nFeels that access is important and there needs to be more parking. The availability of parking is not enough now\, and the new project appears to provide the same amount and will not accommodate growth. Currently\, people drive on the grass to get to the basketball court\, for example. Need to provide better bicycle access. Need to consider water access like water taxis connecting from the ferry building to the neighborhood. Better transit will allow for tourism. Support bikes and more bike parking further down into the site and near the program areas. Bikes are better for nature and the neighborhood.\n\n\nMaya Rogers\, San Francisco Parks Alliance (virtual)\n\nWorks on the Blue Greenway project and lifelong resident of Bayview Hunters Point and is showing support for the project.\nThe project transformation of the neighborhood and the equitable development plan supports the neighborhood\, it works for the community and the project. Creates spaces and preserves cultures\, welcoming to everyone. The balance developed by this partnership has created a synergy.\n\n\nSarka Volejnkova\, Trust for Public Land (virtual)\n\nTPL has been working for many years with SFRPD and Parks Alliance to design and implement this park\, along with the landscape architecture consultants. It is important to the community and an important landmark park for the City.\nNotes that the project will continue to provide recreational access to the waterfront especially along the south end of the community. The design is in line with what the community wanted and has many elements that were important to the community.\nAppreciates the access connected with this park and good to integrate water activities for San Franciscans and likes that the habitat areas are integrated into the design. The park is very usable by multigenerational visitors. There’s something for everyone to enjoy.\n\n\nStephanie Troyon\, San Francisco Parks Alliance\n\nAs a partner\, Parks Alliance has been working with SFRPD and others to implement the 13-mile Blue Greenway. This park is integral to the connections and will close a critical gap in the Bay Trail. The park will transform areas to a usable space.\n\n\n\n\nBoard Clarifying Questions from Project Presentation\n\nKristen Hall noted this is an area of low car ownership and asked for clarification of bicycle parking locations. The project team stated that bicycle parking for the project is proposed in three locations: near the “porches” near Hunters Point Boulevard; the turnaround area in the parking lot near the boathouse; and in the basketball court area.\nKristen Hall requested status of the soil on the site. Is remediation required? The project team stated that unlike the neighboring site at 900 Innes\, this area was not used for industry and shipbuilding. The filled lands here were always for park use and soil testing showed that the site did not require remediation.\nKristen Hall commented that it appears that the connection from India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head Park will flood by 2050. How will this connection be maintained? SFRPD stated they are working to partner with property owners (PGE\, Port\, and private owners) to coordinate maintenance of continuous access\, but details are not available yet. The project goal has always been to have the site read as one continuous shoreline.\nBob Battalio commented that the floating dock will be exposed to waves probably up to 2-to-3 feet\, much larger than what you experience in a marina\, for example. Is the design of the dock able to withstand these conditions? the project team stated the stability of the floating dock has been reviewed by the coastal engineer and it should withstand such conditions.\nBob Battalio asked whether the team considered a less lawn-like space between the Bay Trail and gravel beach? Waves can push gravel up and have it flatten-out and in nature there is often a transition zone. The gravel beach could be larger and travel further upslope. The project team stated they had looked into it and can look into it again.\nSeveral Board members had clarifying questions related to the Bay Trail\, including connectivity to the adjacent 900 Innes site\, grade transitions\, materiality\, trail width and specific amenities that the project will provide along the trail. The project team stated there is a smooth transition between the two parks and the trail has grades of approximately 4%. Materials include exposed aggregate paving in both parks. The width ranges from 12 feet to 14 feet with 2- foot shoulders on each side. There will be fixed benches along the Bay trail.\nStefan Pellegrini asked if there has been coordination between the improvements being made to the right-of-way in this area and the frontage of the park. The project team stated there will be a new sidewalk at the frontage of the park and that is included in the scope of the project. Raised crosswalks and curb ramps at Hudson and Hunters Point are also part of this project in partnership with DPW; MTA is currently implementing a road diet pilot project with K-Rails and a multiuse path on each side as part of the public right-of-way adjacent to the site. PGE is also implementing work along Hunter’s Point Boulevard that will result in right-of-way improvements; and The 700 Innes development project is required to make streetscape improvements in this area\, including new curb rumps\, raised crossings\, and signalized intersections.\nStefan Pellegrini requested clarification of other amenities the project will provide related to water access at the site beyond the boathouse and dock. The project team stated the project will provide a boat washing station. Feasibility of providing open water swimming is being discussed with stakeholders\, and SFRPD is working with the Port to develop policies related to fishing. Heron’s Head currently offers fishing and there is a desire to continue that program at India Basin Shoreline Park as well.\nPatricia Fonseca Flores asked for clarification on the adaptive capacity of the pier and floating dock; what is the life span of the materials for the dock? The project team stated the materiality of the floating dock has been designed for a 50-year lifespan.\nLeo Chow asked how much seating is provided along the Bay Trail. Formal seating is important\, and a bench count is important. The project team stated there are benches along the Bay Trail\, as well as the nature pathways throughout the park. Benches provided on intermediate pier\, where paths cross\, and seating is provided adjacent to program entry. Count: 37 benches including swings.\nLeo Chow requested further detail on the windy conditions at this site\, especially in the late afternoons. Is there a digital analysis of this condition available? The project team stated the site can be windy at times with winds coming from the west. The decks are level with the street\, however there is a 4 to 5-foot grade change to the lawn area so that the landform will provide protection as you make you way to the water. Programs such as the basketball area and the playground are on lower terraces\, tucked into the slope to allow for more comfort from the wind. The team has not modeled the site digitally for wind and there is no wind consultant on the project.\nLeo Chow expressed concern about the geese at the site and requested clarification for how this will be addressed with the new design. The lawn should be useable and other projects reviewed by the Board have identified the difficulty of managing geese population. The project team acknowledged there is a geese population at the park now. The project team will have to investigate this topic more as it relates to maintenance.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification for arrival zones at the site. It appears the same number of parking spaces are provided\, but the project is aiming for a lot more activation. While activation is a good thing\, understanding how sports teams\, large parties of people carrying heavy things\, will transition to using the site is a concern. The project team stated the parking lot will have 24-26 spots and there is turn around for drop off. Dropoff at 900 Innes site is also possible. There is also on-street parking along Hunter’s Point Boulevard to the south. The project team is working with community/MTA to implement a shuttle program to better connect the neighborhood. MTA will be the agency to plan and implement the transit stops.\nJacinta McCann clarified that native planting is proposed for the site\, but asked if the park will have irrigation. How will the planting be maintained? The project team stated that irrigation is included with the design and the maintenance building at 900 Innes site and will serve both parks.\nJacinta McCann asked if there is an education program planned for the site? The project team stated there is a special events and programming plan required as a condition of the BCDC permit for the 900 Innes site. The shipwright cottage community center serves as the visitor center. There will be a community classroom and a shop building to accommodate community activities\, arts\, and crafts\, etc. All of the open spaces have potential to be programmed. SFRPD is still working on logistics and whether the programs will be implemented with inhouse or with outside vendors.\nJacinta McCann requested clarification on the planting categories and if a tree list will be included and if they will also be native species. The project team stated the trees will be native species and a list will be provided in a later submittal.\nJacinta McCann asked if the park is fully funded? The project team stated the project is close to reaching its goal. The India Basin Waterfront Park initiative consists of both sites to make up one park and totals approximately $200M. This includes $15M for the development and implementation of the equitable development plan. 85% of the initiative has been funded so far. The 900 Innes phase is fully funded and the shoreline park that we are reviewing now is close to 80-90% funded.\n\n\nBoard Discussion. The Board discussed how the project addresses the seven objectives for public access found in the Public Access Design Guidelines\, provided feedback on the proposed public access improvements with respect to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, and environmental justice and social equity\, and addressed the staff questions listed below.The seven objectives for public access are:\n\nMake public access PUBLIC.\nMake public access USABLE.\nProvide\, maintain\, and enhance VISUAL ACCESS to the Bay and shoreline.\nMaintain and enhance the VISUAL QUALITY of the Bay\, shoreline\, and adjacent developments.\nProvide CONNECTIONS to and CONTINUITY along the shoreline.\nTake advantage of the BAY SETTING.\nEnsure that public access is COMPATIBLE WITH WILDLIFE through siting\, design\, and management strategies.Staff also has the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration:\n\n\nDoes the project successfully complete the India Basin shoreline system in a cohesive and inviting manner?\nAre park programs and spaces sited so as to minimize potential conflicts between the design objectives and planned uses?\nAre the scale and design of the water-oriented public access features (gravel beach\, associated Marineway wall\, and recreational pier and floating dock) necessary and appropriate for the success of the water access objective?\nAre the water access elements designed in a way to minimize future required maintenance needs?\nDoes the shoreline protection strategy adequately address current and future site resilience? Is there opportunity to use more natural and nature-based shoreline protection features in areas where riprap is proposed?\n\n\nSummary of Key Issues and Board Comments\n\nOverall Site Design\n\nBoard members agreed that the project successfully completes the India Basin Park Shoreline. General comments included that the design is thoughtful and appears to be built on a community process to meet the design goals on a small site.\nThe Board agreed that pulling the hardscape inland from the shoreline edge makes for an attractive design.\nThe Board appreciated the programming of the site\, underscoring that basketballs won’t bounce into BBQ areas for example. The concept to “stack” the programs throughout the park works and helps protect activities from the elements such as wind.\nThe Board noted that the sightlines to the water were generous and that the ability to get to the shoreline was clear. Better understanding how the sightlines work at night was requested\, there could be some safety concerns for some areas.\n\n\nSite Arrival Zones\n\nThe Board expressed concern around the arrival zones of the park\, specifically noting that large groups arriving at the site will have a difficult time getting to where they need to go. Sports teams\, large parties for picnics arriving by car will have a lot of distance to travel across the lawn area. The drop off area near the boat house does not seem sufficient for vehicle access.\nOne Board member noted that part of the adventure of visiting a park is to travel there; no one wants to picnic right next to a restroom or parking area. Consider ways to make that long journey more successful with key elements that provide smaller moves of activation or elements for play on the lawn\, such as the red chairs at Presidio Tunnel Tops\, or example.\nThe curbside access with the K-rail and temporary bike path that is there now also seems to invite conflict of users getting to the site. Board members requested that be looked at again since the condition is part of a pilot program.\nAnother Board member noted that the upper section of the park appears to feature a lot of secondary paths\, potentially creating superfluous movements that don’t have the same meaning as intended.\nThe Board appreciated the coordination with other agencies and emphasized how important timing of the implementation of the overall improvements will be key with the opening of the park.\n\n\nBay Trail\n\nThe Board discussed the Bay Trail width and if it is sufficient for the site. Board members noted that the Bay Trail is an offroad condition that the city bicycle network does not always offer. There are design moves the project could do to slow the bikes down and better share the trail with slower moving travel\, while the city bike route could be the “faster” mode of travel. A narrow trail can accomplish this\, but too narrow and there will be conflicts with a variety of modes sharing one trail. The Board recommended not going less than 20 feet to avoid creating user conflicts.\nThe Board noted the proximity of the playground and the Bay Trail and the Hudson ROW and making sure there’s a way to keep these programs separate. Not necessarily fencing\, but planting and other methods of containment could be accomplished here. The Board also suggested moving the trail upland in the lawn area to create a better edge condition and help mitigate conflicts between habitat and public access; it is important to get this balance correct.\n\n\nPublic Dock\n\nFeedback on the dock were generally favorable\, noting that boating is an opportunity for community stewardship of the park. There are few opportunities to get people out that far on a dock. Offering the opportunity to picnic at the end of the dock for example is a unique feature and not present at most parks in the city.\nThe Board expressed concerns regarding the stability of the dock in this location due to waves and requested further study.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nThe gravel beach seems too narrow and the Board recommended possibly expanding it. The EcoAtlas shows an extensive beach for this area of the Bay\, and here it is between two walls. If the paths and trails are set back even further you will have more success to get the ecotone in there now and provide scrub brushes as a buffer between the lawn and beach.\nThe Board felt that the shoreline protection seems reasonable; it does provide a hard edge to establish the upper planting area and the park could go with a low- risk adaptation scenario on the elements that are outboard of Bay Trail.\nThe Board also noted that the Marineway walls seem like a big investment. Another thing to consider here is that the walls may reflect some of the strong waves to other shorelines. If that wall goes in\, the patterns of sediment in that cove may change in unforeseen ways but the walls are necessary to frame the beach and maintain beach material.\nThe Board felt the beach will be a popular recreational site.\nWhile the PGE site is adjacent to the park and outside the scope of this project\, it is worth noting that it is a critical piece of shoreline that can connect the India Basin neighborhood to Heron’s Head. There is an opportunity for a gravel beach and back beach area at that parcel. A Board member recommended looking at the overall habitat programming for this section of shoreline and weighing the benefits\, a gravel beach at this location would help protect marsh at that site.\n\n\nLandscape and Planting\n\nThe Board encouraged the project to seize the opportunity for nurturing park stewardship through volunteer programs to enhance the native planting and engaging the community during construction.\nThe Board requested the project better analyze the distribution of shade throughout the park\, such as shade structures in the BBQ area and especially encourage further study of the trees.\nRelated comment regarding soil amendment and understanding the salinity of the site. Large gaps can be created through the loss of 2-3 trees so maintaining plant health will be essential to success.\nThe Board also requested that the appropriate caliper trees are budgeted to allow for immediate wind protection and long-term success. While striving for a complete native palette is a good goal\, note that the melaleuca trees on site are healthy and while not native\, are providing good protection now.\n\n\n\n\nComments from Project Proponents\n\nThe project proponents clarified that while the comment to provide a gravel beach to enhance the connection between India Basin Shoreline Park to Heron’s Head is a thoughtful one\, this area is not in the scope of this project.\nConcerns of managing the geese in the lawn area have been heard and will continue to be studied by SFRPD.\n\n\nConclusion and Meeting Adjournment. The Board stated the project has completed its Board review and design refinements can continue at the staff level. Board member Kristin Hall moved to adjourn the meeting. Board member Bob Batallio seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:30 p.m.\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/09-11_DRB-Audio.mp3\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \n[ZOOM LINK HERE] \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID[ZOOM ID HERE ] \nPasscode[ZOOM PASSWORD HERE] \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-11-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230907T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230907T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230908T032917Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250310T155937Z UID:10000044-1694091600-1694106000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nOffice of Contra Costa CountySupervisor John Gioa11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite DEl Cerrito\, 510-942-2220 \nCounty Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, 707-565-2241 \n100 Howe AvenueSuite 100 SouthSacramento\, 916-574-1992 \nCounty Government Building70 W Hedding StreetEast Wing 10th FloorSan Jose\, 408-299-5030 \nNorth Star15 Commercial Street ExtensionLouisbourg\, NS B1C 2J4\, 902-733-2080 \n176 BlithedaleMill Valley\, 415-531-2770 \n675 Texas Street\, 6th Floor\, Suite 6004Fairfield\, 707-784-6129 \nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, Room 15-230 (Mountain View Room)Oakland\, 925-250-5593 \nNapa County Administration Building\, CEO Office1195 Third Street\, Suite 310Napa\, 707-253-4421 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83169214197?pwd=cW52bXpZbWVHSi92NjFDOHJFVG8rUT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID831 6921 4197 \nPasscode673599 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes of July 20\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Legislation (PDF)The Commission may consider and take positions on legislation\, including SB 544 (Laird) Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act: teleconferencing.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSummer Interns BriefingBCDC’s five summer undergraduate interns will present to the Commission a summary of their internship accomplishments\, along with recommendations for BCDC’s internship program.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Mission-Based Review of BCDC’s Permitting ProgramStaff from the Department of Finance will brief the Commission on their work to conduct a Mission-Based Review of BCDC’s permitting program. The Mission-Based Review will focus on streamlining and updating the Commission’s permitting process\, as well as BCDC’s coordination with other permitting agencies\, and clarity and enforceability of permits.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3618; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Oyster Point ComplianceThe Commission will receive a briefing on BCDC’s liveaboard policies. The Commission will also receive an update regarding the Oyster Cove Marina liveaboard compliance issue. (John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Liveaboard Boats PresentationCity of South San Francisco PresentationPublic Comment\nBriefing on the BCDC Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Enforcement Program\, including an overview of the enforcement process as well as a quarterly update on the ongoing program improvements and developments since the last briefing in April 2023.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing August 25\, 2023 \n\nNotice of Revised Date of Public Hearing for Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Rescheduled Hearing to November 2\, 2023\, Concerning Proposed San Francisco Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 to Review and Possibly Revise Bay Plan and Seaport Plan Port Findings\, Policies and Designations\nStaff Report and Recommendation on Pending Legislation (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing September 1\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of July 20\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nPirate crime spree\, vigilantes throw Oakland estuary into lawlessness\nFostering Fairness in Flood Risk Management\nWho’s on First at the SF Seawall?\nAttention California Boaters – expired marine flare collection events at multiple counties in August and September 2023\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-7-2023-commission-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230830T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230830T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230831T004031Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240127T080732Z UID:10000070-1693400400-1693414800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 30\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board DESCRIPTION:The meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, in person and virtually. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterRedwood Room\, Fifth Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83409862703?pwd=QmRJNEdRaUE2TjlqeTQvSE5HRytZUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID834 0986 2703 \nPasscode755718 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Updates\nPublic Comment Period for Items not on the Agenda\nItem of Discussion: Cargill’s Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project – Berm Stability (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00) (PDF).The Board will review geotechnical reports and data on berm stability\, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first meeting with the Applicant of November 16\, 2022. These documents are related to the Cargill’s application to the Commission for the “Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project” (O&M Project)\, BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00\, to continue maintenance and operational activities at Cargill’s solar salt facilities located in Newark\, Fremont and Redwood City over a ten-year authorization period. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the berm stability specifically for Ponds P2-12 and P2-13 due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Attachment A (PDF) // Attachment B (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/08/08-30-Audio.mp3 \nMeeting Transcript \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We are recording. Proceed. Great. Thank you. Guys. I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission engineering criteria for today’s August thirtieth. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): 2023. This meeting will be recorded. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): we are meeting here in Vcbcs. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the floor conference room today. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and the public can join \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): either here in person or on the zoom link \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): everyone who is here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): From the \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Rob\, do you wanna go? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Sure. Okay. So good afternoon. Welcome to this \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): virtual Bcd C. And in person as well. Bc. DC engineering criteria review board meeting. \nI’m Rod Iwashta. I’m the chair of Bcd’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Our first order of business is to call the role Board members. Please unmute yourselves\, and to respond\, and then mute yourselves again after responding. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, please call the roll \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Rob\, you Rushka! \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Jim! French vice chair of the board. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): What’s that? \nJim French: So that’s the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: alright got it? \nYes. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Bob Batalio. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): it’s not present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and also not present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Jima Kasawi. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): present \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: precise \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): present. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Marlene Gossorki \nRamin Golesorkhi: present \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Maya Travisaro. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I know she couldn’t be here today. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Nick Sutar here. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Gail Johnson. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m participating as a public attendee because I’m \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): presence here. Okay? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): And Philip Travetti. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I know he is absent \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): and just Samantha \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: applicant cargo today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And we have so we are doing to conduct business. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Alright. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Wanna share some instructions on how we can participate in this meeting \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): so that it runs as smoothly as possible. First\, everyone\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure it is on so that everyone can \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): period. That is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 2 ways. First\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform. Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): if you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen\, the hand should turn blue when raised \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): the second way. If you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We will call on individuals who have raised their hands and the order they were raised during public comment period for each project. Finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host Grace. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): who is acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Please be patient with us if it’s needed so a little bit about ex parte communications Board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): staff BC. DC. Staff\, with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. I invite members who have engaged in any such communications to report on them at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, has any board member raised his or her hand. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I see none. Okay\, great. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Okay. On to agenda. Item\, 3. Staff updates. Jen\, you have staff updates. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yes\, thank you\, Cheri Rushka. I’d like to provide an update on a few items. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: On September twenty-seventh next month. I believe we will be meeting to discuss 2 permanent applications \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: with the design of the San Francisco Airport Shoreline Protection program. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and also the consistency determination for the Us. Army corps of Engineers\, Oakland Harbor\, turning basins\, lightning project. and also hopefully\, we will have an engineer to recommend to you to fill the vacant alternate spot on the board. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: There currently no permit applications signed up for the October or November meetings\, but that could change. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): On December sixth the Ecr meeting scheduled for them. India\, based in Shoreline Park is currently on the agenda \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and all future Ecrb meetings. After this one will be held on the first floor up of this building in the year Bergwina Conference room. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And that’s it. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, on to other announcements. Are there any announcements from any members of the board? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, so now move on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Can I take a moment just real quick? \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): as the ecr I’m II had always thought that we were not able to even attend meetings. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): But \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): you know Justin’s here\, and I’m just curious if \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): that is \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): now allowed\, or if this is just or what \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): michael and I went over this \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): participants. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah\, I think it’s fine \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: or \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Justin. Justin’s\, Chris\, hey? I think you’re gonna be refused from participating in at all. I think we had given the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: suggestion that if someone else was able to provide the presentation that providing that would be\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, I think\, ideal. But ultimately\, you know\, it’s Cargill’s call on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that. And I think\, as an advisory body to the Commission. Ultimately\, you know. There’s not a significant conflict of interest issue that\, you know \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is going to. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, undermine the ultimate decision here. I think the Commission. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: if and when you know this permanent application is brought to the Commission\, don’t be made aware of that Justin is an Ecr member\, but was used from participating. But provided Cardel’s presentation before the Ecrb. When it made its recommendation to the Commission. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay onto agenda. Item number 3\, public comment period for items\, not on the agenda. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So right now we will take any public comments for items\, not on the agenda for public comments on the Cargill presentation. Please wait until after the presentation. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): After you are called on\, you will be unmuted so that you can share your comment. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a 3 a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): please keep your comments respectful. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is there any public comment? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Is there anyone online remotely to make a public comment? There’s nobody here in person. \nBCDC HOST: I don’t see any hands raised on the attendees. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): No hands are raised. Okay. Great \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): onto agenda. Item number 4 the item of discussion. Cargill\, Solar Sea salt system\, maintenance and Operations project mixed. See salts\, ponds\, berm stability. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): So let’s see\, first up. Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from BCDC. Will make a short presentation with some background information on the issues \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): before the Board today\, followed by Cargill’s presentation. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): I would like to remind the Board and participating members to please turn on your video when you’re speaking\, and answer or answering questions \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): when you’re not actively engaged with the board\, please turn off your videos so that we minimize distractions on the screen. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): okay. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Jen\, it’s on to you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you. Good afternoon very much to the members of the engineering criteria Review Board. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m Jenna\, and I’m a senior engineer here at PC. DC. And Secretary of the Engineering Criteria Review Board\, and this will be the Board’s second review of the cargo system\, maintenance and Operations project. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I have some background information on the project to share with you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Solar system maintenance operation permit meeting today. This is the agenda for the meeting. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: We already took public comments on the agenda. I’m going to give up presentation on background information with your presentation by Cargill and their representatives. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we will take public comment on the presentation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and then there can be discussion by the engineering criteria view board and applicant team\, and then we will adjourn \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: carcass maintenance and operations permit. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): was originally issued by BC. DC. In as a 10 year permit. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Authorization has been extended. Numerous times \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: has applied for a new 10 year permit. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Ecdc. Is preparing an environmental assessment for Ea to comply with sequa\, assessing the potential impacts\, continued maintenance and operational activities. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: The Ecr meeting today focusing on the stability and safety of the earth and Burns surrounding ponds and at Cargill’s Newark Plant 2. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: These ponds store mixed sea salts \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: due to its high salinity\, and the fact that it’s ionic imbalance differs from day water \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: mixed sea salts could contribute \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to potential environmental impacts if overtopping\, scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the Bay. And that’s a quote from a report by acom from 2021. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This figure shows the location of the 2. Mix sea salt ponds\, p. 2\, 12\, and p. 2\, 13. It’s located \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just south of the Dumbarton Bridge\, on the east side of the bay in Newark. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: circled here in red. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This is also an aerial photo of the 2 mixed sea salt ponds and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: taken from Google Maps. And you can see surrounding the ponds are tidal wetlands. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: On June seventh \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I took a tour of the mix sea salt ponds at the Cargill facility. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And this is a photo of the berm along p. 2\, 12\, that faces the bay \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and see the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: reddish water \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of pond on the left\, and the tidal marsh on the right side of the berm. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Aecom’s 2021 sea level rise. Assessment of the Cargill facilities for Cargill \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: includes this figure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: This figure shows \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: pond overtopping and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: inundation \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: during a scenario of 100 year storm tide\, plus 6 inches of sea level rise. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Vcdc. Staff proposes that the new 10 year permit authorization period lasts 10 years\, from 2024 to 2034\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and sea level rise at 2030 is estimated at 6 inches. Acom’s sea level rise. Risk assessment for Carville shows some overtopping of the mixy salt palm berms \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in this scenario of a hundred year storm tide\, plus 6 inches of sea level rise\, and it’s indicated in this figure by the yellow lines along the berms around the ponds. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So a little bit of a review of the Ecr’s review of this of the Cargill Mixy Salt Pond Burns \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and the Ucr. Had their first meeting on the topic of the stability of the mixed sea salt. Pom. Burns\, on November sixteenth\, 2022\, \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in a follow up meeting in a follow up to that meeting. The ECRB. Requested that Cargill provide 7 different things. I’ll read them off now. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: A geotechnical investigation of the firms. site-specific surveys and Cross-sections of the Firms. History of mixed Sea Saltburn maintenance. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Static Condition. Assessment of the Burns analyzing daily Operations. Ties and Seepage on Berm Stability seismic analysis of burn stability with earthquake scenarios\, including 100 year flood\, base flood event\, scenario. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: an ecological risk assessment due to potential release of mixed sea salt into the environment \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: describing expected impacts from berm failures on adjacent communities or human developments. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Second\, presentation to the Ecrv which this is and an updated sea level rise\, risk assessment\, including wave run up wave-induced sperm erosion \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and the risk of groundwater on berm stability. The Cargill submitted reports on items\, one through 5 A\, B and C\, which are the focus of discussion today. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Cargo will make a presentation also on Item 7. Today\, the updated seal or as risk assessment. But this report has not yet been submitted to Pcpc. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So in my staff report to the board \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: providing the information on today’s presentation\, I ask the 7 questions for the Board to consider to day \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic firm stability. assessment adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at Ponds\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do the static and seismic stability calculations for the Burns adequately characterize and model the berm’s civility. Stability. Considering the available geologic data and berm history\, including any berm raising to address subsidence and sea level rise in 6 inches of sea level rise predicted for 2030. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Does the scope and the Geotechnical Work plan provide data to increase the confidence of the geologic model and used instability modeling? And do you recommend updating the Burn Stability modeling. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Following the execution of the work plan. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: does the updated Cross section memo with the 2 cross sections adequately address the Ecrb request for site\, specific surveys and cross sections of the Burns. Considering the risks of worm failure related to both seismic stability and erosion from overtopping \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: does the summary of the history of p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. Firms adequately address the request for this information. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do you agree that the results of the berm stability modeling indicate that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So that’s the end of my presentation. And now we’ll hear from \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Carpel’s presentation going up to the minute. Let’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you probably do. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Then Michael Willange be on the phone. \nThat’s okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you for your patience while we \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: get Cargill presenters added to the zoom. \nBCDC HOST: I think I moved them all over. The only one \nBCDC HOST: I see that doesn’t move over is Gina young? \nBCDC HOST: Okay. \nGayle Johnson: if they’re presenting\, we’re not hearing anything online. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: send the environment \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and also explored some conceptual sea level Rise adaptation strategies that could be implemented \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to continue operations at the facility for the seal Brice scenarios that were evaluated as part of that assessment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and as follow up to the fall meeting with the Ecr. PC. DC. Requested\, the Cargill. Evaluate the impacts of wave run-up and overtopping\, including the effects of C-level rise \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: on the bayfront berms. And that is what is being presented today. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think we might have gone. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. So the purpose of this assessment\, was first acknowledging that the prior study focused primarily on the impacts of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extreme tides and storm surge on the berms and so this assessment includes consideration of the effects of wave run up and overtopping \non the berms for existing and future conditions\, with sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the way that we approached this was by looking at 2 metrics to characterize the exposure of the berms\, to wave overtopping \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the first is tabulating the duration of berm toe exceedance during conditions for wave height. At the toe the berm exceeds a threshold of one foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that was quantified in terms of average hours per year. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the second was looking at the frequency of berm crest overtopping by waves\, and that was quantified by characterizing the return period of the coastal storm event that would result in overtopping of the berm crest. So we I’ll I’ll get into that in a little bit more detail. But I just wanted to kind of emphasize that there’s these 2 metrics that we’re looking at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so all of the analysis and the maps that are included in this presentation are focused on sort of presenting graphically\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the results of that analysis. And these 2 metrics. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the results of this will help Cargill identify the burn segments that may experience increased exposure to wave impacts in the future due to sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the approach that I’ll provide an overview of today and our plans to follow up with a more detailed memo and technical documentation\, outlining the data sources and methods and findings for Re review by Vcdc. And Vcrb. But the steps that we follow there’s 6 steps that are outlined here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: first laying out the wave analysis\, transect layout. which are essentially locations along the base shoreline where the analysis was performed. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then extracted bithymmetry and topography\, elevation profiles at each of those locations\, and that was used to identify key sort of geometric and geomorphic \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: parameters on the berm’s\, including the berm toe and the berm crest elevations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then subdivided the shoreline into approximately 300 foot segments\, and assigned a representative wave analysis transect to each of those segments. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We then used a a long time series of simulated water level and wave model output data. to characterize water level and wait conditions at each point along the shoreline \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and construct a time series of wave runup on each of those locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then we performed a statistical analysis on that data to estimate \nexceedance levels for wave run of elevations \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that we’re then used to compare to the burn\, tow\, and burn crest elevations to assess the potential for overtopping and the frequency of which that would occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then those results were tabulated. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then translate it in Gis onto maps\, depicting segments that could be exposed to You know each of these 2 metrics that we used \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so we have those figures as well. Just in the bottom left is that wave run up plus water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so the figure on the bottom left. The blue line is showing the still water level\, the Tide Time series\, and then the red is is sort of the corresponding wave hype \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so this figure does not yet combine everything. But the middle figure does show the total water level time series. And those are just kind of example plots. But I have some more specific. \nCases we can look at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. so this slide shows the process to lay out the transacts for the wave analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The wave analysis transacts. These are oned transsex that are shown in yellow they’re numbered along the New York shoreline here from one to 37. And so the way of run-up analysis was conducted at each of these locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the transects were placed to capture variations along the shoreline in terms of the shoreline orientation and wave exposure. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The presence or absence of fronting marsh in front of the berm. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Whether or not the shoreline is armored or unarmoured. So in some cases that required a higher density of transsex\, because those conditions were changing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: along the shoreline pretty rapidly\, and in other cases where you had sort of straight uniform stretches\, the transact layout is a little bit more sparse. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the other thing I want to point out here is all of the Orange dots. Show the locations of the Wave and Water Level Model Time Series data. That we extracted from the Fema coastal flood study for San Francisco Bay. And so each wave analysis transect is essentially paired with a model output point\, and those water level and wave conditions from that point are then used for the way they run up analysis at each transect. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And similarly\, this shows the transect layout for the Redwood City shoreline. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s a much smaller area. So there’s fewer transacts here. But you can see that in total\, we have 48 analysis locations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: throughout the cartel facility. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay? So this slide shows that next step of assigning a representative transect to each of the segments of berm. So we recognize that there’s variability in the berm press elevations along the shoreline \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And through some kind of evaluation of that variability and and testing. We’ve decided on a 300 foot binning \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: of the firm. And so the orange line show all of the subdivisions of each of the firm segments in some cases like\, where you see the transition from 2 to 3 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there was\, you know\, a single segment might contain a segment of unarmored firm and a piece of armoured berm. So we added additional subdivisions in there. So there’s some subdivisions that are \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: shorter than that 300 foot segment. But in general\, that was how the scrolling was partitioned\, and within each of those segments we use the Lidar data that was available to calculate the average crest elevation \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: within that segment and assigned it to be representative of the Berm Crest elevation within that segment. So if you go to the next slide. It kind of shows how \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: each of those transects is mapped. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so\, for example\, analysis transact\, one is assigned to those first few segments at the north end\, and 2 is assigned to the next view\, and then you hit 3\, which is representative of an armoured segment. So that’s kind of representing the the red color segment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this was basically a bookkeeping exercise\, and this allowed us to use to know which wave run up results to assign to each segment of firm. So we did this for the whole shoreline. But this is just a snapshot showing what the process looks like. At the northern end of the Newark Ponds \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Phony Directional. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But I guess it’s a few slides back. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, maybe if you go back to this slide with the transact layout. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you get one more that should show it. Yeah. So the so the orange points are where the waiting one level. They are. The wave data from the model is directional \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so we’re using the way period and wave direction from all of it\, and then bring those pay conditions in to the yeah. \nNicholas SITAR: Excuse me\, may I ask in all of these analyses. \nNicholas SITAR: are you taking into account long-term settlement? Do you have data on the crest settlement of these levies of these farms? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So the question was whether this analysis accounts for 700 firm is not. We’re we’re taking that existing crest elevation average along that segment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And and using that as a \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we can jump back. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nso this slide \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: sort of defined some terminology. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Just to kind of Orient everyone. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We’re talking about wave run up\, which is commonly referred to as the total water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and it’s called total water level\, because it encapsulates all of the various coastal processes that contribute to flooding at the shoreline. So that includes the astronomical tide \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: storm surge\, which which accounts for low\, you know\, low atmospheric pressure that can result in a rise in the water level. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Wind effects. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know. Periodic El Nino effects. They can also elevate water levels at the shoreline. So all of those effects of the tide and the storm surge\, or sort of already accounted for in the in the hydro dynamic model that was developed as part of the Fema study. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then we add the wave analysis pieces at each of those transect locations which include wave setup\, which is a super elevation of the water level of the shoreline\, due to the presence of breaking waves\, which kind of pile water level up against the shore\, and then wave run up\, which is that last piece of the wave actually breaking\, and then running up the base of the berm. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so the the relative magnitudes of each of these components are are shown here. And so when we’re talking about these extreme total water level events events that occur with\, say\, a return period of say\, you know\, every 10 years\, 50 years\, 100 years. Those events\, and these\, like annual maxima that we’re using in our analysis\, are on the order of 10 to 15 feet. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: elevation relative to the nabd Kba\, datum. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So yeah\, the schematic here kind of shows the waves coming in. In some cases we have a marsh plane. In some cases there’s there’s no marsh and the berm. The face of the berm sort of intersects a mud plaque\, and there and and in those cases the berm is generally armored \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so we’re accounting for the wave breaking at the burn tow and looking at that wave height\, and that feeds into the wave runoff calculation\, and then calculating the the elevation of that total water level \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: on the face of the berm\, and comparing it to the berm crest elevation\, to determine whether or not overtopping is occurring. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): Other. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So just to clarify\, I think everything else you’ll hear today is focused on the Mss. Pause. The request for the wave run up. Study was to do that for the entire facility. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So so all the neurons and legacy are available. \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I have a question\, too\, back on the slide that you were on \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: schematic. It shows the overtopping with no water going into the pond. It’s just ending at the pond. Did you also analyze the amount of water that how much could make it all the way over the burn into the pond? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes\, so we haven’t calculated any of our talking volumes. We’ve mainly been looking at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: sort of the number of exceedances and duration that overtopping would occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we haven’t looked at\, say. overtpping volumes or velocity of water \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extent\, to which \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: overtpping with travel across the top. I mean\, in general\, the firm presss are relatively wide. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So wouldn’t expect that there would be a huge volume flowing down the back. But certainly for larger. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: See? Otherized scenarios and large volumes of overtopping. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: This. This is a okay. So finally\, to get to that question\, this is a a typical section showing some of the typical dimensions. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: In this case\, we’re we’re flip now\, so the bay is on the right side\, and the phones are on the left side. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m just sort of showing the the relative width of the Berm press \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: relative to the\, you know\, kind of side slopes and hype. So so they’re generally relatively wide compared to the hype. So I think there’d be more discussion with this later. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so to get that John\, into your question about the Total Water Level Time Series. This is an example \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: showing the time series of total water level at transept 2 which is at the northern end of the Newark ponds. \nAnd there’s a couple of things I wanted to point out. Here. One is the the model that I’ve been mentioning. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The model that was developed for the Fema crystal flood study has a 50 year\, 54 year on cast \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: of water level and weight conditions with hourly data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so you can see\, you know\, we’re capturing all of this kind of daily seasonal inter annual fluctuations in the water level and rate conditions\, and in general\, the kind of annual Max run of events that are shown here are these red dots\, and they’re on the order of like 9 to 10 feet elevation at this site. And you know\, it’s really only those kind of like perfectly aligned combinations of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: high tide\, storm\, surge\, wind from the right direction\, the result in the really high run of events. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so you can see the the firm crest. Elevation at this location is approximately. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: say\, 13 or 13 and a half feet and so you can see that over that 54 year Time series\, there’s a couple of events around the 1\,982\, 83 Amenio\, where we’ve run up would have been projected to kind of approach platform press elevation. So essentially\, what we’re doing at each of these transact locations is creating a time series like this. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then using it as the basis for the extreme value analysis to estimate the elevations associated with those extreme run up events\, and then also comparing those to the Berm toe elevation and the Berm Press elevation to get it. Those 2 metrics \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that are used to kind of characterize the way run up exposure. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Question. Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: one only to 2010. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Oh\, that’s when that’s basically when the the modeling effort \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: was was done for the Dean of Whistle Force study. So there is no data beyond 22. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, there certainly is data. But this modeling \nsoftware 2010. It’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that was just when the work was done. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So so we’ve we’ve leveraged that prior modeling study. We haven’t done \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you had to demand of modeling data specifically for this \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: purposes of this assessment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So in fact. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any climate change\, recent climate change. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the insights \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m not in here\, right? I would say yes and no. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re we’re adding in this levelized piece\, so we’ve conducted this analysis\, using the baseline time series \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then repeated it for 3 c levelize scenarios 6 inches 12 inches and 36 inches. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just the sea level rise piece of climate change is included. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But storms are getting more intense\, too\, because I see that a lot. So my question is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: his date\, or Wendy goes to 2 things. I’m not clear is this data or this model \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: modeling? So I’m not the one. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So if it’s only modeling\, that’s one thing. But is this data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s a model driven by observational data. So the the record of water levels in the model. The model is driven by 0 tides at the San Francisco tide station. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s also driven by observed. When data. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: various airports around the bay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So it’s it’s it’s it’s a model. But it’s intended to be a model that simulates the historical conditions as they occur. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m very familiar with \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is not well calibrated for waves\, because there’s not a lot of data available in San Francisco Bay to calibrate a full San Francisco Bay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and I don’t know. I’m gonna ask this question later. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and my experience in working now with the storms that occur \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: from New Jersey and through March\, particularly during the huge bomb cyclos. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Many cities in the bay had wave heights overtopping and flooding\, that exceeded anything that occurred during the 54 year period. Amazing. The videos that people have collected is that the wave dynamics? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So I don’t know if you guys have looked at the data or tried to model some of the events that happened after 2\,010. But I would definitely encourage you \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to do that\, is it? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, it is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: since\, particularly since this way modeling. And it was not calibrated. But we now have some storm events with very good ways to kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: kind of look at. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So your analysis is basically closed 2020\, 2020\, 2020\, 21. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, the the analysis goes through 2010\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we are to wrivings \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: extreme value statistics from the slime cast. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So your data was 2010. Wasn’t your analysis performed in 2\,021? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: right? So they 2021. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, this this analysis is new\, right? The 2\,021. They just looked at new analysis\, looking at like. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But it \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: but it’s just not. It’s based on the model. It was completed in 2010. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any events that happen after 2010 \nnot be \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: represented in the slides. That’s true. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So the reliability of this particular model beyond 2010 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: who is bad or indifferent? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t think it’s bad. I mean\, I think it’s some of the best available modeling data that’s out there. It’s one of the most comprehensive modeling studies that’s been done for San Francisco Bay \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: already saying it should be up there and based on \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: should be updated by current by recent observations. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s a very significant model. I don’t think the model could be rerun through present day to take for account. And I agree that it’s like the most conference of data that we have for today. Absolutely. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But I think\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think the team still could look at individual events that have occurred\, and add them into the analysis\, just to see what it would be with these bigger storm events. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and how that might affect some of the the \nyeah. Yes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Another question on simple question\, what’s the date on the Survey date survey for the tops of rooms? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I will double check\, but I believe it’s 2016 Lidar data \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: project specific record of engineers. It’s not project specific. It was collected for another purpose\, but it was. It was purchased from the vendor \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: towards 2020 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: point of view. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think it was me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nso we’ve been talking a little bit about this \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: historical time series of data \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at each location\, and the next step in the process was to extract the annual maximum events and perform a statistical analysis \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to estimate return carriers associated with total water levels of different elevations at each wave analysis transact. And so what we did was we use the 54 year time series. The annual maximum from those and estimated \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: essentially a a total water level exceedance curve \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where we we came up with estimates of extreme total water levels renew from a one year event all the way up to a 500 year. Event. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then we looked at those those 2 metrics that I mentioned. So the first one is is essentially \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: intersecting the Berm Press elevation at each of those 300 foot segments with that quota water level curve to estimate the return period\, total water level event that would cause overtopping with the berm \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so that could be like\, maybe under current conditions. It would take a hundred year event to overtop the firm. If you add 6 inches of sea level rise. Maybe now it’s a 50 year event. You got another 6 inches. Maybe it’s a 25 year event. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this analysis kind of allows us to project that sort of relative decrease in the level of protection provided by the firm over time due to sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And then the second metric is looking at kind of the \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we were trying to characterize the potential for wave impact directly on the face of the firms. And so the metric that was analyzed was basically counting up \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: for this 54 year time series\, counting up the total number of hours for which the berm toe was exceeded by way of run up. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: coupled with a wave hype greater than one foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then divided by the length of the time series to calculate the average annual hours of burn to exceedance with waypipe graded at one foot\, and that was done for. Each of the transsex. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just to give an example of kind of what the output looks like that. You just have 3 example transsex here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Where we’re showing just the 10 year total water level event and you can see how\, as you add successive sea level rise\, that 10 year event increases. So it turns out to it’s like\, roughly 10 feet today\, increasing to about 12 feet 13 feet\, and then up to 16 feet. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: As you add higher amounts of sea level. Rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we have tables that have all of the results\, for you know all of the transacts and all the different return periods as well. So that was used. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so that was kind of like the tabulation of the results. And then what we did was we took that that data and mapped it spatially\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: onto a berm crest delineation. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so this is the metric that depicts the return period that would result in \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: crest overtopping of each of the berm segments. And so these figures show a couple different things. The first is a delineation of the berm crest\, and that’s the colored line. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: The second is the the black hatching shows \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: existing armoring along the burns. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so what you can see is as you progress. So if we pick one spot like the where it says so upon 5 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and the the the bar on the bottom is covering up the labeling on the panels. But it basically goes \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: current conditions. 6 inches of sea level rise 12 inches of C over eyes and 36 inches of sea level rise. Those are the 4 panels. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I just wanna note that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: is not current conditions. That’s the year 2\,000. We’re almost at 2030 now. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we should not be same deal with residents\, 0 as current conditions anymore. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So\, okay\, so to. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So this is 0 added to the model \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: time series\, which is \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: 2010. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. So split hairs a little bit. But \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, the sea level rise\, numbers are intended to be added to year. 2\,000 baseline conditions. \nNicholas SITAR: Well\, III just out of curiosity\, what has been the sea level arise between 2\,010. And now\, as far as the base concerned. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: how much is it? Yeah\, it’s hard to to tease out a term in such a short time. Period. I’ve I’ve looked at it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: You fit a line to the data over a couple of decades. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t have that here\, but I \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I believe\, if you like\, did a trend line at this point\, but that would be worth \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: they actually looked at observers up to 2020 using satellite and time pages. And then they also did \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: an extrapolation of what is most likely to happen by 2050 based on current trends. They don’t go past 2050 because it. you know\, not experiencing a lot of other dynamics. So I think you can get that information without doing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I just wonder if that’s done. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Does that consider \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the historical data before \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the year 2\,000? Or is it like recent. That is done from 1970 to 2020. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So a longer time period. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s yeah\, it’s pretty robust. And you can download all of the analysis online. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: What does that suggest for me? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, I mean\, it definitely shows that we’re on track to to meet or exceed the 6 inches. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think\, by 2030. I think we’ve had about 5 inches of seal of arise so far \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: since 2\,000. So yeah\, maybe 3 inches since 5 inches since 2\,000. We’re now in a but time of sea level rise is currently accelerating on the West Coast. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s looking like 5 inches in the last 23 years. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And I think\, if you \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: so so yeah\, these are a series of of figures that essentially show the results of that analysis. what I wanted to kind of step through was\, just if you kind of look at one location. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you can like\, for example. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’ll do t 2\, 12. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, we’ll okay\, yeah\, we’ll do. We’ll talk. Okay. So for the in the top left panel \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there’s generally generally greens and yellows which imply overtopping\, which we kind of qualitatively qualit\, qualitatively characterize as rare to very rare. So something greater than a 10 year. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maybe even greater than a hundred year event to result in overtopping. \nAnd then\, as you progress through the sea level\, rise scenarios\, you’re getting more oranges. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and then\, of course\, it’s 36 inches of sea level rise. That would be a very frequent event\, something \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: annual or less than a 2 year event. So that’s the intent of these graphics is to kind of show \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the progression of that exposure under the different seal rice scenarios. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think it would be helpful to bring to that 10 to 100 here \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: down\, and do like an additional bin\, unless those numbers are like very close to each other. I’m sure that’s all documented what the numbers and stuff are in that report\, but it’s like it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Do you like. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: orange? And so does that mean a lot of what was yellow and 0 was probably closer to the 10. And I think. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, we so we could. Add another another. \nNicholas SITAR: May I ask the a question in a different direction. \nNicholas SITAR: What are the consequences of the burn being over topped \nNicholas SITAR: and looking at it in terms of firm stability? Stand point\, duration of a specific storm. \nNicholas SITAR: and high water \nNicholas SITAR: really is a concern in terms of erosion of the structure. \nNicholas SITAR: If it’s over topped its water on the other side. \nNicholas SITAR: you have to dispose of it. You have to have provision to deal with it\, but that doesn’t necessarily impact the stability of the structure. So what am I missing here? \nNicholas SITAR: It can result in erosion on the back side\, so you can get erosion potentially at both. Oh\, that’s why I’m looking at. It’s the it’s the duration of the event and potential for erosion of a specific location. But that’s more tied to a specific \nNicholas SITAR: duration. So one has to look at a duration of a wave run up \nNicholas SITAR: of this critical event \nNicholas SITAR: more than \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: how many times it happens. \nNicholas SITAR: Because\, though how many times it happens\, that’s how many times you have to repair it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But \nNicholas SITAR: when it does happen. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: what are the potential consequences? And obviously consequences is breach of the breach of the levy. And what are what is the problem\, what are the \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, yeah\, I mean\, I think\, you know\, that’s a fairly tough \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: perspective. You have to look at that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at every location. So it’s pretty variable. And so so I mean. the the analysis that we’ve done was \nNicholas SITAR: facility by\, you know\, high level both parameters. We haven’t gotten to a level of detail looking at it. But you already show \nNicholas SITAR: locations that are more likely to be over topped\, based on your analysis. So it seems to me that one could take it in that direction and say\, since these are the areas that are more likely to be over top\, let’s do a more detailed analysis on these\, because they’re clearly are going to be critical. \nNicholas SITAR: Could others be overtocked in a extreme event\, of course. but you already have identified what may be the sort of weak links in this \nNicholas SITAR: in this\, basically\, what you have a longitudinal structure that you know is quite challenging. And I accept that. \nNicholas SITAR: Yeah. And I agree\, because even with 0\, if we just look at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the 12\, it has some spots that are. you know\, orange. So they’re already in that moderate level. So those are probably your lowest click week link areas. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, I wanna propose that you would do that kind of site specific analysis on all of the fun\, but it would be helpful to do it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know\, like at p. 12\, for this purpose. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and just for a maintenance perspective. So following large storm events like\, for example\, the last this past winter\, after any large summer event card\, you’ll just go out and inspect and monitor the firms and I believe the only overtopping we observed was further up north\, near Pond one\, and it was minor overtopping. There was no emergency repair or major erosion that we needed to address. \nOh. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I noticed that there maintenance is out there monitoring everything. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and they do yearly helicopter tours \nNicholas SITAR: last \nNicholas SITAR: and response as well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: II appreciate that\, and I\, of course we expect that. But but but what I’m what I was driving at is\, if the maintenance does not know where the critical areas are. They don’t. They don’t know where to look. There is a red spot\, and there is no red spot is not necessarily going to lead you to a point where you say you know what this place didn’t overtop. But you better look at \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: shoreline. Make sure that there’s no erosion\, because we know this is a critical segment. So I’m more a \nNicholas SITAR: suggesting that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a maintenance also in inspection should be also focused unknown \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: right that need to be inspected first or or paid special attention to. That would be my. Of course they have experience and they retire. \nNicholas SITAR: That’s right. So the the the point is\, you know\, it has to be documented some place where it says\, you know\, here is your priority list\, and it’s not just space. Because \nNicholas SITAR: person A has been here for 30 years and knows by experience. We also have data that suggests that this is an area we should be looking at. So that’s that’s that’s where I’m sort of having experience. People\, of course. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think\, like you all are saying\, map maps like this could help identify where some of those thoughts might be. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Of course it’s gonna be very particular to the characteristics of the given storm\, you know\, direct to where we come from\, things like that. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: see also\, I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: there are \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: be nothing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it would all be done like after\, which is aimed \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: confusing to me if we’re having. Here’s a problem. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But we’re not. Gonna \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): we don’t have to do anything about it until down the road. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I don’t think that was the intent. The intent was to utilize this next 10 years to do investigations like we’re doing now and more\, and to prioritize \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a large firm like this\, a large system is going to take some time to develop the process like which areas do we need? Can we raise them the same way we do now\, or do we need different methods? And then also\, there’s got to be budgeting large \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: company like that has\, like every other government entity\, you’ve got to go through a process to prove. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know why you’re extending that like making these expenditures and doing different methods. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we were hoping that we could use that time really again and make sure what what \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re identifying as a me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s actually technically feasible in an economical way as well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah. And I think when we say raising the burns\, I think that’s is it? 6 inches? Well\, right now we\, we understand. Well\, inch left is what is maintained all the time. And Mss\, we’re gonna get to that later. But what we’re saying is that within our maintenance projections this year we can accommodate that within the standard maintenance methods and volume. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So we knew that in the Mss. We could handle that under the next. Get get that? Get that? At least a foot left done \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: while we’re processing and analyzing and investigating best ways to do things and and to what we’ll say we don’t wanna say to raise\, because raising to us needs going above a foot lift \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maintenance methods. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And and that’s what we’re trying to separate that vocabulary. When we say we’re raising\, it’s over a foot. It would need to be over a foot. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that takes a little bit more engineering\, as you will\, and that’s why we’re here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But in my view\, I think the predicament \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re all in as society is that this sea level rise and climate change is happening in real time. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: As we sit here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So it’s trying to catch up to it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: 18. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s kind of like catching up. So I think it needs to be understood \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: what the impacts are like\, Nick was suggesting. Then then you can focus where where the vulnerable spots on and then say\, Okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we’re gonna look for it. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: We don’t concentrate so that we we don’t have an impact or a negative impact on the day and on your facilities as well. So I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that appreciation needs to be on the table \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: cannot be looking at data from 50 years ago and say\, it’s okay\, because we are. Storms are getting more intense. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: deliberate happen. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And if we are already at 5\, 2030\, more than likely is more than 6. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean. that’s kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that’s the the issue that I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: every project of this nature has to be looking at because it’s it’s happening in real time. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: All these changes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and we cannot depend on on information that is sold. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Well\, I haven’t \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: thinking that. you know there’s no guidance. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: really\, for changing climate\, right for design criteria. So. And that’s why the Crv is here. Right. We have judgment. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know\, subject matter experts in our field \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to help provide this kind of guidance. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so I think that that’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay. Let’s see where this all goes\, where this discussion goes\, I think maybe we should continue the presentation. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And but but yeah\, just keep in mind that I think that in terms of. you know\, saying specifically\, Okay\, well\, we have to include. But this year storms into a data set. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s probably not realistic. And \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at at this point. But I but I agree that there are some good points that have been made about \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: focusing inspection work or strengthening \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: But yeah\, what can we \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: claim the board. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think there’s \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, just to kind of close out the the presentation. There’s just another another set of maps here related to that other metric. I think if you go one more. So these are kind of organized in the same way. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where we’re basically mapping that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: metric around exceedance of the berm toe kind of impact on the berm face\, and these are these are characterized in terms of the average \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: annual number of hours per year\, where the total water level exceeds that burn toe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and so yeah\, like in in Redwood City\, you know\, it’s very sheltered. Greco Island blocks a lot of the wave energy. So you would expect\, you know\, that that condition of having a large wave high\, you know\, to to be pretty infrequent\, and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: as the results show. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it shows up is very rare. So a lot of green\, some yellow there and then contrast that where\, if you go back. One. \nyou know\, there\, as we talked about\, there’s some segments where \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: actually\, can you go back one more \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where there’s already armoring? The firm comes down and intersects the mud flat. So the toe is relatively low. So there’s a lot of impact on the firm face. Of course\, where you see red. You also see the hatching which indicates that those segments are already armored. So it’s not necessarily an issue in terms of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: erosion of the berms. But then you see that there are some unarmer segments. That kind of go to that same transition of like green to red as you add sea level rise. Which would be expected\, as you kind of inundate the marsh\, and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: those type of events become more frequent. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay\, so I think that’s all we had to \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: present on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And as I mentioned\, we’re working technically. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So just. And I mean. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I mean\, I know there are a lot of different practice we’re looking at. But have you developed \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a set of generalized conclusions and based on all this modeling that you have done? Maybe in terms of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: the presence or absence of time\, or you know what the impact that in terms of over the top and \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: no they need generalized \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: observations or conclusions that you develop based on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think that’s so. Fun. Well. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: drawing conclusions from\, say\, the overtopping analysis \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you have to recognize that that analysis assumes that no further raising or modifications of the burns would occur. Right? We’re showing \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: increased frequency of overtopping. Assuming no action was taken. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: And so I think that would be one thing to to keep in mind is that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: okay\, you know. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: as you know\, as most spots are observed or minor erosion occurs\, general maintenance. using these maps to identify some of these weak links as as they were referred to. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I think all of those things will result in raising of the raising of the burns over time. so I think that the maps kind of \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: provide a little bit of a preview of what would happen under a no action scenario. I think this is useful from that perspective. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I just\, you know. The more I looked at him II felt like the results kind of made sense\, you know\, areas that are generally more sheltered and protected by Marsh today \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: become more exposed in the future with sea level rise. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: and that’s another caveat. This analysis is good. We’ve assumed the marsh is static and just becomes inundated. We know that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: marshals accumulate sediment and grow to some extent over time whether or not they can keep pace to see all Verizon there question but to the extent that they do keep pace they could offset \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: some of those impacts that we’re projecting. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So yeah\, I don’t think there were necessarily any like big big surprises. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: progression of impacts kind of made sense to me. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I have one other question and one of the photos that Jen took like photos 6. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: It’s just interior brought per rip wrap on on. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Has that to do with \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like erosion that’s developing from waves in the pond. Is that why you have to armor it on the inside? Or is that due to something else? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, I think that’s correct. Yeah\, Matt Pitcher would be able to answer that in more detail. But cause there are very large ponds. We do get waves\, large waves in those sometimes. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yeah\, not a whole lot of maintenance is needed for the inboard sections\, but there is some armoring required \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: any other questions on the sea level rise analysis. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: if not\, is Michael. Yeah. So one quick question you. You mentioned that he’s invited data from 2\,016 \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: for the elevation of the park. You know the level of accuracy of that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like that data\, because it wasn’t specific to your site to purchase. You know\, data that had been around for \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: at the current project. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: So there is a \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: a tech technical documentation associated with the Lidar where they do like the ground checks and everything\, and characterize the accuracy. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: My sense is that \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it’s probably fairly accurate on crests. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Because there’s no vegetation on the crest of the burns in other locations like \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: where there’s marsh in front or vegetation on the toe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: it\, you know\, there’s gonna be like. It’s gonna be less accurate there. But my sense is that the the definition of the crest elevations is probably pretty reasonable\, especially when you consider that we’re \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: that we. We’ve averaged \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: some some links. So \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: to the extent that there’s uncertainty in those estimates \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: we would be averaging\, accompanied by what the level of currency is. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: you know that? Oh. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: maybe you can check \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: if not\, is Michael Whalen \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: think he’s a panelist? Yeah\, I’m I’m right here. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Okay. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: not really like a couple. People have their \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: like son and Christine\, I think you came up a little bit soft in. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’m talking with alright \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: someone who’s listening somewhere else. So maybe \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: I’ll just turn on mics. Or\, yeah. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: are we all gonna listen to Michael for your speaker\, or we should turn our speakers on the desk phone dial in. And \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: good question. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: or a Turner. \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: yeah\, that might help just keep your mics. Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: okay. testing testing. How does it sound? Is it working \nMichael Whelan: for everybody? \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: Yes\, go ahead. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: very good. Thank you. Everybody. \nMichael Whelan: thank you for this opportunity to speak. I’m Michael Whalen\, with anchor. Qa. My colleague\, Andrew Baird\, is also listening in and our colleague Cole Bales assisted with this. I’m going to present static and seismic \nMichael Whelan: stability of the of the berms \nMichael Whelan: specifically the berms at the mix sea salt ponds and \nMichael Whelan: and specifically on the next slide. Let me tell you what I’m going to tell you. \nMichael Whelan: give a short sight overview. I think a lot of that’s probably \nMichael Whelan: redundant\, but I I’ll cover it briefly. I’ll talk about available site and subsurface particularly subsurface information \nMichael Whelan: that we’ve made use of in the analysis \nMichael Whelan: that I’m presenting will talk about and show \nMichael Whelan: cross-sectional geometry of the of the berms and interest of interest. \nMichael Whelan: I’ll discuss our interpretation of sub service conditions. \nMichael Whelan: The engineering parameters that we’ve assigned to the subservice conditions and the water levels \nMichael Whelan: from this. I’ll I’ll make note of the analysis of static stability of these terms under normal conditions. \nMichael Whelan: Then we’ll spend a little more time on the on the seismic conditions\, both in terms of what is an appropriate seismic event. Magnitude. To apply to these analysis\, and then given the answer that we’ve developed to that question the results of that \nMichael Whelan: of that analysis. all of which we’ve concluded show that these berms do\, in fact\, remain \nstable \nMichael Whelan: under these conditions. That said I’ll conclude by talking about our thoughts and proposal for some additional explorations \nMichael Whelan: at ponds and 13. \nSo let’s let’s jump into this a little bit more introductory stuff. Here’s the the ponds that we’re \nMichael Whelan: specifically talking about here. As I’ll mentioned in just a moment. This is all \nMichael Whelan: directly following from our meeting with with you folks on the Ecrb last November and your subsequent correspondence from December. So we’re focusing on these. \nMichael Whelan: Justin talked a little bit about well\, actually\, quite a bit about the use of Lidar survey\, we made use of the same Lidar survey in our own evaluations \nMichael Whelan: of these. Of these berms for these ponds. Let’s go to the the next. I wanna give a real short overview of the fact that there is a lot of existing geotechnical information around this \nMichael Whelan: area and the surrounding region. Folks who may remember us talking a bit about this back in November. I’ll get a little more detail on this shortly\, but there’s a lot of information available\, and it is\, of course\, helped us \nMichael Whelan: to perform these analyses in a meaningful way. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s and I’ll talk about that in more detail. Here’s the our own picture of one representative spot along \nMichael Whelan: the berms one of the berms. They are built out of native soils as a as was reported in in Jen’s statement\, and as I think we all recognize \nover time they have been compacted. \nMichael Whelan: they’re wide enough to accommodate vehicle traffic. When conditions are \nMichael Whelan: are are dry\, the top is flat. \nMichael Whelan: They’re they’re graded for that vehicle access. \nMichael Whelan: and on the left side you see the interior of the pond as it appeared on on this day\, and on the right\, you see an example of the of the tidal marshes that are \nMichael Whelan: frequently prevalent on the outside of the of the ponds. So just again\, this is just for general context. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s go to the to the next. Here. I mentioned the origin of of the specifics of the study I’m presenting\, and this does go back to the letter from \nMichael Whelan: Bcd’s Ecrb back on December twentieth item for a conduct\, a static condition assessment. \nMichael Whelan: including daily operations\, routine tides\, and so forth. \nMichael Whelan: I’ll mention that item 5 a in that letter was\, regarding \nMichael Whelan: the seismic risk\, assessment and occurrence with base flood event and just an understanding of a full range of scenarios. So this this really this text. \nMichael Whelan: really was our our guide post towards what we proceeded with \nMichael Whelan: studying here. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, I think I’ve set the stage now. I guess I’ll I’ll start talking about things a little more specificity. \nMichael Whelan: I showed that map a moment ago about the variety of sub service explorations in the region. But specifically here\, at these ponds there is \nMichael Whelan: a lot of \nMichael Whelan: there. There have been a lot of investigations around these particular ponds. I’ll show a picture that in in a moment as we talked about last November they had. These berms \nMichael Whelan: have performed very well for over a century. They’ve ever since they were originally built. We’ve talked about Cargill’s \nongoing inspections \nMichael Whelan: and maintenance work\, but the the these terms have held up well\, including through all the seismic events that have occurred during that time span\, and and of course there are occasions where cargo will perform routine maintenance. So II think that’s \nMichael Whelan: been pretty well established. The keying point. I’ll I’ll show that in a minute in some of our cross sections. \nMichael Whelan: Now let’s look on this next slide at the the Geo. Technical information that is\, in fact\, available. That circle in the middle is where that picture I showed a few minutes ago was taken. \nMichael Whelan: Cargill’s done a number of \nMichael Whelan: of explorations \nMichael Whelan: on these berms. 24 borings to relatively shallow depths sufficient to get through the burns into the underlying\, pre-existing native materials. \nMichael Whelan: They’ve done a few borings that are deeper to over 80 feet in a couple of spots \nand a lot of the explorations also have been augmented by cone penetration tests \nMichael Whelan: with hydraulic profiling tools\, which\, of course\, is useful for a a fuller understanding of the subsurface conditions that \nMichael Whelan: that I will. I will lay out here\, in fact\, next slide. \nMichael Whelan: we we see 3 basic sole units here under these ponds. And in fact\, we see these \nbasic soil units existing throughout the region in\, in\, in\, including\, in the explorations that were done. \nMichael Whelan: not in these ponds\, but in neighboring areas. \nMichael Whelan: We’ve got the berms themselves which are built of what we’re calling a densified fill. It’s again\, it’s native material that was \nMichael Whelan: that was trenched from adjacent and place to build the berms\, and then has been used to to carry vehicle \nMichael Whelan: traffic over all these years since. \nMichael Whelan: And then below that\, the pre-existing and still existing native sub service materials are are a classic sequence throughout the region of bay muds. \nMichael Whelan: and we see that here young bay mud\, which is relatively softer grading to old Baymud\, which is \nMichael Whelan: not not a soft. I’ll I’ll put some specific numbers to that in a minute. \nMichael Whelan: You saw this in one edition of this in in Justin’s talk. Again. This is based on the Lidar survey \nMichael Whelan: the Justin reference that we’ve also used. We’ve I guess you might say ground truth it from our own on site observations. This is a vertically exaggerated scale. If if that wasn’t apparent to you already. So it’s it’s exaggerated. But \nMichael Whelan: the scaling is is appropriate\, and you see the the berm itself made of densified fill. You see\, it’s sitting on top of \nMichael Whelan: Young Bay mud that extends down about 10 to 15 feet\, and then below that is old bay mud\, which extends well below the bottom of this \nMichael Whelan: of this section\, and of course\, the mixed sea salts on the left\, and \nMichael Whelan: tid tidally influenced flood flood influence to waters on the right in the next slide. You see the same thing\, except that we’ve added the fact that Cargill does perform the keying or corring or core compaction. There’s a couple of different terms that have been used for this\, but that is \nMichael Whelan: where Cargill’s done that where they excavate through the middle of the berm \nMichael Whelan: to a depth of some 8 to 9 feet and put back compacted densified soils \nMichael Whelan: as a as a means of \nMichael Whelan: avoiding seepage. So that’s what that one is showing \nMichael Whelan: now. The memo we wrote. Everything I’m talking about here is is a summarization of our memo which we put forth. It’s dated the very end of July\, I think\, was our our date on it\, and \nMichael Whelan: attached to that memo was a compilation of \nMichael Whelan: all of these subservice explorations that I mentioned\, not just the ones at the 2 ponds and 13\, but also stranding areas as well that are relevant. And \nMichael Whelan: I know\, for you folks are well familiar with \nMichael Whelan: sub service logs\, and and our memo kind of gives for folks who are maybe less familiar with them. A little bit detail on what they’re seeing. Here’s one of many examples \nMichael Whelan: and and what this is showing\, if you look closely\, is the presence of of clay\, silt\, silty clay\, basically the bay muds that are again prevalent through the area. \nMichael Whelan: the this particular pair of logs\, and the other ones. We looked at closely \nMichael Whelan: did not reveal to us. any significant sand lenses of any connectivity. And the reason I mention that is because \nMichael Whelan: that that tends to be a pretty important thing to look for when you’re evaluating potential for liquefaction. So I’ll mention that when I\, when I get to seismic in a few minutes. \nMichael Whelan: And here’s some some other logs that show similar things. \nMichael Whelan: So there\, there’s all these logs we’ve put together and integrated and and looked at and what we did was \nMichael Whelan: we assigned \nMichael Whelan: what we believe to be reasonable or or reasonably conservative \nMichael Whelan: engineering properties to these 3 soil types. The densified berm filled the young bay mud \nMichael Whelan: in the old bay mud and this is really based on a compilation of of the blow counts\, and the descriptions and the laboratory tests were done in a number of places for sheer strength and compressive strength\, and and those of you who’ve been involved with that process recognize that you tend to get a lot of scattering the data. And and it’s the engineers job to distill that down into \nMichael Whelan: are reasonable values. \nMichael Whelan: These are\, these are the values we’ve assigned for these materials. They’re all established as cohesive soils\, that is to say\, they behave in an undrained \nMichael Whelan: manner we felt that was most appropriate for the material types and and the kind of potential risk of failure that we’re interested in. So that’s why\, you see cohesion applied. You see\, in each case we’ve applied a a linear increase in cohesion with depth throughout these \nMichael Whelan: soil types. \nMichael Whelan: And I\, whoever’s controlling this\, you can go to the the next slide. I \nMichael Whelan: wait a minute. Is that the one I okay. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Bef\, the next stay right there. The next 2 slides will go back to that table. \nMichael Whelan: I wanted to put a little more emphasis on how we derived geotechnical properties for the Bay muds. And this is a plot from us. Stress versus strain tests that should put kind of a classic \nMichael Whelan: development of strain in a in a testing regime. \nMichael Whelan: And are part of the the rationale we use from an engineering perspective \nMichael Whelan: to select \nMichael Whelan: the the strength properties\, though cohesion properties that we did\, and so on the next slide you’ll see that summarize for \nMichael Whelan: well\, for for everything. There\, there’s the young bay mud again. Cohesion at the top of. We’ve assigned 300 pounds per square foot\, increasing with depth down to 1\,000 pounds per square foot at the base of the unit\, and then the next slide just highlights\, the same \nMichael Whelan: but higher values \nincreasing with depth \nMichael Whelan: for old bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: The last thing I want to say about this? Is that someone had a question. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yeah. May I ask a question? \nMichael Whelan: Yep. \nMichael Whelan: are you? Yeah. You might have gone back on mute. There. \nRamin Golesorkhi: let me get that code. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I was curious how you go from \nRamin Golesorkhi: 300 Psf. Cohesion at the top\, which is reasonable to me\, and 8 pounds per square foot per foot is also reasonable for a normally consolidated play\, like \nRamin Golesorkhi: the Bay mud \nRamin Golesorkhi: and the thickness of your layers\, and your cross section was about 10 to 15 feet\, even if I put 15 feet at 8 pounds per square foot per foot \nRamin Golesorkhi: and add it to 300. I get something like 400. Psf\, how do you get 1\,000? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, you don’t get a thousand that that quick\, do you? I think what what may maybe a better clarification on this table would be that \nMichael Whelan: that that cohesion of 1\,000 is actually would apply well below the base of the young bay mud. You’re right at the at the very base\, down at the 10 to 15 foot mark. Your cohesion is more on the 400 to 500 Psf. Range\, based on that increase with depth. \nMichael Whelan: So it may\, it may be that the \nMichael Whelan: the 1\,000 at the base unit isn’t actually what you’re getting at the at the base of the young bay \nMichael Whelan: young Bay mode. That’s kind of a a maximum at a greater depth. \nRamin Golesorkhi: So you’re using actually the 300 plus 8 per foot rather than \nRamin Golesorkhi: some sort of linear interpolation up to 1\,000 at the bottom of the layer. That’s right\, yeah\, is\, in fact\, increasing by 8 per foot. So it’s by the time you transition to the old Bay mud contact\, you’re not actually up to 1\,000. You’re actually quite a ways from it. You’re right about that. I would agree with your math. \nMichael Whelan: We can. We can clarify the what what we mean by that\, or perhaps just modify to reflect what happens at the depth at the base of the Ybm. \nMichael Whelan: okay? \nMichael Whelan: Other questions\, I mean\, I was going to make one more comment on the properties\, and I’m going to shift into \nMichael Whelan: the seismic analysis. Before I do that I’ll see if there’s any other questions the other the other point I was just gonna offer on these \nMichael Whelan: properties is\, yeah. We we took all this site information and boiled it down and integrated and chosen. But we also looked at it in terms of what have we used and other projects in and around the San Francisco Bay Area? And you know\, use that as a reality check and it and it did seem to us that you know these seem pretty reasonable here\, and and consistent in our view\, with \nMichael Whelan: with with the overall region. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, any anything else. Before I go into seismic? \nMichael Whelan: you’ll notice I skipped right over static we’ll get back to static in a few minutes. They. The reason is because the the factors\, if you’re really high \nConnie Lee\, Cargill: under static conditions. So we we really focused here on what’s going on in seismic events. And what\, in fact\, are the appropriate events? One more question. \nMichael Whelan: Okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Michael. I mean\, I haven’t looked closely at your boring logs. But what’s the variation in terms of moisture? Content \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: between the the compacted fell and and the natural. uncompacted baymat? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: What kind of moisture contents were you? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, \nMichael Whelan: I have. I haven’t tabulated the answer. That question in a handy place. II will say that the moisture contents to our eyes did appear consistent with the notion that \nMichael Whelan: the the berm fill is in a much more compacted state. then the the the higher void ratios present below it. \nMichael Whelan: in the in the younger bay muds. \nMichael Whelan: It’s\, in other words\, a lower moisture content. But II can’t say I’ve got the a handy tabulation of that right here with me\, although that \nMichael Whelan: I could see that being a useful furthering of the rationale\, for how we distinguish between the densified state of the berms and what’s below it. \nMichael Whelan: That kind of what you’re getting at is\, is that consistent with our interpretation of these properties? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. So III remember the the basic premise there. But III don’t have the the numbers in a handy place to \nMichael Whelan: to recite them at the moment\, or the range. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, did you? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Did they do a lot of moisture content? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Best of all. on the \nMichael Whelan: what? What were you asking if there were a lot of moisture contents available there. There were quite a few. If that was a question. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, I was trying to look at the logs. It’s kind of difficult to \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: see. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: yeah\, I’ve got the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and it was\, go ahead. \nMichael Whelan: I’m taking a scan through the the logs myself. \nMichael Whelan: When we talk. I mean the logs. \nMichael Whelan: Well\, there\, there’s there’s a lot of logs\, but like if you were to look at \nMichael Whelan: appendix B\, 2\, to the memo \nMichael Whelan: which which is part of the the exploration is done around the \nMichael Whelan: the ponds. You’ll see \nMichael Whelan: you’ll see a number of moisture contents with pretty pretty wide ranging values. \nMichael Whelan: and generally seem to be most frequently done in the underlying bay muds and less frequently above. \nMichael Whelan: But given in like the 20 to 30% range. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: But I admit that’s just. That’s me. Looking through a few pages at the moment. There’s there’s more in there to that we could tabulate. \nMichael Whelan: and\, to be honest\, I mean what we att fixed in that attachment is the boring logs\, and \nMichael Whelan: doesn’t include the full set of laboratory data. So there may be some further laboratory data that was part of those explorations that we that we didn’t include. Just because we were kind of curating the overall \nMichael Whelan: batch that’s presented in that attachment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you can go ahead. \nMichael Whelan: Okay. Alrighty. \nMichael Whelan: Let’s let’s talk about earthquake evaluation. the. The the purpose here that we undertook was to derive \nMichael Whelan: a meaningful and appropriate peak ground acceleration corresponding to a design level earthquake\, or\, in fact\, design level earth \nMichael Whelan: quakes now. here\, we felt that it would\, it would be \nMichael Whelan: reasonable and even and even potentially conservative. potentially. \nto use the the return periods \nMichael Whelan: that appear in motems \nMichael Whelan: design criteria for marine terminals. Now\, of course\, this is not a marine terminal\, but th that that seemed like a good baseline to use\, because it’s \nMichael Whelan: it’s it’s got It’s it’s been used elsewhere. It’s been used for facilities with a high level level of critical nature and and it allows us to look at 2 different return periods. And and so that’s what this is \nMichael Whelan: explaining. So we looked at what motems terms and operating level earthquake\, which is essentially a 50 year return period. \nand and and a larger. \nMichael Whelan: less frequent \nMichael Whelan: contingency. Level earthquake. Again\, terms from motems which has a statistical 475 year return period. So \nMichael Whelan: those are what we used\, and I’ll and I’ll describe the numbers we came up with from them. And the other point is that we selected a site class of E \nMichael Whelan: for basically for soft deposits\, which is. \nMichael Whelan: we feel appropriate. Given the preponderance of bay muds. So those those are the 2 return periods. That’s site class and so did a couple of things. First of all\, we determined a a base PGA Peak ground acceleration\, using the unified hazard tool from Usgs. \nMichael Whelan: You folks familiar with that? I mean\, that’s a basically an integration of risk from a variety of \nMichael Whelan: regional fault centers and distances and so forth and and then overall distillation of that. \nMichael Whelan: and just to jump to the punch line from the hazard tool for the contingency level earthquake. The larger 475 year event. We get a base \nMichael Whelan: peak ground acceleration of about point 5 5G\, \nMichael Whelan: then\, on the next slide\, we took that. \nMichael Whelan: and using the site class of E\, we apply. And this is following ashto seismic design guidance. \nMichael Whelan: we applied a site factor \nMichael Whelan: based on this table here that \nMichael Whelan: takes into account the site class of E and the base peak ground acceleration I just mentioned. And \nMichael Whelan: and and that’s the basic mathematics. That’s the formula that we applied the and the answer we get from this and that we have applied for the for the contingency level earthquake for the larger \nMichael Whelan: seismic event\, the less frequent one is point 5G\, that’s the \nMichael Whelan: that’s the third bullet here. \nMichael Whelan: And for the smaller\, more frequent operating level event we end up with a PGA of 0 point 3 4G\, \nMichael Whelan: so\, as you guys all know\, these are really important values for this analysis\, they really kind of drive\, what comes of our analysis\, and that those are the values we’ve selected \nMichael Whelan: for this for those 2 return periods. And and actually\, as you’ll see in a minute. We really focused our attention on the larger one again\, which we felt to be \nMichael Whelan: on the conservative side. But you know\, in in design and engineering it. \nMichael Whelan: that that’s usually a a good way to to go. So that’s that’s where we took our analyses. \nMichael Whelan: And I’m gonna show you the results of our analysis. Any any any questions about what I just laid out there on the development of these \nMichael Whelan: pgas? \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, well\, let me describe our analysis and what we came up with. So we we selected the different places along these \nMichael Whelan: berms. We use the Lidar survey we constructed mock up cross sections. \nMichael Whelan: Michael\, can I ask one more question? Going backwards now? A little bit couple of slides ago you had 4 75 that you got from Motems\, and you also had a 50 year return interval. Where did that come from? \nJim French: And what did you do with that? \nMichael Whelan: That is the what it did. \nMichael Whelan: 50% chance of exceeding a hundred year interval. which you know nominally is 50 year return\, interval. \nMichael Whelan: or 50 year return period. \nMichael Whelan: and what we did with it is not. I’m so pretty honest. But where did that come from? Is that a \nJim French: some some other code? \nMichael Whelan: I believe that’s also from the motemps code. \nJim French: Okay\, I don’t remember that \nJim French: 31 apple black all the time. Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: now. So in some cases I’ve seen that referred to as a 72 72 year return interval just based on the \nMichael Whelan: on the statistics. But the prospect of defining that \nMichael Whelan: percentage of exceedance in a hundred year event as an operating level of earthquake. I think that’s directly from the motemps code. \nJim French: If 50 years\, like a 67% chance at Cedenson 50 years or something like that. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. \nMichael Whelan: might have been appropriate \nJim French: definitely. So so what did you do with this? \nMichael Whelan: Well\, to be honest\, most of our work\, we we use the 475 year event. But in both cases we use those to derive pgas \nMichael Whelan: to apply to our seismic. 4\, 75\, I think. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. So the the 475 gave us a PGA of up point 5. And most of what I’m going to show you was using that one. Okay. \nMichael Whelan: okay? Yeah. So the analysis we did using slide 2 software\, we\, we ran 5 different \nMichael Whelan: as we saw at representative locations along these berms \nMichael Whelan: we use the Lidar data ground truth by our own observations to construct these. \nMichael Whelan: let’s go to the next. So the next. The next part of this is to determine what is the. As you guys know\, the slope stability analyses result in a factor of safety \nMichael Whelan: at at their at their simplest level. Now\, there’s other analyses one can apply in terms of deflections and so forth. But we ran to see what are the factors of safety we’re getting. \nMichael Whelan: and\, in fact. what what factors the safety do we want to get? \nAnd here we relied on Astro guidance \nMichael Whelan: again. A a good and and well established \nMichael Whelan: design type guidance that’s out there. And essentially\, what we \nMichael Whelan: concluded was that for static conditions. \nMichael Whelan: depending on the long or short term durations as defined by Ashto. \nMichael Whelan: You could use a 1.5 target fat or safety\, or 1.3 3 \nMichael Whelan: 1.3 3 target factor safety we chose. Let’s look\, let’s let’s aim for 1.5 and and use that as our basic criteria. It’s the worst case for static conditions\, for seismic conditions. We followed a sto guidance recommending a factor\, safety of 1.1 \nMichael Whelan: for for finite length. seismic events. \nMichael Whelan: So those those are the target factors of safety we were bearing in mind as we performed our \nMichael Whelan: our analyses. \nMichael Whelan: And I will\, I will stop at this table. I’ll tell you about this table\, and then I’ll I’ll stop and see if anyone has some questions. Then I’ll show you some example. \nMichael Whelan: Model runs. But he! Here’s the take away. So this is a compilation of of several of the runs we did. It’s not necessarily all of them\, but this is a we felt a good handy way to boil them down. \nMichael Whelan: and the 3 rightmost columns are the key\, the the fourth column\, static fos\, static factor\, safety. Our numbers were above 2.5\, sometimes well above 2.5 every time. \nMichael Whelan: even even when we applied. What you might think of is somewhat out outlandish scenarios. The static fact\, save it was just. It’s it’s high. These look very stable under normal circumstances. It’s the seismic \nMichael Whelan: that is more interesting. And when you look at the rightmost 2 columns\, you can see that. \nMichael Whelan: the right most column\, the sixth column. That’s where we applied the \nMichael Whelan: Pj. That pertains to the 475 year event. And you see those numbers range from 1 point \nMichael Whelan: 6 down to 1.2. So they’re above our criteria\, the criteria of 1.1 which suggests to us that the this is sufficiently stable even in the 475 year event. \nMichael Whelan: the the in between column. The fifth one is the is the 50 year event. II would I would tend to agree which what I think Jim might have been saying that you could perhaps more mathematically\, correctly call us to 72 year event. But regardless\, it’s the smaller one that \nMichael Whelan: that occurs. you know\, within a century\, statistically speaking\, and and those numbers are are well above 1.1. They’re they’re 1.7 and higher. So \nMichael Whelan: the the the overall conclusion we draw from these \nanalyses is that \nMichael Whelan: these berms \nMichael Whelan: are very stable under static conditions\, and even under seismic conditions\, even under a 475 return period\, which is\, is a long time in a in a \nMichael Whelan: buy. Our reckoning is is a pretty large quake. even under those conditions. \nMichael Whelan: These berms are stable\, and the other comment I’ll make\, and then I’ll pause for a minute. Is that you see in this table we ran the analyses at different \nMichael Whelan: tide stages high and low \nMichael Whelan: at flood\, an interpretation of the of the theme of flood stage when the water is higher yet. \nMichael Whelan: and and and that’s what encapsulates the overall numbers \nMichael Whelan: farmer analysis. So before before we go to the the next set of slides \nMichael Whelan: which is just running through a bunch of model results. Let me stop and see if folks have reactions or questions to about this. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I just wanna make sure\, Michael\, that you verify that \nRamin Golesorkhi: very high strength was not assigned to the bottom of the bay. Not layer\, because all the seismic failure services. Obviously it’s kind of failing at the base. Oh\, sorry. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Your 8 pounds per square foot per foot. Kind of increase in strength was really used in your \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: stability analysis. Specifically\, the seismic stability analysis. \nJim French: So please make sure that that you verify that\, because kind of is concerning to me the one that we discussed before. \nMichael Whelan: Ii yup\, III can verify that right here by saying\, that is indeed the case. \nMichael Whelan: And I do understand the the nature of your question\, because that would have a really significant impact on what kind of stability values we wouldn’t want to have \nMichael Whelan: that 1\,000 at the base of the young bay mud artificially driving up these factors. Safety. So II totally understand that. And it’s it’s a matter of correcting the table and not changing the analysis. \nNicholas SITAR: can I before\, before we move on questions exactly about the geometry of\, and especially what circles were being considered\, because. \nNicholas SITAR: frankly looking at the analysis suggests\, you know the whole \nNicholas SITAR: levy is failing. That’s not\, as far as I can see\, they’re concerned. \nNicholas SITAR: A toll failure on an embankment is the most common failure that one gets. And that’s really the critical failure during a major storm or whatever. And \nNicholas SITAR: I’m not sure how slide does it? But most \nNicholas SITAR: of these codes do the search algorithm and immediately do a deep seated failure circle\, which I don’t believe is a realistic failure. Scenario for this \nNicholas SITAR: Toe circle should have been considered. And typically\, you get very shallow failures on these things. But the consequence of a shallow failure is that now your effective crest of the levy is much less. \nNicholas SITAR: and this is essentially and then and that\, as far as I can see\, or consideration of that was completely missing from here. So I do not consider \nNicholas SITAR: these failure circles of actually being \nNicholas SITAR: of any consequence to the actual performance of these structures. That’s not what we see. That’s my concern. There would be do you have any way to report? \nJim French: What your search methodology are? Methodologies\, were the search criteria I know with slope W. At least you can \nJim French: plot where your entry and exit points are\, or where the bottom tangent points are. And there’s nothing that indicated how you searched on this\, I think \nMichael Whelan: slide does slide has that as a output possibility. But I don’t think that was reported\, at least in the limited slides that we have. Right? Okay\, let let’s talk a little bit more about this. Let’s jump ahead \nMichael Whelan: this next slide. I don’t want to linger on too much\, because it’s a little strange. I admit this. This was just part of our parametric analyses of water levels at different heights. I don’t want this to be interpreted as a \nMichael Whelan: an actual flood stage over the room is just a a means by which we look to see what are the effects of different variables. And it’s just one example of a static condition. \nMichael Whelan: but not really representing a true flood scenario. I II do think it would be useful to let’s go to the \nMichael Whelan: I wanna talk about these circles\, these failure circles. Okay? So \nMichael Whelan: here’s one under seismic conditions. And quite a couple couple folks have asked. \nMichael Whelan: how did we \nMichael Whelan: limit the \nMichael Whelan: search mechanism for failure circles? \nMichael Whelan: We were pretty ex. And yeah\, you you you do have various ways of kind of limiting or bounding\, or or widening your \nMichael Whelan: your search profiles\, and and even\, you know\, semi-circular \nMichael Whelan: failure arcs like this one or or non circular arcs\, and we were pretty expansive in what we offered the program. The ability to to derive \nMichael Whelan: including the with the the notion. I think it might have been Nicholas talking about\, you know. \nMichael Whelan: toe failures or or or failures kind of at at the at the front face of it. \nMichael Whelan: That was that was part of the the searches we set up. \nMichael Whelan: and I mean\, what we’re showing in these series is the slides\, which is admittedly a again kind of a curated selection of them. \nMichael Whelan: But we found here was the the worst cases \nMichael Whelan: in each. In each analysis. Now There! There was some commentary that you you weren’t convinced this was the \nMichael Whelan: really the most high risk scenario for for failure. \nNicholas SITAR: That that that’s correct. II would I would submit that first of all\, you’re going to have a vertical face at the at the edge of the fill\, and you will have a non circular failure surface. So I would consider Spencer \nNicholas SITAR: method with a series of non circular surfaces that follow. Layering in the in the bay. Mud \nNicholas SITAR: is the most critical. For some reason we all kind of fall into this trap of assuming that because it is. \nNicholas SITAR: quote unquote clay that\, you will get a circle of failure surface. But it’s a layered medium. \nNicholas SITAR: There are interbeds of silt and clay\, and I have seen quite a few failures in this material that follow basically a distinct bedding plane. So I would \nNicholas SITAR: like to see a series of\, you know\, sensitivity analysis to see what happens if you consider that kind of a that kind of a scenario \nNicholas SITAR: rather than just purely. \nNicholas SITAR: even if you have a very extensive search\, purely circle or failure surface. Because that’s not what we see in a\, in a\, in a embankment of this type \nNicholas SITAR: compacted embankment. It doesn’t fail along \nNicholas SITAR: circle of failure. Surface the scarp is gonna be almost vertical because it’s contacted material and the material below may or may not ever circle failure surface. So I would like to see a little more nuanced \nNicholas SITAR: approach to this\, and and you may find it convince everybody and yourself that\, in fact\, that is\, this is the \nNicholas SITAR: most likely scenario. But at the moment I I’m skeptical\, right? \nNicholas SITAR: I it’s fairly sensitive to the thickness or height of the levy itself\, and the thickness or depth of the bay mud of the young bay mud itself. \nNicholas SITAR: and so I think these are plausible circles as being critical. But I agree with Nick that it would be nice if you could see what your search for charity was with the search limits limits were\, and see what was \nNicholas SITAR: my. My question is\, gonna be generic circles shown in the plots here\, but looks like your bay mud thickness here is something like \nJim French: 7 feet or 8 feet\, or something like that\, as little as 5 feet\, and a couple on the right side of this particular image\, and as deep as you know\, 7 or 8 feet\, or something like that. And if I look at the Cpt’s from \nJim French: Appendix B\, 3 and one of your data packets\, I think. There’s some Cpt’s that look like bay mud goes at least to 20 feet\, which is the bottom of the plots that are shown. \nJim French: If I looked at the II don’t remember where I got this. I think it was part of the packet of information that was sent by BBC. DC. An old Gmatrix report \nJim French: that shows Isopax of bay mud that suggests\, through most of Pons. E. \nJim French: A. A. Ponds\, P. 2\, 12 and 13. It should be \nJim French: least 10 feet\, and really more like 15 to 20 feet in most locations. And \nJim French: you know\, I’m you know the the yeah. Obviously\, we’re\, you know. \nJim French: the the enviable position of being volunteers on this type of work here\, and haven’t spent as many hours\, perhaps\, as I would like to have. But the little data that I’ve been able to look at. It looks like the bay mud is really more like 15 to 20 feet\, or maybe more\, like 25\, even based on the geometric isopax. \nJim French: and everything you’ve shown here. \nJim French: suggests that the bay mud is only a you know. \nJim French: 5 to 5 to 8 feet\, or something like that\, and that will be completely critical and sensitive your your stability analysis\, both \nJim French: static as well as dynamic seismic. So curious what your thoughts are about that. \nJim French: And incidentally the bay mud\, the the \nJim French: the Cpt’s look like the the strengths are going to be on the order of 300 ish\, maybe 400 ish down to 20 feet\, which is consistent with the model that you use\, but not with the geometry. \nJim French: Yeah\, Michael\, why answering that question \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the question. The larger question I was going to ask was\, How did you determine where your cross sections. you know? To be taken? Are these the critical cross sections in your view. And what are the factors dictating that \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: those are the most critical cross sections? Right? \nMichael Whelan: Okay? Well\, III picked up 3 distinct questions. There\, let me let me touch on each of them in turn. So the first one about \nMichael Whelan: circular failures. Yeah\, it’s true. All of these are all these figures show circular failures. We did run it with non circular failures. I think. Nicholas\, your point about\, you know\, a vertical failure. Service and then kinda \nMichael Whelan: sliding along the plane. II I’m hearing that I’m thinking of one variation on a \nMichael Whelan: more like a non-circular. \nMichael Whelan: Or\, or\, you know \nMichael Whelan: wedge type of failure. It would be the way II would imagine that in what we’ve seen is expressed in this in this type of monarch\, so we \nMichael Whelan: when we have done those\, we just didn’t show any of them here\, cause they weren’t turning out to be the more \nMichael Whelan: critical values. But II do understand the interest in that. II understand your point about. Might that not\, in fact\, be. \nMichael Whelan: you know\, a a worst case to be looked at\, and \nMichael Whelan: it would seem appropriate to share variations on that with you all as well. So so you see that we did more than the arc failures \nMichael Whelan: the The question about the the young bay mud \nMichael Whelan: thickness\, and the and the point where it changes from young bay mud to older bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: It it does vary from place to place\, I mean\, I think that was Jim. Your your comment was in what you’re seeing. That seems to be \nMichael Whelan: appearing here and and and matching the base of the of the failure sources\, of course\, as less than 10 to 15 feet deep. \nMichael Whelan: O over all. It’s our intention with these was to match really what we see in the borrings from ground surface downward. \nMichael Whelan: And and so II feel like it is\, in fact\, consistent. I mean it does. It does vary from place to place. I do understand the point at the very least\, that you know. Let’s make sure we’re presenting the \nMichael Whelan: a parametric analysis of this\, because that that may be\, in fact\, the the most critical \nMichael Whelan: factor of them all. I mean\, we’ve talked about the strength of the of the young Bay mud\, and and you’ve expressed your concerns about making sure we’ve correctly identified how we \nMichael Whelan: numerically defined those strengths\, but the depth of it is also important. So I feel like what we’ve shown here is representative of the of the borings that we used \nMichael Whelan: and and looked at. \nMichael Whelan: But II understand the point\, and that perhaps a further clarification of that to satisfy you all\, it could be appropriate. And then the the third. \nMichael Whelan: The third question was\, how did we choose our our sections? Our 5 sections? \nMichael Whelan: That was primarily from looking at the Berm heights and the berm geometry from from the Lidar Survey \nMichael Whelan: and to some degree based on the sub service conditions. But II would say it was\, and and then just kind of looking to obtain a reasonable geographic spread. There wasn’t \nMichael Whelan: in any of those conditions whether it’s a lidar or the subservience neither of those really I think\, put up like a flashing red light like oh\, gosh! You know there’s a place we really need to \nMichael Whelan: focusing on at the expense of other places. So \nMichael Whelan: it was\, it was really largely driven\, just trying to get a \nMichael Whelan: spread of different sorts of conditions throughout the the berm complex. \nJim French: hey\, Michael\, let me let me let me jump in if I may. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and I’m gonna snatch green and share mine \nJim French: you. You don’t have to do anything. I’ll just take it over\, I think. \nJim French: and sick. Hello! \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Oh\, I can’t. Sorry you have to. You have to stop\, sure. \nJim French: Oh. \nJim French: oh. \nJim French: okay. So here’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I need 2 monitors. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Here’s the Isapack map from the Gym matrix report that I mentioned earlier. And you could see\, II think our ponds are \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: somewhere right here. \nJim French: Yeah\, it’s 5\, 1015\, 20 2025 years. So we’re kind of in that range of 10 \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 1520. I wonder if it’d be useful and not too difficult for you to take one of your figures and create. You know \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, this is a \nJim French: as I don’t see. \nJim French: I \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: gis \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: block! It’s been digitized and all that. But if you just \nJim French: even have a overlay\, the location of your Cpt’s or the ideal or boring. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: really quickly answer all of our questions. In about 30 s \nJim French: to heal a longer figure\, but the that would be I think\, really instructive for the critical sections\, and we’re certainly gonna be saying the thickest bay. MoD is gonna be the criticalist sections. Among the ones that need be considered. \nJim French: And I I’m not sure where yours came from. Exactly if you’re using the with just Cpt’s or a little bit preferred for picking the tops and bottoms of bay mud in particular\, because \nJim French: it’s a little transition that boring so often have trouble with \nJim French: automatically mud. You know the the next layer is \nJim French: will start to get any bit stronger\, but it still is stained black\, typically \nJim French: some of your boring thickness of the of the stronger material. \nJim French: So then\, the Cpt’s that you show \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: suggested the thickness of the stronger material is maybe 3 or 4\, or even 5 feet like that\, and it tails off pretty rapidly. And I think your cross section suggests that the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the thickness of you know you call it densified fill\, which is basically\, you know\, they must just had an opportunity to drain and be above water level of a above bay level for a few years. \nJim French: Until it drains enough that it’s strong enough to add another foot\, and then let it drain for month or 2\, and then they put another foot. So densified is kind of an overstated term\, I guess\, but but it looks like from your cpt’s actually\, I think I can. \nJim French: are. \nJim French: do I have that? Yeah. So here’s here’s some of the Cpt’s. \nJim French: I’m not sure exact locations of these. But you can see down in here. \nJim French: You know the these numbers here are something like equivalent to 300 350 Psf\, und sheer strength\, maybe something that range it’s going down to 20 feet\, which is the bottom shown on these plots \nJim French: and it doesn’t pick up at 20 feet. So we’re not sure where it goes. But this is pretty consistent with \nJim French: you know\, some of these actually are starting to get better at 18. This might be the bottom of bay mud here. \nJim French: right? This is the bottom of bay mud. \nJim French: but anyway\, so it looks like they mud\, you know\, at least on the Cpt’s that I have here here. \nJim French: You know lot thicker bay mud than what what is suggested in the \nJim French: in the half dozen cross sections that you show for your stability. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, this is a series that I think pretty consistently reach about 20 feet \nMichael Whelan: throughout these. Cpt’s right\, and\, as you say\, some of them\, many of them can \nMichael Whelan: don’t really show up much of a trend as you get to the bottom of them like this one here on screen. Right? Yeah. Yeah. So this one\, this one doesn’t. This one doesn’t hit the bottom of bay mud. This one\, doesn’t this one doesn’t. \nJim French: This one may be trying to pick up this one\, doesn’t \nJim French: this one? Yeah. Here’s 2\, then that are\, you know this bay\, maybe the bottom of bay mud. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. \nJim French: here’s bottom. They might a little bit higher here. This is you know\, 16 feet. \nJim French: This one doesn’t hit the bottom. \nJim French: anyway. So I didn’t go back and \nJim French: look where each of these individual ones were. But \nMichael Whelan: sure \nMichael Whelan: and no. Then the the iso pack you were shown earlier is is good. I mean. One thing we were pondering was\, how does the presence of these \nMichael Whelan: berms sitting atop the young bay mud effect \nMichael Whelan: what we see today under \nMichael Whelan: the berms in terms of young Bay mud. And in other words\, you know\, we we gave some thought to. Was there some? \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, I think\, probably taken from the old. \nJim French: or they’ve probably started at least with that old \nJim French: Cdm. G. Used to be called California Division of Mines and geologies. I think it’s 1958 green book we call it. \nJim French: That has 2 maps. It has an isopact map when it has a bottom of a mud \nJim French: map\, and the bottom of May. Mud won’t change by adding burns to the top of it and the settlement. It looks like \nJim French: like\, I said from the Cpt’s that I was looking at that were just looking at a minute ago. here! \nJim French: Well\, here\, here it looks like the bay mud is it looks like the it. You’re getting really good strengthening up here. you know. These ones are\, you know\, getting strong down to maybe 10 feet. There’s some improvement. This one here is getting improvement really good improvement\, only down to 2\, 3 feet\, and minimal improvement down to\, you know\, 6 or 10. So in terms of the Isopac. \nJim French: Some of this\, you know\, this is the fill that’s been placed\, maybe\, and this is where it’s consolidating underneath it and getting a little bit denser because it has some dry fill sitting on top of it. \nJim French: Same thing here\, here\, here’s where your your your fill thickness. \nJim French: I think you’re calling densified is really 2 feet thick or or so\, and then there’s a little bit of improvement\, because there’s some consolidation due to the drier berm sitting on top of it. \nJim French: Same thing here\, you know. Here’s you probably got 4 feet of fill placed on top\, and a little bit of densification for the next 4 feet. \nJim French: Same thing you got. You have. you know\, 3 feet of fill with another 3 4 feet of slightly improved material. Incidentally\, the \nJim French: the 1250. Is that what you used for the fill strength corresponds to a value about right in here\, where my arrow is here. So anything that’s to the left of the air left of about 8. This is the A 10 TSF. Line. Here. \nJim French: Converting the tip resistance value into the \nJim French: into the sheer strength. This is about where this sheer strength of of a 1250 lands\, and you know 3 or 400 is down in here. \nJim French: so I think I think you gotta look carefully at how how thick of of a berm you assume over the top of it\, and how deep the bottom\, and and most importantly\, how deep the bottom they might is. \nJim French: And to to Nick’s question about the shape of the circles. The thickness of the berm will absolutely. very strongly influence whether you’re going to get failures that can pass through the toe\, or through the middle of of the crest\, and Alpha \nJim French: little beyond the tower\, whether they try to go deeper to the bottom of payment. So these geometry. Questions\, I think\, are really critical \nhonestly. \nJim French: and maybe maybe you’ve done some of that. But it wasn’t. In the presentation which I understand. A presentation is \nJim French: is a mere an an hour\, so to speak\, a couple of hours \nJim French: which we’ve exceeded\, you know. But \nJim French: But you know\, maybe useful to submit also a geotechnical report along with the alongside the the presentation\, so that we can review where you’ve documented some of your assumptions and methods and search criteria\, and so on. Sure\, sure. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Well\, I mean\, I would agree. When you look at these\, Cpt’s the the conclusion does suggest that you have very soft young bay mud to a \nMichael Whelan: the depth that exceeds in some cases below the Cpt depths. \nMichael Whelan: The numbers we selected don’t entirely take. They? They don’t take these only into account. Obviously\, I mean\, we we looked at the borings and the bull counts from the various borings that were done. \nMichael Whelan: We looked at the lab testing and the and the the triaxial work that was done on selected samples. The the slide I showed with the stress train curves earlier was \nMichael Whelan: was a large part of our are thinking as well\, and and selecting the overall parameters\, I mean\, I know Jim\, kind of what you’re showing here\, as we as we focus on these\, Cpt’s might suggest that we’re using \nMichael Whelan: or applying strength parameters that are that are on the high side \nMichael Whelan: or or the thicknesses\, thicknesses that are on the low side\, particularly or think this is the ybm on on the low side\, now\, II do\, I do acknowledge that conclusion. And \nMichael Whelan: and and and II would I would say that the reason \nMichael Whelan: that our numbers don’t \nMichael Whelan: completely reflect what you see here is driven in in part by the the results of the of the laboratory testing. \nNicholas SITAR: I would probably believe Cpt’s over. \nJim French: If there’s a disagreement between lab testing and Cpt’s. If there’s there’s a stark disagreement. I would believe the Cpt’s because there’s many ways that you can \nJim French: get lab data have problems with lab data. If there’s a subtle improvement over the lab data that it suggests\, there’s a little bit of\, you know\, there’s still still\, still\, it’s it’s it’s pretty tricky. I think it’s tough to \nJim French: override cpt data like this. \nNicholas SITAR: if I may follow up Anjem absolutely. I averaging data in this kind of situation somehow doesn’t make sense. \nNicholas SITAR: Because you ha again have to\, as we discuss\, as I suggested earlier\, have to look at the critical section. So you cannot just look at the average section. You have to look at the critical section here\, and that means critical section in terms of \nNicholas SITAR: bemot strength. I don’t see any \nNicholas SITAR: strength regain over that distance? Typically does not \nNicholas SITAR: my experience. \nNicholas SITAR: And the other thing is that you know\, that’s going that’s going to govern. So I agree with Jim that gone trumps\, whatever else there may be\, especially older laboratory data\, as much as it may have been done with the you know\, best possible procedure. \nNicholas SITAR: Unless you you can show that you collect that thing. Wall samples test for them within 24 h in underneath tests. Perhaps. \nNicholas SITAR: But con data is very difficult to trump. So my suggestion again\, just to follow up is identify the critical locations. \nNicholas SITAR: either very thin that that is a critical tool\, because then you basically force the slide surface to follow a defined plane or the deeper sections where you\, in fact\, have a much greater chance of getting a circle of failure as you as you analyze. So I think those are sort of the the sort of the end points of what you have to look at in in my view \nJim French: along the same lines. This is jumping ahead a few slides\, fewer slides. I think we’ll get to it pretty soon\, like you’ve proposed 4 borings and one Cpt. And I would probably cut it down to a boring\, or may maybe even one boring\, and for the same for the same price. 2 dozen Cpt. And make sure all the cpt’s hit the bottom of bay mud. It’s you know. It’s an extra \nJim French: $50 per cpt. It’s like it’s it’s nothing. Once you’re down there. \nJim French: they are fast\, actually a close eye on it until the till the strength starts to climb a tiny bit\, and that’s get 5 feet of strength. Climb. \nJim French: and that’s the bottom of bay mud\, and we don’t care what happens. Below the bottom of bay mud. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And to next point I think we talked about before. But the run up analyses. There are critical sections there. How do those areas compare with \nRamin Golesorkhi: the slope stability sections that \nRamin Golesorkhi: that considered. So I think. \nRamin Golesorkhi: need to kind of tie in everything together\, so that we’re not missing \nRamin Golesorkhi: so that everything has a comprehensive look to it. \nNicholas SITAR: Yeah\, to follow up\, basically\, you have to consider a scenario. \nNicholas SITAR: The worst scenario is that you have a maximum credible earthquake at the time when we have a big storm. Now the probabilities of that are pretty low\, but\, as we have learned. \nNicholas SITAR: unfortunate things happen at the worst possible time pretty easily have a major storm within the 2 years. \nJim French: which statistically gets pretty complicated. But I don’t know how fast you’re gonna repair all these after big earthquake. How fast. how I have a priority these berms are gonna have \nJim French: after a big earthquake that everybody’s busy doing and repairing. falling down houses and freeways and stuff. \nMichael Whelan: Well\, the the sl \nMichael Whelan: sections we used here were derived independently from the wave. Run up analysis. So your your observations to that they’re they’re not the same. \nMichael Whelan: They were selected based on different considerations. \nMichael Whelan: That’s not say they can’t be integrated. So they’re presenting or looking at consistent sections\, but \nMichael Whelan: we did consider those independently from the the run up. Analysis. \nMichael Whelan: Is it worth looking for a moment\, then\, at our proposed \nMichael Whelan: our proposal for additional boardings. Jim\, you’ve made a comment about how you would see that being \nMichael Whelan: conducted. \nMichael Whelan: okay\, yeah\, this. This is the Jim. This was the figure you were referring to where we have 4 borings and one co-located Cpt. \nMichael Whelan: We. We do intend to use these to get to greater depth. As I said earlier the the majority of these explorations\, and in fact\, a lot of the ones we’re looking at earlier \nMichael Whelan: go to like 20 feet or so. So this is an opportunity to go to greater depths. \nMichael Whelan: And\, Jim I you were. You were pointing out that you could do \nMichael Whelan: a number of Cpt’s A. A quicker than you could do a number of boardings. That that is certainly true. \nMichael Whelan: Are there any other comments on the on the proposed additional explorations that we’ve put forth here. \nMichael Whelan: Okay\, can we go back just to just for a moment here? I did. Wanna II know we’ve talked in some detail\, or you folks have commented in some detail on the \nMichael Whelan: selection of soul properties\, the the\, the\, the strategy underneath the berms just for the good of the order. Let me\, if there\, if time allows\, if you go back \nMichael Whelan: a couple of slides here. Yeah\, go back one more. Yes\, right there. \nMichael Whelan: This was just W. Some of the reasons we we chose to show. The ones that we show is just show the effects of different parameters. And \nMichael Whelan: this is a case where\, at the same location the the difference in factor safety derived from our analyses \nMichael Whelan: for the the larger 475 year return earthquake\, and then on the next slide is the same \nMichael Whelan: area with the with the 50 year. So it’s it’s just showing some of the parameters selected parameters that we that we ran through\, and a lot of what I’m taking away from this conversation is just the importance of \nMichael Whelan: further presentation of the parametric analysis that we performed\, I mean what these ones show is \nMichael Whelan: affects the water level and affects earthquake size. But there are also \nMichael Whelan: parametric analysis to be presented\, which which we did do\, and I think can be presented more thoroughly in terms of selected thickness of of younger bay mud. I mean\, you see\, some variations as you go through this sequence. But \nMichael Whelan: we haven’t put together like right next to each other. 2 examples. What difference does it make? Because it does? It does make a difference. The deeper it goes\, the \nMichael Whelan: the the the more of an effect it has on factor safety. So I guess one of the takeaways for me is to \nMichael Whelan: present that in a way that everyone recognizes how how it plays a role in our conclusions \nJim French: right? And and to just point out again\, these are about 7 foot thick of bay mud. \nJim French: I \nJim French: from the ground surface to the bottom of bay mud beneath the the berms. It’s a little bit less because the berm is consolidated. The upper portions of bay mud\, although I would say the bottom half of the Burma\, as you’ve shown\, it is probably not full strength there. \nJim French: But if you were to make this bay mud 20 feet thick. say\, or even 15. that Those contours of safety factor \nJim French: would get\, you know\, Oranger and Oranger\, as you move further down\, as the circle gets deeper and deeper. And so I don’t know if it’s gonna hit \nJim French: one or 1.1 or 1.3\, it’s going to become\, you know\, the the the contours of\, of\, say\, 2 factor are going to change. If you deepen the bay mud \nNicholas SITAR: well\, and if I may\, to follow up on Jim. I \nNicholas SITAR: III guess the question is\, how did you select the proposed locations for boreholes? II do not believe that boreholes these days is the way to go. I think Ct. Should be the driving tool\, and the reason you might want to collect deep samples if you have some suspicion of there is something odd about the deep bay\, you know. The old bay mud underneath which\, \nNicholas SITAR: we don’t believe is is an issue. Looking at this kind of analysis\, but tying your cross sections to the critical sections that may be over topped and possibly doing investigations in those areas. Would make sense. So basically targeted investigation that ties this \nNicholas SITAR: and these analyses together in a kind of a consistent and and holistic way\, so that you can convince yourself\, not just us \nNicholas SITAR: that\, in fact\, you looked at the critical problems and and you analyzed them. And you have the data to support your conclusions. So that would be my sort of \nNicholas SITAR: take on what I have seen 400 foot boring. You could do a lot of 20 Cpt’s and one boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: and Cpt’s don’t need to go\, most of them at least more than 20 or 30 feet. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Maybe you want to put one to a hundred feet to get a \nRamin Golesorkhi: The average shearwater velocity to 100 feet. Yeah. but you but you could do that with a Cpt easier\, faster\, cheaper than you \nRamin Golesorkhi: do a couple of them. If you want to get a range. \nMichael Whelan: Sure. Yeah\, that that depth target is consistent with our thinking about confirming the shearwave velocity with the at least one deep exploration. But I would agree they don’t all need to go \nMichael Whelan: that deep. It’s really a matter of confirming or \nMichael Whelan: or furthering our understanding of how deep does the the young bay mud extend. \nRamin Golesorkhi: and say\, if you were to do any boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: the intent would be to get some very high quality samples to do consolidation tests\, so that you can understand the settlement characteristics of of the Baymag. The young Baymag. \nRamin Golesorkhi: in terms of \nRamin Golesorkhi: firm kind of operational if you will. \nRamin Golesorkhi: maintenance issues with time to having to raise it\, etc. II don’t see I don’t see any \nRamin Golesorkhi: real value in strength. I think Cpt will do pretty good job at that. and \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think if you do boring\, you should consider at least taking some \nRamin Golesorkhi: d and M type samplers and things like that. To to run some \nRamin Golesorkhi: dissipation would be adequate to give you that kind of information. \nNicholas SITAR: There’s a question. These these terms are. \nNicholas SITAR: how old? 70 years 80 years old. Something like that most are since the 18 sixties and Ms. S. From \nMichael Whelan: shall we follow up or finish up with our \nMichael Whelan: final slides. \nMichael Whelan: Jump ahead to \nRamin Golesorkhi: and yeah\, do do some piston sampler samplers or ramen\, said DM\, DM\, samplers. There’s there’s number of types of pistons that you could use \nRamin Golesorkhi: but I’m not sure you need to emphasize that a lot. I think one or 2 would be great to supplement like Nick is talking about and get poor pressure dissipation tests. you know a a handful of them. At least\, I’m not sure that that’s the the most critical part of the whole of this project\, or the sickness \nRamin Golesorkhi: of the bay mud\, and the and the strength of the bay mud that you can get from correlations on the Cpt’s\, I think\, is. should suffice for this type of project. Mostly. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I agree. II \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think\, very limited. If borings are going to be drilled. then that’s what my suggestion was. \nRamin Golesorkhi: It’s not imperative. But if you are planning to do boring. \nRamin Golesorkhi: then I think that the value of the borrowings are in terms of getting \nRamin Golesorkhi: good samples into Baymont and seeing the consolidation characteristic of the Bay mountain. Yeah\, get get the samples sealed nicely and protected\, and that. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah. Get the undisturbed samples \nMichael Whelan: suitable for undisturbed testing of strength and compressibility. Right? \nMichael Whelan: And what there was comment about poor pressure dissipation \nNicholas SITAR: test these days. You can run it relatively quickly\, takes. \nNicholas SITAR: depending on the hydraulic conductivity of the bay mud from less than an hour to maybe a little longer than an hour per interval. \nNicholas SITAR: But you get the consolidation characters. You get the hydraulic conductivity\, get the consolidation\, and it’s in situ test. So you don’t collect any salad. You don’t \nNicholas SITAR: pull any samples. You’re not doing additional testing. It’s it’s been used very successfully\, and all the congratulations on hiring. \nMichael Whelan: I mean\, II missed the tail end of the congratulations. Comment \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the board members. Some of the board members Nick talked about \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know the layer and and the potential\, for \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, wedge type failure. We’ve talked about some of the terms actually have court section where? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah? Actually\, quite true. And then you compacted material \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to minimize the potential for. And I’m wondering whether the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: vertical interface between \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: you know\, and the material which is already there introduces another potential for the failure surface created by this interface. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Alright. So I’m wondering whether to be useful to look at one of those sections as part of the analysis. \nMichael Whelan: II understand. Does. Does the the the presence of the of the cord or the keyed interior present? A. I think. What you’re \nMichael Whelan: pondering was\, does that present a \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: an an additional failure. Opportunity. \nMichael Whelan: do you see? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, well\, I think that’s a lot of \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: very expensive consulting that you just received for free. Are there any more? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: It’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay. And so looks. It looks like we’re at the. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: are we? At the end of the presentation\, or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: well\, I have a \nMichael Whelan: but you know that that says \nMichael Whelan: we\, we conclude sufficient stability. But the commentary here is putting forth some questions about the underlying assumptions I get. That \nNicholas SITAR: may may I make one more comment on this? Throughout the the \nNicholas SITAR: you mean the speaker. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: my microphone is unmuted. Yeah. \nNicholas SITAR: Okay\, \nNicholas SITAR: okay. Throughout the various reports. There are references to 1\,906 earthquake. \nNicholas SITAR: and we’ll upgrade our earthquake. 1906. \nNicholas SITAR: Completely different scenario is nothing to do with the performance in 1906\, the height of these \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: structures and everything \nNicholas SITAR: was so insignificant it really has no bearing. \nNicholas SITAR: what are these \nNicholas SITAR: structures are going for fall. Well\, now. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: in present\, and the same thing \nNicholas SITAR: lower grade. I was \nNicholas SITAR: in terms of magnitude\, a big earthquake. It was about the shortest possible duration earthquake you can have for the magnitude. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: It really is not representative of \nNicholas SITAR: anything that is significant. Typical magnitude. \nNicholas SITAR: earthquake of that size. If it \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: zippers all the way across\, it’s gonna be 20 cents. This. This was offensive. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: We\, we agree. \nNicholas SITAR: patting ourselves on the back\, saying that these things perform well in a 1906\, which I really\, you know\, is a completely different \nNicholas SITAR: lifetime. It’s lifetime away. And and Loma Prieta is not a representative of what we would expect. So I’m I’m simply saying to tone down that time. hey\, we’ve done well in the past earthquakes. Therefore we’re okay. Recommendation. \nMichael Whelan: We we? We do acknowledge that and and agree with it\, and in fact\, I mean \nMichael Whelan: II may have. I know I mentioned their performance. I don’t want to completely ignore that. But no doubt the whole point of this analysis was to say alright\, how are they going to do in future earthquakes? And it does lead \nMichael Whelan: to one question. I guess I I’m interested in in all of your reaction to our use of a 475 year earthquake event I mean \nMichael Whelan: by by to our way of thinking that that right there is the single \nMichael Whelan: biggest element of conservativeness. In this analysis. I mean it. It is true we can. \nMichael Whelan: We can look at the variability of the young bay mud strengths and thicknesses\, and that all play a role. But \nMichael Whelan: is\, isn’t it. Doesn’t it also seem that the application of that particular earthquake sizes itself a significantly conservative assumption? I mean\, never. I agree. Let’s never mind what happened in the \npast 100 years that may or may not be of any relevance. But looking ahead. \nMichael Whelan: that is that is a big earthquake for us to be focusing ourselves on and and part of me wonders if it’s if if it’s above and beyond what really should go into this analysis\, and that the the operating level earthquake may be a little bit more of a meaningful \nMichael Whelan: re recognition of of the timeline towards Cargill’s activities. Is there any commentary on that \nRamin Golesorkhi: on that portion of this analysis. We haven’t really focused. \nRamin Golesorkhi: You know\, before we get along. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Yeah\, yes\, yes\, we know. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, 25 years now. So \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, in terms of design criteria. And you know\, we’re saying\, comparing \nRamin Golesorkhi: the berms here to marine oil terminal\, or. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, buildings that are subject to as TE. 7. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Is this appropriate for berms? \nRamin Golesorkhi: You know that that are. \nRamin Golesorkhi: you know\, retaining \nRamin Golesorkhi: material that is\, you know\, toxic right or not. I don’t know how you characterize it. But \nRamin Golesorkhi: unnatural\, natural. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Okay\, Johnson\, one of our board members is in the audience. Is there a way that \nRamin Golesorkhi: we can get him to \nRamin Golesorkhi: weigh in on this as well in terms of \nNicholas SITAR: you know. What \nNicholas SITAR: with other. \nMichael Whelan: what other side am I? Okay. \nGayle Johnson: yeah\, just just so. Just so. Folks know. The only reason I’m not there in person is because I got Covid last week. So I was told to participate as a public \nGayle Johnson: public participant today. \nGayle Johnson: I. When I when I heard you \nGayle Johnson: characterizing 4\, 75 as like extremely conservative. I \nGayle Johnson: I do \nGayle Johnson: disagree with that characterization. That’s not a a large number compared to what we use all the time in the Bay area. or \nGayle Johnson: any kind of assessments of existing facilities. \nGayle Johnson: So I think that’s that’s \nGayle Johnson: II don’t think I don’t think that’s appropriate \nGayle Johnson: characterize it that way. \nGayle Johnson: However\, having said that one thing that I think is the context that’s missing here. That II don’t know if any of us understand is. \nGayle Johnson: if you can\, you describe the failure modes that occur\, and then what are the actual consequences in terms of. \nGayle Johnson: you know. is is seepage an issue? Does it take collapse of the whole \nGayle Johnson: berm and pouring out of. \nGayle Johnson: you know the water inside \nGayle Johnson: to cause a problem. How how sensitive are we? And that’s something I don’t really have have a good feel for to \nGayle Johnson: identify how conservative this is. I don’t know if that’s something \nMichael Whelan: you’re able to address Michael or somebody else could. Well\, I would. I’ll tell you what I mean. We were looking prepared to look at that exact kind of question. You know. Okay\, how much. \nMichael Whelan: what kind of failure we’re gonna see over. What length of berm are we gonna see it? How quickly is it going to occur? You know those sort of questions that would all feed into a you know\, an evaluation of ecological risk. \nMichael Whelan: But the analysis I’ve I’ve shown you folks\, you know\, I \nMichael Whelan: acknowledging your commentary on the selection of parameters and and and thickness of materials. \nMichael Whelan: The analysis we did here led us to conclude that that isn’t gonna happen. And so it it W. What we came out of this believing was that we have an absence of a failure. And so there wasn’t really a cause for us to go down the road of \nokay. You know how much. \nMichael Whelan: what mechanism of failure. Really\, we came at this from the from the beginning point of \nMichael Whelan: is there going to be a failure. And \nMichael Whelan: you know\, let ourselves to conclude that that isn’t what’s gonna happen. So that that’s really where we ended up with on those kind of questions\, Gail\, I mean\, we were prepared to look at that exact \nMichael Whelan: a sort of evaluation until we came up with the results that we did \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: well\, just and just for a point of reference\, and the charge was\, you know\, in terms of what we are trying to \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: answer\, based on what the Crb had given you. You know. Yes\, to analyze any expected damage that may occur. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and any expected associated release of Mss. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And my question is\, I mean. What you’ve shown us is limit\, equilibrium \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: type of analysis. Don’t you think it would be more appropriate to also do a displacement type of analysis because he might not have a failure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But you could get displacement \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that doesn’t result in. If you have\, there is no display. \nMichael Whelan: I mean I right\, I mean III hear you. I mean\, we’ve we’ve done that kind of analysis in cases where we find a low factor of safety\, and we believe me. We’ve had \nMichael Whelan: plenty of projects where we’ve come to that conclusion to say\, Okay\, well\, we got a fatter safety of of one \nMichael Whelan: point 9\, or you know something that indicates failure. And then. \nyeah\, we’ve applied various sliding block or other displacement sorts of analysis to understand. Okay\, what did that mean? What actually moved. How much did it move? And \nMichael Whelan: if if we III would imagine we would have done that exact sort of thing had we been coming up with low factors of safety here. But \nMichael Whelan: we we haven’t at this point. So we did not apply the the displacement analyses. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so if you know\, based on the comments you’ve received. You know\, if you’re looking at 24 thick layout \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: they might. and your factor of safety is lower than what you are currently reporting. Are you going to do a displacement analysis? Then \nMichael Whelan: II would think that’d be the only way to draw a meaningful conclusion about what it’s telling us. Yeah\, I would. I would think so. \nMichael Whelan: I mean\, that would be my intention. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So Michael. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: going back to your question about is 4\, 75. Appropriate. I think that there’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so I guess I have 2 questions back to you or the team. What’s the design line \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: of the project or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: design criteria\, you know. Do you want to have no room failures? Are you? Life\, safety. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and what is being protected? Are we protecting? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: You’re nice and concentrated salts from getting diluted by a little bit of overtopping waves. You know. That’s worth very much\, Fenbergs to do that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: If you’re worried about spilling some of your well\, that’s another issue. If there are subdivisions behind your \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: your pawns that would potentially be afforded. then that’s \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: another issue also. So I’d be interested in\, you know\, having some sort of maybe a simple bulleted list of what’s what’s the design life we want? We want to protect it for \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 10 years\, 30 years\, 50 years. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: year 2\,100 \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: whatever and what are the things that are being protected\, whether it’s a failure. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: maybe address that last time. Last presentation. A little bit more\, maybe \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Monkey was wondering. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: but but some of that goes into 475 appropriate \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and whether 4 75 is the right number. It’s certainly the right number\, if there’s any consequences\, and maybe you could argue\, the consequences are relatively \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: modest here. I would think that a 72 year return interval is probably a pretty low number. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: living 4 miles from the Hayward fault\, or 6 miles from Hayward. Fault\, or whatever you are down there \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: at Newark. but maybe a 2\, 25 would be an arguable number. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So I think the 225 is something that we can expect in the next 30 years. The next 15 years from the usages reports. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Think we’re gonna get some big events \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: during whatever your design like this. If your design life is 20 years or 30 years\, I think there’s a good chance. We’re gonna get something that’s relatively close to 2\,225 year terminople. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: one person in 50 years\, or \nMichael Whelan: well\, I wonder if the marine terminal guidance \nMichael Whelan: provide some \nMichael Whelan: some \nMichael Whelan: thoughts toward that right? I mean just the very terminology that they apply with the operating level \nMichael Whelan: event\, the ole\, which is essentially I I’m admittedly oversimplifying a bit when I say this\, but the idea being that for a \nMichael Whelan: the\, the\, the\, the operating level earthquake is one that the facility needs to be able to handle and not be \nMichael Whelan: damaged\, whereas the contingency level earthquake\, the Cl. The 475 year event is is one where \nMichael Whelan: it has to be reparable. It doesn’t. And again\, I’m talking about motems\, and I know this is not \nMichael Whelan: well. We’re this project is not a Motems project\, but \nMichael Whelan: I do think the the concepts are useful that there may be damage in a in a contingency level earthquake\, but it can’t be catastrophic. It has to be reparable damage. That’s really the way. \nMichael Whelan: Th\, that’d be my summarization of the way motems \nMichael Whelan: lays those out. And I mean\, II feel like what we’re doing here is we’re applying the contingency\, level earthquake\, 475 year event\, and looking to see\, is there any damage or not? \nMichael Whelan: And again\, the conclusions we’ve been presenting\, or that we don’t see that there is damage. Now \nMichael Whelan: you’ve offered a lot of comments about some of the underlying assumptions that that may change that \nMichael Whelan: it. Maybe they don’t it might. It might come down to the understanding of deflection analysis that might come out of it. Perhaps we end up in the same place. I’m not sure\, but I guess I’m just offering \nMichael Whelan: the the motems example as as one way that that large earthquake can be addressed. \nMichael Whelan: Is there risk\, I mean. Well\, yeah\, I mean\, I don’t know. I’m not an ecologist\, but certainly that’s forefront. The minds of the motems \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: 2 25 is probably not too bad of a number to use. If\, before that presented the reason why you say \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and not enormous dollar value\, wants to gamble their own money on a smaller earthquake\, and that’s \nRamin Golesorkhi: then that’s their prerogative. II think as long as there’s no life safety involved. \nRamin Golesorkhi: But I don’t think 2 25 is probably a better number to use. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Okay. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I tend to think. First of all\, I think the conclusions reached here \nRamin Golesorkhi: are based on the analyses that have been performed. \nRamin Golesorkhi: We have to discuss that there may be \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Hello. \nRamin Golesorkhi: analysis that could be more critical and may not result in the same conclusions. I think the 475 level of shaking in a pseudo static sense \nRamin Golesorkhi: half a G. That’s pretty significant. If the same conclusions can be reached with more critical sections. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Then I think the 4 75 is pretty \nRamin Golesorkhi: good level of shaking that these \nRamin Golesorkhi: firms are being analyzed for. \nRamin Golesorkhi: No\, I don’t know. III suspect we are not looking at the most critical \nRamin Golesorkhi: sections that may result in \nRamin Golesorkhi: other types of conclusions. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think 2\, 25. It’s probably more \nRamin Golesorkhi: appropriate for a Hayward scenario type kind of level of shaking. \nRamin Golesorkhi: And that’s something that maybe deterministically looking at it. That could be. And that kind of \nRamin Golesorkhi: also is consistent with level of hazard that everybody is talking about in the Bay area. that \nRamin Golesorkhi: more than likely all of us will be experiencing it \nRamin Golesorkhi: in our lifetime so hopefully not. But but I think that that puts a little more context in terms of \nRamin Golesorkhi: is this a more appropriate level rather than just saying 72 year or not. \nRamin Golesorkhi: So so I think my suggestion would be for the lower level 2\, 25 kind of makes sense. But I think you can also compare it to a deterministic scenario. Hayward type\, the magnitudes. \nRamin Golesorkhi: 7. Something at whatever distance you are\, and then \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of considering the amplification of software deposits. And where the site is that sort of thing\, then that kind of gives you a little more \nRamin Golesorkhi: kind of context and perspective of kind of this is more real and how real it is\, and how does it compare with \nRamin Golesorkhi: what everybody thinks that the Bay Area is going to be subjected to in the next. \nRamin Golesorkhi: Whatever number of years near future\, I would say. \nGayle Johnson: you’re not actually referencing motems correctly. \nGayle Johnson: They don’t have Ole and Cl. They have level one and level 2. So just \nGayle Johnson: to be aware of that \nMichael Whelan: I may be confusing port port design with motems and the oily designation. \nGayle Johnson: And then and then one thing about motems that actually could work to your advantage is that \nGayle Johnson: the reason the reason they have \nGayle Johnson: different? They have different return periods for different risk levels. \nGayle Johnson: So\, depending on how much oil you’re exposed to you\, could you could classify it as a low medium or high risk. and the range for the level. 2 earthquake goes from 4\, 75 years for a high risk \nGayle Johnson: to 2\, 24 for a low risk. So it’s 10% and 50 years. Medium is 15% and 50 years \nGayle Johnson: and low as 20% in 50 years. And the O in the level\, one earthquake\, or ole\, as you call it also goes down from 50\, 65\, 70\, 75%. \nGayle Johnson: So I think if you want to use motions as a reference. \nGayle Johnson: it’s probably not a bad reference\, because it’s in the building code\, and it’s risk based. \nGayle Johnson: But I would suggest\, if you have a even a qualitative reason for tying the risk to the return peer\, do you choose? \nGayle Johnson: that that would be \nGayle Johnson: defensible. I think \nMichael Whelan: that makes sense. \nMichael Whelan: That makes sense. \nMichael Whelan: Okay? \nMichael Whelan: Good comment. \nMichael Whelan: Huh? \nMichael Whelan: Well\, it’s a good thing I write fast because I’ve been taking a lot of notes \nJim French: looking at with Cp. Is not only the depth to the bottom of bay mud. But look at the thickness of the \nJim French: berm itself. \nJim French: And the thickness of improved bay mud below the broom. I think you’re gonna find that the fill is gonna have a distinct\, you know\, 1250 might be a pretty good number for that \nJim French: and I think there’s gonna be a rapidly attenuating strength as you get below the actual fill that’s placed because the berm has densified has caused a little bit of consolidation. \nJim French: And \nJim French: and you might take take a look if you can. At what? \nJim French: what the \nJim French: firm geometry looks like beyond the toe. It’s a little bit tough to see sometimes I know\, because \nJim French: these burns were created by reaching out with a long arm backhoe and a scooping up. \nJim French: and so there’s often a ditch in front of the toes of the Bermms that may or may not show up in Lidar\, if it’s if it’s water filled. \nJim French: The \nJim French: the \nJim French: bay mud below the toe of the berm will densify a little bit\, but not as well as it densifies underneath the middle of the berm. So some of that stuff has been looked at in previous reports. I suspect you can find some old\, maybe tow excavations\, or reaching out with the \nJim French: a canoe and a and a and a stick see how how deep things are out there\, but that those are some things \nJim French: can make some difference\, and \nJim French: we should be considered at least\, and see if you can see if you make some estimates. So what you know. If there are any ditches you borrow ditches in front of out beyond the toes of Burns\, and so on. Yeah\, are there still dishes that that still exist there? And I and and I didn’t \nMichael Whelan: feature this in the slide\, but we would expect that as part of the additional explorations we’d also be doing \nMichael Whelan: visual observations of what’s going on at and past the broom toe\, and probably some \nMichael Whelan: shallow may maybe just hand auger type work to understand. Is there a significant difference in in Ybm properties outside or at the toe of the berm than what we see directly underneath it\, because II would tend to think it would be a bit different \nMichael Whelan: without the loading. So that actually is part of our our approach for the additional explorations. Now\, you know\, we’ve talked about various refinements and further parametric analyses that that you folks have put forth\, I mean is. \nMichael Whelan: is\, is it? Is it your \nMichael Whelan: opinion that \nMichael Whelan: that is\, that is \nMichael Whelan: appropriate to do? Following the additional explorations that ha! How? How would you see that fitting? And I mean\, I guess I guess that’s kind of what I would imagine. But I’m I’m not sure what everyone’s opinion is there. \nNicholas SITAR: But it’s fine. \nNicholas SITAR: I may. I think. You know\, we we sort of focus on suggestion suggesting that you identify the critical areas \nNicholas SITAR: and in those critical areas\, then focus your investigation. \nNicholas SITAR: And in that context\, I think Jim’s point is very well taken. Nobody ever documents these borrow areas because the maintenance goes out there\, and \nNicholas SITAR: few years later nobody knows where the pit was dug for this\, for the stuff and vegetation fills it in. So on those sections that you then analyze \nNicholas SITAR: and identify as critical. Try to do\, a really detailed geometry of the of the of the \nNicholas SITAR: of the ground in front of the under. \nNicholas SITAR: say\, base side of the levy\, and on the other side\, and it can be done. Very simple\, as Jim said. You go out there with the boat and measuring stick\, and just get get the actual profile of the ground rather than guessing it from \nNicholas SITAR: you know everything else you have\, and \nNicholas SITAR: if you focus it on series of sections\, it’s not a major problem to do it\, you know\, if you had to do it along the entire section. Of course\, it becomes a problem unless you identify \nNicholas SITAR: ahead of time that you already know where there are some of these borrow areas. You know it’s a classic on river levies that. The borough areas are on the river side and create problems that nobody thought about\, you know. And \nJim French: these firms. Think you might have retired a couple. Pat. What’s Pat’s last name? \nJim French: Yeah\, talk\, talk\, talk to him. \nNicholas SITAR: The idea is to focus your attention rather than disperse it over the whole thing\, and say\, You know\, from overtopping analysis\, you already know. \nNicholas SITAR: Then you can look at it from terms of depth of Bay mud. The geometry get the geometry in those locations\, and I think that can make a very compelling \nNicholas SITAR: case. And then\, in terms of the seismic\, I agree with Jim that you know 4\, 75. We use 4\, 75 routinely for significant earthquakes\, but in terms of your \nNicholas SITAR: performance\, objectives in a kind of more \nNicholas SITAR: expect an you know more likely occurred. Scenario to 2 25 is is a good one \nto look at. \nMichael Whelan: That’s \nJim French: okay. \nJim French: We’ve had a lot of I mean a lot of advice. I think it. We’re kind of. We’re at the point where we should have public comment. \nJim French: So how do we run public comment. Jen. \nJim French: let’s ask \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: ask anybody online if they have public comment to raise their hand. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and we’ll see if any hands are raised \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: for all the \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: there are no people from the public in the meeting in person. So I just wanna open it up. Is there. Is there anybody online? Who would like to make a public comment? Please raise your hand in the zoom. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I’m not seeing anybody. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay. Well. \nBCDC HOST: I think we could get if Gail wanted to make one final comment. \nGayle Johnson: No\, II think I’m good. Thanks \nproposal. \nBCDC HOST: I think there’s one public that’s trying to raise her hand\, but it goes away. It is \nBCDC HOST: Gail. I’m not sure the pro. The last name Ravi\, RABE\, with CCCR. \nBCDC HOST: I will allow her to talk\, cause I think she’s trying to raise her hand. But it goes away. \nBCDC HOST: Do you agree? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thank you\, Grace? \nGail Raabe CCCR: Can you hear me. This is Gail Robbie. \nBCDC HOST: Yes\, we hear you for the record. Please state your name and your affiliation\, and you have 3 min. \nGail Raabe CCCR: You may\, you may proceed. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Alright. My name is Gail Robbie. I’m Co. Chair for the Citizens Committee to complete the Refuge. Good afternoon\, Chairman Iwashita and Board Members. \nGail Raabe CCCR: We submitted a joint letter with\, Save the bay for your November 2022. Meeting. \nGail Raabe CCCR: expressing a number of concerns and questions related to pawns\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2 13. \nGail Raabe CCCR: It appears that some of the questions we raise remain unanswered. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Additionally\, I was unable to locate. The Boudro associates. Cover letter to Bcd. C. Referenced in the staff report\, and I’d appreciate it if you could make that correspondence available. \nGail Raabe CCCR: analyzing the integrity of these specific pond levies under various risk scenarios is extremely important \nGail Raabe CCCR: to make sure. Adjacent wetlands and slews are protected. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Potential future increases in the volume of stored Mss. In these 2 ponds over an extended period of time is especially problematic \nGail Raabe CCCR: and should be factored into the various risk assessments. Citizens Committee appreciates the Board’s time and attention in evaluating the information Cargill has provided. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Please ensure that the final reports answer all questions\, that the studies are sufficient\, and that the conclusions are based on good data. Thank you very much. \nRod Iwashita (ECRB): Thank you. I wanna acknowledge that we received a letter \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: from save the day this morning the email and it was it was too late to share the letter with \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: everybody in advance. But I did bring a copy of the letter to this meeting\, and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: print it out and circulate it to each board member that was here in person as well as to the Cargill representatives. We will post the letter on the meeting notice \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: on our website for this meeting. Notice? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And we’ll work to answer the questions in it. \nGail Raabe CCCR: Very good. Thank you. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Make sure. Your comment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay\, well\, now\, time for board discussion. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think we \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: this\, and maybe we’ll just kinda go around the Horn. Yep\, you wanna start \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: question first\, I mean. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, I mean\, discussion going to cover both. What Justin presented are we focusing on? I think it’s for both sections of \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: recitation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I have no further comment. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Chris. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think my only further comment\, if it hasn’t already been addressed\, is that \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): I know they didn’t address the what the consequences would be of a breach in the sailing water getting out into the environment? Because they didn’t think that was an issue. But it would be good to describe that\, so that we fully understand the the impacts. And that will also help determine that. Yes\, 4\, 75 is \nKris May (Pathways Climate Institute): is an appropriate earthquake. \nSo \nRamin Golesorkhi: thank you. I think. \nRamin Golesorkhi: her name. No. \nRamin Golesorkhi: I think just one other quick thing. In your additional exploration to say you’re gonna evaluate. Among other things in the faction potential \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: reiterate. What we said about Cpt is probably being preferable to emphasize rather than boring’s. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And in particular\, great job. \nMichael Whelan: Was that a question for me? I mean\, II agreed to what you said. That is a good way to assess it. I I wasn’t sure if that was question for me to respond to. But II heard it. \nGayle Johnson: Everyone’s muted. Not sure if anyone’s talking. \nMichael Whelan: Yeah\, I just said II agreed that Cpt’s are a good way to \nMichael Whelan: further evaluate look of action. Potential. \nMichael Whelan: Fair enough. You and I aren’t hearing anything. Okay? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay? Yes. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So so you know\, additional information on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: this core construction would be helpful. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and and that maybe \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: also kind of well\, you need to look at if there are impacts \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to the there being\, you know\, kind of a differential different \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: set of material along that plane. And if that causes issues with the berm. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah\, stability. Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I had one more thing also about the Lidar \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think the really useful light Lidar is usually quite reliable in terms of getting shape. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But in this particular case. It’s not just the shape of the birds we care about this\, the absolute elevation that we care about \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: because we’re talking about sea level fish. It was all a cost specification and your office extensions. It’s still the right shape that might make a difference. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So do a couple. There’s a couple of ways to look into that\, maybe just check and see where is the nearest ground? Truth? Aye. to anchor the Lidar nearby. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: having 82\, or wherever. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: probably preferably to do a couple of spot checks on terms. Just shoot some a couple of phrase after I make sure that the elevations that they’re doing right elevations. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: if they if they get off a little bit on that. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, a little bit. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I mean\, I think\, Jen relating to that. I mean\, if you order the light you know\, because down in a few times they would actually give you \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the quality quality \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: report on what the level of accuracy is\, I think in this case they bought \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the lighter data which was flown for some other purpose. So I mean\, you can either approach the vendor who sold you the data and see whether they had well. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the level of accuracy report. II think we we have the reporting and initiative kind of quality \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: report associate with that. Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: okay\, okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so so make sure you’re checking\, though\, Justin. Not just there. not just the shapes\, but the absolutely width of David. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: the actual elevation. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Thanks. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: and make sure that the items are correct. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, I’m certain it is. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I would actually like to see. Like\, where versus channel. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, Jen\, thank you for putting the the questions that we’re \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: we had at the beginning of the meeting back up. I think this is just a good prompt. Are there any other comments or \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: issues that \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: need to be raised here? I think we’re getting down to the the item 7. Any other concerns. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: But \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: from the level of discussion and the questions and the suggestions that we’ve had\, it sounds like we are going to need another \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: presentation from you after you’ve had a chance to work on \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: all of these issues \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: is that kind of a general consensus. So \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: motion for them. Yes\, please. So moved. Second. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: second\, that. and then all in favor unanimous. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I \nyeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Do you want them to come back after they do the geotech or or before with an updated work plan. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think. Well again\, this is another item for discussion. Then I think a work plan can be distributed \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: to the board members for comment. I don’t that we need to go through another one of these sessions at that point. It’s actually problematic to distribute to us for a week. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So having actually be a meeting\, oh. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: so hmm! \nNicholas SITAR: May I suggest. \nNicholas SITAR: unless we have a reason to think that somehow the guidance that was offered fell on deaf ears. We\, you know\, professionals\, and I would trust them to proceed with the you know their their take care about making sure that they get \nNicholas SITAR: and \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: alright\, it’s too much different. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And they can say\, Yeah\, looks like it’s good\, or you know\, let’s just continue this. But \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I thought that the Board is asking for. I think it’s it’s acceptable allowable \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: month of rest\, and we can do whatever we want. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So he said he was calling in on phone or something. but I but I think it’s possible for Jen to talk a week \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: talk to talk to other staff\, but also talk to. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: She attached it \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: just source of some. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: So not really a board meeting. It doesn’t so much time\, but \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: otherwise I’m not. I’m not sure I need the \nyeah. Bye\, bye. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Well\, well\, how about how about this? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah\, submitted. And Jen looks at it. She can use her judgement as the weather\, and she can talk to Staff Staff\, and then she can use her judgement whether \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: she thinks they’re discrepancies with what got discussed here today. What’s what’s on the paper? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: And if there is\, then okay. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: that sounds good. And I will sort of try to summarize in a formal communication. To the applicant. The main points in our discussion today. And I think there were a number \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: adoption. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Okay\, well\, let’s see\, where are we now? \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: I think we’re at adjournment. Honestly. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: yeah. Adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn all favor? Okay\, thank you. Everybody. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Yeah. thank you. \nMichael Whelan: Thank you. Folks. \nJenn Hyman\, PE\, BCDC: Take care. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-30-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board/ LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230823T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230823T150000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230824T004525Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231020T004939Z UID:10000084-1692795600-1692802800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 23\, 2023 Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF) URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-23-2023-bay-adapt-local-electeds-regional-task-force/ CATEGORIES:Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230823T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230823T120000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230824T012352Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231012T014123Z UID:10000026-1692783000-1692792000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 23\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\n\nSolano County Government Center675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533\, 707-784-6129 \n197 Palmer AveFalmouth\, MA 02540 \n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83719850693?pwd=MzNsRDhHcm5wSlpSQVZ5bXVVTmZ4QT09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID837 1985 0693 \nPasscode123244 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment (PDF)The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the June 21\, 2023 \, Enforcement Committee meeting (PDF)\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Briefing on Actions to Address Shoreline Encampments\, Abandoned and Derelict Vessels and Anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary\, Alameda CountyBCDC staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the actions taken between February 2023 and the present to address shoreline encampments\, abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the City of Sausalito – First 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2018.018.00)The City of Sausalito staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the City’s progress implementing the Sausalito-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in December 2020 to address anchored out vessels and restoration of subtidal habitat impacts.(Adrienne Klein) [415-352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Settlement Agreement (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF) // City of Sausalito Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing by the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency – Second 2023 Update (Enforcement Case ER2010.038)Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) staff will brief the Enforcement Committee on the RBRA’s progress implementing the RBRA-BCDC Settlement Agreement adopted by the Commission in 2021. As part of this briefing\, staff will seek the EC’s approval to extend the October 15\, 2023\, date to remove the post-2019 vessels to October 15\, 2024.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609: adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Extension Request Provisional Approval (PDF) // Settlement Agreement (PDF)// Staff Presentation (PDF) // Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-23-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/ LOCATION:Metro Center\, 375 Beale Street\, San Francisco\, CA\, 94105\, United States CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230817T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230817T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230818T032346Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T174601Z UID:10000043-1692277200-1692291600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 17\, 2023 Commission Meetings (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of August 17\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to August 17\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after August 17\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nSteve ChappelleLower Joice Island Suisun Resource Conservation District2544 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \nClaude GrilloGolden Gate – Pacific Flyway CenterP.O. Box 907Concord\, CA 94522 \nAndrew BoganThe Teal Club25840 Vinedo LaneLos Altos Hills\, CA 94022 \nMike LenziArnold Ranch4886 Northwood DriveFairfield\, CA 94534 \nLarry NewhallJoice Island Mallard Farms1993 Rockville RoadFairfield\, CA 94534 \nChris BessetteThe Island Club201 Ewing TerraceSan Francisco\, CA 94118 \nMike DeSimoni\, Mallard Inn Duck Club100 West Cutting Blvd.Richmond\, CA 94804 \nEdward Jonat\, SprigatealP.O. Box 2602Suisun City\, CA 94585 \nArmand Butticci\, RBM Land Co.2804 Velvet WayWalnut Creek\, CA 94596 \nKyle Peacock Mallard Haven3421 Golden Gate WayLafayette\, CA 94549 \nLeen MadsenVolanti Duck Club4600 E. Hidden Valley Dr.Reno\, NV 89502 \nCarl Koehler\, Arnold Ranch2222 Bryce LaneDavis\, CA 95616 \nMike TempsMontezuma Gun Club12885 Alcosta Blvd.\, Ste ASan Ramon\, CA 95483 \nLeonard GiannoThe Honker Club380 Via Palo LindaFairfield\, CA 94534 \nJohn EudyWheeler Island Land Company300 Victorian LaneDanville\, CA 94526 \nPaul ZhengSan Francisco Club1255 26th Ave.San Francisco\, CA 94122 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.005.00md \nFiled on 7/18/23 \n90th Day on 10/16/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s Bay\, 100-foot shoreline band and managed wetland jurisdiction and within the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area. \nDescriptionIn the Bay and Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh \nConduct in-kind repair and maintenance along 36\,109 linear feet of exterior levees through placement of dredged sediment along the levee backslope and crown in multiple locations at fifteen managed wetlands known as Mallard Inn Duck Club\, The Teal Club\, Arnold Ranch\, Joice Island Mallard Farms\, Pacific Flyway – Golden Gate Duck Club\, Sprigateal\, RBM Land Company\, Lower Joice Island\, The Island Club\, Montezuma Gun Club\, Honker Farms\, The San Francisco Club\, Volanti Duck Club\, Mallard Haven and Wheeler Island. The sediment used for the levee maintenance shall be mechanically dredged and consists of: (1) 21\,165 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from multiple locations within the Suisun Marsh Habitat Management\, Preservation and Restoration Plan’s Regions 1 and 2 “minor sloughs;” (2) 8\,342 cy of sediment from multiple locations within Regions 1\, 2 and 4 “Dredger’s Cut;” (3) 656 cy of sediment from one location within Montezuma Slough’s “Dredger Cut;” and (4) 1\,883 cy from one location in Region 2 “major slough\,” altogether totaling 32\,046 cy of sediment dredged from approximately 12.63 acres of tidal sloughs adjacent to the managed wetlands. \nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions Pascale Soumoy; 415/352-3669 or pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing August 11\, 2023 \n\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nFostering Fairness in Flood Risk Management\nWho’s on First at the SF Seawall?\nAttention California Boaters – expired marine flare collection events at multiple counties in August and September 2023\nAt a summit she helped start\, an absent Sen. Dianne Feinstein is honored in Lake Tahoe URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-17-2023-commission-meetings-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230810T080000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230810T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230811T054041Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050756Z UID:10000035-1691654400-1691686800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 10\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-10-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230807T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230808T061539Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T225743Z UID:10000061-1691427600-1691427600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 7\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This meeting of the Design Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board members are located at the primary physical location. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84698619387?pwd=Q2xuV0dSOFJlaTBKKzJMQlp2ZDFadz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID846 9861 9387 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for December 12\, 2022 (PDF) and April 10\, 2023 (PDF) Meetings\nStaff Update\n1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application Review (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of the proposal by Four Corners Properties to redevelop a 6.91-acre site with a life sciences campus at 1301 Shoreway Road in the City of Belmont\, San Mateo County. The project proposes to demolish the existing four-story office building on site and construct two 7- to 8-level office/R&D buildings and a 9-level parking garage. The project proposes both on-site and off-site public access improvements\, including constructing a new sidewalk along Sem Lane to provide public access from Shoreway Road to the shoreline\, widening the Belmont Creek Trail\, and refreshing the landscape with seating areas and trail serving amenities.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nSan Leandro Shoreline Development Project\, City of San Leandro\, Alameda County; (Fourth Pre-Application Review) (PDF)The Design Review Board will hold their fourth pre-application review of a proposal by Cal Coast Companies\, LLC and the City of San Leandro to redevelop the San Leandro Marina and surrounding land. The proposed project would include a waterfront park\, hotel\, restaurant\, residential and condominium buildings\, and a commercial building. The project has undergone significant design and land use changes since the second review in 2016.(Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \n \nMeeting Transcript \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, are we ready to go? \nOkay. Good evening. My name is Gary Strang. I am the vice chair of the B. C. DC. Design Review Board. I’m going in tonight for just into the can who could not be here. But she sends her regards\, especially to the new Board members \nwho are joining us tonight for the first time\, Leo Chow\, and \nDRB Meeting Room: and so \nShe wish she could be here. But she is following along. \nDRB Meeting Room: we are located at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those who are participating online. Our first order of business is to call the role board members. Please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. So\, Ashley\, please feel free to call a roll \nacting chair\, strain. present board\, member or not present board member\, Chow. \nboard\, member leader here. board\, member Pellegrini present. \nBcbc. Staff attending tonight\, or myself\, Ashley\, Tamerlan. Kerry Jewett\, Kathryn\, Pan Shutti\, Sinha\, and Jess Sinkle. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum presence. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nand I appreciate everyone’s patience as we go through some protocol for everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nfor board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on\, so everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during a public comment period. That is part of an agenda item\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nFirst\, if you are here and with us in person\, we’ll ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. Speaker\, cards are available at the door. You asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation. Prior \nproviding comments during the meeting. After all of the individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hands in the zoom. \nIf you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it’s raised. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad \nto raise or lower your hand to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. you will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nDRB Meeting Room: After you’re called on you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nPlease state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of the remark. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item. and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nDRB Meeting Room: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. \nbut everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. It will not tolerate hate\, speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time with it \nwithout permission for public comments. If you’re attending online. Please note. we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you’re attending the medium. The meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists. Audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings \nconcerning these projects. Please call her email Ashley\, Tom Orlyn. His contact information is on the screen or is found on the Cdc’s website. \nDRB Meeting Room: Finally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting post Yuri\, our Bctc. Staff \nare acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the next order of business is to approve the \nthe minutes from the previous 2 meetings or \nDRB Meeting Room: and so board members. We’ve all been given draft minutes of our December twelfth \n2\,022 meeting and a draft summary of our April the eighth\, 2\,023 meeting. Are there any comments or corrections that anyone would like to make? \nDRB Meeting Room: I would appreciate? \nYes. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, so let’s go ahead with comments. this would just be for the board members who attended those meetings. Obviously. \nDRB Meeting Room: Stefan. \nanyone else? No\, comments. \nCf\, I so since I had a comments minor comment\, crafting some language. see? \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. She gave me a comment. But I’m not sure which of the meeting notes \nfirst 2. She had made a general statement \nDRB Meeting Room: chair. Mccann mentioned that this was very sad. I think we were saying goodbye to \nAndre. At this point she said\, \nDRB Meeting Room: She mentioned that this was a very sad evening for everyone on the Drp. And she stated the Graphic that you have shared\, and she lined out \nand replaced it with clearly shows \nDRB Meeting Room: the incredible impact that you have had on the Dr. B’s work. So minor. But \nit’s important to crop that line. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you didn’t get that\, we can catch up on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. \nSo like to make a motion to adopt the minutes\, then can someone make a motion \nDRB Meeting Room: move to the \nokay\, and if there are no no issues with that\, then the minutes will be approved and amended as noted. \nDRB Meeting Room: And now the Board Secretary will provide staff update. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Chair. \nI’m going to keep this brief tonight. Thank you. To the Board members who attended the July 20 sixth they adapt Briefing staff\, found it to be an incredibly rich conversation\, and we look forward to working with the boards as the projects develop \nfor newly reopened public access. Foster City Phase 2 is now open\, and Phase 3 is on track for opening later this month. This time there are approximately 4 and a half of the 6 and a half miles available for public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: The picture shown is one of the levy access trails. \nOur next meeting is scheduled for Monday\, September eleventh\, and will be a hybrid meeting here at Metro Center we will be holding our third review for the India\, based in Shoreline Park and our first review of the proposed office development site in Oakland. \nThat concludes the B. Cdc. Staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. \nthere is none. So we can move on to the next item. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, the next item is public comments for items not on tonight’s agenda. We’ll start with those members of the public and our headquarters building here today. Please form a line near the podium. If you have a public comment. \nAfter all\, the individuals who are present make their comments. We’ll call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: seeing no comments here in the room. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment. \nplease raise your virtual hand. Remember\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press\, star 9\, and your keypad. Raise your hand to make a comment to mute or unmute press\, star 6. It will be called on. Your your hand was raised\, and you will have 3 min to speak \nhere. You will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comments \nDRB Meeting Room: just mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified to future meetings. \nPlease call or email. Actually. \nDRB Meeting Room: we have no public comments here. \nDRB Meeting Room: In that case we can move on to the first review of \nproposed Project 1\,301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development in the city of Belmont. in San Mateo County. \nDRB Meeting Room: The first review \nand just to remind everybody of how the meeting is scheduled\, they’ll be \nDRB Meeting Room: Dcdc. Staff introductions. \nA project proponent presentation followed by clarifying questions from the Board. A period of public comment \nDRB Meeting Room: which will then be followed by a board discussion and summary. \nand then an opportunity for the project proponent to briefly respond. \nDRB Meeting Room: And so with that. DC. DC\, permit analysts. \nIntroduce the project. 50. \nThank you. Acting chair Strang\, and good evening board members. My name is Shutti Sina. I am a permit analyst at BC. DC. The first project for review tonight is a Life Sciences Redevelopment project in Belmont\, proposed by 4 Corners properties \nDRB Meeting Room: before we discuss the project\, we would like to begin by acknowledging that the majority of the land in this area was once water in historic tidal flats located near lantern\, the unseeded ancestral homeland of the ramitous Olone. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay Area. \nDRB Meeting Room: 1\,301. Shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1\,301 shore road in the city of Belmont\, San Mateo County\, just outside the Redwood Shores waterfront Community. \nThe project site is bounded by Sam Lane to the northwest Shoreway road to the southwest. a Pg. And E. Substation to the south and the Belmont Creek to the east. \nThe site shares the Belmont Creek shoreline with 10 twin Dolphin and 200 twin dolphin\, both recently reviewed by the Drb. In 2 in 2\,022 \nShoreway road is adjacent to\, and runs parallel with Highway 101. \nDRB Meeting Room: The existing permit for the project site \nB. C. DC. Permit number M. 1\,981 point 6 4 point 0 2 was originally issued on May eighteenth\, 1\,982\, in association with the construction of \na 48\,000 square foot building\, which is now a medical offices building. The permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court and the overall public access requirements of the permit include \nappropriate landscaping a 10 foot wide\, pedestrian path\, no fewer than 3 benches. no fewer than 2 public access signs and an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court or the Sports Court. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a Google Street view capture of the site from Shoreway Road. To this\, to the right\, you can see the vehicular entrance of the site\, and a 4 story. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry \nthis. This \ncapture is taken from Highway 101\, which runs parallel to show railroad. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is another Google Street view capture of the site from Semlene to the right you can see the parking lot of the 1\,301 Shoreway campus. To the left is the pedestrian entrance to the the trail from Sam Lane. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a photo of the Belmont Creek at the site from a staff visit \nlast year. The building on the left is the existing building on the former oracle campus across the creek. \nDRB Meeting Room: This slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas. The existing Bay trail alignment is shown as a green line. The Belmont flew as a light blue Line \nHighway 101 and Highway 82 as dark blue lines\, Cal. Train as the pink line and nearby parks in green. \nDRB Meeting Room: With respect to the social setting of the project location. The area is largely dominated by office buildings \nand B. Cdc’s vulnerability mapping tools shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability associated with lower contamination vulnerability. In this area\, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle\, people with a disability. People of color\, people with limited English proficiency\, and people with very low income. \nNote that there is some. There is an area to the West that has a higher social vulnerability. Vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile. For this area includes children under 5 people over 65\, and alone\, people with no high school degree people with limited English proficiency\, and people who are not Us. Citizens \nDRB Meeting Room: moving on to sea level rise. \nI note that Belmont Creek is a tidal waterway and using current site elevations. This map\, with the projects I outlined in red shows that shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remain unchanged \nfor the medium to high risk aversion. Scenario 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level\, which would also not cause any flooding on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site if unchanged. \nHere the project site is outlined in yellow\, but the medium to high-risk aversion scenario 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid-century\, and mean higher high water in the year 2\,090\, \nDRB Meeting Room: and you can see that there is inundation throughout the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: To conclude this introduction\, we’ve summarized the Bay Plan policy and guideline questions that apply to this project. In addition\, we have also included some questions by staff that we would like the Board to consider. \nPlease note that the staff report had identified the proposed courtyard as publicly accessible. However\, the project team has indicated that the courtyard would\, in fact\, be private. \nDoes the Board have any clarifying questions at this point? \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s like no questions. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. With that I will hand it over to rich Ying of 4 Corners properties to present the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hello\, everyone board members and staff. My name is rich in the 4 Corners representing Project ownership. \nRene here\, will go through to the presentation on me. I’m just going to give a pref and trump \nDRB Meeting Room: with me in person. Here are Renee Connor and Daniel\, from SW. A. \nCraig\, from Dga. Raquel\, from Bkf. Villa\, from Moffat Nichols. \nDRB Meeting Room: and I think joining us remotely\, is Karen and Dj. As well. \nDRB Meeting Room: So before I turn over to Rene\, who will go into the project details\, I just wanted to give a brief overview of who we are. So 4 corners started almost 20 years ago. \nAnd since inception we’ve been Bay\, area-based and B area focused. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, our ownership. History \nhas solely been concentrated on the Bay Area from San Francisco to San Jose. In fact\, one of my partners and I are both barrier born and very raised. So you know\, we have a pretty \ndeep commitment to building high-quality projects in our backyard \nDRB Meeting Room: for context. We purchased the property back in December of 21 with our capital partner. and since then we’ve been working with the city \nand B Cdc. Staff on the design and necessary approvals for each relevant component and I just wanted to note that while nobody from the Sbca\, I don’t think is on tonight. Remotely\, we did forward a letter to staff \nfrom Sbca. Endorsing there. support for our \nDRB Meeting Room: proposed improvements. \nAnd with that I’ll turn over to Rene. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, if I got that part Russian\, easy \nGood evening. Distinguished Commissioners\, board members\, and BC. DC. Staff. My name is Renee Bian\, managing partner of SW. A. San Francisco \nstudio. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s an honor to present the 1\,301 Shoreway project this today. This evening. \nI represent one small part of a team that I think has a very deep bench in this area. And if questions get technical later on\, we may have to call some of those \nto the mic. I’d also like to give a warm shout out to Shrew T. And Ashley\, who’s been great thought partners for us over the last several months and highly professional in guiding us through this process. \n13 or one sure way\, I’ll try to not be too redundant with the overview that Truty gave. But It’s in the city of Belmont\, and it’s adjacent to the Belmont Creek site as shrew teeth navigated \nthe site\, although our site itself is fairly small\, I think it combines beautifully with both the 200 twin dolphin site and the 10 twin dolphin site kind of\, you know the parts adding up to a a bigger whole. \nsuper. Important to recognize that. Our site is\, in fact\, the on the creek side\, and it does not correct. Connect directly to the larger bay trail system. However\, with the advantage of 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin\, it will connect through those those sites. \nDRB Meeting Room: also. to note that. the site\, the DC DC jurisdiction area is only half owned by our client. 4 corners. The other half is owned by Sbc. A. And as Rich said\, they’ve been very supportive. And albeit last minute they did draft a very supportive letter today. \nother kind of important contextual things is that to the west some lane is a private street owned by the city of Belmont. To the east is the Pg. And E. Substation quite an unsightly mess. \nand then we have both the one one freeway and shoreline to the south. As Shruti mentioned\, the site was originally approved in 1\,981\, and then in 1\,985\, a modification to add up a tennis court adjacent to the site. \nagain\, the trail head for our site begins currently at the end of Sam Lane. There’s a small sign and a \ntrailhead. However\, there’s no public walkway that connects from Shoreway to the trail head itself. The site will eventually\, as I said\, connect to the north side of the creek itself\, and from the north side will have connections both through the 200 twin Dolphin and the 10 twin dolphin projects. \nDRB Meeting Room: oops. \nDRB Meeting Room: Sorry. existing condition of the site. You know. I’m just gonna be frank. It’s not great. the in addition to the 101 freeway and Shoreway Road. There’s a 70 foot wide. Utility easement to the south side of the site. The Pg. And e substation is is currently \nonerous\, to say the least. Some lane only has one access into the existing surface parking lot. And again\, the current access to the actual trail head is is not great. \nimages from the 101. There are no indicators that there is\, you know\, a a water body\, natural system from the 101 itself \nas you get in a little closer to one I want sure way. same thing. You know\, it’s about 5 to 600 feet from Shoreway to the actual trail itself\, and there are no visible indicators that really show you\, you know. \nGo here\, so to speak. the site itself in the upper right that is the trail head and the sign. But again\, no public access to that trail head \nThe creek is. The condition is currently. you know\, pretty much in disrepair\, with the benches and the trash and the other amenities overgrown. And even that vegetation\, you know. \nDRB Meeting Room: implemented several decades ago\, is not\, is not great. the. It’s also\, I think\, a little bit of an incoherent Site plan in terms of There are not enough indicators to help clarify. You know\, the directionality of the path. How do you get from one place to the other. the shaping of the spaces. Everything feels just a little bit hunky\, Tonk\, and maybe not\, as on par with the other amenities that we see in the Bay area for this this level of of site. \nDRB Meeting Room: this is the flood map and we covered that briefly. But I want to give my oops. \nSorry\, a quick indicator of numbers here and again\, if there are specific technical questions\, we can come back to that. But the creek. Yeah. The creek trail itself \ncurrently meets a resiliency standard to mid-century based on a king tide of 7 9 plus 2 feet sea level rise. So worst case scenario 9.9. \nThe Belmont Creek is currently at 11 to 11.8 feet in elevation\, which exceeds the 9.9 the trail can be adapted to handle the 1 100 year storm event. \nand for good measure we’re proposing to raise it to 12.2\, so existing building is it 15. Existing elevation of the shoreline is 11 to eleven-five\, and the trail fluctuates from 10.9 to 11.5 in its existing condition. \nSo we’re going to switch a little bit to talk about flood adaptation\, and how we intend to address that both short term and long term. first of all along the creek itself\, as I said\, for good measure. \nwe’re going to raise the trail to 12.5 from its current standard of 10.9 and 11.5. The building elevations will be set at 12 per the city of Belmont and we’re also going to do some shaping to the berm that I’m gonna get to here. \nDRB Meeting Room: So left to right\, I’m I’m sorry. In the upper right hand corner you’ll see some section keys\, and if you follow the those through the series of sections\, it should be pretty clear what we’re doing. So building pads are going to elevation 12 existing curb and gutter to remain at 10.3 and then the trail and the planted area\, and the \nhead of the berm itself will raise to 12.5 at the high level \nDRB Meeting Room: next section. Cut a little bit further down as you’re into that proposed courtyard itself. the again. The berm will be elevated from it’s currently at 11 2 to 12.5. \nThe Graphic is a slightly off on on this one. If you read the the actual numerical at 12\, it should be 12.5. It looks a little bit higher than that. I apologize. But \nDRB Meeting Room: Then the section at the garage itself\, again elevating the levy to 12.5\, and keeping the building at 12 and existing courtyard fluctuates with that flow of the grading itself. \nlong term\, and for that 2\,100 mark we feel that there’s plenty of room to build up to the high\, high level of. We have about 50 feet to deal with\, and which gives us enough time enough room to burn up\, to get the access to the site\, and then to return back before we hit the downslope to the creek itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: So\, switching now to a program and kind of the amenities package\, so to speak. \nstarting back at Shoreway. we are proposing to add a 6 foot wide sock sidewalk. with proper signage at the intersection of Sam and Shoreway. \nThe walk continues all the way down to the site itself\, where you’ll meet a improved trail head\, 10 bite parking stalls\, 3 vehicular parking stalls\, and then a series of both passive and active seating nodes along the trail itself at a rhythm of about 100 150 feet each. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the signage again\, both pulling it out to Shoreway Boulevard. I think\, particularly for hotel guests in the adjacent room. That’s where they’re gonna want to kind of see it and kind of pick it up and go down to it\, and then improving the signage and bringing more of an informational signage to the trail\, head itself at the creek. \nSo existing condition. where then? Not a through street sign is to the right will be the new walkway to the left\, at the hotel that walkway does not continue all the way down. \nso it would be 6 foot high side walkway. And again the informational graphics \nDRB Meeting Room: and a planting buffer between the walkway and the proposed building. \nDRB Meeting Room: once you get to the trail head itself. As I said\, there’s a series of different nodes. One is kind of to build on that existing athletic program nodes. So a bicycle repair station\, obviously bike parking\, but also kind of high quality exercise stations in half of the nodes that are being provided. \nThe other half of the nodes will be more passive seating node for bird watching. Or you know\, quiet phone calls You know\, we want this to be a a trail and an amenity that’s for people of all ages and all economic groups. we want it to be inclusive. So we’re we’re proposing as much variety as we think is kind of reasonable on the the site here. \nBut also\, you know\, the nodes aren’t one-liners. Obviously\, if there’s exercise stations\, it’ll be paired with a quality seating that gives people good orientation\, not just to the creek\, but to the to the surrounding landscape \nDRB Meeting Room: again\, you know just a so simple and accessible node next to the adjacent path\, and looking down the the slew itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the fourth node is slightly larger\, and it would include\, obviously\, community\, more community style tables and chairs where people could have meetings or \nhave their launch\, or\, you know\, do something that’s a little bit more socially engaged \nDRB Meeting Room: just a slight blow up of these areas again that as you’re looking at it 3 new designated parking stalls\, there are 0 now. 10 class 2 bike parking. There are 0 now\, a new walkway to connect to the trail head and improved educational signage. and then which kind of brings you around to the first \nseating burning node there. \nDRB Meeting Room: so the existing condition again. No parking\, no bikes\, no connectivity \nto the proposed condition. I should also point out that to the left\, here in the center of the screen. That’s the official bay trail. we’ve also included a secondary trail adjacent to the parking structure\, so that there’s 2 ways to kind of navigate through the through the project itself. \nA slight blow up of both that active node\, the fitness node above\, and the more passive trail seating below. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then finally the largest node at the end. It’s it would be a fitness node a meeting node to the center or above the the tennis court\, and a fitness node below. So the 2 nodes combine\, and there’s an additional seating node in the back\, which is a part of the existing \nwalkway system behind the courts themselves. \nBlow up looking you’re looking across at 10 twin Dolphin drive the future 10 to the dolphin drive. and an example again\, of the scale and the materiality of of these nodes. \nDRB Meeting Room: existing vegetation. Again\, it’s not great. The trees are listed in either every tree is listed either as poor or extremely poor conditions. Several are already dead\, very few natives\, and we would be replacing that with a more \nindigenous. plant pellet. We’re clearly wanting to complement and build off of the plant palette that both 200 twin dolphin and 10 to involve and have done for a bigger\, larger ecological impact \nto the Overall creek itself. hopefully. the material palette looks familiar to most of you\, but this would be the look and the scale that we’d be looking for. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then the ground covers. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that’s a presentation. Thank you very much. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much\, Renee\, for that very clear and comprehensive presentation and and graphics that are really easy to comprehend. So we’ve got a we’re going to take a moment here to see if there’s any questions from the board\, clarifying questions on the proponents. Presentation. \nDRB Meeting Room: If you have a question\, please. \non your mic. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. Nice presentation. this is a new\, newly constructed parking day along the \nhe’s in the creek. Are there a. C. 3 stormwater requirements they handled in there somewhere. \nDRB Meeting Room: for the the development itself\, for for the\, for the parking strip that’s within the yeah\, that that will all drain to the private development itself. Yeah. \nright\, Raquel. \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: that I I will say that for the private development we’re using pretty much the same plant palette and the same strategy kind of tying the 2 ecologies together. So the the C 3 requirement is actually kind of a feature of the \na private courtyard. \nI had one question about just to make sure I was reading the illustrations correctly. The adaptation zone for a future as well as the nodes that you were showing. \nDo those fall outside of your client’s property. Ownership \nDRB Meeting Room: is that within the other property ownership that you established at the beginning of the presentation? \nit’s really designed as as one zone. The nodes are within the twelve-five adaptation area\, though\, if I understand your question. \nDRB Meeting Room: so they’ll be above twelve-. \nOkay\, is that was that the question. the question is more about the property lines. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s a that’s \ngood question. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it. So that property line is indicating everything east of it is the Sbc 8. Okay\, thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Anyone else. \nYeah. maybe 2 questions. If you could help us with one. Is you heard the question from Staff about the the quality of publicness of the central court. \nSo it’d be great to hear a little bit more about the thresholds \nDRB Meeting Room: entering and exiting that court\, and how that is made to feel welcoming. \nAnd then maybe the second question is. there’s a larger cluster seating adjacent to the court\, which perhaps reflects the current condition. \nIs there any thought about how the changes to the uses on the land side effects where people are more likely to gather or not? \nYeah. So your first question is\, how are we making it more public the court\, the making it welcoming for the public to move through the court\, because my understanding is that that is considered part of the public access. Oh\, the private court\, as a part of the development. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the question the question is\, how is the courtyard with what’s your attitude on the publicness of the courtyard that’s being created by the 3 building? If I could Just clarify that there are 2 things that might be. we’re being referred to as a court. There is an inner court yard which is part of the proposal. and then there is a \nsports court\, which is a an existing feature on the site both of which are are private and intended to remain. So. \nOkay. \nDRB Meeting Room: maybe you can handle the \ntouch on the the gathering by the private court\, the the sports court. Okay? Why\, there’s a larger one there. Given the changes on the land side. Okay? so in on the \nthat \nDRB Meeting Room: more or less\, this is it. \nthat’s the largest area right now. And if you look at the Site plan\, I mean one of that one of that I think benefits to the to the greater public is that this parcel line kind of triangulates in front of the Pg. And E substation. \nSo the planting and the landscape that goes there will help screen that at least from short way drive. And so there’s there’s benefit there that larger gathering space there is about the size of the existing gathering space that’s currently there. So there’s a larger space there. The other nodes are distributed. I guess they would add up to allow a larger space. \nBut I’m trying to. \nDRB Meeting Room: Your question is\, why? Why? Why is the big space where it is now? Versus later? Yeah\, I think it has more to do with the geometry and the fact that there’s more area to work with there because the space can pull in adjacent to the to the Sports court. \nI mean\, if there was a desire to make one of the other nodes larger\, we could. I mean\, there’s nothing precluding it. This is not a trail that currently gets a lot of use because it it’s somewhat dead ends on some lane. So we don’t want to over scale these spaces. We want it to feel comfortable. \nbut the the largest space is adjacent to the tennis court\, just because there’s more flat landmass to to deal with there. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you very much for the presentation. \nhave a \nDRB Meeting Room: couple of questions\, and then I think\, as some clarifications would be helpful about something in the staff report. \nmaybe we could start with that. There’s the discussion I have a levy \nDRB Meeting Room: and the justification for why the levy improvements are sort of outside the purview of this project. and I would love it if you could provide us some more context as to where that levy is \nDRB Meeting Room: and in its relationship to what’s actually being improved. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, can I? Do you mind just killing your microphone? \nCan someone else help me with that one? \nGo back to the see my map. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, my name is Rachel Phones. I’m from Bkf engineers. so the actual creek is outside of the property. \nin. we are basically just enhancing it. since it’s outside of our property. \nDRB Meeting Room: I know if that answers your question\, and it’s about maybe 30 feet away from the property line. \nDRB Meeting Room: But there is a levy on the \non the inland side of the creek. The you know. It’s a berm. It’s not technically a levy in in in the staff report\, and this might be a question for staff. \nThe discussion of this levy is\, is that what you are referring to? Yes\, the trail\, the Belmont Creek trail on both sides\, on the 1\,301 Charlotte Showway side\, and on the 201 dolphin intent on dolphin side. are both on a what we’ve understood from those projects to be a fema\, certified Levy. So the the trail \nthe pedestrian trail. They are actually on top of the levy and From those the the prior projects we’ve learned that because it is there on a a fema certified levy. any changes \nto to the those those areas would require action from several other agencies and municipalities. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the strategy is to have the individual property owners gling the 2 that we’ve previously seen\, and this one to improve to a new base plot elevation outside of the physical levy. \nand that sort of further down the road there could be a agency-driven fled control project within the creek corridor. \nBut yeah\, but but the idea is that we’re just looking at the per view. I see. Actually\, you’re not in your head. Okay\, yeah\, I just want to make sure that we sort of understood that in the context of what we’re sort of talking about\, Stefan. I also would like to add that I think the levy that you may be referring to should also mentioned. It’s that dash black line. Yes\, that is on the other side. Yes\, that’s \non the other side of the quick\, which is not part of this improvements. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. So in that context. And this might be a question for today. again. But we’re talking about the sort of connectivity and synergy that can come from \nthis project in the context of the twin dolphin improvements. So for someone to actually access the trail and cross the creek corridor. \ncan you provide some guidance for actually how that actually would happen for a production\, either on this side to reach the bay trail side or from somebody on the twin Dolphin side to actually come over to this side of the creek. \nSo currently the trail head starts here. and continues and connects to the north side. Here it’s sure way. So you come here. There’s no bridge or structure that goes over the creek until you hit shoreline\, so then you would follow shoreline to the north side of the creek\, and either you know\, cross here to the bay trail or come down to this end \nto hit the bay trail. \nand the \nDRB Meeting Room: context that are providing additional connectivity between these sites in this location \nis due to the fact that the \nDRB Meeting Room: creek is lying outside the jurisdiction. \nThat’s really what we’re looking at like. If\, for example\, like a pedestrian bridge or something that would create synergy or provide opportunities for these amenities to be more easily accessed between sites. It’s this jurisdictional issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m sorry I don’t understand your question like why you couldn’t propose like a pedestrian bridge across the creek that actually would provide a more direct connection between where the improvements are actually happening. \nFor example. \nyeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. \nDRB Meeting Room: So the creek\, it’s not part of our property. And I mean it’ also trigger all their agencies like you\, said Fema. And they are out of our control. Yeah\, right? Yeah. I mean the the context for my questions is\, if it\, the access to this portion \nof the jurisdiction is is still pretty challenged. And so I I just try to sort of address that. And then Have you had any discussion with Staff about \nany \nDRB Meeting Room: shared use happening in the adjacent \nopen spaces to the public access. For example\, either the Sports Court or the Larger Development Court. Has there been any discussion about potential for shared use\, maintaining privacy on those sites but opening them up under certain terms \nor uses or activities to the the broader public. \nDRB Meeting Room: because of that nature of the building itself is like science security is definitely an an issue\, and the owner is kind of adamant that the court itself\, although visually accessible and ecologically accessible\, not be physically accessible. \nAnd then this force that goes for the Sports Court that’s adjacent to the trail as well. Well\, I think the preference would be to keep the it’s it’s not as hard line. But I think the preference would be to keep the sports chord private. Okay\, thank you very much for the additional contacts. Appreciate it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \na couple of questions I have. So the 12.5\, the berm or the levy whatever calling it when you get to the ends. Is there any indication of\, you know connection at the at the ends or \nyou know. I guess we’re always interested to\, you know\, when you look at it in section. It looks like you have protection when you look at it in plan\, you know. Not as much protection until you know the levy continues. \nDRB Meeting Room: so is a question that when you get to the end\, do you know\, work to go? Where to continue? Well? Does it? Does it close off\, you know. Does it turn back on the property lines to protect or or is it? Is it only effective when the adjacent properties complete the the thought\, and \nyou know\, related to that also is just the the finish floor of the existing building set at 12\, you said\, which was by the city\, the set by the city. Yeah. Okay. And I was just curious where you know the what\, what sets that? What are the guidelines they’re going from or the the \nI don’t know. The criteria that sets that when those guidelines were written\, perhaps is is maybe more to the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: Well\, maybe someone else has a better answer. But I think they use the fema guideline\, the city of Belmont. \nDid you know \nDRB Meeting Room: I actually just did it here. So the city of Belmont required us to. We’re on flat Zone X\, which there is no a specific base\, flat elevation\, but the city of a Belmont. they said that they would like us to set it at 12\, just because. \nwe’re right next to the phone\, ae\, with base flight elevation 10. And they wanted to make sure that we are accommodating for the 24 inches\, probably the sea level rise. So then\, they said\, please set it to 12. So that’s where that came from. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah. And I I guess my question is\, you know\, was there any consideration about going higher\, or what is longevity of the 12 So we’re trying to make sure that we’re able to conform to the streets because the streets same lane and also the short way road. So I think based on the guidelines the city gave us. That’s probably the most so we can go right now\, otherwise it will be hard for us to create more challenging to confirm to the assistant streets that are not going to be raised. \nYeah\, thank you. It’s it’s pretty much maxed out right now. \nDRB Meeting Room: just for accessibility on the\, on the issue about what happens at the end of the trail. I don’t have the history of when it was proved\, but the adjacent property adjacent to Pg. And E. Seems to have had a recent \nimprovement\, and it’s pretty nice when you get there. You know you feel like you just continue on in terms of the feel of of the nodes themselves on on our property. They’re intended to be able to look 360\, not just like\, you know. Look there\, and we’re turning the back on that on the project itself. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great\, thank you. Yeah\, I realize it’s a regional problem. But I was just curious. Any thoughts you have on how you how it transitions into the future. Yeah. The the other thing I thought I heard you ask\, but I think it’s an important point. Any is that we’re not dependent on 200 twin dolphin or 10 twin Dolphin to have a successful project because our loop goes to Shoreway. when when our project is built in our trail is\, you know\, it’s kind of a standalone piece improved. Obviously\, when the neighborhood improves but not dependent on it. \nDRB Meeting Room: because because the whole property is raised\, you’re protected. Yeah. \ngot it? Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay. If there is no further questions\, then I think we can move on to \npublic comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: like to open the meeting to the public. Any member of the public attending. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to make a comment. if you do\, does it look like you have comments. If so\, I’ll read the instructions again. \nDRB Meeting Room: There are no comments online here. \nOkay. okay\, hold on. We did receive one letter of support from the project or for the project from the Redwood Shores business agency. \nRegarding the proposed shoreline trail improvements. The comments have been forwarded to the Board and will be included in the meeting summary. \nOkay\, thank you. Then\, at this time we can have a board discussion. I think this is\, oh\, did you have something? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, quickly. I would like to \ncorrect something I told in. I I said in response to board member Pellegrini’s question about the levy I just spoke with dillip survey of mafia and nickel which is consulting the applicant. \nThe the project team on sea level rise and and flooding assessments. and I’ve just been told that \nthis side of the the the Belmont Creek the \nDRB Meeting Room: it is not a fema certified levy. It is on the twin dolphin side\, but not on on the 1\,301 sure way side\, not on the side that this project falls on \nso presumably this means that it can it it. \nDRB Meeting Room: There is a possibility of \nplacing\, fill\, or or or conducting other activities on this side of what is basically a berm \nDRB Meeting Room: which would not have been possible without agency. \nFurther agency action on the other side of the creek\, on the twin dolphin side. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Great. Thank you. Troy. So yeah\, we have an opportunity to bring forward any comments that the Board has at this time any advice. \nAnd \nDRB Meeting Room: what we can do is \nI think we want to answer the questions in the context of the \nDRB Meeting Room: the issues that we are asked to address as a board. There are 7 objectives for public access. \nMake the public access. I feel public\, make it usable. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and the shoreline. \nmaintain and enhance the visual quality of the day. Shoreline and adjacent developments provide connections and continuity along the shoreline. take advantage of the base setting \nDRB Meeting Room: and ensure that public access is compatible with wildlife through citing design and management strategies. So those are those are issues that we’re asked to \naddress for every project. And then\, in addition to that\, there’s a few other more specific comments that are coming to us from staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: How does the project proposal result in the public spaces that feel public? \nAnd does the project proposal allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people. \nDRB Meeting Room: Proposal includes both passive and active public spaces along the shoreline integrated with campus-oriented uses. \nlike the sports court and parking does. The sighting of these public and campus-oriented programs enhance and activate the shoreline in a manner that is inviting to public users \nDRB Meeting Room: what additional improvements could enhance the public access experience from the publicly accessible courtyard \nto and along the shoreline \nDRB Meeting Room: and that I believe that’s not correct\, right? It’s not a publicly accessible courier. \nSo I say that again\, what additional improvements could enhance the public experience from the \nDRB Meeting Room: courtyard 2. And along the shoreline. And this is referring to the large courtyard. Correct? And I could I ask if we do? We have a an enlargement of that area since that’s one of the main questions. I think that would be helpful to \nput that up as possible. given the increase in scale and size of the buildings on site. That’s the proposed design. Provide legible connections from the adjacent roadways and bike pedestrian networks \nto draw users into and through the site. The Belmont Creek trail and shoreline. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, are the public access areas appropriately designed to be resilient and adapted to sea level rise \nin balance with ensuring high quality\, public space. public access\, opportunity. So I know that’s a lot. we can come back to those if if needed. But maybe we’re just \nso we just start at the end of the table there. Stefan\, and we’ll work our way. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, I’ll try to do my best to go first. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think in a I’ll start by saying in the context of the other projects that we’ve seen in this area. \nI think that just \nDRB Meeting Room: from a starting point. The idea that there is new development that’s happening that actually can enhance the public realm is like a huge positive \nbecause the sort of the previous generation of development that happen in this area. It’s it’s ready for some renewal. And so I think that actually is really positive. \nthat there’s an opportunity to enhance the sort of public space in this location\, and particularly when there’s multiple projects that are adjacent to one another. \nso I I’m that’s I think that’s a big plus sort of a benefit. Here. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m gonna look at the rest of my my team members here. I the this one\, I think\, is a little bit tricky\, because the \nDRB Meeting Room: as I mentioned\, like the access in this \nlocation\, this is sort of not great. It’s not well connected. It’s sort of shoe horned in between the freeway and the other amenities that are basically on the other side of the waterway in this location? \nand so I think\, trying to sort of understand or look at it through. That context is important\, like\, what are we trying to do by maximizing public access in this location? \nDRB Meeting Room: I guess one thing that’s going through my mind is that the way that it seems to be set up is that it’s looking at \nassembling as a enhanced access point for the community that you basically can find your way onto the site with bike and the the 3 public parking spaces \nat the entry where you actually enter into the project that’s enhanced\, you have better signage. It’s you’re directed into that location. And then you could sort of get off of your vehicle or your bicycle at that location and find yourself basically into the the larger public network. \nso I think that’s sort of a positive it is potentially sort of better connected to the network than you would the situation that you have today. but I’m sort of curious or sort of looking at it through that lens of \nif this does become sort of a enhanced gateway for this neighborhood to get into the Bay trail system. How much public access do we need? \nAnd so that’s I don’t know if I have the answer to that. but it does seem like that’s just sort of my context as sort of how I would look at that. Look at this in this location. \nI think. \nso on one hand\, like clear signage. clear understanding of where you are\, what you can get to. that getting to the amenities in this area. You still have to take this kind of roundabout way \nto get there. But this idea that you’re passing through nodes to get you from 1 point to the next\, I think\, is actually very positive. there’s improvements on the Pg. And that we talked about. That’s also positive. \nSome things I’m sort of wondering about is To what extent can you benefit from \nDRB Meeting Room: having visual connections to the larger open space network\, even if they’re not going to be publicly accessible. \nAnd so I’m just curious about that like can the landscape? To what extent can the landscape continue across the parking lane. can you sort of visually be in a space? What’s the edge of the public courtyard like \nthat? You can clearly\, visually access that you would not be allowed to sort of go into And those things\, maybe. \nDRB Meeting Room: they’re not well communicated by the really great set of design that we have sort of in the proposal. So I’m curious about that. \nThe Sports Court seems like a great opportunity to sort of enhance public access in that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s a fairly prominent site. It’s elevated. \nThere’s an opportunity for habitat\, probably some views in that location. and I’m just curious if there’s sort of a way to kind of push the envelope there and \nDRB Meeting Room: and get some increased public access. \nin that location. So I’ll stop. Yeah\, thank you \nDRB Meeting Room: please see on \nyeah. Actually\, maybe 2 parts. one. Stefan\, in terms of your question about general accessibility and connectivity to the broader district. \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t. I didn’t hear it. I didn’t know if it’s a possibility that there is signage at the end of some lane \nwhere there could be something as simple as a trail map\, indicating all the trails in the area. So at least there’s raising the awareness of what the public amenities in the district are that people could access. \nand I think with that kind of simple \nDRB Meeting Room: amenity\, would help people really maybe become aware of and encourage\, and perhaps spread the word any. And then the second \nthing it is\, I guess I I was asking the question about the larger seating area next to the court sports court in part\, because \nDRB Meeting Room: in its original condition\, that it was at the end of a \na driveway from Shoreway Road\, and so it felt pretty connected back out to Shoreway Road. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think\, in its current configuration\, where that of parking on the east side of the property is really a dead end loop now \nstarts to feel more remote and perhaps less available to to folks. So I just wonder if maybe that \nDRB Meeting Room: seating could be spread out more. Perhaps there’s a a node that is closer to the actual entry point. Now\, because I think \nthe configuration really shifts all of the entry to the north end. \nThank you. Okay. \nthank you for the presentation. I I agree with stuff on your framing and understanding of the context. And Gary\, as you read off \nthe goals of the lenses through which we’re viewing this\, it’s interesting that the visual connection aspect to the bay or the regional connectivity are sort of limited by conditions outside of the \ncontrol of this project. And there’s lots of limitations. And so acknowledging that the focus of this discussion primarily becomes the publicness of the trail. And \nI think that’s really where a lot \nDRB Meeting Room: of the comments that I’m hearing and where I’m going to is \nthe tennis court is a real opportunity to create something that is an anchor for public shared use\, as you know\, in your presentation running. You even describe this isn’t necessarily a popular or doesn’t see the levels of use that you might expect. So having \nsomething that signals to visitors or pastors\, by that this is intended as a place for public use or rest. and it could maybe even paired with something as simple as a water fountain. Or you know\, I mean drinking water fountain or something that’s an amenity for a public user. \nI think\, and create that signal quite successfully. I really appreciate and enjoy the concept of the fitness\, nodes and the idea of thinking of this is a cohesive trail\, and you encounter these moments\, that kind of reinforce that witness theme. \nso I think those are really successful\, and\, you know\, can add an element of playfulness. It is where I’m getting caught\, too\, is a lot of this is. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, what could be perceived as \nbehind the building. Kind of\, you know\, we’ve all been in places that feel like it is designed publicly\, but still gives you cues that you’ve chanced upon something that maybe you’re not supposed to be there. So \nthink with \nDRB Meeting Room: signage or way\, finding that even \nalong Semlene. earlier on\, before you get to the trail to be able to have these signals. That gesture towards there is a public amenity back there and encouraging people. could go a long way. So \nreally I I guess the \nDRB Meeting Room: majority of my comments are about the power of the small moves of way finding or small public amenities\, and embracing those aspects more fully. But thank you for the presentation. \nI think it’s a pretty straightforward project. I think it’s well handled. I just have 3 comments just to add on top. I think number one is\, I think the tree would be nice at the trailhead. We come down Sam Lane \nto have a \nDRB Meeting Room: a clear explanation. How in the world are we going to get to the \nDRB Meeting Room: vitriol from here? It’s it’s quite circuitous. So \nsome may have explained that it was going to be a long way. Maybe a drinking fountain would be nice. Is it going to get the receipt by time to get there? And I also. I believe I’m not sure if the crosswalk \ncoming over from private courtyard it’s a traffic table\, but I think that’d be beneficial. \nDRB Meeting Room: And the third thing is\, I I just think this \nprivate sports court \nDRB Meeting Room: not very nice idea. I think it should be. \nI think the applicant should strongly consider the the benefit that would accrue to them by making that public. especially if it’s surrounded with fitness\, equipment. These are things. But you can’t. But why can’t I go in there? Well\, it’s private\, you know it. \nIt doesn’t disintegrate message\, and I think it’s not a big deal. Don’t let the public use that thing as well. \nOkay\, thank you. Thanks all for your comments. yeah. So steps. You can jump in if you have any comment on this. But I I I think that the work that we’re being shown is is really fantastic\, and you know it looks like it’s been \nvery well done\, and and and pretty thoughtful within these constraints. But I I can’t remember that we typically review projects without getting a better picture of what’s going on with the side planning of the buildings\, because\, even though we have a hundred foot shoreline band \nso that our per view is is sort of limited. You know\, the visual and physical access to the to the bay is really the major charge that we have. So usually\, we start these discussions by\, you know\, talking about the you know the arterials that serve the property\, and where the property lines are\, and what street frontage looks like\, and what’s your experience of approaching the building\, traveling down Sam Lane\, where the utilities and \nthe parking garage and and so I guess I had expected to to hear more about the courtyard\, and how that interface with the\, you know\, with the outdoor space. Is there a fence? Is there a wall? Is it \ncompletely open? And on many projects that we’ve looked at. You know\, there are building responses. And the what I think we’ve seen about the buildings is provocative. The buildings look\, you know. \nlike they’re really thoughtfully done. And sometimes we review buildings\, and there’s like a. you know\, like a recess or an overlook or kind of a third level porch\, or something like that\, that that kind of mediates the scale of the building as it pushes up against the the shoreline band\, you know \nthe Bay trail. So I I would love to. You know we don’t review the building\, so you don’t really have much to say about that. But we we do have the ability to comment on things that we think would improve the public experience. \nAnd and the buildings are so have great opportunities. you know\, for views\, and I just like to see more about how that interface looks\, because it\, although this strip of land is is very nice. You know\, there is a \nI don’t know. 20\, 40 foot wide parking lot\, and then and then not far away\, is the wall of the building. So. when when the project comes back\, and I think that it should come back. Of course this is just a preliminary review\, and these are very general \npreliminary comments. I think it’d be great to see that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So \nwith that\, I think we concludes our comments and our recommendations\, and the project proponent is welcome to make any statements or responses to those comments. \nDRB Meeting Room: thank you for the comments. really clear and very helpful. I think if the project has to come back\, then we don’t really have any comments at this point\, we’ll just address it as a part of the process. We’ll continue with this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ll continue working with stuff. \nDRB Meeting Room: I think. You know\, I I I personally\, I apologize for excluding the building. That was a little bit on me. I thought that \nwe didn’t want to focus much on the buildings and really kind of focus just on the on the landscape work itself. So my apologies. I think the other stuff\, you know. a map at some lane. Absolutely. It would be great to work with staff\, and maybe we can get \n210\, and you know\, to kind of. We can work together and have a comprehensive package\, because I agree it would be great if the district was was better connected for sure. \nAnd you know the comment on that exercise station that there’s another. There’s a passive note on the other side of that \nsports court\, which is equal in size to the exercise station. maybe that that wasn’t clear\, but we can clarify that \nDRB Meeting Room: I think the other comments are pretty\, you know. It’s pretty clear. \nWell\, I I totally appreciate your comments\, and it you know we it is kind of a gray area about what are you know what we’re addressing here? I think that we are an advisory group. We make comments about really anything that we think \nthe experience of being on the shoreline. And then\, you know\, it’s filtered through staff and the Commission. There are legal restrictions on what you know what can be \ndetermined. Yeah. But I think at this point I think we’re just talking conceptually about the project and trying to. you know\, \nDRB Meeting Room: make what improvements we can. And I think buildings are a huge part of that. And you know\, sometimes we talk about brood safe glass\, or you know\, reflections or \nyou know what is the you know? Shadows cast. you know\, from the buildings\, and so on. \nDRB Meeting Room: What one question I \nclarifying question I wanted to ask was\, I think you had a question for comment about \nDRB Meeting Room: what it \nexisting. I guess \nDRB Meeting Room: accessibility is in terms of \nfrom the main frontage\, presumably from Shoreway Road. It was it. \nDRB Meeting Room: was it what the existing view corridors are like\, and that I wasn’t quite clear\, because we did \nin the beginning. And and maybe we just kind of brushed over too quickly. But there\, there were some use of what the existing conditions are like relative to where the trail is in the front. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah\, no\, absolutely. I I think. \nI’m just thinking that the \nDRB Meeting Room: the present you know you have. You did some big big context. And then we we went right to the shoreline. And I think this middle piece of the site planning and the building would be great to just get a better picture of how it all fits together. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: that concludes our our \ncomments. And \nDRB Meeting Room: can we do we have any other business before we \nduring the meeting. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, okay. \nadjourned this meeting. Sorry my language. But yes\, I I am aware \nDRB Meeting Room: we can take a 5 min break to transition between the process. \nI think we’re ready to get started. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ll now begin our review on Agenda item Number 5\, which is the fourth review of the proposed San Lee Andro Shoreline Development Project \nfor the city of San Leandro and Alameda County \nDRB Meeting Room: to remind you of the Project Review order. We’ll have B. C. DC. Staff introductions and project proponent. We’ll make a presentation. \nWe’ll have clarifying questions from the board. Brief period of public comment\, and then the board discussion and summary. followed by a response from the proponent. \nSo with that \nDRB Meeting Room: just think all \nProject analyst will introduce the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you. Acting chair string. Good evening\, board members again. My name is Jessica Finkel. I’m a shoreline development analyst at BC. DC. And and tonight I’ll be introducing the second project for tonight’s review. This is the fourth review of the Stanley and a Shoreline development Project\, also sometimes called the Monarch Bay Shoreline Development Project in the city of San Liandro\, in Alameda county. \nDRB Meeting Room: Before I continue\, we’d like to acknowledge that the land in this area is unseeded. Lish on territory\, the ancestral homelands of the Chicago-speaking Aloni peoples. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the bountiful natural resources of the Bay area. \nDRB Meeting Room: The proposed project is located at the Stanley Andrew Marina\, in the city of San Leandro\, about one miles south of Oakland\, International Airport\, and 2 miles southwest of downtown San Leandro and the San Antonio Park Station. \nThe Marina is situated between 2 other recreational areas\, oyster points so regional shoreline to the north and Marina Park\, immediately across the channel to the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to Orient you to the project site and vicinity. Here you can see Sam Andrew Marina to the west of Monarch Bay\, drive \n2 peninsula around the Marina Mulford Point\, to the north and west\, and Pescadur Point to the south. The portions of the project within B cdc’s jurisdiction are on the Marina side of Monarch Bay Drive. \nThis is where the project project proponents are proposing a public park\, some new commercial buildings\, and a new multi-family residential building to the east is the Marina golf course\, where new single-family homes and town homes are being proposed. \nThe project site is accessible for Monarch Bay Drive\, which becomes Marina boulevard in the north\, and eventually connects to I 8 80\, about a mile away\, and the site can also be accessed by a fairway drive from the south \nDRB Meeting Room: to provide some additional context about the current site conditions. This area to the west of Monarch Bay Drive is approximately 36 acres\, not including the water area and approximately 59 acres with the water area \nexisting. Commercial uses include Horatio’s Restaurant\, El Torito Restaurant and the Marina. In there are also public fishing peer and boat ramp\, and about 1\,800 surface parking spaces throughout the site. \nA few other landmarks of clothes like the blue Dolphin restaurant which has been demolished\, and the Sandly Andro and spinach or yacht clubs. \nDRB Meeting Room: The Marina itself closed at the beginning of this year\, and there have been some challenges at the site. Since the last time the Drb. Saw the project \nthere’s been an increase in vandalism and some other nuisances that have prompted the city to close Mulford Point and Pescutter points to vehicle traffic and staff is currently working with the city to address these issues in the short term while they continue working on the overall redevelopment plan \nDRB Meeting Room: briefly about public access facilities is on the site. The municipal marina dates back to the early 1960 S. And it’s generally been accessible to the public. But there are several\, as you can see\, existing Dcdc. Permits that provide for public access facilities. \nthe staff report goes into more detail. But there are some pathways and green spaces\, as well as the boat ramp and the bottom. Right off of Pescetera Point some public access was tied to projects that were never completed\, like the relocated boat launch on Mulford Point and the Conference center at the Blue Dolphin. \nDRB Meeting Room: In addition\, there is an existing On-street Bay trail segment along the Marina golf course on Monarch Bay Drive. That’s not connected to a permit \nthat segment connects to striped facilities south of Fairway drive and on Marina Boulevard to the north. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’ll briefly go through several photos and images to give you a general sense of the site as it currently exists. \nThis aerial view of the site from July 2022 provides a nice overview\, and it highlights that the site is mostly paved over. \nDRB Meeting Room: This shows the approach to the arena coming from the north on Monarch Bay Drive. \nThe proposed hotel would be straight ahead as you follow the roadway and the sidewalk on the right would connect to the bay trail and would continue along the shoreline north of the hotel. \nDRB Meeting Room: These images are from Mulford Point Drive\, looking towards the Marina\, heading towards the Bend and at the point. \nDRB Meeting Room: and these photos are from Pescatur Point Drive. They show the southern approach on Monarch Bay\, Drive\, heading west towards the point and the public access area and fishing pier at the end. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the fourth review of the project. The last review was in December 2022. \nAnd this is a brief look at an earlier iteration of the project from 2\,016\, which would have placed a lot of development on the Peninsula side of Monarch Bay drives\, including residential office\, commercial and hotel uses\, and some active recreation areas included in the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: And this is the site plan. From last December \nthe major difference between the 2 16 and December 22. Design\, which is similar to the current proposal\, is the decreased intensity of development on the Peninsula with most private development. Moving east of Monarch Bay Drive and a bigger focus on continuous public access on the western side. \nThere’s also a decrease in the amount of in-water construction. For example\, they’re no longer. There’s no longer a bridge connecting the 2 points\, the beach or the repurposed boat slips \nDRB Meeting Room: at the December meeting. The Drb. Was pleased to see the private development was largely outside the shoreline band\, but expressed concerns about the rip\, wrap along the shoreline the amount of parking the landscape plan\, the lack of safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists and future sea level rise adaptation. \nThe Board also urged the project team to explore ways to activate the basin after the marina facilities are removed\, and to give the public a better interim park experience. The project team will describe the changes that they’ve made in more detail. But in general they’ve replaced the uniform lawn areas with zones for native grasses and pollinator gardens divided bank plantings along the coastal edge and interior basin. \nIt expanded the boat launch facilities at Pescador Point\, reconfigured the bay\, overlooked points and trails\, and added pedestrian crossings along Monarch Bay Drive to improve pedestrian circulation. They’ve also revised the facing plans to \nprovide public amenities earlier in the project timeline. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here’s a look at the community vulnerability mapping tool output to the area. The tool identified some block groups as having highest and high-social vulnerability as well as the census tract with highest contamination. Vulnerability. \nThe relevant factors vary\, but some common ones include the rate of renter households\, people of color\, individuals over 65\, living alone. Limited English proficiency. Non Us. Citizens and low-income households. \nContamination vulnerabilities attributed to things like the presence of hazardous cleanup and water cleanup activities in the area\, solid waste sites and hazardous waste facilities as well as an impaired water body\, which is the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: regarding potential sea level rise using current site elevations. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if a site remained unchanged. \nusing the Ocean Protection Council’s 2018 sea level rise. Guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level under the medium to high-risk aversion. High emissions\, scenario at mid-century. \nAt this level there’s some potential for over topping on site\, as indicated by the red lines along Wilford Point\, as well as inundation around the edges of the peninsula around the existing rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise would look like. It’s the site if it were unchanged. This roughly corresponds to the mean higher high water level at 2\,090\, in the medium to high-risk aversion\, high emissions\, scenario\, as well as the one hundred-year storm condition. At mid-century. \nIn this scenario much of the back end would be flooded in much of the marina area as well\, although some higher areas in the middle of the Peninsula might not be flooded. \nDRB Meeting Room: The San Francisco Estuary Institute’s adaptation Atlas identifies nature based. Adaptation opportunities along the shoreline. These are areas that are well suited for interventions or actions that can help both address flooding and provide ecological benefits \nat the project site. The Atlas indicates suitability for eel grass in the Channel shoreline Beach\, along the outside of Mulford Point upland title\, marsh\, and preparation for upland habitat migration. \nDRB Meeting Room: and finally\, here’s a summary of the questions\, and the staff report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. \nFirst\, please consider how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcd’s public access design guidelines. And then staff has identified particular areas we’d like the Board to address\, including\, does the Peninsula feel public does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s previous concerns? \nAre there safe and clear connections and way finding to the shoreline does the proposed shoreline protection approach enhance the experience of the shoreline. Does the proposed design adequately provide for existing and contemplated future uses\, such as fishing a private water shuttle\, and recreational use? \nDRB Meeting Room: And does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections? Before I introduce the project proponents\, does the Board have any clarifying questions on the staff introductions. \nActually\, I do have one question for staff. our purview is the 100 foot shoreline band. What about the water itself? What is our preview. With that \nyou may speak to any site aspect that involves or contributes to the public’s experience of the area that goes beyond the shoreline band connectivity from adjacent roadways to the shoreline\, but also \nDRB Meeting Room: a big water body that’s in the middle of the site. \nOkay? \nBut also\, if it helps \nDRB Meeting Room: it is so. They is a key part of Pcd’s jurisdiction. And so anything that you’d like to say about it\, please\, please do. \nhey? I think we can proceed\, then\, with the proponent presentation. That right? Okay? So from the project team today\, we have John Hughes with Griffin structures and Chuck Ardella from gates and associates presented. \nThank you\, everyone. My name is John Hughes. I am the project manager for the city of San Diego. For this project I’m going to be introducing some of the key goals and objectives of the project before I invite \nChuck Cardella from gates and associates to go through the design iterations that you see before you that we feel addressed the concerns and questions that we heard last time we were here \nto recap the goals of the project on behalf of the city. the city seeks to enhance the community engagement with the bay. Through this project this project seeks to mitigate against sea level rise. \nDRB Meeting Room: This project seeks to \nprovide natural restoration of a blighted site. Right now\, it’s a very\, very challenged site. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’re trying to enhance public access into the water\, not just around and about it\, but actually in it. \nDRB Meeting Room: and provide a park for cultural reflection. \nThe appreciation of nature and family enjoyment. \nDRB Meeting Room: as you may recall from our last presentation and the reports that have been provided to you that the the city has done extensive community outreach. We’ve had over half a dozen community outreach events we’ve \nsent out. I think\, 7\,000 emails to solicit interest. We’ve had pop up events. We’ve met with the Kymanu Canoe Club. We have met with the tribal community. We have met with the Lost Boat Memorial Society. \nand in all of that\, over 13 years we feel that the goals that we just listed represent what the community is looking for. that this project \nDRB Meeting Room: is delivering 100% of the bay. \nthe the B. C DC. Jurisdiction Landside\, B. C. DC. Jurisdiction to the community. There is not a single portion of the B Cdc. Jurisdiction that is excluding the community or the public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: 13 years of development negotiations with calcos development\, where you saw we have pulled out all of the buildings that we’re within the 100 foot band. Because we we share in your goal \nthat we want to bring the community to this park. And we want to take an area that has suffered for decades and turn it into a gym of a park. \nDRB Meeting Room: So with that\, I’m going to hand it off to chuck to take you through some of the changes. We’ve taken a lot of your comments to heart. \nWe think that they’ve really helped us and enhance this project both in the the phasing in the design and the aesthetic theme. and I’ll leave it to chuck to share some of that with you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, John. \nDRB Meeting Room: So to give you a quick overview of These are a lot of the slides that you’ve seen in the past\, just kind of overview of the existing context of the site location adjacent to the Oakland International Airport in relation to other green space around the community. \nDRB Meeting Room: this slide just shows the some of the graphics that were already covered\, showing the the finalized\, the face. This was the original plan that submitted in December \nof 22\, and so we’ll go through and highlight\, the revisions\, and what we’ve heard from your comments in the past. And this is showing the revised site plan as submitted today. And we’ll get into a little more detail as we go through these \ntouching base on the public access. So going back to where those existing Bcdc permits do exist. we are going to be taking those and enhancing public access and retaining all those areas shown in yellow \nas well as developing everything in green. There will be fully\, publicly accessible. there are parking lots as well that will be publicly accessible. and then there will be shared parking with the hotel restaurants and apartments and market \nas well. \nDRB Meeting Room: going through of what we heard and how we responded to Bcdc’s comments. \nThere were some discussions about providing additional circulation on the top left. So we’ve increased the circulation here. We’ve added a lower terraced trail system \nas well as provide an additional trail connection. The Bcd seeds trail system runs up on the west and north side of the Mulford Point\, so we’ve provided some additional circulation routes. \non the site plan on Mulford Point. One of the big comments was about softening the interior of the lagoon in this area. So in in lieu of using rip wrap\, we’ve been consulting with dill up with a booth and nickel \nabout\, planting the interior base of the edge with planting\, so all of the elevation within the interior lagoon will be planted and not utilize rip wrap. \nDRB Meeting Room: There was other comments related to parking\, and\, you know\, pulling back the the imprint\, the footprint of the parking lot within the center of the site. So we’ve shifted everything to the north \napproximately 50 feet and then reorganize the layout of the Hammerhead to integrate the Hammerhead layout into a public plaza that highlights the restroom facade. \nDRB Meeting Room: We’ve also looked at some ways to activate the basin the lower terrace trail would utilize the existing grades that are out there now. We would maintain a trail along the shoreline edge on the interior of the basin. \nWe’ve also created an additional overlook at Pescador Point\, at this place. and then increased the fishing and watercraft docks by about 1\,300 square feet. \nat this lower location here\, where the boat R is going to be added \nDRB Meeting Room: from a connectivity standpoint. There was lots of discussion of increasing connectivity\, so we’ve included the additional crosswalks \nalong the roadway here. so that the residential development on the east can easily connect to the west. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then looking at creating some landscape diversity with the planting palette that we’ll get into a little further as well by creating additional pollinator gardens and habitat. \nDRB Meeting Room: So one of the big key factors of the design. So we’ve utilized the the Monarch butterfly as kind of the main design theme\, and integrated the butterfly wing in kind of this colorful \ndesign layout. You see here. and so we’re using that to mimic and create little nodes of color that we’ll get into a little further. But this is showing what has changed in the phase one graphic. So in the prior December \npresentation this was a very simple phase one\, and so we’ve taken your comments and integrated a additional overlook. at the northern part of Mulford Point. We’ve also added about approximately 33 trees where they will not be impacted by future phase 2 construction. \nWe’ve added that secondary loop path along the lower lagoon edge. the terrorist path we’ve integrated seating nodes along the exterior bay trail \nhere so that will enhance and maintain the existing fishing access that fishermen do use along the side of the bay \nDRB Meeting Room: and then working with Wra. We developed some native pollinator hydroseeds \nalong this area\, and trending developed this to be a very colorful in a playful experience for the public. So it’s not just a a barren field of hydrogen. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have an interim overlook at the lower southern portion of Mulford Point. \nand then the the boat ramps and Kayak would be the kayak launch and fishing areas would be expanded by 1\,300 square feet\, as previously discussed. \nDRB Meeting Room: from an interim connection of phase one\, we would place a shared use bike path\, pedestrian trail on the roadway. Here \nthat way we are ensured public access from the existing bay trail. and then\, as well down to muffered points\, both \nDRB Meeting Room: looking at the phase\, 2 revisions \nof what we’ve changed. this is\, you can see the overlay of red items. It’s really hard to see at this scale just given the size of this project. but everything in red was the original December presentation. \nbut we’ve revised the layout of the overlook here to mimic the butterfly theme. That goes for the other posit that’s shown behind the Zoom toolbar. Here. \nWe’ve also \nDRB Meeting Room: pulled in the the plaza and the parking lot area at this location revised a parking circle \nthe secondary paths. and we’ll get into a little more of these in the blow ups as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the image of the existing Bay trail system that exists today. So we have the existing \nA on Street Bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive and the planned access out to Multiple Point \nDRB Meeting Room: as part of our placement of the Bay trail. We were still looking at utilizing a eastern edge alignment \nof the Bay trail. The reason behind that is there was only 2 pedestrian roadway conflicts with driveways on the eastern side versus the western edge has 7 driveway crossings. \nSo that was one of the elements we use to locate the Monarch Bay Trail in discussion with our engineering team. \nDRB Meeting Room: That Bay trail does come around and make a loop on Mulford Point. connecting back to a kind of a traffic circle for pedestrians and bikes \nto make that circular route. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then we also have additional pedestrian connections \nalong the lower edge of the lagoon. Here \nDRB Meeting Room: the construction phasing plan we touched debate a bit on this already\, but this was just showing those \nproposed shared. Use walkways \nDRB Meeting Room: at number 17\, and then 16 as well. So 16 would be a class 2 and 17 would be a shared use by claim. and those would be protected with \ndelineators and striping and planters as well. so that we’d have a a protected pedestrian edge for that experience from the public right away all the way into the park \nDRB Meeting Room: here. This is just showing the overview of the phase 2. Development. \nas we as phase one\, is built out\, these would be existing. and Phase 2 would come in and develop the entirety of Mulford Point. we would at that time do the final tree planting shrub\, planting irrigation systems. \nstormwater treatment\, and then build out all the overlooks to their 100% a development. There’s an overlook at this location as well as well as build out the rest of the bay trail segments in coordination with the apartment development that is being developed by Cal. Coast. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a rendering of the hotel development that coast is proposing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and this Graphic for some reason not showing the hotel background. But this building. The hotel sits within this white space here \nthe hotel access only that is the pool area. So that is the only area of private access at the pool zone is at the pool zone. There’s an exterior courtyard for the hotel that is fully\, publicly accessible. There’s no gates or fencing in between these. \nThis is the overlook in the boardwalk here\, and the bay trail comes down from the north and actually heads this direction as well. so there would be a seamless flow of \nthe public space flowing into the hotel. And through these areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is the development of the single family homes and the town homes to the East. \nHere\, there. This is just showing the circulation related to the sidewalks that they’re proposing. and then the additional crosswalks that it will be proposed to provide uninterrupted circulation for the pedestrians and bikes to the park development. \nDRB Meeting Room: Now we’re going to get a little more into the details of the park itself. \nso we’re going to skip over this and go to some of the enlargements and details of signage. There is a at the top here which I don’t know if I can \nget rid of this. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here \nwe do have a bay trail signage and a number one is a gateway monument. So this is existing as an art piece with some Us. flying birds as well as a big Marina Bay sign that would get replaced. \nand we’d also have a public shore access and mile marker signage. Come along the entire bay trail along Monarch Bay Drive. We would have park signs \nas well as directional science\, to ensure that the public is very aware that this is a public facility\, and we’re not trying to hide the park from them. So we’re trying to make the signage as visible as possible and provide signage up on the monarch. They drive \nand then provide directories at key points\, such as the restroom in the overlook areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So from a programming standpoint\, we’ve \nare developing a \nDRB Meeting Room: variation of on the pollinator gardens. So we’ve actually\, instead of a a solid hydroxide or \nshrubs and grasses we’ve actually focused in creating these habitat generation zones along here and using those to kind of play on the the butterfly wing theme\, as well as creating those highlighted focal areas \nalong the perimeters of these pathways and the nodes. so that helps create some identity and clarification as to entry these\, there’s some small pathways\, a secondary pathways of circulation through these spaces. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then at the overlooks as well as creating the the garden spaces within those overlooked spaces here \nDRB Meeting Room: the tree palettes would be developed further \nas the project progresses\, utilizing. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, the expertise of Wra’s landscape architects and the Restoration specialists \nfor this project. we’ve been \nDRB Meeting Room: looking and considering\, you know the views and not blocking views and then maintaining. \nyou know\, when buffers were feasible within some of these other areas\, because that was a concern as well. \nDRB Meeting Room: here we’re showing the develop revisions of the interior basin planting. So this is that coastal edge planting. So in lieu of ripper. \nthat entire interior basin gets raised and gets planted with landscape versus rip wrap. So that also goes to this protected part of the lagoon \nhere on the interior side\, and then all of the interior. We’re going to this place. The exterior of the lagoon. in discussion with Dyla cannot be planted or landscaped. There’s too much erosion\, and wave action that would lead to failure in those areas. \nDRB Meeting Room: So we did. We did explore a lot of options. And that was the \ndiscussion and outcome of those \nDRB Meeting Room: next just plant palette images. I’m sure you’re \nthese are similar on the \nDRB Meeting Room: from the last presentation. \nand I’ll hand it over to Liz. \nDRB Meeting Room: Hi\, everyone for those who don’t know me. My name is Liz Allen. I’m a regulatory permitting specialist at wra environmental consultants \nand we helped out putting together the seed mixed palette. So this seed mix would be used for the phase one in the hydro seed mix\, and it was designed by our botanist and restoration landscape architects. And it’s designed so that \nall of these species\, if you’re not familiar\, are native to the Bay area and are appropriate for this region. These color palettes have also been designed so that they won’t just be up during a certain time of the year. We selected species that would bloom consistently throughout the year\, so that color would always be present. \nsince we acknowledged that the phase\, one condition\, will be there for a bit before the ultimate project is completed\, wanted to make sure that it looked nice. During that phase of the work \nthe site will be treated ahead of time to make sure the soils are suitable to ensure success of these species\, and there will be irrigation applied as needed to make sure that these seeds do turn into the plants that they are supposed to turn into. \nThe other thing is this\, planting palette was put together with input from one of our Phd level entomologists who specializes in pollinator habitat design and she confirmed that all of these species are \nexpected to to attract the pollinators that we want to arrive so it won’t just look good. It’ll also be there to help provide legitimate pollinator habitats. What’s really interesting is that by clumping colors together. She told us that that actually is better for a lot of the butterflies\, including the monarchs that are known to occur in the area\, but we also were careful to exclude species that could disrupt the overwintering of the monarch butterflies that are known to occur in the area. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then on this slide. I’m going to talk about. What about the lagoon portion of the project? We heard your comment that you guys are interested in hearing how the lagoon is going to be activated. \nWhat we’re focusing on here is the fact that just by removing all of the existing Marina infrastructure our biologists on staff expect there to be a substantial increase in shore shorebird activity in the area\, because part of the reason this marina is getting decommissioned \nis the fact that the basin experiences high rates of sedimentation that mean that dredging currently was needed consistently because of that sedimentation without all the docks and peers. This lagoon turns into a really nice flood mud flat even during a typical low tide. Today it’s very exposed and creates great foraging habitat for these species. \nThe bird species listed here\, most of which are known to be mud flat foraging specialists. in our local to the Bay area. Some of them are even endangered. \nor on this state like us\, fish and wildlife service birds of conservation concerns \nDRB Meeting Room: the. As you guys probably know\, the existing Marina infrastructure has a lot of creos out treated wood that is known to impact water quality. So the removal of that infrastructure is expected to \nimprove the water quality of the basin to better support these species. In addition\, the existing peers provide predator purchase for predators that then preclude these species from being present. It’s actually a very common comment from wildlife agencies to remove predator purchase\, such as pilings when they’re unnecessary\, because they often \nthe predation that they have on the fish and the other birds in the area limits the function\, the habitat function of the whole system. the green that’s noted on the edges here is some limited cord grass that we’ve seen that was observed in the lagoon area. \nwe’re not sure but it’s likely that this chord grass is the non-native Spartina. Largely because this area is not a historic marsh. Even before this \nthe original fill went in\, and the invasive species tends to be the one that shows up where Marsh hasn’t shown up before. unfortunately\, that iding this type of chord grass and differentiating it from the native typically requires \ngenetic analysis or expert eyes. But we’re plan on partnering with the invasive of our China project to determine if it’s the native. or if it’s the invasive\, and if it’s invasive\, the project plans to remove that spark China\, to prevent it from spreading further. If it surprises us\, and it happens to be the native\, we are going to retain it in place\, but it should be noted that it’s pretty sparse as it is\, which further suggests that it’s likely that non-native variety or a hybrid with the native\, which is also considered to be harmful. \nI would also add that I specialize in eel grass. So if you guys want to talk about the suitability of eel grass in this area. I’m happy to talk about that\, but I can just I’ll put it out there that it’s not considered very suitable habitat within the basin for Yale grass. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Liz. So here we’re getting into the enlargements and detail of the pieces of the plan. So we can further. Look at those. \nso here is Neptune drive. We have our main pedestrian connection. In order to accommodate the sea level rise\, we will be coming up in grade from about 8.2 up to 16. So we have an eight-foot fill \nthat’s going in in this area. So this we’ve looked at the grades. We are definitely accessible. we were looking at creating a different material. That was a comment\, so that the bay trail \nis clearly evident\, and the the secondary maintenance access to the Sewer pump station that’s existing to remain will be a differentiated. So there’s a clear delineation there. This is our project signage. And then we’re also utilizing the. There’s some existing palm trees in the road is playing with it\, utilizing that same theme to capture those palm trees and \ntry to maximize the view as much as possible\, although the grades will be a challenge in that area. \nDRB Meeting Room: Just quick sections \nwant to just fly through these\, so we can get through the presentation. this is the hotel. Overlook this. Everything you see here is publicly accessible. We did revise the design layout of this area. \nso the calcos development. The hotel lobby sits here and there’s a door here. The entire pathway is focused on the door and then to the lobby. And so we’re playing\, utilizing that theme in creating a kind of a terminus overlook at this point \nas well as focusing on the trail Bay trail alignments. So we’re kind of creating an intersection\, if you will\, in developing some places for large groups\, smaller areas\, and then \nsmaller groups down in along the edges. Here. We pulled this back so it’s not protruding over the water’s edge as well to reduce costs. \nand then simplified the overall design and layout of the overlook here at the hotel \nDRB Meeting Room: general sections. parking lot sections. This has not changed since \nyou’ve last seen it \nhere. We’re at the Overlook at Mulford Point\, at the knuckle. Here we’ve revised the Overlook layout to follow a little more of a called modern butterfly wing themed utilizing benches that create some nodes\, nodes\, and individual spaces in between these areas \nproviding opportunity for an art piece at this location. Here we have that secondary path that has been added that provides a little closer access to the water’s edge \nas well\, and then we’ve shifted some of the burns to provide a visual buffer from the vehicles as well as they come in through this area. Here\, you see this. This is the existing rip\, wrap\, and then we have our planted coastal edge here \nthis planting on the outside on the bay side. this would incumb incorporate the new rip\, wrap\, and then everything above the new rep rap line would be landscaped as well. \nAnd that’s what’s shown here on this section of do rip\, rap\, and then coastal edge planting on bay and on the interior side existing riprop with all new landscape. Where the sea level rise fill is required. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is a detailed blow up of the revised restroom maintenance building layout. \nHere we’ve adjusted the Eva turnaround to integrate it into the plaza design and then created a focal point at the roundabout at this location\, so that we’re able to utilize this space and turn around both for \npublic use in public as well as for Eva and maintenance truck turnaround for this space. we’re also located the memorial here. This is the lost boat Memorial\, which is the giant torpedo \nwith some seeding nodes at this point of inflection. and then creating the habitat pollinator planting that’s shown in the bright oranges and yellows. Here again we have the additional \ntrail system that’s behind the building. and then our seeding nodes that occur\, but approximately every 150 feet or so along the bay trail edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: and those those are going to be used for additional maintain the fishing access. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is lower area the where the used to be just the giant lawn. So this has been revised to native grasses\, and then we utilize the pollinator and habitat planting. It’s hard to see. But underneath the trees \nin these areas\, defining those edges of the pathways. again\, the seeding nodes for fishing and public access\, and the viewing along the bay trail. \nand here we have the cultural overlook zone that would be pay tribute to the the ingenuous tribes\, as well as provide some signage and educational signage to the historical aspect of that. \nDRB Meeting Room: And here\, at the tip of Mulford Point\, this is the revised overlook again adjusted to follow modern butterfly \nwing. We’ve utilize that secondary trail since we have to go down from about 15.5 down to 9\, which is the existing grade. At this location. \nwe would be sloping down to that rip\, rap edge\, and following that with a bay trail \nDRB Meeting Room: pretty much following the existing rip\, rap alignment at that Point location. \nwe would have a sloped bank of landscape above that\, with some additional seating nodes along that lower terrace trail system. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then here we would still utilize a a large area of in in phase 2. This is not\, hide your seat anymore. This is actual shrub planting. \nof following the pollinator habitat working in coordination with a Wra specialists. \nDRB Meeting Room: We also have the landscape burns for wind control. We’re trying to maintain those at a \na height of\, you know\, maximum 3 feet. There is a lot of septed visibility issues with police surveillance and crime that’s currently being that challenge out on the site. \nDRB Meeting Room: Here we have the Pescador Point overlook and boat launch. \nSo we’ve been working with the Kamano. Canoe Club of what their needs are for their launching facilities. We’ve added dry onland storage for kayaks. \nAnd we’ve increased these areas by about 1\,300 square feet of kayak and fishing deck access. In this location. Here we have the restroom building\, as what was previously shown. But we’ve added a additional overlook public space \nto the rear of that building\, so that the views to the West can still be had at that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: This is just the traffic circle at the apartments. This has not really changed since the last presentation\, with the exception of \ncoastal planting on both sides\, where fill or where Rip rap was previously shown. \nDRB Meeting Room: and at the lower part of Monarch Bay Apartments\, Pescador Point is just to our north. Looking here at the key map. \nwe’ve revised and simplified. This overlook to be completely on grade and then creating some pinch points for access\, so that those material changes so that the overlooks are clearly defined from the Bay trail circulation\, that these are movements out of the active circulation. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then just the general materials following city of Stanley Andrew standards for benches and trash cans\, etc. \nDRB Meeting Room: that is it. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you for that very\, very detailed presentation. \nI can have some clarifying questions from the board here\, and I thought I would just maybe kick it off. that you know you’ve done an incredible amount of work\, and the graphics are really clear\, and I commend you on that. And there’s no question that this is the maps \nimprovement from what’s out there today\, and I think we recognize that of the comments\, or at least I recognize from the comments we gave you last time. I think you’ve picked up the vast majority of them. And I just wanted to. \nyou know\, with with that as a backdrop to say\, there is a couple of comments that we’re at the top of the list of the board\, and I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment \non really\, the the basin. you know the mudsl and the rip wrap. The thought was\, is there anything that can be done to kind of aid in the succession of the of the mud. And \nthere was some suggestions about stepping the elevation\, you know\, like removing Rip graph and stepping the elevations. And I completely understand that you’re adding planting \nabove the rip wrap of the ripe. So it’s really not a criticism. It’s more in the interest of clarification\, complete the presentation. I I think the city did \nmake it really clear that\, you know there are lots of good reasons why you’ve ended up where you are\, and I just wanted to see if you could share that with the group so maybe that could. Just. I don’t know. We can \nDRB Meeting Room: get that out\, you know we’ll start and I’ll hand it up to you guys. So thank you for that. Yes\, we took that to heart. This team \nwent through an an an extensive analysis of various options\, looking at steps\, looking at slopes\, looking at beaches\, looking at ramps. \nAnd I’m gonna let Dill up from off at a nickel as well as Liz\, from to kind of articulate. The decision points as to some of the challenges associated with those\, and why we ultimately landed on the design that we have. But\, I can assure you that \nas much as you. We want to activate this space as much as possible\, as much as feasible\, and in a way that is sustainable\, both environmentally and financially\, for the long term. And so I’ll hand it off to maybe you guys to get into some of the details. \nThank you. in terms of the repr. You know\, it is a pretty steep. It was built as a Marina\, right? So this was an artificial\, artificially created peninsula\, very specifically to provide protection for a marina basin. \nAnd so the slopes are pretty steep. wave action is not very significant\, and so the rock size demonstrates that it’s generally small\, you know\, smaller rock size on the \non the inside. however\, something is needed. Erosion. Protection is going to be needed\, you know. If not rock\, it would be some other kind of hard structural elements. \nDRB Meeting Room: unless\, of course\, you bring in a lot of fill \nand flatten the side slopes. or you cut back into this. You know very narrow Mall peninsula that you have and so\, wherever possible\, you know\, above \nthe elevation of \nDRB Meeting Room: erosion protection we have gone with as flat of a slope as possible for the grading of the fill for the park itself. \nThose will all be vegetated. \nin terms of the basin. Sure. We looked at\, you know. We looked at bringing back some amount of recreation. You know. What can we do with sailing\, or or canoes or kayaks? \nit’s very limited in terms of its water depth\, availability itself\, you know\, you can see that that is not a rendering. That’s an actual photograph which shows the channel. \nDRB Meeting Room: it. It’s a high amount of sediment load. \nHowever\, it’s not high enough to sustain a pickle in Marsh that would\, you know\, come on its own. I think. between rising sees that our pay sediment and the deficit of sediment that we’re seeing in San Francisco Bay. There just isn’t enough sediment to sustain a build from a mud flat. So we do expect that the mud flight will continue Acc. Creating. \nit will probably very likely\, for the foreseeable future mid-century remain a month flat \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of others\, you know. Yes\, maybe List can speak. We looked at islands. We looked at Beaches. We looked at\, you know\, large restoration projects. I think the project \nthe Marina project. Probably \nDRB Meeting Room: you know it. It were difficult to add a large restoration project onto a Marina Park project itself. There are other avenues\, you know\, so I don’t think the door is closed on future restoration projects. If there is. \nit’s Stewart. If there is a proponent\, you know\, and there is some funds to bring in restoration elements of title fringe marshes you can have for it \nDRB Meeting Room: in certain areas. \nYeah\, I can. There’s Allen again from Wa I can speak more to some of the other considerations we had. We looked into putting out peers that potentially people could launch from We looked at putting out Bird Islands. The reason that we didn’t add any public peers or retain any of the existing structures is directly related to the saltation that’s experienced at the site currently\, where \nthere’s concern that people would get stranded during low tide. Since it’s not just during extreme low tides\, it’s during typical low tides that the majority of that lagoon becomes a mud flat. In terms of the Bird Islands we looked into\, whether putting out structures for birds would be suitable. But from my project experience\, working with East Bay\, Regional Park district and other projects that are fundamentally restoration projects. \nyou have to be careful about creating unintended conflicts between nesting bird habitat and the public And so the concern would be if we put out islands. And then Sushi started nesting\, such as what happened not too far from here\, with least turns in East Bay Park’s favorite marsh project you could lead to conflicts between when they’re nesting and the buffer zones that they need. And so \nthis habitat is really suitable foraging habitat in its current form. It’s not highly suitable nesting habitat\, and I see that as a good thing for this project to maintain or not create unnecessary conflicts. \nand that same comment would be true for other restoration in the area. The existing choreographs\, regardless of whether it’s native or not\, does indicate that there might be potential for some fringe. \nOther cordgrass marsh in this area. But I do have concerns about whether it’s worth putting the effort of restoring that habitat in an area where the marsh has no room to move with sea level rise. \nAnd in addition\, I\, the other agencies that all have the opportunity to issue comments on this project before we receive permits. they typically expect around 10 years of monitoring\, of restoration projects like that. And that’s a cost that the city is not willing to take on\, and would potentially \ncause reductions in other portions of the scope. It’s just a major addition to the project to add that level of restoration\, especially when the longevity of that restoration past the next couple of decades is in question. \nbecause in the current form there’s a nice mud flat. But\, as Philip said. despite the fact that sediment settles really nicely here. That’s largely\, as I understand it\, to the shape of the system\, but that’s expected to reach an equilibrium\, and the sedimentation is not expected to keep up with sea level rise\, and so restoring a marsh here where there was not one previously\, and where it wouldn’t have room to grow up to move up slope just doesn’t seem like a worthwhile exercise. \nI think. supporting this area by just improving the habitat for the short birds which are known to love. The South Bay mud flats as it is. is A is a really great option\, and as I referenced when I spoke previously\, this area is currently too shallow for illegraph. It’s possible that by mid century that that’s a different story. But this is not too shallow for subtitle vegetation as well\, and eel grass is really the only \nsubtitle vegetation that that’s known in the direct region. I’ll add one more thing to that I forgot to mention earlier\, which is that lower trail that Chuck presented is intended to give people a better viewing opportunity of this lagoon to have better bird watching opportunities. \nSo so those birds that you’re showing they’re using the site now\, or some portion of them. Yes. These birds are based on local observations\, personal experience from Wre’s staff biologists\, as well as data collected on I naturalists. So yes\, these are known to occur either locally to the lagoon or in within a mile known to forage and mud flat. I \nwould expect it only a couple of the more common species\, likely frequent area in its current form\, because it’s has a bunch of infrastructure that attracts predators that dissuades a lot of these \nbirds from showing up as well as the nuisance activities that have been prevalent out there. It’s we’re focused more on the fact that these birds are expected to be more prevalent once the lagoon is a more naturalized system. \nOkay? So in summary\, is it fair to say that in order to do what the board was suggesting\, it would take a massive amount of fill which is beyond the \nDRB Meeting Room: yeah. There’s one other thing I would add to that\, too\, which is that when it comes to the other agencies as currently designed\, the project is expected to be self mitigating\, and not need compensatory mitigation. \nTo bring in the fill that would be required to soften these slopes would require compensatory mitigation\, which is upwards of a million dollars an acre for cost. So it’s it’s just a it’s a massive burden for a project that’s not whose primary goal is not to restore tidal habitat\, but it could be a great opportunity for a future project proponent or the scientific community to look into. \nOkay\, thank you. I think there is great education for board. okay\, one other thing. And then I’m going to open up to others here. the that one of the early diagrams\, you know\, showed the single family home area. \nyou know\, severely impacted by flooding at mid-century. so I just wanted to. I think that’s something that is coming up more and more when there’s privately owned property in an area like that which is endangered where this may be beyond their capability to mitigate as Homeers Association. are there guidelines\, or for the development of that property? That will? \nOkay\, yes\, the the developer has agreed in writing in the Development Agreement\, and as the project is entitled with the city\, that all of the residential units that you see here are going to be raised to 2\,070 levels\, just like everything we’re doing on the Park as well as the Hotel and multi-family. \nDRB Meeting Room: So they will be addressing \nanyone else\, please. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a just a couple of questions\, and thank you very much for the presentation\, and \nI remember going to see the site with Gary in 2\,016\, and I really appreciate all of the efforts that you’re making. \nDRB Meeting Room: 2 questions. One was about maintenance \nand about what the city is. \nDRB Meeting Room: how the city is expecting to kind of maintain this area\, especially with this sort of new approach to landscaping\, it’ll be helpful to understand. Are there other parts of your \npark system where there’s similar stuff that you’re dealing with? Or is this kind of a new venture? And then the other one was something that you brought up\, which was crime prevention. \nso sort of natural surveillance in the site. I’m curious about lighting. and if you could sort of speak to those 2 things which seem to be intertwined \nthank you. sure. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I’ll start with the maintenance. \nSo as part of this project\, the city has\, pardon me. put together a community facilities district to fund and finance the maintenance required for this project. \nWe’ve also worked very closely with the city’s Public Works Department\, who maintains their own projects. And so this project has been designed to be as efficient as possible for the maintenance of the project. \nIt’s specifically designed to be able to facilitate their vehicles\, their tools\, their contractors\, and that central node area where the restroom is\, is designed to also function as a maintenance facility where they can have real time\, access\, and immediate presence. To be able to maintain this. This facility. They have a lot of lessons learned from projects in the direct\, the city just to the south \nas well as across town\, and so this will be utilizing some of the the most late up to date\, latest and maintenance technology that we’ll be working closely with them to implement on the project. \nAnd there’s and there’s funding already in place to finance it in perpetuity. \nRelated to the septed principles and lighting. So generally. The park is lit\, you know\, within the hotels and the apartments areas. These areas are lit. \nbut everything within past this parking lot\, down into this area would close at dusk support to all the other park facilities in the city. These would only have. \nyou know\, possibly some ambient lighting as needed\, like around around the buildings. But there’s not intended to be full lighting at night through the park. \nDRB Meeting Room: some of the the vandalism issues don’t even occur at night. It’s middle of the day out here right now. So it’s not the night time. Only element. One of our things we are doing is providing vehicular gates. \nSo when the park does close\, these areas can be closed off to prevent\, you know\, after hours Rvs and side shows from happening out here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And we also have been working closely with the San Diego police department to design this park so that has maximum visibility. So \nNot only do the the the viewing goals that this body has for the public those same goals hold true for public safety\, so that they can have good sight lines throughout the park. That’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to minimize the amount of obstructions and keep it as as low profile as possible\, because that facilitates law enforcement. The gates have been located with their guidance in mind. And and and of course\, then in the areas where there’s parking lots\, there’ll be \nThe code requires that there’s continuous lighting there. So where we need the lighting for crime prevention\, we will have it\, and where we’ve been advised by public safety to close off the park at certain hours we’ve followed their guidance. \nDRB Meeting Room: I have a couple of questions. One. Could you speak a little bit to the eastern edge of the the marina and the connectivity of the \npublic access areas to that interface. And then second. and this is this is on buildings. So I don’t know how much of this is within the jurisdiction. But \ndid you have any consideration of providing \nDRB Meeting Room: retail or areas that would be accessible to the public \nin either the hotel or the apartment building\, and I’m particularly looking at some of those interfaces that are at the entry points of the apartment in the northeast corner of the northwest instead of \nedges that are kind of treated as buffered from public. If they could be enhanced through some kind of program at the ground floor of the building that can make it a little bit more inviting. So \nany any thinking behind the location of retail and public uses. \nI think \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’re asking about the area right in the middle of the project. Right? That’s that’s grayed out that we’re not touching right \nfor the first question. \nDRB Meeting Room: On the upper edge of that is a restaurant called Horatios\, on the southern edge of that is an existing hotel called the Marina end \nthat is currently not a part of this project. There are\, however\, existing acts of public access permits in place that will remain in place continuously throughout the project. \nthose are under current ground lease agreements with the city that last for a number of years. and so for us to make improvements at that stage. At this stage it would delay the project as much as a decade or more. \nSo what we’re doing in this project is basically focusing on the areas that we can improve. the city is currently in negotiations of those ground leases to put conditions in place\, to be able to make sure that those areas themselves mitigate against sea level rise\, and the existing public access permits and requirements will remain intact throughout the duration of both the construction and and continuous\, so the existing condition will remain unchanged. \nDRB Meeting Room: as it relates to or retail. \nSo if you look on there\, you’ll see \nI’m wondering with the regrading of the public access improvements that are happening to the north and south of that area. How how would that connect? And it’s tricky? And and we have our civil engineer to explain it. But there’s going to be some unusual contours where you’re going to be a little bit higher and have to slope down into the parking lots right? There might even be there might even need to be a retaining wall. I don’t know but it there might be a situation where we have to raise the grade and then contour down to land where they are. \nThe good news is in in in certain areas here. They’re actually higher there than where we need to build or where the developer is building the hotel. So we believe that there are \nsolutions that are Ada accessible that allow for continuous pedestrian interaction in there. But it’s something that it does have to be further studied because we’re going to have some interesting driveway approaches to make sure that we are still maintaining the existing grades where we’re not raising the sea level\, right or mitigating sea level rise while also addressing areas where we’re not or where we are\, I should say. \nDRB Meeting Room: Okay\, \nDRB Meeting Room: retail. And other access. If you go to the other. \nthat that \nDRB Meeting Room: go to the one that shows all the buildings\, the whole\, the whole set. There you go perfect. \nSo number 3 is the hotel\, as you know. Number 4 is a restaurant open to the public like any other restaurant. There’s a El Torrido there now. So we’re essentially providing a new restaurant where an old one exists\, it’ll be open to the public. It won’t be restricted by the hotel in any way. The Associated parking for that is open to the public. \nNumber 5 is a market. So as part of the development agreement\, the city\, like like you’ve wondered as as is requiring that the developer build a market\, it’ll probably be a place where. \nYeah. it might be like a trader. Joe’sish kind of place. You see where you where we that we that the city\, believe that it. It’s it’s the kind of place a family can go to and get snacks and sandwiches in a picnic basket\, and then go to the park. \nor you can stop on your way as you’re riding your bike on the bay trail. Get a drink\, have something to eat\, so there’s a retail component at both of those. And then\, of course\, the hotel is open to the public. But it’s a hotel. \nOkay? \nDRB Meeting Room: And the hotel will also have a restaurant as well. \nYeah. \nwell\, first of all\, thank you for the presentation. Very detailed. And it’s great that you brought a team with with experts with you. It really helps us understand and have confidence in what’s being shared with us today. \ncouple of questions. One is. Well\, first of all\, I’d say\, I think. What’s I appreciate about the approach here is that it’s not your traditional. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, nineteenth century Park. It’s really looking to naturalize as much of this \nhistoric piece of infrastructure as possible. So I think that’s really wonderful. And it stands in contrast to perhaps some of this open spaces nearby. as such as kind of. It’s kind of a little piece of ecology unto itself. And \nDRB Meeting Room: I think you’ve answered a lot of my questions regarding your grass and mud flats and and things like that. So that’s that’s great. \nOne question I did have\, though\, was with the shore birds\, and the proximity to airport is that perceived as any potential conflict. \nDRB Meeting Room: it’s not expected to create any additional conflict beyond what I already exist\, and that’s mainly because larger concerns happen \nI should back up. The mudflat. Specialist species are not typically the same species as what creates conflict with airports. That’s typically typically what we see is marsh habitat. And the actually\, it’s actually a good point that it’s another reason the creation of true marsh habitat could become the problem. \nwe’re far enough away from the airport that it’s not a direct constraint on the project\, and that the airport doesn’t have say over it\, and that also goes to the fact that this project sequence document is already complete. Where they would have the opportunity to comment. But no\, the increase in foraging habitat that already exists is not expected to create any new conflicts. \nand then maybe this is more\, for landscape is Has there been a study of the prevailing winds\, as you mentioned firms being put up. and how the prevailing\, how those respond to prevailing when? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. So a lot of the prevailing winds come from the west. \nit’s typical in the bay\, headed towards the east in this direction. So where we’re looking at placing firms is primarily on the western side of the park\, so that the \nrecreation zones\, ie. The native ones. Areas are protected from the wind. somewhat. It is when I’ve been out on the site. It is usually very windy. and \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, short of building a wall\, there’s not going to be a lot we can do to it. And then we’re also trying to mitigate the pay attention to the Sept as well\, and not creating very tall burns. We’re looking at 3 foot high burns on that western edge. \nDRB Meeting Room: Can you go to the section that shows the \nokay. \nthe lower tier \nDRB Meeting Room: or the \nyeah. Oh\, you were. You were close. \nOkay\, if you look at the section there\, at the bottom there is about a 5 foot. elevation difference between the lower tier and the upper tier. \nWe anticipate placing benches up against backing up against that tier. Now we know wind has a way of getting around\, but we’re doing our best to kind of create a bit of a wind shelter\, so that the folks that are on that lower tier that want to take a break do some bird watching and sit on a bench\, do have some protection from the wind at their back. \nPerfect thanks. \nAnd this is probably a question comment which you start to address\, which is that? I think it was mentioned about the seating areas on the west side of \nthe Peninsula for fishing being every 150 feet. I was curious. There’s there’s a extensive other system of paths where there’s no seating or other kinds of amenities indicated at this point is that something that is part of future development of the project. \nDRB Meeting Room: we can definitely look into it. A lot of the circulation pathways inside was more about producing or or providing for movement. Throughout the park \nwe placed the benches where we think they maximize the views\, maximize interaction with the water\, and specifically on the west side of of the Mufer point. There\, where Number 2 is. \nwe have found\, at the city\, and just a personal observation as well as the city’s years of observing the existing fishing pier\, that folks don’t use it for fishing. They \nscramble out on the on the western side of the edge and fish out into the open bay. So rather than fight nature\, we want to place the benches in place the fishing availability where it’s best for fishing. That said we did it. Extend the docks at the launching the boat launch. \nSo if there was someone out there that loved to fish in that spot. They still can. But it’s our understanding that it’s not ideal fishing right there. Given the siltation and the in the lack of movement. \nYeah. And if I might follow up with that\, I think. But there’s other reasons for seating along the trail you mentioned the bird watching. So I was just curious if there was other. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ve placed some where where we where we think they make sense benches are easy to add right? And I mean\, I can even see a scenario where the city observes the usage and realizes that certain areas might deserve a bench where we’re not \nA lot of it is observing how it gets used. We want to be able to allow people to enjoy the grasses and have a picnic and lay down a blanket. we also want to allow them an opportunity to maximize these to the views and the bird watching them. So \nthat’s kind of at this early stage. That’s that’s kind of our decision point or our our direct. \nthe and the way we’re headed\, I guess. But we’re open\, you know. \nThank you. \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further questions from the board. Yeah\, just one more \nback to the water. I totally understand what you’ve explained. \nDRB Meeting Room: kind of morphologically\, I guess. so. My\, so my question is. \nis there going to be active management of this mud flat. or could anything happen? And are there bad things that could happen there would need to be fixed or mitigate\, or something like that. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m having trouble thinking of what bad things could happen. I think that what will happen\, as I said previously is that the depths will increase here\, and eventually\, mid century or late century. There \nmay not. It’ll might be deep enough for other vegetation or other habitats to develop like you. I can’t think of any concerns or management needs \nfor what you would manage\, for in this space\, and other than just making sure people\, I I guess\, because you mentioned about invasive species\, oh\, and and trying to encourage something that made me think that there was going to be active management. \nDRB Meeting Room: The invasive Spartina is really the only \nspecies I can think of. And there’s it’s extent in this location is limited enough that it should be reasonable to get rid of it here at this time. That’s not the case in other parts of the bay\, where it’s become intertwined in existing marshes. \nOther invasive species it’s really the only one I can think of that would take advantage of this area and those Mars species. Part of why we’re not proposing the vegetation is because even if they do arrive they won’t last. But the Spartan is really the the only marsh invasive species. That’s it. More of a generalist than the species it competes with that I could see arriving here. And I would imagine that if we’re removing it as part of the project\, that the city would see that through and make sure that if it shows up again it’s taken care of. But the invasive for China project is a great \nnonprofit partner on all those efforts throughout the bay to help make sure that it’s managed and eradicated. Where possible. \nis there? \nI mean\, mitigation project would have monitored and stuff like that. But we’re not in that category right? \nRight? typically\, the removal of vegetation. It’s possible that other agencies\, namely\, the waterboard and the army core of engineers\, particularly the water board in this case\, may ask for some \nmonitoring to make sure that if the Spartan is removed\, that it’s truly removed\, but that would be done in coordination with the invasive part time\, a project\, and may even be led by them as this part of the project. We’re not at that stage\, since we don’t even know if this is the invasive or not\, but we will be working with them to determine that I again\, I think it’s likely that it is. But since this is the only plant species that’s out there\, and it’s very limited. \nThat’s a pretty straightforward eradication project compared to what they usually contend with. It’s don’t have to discriminate between other plants. You can just go in and get it out of there\, and there’s enough. It’s there’s just not that much of it compared to other projects. I work on that deal with it in a much more challenging capacity. \nSo just to make sure I understand. dear an invasive maybe coming in. other species may come in after that\, as saltation builds up. \nand then\, as sea level rises\, they may go away\, and they may get back to open water with the R \nDRB Meeting Room: in a point like a 2030\, 40 years from now. \nAre you asking if it would become open water? Yeah\, would it be return to open water. \nDRB Meeting Room: You know someone\, I would say the first part to your question. Yes\, there will be some management. There will be management or debris at the very minimum. There’s going to be management of floats and and debris that is in the bay. \nthat the city would be\, you know. as part of their maintenance function here. \nDRB Meeting Room: in terms of sedimentation and and the progressive build up of vegetation. It’s \npossible that \nDRB Meeting Room: that the good variety of chordgrass. \nif it can be encouraged. not planted\, but encouraged. \nDRB Meeting Room: can lend itself to better retention of sediment from the suspended water column when tides come in in the future\, and so it could build its way out further. \nthat would be the goal. And then\, I think\, at some point \nDRB Meeting Room: just like with Bunker Marsh\, and just like with the other marshes on. You know\, this side of the bay itself. there will be collaboration with regional efforts. You know\, the invasive part on our project is a large project that is\, coastal conservancy\, sponsored and funded. Easter. A park district pays into it. \nIt’s possible that the city\, you know\, would become a partner in that also. This is not the only mar they have Bunker Marsh\, which is a very large one\, just out of here. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, I think that’s the adaptation at this point. It is not a \ndeliberate action to bring material in and create marshes\, because I think that itself is getting to be a pretty large action. That one was not covered in sqa to the Restoration Agency is really lash on to something like that and say\, if you’re building something\, you need to monitor it. \nand then\, you know\, there are \nDRB Meeting Room: our success criteria and goals\, and if you don’t meet those\, you know you get dinged for doing something good. \nCould there be odors from the mudflat that could be offensive? \nYes\, I think in the existing condition it would be the same as the proposed condition\, and that yes\, there are likely existing low tide odors from the exposed mud flat. But again\, with sea level rise. This mud flat is not expected to last to \npast till when do you think it will? \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah. But I would say the order issue is associated with with outfalls and discharge and things like that. There isn’t \na historic marsh here that generates hydrogen sulfide\, which really is\, you know\, the issue with many of these historic \nDRB Meeting Room: this is sediment that’s coming in. \nIt’s \nDRB Meeting Room: words and sediment that you know\, falling out of the water column itself. with the Bmps \nwith all the other stormwater treatment that is planned. \nDRB Meeting Room: The rest from outfalls\, I think\, are going back to the source system itself. There’s no so in general\, it would be far better than the Marina. The marina itself\, I think\, is probably the biggest source of condemnance right now \nDRB Meeting Room: within the basin\, so removing that. \nyou know\, it’s going to help with water quality improvements. \nDRB Meeting Room: And generally\, I think\, with the use an attraction by the local\, you know\, feel birds. \nand I want to make sure you caught what Dill Up said about the hydrogen sulfide\, because it’s a really good point that the rotten egg smell you typically think of with exposed areas at low tide comes from the sulfide that’s released by vegetation. So that’s why marshy areas tend to think more. It’s it’s a direct chemical. \nThat’s where it comes from. So he’s right to say that it’s I can’t say directly how what what the current state is. I don’t expect it to change. And yeah\, the vegetation is actually the main reason for that odor. All other odors are the man-made variety. \nDRB Meeting Room: It’s it’s a great opportunity. I’ll tell you this. If I had\, it’s a great restoration opportunity. I would love to do what I’ve done at Bear Island\, and what I’m doing in Hamilton and at Belmar and Keys and others\, you know\, there’s a lot of you know. There’s there’s a \na a complete set of different agencies and goals that come in with the Restoration project\, and I think bringing the 2 together at this point might offset the schedule for this project substantially. \nWhat? But I think we can still keep it open\, and I think that’s what we would recommend in the city that you know they stay open\, and. you know\, pursue \nDRB Meeting Room: double a grants pursue other sort of\, you know\, opportunities with agencies to see if there is someone who would like to create a wetland here. \nDRB Meeting Room: And I might add\, I mean\, the city school is to solve a problem now as soon as possible. \nand restore an area that right now is an attractive nuisance for crime\, and make it into a place that the entire community can enjoy\, while at the same time not doing anything that precludes us from doing something in the future that could restore this project. So what we’re trying to do is do the most we can right now\, and leaving the most available options for the future. \nGreat! Thank you so much for all that. That was one of the more extensive question and answer periods with that. so let’s see\, I think that concludes the board questions. Unless anyone has anything else. \nwe can open the meeting to the public public comment. If there’s any member of the public attending in person. Please notify the Board Secretary if you would like to comment. \nand if you’re attending online please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nDRB Meeting Room: There’s no public comment\, but we did receive a letter from Bay Trail staff that I will summarize at the moment. The comments have been forwarded to the board and will be included in the meeting summary. But to summarize the Mtc. Staff recommendations. \nthe Bay trail provided\, or should provide more of a loop experience than the out and back elements. Alignments that are currently shown with the high potential use at the site designing the bay trail consistently at 26 feet wide. \nwould be recommended\, the 18 feet being the minimum width per vital guidelines. \nDRB Meeting Room: all Betra are all proposed. Betrayal. Improvements be completed in phase one\, and not split between the 2 phases \nand the addition of the other trail amenities\, such as drinking fountains with bottle\, fill stations and bicycle repair stations would be much appreciated. \nDRB Meeting Room: And that concludes patrol comments \nDRB Meeting Room: right? And the letter was proposing essentially a trail on the inside of the basin right? Going around pretty much the entire basin. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yes\, they. They wanted a loop experience. Not just the out and back. Yeah. Facing inward to the basement basin. \nOkay\, great. Thank you. If there’s no other comments we can move on to the board discussion for the board discussion. I’d like to ask everyone except the Board members to turn off their cameras so there could be a focus discussion. \nClarification is necessary during the discussion the representative of the project team may speak briefly to the clarification at the discretion of the board chair. So \nagain. I’ll just summarize The 7 objectives for public access\, make public access. \nDRB Meeting Room: feel public\, make public access usable. \nprovide\, maintain an enhanced visual access to the bay and shoreline. maintain and enhance the visual quality of the bay\, shoreline and adjacent developments. \nDRB Meeting Room: provide connections to and continuity along the shoreline. \nTake advantage of the base setting. \nDRB Meeting Room: ensure that public access is compatible with a wildlife through citing design and management strategies. \nAnd then \nDRB Meeting Room: staff questions specific to this project. \nDoes the Peninsula feel public and allow for the shoreline to be enjoyed by the greatest number of people space inviting with sufficient facilities to support public use. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the updated phasing plan address the Board’s concern about making the space feel usable and welcoming before the project is fully completed. \nDRB Meeting Room: are there clear connections and way finding to the shoreline from the Community and Monarch Bay Drive? Does the proposed bay trail alignment\, a long monarch\, drive Monarch Bay\, drive\, complement the current and planned \npedestrian and bicycle circulation networks. Does the phase one design adequately provide for southbound Bay trail of traffic? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed shoreline protection approach \nenhance the experience of the shoreline? How could the design improve these physical and visual connections? \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the proposed design provide adequate opportunities for fishing without creating points of conflict with other users? Is the design of Pescador Point and the boat dock adequate to accommodate current and anticipated user groups. \nincluding public recreational use and a commercial water taxi service. \nDRB Meeting Room: Does the design provide sufficient flexibility for future adaptation and public access connections. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think \nI hope that works generally to consider all those factors\, and for each board member to provide their provide their their comments\, and then I don’t know. Ashley May\, if you feel like we haven’t addressed some of these adequately. Maybe at the end we can do a wrap up\, or something. \nDRB Meeting Room: Would anyone like to kick off? \nDRB Meeting Room: well\, I I listen to the whole presentation\, and and I thought \nI didn’t hear any part of it that seemed to have big holes or flaws honestly in terms of the basic landscape design circulation. I was not really in favor of what \nthe patriarchal folks were saying about ringing every single shoreline with \nDRB Meeting Room: the trail\, because I’m always more concerned about \nbikes and dogs and kids conflicts. so \nto support with some of those things coming up there. \nDRB Meeting Room: I don’t know. I I I just think that there was a you know\, a good good faith\, effort here to to address everything we brought up. \nI was awesomely impressed that Dill and and \nfrom Wsa. yeah. really thought this through\, and I was expecting to be like. No\, you just can’t just say nothing. Nature take its course. This is just back during it\, but I I am convinced now. \nfinally\, about the proper taking the part\, of course. So personally\, I’m generally satisfied. \nDRB Meeting Room: Thank you\, Tom. \nCan a building what? Tom? Saying? just thinking about this betrayal access issue. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m a little torn\, because. \nI think\, thinking about the Bay trail as a sort of recreational access versus something that would encourage all users all multimodal users to basically access the site. \nthe attention that you made to sort of orienting the market and the restaurant to Mulford Point drive and having that sort of be a new \nDRB Meeting Room: entrance on into the site\, I think is really good. \nthere’s a class 3 by claim there. But I wonder about that piece\, and about sort of making that \nDRB Meeting Room: it you sort of a multimodal usable front door for everybody. \nAnd that feels in many ways sort of more important than the \nDRB Meeting Room: Pascad or Point drive \nconnection in terms of closing that loop. particularly if that’s just a residential building in that location. This idea about sort of putting the public access on the parameter is \nmore in keeping with the way you think about the bay trail in this part of the same the intro But So here’s a question that I’d like to think about is \nDRB Meeting Room: in the next phase. \nor when in the adaptation strategy that you sort of think about down the line when Horatio is on the hotel\, basically turn over. Does it make sense to you actually shift the bay trail \nto the west side of Monarch Bay\, drive onto the shorter line in that location. and when you do that\, then is that when you actually want to get a loop created. So instead of bringing the bay trail \nall the way to Monarch B Drive\, now\, where the connectivity in that location may not be the best thing. Do you do it in the future when you actually can complete that loop \naround? the entire \nformer Marina. But does that mean that you want to think about again that multi-point drive connection a little bit differently. because \nDRB Meeting Room: right now it does make sense to sort of push people to the edge. But in the future \nyou actually might want to get people across Multiple Point\, drive along sort of a newly activated front door. Once ratios goes away once\, you know\, once that’s it turns over \nAnd if I follow through getting to the point that the maybe that makes the northwest corner of the apartment building more important than \nthe northeast corner in terms of activating that for future public use. \nWell\, while we’re on that subject? Can we bring up a an image so that we can see? So we can look at some monarch day drive. And some of these circulation issues easier to visualize. And and then I just wanted to ask \nstuff on \nDRB Meeting Room: You know\, they’ve they’ve addressed the issue of crosswalks that we that we brought up\, and at the same time the Bay trail issue that you’re mentioning requires a criss crossing of Monarch Bay to get to the shoreline\, because it’s on the east side of the road. \nSo I understand that the they all these driveway curb cuts to provide a conflict. There’s a there’s a diagram that has the little red dots showing all. Yeah\, if you go to page 18\, I think that’s probably the most useful \nsort of regional diagram\, or it’s page 18 in the lower right hand corner. Yeah\, that one. Yeah. Yeah. So I want to focus. And I think the other question there\, too\, is that there’s this breaking up of the big block. \nwe on the the hotel site\, and I think that’s beneficial. But then. \nDRB Meeting Room: trying to sort of understand? \nDRB Meeting Room: how that actually would be used. \nYou know the pedestrian access from the roundabout getting to the shoreline\, getting around sort of the front edge of those buildings. And so another way to sort of think about making that \nDRB Meeting Room: increasing the multi-modal access in that area would just be to rethink that section of of multi-point drive. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know\, beyond just a class 3 facility. on that location. \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m looking at it through the lens of. \nyou know. \nDRB Meeting Room: if I took my kids to the shoreline on my extra cycle. \nand we needed to make that stop because they were hungry. \nI would just go to. I would. I would take Mo. 4 point drive on my bicycle because there is a portion of that where it needs to be a non recreational experience. but I know that\, you know. \nthere’s a great variety of sort of public that actually needs to access that point. \nDRB Meeting Room: How about it? Yeah. \nWell\, I I think you raised a good point\, and I think for me\, one of the the big questions on the bay trail was less the question of the loop and more the the continuity along the shoreline \nnorth of this project and south of this project\, as you can see from understanding this correctly. \nDRB Meeting Room: the bay trail north and south of us is on the west side. \nand so I think that \nDRB Meeting Room: I didn’t hear if there was any reason other than the driveways for not locating it on the West side\, because it just. It just seems to me that \nDRB Meeting Room: for reasons of continuity\, the reasons of not having to cross Monarch Bay Drive\, which is going to be busier than any of the driveways\, I would imagine\, because it’s cumulative traffic. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then all the public amenities are on the West Side as well\, so I think it would be worth considering and and seeing\, because I think it will feel more public\, Frank. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then I think the other comment I would have\, and this was related to my question about seating \nis right now. It seems like \nDRB Meeting Room: The trails south and west of the apartment. \nthe trails between \nDRB Meeting Room: the the the fishing\, the west edge of Mullfer Point and the hotel\, and from the hotel back up to the access point on Monarch Bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: They see all of those walkways seem very much at the scale of the car. There is the street\, there’s occasional trees \nand the amenities. The places for people to actually enjoy that space are very far apart\, and they feel like what they were described as which was kind of like through put places and connections. And I think that really the reality is that when you’re on foot \nDRB Meeting Room: people tend to move at a different pace. They look for interest and activity at a different interval than one might find in a car. So I think \nin the next phase\, I think it’d be great to see some more talks about that. It may be seating. It may be amenities. and I also think that there is opportunities for more cross connectivity \nfrom the \nDRB Meeting Room: the bayside to the \nI guess the the cove the question for both days. So the small bay on the east side to the the but the San Francisco Bay that there’s these parallel trails\, and it just seems like there’s more opportunity to provide connectivity back and forth. \nDRB Meeting Room: And then the last detail on that is \nin my understanding it correctly. It looks like on the south side of Pescador Point that there’s no trail there which? Yeah\, so and that’s that’s actually where \npedestrians are getting out of cars and buses. It looks like. And so\, or \nDRB Meeting Room: boat trailers. And so it just seems like\, that’s where people are arriving at the site. There should be a trail along that southern edge to connect everything. \nThank you. Thank you. Good evening. \nYeah\, I \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m \nI’m torn on the loop. But I guess just to start. Thank you for the presentation\, and it’s really\, I think\, amendable to see the before and after with the aerial\, how much gray and asphalt as kind of being turned over to soft space and usable public \nspace. The outlier is a little bit. You know\, the area that Leo is just talking about Southern piece does feel like it’s still pretty vehicular in its focus. And I wonder about \nDRB Meeting Room: plaza moment at the toes of \nthe southern trail\, and if there’s a softer a space that is made to be softer and more generous\, paired with that as \nmore usable area. And on the loop\, I think \nit’s \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m getting caught up on where the gray dash line is shown. I understand the re-grading and the challenges to connect \nBut I also think\, as pedestrians\, if there was\, if there were attaining walls or things that felt like they were cutting off access. It would make some of these great improvements that you are doing. \nbecause you would be forced as a pedestrian to then walk all the way up or find other routes. that are less convenient\, or make you feel like you should just get in a car and drive \nout into those areas. And so if there is a way for the lower trail\, forget what it was called the Lower Basin trail\, I believe\, on the northern side. If there is a way for that to connect \neven if not the higher ground\, and all of the extent\, I think\, that could go a long way in making that feel more seamless. and \nDRB Meeting Room: to the extent that \nthere may I\, you mentioned \nDRB Meeting Room: bike\, repair facility? Or if there’s consideration of those types of programming. I think the apartment building having one of the corners. \nand I’m kind of going back and forth now between\, is it the Northwestern. Is it kind of one of the other on the southern\, where you have already have the lobby and courtyard areas? just to help make more usable that space that is quite generous with seeding and planting paired with the apartment building. \nSo those would be my 2 kind of focal areas of. \nDRB Meeting Room: but really great and very \nreally inspiring to see with all the constraints\, and thank you for explaining all those challenges as well. \nOkay\, so I I have a comment about this bike lane on on Monarch\, and I I don’t know if this is a valid comment or not\, but it just seems like one \n2 smaller bike lanes\, one on each side of Monarch Bay instead of the 18 footer\, would be more. What’s that? A a class\, 2 facility instead of a class 3. \nYeah\, yeah\, I mean\, it seems important to have something over there for the scenario you describe stuff on. I mean\, I I \nDRB Meeting Room: I do. I would be concerned about trying to cross that that road on bicycle. \nIt’s hard enough for an adult. If you have kids. you know it seems like it can lead a problem. Anyway. I I don’t know how you arrived at that\, and whose jurisdiction it is to determine \nthose things. But that’s one thing. \nDRB Meeting Room: and then I think a lot of the other comments that I \nhad it been covered. Well\, I just wanted to say there was one comment about the single family homes would comply with the 2\,070 guidelines for sea level rise. \nand just wondering if that’s\, you know\, 50 years is an adequate lifespan\, you know\, for a single family home\, you know. I don’t. I don’t know if it would. It would ratch it up as the guidelines change\, or if that’s locked in it. \nBut you know\, by the time it’s built\, you know\, you’ll be pretty close to a lot closer to 2\,070 \nDRB Meeting Room: I’m not sure how. How\, again\, out of our purview. But it’s something that comes to mind\, you know\, building on sensitive sites that are influenced by the bay. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay. Are there any other comments? Or Ashley? Do you have anything that you want to \naddress? \nDRB Meeting Room: If you could speak more to possible user conflicts\, or if the Shoreline Bay trail\, the exterior Bay trail is meeting those needs with the notes for anglers. \nDRB Meeting Room: and pedestrians and bikes. \nand \nDRB Meeting Room: oh\, And the \nboat\, Doc. \nDRB Meeting Room: If it’s adequate to provide for \nrecreation users and water taxi. \nand what that might trigger on the lands. \nI don’t. I don’t know if I I’ve seen enough detail and understand the scale enough to really be able to address that I mean\, we’re looking at this thing very globally at the moment and not. And these are \nDRB Meeting Room: questions about whether something is scaled or scaled appropriately. I’m not sure \nthat I can cover that\, that I would be that I have a \nDRB Meeting Room: valid thoughts on that at this moment. \nDRB Meeting Room: hmm! \nWhat about the land side services that would be associated with those 2 different user groups. Is there adequate passenger loading? What facilities might be needed on the land side to accommodate those different uses. If you have any recommendations for that. \nDRB Meeting Room: just to clarify what different uses are you talking? This is the water taxi plus the boat launch users. So the contemplated uses at the boat ramp \nare non-motorized small boats. Kaya. there is the Outrigger Club. There’s motorized boat ramp. There is a proposed or a contemplated water taxi. \nsmall water shuttles. and fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Got it? Okay\, thank you. \nIs it possible to see a detail of that area. \nI wonder if it might be the topic of a part of a subsequent presentation is helping us understand what the anticipated and intensity of uses for each of those different user groups are. \nit’s hard to say. You know\, water taxi is. it could be many different things. \nDRB Meeting Room: so I think you know\, the specific design of that would be be helpful to understand what are the use groups and what the anticipated load from each of them is. \nDRB Meeting Room: on 1 point. I’m not an expert fisherman\, but I have to say I would imagine fish probably are not going to congregate around a boat. R. \nSo it’s there for recreation as was mentioned. So whether it’s fishing or recreation that \nit seems. Okay. \nDRB Meeting Room: there’s other \naccommodations of the meeting for fishing. \nDRB Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s valid point\, are there other areas? actually\, that we should focus on like this? Because I think when you see it at the scale and you have a minute to to to think about it\, that we can get better comments \nif there’s any way we can do this with without having the proponent come back for another presentation\, and they could work with staff on those areas. I think that would be better for my point of view. But but I think if \nwith your recommendation\, we could probably go either way. \nDRB Meeting Room: So if we maybe we could identify areas that would require some further study \nwith Staff. \nDRB Meeting Room: you can direct them to work with staff further on these \nspecific areas. and we’ll work with them on that. Okay\, I think we’re all eager to to move it along. Yeah\, I think so. yeah\, I think it would be great. I I think it’s a really important point that’s being raised here. I just don’t feel like we’ve had the time or the detail and the scale to figure to really focus on that. \nDRB Meeting Room: So I don’t know\, I think\, are there other \nchannels for soliciting board advice on isolated items. I think we’ve discussed that in the past. \nDRB Meeting Room: you know. \nI think we can reach out unofficially. And you guys are always welcome to follow up with the follow up a board meeting with comments email to us and we’ll share them on. Okay\, great. Thank you. \nI just think on the water taxi question. we we we could identify. The applicant could identify what kind of both can fit in there\, and what kind cannot \nI mean. \nDRB Meeting Room: and which ones are likely to be used\, and which ones are seem unlikely? \nDRB Meeting Room: All right. Any further comments? \nIf not\, then that would conclude our comments and recommendations. And if the proponent would like to speak on any of these issues\, please feel free. \nDRB Meeting Room: just a couple of things. Thank you for your offer. I hope everyone agrees that we can work with Staff to keep going\, because we’re anxious to to get this project built. So thank you for that. \nThese are all very good points. I know the city also wants to put the bay trail on the west side of Monarch Bay Drive\, and if that ends up being a condition for approval\, we’ll do it. I will say to the point about the bay trail loop \nif you. We don’t have to go back to this slide. But what we are proposing is about 100% more bay trail than what’s in the Bay trail plan now. So we are adding Bay trail around the hotel where the Bay trail currently is not envisioned. \nWe’re adding Bay trail around the apartment buildings\, and the evening is over\, you know. So we take. We definitely take their points to to heart. We care about bringing bikes to the market as well. We. I want to feed my kids when I’m out there\, too. \nbut we are trying to maximize the bay trail access more than what the bay trail guidelines have given us. so yeah\, we would. And and the the usage of the of the boat launch. It is a work in progress\, we expect it to be the majority of the used to be the non-motorized craft. It gets very little motorized boat used now very little \nthat will get very\, very rare training exercises for the county fire to to launch. and the city is currently negotiating the terms and conditions for a potential water taxi service. But we need time to flesh that out. And so your offer to let that work out with staff as we approach the the final stage would would help us a lot. \nSo those are our only comments. We very much take your comments to heart. We want to maximize access to this to the people and provide a safe biking environment as well as a safe pedestrian environment as well as a a scalable pedestrian experience. It’s a very large space. We’re doing everything we can with the resources we have\, and we thank you for your guidance. So thank you. \nYeah\, thank you so much for all your really hard work and all the people here who contributed. Yeah\, thank you. And if I have Ashley’s permission to adjourn this meeting. I can entertain a motion to do so. \nSecond. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, I believe. \nPardon. Tom has made a motion and move to adjourn somebody. Second. \nDRB Meeting Room: okay\, if there are no objections\, this meeting is adjourned. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-7-2023-design-review-board-meeting/ LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230803T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230803T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230804T020542Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T174912Z UID:10000042-1691067600-1691082000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 3\, 2023 Commission Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative matters that are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of August 3\, 2023\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff prior to August 3\, 2023. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively after August 3\, 2023. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicant \nGary Spicer801 First Street\, Suite EBenicia\, CA 94501 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.001.00 \nFiled on 07/05/23 \n90th Day on 10/03/23 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 360 West I Street\, in the City of Benicia\, Solano County. \nDescriptionConstruct\, use\, and maintain in-kind the portion of a new single-family residence within the shoreline band\, including: \n\nA 668-square-foot portion of a new 2\,287-square-foot one-story single-family house;\nA 383-square-foot portion of a new 593-square-foot rear deck; and\nA 50-foot segment of a new 3-foot-wide and 68-foot-long retaining wall.\n\nTentative Staff PositionRecommend Approval with Conditions (Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov) \n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Commission Mailing July 21\, 2023 \n\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nCommission Mailing July 28\, 2023 \nCommission Request to Hire Julie Garren as a Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) in the Regulatory Division (PDF) \nPublic Comment Letters \n\nAdministrative Listing for Applications Pending with the Commission; 360 West I Single-Family House\, in the City of Benicia\, Solano County (PDF)\nPublic meetings on Zoom (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nThis Bay Area city could become a pickleball mecca with a planned waterside sports club\nEfforts to combat Bay Area sea level rise prove costly URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-3-2023-commission-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230726T150000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230726T150000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230727T055527Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231018T060918Z UID:10000060-1690383600-1690383600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 26\, 2023 Joint Meeting Design Review Board and Engineering Criteria Review Board DESCRIPTION:This joint meeting of the Design Review and Engineering Criteria Review Boards will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Board members are located at the primary physical location. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85846452073?pwd=UkZXTU1SQ3JrbTBqaGhOSVAvdTB0QT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nStaff Briefing on Bay AdaptThe boards will receive a briefing on several key initiatives BCDC staff is undertaking to implement the Bay Adapt Joint Platform\, a consensus-driven regional strategy to protect people and natural and built environments from rising sea levels. The staff will highlight work underway to create a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\, which will build on the Bay Adapt visioning and result in the development of a guidance document for sea level rise adaptation plans for the region. The staff will also highlight its work to improve the permitting process for coastal adaptation projects that meet regional goals\, to develop a long-term equity strategy for the Bay Adapt program\, and to track and measure implementation of actions in line with the Joint Platform.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; danabrechwad@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF) // Shoreline Plan Overview (PDF)\nPublic Comment\nBoard Discussion\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording & Transcript\n \nMeeting Transcript \nHere. vice chair\, Jim French. that’s present. board member homes. \nnot present \nboard\, Member Gail Johnson present. or in her Bob B. Italia. \nPresent Board. Member Jima Casali. \nPresident. \nBoard\, Member Rumi Kolesarkey. President. board member Nick Sitar. Yeah. \nBoard member Chris. Nay. \nhere. board member Paula. \nNot present board Member Justin Vander \nhere. Remember\, Dill\, it trevettes \nwe didn’t make it \nEcdc. Staff attending this afternoon include our executive director\, Barry Goldspan\, technical staff including myself\, Ashley\, Tamerlan\, Eerie Jewett and Jen Hyman and our Bay. Adapt folks\, Dean of record\, and Ethan Levine. \nWith that I will turn out meeting instruction on part I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting. So it runs as smoothly as possible for everyone online. And in the meeting room. Please make sure you have your microphones. \nAre your Anna phones muted to avoid background noise for board members? If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on. So everyone can see you for members of the public. If you would like to speak during the public comment period\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nFirst\, if you are here with us in person\, we will ask you to form a line near the staff table and speaker cards are available at the door. You will be asked to come up up to the mic one at a time\, to state your name\, your affiliation\, and provide your comments during the meeting. \nAfter all\, individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely the second way\, if you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nif you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. Click the hand at the bottom of your screen. The hand should turn blue when it is raised. Finally\, if you are joining our meeting via phone. You must press in Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand\, to make a comment and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. \nWe will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nAfter you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks. You remember you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in civil manner. We will not tolerate hate\, speech threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission for public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voice and your view. Your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform we recommend using the gallery view option to view in view settings in order to see all the panelists. audio and audio\, for in-person panelists is recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to individual panelists. Videos. \nFinally\, everyone now and then will hear me refer to the meeting host\, Yuri\, Vcdc. Staff are acting as host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. And now I will turn the mic over to our executive director of Larry. We need to declare the meeting with them. And since we have a quorum present\, we are truly constituted to conduct the business. So meeting is declared open. \nWe we can\, we can actually there we go? Okay? and Yuri\, would you please check to make sure that the gallery view is what is set for people who are not here? \nactually\, or Danny had a marvelous view of Tom Leader for about 5 min there\, which was\, you know\, and we like Tom. But you know it’s not necessarily everybody. \nSo thank you all. Thank you all for being here. My name is Larry Goldzband. I’m I have the honor of being executive director of BCDC\, I know some of you\, not all of you\, and I want to explain why that is \nWhen I took this job\, one of the things that I learned really quickly. And one of the things I’d learned actually earlier is to learn very quickly what you don’t want to know or what you don’t need to know. \nand My predecessor\, Will Travis\, who is\, was a professional architect\, still is\, I believe\, was very cognizant of that. \nand I became very cognizant of that\, and I realized early on in my tenure that I could not add anything to a DRB meeting. because I don’t do what you all do\, and I don’t see the world the way you all see. \nAnd candidly\, that’s good. because you all are tremendously creative and tremendously talented at what you do. and I’m simply not part of that. And candidly\, the last thing I am as an engineer. \nAnd so my sitting in and a Dr. On an Ecrb meeting is equivalent to my to. When I started learning Hebrew to be honest with you\, and thankfully you do read from left to right as opposed to right\, to left. \nbut I simply couldn’t really add anything to it. And so what I learned was that I needed to hire people who were really really good at what you all do\, and learn how to lead you. \nWhich is why we have Jed and we have Ashley. because I think they do a tremendous job at helping you help us. and that’s really what we ask you to do \nto help you help us as we move forward as on permits and all sorts of other things. With that being said\, I think it was my idea\, but I’m not positive\, Ashley\, to put you to the DRB and the Ecrb together to start understanding how Bcdc is moving forward with regard to rising sea level in an overall policy context. \nyou see this individually in your meetings. you talk about safety of fills\, and you figure out how in the Permit side a construction project needs to be put together to ensure safety of fills. \nBut you really don’t see the other parts of the project\, and how that really fits into resilience the larger scope. You see this marvelous\, these marvelous examples of how things are put together. But\, unfortunately\, or fortunately\, BCDC. Receives projects on a parcel by partial basis. \nAnd so you don’t have necessarily the. We have not enabled you to look at a larger scope. region-wide sub-regionally about how BCDC. Views resilience. \nYou do a marvelous job at making sure the project is resilient\, and that the project has tremendous public access. But we want you today to start stepping back \nand to think a little bit larger about your jobs \njobs\, not as though we pay you a heck of a lot to be here. But your roles. How can we have\, you help us look at resilience in a larger scale. \nHow can we have you help us think about what resilience means for public access and for safety on a larger scale. How can we be able to work with you in a way that enables you to help us on that larger scale? \nSo what we’re going to do today is introduce you to 2 really tremendous staff members are assistant directors of planning and regulatory for climate change. \nwho have been tasked with the very difficult responsibility of working with the community\, working with stakeholders and working with the Commission \nto help them lead us through the issue of resilience. large scale Bay wide. And we want you to step back and think\, okay\, I’m part of this. Now. \nhow can I help? What does BCDC DC. Need to know. What do our Commissioners need to know? What do our staffs need to know? What questions do we need to ask? \nSo that’s really the purpose of this discussion\, and we want it to be a discussion. I don’t know whether it’s whether Dana\, whether it’s you or Ethan who have discussion\, questions that will be put up. But there will be discussion\, questions put up that we hope you will actually try to answer. \nand if you can answer them. Let us know why you can’t answer them. And what we need to provide more information about\, or whatever to try to get those answers. \nDoes that make sense to everybody? So that’s why we’re asking you to be here. So with that\, I’m going to be quiet and turn it over to Jacinta. \nThank you\, Larry. And thank you\, Ashley\, and thank you. All the team here from BCDC. DC. For staging the meeting today. We really appreciate it\, and I know\, on behalf of the Dr. B. This is something that I think\, as we have been evolving over the last 10 years\, that a number of us had been on the board. \nYou know\, this question of thinking about the bigger picture is something that’s been pretty consuming for us\, and we’ve certainly been evolving in that direction. So I think today’s sessions got to be of incredible value. And we just with the opportunity here today\, because I think we we don’t get together face to face. very often. In fact\, I think this is the first time in 10 years. \nSecond time. Yeah\, maybe I missed the first time somehow. But but I think it’s incredibly important for the different disciplines to get together in this dialogue. \nI don’t think there’s any difficulty amongst any of our DRB. Members in weighing in with questions and asking appropriate questions. And I think these questions of \nresilience and sea level rise\, climate change. The implications for the projects we reviewing have become just more and more compelling\, especially in the last\, I’d say the last\, probably 4 years. \nyou know\, it’s become quite challenging\, reviewing some of the projects with the limitations of the site to\, you know\, to be able to really speak to. So I’m very excited to to be able to have that opportunity with everyone today. And look\, I do want to welcome. We haven’t got everyone here today\, but we do have new board members and alternatives that are just coming on like on board. And we have the \nYou meet An. And with us today a new board member. We also have earlier Chao new board member and alternatives. Patricia Fonte\, Cody Anderson. \nWell. that’s it\, and potentially more alternates. But I really see this. As you know\, we’re talking about resilience in the pay today\, but I think resilience in each of the boards is also really important\, and you know\, 3\, 3 of us \n4 of us. I think it’s been on the board for close to 10 years\, and so I am very excited\, as my colleagues are about having new people come in\, so that we can for carry forward with a lot of strength and become become better as we go forward\, is it these pretty challenging times? So thanks again for organizing today\, and we’re looking forward to it. So \nso the 2\, you see\, I’ll be. \nhey? Thank you\, Jacinta. I’m rods. I was the chair of ecrb and this is a really wonderful opportunity for for all of us to get together. And \nyeah\, think and take that step back that Larry’s talking about to consider sea level rise and other changing conditions that are there that are going to happen. \necr bes goal\, or there\, you know\, our yeah\, our goal has been to look at the safety of fills or individual projects. And \nI think we’ve started to talk about sea level rise and what we need to do. I’ve been is\, you know\, my day job. I’ve \na little concern that sometimes we are overreaching. But I’m here to to learn and talk and kind of share my opinion\, and I’m sure all of our board members \nas well have their opinions\, and we’ve had some pretty good conversations over the last couple of meetings. And you know I welcome this all\, and and and thanks again for organizing. \nSo I’d like to introduce Anna Breckfield and Ethan Mavine\, who will be presenting or presenting the they adapt to briefing today. \nThanks\, Ashley. We’re just getting our presentation set up \n1 s. \nOkay\, \nthanks for having us. Today. I’m Dana Breckwald. I’m the assistant planning director for climate adaptation\, and I oversee our be adopted initiative as well as our adapting to rising tides program. so I’m going to walk you through the first part of the conversation\, and then turn it over to Ethan. \nCould you go to the next. even sitting right next to me for those of you? Not in the room. So if I turn my head a lot\, it’s talk to him in person. so today\, we really want to give you an overview of our major Bay adapt initiatives. How badap came around\, what we’re doing now and then\, as you listen to our presentation. here are our discussion questions we’ve posed\, although\, of course\, the discussion can go really\, any way that we see fit. \nso for you as board members. How and when would you like to engage in the Bay adapt process and the projects that we have going on right now and then. What do we not know about? What resources. Would you recommend to support these initiatives? There’s a lot of information out there that’s already been thought of around adaptation. And we want to make sure that we’re being additive and not duplicative in our work. \nSorry which? Okay\, there we go. So I’m I’m sure you’re all at least somewhat familiar with Felix vulnerability here in the Bay Area. but what I like to remind people at every presentation that I give is that while this is the California coastal wide issue. It will be felt most acutely here in the bay\, with two-thirds of the impact in the state occurring here along our Bay shore line. \nand also that climate change is not just a tomorrow problem. Temporary flooding today at King tides\, signals the areas that will be permanently underwater in the future\, and in addition to overtopping\, we are also facing erosion along our shirling edges\, beaches\, and wetlands and groundwater rides. \nThis is a multifaceted issue that is real for us today. \nwhen we look at the interconnected systems across the bay area that will be impacted if nothing is done\, a stark picture emerges. and as little as 40 years. If we could see impacts to our up to 5 million daily car commuters and 60\,000 \nrail commuters. tens of thousands of existing housing units and planned housing units as well as existing jobs and planned jobs. nearly 30\,000 socially vulnerable residents\, and 20\,000 acres in depression\, wetlands\, lagoons\, and tidal marshes that could drown. \nSo it doesn’t really matter if you personally live near the shoreline. This will impact everyone in the Bay area. \nbut it also is true that in the Bay area many aspects of sea levelized vulnerability have been extensively studied already at with a local and regional level. These maps show what we have called hotspots in our 2020 Art Bay Area report \nor areas where flooding impacts multiple critical assets at once. like transportation infrastructure\, vulnerable communities\, job centers\, housing growth areas and natural conservation areas. \nThe 2 maps on the one on the left shows early hot spots at 24 inches of water\, and what will they merge later? At 48 inches? You notice on the maps pwl stands for total water level\, which is a term that the adapting\, pricing tides program uses in our baseline flood explore to describe any combination of permanent inundation and temporary flooding. So\, for example\, 24 inches. Total water level could mean 24 inches of permanent inundation. \nsimilar to what we may see around 2\,060\, or it could represent 12 inches of inundation and a king tide. which we’ll see sooner before 2020 50. \nSo recently BC. Partners and Pca. Bags to develop a cost estimate for how much this is all going to cost. This study was focused on protecting 4.9 feet of total water level\, which is our best estimate for permanent inundation and a hundred year storm by 2\,050\, \nand the cost estimate was developed by inventorying\, existing and planned projects\, as well as creating hypothetical placeholder projects for areas of the shoreline that would will experience over topping by 2\,050\, but don’t yet have a project identified or planned. \nThe total that we came up with in this study is the a need for 110 billion dollars for strawline adaptation by 2\,050\, which includes 52 billion in known or planned projects and as well as 3 billion for sediment needs \nthis map that you’re seeing here shows the total for the region broken down by project type\, gray\, hybrid\, green or placeholder project as well as by county. \nYeah. Well\, 110 billion may seem like a staggering amount of money. We also know that if we fail to adapt our losses by 2\,050 could be in the magnitude of 230 billion\, or greater\, as private property and infrastructure become flooded and lose their functions. \nSo without a doubt\, sea level rise is going to require a radical reimagining of our base shoreline\, as well as how we make decisions about how to proceed as a region adaptation is already occurring locally\, but it’s not likely to happen fast enough\, efficiently enough\, or in a way that advances our larger regional goals. If it occurs on a site by site or city by city basis. \nThis is largely because flooding doesn’t follow jurisdictional boundaries\, but up on the flip side\, decisions made along one part of the shoreline can have unintentional impacts in neighboring jurisdictions. \nFrontline communities are most impacted and have the fewest resources to adapt without additional support. Central habitats such as wetlands are at the frontline and at risk of being lost. There’s currently a patchwork of approaches along with shoreline\, not a cohesive strategy. \nThere’s a different use and interpretation of quote best available science. there is limited funding available\, and if everyone goes it alone\, there will be greater competition for funding\, and we are less likely to seek collaborative multi-benefit opportunities. \nand ultimately\, without working together to define a shared vision of what we want to achieve. We can’t know if we’re moving towards success\, or what success for our region even means. \nThis is where they adapt comes in in early 2020 BCDC. DC. Started with a hypothesis. and we bring together leaders across a wide variety of sectors\, public\, private community\, nonprofit and academic. \nand come up with a consensus-driven strategy that lays out the actions necessary to adapt the San Francisco based shoreline to rising sea level to protect people and the natural and built environment. \nThe adapt was guided by a set of guiding principles developed by our leadership Advisory Group. And these served as our North star throughout the process and include things like putting socially vulnerable communities\, first \nsolving interconnected problems\, at the same time recognizing that we need to support existing efforts\, but also plans for the long term and also recognizing that strategies will be different in different locations than at different times. \nThe accommodation of the bayed act efforts thus far over the course of 2 years was the adoption of the bayed up joint platform platform. In October 2\,021\, \nwe engage with over 360 participants through public workshops worked with 81 practitioners and experts through multiple working groups. including the local elected officials\, staff and technical advisors. \nWe held focus groups\, including with community-based organizations\, environmental groups\, business groups and planners and gave over 50 presentations around the region. The joint platform identifies 9 actions and 21 tasks \nthat don’t specify specific projects along the shoreline\, but instead are designed to overcome common barriers and set the stage for faster and more equitable adaptations. It has since been endorsed by over 50 cities\, counties\, and special interest groups. \nSince the adoption of the joint platform we’ve identified and received funding for 4 major undertaking to implement the tasks in the joint platform. First building on our equity principles\, we are focusing on frontline communities particularly disadvantaged and low-income communities of color. \nPrimarily at this point\, through the development of a region-wide shoreline leadership Academy. Second\, we are leading the development of a regional shirling adaptation plan which I’ll describe to you next. \nThird\, we’ll focus on regulatory improvements\, and those are from Ethan about this task. And then\, lastly\, we are committed to continuing to serve as what we’re calling the backbone agency for bay adapt. \nThat means keeping the conversations going\, convening\, coordinating\, and tracking\, and reporting our region’s successes and projects and progress. Progress. \nso I want to go into some detail now about the regional shoreline adaptation plan. This is one of the major components. We see. Your 2 boards could potentially offer some valuable insight. \nThe regional shoreline adaptation plan wasn’t actually specifically outlined in the joint platform\, but it is named in BCDC’s 2\,011 climate change policies\, and draws on several tasks in the joint platform. \nsuch as setting a standard vision for what adaptation success looks like for the region supporting local planning to coordinate towards regional goals. linking lots of money towards voluntary compliance with standardized guidance guidelines\, and tracking the region’s progress towards \ntowards this vision that we’ve established \nso the regional shoreline adaptation plan will create common standards\, goals\, and priorities. Aka\, what we’re calling guidelines for multi jurisdictional adaptation plans. the projects identified in these plans\, once they are created\, will together form a comprehensive plan for the Bay shoreline. \nWe’re working with a 40 person advisory group to develop the guidelines based on a long-term regional vision and engaging around the region to ensure that the guidelines enhance rather than hold back adaptation\, planning already underway. \nThere is also active legislation on the table this year that would mandate beef. Cdc. To review and approve sub-regional adaptation plans. It remains to be seen if the plans that we’re outlining here will be voluntary for mandatory. \nIf you think back to the slide that I showed earlier that highlights\, the challenges of not approaching adaptation region wide the regional shoreline adaptation plan is designed to conveniently avoid many of these pitfalls. \nWe think that the shoreline regional shoreline adaptation plan could result in adaptation that coordinates neighboring jurisdictions. and\, in fact\, finds multi-bent multi-benefit from improved collaboration. \nprovides priority\, access to resources to frontline communities. enhances the long-term wealth of health wealth wealth and health of wetlands and increased habitat diversity and abundance. \nprovides a strategy for how implementation should proceed around the regions that it occurs at the right time\, and the right place develops common standards and methods for applying science\, which can be supported by our own data and mapping work \ncreates a funding pipeline that reduces burdens on local jurisdictions and gives us the ability to track and evaluate our collective vision of progress. \nSo rather than a single document or plan. We’re using the term regional straw and adaptation plan to actually describe 3 key parts. The first is developing a regional steel with seal overized adaptation\, planning guidelines. \nThese guidelines will so establish a common approach to local adaptation\, planning and be rooted in our shared vision and region-wide adaptation goals. The second part is providing funding and technical assistance to apply these guidelines towards multiple sub-regional or multi-jurisdictional adaptation plans around the region. And lastly\, we’re developing an online mapping platform that will be used first to help users access relevant regional information. To prepare these sub-regional plans. \nBut once these plans are completed\, the strategies that are locally identified in these plans will be knit together at a regional level to form a comprehensive plan for the entire Bay shore lines. \nThis work will be phased with the creation of the guidelines occurring between now and the end of 2024. Then we’ll transition into the development supporting the development of the plan and the mapping platform will be developed simultaneously with 2 distinct phases\, first\, building the platform as a support tool for developing the original plans\, and then a second phase where the information from the completed sub-regional plan will be sent back into the mapping platform. \nThese sub-regational plans are really a critical piece of the overall puzzle. We’re still working out exactly what they will look like. But we know that each one will include vulnerability assessments that’s somewhat standardized across the region in terms of what science it uses and what it assesses. \nWe know that they will identify and evaluate adaptation options in a way that uses a common set of considerations across the region. and that they should all include a a quote\, final option. \nadaptation\, pathway for all vulnerable sections of shoreline. The final options is what will then be fed back into the region-wide mapping platform. \nSo the guidelines that we’ll be developing should be that should should be comprehensive and standardized while still reflecting local conditions and needs. While this list here is still in flux\, these are the topic areas that we believe the plan should include. So the topics that we will need to develop guidelines on. \nObviously\, each of these topics can contains many facets. \nAnd we’re currently in the process of adding detail. And these topics have been identified because they are responsive to known risks from sea level rise in the bait area. \nThey acknowledged shared land land boundary of flooding impacts for implementation\, coordination and or cross bay impacts. They\, they represent\, they address networked systems or biophysical connectivity. And they reflect our regional priorities. \nI also just want to set out some\, since we don’t have the guidelines yet with some expectations about what we think they actually are and what they are not. So first\, what the guidelines are important to be. I know we use the term guidelines a lot to describe project design guidelines\, but these are guidelines to guide the creation of plans not necessarily projects. \nthey will be best practices for vulnerability assessments identifying an evaluation. You shoreline plan and developing adaptation pathways in that consider issues the region. Things are important. \nthis point\, as I said they\, they are voluntary\, non-enforceable\, incentive\, driven. We want them to be aligned with the existing planning processes\, especially if a city already has some sort of adaptation plan in place. \nAnd\, importantly\, not all guidelines will be applicable everywhere\, so they’re up to only where they’re relevant in the region\, i. I. E. Where our condition exists to the board that the guideline applies to. \nThey said. They’re not project design guidelines. They’re not mandatory or enforceable by BCDC. Permitting or other legal authority. We don’t want them to be an additional burden on top of existing planning processes. \nand they aren’t intended to be top down blanket rules. But don’t consider local conditions needs for values. So lastly\, we have planned significant engagement with stakeholders. As part of the process of developing these guidelines. \nwe have a handful of leadership groups that are are directly helping to guide this process. beginning in August\, we’re kicking off our regional vision and goals phase which will include pop-up events in a public workshop. \nNovember through July. We will actually be drafting these regional guidelines\, which will include number of local meetings as well as 2 additional public workshops\, and we aim to go to public comment in August and September of 2\,024\, \nwe could. It did also do potential additional focus groups presentations as requested. And of course we are looking to see how we can continue to engage with these 2 groups as well as part of our engagement. \nSo at that I will turn it over to Ethan. \nThanks\, Tina. Sorry\, for I’ve been on a few years like I have a hair trigger here on my computer. But good afternoon\, board members. I’m with Mobile\, and they’ll be introducing a a new effort. They’re working on under bay. That’s banner \non regulatory improvements for both BCDC’s program\, and the way that we coordinate with our regulatory partners. \nSo why are regulatory improvements in area of focus? For they adapt and produce it easy. First and foremost\, the need for this work became evident because of the consensus stricken\, planning process that created the bay. That train platform \nand the stakeholders who took part in that effort identified the getting adaptation projects approved by regulatory agencies and getting them built can be a big challenge. So they laid out a vision that permitting should not hold back\, but actually accelerate resilient shoreline adaptation projects that align with regional goals. \nAnd there’s more. There’s a few things that have to do with how BCDCdc. Hopes to grow as an agency. First\, our recently adopted strategic plan. the new strategic plan stresses the importance of closely integrating our regulatory and long-range planning efforts \nto better succeed in adaptation planning. And second\, we’re developing a racial equity action plan that will identify objectives for improving our permitting program to advance equitable outcomes \nand achieve greater community engagement in decision making. \nSo that was all. Why we are working on it\, and the rest of the presentation is going to be about how we’re going to go about it. And when we initially presented this concept to a select group of commissioners. \none caution does that changing? The process isn’t going to be enough and paraphrased a quote by the management consultant Peter Drucker\, who said. Culture eats strategy for breakfast. \nWhat he meant is that establishing new rules\, policies\, or procedures? Option doesn’t work. If the people who apply them or implement them haven’t embraced the mindset behind the changes. \nAnd that’s because people can always have rigid or unrealistic interpretations that frustrate the intended changes. \nSo for all that we admire about these uses culture. recognizing that it needs to evolve in response to the changing world. the question is\, well\, how do we do that? And We came across the study that they’re really happy to see that actually helps us sort of conceptualize how that might work. \nThere was a really fascinating paper published a few months ago by Dr. Amy Nichol\, from Cal. State\, Sacramento. and Dr. Nichol looked at the cutting\, the Green Tape initiative which many of you will have heard of. It’s been embraced by the California Natural resource agencies \nand agency\, and many of the departments and agencies that are that are working in the State. you to BCDC. And cutting green tape aims to increase regulatory and permanent efficiency for multi-benefit environmental restoration projects in California. \nDr. Nickel says that cutting green tape may be on the verge of shifting the paradigm around the problems and setting out to address and to make the case nickel borrows from the work of historian and philosopher of science\, Thomas Kuhn\, who introduced the term paradigm shift. \nI’m just going to describe quickly what Queue’s idea on paradigm shift was. and looking at science. Q\, and said that science doesn’t actually follow a gradual linear evolution towards truth\, but that rather it goes through big changes when established. Theories simply don’t hold up anymore. \nSo the changes in ideas can be rapid and they can turn everything on their head like how scientific thought changed radically with the emergence of germ theory or Darwin’s theory on natural selection. \nHere’s how the process works. It starts with the current\, well-established paradigm. That’s the current way of doing business. and something occurs outside of the paradigm. That that is it. He no longer makes sense. In certain circumstances. \nIt’s initially viewed as an anomaly \nand When there are many anomalies\, people start looking for new explanations in ways of doing things. \nAt some point a tipping point is reached and the current point\, the current paradigm no longer works under the conditions. and there’s a shared perception of an impending crisis. \nPeople respond by developing new ways of thinking and alternative paradigms are developed \neventually\, an alternative idea that does a better job of explaining the anomalies and the current one does emerge and it’s embraced. And in that point a revolution occurs where people embrace the new idea\, and it becomes the usual way of doing things. \nAnd as a result the paradigm shifts and the alternative paradigm replaces the previous one. \nSo how does that hold up with cutting re-tape? Is it shifting the paradigm. You start by defining the current paradigm. It’s the model we’re familiar with for environmental regulation. And it’s behind the types of laws and the frameworks that Bcds uses\, and that many other regulators have \nwhich are based on preventing harm to the environment to restrict enforcement of what can sometimes be a cumbersome regulatory process. and that really really well in the context\, that in which it was created and California was able to avoid significant damage to its environment by instituting a complex set of processes to review projects. \neven if this complexity sometimes came at the cost of time\, effort\, and money for the people trying to get projects built. \nDr. Nichols says that climate change is the anomaly that’s challenging the status quo. It’s harmful effects on people in the environment is already evident\, and will continue to emerge rapidly. \nThe current paradigm does not make sense for restoration and other environmentally beneficial projects that are necessary responses to this threat\, though\, because it’s close them down. we need them fast. \nSo for years our colleagues\, inside and outside of government\, have studied\, written about\, and proposed alternative solutions for how regulators should approach climate adaptation. but also something really interesting about paradigm shifts is that they happen when they’re embodied by practitioners\, not necessarily just theorists or outside critics. \nAnd this point goes back to the comment and culture each strategy. \nDr. Nickel interviewed practitioners and concluded that a tipping point has been reached because they recognize the current paradigm is contributing to the crisis\, and protectioners are including all of us. Here are we need to really evaluate the way that we do our work. \nDr. Nickel thinks this means that we might be entering the final shift to this age. And we’ll know that we’ve achieved a culture ship. \nWhen the agencies permanently reject those aspects of the old way of doing business\, they contribute to problems of filling down environmentally beneficial projects. And it. I really do want to stress here that this is not a throw the baby out with the back water kind of situation. \nIt doesn’t mean eliminating permits or for going analysis necessary to prevent environmental harm. Rather\, it means elevating the goals of effective nature\, based and equitable adaptation \nand ensuring that the old safeguards don’t prevent us from succeeding in the face of the newer challenge. Where they do\, we need to look at how to change them \nso you could look at all this as an effort that we’re trying to do to shift the paradigm here at PC. And to the extent that we can be effective and promoting it more widely within the larger regulatory environment. For San Francisco Bay. \nWe’re trying to make that happen by identifying the anomalies that are challenging our existing program. finding new alternative means of addressing what’s not working well as it needs to. and engaging in discrete projects that will result in shifts in thinking and shifts in action. \nWe’ve identified 5 key actions. \nSorry about that. That. we’re going to focus on in our work. And the first one shown here is that we’re working to make permeating faster and more efficient. So we need to spend less time and fewer resources\, permanent adaptation projects that do align with the regional goals that Dana was discussing. \nInstead of relying on doing things the way they’ve always been done\, we’ll make changes to make our process more efficient and predictable. and the goal is to reduce the amount of time and money that good projects spend in order to obtain. \nWe\, we permit some regulatory approvals. \nSecond\, we’re working to navigate our regulatory program to make it easier to navigate. We don’t want applicants to the public to be uncertain about how BCDC works or what our goals are. \nSo we’ll develop resources so that less time and effort goes into understanding our program. And then more goes into working together to build good projects. \nThird is\, we want to remove roadblocks to effective nature-based adaptation projects we’ve committed through bay adap to prioritize natural infrastructure solutions that benefit ecosystems and the health of the day. \nThese projects prevent some unique challenges for permitting\, because they involve uncertainty whether that’s because the efficacy of certain approaches hasn’t been firmly established yet. \nbut because we may have to consider trade offs between certain ecosystem functions. So we’re planning to put time and effort into addressing the problems\, and we will work to convince the applicants who might undertake these projects that we’re partner to work with\, and not an obstacle that they need to overcome amongst many others. \nFourth\, we’re going to work together with our regulatory partners. we certainly can’t go it alone. You see\, you see\, is just one of many agencies that plays a part in reviewing and approving the adaptation projects \nthe region needs to build. so we can do a better job of coordinating\, aligning our processes\, and possibly even piloting new approaches\, the ghastly streamline. The process adaptation projects need to navigate to in their approvals. \nAnd\, alas! We’re working to reimagine these roles in the region. adaptation presents issues that were never considered. When the legislature wrote the laws that established BCDC’s authority and jurisdiction. \nSo\, building on the outcomes of the regional Showing adaptation plan\, we take a close look at whether the region has the regulatory framework. It needs to ensure equitable and effective adaptation outcomes. \nIf there are gaps that BC\, you could fill\, we’ll work with commissioners\, board members\, and other interested people in organizations to understand how we might evolve as an agency to help implement the region’s adaptation vision. \nThis is a a very simplified version of work plan in the first stage where we’re assessing the current challenges and the methods to address these challenges. \nSo I just want to highlight 2 projects that we’re working on as part of this assessment. the first one is with the Department of Finance\, who we’ve engaged with to conduct a mission based review of our permitting program. \nAnd that mission-based review is going to focus really heavily on finding efficiencies in our existing permitting process. It’s a pretty unique opportunity for us to have a a small expert team come in from the outside and view our program. \nAnd we’re gonna get some recommendations from the really great staff there to help us find improvements in our existing workflow. \nThe second is some background research that one of our newest staffers\, Dominic Mccormick\, who’s in the room. I don’t dummy as you can. has undertaken. He just joined us in May\, but in the last month though\, do right in and analyze a great wealth of research and policy work related to this very challenge. we didn’t want to reinvent the will. \nSo Dominican inv in identified 31 recommendations that provide a menu of options for us to consider as potential avenues for further work. \nfor example\, one of the big lessons that Dominic identified was their very large range of opportunities for us to coordinate permanent review with our other regulatory partners. you know\, these these include everything from aligning policies and practice. \nand\, you know\, could even include implementing new forms of integrated permitting to streamline adaptation projects\, approval processes. \nOkay? So after we assess\, we’re gonna take the findings of the assessment and create a plan that prioritizes key projects and initiatives and defines the needed resources and timelines to undertake these\, and actually sets out a roadmap for implementation. \nAnd then\, of course\, comes the work to advance and implement our projects. so that work involves a work internal to be Cdc. As well as the work of the undertaken joint partnership with the regulatory partners \nto help achieve better outcomes on our notation projects. So that’s where we’re headed. We’ll provide you with updates as we define our priorities and begin to implement our projects. \nAnd of course\, today\, we’re really interested\, as we move into the discussion to hear more about how you think this work\, my interface with the processes that are happening in these 2 boards. \njust to plug. If you want to know more about any of the content you heard about today. or dive in on the joint platform\, they adapt as a updated website that they adapt to work. \nI believe we’re gonna pause here to do public comment. And then\, After the public comment is over\, we’ll put some discussion questions up on the board for you. Thanks. \nThank you\, Ethan and Dina. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak. \nRemember\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9\, or your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment and to unmute yourself. Press star 6. \nIt looks like we have no public comment. \nWe will take it to board clarifying questions and discussions. \nand I’ll just before we start out. Here’s the the discussion questions we’d post for you\, and of course we welcome any other thoughts. But Initially\, we put up as Advisory Board members. How and when would you like to participate? \nCan engage in the efforts we just presented. And what resources would you recommend to support these initiatives? \nOkay\, well\, there’s a great deal to digest there. And thank you both for those excellent presentations. you know\, and even that we\, a couple of us\, had the opportunity to participate in this just \nI don’t know a couple of months ago\, and I can see you’re already\, you know\, making a lot more progress. So reporting prices. Thank you. \nSo I’m just thinking to make this as valuable as possible for the from the Dipp standpoint. I’m sure everyone will have some questions\, but I think one way to get these 2 questions\, and perhaps some other reactions would be to think about the challenges that we have encountered when we’ve been reviewing projects in the last couple of years. And that’s sort of extending out from\, you know\, to the ultimate step in the work that you’re doing. But I really think that in this challenges. \nyou know\, bigger picture thinking to really succeed. You’ve got to be able to move from\, you know\, region down to sites back up to region to test. And I think. \nyou know\, that will be something that we should\, as a board. think about appropriate points to engage with you on\, because\, you know\, we are looking at that type-specific challenge of adaptation all the time. So we could think about that in the context of the timeline that we showed and some key steps. \nI think we’d all be really happy to engage with you at appropriate points along that timeline. there are. There were a couple of things that \nIt’s not exactly addressing those 2 questions\, but a couple of things struck me\, and and it really relates to some of the challenges that we see. And \nI I think the first point I would talk to is is just the subregional adaptation plan for the work that progress that you’re showing there\, and I think one of the struggles we have is you had a slide that showed all the issues that you’re considering in those. And \nI think that’s sort of the fundamental challenge of land use and current land use. Basic designation is something that we struggle with\, you know. Should we even be reviewing a housing project\, you know\, in this position along the bay. \nSo I\, you know\, I’ll just put that out there. We don’t have to talk about this right now. We might want others to weigh in with with other things that struck them. But I do think if we if we’re looking at a sort of a longer term integrated view around the bay. I think this question of of land’s designation becomes really critical. \nAnd then I think 2 other things that strike me because we talk about these issues all the time\, you know\, in the anomalies. you know versus nature. \nthings that are being down versus nature- adaptation. And we talk about this a lot\, and Bob often takes the lead. Thank you\, Bob\, for moving us in that direction so well. \nbut I think there’s often a challenge about. You know the consideration of the 200 foot designations that we have to where we really\, you know\, have the primary responsibility to determine how access is provided. But importantly\, you know how. \nyou know\, a Nature-based adaptation plan might work. And I think sometimes the you know we we we’re not always debating closely about. You know what could be done in that band\, or could extend further on. But I think\, as we get deeper into this process it would be \nit might be good longer\, you know\, looking out \nover the horizon. And the bigger picture this sort of thing is that 200 foot band. How do we think about that? Down the track? And then I think the other question that comes up with us quite often now is \nthis question of fill. And certainly when we all\, 10 years ago\, you know that that was a line you really didn’t cross. You know we didn’t talk about. We tried to avoid filling the bay\, but in nature based \nadaptation solutions. you know. Sometimes I’m sure the Ecrb talks about this a lot\, but the you know the question of\, you know some fill to accomplish a better outcome for Nature-based adaptation could be. \nyou know\, worthwhile thinking about. So I think that that issue is something that we we could spend some time on refining. I love the fact that you’re all reimagining \nwell in the region\, I mean\, I just think\, this is a very exciting time for BC\, DC\, because. you know\, you’re stepping up\, taking a strong leadership role. It’s always hard to see around the corner. You know where it’s misleading. But I think the \nnormally examples that you that diagram we showed us is\, you know\, I I completely agree that we are at the point where we sort of looking around the corner on that diagram to \nwhere a new paradigm shift just the way sustainability was a massive paradigm shift. Back in the early 2 thousands. \nNo one talked about sustainability. Everywhere else in the world people were not everywhere\, but in a lot of developed countries. They had been talking about sustainability for 10 years and doing great work in that area. And then America\, United States got on board. And suddenly this tidal wave of change Tab happened. So you know that anomalies diagram is is very important. \nSo with that\, I’m just going to hand to other members here to Just build on those few points to take other points. If you want to. lead off\, we’ll just come down the line\, I think. \nsir\, I’ll try. I’ll try to go first here. Thank you very much for those presentations. It’s actually really beneficial to have a better understanding of what you all have been working on \nI don’t know how to answer these questions\, but I’d like to build on a couple of things that you said\, and then I just sent in\, and maybe that will raise some other issues. the \none of the key things that comes up for me when thinking about a sub-regional adaptation plan is the vehicle through which that gets implemented. \nand that the jurisdictions we’re setting an expectation. I I think I’m understanding this that they would do some area planning at a at a local level \nthat would actually address these issues\, that you’re providing guidance before locally. And you mentioned vulnerability. shoreline adaptation\, and the notion of creating an adaptation pathway. \nand that. \nyou know\, I in in my other day\, Job\, I see this through the lens of of housing\, you know\, housing production and what the State’s doing to basically accelerate that. And then they’re saying that most planners are actually really greatly overburdened \nthat you don’t have a lot of extra capacity\, and there’s always that notion of like Oh\, my gosh! I have to do another plan like I have to participate in this other thing. I have to deal with this whole other thing that goes beyond \nmy capacity\, but also my area of expertise and sort of look at\, and looking at it through that lens. Those of us who are planners who \nare doing this work\, but we’re not necessarily trained to do this work. and sort of understanding that burden. But I’m also thinking about the notion that \nour our role becomes more important when the difference between what the local jurisdiction is telling the applicant to do and what BCDC. Is telling applicant to do are are far apart from one another. \nAnd this notion of us actually sort of providing discretionary guidance about what happens in that shoreline. By the end it becomes more important when there’s not clarity between those 2 agencies. \nand burling game is a community that they made a \neffort to engage in shoreline planning through their general plan and through their update to their zoning ordinance. \nAll right. \nin a way that you could say it. Actually it. It increases the amount of clarity between what’s being proposed. And this sort of great area that happens a lot where we’re in situations where we raise this question about what should be suitable in the shoreline band. \nand the local jurisdiction says\, Well. you know\, our building setback is actually only 10 feet. and you know this has gone through all of these approvals. So there’s not much we can do at this at this point\, because\, you know\, we’ve given sort of permission. \nSo I guess the \nthe Shoreline adaptation plan being able to reduce the difference between those 2\, or be a mechanism for that\, but also provide some guidance for the jurisdiction. \nThe entity that needs to implement the plan like\, how do they do this? Is it another chapter to the general plan. this Opr provide guidance for that\, so that it’s really easy for them to understand what those executions are. Those are some questions that I think they’re sort of going on in my mind. \nAnd then the last thing I’ll say now and then. maybe I can talk more later. is this this idea that at this\, at least at the state level\, there’s a lot of legislation\, that is. \nit is geared towards incentivizing entities to do the right thing. And so there. I I I basically\, I’m asking this question about. Could there be sort of a pathway to streamlining \nwhere habitat creation and sort of a more objectively defined outcome for what happens in the shoreline? The end would actually result in \nminimizing or reducing the need for discretionary reviews of that project. But there being an incentive to say\, You know what we need to come to the board to make these decisions around permitting \nwhen was happening in the shoreline band is not clear that if 100% of the strongline band is actually being created and reserved for habitat restoration and public access. Does it reduce our role\, or does it reduce the necessity of our role? Or does it actually \npotentially reduce the timeline or. promote a streamlined outcome? It actually can accelerate the the of that project. I’m going to make one more comment\, and then I’ll shut up. \nThe What strikes me to about the sub regional adaptation plan is that the jurisdictions by a role locally in jurisdictions. There are silos that need to be overcome \nin that. Like the shoreline adaptation plan. In some situations it could be entirely on private land owners\, or it could become a land\, use regulatory issue in other situations. It could be\, while 70% of our shoreline band is actually public right away\, public right of ways \nand public works actually needs to be the primary decision maker\, the primary implementer. And we see a lot of projects where. when it gets by the time it gets to us\, the \nthe \nthe the hurdle of crossing the silos at the local jurisdictional level has not been made \nright. We see a project through the lens of planning. You ask a question related to public works\, and they say\, well. we talked about that early on that we\, you know\, there was no way to collaborate within the jurisdiction within the silos\, and so that couldn’t. We couldn’t think more creatively about something like a shortline adaptation. \nand there’s other parts of the of the Bay area where\, \nand railroads retail transportation systems. They they are going to play an outside role in what happens at the shoreline\, and they would sort of need to be involved. \nAnd that’s a big question mark for me about how that happens consistently. and how they can come to the table in a way that actually has a consistently productive outcome. \nThank you. Thank you. Tom. \nthanks. Thanks for your presentation. I’m total concurrence with the company step instead. And I just have really more generalized\, maybe abstract sort of \nyou are the subject. \nI think\, touching on incentives. It’s critically important in this work. \nI think that in motivations have to be understood. \nthe I read it quantified. But why do I want to do this? I don’t understand why I want to do this. What are you supposed to? \nThat’s the problem. Because\, you know\, cancelling a negative. You know that that doesn’t get you anywhere better. And people mayors\, I see people they want to \nenlarge their reputations. They want to\, you know\, have a feather there. Cap or developers want to make money\, or all these kinds of things that actually make projects \nproceed is the is the sense that we’re going to be better off. We’re going to be. Our our growth will be accelerated. We can quantify that. I mean that we can understand dollars and cents. \nhow we will be identified. It benefited an honest\, precise schedule. Otherwise we don’t get on our stand. We’re talking about. We just sort of resources or or understanding for that. So \nI don’t know how that’s done\, exactly how how motivation and incentive these kinds of ways of measuring knowledge of people can enter the this process. But it seems like it’s it’s critical. \nyou know. and people need to envision. what could be which? And this you know\, from the design side\, we we have tools we can use to to energize people \nrenderings\, video stories. things like that that will help him imagine something they haven’t seen yet. It’s always critical. As a designer you have to convince somebody that \nthis really could be. And this is how we can proceed with that and there have to be\, I think\, credible. they have to be credentials. \nIt’s got to be some some increment. or which everybody can say this\, this works and this got done. and we see the path. You can see the benefit and the and the value that we can count up \nhow many people are benefited. You can kind of how much money somebody made. Whatever it is it would get. They would get people out of the chair and really want to do something like\, I don’t know just all the some of the different \ninitiatives we’ve been involved in in the last 10 years. It’s always there’s a somebody\, some voice that is there saying\, you know I don’t. I don’t have time for this. Why do I want it? Why do I want to do this? That’s the basic question. \nAnd I’m not. I’m not very good at identifying all that it’s the policies and and directors they’ll bring that about. But there\, it seems like that’s that’s kind of the key \nhaving credentials that people can in sight. I think it was fiftieth anniversary of 10 years ago now. And \nyeah\, and there was kind of a form of 4 time. I think it was. And Bill Mcdonald came to that. and he was probably probably all heard this\, but he was saying\, You may. It’s just not no good just cancelling a negative. You’ve got. The project has to not only \nhelp people save people\, but it’s got to advance into positive territory. And that’s kind of where I came off thinking that \nthe work we were doing. We had to. We had to do that and his designers. We\, you know\, we do have that potential. We do have the tools. We need. A you get in the hard nosed \nengagement with economics and politics to to generate. You know \nthere is motivation. I think every project needs to answer the question\, Why\, why do I want to do this? Remember\, I’m sorry this is so abstract. And I was just thinking about this for a period of time. Now it’s kind of seems like the without motivation\, because I just \nI see difficulties advancing. \nSo \nthanks\, Tom. Yeah. Very helpful. any any comments? \nI think\, just to start off. I’m thrilled to be here. This is my first hearing\, and I’m still getting my bearings as a design board member. So this is a very exciting presentation. Thank you for All the details that were shared. I’m thrilled to see the vision and the big ambitions of thinking of this holistically as a bay\, and \nthat is some of the roadblock that I see in my day. Job as an urban designer is the very narrow blinders of specific projects that we have. so I have a couple of very specific questions\, the first of which is \naround the sub area plans\, and if there will be guidance that will either lay out a foundation or a framework\, or provide incentives for cross sub area or cross project coordination. \nand how? How can we help streamline that or create systems that different jurisdictions could latch on to so that this can help become a useful tool for \nsome of those silos that both of you were describing. that. And then a second question around. I think\, Dana\, you touched on it remains to be seen how voluntary or mandatory some of these guidance might end up being\, and I’m curious to understand \nwhat the pathway for that decision of the level of peace. But some of these guidance thesis could have is\, and how much of that is already happening and underway\, and what milestones there might be to \nmaking those decisions. and will they\, do you anticipate that they may vary kind of jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Or is it a similar level of teeth for the bay as a whole. I guess just\, you know more \nlooking forward to keeping up with some of this work and on the milestones\, and when and how I think it would be very helpful to hear I was thrilled to hear the lessons learned. There’s been a lot of good thinking\, a lot of work that’s been done day wide by a lot of different jurisdictions. So updates on the lessons\, learned updates on the community meetings that were planned. And the I think \nthose would be great opportune moments to bring together feedback from this board with the conversation in the wider community. Excellent points. Thank you. Thank you. And I don’t think we need to sort of answer the questions right now\, I think what we’ll do is corral all these comments get around the rules. \nOkay\, how are we doing on time? So we need to. \nOkay\, I’ll try and keep it brief. I also very\, very inspiring. You know the the presentation. I have to say I’m really\, really encouraged\, and I as a more of a designer\, mind\, I don’t completely understand the mechanisms for getting there\, but I. But I do understand the diagram for paradigm shift\, and I really want to engage in that. It reminds me very much of \nyou know some things that I’ve read\, that jar and diamond wrote about how an individual who’s having a crisis or a nervous breakdown is the same as a society or an institution or a government which is having a crisis. \nIt involves the honest\, the value on a self-evaluation commit to change throwing out the things that are dragging you down and holding on to the things that are that are working. And I think you’ve already described that that this isn’t a total start over that you’re going to keep the things that are working\, and you’re going to build \nAnd so then\, when you get into how to make the bridge to projects on the ground. I think it becomes much more difficult for the reasons we’ve been hearing. \nI\, Tom\, is kind of inspiring me to to think about. How are all of the projects come before the board\, the short-term goal\, short-term financial plan\, and a schedule\, and everything that you just talked about is about long-term costs. \nand how how can you incorporate? You know\, long-term cost of society from a project? So I from there\, I just want to go to maybe a couple of specific examples of \nproject types that we look at all the time where I come away feeling like. you know\, we’re doing what we can within the rules that exist. But I don’t feel like. you know\, we’re we’re doing enough. Or maybe we’re understanding something that we should even be approving \nthat we don’t have the ability to turn it down and out. Just generally speaking\, I think\, for the last couple of years\, many\, many of the projects that we’ve been looking at are in the part of the bay that is going to suffer the biggest impact. So San Mateo\, Berlin game\, foster city\, so on. \nWhy are we seeing so many projects come before us on the most problematic sites? That’s a question I have. And I think I you know\, I can speculate and try and develop theories\, but that’s a question \nrelated to that is the levies that are being built that I don’t think is broadly known among the public\, or even among the board. \nI’m thinking specifically at Foster City. which is shocking to to go down and look at and drive along there and see these 20 foot walls rising in front of homes that formerly had safe views. \nI’m thinking about a Lisa where there’s a massive project underway right now that I don’t think anybody knows about unless they have a reason to go to a visa for some reason. So I I asked the question. You know\, how is it \nif those projects can happen independently of the kind of oversight that that you’re talking about. and finally\, I think the other is as Jacinta mentioned\, and we’ve talked about many times are I have in my mind to a very separate category for single family projects and condominium projects on day\, you know\, sites that are endangered. \nbecause the cost of implementing the 100 year adaptation plan or building a levy or a Se. Wall later falls on the Homeowners Association. \nand we do approve projects where we’re kicking the can down the road. You’re you’re approving a project. A developer is. it’s making some money. They’re getting out\, and the city or the region\, or somebody is going to be left with a map of massive costs \nwhich is not in. I mean those sites. yeah\, I I feel bad about about The deferred cost of that. So I will leave it at that. Thank you. Yeah\, thanks for all your hard work. \nSo do you want to wrap up the the dab? Yeah\, I’ll be quick. first\, in terms of engaging. Well\, first\, let me say\, thank you for the presentation. It’s great. It’s nice to be in the room. \nBe part of this really appreciate what you’re doing. But in terms of engagement I think it is really valuable for the boards to be updated and informs \nabout what Ecdc. Is is doing that we can do our jobs. And so I think we do that I don’t know. I think it is better to have some meetings and make a show up and listen and talk. \nbecause a lot of us \nI have lots of things to do\, and an email may fall off the list occasionally. \nsecondly\, on resources. \nI think the Ecr. BCDCould be utilized to a broader extent. You know\, the Foster city levees is an example\, I don’t think that came in front of the Ecr because it wasn’t \nNew Base Hill. And but it’s a lot of big detail with geotechnical issues and personal engineering issues. So but I think also\, the other thing to recognize is that the Ecr\, the \nis working with engineering criteria that are not available at a national or even at state level. We have policy\, if you know\, drivers and we have sort of arrived scenarios which are \nfind space by definition. But it’s not. There’s no ase code for that I’m aware of\, for scale will rise for public access versus something over the water versus \na shipping terminal or a very landing\, or anything like that. So we’re kind of making it up when in a way we’re we’re leading\, I think. \nBut I think the Ucrb could help with that perspective. If it’s useful as you go into these regional plans and stuff like. how would that translate to \nlogic design criteria\, you know. also the California Coastal Commission. I think you’re in contact with them. You know\, there’s these coastal groups that talk in the States that I think that they’ve had to deal with \na lot of similar things. And in it\, for example\, a lot of different future conditions mapping. I’ve worked on some of those. And I know Justin’s working on the theme of maps. And and then there’s the cosmos to you. So you have all these maps\, and \nyou know\, what do you do with them? How are they used? And then\, of course\, the applicants to do something else. And you know\, so I think they have a lot of experience. From what I understand in that world \nit might be worth could be some shared benefits. As far as my general comments. I just this is great listening to what the Drd folks said. \nyou know\, I really just want to highlight Tom’s motivations. topic. Because what we realize is that \nthat paradigm\, that different people are different paradigms. Some people are like\, okay\, I I like it because it’s close to the coast. And now I need to build a sea wall. That that’s it\, you know\, if that’s the paradigm \nand Whereas planning might consider other things. And that’s it can be a different. So there’s paradigms within paradigms. And it’s interesting that how you motivate people which I think is \nclassically\, would be to identify those externalities and try to get those internalized into these parcel level local decisions. \nBut you know\, anyway. and then the other thing that that Gary mentioned is what I would call legacy issues. I was going to mention this later. you know. So we designed for something\, and we know it has a life\, and \nyou know it’s got to work economically\, or put it clear\, or whatever. But what happens at the end of that? Because sea level rise is going to continue. And what we’re dealing with now are a lot of legacy issues. \nAnd so it may be in economics. You have a close out consideration. But then. you know\, you don’t want to stop development. So I don’t know. I think that’s a big challenge legacy stuff. And how this plan? \nWhere does it leave us? Recognizing that sea level is going to keep going up? Is it likely? so it’s a couple of quick comments. \nso we’re moving in a we’re living in a moving frame of reference now\, the LAN the census. Talk about the zoning or or land use planning. \nyou know\, we’re every that’s moving that that sees coming up and the shores moving in\, and the groundwater is coming up. And it’s more precipitate\, higher precipitation\, intensity. So it’s blood planes. \nSo you know. that we have. Your plan has the term shoreline. A lot of people use the term shoreline\, which is\, I guess\, an old English navigation thing which is around me in high water\, and that’s how \nour laws are are based in our regulatory framework\, and there is the bay on one side\, and what’s not the bay on the other side\, but in reality it’s all like a flood plane. and so I don’t know if we want to call it. You might want to call it the \nyour plane\, or or the Bloodland\, or there’s a Shoreland or something. But but you’re actually not managing the shoreline necessarily. If you’re really being resilient\, you’re you’re maybe working out into the bay. \nand maybe also likely\, considering landward of the shoreline. So what is that? Where is that? Where is that going to be? So \nthose are. Yeah. I’ll just leave it at that. I could. I could go on forever. But okay\, so good enough\, probably. Thank you. \nOkay\, thanks. Thanks. Bob. And and everybody on the DRB. I there’s a lot of I real I \nunderstand. And I agree with a lot of things that you’re you’re saying. I you know. Personally\, I think this dynamic or this this \nreference frame that Bob just mentioned is really important. \nIf you’ve got a condo association that is trying to replace a a retaining wall. are you? And and say the owners are going to be there for 10 years or 15 years? I don’t know what the the average of home ownership is. But if you’re forcing them to think about \n100 year\, to think a hundred years into the future and pay for that. it doesn’t seem as \nrealistic or equitable if you’re forcing that kind of decision and that kind of resource use on them. I you know I I almost feel like we need to have economists in the room here \ntalking about what\, the how we allocate our resources. If we’re going to be talking about shoreline and and big changes. There’s this whole \neconomic and and that kind of or the and how you fund any of this. \nthe the management of your short one? because\, you know\, I know that things are going to \nthe change. But I just you know\, I think that just it really for me it’s the timeframe of the change\, and what your and if you’re going to build a bridge\, you’re going to want to have a hundred years of of life. \nBut what you do\, what you do at the end of that 100 years\, have you? Just do you just build a new bridge. the tire\, or it that that kind of decision making\, I think\, has to be \npart of this process\, and I think that in terms of what they adapt does. I would really. you know\, like to see that type of thinking and incorporated into it. \nso I’ll \nlet me just. I’ll get out. Well\, one more thing I to answer directly these questions? You know I would really love\, I agree. I I would really love to have regular update meetings and meetings like this\, where we are allowed to hear what your progress is\, and \nyou know to be able to offer some input and guidance from our perspective. \nAnd in terms of the resources Bob mentioned American society civil engineers or design guidelines. I I think they are working on those things\, but they are a long way \noff. you know\, we’re in technical committees\, and we’re just talking about frameworks right now. I know the Navy is putting together workshops or a workshop on dealing with climate change\, not just sea level rise\, but \nthe storm intensities and things like that. And and that’s just an effort that’s starting. But there\, the idea is\, how do they change their design criteria? \nFor there\, you know. relatively important structures or facilities to deal with kind of this uncertainty and changing of the climate. \nSo anyway\, I’ll get off my soap box now when you pass it on to the Chris. \nThank you. and thank you for the presentation. It’s really great to see the progress that has been made. and it was really good to hear you mention rising groundwater. So it’s not just sea level rise. \nIt’s really important. But I really also want to urge you to include precipitation based flooding. I think many communities around the bay are very focused on\, protect\, protect\, protect. \nbuilding the walls like at Foster City. and if they do not consider all of the sources of flooding\, it will be mal adoption. We saw in 2\,02313 back to back storms. \nbomb cyclones. Those bring elevated bay water levels and intense precipitation at the same time. So I think it’s really important to that. We bring that in. \nI also like the components talking about a paradigm shift and anomaly. 2023 is an anomaly. We’re in a wonderful bubble here in the Bay area. \nbut the rest of the world is struggling under intense heat. we’re recording record\, high ocean temperatures\, ice sheet melting. We could have passed tipping points. \nScience right now\, is going at light speed to try and figure out what’s going on. So it’s the work that we are doing. That you are doing is is really incredibly important. \nto go along with the literature on paradigm shift. There is a growing body of literature that’s on transformative adaptation. which is very similar to the process that you discussed. But it is specifically focused on climate adaptation\, equity centered. So I would encourage you to explore that base of literature if you haven’t done it already \n110 billion dollars. I think that’s probably an underestimate But when you think about it\, state level country level\, it’s it’s huge. And at the shoreline. \nwhere we have all of these compounding hazards. It would really be good to see the guidance embrace planned retreat. I feel like \nwe. Really it’s an uncomfortable conversation for people to have. But we need to start having more guidance and discussions on plan retreat\, because we are going to need to do it. \nmaybe by 2050 or sooner. So if we don’t start talking about it now\, we’re not going to be able to get there. I think it’s you know. It’s going to need land use changes. Policy changes \nthings that are outside the engineering criteria Review board. But I think they’re extremely important. And so I would encourage you to include that in the guidance that you’re looking on \nwith that compass a suggestion \ngreat. \nWith respect to the first question\, I I kind of ask myself a separate question of like\, what is the relevance of these activities to the Ecrb in terms of evaluating a project \nand just trying to think of like how these might interface with the Project level Review. and to some extent\, I think some of the things I noted\, you know. Maybe there’s some sorting out of like\, what’s the responsibility of the Cdc staff versus the Ecrb. And and that’s fine. \nbut I was trying to kind of imagine a future world\, a future Youcrb meeting\, where a sub regional implementation plan exists and we’re evaluating a project that kind of fits within that \ncontext. and so I think you know\, one thing that would probably come up would would be sort of how to evaluate an individual project within the context of a of a plan\, you know. Is it consistent? \nHow does it work with other projects and adjacent shoreline areas? thinking about the the feasibility of that project with respect\, you know\, within the plan and its adaptability and things like that. \nAnd then also thinking about. is the project consisting with and compatible with the adaptation pathway that has been laid out in the in the implementation plan. \nso those are a few things that came to mind there \nwith respect to the providing input on safe development of the planning guidelines. I think that potentially there could be a role for Thecrb to \nmaybe provide input like to the extent that the planning guidance would include they suggestions on different types of adaptation options that could be considered in an implementation plan. \nmaybe these here we could provide input on feasibility or suitability of different actions along different parts of the shoreline within the bay\, for example. And then\, with respect to the second question and other resources. I mean\, I’m sure the Dcdc. Staff are \nare as aware\, more aware of. You know things within the Bay area\, but I might just throw out that there’s probably other non bay precedents that could be looked at in other parts of the country where \nyou know. And maybe it’s like state level or regional level plans that have been developed. But just looking at how those kind of regional plans had been laid out. And you know just kind of \nRodney. The perspective. I know the Bay area is usually a leader in the space\, but there may be other examples. It could be pulled in as well. so yeah\, because of my comments. \nI I just like to reiterate a point that Rod made what the struggles we have with how to how to address different types of \nproperties consistently. And in my line of work we work on a variety of projects from new developments\, where we\, I should say\, redeveloping \n2\,000 feet of shoreline\, transforming an industrial wharf into a pedestrian promenade or individual homeowners\, or H ways \nthat are trying to do repairs or large industrial facilities or petrochemical facilities around that that maybe have more money and can afford things \nAnd we we need to find a way to to address these consistently and be able to apply policy to the different types of projects. And that’s where I think we\, as a board struggle. \nAnd I think that’s something that we’d like to get some some guidance from. Ec. DC. On how to address. Thanks. \nyeah. Talking as a geo-technical engineer to a non Geo technical type of topic at sea level rise. I do have a number of comments\, I guess\, as representing representing the engineering Criteria Review Board. \nit seems like engineering criteria\, sea level rise topic per se might be a practical\, tractable problem. I’m not sure that the policy issue there \nas as easily tractable. couple of questions that I have\, that\, I think should be addressed and be useful for the engineering criteria for Thecrb to have in hand is it was talked about best\, best best available science. \nAnd I’m curious. You know how narrow or broad is the best available science is there consensus? Is there a lot of dissent? It was mentioned earlier. \nThe idea that maybe the boards are overreaching. what does that mean? Are we able? And if these are non-mandatory issues it’s sea level\, is there a number that’s mandatory issue? That’s a mandatory number? You have so many feet in in 2\,050 somebody feed in 2\,075. Somebody feed in in 2\,100 \nor \nBut \nand what is the design like who design sides of the design that you have a homeown\, and it’s going to whether they’re an average of 15 years. We normally think of 50 years\, but 50 years is kind of a \na stand in number that says that the last 50 years it’ll last forever. I mean that that’s kind of as far as we can imagine. all right. And and that’s basically stable. But that’s different with sea level rise. Because 50 years from now is different than 25 years now\, and different than 75 years from now. \nSomehow\, someone needs to start thinking about what those who who decides divine life and what is mandated about that? If we’re talking about engineering criteria\, the criteria is a mandate almost \nanonymously. I lot of these issues are not mandates. So what is engineering criteria? Then? I had \na question about probabilistic sorts of studies. Maybe if there’s uncertainty about what sea level rise means As a genetical engineer we deal with earthquakes and earthquakes are. \nin a sense. so the type of number that who knows? How do you put your finger on what’s gonna happen? And we put our finger on that. We thought that the Hayward was going to go again 10 years ago\, and we’re not there yet\, so \nthat we have to design for it. So But you know\, maybe there’s a way that we come up and say\, you know this is the Median number that you want you to design \nfor 2\,050\, which is the one you know\, the one Sigma\, the median plus mean plus one sigma value. And and that’s what single-family residences of that with subdivisions up to 10 units in the that’s what a a sea ball around Foster City for trying about. \nyou know. racy\, just to say\, you know\, engineers\, doctors have it easy. They just risk killing people one at a time. Engineers what \nyou know cities it. So the criteria for Foster City is\, is it? You know what? What’s the statistical number that you’ve got on that it shouldn’t be a Median number. It’s probably not a a a one sign number. \nIt’s probably a 2 segment number or something like that that we think that this \nreally. \nyou know\, something we really don’t want to see a problem with with loving around Foster City. And then I have a question. Some of these things are not mandated. \nWhat is the permit means? If it’s not mandated\, or what is a permit denial? I we need to get forward. you have to figure out what is Mandated? And then what is it \ni’m an engineer\, I don’t deal with it. \ncriteria and management. \nthank you. What a very good exchange here. First of all. it’s almost 50 years to a day. I first got introduced to the Cdc. To a guy named George Maker \nthere. and At that time the mission was to keep the from getting fields. To mention was\, you know\, no more feels But \nI think what we’re talking about is\, how do we keep the day from flooding us out? And so the point that it’s really not shoreline. It’s the coastal flood zone that we really have to consider and what is going to happen within it. \nand that requires a regional approach as an engineer. the engineering solution. If you want 20 food walls. we can build 24 foot walls. Do we want to live in an area \nthat’s basically surrounded by large moats. That’s an option. But I I don’t think it’s a desirable. You know. Hard engineering solutions are possible \nsoft solutions. They require regional approach. We really have to start thinking regionally the jurisdictions. Somehow we have to get the jurisdictions together. Think about it \nholistically. You can’t have San Mateo having one approach in burling them another approach and call it perfect solution for everybody\, obviously one of those. \nThey both may work\, but they don’t lead to the same outcome. So\, as as I said\, from the engineering standpoint. in a way\, once the criteria\, once the societal criteria are established\, it’s really what does the society like? What we we want \nthis to to be and keep in mind. It’s not just the bay little sea level that’s going up. If the base level goes up. the whole delta goes up. We’ve got I once you got flooding there. \nIt’s it’s a system. And and so\, you know\, I heard the suggestions of barriers in the bay like Venice. I’m sorry this is not Venice. This is a much larger area barriers. \nyeah\, you know\, for a few years my pork. But we have a venture like this one that’s gonna work. Okay? So that’s that’s one thing that I was thinking. So looking at the common approach and the issue of 100 year horizon. That’s an interesting point. \nSan Francisco. August system is more than 100 years old. Still working. It’s amazing. We East pay much the same way. It’s amazing what was done to not thinking about a hundred years. But \nas to last. So what we find is a lot of these engineering. you know\, infrastructure solutions. They acquire a of their own\, and we have to sort of think about it. You know\, we have the \na short freeway network. Both sides. \nAt some point there will have to be sea walls around all of those\, or they will have to be elevated and become the levees that everybody’s talking about. So I think \nI I like this idea of engagement\, and and especially looking at it holistically. I think that’s why? Because we need to as engineers. Really\, the society needs to provide some guidance \non what is the outcome? That your desire? Because that can\, you know in the end. It’s money. I’m sorry\, you know. It’s 100 billion or more. But yes\, we can do it. \nBut we have to have a common purpose. That’s the way I see that as an engineer I can help in that process. But I need to for some. you know\, buying from But he questions. Yes\, we’d like to have your help \nrather than being there\, saying\, Not yet. You cannot do this. \nthank you. \nI think the bad part of sitting at the end of the table is\, everybody who is so smart basically steal your thunder. But I think the elephant in the room is a global issue \nthat needs to be addressed on a project level. You can never do that unless you tell people\, hey. you are submitting the permit to Bcdc to do whatever development you want. \nYou have to consider 5 photo of sea level. That’s the only way that you can address it. because you cannot \nhave this being a mandatory or voluntary. you have to address that. If you want to talk about incentives\, you have to what they they are. \nOkay. Tax incentive. The insurance incentives? Are they some sort of a credit against some other people almost like trading carbon incentives? \nSo so I think engineering wise like Nick said. is easy. You put a stupid looking barrier in front of the beauty of the bay. And yeah\, it \ndon’t plot your development. That’s not what any of us want. \nSo I think \nwhat I think is going on here is \nreally \njust a a forum to discuss a global issue. And how do you bring it to I local project levels \nand I don’t think you can. This has to be addressed regionally. There is no other way you can. You can handle this and how that is done is really the 110 billion dollars question. \nwhich I think is probably a lot more than that\, maybe by a factor of 10. \nSo that’s my 2 cents sitting at the end of the table. Thank you. \nWell\, I mean\, you’re very good at. \nanyway. Thank you very much for the presentation. Most of what I had written down were things that I mean just talked about. The only thing I would add to it is also at what Chris shared\, that \nit’s not that sea level rise\, but you know a flood in from other sources is also part of it. Yeah. what \nit’s hard for me. It’s the fact that this time is being looked at on a global level. in a holistic kind of way. \nI think the issue of. you know\, trying to determine what we break to it. It’s we are far from that. we have to get to a point of basically the only way that we can deal with the sea level rise like through a means that has to be original. \nNow\, even if you there was a mandate\, that if you are developing a property on a shoreline and you have to put in a 10 foot tie wall. Well. \nthe C. Is not going to respect that temporal tide. Wall\, it’s going to go around it right? So so you have to cover the whole shoreline\, or you have to cover the whole region \nSo I think that society would have to basically decide that this is a crisis which affects us all and be committed to approaching it \non the suicidal regional national level. I mean\, we talk about climate change. I mean\, part of the challenge that they’ve had is that different countries\, you know\, have different levels of commitment. \nbut the one doesn’t respect the. And so if we in the Us. establishing all these policies to deal with climate change. \nBut China is not. Oh\, Mexico is not. I mean\, we are not being protected. So there has to be a sense of thanks\, there being an agreement. \nyou know\, on a suicidal level that this is so important that we are willing to command resources to dealing with it on the global type of level. \nI think he talked about reimagining our role. I think it’s so true because the things we do now me nothing. If we had to look at things on a global type of level. \nhow we would come in would be join in with everybody else that society is committed to dealing with the issue on a societal level \nwe bring in\, and our expertise\, you know\, and coming up with solutions to address the problem on that level. \nThank you. \nGail\, do you have? And another comment \nthat was\, I was raising my hand on behalf of my colleague\, Mr. French\, here earlier. \nsince we are sharing a camera. \nGary. \nvery quick\, I think. 15 years ago I I I tend to talk about how the manager tree would be solved by insurance companies. And I think in the last couple of weeks we have seen that it’s had a big impact as they pull out. And that is something that I think \nyou know\, transcends our ability. I think it addresses some of the things we’re we’re hearing\, you know you can. We can say as much as we want. What we think is the right thing to do. But I think identifying what mechanisms there are to \nbring into your policy. Evaluations are to inform people who are investing in the shoreline. Maybe maybe there’s something there I I would like to hear has. It’s more knowledgeable about that. \nI’m just looking at timeline here because broad you my one way into actually the screen. just so much really important feedback from everyone. I think we could easily extend this for another couple of hours\, going backwards and forwards. As we focus our minds. \nwe particularly some of the Atlantic comments. That’s What should our plan be? It’s by the clock. So What do you? What do you suggest \nnext on the agenda is adjournment? I think we heard very clearly that everyone is interested in engaging in this process more in the future. And so perhaps \nwe can schedule more dialogues like this. \nI will look to Larry right. I I just wanted to say you know very frequent attendant of the the DRB. I always get to hear \nvery incisive comments at the project level. And it’s It’s just interesting to be talking about such a big issue in here\, these high\, level thoughts and \njust really giving us a lot to think about. So I just wanted to say\, Thank you for for all the comments. \nYeah\, I I mean\, I as much as it would be great fun to talk about this for another couple of hours. I think you probably have a lot to digest\, and we probably also have a lot to suggest. I mean\, we both were taking just pages and pages to know your comments were all just so insightful and thoughtful. Some stuff that we have thought about\, and some stuff we haven’t yet. So \nI’m not 100% sure how how we want to proceed forward. And in terms of coming up with a maybe just a briefing schedule or identify key points where\, you know\, we can bring you just really specific \npieces of information. but it does sound like it would be really mutually beneficial to continue this conversation. maybe just not nice. \nCan I just make a conclusion remark on just on behalf of the DRB. I mean\, I think you are already making really important progress. And you know\, if we think about the beginning of the cycle of a project where a developer comes to you. Maybe a developer comes to you \nright. and they have a project they want to develop. And I think it would be really helpful\, for even at this point to the still something quite simple from everything that’s being studied at a more macro level. \njust to distill to the developer that you know and use language like\, even though it’s not figured out in details. But you know that \nyou know shoreline adaptation that adopts a natural approach is something that you’re going to view very favorably. you know they might be 3 or 4. Keep it simple\, but you know\, based on what you heard today. \nJust things that you could already start in that first meeting with a a developer that might be helpful\, because I completely agree. You know\, these global macro \nissues is something that at a project level\, we can’t necessarily impact. But we can impact. You know\, the next 25\, or 50 years\, and I think we should. you know\, within the realm of what we can do. So \nI think that would. I just would like to suggest that. But we\, you know that we move ahead. We don’t to awake for 2 years before these conversations are held with potential developers and projects. \nSo you know\, I in my day job kind of involved in 7 and a half miles of protecting 7 and a half miles of shoreline \nI and I see how big a job that is. See how hard the you know our staff and our consultants are working to make this all all fit right\, and \nthe the amount of resources involved are just mind mind-blowing. I I And so \nthis is all I think really great. And \nbut I I just it feels like to me. It I see it on a day-to-day basis\, and it feels like just a absolutely impossible task. But I’ve got\, you know. But there are people who are running the program. \nWe’ve got this idea in their head that it’s going to work somehow. So you know I’m I’m very hopeful\, even though personally\, maybe I’m like overwhelmed. \nyou know\, I think this is all super It’s a very noble pursuit. right? And I I really encourage the staff to to think about the things that we’ve brought up. I mean\, I still. \nI still think that you know the timing of the sea level rise of what it means\, you know\, 20 years down the line\, 50 years down the line\, 100 years down the line. \nI I you know that at some point even the tallest\, you know\, 8 foot 9 foot 10 foot wall that you build is going to be overrun at some point. \nAnd what have you? And you’ve made all of these decisions now\, or in the near future that are going to have to play out. And people. The next generations are going to have to live with that. \nAnd so I you know\, I think it really does require a lot of consideration and care on our part right now to to make sure that we’re making you know the best decisions that we can\, but \nalso have some flexibility so that people can pivot. you know\, in 20 years or 25 years. \nNo. sorry I’m getting off my my so box again. \nSo if I can\, a couple of things. I I think the next step is to have a stiff drink. and and I mean that sincerely because this is the kind of discussion that thankfully Rod just said something at the end that I think we all need to hear. There are optimists here. \nI think all of us are optimists here because I don’t think you would volunteer for BCDC. This. You’re optimistic about the way the Bay area can change. And the way the Bay Area needs to change. So with that\, with that being said. \nyou know\, I don’t think we have to have a zolop\, you know concession out the door. I think there’s a reason that we can be optimistic. \nmy suggestion is that Dana and Ethan will compare notes and work hard to try to make something out of those notes that actually gives us \nsome type of organizational framework to use in terms of what the questions are that are really raised by this nationally\, and and Jen will certainly be part of that \nand we’ll share that with the chairs of the DRB. And Ecrb to make sure that they \nthink that that’s somewhat at least consistent with what you heard. So at least we’re working off of a framework that we can that we can use. and then what they’ll have to do. What we’ll have to do is Staff is figure out how those issues \nare going to be raised\, and when they’re going to be raised in this bay adap discussion. And as we do that\, as we see that framework\, we will then come back to you all in preparation for that\, so that you all are prepared for those kinds of discussions to be had. \nnot only probably as part of your meetings\, but as part of you know the Commissioner working group on rising sea level\, to which you will all you know\, to which you are all going to be notified and the like. And and as those issues bubble up to the surface\, we want to make sure that you’re involved with at least understanding how the Commission’s viewing this. \nSo that’s sort of the logistical way that I see this happening. I will end by saying this. regulatory agencies\, such as BCDC. Are created in order to provide certainty of the public. \nThe FDA exists so that the pills we take in the morning don’t kill us. They actually solve things. We get into airplanes that are certified not to fall out of the sky\, and the pilots are trained to make sure that doesn’t happen. \nBCDC is a regulatory agency that is facing an environment that is uncertain and permits are contracts \nand contracts are based upon some kind of certainty. And so one of the things that we need to think through with you all and and and with all due respect. I think the engineers were really totally on target on this\, because they see certainty. That’s what engineers do. Right? You can build a wall that’s going to last for 110 years a certain as long as we give you the specs or the the idea\, you can build whatever you know\, you’ll figure it out. \nbut we don’t know what’s going to be like in 20 years or 80 years\, and for someone who has a 19 year old kid\, and hopes that his grandkids\, you know\, live in a prosperous Bay area\, we have to be adaptable. \nSo all that basically is a mishmash of I don’t know how we’re going to do this. but we’re going to depend upon your input as we move forward to try to figure out how to do it best. \nSo with that\, I want to thank you all for participating\, because it’s something that we haven’t asked you to do before. And now it’s something we’re going to ask you to do more. So we thank you for your help. \nCinder. Would you call it your name? \nIt’s I propose. We had joined the meeting someone. Second me. Thank you. Tom. Meeting adjourned. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-26-2023-joint-meeting-design-review-board-and-engineering-criteria-review-board/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230726T080000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230726T170000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230727T053936Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231017T050829Z UID:10000034-1690358400-1690390800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 26\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-26-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230725T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230725T160000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055131 CREATED:20230726T063708Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240205T230005Z UID:10000083-1690290000-1690300800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 25\, 2023 Seaport Planning Advisory Committee DESCRIPTION:Please note that this meeting notice will be updated as required based on post-COVID-19 changes to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. \nThis meeting will be held in a hybrid format on Zoom and in-person at the \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nThe Advisory Committee will also have a teleconference locations at \n\n675 Seaport Blvd\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\n1997 Elm Street\, Benicia\, CA 94510\nPier 1\, The Embarcadero\, San Francisco\, CA 94111\n111 Grand Ave\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n450 Civic Center Plaza\, Suite 300\, Richmond\, CA 94804\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/86752041701?pwd=RGhBQ1JlVXlodTkzMElVMHp2MDExZz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID867 5204 1701 \nPasscode951349 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Tentative Agenda\n \nCall to Order.\nStaff Presentation and Committee Discussion.Staff will make a presentation on the background of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and provide an overview of the new Draft Plan.Draft Seaport Plan // BPA 1-19 Staff Analysis // Comment Letters  // Staff Presentation \nPublic Comment.Upon request\, members of the public will each be allotted up to three minutes to speak before the Committee. Written comments may also be submitted to staff to be shared with the SPAC prior to this meeting (please see below regarding submission requirements for ADA accessibility).\nAdvisory Vote.Committee discussion and vote on a recommendation to the Commission on Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19.\nNext Steps.Staff will present a brief overview and timeline of tasks to complete the Seaport Plan update.\nAdjournment.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Meeting Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-25-2023-seaport-planning-advisory-committee/ CATEGORIES:Seaport Planning Advisory Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20230721T100000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20230721T120000 DTSTAMP:20260410T055132 CREATED:20230722T014334Z LAST-MODIFIED:20231019T053410Z UID:10000076-1689933600-1689940800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 21\, 2023 Sediment & Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meeting DESCRIPTION:Agenda (PDF)\nPresentation (PDF)\nMeeting Summary (PDF) URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-21-2023-sediment-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR