BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.17.0//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20220101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Los_Angeles
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20220313T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20221106T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20230312T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20231105T090000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0800
TZOFFSETTO:-0700
TZNAME:PDT
DTSTART:20240310T100000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0700
TZOFFSETTO:-0800
TZNAME:PST
DTSTART:20241103T090000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240205T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240205T170000
DTSTAMP:20240127T083712Z
CREATED:20240127T083233Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240127T083712Z
UID:10000114-1707120000-1707152400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 5\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-5-2024-design-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240201T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240201T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T190819Z
CREATED:20240118T071934Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T190819Z
UID:10000090-1706792400-1706806800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:February 1\, 2024 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission 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 videoconference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified 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. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building575 Administration Drive\, Room 100ASanta Rosa\, CA 95405 \nCaltrans Building111 Grand Avenue\, Room 15-220Oakland\, CA 94612 \nMarin County Civic Center3501 Civic Center Drive\, Suite 410BSan Rafael\, CA 94903 \n\n\nPalo Alto City HallGround Floor Community Meeting Room250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto\, CA 94301 \n116 W 23rd Street\, 5th FloorNew York\, NY 10011 \n360 Alcatraz AvenueOakland\, CA 94618 \n890 Osos Street\, Suite HSan Luis Obispo\, CA 93401 \n\n\nCity of Novato Administrative OfficesBaget Conference Room922 Machin AvenueNovato\, CA 94945 \nSolano County Administration Center675 Texas Street\, Suite 6500Fairfield\, CA 94533 \nNapa County Administration Building1195 Third Street\, Room 310Napa\, CA 94559 \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. \nLive Webcast \nJoin the meeting via Zoom \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers \n1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes)\nA 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]\nApproval of Minutes for December 21\, 2023 Meeting\n(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nResolution of Senator John Laird // Resolution of Graciela Gomez\n\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 and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case No. ER2000.004.00\nThe Commission will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.\n(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Presentation\nPublic Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case No. ER2021.044.00\nThe Commission will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.\n(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\nRepresentatives 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.\n(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nDraft California Sea Level Rise Guidance\nhttps://opc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SLR-Guidance-DRAFT-Jan-2024-508.pdf // Presentation\nBriefing on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Progress\nThe Commission will receive a briefing from staff on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan and the plan’s draft “One Bay Vision\,” which was developed based on extensive public engagement in Fall 2023. The briefing will also include an update on the project’s relationship with SB 272 (Laird 2023) and plans for spring outreach.\n(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment // Presentation\nBriefing on Plan Bay Area 2050+\nThe Commission will receive a briefing by staff from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments on Plan Bay Area 2050+\, a limited and focused update to Plan Bay Area 2050\, the region’s long-range plan. The briefing will include a general overview of the update\, with a focus on the plan’s sea level rise adaptation\, conservation\, and parks and open space strategies.\n(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPresentation\n2023 Enforcement Program Annual Progress Report\nThe Commission will receive a progress report on the program improvements and developments in 2023.\n(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress Report\nSenior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nSolano County billionaires’ utopia: Seeking support but picking fights\nIs the Bay Area entering a ‘golden age of ferries’?\nCalifornia coastal protections versus housing: The battle is on\nHow S.F.’s Embarcadero could be transformed by this $13.5 billion proposal\nAs abandoned boats pile up in Bay Area waters\, who’s responsible for the environmental damage?\nRICHARDSON BAY REGIONAL AGENCY RECOGNIZES BANNER YEAR FOR PROTECTING LOCAL ENVIRONMENT AND COMPLYING WITH STATE MANDATES\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/354/2024/01/2024-02-01-audio-recording.mp3\nTranscript \nBoardroom SX80: Good afternoon and welcome to our once again. Hybrid VCDC. Commission meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: My name is Zach Wasserman\, and I am the chair of BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: Our first order of business is to call the role Commissioners. If you are participating virtually\, please unmute yourselves when you’re called\, and then mute yourselves again after responding \nBoardroom SX80: a new\, ragged. \nBoardroom SX80: sorry\, Ragathaan. \nBoardroom SX80: Close enough\, Ragan. Thank you. Thank you. Our Hr. Analysis will be sitting in for Alina today. Anu\, will you please call the roll \nBoardroom SX80: chair? Wasserman here? \nBoardroom SX80: Vice Charizon \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego\, here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on here\, Commissioner\, Bird \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eklan. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Goren. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: present \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haas. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Freskin\, present Commissioner Pine. present Commissioner Randolph \nBoardroom SX80: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Zapida. here Commissioner Beech. present Commissioner Kimball. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: here \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: here’s Nervousness \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner\, Gallagher\, here. Commissioner Gilmore\, here. Did I miss anyone? \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes\, Commissioner\, show Walter is here \nBoardroom SX80: now. Bask was this here. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner Gunther is here. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Here. I’m meeting \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Commissioner. Ambul is here. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Decisions happen. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Did I miss anyone else? \nBoardroom SX80: We have 20 who attended the roll call? \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. We have a quorum\, and so we may conduct our business. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 3\, which is public comment period. If anyone wishes to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not yet held a public hearing or is not on today’s agenda. You may have 3 min to do so\, and I’m going to start with and not impose a strict time limit and recognize \nBoardroom SX80: John Coleman. \nBoardroom SX80: Some of you will know this\, if you may not. He has an announcement\, I won’t steal his thunder. \nBoardroom SX80: I might make a few comments after he speaks. John\, the floor is yours. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Now it’s on. Thank you. Chair Wasserman Commissioners and BC. DC. Staff. Some of you may have read or heard A week ago\, Tuesday last week I made an announcement at East Bay mud that I’m resigning from East\, famous board of directors\, and I’m leaving the Bay planning coalition at the Effective. I think. March 6 or so. \nBoardroom SX80: and it’s for new opportunity. It’s a new\, really a new opportunity. I’m going to becoming become the manager of natural resources at the Calaveras County Water district. The other Ccwd up in the mountains. And what’s unique is for 33 plus years I’ve created policy. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, I have to implement policy\, and it’s gonna be a big change\, but one I’m really looking forward to. It’s gonna afford me the opportunities. My first years of college at Oregon State in the forestry program and after transferred to Uc. Berkeley in the natural resources department working on water policy. So I get to actually finally put all those together and work in an area that I’ve not had that chance in in a different realm. And I need to really think. \nLarry and Zach! And actually the Commission and the entire Bcd. C. Staff. When I came here 13 years ago\, I guess it might be \nBoardroom SX80: okay to say our relationship was not \nBoardroom SX80: always real good\, and we still disagree with some things. However\, having said that we’re able to work through the issues in a plight\, cordial manner\, and work to get solutions to problems and be able to support many of the programs that you’re working on. And you’ve done a great job. And I think Bpc has done a really good job in terms of working with this regulatory agencies and others like the corps of Engineers and \nBoardroom SX80: State water resource. San Francisco Regional Water Quality control board. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve loved it. I have many friends from who I’ve done the work with Bpc. Annie Spay mud\, and I hope that those friendships will continue going into the future. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m going to be living in Calaveras County\, moving up there in March. And yes\, it’s a little bit different\, and will take 45 min from my place to the office\, but it won’t be like what it took to go from my home to here this morning. It’ll be a little different. It may take more than 45 min\, depending on the elements\, if it’s a heavy snowstorm. \nBoardroom SX80: or whatever. But I have the vehicle to make sure I can get through all that\, and don’t have to put chains on\, and that’ll put me closer to next year. Skiing when I can resume skiing at Bear Valley. Yes\, Aaron\, we’ve talked about that. And one of your board members is not here today. That’s John Joya and John and I go back 33 years when we served together on East Bay. Mud board\, I believe\, is \nBoardroom SX80: San Diego now\, and Senator Laird’s up there\, and I worked with Senator Laird\, who was at the California Conservation Corps\, and he was great to work with\, and so many of you were\, and it’s an opportunity I could not pass up \nBoardroom SX80: for a lot of reasons. I leave with some \nBoardroom SX80: reluctance\, I guess\, because I’ve really enjoyed what I’ve done in working with the people I’ve worked with\, and I am leaving Bpc. In good stead\, like Cameron car to stand\, and hopefully you’ll be taking a greater role at the Bay planning coalition. \nBoardroom SX80: and Robert Rogers if he could stand behind me\, and he’s doing our legislation and taking over more responsibilities. So Bpc. Is not going away in any measure to act. We’re becoming more active and are getting new members and taking on new challenges. As I’m gonna take on a new challenge. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re taking on more challenges. But it’s one that I’m really looking forward to\, and I’d like to thank \nBoardroom SX80: all of you and the staff \nBoardroom SX80: for working with me at Bpc. In a very proactive role\, and if you’re ever in Calaveras County\, look me up because I have a house\, and Arnold might work in San Andreas\, and it’s little different. You may notice I’m Maureen sort of \nBoardroom SX80: blue\, gray blue jeans \nBoardroom SX80: down there up there. You don’t wear a tie. You don’t wear a sports coat\, and blue jeans are the norm. So I’m so really gonna fit in because I won’t have to wear a suit anymore unless it’s something really special\, but probably won’t be up there that I having to wear the suit\, because then I’ll be people. Look at you with suspicion going! \nBoardroom SX80: What are you doing? You’re in a suit and a tie that doesn’t look right. What are you up to? So I’m gonna go from suit and tie\, giving you a look of what it’s gonna be like in terms of more casual. And with that I’d like to again say thank you to everybody for the great opportunity I’ve had over the last 13 years in this role. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, John. Thank you. You most certainly will be missed. We \nBoardroom SX80: from my perspective. \nBoardroom SX80: In addition to our individual constituencies as as commissioners. We have a number of specific constituencies\, but sort of the 2 leading ones\, if you like our Bay planning Council and save the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and you have done\, I think\, an an excellent job\, not only representing your constituents and your group\, but also working with us and helping us steer our ship and ships as we go through the various issues that bring us together. So I thank you for that. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Cool\, and I \nBoardroom SX80: wait. I can sit down now. You may sit down now. I’d just like to say Thank you very much. I’ve been honored and loved doing what I’ve been doing so. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I have no other cards. Are there any virtual public speakers? There is one public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: oh. \nBoardroom SX80: caller\, unmute yourself and you and you have 3 min. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): Hi\, thanks very much. This is David Lewis\, executive director at Save the Bay. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): And I also wanna add my congratulations. And\, thanks to John Coleman. I’m particularly disappointed that he’s stepping out\, because now I can’t avoid confronting the fact \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): that\, I am probably the longest continuously serving BC. DC. Stakeholder at 26 years with save the day. I wanted to briefly. Add to my to probably 2 year history of \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): flagging concerns with cargill storage of bittern and open ponds. Next to the bay south of the Dunbar Bridge. As many of you know\, Staff has been working for several years to try to to finalize a new permit for operation and maintenance of Cargill salt making operations\, especially focusing on \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): their maintenance of the levees and burns that separate their material from the bay. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): One of the optimistic signs that we had was that cargo is developing a plant \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): or a pipeline to move their toxic bittern from open ponds. There’s 60 million tons of bitter and stored there just south of the Dunbarton Bridge\, right next to the bay\, and the plan was a pipeline to connect with the East Bay dischargers \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): authority\, facility and dilute that material and get it \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): back into the day in a safe manner. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): however\, as soon as the environmental impact report last year was completed\, to authorize a preferred alternative route for that pipeline\, Cargill decided not to pursue that. And they’re basically going back to the drawing board to come up with a new route and a new Eir and new permits and new construction\, and the bottom line is the soonest that pipeline could be reducing the bitterness in those ponds. Is 8 to 10 years from now. \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): so this makes it even more urgent for Vcdc. And the Regional Water Board to strengthen the protections for the bay by insisting on stronger integrity\, and of the berms that separate this highly toxic material from the bay \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): and from the marshes right next to those ponds that contain endangered species assault marsh\, harvest mouse so as this permit\, slowly moves along the the delay of this pipeline makes it even more important for BC. DC. To ensure that those berms have integrity\, not only in the event of an earthquake\, but in the \nDavid Lewis (he/him/his): expected and anticipatable higher tides during king tides and with sea level rise. Thanks very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any other public speakers. There are no more public comments. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 4. Approval of the minutes of our December 20\, first\, 2023 meeting. We have been furnished a draft of these\, and I would appreciate a motion\, and second\, to approve the minutes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: I’ll move approval of the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll take Commissioner Eklan’s motion\, and I’ll take Commissioner Pescin’s second \nBoardroom SX80: is there any objection to the minutes. \nBoardroom SX80: any abstentions? The minutes are approved unanimously. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings me to my report. I’m going to start on what is certainly a high note we have a \nBoardroom SX80: I’m not telling you. I’m going to get to low notes\, but I’m starting on a high note that we have prepared a resolution of appreciation for the tremendous work that State Senator John Laird has done to preserve and enhance the California coast\, including the San Francisco Bay shoreline. In particular\, we are gratefully acknowledging his steadfast work to move. SP. 272\, through the State Legislature last year. \nBoardroom SX80: This measure will ensure that coastal local governments will prepare plans to address and prepare for rising sea level. \nBoardroom SX80: As we stated\, the resolution\, the legislation signed by the Governor is entirely consistent with\, and will significantly move forward. Our Bay adapt initiative and our upcoming regional shoreline adaptation plan. \nBoardroom SX80: I think one of the keynotes in the resolution\, and and that\, in fact\, is a hallmark of Senator Laird’s career is persistence. I’m sure he learned it in many places\, but one of them is what the University of California\, Santa Cruz\, which we share. So banana slugs may move slowly\, but we are persistent. I would we all have the resolution. \nBoardroom SX80: and I’m not going to read it in full. But again\, the most important part is the vision that this measure contains in it the practical application and the persistence in getting it passed and approved by the Governor. \nBoardroom SX80: I would appreciate a motion\, and second\, to approve the resolution. Happy to move it. I think when I was there\, John? Was the Mayor. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Is there a second \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eklan? Seconds the \nBoardroom SX80: Please raise your hand? I’m sorry. Do I hear any objection to the motion. hearing and seeing none\, it is approved. \nBoardroom SX80: We thank you very much\, Senator Laird\, and the virtual floor is yours. \nSenator John Laird: Well\, thank you very much. I really appreciate it\, and I appreciate the recognition of the persistence because it took 2 years. And until I sort of threw down the gauntlet. In the last week\, before \nSenator John Laird: amendments I had to throw down the gauntlet to people that wanted to to move it on\, and I think the thing that really helped make a difference was the fact that we had the storms last year. \nSenator John Laird: Because that’s while this was going on\, and and the central coast really took an incredible hills wharves trashed see? Walls wiped out\, roads wiped out\, and I think it really made the case. And in one hearing I said\, this\, bill’s important\, because to have those conversations before these things happen and not after. And I just worry \nSenator John Laird: that we still won’t be having some of these discussions in time. And so \nSenator John Laird: it it also puts an onus on you and the Coastal Commission to work really hard to make this happen. And the collaboration with the cities and counties is gonna be really important. And I just stand ready \nSenator John Laird: to work together on that\, because this is just too important. And we got the money and for local assistance in the budget. And we’re gonna have to fight to hold that. So just thanks for this honor. And I just look forward to working together because some of the hardest work is still to come. \nBoardroom SX80: Amend that one. Thank you very much. With that I’m going to move to another resolution \nBoardroom SX80: which we have prepared for our now retired executive secretary\, Grace Gomez\, who needs no introduction to the Commissioners\, as you know\, or may remember. Grace retired at the end of last year\, after a long and illustrious career at VCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: She was\, when she retired\, the longest currently serving Staffer at BCDC. A little over 40 years\, and we have all enjoyed her friendly demeanour and get it done. Attitude! \nBoardroom SX80: I am going to read a couple of things from her resolution. \nBoardroom SX80: Whereas Gracie’s positive outlook\, quick smile\, and her ability to get work done well were always on display at BCDC. Allowing her to become BCD. C’s executive secretary. 11 years after she started. \nBoardroom SX80: just after high school as a seasonal clerk. Since there was a hiring freeze she has always been ready for any and all tasks with a team approach from the Friday evening mailings back in the day to supporting the Commission remotely during the Covid emergency. \nBoardroom SX80: and whereas it is widely known that VCD. C’s current Commissioners and alternates will always open an email from Gracie prior to one sent by the executive director\, vividly demonstrating who’s really more important in the big scheme of things. \nBoardroom SX80: She is our format queen\, she\, her smile and her winning ways have inspired all of us\, and she is missed. You may have poached the podium and make a few remarks if you would like. \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry! \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, Larry wants me to vote on your resolution. First Cause\, you know\, if you talked first\, we might not approve it. \nBoardroom SX80: I would entertain a motion to\, and a second to approve the resolution. So moved Commissioner Randolph and Commissioner Eisen Seconds. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Any objections \nBoardroom SX80: approved unanimously. Thank you\, ma’am. \nBoardroom SX80: You can. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Wassaman Commissioners and Bcd staff\, and of course I can’t forget \nBoardroom SX80: our core reporters from one and her husband. \nBoardroom SX80: I can’t believe it’s been 40 years that I’ve worked at BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: It feels like a lifetime. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s bittersweet moment embarking on a new chapter of my life\, but I’m ready to experience the new adventures of retirement will bring me. \nBoardroom SX80: Throughout my career. I’ve learned so much and worked alongside with many amazing and talented people. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ve also developed long time friendships. I will forever look back at my time \nBoardroom SX80: at BC. DC. And treasured the wonderful memories\, especially on mailing days in the mail room. We had so much fun back in the day when we had mailings we had to mail over 100 IP. Sometimes 300\, and\, thanks to Larry\, we cut those mailing lists down in half. And he said one day\, We’re gonna do emails instead of snail mail. \nBoardroom SX80: And thanks to him\, that’s all we’ve done now. And it’s cut down all that time\, but I do remember all our fun times in the mail room when it would be late. \nBoardroom SX80: But we would all have a ball of a time we would all get together and make it happen. Make sure that it was the mail was driven to the rink on center\, or trying to find out which mailing which post offices were open at that time\, and so I will remember those days \nBoardroom SX80: when I take my walks at the San Diego\, Marina. I see the public shore signs. I will always be reminded of the wonderful work Bcd. Has done so\, even though I’ve retired. I do see the public shore signs\, and it reminds me of all the wonderful work that Bcd. Has done and that I was part of. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: some commissioners I’ve I’ve seen and known for a while in the background. I remember you\, Gilmore Peskin\, Randolph\, and I’m sure there’s some others\, Joya and I. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll miss all of that\, sending you the quorum email. Blast and \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll still be. I’ll still be behind the scenes\, seeing what goes on and checking in with Raina\, who’s covering\, for until we fill the position\, and \nBoardroom SX80: I would treasure everything that I have learned. and take with me those beautiful memories that were created at BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: It was my family. It’s hard to let go\, but \nBoardroom SX80: I’m gonna look over for now\, and I just thank you for for everything. \nBoardroom SX80: and I just can’t believe the 40 years is here. It’s like\, I remember back in the day\, I used to think\, oh\, it’s going to take forever to retire. But look\, it’s here. I was like\, Wow. \nBoardroom SX80: but yes\, thank you\, and take care\, and I’ll be in the background. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much\, Tracy. \nBoardroom SX80: Our we did have a meeting of our rising sea level working group on January eighteenth\, and normally I would ask for a report on that. However\, we’re going to have a staff report\, so I will defer to that. There was an article this morning in the New York Times. I commend to you nationally\, but including the West Coast\, on how coastal cities are and how they need to adapt. We get \nBoardroom SX80: a little bit of benefit from the fact that the east coast and the Gulf coast tends to be hit more by storms than we do\, but it is keeping the issues at a significant level. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next meeting will be held on February fifteenth\, under Bagley Keynes. New attendance rules at that meeting. We expect to take up the following matters\, a briefing on the draft. San Francisco waterfront coastal flood study a briefing on our 2023 Enforcement work and a briefing on our strategic plan. Progress \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to X party reports. If any commissioner wishes to make an X party report on communications outside of commission meetings \nBoardroom SX80: on an adjudicatory matter\, they are welcome to do so now\, regardless of whether you do it orally. You do need to file a written report. \nBoardroom SX80: Any ex-party reports. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner. Yes\, I just like to report that I had a conversation with Gita Dev of this Year Club. I’ll submit the necessary report in writing as well. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no others \nBoardroom SX80: that brings us to our the Executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair washerman. On February first\, 1843\, \nthe Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York opened its doors for business\, and it remains the oldest continuous writer of insurance in the United States. Exactly 41 years later\, February first\, 1884\, the first volume of the Oxford English Dictionary was published. It included words starting from the beginning of the alphabet through those beginning with the letters\, a NT. \nBoardroom SX80: You’ll note that the word insurance was not included in the first volume. It took 44 more years for the final volume to be published in 1 28 \nfrom this music lover’s perspective\, perhaps nowhere and at no time\, was the absence of the word insurance felt more than February first\, 1\, 96. On that day\, 128 years ago. Today \nPuccini’s opera\, La Bohem\, premiered in Turin\, Italy\, and since then poor Mimi has died in the opera’s fourth and final act without ever having purchased a life insurance policy \nBoardroom SX80: with regard to staffing. I’m very pleased to let you know that we have 2 new hires coming into Bcd. C. This month. First\, Kate Lyons has accepted an offer for the environmental scientist position in the adapting to rising tides data and science unit. Kate is from the City of Brotherly Love\, and earned her Bachelor of Science in Geology at Temple University\, so she may be the first owl to be hired by Bcd. \nBoardroom SX80: After graduating\, she worked in the energy efficiency and renewable energy engineering field\, then joined the Civics Park Fellowship program where she worked for Mtc. And with Vcd. C. In preparing the technical analysis that was part of the funding and investment framework. She then became a planner in the Governor’s office of planning and research where she helped develop the regional resilience grant program guidelines and supported programs that provide regional resilience throughout the State of California. \nBoardroom SX80: Kate will work with our adapting to rising tide science team as it develops new and exciting products. \nBoardroom SX80: and you will soon meet Sierra Peters\, whom I have selected as Bcd’s new executive liaison a new position. When Gracie announced to us that she planned to retire\, we decided that we had to reimagine what a new role could bring to BCDC. Including acting as a commission secretary. \nSo starting in March\, Sierra will be sitting where you now see anew. And now also Raylena\, and before her Peggy Sharon\, Howard\, Russ\, and Grace. I don’t know who was before Russ\, but in any case the chair was. The chair has been\, has been sat in\, occupied\, but not \nBoardroom SX80: previously\, by what we would call a commission secretary. \nFor the past 2 years Sierra worked as a program manager\, managing the logistics and execution of multi-tiered events across the US. \nBoardroom SX80: She has led projects prepared internal and external correspondence\, and developed new processes for both her Alma Mater\, Rocky Mountain College\, in Billings\, Montana\, and for enacts U.S.A. A program for college students to develop leadership in business acumen. As I noted\, Sierra is a Batlin bear. Having earned her bachelor’s degree in business administration from Rocky Mountain with Minors Nikon and Small business. \nBoardroom SX80: I should also note that Bcd. C. Continues to search for great candidates\, to fill our open positions in the regulatory\, in the enforcement and in the planning sectors. And I’ll send you a list of those vacancies today\, and please send them to your networks also on a staffing note. Abag Ina inaugurated Napa County Supervisor\, Belia\, Ramos as its new president. \nBoardroom SX80: and Berkeley\, Mayor\, Jesse Aragine is Vp. In January\, as both serve on Bcd. C. We’re thrilled that we have even more of a direct link with that important agency. \nAnd with regard to the State’s budget situation\, Bcd. C. Is subject to a budget freeze along with all other state bodies. However\, this freeze can be categorized\, perhaps\, as somewhere between late autumn sweater weather and a major frost\, while our spending will be monitored by the Department of Finance\, we are allowed to continue expending funds\, unnecessary training expenses that actually save the State funds in the long term emergencies\, etc. We have instituted an internal process to ensure that \nwe don’t make any mistakes\, and I want to commend our financial services. Staff\, led by Sean Williamson for taking on this task so well. \nBoardroom SX80: this morning\, at a meeting of the Highway 37 Policy Committee\, led by local government representatives\, California\, State Transportation Agency\, Secretary Tokes\, omishaken and natural resources. Secretary Wade Crowfoot \nBoardroom SX80: jointly announced that Cal. State and C. Nra are launching the new partnership and leadership structure about which I spoke late last year. It is designed to improve transportation\, hasten natural resource\, restoration\, and public access strengthen equitable solutions and resolve. Climate change challenges in the North Bay along Highway 37. \nWe all know that 37 is essential to the entire bay region\, but its traffic jams are intolerable for workers trying to get to their jobs. It has no transit option. It’s already flooded during storms\, and it is at high risk from sea level rise. This new organizational structure will elevate environmental and equity goals alongside fundamental transportation goals. \nI think that it is important to recognize that this new approach is changing\, how the state of California views the rebuild\, that is\, from a series of connected projects with different timetables and outcomes to a larger scale integrated program of improvements whose outcome will be greater than the sum of its parts. \nThis is a once in a generation\, opportunity to re envision\, transportation\, infrastructure that will meet the many challenges of the century from increasing mobility to strengthening equity\, to restoring desperately needed natural habitat \nduring the next few months as Bcd’s representative on the new leadership structure. I’ll be working with my colleagues\, including David M. Buell\, who is here on the screen today to daylight a lot of information about Highway 37. And I really want to say publicly how much we appreciate David and Dina\, for all of their great work in helping us try to figure this one out. We’ll schedule a briefing for the Commission on the program’s progress this spring\, and please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Meanwhile\, that you may have \nour sediment for Wetlands Adaptation project held day one of its 2 day stakeholder workshop last month. This was the first solely in person. Public workshop BCDC. Is held since the pandemic began\, and we think it was a success. We had over 50 attendees\, and Commissioner Gunther opened the break and opened the workshop with a stirring call to action. \nThe events included 6 breakout sessions\, in which participants engaged in conversations about barriers and challenges of beneficial reuse of sediments and soils\, and proposed actions to address them. Day 2 of the workshop is on February thirteenth\, and will focus on fine tuning proposed actions. It will also include additional breakout sections on governance\, Coalition Building and funding information on registering for the event can be found on the homepage of the Bcd. C. Website. \nAshley Tomerlin\, our Bay design analyst and senior landscape architect\, met a couple weeks ago with a group of students at Redwood City’s Design Tech High School to work through the students\, planting design and restoration project at the oracle campus. The proposal includes removing invasive species like ice plant fennel\, and black acacia\, and replanting the Slu bank with native species. \nAshley introduced the students to the principles of planting design and priorities\, and Ashley will continue to provide support as the design progresses. They’re hoping to complete the removal of the species this year\, and the group’s freshmen will continue with the project in upcoming years. \nSpeaking of freshmen or sophomores\, such as our son \nBoardroom SX80: Bcd. C. Is now live on Instagram. Please follow us and send us to your friends\, your colleagues\, your relatives\, your coworkers\, and anybody else. You know we’ve already received an awful lot of very\, very welcome messages to do that\, and we appreciate your support. \nFinally\, an announcement for our county supervisors. \nBoardroom SX80: I shall contact each of you next week with a request. We want you to arrange for you the 2 City Council members representing your county\, who sit on Bcd. C’s local elected task force and Bcd. C. Staff to brief the Mayor City Council members and planning directors in your county on Bcd. C’s plans to complete the guidelines\, they will use to begin work on their local rising. C-level \nadaptation plans as required by Sb. 272. We know that each county has regular meetings of their mayors and council members and other senior staff\, and we think it’s vital that you introduce us and join with us as we explain what we expect to occur during the remainder of the year as we develop and you all approve. Fingers crossed those guidelines. \nWe would prefer that these meetings occur sometime in March or April\, and I also want to mention that our staff and Mtca. Bag staff will be reaching out to your planning staffs and throughout your counties to update project information that’s already in our shoreline Project inventory map. \nSo all this leads me to report chair Wasserman\, that I’m happy to answer any questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Are there any questions for the executive director. \nBoardroom SX80: seeing none. There are no administrative listings before us today\, so we will move on to Item 8\, \nBoardroom SX80: which is a public hearing and vote on a recommended Enforcement decision \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve the enter into a center settlement agreement and resolve enforcement case number er 2\,000 point 0 0 4.0 0. \nRegarding the owner of the residential property located at 3 0 2 5 Marina drive in the city of Alameda. \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to ask Mister Roger Standridge\, the owner of that property\, to identify himself and make his presence known. \nBoardroom SX80: Is he on? Virtually \nBoardroom SX80: we were hopeful\, but we were not expecting him. All right\, that is his privilege. \nBoardroom SX80: BCDC. Enforcement staff will present the case and the proposed settlement agreement for our consideration. If Mister Standridge does appear\, you will have the opportunity to comment if you wish to do so. After all the presentations have been made\, public comment period will be open and will be limited to 3 min per person. \nBoardroom SX80: After that has been closed the floor will be opened to members of the Commission to ask\, follow up questions of ECDC. Staff\, and deliberate on the matter. All speakers must limit their presentations and comments to the evidence already made part of the Enforcement record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: and or to the policy implications of such evidence. we will not allow the presentation of any oral testimony \nBoardroom SX80: before Adrian Klein gives her presentation. I want to do 2 things. First\, I want to open the public hearing on the matter. Second\, I invite Commissioner Gilmour\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee\, to give a brief summary of the committee’s hearing on the matter that took place on January eleventh \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilborn\, you have the floor. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. On January eleventh\, 2024\, the Enforcement Committee held a hearing and a vote on Staff’s recommendation to approve a settlement agreement between BCDC. And the respondent. Mister Standridge\, addressing an unauthorized boat dock at his home in Alameda\, Mister Standridge as of yet\, has chosen not to attend this hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: After the staff presentation\, the Enforcement Committee voted unanimously to adopt the Staff recommendation as the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to the Full Commission \nat this time I will invite Miss Klein to make her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Good afternoon\, everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: Grace is gone. Alright\, next slide. That introduction was adequate. So\, as usual\, we’ll just have a quick outline. Or\, as you can see\, so next slide 2 location images one. This is the \nBoardroom SX80: Bay Bridge to the south\, Oakland and Alameda\, and the Red Arrow shows you 3025. Marina drive. Next slide is closer. This is an image of the residential neighborhood and the property in question next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So just a quick timeline of events\, it’s slightly unusual. So on or before July 2\,000. A former owner of this property replaced an existing boat dock with a new boat dock \nBoardroom SX80: in roughly the same location\, but with smaller dimensions without a BCC. Permit. That same year that former owner submitted an incomplete application to replace a 336 square foot dock with a 44 square foot. Dock and staff responded\, indicating that the application was incomplete. \nBoardroom SX80: to which the former owner did not respond\, leaving it unfiled \nBoardroom SX80: between 2\,000 and the year 2\,022 Bcd. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation\, and the former owner did not follow through several years before that in 2\,018\, Mr. Standrich purchased the property. \nBoardroom SX80: and we engaged with him. In the year 2022\, and 2023 to try and solicit an application or have the dock removed. We were unsuccessful\, despite having issued a letter commencing a standardized fine penalty clock. \nBoardroom SX80: so we terminated his opportunity to resolve using the standardized fines\, commenced a formal enforcement proceeding\, issued a violation report and complaint. And that was in October of 2023 that resulted in productive conversations. Mister Sandridge agreed to submit\, and after the fact\, application for the asbilt dock. \nand expressed interest in resolving the matter with a settlement agreement instead of an order. \nBoardroom SX80: So in November we agreed to order terms after conversation\, and during that time he submitted draft site plans and evidence that Regional Water Quality Board approval was not required for the 23 year old structure. \nBoardroom SX80: He informed us the flotation material was encased in plastic boxes which is promotes water quality protection. And he submitted site plans identifying the location of the bay and the Shirlin band. All of this is required as part of the application \nBoardroom SX80: he \nBoardroom SX80: did submit the penalty payment that the summit agreement would require if adopted\, although we do await his application\, fee and additional application materials. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide\, please. So to resolve this single violation of a failure to obtain a permit to authorize a smaller replacement boat. Dock next slide\, please\, Angela\, thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Standard has agreed to do the following\, which\, as Enforcement Committee chair\, Gilmour just mentioned as of the eleventh of January\, the Exec de \nBoardroom SX80: Enforcement Committee recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement which requires a respondent to remove the unauthorized Doc or submit an application by the middle of this month\, and pay an administrative penalty which has been paid. And that concludes the staff presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Adrian. If Mister Sandridge is present\, I would invite him to comment if he so chooses. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, well\, I’m going to say thank you to Miss Klein for the presentation and chair. Wasserman\, would you please open public comment? Period? \nBoardroom SX80: Certainly. Do we have any public speakers? There are no public speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Standridge is not here\, but I assume he is not objected in any way. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m seeing the negative response from the chair of the committee. No\, I’m sorry to put it on the record. We have not heard any objections from Mr. Standridge. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment period is closed. Do commissioners have any questions or comments. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, Gilmore\, would you like to move the? \nBoardroom SX80: I would like to entertain a motion\, and would offer Chair Gilmour. \nBoardroom SX80: to make the motion and seek a second closing \nBoardroom SX80: close the public hearing. Do I need to vote on a close? The public hearing voice vote the we have a little difference here. All those in favor of closing the public hearing say\, Aye\, aye\, any opposed public hearing is closed. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Now you can make the motion. Thank you. Chair Wasserman\, I would like to move the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation\, which is to accept the Settlement agreement. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and I’ll second the motion. This is Commissioner Eklund. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Pat. \nBoardroom SX80: will you please call the roll on the motion \nBoardroom SX80: chair\, wasn’t you? Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Cheriasen\, Vice-chairizan? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego. Yes\, Commissioner on \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Burke. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kimbo. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Yes. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Eklund. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ambu. \nDavid Ambuehl\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Corin. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yes\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Haas. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Shimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pasquos \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: yes. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Commissioner Malton Peters. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Prescott. Aye. Commissioner Pine\, Commissioner Gallagher. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph\, Commissioner\, show Walter Commissioner Gilmore yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Zephyr yes. \nCommissioner Beech \nBoardroom SX80: abstain. \nBoardroom SX80: Did I miss anyone? \nBoardroom SX80: We have 22 years. no nose and one abstained. The action is approved. Thank you all for your efforts. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 9\, a public hearing and vote on a recommended enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case \nBoardroom SX80: ER. 2021.0 4 4.0 0 regarding a residential property located at 5 Landing Lane in Belvedere. \nBoardroom SX80: I would ask that Mr. Carl Johan Smyer\, or the attorney for Mr. Johan Smyr\, Mr. John Sharp to \nBoardroom SX80: make their presence known physically or virtually\, if they are here physically or virtually. I am here virtually. \n_John Sharp: Thank you very much. Sir \nBoardroom SX80: Bcd. C. Enforcement staff will present the case and the proposed settlement agreement for the Commission’s consideration\, after which time Mr. Sharp will be given an opportunity to comment\, if he wishes to do so\, after all of the public comment period. \nBoardroom SX80: After the presentations public comment \nBoardroom SX80: period will begin. The hearing will be opened\, public comments will be minutes limited to 3 min \nBoardroom SX80: after that has been closed\, the floor will be open to members of the Commission to ask follow up questions. \nBoardroom SX80: All speakers must limit their presentation and comments for the evidence already made. Part of the Enforcement record which has been published online with this meeting’s agenda and or the policy \nBoardroom SX80: implications of such evidence\, we will not allow presentation of oral testimony. \nBoardroom SX80: I will open the public hearing. And now invite Commissioner Gilmore\, the chair of the Enforcement Committee to make a presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. \nBoardroom SX80: On January eleventh\, 2024\, the Enforcement Committee held a hearing and a vote on the Staff’s recommendation to approve a settlement agreement between BCDC. And the respondent\, Mister Joan Johansmeyer\, to resolve Enforcement case ER. 2021.0 0. \nBoardroom SX80: Excuse me point 0 4 4.0 0. Addressing an unauthorized fence at his home in the Belvedere. \nBoardroom SX80: The respondent’s attorney\, Mister Sharp attended the hearing on his behalf\, and affirmed for the committee that his client agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: After hearing a presentation and comments by Staff and Mister Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: the Enforcement Committee held deliberations and voted unanimously to adopt the staff recommendation as the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to the full commission \nBoardroom SX80: at this time. I will invite Miss Cohen to make her presentation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Thank you\, Commissioner Gilmore. Just a moment while I share my screen. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Hey? \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Good afternoon\, sure\, Wasserman Commission members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 202-14-4400\, for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: I’ll begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: There are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: There’s a red PIN on each image at 5 blending Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. The home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere Island\, and faces east. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This photo on the left of the screen. Is of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. Oh\, I’m sorry it’s red to run slides or notes. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: This image on the left shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there has been a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, that they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long section of a 6 foot tall wire fence\, and approximately 2021. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: That 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Vcdc authorization prior to placing. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: I’ll now review the timeline of events in this case. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In starting in May of 2021 Bcd. Enforcement Staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 blending lane within DC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction. Bcd. Opened this Enforcement case and made initial contact with respondents authorized representative attorney\, John Sharp. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: between May and June\, of 2021\, respondent and Mr. Sharp inform staff that they were meeting with consultants in a survey\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain an after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In September of 2021\, city of Belvedere Staff\, and a surveyor conducted a site visit and reported their findings to BC. DC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: city staff\, confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johans Myers property without permits\, and with this information\, in October of 2021 Pcdc. Staff issued a notice of violations to the respondent\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: In March of 2022\, Mister Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permanent application on behalf of Mr. Johan’s Meyer seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johan’s mayor\, to complete his application. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: On October thirteenth\, 2023\, Staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation using the standardized fine process. After determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Then\, on October thirtieth\, 2023\, Staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent\, and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023\, responded\, and Staff agreed to resolve this violation via the proposed settlement agreement. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: To briefly summarize the proposed settlement agreement. It would require Mr. Johan’s Meyer to one pay $2\,500 an administrative civil liability within 30 days of execution of the agreement\, and 2 by February 20\, eighth\, 2024. Either a remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or B submit a filed application seeking after the fact authorization for defense. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: When the Enforcement Committee heard this case at their meeting on January eleventh\, 2024\, committee members were curious about the Commission’s option to take action in the case of respondent noncompliance with the proposed settlement agreement due to the length of time the case has remained unresolved. So far. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: so first mentioned that Bcd. C. Can extend the deadlines in the settlement agreement. If causes beyond the respondents. Control prevent timely compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: however\, in the event of failure by Mr. Johans Meyer to comply with the settlement agreement for causes within his control. BC. DC. Can recommence formal enforcement proceedings by issuing a new violation report and complaint with recalculated administrative civil penalties. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Appendix J. Of the Commission’s regulations requires staff to consider certain characteristics of a violation when calculating the appropriate administrative civil penalty amount\, such as the cost of the state\, of pursuing the enforcement action\, and whether the violator has delayed compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: using the original violation report and complaint penalty amount as a baseline. If staff issued a new violation report and complaint\, we would have the opportunity to factor in the additional days that the respondent has been out of compliance as well as the violators\, bad faith and reaching compliance. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Lastly\, we do not expect Mr. Johans Meyer to fail to comply\, and we are entering into the settlement agreement with utmost confidence\, and Mr. Johan’s Meyers ability to comply. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: So to summarize the one violation for the failure to obtain A BC DC. Permit prior to placing fencing in BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction in violation of the Macetier Petrus Act section 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And to resolve this case\, the Enforcement Committee recommends that the Commission vote to authorize the Executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which again requires respondent to one pay\, $2\,500\, an administrative civil liability within 30 days of execution of the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820 24. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: Either a remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or B submit a filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. \n_Rachel Cohen\, BCDC: And that concludes the staff’s presentation. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Rachel. I now invite Mr. Sharp to comment if he so chooses. \n_John Sharp: Thank you. Members of the Commission and staff. I do not intend to go into granular detail about the timeline here unless you want me to. \n_John Sharp: I am authorized to enter into this agreement in Mr. Johan’s Myers behalf. \n_John Sharp: and I do want to emphasize that we are committed to complying with the terms of the agreement. I will say this is a complicated property\, where that fence is that you saw in. \n_John Sharp: I think it was slides one and 2 is the apex of \n_John Sharp: at least 3 properties\, one of which is on by my client\, another of which is on by the city of Belvedere\, and is open space. and another of which is owned by. \nI think it’s Sanitation. District 5. So the \n_John Sharp: the topography\, the geology. All of it is complicated. I won’t go into exhaustive detail about what led to the creation of that fence. But\, \n_John Sharp: There were some invitations by members of the public in Belvedere \n_John Sharp: and committee members for the public to \n_John Sharp: enter the open space\, which is very steep\, unimproved. \n_John Sharp: and dangerous. \n_John Sharp: and there were some events of those folks. \n_John Sharp: people entering that property\, falling off the rocks under my clients property\, and getting into the bay. \n_John Sharp: wandering out onto the dock and jumping in the water\, and that’s why the fence went in. So with that\, unless you have questions\, I will thank you\, and again commit to the terms of the agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for your comments and your affirmation of the contents of the agreement\, Mr. Sharp\, and\, thanks to Staff for the presentation chair. Wasserman\, would you please open the public comment period\, the comment period\, the public hearing is open \nBoardroom SX80: any one from the public wish to comment\, now is the time. \nBoardroom SX80: ano\, do we have any come? People who wish to comment? \nBoardroom SX80: We have Commissioner Eglin \nBoardroom SX80: any from the public before we get to Commissioner. None from the public. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Is there any objection to closing the public\, hearing. \nBoardroom SX80: hearing\, and seeing no objection? If the public hearing is closed\, I would recognize Commissioner Ekland. \nThank you very much. Chair\, Walterman. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Ii read this report a couple of times because I was really struck with the fact that the applicant was \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: non responsive to Bcd staff \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: for over a year and a half and then the what was submitted was\, that’s something that was not complete. And I do \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: thank Mr. Sharp\, for getting involved and helping to resolve this issue. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: My concern is that here\, almost 3 years later\, now\, we’re at a proposed settlement. but from what I read from the settlement agreement\, it doesn’t appear to deal with \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the fact that if he is non-responsive and when I work for the Us. Environmental Protection Agency\, I was in charge of the Npds permitting program\, which is not only permitting but enforcement. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: When we dealt with applicants like this\, we actually\, if there was a settlement agreement\, we actually included a condition that if \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the respondent\, or if the applicant was not responsive\, we actually included in there what would happen rather than having to issue another new violation report and and panel with penalties. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I guess my question for staff is that \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: has BC. DC\, tried to incorporate something like this in a settlement agreement in the past\, and \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and if not\, why not? And then \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: you know. Just sort of like\, if if if there is not a response? \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Then\, and then just actually stating in there what what the consequences would be\, and that we will consider this to be another violation of which then we’ll be seeking penalties of such and such. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I’m kind of curious \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: about whether or not that’s something that’s possible\, or maybe not necessarily for this particular applicant. But \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: II am struck with the fact that what 3 years is this going on? And the city of Belvedere apparently has been dealing with this\, and probably complaints from the public for such a long time. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So if Staff can help me to understand that I’d appreciate that \nBoardroom SX80: this is Michael Inge\, acting general counsel. We have had some internal discussions about that very topic \nBoardroom SX80: in relation to you know this case and just going forward. And it is certainly something that we can look into. I think\, you know\, if you look at various settle settlement agreements that we’ve used in the past. There may be slight deviations\, and so I think there’s an opportunity to figure out sort of a \nBoardroom SX80: you know what may be the best sort of drafting or provisions that proactively get at the concern that you just raised. So we’ll definitely take a look at that for future settlement agreements. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: II would really super really encourage folks to do that\, because when you get a recalcitrant in person or company\, or whatever it takes to have so much more time to do a new violation. And \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and this way it’s sort of wrapped into the same in a way. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So II did this not only when I was in charge of the Npds permitting program EPA\, but also the San Francisco pay program as well when I was working with the the regional board. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So not not working as an employee\, but as a working as an EPA employee with the regional board and setting up the programs way back \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in long time since I work for Eba for over 35 years. So anyway. So I just really want to encourage that. And I’d love an opportunity to talk with Staff in the future \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: if that’s something and I’d encourage the Commission to really support that idea cause. I found that it really helped facilitate compliance. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it also help facilitate and reduce the amount of staff time that’s devoted to it. Especially if you wait for 3 years. There’s staff turnover a lot. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So this way\, it’s sort of like an automatic thing that happens. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And I want to thank Mr. Sharp for getting involved. And I am hoping that you’re gonna make sure that your client does comply. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Because it is something that has adversely impacted from what I could tell. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: The public’s asset access to public waters. And the city of Belvedere has been able has had to. I don’t know this for sure\, because I haven’t talked with them\, but \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Has had to spend staff time on this\, and cities just don’t have the staff time to do this kind of stuff \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: given all the State mandates\, and that we have to comply with so comments in the panic gallery up in Nevada. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Vice chair\, eisen \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I echo everything that Commissioner Eklund\, said the Enforcement Committee was also concerned that so much staff time can be taken up with relatively small matters given the scope of what the BC. DC. Is charged with \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: doing. And that’s why we asked specifically to have the question address\, what happens if the settlement agreement is not abided by I think. Commissioner Eklins. Idea of placing something in settlement agreements that would have a kind of automaticness about it. If there’s a failure \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to respond. I understand that there can be complications\, but would be a good idea\, and would hopefully get move some of these matters along a lot faster than they have been moved along. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So thank you\, Pat\, for that comment. And\, believe me\, the Enforcement Committee is thinking along the exact same lines. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Molten Peters. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Thank you. I wanna add to the 2 previous speakers and agree. And in addition to the staff time\, I wanna comment that I’m aware that \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: there’s been a desire to create access to the water or the public on the publicly owned property\, and that has been held up for 3 years \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: until this matter could get settled. So there’s there’s some additional issues that arise when we\, when we can’t get them to a a settlement more quickly. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other hands or comments from commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: With that. \nBoardroom SX80: sure. Gilmour\, would you like to make a motion? \nBoardroom SX80: We have closed the public hearing just type. make a motion to accept the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. I make a motion that the Commission accepts the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation to approve the Settlement agreement\, and I’ll second the Motion \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Commissioner Ackland \nBoardroom SX80: Roll call\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Adiego. Yes. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner on Commissioner Berg. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kimball. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Reclin. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Goren. \nSusan Gorin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Aye. \nKarl Hasz\, Commissioner: Commissioner Haas\, Hi. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Commissioner Raspberries. Yes. \nStephanie Moulton-Peters\, Commissioner: Commissioner Malton Peters\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Pesca all Right Commissioner Pine. Yes\, Commissioner Gallagher. Yes\, yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Rancho. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Randolph. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner\, show Alder. \nBoardroom SX80: I still count that as one s. Commissioner Gilmore. Yes\, Commissioner Zephyr. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Beech abstain \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner eisen sorry\, wise chair. Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Wasserman. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. so we have 22. Yes\, no-no’s and one abstain \nBoardroom SX80: thank you the enforcement Committee’s recommendation is approved. \nBoardroom SX80: and hopefully will result in the follow up actions described. \nBoardroom SX80: That \nBoardroom SX80: brings us to Item 10\, which is a briefing on the California sea level Rise guidance issued by the Ocean Protection \nBoardroom SX80: counsel BCD. C’s planning Director Jeff Caffane will introduce the briefing. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Wasserman. Good afternoon\, commissioners so shifting gears a little bit from enforcement to sea level Rise adaptation. So the next 3 briefings you’ll be hearing this afternoon. All have to do with sea level rise\, and it’s a particularly apt week to be thinking about this. We didn’t plan the weather\, but what we’re seeing this week is a glimpse into what we are going to be expecting to see a lot more of in the coming years and decades. So \nour first briefing that we’ll be hearing now is on the draft. California sea Level Rise guidance updates which present updated science on sea level rise across the State through the year 2\,150\, \nas well as policy guidance on how to incorporate those sea level rise scenarios into planning and projects. We’re grateful to the Ocean Protection Council for their leadership in bringing the best available science to California. And this is the guidance that Bcd uses and that we rely on as we plan for and permit projects around the bay shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So with that\, I’d love to turn it over to Commissioner and Dr. Justine Campbell\, senior scientists and lead for Opc’s climate change program. Who will present this item? \nBoardroom SX80: Justine. Africa? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Hmm. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: I’ve got some slides. Yep. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: great. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: I don’t know. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Sancho. Right? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Great thank you. And good afternoon\, everyone \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: thanks for letting me present here today on the draft State of California civil rights guidance at 2024 science and policy update. It was released on January nineteenth for public comment. And so I’m here today to provide an overview flag opportunities for outreach and engagement and answer any questions. This is actually the first public presentation on the guidance. So it’s it’s exciting to be here. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So this is the fourth update since Opc released its first guidance back in 2\,010. The original and continuing purpose of this guidance is to support state and local action\, to assess vulnerability to rising seas and climate\, driven flood flooding\, and the creation of adaptation\, plans and projects that build resilience into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: It was last updated in 2\,017 and 18\, and Opc. Has committed to updating approximately every 5 years in order to stay current with the most recent science. In the last iteration the Science and policy reports were separate. Rising sees. The science update was released in 2\,017\, followed by the policy guidance. The following year\, in 2\,018\, \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: the science was presented in tables for 12 noa tide gauge locations that included 3 probabilistic projections provided alongside an extreme sea level rise scenario that had an unknown probability that was referred to as H. It also included a stepwise process on how to select sea level Rise projections based on risk\, tolerance\, and recommendations for adaptation and planning. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Since then there have been significant advances in scientific understanding and the ability to project future sea level rise which is captured in the 2024 update. And this update includes both the science and the policy reports package together next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So to leave this update\, we convened an independent Science task force in partnership with the California Ocean Science Trust. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This is our all Star task force team here that we was assembled for the effort. And this is the format of the report. With the task force authorship clearly identified as focused on the science portions. Chapter 2 and 4. Where Opc. Was the author for the policy portions. We also closely coordinated with the State and Regional sea level rise collaborative\, which includes BC\, DC staff \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and provided them with multiple points of review and feedback during the process. Next slide \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so\, chapter 2 is the tech technical methodology portion of how the new projections were developed. It’s a different methodology than the last guidance. Instead of the probabilistic projection approach we now use the scenario approach. This was based on the strong recommendation and decision from that science task force \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to align with the 2022 national sea level Rise technical report shown here in the front\, the global and regional sea Level rise scenarios for the United States \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: the scenario approach relies on the Intergovernmental Panel\, on Climate Change\, 6. Assessment report\, or AR 6 projections. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: The Ipcc. Is the premier scientific body based through the United nations for assessing the science related to climate\, and the AR 6 represents the current consensus understanding on sea level rise modeling. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So the Ipcc AR. 6 represents a step forward in scientific understanding of the IC contributions of sea level rise\, and in how this understanding should be incorporated into projections. This is the main factor in altered altering the projections. Of sea level rise. In this updated report\, compared to the previous report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: In addition to being an important source of future sea level rise projections of future I. Sheet change represents the largest source of uncertainty in estimating sea level rise towards the end of century and beyond\, and even with this new understanding in AR 6 I see\, change is still\, still represents the largest source of uncertainty. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so using the AR 6 framework\, a set of reduced sea level rise scenarios were developed. This methodology was used in that that 2022 National Report which underwent extensive peer review for our guidance. These scenarios were localized to California and underwent a additional peer review at that time. As well. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then to help with interpretation. Story lines were created for each of the scenarios. Which I will cover in more detail next\, and the scenarios are available as a statewide table\, and then including local vertical land motion at 13 tide gauges\, including an additional tide gauge and Alameda that was not included in the the previous report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: But next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So to provide a bit more conceptual understanding of the scenarios. These are the story lines\, but there’s much more information in the document. on on the storyline. So please see the full descriptions there \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then\, just to note when I refer to low confidence processes. That is a term that is used to denote a low level of agreement on how the models represent key processes\, such as rapid and partial ice sheet disintegration. And then\, in addition\, there’s limited evidence supporting those model output. So so that’s what I mean when I \ntalk about low confidence processes. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So the low scenario relies on the assumption that current\, the current rate of sea level rise will continue on into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This assumption is is very inconsistent with the the understanding of of acceleration\, of sea level rise and and current observation\, showing that but could still be considered plausible if there was \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: very aggressive. Emissions reduction in in the future global emission reductions the intermediate low scenario includes a range of of warming and emission pathways and can be considered a reasonable lower bound of the most likely sea level rise \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in 2\,100. The intermediate scenario includes a range of warming and emission pathways as well. But also includes contributions from some of those low confidence processes that I mentioned\, and this could be considered a reasonable estimate of the upper bound of what is most likely to be seen in 2\,100. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: The intermediate high scenario includes intermediate to high futures\, initi emissions\, and a high warming assumptions. This scenario is heavily reflective of a world where rapid ice sheet loss processes are contributing to sea level rise. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then the high scenario includes high future emissions and high warming with large potential contributions from rapid ice sheet loss \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So with that orientation\, hopefully helpful to understand what what those 5 scenarios are. Here are the the new numbers you can see the low to high scenarios at time. Steps of decadal time steps from 2020 to 2150 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and this is the statewide table again\, with also\, in addition those 13 tag age tables that include the the localized vertical land motion component\, and then this probability on the on the up next to it as table 2.2 in the report. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and this is to help create some understanding of probabilities. Of for the different scenarios. So this table only looks at. It’s a snapshot of 2\,100. And with global surface temperatures currently on track to reach 3°C above pre industrial levels by 2\,100. That’s why the 3°C box is\, II put there. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And so the way to read this is to look at the 2\,100 numbers in the in the state wide table of scenarios there and then\, save for the low scenario\, you can see 2\,100 at the low scenario is one foot\, and then\, if you look at the red box. You see that there is a \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 99% chance that sea level rise will exceed one foot in 2\,100. Again assuming 3°C of warming. And then for intermediate low\, there’s an 82% chance that that in the intermediate low is 1.6 feet that that would be exceeded. And then intermediate is is 3.1 feet\, and there’s only a 5% chance that that would \nwill be ex exceeded. So that’s how that likely range is is defined for 2\,100\, with roughly 77 chance that sea level rise would be between \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 1.6 and 3.1 at 2\,100 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that\, it’s it’s a little bit hard. It’s a little bit complicated. But hopefully\, that helps provide a little bit more understanding of how to how to think about the numbers \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So in terms of key takeaways\, the new science shows much greater certainty\, and the amount of sea level rise in the next 30 years. Statewide sea levels are most likely to rise 0 point 8 feet by 2050\, \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then by 2\,100 sea levels are most likely to rise between 1.6 and 3.1 feet\, and that’s what I just covered. In that probability table. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then\, beyond 2\,100\, the range of sea level rise becomes increasingly large\, due to uncertainties associated with physical processes\, such as the the low confidence processes that I mentioned that earlier than expected\, I sheet lost. So by 2150\, you know\, there’s really a large range between 2.6 and 11 feet that are. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that’s there and then. That extreme sea level rise scenario\, the h plus plus from rising fees is now considered much higher than best available science suggests\, based on that that scientific the advances in scientific understanding around modeling of ice sheet. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then again\, that vertical land motion component is is where you get the local numbers from next line. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: A few additional things to flag here is that similar to the last iteration. Those numbers do not include episodic events. Such as storms\, King tides El Nino and then\, unfortunately\, a direct comparison between the 2\,018 guidance and this new guidance. Oh\, sorry. Let’s say 2024 you’re hoping to release in December. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 2024. Guidance is not possible. It’s really apples to oranges\, because the methodologies change so from a scientific point of view\, and looking at probabilities\, you you really can’t do it. A comparison to to say\, you know this change from this to this. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: but from a policy application point of view\, you\, you can take that perspective and do a comparison\, and you can see here from the tables that there is a lot of consistency\, with the exception of that h plus plus scenario at the end. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: if if you\, there’s that shows tables comparing the different probabilistic projections in the scenarios that (205) 021-2150. And so. Yeah\, you can see that. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: there’s still very. There’s a lot of consistency there to work with. And then\, if you were using the h plus plus numbers\, like thinking about a 2\,100 application. For instance\, you could shift that to 2150 when there’s\, you know\, roughly\, 4 to 10% chance of reaching the 2\,100 H plus plus values at 2150 for the high scenario. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: you know\, basically\, you can do a crosswalk from a policy application. And and that’s that’s the takeaway. With that next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So that’s the summary of the new science. There isn’t expected to be any adjustments to those scenario values\, those projections in the Co. Public comment period. They are also very consistent\, of course\, with the 2022 National report where\, you know they cheered off of so the numbers really weren’t a surprise. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then so chapter 3 is where the policy recommendations come in. How do you apply these numbers in planning and projects? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So similar to 2\,018 guidance? We’ve taken a step\, wise process to go through. And so those are the steps you can see there. But instead of going one by one through the steps\, I’m just going to flag a few takeaways \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: that for most planning and projects we’re recommending evaluation of the intermediate\, the intermediate high and the high scenarios at the you know\, at the lifespan of the project that you’re considering and then consideration of storm conditions in combination with those scenario numbers is also recommended to look at extreme water levels at appropriate. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then\, you know\, we’re really encouraging. You know that that existing vulnerability assessments should be used and leverage whatever pro possible. We’re not trying to keep people in a never ending\, you know\, planning process for those that already have vulnerability assessments. You should be able to use those with a crosswalk\, and will likely result in sort of shifting of time horizons back from the on the expected impacts \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: rather than having to analyze with new numbers. And that’s where I was trying to go with that table. Comparison. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then step 5 is is new in the stepwise process. We really tried to mirror these steps with the real world as much as possible. And we heard that there’s a really important step focused on exploring adaptation options and feasibility that occurs before the decisions are actually made. And so we added that step there to reflect that. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then\, same as the 2\,018 guidance we are recommending that selection of sea level rise\, be guided by a risk assessment. But we also added that selection\, particularly at the project level\, is often a multi factor process. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and I have a quick example of that. If you advance one slide\, I have some photos here. These are photos from the Cardiff State Beach Living Shoreline project. Sorry I didn’t have an example in the in the bay. This is an Encinitas and the pictures a here the before and B are the after this was a first of its kind project\, a prototype \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to use a living dune with engineered components for protection of hard infrastructure\, specifically highway 101. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This project was many years in the making and then\, when it came time to do design final design and construction. Sea level rise was off\, obviously a very critical consideration as part of that process. But it was also one of many other factors\, including the visual impacts of of the doing construction\, the adjacent freeway engineering feasibility that all factored into the final design \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: design decision. So in the end selection of the final design specification was really a compromise and negotiation of trade offs. And so that last step in in the process. We really tried to reflect that those real world situations next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then chapter 4\, all also authored by the the task force\, includes a synthesis of of much more information on the combined impacts of sea level rise and other coastal hazards include\, including projected flood frequency\, which is expected to increase significantly in the 2030 s. Groundwater erosion and extreme coastal storms \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: next slide \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so that’s the summary of the guidance. I wanted to end here with highlighting that the State has prioritized and continues to prioritize funding for coastal resilience. This includes the Senate Bill\, one Sea Level Rise adaptation \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: program released by Opc to support the development of sea level Rise adaptation plans. It has\, 71.4 million available for funding right now. In addition to 660 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: 1 million maintained in the Fy. 2425 budget for critical coastal resilience programs and projects. We also have worked closely with the Bcd C. Staff to align that grant program with Bcd shoreline\, regional shoreline adaptation plan efforts\, and it also directly implements. You heard about the beginning of this meeting from Senator Laird. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then Opc. Continues to convene the State and regional sea level rise collaborative through both an executive team and a working group. Next slide. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and then just to flag the the public comment and outreach opportunities. We have a website that includes all this information as well as registration links and instructions for how to submit public comment. We’re really excited to see what we get during public comment period. We have a webinar coming up this coming Monday\, February fifth\, that one to 2\, the science portion of that webinar will be \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: presented by Dr. Ben Hamilton\, at Jpl\, who was really the the lead in in the scenario development. And so any really nitty\, gritty technical questions on on the methodology\, you know\, I would probably pass to him. And you know\, if you’re interested in that would suggest joining for that webinar\, it’ll go into really more more detail of the modeling approach. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: And then we have regional workshops that are really meant to focus more on the application piece and really understanding how this guidance can be adjusted to be more useful. You know\, more reflective of the work on the ground. And so the San Francisco workshop. Just a flag is is February sixteenth and then any questions you can send to me\, and and then public comment \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: to our C. Grant\, fellow. But again\, there’s instructions on our website and that next slide. That’s it. Thank you. \nExcellent \nCount. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes that presentation\, I think back to you\, Chair Wasserman\, for public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Are there any? I have no cards? Are there any virtual \nBoardroom SX80: public speakers? \nBoardroom SX80: There is one public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Speaker Sarah. you have 3 min to state your public comment. \nSara Greenwald: Hello\, I’m Sarah Greenwald with 3 50 Bay area\, which represents several Bay area shoreline communities around the bay. I have a brief comment \nSara Greenwald: our concern is that this document\, of course\, has to set the foundation for measures to protect shoreline communities from sea level rise\, and you know the adaptation plan is to be submitted to the State in 2034\, and I want to emphasize that you will have wanted to do all you can to protect the communities starting long before then\, because the Senator Laird mentioned. The recent floods show that sea level is rising now. Not later. \nSara Greenwald: Dr. Kibble explained that estimates are changing as research continues. Of course in general the expected rise is probably increasing. \nSara Greenwald: and therefore \nSara Greenwald: you will need to be prepared to implement measures \nSara Greenwald: sooner than expected. This is been your experience\, I’m sure. And \nSara Greenwald: build in a lot of flexibility. \nSara Greenwald: that’s all. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Comments or questions from Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ekland. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you very much. Chair Wasserman. I’m just seeing a fantastic presentation. And I just thought an aside. I \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: happened to be in Terre Linda this morning. Which is a suburb of Santa Fe. But it’s a suburb that was developed in the sixties. and during that time the developments had\, like an open ditch \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: for drainage\, and when I saw the open ditch this morning it was almost full \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: of water\, which just really just reinforces in my mind that cities and counties really need to speed up \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: their discussions about how to deal with sea level rise\, which brings me to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: a. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: The fact that to to what degree are you working with? Like the League of California Cities which I was past? I am past president of that organization. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: To really help to work with cities. About their plans\, especially those cities that have some coastal waters. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: of of how to incorporate some of these techniques that you’re talking about into their local plans that they have to develop? \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So I’m kinda curious what kind of outreach are you doing with cities? And if you’re not doing too much outreach\, I’d sure love to talk with you. Offline \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to help you\, because II have a lot of contacts and cities throughout the State because of my leadership role that I played there for many years. And II know cities are just grabbling for data and information and guidance on on how to approach this issue? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Can I answer the question now? \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Okay\, we. I will say\, we don’t have any specific contact at a League of Cities. I’d love to get one if if you have one. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: okay\, great our\, the grant program that I mentioned\, is focused on specifically supporting local and regional government entities\, on their\, on incorporating sea level rise into their land use planning efforts. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and so that has been the the focus of that program. It was recently launched a couple of weeks ago. And \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so that is\, I would say\, our sort of our main connection. Right now\, as part of that program\, we are also standing up a technical assistance program. That should be launched in the next in in March\, I believe\, which is going to be going to provide there will be a sort of an eligibility portion of the technical assistance. But we’ll \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: be providing under served communities with specific technical assistance on how to apply to the Grant program which which supports and funds\, like all stages of of planning\, and then will eventually find projects as well. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: One thing to note\, though\, is\, we don’t really want to\, you know\, BC DC. And on the Coast the Coastal Commission are really the experts in\, like the the local post coast coastal program and the the sub regional resiliency plans. And so as a staff\, we don’t really have the expertise to play guide in updating those specific plans. And we don’t want to fund something that would then not be aligned with that later on down the road. So \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in a lot of discussions with BC. DC. And Coastal Commission Staff\, we\, we have a path forward now\, or we’re really supporting a lot of the work around that. And then. But we’re leaving the actual updating of the plans to being routed through Ecdc. And Coastal Commission. So that can be a really clean process. And we’ve developed letters of alignment as well for the other parts of the project to make sure we’re not getting out of \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: step there. And then\, you know the regional workshops that are coming up. I really\, you know we’re trying to get the word out on those to get as many you know\, representatives of local government to come to that\, and we’d be very open to hearing about other ways that we can \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: be connected and be engaged and and be providing information. We definitely see that as part of the role of the Ocean Protection Council and our convening of the the State Collaborative. As well. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Yeah\, so not not happening. I don’t know what your local experience is but based on the fact that I’ve been on the city Council since 1\,995 city staff. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Has so much to so much responsibility. And there’s not enough because we’re a poor property tech city in the bottom. So we don’t have that much staff. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So they’re they’re really taxed to the Max. I mean in terms of the amount of work. So this kind of pre planning is very difficult for them to attend a workshop like this. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: They don’t have the necessary staff. And so I do have contacts at the League. There’s an environmental Policy Committee which I served on for decades. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And and I know a briefing 2 elected officials. At the League of California Cities Conferences would just really help to \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: make elected officials aware of of the it. They they know it. But having your presentation just reinforces the fact that you need elected leadership \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: to really locally elected leaders. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: not only cities\, but counties\, because they’re Csac as well\, which definitely\, I’m sure can talk about. But you know\, we we need more elected officials that hear this\, the more you’re gonna get local governments wanting to get involved. And I think \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: the leadership you know\, there’s funding available. So elected officials can help lobby for more if they hear from their staff saying\, Hey\, look at! We’re not getting enough money to help do this right? So II will. Offline. I’ll get your contact information\, I guess\, from Larry. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: And so I’ll be definitely in in touch with you \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and give you the contact information so that you can play more leadership role. In cities across the State. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: and it’ll attract a lot of people that live around the coastal waters\, I think to learn more about sea level rise. So thank you very much for your presentation. And I’m actually gonna be telling the cities\, at least in county \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: about this report. Because II think it’s something that everybody needs to know about. So thank you very much. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Appreciate that. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Mr. Chairman. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Doctor Kimball. Thank you for the presentation I was. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: II found your revision of the projections for H. Plus plus to be rather good news. and I don’t want to get into the scientific weeds. But I was wondering if you might be able to provide just a little more explanation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I hear frequently that you know ice sheet dynamics\, or the things we know least about. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and the highest present the highest risk \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: for extraordinarily accelerated sea level rise. So how is it that we’re able to push that that a a scenario further into the future. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: This might be a question for one of the modelers\, because my my understanding is sort of limited to what I presented on is that that h plus plus was always a \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: a\, an unknown probability\, a a speculative scenario. It was sort of like a worst case\, like\, if if all the things that you know we ha! We don’t. That modelers\, not we. The modelers\, didn’t understand very well all the worst case sort of happened at the same time. That was sort of what h plus plus was. And so in those intervening years\, you know that that AR 6 \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: framework. Basically they there was better understanding. They had higher\, you know. They gained confidence in some of the understanding around the ice sheet dynamics. And so some of those worst case scenarios with that better understanding were no longer considered plausible. And so \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: without those those really extreme things happening\, you can’t get to h plus plus. So if you understand them better to know that they’re not gonna happen\, then you’re not gonna get there. And that’s my layman’s understanding of \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: of why the H plus plus scenario. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: It’s it’s just not plausible\, based on the the advances and understanding of of the High Sheets. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Showalter. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes\, I wanted to. I’m sorry about. Maybe I can just turn this on \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: no. Can you hear me? \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Excellent! Okay\, great. Alright\, I just wanted to suggest another outreach opportunity which\, hopefully\, you’re already doing giving a presentation at the state of the Estuary Conference that’s coming up in March \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: that gets to get to \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: together many practitioners of flood protection in the Bay area. So it’d be great opportunity to share information about this report. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: And then I have a question. One of the things you mentioned was that storm intensity is going to increase in the 2030 s. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: And that\, of course\, is a major source of flooding as well as sea level rise. So can you talk about that a little more. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: So actually\, the new guidance doesn’t include projections for storm frequency. What I said with flood frequency. And so the projections of flood frequency are expected to increase in the coming decades. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: and that is essentially a function of sea level rise and in an acceleration of sea level rise. And so \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: so essentially you can the no one. NASA\, has a flood projection viewer that you can look at for each of the tide gauges and based on the number of of flooding events. And there’s a definition\, for how a flooding event is. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: it is captured\, and then\, if they model sea level\, rise on top of that\, they can predict. You know how many flooding events are expected in the coming decades. And so that is what that is speaking to. \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: Obviously\, it’s very hard to. It’s only those projections\, though\, are only for the tag gauge locations. It’s it’s very hard to localize that\, because it’s\, you know\, like flooding is so specific to a a very specific location and and shoreline. So that is what that is referring to. But \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: it the the sort of take away that the conditions that you see now\, during storm events\, you know\, can be used as an analog. For what sea level rise will be expected in the future is is sort of a takeaway as well\, but \nDr. Justine Kimball\, Commissioner: in terms of just like projecting like numbers and intensities of storms. This this group didn’t didn’t do that. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Okay\, thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any other hands or microphones. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes the matter\, but I am sure we will be discussing it at future meetings. Thank you very\, very much\, Doctor Kimball. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: That brings us to item 11\, a briefing on the regional shoreline adaptation\, plan\, progress. The briefing will be presented by senior climate adaptation. Planner Jackie Menduski. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. Hello and good afternoon. Chair. Wasserman Commissioners and Senator Laird\, who I don’t\, who may no longer be here\, but it was a pleasure to have him join today\, and I also wanna thank him for his important work which this project is advancing. As Commissioner Washerman said\, my name is Jacqueline Mendoskey. I’m a senior climate adaptation planner at Bcd. C. And the project manager of the regional Shoreline adaptation plan \nBoardroom SX80: last time I spoke to this group was back in October of last year\, when we were in the middle of conducting outreach to create a regional vision for the bay shoreline\, and I’m excited to share the results of that effort with all of you which we are now calling the one bay vision for a resilient future shoreline. This vision will serve as the foundation to shape our work on the Rsap throughout this year\, and our broader regional work over the coming years \nBoardroom SX80: for commissioners who attended the rising sea Level working group meeting 2 weeks ago. I want to thank you for your time and comments on the draft. One bay vision\, as you’ll see. We made a few small adjustments to these statements to incorporate your comments and feedback \nBoardroom SX80: the rsap. So regional. Sri Lankaptation Plan abbreviated is intended to serve the region\, to reduce shared flood risk for the Bay area and ensure that adaptation. Plans\, projects\, and land use decisions are coordinated and consistent to protect the values we care about protecting people\, particularly our most vulnerable populations\, ensuring healthy environments over the long term and being strategic in how we prioritize and fund projects to help us achieve our goals. \nBoardroom SX80: And through the Rsap. I want to reiterate that BCDC. Is meeting the requirements of Sb. 2\, 72\, and providing the necessary support to local jurisdictions to advance local adaptation plans and projects that work together to achieve our shared goals. \nBoardroom SX80: So what are these shared goals? And what do we mean by achieving successful adaptation for the region? This is where the one bay vision comes into play. \nBoardroom SX80: The Rsaf is implementing 4 actions in the bay\, adapt joint platform\, and the need for a regional vision was identified as the very first action which states collaborate on a one bay vision to adapt to rising sea levels. And the task below this States to create a long term regional vision rooted in communities\, Bay habitats and the economy. There are also additional actions that the Rsap is advancing which you might recognize in our approach. But I won’t elaborate on today \nBoardroom SX80: the foundations for the one bay vision were also laid in Bayadaf’s guiding principles\, which remain the North Star for all projects being implemented through Bayadapt\, including the Rsap. \nBoardroom SX80: What you’ll see to day through the one bay vision is how these principles are applied across 8 key issue areas in ways that add targeted and concrete long term adaptation outcomes in the Bay Area. \nBoardroom SX80: The one bay vision describes what successful adaptation should look like along our shorelines and reflects both our values today\, while also acknowledging that future shorelines will look different\, and that adaptation itself will be an iterative process. The one bay vision brings the guiding principles to life as it adds detail to where and how these principles apply across topic areas across society and guides the development of our remaining work. \nBoardroom SX80: How does the vision flow throughout the aspects of the Rsap to inform real on the ground adaptation. The one bay vision sets the outcomes for the region and paints the picture of the future that we’re all working to achieve. \nBoardroom SX80: The vision will guide the region’s strategic priorities which will identify key adaptation areas. The big regional moves that lay out where certain types of adaptation are most appropriate and beneficial for the region. This also informs the development of local plan guidelines which will lay out consistent regional standards for how local jurisdictions create subregional plans and develop adaptation strategies that meet minimum criteria and advance the region’s priorities. \nBoardroom SX80: And within these plans will be specific projects and land use changes with an implementation strategy to get adaptation projects in the ground \nBoardroom SX80: together. These individual projects across the region add up to our shared one bay vision. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, how does this actually work? In practice? I’d like to provide an example. One of our vision statements includes the topic of ecosystem health and resilience\, and this statement includes language about protecting\, restoring\, and enhancing valence. Ecosystems. \nBoardroom SX80: An example strategic priority might include geographic identification of priority habitats around the region. An example. Guideline might require local jurisdictions to evaluate those habitats and plan for the long term health of those ecosystems. \nBoardroom SX80: and an example project within a plan might be the identification of a strategy such as an ecotone levy and its associated land use and implementation next steps. This example of an ecolotone levy is a piece of the puzzle that helps us advance our regional vision for ecosystem health and resilience. \nBoardroom SX80: This one bay vision that you are about to see was developed through a variety of inputs. In addition to building upon the guiding principles\, we reviewed existing regional visions\, such as planned Bay area to ensure our efforts are aligned and linked. We also conducted a series of outreach in the fall\, which you heard from me back in October\, where we spoke with over 500 people at local community events\, a public workshop\, online survey\, and expert practitioners who shared their values and visions for the future of the shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: The one bay vision represents the distillation of that feedback\, and reflects what we heard and learned from these stakeholders about what they want. The future of the bay to look like for themselves and for future generations\, as sea levels rise. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, now we are here at the main part of the event\, where I’ll be sharing the draft one bay vision for a resilient future shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: First\, I want to acknowledge that the one bay vision is made up of multiple parts. There’s a statement for the region as a whole and statements for each of the 8 topic areas. These topic areas reflect the categories of key issues in society that are impacted by rising sea level\, and will require adaptation\, planning\, and actions to support both local and regional long-term resilience. \nBoardroom SX80: I will go through all of the vision statements and then open the floor to discussion. I ask that as I go through each of these slides\, please keep the following questions in mind. What do you like most about the one bay vision? Is there anything missing or unclear? And are you in favor of using this draft? One bay vision as a basis for our next steps in the project. \nBoardroom SX80: As you’re listening to these\, please keep in mind that we’re hoping to get your support on the main concepts within this vision. We’re looking forward to getting your feedback today. And if you have specific comments on the wording\, please let me know in a following email. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I’ll go ahead and read out the regional vision statement which encapsulates all of the topic areas. Our one-day vision for a resilient future shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: As sea levels rise\, the Bay area’s diverse communities come together to transform how we live\, work\, plan\, and adapt along our changing shorelines. In this future communities are healthy\, safe\, and have greater access to the shoreline\, where they can feel connected to the bay’s edge and experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats that sustain our quality of life. \nBoardroom SX80: Our region remains connected so that networks of people and goods can move with ease and get to the places they need to go. \nBoardroom SX80: The services we rely upon keep our communities and economies running\, and are designed for the long term \nBoardroom SX80: achieving. This future will require governments\, the private sector and communities to make a commitment to equity\, address past harms and take on complex interrelated challenges together a resilient future for the San Francisco Bay Area starts now and continues for generations to come \nBoardroom SX80: for each of the 8 statements. I will skim through them. You have the full text in your meeting package. And these slides are also available on our website \nBoardroom SX80: as part of our one bay vision for community health and well being\, as sea levels rise\, communities are healthy and vibrant. To achieve this\, we will need to adapt our communities to safeguard them from the public health consequences of flooding and support healthy environments\, safety and quality of life \nBoardroom SX80: meaningfully engage and empower communities in adaptation\, decision making address risks to essential community assets and prioritize economic development opportunities such as workforce development in disadvantaged communities \nBoardroom SX80: for critical infrastructure and services as sea levels rise\, critical services are reliable. \nBoardroom SX80: To achieve this\, we need to adapt local and regional critical infrastructure\, to maintain service and minimize future vulnerabilities\, to flooding. integrate flooding hazards into emergency management and prioritize adaptation that addresses service deficiencies in underserved communities. \nBoardroom SX80: for ecosystem health and resilience. As sea levels rise\, healthy Baland’s ecosystems thrive. To achieve this we need to protect\, restore\, and enhance balance ecosystems to improve their function\, scale. Biodiversity and services \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize nature based adaptation where possible and incorporate habitat connectivity\, sediment\, management\, and whole watershed approaches \nand identify and facilitate opportunities for ecosystem migration to support natural adaptation processes \nBoardroom SX80: for governance\, collaboration and finance. As sea levels rise\, regional collaboration drives efficient and effective adaptation. To achieve this\, we need to ensure local and regional governments collaborate to address\, shared flood\, risk\, and identify multi benefit adaptation\, opportunities\, while avoiding harm to their neighbors\, identify and engage with indigenous partners to plan\, implement and manage adaptation projects. \nBoardroom SX80: support the range of multi-stakeholder collaborations that are equipped to plan fund and adaptively manage adaptation over time and improve funding and regulatory processes to expedite innovative and transformative projects that provide regional benefits \nBoardroom SX80: for housing\, development and land use. As sea levels rise. Places are designed for a changing shoreline. To achieve this\, we need to adapt existing development equitably and plan new and redevelopment for community safety\, equity and bay ecological health. \nBoardroom SX80: align land use\, planning with risk mitigation that considers long term economic vitality for all. and support\, affordable housing and state housing goals while preserving public trust uses of the bay and reducing populations at risk of flooding \nBoardroom SX80: for public access and recreation. As sea levels rise\, the bay shoreline is accessible to all. To achieve this\, we need to expand and improve shoreline public access\, including recreation\, opportunities and other water dependent uses \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize connecting disadvantaged neighborhoods to a healthy bay and balance the needs for human enjoyment\, sustenance\, and cultural connection to the bay with healthy ecosystems \nBoardroom SX80: for shoreline contamination. As sea levels rise\, people and ecosystems are safe from contamination risks to achieve this\, we need to collaborate with communities\, scientists\, industries and government to identify and remediate shoreline contamination \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize remediation in environmental justice communities while minimizing transfer and contamination\, burden and integrate emerging science on shallow ground water rise with planning and adaptation decisions. \nBoardroom SX80: and the last topic area for transportation and transit. As sea levels rise safe and reliable transportation connects the region. To achieve this\, we need to adapt local and regional transportation systems to ensure safe and reliable connectivity. \nBoardroom SX80: ensure continuity and equitable service in transit. Dependent communities identify and integrate multi benefit opportunities into transportation projects such as ecological health\, green infrastructure\, and public access and promote active low emissions\, mobility options for environmental and economic benefit. \nBoardroom SX80: In closing\, I want to remind you all about how the one bay vision relates to our broader work on regional adaptation. \nBoardroom SX80: Before the end of this year we will be coming back to this commission and asking asking you to adopt the final one bay vision strategic priorities and plan guidelines everything to the left of this dotted line. This timeline is in compliance with Sb. 2\, 72. Throughout the spring and summer we will continue to come back to you with updates on our progress. \nBoardroom SX80: Once this phase is complete\, there are other components that we we will need to integrate to create a truly regional adaptation strategy as called for in your plan Bay plan\, climate change policies. We’re still figuring this part out. But we know the big pieces. We’ll need an investment strategy to figure out how to pay for adaptation\, to help close the 105 billion dollar funding gap which you’ll hear about more in the next presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll need to make changes to our Bay plan policies and regulatory processes to facilitate the types of projects we need. We’ll need to support local adaptation\, to develop and submit these plans to meet the guidelines. And we’re working closely with Opc. As you’ve just heard on their SB. One grants as well as working with other regional agencies. \nBoardroom SX80: and all of this will help us develop land use changes and adaptation projects that help us strategically meet the challenges of our region in ways that provide the most benefit and make the one bay vision a reality. \nBoardroom SX80: This work is organic and iterative\, and will continue coming to the Commission with updates. As we continue on this journey \nBoardroom SX80: in terms of our next steps to day\, we are not asking for a formal vote on the one day vision. But instead\, we’re asking for your support. That these should form the basis for our work ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: We will then be transitioning into developing guidelines for local plans and strategic priorities that flow from this vision. \nBoardroom SX80: And although we didn’t talk about it today\, we’ve been hard at work to define subregional adaptation plans through meetings with stakeholders and practitioners. We’ll be holding a series of focus groups in the coming weeks to get additional feedback on what these plans should look like\, and how they can best meet the needs of our region for adaptation. Please reach out if you’re interested in having you or your staff attend one of these. \nBoardroom SX80: We’ll also be hosting a second public workshop in the spring to launch into the guidelines. Work with more stakeholders. And we’re underway in planning for a series of up to 5 local workshops centered in vulnerable shoreline communities and hosted in partnership with community based organizations. We’ll provide more information on that in the coming months. And lastly\, as our executive director mentioned in his Ed report\, we’ll be reaching out to commissioners who are currently supervisors. \nBoardroom SX80: County supervisors to set up briefings in each of your counties about all of this work. \nBoardroom SX80: With that I wanna thank you for your time\, and I’ll pass it back over to Chair washerman to facilitate the conversation about the vision statements and the questions we posed earlier\, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Jackie. Before turning to the Commission. Do we have any \nBoardroom SX80: of virtual public speakers? We have 2 \nBoardroom SX80: virtual speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Mister Arthur Feinstein. Please go ahead and unmute yourself and stay to comment. \nMichael. \nArthur Feinstein: Hi! \nArthur Feinstein: Chair was so many Commissioners. I’m Martha Feinstein. I’m chair of the Sierra Club\, Sea Level Rise Committee. We call it Bay alive. \nArthur Feinstein: and I’m also on the Advisory Committee for the Rsap. Working with Jacqueline and Dana\, your staff people. \nArthur Feinstein: and \nArthur Feinstein: somewhat unusually for me\, but quite happily\, I’m here to say Thank you to Staff. I’m often\, you know\, looking for more\, and I am looking for a little more today. But Steph has really come along from where we began this process more a year ago. \nArthur Feinstein: And \nArthur Feinstein: we are pretty pleased with what’s come out from this process? Not totally. And myself. And did Deb was gonna follow\, is going to. Also comment on this\, we have a few \nArthur Feinstein: editorials amendments that we’d like to put into. I’m gonna do the vision statement. \nArthur Feinstein: And while the vision statement originally started out with just saying\, people should experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats\, wetlands\, and others. \nArthur Feinstein: We’ve been pushing for them to recognize that wetlands aren’t just pretty\, and people don’t go to the shoreline. Well\, they do go the shoreline to get recreation and and a peaceful feeling from being in a wetland habitats. But \nArthur Feinstein: wetlands actually provide services that benefit us. Aside from that in our communities\, they clean our water\, they clean our air\, they help influence the temperatures that we are \nArthur Feinstein: experiencing\, keeping the air cooler than it would be. And with global warming\, that’s gonna be real important. They help reduce storm surges. They perform\, perform a lot of services \nArthur Feinstein: to our community\, and we’ve been urging \nArthur Feinstein: Staff to recognize that in \nArthur Feinstein: all of the vision statements. And so we were quite \nArthur Feinstein: pleased to see them say. experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats to sustain our quality of life. \nArthur Feinstein: And so we’ve sent a letter. I guess you didn’t get a chance to see it. We sent it Monday. \nArthur Feinstein: we’re hoping that you would take one phrase and emphasize the services they provide by changing that one sentence to say. \nArthur Feinstein: experience the beauty and wonder of thriving habitats that we depend on to sustain our quality of life. \nArthur Feinstein: so that the average person reading this who’s not. \nArthur Feinstein: you know\, invest in this whole process will realize that we actually do depend on our wetlands\, not just for beauty and wonder\, but for the services that they provide us. \nArthur Feinstein: That’s my statement. I want to again thank Staff for really making this a vision statement that’s getting us towards where we need to go. If we’re gonna have \nArthur Feinstein: a healthy bay as well as healthy communities\, and our communities won’t be healthy if we don’t have a healthy bay. \nArthur Feinstein: So thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our second speaker\, Miss Janet S. Johnson\, please unmute yourself and state your comment. \nJanet S Johnson: Thank you. Can you hear me? \nJanet S Johnson: Oh. \nJanet S Johnson: can you hear me? Okay\, great thanks. \nJanet S Johnson: Good afternoon. \nJanet S Johnson: I’ve lived in Richmond for 42 years\, and I’m representing \nJanet S Johnson: today the Richmond Shoreline Alliance and Sunflower Alliance. Both are environmental justice organizations based in the East Bay. We first want to support the comment submitted by this year Club. And then we want to take them a little bit further. \nJanet S Johnson: Richmond has 32 miles of shoreline. The most of any Bay area city. \nJanet S Johnson: Like many bay communities\, much of our shoreline bears a heavy burden of toxic waste the legacy of more than a century of industrial contamination. We’re home to 2 superfund sites on the shoreline\, plus an 86 acre Super fund qualified site that already is\, seeing the effects of sea level rise. \nJanet S Johnson: That site. The so-called Astrazeneca\, or Campus Bay site is under the jurisdiction of the Dtsc. \nJanet S Johnson: For over a century. The site was a chemical manufacturing complex that dumped its hazardous and radioactive waste out the back door\, filling in the bay with more than a hundred lethal chemicals and heavy metal\, the most abundant of which is arson \nJanet S Johnson: because of redlining and other discriminatory housing policies. \nJanet S Johnson: low income\, vulnerable communities near sites like Campus Bay will be the first to suffer health effects from the spread of contamination resulting from sea level rise and groundwater intrusion. \nJanet S Johnson: So we see an urgent need to focus \nJanet S Johnson: on your in your focus on in your deliberations to prioritize and fully address shoreline contamination. \nJanet S Johnson: we need you to oppose the present trajectory of partial clean ups and capping of unlined sites. followed by so-called mixed use housing developments on the shoreline. \nJanet S Johnson: which is Dtsc. Solution for Campus Bay. We also hope that you will advocate on a State level for bonds to be posted by contaminating industry. \nJanet S Johnson: So when and if they leave taxpayers and city governments are not left to cope with the message they’ve left behind. \nJanet S Johnson: Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next public comment is from Gita Day\, from Sierra club. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nSure. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: Thank you. Thank you\, Commissioner Wasserman\, and the entire commission \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I’m following on Arthur Feinstein’s comments. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I want to tell you the stuff that we are so appreciative and astounded at how well you’ve been able to integrate \nGita Dev SIerra Club: important comments from public comments. And we really appreciate that in talking about some of the things that we still \nGita Dev SIerra Club: hope too cheap \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in conversation with others. I’ve noticed that \nGita Dev SIerra Club: we all over here today are all very aware of \nGita Dev SIerra Club: using nature based adaptation. Putting nature first\, however\, as an architect\, I can tell you that pragmatics overtake us when we are in the throes of projects \nGita Dev SIerra Club: as time goes by. And in 2030\, when someone’s looking at this vision statement\, if those ideas are not front and center. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I’m afraid they will get put. Second\, nature is put second so often \nGita Dev SIerra Club: when you look at flooding and say\, Let’s put up a wall 7 feet tall. And then the second thought is\, and and and how can we put something into it? So \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I ask you to ask Staff to humor us and ask you\, as a commission to humor me as I go through \nGita Dev SIerra Club: a few very minor modifications that would bring thus ecosystem services that the bay provides into focus in all of the 8 items\, and I recognize that Staff has put it into 4 of them already. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: So please humor me. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: And I will go to them \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the community\, health and well being \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the port bullet\, it says\, address risks to essential community assets\, services \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and cultural resources. And \nGita Dev SIerra Club: I suggest we include after the word services\, including bay ecosystem services. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: because it’s so easy to forget that community health is based on ecosystem services as well in the critical infrastructure. Where people think of roads\, culverts. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: sewer systems \nGita Dev SIerra Club: in the second one\, where we adapt existing local and regional critical infrastructure systems. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: including natural infrastructure\, would ask that you insert those words in the governance\, one where we never think about nature. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: When in this first bullet\, multi-benefit adaptation\, app opportunities\, putting nature first whenever possible. That’s wording from. They adapt \nGita Dev SIerra Club: putting nature first wherever possible. and in the last one the shoreline contamination in the last bullet. integrating emergence. integrate emerging science on shallow ground water rise. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and I would insert prioritizing nature based solutions because a lot of the science is on chemistry \nand \nGita Dev SIerra Club: prioritizing nature-based solutions \nGita Dev SIerra Club: brings that back into focus that there’s a lot that nature has to offer. I’m sorry I’ve run over time. I just wanted to add that the iterative processes that we’ve talked about\, involve phased projects. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: and nature takes time to keep up with our changes. and therefore. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: first is a different way of thinking than most public workspeople are used to. \nGita Dev SIerra Club: That’s the reason why \nGita Dev SIerra Club: we’re taking your time to bring up these 4 items in these 4 issues. Thank you so much. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next commenter is Miss Karen High. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nCarin High: Hi\, good afternoon\, Karen. High Citizens Committee to complete the Refuge. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Hope you’re all staying dry. I wanted to begin by\, as others have already expressing my deep appreciation to BCD. C’s staff \nCarin High: and to the Commission members on the sea Level Rise working group for providing the opportunity to the public to comment on the draft vision goals and objectives. During the January eighteenth working group meeting\, and for incorporating some of the comments and suggestions into meaningful changes into the language we see to day. We have just a few others as Gita had mentioned\, and we’ll hope that you take those into consideration. \nCarin High: I wanted to echo the sentiment of others regarding the need to put nature first. \nCarin High: But what does that mean? So I thought I’d share some select comments from an April the Twentieth\, 23\, April the twentieth\, 23 scientific American staff editorial that reinforced why it is so important that this is reflected in all of the vision goals and objectives. \nCarin High: Those of us who are here already know. Wetlands\, coastal plains\, sand\, dunes\, forests\, and many other permeable surfaces\, do cheaply\, or even for free what engineered levee seawalls and pumps do at a cost of billions of dollars. \nCarin High: They protect the land around them from storm surge\, flooding\, flooding rains\, erosion and pollution. They are vital infrastructure \nCarin High: that makes us more resilient against climate change\, and the cost of destroying them or weakening their ability to function\, must be factored into the decisions we make to build and grow. \nCarin High: Another excerpt\, failing to measure the benefits of ecosystem services in policy and management decisions is a major reason. \nCarin High: Many of those ecosystems disappeared. \nCarin High: and lastly\, climate change makes the undervaluation of ecosystem services more dangerous. The example they provide is wetlands that mitigate flooding in a community during rare deluges will have far more economic value \nCarin High: in 2\,050\, when damaging storms arrive more frequently\, the same could be said for our tidal wetlands. The Rsap document that will be viewed and used by many. \nCarin High: may those who view it may not have been exposed to the concept of ecosystem services and the important role natural infrastructure plays in providing climate change\, resilience for the natural and built environments. \nCarin High: It is therefore important that this crucial function of the bay’s habitats is clearly identified in beginning with the vision goals and objectives of the Rsap. \nCarin High: Once again. Thank you very much. We look forward to continued participation in this very important complex regional process. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Our next public comment is from Mr. Paul Sager. Please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nMy name is Paul. See here\, I’m also from Sierra Club and \npaul seger: a member of the Bay live committee. And but I’m going to speaking from a position of basic contract pasta shoreline from straight to to Pittsburgh. And then possibly even for bay into this area. \npaul seger: so \npaul seger: regarding the regional overarching goal. \npaul seger: As sea levels rise \npaul seger: and the bay areas\, diverse communities unite to transform how we live\, work\, plan\, and adapt along our changing shore lines. \npaul seger: In this\, in this\, in view\, in this envisioned future communities\, prioritize interconnectedness \npaul seger: and recognize our dependence on the health and vitality of thriving habitats along the bay\, Delta’s edge. \npaul seger: In this future communities are not only healthy\, safe\, and equitable. \npaul seger: but also actively acknowledge the interconnectedness that binds us to the intricate web of thriving habitats along the Bay delta. \npaul seger: All residents have access to our shorelines \npaul seger: where they can immerse themselves in beauty and wonder. There’s of these vital ecosystems\, the pulse of indigenous communities within their deep understanding of interconnectedness\, guides us in preserving and benefiting from the critical ecosystem services provided by base the deltas\, natural habitats. \npaul seger: When we speak of networks of people and goods\, services and economies\, we are essentially addressing the backbone of our infrastructure. This includes transportation systems\, economic services\, and essential goods that form the foundation of our communities. \npaul seger: Let’s call it what it is\, the vital infrastructure that sustains our way of life. Recognizing this\, our future \npaul seger: are recognizing this\, our vision commits to \npaul seger: addressing infrastructure\, related items transparently. \npaul seger: we will appropriately identify and tackle issues while honoring co equal goals of environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. \npaul seger: This comprehensive approach ensures that our infrastructure not only facilitates the movement of people and goods\, but does so in harmony with the environment. By embracing co equal goals. We safeguard the resilience of the San Francisco Bay Area and Delta \npaul seger: for current generations. And thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Our final public commenter\, Ms. Caroline. please go ahead and unmute yourself. \nBoardroom SX80: Commenter. Ms. Carolyn\, please go ahead and unmute yourself and state your public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, I guess. \nBoardroom SX80: we are moving on. \nBoardroom SX80: That concludes our public speaking comments and questions from Commissioners. Commissioner Eklund. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: Thank you very much. I don’t have any questions but fantastic presentation. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: As I’m very much interested in being intimately involved in this when II was not only in charge of the for permitting program EPA\, but also the oceans industry’s program I worked with \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: not only in California but Hawaii in the outer islands\, America\, small Guam and Cni \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: on developing guidelines and obviously regulatory \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: programs as well. And so I’m very much interested in being engaged in this and being a new Commissioner\, I’m not exactly sure how to put my name in the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in in the \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: in the\, in the in the list\, but I just wanted to make sure that Staff knows that I’m very interested in would like to be it more intimately engaged. \nPat Eklund\, Commissioner: So thank you. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I Hi! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you for the great report. Thank you for the great report. I’m not sure if this is the right time to ask this particular question. But are there any guidance that’s coming out on how to work with the individuals that have property alongside the shoreline. There’s one in particular you might have heard about it. It’s pretty large oil company in Richmond. \nBoardroom SX80: They. They may or may not believe in global warming\, and they may or may not want to participate in trying to do something with our shoreline. \nBoardroom SX80: So anything that we can do to help them out? \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, if you having the answer\, I will love an answer. I want them to participate. Yeah\, I mean\, what I can say is that so? The intent of this vision is to really inform the guidelines that we create. And one of the vision statements on collaboration is really encouraging that informal to formal shoreline coalition work that needs to happen to both plan\, build\, and really maintain these types of projects over time. \nAnd so the intent is that we’ll have guidelines that flow from that vision statement and plans that are\, you know\, reviewed and approved by Bcd. C. Are eligible for funding. So I think that there’s an incentive in that sense of following these guidelines and having approved plans\, can hopefully encourage that type of work\, and having the statement here allows us to then have guidelines that we really we can encourage or require that type of collaborative work \nBoardroom SX80: so that we could do more on the require versus encouragement. I don’t think they’re going to be encouraged enough\, because if they go along with it\, from what I hear is\, if they go along with Richmond \nBoardroom SX80: to work on the shoreline\, then they might be admitting to global warming that they potentially caused. So I think we need more than just a little nudge. We need to actually force them to participate. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair\, can I? Can I venture an answer as well. I mean it. All I can think of is\, is you described? The company is\, you know\, he who will not be named \nBoardroom SX80: One of the things that happened at the first part of this meeting was that John Coleman announced his resignation in his retirement\, which is\, I think\, and I think a lot of us think is a really \nBoardroom SX80: as good as his staff is\, gonna be? It’s a really\, it’s a sad day\, because John has really brought the Bay pund and coalition really forward with regard to climate change. And with regard to working with all of us\, what I’m going to do is I want to make sure that John\, before he leaves. Here’s what you said\, because the Bay Planning coalition has been very active with us\, with the regional shoreline\, adaptation\, plan\, and bay adapt. \nBoardroom SX80: They are very\, you know\, in addition to the building Industry Association and and and a number of other private sector concerns\, and I want to make sure that we \nBoardroom SX80: talk with John\, so that he then ensures that whoever follows him understands the importance and connects those dots. I can’t promise you that they’re going to play ball. But I can promise you that we’ll make sure. Bpc. Knows of what you said\, and they’re playing ball with us that. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: cool. Yes. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Kishimoto. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yes. Hi\, yes\, I’m yodiko Kishimoto. Alternate to Supervisor elderly. But II also serve on the Board of Midpoints and open space\, and I just wanted to support \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: express my support for the excellent one day vision for the resilient future shoreline and also to the comments made by Sierra Club. Obviously\, II believe very strongly that nature is \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: the ultimate infrastructure. You know\, it’s it’s gonna be here when we’re we’re we’re not\, and and it’s always good to keep reminding ourselves of of that that priority. When push comes to stuff. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: To put put nature first. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you\, Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Thank you. Mr. Chairman\, so I just wanna Jackie\, you and the staff. I want to congratulate you. The kinds of comments we’re hearing today shows that you guys have done a really great job of outreach and I \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: know that you’re gonna keep it up\, which is good because the questions are\, gonna get diceier and more difficult to deal with\, including a couple. I’m gonna ask you now. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I also really liked that. You didn’t just list goals. But you then said\, to achieve this\, we have to do the following things cause. That’s a real way of forwarding the conversation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: First. My question. First question\, I have 2 questions. First\, one is about the sub regional plans. And I have been very \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I’m persuaded by presentations that I have seen here and in other places and in listening to people talk about how valuable \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the the regional plan that splits our region into what are called the currently operational landscape units. But the idea of removing the political boundaries from the landscape\, putting down the physical ecological boundaries \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and then and and that’s what we see. And then putting the political boundaries back down so that we can then see who needs to collaborate because you’re within this same sort of geophysical environment. So I wanted to first ask\, you \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: are. The is the idea of operational landscape units being being included. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: or maybe even prioritized or championed\, as we think about how to develop our sub regional plans. \nBoardroom SX80: I can go ahead and start with the answer\, and then I might pass off to Dana Breckwold\, who is leading the work that we’re doing on developing sub-regional plans. I will say we are absolutely talking about operational landscape units and the value that they bring along with the some of those other jurisdictional lines. So it is absolutely part of the conversation in in many of the conversations that we’ve had. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah. The only thing I’ll add is\, as as you correctly stated\, operational landscape unit boundaries are not same as jurisdictional boundaries. Plans occur within jurisdictional boundaries. So we’re trying to reconcile the fact that. We have these scales of planning that we don’t want to create. We don’t need to\, or want to create all new planning scales. \nBut we are also aware of the fact that operational landscape units bring a lot of value in analyzing sea level rise risk as well as identifying the appropriate adaptation strategies. \nBoardroom SX80: So we’re trying to reconcile that at the moment we do plan to come back to you all with a proposal for what those sub regional adaptation. Plans are in March\, ish or \nBoardroom SX80: soonish in the next few months. And then we’ll get your feedback there to make sure that we’ve incorporated those concepts successfully \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: great. Yeah\, I don’t mean to say that we need to get rid of counties in the Bay Area. But that that I’ve been very impressed with how\, when you think about an operational landscape unit\, who is then convened around that table. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and and those people all need to talk to each other and share their experiences and their ideas. The second thing I just wanted to ask is about the investment strategy. And I remain convinced that our excellently developed estimate for the cost of adaptation is unfortunately it \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: painful underestimate\, and it’s going to get more expensive\, and I think that \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the sooner we begin to engage in the discussion about \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: what gets funded first \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: the better off will be\, and I don’t have an answer to that question. Obviously\, I think we’re going to be trying to catch a lot of different balls as they appear. Maybe a little Federal money here\, a little transportation money here a little\, this a little that but I think that there is \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: going to be a need to understand that. If we’re gonna be opportunistic about obtaining funding that \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: some people are gonna get it and some people aren’t \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: and how that would then reverberate through our implementation of the plan. So it’s it is. These are the kind of things that I think we do much better on if we think about them \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: in advance\, when the winners and losers are not yet \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: fully fully formed. And so I hope that that as we move forward with the investment strategy\, you’ll be able to think about some of these tough questions\, and it and just help tee up all the stakeholders to be aware that you know these. These are these are coming down the pipe\, and we’re gonna have to deal with them as best we can. \nBoardroom SX80: I will just say that we are. We are thinking about that right now. It’s definitely on our minds as we’re preparing for all of those other buckets of work ahead\, and how we can kind of do the work. Now to make sure that we’re setting ourselves up to be able to have those conversations and make those decisions. And also note that the next presentation will talk a bit more about the investment strategy and the work happening there. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no other. No\, it’s Commissioner Kishimoto. Your hand is still up\, but I assume it’s oh\, it’s Pat show. Walter Pat’s hand is still up. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Hi\, yeah\, we’re sharing the screen now. Hopefully\, we won’t get reverberation that way. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: Yeah\, I just wanted to again compliment the staff on this work and this presentation. It’s just vital. To get this going and moving and and make sure that we include the right people. I would really like to be included in the sub regional plan development for the South Bay. So I’m putting my hand up for that \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: But also I wanted to. Just ditto. The comments that in particular Gita Dev made about the importance of nature based solutions. \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: I really think it is important to have that concept explicitly stated in the vision statement and sort of underlying \nCommissioners Kishimoto and Burt: language here. So I just wanted to to support that as well. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: I see no others. I have a request. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s actually not a staff apologies. We just got an email from the public commenter who was unable to speak before. Maybe we could try again for her\, Carolyn\, she\, the Star 6\, I think\, wasn’t working\, but if she’s still on\, she might be able to try that one more time. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: so public commenter\, Ms. Carolyn\, are you on the line? \nBoardroom SX80: Are you able to hear us? \n5102354562: Hi! Now\, it just said it was unmuted. Can you hear me now? Okay\, fantastic. Thank you so much. I appreciate you recognizing the email license. Since the chat is disabled. \nI’ll start my public comment. Now then. I just wanted to point out that in the last week\, with the NASA findings that about the hottest year on record being last year. \nthere have been a number of scientists revisiting Jim Hansen’s work on climate Change. A number of scientists had had previously discounted his work because his models were showing \nmuch higher rate of climate change. And now that’s being revisited. And I just wanted to call out that the sea level rise \nused by Opc. And which BC. DC. Also factors into their work probably need to greatly relook at their work as well because of this new. These new findings. \nI also wanted to call out about the contaminated sites that are in the guidelines. I live in Richmond. Along the shoreline we have a 86 acre site that’s qualified very high as a super fun site. \nIt’s right on the shoreline. So sea level rise is a big concern. It’s there are already plumes affecting off site locations. The site is under Dts administration. It’s basically a test case\, for what could go wrong with sea level rise. So I’ll leave it at that. I greatly appreciate you\, giving me the opportunity to speak. Thank you. \n5102354562: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: So my request is for the Commissioners. I want to thank Staff for for the work and for this presentation. but my request is that you actually take a bit of time over this next \nBoardroom SX80: week. I don’t want to interfere on your weekend too much. But \nBoardroom SX80: please look at these slides. and if you have questions or comments. submit them to staff. \nBoardroom SX80: because this has been worked on a lot\, and I think it is good. \nBoardroom SX80: but that doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. And as we move \nBoardroom SX80: to what this is going to become some of these pieces of language may be very important\, so if you can\, please do that\, send in. Comments \nBoardroom SX80: could just be wonderful. I don’t think there are any changes needed. But if you do see some things that you’ve got questions about or suggestions\, please do make those. Thank you very much for the presentation. There is no action on this that brings us to item 12\, a briefing on Plan Bay area 2050 \nBoardroom SX80: sorry 2050 plus 2050 plus \nBoardroom SX80: Jessica Fane\, our planning director will introduce the briefing. Thank you. Chair Wasserman. So next\, our last agenda item is on Plan Bay Area\, and you’re probably wondering why are we talking about Plan Bay Area\, of a Bcdc. Meeting? Well\, with so many regional planning efforts going on\, we think it’s pretty important for you to be aware about what’s going on with other agencies and to the extent we can\, we really try to align our efforts to help move \nBoardroom SX80: the region forward in a sustainable and cohesive manner. So while Plan Bay area covers a broad set of topic areas or a few key areas where those policy areas intersect with what we do at Bcdc. And sea level Rise adaptation and how to fund it is a major one of those. \nBoardroom SX80: you might not know that our staff collaborate regularly with Mtc. And Abag. Staff on sea level rise adaptation work through biweekly meetings\, joint projects\, developing data and methodology and outreach. We’re grateful to have a long term funding agreement between our agencies that provide support for this work and our planning staff are now supporting Mtc. And Abag and integrating the work we’ve done together on the sea level rise funding and investment framework into Plan Bay Area 2050 plus. \nBoardroom SX80: and we anticipate continuing to work closely after 2050 plus. And after the regional shoreline adaptation plan work that Jackie was describing \nBoardroom SX80: to really think about how to develop a regional funding strategy. That grapples with key questions about how we are gonna fund the sizable adaptation needs. So with that\, I’ll turn it over to Matt Maloney\, director of regional Plans at Mtc. Aback. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Good afternoon\, Commissioners\, Jessica said a lot of what I was going to say. \nBoardroom SX80: Which is fine. I will just say that we are also at Mtc. And abag very appreciative. Of all the collaboration with with BC. DC. Staff\, and as the months. Go on. We just find ourselves working more and more closely. At a staff level with with Bcd C plan Bay Area\, which I’ll talk about\, and I’ll be brief. In in my comments. \nBoardroom SX80: Is not a plan that is statutorily required. To do a lot of consideration with sea level rise. But part of what I wanted to get across today is that although it focuses a lot on transportation and and housing and has statutory requirements with Ghg mitigation. \nBoardroom SX80: Sea level rise is definitely inter woven into how we think about the plan. And we just obviously we must have it as a high priority and consideration as we do all this work on on housing and transportation. Let’s go to the next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, we call this the Galaxy slide or kind of a a\, an ocean with waves? So II think what we wanna get across here is that we are \nBoardroom SX80: interweaving all of these efforts together. The Bay adap joint platforms\, of course\, A\, a product of BCDC. And you all just heard a a bit about the regional shoreline adaptation plan the estuary blueprint\, which is focused on the health and resilience of the San Francisco estuary\, is governed by abag. \nBoardroom SX80: And then there in the middle is Plan Bay Area 2050 plus\, which is led by Abag and Mtc. Together\, and it’s quite comprehensive in scope dealing with housing\, transportation\, the environment and the economy\, and and more and more\, as these plans roll along\, we’re doing more and more work on the climate adaptation space next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: We at Mtc. And Abac have been doing regional plans for a very long time. But on the State level. Really kind of changed a lot of this dynamic back in the 2\,008\, 2\,009 period. \nBoardroom SX80: And essentially what Sb. 3\, 75 did is it set a statutory requirement for these plans to reduce per capita. GHG. From cars and light duty vehicles. \nBoardroom SX80: And the way that the plan accomplishes that is\, via a land use pattern focused around high quality transit areas\, places where people can not rely necessarily on single occupant vehicles\, and we also develop a fiscally constrained set of transportation investments. As part of the plan. And that is essentially what we’re doing via the plan is required to be adopted every 4 years. \nBoardroom SX80: We the the plan that we’re living under today is Plan Bay Area 2050. That was adopted in 2021\, and we are now in the middle of Plan Bay area 2050 plus adopted in 2025. Why is it? Plus \nBoardroom SX80: I think\, what we’re trying to signal there is that it’s a limited and focused update Planbury 2050 has a lot in it. It was 4 straight years of pretty intense work and robust outreach \nBoardroom SX80: and 2050 plus is meant to do a few things on the margins\, but not be a. It’s not a dramatic redo of the plan \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So\, as I mentioned\, we do cover a lot of ground in the plan. This is sort of a snapshot of the 11 themes. It covers transportation and the transit network. \nBoardroom SX80: They’re in yellow. Those are some of the themes. We deal a lot with the affordable housing conundrum that is facing the Bay area. That’s sort of the red themes. \nBoardroom SX80: improving economic mobility and jobs in blue. And then the environmental strategies are the themes are shown there in green. So we have 11 themes and 35 strategies. Let’s go to the next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: And what I wanted to focus on just briefly\, today are some of the strategies in the so called environment elements. So we have 9 strategies in all \nBoardroom SX80: in that part of the plan you’ll see adapt to sea level rise is number one on that list. I’ll also mention briefly\, strategies 5 and 6 that have to do with conservation lands and urban greening. So next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: okay\, so after plan barrier 2050 Bcd. C. And Mtc. And a bag collaborated on this sea level rise\, funding and investment framework. And I know the Commission has seen. This work recently. Where this work ended up is an estimated cost of sea level rise adaptation through 2050. The estimate we came up with is 110 1 billion dollars. \nBoardroom SX80: There are some things known out there about the projects to adapt to sea level rise. So where we knew and sort of had good cost estimates\, we used those \nBoardroom SX80: but for some of these other areas which are shown in green these are really more placeholder costs. So these are places that really haven’t quite gone through all of the planning yet. So the staff work to create cost estimates for those \nBoardroom SX80: the cost is high. But I think it always makes sense to couch it against the fact that we also estimate 230 billion in assets are at risk. If the Re region does not adapt to sea level rise next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: So after that work. I wanna talk just briefly about what we’re doing in the current plan to sort of update the C-level rise\, investment work that we’ve been doing and sort of where we’re going. And I think one of your previous one of your commissioners did allude to this ultimate regional funding strategy \nBoardroom SX80: which is shown on the right hand of the slide so I mentioned the sea Level rise\, editation funding and investment framework. I will note that it was based on an estimate of 4.9 feet of inundation by 2050 \nBoardroom SX80: that was using the best available work by the Ocean Protection Council. You heard from those folks earlier today? They are still updating. Those as the years go on we will continue in the DC. DC. Staff. I’m sure we’ll continue to use the best estimates. \nBoardroom SX80: This includes sort of an estimate of the rise\, but also a hundred year storm. So that’s all kind of built into the 4.9 number. In this current plan\, cycle plan bary 2050 plus\, II think the objective that we have at this point is to work on updating what we did in that funding and investment framework\, working with local jurisdictions across the region. Making sure we get the best available information updating project costs where we can. \nAnd hopefully beginning the process of what? Of what? On the slide. We mentioned sorting projects\, as we call them\, bins where we’re trying to work towards sort of an organizational structure. \nBoardroom SX80: For some of these projects. Right now we have a fairly long list but they are not necessarily prioritized in any kind of way. So the staff are gonna begin to looking. We’re gonna begin looking at some things like project readiness. \nBoardroom SX80: Obviously\, the cost of the projects and what other kinds of funding might be committed to these types of projects just to sort of get us toward a bit of an organizational scheme\, the idea being that when we get to a regional funding strategy. We could engage in a further categorization of those projects \nBoardroom SX80: potentially updating the project inventory\, looking at updating the future revenue sources and getting a little bit towards more of organizing these sort of by year\, so that when funding opportunities do come our way we’re ready with sort of a near term list that we can draw from you know\, to start funding these projects and sort of do that necessary work. To get this done. So that is where we are headed \nBoardroom SX80: next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, really\, quickly\, on the priority conservation areas. These are geographic areas. In the bay area. They they came about around the same time as the priority development areas or Pda’s. If you work in local government\, you’re probably somewhat familiar with those \nBoardroom SX80: Established back in 2\,000 7. These are you know\, lands around the region that are important to protect conservation lands\, natural lands ag lands working lands. \nBoardroom SX80: We we are engaged in a in an update or refresh of the Pca framework. And the reason why I wanted to talk to the Commission about this today is that we are adding integrating climate adaptation into the mix with the Pcas so we are the new type of Pca intended to be paired with the existing types that we’ve got \nBoardroom SX80: already. Underway. So we’re not really reinventing the wheel with this. We are looking at sort of that same map that you saw before\, with 110 billion looking at those areas. But sort of looking at these areas that are more tidal habitats and places like that. Those will also be part of the Pca geographies. It’s more than a map. We also do have a funding program associated with with Pcas that Mtc \nBoardroom SX80: funds so historically\, over the last 15 or 20 years. \nBoardroom SX80: We do a call for projects for these and we do fund improvements and enhancements. To these lands either to provide better access or to work on conserving these areas. \nBoardroom SX80: Next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, final slide just next steps on the plan \nBoardroom SX80: in in terms of the this strategy en one and adapting to to sea level rise staff is working to update this data. We are working with local staff. We’re putting on webinars \nBoardroom SX80: and doing sort of robust engagement. There\, in order to identify new projects and just sort of update the inventory that we currently have. You want more information on that? You can contact Rachel Hart and Phyllis. She’s here in the audience. You can contact her directly. Also\, just in terms of where we’re going on the final blueprint. Looking into this summer\, we will be doing more engagements. With the public \nBoardroom SX80: and with local jurisdictions to kind of talk about all the strategies that are in the plan. Shrug Rabari is the guy that is the project manager. Of the plan. Ultimately we will approve a final blueprint later this year in the fall. We do have to do sequa on this plan that takes about a year. \nBoardroom SX80: And so ultimately we would adopt this plan in the fall of 2025. So that concludes my presentation for today\, and happy to take any questions from the Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Any public comment on this matter. There are no public comments. \nBoardroom SX80: questions\, or comments from commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Gunther. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: yeah\, very quickly. Thank you for the presentation. \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: I was critical about the \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: whether the number is correct. But I wanna make sure you know that I’m that’s offered just in the frame that we just need to keep. Go\, keep\, keep keep going as we iterate this to get get it more accurate. I really really appreciate that you and your colleagues are doing this\, and I encourage you to keep doing it. If someone like me says you need to improve the number\, then you can just ask me\, how should we do it? And one of the ways that I think we need to do it is to \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: try and integrate as I. As I understand it\, the the cost now does not have any. The the cost of dealing with the rising groundwater that will be part of sea level rise is not included in the 109 billion. Do I have that right? \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: Yes\, you have that right? Okay? And is W. Will 2050 plus \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: make a stab at that? Is that part of the plan. \nBoardroom SX80: II don’t believe that we’re gonna get there in this in this planning round. II don’t believe that we’re gonna be able to bring in the groundwater estimates into this. There’s also a lot of information out there with riverine flooding around the region that we don’t quite have the best data for we are working on that to do more comprehensive assessment. But I think in this period\, what we’re mostly focused on \nBoardroom SX80: are\, is that existing project inventory we have\, and and sort of seeing what kinds of updates are out there to the costs or to the scopes of those projects. To make sure we have the best information. That’s kind of where we \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: thanks. Yeah\, II recognize this is a very difficult question I’m asking. But I think that it’s important\, because \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: it could have a pretty significant influence on this number. And I and I I hope that that as soon as you guys are ready to throw a number out there just as a even as a placeholder. That you that\, you make an effort to do it. Because\, it’s going to be a really important addition \nDr. Andrew Gunther\, Commissioner: to our future. Need \nBoardroom SX80: any other \nBoardroom SX80: comments for questions from commissioners \nBoardroom SX80: again\, thank you for the presentation and the work\, we will continue the dialogue. \nBoardroom SX80: There is no further action on this item. \nBoardroom SX80: This brings us to adjournment\, and I would ask for a motion to adjourn in \nBoardroom SX80: recognition \nBoardroom SX80: of Graciela Gomez. Recognizing that we’ve done 2 very lovely things at this meeting we’ve passed 2 resolutions\, \nBoardroom SX80: for people who are still with us. We don’t always do that. So I would entertain a motion. \nBoardroom SX80: A Commissioner Gilmore makes the motion\, and \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner on seconds the motion. Thank you. No opposition. no exemptions. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/february-1-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240129T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240129T170000
DTSTAMP:20240130T055935Z
CREATED:20240130T055935Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T055935Z
UID:10000156-1706515200-1706547600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:August 21\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-21-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240124T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240124T170000
DTSTAMP:20240130T052154Z
CREATED:20240130T052154Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T052154Z
UID:10000149-1706101200-1706115600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 24\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-24-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240124T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240124T120000
DTSTAMP:20240304T202738Z
CREATED:20240130T041106Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240304T202738Z
UID:10000126-1706088600-1706097600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 544 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81796419902?pwd=4pnoHbQhsdp8c53twTXZVf9Nten0fI.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID817 9641 9902Passcode042232\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic-CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda. \nApproval of Draft Minutes from the January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing from Cities of Oakland and Alameda on Continuing Alameda-Oakland Estuary Clean-up Efforts.The Enforcement Committee will hear a briefing from the Cities of Oakland and Alameda regarding the progress they have made to clean up the Oakland/ Alameda Estuary. Their presentation will include their progress to date and their plans to maintain the Estuary.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov](Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov)Public Comment // Staff Presentation // City Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Meeting Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording.mp3 \nTranscript \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n2024.01.11 ZOOM Recording Transcript – Enforcement Committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T191230Z
CREATED:20240118T044859Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191230Z
UID:10000088-1705582800-1705597200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing January 5\, 2024\n\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments \n\nCommission Mailing January 12\, 2024\n\nDraft Minutes of December 21\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nA Reborn Portal to a Great American City\nTerrific Article on CA Coastal Commission Seawall Litigation\nEditorial: Anchor-outs must abide by Richardson Bay rules\nWhat If People Don’t Need to Care About Climate Change to Fix It?\nCleaning Up After Lahaina\nFor the Billionaire Who Has Everything\, Consider an Island in the San Francisco Bay
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T090000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T103000
DTSTAMP:20240614T165331Z
CREATED:20240130T061956Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T165331Z
UID:10000162-1705568400-1705573800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Rising Sea Level Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Meeting agenda\nDraft One Bay Vision for the Future of the Shoreline Presentation\nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-rising-sea-level-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240118T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240118T170000
DTSTAMP:20240130T061624Z
CREATED:20240130T061624Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240130T061624Z
UID:10000161-1705564800-1705597200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 18\, 2024 Environmental Justice Working Group Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-18-2024-environmental-justice-working-group-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240111T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240111T120000
DTSTAMP:20250320T191038Z
CREATED:20240130T040950Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T191038Z
UID:10000125-1704965400-1704974400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance withSB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \n9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterBoard Room \n375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nLive Webcast \nJoin the meeting via Zoomhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82124816434?pwd=LrQsC3appV0cSHTnxie2UYKxTaJTe7.1 \nSee information on public participation \n\n\nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference code374334 \n\nMeeting ID821 2481 6434 \nPasscode642155 \n\n\nIf you call in by telephone: \n\nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak\n \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the November 9\, 2023\, and December 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021\, respectively\, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // Staff Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/01-11-EC-audio-recording-1.mp3 \nTranscript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and this meeting of the Bcdc. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. Our first order of business to day is to call the roll. Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: after responding. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioner Bielyn. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen\, here Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: here \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda public comment period. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe\, Margie\, we have not received any general comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did share. We received one\, and it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find a small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand\, then Dial star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The meeting hosts will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. After you are called upon you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the Speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour\, for online? We do not have\, as well as in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. Is there anybody? Are there any members of the public that which to make general comments at your location? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, there are not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda. Approval of the draft minutes for I believe\, is at the last 2 meetings. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So committee members\, I would appreciate a motion and second\, to approve these meet meeting minutes. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second\, second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a motion from Commissioner Vasquez\, and a second from Commissioner Bill in Matthew. Would you please call the role \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin? \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Hi\, Commissioner Vasquez. \nBoardroom SX80: chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. thank you. The minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The next item on our agenda is the Enforcement report and the Enforcement policy manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now provide the enforcement. Matthew. \nBoardroom SX80: thank you good morning\, chair committee members and greetings\, while members of the public in attendance welcome\, and also welcome to \nBoardroom SX80: Michael in who is acting general counsel here to day while Greg is on vacation. \nBoardroom SX80: First is a case update. Since our last meeting on November ninth\, 2023. In the past 2 months we’ve opened 5 new cases. We resolved 7 cases\, and as of today\, there are 71 unresolved cases in the queue. \nwhich is a net change of negative 2. Since my last report. \nBoardroom SX80: Second\, I want to note for this committee that we have issued extensions of time to both the city of Sausalito and to the Rbra\, to remove 2 vessels from Richardson’s Bay. \nThese extensions of time were granted on a finding of good cause by the executive director\, and they were both reviewed and approved by General by the general counsel prior to distributing \nBoardroom SX80: the city’s extension\, was granted through March 30\, first 2024\, and Rbra’s extension was granted through February 20\, seventh\, 2024\, \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes my report. I’ll be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions about the status of the Enforcement program from the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. Do any members of the committee have questions for Matthew for comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none? Are there any members of the public who have comments or questions on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: There’s none. Joe Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much. Well\, that moves us on to item number 6\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is briefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, or Rvra\, and the city of Sausalito. On the anchor out abatement and eel grass restoration efforts in Richardson’s Bay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by both the Rb. Ra. And the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representatives or Rvra please identify themselves for the record. \nBrad Gross: Good good morning\, chair\, Giomore. This is Brad\, Gross\, executive director for Rvra with me today I have our harbor\, Master Jim Malcolm and our eel grass representative Rebecca Schwartz Lessberg from coastal polis policy solutions. I’d I’d like to begin with a quick apology. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You’re jumping the gun just a tag. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I would also like to have the representatives for the city of Sausalito identify themselves for the record. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Hello! I’m Katie via the city of sustainability manager. \nBoardroom SX80: Clear. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Brandon Phipps\, community and Economic Development director with city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Joan\, you’re muted \nJoan Cox: Joan Cox\, vice Mayor of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you both city of Sausalito and our Bra representatives for being here. Welcome? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And can I caution anybody? If you’re not \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: being speaking directly\, could you please mute yourself\, cause I’m hearing some whispers or feedback. I’m not quite sure where it’s coming from\, but if you can mute mute yourself if you’re not speaking\, it would be greatly appreciated \nJoan Cox: if I might\, as we also have Robert Mooney with us\, who is our field brass consultant. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you very much. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Sorry to interrupt. I think we also should have a \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Brian Mather from the police department. I’m not sure if he was promoted\, or if he is online. But \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: I was told that he was coming \nand \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: let me confer with him. I’m not seeing him on the attendee list. Sorry about that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point I’m going to invite Adrian Kline to give her introduction to this this presentation\, Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Let’s see. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning. \nBoardroom SX80: everybody. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: so I have a quick little Powerpoint\, the purpose of which is really just to highlight in blue text\, the settlement agreement terms which \nBoardroom SX80: the RBRA. And then the city will expand upon so next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this\, these 21 points. Mark the the categories in the Rba Settlement agreement\, and the 4 in blue\, I believe\, will be the focus of the Rba’s presentation today. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is direct text from the agreement regarding eelgrass\, habitat restoration. And I’ll just give you a chance to read \nBoardroom SX80: those 3 points. \nBoardroom SX80: therefore. \nBoardroom SX80: and the next slide is a continuation of this \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: section. \nBoardroom SX80: Go ahead\, please. I oops! I think we skipped one. \nBoardroom SX80: Go back one\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry. My my mistake. \nBoardroom SX80: yes\, forward! \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. So regarding management of vessels on the anchorage after 2019\, the agreement required that they be removed by the middle of October of last year\, and the Rbi requested and received a one year long extension\, to meet this requirement\, which was \nBoardroom SX80: greatly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: For vessels on the air anchorage prior to 2019 the floating homes were also to have been removed. The rba has been working hard to achieve this goal. For one\, they requested\, and received a 60 day extension\, and you’ll be hearing the status of that today. That was through December fifteenth\, and \nBoardroom SX80: in early December they received\, they requested\, a hundred 40 day extension\, and that\, as was just noted by Matthew\, was granted through February twenty-seventh. First\, a different single houseboat. So they are very discrete requests to rectify discrete. So negotiations. \nBoardroom SX80: or allow time for discrete negotiations. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: and these will be the presenters who you have all met\, so I’ll cede the floor to Brad Gross. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you very much\, Adrian\, and and my apologies. Chair Gilmore\, for jumping the gun I had just signed in. I was having problems with my connection\, and I was about to say that I apologize for no camera. But I’m going to leave it off \nBrad Gross: just to protect this connection that that we have and that I’m able to present to this board. So\, Adrian\, will you be presenting? Put it posting our Powerpoint. \nBrad Gross: I was counting on you to do that\, Brad. Is that okay? Great? Thank you. \nBrad Gross: If I \nBoardroom SX80: we’re happy to do that. Just let us know that day or 2 before next time. Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Not a problem. If \nBrad Gross: let me share my screen. Sorry for that. Everybody. My apologies. \nBrad Gross: Okay\, good morning\, everybody. \nBrad Gross: Chair Gail Moore\, Commissioners and members of BC. BC. Staff. As I said earlier\, I am Brad Gross\, and I have already. Introduced Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Short Usberg will be presenting in conjunction with me today \nBrad Gross: before I begin. \nBrad Gross: I’d like to say that this presentation is dated by one month\, as we were originally scheduled as everybody knows\, to present on the December fourteenth\, and I will update any items verbally. If there have been any changes \nBrad Gross: as we have presented in the past\, we couldn’t do what we do here without our many partners. You see their logos displayed on this slide one of the changes. I did realize when looking at this slide\, that we fail to include coastal policy solutions\, and Merkel and associates who are ha obviously have been working with us for for many\, many years and helping us with our upcoming eographs program. \nBrad Gross: I’m just going to go through some of these milestones that Adrian had identified. And you’ve all seen in the past. \nBrad Gross: first of all\, \nBrad Gross: The petition for necessary Federal action has been completed and is on and going the removal of unoccupied. Most of these and the bright blue\, have already been done the ones with later due dates you see\, and that kind of I don’t know what to describe that color\, that other blue color \nBrad Gross: but the removal of unoccupied marine debris is done\, and ongoing as vessels may become marine debris\, we had we give them our immediate attention. We finalize the Environmental Protection and Management plan in 2021. No new vessels in the Eel Grass Protection zone is ongoing. There’ll be more discussion about that as we move on. The installation of moorings is on hold \nBrad Gross: the initiation of the Eel Grass restoration studies was done in 2022. The removal of the post 2019 vessels. As Adrian pointed out\, they received an extension\, and to October fifteenth of 2024\, and there’s some good progress that we’ll be talking about later on. What’s happening with those? The removal of the floating off floating homes off of all the point by October fifteenth. \nBrad Gross: 2023\, 2 were removed by the deadline\, and one \nBrad Gross: was actually the one that was provided. These initial 60 day extension was moved on a December eleventh to illegal floating home birth that leaves us one floating home\, and that vessel has been through a citation process and a nuisance abatement process for removal. And Rbra has requested\, and was recently granted one last \nBrad Gross: one last extension to allow the owner to repair and relocate his vessel. That extension now goes through February 20 twenty-seventh\, so our next presentation will have some more information on the the results of the extension\, and where that vessel there lies\, we anticipate it being out of the anchorage by the end of February. \nBrad Gross: moving on complete admin actions update ordinances has all been done\, and as we’ll show later in the presentation\, we do have their Coast Guard response\, which I’ve mentioned in the past\, and we have a new supporting order received from Judge Oric on December first\, which I will talk about further in the presentation \nBrad Gross: beginning of the implementation of the 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan. That plan was due. This again. This slide is a month old. It was planned\, was to be submitted on December fifteenth\, and it was submitted on time and on schedule. \nBrad Gross: Next item\, no vessels in the Epz. By October of 2024 we are working on a signage program and rubber. Master Malcolm will talk about the notifications that we’ve given to the vessels and our plans moving forward\, the removal of all occupied non safe and seaworthy vessels\, and now has an extension to october of 24 \nBrad Gross: and all these vessels in this category have been provided with the 12 month advance notice\, and again more of that by harbor. Master Malcolm. \nBrad Gross: Applying for a morning permit \nBrad Gross: the rest of these items have a due date by October of 2026\, so they will be reported on in future presentations\, but removal of all occupied safety\, worthy vessels\, removal of all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone\, all due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna just go through and report on \nBrad Gross: activities during this reporting period. I’m not going to go on the \nBrad Gross: Pass reporting period. But this is the vessel buyback program. During this reporting period 5 vessels have been purchased and properly disposed of. One floating home was purchased and disposed of during this reporting period\, bringing 8 total vessels\, purchasedly and properly disposed of since the reinstatement of the program\, in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: right around $40\,000 has been distributed since the reinstatement of the program\, and then just over $81\,000 has been distributed\, and 21 vessels have been properly disposed of since the program exception in 2022. \nBrad Gross: This is the letter I was talking about from the coastguard where it talks about Cfr. Section 33 dash point 1 10.1 2 6 alpha\, where the Coast Guard has delegated authority for the operational management to Richards of a regional agency. \nBrad Gross: This is a an important slide that I would like to present. On an order received by George Ork on December first\, 2023\, Judge Orrick provided an order to dismiss without leave to amend a claim against Rbra with language that supports Rbra’s position and codes regarding Rvra\, I’m sorry regarding Richardson Bay. \nBrad Gross: Specifically\, when Cfr. 33.1 10.1 2 6\, Alpha was identified\, the judge appined the following. the plaintiff argues or implies that Rbra’s anchorage ordinance is preempted by Federal law. He goes on to say that I agree that no regulation or Federal authority identified by the plaintiff\, preempts the authority of Rbra to control anchorages in Richardson Bay. Instead\, the Federal regulation he identified established Richardson Bay as a special anchorage and directs mariners to comply with Rbra’s permit scheme. \nBrad Gross: and although this opinion is still subject to appeal\, it mentions more than once regarding anchoring and living aboard on Richardson Bay that the United States Constitution does not confer a blanket right to anchor in Richardson Bay. Boaters do not have a constitutional right to unregulated long term anchorage in public navigable waters. \nHe goes on to talk about this particular plaintiff\, who was planning to live on his vessel. \nBrad Gross: where he says he admits that he intended to live on his boat in Richardson Bay\, which is not allowed under Arbra code\, and means that he would be denied a permit. \nBrad Gross: He goes on to say\, living aboard a houseboat or vessel anchored in Moore or moored in Richardson Bay is prohibited. \nIf \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna leave you with that\, well\, I’ll be back after Eographs update from Rebecca Schwartz\, Lessburg\, and the anchorage update by our harbour master. So I’ll turn this over to Rebecca. Now\, thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Good morning\, everyone. Thank you\, Brad. Hello! I believe I’m know you all. But for those who I haven’t met\, my name is Rebecca Schwartz\, Lesburg. I’m the president of Coastal policy solutions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and I’ve been working with Rvra to advance their ill re their efforts to protect and restore Eel grass in Richard Simbay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So I’ll be sharing 2 main components today. The first is an update about the grant our Bra received from the Us. Environmental Protection agency to restore eelgrass\, and the second is\, I’ll be sharing results from our 2023 monitoring update that describes the Eelgrass monitoring efforts over the past year \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so\, as you may remember\, Rbra was awarded 2.8 million dollars from the EPA’s San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that award funds\, the development of the Restoration and Adaptive Management plan that Brad mentioned\, that was submitted to BC. DC. On December fifteenth. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It also funds the restoration of 15 acres of eel grass by 2027\, and the related ongoing adaptive management\, monitoring and partner engagement outreach associated with that Restoration effort \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: to implement this grant\, RBRA. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Awarded consultant services to Co. Still policy solutions and Merkel and associates for project management\, stakeholder engagement policy support\, and for the actual on the ground\, eel grass restoration. All of this is being done in collaboration with San Francisco State University’s Estuary and Ocean Science Center. Specifically\, Dr. Kathy Boyer and her lab \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and Audubon\, California. The sub awards for those project partners are in process \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So a little bit about the Restoration and adaptive management plan\, which we call the ramp. As Brad mentioned\, it was submitted on the fifteenth\, and this is a technical document that describes a 10 Year Adaptive Management Plan for restoration of 75 acres of eelgrass and Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now those 75 acres are anticipated to be restored through a combination of active restoration. So actually planting eel grass. non planting\, restoration actions\, things like removal of marine debris that’s on the bay bottom. \nand also \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: anticipated natural recovery of the eelgrass bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This plan is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan\, the Richardson Bay special area plan and the California Ill. Grass mitigation policy. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It does consider the beneficial reuse of dredge sediment. If backfill of mooring scars is required\, although that is not recommended as a first line action in this area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then genetic accounts for both passive and active restoration\, and it builds on the results of the ongoing restoration studies that have been going on in the anchor scars over the past couple of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The ramp itself\, as a document may be periodically updated as we receive results from those restoration studies\, other monitoring results or other adaptive management actions that become prudent \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, I’d like to switch gears and talk about the 2023 monitoring update this update was given to the Rba. Board of Directors and the public. In the during the fall. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it’s a comprehensive report on all of the various \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: monitoring actions that have taken place over the past year to really get a sense of what is going. The dynamics of the ill grass bed and its health. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s a variety of monitoring activities that we’ve taken. The first is that I’ll describe is the side scan sonar survey. \nThe survey was completed by Merkel and associates \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: during the summer of 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And this really looks at the in the health of the bed overall. So not just in the area where boats are anchoring and not just in the sanctuary or restoration areas\, but really the the overall bed. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s a few things that we can take away from these results. The first is that we have the same general pattern of eel grass covering Richardson Bay as previous years. So we see the core of the bed. In the central bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: it is present\, but less dense in the shallows. and there’s some evidence of wasting disease. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and it as expected. It is absent from the deeper parts of the bay. basically anywhere deeper than about 5 feet mean lower low water\, and that’s consistent with what we know about the light limits of eel grass in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look at the overall acreage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re see and and how dense it is\, we can see a couple of things. The first is that we have just over 950 acres of eel grass\, and that’s \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a good increase from the previous \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: size cancel in our survey that was completed\, which I’ll talk about in a moment. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: but ignoring for a second the total acreage. What I wanted to talk about is the cover class. So that gives us a sense of how dense the eelgrass bed is\, and that’s a proxy for eelgrass health \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in the image. On the left hand side of the screen you see Richardson Bay. The green area is all the area that’s covered in eel grass\, and essentially the darker the green\, the more dense the eel grass is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, even though we have 950 acres or so of eel grass. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Less than half of that eel grass \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: is in the 40 to 100% cover class. So less than half of it is in that really dense \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: cover class and over a quarter is in the less than 5% cover class. \nSo it’s important to look at\, not just the total acreage\, but also how dense and healthy the Yalegrass bed is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So again\, I mentioned that binary change. If we look at 2019 versus 2022\, we see that 13% increase in the total acreage which is within normal bed variability next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if we take a closer look at that change again on the left hand side\, both the the green and red and tan areas\, that’s all eel grass cover. But essentially\, what we’re seeing is that there are some areas of the eel grass bed that have expanded. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And there’s some areas that have declined \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the areas that are in tan\, orange and getting into that red color. Those are areas where we’ve actually seen a decrease in the old grass cover \nthe portions of their green and getting into the darker greens. That’s where we see expansion. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we can see here is a general decline in that nor in that northern reach\, as we’re getting up into the Audubon sanctuary\, and that’s likely due to thermal stress. The water up there is more shallow\, it gets warmer\, and it pushes the eel grass beyond its thermal limits. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: That red area in the core of the bed is where? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, no\, not yet. Is where we’re seeing evidence of eelgrass wasting disease next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So as we look at our results through time\, we have these sides canceled on our surveys 6 times since 2\,003. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The biggest change that we saw historically\, was the 2\,009 to 2\,013\, and overall absolute cover is generally increasing\, but variable over the past 20 years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now 20 years may feel like a long time to have data. And it’s a great data set to be working with. But it’s actually not very long in the context of an eel grass bed that can persuade me persist over hundreds or thousands of years. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, the reason I was really digging into the cover class and the areas where we have changes increase or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: expansion or contraction of the eel grass is that it gets to what we call the 100% cover equivalency. Basically\, what that means is that looking at the total acreage of eel grass that we have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: if all of it\, if we collapsed it down so that all of it was at a hundred per cent. Covered. What acreage would we have then? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, if we look\, and and that is a better indicator of the bed health\, because that can tell us things about eel grass\, bed assumed productivity\, biomass\, and other metrics\, things like carbon storage. \nSo that is the dashed black line in the graph on the left-hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again we have that same variable but generally increasing patterns since 2\,003. But where is the total acreage from 2019 to 2022 increased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The 100% cover equivalency decreased. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Basically\, what is telling us is that we’re getting mixed messages and mixed signals from the eelgrass bed\, about how it’s how the how it’s doing from a health and productivity perspective \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the the second way that we’ve monitored. The bed is through aerial photography and Gis analysis. This has been done by Audubon\, California\, and has been repeated several times over the past several years \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as opposed to the side scanned sonar which takes\, gets a comprehensive map of all of the eelgrass in Richard Simbay. The aerial photography is really designed as a damage assessment. So we just photograph the area where eel grass and anchoring co-occur so that we can get a better understanding \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: of how much eel grass is damaged by anchor scour\, and how much recovery we see within those scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: as a reminder. Anchor scour is the damage that we see to the eel grass from Anchor’s Change\, another ground tackle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and these methods were \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: verified\, and by a peer reviewed journal that was published\, peer reviewed journal article that was published in 2019. And so we’ve been repeating the methods for several years since \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: This is this may be a familiar image to many of you. This is an example of the aerial photography that we receive. From these the aerial views that we receive from this photography. Now\, hopefully. Then\, if you go to the next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Yes\, that’s what I wanted to happen. What we’re doing is \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: looking specifically in roughly\, the area that is circled in blue here\, because that’s the area where we have both eel grass and anchoring. And so if when we zoom in to here\, we’re then able to say \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: how much of the eelgrass has been damaged from acre scour\, and you can see examples of what we call crop circles in this image\, depending on the clarity that you have on your screen. Basically the darker areas within this blue circle \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: or blue polygon. Those darker areas are eel grass and the circles that you see of lighter area within there. Those are the anchor scars or the crop circles that we’re talking about. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Next slide \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we can. On the left is a more close up view of what we’re able to see in that photography. And the anchor scars that we’re able to document \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand. Oh\, not yet on the right hand side \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re looking at anchor scour. So basically\, if we add up the acreage of those of all those circles\, how much damage do we have? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: We have results from 2017\, 2021\, and 2022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Our methods provide both a low and high estimate for total anchor scour \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: back in 2017\, which is the first time this method was done\, we saw between 50 and 85 acres\, or 8\, sorry 50 and 84 acres \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: in 2021. That high estimate was even higher. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And then in 22\, we’re really seeing a plateau of the damage. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is great news over all. We’re not seeing \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: robust recovery yet overall in the bed\, but we have it\, but we have seen \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: a plateau in the damage\, which is great news. We’ve at least stemmed the tide of ongoing anchor scour. Next slide a couple of notes about these damage assessments. In 2022 there was an area of unknown damage to the bed\, and it’s suspected that was a harmful algal bloom. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that limited some of the interpretations we could make of the data next slide in 2023. The assessment actually wasn’t possible \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: because there was what’s called a macro algal mat\, basically\, a large \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: film of algae over the eel grass bed that was obscuring it from view. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: And now these photographs cannot be taken at any time of the year\, so we couldn’t just wait for that to go away\, because the photographs have to be taken during the summer\, when the eel grass is at its maximum extent. It is a perennial plant. It grows and dies back each year\, so we need to take it during the summer. \nand it has to be taken at an extreme low tide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: so unfortunately\, that Macro Algolat happened during those windows of when we could have taken the photograph\, so we were not able to do the survey in 2023\, \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: some additional findings that I wanted to share. So what we have. In these photographs here. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the left hand side we have some examples of where we’ve seen recovery within anchor scars. So on top are the images from 2021\, and on the bottom are the images from 2022. The green circles on the left are the same in each photograph\, and you can see we can see robust regrowth of eel grass within specific eelgrass scars \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: on the right hand side. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: It’s the same years of images\, but these are examples of scars where we have not yet seen recovery. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So this is again\, both good news\, but also mixed news. The good news is that \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: again\, we’re demonstrating that as vessels are removed from the eograss protection zone we can expect for the eelgrass to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: But if you’ll notice\, on the left hand side\, where we do see recovery\, those circles in 2021. They don’t have boats in them. We don’t know exactly what year those vessels were removed\, so from 2021 to 2022 \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: seems on our end as one year of recovery. But those scars actually could have been recovering for several years\, whereas on the right hand side\, where we don’t see the recovery in 2021. The boats are still there in 2022. They’re not there. So what this suggests is that it takes more than one year for the anchor scars to recover. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: which is good data for us to have\, because we don’t. Actually. there’s there’s not a lot of documented cases that can tell us how long we should expect it to take for these scars to restore themselves next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The last area of monitoring that we’ve been doing is our water bird monitoring\, and really the goal for this was to see where in Richardson Bay large groups of birds are doing what are codes called rafting\, which is when large groups of birds together rest on the base surface\, and they can rest in groups of up to 10\,000 birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: The reason we’re looking at. This is because we wanted to know as we change the pattern of where boats are anchoring in Richardson Bay. Are we also seeing a change in the pattern of where birds are using the bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: What we’ve seen here. So on the left hand side\, these are all of the drone. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are the I’m sorry. On the left hand side. It’s the results from the 6 drone surveys that we did during the 2022\, 2023 monitoring year. \nSo each of those image 6 images represents one survey. The red dots are where we see the rafts of birds. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now we\, similar to previous years. We continue to see rats primarily along the northern and eastern shorelines. So so far we have not seen any change in how birds are using the bay \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay\, that was a lot of data\, a lot of graphs\, a lot of information\, some major takeaways from that information. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: So the good news is that the damage to eel grass from anchor scour appears to have plateaued. and we continue to see evidence of eel grass recovery \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the less good \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: the overall health of the bed is questionable because we’re seeing an increase in that very sparse cover class. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: These are likely due to things like thermal stress\, wasting disease\, algal competition all things that are expected to increase with climate change. So the biggest takeaway from this is that\, given these known stressors that are going to continue to \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: stressed the eel grass in Richardson Bay. protecting and restoring the bed is more crucial now than ever. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg (she/her) – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe I now hand it over to Jim\, but I will also be here at the end to answer any questions. \nRBRA: Morning. Thank you very much\, Rebecca. My name is Jim Malcolm\, the Harbor master for Richardson Bay Regional Agency going to talk this morning about our vessel census and status of vessels out on the anchorage to open our vessel census. We are currently our vessel. Census continues to drop. \nRBRA: We are as of December. We are sitting at 43 vessels. There has actually been. There has been a change to this\, but it went down by one and went back up by one. So we still sit at 43 vessels for January next slide\, please. \nRBRA: I’ll now go through the milestones individually\, and kind of discuss our trending for each milestone. Our first one is the post 2019 vessels as Director Gross had mentioned. In August we had\, we were at 14 of those post\, 2\,019 vessels. We currently in December. We are at 7\, and probably by the end of the week we’ll be sitting at 6. Post 2\,000 vessels \nRBRA: for our floating homes again\, as Director Gross have mentioned. In A. We were 2 in August\, and now we are down to our one remaining floating home. \nRBRA: our vessels in the Ap. In the eel grass protection zone 53. And we’re present last July 42 in August. And now we are down to 35 \nRBRA: and this is efforts through both vessel removals and efforts to \nRBRA: move vessels out of the eel grass protection zone into the actual anchoring zone. This will \nRBRA: be this number will continue to drop as we move forward on our signage project. And yeah\, actually mark out where the anchorage is\, and we continue on our efforts towards relocating\, reap both relocating vessels into the actual anchorage out of the eel grass protection zone\, and remove vessels from the anchorage and remove vessels from the Bay completely. \nRBRA: Our our October fifteenth\, of 2\,026 deadline for all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels removed. There were 10 last June or 10 in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023\, and that number remains steady at 7. \nRBRA: Total vessels on the water. We were 57 last last July 48\, and August\, and as I mentioned\, 43\, \nRBRA: and then\, in addition to that\, we have our th vessels that are present legally present under a 30 day permit. We have that numbers actually change since December. We now have 6 \nRBRA: 30 day permits. However\, 3 of those have overstayed their permit\, and are in various mechanisms of enforcement to have those vessels depart \nRBRA: next slide\, please. \nRBRA: 6. As I mentioned\, the this is the part of our efforts to work with the vessels that are over staying there. 30 day permits 6 citations were issued as of last December\, that numbers actually increased to 7 \nRBRA: 7 citations issued 3 initial. \nRBRA: 2Â s and one third. Actually\, that has increased by another. Third note\, third citation for a vessel. All of the citations that have been issued so far are for the Rba code section for entering in excess of 72Â h. \nRBRA: 2 nuisance abatements\, 2 nuisance abatement processes have been commenced one is on our one remaining floating home\, which we’ve put a stay on while the \nRBRA: responsible party for that floating home as their extension to remove the vessel\, and another nuisance abate. Note. Nuisance\, abatement. Notice will be going to a hearing next week. \nRBRA: All vessels are due to vacate the anchorage. By October fifteenth\, 2024\, with the exception of the 7 safe and seaworthy vessels all vessels that were due to vacate were issued a 12 month advance notice last October. \nRBRA: The a copy of the notices on the slide here. \nRBRA: Our plan is to prepare another notice for January\, and then\, as we progress into the summer\, the the number of notices \nRBRA: will increase in frequency \nRBRA: as vessels\, and then hopefully\, all vessels will also\, the number of vessels on the anchorage will decrease as we increase our both enforcement efforts and notice \nRBRA: and education efforts towards where vessels can legally anchor\, and which vessels are to be removed. \nRBRA: Finally\, for enforcement\, our planning is underway as director. Gross message mentioned for our signage and posting for the anchorage. 5 signs are to be to place on existing piles. \nRBRA: We have already identified the owners of those piles and have been in touch with them. and installation of one new pile and 3 floating buoys will be put in place to mark the actual bounds of the legal anchorage. \nRBRA: Plans are also underway to create the permit and submit to Bcd staff \nRBRA: permits are not yet submitted. The effective date for the permits will be this October and then all vessels in the Egrass protection zone as I mentioned\, did receive a 12 month notice to vacate\, and they’ll be receiving another mo another notice \nRBRA: this month. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and that concludes my portion. And now I’m gonna turn it back over to Director Gross\, however\, similar to Rebecca. I will be remaining for the end of the presentation for any questions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. And thank you again\, Commissioners. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna talk about our housing program now\, and how this all ties in with the vessels in the anchorage and the eel grass improvements that we’re planning\, as I’ve stated in the past our housing program is comprised by 4 components funding temporary housing support \nBrad Gross: case management and marina participations. And I’ve talked about all this in the past and just gonna go through it really quick our funding. 3 million dollars was received in March of 2023\, with thanks to Senator Mcguire for his support. The program began seeking applications in May of 2023\, and to date there’s been over a hundred $80\,000 expended into the program. \nBrad Gross: moving on Rbra rent housing authority contract was approved. We discussed their prefunding of $30\,000 last time we met with another $86\,000 provided to health and human services. \nBrad Gross: The contract between Health and Human Services and Episcopal community services for case management was approved in August of 2023 and Ecs. Has established a well received landside meeting dates in Sausalito. \nBrad Gross: and recently began there on the water outreach effort. I think the last time we talked. We were still looking for that full time case worker\, and that full time case worker with Ecs did begin employment very successfully\, I might say\, in October of 2023. \nBrad Gross: Regarding the Marina’s activities during this reporting period one marina is now committed\, and one marina has withdrawn participation. We are still seeking marinas\, not just in the Sausalito area\, but surrounding areas that are interested in assisting our bra and our programs to relocate the qualified vessels to Marinas. \nBrad Gross: This\, at a previous meeting this committee approved an extension for the post 2019 vessels that I mentioned earlier and harbor Master Malcolm mentioned\, and as part of that approval of that extension we \nBrad Gross: committed to providing this slide\, and this is a spreadsheet of tracking their progress. As you can see. \nBrad Gross: all but 3 vessels are either gone or engaged in some forward fashion in the program. So I wanna thank the committee. The Commission again for the extension\, because it’s proved to be very successful. We are working to get the last 3 folks engaged\, and the a few of these. I I’m not privy to the names of the people who have received vouchers\, but a few of these people I do know on this slide have vouchers and are actively seeking housing right now. \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing voucher program. There are 4 persons that are now housed. This again. This slide is a month dated there are 10 persons that are participating. I know that number is now 11\, which includes the 4 persons that are housed. 5 persons are in the queue to participate \nBrad Gross: with 2 persons that have a voucher and one pending as of last month. But as of today\, there are actually 6 people with vouchers that are actively seeking \nBrad Gross: housing. \nBrad Gross: What that important to us is that those 6 people relate to 6 more vessels being off the anchorage by the time. These soon after these folks get their housing\, and 4 vessels have been purchased via the vessel buyback program. Once those 6 people with vouchers are housed\, we anticipate getting those vessels which would bring us up into double digits vessels turned in via the vessel. Buy back program. \nBrad Gross: Now\, this is a new slide. You haven’t seen this one before but this slide\, and I’d like to explain it quickly. The the top 2 lines represent the vessels and the floating homes in the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: The bottom 7 lines represent our different supported programs like floating homes turned in persons\, house persons and process and remaining floating homes\, vessels turned in\, total vessels of loading homes turned in\, and persons with with vouchers. \nBrad Gross: and\, as you can see\, all the lines representing the ve. The vessels along the top are trending down. \nBrad Gross: and program related. Lines of vessels and floating home surged in persons with the vouchers. And most importantly\, persons housed are all trending up \nBrad Gross: and over the next few months we will see these lines eventually intercept and ultimately completely switch sides\, top to bottom\, which would be representing more successes in our programs. This is a very exciting trend that we’re seeing. And at our next presentation\, I think\, this. This slide will be very telling. \nBrad Gross: with that I want to \nBrad Gross: close\, and I’ll acknowledge this committee and BC. DC. Staff for their flexibility to work with us and our Bra\, and to explore \nBrad Gross: creative and common sense solutions to achieve our common goals. I’m convinced that this type of innovative and collaborative work will prove successful in the end. Thank you very much for your time and letting us present our latest achievements. If there are any questions \nBrad Gross: myself. Our master\, Malcolm and Rebecca Short Lustburg would be glad to answer them. Thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much for that very comprehensive \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: presentation \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I think I’m gonna ask the committee if you will hold all your questions. Until we hear the city of Sausalito. I know that was a lot of information. But I know you guys probably took great notes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So Adrian\, do you have an introduction for the city of Sausalita. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair Gilmore. Again. It is brief and follows the identical format. \nBoardroom SX80: So maybe\, Brad\, if you unshare your screen\, please and \nBoardroom SX80: If I could kindly ask Mtc. To share Adrian. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Goma\, we have. Barbara Salzman would like to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Well\, I just had. \nBoardroom SX80: You’re muted chair. \nBoardroom SX80: chair. Gilmore\, you’re muted. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m sorry. Is Miss Salzman part of the presentation? Or is this public comment. \nBoardroom SX80: public comment\, public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we’re gonna hold public comment until later. We’re gonna go through the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, and then we’ll take questions and comments from committee members\, and then we will take public comments. So that’s kind of the way I see the scope \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So Miss Klein\, would you please give your introduction to the city of Sausalito’s presentation\, please? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, I’d be happy to thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Adrian Klein. \nBoardroom SX80: So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Again. These are the 10 sections of the city of Sausalito settlement agreement between BCDC. \nBoardroom SX80: And I believe the focus of their presentation today will be on vessel removal and eel grass\, habitat mitigation and damage next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: Most relevant is that \nBoardroom SX80: the city requested and received an extension mentioned earlier today by Matthew \nBoardroom SX80: to remove a the largest of the anchor outs known as the Fedora \nBoardroom SX80: from December 30\, first to March thirty-first. For reasons similar to those described by the Rba this will promote voluntary resolution. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: This \nBoardroom SX80: image outlines the settlement agreement\, provisions relating to illgress\, habitat mitigation\, and damage avoidance. \nBoardroom SX80: I’ll give you a chance to just glance through that. \nBoardroom SX80: And if that’s enough time next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: And this is a summary of the actions by the city and BC. DC. On this eel Grass Restoration plan. Most relevant is that in the summer and the fall we received an excellent draft eelgrass Restoration plan\, provided some comments on 2 occasions and also received input from third party experts. \nBoardroom SX80: We’re continuing as we do with the Rba to meet monthly we are. \nBoardroom SX80: The city is preparing to submit its I believe\, final eel grass restoration plan. Soon. We’re in agreement on the majority of the components of that plan \nBoardroom SX80: with some discussion around the total acreage that will be \nBoardroom SX80: planted\, and whether the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: goal of one to 2 mitigation to one acre impact is a requirement. and I believe the city may address that\, but we just wanted to \nBoardroom SX80: share that \nBoardroom SX80: question. That’s on the table with you. Thank you very much. I’ll turn this over. I would expect first to councilmember Joan Cox\, who will then go ahead\, I believe\, and introduce her staff. Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: and we could unshare the VCDC. Presentation to allow the city to share its presentation. Thank you very much. \nJoan Cox: Thank you so much. Adrienne\, and good morning\, Chair Gilmore and members \nJoan Cox: of the Enforcement Committee. This is our triannual update to the Enforcement Committee. My name is Joan Cox\, and I’m the vice mayor for \nJoan Cox: Sausalita. \nJoan Cox: Here’s an outline of the topics that we will cover today. We’ll start off with our waterfront management update \nJoan Cox: provided by sassy police \nJoan Cox: the department Brian Mathers. Then we will have a report on our regional cooperation in housing presented by our community and economic development. Director Brandon. \nJoan Cox: Then our resiliency and sustainability manager Katie throw Garcia will provide an update on the eel grass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance plan and I’ll include some comments there and then we will close and \nJoan Cox: be available for questions. So with that I’ll turn it over to \nJoan Cox: Brian matters. \nBrian Mather: Good morning\, everybody. Thanks for having me. \nBrian Mather: So I’ll go over a brief review of our waterfront management. So currently we have 5 total vessels in our anchorage. Right now\, what? That’s actually a reduction from the last meeting or triannual update\, I believe. We had. \nBrian Mather: We had 5 legacy and and one extra. So there were 6. So next slide\, please. \nBrian Mather: if we have a slide next slide. \nBrian Mather: anyway. So what we have is for legacy anchor routes. We actually ended up one of our legacy members ended up \nBrian Mather: getting ill. And so we’ve removed that person from the water\, and we’re working on housing for that person currently. The \nso the main issue or the main focus right now is the vendor\, as you see\, and that’s why we asked for the extension \nBrian Mather: and it was granted. So we appreciate that. So we’ve been in communication with the owner. We’ve been trying to work with the owner. There’s been some delays in the cooperation with the owner. And so we’ve been actively and currently are still actively working on the enforcement piece of that\, and are hoping to have that done within the next \nBrian Mather: month or so. But you know\, with whether finances staffing for marine assets and everything else\, it it’s a pretty complicated venture\, because it’s a very large boat. \nBrian Mather: So we’re we’re doing 2 things trying to get cooperation still from the owner and also working on the enforcement end of it\, if if that needs to take place. \nBrian Mather: So that’s the the end of our update. As far as our waterfront management. We haven’t had any. We had 2 vessels come in in the last month we were able to get them to move on within the 72Â h period\, in accordance with our State ordinance. \nBrian Mather: So that’s where we stand at this moment. If there’s any questions after\, I’ll be standing by for any questions. \nJoan Cox: thank you. And with that we’ll turn to Brandon Phipps\, our community Development Director. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Good morning\, Chair\, Gilmore\, Dcdc. Members and members of the public as Vice Mayor Cox mentioned. My name is Brandon Phipps\, Community and Economic Development Director. With so solido. Glad to be addressing you today to provide a brief update in connection with Section 3\, a per agreement related to regional cooperation and the development of resources\, and taking\, if necessary\, actions to support housing opportunities for anchor outs and Richardson Bay. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Regarding ad use. The city recently updated its adu ordinance to comply with State adu law. More specifically\, this item was approved with recommendations by the planning Commission in July was adopted by City Council in October. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: The Community Development Department continues to track new housing policy at the State level and may be required to make additional updates to our ordinance this year in order to continue to be compliant\, and we certainly intend to do that as required. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: Additionally\, I’ll just briefly speak to this. On January 5 of this year the city of Sausalito released a public comment draft environmental impact report for the implementation of our housing element programs. And this document has been prepared to address \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project\, that being our housing element\, but particularly as related to the rezoning and selected opportunity sites at higher densities\, and this is all required under the California Environmental Quality Act. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: So the draft Eir will be circulated for a 45 day review period\, during which comments on the draft Eir may be submitted to the city\, and I hope this goes without saying. But the city welcomes any comments from the Bcd. On the public comment Draft Eir\, which is posted to our website. And I am happy to \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: provide any personal contact information or follow up with individual BC. DC members. If there are any questions\, that will do it for my update this morning. Thank you all for your time today\, and I will now pass the mic to our illgress. Consultant Robert Moody\, who will discuss excuse me\, I will pass the mic to Katie. Back. Garcia. Go ahead\, Katie. Thank you. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Thank you so much. Brandon. I’m here to present the the city’s progress on illgrass habitat mitigation and damage avoidance. In the blue text on the left you can see the the status updates which Adrian also presented which which have been presented to the Enforcement Committee prior to this meeting today in the text\, \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on in the red. You will see our our updates from the most recent Enforcement Committee meeting\, which took place on August 20 third\, where we provided an update \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: on October eleventh we received A. BC DC. Response to expert review on our draft Eelgrass restoration Plan. \nCatie Thow Garcia\, CIty of Sausalito: Following this\, South\, Ludo submitted a summary of future eel Grass Restoration Plan efforts on November twenty-seventh\, which included the city’s offer of additional protection measures rec recommended by regional experts. As far as this. This is the brief update on eel grass habitat from my end\, and I will. I will pass it on to Vice. Mayor Cox. \nBrandon Phipps\, Community & Econ. Dev. Director\, Sausalito: vice Mayor\, I think you’re on mute. Excuse me. \nJoan Cox: thank you. Thank you\, Katie. \nJoan Cox: so I would like to address the issue that Adrian Klein made mention of during her introductory comments\, and that is the requirement of the settlement agreement. So the settlement agreement with the city of Sausalito States \nJoan Cox: quote goals in the plan will include compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than 1.2 to one mitigation area to impact area. So the settlement agreement says\, goals in the plan will include \nJoan Cox: on these and and indeed\, \nJoan Cox: that is important. Because the it’s important that it’d be a goal and not a requirement\, because it may actually be be infeasible. \nJoan Cox: So \nJoan Cox: on July 31\, 2023 regional experts\, lawyer and Merkel\, as well as coastal policy solutions opined that the 1.2 to one mitigation ratio could be infeasible to attain. Given Richardson Bay’s Natural Geomorphology and ability to support ingress. \nJoan Cox: It was therefore suggested that the settlement agreement be revisited. \nJoan Cox: And so\, on August seventeenth\, 2023\, I requested that Pcdc. Council provide a written analysis of Bcd. C’s position \nJoan Cox: without ever providing us with that analysis. BC DC. Staff on December thirteenth\, for the first time\, announced that the 1.2 to one ratio in the settlement agreement is a requirement and not just a goal. \nJoan Cox: as stated in the executed settlement agreement. It’s it baffles me that \nJoan Cox: the sentence in settlement agreement States goals in the plan will include\, and that BC. DC. Staff is now taking a position that this is a requirement in contravention of what regional experts opine is feasible. \nJoan Cox: So converting a goal into a requirement appears to be setting the city up for failure. \nJoan Cox: And this is very puzzling to me\, because we have a long history of cooperation and rapid progress toward meeting BC. DC. Goals\, and we would prefer to continue to work collaboratively\, moving forward. \nJoan Cox: It also is notable to me that this \nJoan Cox: goal is not in the settlement agreement with Rbra. \nJoan Cox: I noticed that this morning\, during Adrian Klein’s presentation that language does not appear in their settlement agreement. So why is BC. DC. Turning a goal into a requirement and insisting upon that goal only against the city of Sausalito\, and not \nJoan Cox: the Rvra. So \nJoan Cox: II hate to close on a challenging note. But this is an issue of great concern to the city. \nJoan Cox: And with that that concludes our presentation\, and we’re available to answer any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. The this committee thanks Ra. And the city of Sausalito’s representatives for the briefings. For being here and the time that it took to craft presentations. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this point\, do any of the Enforcement Committee members have \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: questions for either staff or for our guests. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any. \nBoardroom SX80: No questions. Actually\, Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t. I can’t see her on the screen. So it’s difficult. That’s the problem with showing up in person actually less visible. \nBoardroom SX80: Ii have a number of questions I did try to take notes as you suggested. Chair Gilmore\, but stick with me as I go back through the slides. \nBoardroom SX80: So with respect to the the \nBoardroom SX80: requests for extension that we’ve been told about today. \nBoardroom SX80: I am wondering\, and I guess I would go back to Director Gross. I’m going all the way back to the beginning of the slides. I think I heard from Adrian that the reason for those requests was to promote voluntary resolution. I think that was the phrase Adrianism. Yeah. \nSo I am wondering what? What exactly that means. What are we trying to reach some kind of a settlement agreement \nBoardroom SX80: in lieu of some kind of enforcement action. With respect to a couple of these vessels \nBrad Gross: for the question\, I appreciate it\, and no\, we are not looking for a settlement. We are actually\, we’re looking for a a conclusion. We’re looking for an amicable conclusion\, which is\, I’ll give you an example of the first floating home who was\, provided a 60 day extension. He worked diligently\, and was able to \nwith the assistance of the flexibility of this committee. \nBrad Gross: Get into a legal liverboard slip with this loading hall. \nBrad Gross: the next floating home that we’re working on. He claimed. We. We went through the citation process. We went through the abatement process. We are ready to move forward with a warrant if necessary\, but I thought it was\, \nBrad Gross: a a better solution to give him one more opportunity to get his boat relocated\, or turn it into our bra for proper disposal as opposed to \nBrad Gross: going through legal action\, II have to tell you\, and it’s no secret rvra is a very small agency with a very small budget with very high insurance costs all related to litigation. \nBrad Gross: Because of the actions that we’re taking. We will take those actions\, but it’s makes more sense to us to \nBrad Gross: give folks ample opportunity to abide by the regulations. Ultimately \nBrad Gross: this last vessel that got the extension and the other vessels got the extension \nBrad Gross: will be removed hopefully those folks will be housed. But \nBrad Gross: A perfect example is that if if we force people out of our anchorage. \nBrad Gross: they end up being a liability to somebody else. They move somewhere else. I could tell you that some of the the vessels that were really recently removed from saw Slato anchorage on the 72Â h notice simply made it over to our anchorage\, and one of them \nBrad Gross: is on a 30 day. Permit one of them’s getting a citation. So it’s become our problem. And we don’t want to. We don’t want to incur that type of oppression and any other agency. So working with these\, with the committee and these extensions\, I believe\, allows us\, and allows the voters ample time to take the correct actions. \nBoardroom SX80: Yep. \nwell\, I totally appreciate that these are in enormously complex \nBoardroom SX80: but what I’m trying to understand\, because we’ve heard now reports of regularly\, and each time there are sort of more and more \nBoardroom SX80: discussions about extensions\, but on the milestone slide one of the original slides. It’s the one with the black oyster catchers on it. \nI’m wondering if there is \nBoardroom SX80: any anticipation that there will be more requests for extension beyond the ones that have. \nBoardroom SX80: Just been provided. \nBrad Gross: That’s a great question. And and with in all honesty\, we are sitting with \nBrad Gross: over 30\, about 35 people who qualify for housing voucher program. \nBrad Gross: We have 6 factors out right now. We have\, according to our colleagues from health and human services. And we’re in housing authority. \nBrad Gross: They’re figuring we’re going to be able to get another 13 of them house within the year. As I told this committee\, and anybody who will listen\, we’re figuring they can house about 2 a month. So and all\, honestly\, yeah\, we’ll probably be back in close to 2\,024 to say\, look\, we’ve got a successful program. We’ve house 20 people. We remove 20 boats. We have a dozen left. We’re going to need some more time with them. \nBrad Gross: And I’m hoping that the this committee will see the wisdom in providing extensions if they’re required. As long as we are proving that the program is successful\, it’s really just as you know. The officers from Salsa said. It’s a time money staffing issue. Convincing \nBrad Gross: landlords to take these folks\, which isn’t really a problem. It’s just really a a timing and processing to get these people through the system. If we had. \nBrad Gross: you know\, we were\, we were allotted 3 million dollars. If we were allotted 6 million dollars we would have been able to bring in double the staff and put and house double the people. But we’re working diligently. We’re working successfully. It’s all proving to be working. So we’re hoping that if we do come that this committee will see the wisdom and providing another extension if required. \nBoardroom SX80: And II recognize that there’s a balancing act that goes on in terms of you know what what you achieve by an extension versus what you lose by an extension. But from what I understand from the eelgrass presentations both from the Rbra and Sausalito\, is that as these vessels continue to sit out there\, we continue to have \nBoardroom SX80: consequences to the eel grass which themselves require money and time to restore\, and to get back to where we should have been\, especially at this \nBoardroom SX80: critical time in our history\, where we have to do everything we can to capture carbon. So I’m hoping all of that is being balanced as we move through this problem. And along those lines. I’m wondering with respect to the Fedura. So now I’m sort of switching to Sausalito for a second. How long has it been that we have been \nBoardroom SX80: working with this particular owner? \nJoan Cox: When did we start that process. We’ve been working with this owner since since I’ve been involved in 2\,017 and perhaps longer. \nJoan Cox: Can provide an update. It it the last I understood. It looks as though we actually may have to \nJoan Cox: it it when it’s not entirely here\, we may actually have to undertake removal \nJoan Cox: through the enforcement process. But I’ll let Lieutenant another address. That group. \nBrian Mather: Yes\, Vice Mayor\, that’s accurate. You know we we’ve been engaged in some lengthy conversations\, and you know it’s turned into \nBrian Mather: the owner and the rep representatives not responding and getting legal aid. And and so there’s some stall tact\, tactics involved in that. So you know\, the city side at this point is enforcement. We’re hoping that maybe during the enforcement period that \nBrian Mather: they wake up and decide to actually take custody of their boat and and take care of it. But then\, you know\, like our bra says\, you know\, we run the risk of them moving that boat just into to their jurisdiction. We don’t want that\, and we’re not gonna allow that. So it’s a delicate situation. With resources\, and also taking people’s property and litigation. And what could happen after that? So we’re trying to do this right? \nBrian Mather: And that’s why we requested that extension is we gotta make sure we do this right for all parties involved and not rush into this. I know we\, the books\, been here for 26 years. So \nwe’re not trying to do this hastily. Here\, we’re just trying to do it right so. \nJoan Cox: And I will say\, you know\, we undertook the expense of doing a survey of the boat to see whether the boat is still salvageable. At this point the boat is actually considered to be marine debris under the definition. And so but we’ve made every effort to identify creative solutions. At this point. \nJoan Cox: Given this looming deadline we’ve into the enforcement approach. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, if you’re saying that we have been trying to resolve this for 6 going on 7 years now\, yeah\, it really does think sound like the time is \nBoardroom SX80: ripe for moving to a different strategy than trying to get voluntary cooperation. But \nBoardroom SX80: at the last the last question I have\, and I’m I’m sorry to hear. \nThat a dispute has arisen between Sausalito and our staff\, because we have commented on each and every one of these presentations \nBoardroom SX80: about the thoroughness and the cooperation\, and how pleased we are at how things are moving. So I it’s concerning that we’ve had maybe the first of our sort of bumps in the road together. I’m I don’t know enough about this issue to ask even intelligent questions\, but it seemed to me \nBoardroom SX80: that when we set forth the 1.2 to one goal in the settlement agreement in the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: that there must have been some basis for thinking that was possible. So one of the things I would want to know\, maybe as we move forward is what has changed to make that now sound like it’s impossible. \nBoardroom SX80: because at at least a couple of years ago it sounds like it was considered feasible enough to set it as a goal. So that’s just a comment. I’m not really expecting a response. But that \nBoardroom SX80: is something that I think you know needs to be explored for for our committee. That’s all I have\, Mr. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Commissioner Eisen. Any other committee members \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: have questions or comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanna weigh in on that last point about the the settlement agreement. And I think this is going to be right for \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either a future briefing by staff or the next time. Our scheduled briefing with the city of Sausalito. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Not only do I wanna know\, along with Commissioner Eisen is what’s changed between the time we entered into the agreement. And now that makes this infeasible. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I would like to hear from the the experts\, or or get more information on their expert opinion as to why it’s infeasible. And also Staff’s response to that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just basically like to have a discussion. So we can understand a little bit more clearly. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The the facts of the situation. So that’s all I’m gonna say for now. And obviously I don’t expect \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a comment. Now this is for a a future meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said that\, I’m going to ask if there’s any public comment on this item\, I know we had one hand raised earlier. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So first of all\, is there anybody in in the room \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that would like to speak? \nBoardroom SX80: Non\, chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so then let’s go to the commenter \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: who attended this stage previously. \nBoardroom SX80: we have an online public comment from Barbara Salzman. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. go ahead. I believe you have 3Â min to speak. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Barbara Saulson. I represent them more in Audubon society\, and I first like to commend Rebecca for her good presentation. And also say that I assume that we could just contact you for a copy of the record report\, because\, yeah\, we I don’t have that \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and secondly\, about the RA presentation. There was a mention. I don’t think we need to spend a lot of time on this\, but there was a mention of going to other marine is in the vicinity for a possible relocation. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: and that does raise some concern for me because I it was my\, it’s been my understanding that Marina is a really only allowed to have liver boards or or people living on their boats for protection purposes. And it’s very limited. So I do have to raise. It’s a question of how how realistic that is as a as a \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: a relocation \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: potential moving forward because II wouldn’t. You wouldn’t be wanting to move people as to other marine is where it’s not legal\, of course. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: And thirdly\, with regard to to Sausalito and the the the apparent change here in in requirements. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, I’d like to point out the source of lead\, though it’s really been in the forefront of moving this along. They they they took the initial action\, and they are continuing our small city and they’re continuing to make in my view efforts and I would hope that this would be clarified and the the good point made by the city that it’s now changed to a requirement. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: II if II find it \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: You know\, unexplainable. Why\, why\, that’s taking place\, and so maybe something’s going on that I don’t understand. But I’ve been involved in this a long time\, and I do think that it’s not fair to have 1 one jurisdiction ha! Having to make certain requirements that are pretty \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: owner is\, and and the other jurisdiction\, I mean\, I want success for everybody but the other jurisdiction not having to \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: have that requirement. So I hope you consider that. \nbarbara salzman marin audubon society: Thanks a lot. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. \nBoardroom SX80: Do we have any other? \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry\, that’s all we have here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. One last chance for any committee members to make a final comment or question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing then\, once again\, I want to extend the committee’s thanks to both the Rba and the city of Sausledo for very comprehensive and informative presentations today. Thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So now we move on to Item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It is a staff presentation\, and a vote on a post recommend recommended decision to adopt a settlement agreement to be entered into with Roger Stan Bridge\, of Alameda\, City and County. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement\, it will be put up for a vote of approval or rejection by the full Commission at its January eighteenth. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, which is located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco City and county\, and that meeting begins at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, after the staff gives her presentation\, I will ask\, respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will hold public comment on this item\, and then afterwards we\, the committee\, will hold our discussion and vote on the staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, at this time. Will. The representative or representatives of the respondents. Please identify themselves for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Margie\, just this is Adrian Klein. Just inform me\, Mister Standridge had been online\, but he is working. So it seems that we’ve lost him at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you for that. But clearly he has been notified of the meeting and he was here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we will. Go ahead and proceed with policy enforcement analyst Adrian Klein. Will give her her presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore. May I have the item? 7 slide? Thank you very much. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as per usual. This will be quite brief\, but we’ll run through location timeline of events. Summary of the violation and staff recommendation to the Enforcement Committee next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the site addresses 3 0 2 5 Marina. Drive in the city and county of Alameda the Red Arrow is pointing roughly to the address on the Alameda shoreline next slide\, please. Zooming in a second Google Earth image \nBoardroom SX80: next slide\, please\, when you’re ready. Thank you so much. There may be a little lag. So this red arrow is now pointing to \nBoardroom SX80: 3025\, Marina drive. \nBoardroom SX80: and you can see a single boat dock with a white boat. The single boat dock is the \nBoardroom SX80: subject of this proceeding. Next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So as you will have read in the staff\, recommended Enforcement decision. There was a an existing boat\, Doc\, that was replaced in 2\,000 by a former owner\, who submitted\, but never filed as complete a permit application. The BC. DC. Staff did not pursue resolution of this violation. Between \nBoardroom SX80: the year 2\,000 \nBoardroom SX80: and the present in 2018\, Mr. Roger Standrich Pre. Purchased this property\, and in 2021 BC. DC. Or 2022 BC. DC. Staff\, initiated communications with Mister Sandridge to have him either remove the unauthorized Doc or submit \nBoardroom SX80: a complete permit application so that we could retroactively authorize the existing structure. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Standridge was not surprisingly surprised to be hearing from us and to to learn of this unauthorized structure. So\, despite the fact that he was initially not particularly responsive\, recently he’s been very responsive and cooperative. \nBoardroom SX80: so we did. He wasn’t responsive to our initial enforcement communication\, so we escalated to commence a formal enforcement proceeding. This hearing is the culmination of that he did respond to the violation report\, and indicated that he would like to settle rather than have a contested order\, and we were able to reach those terms which I will describe. So next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So this is just a single violation. For the failure to obtain a permit to replace a smaller replacement. Dock. So it is less bay fill than had been previously in place for a legitimate water oriented use of the bay next slide\, please. \nBoardroom SX80: So the terms which we have negotiated\, and both both Staff and Mister Standard Degree to our to either by the middle of February\, remove the unauthorized doc and gangway\, and submit photographic evidence or submit a filed application for the existing structures\, and to pay a $2\,000 penalty which Mr. Sandridge Hand delivered to the office yesterday. \nBoardroom SX80: and that concludes the staff presentation with that recommended recommended \nBoardroom SX80: decision for the committee. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Adrienne. Normally. This is where we would ask the respondent to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: affirm that he agrees with the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. Agreement. However\, he’s not here\, but I wanna point out again for the record that he has signed the settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: However. It does not become effective until the full Commission votes on it on January eighteenth\, 2024. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, having said\, all of that do any members have questions for Adrian at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any. Margie\, do we have any public comment on this item? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not hear Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I believe we didn’t have any written public comment prior to this correct \nBoardroom SX80: correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, great. So at this point in time\, I’ll need a motion and a second to approve \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Move the staff recommendation. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the it was a new spot. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So it was moved by Commissioner Eisen and seconded by Commissioner best kids. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and Matthew\, would you please call the roll? \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Bieland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Aye. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. Aye. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Commissioner Buscis. Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, so this item is concluded\, and I wanna remind everybody that the Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So February first\, or January eighteenth meeting. Excuse me. Chair. W. Would you mind for the record stating the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry\, unanimously \nBoardroom SX80: thank you. And \nBoardroom SX80: the next \nso you’re asking\, when is the next Commission meeting this? \nBoardroom SX80: Ph. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: yes. The next Commission meeting is the eighteenth. Is this gonna be heard on the eighteenth \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or February? First cause? I have 2 different notes here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, goodness\, I’m sorry about that. Let me make sure I get the right date out \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for public and for the record. \nBoardroom SX80: Let me get pull up that information for you. If you’ll \nBoardroom SX80: indulge me for a moment. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s it’s it’s on the agenda. \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry\, having trouble accessing the agenda. So I just wanna make sure I give you the correct information \nso \nexcellent. Tell me \nBoardroom SX80: I’m sorry I can’t. I can’t pull it up\, but I think it’s it. I just was told by Margie. She believes it’s perhaps February first\, in fact. \nBoardroom SX80: which makes sense. At this point. I am pulling up the agenda right now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and it is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay. I can confirm that it is not on \nBoardroom SX80: commission meeting. February first. Yes\, okay\, so it’s on the February First Commission meeting. I just got confirmation from rachel. Thank you\, Rachel. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So for the court reporter strike all references to this being held on January eighteenth. The correct date is February first\, 2024. The meeting will be held at 3 75 Field Street in San Francisco at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, thank you. Everybody. Item\, 8 is a \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: vote\, a hearing\, and a vote on the recommended Enforcement decision to resolve enforcement case er 2021 0 4 4.0 0. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So our next agenda item is a staff presentation and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt the settlement agreement to be entered into with Carl \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yohans Meyer\, of Tiburon\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt the recommended Enforcement decision\, which includes the proposed settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It will be put up for a vote \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: of approval or or rejection \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: by the full commission at its February first\, 2024\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: at the Metro Center\, located at 375 Beale Street. in San Francisco City and county\, starting at 10’clock. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, Matthew wants to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, actually\, I put my hand out. Sorry I wanted to make sure that you gave the right date there\, too. It’s also going to be February first. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So after the staff presentation\, I’m going to ask the respondent to affirm. It’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and afterwards the committee will hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives for the respondent please identify themselves for the record. \nJohn Sharp: Yes\, good morning. I’m John Sharp. I’m the attorney for Mr. Johan’s Meyer the owner of 5 blending lane in Belvedere. Not Tiburon. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you for being here today\, and welcome. So I will. I will now invite enforcement analyst Rachel Cone to give her opening remarks. Rachel. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Just one moment while I share my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And \nBoardroom SX80: does that look okay for everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: okay. \nBoardroom SX80: So good morning chair\, Gilmore\, committee\, members and all in attendance today I’ll present Enforcement case number er 2021 dot 0 4 dot 0 0 \nBoardroom SX80: for which the respondent is Mr. Carl H. Johansmeyer\, represented today by Attorney John Sharp\, and thanks Mr. Sharp\, for being here. \nBoardroom SX80: I will begin by familiarizing you with the location of the violation\, followed by a timeline of events\, and then end by summarizing the violation and finally presenting the staff’s recommendation. \nBoardroom SX80: So there are 2 images on this slide. The one on the left is a zoomed out vicinity map\, and the one on the right focuses in more closely on the location of the violation. There is a red PIN on each image at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere Island\, Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: and the home is close to the southern tip of Belvedere island and faces east. \nBoardroom SX80: This is a photo of the property from the lower shoreline area taken facing west\, and there’s a yellow oval outlining the specific location of the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On this slide the image on the left side of the screen shows the violation more closely. The respondent has represented that there was a fence surrounding this property for the past century\, and they needed to replace an 11 foot 2 inch long. Section of a 6 foot tall wire fence in approximately 2021 \nBoardroom SX80: that 11 foot 2 inch long. Section is the section that the respondent needed. Bcdc authorization prior to placing. \nBoardroom SX80: And I’ll now take you through the timeline of events in this case. So in May of 2021 BC. DC. Enforcement staff received a report from City of Belvedere Staff\, alleging that unpermitted fencing had been installed on the property of 5 Blanding lane within BC. DC’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction \nBoardroom SX80: BC DC. Opened enforcement case er 2021 dot 0 4 0 0\, and made initial contact with respondents authorized Representative Attorney John Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: between May and June of 2021 respondent\, and Mr. Sharp informed Staff that they were meeting with consultants and a surveyor\, and had hired an architect\, indicating that they were beginning to put together initial application materials to seek and obtain after the fact permit for the fence replacement. \nBoardroom SX80: In September of 2021 city of Belvedere staff and a surveyor conducted a site visit at 5 Blanding Lane\, and reported their findings to BCDC. Staff\, who were unavailable to attend that day. \nBoardroom SX80: City staff confirmed that fencing had been placed on Mr. Johan’s Meyers property without permits. So with this information\, in October of 2021 Bcd. C. Staff issued a notice of violations to Mr. Johan’s Meyer\, initiating a standardized fine process which gave him 35 days to either remove the unpermitted fill\, or to seek and obtain a permit for the fence before standardized fines began accruing. \nBoardroom SX80: In March of 2022\, Mr. Sharp submitted an incomplete region. Wide permit application on behalf of the respondent\, seeking after-the-fact authorization for defense. \nBoardroom SX80: Then\, between October 2022 and October 2023\, Enforcement staff made several attempts to urge Mr. Johansmeyer to complete his Permit application and on October thirteenth\, 2\,023\, staff notified the respondent that the executive director was rescinding the opportunity to resolve the violation\, using the standardized fines. Process after determining that the respondent had not made a good faith effort to resolve the violation. \nBoardroom SX80: On October thirtieth\, 2023 staff mailed a violation report and complaint for administrative civil penalties to the respondent. \nBoardroom SX80: and finally\, on November thirtieth\, 2023 respondent and staff agreed to resolve this enforcement matter via the proposed settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: So to summarize the one violation is for the failure to obtain a Bcd C. Permit prior to placing fencing in Bcd. C’s 100 foot shoreline ban jurisdiction\, and this is in violation of section 6\, 6\, 3\, 2. A of the Mccoyer Petras Act \nBoardroom SX80: to resolve this case. Staff recommends that the Enforcement committee vote to recommend that the Commission authorizes the executive director to execute the proposed settlement agreement\, which requires respondent to \nBoardroom SX80: one pay $2\,500 in administrative civil liability within 30 days of executing the agreement\, and 2 by February 2820\, 24. Either remove the unauthorized fence and submit photographic evidence of the same\, or submit their filed application\, seeking after the fact authorization for the fence. And that concludes the staff’s presentation\, and I will stop sharing my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Rachel. At this point\, Mr. Sharp\, I’m gonna ask you if your client agrees to the terms and the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement. Yes\, my client does\, and I am authorized to state that he’s prepared to execute the agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great! Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do any Enforcement Committee members have any questions for either staff or for Mr. Sharp. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Go ahead. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. So just so that I’m understanding we sent a notice in March 2022\, that you have 35 days to fix this problem. \nBoardroom SX80: And now. a year and a half later. we’re settling it. Is that okay? What? What was happening in between then? Because. \nBoardroom SX80: what I’m worried about is the agreement says that they have to remove the fence or submit \nBoardroom SX80: the application which they said they were going to submit\, and really never did. So what happens if on February 2820 24\, \nBoardroom SX80: I mean\, we have. I don’t know how much effort has been put into this. We’re getting $2\,500 out of it. \nBoardroom SX80: What happens if yet again\, the respondent decides that they are going to neither remove the fence nor submit the proper application. \nBoardroom SX80: So that would then mean that the the settlement agreement goes away\, and we would commence formal enforcement through and and \nBoardroom SX80: require action through an order. Additional penalties we can seek\, because 2\,500 is not really going to be sufficient at that point. In time I would have to get back to you on that I’m not exactly sure. And how that would work. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, I think the Commission may want to know that before they vote on that\, because an awful lot of effort is being put into getting somebody to do what they really should have done a year ago. \nBoardroom SX80: so \nBoardroom SX80: that’s that’s all I have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Rebecca. I think you bring up a very good point. I think\, as part of the presentation to the full commission \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: given given the history\, I mean no disrespect. But given the history of this I think the Commission should be informed as to if there’s non compliance\, what the next steps are\, and what penalties could conceivably be levy for non-compliance? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions or comments by commission members\, committee members? Excuse me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Seeing then\, Margie\, do we have any public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: He no public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did we? I don’t believe we had any written comments prior to the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so one last time for committee members\, any final comments or questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time\, I would like a motion to approve the Executive Director directors recommended enforcement decision regarding proposed settlement agreement. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Someone \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I didn’t hear who moved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, we have a motion by Commissioner Billen\, and a second by Commissioner Vasquez. Matthew\, would you please call them Wrong \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Bielin. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, Commissioner Busque. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: so the motion passes unanimously. 4 0. And this item is concluded. The Commission is scheduled to hear and vote on this recommended Enforcement decision at its February first\, 2\,024 meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and that will be held at feels 375 Deal Street in San Francisco at 10’clock committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: So moved \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. Thank you very much. Everyone. Have a good day. We are adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240108T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240108T180000
DTSTAMP:20240614T163914Z
CREATED:20240127T083112Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T163914Z
UID:10000113-1704733200-1704736800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 8\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBoard Member Tom Leader will participate remotely in the meeting. \nPhysical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room First Floor 375 Beale StreetSan Francisco415-352-3657 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81620422280?pwd=dQumoXk9goaQYJJ1Rvb2lWc96hMy6Q.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID816 2042 2280 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summary for November 6\, 2023 Meeting  and the December 11\, 2023\nStaff Update\nPublic Comment Period\nDePave Park\, Alameda\, Alameda County; First Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its first pre-application review of a proposal by the City of Alameda to develop DePave Park at the former Naval Air Station Alameda\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. The proposed De-Pave Park Project is one in a series of waterfront public spaces surrounding the three sides of the Seaplane Lagoon in Alameda. The Project would involve creating an urban ecological park by removing much of the site’s existing World War II-era concrete runway spaces and onsite buildings; repurposing remaining materials for public access areas and amenities; and establishing new tidal wetlands\, a pilot eelgrass restoration area\, and other native habitats appropriate for San Francisco Bay. The project intends to maximize re-use of on-site materials and design the park as a model for open space and habitat restoration areas that can be adapted to sea level rise over time.(Schuyler Olsson) [415/352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits\n1301 Shoreway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; Second Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its second pre-application review of the proposal by Four Corners Properties to redevelop a 6.91-acre site with a life sciences campus at 1301 Shoreway Road in the City of Belmont\, San Mateo County. The project proposes to demolish the existing four-story office building on site and construct two 7- to 8-level office/R&D buildings and a 9-level parking garage. The project proposes both on-site and off-site public access improvements\, including constructing a new sidewalk along Sem Lane to provide public access from Shoreway Road to the shoreline\, widening the Belmont Creek Trail\, and refreshing the landscape with seating areas and trail serving amenities.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Summary\n				January 8\, 2024 meeting summary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nJanuary 8\, 2024 meeting video \n  \nThank you for joining us tonight for the BCDC Design Review Board meeting. I’d like to remind the board members to please speak directly into the microphone. \nIn front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. And please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nOkay. Thank you\, Ashley\, and we’ll open the meeting. My name is Jacinta McCann and I’m the chair of the BCdc’s Design Review Board. \nI’m located here at Metro Center. In San Francisco and our meeting will include participants who are here in the room and participants who are participating online. \nOur first order of business is to call the role. Board members\, can you please unmute yourselves to respond and they mute yourselves following that? \nAshley\, can you call the role? \nChair McCann. Present. Vice chair string present board member Anderson. Present. \nBoard member Pellegrini. Present. Board member leader. \nHere. Present. \nAnd board member Chow will be with us at 5 30. The staff BCC staff attending tonight or myself\, Ashley\, You’rey Jewett\, Skylar Olson\, Julie Garen\, Trouty Senna\, and Katherine Pan. \nOkay\, thank you\, Ashley. We have a quorum present\, so we duly constituted to conduct business. \nI want to stop by sharing some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nFor everyone online and in the meeting room\, please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise. \nFor board members if you have a webcam please make sure that it’s on so everyone can see you and for members of the public if you would like to speak during the public comment period you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nIf you’re here with us in person\, speaker cards are available at the door and you will be asked to come up to the podium one at a time and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nAfter all\, individuals who are present make their comments\, we shall call on those participants who are attending the meeting remotely. \nIf you are attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand in Zoom by clicking the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nThe hand should turn blue when it’s raised. Please note that we will only hear your voices and that your video will not be enabled. \nIf you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment. \nAnd star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are raised. \nPlease keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nWe will not tolerate hate speech. Threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language. \nWe will mute anyone who fails to follow those guidelines or who exceeds the established time limits without permission. \nIf you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the Gallery View option in view in view settings in order to see all the panelists. \nAudio for in-person panelists is recorded through the rooms audio system and is not synced in to the individual panelist videos. \nIf you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning these projects\, please call or email Ashley Tomlin who is right there\, Ashley. \nAnd Ashley’s contact information is on screen or is found on the BCdc’s website. \nFinally\, every now and then you will hear me refer to the meeting host\, Yuri. And your use\, what about BCDC staff and is acting as a host for the meeting behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nPlease be patient with us if it’s needed. So we’ll move to item 2 now\, which is approval of the meeting summaries for number\, November sixth\, 2\,023 in December eleventh\, 2023. \nAnd board members we’ve all been furnished the draft summaries for those 2 meetings I’m just going to remind you\, we might just approve these individually. \nSo the November sixth BCDC meeting. We had the following people present. Bob was here\, Bob Balio\, Kristen Hall\, Tom Leader\, Gary Strang and Stefan were were here. \nAnd we were. Reviewing the 1499 bash project that was the first pre-application review. \nAre there any comments? From anyone? I do not have any comments. Any other comments from anyone? \nI have actually have a couple of comments. It’s just clarifying language\, page 8. \nUnder item 4\, emergency vehicle access and terminus of the public trail. Some point 2. \nI just the wording in the paragraph is not particularly clear and it may have been my expression\, but I would like to just clarify it. \nSo Ashley\, I’ve rewritten the paragraph and I’ll can give it to you afterwards but I’m proposing it be changed to say Jacinda McCann observes that the terminus of the trail is a dead end and that is it is unlikely that people will walk to the end is currently proposed. \nPositioning public art in the end could potentially encourage people. Improvements to the hammerhead configuration could also assist in making this section of the trail more appealing. \nIt would also help if staff could clarify if there’s any potential for the trail to continue beyond the site in the future. \nSo it’s just cleaning up that paragraph so you can refer to that. \nAnd I wanted to clarify on page 9 and Kristen isn’t with us tonight\, but under sub point 2\, the second paragraph below the top of the page. \nIt’s a Kristen Hall was talking at this point. She says it’s beautiful space and will be a nice respite. \nAnd then the second sentence says excited about the possible road diet. And I think that needs to be changed to something else. \nAnd I could not remember what that would be\, but maybe someone could go back and just cross check that and clarify what that is. \nAnd then . The \nI think that was it. Yeah\, that was it. So with those 2 changes\, is everyone okay with the? \nWith the adjustments to the minutes\, for these meeting notes for the November 6 meeting. \nI’ll make a motion to approve. Second. Bye. Okay\, the next meetings were meeting summary was the December eleventh summary. \nAnd people present there was myself\, Bob Batalio\, Kristen Hall\, Gary Strang\, and Steph. \nAnd we were reviewing. It was just last month\, so. It was the first review of the\, \nWindrover project\, which\, excuse me\, it was technically the second review. Even though it felt like the first review. \nCorrect. And at the end it says we moving to the third review\, which I will just reconfirm is correct. \nRight. And\, \nYeah. There was just a minor improvement in. Language. I can pass these through to you. \nThey’re not substantial\, just a couple of minor clarifications but with Just the bottom\, sentence\, on page 6 site entrances\, sub point one\, final centers\, it would be helpful to have more context shown for the concept plan and a clearer illustration of the connections\, being made on site and off site. \nAnd the final sentence there starts struggling to determine to just change that to it is difficult to determine at this stage whether \nAnd there’s a repeat of a sentence on page 8\, some point 3. Just send him a CAD suggested incorporating playful elements\, if we could just strike that sentence\, which is a repeat of a sentence in the previous paragraph. \nSo we don’t need\, it will be a very desirable place for families. So with those changes\, any other changes that anyone has? \nOkay. Motion to approve. The commotion to approve. \nHi. \nOkay\, all in favor? I. Okay\, thank you. Good. \nLet’s move to item 3\, staff update. \nThank you\, Chair McCann. Congratulations to Tom and Leo on the soon to open public access at 3\,500 Marina in Brisbane. \nThe project last came to the board in September\, 2\,018 and includes approximately 1\,100 linear feet of bay trail and shoreline spaces and then approximately a hundred 1\,000 square foot public access area on the podium level. \nThe project will also be constructing an approximately 700 linear foot pay trail around the neighboring parcel that will complete the Bay Trail loop around the Sierra Point Peninsula. \nI wanted to update the board on a few changes in laws and policies related to member participation. I will send out a summary of these changes. \nFirst\, BCDC has an updated policy regarding the role DRB members may play as consultants to permit applicants. \nBoard members are no longer allowed to represent permit applicants before the commission or a BCDC advisory board. \nBoard members who have been recused for assisting permit applicants are not allowed to speak in front of the board while being paid by the applicant. \nAnd this is to present as well as for answering questions. Recused board members may attend meetings in person or remotely as a member of the public. \nA board member may speak as a member of the public as long as they are not being compensated by the applicant. \nDo board members have any questions? \nI don’t have any questions on that. I don’t think we have any questions. Tom\, any questions? \nWell\, I remember there was confusion on this project you’re looking at whether I can represent the the applicant or not. \nAnd I decided I better not because I wasn’t sure nobody seemed sure but now it’s it’s clear. \nThat on this project I would not be able to present. Speak in front of BCDC or a commission or anything like that. \nYou are correct. Actually\, just to be very clear because Tom\, I recall that. Does it apply to any member of the firm that the African has or just the individual. \nIt is just the individual. So\, for instance\, with 1301 shoreway\, the project going second tonight. \nAn ECRB member had spoken and answered questions during the last DRB meeting related to the levy or the shoreline protection. \nB he would not be able to answer questions in front of the design review board\, but a member of Moffat and Nicole could. \nI see. Okay\, thank you. Alright. Second for law and policies update as of January one and through 2\,025 board members may attend and participate in meetings remotely staff are required to notice remote attendance at least 24 h in advance of the meeting via email and on the website notice. \nAnd we do not need to include the remote location. I believe our preference will remain to be in person or to have in person attendance\, but we do now have flexibility for your participation. \nAre there any questions? \nVery clear. \nFinally\, the DRB meeting dates have been set for 2024 and are posted on the BCC website. \nThe February meetings canceled and our next meeting is planned for March eleventh and will be the second review of the proposed very building and plaza renovations. \nAnd that concludes the BCDC staff update. I’ll pause if there’s any other questions from the board. \nWell\, thanks\, Ashley. And\, again\, congratulations\, Tom\, on seeing your project. \nCompleted and contributing to the continuation of the Bay Trail. It’s a very important project. \nSo well done. I don’t have any other questions. It’s good to get the policy updates out clearly. \nSo thank you for that. Any other questions from the board? \nHearing none\, I think we’ll move on. Okay\, so. \nWe will also just move now to public comment for items. Not on tonight’s agenda. So we’ll start with those members of the public in our headquarters building here today. \nIf anyone has a comment on on something that is not on tonight’s agenda form a line near the podium to make a public comment. \nAnd if you’re attending online\, it would like to make a public comment. Raise your hand to speak as previously notified. \nIs there anyone who wants to make a public comment? \nOkay. \nThere’s no hands raised online. Okay\, thank you very much. So no public comment for items not on tonight’s agenda. \nSo we’ll move to item 5\, which is the first review of the Depave Park project in Alameda\, Alameda County. \nAnd I’ll just remind you of the project order that we follow for these reviews. So we start with the BCDC staff introduction. \nWe then move to the project proponent presentation. We then have both clarifying questions\, which are between the proponent and the board. \nIt’s not a time for discussion but question and answer then we move to public comment and then we have full discussion and summary which is the dialogue between the board and then following that the project proponent can make a brief response as desired. \nSo we’ll follow that. Permit and so with that the BCDC permit analyst Scholar Olson will introduce the project. \nSo thanks\, Ga. Go ahead. \nThank you\, Chair Macken. I’m just gonna share my screen here. \nAlright\, good evening to the design review board members\, the project team\, my members of the public. My name is Skylar Olsen and I’m a senior environmental scientist at BCC. \nI’m happy to introduce the project for tonight’s review\, the DPA Park project in Alameda proposed by the City of Alameda. \nThis product has received Measure AA funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority and is a bay restoration regulatory integration team or Brit project. \nTonight will be the board’s first pre application design review of the project. I’ll start with a brief introduction to the project before the applicants present the project in greater detail. \nBefore we discuss the project\, we’d like to begin by acknowledging that the project side is located on. \nArtificially filled land. It was historically shallow water habitat within the traditional indigenous homelands at the outline people. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original storage of the down to phone natural resources of the Bay Area. \nThis slide shows the location and vicinity of the proposed project site. The approximately 21 acre . \nPay Park project side is located in along San Francisco Bay at the western end of Alameda. It’s on\, it’s on property owned by the city of Alameda\, within the central. \nArea southern and central area of the larger former Naval Air Station\, Alameda site\, commonly referred to now as Alameda Point. \nIt’s bounded to the east by sea playing Lagoon to the south by San Francisco Bay. \nTo the west by wetlands owned by the US Department of Veterans Affairs and to the north and east by sea plain lagoon promenade a public area. \nRunning along the north side of. See Plain Lagoon. \nAs shown in this image from BCdc’s community. Vulnerability\, mapping tool. The project sites. \nIs located within an area with high social vulnerability based on a range of vulnerability indicators. This area also has a high contamination vulnerability based on Call them viral screen. \nWhat does a statewide pollution vulnerability assessment? The project proponents will talk more about how local communities have been engaged in their project design. \nAnd how the design has evolved. Accordingly. \nThis slide shows the project site as it relates to other BCDC required public access areas. \nAlong the seaplane Lagoon shoreline. The city and its presentation will go into greater detail. \nAbout the Limited Point precise plan. And what is planned for the greater. See playing the goon area. \nCurrently the project site shown on the left of the screen is open to the public\, but it’s not improved for public access. \nAnd the purple lines in the map show approximate locations of existing BCDC required. Public access. \nSo the first permit shown here. . 1998 that o 3 6 required public access to London northern side of sea play in the goon in association with the Alameda Antiques and Collectables Fair. \nBut this public access is no longer in effect as the fair is no longer operating at the site. However\, this area It’s still open to the public\, but mostly unimproved for public access\, except the portion on the right\, which I’ll talk about next. \nSo permit number\, 2017 dot o one issue to the city of Alameda and that’s me to point partners. \nRequires an approximately 2.5 acre. Al Lima Point Waterfront Park. And associated amenities. \nAt the northeast corner of Sea Plain\, Lagoon. I’m\, 2018 dot o 2 5 also issue to the city\, requires an approximately 2 acre public access area on the eastern shoreline of sea playing lagoon in connection with the seaplane\, the groom ferry terminal. \nFinally\, permits\, and\, 1\,900\, and 96\, dot\, o\, 2\, 6\, issue to Nelson’s marine requires an approximately 8 700 square foot area at the southeast corner. \nOf the lagoon in connection with authorized construction of various marine. Facilities. \nI’ll now show you the sea level rise vulnerability for the site based on BCdc’s\, Bay Area flood explorer. \nIt’s important to know that this represents the vulnerability of the existing site without the changes that will be associated with the proposed project. \nThe product team will later show figures demonstrating the sea level rise\, resilience of the site if the proposed project were implemented\, as well as potential future adaptation measures. \nSo this image shows the funding that would occur with a total water level. That is 2 feet above the current mean higher high water. \nSuch a water level could under\, could occur under a range of scenarios such as No sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge. \nOr one feet of one for sea level rise plus a king tide or 2 feet of sea level rise. \nI mean higher high water. 2 fee of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2050 projection. \nUnder high emissions\, medium to high risk aversion scenario. Which has a 0 point 5% chance of occurring. \nAs you can see\, there would be some inundation at the western area of the site. \nThis\, in\, shows a flooding that would occur with a total water level that is 7 feet. \nAbove the current mean higher high water. That could occur with about 54 into sea level rise plus a 10 year storm surge or 6 feet silver rise plus a king tide. \nOr 7 feet of sea level rise. At mean\, high high water and 7 feet of sea level rise is roughly equivalent to the 2\,100. \nProjection. Under the same scenario. And as you can see\, the site would be completely inundated with this amount of sea level rise. \nThis slide shows an image from the San Francisco estuary. Institute San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas. \nWhich identifies and describes the suite a potential sea level rise that upation options. For the base store line. \nThe Atlas also identifies which adaptation options may be feasible. How long specific area that the shoreline based on the shoreline conditions at each location? \nUnfortunately\, the map is very difficult to read at the scale and does not appear to identify conditions suitable for any of the listed adaptation options to any meaningful. \nExtent. However\, that does not mean the site is not\, is not suitable for such features. \nI’ve known as they were discussed\, the pilot team is proposing an eagrass restoration area at the west side. \nOf the lagoon. Whereas this Atlas indicate suitability for ill grass at the eastern side of the Lagoon. \nHowever\, again\, this does not necessarily mean the Western side is not suitable. The\, will work with the product team to ensure any ill grass restoration work would be designed and cited appropriately for the site conditions. \nAnd finally\, I would like to make one correction to the staff report that was sent out on December 20 s. \nSo on page 3\, the staff report references and existing. US Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion from a separate project. \nThat relates to the nearby California least turned nesting site and that’s an endangered species the opinion limits\, trees and structures within areas of the\, the proposed the pay park. \nTo reduce perching opportunities for predator species of the California lease turn. So on the staff report\, I indicated that certain structures proposed for the site\, including their restroom and barbecue cellus would be acceptable. \nTo US Fashion Wildlife Service if they were equipped with anti-purchin devices. However\, this was a misunderstanding and certain portions of the design may in fact be and consistent with a biological opinion and require modification. \nThis map shows a slightly outdated version of the site plan. As it overlaps with 3 zones that are defined in the biological opinion. \nYou can disregard the question mark and the red dot line here. So within zone one\, which is on the right. \nThe biological opinion prohibits construction of new buildings lightpost vegetation or other structures Greater than 4 feet in height. \nThe restroom and as proposed would be in zone one. And would therefore be inconsistent with a biological opinion as currently designed. \nLighting for the adjacent parking lot may also require modification. \nBut I\, you know\, the project team will discuss this more and we’ve already talked about this and we’re confident that. \nYou know\, that will be able to coordinate. To through the pre application process to ensure that the project is designed to be compatible with the You guys fish and wildlife service requirements. \nOther requirements applied to zones 5 and 6. And I think the design is likely consistent with these requirements. \nBut we need to verify this. But we’ll continue coordinating through the\, process on this. \nThis slide shows the 7 objectives for public access and the commissions. Public access design guidelines. \nWhich the board should consider closely in its review. I’m sure you’ve seen this many times\, although of course we have a new member today. \nSo the guidelines focus on publicness and usability\, the public access\, visual access and visual quality. \nConnections and continuity along the shoreline. I’ve taken advantage of the base setting. And. \nAnd compatibility with wildlife. Additionally\, while not currently included in the 7 objectives\, It is important for the board to focus on sea level rise\, resilience\, environmental justice\, and social equity. \nAnd it’s review. \nFinally this slide includes a condensed version of the questions for the board as included in the staff report. \nAs well as one question they added to address that. Us fish and wildlife service requirements. \nSo in addition to the considerations on the previous slide\, we’d also specifically appreciate the board’s input on. \nThe design of the beach and that’s resilience of sea level rise. The advocacy of the terraced beach steps to provide public access to the water when the beach is in data. \nThe adaptation approach for the southern portion of the site. And add a quick advocacy or the adaptation plan in general. \nPotential events that should trigger future adaptation actions. Such as T level rise or funding events. Needs for additional weather protection at the site while avoiding wildlife conflicts. \nRecommendations to adjust the limits of the biological opinion described earlier and of course Any other comments that the board may have on the design? \nThank you very much and that includes my staff introduction. \nThank you\, Scott. Are there any questions from the board? Any clarifying questions on Skyler’s presentation? \nTom\, anything? \nOkay\, I think we will move on. That was a very helpful scalar. Thank you very much for that presentation. \nSo we will now move to the project presentation. And. \nAnd I think we\, I’m not sure who will be making that presentation\, but we will. Hear the introductions shortly. \nGood evening\, everyone. My name is Justin Long. I’m the director of Recreation and Parks for the City of Alameda. \nI’m joined here with Assistant City Manager\, Amy Boldridge\, as well as Kevin Conger with CMG Landscape Architects to present our project. \nWe are very excited here to present DPave Park as an ecological park that will adapt to Dee Pave Park as an ecological park as an ecological\, park that will adapt to see rise here in a relatively\, dense urban area\, in a relatively\, dense urban area\, and per also provide\, the community and\, \nSo this project has been in development for a very long time going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified for a very long time\, going all the way back to the precise plan when the site was identified as potential park space. \nAnd then\, became\, a little bit further alive in\, 2\,020 when we started the DPA Park vision plan. \nAnd then again\, when we were granted the measure AA funding. So it kicked off a really busy year this year starting February where we had our project kick off\, community events. \nNot to mention we’ve also worked with Brit. We’ve had 3 or 2 rounds of community engagement meetings. \nWe’re about to have the third. We presented the designs to the Park and Rec Commission and then to City Council in November. \nAnd here we are today. Presenting to you\, to get your feedback on this wonderful project we have for you. \nAgain\, to build on Skylar’s presentation\, the Oval Circle identifies the location of C plane lagoon here as part of the old naval air station as well as Elmo Point. \nThis area really has become a very active space for the residents in Alameda as housing has been added. \nThere’s many businesses out here. You’ll often find people out there fishing\, biking\, walking their dogs currently\, even though it is undeveloped in its current space as a park\, but it’s very active and very important part of the Alameda Park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the Alameda park system as well as just Alameda as a whole for the city. \nHere’s some historical figures that sort of show what it looked like and before the fill happened in the military naval station was built\, you can sort of see in the different pictures and on the bottom right behind the words there you can see seaplane lagoon and it’s Clory when it was open. \nHere we are with a image from today where if you look at the bottom of the picture\, we have the new seaplane lagoon ferry terminal that services between San Francisco and Alameda to your right\, you see a park development there’s seaplane lagoon promenade phase one which is the current park that has been built that will also help with the sea level rise for the rest of the Alameda \npoint. Area just above that is the plain lagoon promenade for the future next 2 phases we’re about to enter into phase 2 phases. \nWe’re about to enter into phase 2 of that. And then in the distance in the center is the location of Depave Park with behind that the Veterans of Fair Wetlands. \nYou can see at the top the least turned nesting site was out there between the runways as well in the background at the top right hand corner is where the future veterans VA Hospital in Columbarium will be located. \nThis is in that\, C plane lagoon promenade phase 2 is probably where we’re going to\, we’re proposing to have the kayak launches and those components for people to get access to water there as there was historical ramps down there that brought the airplanes down into the water. \nWe’re going to try to use those accommodate those and bring them into have people bring themselves into the lagoon that way as well. \nAnd then San Francisco\, they’re in the background with the views of the bay. \nSo here again is the outside of our project site. It’s approximately 21.2 5 acres. \nYou can see that there are currently 2 big buildings that are located on the site\, building 29 and building 25. \nWe went to city council in November of this year and city council made a very forward thinking decision and they voted to remove both buildings from the property and so that to expand the wetlands and have more of a basically create more ecological space here on the property. \nAs you can also see in the lower part\, what the VA wetlands currently and sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project. \nAnd sort of the proximity of how they’ll join our project. We’re not looking for them to be combined at this point\, but at\, in the Grand Sense\, they will be one space in the overall. \nThe other thing is we’ve been coordinating with the VA as well during this project. \nSo we recently just had another meeting with them to try to coordinate property line and edges and what that’ll look like. \nNext slide. So these are sort of today’s current images. The C plane lagoon is lined by a rip wrap wall and then our project site is combined mainly of large concrete paving and asphalt. \nAnd again\, joined by the 2 buildings on the side and then it has a jetty out into seaplane lagoon there. \nLike I say\, currently these spaces are used for a variety of uses. There’s also some really kind of interesting old remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the remnants that are still in that concrete back from its original uses with the air station\, from its original uses with the air station\, airplane ties\, rails\, different components like that air station\, airplane ties\, rails\, different components like that\, things that we’d like to incorporate into the \noverall design moving forward. \nSo this was the price. Precise plan back in 2\,014 identifying the different areas and uses that would happen on Alameda Point. \nDeepave Park is outlined there in the dark green or the purple around the dark lean green. And then you see the\, see\, the see plane promenade right there on the north end of Seaplane Lagoon\, as well as sort of the natural or the nature preserve area that is controlled by the VA and then slightly to the north of that is the VA Hospital Colombarium and then a regional park to \nthe northwest. So these are all side of the kind of different components that were decided back then about what would be done on Lima Point. \nSo here’s an image of Seaplane Lagoon phase one. So this part currently is open to the public. \nIt is showing a tiered level park up from the lagoon that acts as the virtual first phase of the levy that will continue to protect the rest of Alameda Point as it gets built out and in the distance at the very end right before the San Francisco skyline back there is D. \nPave Park and again DPA will serve as that node of the levy system that will be protecting all of the. \nThis slide here shows the pedestrian circulation and bike circulation and where our project site is here. \nSo it’s serves as a very big connection for the Be Trail and so Deepave Park will serve as a node both for the Bay Trail but also for the seasonal Bay Trail that will continue out around all of Alameda Point seasonally. \nAnd so it’s a very important project in that sense that it’s connecting the people to the bay\, but as well as making sure that there’s sort of the seasonal trail so you can get out all your own. \nSo again\, here’s the slide that is from East Bay Park District that shows the outline of the seasonals\, betrayal that will go all the way around the existing point there and at the bottom right hand corner is D Pave Park. \nAnd so where those lines intersect shows where the Bay Trail will come\, but also as DPA Park is the node for the jumping off point where you will be able to do the seasonal trail all around. \nSo again\, we’ve. Had a great time with this project involving the community. We certainly\, we’ve already had 5 in-person community meetings. \nWe’ve had online surveys. We had a great involvement from one of our local high schools who were over 150 responses to our survey. \nWe’ve been working with the Limited Point Collaborative\, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is community that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is an that is out here on Limited Point Base\, which is an underserved community\, which is an underserved community and they’ve been involved in it from day one. \nAnd they’ve been involved in it from day one. We’ve had a great experience with day one. \nWe’ve had a great experience with having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion\, we’ve had a great experience with\, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinion\, seeing how the kids and the families out there asking their\, having the kids and the families out there asking their opinions\, seeing how things that they like out here\, and really getting a So here’s it sort of some \nof the meetings that we held on site. We did intercepts. We hosted meetings. We had tours. \nAnd like I said\, we’ve done the first 2 rounds of our community engagement and we’re about to start our third here on the twentieth where we’ll actually have one meeting out with the Elm to point collaborative community as well but also one for the general public as well in person. \nSo overall\, we’ve the community is very excited about this project. We are delighted to be having this here in Alameda. \nWe think they’ll be a great example of showing how sea level rise can happen and happen in a way to bring the community forward as well as also working on developing a stewardship program to help maintain that with that community as well. \nWe’ve been working with LM to point collaborative to do that. As a sort of an employment. \nProgram in order to get experience and job development. \nHave we seen the support for\, you know\, having Fishermen. They people don’t want to have dogs off leash out there. \nThere’s all sorts of great information that we’ve collected incorporated into our designs. You know\, there’s just been a great support for the marsh\, natural play areas\, fishing\, bicycling\, spaces for outdoor education. \nYou know\, there’s just been a huge tremendous involvement in people asking for a tremendous amount of access to the water\, tidal pools\, really about bringing people out and also creating a great environment for wildlife. \nAnd with that\, I will hand it off to Kevin Conger. Alright\, thank you. \nGood evening. Hi Leo. It’s certainly a pleasure to be here and talking about this project. \nMy new favorite project. One of the one of the biggest outcomes of the community process that Justin was talking about was a very in informed and passionate community that argue for this once in a lifetime opportunity to make a park that was all about nature. \nAnd to compel the council to remove the big building 25 that you saw on that last slide and I think you’re probably going to hear. \nA little bit of support for that decision from the group that’s behind me. Which button am I pushing that one? \nOkay. Transforming this 20 acres of pavement into a place that creates nature and public access to nature is pretty straightforward. \nActually\, in our approach. There’s mostly asphalt out there\, but also these strips of concrete. \nIt’s really thick concrete. It’s about 12 inches deep. And as some of those pictures shown\, there’s some really interesting steel rails and remnants in the concrete from the military industrial past. \nAnd so the strategy is to save the bits and pieces of concrete. That are useful. And to use those for the future. \nPublic space\, promenade\, circulation\, pathways\, etc\, and to remove all the rest of it. \nCrush it\, use it for the fill area. Under the elevated levy portions of the Discovery Play in the picnic area. \nThere’s a huge benefit to repurposing all this existing concrete because it greatly reduces the carbon footprint of this project during construction. \nAnd in fact\, this project will be climate positive we estimate in 4 years it will start to offset its own carbon footprint and be part of the climate solution. \nSo reuse\, recycle as much as possible. And it also leads us with some really interesting forms. \nAnd then basically Take it big hole\, lower the areas to encourage the tides to come in so we create some intertidal habitat areas. \nWe’re gonna create some fill areas that have that are elevated a little higher for some upland habitat creation. Take a \nRest of the film and put it over on into the elevated levy area. So we have a balanced cut fill is what the strategy is and then basically invite nature in. \nThe. The forms that are generated around the new paving\, which is the orange area\, which is all that DG area\, those are. \nThat way because we’re trying to harvest strips of concrete from the. The pieces that we’re moving\, we’re gonna use that for the. \nRestraining edges for all the edges of the DT paving and everything. So again\, we’re trying to reuse pretty much as much as possible. \nSo this is a paving diagram\, everything basically to the left. Is all existing paving and again the forms there\, you know\, these sock up machines are these big giant heavy things that pretty much make straight lines. \nYou don’t get to do curves or anything\, so it’s a really kind of just pragmatic approach to. \nGenerating form and then everything to the right. Basically the right third is going to be new paving DG and that’s all upon the elevated area and then the parking area is also going to be on existing paving. \nLooking to some of the furnishings and I’ll start at the right hand side\, which is north. \nThere’s about 75 parking spaces on existing paving over there. The restroom is on that north side. \nWe\, as was mentioned by Skylar\, we got a bit of discussion of whether that restroom can be there with the anti perching element on it or whether we need to move it a little bit. \nEast out of that zone. So we’ll work with Brit to do that. And then from there\, that’s down a little lower. \nSo then from there you go. South and you go up onto the elevated levy. There’s a big picnic trellis there in a picnic area\, group barbecue area\, same issue there with the bird predator things we may need to move that a bit east and then the discovery play area. \nThere’s a terrorist that steps down to the beach. The terrace made out of concrete slabs that we’re going to cut and harvest. \nMove those over from the existing paving. So that’s all repurposed. Moving south\, there’s a overlook area\, interpretative overlook area\, and then down the promenade that goes all the way out to the end and then the further south is the what we call the learning lab\, but there’s some of the big or more interesting remnant pieces of concrete with the steel rails. \nThat will be places for groups to gather school groups to go out there and gather. Social spaces\, etc\, all the way at the far\, far\, far south then as a fishing trail along the back edge of that rip wrap. \nThat’s where the fish fisher people like to go because it’s out on the bay side\, not in the Lagoon side. \nSo here’s a simple circulation diagram. So\, 24 foot. More average prominent minimum. \n24 foot minimum promenade\, multi-use path all the way up to the end\, and then these smaller pedestrian pathways that are again are mostly all predominantly using existing paving except for those areas that are on the. \nNorth where we’re elevating the land. And we will have\, bike circulation out here and also vehicle circulation for service vehicles. \nEventually\, that spur that heads up to the top screen to the west will connect and go north and be part of the levy. \nProtection that goes all the way around behind the hanger buildings in future phases. \nSo some material and character all pretty straightforward\, natural materials. \nHere’s some scale comparisons because it’s a little hard to wrap your head around how big this park is. \nIt’s about 2 thirds to. Size of Similar width actually about 2 thirds the length It’s a little bit shorter than the length of the Christy field. \nTitle Marsh\, out the same width\, actually interestingly. The beach piece down here is overlaid here on top of Crane Cove. \nQuite a bit smaller than Crane Cove\, so it’s a little pocket beach. The learning lab. \nPiece is about the size of the area down by the warming hut at Chrissy fields. \nIt’s a little bit bigger\, maybe\, you know\, maybe twice the size of that\, but. \nKind of similar to that and maybe a little bit. Better scale present will be this side down on the east end of Christy field where a butts up against Marina Green. \nIt’s about the same size as that space down there. So we’re really confident that it’s scaled appropriately. \nThe grading. The whole site is basically at about. 10 and a half. So we’re. \nLowering the edge in the center area\, where the gravel beach is proposed\, which is Right here. \nAbout. 6 feet at the rip wrap edge. And lower the seawall down a little bit and lower the rip wrap to create a gravel beach and then basically excavating out the areas to create intertidal zones and raising up the Discovery Play Picnic area up to about 15\, which is the height of the levy that’s part of the master infrastructure plan that goes around and \nprotects. All of the\, Alameda point. So. Here down at the north end\, we’re basically elevating a little bit down at the Picnic terrace and where that interpretative overlook is and then as we move further south. \nYou can see here where we’re cutting into the seawall\, which is shown in red there. \nI’m going to drop the top of the seawall down. But not remove it all the way because we still need that lower part of the rip wrap sea wall to interface with the seaplane lagoon. \nAnd same with the inner title\, the Rocky Inner Title Habitat area at the Far Far South End. \nSo that allows us to create an inner title area that’s illustrated in that top diagram where the dark blues mean high high water and lighter gray is the king tide so all of that zone will be intertidal and what’s exciting is that with CLRIs coming up\, our wetland areas get bigger. \nAnd we get increasing intertidal zone\, which is the goal of this project. So you see that on the bottom one with about 2 feet of sea level rise all the public access places are still high and dry at that point. \nBut when we get to\, 3 and a half feet of sea level rise\, you can see that the main promenade starts to get inundated at king tides and it will be at about that point where the city will need to make some decisions about when to do the adaptation for the public access. \nTo maintain public access out here. And the thought that we have is that they’ll just leave that concrete was a big 12 inch map foundation and just build a elevated promenade on top of that. \nAnd I know in the staff report there was some comments about are we thinking about providing enough public access at the southern part where the learning lab is and as to say that this is just very notional. \nI mean at the time when that adaptation gets designed. The city will make a decision about whether they want to add more elevated deck space out there or different types of\, you know\, public access amenities out there\, which I think would be great. \nAnd then ultimately\, when we get to 7 feet of sea level rise as with the rest of the Alameda point the levy itself needs to be adapted and elevated up. \nBut that will be far enough out where that program that discovery play area and the picnic and stuff up there were\, you know\, 80 years from now. \nRenovated anyway. \nSo what all that does is allows us to create a bunch of habitat\, primarily salt marsh in this lower inner tidal area\, upland coastal scrub in the areas at above that will transition to salt marsh over time\, gravel beach habitat right along the shoreline\, eel grass pilot project at that southern end and a rocky intertidal habitat zone on the very\, very far south end. \nAnd you can see how this becomes more or less contiguous with the with the VA. Weapons on on the other side. \nSo it’s really all about\, and I won’t point out we have HC Harvey and ESA advisors advising us on the ecological. \nComponents of this but it’s really all about this interface between the tide waters and the land obviously to create these different type of habitat zones. \nWe are doing it for These stakeholders\, these are all the species that are currently out. At Alameda Point and including the\, Alameda Song Sparrow there in the middle of the screen and some of the subtitle species that are on the bottom of the screen there\, but we also have. \nThese VIP stakeholders\, the California Least Turn in the Great Blue Hare and there’s a There’s a her and site right in the middle of the Project site\, which you’ll see in that blue dot here on that lower part of the slide. \nAnd this slide also shows. The least turned nesting site and all of that hatched area is part of the. \nConservation area because of the lease turns and so oh\, and I just wanted to point out that\, \nDown on the on the southern end of the VA property There’s 2 black kind of bubbles that are outlined and there’s improvement\, habitat improvements that are planned down there which include doing some re vegetation around the existing wetlands\, but also creating a new planned wetland you see on the left hand of this screen to expand the inner title zones over on that VA. \nA property and HC Harvey has been doing the work on those 2 projects as well. And so just to look at that in this air photo\, you can see the those VA wetlands\, you see that the heron. \nHooker rookery right there in the middle of the side the least turn loafing area over to the left there is some habitat value currently at DPA Park with the bottom edge of the intertidal rocky shoreline and also the mudflats out there. \nBut if you just kind of diagram all that stuff that’s existing and we also put in here the expanded marsh and then overlay the proposed DPA park wetlands and upland vegetation. \nYou can see that how the whole thing kind of becomes one bigger complex. All sort of working together. So the subtitle area will be look like this. \nThis native. Vegetation\, the upland coastal upland areas. Looks like this. All things that we’re familiar with. \nSome of the plant species that HD Harvey is recommending things that are familiar pickleweed and cord grass and the glass ward and eel grass and see. \nThere’s transition planting and should come up a little higher and then the upland. Plant materials. \nSo take you on a quick tour now from north to south. Zooming in a little bit on the plan. \nSo there’s that the barbecue trellis area\, they’re right in the middle\, there’s the beach area with the terrace\, the nature play area\, there’s another large group picnic area that’s to the west and then these 3 nodes of like smaller picnic spaces and then the overlook that will have these interpretive panels. \nWhich show another view again to see it there. And then a rendering from the overlook. We’re looking at incorporating the interpretive story into the railing that goes all around it. \nMoving to the middle\, there’ll be a bridge. Where we remove some of the existing paving\, create a bridge where the Martian let is. \nView from that and then down in the what we call the learning lab and all these kind of big Blob things that you see on top of the payment call these seating slabs. \nThat’s where we’re proposing to take some of the big plants that we’re going to kind of harvest out of the existing paving and repurpose them. \nFor\, seating elements and sculptural elements. And then also you see the\, space there at the end. \nSo. A view of the learning lab. With the steel rails in it\, the intertidal area. \nAnd\, and then lastly\, a view from one of the higher upland overlooks looking back. \nSo that’s where we are. We’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan. \nWe’re hoping to get to council here in a month or so for approval of this final master plan. \nWe’re hoping to get to 30% design. This spring and with that assist the city and going after more grant money with\, AJA and others and really looking forward to hearing. \nYour thoughts and comments about how to make this better and also hopefully hearing your endorsement. For us moving this project forward. \nThank you. Okay\, thank you both. Justin and Kevin. Excellent presentation. \nAnd I\, it’s a. It is a very exciting and very significant project. So I’m thrilled that you are all here with your team and associated folks from the community as well because it’s a significant evening for us to have this project with us. \nSo we’ll move to clarifying questions\, from. The project presentation. We’ll just perhaps move along the line here. \nGary\, do you have any questions? \nSure. Yeah. Thank you. That was a wonderful presentation. \nI’m just curious context wise because it’s an opportunity for us to all learn something about the bay edge and context. \nJust curious\, who are the? Users today and what do you anticipate? You know\, in the future given the status of\, a\, to point\, you know\, what projects have been completed recently and what do you see in the pipeline? \nAnd and then maybe just one other thing those very large hangers that Kevin referred to for a second and they’re shown as being\, I think\, being flooded in the recently near future is their plans for those buildings. \nThank you\, Gary\, for your questions. The current users\, out here at all\, to point\, like I said\, the community\, even though it is sort of undeveloped\, is actively using this. \nThere are with the reason projects built out in what we call site a with a housing out there there’s a tremendous amount of people living here now. \nThere’s restaurants amount of people living here now. There’s restaurants\, there’s breweries. \nIf you\, now with a new ferry terminal connection to this area\, it’s become incredibly active. \nSo it also with the first phase of C plane lagoon promenade. We’re also working with radium who has regular performances out there currently. \nI’ll\, to point collaborative is located\, within walking distance of this site. \nThey’re sort of our\, it’s a very low income area and an underserved community. \nWe are also in the process of starting construction on our reshape project. Which is going to help both take care of our older housing units that are out there that are serving the underserved but also expand that and also provide different services out there like the\, a library branch is going to be out there\, but also they’re building as part of that project\, this barn employment center training center part of that that’s going to \nbe built out as part of that. And then as the rest of the master plan for the base build out\, there’s going to be just a lot more residents and businesses out there using this park and getting access to this property. \nSo encouraging people to get out their sea nature\, be connected to it\, and then addressing your concern about the sea level rise. \nSo part of the master plan infrastructure plan that continues out and around at the edge of D Pave Park where you saw the elevated part with the picnic and terrace all that promenade going out to Deepave Park and then continuing out north and around the entire Alameda point will be a raised levy system in order to protect those old hanger buildings that you see there. \nAnd many of those are not vacant currently today. There we have active uses in them\, different businesses\, and we’re actually looking about expanding those. \nSo that’s who we’ll be using in the future. Okay\, thank you. Stefan\, any questions? \nYeah\, thank you for the presentation. I really appreciate it. I have one question sort of about. \nI guess the stewardship and management. Of the space and sort of how that actually might relate to. \nThe management of the other public spaces around in this in this vicinity. Are there special needs here that you’re hoping to accommodate as this sort of built out? \nOkay. Thank you. Yeah\, so\, you know\, as part of this process\, we’re also working on a stewardship group with\, you know\, as part of this process\, we’re also working on a stewardship group with Albie to Point Collaborative\, really trying to get at a stewardship group with Albany to Point Collaborative\, I’ll be to point collaborative\, really trying to get at environmental justice and \ngetting\, really trying to get at environmental justice and getting\, a workforce trained to help do this. \nWe understand that this is not going to be a workforce trained to help do this. We understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. \nWe understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, we understand that this is not going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. \nSo there’s going to be the normal park maintenance\, you know\, system out here. So there’s going to be a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a need for specifically trained individuals and sort of developing a work program and trying to do that to reach out to the community and that unders \nOkay\, thank you\, Cody. Clarifying questions. Yeah\, per se\, I think it’s extraordinary. \nPlace to build a park. Working at this scale in the bays. Rare\, especially in an adaptive retreat that I think could serve as is an example regionally and you know around the world. \nI was curious about the the longer term. Resilience for 2\,100 protection and you alluded towards. \nYou know at such time the city would decide whether or not or how to go about providing access out to the to the end of the point that would be outside of the area protected by the levy\, I understand. \nBut\, yeah\, I’m just curious if strategies or any additional thoughts have been developed that weren’t included in the presentation. \nOr if that’s something that you intend to address as we get closer to that scenario. I believe as we continue project development as we look at that\, we’ll definitely need to do\, further studies of how that levy\, how the whole levy system will interact\, will be looking at the adaptive ways in the future\, whether or not the height out continuing around the park\, but also that access continuing out to \nthe waterway as to what height\, what we need to build it at. I think that we have the preliminary ideas around it\, but I think we need to do\, we’ll be doing more as we continue to develop this project. \nAnd as we get to that\, 2\,100\, you know\, between now and then\, you know\, there’s be so much to anticipate that I think\, you know\, working on positive strategies and really trying to think that through will be part of the rest of this project as we continue to move forward. \nThank you. Leo\, any questions? Sure. Thank you. \nAnd like others\, I wanna thank you for the presentation. I think it’s always wonderful to see a very thorough presentation about a project. \nThat’s as important as this. And really gonna contribute a significant amount of area back to public access. \nSo thank you. I had really maybe 2 questions. Or 2 areas of questions. One is about hydrology and second is about access. \nSo on the hydrology side\, I know you\, Kevin and others have done this kind of work extensively. \nI would like to understand that the hydrology of these inlets and the way the targets work that those areas will continue to be flesh and fleshed out and remain healthy and how that your thoughts behind that. \nAnd then secondly about access. We can see from the plans that there’s certain amount of seating along that length. \nWould be helpful to understand what is the sort of interval. Is it comfortable for people to walk all the way out? \nThey might need places to perch and to sit as well as are there specific types of seating\, you know\, this is a former air base. \nSo presumably it’s pretty windy and are there opportunities for some seating not all but some that might have a little bit of wind or purchase for people who wanna come here for bird watching. \nCause it sounds like that’s a real opportunity. So any fine-tuning about that kind of access would be appreciated. \nOkay\, great. Hi\, hydrology. We\, ESA is on our team doing the hydraulic\, hydrological analysis. \nSo they are feeling pretty comfortable with the title prism coming in out of here and there have been analyzing the amount of scour and everything and make sure that it’s all going to work feeling good. \nMoffat and Nichols also on our team. We do have a little bit of wave erosion threat in here because the ferry coming in and out generates these little waves that just kind of lap out the shoreline. \nSo\, but we think we have a strategy that everybody’s really comfortable with in the short term\, but also a sea level rise comes up so we don’t have. \nAn erosion problem later. So a long story short is we’re on that. We’re and at you know\, at the 30% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now. \nWe think we’re in good shape with the hydrology. And at the 30% design level or 20% design level that we’re at right now\, we think we’re in good shape with the hydrol On the seating. \nIt’s only\, you know\, it’s only about 1\,700 feet. Long from one edge of this to the other you saw when I showed those scale comparisons. \nSo it’s about a 7 min walk. And I think we have\, I don’t remember\, 27. \nSeating plants or something like there’s a lot of seating out here and they’re both these big concrete plants\, but there’s also a whole bunch of benches everywhere benches with backs and armrests and more convectional seating. \nSo I think Leo that there’s going to be a plenty of seating in terms of like when you need to sit and take a rest and stuff like that. \nWe also have been pretty Okay\, careful to get seating oriented toward the different views and to have some of it behind. \nThe the mounded upland scrub areas. So by the time you get a little bit of topography and vegetation\, the benches down low enough to where you’re going to be tucked in out of the wind. \nWe are constrained somewhat by not being able to have tall elements. That encourage predator birds to perch on them and then. \nAnd then that creates some conflicts with the least turn site. So. And we’re trying to frankly kind of keep\, I’m trying to keep everything low also out here and to not have too many design elements. \nTo that that in my mind potentially start to change what this park is about like if we can make it just essentially about Nature. \nAnd being on an old runway. You know\, that’s like that’s enough\, I think. \nThat’s a really compelling place to be. I’m in an old runway in nature and without adding too many bells and whistles to it. \nThanks. That helps. And I think that that overarching principle is really spot on. So thank you. \nOkay\, thank you\, Leo. Tom\, any clarifying questions? \nYeah\, Kevin\, I guess\, I mean\, great project\, obviously. I think you just answered maybe my question\, which was\, you know\, there was\, I noticed there was a board question about shelter for people. \nOut here and I guess that means wind but also sun. And There being no trees here. I guess the reason there’s no trees is because that provides a Burch not damages the. \nHabitat but I just is there. Anything that could or should be done for somebody’s got a Very fair skinned little baby out there all the way at the end. \nThat kind of thing. I don’t know if that’s needed or appropriate with the discussion has been and the other question is how close is nearest bathroom? \nThe bathroom is near the parking. So it’s 1\,700 feet from the far south end. You know\, it’s at the it’s at the entrance end. \nBut again. \nOkay. So\, 7\, 7 min walk. \nRight\, so 7. So I think it’s\, it’s not too far. And You know\, again\, when we thought about shade and treat your correct on trees and the perching. \nA predator perching so that that was that. And when we went out to places like\, Heron’s head and\, you know\, when you walk along the marsh at Chrissy field\, again\, which I showed in the scale comparisons\, it just seems like. \nIt’s not that. It’s\, it’s\, I think that shades not neat\, really needed. \nI think it’ll be it’ll be good. \nOkay. \nOkay\, thanks\, Tom. I just have 3 questions. The first one I just want to clarify. What the ground conditions are expected to be like when you. \nRemove the concrete and start\, repurposing it\, recycling it. Do you expect to\, find contamination or what What’s likely? \nThere’ll probably be some we’re doing up there’s been some testing that’s done out there and some remediation that’s been done out there and some remediation that’s been done already by the Navy. \nWe are underway with more further testing right now just to make sure that we have a good understanding of what is going to be in there. \nSo if we have to do any further remediation that we can capture that in our cost estimates\, in our grant funding requests. \nSo if things are found that are in conflict with what it is that’s being proposed\, they’ll be remediated or removed. \nRight. I mean\, the question behind that really is\, This is conceptual and\, you know\, moving into\, design right now\, but\, you know. \nWhether they could be flexibility to actually avoid some of these areas once you\, you know\, in the design. \nYes\, and we\, and we have done that based on what we think might be there. We have\, you know\, the\, and the bigger conflicts with the contaminations\, potential contaminations are not so much human. It’s the interaction with the bay. \nSo have it’s the related to the Brit. So we’re trying to like work around that if we can\, but we don’t. \nExactly know what’s where. Okay. Like a second question. Is dealing with the beach and\, appreciated the presentation and scale comparison. \nCan you talk a little bit more about what the intended uses are on the beach is that it tended to be a place you swim from or you know what’s being the feedback so far from the community and then the question of resilience of beach related to fairy waves and so on and you know what what the how far you’ve gotten studies. \nAs far as any type of erosion\, so there’s a little beach now that’s there. \nThere’s a little sandy beach that more sand gets deposited right there and so we’re basically just working with that grade. \nAnd laying it back a little bit deeper and you know we’re gonna have to import some sand to bring it in there so we’re trying to stay with what’s there so that we don’t create any new erosion problems. \nAnd so\, Thanks we’re in good shape there in terms of that approach. I know there was a question from staff about the long term. \nAdaptability of the beach. And\, what to do about that and I\, think\, that our assumption is what when the water comes up another 3 feet it won’t be a beach there or if it is just gonna be at the lowest tides\, you know\, it’s gonna be underwater like a lot of the other beaches in the world. \nThe intended use is just a small recreational. Pocket you know I think people will go down there and sit on the beach and I think people probably will go swimming out there. \nAs Justin mentioned\, the primary kayak launch and small craft launch is further down in that second phase of the promenade. \nSo we imagine that that’s the place where most of the kind of launching activity is gonna occur. \nBut I think it’s gonna be a popular recreational amenity to just run around on the sand a little bit like the tiny beach at Clipper Cove is. \nRight. I looked just so\, question. I just wanted to clarify. The on the plan that’s on the screen right now the yellow color on the main walkway is decomposed granted. Is that correct? \nThat follow is about 25% of the length and then it moves to concrete. So my question is really to do with accessibility and safety. \nWheelchairs etc. you know baby strollers are you comfortable that the I mean\, well\, I went\, but just I just wanted to clarify that. \nSo that is. Decomposed. Correct. Stabilized crush stone. Right. \nAnd then the following question to that is on the vision plan. I saw that there at least in the package we received that there was originally some looping of the trail secondary paths and it was a just wanted to hear a bit more on your thinking. \nAbout you know\, a 1\,700 long linear path versus loops and so on. We took the loops out when we all toured Heron’s head with our ecology team and we observed that the place that had the most habitat was the place that was furthest away from people. \nPeople and dogs and so forth. And so we thought\, well\, if we want to have habitat on the west edge of our wetlands and we do loop out there it’s going to be counterproductive. \nAnd so I’m better to be a little further away from the birds\, but seabirds than to be over there and have no birds. \nOkay\, thank you. Okay\, I think that concludes our clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment now and Any members of the public attending the meeting in person? \nPlease notify the board secretary if you would like to make a comment. And as we said before\, if you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, you can raise your virtual hand to speak and please do that. \nAt this time. And if you’re calling in. You can also call in to make a comment you will be called in the order that your hand was raised and you will have a 3 min Period to speak. \nUri will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record at the beginning of your comment. \nAnd as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting\, if you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project. \nPlease call or email Ashley Tomlin. So\, you will hand to you now. Thank you. \nOkay. \nAnd you will have 3 min to speak. \nHello\, my name is Jeff Maker. I live within walking distance of where DPA Park is going to be. \nI’m here also as a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance. I’m a co chair of the East Bay Conservation Committee and I’m also on the Youth Advisory Committee for Education in the East Bay. \nI’m a lifelong birder. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea. \nI can’t wait to see more birds out there. I love the idea of this park. It’s such a great idea. I can’t wait to see more birds out there. \nI go out there frequently the bird and see a lot of other burgers out there. One of my concerns is about\, access for fishermen. \nWherever fishermen go. And of course it’s not all the fishermen. I have nothing against personally\, but they often leave tankled fishing line. \nAnd that is a big hazard for birds. I would much prefer that fishermen are not allowed out on the jetty on the far end. \nAlso I walk out\, Pass Ensignel Beach on the jetty out there and there’s often a lot of trash left out there by Mostly fishermen because those are the people I see out there. \nAnd that attracts rats. And rats will wreak havoc with the birds if they’re roosting out there. \nAnd especially if there are nesting birds out there\, rats will. Eat eggs\, chicks. \nAdult birds\, etc. So. I would caution against allowing fishing out on the far end of the thing. \nThere are fishermen out there\, but they’re not very many. There are many other places where they can go. \nOut over by the Hornet by Ensignel Beach. etc. So. \nMy recommendation. Would be to not have fishermen there. I think it’d be better for the birds\, which is one of the major purposes of the park is to have a nature center. \nAnd I think it would interfere with the birds. So that’s my recommendation. Thank you. \nMarjorie Powell\, you will have 3 min to speak. \nThank you. My name is Marjorie Powell. I am an Alameda resident. \nI very frequently go birding out on this. Section of concrete and around the other. Section of seaplane lagoon. \nI have personally seen more than 100 species of birds out in that area. It is an area. Currently with only concrete\, but with the. \nLand in the VA wetlands behind and the water within seaplane lagoon. It is very well used by birds. \nI anticipate that once there is marshland there\, there will be more birds nesting there. Once you have birds nesting\, you have a whole range of issues that need to be addressed. \nOne of those is dogs. I think it’s vitally important that dogs not be allowed within this park. \nIf there is any interest in encouraging birds\, particularly nesting birds\, the dogs will. Eliminate a lot of that because they scared the birds off the nest even when the dogs are on leashes. \nNow I’m not opposed to dogs but there are numbers of places within Let me the point. As well as the entire Alameda Island where dogs are very welcome. \nI think just shouldn’t be one of them. I’d like to echo the fishing issue. I almost every time I leave the D to pay park area I have fishing line that I’ve picked up from the ground in my back pocket to go find one of the places I can dump it to be recycled. \nFishing line and fish hooks are anathema to birds. There are all kinds of problems with birds. \nGetting tangled in fishing line or getting caught with fishing nets. So that’s a real concern. \nBut I also think that there is a concern about trash. And any time you have people\, particularly people out having picnics or using the parks in other ways\, you get trash. \nAnd if you’ve tried to take trash out of marshlands\, it’s very difficult. \nAll you have to do is look at any other wetland park\, I think it’s important to have good trash bins and to make sure that there are. \nThat the trash doesn’t move into the wetland areas. But I’m excited to see all these developments and looking forward to the sea level rise\, changing the patterns of the water there. \nThank you. Thank you. \nKaren Miller\, will you approach the podium? \nGood evening. My name is Karen Miller and I am a long time Alameda resident. I am also a member of the Golden Gate Bird Alliance. \nAnd I’m also a member of the very active paddle boarding. Neighborhood in Alameda. \nSo in regards to the park itself. I am very excited about this and\, I just wanted to bring up one thing about making sure that the access for people with disabilities is really carefully looked at. \nHope that the pass and the access will be there for people. Who have need to use a wheelchair. \nI also\, I live right next to Crab Cove and I know that some of the East Bay regional parks have specialized wheelchairs that people can reserve and use that have special wheels that make it easier for them to use them on the pass. \nAnd also people who don’t have wheelchairs of their own but have disabilities that make it difficult for them to get around in parks. \nCan use those so they can also get out there and really enjoy. The park and I think given that the VA is gonna be so close\, I think it would be really healing for a lot of the people who are patients there to come out and to the park and we’d want to make sure that those patients also were able to fully use the park even given whatever disabilities they might have. \nAnd then also. With people who are in wheelchairs or where there’s benches and seating and stuff to make sure that any fences that are put in don’t have slats like right at your eye level when you’re sitting down by LC Romer\, bird sanctuary on shoreline\, the dock that goes out there. \nIf you’re sitting in a wheelchair\, you can’t see through the slots there on that dock. \nAnd that’s just one example of something that would be an easy fix. On behalf of the paddle boarding and kayaking community\, I’m so excited about having a new landing spot. \nThere’s probably maybe a half dozen of really specific public landing spots for the small craft in kayaks in Alameda. \nSo this will be. Very widely used by those communities and we’re very\, very excited about it. \nSo\, I think it’s a wonderful park and\, I’m really happy that we’re all here working on it. \nThank you. Thank you. \nRichard Banger and then Cheryl Nelson and Bry you’ll be next. \nThank you. My name is Richard Banger. I’m a resident of Alameda and I’ve in a long time advocate for this park going from. \nConceptual plan to master plan. And I’m thrilled that. The City Council recently approved the maximum plan by bringing to remove building 25 And I would say this should serve as an example for other cities around the bay. \nBecause it’s not just a building\, it’s a building that’s worth a lot of revenue. \nAnd someday it will be\, it would be worth a lot of money to sell. They’ve given that up. \nAnd for the environment\, for the future. And I think that is a remarkable. Achievement. \nThe\, the issue that I’d like to talk about tonight. \nIs the passage in the staff report. That refers to fencing and dogs. Says finally low cable and mesh fencing would border the central promenade. \nThe property line with the adjacent BA wetland. To prevent dogs and people from disturbing habitat areas. \nI would argue that best way to keep dogs from disturbing habitat areas is to not allow them in there in the first place. \nAnd I think. You need look no further than. Coyote Regional Park. In the South Bay where Yes\, it’s coyote hills and there’s a lot of hills\, but there’s also a lot of marsh area. \nAnd the rules specifically state no dogs. In the marsh area. So\, and also. The walkway that goes through that marsh area. \nIt doesn’t have any fencing on it. It’s just like a boardwalk. I mean\, yeah\, somebody could fall off into the water\, but. \nDoesn’t seem to be a problem. So\, and if you would have fencing. Well\, it wouldn’t just be the promenade. \nI mean\, where would you stop? I mean\, you’d have to have fencing so next to the tide pools. \nAnd then how do people go down there if they brought their dog? They could tie the dog up. So\, I mean\, it’s just not practical. \nFrom any angle to allow dogs in this park\, it’s a marshland. It’s a marshland and your your guidelines state\, well I’ve lost it on the screen but it states that you the policies The last bullet point stated that policy should not negatively affect wildlife. \nAnd management policies. And I would urge you to stipulate when the permit is issued that it’s state\, no dogs allowed. \nThat I think is necessary for the benefit of the wildlife there. So thank you very much. Thank you. \nOkay. Hi\, I’m Cheryl Nelson inbri and I was the supervising naturalist at Crab Cove for 26 years. \nAnd retired about 4 years ago. I’m now involved with the Golden Gate Audubon. \nAnd formerly Audubon\, now the Bird Alliance. And I’m also the co-chair of the Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Reserve. \nSo we just really applaud the city of Alameda for. Planning this park for taking it through the visioning process and we’re just really excited that this is going to be a wetland park that will welcome wildlife and can help to replace the more than 80% of wetlands that have been lost around the bay. \nAnd because of this being a wildlife park it just doesn’t make sense to have dogs roaming freely through it. \nAnd currently a lot of wildlife uses this park I’ve been watching nesting osprey. \nThat are in the park on the jetties that are one of them will be within this new park plan. \nAnd the osprey have been nesting there for about 10 years so they kind of alternated between the 2 jetties. \nAnd so we can already see\, you know\, the impact that additional fishing would have on that kind of bird life. \nAnd then also having the dogs roaming there\, you know\, that would reduce the number of bird species that could nest there. \nSo I just really encourage you to think about some of the details of this plan like that. And also\, if there were no dogs\, you wouldn’t have to have the fencing that went to the ground. \nYou could just have a boundary line for people to know that they shouldn’t go across. So thank you so much for the work that you’re doing for nature and for creating new habitat for wildlife as well as for people to enjoy. \nAnd thanks for letting me say my peace. Thank you. \nIrene Dieter\, please. \nHello board members. I am a resident of Alameda. I am one of the many residents of Alameda who have been really excited about this project. \nWe have been working on it for years. And I cannot find anyone in the city who is not looking forward to it. \nSo\, I want to just say that I hope that you do not underestimate. How important? \nHow significant\, how historic. How monumental this project is. And each of you get to be a part of this history making. \nThere are not many places. Where we have been able to adapt. To sea level rise while people get to enjoy the change. \nAnd I’m sure that you don’t have many projects that you were looking at that it’s being undeveloped versus developed. \nBut it’s being in a different context. And it is just so exciting. And I think that this project\, there’ll be many coastal communities around the country that will look at it. \nAnd for an example. Let alone around the world. To look at it and your names will be on this to make it the best it can be. \nAnd to move it forward. And I just think that this will be a project that so many different agencies and stakeholders will be involved with with getting funding for this. \nSo the more excitement and the more support that we have for this project\, the more the money will follow to make it a reality. \nSo I\, want to thank you for being a part of this historic event. Thank you. Thank you. \nChair\, we have 2 public comments online. The first person is Andy Mavoli. Apologize. \nHopefully I pronounce your name correctly. I am allowing you to speak and you have 3 min. \nGood evening. My name is Andy Mavoli and I’m speaking on behalf of San Francisco Baykeeper. \nThank you for the opportunity to comment on this innovative Depave Park project. Baykeeper is a California nonprofit organization and submits these comments on behalf of its approximately 5\,000 members and supporters who live and or recreate in and around San Francisco Bay area. \nBaykeeper’s mission is to defend San Francisco Bay from the biggest threats and to hold pleuters and government agencies accountable to create healthier communities and help wildlife thrive. \nBeeekeeper has participated in the stakeholder group since the visioning plan for this progressive ecological park. \nAs one of the scientific leads\, we met with city staff and consultants to help describe the benefits of this park for the people of Lameda and Alameda’s wildlife\, including how it will help protect this community against climate change impacts. \nAs you know\, nearly 85% of San Francisco Bay’s historical wetlands have been destroyed by development. \nSo we are encouraged to see Alameda begin to rewild its shoreline and restore the many benefits wetlands can provide. \nAll right. Alan Mida should be applauded for designing and implementing this visionary park. \nWe hope that other cities will follow Alameda’s lead and rewild their shorelines\, creating buffers for sea level rise\, enhancing biodiversity\, increasing community resiliency to climate change and creating more shoreline access. \nWhen built Deepave Park can become the model for other cities to follow. Using nature-based solutions rather than hardening their shorelines to address climate change. \nWe encourage this design review board to support Deepave Park in its mission and design. Projects like this will truly support communities and nature as our climate crisis unfolds. \nThank you so much. \nThank you. \nOkay\, the next speaker is Come if you could date your first and last name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nYes\, we can. \nCan you hear me? Am I on? Thank you. My first name is Kami. \nLast name is Richards. I’m also an elevator resident. I feel a little bit lonely because I’m not going to speak wildly in favor of this. \nMy question is\, has anybody done research on how many? Least turns were losing to predator birds now. \nI mean\, there are buildings that have been there for 50 or 60 years. The least turn community seems to be doing okay. \nAnd here we are\, it sounds like we’re afraid to put up a 6 foot wind break. In the future. \nSo I\, it sounds like you’ve got a huge science team working on this. And I don’t know that we need to be horrified of. \nPlanting the tree or putting up a windbreak when you if you go and look at the buildings that are have been there since the Navy was there and the least turns have been there just as long. \nThat’s\, that’s my\, conceptually\, I like the idea of a park. \nI don’t think that it needs to be. Literally like walking on a runway. \nI think we could do better Thank you. \nThank you. And there are no more public comments. \nOkay\, well thank you for that and thank you to everyone who contributed comments tonight. I can see there’s a great deal of long-term. \nCommitment and passion about this project as one of the speakers mentioned that is really needed to bring it to reality. \nOkay\, we will now move to board discussion. And advice. And so we have all the board members present here. \nTom online. So Tom will make sure you contribute. The staff have asked us to consider 4 particular questions but as always I think we you know at this stage in the development of the the design I think you know bigger picture comments are also welcome from in our discussion. \nBut the full question is just to remind you\, the first question deals with the beach. And just you know is it appropriately designed to be usable and accessible. \nWe heard some details on that\, you know\, details about\, well\, is it\, Will it be expected to erode\, require regular nourishment\, so maintenance questions. \nDo the terrorist beach steps provide an equivalent water access experience when the beach is inundated due to sea level rise? \nSo we we heard the proponents talk about that. But. We should have some discussion on that\, question. \nThe second question deals with the adaptation approach that has been presented and the adequacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site\, which as you recall in the advocacy in terms of addressing program and use areas at the southern portion of the site\, which as you recall\, in the long term that that disappears. \nSo\, you know\, are there programs that have not been included in the long term adaptation plan that should be included or prioritized. \nSo it’s really a question about adaptation and program. And then question 3\, events and event frequency. \nWell\, actually I just want to read this as written. What events and event frequency would the board recommend as triggers? \nEG flooding events or observe sea level rise amounts for initiating sea level rise actions\, adaptation actions such as the elevated board walk. \nSo this is speaking to our. Our question that we deal with every time we look at a project. And then the final question\, do the public access uses of the southern portion of the site necessitate weather protection? \nIf so\, does the board have recommendations on how this could be provided while avoiding conflict with the adjacent habitat area. \nSo so these are the 4 questions that\, you know\, if you want to speak specifically to one of those that would be helpful to staff. \nAnd But if you also want to speak to any bigger. Points related to access. All the design. \nPlease go hit. So. Gary\, do you want to lead off? \nSure\, I can do that. Thank you. Okay\, well. Maybe just start with. \nThe beach comment You know\, I do\, I think that\, you know\, it’s great to have the beach. \nIf you’re bringing in sand\, then yeah\, that implies that there’s some maintenance involved. \nI think it’s worth Considering what is the beach become if the maintenance is not there to keep it replenished. \nAnd I think that’d be a great study to do and just. You said there’s some sand there. Does it just go away? \nDoes it just get flooded? But I don’t know\, I think we’re entering into an era where\, you know\, maintenance is getting really difficult and every city is seems to be overwhelmed with the maintenance they they already have. \nSo I love the beach\, but I’m not. I don’t know the idea of having to truck in sand on a regular basis doesn’t seem\, you know\, maybe that appealing or. \nI don’t know how realistic that is. Gary\, can we just jump maybe to Cody? \nCause what was your reaction to the materials we’ve got on the beach? Do you need to see more detail or? \nWhat’s your what’s your reaction given your? Other beaches along the southern\, edge of Alameda that seem to self-maintain relatively successfully. \nThat this area is unique and that it’s so bound by hardscape. That I’m not sure where the source of sand\, where the sand is going\, where it’s coming from\, but I do know that along Crab Cove\, you see the beach change over time and as as with some exceptions\, maintain itself. \nRight. Okay\, that’s helpful. Thank you. So\, you know\, beyond that. \nDetail. I mean\, I think the adaptation plan is exemplary. I love the way the project. \nIs reusing materials on site and embraces the change as the adaptation and the fact that it can improve or become more of a habitat while also adapting. \nIs brilliant and I think it’s realistic and it’s pragmatic. And the idea that the you know\, the concrete walkway can be becomes a foundation for a future pathway that can easily be raised. \nI mean\, to me that just is so beautifully logical. That I\, I think I have a lot of confidence in what’s been. \nPresented and you know\, as far as the comments by the speakers\, I mean\, thank you for your comments. \nI\, there’s almost nothing I heard that I don’t agree with a hundred percent I mean I think that urban areas are overrun with with with dogs and you know if the fishing is a problem I think I don’t know what is our ability to comment or mandate\, you know\, no dogs or no fishing or whatever\, but I think it should be considered and I think you know it kind of in a way is that. \nCross purposes with the main mission of the of the parks. So I I really agree with that and and I think that there can be some some open spaces public open spaces in the Bay Area that don’t have dogs. \nI think that’s okay. I think it’s \nGary\, can I chime in? Others please weigh in too. I think one of the beautiful aspects of the design. \nWith the 1\,700 foot long walkway out to where the Guys are currently parking their cars and fishing. \nI think there may be some self selection. I mean\, I do support having some. Clear guidance and\, well\, not even guidance mandate if that’s if that’s\, if that can be done. \nEffectively and I think it probably can but I’m really hopeful that the people who currently fish there and I support people being able to fish and as people made the comments you know I think they agree if people want to fish there should be places that they can fish from but this is not one of those places and I think the design is going to really help. \nAccomplish that and the fishermen can go somewhere else where they can. Pack their car and fish. So I\, and\, I think\, you know\, the question about dogs\, obviously that needs some real\, guidance on that point\, but. \nBut I like the fact that the design is assisting in some of these objectives. Yeah\, that’s a great point. \nSo I do\, I do think it’s an exemplary project. I think that it will serve as an example. \nYou know\, we see a lot of communities where\, you know\, we’re reviewing sites. Communities that are doubling down on marginal sites for long-term development that will ensure expensive mitigation for as long as you know we can see into the future. \nAnd the fact that this project is seeing it differently I think is a amazing inspiration for the area. So I’ll leave it at that. \nThank you. Oh\, Stefan. Yeah\, I went just\, again\, thank you for a great presentation. \nAnd this is maybe the second or third. Project that we’ve seen that is sort of thinking about. \nThe shoreline as an opportunity to sort of subtract and revert a portion back to nature. And I think that’s just really\, again\, exemplary. \nThis is clearly sort of the largest scaled. Proposal that we’ve seen. I want to see something about public access. \nAnd I also want to say something else\, but just to try to sort of put a Put a bow on this discussion that we’re having. \nI think that the party of public access is really strong and I really command that. And\, the idea that you would maintain sort of equitable public access for the entire length of the park. \nI really appreciate that. This idea of creating a public space that can nurture. In an increase in habitat. \nFrom what we see there today. It seems really difficult to make that decision today about Should this. Should this park be? \nPrimarily for birds or primarily for people or primarily\, for fishermen\, fisher people\, however you want to say it. \nIn my mind what seems more important is that there’s sort of a management structure and a stewardship structure that can actually adapt. \nThe use of the park over time. In the same way that the users of the space today didn’t have access to it 50 years ago. \nBecause it wasn’t public at all. And so I would sort of wanna be careful with the like. \nMaybe predetermining the balance. Between public access. And wildlife compatibility today. But I think it’s really important that that’s monitored. \nIn the same way that DGNRA and other stewards around the bay have been actively making these decisions to respond to. \nIncreases in habitat populations or challenges\, the certain habitat populations and sort of how that actually mixes with dogs and the success of places. \nThere’s certainly value to. \nBringing public access and bringing people to a space where they can actually see the functioning of the bay. \nWhen we understand how limited those are. And just the value of that for a population that needs to learn and understand. \nWhat’s happening to the Bay. I think it’s hard to. I think it’s hard for us to lose sight of that. \nThe other thing I think that I’m struggling with is I shouldn’t say struggling because I think this is sort of a challenge is this idea that The site is being reinterpreted. \nFrom a runway. Environment to something different that we’re seeing today. And so I’m curious about sort of the historic orientation to that. \nAnd this idea that you can actually now be in the space that used to be the sort of\, it’s totally fabricated. \nIt’s this military structure and you’re sort of Taking pieces of that away and creating this nature\, but How do we interpret that? \nHow do we learn about it? Are there? Is that exclusive to the learning center? Is there other places that that can be interpreted. \nIs there sort of. Like. You know\, this kind of interpretation where somebody’s telling you how to view the site\, is there other stuff about like at how you interpret the ground plane and where you just know where you learn and sort of understand. \nI can look at the concrete and I understand what that used to be. Versus look at the Deacon Post granted and I understand that that’s actually what’s been changed. \nThat whole sort of like morphological interpretation\, I think there’s a huge value. To that because \nWe don’t\, we don’t necessarily realize people not realize that this portion of the bay was just bay. \nAnd so now you’re creating like a second nature which. You can tell people about the history of what people made and then decided to subtract. \nThat’s also sort of makes it very unique and valuable\, but that historic layer and who manages that\, who tells about it\, who has that expertise I think is. \nReally important and to Gary’s point this starts to get beyond like what cities do. So I think it’s just really important to continue to kind of foster the right stewardship for these kinds of places. \nI’m gonna stop talking there\, but that’s what’s on my mind. Yeah\, can I can I just say really quickly? \nI mean one of the things I really love is is that it preserves that one piece of concrete which really maintains the historic\, you know\, military edge\, you know\, that crisp industrial edge. \nWell\, wilding the site so you’re kind of having it both ways. I mean there’s a pretty strong you know pedestrian runway now that that\, you know\, keeps that edge intact for. \nA very long time. \nOkay. Cody\, comments. \nYeah\, I\, it makes me think of a couple of adjacencies. One\, I know the site really well. \nI taught myself to write a motorcycle on this pavement that you’ll be removing. \nI’m still a big fan of removing the thing but it’s it’s a heavily used site there have not all the activities that have happened there have been things that are building community. \nThere’s been a fair amount of \nRequirements for law enforcement\, right? Maintenance and law enforcement. I thought it was going to be a sideshow preserve for some time and I applaud the city for not making it a Seijo preserve. \nI think it’s a genuinely exciting site in a in an area that. It has a lot of direct community benefits in an area that where the community is growing. \nI’m the civil engineer\, so I have to ask simple engineering questions. It’s difficult for even those of us in the design community to really understand what sea level rise resilience looks like and what it will look like after we’re gone. \nBut the sections that we draw. You know they’re they’re based on the best available data we have. \nAnd that will change over time and the implementations will adapt as we get better data. But I\, when I see these plans and I look at how the\, the park would integrate into these future levies. \nYou know\, it’s the future levies that always I think make us scratch our hands is what is what is that ultimately really look and feel like? \nSo it’s not necessarily a comment on the design of this part\, which I think is really. Really thoughtful and already captivating. \nBut it’s more a thought of how does this\, how does the adaptation of this community over time. \nThe adjacencies to this park and this park. What does it really start to look and feel like? \nBecause it’s. I just don’t think any of us really get it. And whether you’re in East Palo Alto. \nOr you’re out of the\, to point. What does it look like when we build these levies up to 16 and a half? \nAnd\, I don’t necessarily have a comment on how the park is laid out to best. \nMake that up\, that adaptation is\, thoughtful as possible. But\, yeah\, it’s sort of the first thing that comes to mind is I see this\, levy shooting out to the west and shooting out to the east. \nTrying to wrap my brain around\, you know\, what does that really look and feel like over time? So. \nI’ll stop my comments there. Otherwise I’m a I’m a big proponent. \nI’ve spent more time on the specific site than I care to admit. I haven’t fished from there. \nI haven’t burned rubber in my car\, but I can when I first saw the plans I was very excited about what this place can be. \nSo Cudi\, I have a follow-up question. You know\, we were asking question 3. \nYou know\, what would be a trigger for initiating sea level rise adaptation measures and I’m just curious\, are you starting to really Analyze that at this stage. \nWell\, I think we all rely on the best available data. Right? And when we project out\, to 2050 and beyond the accuracy the precision of that data diminishes. \nRight\, so I think that the. We have to have some faith in how the design community will continue to. \nTo respond to to the available data. And we’re not it’s not gonna be an isolated case where we see it that will be a point. \nWe’re gonna see it everywhere. So I think it’s probably really difficult to assign prescriptive measures for any any given site\, but I do think that I mean\, guess there’s a lot of faith in the future communities of leaders and designers. \nTo be as thoughtful or more thoughtful than we’re able to be now about how to respond to the evidence. \nContinue to collect and and review data and then respond in time because you’re not gonna you’re not gonna be able to build this elevated platform. \nWhen it’s underwater\, you know\, half the year. Yeah\, I mean\, I’ve got to believe that the The tree is going to be centered around valuation of risk\, you know\, people. \nCould\, you know\, could injure themselves or be killed\, you know\, fall in water\, you know\, and then sort of frequency of inundation and I don’t know how much work is being done at this point. \nBut I’m sure cities around the Bay are thinking about that even though it is still some years off. \nCan I just mention maybe a really good precedent for that would be the\, Sausalito Mill Valley path\, which accommodates thousands of bikers I think on weekends and it floods you know regularly I mean you didn’t use staff to check the tides before you went for bicycle ride\, but now that’s getting more common. \nSo at some point\, you know\, it’s going to get inconvenient and\, and I think it’s self regulating. \nThat’s a great point\, Gary. Thank you. I’d like to begin by thanking the members of the public that have joined us this evening. \nI think it’s always a really important part for us to hear one’s voice. As residents\, neighbors\, users. \nI think it’s really important. And one of the things I think that really struck me was \nIt really made me wonder about the term or the usage of the word park. Because I think it’s a bit of a loaded word and I think that we think about these things in certain ways. \nBecause I think a lot of the conversation has been about and I think it’s very important one is How do we strike this balance? \nBetween creating a place that’s good for people and a place that’s really puts nature out first. \nAnd I think\, you know\, when most people think of parks\, they think of about being supporting people’s people like human activity first. \nAnd I think with this project. I think part of what we love so much about it is that it is trying to allow people access to witness natural processes at work and it’s really about nature first and I think that’s really important and and I think we need to think about it as being nature first and I that’s where I think we really appreciate about it. \nSo I agree if there’s ways to. Manage the human activities to try and allow nature to be. \nReally protected and to succeed on its own. I think that’s really important if we can. \nAnd find a way forward. On the question of adaptation. I think it’s\, I think there’s another thing about parks\, which again\, maybe I don’t know if it’s nineteenth or eighteenth century thinking but there’s a sense of the the permanence of these things that the desire for them to be something that is accessible to us and to future generations all time. \nAnd I think really we’re in a world today and particularly in a place like this where sea level rise happens that adaptability is this notion of adaptability or resilience. \nI think it’s really about the changeability that nature is constantly in flux and particularly these days and perhaps the flux is something that’s human-induced but The fact that the park could retreat could. \nBe adjusted by future generations\, I think is actually appropriate. It’s the way we should be thinking about the edges. \nOf where we build where it meets nature. We should really allow for that line to be a soft one. \nYou know\, nature doesn’t very rarely works in hard lines. It’s always gradual transitions from one thing to the other. \nAnd I think that’s what this park is trying to do\, even the beach\, I think. How’s that opportunity to be something that It’s there probably because there’s some currents or some sands that are allowing that to be deposited into. \nExtend that a bit\, but I don’t what I’m not hearing and I don’t think we should be is. \nOh\, it’s gonna be permanent. Something that’s going to be protected forever and ever. It’s if it gets in the data eventually then that’s what nature wanted. \nRight? So I think that kind of soft approach is really what this project calls for and the way we should be thinking about these kinds of spaces these days. \nSo. And then\, so when it comes to this question of event frequency and triggers\, I think it’s really. \nWe’re gonna have to see what. I’m hoping that future generate we’ve learned enough to know that. \nWe really need to take our cues in these kinds of places from what nature is telling us and to listen and not try to. \nPut the human stamp on it. So\, I think we have to put a little bit of faith in our future leaders to to be sensitive and to recognize that. \nGood. Thank you. Tom\, comments. On these questions. \nYeah. \nBut everybody said everything already. Okay\, I would just touch for a minute. On the assumptions that are built into both. \nHe’s big levees that Cody was talking about. And the. Continual assumption about what a park program is supposed to be. \nAnd that we treat every park. With the same list of of concerns and demands on And\, I don’t think it should be that way. \nI think this one here in terms of. How it reaches apart? Should be very\, it’s a very raw and almost severe idea here\, which is all we’re doing is removing and chopping up concrete. \nIt has a coolness\, but that you don’t wanna lose by softening too much. First I was worried\, but I think that It needs to just be dim\, demonstrating the the rawness of ripping up concrete and stacking in a few places and then declare a really clear purpose that it’s going to be\, I think in this case\, Why not test it for the birds for the for the least turn? \nIt’s easily adaptable to something else that doesn’t work\, but it’s going to have a clear purpose. \nYou don’t know why it’s there\, I think. I would navigate for very\, very heavy on. \nYou know\, making all that work. They were the dogs\, get rid of the fishing. Give it the best chance it can and then if it’s not so great. \nIn the future\, you don’t know\, you can. Change it. Also I thought\, Stefan raised an interesting point\, you know\, about interpretation. \nWho’s going to tell this story? I don’t know. Who’s got money or or timer? \nExperts use to do that. The could be some something done like that. There could be something that BCDC concerned itself with\, you know. \nBcds was started. By people that were saving the bay and then Ron Blatman\, you\, and\, our friend Ron Blatman. \nHmm. \nHe\, he\, he did that series saving the bay. And it was about about. \nNot fill it. And this is about something different\, like saving the bay too. Ought to tell the story. \nThere ought to be somebody that’s doing this that’s kind of in charge that this is like the documentarian of the this and this is a great example of one chapter in a in a thing like that and I think it could be the charge of BCDs to think about. \nWho’s telling this story and how? It’s critically important to advancing the us. That’s it. \nThanks\, Tom. Okay\, I just want to make a couple of comments myself. And I don’t want to repeat what other people have said because it’s been said very elegantly. \nI do wanna comment just pick up on question for the question of public access and You know\, I’m really persuaded by what we heard that the\, you know\, It is about nature. \nConstructed elements should be secondary. I don’t think that we need to be too concerned about\, you know. \nStructures for weather protection. I don’t think this is that kind of park. I think it’s it’s something else and there are Fabulous\, really great. \nAreas of public space that are being built. Just me here where there’s protection and lots of opportunities for people who want shade and so on. \nSo. You know\, this is\, this is about something else. So I don’t have a concern that\, you know\, I think the design is going in the right direction\, with that approach. \nAnd I also\, I mean\, just\, I was just thinking about how often we are. Reviewing typically reviewing Bay Trail and we talk about safety of\, you know\, commuter cycling or cycling versus pedestrians. \nAnd maintenance and operations. And again\, I think in this park\, if this is something that is not so relevant here\, not relevant actually. \nSo there is a a generously proportioned space that goes 1\,700 feet. Out along beer to the water. \nAnd people will. So-organized and people will It’s their have their children with their bicycles\, they can be on the bicycles\, if they’re walking they can be walking. \nAnd I think that is perfectly. Fine in\, I don’t think we need to have\, you know\, strips of planting to delineate. \nThe bicycles and so on. And\, because to the point about stewardship. \nI see. Time. This park will evolve\, these spaces will evolve. So I’m not really concerned about the issues that we are often quite concerned about for for different reasons. \nThere is one thing that I want to emphasize that\, someone spoke about\, at some lengths. \nI\, do think that the the distance is fairly significant for people who have accessibility concerns I think just being very confident that people can get across a long stretch of decomposed granite and that that decompose granite will be maintained data quickly and be stable and so on is important. \nIt sounds like a real detail at this stage\, but I think you know\, the big moves of\, surfacing\, being established at this point in the design. \nSo. I would just encourage you to think about that. And Yeah\, I\, the points are being made about the beach. \nI was just looking at these questions for anything else. We should be\, commenting on\, but I think everything has been said very clearly. \nSo look\, I think that concludes. The board discussion. Do you want me to highlight critical points or are you fine\, Ashley\, with what’s been said? \nGreat. One thing I know. Yes. Yeah\, I just the interpretation thing that Stefan and Tom\, we’re talking about. \nAfter working with the Torium for 15 years. I mean\, I think I’m a proponent of. \nTo some extent of non didactic learning like self-discovery and I was thinking about how the marina green You know\, at a low tide you can see\, you know\, the landfill\, you know\, call on Corinthian capitals and keystones\, you know\, all the rubble from the earthquake. \nWhich is kind of which shows itself at low tide and there’s something about No visiting there\, you know\, 10 times or 20 times and then all of a sudden you discover this and start asking the question like\, well\, how did that\, you know\, how did those old building parts get down there and then you\, you know\, it tells a whole story about the marina. \nSo anyway\, I rather than signage\, I don’t I’m not sure that that’s what you were referring to\, but but I think there’s kind of a beauty in letting it be what it’s going to be. \nAnd there’s plenty of runway out there for people to. You know\, just to build on that too on the question of stewardship. \nI mean\, it’s so inspiring to see so many of you from the community here tonight speaking about stewardship really and so I think we already have the beginning of\, you know\, and perhaps the core. \nYou know\, what will become an important part of long term stewardship of the park\, which is really strong community advocacy and involvement and dialogue. \nContinued dialogue with the city really close dialogue to address. Questions and potentially management issues\, which as Stefan pointed out\, you know\, might not be here today. \nBut in 20 years time there may be a raft of different issues that are being dealt with. So I think that\, you know\, whether there’s some formalization of that as this design and this process continues. \nYou know for you all to think about but i’m really pleased to see this level of commitment from the community. \nIt both very well for project. Okay\, so look with that\, I think we’ll wrap up the. \nThe board discussion. And at this point. We can move to a project proponent response Would the team like to respond or comment on what’s been? \nDiscuss tonight. I just wanna say thank you very much. This went. Exactly as we had hoped. \nA great insight and ideas. Welcome the board to the DPA. Project team. Thank you to the community for you guys showing up. \nYou guys are always great. So we have a lot of work to do and you know as I said We’ll be trying to wrap up 30% design in this spring and then we’ll have a lot of activity around. \nFundraising to try and get money to actually. Make it happen And from the city’s perspective\, I just want to thank you all for your time and your thoughtful comments. \nWe’ve been excited to bring this project forward. And we’re going to be continuing to be just as excited to have this project built. \nSo thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you for making the trip over from Alameda to here too. \nIt is so much better to be able to see people and talk about. The issues face to face. \nSo. Thank you. \nYeah. Yeah\, there is a question. Do we want to see this project again? \nI don’t\, you know\, I know we often need a second review\, but given what we have. \nYou know\, given the presentation\, the comments that we’ve made back \nI don’t think we need to see it again. Unless it would be helpful to you to come and have a another conversation at some point during the process. \nSo Do others agree with me on this or? Yep. \nI would have confidence in this team to do it. \nAccording to what’s what we’ve seen \nOkay\, so yeah\, so we don’t need to see this project again\, but we would certainly like to keep. \nTrack of it. And stay in touch with you on it. Yeah. \nIs that okay with you? Good. And we’ll the staff will follow through on all of the points we’ve made tonight. \nThank you. Okay. Look\, we’ll take a 5 min break to set up and we’ll try and keep it to 5 min so that we can get started with the second review. \nThank you. Access. \nOkay. \nOkay. Yeah. Yes. Okay. \nOkay. Nice to meet you in person. Thanks for your support. We differ to local jurisdictions. \nThat is all you. Sounds good. Okay. We’re gonna. \nYeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. \nIt’s great. \nWe’re going to continue with the second part of the meeting now. Welcome. And this is the second review of the 13\, point\, 0\, one\, shoreway life sciences development project. \nAnd. We are all familiar with the order but I’ll just run through it very quickly. \nWe’ll have BCDC staff do an introduction overview\, you will then present. We’ll have clarifying questions\, public comment\, board discussion and summary and then a brief response. \nWe appreciate you coming back and for the additional work that you’ve done. And we’re looking forward to hearing. \nThe issues that we raised last time addressed so with that We’ll\, hand over to our permanent analyst who is Shruti for this project. \nSo Shr\, please go ahead. \nThank you. Chair McCann and good evening board members. My name is Shruti Sinha. \nI am a permanent analyst at BCDC. The second project for review tonight is a life sciences redevelopment project in Vermont proposed by 4 coronals. \n4 coroner’s properties. Please note that the staff report that was mailed out\, ously indicated that this will be the project’s first DRB review. \nIn fact\, the project was first reviewed by the DRB in August\, the twentieth. 23 and tonight will be the project’s second review. \nBefore we discuss the project\, we would like to acknowledge that the majority of the land in this area was once water and historic tidal flats. \nLocated near Lampson. The unseated ancestral homeland of the Rahmatush Oloni. \nWe offer gratitude to the indigenous peoples who are the original stewards of the Bountiful Natural Resources of the Bay Area. \n1301 shoreway is a 6.9 one acre site at 1301 showway road in the city of Vermont\, San Mateo County. \nJust outside of the Redwood Chores waterfront community. \nThe satellite map on the right shows the project site outlined in yellow. The project site is bounded by some lane to the northwest. \nShorway Road to the Southwest. A PG and E substation to the south. And Vermont Creek to the east. \nThe site shares the Vermont Creek shoreline with 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin. \nBoth reviewed by the DRB. \nIn 2022. Sure way road is adjacent to and runs parallel with Highway One. \nThe existing permit for the project site was originally issued in 1\,982 in association with the construction of a 48\,000 square foot building which is now a medical office building. \nThe permit was amended once for construction of a private sports court. The overall public access requirements of the permit include. \nAppropriate landscaping. A 10 foot wide pedestrian path. No fewer than 3 benches. No fewer than 2 public access signs. \nAnd an 8 foot wide connector path on the north side of the tennis court. \nThis is a Google Street View capture of the site from Shawway Road from the 101 freeway. \nThe project site is shown at the center with a hotel campus to the northwest and a PG and E substation to the southeast. \nThis Google Street View capture of the site. \nIs from Sem Lane\, which terminates here. To the right you can see the parking lot of 1\,301 of the 1301 shoreway campus to the left is the existing Vermont creek trailhead marked by a public shore sign. \nThis is a photo of Vermont Creek from a staff site visit in 2\,022. It was taken from Shawway Road\, north of the 1301 shoreway site. \nIn this photo\, 13 or one shore away would be to the right of the frame as indicated. The creek is at the center\, flanked by marsh vegetation. \nAnd the building on the left is 10 twin dolphin\, also known as the former Oracle campus\, a project previously reviewed by the DRB as mentioned. \nThis slide provides some regional context for parks and public access areas in the vicinity. \nThe project side is outlined in yellow. Public access paths are shown in purple lines while the bay trail is shown in a thick blue line. \nArea shaded in dark green represent BCDC priority use areas for wildlife purposes. And areas shaded in light green represent public parks. \nAdjacent project sites\, 10 Twin Dolphin and 200 Twin Dolphin. \nCan be seen to the north and south of the project site. \nWith respect to the social setting of the project location\, the area is largely dominated by office buildings. Then BCdc’s community vulnerability mapping tool shows the project area as having moderate social vulnerability. \nAnd lower contamination vulnerability. \nIn this area\, the social vulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile are for people with no vehicle. \nPeople with a disability. People of color. People with limited English proficiency and people with very low income. \nNote that there are some areas to the West that are identified as having high and highest social vulnerability. \nVulnerability indicators in the seventieth percentile for this higher vulnerability area includes children under 5. \nPeople over 65 and alone. People with no high school degree. People with limited English proficiency. \nAnd people\, people who are not US citizens and people with very low income. \nMoving on to sea level rise. BC DC’s Flood Explorer Map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise would look like if the site remained unchanged. \nThe site is outlined in yellow for the medium to high risk aversion scenario. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the mean higher high water level. \nWhich would not cause any flooding on the site. \nHere’s a zoomed out picture of the map\, the same map showing. Flooding in surrounding areas at 24 inches of sea level rise. \nThis map shows with 66 inches of sea level rise would look like at the site. If the site remained unchanged. \nHere again\, the project side is outlined in yellow. For the medium to high risk conversion scenario\, 66 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to the 100 year storm at mid century. \nAnd mean higher high water. In the year 2090. As you can see\, 66 inches of sea level rise would cause overtopping at the project site. \nThis is a summary of the Bay Pine policies and guidelines that apply to this project. The proposal should provide public access that is clearly visible. \nUsable\, visually accessible. Complementary to the visual quality of the bay\, shoreline and surroundings. \nConnective and takes advantage of the base setting. \nIn addition\, Steph\, we’ve also included some questions by staff that we would like the board to consider. \nSpecifically\, we would like the board to consider the legibility and public feel of the proposed public access. \nAny additional ideas for public access improvement. The legibility of connections to and through the site for pedestrians and cyclists. \nThe adequacy of the revised signage plan. \nOur apologies. We seem to have. Been disconnected from the presentation. I was trying to share it again. \nNo\, but that was our very last slide. And I only had one other thing to add was that the\, we would like the board to consider the advocacy of the revised signage\, plan and possible triggers for flood adaptation measures at the site. \nAt this point\, does the board have any clarifying questions? \nNone for me. Does anyone else have clarifying questions? \nNo. In that case\, I will turn the floor over to Renee Behan of SWA to present the project. \nThank you\, Streaty. \nThank you. Distinguished board members\, BCDC staff and members of the public. It’s my honor to present 1301 shoreway. \nI’m presenting today on behalf of\, our client\, 4 Corner property who owns it and also representing the larger consultant team joined by Craig Bachelor from DGA Architecture. \nBKF\, Raquel Fontas\, and Moffat Nichols who are on the zoom and available if need be. \nThis is our second presentation and I’d like to maybe start by thanking\, BCDC staff\, Shruti\, and Ashley for all of their assistance. \nAlso very much appreciate the first round of comments from our August meeting. For those who weren’t here\, I’ll try to make sure you have all of the same information through this presentation. \nI thought we had a fairly positive feedback and review. I think the question was a level of detail\, you know\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the architecture\, more detail about the and specificity about the program\, clarification about flood risk. \nRelationship to courtyard and of course the potential accessibility of the private sports court for the users of the DCDC path. \nI’ll try to address all of those issues through the presentation today. \nAnd also\, Try to not be too\, repetitive of the presentation BCTC just gave. \nYou know\, our site located off 101 sits on this important kind of apex between not just Vermont but the city of San Carlos and Redwood City itself. \nVermont Creek itself outlined in blue kind of goes across all 3 entities\, Vermont\, San Carlos\, and Redwood City. \nThe park\, the site itself is adjacent to 200 twin dolphin and 10 twin dolphin. \nAnd I will say that we lean heavily on those approved submittals to make sure that this was designed as a single. \nEcology in terms of plant life materiality\, accessibility\, and we do plan to continue to work with those other groups to develop more of a regional signage and wayfinding system. \nTo the dash purple\, you can see\, the BCDC lot\, I’m sorry\, the Bay Trail itself. \nWhich we do not connect to directly\, but\, are adjacent to. \nOur city\, one of the unique things about our BCDC development is that actually our property owners do not actually own. \nThe parcel that is currently designed that is owned by SBCA. Which has fully endorsed through letters and communication with BCDC\, the plan that we’re submitting. \nAs Truthy mentioned\, to the south is the PG and E transformer. \nSite to the north is Sem Lane and Vermont’s corporate yard beyond that shoreway road and 100\, and one to the south. \nThe maybe a little clarification of what Truthy presented\, the original plan accessible area in purple originally submitted in 1\,981 in 1985 that plan was amended to include a private tennis court that you see in the upper. \nRight hand detailed blowup. Our site has an existing trail and as I mentioned\, it does not connect directly to the larger bay trail. \nIt’s a little bit of a one off. You enter the trail\, the trail head is at the end of Sam Lane. \nAnd then it comes out just west of 1010 twin dolphin drive. The bubbles show that if you cross the street crossing\, twin dolphin drive\, you can\, connect to\, to the larger bay trail. \nAs Truthy mentioned\, our site is just under 7 acres. The\, you can see that BCDC jurisdiction line. \nThere are 3 seating nodes\, which I’ll demonstrate in a minute here. An existing creek trail. \nAccess\, icular access is off of both shoreway and Sem Lane currently. \nViews pulled back first from the 101 the creek itself is not detectable from this area. \nIt’s it’s about 600 feet off of shoreway drive. There’s no visible connection and it’s it’s a little bit of a walk without much signage upfront. \nWay. Again\, there’s no indication that there’s actually a trail down there from a shore way. \nAnd so you can see the images looking down. Looking at the existing building and then looking at the parcel adjacent to the PG and E. \nSubstation. \nFrom the site itself currently in a bit of disrepair the trail head in the upper right hand corner one of the seating and trash nodes\, one of 3\, they’re all pretty much. \nIn the same condition and then the slightly improved node adjacent to the private tennis courts down in the lower right. \nJust a little bit more. The trail has\, although it’s actually in pretty firm\, pretty good shape\, it’s accessible. \nYou could\, you could easily roll a\, a bike or a wheelchair\, through it. \nBut again\, I think the biggest issue is just identity and kind of getting people to understand that this is a public place and you’re welcome to join. \nFlood map in the larger area. I think last meeting we clarified that that FEMA levy is on the other side of the creek in the Redwood City side. \nOur site is in a zone X\, which is a minimal flood hazard. Currently the site is more or less at 10 with the existing a trail sitting between elevation 10 and 11 5. \nOur proposal is to bring the minimal height. Up at the trail to 12.5. And then to have some variation. \nSo it would basically vary between 12 5 and elevation 15. And I think this is one of the one of the questions that you guys had last time in terms of. \nHow the grading\, the burning\, the accessibility kind of ties new to old. Buildings will be elevated to elevation 12 per the city of Vermont regulation. \nI’m consistent with FEMA and again our minimal elevation would be 12 5 with the burning. \nGoing up as high as 15 and then meandering between 1413 and down to the 12 5. Little more detail of the contouring. \nThe path itself will remain relatively flat other than the connection to some lane. Where you basically slope the walkway down to meet grade. \nSome data on what’s being proposed existing\, ing proposed obviously the site remains 6.9 acres publicly accessible DCDC space is going from 57.6 to 83.6. \nLandscape area is increasing from 51\,000 to 56\,000. DG path and program nodes increasing from 6\,500 to 9\,100. \nMulti-use sports court. Which we are making publicly accessible is an additional 4\,700 feet. \nThe auxiliary sports court kind of the workout area adjacent to it is an additional 5\,008 8 5\,800 feet. \nBike spaces we’re adding 10 public parking spaces we’re dating 3 sidewalk\, new sidewalk. \nAlong some lane\, which will demonstrate is an additional 7\,700 square feet of accessible space. The bench seating going from 8 to 19. \nGoing from 2 to 4 signs and adding 2 fitness nodes. We’ll get into the details on that as we go through the presentation. \nSo again\, from a grading perspective\, existing grade on site\, 10 more or less at 10. And at the berm more or less 11. \nGoing to a minimum\, 12 5 at the berm and the buildings go up to 12. \nThese are the key to the sections are up in the\, in the upper right hand corner. So this is through the first building. \nSecond\, the wrong way. Second section is through the courtyard. And again\, the courtyard going up to 14. \nThe berm is going up to 14. Along the BCDC easement and up to 1415 in areas of the courtyard as well. \nAnd then adjacent to the parking structure\, again\, 12. And then going up as high as 15 when we go adjacent to the PG and E. \nTransformer station. \nOn the question\, so this satisfies\, Bcdc’s\, 2\,000\, and 50 requirement on the question of 2\,100 you know is there advocate room to go up an additional 6 feet. \nYes\, there is taking a 3 to one slope up from the existing top of bank. We can easily hit elevation 18. \nAnd accessibility from the parking lot is not an issue. That we would also be willing to work\, you know\, 2050 and beyond with adjacent property owners. \nIf there was another approach to developed in\, in time. \nThe signage program\, we’re adding for signage starting again at the beginning of some lane with just kind of a identity sign that there’s a public shore in this area. \nThe first node at the end of science some is more of an educational wayfinding regional wayfinding hoping to orient people to where they are and how to get to the larger trail system. \nFocusing on birds. Naturalized birds in the area in the third node and then focusing on plant and plant life in the fourth. \nNote for the signage. So again\, existing. Existing intersection on SEM and shoreway\, no sign\, no walkway. \nNo. Kind of clues whatsoever. That there’s a path. And then the\, the proposed. \n6 foot walkway from shoreway all the way back. Public signage and you can see the new building starting to come into the landscape here. \nAbout halfway down the block is the courtyard between the 2 buildings. You see the parking structure in the background. \nSo there’s basically a space where the 2 lobbies face each other and there’s an amenity space for. \nThe building users. And\, you continue your access for the BCDC easement. Second signage at the end of some lane is kind of an active note. It’s where you park. \nIt’s where you deal with your bike in terms of repairs or parking and that sort of thing. \nIt’s also where you orient yourself. So that’s sorry. This includes a Parker Station\, the first of 3 stations along the court. \nSo we’ll get into the detail in this in a second\, but just to snippet of what you’ll find at the end of some lane as you approach on your bike or park your car. \nOr take the new walkway down to the area. The second node as we said\, this is a more passive node. \nThere’ll be informational signage about burning bird life along the material here. Just a snippet of the kind of larger regional landscape will be included. \nIn that\, in the development. The third node has orientation back into the architectural courtyard. \nThe private courtyard\, but also designed as a passive node preceding. Additional signage and information. \nStorytelling about plant life along the Bay Area. And then finally\, the sports court area. \nAs I mentioned\, we are going to open the court to the to the public in addition to being developed as a\, to the public\, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court\, to the public\, in addition to being developed as a multi-use court. \nThere’s a manetized se \nSo\, a little bit more detail now on each node. The first node will include a bicycle repair station\, a fitness node\, again educational way finding signage. \n10 bike parking spaces and 3 vehicle spaces as well as a new entry to the to the path itself. Fully accessible. \nSo existing condition at the end of Sem and the trail head. And the proposed condition. New buildings off to the right. \nThe next node\, is where there’s visual connectivity. To the existing courtyard. \nAgain\, the idea here is to continue with the decomposed granite trail. Develop a unique signage program for the plant life of the area\, provide seating\, I’m trying to use natural material\, wood\, and other materials that kind of support the sense of a natural space. \nExisting node and sitting area looking back to the parking area and the proposed node. And although\, you know\, the courtyard itself is going to remain private\, It’s a singular ecology. \nIt’s the same plant material\, same plant life carried from the creek through and into the project itself. \nAnd then\, finally the sports court itself\, I think\, on your recommendation\, which was a good one\, to give a little bit of scale and variety\, we combined 2 nodes with the existing sports court in this case. \nSo the space is very flexible. It can be used\, you know\, basketball\, paddle ball. \nIt has the exercise nodes and it also has ample seating around the perimeter. \nSo the proposed sports court. Fencing on the PG and E. And outer property line but open both to the to the trail. \nTo the trail to the north and to the west. \nAgain\, the parkour area\, it’s one of 4\, 4 along the trail. \nExisting plant leaf\, plant life\, trees anyway\, that our verse report has\, deemed\, the existing plant to be either in poor or very poor condition. \nThere’s no trees that we deem\, are necessary to\, salvage out there. So we’re adding a substantial. \nNew and improved. Plant palette and by improved\, I mean plants that are more appropriate for the environment. \nA lot of plants\, a lot of trees adjacent to the PG and E station and the parking garage and then with greater transparency obviously as you get to the courtyards itself. \nAgain\, same plant material on the trail and in the courtyard so that there’s both visual and ecological connectivity between the spaces. \nPlant pellet. It’s and again this is similar to the plant palette at 210 twin dolphin drive. \nAnd then the ground cover pellet itself. \nSo in summary\, That’s our presentation. Hopefully\, we were successful in giving you a better sense of what’s being proposed. \nBoth from a physical and emotional perspective of how the project feels. \nYeah. Okay\, thank you very much. That was very helpful. I was not at the original\, first presentation\, but from reading meeting notes\, I think you’ve put a lot of effort into communicating more detail\, which was a significant part of the comments previously. \nSo with that\, are there any questions from the board clarifying questions from the proponent? \nTo the proponent. \nAny questions? Yeah. Yeah\, thank you for the presentation. Thank you for coming back. \nOne question I had and I don’t remember if it was answer. Thank you for coming back. One question I had and I don’t remember if it was answered in the first meeting was you What is the anticipated maintenance of the area going forward. \nSo that it doesn’t fall into the kind of similar state of disrepair. \nYeah. Shorthy\, can you help me answer that? Is there a maintenance agreement? In place. \nThe final permit will include a maintenance condition. But. The. \nThe\, the applicants who will become the permitting. Can can determine how that will. \nHow that will take place. That agreement can be an internal agreement\, but they as co-permitees\, they will both be held to that maintenance condition. \nI think just speaking practically\, it’s absolutely in their best interest to make sure that it is maintained and doesn’t fall into disrepair. \nOkay\, thanks. Yeah. I think that’s my only question right now. \nTom\, any questions? \nNone for me. That’s pretty clear to me. \nOkay\, I just had one question about the multi purpose court. I don’t know how things work in Vermont\, but in San Francisco\, city of San Francisco\, Parks and Rick have a booking site\, you know\, where you can book courts and so you know that that courts available. \nIs there a similar system in the city of Vermont? We’re currently in discussion with the city and with Vermont in terms of how best to do that. \nThey they actually we presented this updated presentation last week and they were They asked the same question and they also are worried about\, well\, is it too open now? \nYou know\, are you going to get graffiti and that sort of thing? And I\, I don’t think so. \nI’ve worked in the area for decades and this is not a high crime or a graffiti kind of type of neighborhood. \nI think part of it is balancing the programs that are provided. For the communities that live in the area\, the communities that Shruti was mentioning. \nWell\, at the same time making sure that the courts are getting ample use. In other words\, we talked about paddle ball\, but we’re a little bit worried about that paddle ball will kind of overrun all the other programs that could happen here. Right. \nAnd\, yeah\, I mean. Some of these activities come and go as well. So. You know\, got to think long term\, but yeah\, the other side of that is that\, nothing would be better than seeing this. \nTrail overrun with people because it’s it’s a bit isolated and I think That’s the key is balancing something that’s gonna draw a lot of use\, but not have a single user group dominate how it’s used. \nI’m glad to hear the city is focusing on that as well because that will be the key to. \nPeople knowing about it and coming there. So\, yep. Yeah. Okay\, I think that concludes the questions. \nQuestions\, clarifying questions. We’ll move to public comment. Is there any public comment? \nThe board will have received a forwarded letter from the Steve\, in support of this project. But that was the only public comment that we were seen. \nAnd we did receive that letter and very Good to hear that we\, you know\, did not have that. \nInformation last time around. So we’re very pleased to hear the city is supporting the project. \nOkay\, we will move on from public comment. To broad discussion and advice. As we always do\, we have some questions to consider. \nThe question one is about\, you know\, public nature of the spaces and is the new is the more developed. \nScheme\, allowing for that. Are there any other improvements? Could enhance the public access experience? \nAnd the third question really is\, related to the scale\, the size of the buildings and\, you know\, is there a are they legible connections and\, you know\, how does that work. \nAnd then the fourth question is about the revised signage plan\, the adequacy of that. And the fifth one is Just\, again\, raising this question of flooding and adequacy of\, well\, the types of events and frequency that could trigger adaptive actions. \nSo that’s the way that question is framed. So. Look\, I’m gonna defer to the people who were here at the last meeting to provide comments and i think that was leo you were here and stefan and gary and Tom\, were you with your time too? \nI was here. \nYeah. Tom\, why don’t you just lead off with your reaction? \nWell\, you\, I. Maybe I don’t remember everything\, but I recall. I had 3\, 3 things\, only 3 things. \nOne was that the signage at the\, at the same way. Clearly directed people to the bay trail. \nThat that was probably handled. To just about safe crosswalk traffic table type crosswalk from the courtyard over to the trail. \nAnd 3\, I was concerned about the non public nature of basketball\, of the\, yeah\, tennis court. \nSo \nThose are my concerns. I would go ahead and say I think they’ve all been dressed. But. \nOkay. Good talk. Yeah\, well. \nAnything else you want to comment on or we’ll just go around the table here and get people’s \nI think I feel like it’s pretty simple they did what we asked him. \nYeah. Okay\, any other comments from the group Leo? \nNo\, I think\, you know\, I think Tom’s right. They did more\, more or less what we asked. \nI think the is still\, there was a general question that I don’t know that for me has been clearly answered\, which is Is everything been done to really make this section feel as public as possible? \nAnd I think perhaps part of that is smaller elements related to parking\, you know\, for example\, the parking spaces that are for the public. \nAre inside what probably will feel like. Our private parking lot because you know this whole area is about parking lots better on the other side of a curb cut. \nSo I don’t know if there’s anything that could be done to Further emphasize that you know maybe there needs to be an extra sign by the street or something to encourage folks to come in or the curb cut is pushed back in some way so that the it’s the parking is really seen as being part of the public realm and not private room. \nDid I? I thought I heard that there were 2 spaces at the end of Yeah\, I mean\, we don’t wanna put them in the street because then you’re blocking the the trail itself. \nCertainly we could put signage there. We could move up planting island and isolate those 3 and you know\, I think additional signage would would clarify that it’s BCDC. \nYeah\, I think\, the\, again\, it’s maybe small. Details that will help provide the cues for the public that it’s It’s okay to come in. \nThis is this is areas that you can be in. I said it doesn’t It could simply be the spaces are there\, but they’re lowered. \nStreet level and the curb cut is pushed inboard. But I think\, you know\, that’s something that you could work through what the details are. \nYes\, I hadn’t realized that you have to. Drive through the. The driveway into the parking field for the for the project. \nRight. \nYeah\, it would be more. \nIntuitive if you could just drive down. Same line and access those. Right. \nThere\, Craig reminds me\, there is parallel parking on some lane. If that’s a preferred designated area for YouCDC. \nParking. \nI guess we’d have to work with the city on that then. Yeah. No\, I think it’s\, I think it’s the spaces are fine. \nI think it’s just again about providing signage and clarity for the public. \nThanks\, you. Yeah. Stefan\, anything? No\, I think we talked about this a little bit before I think. \nYou know\, opening up this area. To public access. Thinking about what’s there today is a huge benefit. \nAnd like and I don’t want to sort of lose side of that and I would agree with Tom that the specific comments that we articulated before. \nAre being addressed very nicely. \nI think the \nI don’t think this merits Any discussion on our part\, but I do want to say that this question about timing of adaptation\, which is a concurrent theme tonight for these 2 projects and Not something that I think staff has specifically. \nAsked us in that way before. And it feels tough to address that here given. The Progress and improvements that we’ve made since the previous submittal. \nWhich again\, I don’t want to sort of lose sight of that. But I do think that. \nThis is sort of a future challenge. From staff that we need to think about how to best respond. \nYeah. Yes\, I don’t think that’s something we need to. Correct. Yeah\, incorporate into this review specifically\, but this is a new question that we’re receiving and I think it comes with it needs a lot of. \nThought and probably separate dialogue between staff and ourselves to really explore what that what you would like us to. Focus on when considering that question. \nOkay. Thank you for bringing that up. Gary. Yes\, yes\, I\, I agree the\, having the court be public is a huge improvement. So\, you know\, appreciate that. \nI think it’s really a game changer and the amount of detail and materiality that you’ve provided I think answers a lot of questions so I feel very good about that. \nCouple observations. The It looks like the level 15\, you know\, BERM is\, back at the courtyard\, I believe\, right? \nIt’s not on the\, You know\, it’s not the Bay Trail. It’s really the. \nLike the day trail remains at about 12. And the 15 protects the courtyard\, which I think is a good idea. \nSo I just thought There’s an interesting device observation that you know the private space is protected more than the public space but I think that that kind of you know makes sense but I just wanted to point that out you know I don’t know if the berm well I think\, I think we’re always a little skeptical about the Bs anyway because you know\, you just have one parcel and you can’t hold back the \nbay just on your parcel. So. You know\, that’s running comment\, you know\, that without the cooperation of your neighbors\, like you said\, I mean\, it really is not a solution. \nAnd so\, you know\, that’s why I always think about\, okay\, what if the neighbors don’t? \nPlay along\, you know. But that\, that is a comment\, about every project that we review. \nJust to clarify\, the the BERM goes to 15. At the PG and E station. So behind the ball court\, and then it fluctuates\, to 14 between 12\, 5 and 14 along the trail. \nOkay\, it’s minimum\, 12 5 and then 2\, 14\, wherever we could easily get it that higher. \nOkay\, great. And just one other comment. It was about the parking\, you know\, because in plan you see a pretty strong presence of parking lining the bay trail in the renders you don’t really see what is that impact. \nI think it’s okay to show the cars and to really\, you know\, figure out how to incorporate them into the design. \nI guess in some places where the there’s a node. Which is. Write up against parking\, you know\, the planting strip gets\, you know\, a little constricted there. \nSo. I don’t\, I think it’s just a comment to stop and you to just think about the screening that would need to occur there in order to keep those nodes\, you know\, really. \nActive and protected. So those are my comments. Thanks. Thank you. \nYeah\, look\, I think everything is being said. I just want to raise one comment\, which this is not something you can address at this time\, but. \nIn the projects that we’ve been reviewing in this part of the Bay\, the the number of parking spaces structured parking spaces that are required\, you know\, are if I added them all up over the projects we’ve reviewed within a probably 2 to 3\, radius of this site. \nIt’s a huge number and And I think there’s a almost a philosophical question in my mind\, which is\, you know\, just as we are being asked by staff to consider. \nAt what point do we adapt? And at what point are we able to\, you know\, confidently say that we need to. \nIncrease protection. Along the along the water’s edge by raising the elevation. I just feel like at some point we should be saying at what point Do we stop building? \nStructured parking. I think this is at the size that we’re currently doing it. I just can’t imagine that in 25 or 50 years time people will be driving to these buildings the way they are anticipated or the way the city anticipates. \nSo I mean I think the garage is 10 stories or 8 stories? 9\, 9. And it’s just a lot of parking and and a lot of cost to build it. \nSo I just would love. People who have to pay for developing. Projects like this. Somehow push this with these cities. \nTo really push them on this question because it seems It seems. You know\, like we are building in redundancy down the track\, which is unfortunate. \nSo this is not anything to be answered tonight\, but I just. It dismayed me to see all of this. \nI think you could say that the that providing less parking would provide one avenue to long-term adaptability. \nBecause the site could more easily be adapted for slide control purposes. I mean\, you could. \nLook at it to that lens that it allows more public space on the site that could be moved around. \nRight. Cody\, please. Wait. I wasn’t here the first time\, but I know this area. \nAnd I know that across the slew are\, FEMA accredited levees that are in a state of seclusion\, which is like. \nPurgatory for levees. Which\, which means that without raising them\, they’re no longer going to provide adequate flood protection. \nSo in the scenarios you have here. These berms would at some point need to be accredited levies and those are very specific design requirements if they’re providing flood protection through the FREEMA program\, they would. \nCould potentially be accredited levies which have very specific design requirements that would to have geometries associated with them\, write a certain\, driveable surface on top. \nAnd the only comment I have is if that were at some case and you know maybe 2\,100 is allows for other adaptations but if that geometry was going to affect your program. \nIn your design. It might be worth just doing that overlay. \nThank you. Okay\, I think that concludes the feedback. I just want to reiterate the\, appreciation for\, I mean\, big picture. \nThe transformation from what is there today to what you are proposing and with this added level of detail that we see is is you know really appreciated and And I think you’re doing a great service to the community by making this. \nImportant part of the public realm here. Actually available to people in a much more clear way than it was before. \nSo we really appreciate that and appreciate you coming back into the additional effort you’ve put into addressing the questions that were raised last time. \nIs there any\, comment that you’d like to make? \nNo\, I appreciate all the feedback. I mean\, I think the first ground made us feel confident that we were on the right track and Appreciate the feedback and note that\, you know\, this is a client that cares about the site and the ecology. \nThey’re small local developer firm and I think that it’s good to hear the positive feedback. \nThank you very much. Good. Great. Okay\, we’ll look that concludes the. \nThe review. I\, we\, we don’t need to see this project again. \nSo with that\, we will adjourn the meeting and I would like someone to propose a motion to adjourn. \nMove to adjourn. \nYeah. \nHello? Sorry\, I think Leah’s hand beat you\, Tom. Yes. Okay\, Tom\, second. \nSecond. \nAye. \nGreat. All those in favor. Bye. Okay\, we have a \nThere are no objections\, I am sure. So here in none\, the meeting is adjourned. \nSo thank you very much. Good night and staff. Thank you very much for all your continued hard work on both projects tonight. \nReally appreciate it. Thank you. \nOkay \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-8-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240104T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240104T170000
DTSTAMP:20240614T161333Z
CREATED:20240118T065653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T161333Z
UID:10000089-1704355200-1704387600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:January 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nLevee breach creates new tidal marshland in San Francisco Bay\nProject works to restore tidal marshlands along San Francisco Bay\nRestoring San Francisco Bay wetlands\, one industrial salt pond at a time
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-4-2024-commission-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231227T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231227T170000
DTSTAMP:20240131T060022Z
CREATED:20240131T060022Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T060022Z
UID:10000169-1703664000-1703696400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 27\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-27-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231221T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231221T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T190337Z
CREATED:20231017T045735Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T190337Z
UID:10000051-1703163600-1703178000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 21\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/82557391023?pwd=TwTLPTiueHMXiUK3SeSsOH3acpAS3w.oivswZ_6CPmxDWEa \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for December 7\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nVote on the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s Proposed Phased Consistency Determination for the Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project (PDF)The Commission will vote on whether to concur with the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s phased consistency determination that the proposed Port of Oakland Outer and Inner Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, Alameda County is consistent with the Commission’s Coastal Zone Management Plan for San Francisco Bay. In order to improve the ability of large ships calling at the Port of Oakland to turn around\, the USACE proposes to widen the Outer Harbor Turning Basin from 49 acres to 70 acres\, and the Inner Harbor Turning Basin from 41 acres to 61 acres. At the Inner Harbor Turning Basin portions of Howard Terminal and Alameda Landing (former Naval Annex wharves) a portion the wharves and\, land beneath them\, infrastructure\, and portions of two warehouses would be removed. Both turning basins would require dredging of the new areas to minus 50 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). In addition\, sheet and batter piles\, and rip rap would create new bulkheads at Howard Terminal and Alameda Landing. Adjacent to Schnitzer Steel\, a subtidal retaining wall with rip rap would stabilize the slope from the shore to subtidal bottom. The disposal of construction debris and dredged sediment is targeted for an appropriately classed landfill\, and beneficial reuse at a wetlands restoration site when the materials are of suitable quality. The disposal and reuse site locations are not fully defined\, but could occur in Marin and/or Solano County\, and a landfill(s) outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction\, respectively. The public hearing was heard on December 7\, 2023.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.govPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\n\n\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\n\n\nBriefing on Planning Activities in the Suisun MarshThe Commission will receive a briefing by the Long-Range Planning team on recent planning activity by Commission staff in the Suisun Marsh\, including an overview of the Commission’s authority in the Marsh\, a summary of recent updates to Plan in the Marsh\, and future planning work.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise GuidanceRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Mill Valley Parks Recreation and Waterfront 26 Corte Madera Avenue Mill Valley\, California 94941 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.030.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n12/15/23\n\n\n90 Day\n03/14/24\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction\, at the Hauke Pedestrian Bridge\, 498 Sycamore Avenue\, in the City of Mill Valley\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReplace a 145-foot-long\, 3-inch-diameter galvanized pipe with a 145-foot-long 3-inch-diameter HDPE pipe on an existing bridge. The project will not alter the bridge\, as the pipe runs underneath the bridge deck. Construction will require the temporary closure of the bridge for approximately two weeks\, and the bridge will be reopened outside of work hours and on Christmas Day and New Year’s Day. Construction has been scheduled to occur over the Marin Valley Unified School District winter break to limit disruption to regular users of the bridge. The City has posted notices of the planned disruption\, and will post signs directing pedestrians along the 2/3 mile detour. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions.(Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing December 15\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of December 7\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nStaff Report and Recommendation to Amend the Contract with the Port of San Francisco for BPA 3-17 to Fund Planning Activities (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project (PDF)\nUS Army Corps of Engineers – Oakland Harbor Turning Basins Widening Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment (PDF) – Revised Presentation\nIssued Regionwide Permits\nApplications for permits\, federal consistency actions\, and amendments\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nRestoring San Francisco Bay wetlands\, one industrial salt pond at a time\nThe plan for a massive floating pool on S.F. piers is moving forward\, despite big funding gap\nA free water shuttle connecting two East Bay cities is launching next year. Here are the details\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\nMinutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-21-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231219T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231219T113000
DTSTAMP:20240206T001121Z
CREATED:20240206T000142Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T001121Z
UID:10000176-1702980000-1702985400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 19\, 2023 Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda \nPresentation
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-19-2023-bay-adapt-local-electeds-regional-task-force/
CATEGORIES:Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231214T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231214T120000
DTSTAMP:20240131T072656Z
CREATED:20240131T071126Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T072656Z
UID:10000171-1702546200-1702555200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 14\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87615183792?pwd=MnQrSC96ZEhETEFVODJJRTBCN0h5dz09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID876 1518 3792 \nPasscode058228 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the November 9\, 2023\, Enforcement Committee meeting.\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefings by the Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) and the City of Sausalito.The City of Sausalito’s and RBRA’s staffs will brief the Committee on each of the agencies’ progress implementing the settlement agreements executed in 2020 and 2021\, respectively\, to regulate illicit activities and conduct compensatory restoration projects in Richardson’s Bay.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2000.004.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 3025 Marina Drive\, City and County of Alameda.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nHearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision to Resolve Enforcement Case ER2021.044.00.The Committee will consider whether to support a recommended enforcement decision to enter into a settlement agreement to resolve a violation at 5 Blanding Lane\, Belvedere\, Marin County.(Rachel Cohen) [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov].Presentation \nAdjournment\n\n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/12-14-EC-audio-recording.mp3\n  \nAudio Transcripts \nMarie Gilmore: Good morning\, everyone. \nMarie Gilmore: Good morning\, everyone the time is 9 30\, and this is a meeting of the Bcd. C. Enforcement Committee is hereby call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am the chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Beale Street. Please ensure that your video camera is always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore: Our first order of business is to call the roll. \nMarie Gilmore: Matthew\, please call the Roll Commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this to respond\, and then mute yourselves. After responding. \nMatthew Trujillo: Good morning. Commissioner Bielin \nLetty Belin: Gilmore \nMarie Gilmore: here. \nMarie Gilmore: So\, ladies and gentlemen\, we do not have a quorum present\, and are not duly constituted constituted to conduct business. Therefore we will adjourn this meeting at this time. \nMarie Gilmore: The next meeting of the Enforcement Committee is scheduled for January eleventh\, 2024\, at 9 30 Am. \nMarie Gilmore: This meeting will be held online and in person for information on how to join online\, or where to attend in person. Please visit the public meetings. page@wwwbcdc.ca\, dot\, Gov. And on behalf of the the committee. I would like to apologize for any inconvenience that moving. This meeting has caused. \nMarie Gilmore: We had something unexpected. Come up\, and therefore we’re not able to a \nMarie Gilmore: constitute a quorum today. So thank you\, everybody for your patience and indulgence. This meeting is now adjourned. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-14-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231211T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231211T210000
DTSTAMP:20240213T235654Z
CREATED:20231019T002314Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235654Z
UID:10000065-1702314000-1702328400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 11\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \n  \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/86855219805 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 259552 \nMeeting ID868 5521 9805 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summary for November 6\, 2023 Meeting\nStaff Update\nWind River\, Alameda\, Alameda County; Second Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its second pre-application review of a proposal by Blue Rise Ventures to develop The Research Park at Marina Village\, the final phase of the office and R&D campus at 200 Wind River Way\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. The project would construct a three-story\, approximately 120\,000-square-foot office and R&D building at the newly-created intersection of Atlantic Avenue\, Clement Avenue\, and Sherman Street. The project would also involve public access improvements\, including removal of a degrading timber wharf to create open water and enhance views to the Bay\, renovation of the remaining concrete portion of that wharf with pedestrian paths offering Bay Trail connectivity\, and public access amenities such as seating\, game tables\, and a bocce ball court.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654; shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govExhibits // Public Comment Letter\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-11-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231207T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231207T170000
DTSTAMP:20240206T212147Z
CREATED:20231008T045545Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T212147Z
UID:10000050-1701954000-1701968400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nNote: Agenda Item 8 and 11 have been postponed. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nJoin the meeting via Zoom \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID825 5739 1023 \nPasscode407711 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for November 16\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative MattersThere is no administrative listing(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning ActivitiesPOSTPONEDThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote to Approve Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote to approve two stipulated orders as recommended by the Enforcement Committee to resolve BCDC Enforcement Case No. ER2019.063.00 against Seaplane Investments LLC alleging unauthorized development activities and violations of BCDC permits 1973.014.04 and M1985.030.01 in Sausalito\, Marin County.(Greg Scharff) [650/868-9303; greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov]   Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision with Exhibits\nPublic Hearing on the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s Proposed Phased Consistency Determination for the Oakland Turning Basins Widening Project.The Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comment on the US Army Corps of Engineers\, San Francisco District’s proposed Port of Oakland Outer and Inner Harbor Turning Basins Widening Project\, Alameda County. In order to improve the ability of large ships calling at the Port of Oakland to turn around\, the USACE proposes to widen the Outer Harbor Turning Basin from 49 acres to 70 acres\, and the Inner Harbor Turning Basin from 41 acres to 61 acres. At the Inner Harbor Turning Basin portions of Howard Terminal and Alameda former Naval Annex wharves\, land beneath the wharves\, infrastructure\, and portions of buildings would be removed. Both turning basins would require dredging of the new areas to minus 50 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). In addition\, sheet and batter piles\, and rip rap would create new bulkheads in Oakland and Alameda. Adjacent to Schnitzer Steel\, a subtidal retaining wall with rip rap would stabilize the slope from the shore to subtidal bottom. The disposal of construction debris and dredged sediment is targeted for an appropriately classed landfill\, and beneficial reuse at a wetlands restoration site when the materials are of suitable quality. The disposal and reuse site locations are not fully defined\, but could occur in Marin and/or Solano County\, and a landfill(s) outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction\, respectively.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.govPresentation (PDF) // Public Comment (PDF) // Application Summary Addendum (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise GuidancePOSTPONEDRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.(Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing November 17\, 2023\n\nStipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00\nApplication Summary C2023.003.00 \n\nCommission Mailing December 1\, 2023\n\nRevised December 7\, 2023 Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8 has been postponed\nDraft Minutes of November 16\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC\n\nWhen sea levels rise\, so does your rent\nThere’s a big new sea wall in the Bay Area\, is this the future?\nNo water\, power\, Wi-Fi or parking – but for $25 million\, this island on S.F. Bay can be yours \nBay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise \nMLB owners approve Athletics’ planned move to Las Vegas\, sources say\nBay Area Housing Project Raises Concerns About Sea-Level Rise\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/12-07-CM-audio-recording.mp3 \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL\, AND \nWELCOME. TO OUR\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nHYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. \nMY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I \nAM THE CHAIR OF BCDC. \nBEFORE WE GET STARTED\, I WANT TO \nINFORM THAT YOU BOTH ITEMS EIGHT \nREGARDING A CONTRACT WITH THE \nPORT OF SAN FRANCISCO AND ITEM \n11 REGARDING THE UPDATE OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE GUIDANCE HAVE BEEN \nPOSTPONED\, HOPEFULLY TO OUR NEXT \nMEETING. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS \nTO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS \nIF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELVES WHEN YOU ANSWER\, AND \nTHEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN \nAFTERWARDS. RAY LYNN A WILL YOU \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: BURT? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ECKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nJOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I \nFORGET ANYONE? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: AND PEMBERTON. \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 23 \nCOMMISSIONERS PRESENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nHAVE A QUORUM AND SO WE CAN \nPROCEED. IT’S A LITTLE A BIT \nLIKE A QUAKER QUILT\, IF YOU \nDON’T LEAVE SOMEBODY OUT\, THEN \nIT’S TOO PERFECT. \n[LAUGHTER] \nITEM THREE IS PUBLIC COMMENT. \nYOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY \nITEM NOT ON OUR AGENDA\, OR NOT \nWHERE WE HAVE NOT — WHERE WE \nHAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, \nOR ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO. \nI DO WANT TO REMIND YOU\, ALL\, OF \nTHE UNFORTUNATE INCREASE IN THIS \nTERRIBLE WORD ZOOM BOMBING OF \nBOTH LOCAL AND REGIONAL \nAGENCIES\, AND THEIR MEETINGS. \nEVERYONE PLEASE DO NOTE\, AS WAS \nSAID IN THE INTRODUCTORY VIDEO\, \nTHAT BCDC WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY \nFORM OF HATE SPEECH OR THREATS \nOF ANY GROUPS\, AGAINST ANY \nGROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS. AND AS \nCHAIR\, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I \nWE WOULD A VERY HEAVY HAMMER ON \nTHOSE ISSUES. \nWITH THAT\, DO WE HAVE ANY \nMEMBERS IN THE ROOM WHO HAVE \nSUBMITTED CARDS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: I HAVE \nNO CARDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nDO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON ZOOM WHO \nWISHES TO SPEAK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS GOING \nTO BE A VERY QUICK MEETING\, \nEVERYBODY. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO APPROVAL OF \nOUR MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16TH. \nWE HAVE ALL RECEIVED COPIES. I \nWOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO \nAPPROVE\, AND A SECOND. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nMOVED. I SAW IT. \nCOMMISSIONER BAPTIST SECONDED. \nI SAW HER MOVING HER HAND. \n[LAUGHTER] \nANY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS TO \nTHE MINUTES? \nSEEING NONE. \nDOES ANYBODY WISH TO OPPOSE OR \nABSTAIN? \nI DON’T SEE ANY. THE MINUTES \nARE APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO MY REPORT. \nOUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD ON \nA.M. AT THAT MEETING WE MAY \nTAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH \nTHE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nREGARDING SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN \nTHAT WE POSTPONED TODAY. A \nPOTENTIAL COMMISSION VOTE ON THE \nPROPOSED OAKLAND TURNING BASIN \nEXPANSION ON WHICH WE ARE \nHOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY. \nA BRIEFING ON THE UPDATE OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE GUIDANCE FROM THE \nSTATE\, ALSO POSTPONED FROM \nTODAY. A BRIEFING ON THE SUISUN \nMARSH IN SOLANO COUNTY\, AND A \nBRIEFING ON BAY ADAPT. \nJUST A COUPLE OF BRIEF COMMENTS. \nAS I NOTED EARLIER\, SLIGHTLY \nJOKING\, THIS IS GOING TO BE A \nBRIEF MEETING. ENJOY THE GIFT \nOF TIME. I THINK NEXT MEETING \nWILL BE A BIT LONGER. AND AS WE \nMOVE INTO THE NEW YEAR\, I THINK \nTHEY WILL BE LONGER. I THINK \nWE’LL START TAKING ON MORE \nIN-DEPTH SOME OF THE POLICIES WE \nHAVE BEEN DISCUSSING AND I AM \nCERTAIN THERE WILL BE SOME \nINTERESTING HEARINGS ALONG THE \nWAY. THERE WAS AN INTERNATIONAL \nSCIENTIFIC REPORT THAT NOTED \nOVER THE LAST TEN YEARS GIVE OR \nTAKE OR MAYBE EVEN ARE LONGER\, \nTHE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE HAS \nDOUBLED OVER THE LONG-TERM \nTREND. IT’S STILL SMALL\, BUT \nTHAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND \nINDICATES THE WATER THAT WE KNOW \nIS COMING\, WELCOME OR NOT\, IS \nCOMING\, AND WE NEED TO KEEP \nDOING OUR WORK\, AS WE ARE\, AND \nWE NEED TO KEEP PUSHING OUR \nCOLLABORATORS AND PARTNERS ON \nMOVING EVER FASTER. BECAUSE THE \nSEA AIN’T WAITING FOR US. \nWITH THAT\, THIS IS A MOMENT TO \nPUT ON THE RECORD ANY EX PARTE \nCOMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY HAVE HAD \nTHAT YOU HAVE NOT PUT IN WRITING \nTHROUGH OUR WEB SITE. YOU DO \nNEED TO DO THAT\, IN ANY END OF \nTHE EVENT\, AND THESE ARE ON \nADJUDICATORIAL MATTERS NOT ON \nPOLICY MATTERS. ANYBODY HAVE \nANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO \nREPORT? SEEING NONE. THAT \nBRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR GOLDZBAND IS ON \nVACATION\, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR \nSCHARFF IS ACTING TO PROVIDE THE \nREPORT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I’M GREG \nSCHARFF IT’S BEEN A PLEASURE \nSERVING AS YOUR ACTING EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS \nWHILE LARRY HAS BEEN OUT. I \nWANT TO NOTE TODAY IS PERIL \nHARBOR DAY AND I CAN ONLY \nIMAGINE HOW LARRY WOULD HAVE \nWEAVED THAT INTO THE REPORT. \nUNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE ME\, NOT \nLARRY. SO\, YOU WILL JUST HAVE \nTO IMAGINE. \nNOW\, FIRST OF ALL\, I WANT TO \nTHANK EVERYONE WHO INDICATED \nTHEY WILL BE PRESENT FOR THE \nDECEMBER 21ST COMMISSION \nMEETING\, AND STRESS THAT IT’S \nCRITICAL THAT YOU DO SO\, AS WE \nWILL ALL BE TAKING A VOTE AT THE \nMEETING ON TODAY’S ITEM 10\, \nWHICH IS THE THE PROPOSED PHASE \nCONSISTS OF DETERMINATION FOR \nTHE PROPOSED BASIN-WIDENING \nPROJECT AND WE WILL NEED A \nQUORUM FOR THAT. \nI WANT TO NOTE AS PART OF BCDC \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT\, BCDC AND PARTNERS US \nEPA COASTAL CONSERVANCY REGIONAL \nWATER BOARD\, SFEI AND SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE ARE \nHOSTING A WORKSHOP IN-PERSON ON \nJANUARY 23RD AND FEBRUARY 13TH\, \n2024 TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS \nPOTENTIAL CHANGES TO SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION \nROADMAP OF ACTIONS TO INCREASE \nBENEFICIAL USE OF SOIL AND \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. THE \nWORKSHOP WILL WORK WITH A \nVARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE \nINVOLVED IN AND IMPACTED BY \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY AREA. WE \nWILL BE HOLDING OUR SECOND BAY \nADAPT COORDINATING MEETING ON \n12/8 AND ELECTED OFFICIALS TASK \nFORCE MEETING ON 12/19. FINALLY \nNOVEMBER 27TH COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nISSUED TWO DECISION LETTERS \nAPPROVING CHANGES TO THE COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT PROGRAM UNDER THE \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT NOAA \nHAS APPROVED TWO SETS OF \nAMENDMENT TO THE COMMISSION’S \nREGULATION ADOPTED IN 2022 \nREGULATIONS CONCERNING \nENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY \nPOLICY AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF \nTHE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL \nQUALITY ACT WITH NOAA PRIVATE \nPRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ELEMENTS \nCOMMISSIONS REGULATIONS \nCONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE \nPROCEDURAL PERMITTING AND \nPLANNING MATTERS. ALL THREE \nSETS OF AMENDMENTS TO THE \nREGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE \nCOMMISSION IN 2022 HAVE BEEN \nAPPROVED BY NOAA AS PART OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR OUR ACTING \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? SEEING \nNONE. WE MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN \nWHICH WE’RE NOT TAKING UP \nBECAUSE THERE ARE NO MATTERS TO \nREPORT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM \nEIGHT WHICH WE ARE ALSO NOT \nTAKING UP THAT WILL BE POSTPONED \nHOPEFULLY TO THE NEXT MEETING \nAND THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NINE \nWHICH I CAN’T EVEN GET TO IN MY \nPAGE. \nTHIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLE VOTE TO APPROVE \nSTIPULATED ORDERS\, \nCCD2023.002.00 AND \nCCD2023.003.00 REGARDING THE SEA \nPLANE INVESTMENTS LLC OF CORTE \nMADERA AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN \nMARIN COUNTY. AFTER BCDC HAS \nGIVEN ITS OPENING REMARKS I’LL \nASK RESPONDENTS TO AFFIRM THE \nSTIPULATED AGREEMENT I’LL \nCOMMENT AFTER AND WE HOLD \nDISCUSSION AND VOTE ON THE \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. AT \nTHIS TIME WILL THE \nREPRESENTATIVES FOR THE \nRESPONDENT PLEASE IDENTIFY \nTHEMSELVES FOR THE RECORD. \nPRESENT OR ON ZOOM. \n>>SPEAKER: DO WE NEED TO \nPOSSIBLY ADMIT GILLIAN \nBLANCHARD\, COUNSEL FOR SEA PLANE \nINVESTMENTS\, LLC AND LOU \nVASQUEZ? \n>>LOU VASQUEZ: HI. THIS IS LOU \nVASQUEZ. I’M PRESENT\, \nREPRESENTING SEA PLANE \nINVESTMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nBEFORE STAFF GIVES ITS \nPRESENTATION\, I INVITE \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE\, THE CHAIR \nOF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO \nGIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE \nCOMMITTEE’S HEARING ON THIS \nMATTER THAT TOOK PLACE ON \nNOVEMBER 9TH OF THIS YEAR. \nCHAIR GILMORE. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I \nSTART\, I WANT TO GIVE A REAL \nVOTE OF THANKS TO BOTH THE \nRESPONDENTS\, STAFF\, AND OUR \nGENERAL COUNSEL GREG SCHARFF\, \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HEARD \nTHIS CASE SEVERAL TIMES AND IT \nIS A COMPLICATED CASE AND IT’S \nCOMPLICATED BY THE NUMBER OF \nVIOLATIONS\, THE FACT THAT THE \nPROPERTY CHANGED HANDS AND ALSO \nTHE LENGTH OF TIME INVOLVED IN \nTHIS AND SO KUDOS TO EVERYBODY \nINVOLVED BRINGING THIS TOGETHER \nAND GETTING AN ORDER THAT FIXES \nTHE VIOLATIONS AND ALLOWS \nEVERYBODY TO MOVE FORWARD. SO \nTHANKS AGAIN TO THE RESPONDENTS\, \nTO STAFF\, AND TO OUR GENERAL \nCOUNSEL. \nCHAIR WASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nWILL NOW HAVE STAFF’S \nPRESENTATION BY PRINCIPLE \nENFORCEMENT ANALYST ADRIENNE \nKLEIN. GO FOR. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU \nCHAIR GILMORE. IN JULY 2024 \nSTAFF ISSUED A VIOLATION TO \nREPORT COMPLAINT TO RESOLVE SIX \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS IN OCTOBER \nOF THE SAME YEAR WE ISSUED A \nSECOND COMPLAINT FOR \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES \nTO RESOLVE THE PENALTY PORTION \nOF THREE RESOLVED VIOLATIONS \nDURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON \nMAY 30TH\, 2023 THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE DIRECTED STAFF TO \nENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT \nNEGOTIATIONS WHICH RESULTED IN \nTWO PROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS \nTO RESOLVE ALL NINE VIOLATIONS \nDURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON \nNOVEMBER 3RD OF THIS YEAR THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE HAS \nJANUARY MENTIONED BY CHAIR \nGILMORE COMMISSIONER GILMORE \nADOPTED BOTH PROPOSED STIPULATED \nORDERS WHICH ARE BEFORE YOU \nTODAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nTHE PRESENTATION WILL COVER THE \nSITE LOCATION\, NINE VIOLATIONS \nAND THE TWO STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \nTHE RED PIN ON THIS VICINITY MAP \nSHOWS THE LOCATION WHERE THE \nVIOLATIONS ARE OCCURRING AND ARE \nOCCURRING KNOWN AS 240242 \nREDWOOD HIGHWAY FRONTAGE ROAD IN \nAN UNINCORPORATED AREA OF MARIN \nCOUNTY. JUST TO BE CLEAR\, \nAPOLOGIES CHAIR WASSERMAN\, IT’S \nNOT IN CORTE MADERA. IMAGE ON \nTHE LEFT SHOWS THE SITE LOOKING \nTO THE NORTHEAST THE SITE \nCONTAINS A NUMBER OF BUSINESSES \nAND OPERATIONS WHILE SOME OF THE \nGROUND LEVEL USES AND ASSOCIATED \nFILL APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ONGOING \nSINCE 1965 CHANGES TO THE \nONGOING USES AND ASSOCIATED \nTHROUGH WITHIN BCDC JURISDICTION \nINCLUDING MAINTENANCE THAT \nOCCURRED AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT REQUIRING \nBCDC PERMIT OR PERMIT AMENDMENT. \nPERMITS RUN WITH THE LAND AND \nNEW OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR \nRESOLVING INHERITED VIOLATIONS \nAND VIOLATIONS THEY UNDERTAKE. \nAS NEW OWNERS RESPONDENTS HAVE \nDID NOT CONTACT THE BCDC AS PART \nOF THE DUE DILIGENCE REVIEW TO \nINQUIRE ABOUT THE SITE STATUS IN \nRELATION TO THE LAW AND THE \nEXISTING PERMITS THAT GOVERN THE \nSITE THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS \nAN OVERLAY OF THE PROXIMATE \nLOCATIONS IN THE TWO PRIVATELY \nOWNED PARCELS NUMBERED 164\, ON \nTHE RIGHT 167 ON THE LEFT WITH \nTHE THREE STREET RIGHTS OF WAY \nWHICH YOU CAN SEE THE LEFT SIDE \nPARAPPA STREET\, MOLENA STREET\, \nAND YELLOW STREETS THAT SURROUND \nOR STRADDLE THEM AND THE DOCKING \nFACILITY PICTURES IN THE WATER \nIS LOCATED ON MARIN COUNTY \nPROPERTY. NEXT SLIDE. I’LL \nDESCRIBE THE SIX VIOLATIONS \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATION FIRST BEING \nTHAT RESPONDENT VIOLATING \nSPECIAL CONDITION TO SEE PUBLIC \nACCESS OF ITS 1973 PERMIT BY \nFAILING TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC \nSHORE SIGNAGE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONNECTION FROM THE SITE TO \nMARIN COUNTY PUBLIC ACCESS WEST \nOF THE SITE VIOLATION TWO IS OF \nSPECIAL CONDITION 2C TWO \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PERMIT BY \nFAILING TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING \nREQUIRED PUBLIC SHORT PATHWAY \nAND LANDSCAPING. THE BULK HEAD \nAT PARAPPA STREET IS SEVERELY \nERODED IN THE ADJACENT PUBLIC \nSHORELINE PATHWAYS FREQUENTLY \nINUNDATED BY TIDES AND THE \nNORTHWESTERN TIP IS ERODED TO \nTHE POINT OF BEING GONE AND THE \nWERE REMAINDER IS COLLAPSING \nINTO THE BAY. VIOLATION THREE \nIS MCATEER PETRIS ACT SECTION \n66632A BY PLACING UNAUTHORIZED \nFILL IN THE BAY AND SHORELINE \nBAND IN YOLO STREET. \nUNAUTHORIZED FILL INCLUDES \nVEHICLE PARKING AND OR EQUIPMENT \nSTORAGE\, SEA PLANE STORAGE \nREPAIR AND SEA PLANE STORAGE \nREPAIR MAINTENANCE FUELING TANK \nELEVATED ASPHALT PATHWAY ACROSS \nYELLOW STREET TO ALLOW \nPEDESTRIAN ACCESS DURING HIGH \nTIDES. BY USING FILLED AREAS \nDESIGNATED TO BE USED ONLY FOR \nLANDSCAPING PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nPEDESTRIAN BICYCLE PATHWAYS FOR \nPRIVATE USE. \nVIOLATION FOUR IS MCATEER-PETRIS \nACT INVOLVING PLACING \nUNAUTHORIZED FILL IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION CONSISTING OF THE \nUNAUTHORIZED HELICOPTER LANDING \nPAD AND FOUR PAVED WALKWAYS ON \nBLOCK 164 VIOLATION FIVE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT VIOLATION \nPLACING UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN THE \nBAY ON MARIN COUNTY PROPERTY BY \nEXPANDING EXISTING U SHAPED \nFLOATING SEPARATE EPISODES WITH \nNEW FLOATING FILL TWO PILINGS \nRELOCATING ON WATER FILLING \nSTATION. \nAND THE SIXTH UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATION IS ALSO A MCATEER \nPETRIS ACT VIOLATION INVOLVES \nEXCAVATION TO FILL AND CONSTRUCT \nA NEW CONCRETE REBAR WATER \nACCESS RAMP IN THE YELLOW STREET \nRIGHT OF WAY. THIS MOST \nRECENTLY MARCH 20\, 2022. THIS \nCOMPLETES THE SUMMARY OF THE SIX \nUNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE WHERE I WILL \nDESCRIBE THE THREE RESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS. \nTWO ARE THE SAME\, WHICH ARE \nRESPONDENTS FAILURE TO TAKE \nASSIGNMENT OF BOTH THE 1973 AND \nTHE SECOND 1985 PERMITS THAT \nGOVERN THE SITE AND THE THIRD \nRESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO COMPLETE \nA PROJECT PRIOR TO PERMIT \nEXPIRATION DATE AND CONTINUE \nWORK WITH AN EXPIRED PERMIT \nTHOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED \nBUT THERE WERE ADMINISTRATIVE \nCIVIL PENALTIES. NEXT SLIDE. I \nWILL NOW READ THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION TO RESOLVE \nTHE SIX UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS. \nTHE RESPONDENT HAS AGREED TO \nSTIPULATE TO THE FOLLOWING \nTERMS. SO\, TO CEASE AND DESIST \nFROM VIOLATING THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND BOTH \nPERMITS BY JUNE 30TH\, 2024 TO \nCOMPLY WITH THE EXISTING PERMITS \nBY MAINTAINING THE PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS ALONG THE \nEXISTING SHORELINE PATHWAY \nWITHIN RESPONDENTS CURRENT \nPROPERTY OWNERSHIP ON YOLO \nSTREET FROM THE TERMINATION OF \nTHE SHORELINE PATHWAY LOCATED \nWITHIN THE DEDICATED PUBLIC \nACCESS AREA TO STRIPE AND \nMAINTAIN A CONNECTION FOR AN \nEIGHT FOOT WIDE ACCESS PATH OF \nTRAVEL. AND THAT IS OUTLINED IN \nONE OF THE ORDER EXHIBITS. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO INSTALL \nEIGHT PUBLIC SHORE SIGNS AS \nOUTLINED ON THE SLIDE AND IN \nORDER TO RELOCATE ACCESSIBLE \nPARKING ALSO SHOWN IN THE ORDER \nEXHIBIT ON YOLO STREET TO REMOVE \nUNAUTHORIZED ELEVATED ASPHALT \nPATH THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED TO \nALLOW FOR ACCESS AND HIGH TIDES \nAND TO CONFIRM WITH STAFF WHICH \nHELICOPTER LANDING PADS AND \nWALKWAYS ARE AUTHORIZED OR NOT. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nWITHIN 12 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF \nTHE ORDER RESPONDENT AGREES TO \nFILE A PERMIT APPLICATION FOR \nTHE UNAUTHORIZED FILL IN USES AS \nFOLLOWS THEY’LL SUBMIT A REVISED \nLANDSCAPING PLAN FOR AREAS \nADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WILL \nBE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND IT WILL \nINCLUDE INSTALLATION AND \nMAINTENANCE OF SOME PICNIC \nTABLES THAT WILL BE ADA \nACCESSIBLE. AND IF THERE IS ANY \nNEW ACCESS REQUIRED UNDER A \nFOLLOWING SECTION\, THAT WILL BE \nINCLUDED ON THESE PLANS. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO REQUEST \nAFTER THE FACT AUTHORIZATION FOR \nANY HELICOPTER LANDING PADS\, \nFUEL TANKS\, AND WALKWAYS THAT \nARE NOT PERMITTED BY THE ’85 \nPERMIT. THE THREE FINGERS THAT \nARE PART OF THE DOCKINGS IS THAT \nARE NOT CURRENTLY AUTHORIZED\, \nAND THE LAUNCHING RAMP \nCONSTRUCTED IN MARCH 2022. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO PROVIDE \nSOME ADDITIONAL PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nEITHER THAT CURRENTLY REQUIRED \nBY THE PERMIT\, WHICH IS A \nCONNECTION BETWEEN THE SITE AND \nTHE ADJACENT COUNTY PUBLIC \nWALKWAY\, AND BICYCLE PATH\, OR \nALTERNATIVE ON-SITE ACCESS IF \nLOCAL APPROVAL CANNOT BE \nOBTAINED. AND FINALLY TO \nPREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE RISK \nASSESSMENT TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL \nRISE IN THE PERMIT RELATED \nPUBLIC ACCESS — THE PERMIT \nREQUIRED PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS. \nAND TO IMPLEMENT THAT SEA LEVEL \n— TO IMPLEMENT THE SEA LEVEL \nRISE PLAN IN THE TIMELINE \nOUTLINED IN IT. \nAND IT WILL INCLUDE THE \nMAINTENANCE OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nON PARAPPA STREET THAT’S FLOODED \nAND ERODED\, FREQUENTLY FLOODED \nAND QUITE ERODED AND ALSO \nADAPTIVE MEASURES TO MAINTAIN \nPUBLIC ACCESS FOR THE LIFE OF \nTHE PROJECT OR UNTIL 2050. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, THAT COMPLETES THE \nREQUIREMENTS FOR THE UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS. \nTHERE WILL BE\, FOR THE THREE \nRESOLVED VIOLATIONS\, A \nRESPONDENT AGREES TO A $5\,000 \nADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTY DUE \nWITHIN 12 AND 24 MONTHS OF THE \nORDER IN TWO EQUAL INSTALLMENTS. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND THE PENALTY BE ASSOCIATED \nWITH THE SIX UNRESOLVED \nVIOLATIONS IS 43\,800 DUE IN \nTHREE DIFFERENT INCREMENTS\, \nFIRST 10\,000 WITHIN 60 DAYS OF \nORDER ISSUANCE THEN TWO PAYMENTS \nOF 16\,900 DUE WITHIN 12 AND 24 \nMONTHS OF ORDER ISSUANCE. \nI THINK THAT’S MY LAST SLIDE. \nMAYBE NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, TOGETHER\, THE TWO \nRECOMMENDATIONS WOULD RESULT IN \nA TOTAL PENALTY OF $48\,800\, AND \nTHAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nI WOULD ASK RESPONDENTS \nREPRESENTATIVE WHETHER THEY \nCONCUR WITH STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS IN THE \nSTIPULATED ORDER? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS. APOLOGIES FOR \nJOINING LATE. I’M GILLIAN \nBLANCHARD WITH LAW GROUP AND I \nREPRESENT SEA PLANE INVESTMENTS\, \nLLC. \nGOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. \nI\, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS\, CAN \nCONCUR THAT WE DO SUPPORT THE \nSTAFF’S RECOMMENDATION AND \nSTIPULATED ORDER. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE OPEN FOR \nPUBLIC COMMENT? I THOUGHT WE \nHAD A QUIET GROUP? VICE CHAIR \nEISEN \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I \nWANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS \nMATTER IS\, SORT OF\, A REALLY \nGOOD EXAMPLE OF THE WORKINGS OF \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE. \nSTAFF AND RESPONDENTS ARE \nWORKING HARD TO RESOLVE THIS \nMATTER BUT SOMETIMES THEY CAN’T \nQUITE PULL IT ACROSS THE FINISH \nLINE\, AND THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE SERVES AS WHAT I WOULD \nCALL THE COURTHOUSE STEPS. AND \nAS CHAIR WASSERMAN AND ADRIENNE \nKLEIN MENTIONED THIS WAS A \nCOMPLICATED MATTER AND WHEN IT \nCAME TO US\, WE THE EFFORT THAT \nHAD BEEN MADE ALREADY\, AND WE \nSAW THAT WITH A LITTLE MORE \nEFFORT AND PUSH FROM OUR \nCOMMITTEE THEY COULD RESOLVE \nTHIS MATTER AND THEY DID. SO\, \nIT’S REALLY A TESTAMENT TO HOW \nWELL THAT COMMITTEE WORKS AS AN \nARM OF THIS COMMISSION. SO I \nJUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND I WOULD ADD MY \nTHANKS TO STAFF\, AND TO CHAIR \nGILMORE. \nANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nASSUME THERE ARE NO FINAL \nCOMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. \nAND I NOW INVITE CHAIR GILMORE \nOF THE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE TO \nPRESENT THE COMMITTEE’S \nENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. BEFORE I PUT \nFORTH THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS I’M \nGOING TO BRIEFLY REVIEW THE \nCOMMISSION’S OPTIONS TO PROCEED. \nPURSUANT TO BCDC REGULATIONS \nSECTION 11332 ENTITLED \nCOMMISSION ACTION ON RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION. WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ACTS ON A RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION THE \nCOMMISSION’S ACTION SHALL BE ONE \nOF THE FOLLOWING. ONE\, THE \nCOMMISSION MAY ADOPTED \nRECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \nWITHOUT ANY CHANGES TO THE \nPROPOSED STIPULATED ORDERS AND \nTHIS IS YOUR ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION. \nTWO\, THE COMMISSION MAY DISMISS \nTHE ENTIRETY OR EITHER PART OF \nTHE MATTER BY VOTING NOT TO \nISSUE ONE OR BOTH OF THE \nSTIPULATED — OF THE PROPOSED \nORDERS. \nTHREE\, THE COMMISSION MAY REMAND \nTHE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE OR STAFF \nFOR FURTHER ACTION AS THE \nCOMMISSION DIRECTS\, OR\, FOUR\, \nTHE COMMISSION MAY REJECTED \nRECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT DECISION \nAND DECIDE TO CONSIDER THE \nENTIRE MATTER DE NOVO. IN THIS \nEVENT THE COMMISSION SHALL \nCONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO \nTHE NEXT AVAILABLE COMMISSION \nMEETING WHERE IT SHALL PROCEED \nIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME \nPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AS THE \nCOMMISSION MUST FOLLOW UNDER \nREGULATION SECTION 11327. \nI WILL NOW PRESENT THE \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE’S \nRECOMMENDATION. \nTHE ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \nRECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION \nVOTE IN FAVOR OF THE ADOPTION OF \nTHE PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT \nDECISION AND CEASE AND DESIST \nCIVIL PENALTY ORDERS CCD \n2023.002 AND CCD2023.003 TO \nRESOLVE BCDC ENFORCEMENT CASE \nNUMBER ER2019.063.00. \nI’M GOING TO MOVE THAT THIS \nCOMMISSION ADOPTED RECOMMENDED \nENFORCEMENT DECISION WITHOUT ANY \nCHANGES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nI HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION? \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL SECOND THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS FROM \nTHE GREAT COUNTY OF MARIN \nSECONDS THE MOTION. \n[LAUGHTER] \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL REYLINA. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BURT? \n>>PAT BURT: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? PAT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE? \nRAMOS? COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS? \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 20 \nYESES. NO NOS\, AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANK YOU FOR \nALL OF YOUR WORK. \nCONTINUE AND LET THIS NOT COME \nBACK TO US. THAT BRINGS US TO \nITEM TEN\, PUBLIC HEARING ON THE \nU.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nPROPOSED PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION OF THE OAKLAND \nTURNING BASIN’S WIDENING \nPROJECT. \nTHE PRESENTATION WILL BE MADE BY \nOUR SEDIMENT PROGRAM MANAGER \nBRENDA GADEN\, OR AT LEAST SHE’LL \nINTRODUCE AND KICK IT OFF. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. WE APPRECIATE \nYOU ALL BEING HERE TODAY FOR THE \nARMY CORP’S OAKLAND TURNING \nBASIN-WIDENING PROJECT. WE HAVE \nA BIT OF A PRESENTATION FOR YOU \nTODAY. PLEASE HANG ON. WE \nRECOGNIZE THAT THIS PROJECT IS \nBOTH COMPLEX IN ITS CONSTRUCTION \nAND TIMING\, BUT ALSO WE NOTE \nTHAT THE COMMISSION DOESN’T \nOFTEN HEAR PHASED CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION. SO WITH THAT\, WE \nWOULD TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nJUST USE OUR LEGAL EAGLE\, \nMICHAEL NG TO WALK YOU THROUGH \nTHE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICIES \nAROUND THIS TYPE OF PROJECT \nPRIOR TO GETTING THE — PRIOR TO \nGETTING THE OVERVIEW OF THE \nPROJECT FROM THE COMMISSION \nSTAFF\, WHICH WILL BE MYSELF. \nTHEN FOLLOWING ME\, PHOENIX \nARMENTA WILL BE PRESENTING ON \nTHE EJ POLICIES BECAUSE THERE \nARE SOME COMPLEX EJ ISSUES HERE. \nFOLLOWING PHOENIX I’LL STEP BACK \nIN FOR A MINUTE THEN WE’LL BE \nTURNING THE PROJECT OVER TO THE \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS TO GIVE \nYOU A DETAILED DESCRIPTION. \nWITH THAT\, I APPRECIATE YOUR \nATTENTION TODAY. MICHAEL WILL \nGO AHEAD AND TAKE THE MIC. \n>>MICHAEL NG: HELLO \nCOMMISSIONERS MICHAEL\, SENIOR \nSTAFF ATTORNEY AT BCDC. \nAS BRENDA MENTIONED I’M GOING TO \nBE COVERING TWO TOPICS TODAY \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT CMA \nAND FEDERAL CONSISTENCY\, THEN \nTHE SECOND TOPIC IS THE \nCOMMISSION’S AUTHORITY AND \nJURISDICTION. I’M GOING TO KEEP \nTHIS BRISK. THE COMMISSION’S \nCURRENT CONSIDERATION IS A BIT \nOUT OF ITS USUAL CONSIDERATION \nOF PROJECTS. THROUGH THE MY \nPRESENTATION YOU MAY SEE \nASTERISKS ON CERTAIN SLIDES AND \nWONDER WHAT THAT’S ALL ABOUT. \nTHOSE HAVE NO PARTICULAR \nSIGNIFICANCE OTHER THAN TO SERVE \nAS CUES FOR MYSELF TO PROVIDE \nFOR SPEAKER NOTES WHICH I \nWOULDN’T FIT ON TO MY SLIDES. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nTHANK YOU. SO\, FIRST I’LL TALK \nABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE CZMA. \nIT IS A FEDERAL LAW\, AGAIN\, THE \nCOASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT. \nITS BASIC PURPOSE IS TO \nPRESERVE\, PROTECT\, DEVELOP\, AND \nWHERE POSSIBLE TO RESTORE OR \nENHANCE THE NATION’S RESOURCES \nOF THE COASTAL ZONE AND THE CZMA \nENCOURAGES THIS AND ACCOMPLISHES \nTHIS BY ENCOURAGING STATES TO \nDEVELOP WHAT’S CALLED COASTAL \nZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS OR \nCZMP’S AND THIS GOAL IS FURTHER \nINCENTIVIZED BY FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT PROVIDING MATCHING \nGRANTS TO ADMINISTER CZMP’S FOR \nCOASTAL STATES THAT HAVE \nCERTIFIED CZMP’S AND ADMINISTER \nPER CMA STATUTE CZMP SHOULD \nINCLUDE OBJECTIVE POLICIES AND \nSTANDARDS TO GUIDE PUBLIC AND \nPRIVATE USES OF LANDS AND WATERS \nIN THE COASTAL ZONE AND ONCE \nAPPROVED BY NOAA CMP STANDARD \nFOR FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITY THAT \nCOASTAL ZONE. NEXT SLIDE. \nBCDC AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY \nUNDERTAKING A STEP BACK THERE’S \nACTUALLY TWO COASTAL ZONE \nSEGMENTS IN CALIFORNIA FOR CZMA \nPURPOSES BCDC ADMINISTERS THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AND \nCOASTAL ZONE SEGMENT AND THE \nCOASTAL COMMISSION ADMINISTERS \nTHE REST OF THE COASTAL ZONE BUT \nIT’S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT \nBOTH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nFOUNDING LAW AND THE BAY PLAN \nPREDATE THE CZMA AND THE MAC ACT \nWAS ADOPTED AND ENACTED BY \nLEGISLATURE IN 1965 AND THE BAY \nPLAN APPROVED IN 1968\, CZMA \nENACTED BY CONGRESS IN 1972. IN \n1977 WHEN NOAA APPROVED THE BCDC \nCZMP IT VIRTUALLY AND WHOLLY \nINCORPORATED THE MAC ACT AND THE \nBAY PLAN INTO OUR CCP. BACK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SORRY \nMICHAEL. \n>>SPEAKER: UPDATES TO OUR CZMP \nMUST BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH OUR \nCZMA PROGRAM CHANGES AND MOST \nCOMMONLY OCCURS WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION ADOPTS A BAY PLAN \nELEMENT SO IT’S WORTH POINTING \nOUT THAT BCDC CZMP HAS UPON BEEN \nUPDATED 121 TIMES SINCE 1982 AND \nREFLECT AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES \nTO BCDC’S LAWS AND POLICIES. \nNOW WE GET INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY \nBEFORE US TODAY A SUBMITTED \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION SO THE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nPROCESS OR CD INVOLVES BOTH \nFEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES. \nI’LL TALK ABOUT THE FEDERAL \nAGENCY ROLE SUBMITTING TO BCDC \nPRIOR TO UNDERTAKING ANY \nACTIVITY THAT AFFECTS ANY LAND \nOR WATER USE OR NATURAL RESOURCE \nOF THE COASTAL ZONE ACTIVITY \nMUST BE CARRIED OUT IN A MANNER \nWHICH IS CONSISTENT TO THE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH \nTHE ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF THE \nAPPROVED STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN \nPROGRAM. TWO NOTES FIRST I’LL \nADDRESS THE LEGAL CHARACTER OF \nPHASE LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION \nSECOND NOAA’S REGULATIONS DEFINE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE TO \nMEAN FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF \nMANAGEMENT PROGRAMS UNLESS FULL \nCONSISTENCY IS PROHIBITED BY \nEXISTING LAW APPLICABLE TO THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY AND NOAA \nREGULATIONS FURTHER DEFINE \nENFORCEABLE POLICY AS STATE \nPOLICIES WHICH ARE LEGALLY \nBINDING THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL \nPROVISIONS LAWS REGULATIONS LAND \nUSE PLANS ORDINANCES OR JUDICIAL \nADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS BY \nWHICH A STATE EXPERTS CONTROL \nOVER A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LAND \nAND WATER USES AND NATURAL \nRESOURCES IN THE COASTAL ZONE SO \nTHE FEDERAL AGENCY SHALL NOT \nPROCEED WITH ACTIVITY OVER BCDC \nOBJECTION UNLESS FEDERAL AGENCY \nHAS CONCLUDED ONE OF THE \nFOLLOWING EITHER THAT ACTIVITY \nIS CONSISTENT WITH BCDC \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES IS \nENFORCEABLE ARE POLICIES IS \nPROHIBITED BY LAW OR THAT \nPROPOSED ACTION IS CONSISTENT \nWITH BCDC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES. \nTHE NEXT PART OF THE CD PROCESS \nIS THE STATE AGENCY ROLE. BCDC \nRESPONDS TO A CD SUBMITTED TO \nTHE FEDERAL AGENCY BY ONE OF THE \nFOLLOWING EITHER CONCURRING \nCONDITIONALLY CONCURRING OR \nOBJECTING TO THE CD CONDITIONAL \nCONCURRENCE MEANS THAT THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY MUST MEET \nSPECIFIED CONDITIONS TO BE \nDEEMED CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPOLICIES AND BCDC MUST IDENTIFY \nSPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF \nITS CMP EXPLAINING WHY \nCONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY TO \nENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THOSE \nSPECIFIC ENFORCEABLE POLICIES \nAGAIN BCDC CZMP INCLUDES \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BOTH \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY \nPLAN IF THE FEDERAL AGENCY \nREJECTS CONDITIONS IN THE \nSTATE’S CONDITIONAL CONCURRENCE \nIS EFFECTIVELY DEEMED AN \nOBJECTION. NEXT SLIDE. NOW WE \nKNOW THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND \nSTATE AGENCY ROLES IN THE \nPROCESS\, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN \nTHERE’S A CONFLICT IN THE TWO \nSIDES. FIRST NOTING OBJECTION \nTO A CD IS NOT A DENIAL IN THE \nWAY WE MAY BE ABLE TO DENY AN \nAPPLICATION UNDER OUR STATE LAW \nAUTHORITY UNDER FEDERAL AGENCY \nDECIDES TO PROCEED WITH ACTIVITY \nTHAT IS OBJECTED TO BY BCDC THE \nFEDERAL AGENCY MUST NOTIFY BCDC \nOF ITS DECISION TO PROCEED \nBEFORE COMMENCEMENT. SO IF \nTHERE IS A SERIOUS DISAGREEMENT \nBETWEEN THE FEDERAL AGENCY AND \nBCDC\, EITHER PARTY MAY REQUEST \nMEDIATION BY NOAA’S OFFICE OF \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT\, OCM OR THE \nSECRETARY OF COMMERCE. IF \nMEDIATION IS NOT SUCCESSFUL OR \nUTILIZED\, EITHER PARTY MAY SEEK \nREVIEW. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THAT WAS A LOT OF \nINFORMATION. BUT TO SUMMARIZE\, \nBCDC’S CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES OF MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nAND THE BAY PLAN AND FEDERAL \nAGENCIES MUST UNDERTAKE \nACTIVITIES CONSISTENT WITH THE \nMAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE WITH \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF OUR \nCZMP. FEDERAL AGENCY SUBMITS A \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION FOR \nITS PROPOSED ACTIVITIES TO WHICH \nBCDC CAN CONCUR CONDITIONALLY \nCONCUR OR OBJECT\, AND FOR \nSERIOUS DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN A \nFEDERAL AGENCY AND BCDC\, BCDC \nMAY REQUEST MEDIATION FROM \nNOAA’S OFFICE OF COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT OR THE SECRETARY OF \nCOMMERCE AND/OR SEEK JUDICIAL \nREVIEW IN A COURT OF LAW. NEXT \nSLIDE. NOW TO THE SECOND PART \nTALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION’S \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nBEFORE I ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC \nTOPIC OF THE COMMISSIONS \nJURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER \nTHIS PROJECT IT WILL BE HELPFUL \nTO TAKE A STEP BACK AND \nUNDERSTAND HOW VARIOUS LEGAL \nREGIMES SHOULD INFORM AND GUIDE \nTHE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING \nPROS. I HAVE SET FORTH TWO \nBROAD CATEGORIES FOR DISCUSSING \nRELEVANT LEGAL REGIMES FIRST \nCATEGORY SHOULD GUIDE THE \nPROCESS AND PROVIDE SUBSTANTIVE \nPOLICY STANDARDS BY WHICH THE \nCOMMISSION SHOULD MAKE A \nDECISION ON THE PROJECT AT THE \nNEXT MEETING ON DECEMBER 21ST. \nTHE SECOND CATEGORY \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION \nIDENTIFIES TWO LAWS\, ONE FEDERAL \nAND ONE STATE WHICH REQUIRES \nPREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL \nDOCUMENTATION WHICH SHOULD ALSO \nINFORM THE COMMISSIONS POLICY \nDETERMINATIONS WITHIN ITS \nDECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. YOU MAY \nHEAR COMMENTERS MAKE REFERENCE \nTO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nDOCUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THE \nPROPOSED PROJECT UNDER THESE \nLAWS. HOWEVER IT’S WORTH \nPOINTING OUT THAT THE \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION LAWS \nTHEMSELVES DO NOT DIRECTLY \nCONTROL THE COMMISSIONS \nDECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK HERE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nFIRST WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE CZMA \nWHICH WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. AS \nPREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED UNDER CZMA\, \nA FEDERAL AGENCY UNDERTAKING ITS \nOWN ACTIVITY WITHIN OR OUTSIDE \nOF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY COASTAL \nZONE WHICH MAY AFFECT COASTAL \nRESOURCES WITHIN OUR SEGMENT OF \nTHE COASTAL ZONE MUST SUBMIT A \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION TO \nBCDC JUSTIFYING THAT THE FEDERAL \nAGENCY’S PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE \nCONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM \nCOMMENT PRACTICABLE WITH THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC \nCZMP. ARMY CORP ENGINEERS \nSUBMITTED A FIRST PHASE CD THAT \nIS PROPOSED ACTIONS CONSISTENT \nTO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT \nPRACTICABLE WITH THE ENFORCE \nPOLICIES OF OUR CZMP AND AGAIN \nBCDC CZMP INCLUDES ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES OF THE MAC ACT AND THE \nBAY PLAN AND BCDC CAN CONCUR \nCONDITIONALLY OR OBJECT. THESE \nARE BASED ON DEVELOPING \nINFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE AT THE \nTIME OF THE CD WITH EACH PHASE \nSUBJECT TO FEDERAL AGENCY \nDISCRETION TO IMPLEMENT \nALTERNATIVE DECISIONS BASED UPON \nTHE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT \nTHAT TIME. FOR EXAMPLE\, \nPLANNING CITING DESIGNING DESIGN \nPHASES AND CD IS REQUIRED FOR \nEACH MAJOR DECISION. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nNEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AS PART OF \nTHE DECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. THE \nPROJECT WOULD OCCUR OUTSIDE OF \nTHE BAY AND SHORELINE BAN \nJURISDICTIONS BUT THE PROJECT \nMAY AFFECT RESOURCES WITHIN BOTH \nOF THESE JURISDICTIONS WITHIN \nBCDC COASTAL ZONE SEGMENT \nIDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION \nSUMMARY OF LISTED I’M NOT GOING \nTO GO OVER ALL OF THESE BUT YOU \nCAN SEE STAFF IDENTIFIED AS THE \nRELEVANT POLICIES FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO CONSIDER IN \nRELATION TO THIS PROJECT. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, NEXT WE’LL TALK ABOUT THE \nBAY PLAN AS PART OF THE \nDECISIONAL FRAMEWORK. AND ON \nTHIS SLIDE\, AGAIN\, I’M NOT GOING \nTO READ ALL OF THESE CATEGORIES\, \nBUT THESE ARE ENFORCEABLE \nPOLICIES AND THE CZMP THAT WERE \nIDENTIFIED IN THE BAY PLAN. THE \nFOLLOWING BAY PLAN POLICY \nCATEGORIES ARE RELEVANT IN \nENFORCING POLICIES FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO CONSIDER \nDETERMINING WHETHER IT CONCURS \nCONDITIONALLY OR OBJECTS TO THE \nARMY CORP SUBMITTED CD. THE \nCOMMISSION’S RECENT UPDATE TO \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN VIS-À-VIS \nADOPTED PLAN IS NOT YET PART OF \nTHE BCDC APPROVED CERTIFIED \nCZMP. FOR PURPOSES OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF \nTHE CD THE COMMISSION SHOULD \nRELY ON POLICIES OF THE SEAPORT \nPLAN PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF BPA \n119 TO THE EXTENT THEY INFORM \nTHE COMMISSION DETERMINATION \nWHETHER IT CONDITIONALLY CONCURS \nOR OBJECTS TO THE ARMY CORP’S \nSUBMITTED CD. NEXT SLIDE. \nNEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AS \nPART OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL \nREGIME HERE. SO\, NEPA STANDS \nFOR THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL \nPOLICY ACT\, WHICH WAS ENACTED BY \nCONGRESS IN 1969. IT REQUIRES \nTHAT ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE TO \nPREPARE DETAILED STATEMENTS \nASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT AND ALTERNATIVES TO MAJOR \nFEDERAL ACTIONS SIGNIFICANTLY \nAFFECTING THE ENVIRONMENT. SO\, \nHERE\, FOR THIS PROJECT\, THE ARMY \nCORP PREPARED AN INTEGRATED \nFEASIBILITY REPORT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AS THE \nNEPA LEAD AGENCY. AND AS PART \nOF ITS EA\, IT MADE A DRAFT \nFINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT \nOR [INDISCERNIBLE] UNDER CZMA \nSTATE AGENCIES CANNOT REQUIRE \nSUBMITTAL OF NEPA DOCUMENTATION \nAS PART OF A CD BUT HERE THE \nARMY CORP DID PROVIDE AN EA FOR \nSTAFF CONSIDERATION IN \nEVALUATING THE SUBMITTED CD IT’S \nWORTH POINTING OUT FEDERAL \nAGENCIES CD OBLIGATIONS UNDER \nCZMP ARE INDEPENDENT OF THOSE \nREQUIRED UNDER NEPA AND ARE NOT \nNECESSARILY FULFILLED BY THE \nSUBMISSION OF NEPA. THE EA IS \nNOT NECESSARILY DETERMINATIVE OF \nTHE COMMISSION’S REVIEW OF THE \nARMY CORP’S SUBMITTED CD THOUGH \nANALYSIS IN MAY ASSIST THE \nCOMMISSION IN DETERMINING \nWHETHER IT CONCURS CONDITIONALLY \nCONCURS OR OBJECTS TO THE \nSUBMITTED CD. SIMILAR TO NEPA \nCEQA REQUIRES STATE AND LOCAL \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO INFORM \nDECISION MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC \nABOUT THE POTENTIAL \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF \nPROPOSED PROJECTS AND REDUCE \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE \nEXTENT FEASIBLE THE. THE EIR IS \nNOT DIRECTLY BEFORE US TODAY \nBECAUSE CEQA IS NOT A \nREQUIREMENT UNDER CZMA. UNDER \nTHE DOCUMENT THEY HAVE \nIDENTIFIED FOUR SIGNIFICANT AND \nUNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THREE \nRELATING TO AIR QUALITY AND ONE \nRELATING TO NOISE AND THEY ALSO \nIDENTIFIED CERTAIN MITIGATION \nMEASURES TO MITIGATE THE \nSIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE IMPACTS \nALTHOUGH THEY STILL CONCLUDED \nTHEY WERE SIGNIFICANT AND \nUNAVOIDABLE. SO BCDC STAFF IS \nCURRENTLY REVIEWING AND \nCOMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR AS A \nRESPONSIBLE AGENCY AND WILL \nCONSIDER IT WHEN THE PORT \nAPPLIES FOR A BCDC PERMIT. THIS \nIS TYPICALLY HOW BCDC HANDLES \nITS CEQA COMPLIANCE BECAUSE \nPERMIT APPLICANTS MUST OBTAIN \nALL DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS \nBEFORE SEEKING A BCDC PERMIT AND \nTYPICALLY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT \nPROVIDING ANY LOCAL \nDISCRETIONARY APPROVAL SERVES AS \nA CEQA LEAD AGENCY. BCDC RELIES \nON THE CEQA DOCUMENTATION \nPREPARED BY THE LEAD AGENCY WHEN \nACTING ON A PERMIT APPLICATION \nFOR A PROJECT AS A CEQA AGENCY \nRESPONSIBLE AGENCY IF A PROJECT \nREQUIRES APPROVAL FROM A \nCALIFORNIA PUBLIC AGENCY OR \nFEDERAL AGENCY THE CEQA \nGUIDELINES GENERALLY REQUIRE \nPREPARATION OF A JOINT CEQA \nDOCUMENT GUIDELINES ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHAT A FEDERAL AGENCY MAY NOT \nCOOPERATE IN THE PREPARATION OF \nA JOINT DOCUMENT AND MAY REQUIRE \nA SEPARATE NEPA DOCUMENTATION. \nHERE THE ARMY CORP AND PORT OF \nOAKLAND DID NOT PREPARE A JOINT \nNEPA CEQA DOCUMENT INSTEAD THE \nARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA PORT \nPREPARED AN EIR UNDER ITS CEQA \nREQUIREMENTS. THERE IS NO \nREQUIREMENT THAT THE \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A \nPROJECT UNDER NEPA COME TO THE \nCONCLUSIONS AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW OF THE SAME PROJECT UNDER \nCEQA BECAUSE CEQA AND NEPA ARE \nDIFFERENT STATUS WITH DIFFERENT \nREQUIREMENTS. AGAIN THAT WAS A \nLOT OF INFORMATION. JUST TO \nSUMMARIZE HERE THE ARMY CORP \nSUBMITTED A PHASED CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION AS REQUIRED AND \nALLOWED BY THE CMA. BCDC MUST \nCONCUR INITIALLY CONCUR OR \nOBJECT TO THE SUBMITTED CD THAT \nTHE ARMY CORP’S PROPOSED ACTIONS \nARE CONSISTENT TO THE MAXIMUM \nEXTENT PRACTICABLE WITHIN THE \nENFORCEABLE POLICIES OF BCDC\, \nCZMP. AND AGAIN BCDC CZMP \nINCLUDES ENFORCEABLE OF POLICIES \nOF MACATEER PETRIS AND THE BAY \nPLAN. OBJECTION IS NOT A \nDENIAL. THOUGH BCDC MAY SEEK \nMEDIATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. \nARMY CORP PREPARED AN EA UNDER \nITS NEPA AUTHORITY\, ALTHOUGH \nTHIS IS NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT. \nAND THE PORT PREPARED AN EIR \nUNDER ITS CEQA AUTHORITY WHICH \nIS ALSO NOT A CZMA REQUIREMENT \nBUT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY BCDC \nWHEN THE PORT NEEDS A BCDC \nPERMIT. AND THAT’S THE END OF \nMY PRESENTATION. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU MICHAEL. \nSO\, COMMISSIONERS\, I HOPE YOU \nAPPRECIATE THAT MINI CONCISE \nTRAINING ON CZMA\, CEQA AND NEPA. \nIT’S VERY MUCH TO INFORM THE \nPROJECT AND HOW THE COMMISSION \nSTAFF HAS BEEN APPROACHING THE \nOAKLAND TURNING BASIN’S WIDENING \nPROJECT. \nI’M GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF \nOVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE \nTHE ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE A \nLONGER AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF \nTHE ARMY CORP PROJECT. IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS A \nJOINT PROJECT OF THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND AND THE U.S. ARMY CORP \nOF ENGINEERS AS MICHAEL \nMENTIONED OR ALLUDED TO\, THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND WILL BE \nREQUESTING A BCDC PERMIT LIKELY \nIN 2025\, 2026. SO\, WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROJECT \nAGAIN AROUND THE MCATEER-PETRIS \nACT STATUS AND BAY PLAN \nPOLICIES. \nSO\, JUST A QUICK NOTE. AGAIN\, \nTHIS IS A FIRST PHASE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION. THE \nARMY CORP WILL DESCRIBE FURTHER. \nBUT IN THE FIRST PHASE\, AT THIS \nLEVEL WE’RE LOOKING AT THE \nFEASIBILITY STUDY AND THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE \nPROJECT. THAT MEANS THAT MANY \nOF THE DETAILS THAT WE WOULD \nNORMALLY RECEIVE IN A PERMIT \nAPPLICATION HAVE NOT YET BEEN \nPROVIDED ALTHOUGH WE HAVE \nSEVERAL DETAILS IN HAND. THE \nPROJECT IS NOT YET AUTHORIZED OR \nFUNDED. SO\, WE ANTICIPATE A \nSECOND PHASE — WE ANTICIPATE A \nSECOND PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION IN 2025 OR 2026. \nTHAT WILL BE AT THE PLANNING \nENGINEERING AND DESIGN PHASE \nWHERE MORE DETAILS WILL BE \nPROVIDED BY THE ARMY CORP. ONE \nOF THE REASONS WE’RE HERE TODAY \nIS BECAUSE IN ORDER FOR THE ARMY \nCORP OF ENGINEERS TO HAVE THEIR \nHEADQUARTERS SIGN WHAT IS KNOWN \nAS THEIR CHIEF’S REPORT\, THE \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION LETTER \nOF AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE \nAPPENDED TO THAT REPORT. THEN \nLASTLY THIS ACTION HELPS THE \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS REQUEST \nAUTHORIZATION FOR THIS PROJECT \nIN THE WATER RESOURCES AND \nDEVELOPMENT ACT\, 2024\, OR LATER\, \nSHOULD THAT NEED TO HAPPEN AT A \nLATER TIME AND FUTURE \nAPPROPRIATIONS OF THE PROJECT BY \nCONGRESS. \nTHIS IS THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nI’M HOPING MANY OF YOU ARE \nFAMILIAR WITH IT. THIS IS A \nGRAPHIC FROM THE PORT’S FILES. \nBUT IT SHOWS THE OUTER HARBOR TO \nTHE NORTHERN PART OF MY SCREEN\, \nTHE TOP OF MY SCREEN\, WITH THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASINS\, \nSORT OF IN THE CRUX OF THE OUTER \nHARBOR AND THE INNER HARBOR \nTRAVELING BETWEEN THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND AND THE ISLAND OF \nALAMEDA WITH THE INNER HARBOR \nDOWN IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND \nCORNER OF THE SCREEN. THESE TWO \nTURNING BASINS ARE THE MAIN \nSUBJECT OF THIS CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION\, BECAUSE AT THIS \nTIME\, LARGE VESSELS THAT ENTER \nTHE PORT FACE RESTRICTIONS NOT \nALL OF THEM BUT SOME FACE \nRESTRICTIONS WHEN THEY’RE \nTRAVELING IN AND OUT OF THE PORT \nFACILITIES TO BERTH AND OFFLOAD \nTHEIR CARGO. THIS IS A SHORT \nVERSION OF THE PORT OF OAKLAND’S \nPROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR THE \nPROJECT. BUT BASICALLY THEY’RE \nLOOKING TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES \nFOR LONGER VESSELS FOR BOTH THE \nCURRENT VESSELS THAT ARE \nENTERING AND LEAVING THE HARBORS \nTODAY AND ALSO FOR THE FUTURE \nDEEP DRAFT VESSELS THAT MAY CALL \nAT THE PORT IN THE FUTURE\, AND \nARE ANTICIPATED TO CALL IT THE \nPORT. THEY ALSO MAINTAIN WANT \nTO MAINTAIN THE COMPETITIVENESS \nFOR THE PORT INTERNATIONAL CARGO \nSHIPMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT VESSELS HAVE FLEXIBILITY \nFOR CONNECTING TO SHORE POWER \nWHILE THEY’RE AT BERTH \nAPPARENTLY SOME OF THE SHIPS \nONLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONNECT \nTO SHORE POWER ON THE INSIDE SO \nTHEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN AND \nMAKE SURE THEY CAN CONNECT TO \nSHORE POWER. THIS HELPS SUPPORT \nA MOVE TOWARDS ZERO-EMISSIONS IN \nTHE FUTURE AND THEY WILL ALSO \nIMPROVE VESSEL MANUFACTURING AND \nSAFETY AND REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL \nRISKS SUCH AS OIL SPILLS THAT \nCURRENTLY EXIST IN THE TURNING \nBASINS WHEN THEY’RE UNDERSIZED \nFOR THE VESSELS THAT ARE \nTRANSITING THEM AND ALSO \nMEASURES TO MODERNIZE ESSENTIAL \nWATERWAY PORT OF OAKLAND FOR THE \nNATION AND WITH THE FLEET COMING \nAND GOING AND THE GRAPHIC ON THE \nRIGHT SHOWS SOME OF THE \nDIFFERENCES THAT THE PORT IS \nFACING NOW BOTH IN THE FUTURE \nVESSELS GET LONGER AND WIDER \nWITH THE ABILITY OF VESSELS TO \nTRY TO CARRY MORE CARGO. \nLOOKING AT THE TWO AREAS OF \nACTION FOR THIS PROJECT SO THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN CLOSE \nUP OF EARLY DESIGN PHASE BUT THE \nTURNING BASIN AS IT EXISTS TODAY \nIN THE LIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED \nTURNING BASIN IN THE DARKER OR \nCHARCOAL GRAY TO BLACK. \nBASICALLY\, THIS REPRESENTS AN \nEXPANSION OF THE EXISTING \nTURNING BASIN BY 21 ACRES. IT \nWOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY \nDREDGING APPROXIMATELY \n1.34 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF \nSHALLOW SUBTIDAL HABITAT THAT’S \nCURRENTLY AT 4 TO 5 FEET MEAN \nLOW WATER. THAT AREA WILL BE \nTAKEN DOWN TO MINUS 50 FEET TO \nMATCH THE EXISTING TURNING BASIN \nSTEPS. AND THE PORT AND CORP \nHAVE COMMITTED TO BEN OFFICIALLY \nREUSING ALL THE DREDGE SEDIMENT \nTHAT’S CLEAN AND SUITABLE FOR \nREUSE FROM THIS PROJECT AND \nPARTICULARLY THE OUTER HARBOR \nBECAUSE IT’S ANTICIPATED TO HAVE \nFEWER CONTAMINANTS IN THE INNER \nHARBOR JUST DUE TO THE NATURE \nWAS THE UNDISTURBED SITE. AND \nAS PART OF THIS\, THEY WILL BE \nUPGRADING EXISTING ELECTRICAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE NEAR 26\, WHICH IS \nADJACENT TO THE SITE. \nTHE INNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN \nFAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THE OUTER \nHARBOR TURNING THE BASIN \nEXPANSION. SIMILARLY THE \nGRAPHIC YOU SEE HERE EXISTING \nINNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IN \nLIGHT GRAY. THE PROPOSED \nWIDENING EXPANSION OF THE \nTURNING BASIN IN BLACK WITH THE \nDASHED LINES BEING IN AREAS THAT \nARE WITHIN THE EXISTING 50 FOOT \nFEDERAL NAVIGATION CHANNEL AND \nTHE AREAS THAT ARE YELLOW AND \nSOLID BLACK ARE AREAS NEED TO BE \nEXCAVATED OR DREDGED AS PART OF \nTHE PROJECT. IN ORDER TO EXPAND \nTHE TURNING BASIN AS THE CORP \nDID IN THE 50-FOOT DEEPENING \nPROJECT — THIS HAS BEEN DONE AT \nLEAST ONCE BEFORE — PORTIONS \nOF HOWARD TERMINAL WHICH WERE \nPUT INTO PLACE IN THE 1980’S \nWOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED\, 3.9 \nACRES. ALAMEDA LAND SITE \nOPPOSITE THE CHANNEL WOULD HAVE \n6.5 ACRES REMOVED. THERE ARE \nTWO WAREHOUSES ON THAT SITE; \nYOU CAN SEE THEM THERE IN WHITE. \nON THE LOWER PART OF THE SCREEN \nONE OF THEM SAYS ALAMEDA \nPROPERTY THOSE WAREHOUSES WOULD \nBE PARTIALLY DEMOLISHED TO \nACCOMMODATE THE WIDER TURNING \nBASIN. IN THE WHARFS ON BOTH \nSIDES THERE IS A COMBINATION OF \nA ROCK DIKE\, THOSE AREAS THAT \nNEED TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF \nTHIS PROJECT AND TWO BULK HEADS \nWOULD BE INSTALLED ONE ON THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL SIDE ONE ON THE \nALAMEDA SIDE TO HOLD THE NEW \nSHORELINE. IN ADDITION — AND \nIT’S NOT ON THIS SLIDE — IN \nADDITION THERE IS A SMALL NARROW \nAREA IN FRONT OF SCHNITZER STEEL \nON THE LEFT UPPER PART OF THE \nSLIDE WHERE THE CORP WOULD PLACE \nIN WATER RETAINING WALL TO HOLD \nBACK THE SLOPE OF THE SHORELINE \nSO WHEN THE AREA IS DEEPENED TO \nMINUS 50 FEET THE SLOPE WOULDN’T \nSLUMP AND CAUSE SLOPE FAILURE. \nONCE THE NEW BULK HEADS ARE IN \nPLACE THE PROJECT WOULD DREDGE \nAPPROXIMATELY 825 CUBIC YARDS OF \nSEDIMENT ALSO TARGETED FOR \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WHENEVER \nSUITABLE AND IT WILL BE DEEPENED \nTO MINUS 50 FEET TO MATCH THE \nCHANNEL AND EXISTING TURNING \nBASIN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS WOULD \nBE DISPOSED OR RECYCLED\, \nDEPENDING ON ITS TYPE\, AND THEY \nWOULD NEED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT. \nOOPS. WE WENT THE WRONG WAY. \nSORRY. \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: BRENDA\, I \nTHINK YOU MISSPOKE. IT’S \n825\,000. \n>>SPEAKER: DID I SAY MILLION? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: — \n[INDISCERNIBLE] DREDGING. \nI THINK YOU SAID 825. \n>>SPEAKER: OH. YEAH\, I ALWAYS \nDROP OFF THREE ZEROES. MY \nAPOLOGIES. THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS \nWHEN YOU WORK IN THE WORLD OF A \nLOT OF ZEROS. \nTHANK YOU FOR THAT\, STEVE. \nONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS OF THE \nPROJECT IS MACING FILLS TAKING \nAWAY OF FILL\, OVERALL IT’S \nREDUCTION OF BAY FILL INCREASE \nOF SURFACE AREA VOLUME IN THE \nBAY. YOU CAN SEE THE TOP FOUR \nLINES LOOKING AT FILL REMOVAL \n10.4 ACRES OF THE AREA WOULD BE \nREMOVED OVERALL THEN 418\,400 \nCUBIC YARDS OF SOLID FILL WOULD \nBE REMOVED. THE FILL PLACED\, OR \nTHE NEXT SET OF NUMBERS \nTOTALLING 2.81 ACRES OF FILL \nPLACED AND 23\,000 ACRE YARDS OF \nFILL PLACED THAT RESULTS IN \nTOTAL NET OF REDUCTION OF 7.6 \nACRES AND NET SOLID FILL \nREDUCTION OF 395\,400 CUBIC YARDS \nREPRESENTING INCREASE IN SURFACE \nAREA AND VOLUME OF THE BAY WHICH \nIS HELPFUL. I’M GOING TO TOUCH \nON ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION \nWILL NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN IT’S \nVOTING TO HELP FRAME ANY PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS THAT MAY ARISE AND ALSO \nFOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS \nPROJECT AS YOU’RE HEARING THE \nARMY CORP PRESENTATION. SO THE \nPRIMARY ISSUES THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS AND \nPOLICIES\, WHETHER THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN \nWHETHER THE ARMY CORP HAS \nCONDUCTED EQUITABLE AND \nCULTURALLY RELATIVE OUTREACH TO \nTHE PUBLIC PARTICULARLY THE \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITY \nTHAT MAY BE DISPROPORTIONATELY \nIMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT AND \nWHETHER IT’S CONSISTENT WITH OUR \nENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL JUSTICE \nPOLICIES AND THERE IS MITIGATION \nFOR THOSE IMPACTS WHERE WE HAVE \nAUTHORITY. AND LASTLY\, WHETHER \nTHE PROPOSED DELAY ON ADDRESSING \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND SCENIC VIEWS \nTO THE NEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION IS APPROPRIATE. \nA COUPLE MORE SLIDES THEN I’LL \nTURN IT OVER TO PHOENIX. \nMICHAEL TOUCHED ON THIS I’M NOT \nGOING TO BELABOR THE POINT BUT A \nQUICK REMINDER THAT WE’RE USING \nTHE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN FOR THIS \nPROJECT AS AMENDED IN 2012. HE \nMENTIONED THE CURRENT ONE \nREQUIRES COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT \nREVIEW BEFORE WE CAN USE IT. \nSO\, JUST A QUICK NOTE THAT THE \nSEAPORT PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY \nEXISTS SUPPORTS REDEVELOPMENT OF \nTHE PORT TO IMPROVE WATER BORNE \nCOMMERCE AND COMMERCE AND \nSUPPORT ECONOMY OF THE BAY AREA \nALSO INCLUDES DREDGING TO DEEPEN \nAND MAINTAIN NAVIGATION \nCHANNELS. \nAND THEN IN JUST A MINUTE ON \nPUBLIC ACCESS. SO THERE HAS \nBEEN CONCERNS AND COMMENTS MADE \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS AND WHETHER \nOR NOT THE PROJECT SHOULD \nPROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. AND AT \nTHIS POINT IN TIME\, IN THE \nFEASIBILITY STAGE\, THE CORP AND \nTHE PORT HAVE NOT PROVIDED OR \nPROPOSED ANY PUBLIC ACCESS. \nIT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE DIFFERENT \nPOLICIES THAT SUPPORT THE \nCOMMISSION STAFF’S VIEW THAT \nPUBLIC ACCESS IS AND SHOULD BE \nREQUIRED BY THIS PROJECT. SO\, \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT SECTION 66602 \nSPEAKS TO REQUIRING THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONSISTENT WITH A PROJECT AND IT \nSPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT PORTS AS \nONE AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS \nSHOULD BE REQUIRED WHERE \nFEASIBLE AND SAFE TO DO SO. \nWHEN THE STAFF LOOKS AT PROJECTS \nFOR PUBLIC ACCESS THEY LOOK AT \nTHE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT BOTH \nCURRENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIN THE AREA. \nIN LIEU\, PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PORT \nPROPERTIES IS LIKELY AN OUTCOME \nDUE TO THE SAFETY CONCERNS \nTHAT’S PART OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICIES AND PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICY 1 AND 2 IT SEEKS IF YOU \nCAN’T PROVIDE IT IN PORT \nPROPERTIES THAT NEARBY PUBLIC \nACCESS PROJECTS COULD BE \nPROVIDED AND IF YOU CAN’T DO IT \nNEARBY\, THEN PUBLIC ACCESS \nSHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR \nVULNERABLE OR DISADVANTAGED \nCOMMUNITIES. \nI ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS \nSTAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA\, WHO RAISED SPECIFIC \nCONCERNS ABOUT THE STAFF \nSUMMARY. AND FRANKLY\, THE \nTERMINOLOGY USED\, WE CALLED IT \nALAMEDA TERMINAL\, THE TRUE NAME \nIS ALAMEDA LANDING. THE MASTER \nLAN FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING FOR \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA ANTICIPATES \nAND ENCOURAGES PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nRECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS \nPART OF THAT SITE AND IN FACT \nMENTIONED THAT IT’S PART OF THE \nBAY TRAIL\, IN THE FUTURE. \nAND THEN LASTLY\, THE PORT’S \nPOLICIES AND THE SEAPORT PLAN \nSAY THAT PORT SHOULD BE DESIGNED \nWHENEVER FEASIBLE TO PERMIT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND VIEWING \nACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWING \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR PORT \nACTIVITIES THROUGH VIEWPOINTS \nAND OPENINGS BETWEEN BUILDINGS \nAND OTHER SITE DESIGNS THAT \nPERMIT VIEW OF THE MARITIME \nACTIVITIES. JUST WANTED TO CALL \nTHOSE TO YOUR ATTENTION AS WE \nTHINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT WITH \nTHE PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS. AND \nI’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO \nPHOENIX ARMENTA TO TALK ABOUT \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nPOLICIES. \n>>SPEAKER: WEST OAKLAND IS AN \nENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY AS \nDEMONSTRATED BY CALENVIROSCREEN\, \nEJ COMMUNITY SCREENING TOOL AND \nBCDC COMMUNITIES VULNERABLE MAP \nCLOSEST TO THE OAKLAND HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN ARE WITHIN THE \n70th\, 8TH\, 90th PERCENTILE IN \nTERMS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nBURDEN IN THE STATE OF \nCALIFORNIA BCDC SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY MAP SHOWS \nCOMMUNITIES AROUND THE TURNING \nBASIN RANGE FROM MODERATE TO \nHIGH SOCIAL VULNERABILITY. \nOAKLAND HAS A LONG HISTORY OF \nINDUSTRIAL USES PORT EXPANSION \nAND IS SURROUNDED BY TWO \nFREEWAYS LEADING TO THE HIGHEST \nEXPOSURES TO PARTICULATE MATTER \nIN THE NATION. NEXT SLIDE. \nBCDC ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND \nSOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES ADOPTED \nIN 2019 OUTLINE REQUIREMENTS FOR \nWORKING IN SOCIALLY VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES FIRST POLICY DIRECTS \nCOMMISSION TO INCLUDE PRINCIPLES \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY IN ALL ACTIONS AND \nACTIVITIES RELATED TO \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY THAT MAY AFFECT THE \nCOMMISSION’S AUTHORITY OR \nJURISDICTION. \nTHE THIRD POLICY REQUIRES \nMEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT \nBY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT \nAPPLICANTS WORKING IN SOCIALLY \nVULNERABLE COMMUNITIES FOURTH \nPOLICY REQUIRES THAT LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS AND THE COMMISSION \nSHOULD MAKE MEASURES THROUGH \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS WITHIN THE \nSCOPE OF THEIR RESPECTED \nAUTHORITY TO REQUIRE MITIGATION \nFOR DISPROPORTIONATE ADVERSE \nPROJECT IMPACT ON THE IDENTIFIED \nVULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN WHICH \nTHE PROJECT IS PROPOSED. IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT POLICY \nFOUR IS APPLIED ONLY WITHIN THE \nSCOPE OF THE COMMISSION’S \nRESPECTIVE AUTHORITY WHEN \nCONSIDERING ITS APPLICATION TO \nTHE OAKLAND HARBOR TURNING \nBASIN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nWITH REGARDS TO MEANINGFUL \nCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THE PORT \nAND THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS HELD A TOTALLY OF NINE \nMEETINGS AS PART OF THE NEPA AND \nCEQA PROCESSES THEY MET WITH \nLOCAL GROUPS SUCH AS THE OAKLAND \nENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR’S \nPROJECT JACK LONDON IMPROVEMENT \nDISTRICT AND ACORN PRESCOTT \nNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL TO DISCUSS \nTHE PROJECT THEY ALSO WORKED \nCLOSELY WITH ME TO DEVELOP AND \nHELP WITH THE OUTREACH \nSTRATEGIES. NEXT SLIDE. \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONCERNS \nSTILL REMAIN AROUND THE PROJECT \nINCLUDING CONCERNS AROUND \nSIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS \nOF AIR QUALITY FROM CONSTRUCTION \nAND DREDGING EQUIPMENT CONCERNS \nOF WIDENING COULD INDUCE GROWTH \nOVER TIME AND CONTRIBUTING TO \nWORSENING AIR QUALITY RESIDENTS \nDON’T WANT CONTAMINATED SOIL TO \nBE PASS ODDS TO OTHER EJ \nCOMMUNITIES LIKE KETTLE MAN \nCITY. IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE \nTHESE CONCERNS ALTHOUGH \nIMPORTANT TO ADDRESS DO NOT FALL \nUNDER THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S \nAUTHORITY. NEXT SLIDE. BCDC \nHAS BEEN COORDINATING WITH \nAGENCIES TO HAVE SOME AUTHORITY \nON THESE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nCONCERNS TO HELP ADDRESS THEM \nOUR STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH \nBAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT \nDISTRICT\, CALIFORNIA AIR \nRESOURCES BOARD\, CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE \nAND CALIFORNIA WATER BOARDS \nCALIFORNIA SUBSTANCES CONTROL \nAND US EPA TO WORK ON FINDING \nSOLUTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE CONCERNS ON THIS \nPROJECT. I’LL SEND IT BACK TO \nBRENDA TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE \nPROJECT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. SO THE \nCOMMISSION UNFORTUNATELY DOES \nNOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS \nAIR QUALITY ISSUES ASSOCIATED \nWITH THIS PROJECT IT’S OUTSIDE \nOF OUR SCOPE AND AUTHORITY \nHOWEVER BECAUSE WE REALIZED THE \nCOMMISSION MAY BE CONCERNED \nABOUT THE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF \nTHE PROPOSED PROJECT WE THOUGHT \nWE WOULD BRIEFLY LIST OUT SOME \nOF THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE THE \nABILITY TO REGULATE THESE ISSUES \nIN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE TRYING TO \nLAY OUT AREAS WHERE THIS ISSUE \nCAN BE ADDRESSED. SO\, THE BAY \nAREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT \nDISTRICT REGULATES STATIONARY \nEQUIPMENT AND COMMENTS ON \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. THE \nCALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD \nREGULATES MOBILE EQUIPMENTS\, \nVEHICLES AND SHIPS IN STATE \nWATERS. SO\, FOR EXAMPLE\, THEY \nHAVE REGULATIONS RELATING TO \nTRUCKING AND THIS IS THE CARB \nREGULATION. SO\, ALL OF THESE \nLISTED BELOW ARE PRIMARILY \nRELATED TO CARB\, BECAUSE THEY \nARE ENACTING NEW LAWS AND \nPOLICIES AND REGULATIONS TO \nIMPROVE AIR QUALITY THROUGHOUT \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO\, \nYOU CAN SEE THAT THEY’RE WORKING \nTO REDUCE SULFUR OXIDES\, NITROUS \nOXIDES\, REDUCING EMISSIONS FROM \nTRUCKS THROUGH INCREASING \nIMPROVEMENTS FOR THEIR ENGINES\, \nFOR LES EMISSIONS. OVER TIME. \nAND SO SOME OF THOSE ARE ALREADY \nIN PLACE. SOME ARE COMING \nONLINE NOW. VESSEL REGULATIONS \nTHAT THEY HAVE ENACTED ARE \nLOOKING AT RENEWABLE DIESEL \nFUEL\, AND\, AGAIN\, IMPLEMENTING \nPHASED-IN BETTER ENGINES WITH \nLESS EMISSIONS. SIMILARLY FOR \nCARGO EQUIPMENT\, THEY’RE \nDEVELOPING CARGO HANDLING AND \nREGULATIONS TO TRANSITION TO \nZERO-EMISSIONS FOR THOSE TYPES \nOF EQUIPMENT\, AND THEN FINALLY \nWITH RAIL\, THEY’RE LOOKING AT \nIMPROVING LOCATION MOTION SO IT \nHAS LESS EMISSIONS AND THEN \nZERO-EMISSIONS OVER TIME. SOME \nOF THAT IS BY PHASING OUT OLDER \nEQUIPMENT. \nLASTLY\, BECAUSE CALIFORNIA’S LAW \nAND AUTHORITY ONLY GOES TO THE \nEXTENT OF THE STATE OF \nCALIFORNIA’S JURISDICTION\, I \nALSO LOOKED INTO WHAT KIND OF \nREGULATIONS APPLY TO OVER — \nEXCUSE ME — TO OCEAN GOING \nVESSELS THAT MAY COME TO THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND WHEN THEY’RE \nCALLING ON THE PORT. \nSO\, THERE ARE CONTROLS WENT 200 \nMILES OF THE COAST THROUGH THE \nINTERNATIONAL MARITIME \nORGANIZATION\, THEY’RE LOOKING\, \nAGAIN\, TO REDUCE — EXCUSE ME — \nSULFUR OXIDES\, AND — [ AUDIO \nDISTORTION ] GREENHOUSE GASSES\, \nU.S. MARINE VESSELS. THE JONES \nACT WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY \nLOOKING AT EMISSIONS IT GOVERNS \nDOMESTIC SHIPPING IN THE UNITED \nSTATES\, THERE IS A FEDERAL \nMARITIME COMMISSION WHICH \nGOVERNS OTHER ASPECTS OF \nSHIPPING BUT NOT NECESSARILY \nMISSIONS. AND THEN LASTLY\, \nCALIFORNIA AIR BOARD\, JUST A \nLITTLE BIT MORE\, WITHIN 24 \nNAUTICAL MILES FROM BASELINE OF \nTHE STATE\, THEY HAVE OCEAN-GOING \nVESSEL FUEL REDUCTION \nREGULATIONS AND OCEAN GOING \nVESSELS AT BERTH REGULATIONS. \nSO I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO \nYOUR ATTENTION SO THE COMMISSION \nDOES HAVE AN AWARENESS OF THE \nDIFFERENCE LAWS AND ORGANIZATION \nTHAT IS WORKING TO REDUCE AIR \nQUALITY IMPACTS AT THE PORTS AND \nFOR THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nAROUND THEM. NEXT STEPS SO YOU \nKNOW WHERE WE’RE GOING. NEXT \nSTEPS ARMY CORP IS GOING TO GIVE \nA PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT IN \nMORE DETAIL THAN I HAVE PROVIDED \nHERE TODAY THEN WE’LL HAVE \nOPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE \nPUBLIC ON THIS PROJECT. \nDECEMBER 15TH IS THE DATE WE \nANTICIPATE SENDING OUT THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. IT WILL BE \nRELEASED BOTH TO THE PUBLIC AND \nTHE COMMISSION. A.M. IS THE DAY \nTHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO VOTE ON \nTHIS PROJECT AND THIS IS A VERY \nIMPORTANT DAY\, BECAUSE IT’S THE \nLAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE \nCOMMISSION TO VOTE IN 2023. \nAND THEN\, LASTLY\, SHOULD THE \nCOMMISSION CHOOSE TO CONCUR WITH \nTHIS PROJECT\, WE WOULD ISSUE THE \nLETTER OF AGREEMENT NOT LATER \nTHAN DECEMBER 31ST\, 2023. \nSO\, THIS IS A PLEA FROM OUR \nFRIENDS THE HARBOR SEALS\, \nCOMMISSIONERS PLEASE COME TO THE \nMEETING ON A.M. BECAUSE WE NEED \nTHE 84 TOWEL HAVE A VOTE OR THE \nPROJECT WILL BE DELAYED AND \nPOTENTIALLY NOT MAKE IT INTO THE \nREPORT. SO THAT’S A CUTE LITTLE \nFACE SAYING PLEASE COME. WE \nWOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU AGAIN IN A \nCOUPLE OF WEEKS. THAT IS IT \nFROM ME AND NEXT UP IS THE ARMY \nCORP. AND I THINK I’M SHARING \nMY SCREEN FOR THEM\, AS WELL. \nJUST ONE MINUTE. WITH THAT\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE ERIKA \nPOWELL\, FROM THE ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS. SHE ALSO HAS MEMBERS \nFROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND THE \nARMY CORP STAFF WITH HER TODAY \nTO ASSIST IN THE PRESENTATION OR \nQUESTIONS SHOULD THEY ARISE. \nERIKA? \n>>ERIKA POWELL: THANK YOU \nBRENDA HELLO EVERYONE MY NAME IS \nERIKA POWELL. THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF FOR \nALL YOUR SUPPORT AND OPPORTUNITY \nTO PRESENT TODAY ON THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR TURNING BASINS WIDENING \nFEASIBILITY REPORT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THIS \nSTUDY WAS AUTHORIZE WAS FUNDED \nBY CONGRESS WHICH ALLOWED THE \nARMY CORE OF ENGINEERS TO ENTER \nINTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND IN JULY OF 2020 TO \nDETERMINE IF THERE WAS A \nTECHNICALLY FEASIBLE \nECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED \nENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE \nPROJECT THAT WOULD DECREASE \nVESSEL TRANSIT INEFFICIENCIES AT \nTHE OAKLAND HARBOR. SO THAT WAS \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. I AM \nJOINED HERE BY — NEXT SLIDE — \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S NOT \nTRANSITIONING. \n>>ERIKA POWELL: I WAS GOING TO \nTAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SAY I’M \nSO HAPPY TO SEE SO MANY FAMILIAR \nFACES. SO\, I’M JOINED HERE BY \nTHE CORP OF ENGINEERS TEAM \nMEMBERS. WE HAVE A VERY LARGE \nTEAM BUT WE DO HAVE FOLKS HERE \nIN PERSON. BARNEY WAIR\, WHO IS \nOUR TECHNICAL LEAD\, ALSO OUR \nGEOTECHNICAL EXPERT\, ERIK \nJOLIFFE\, OUR ENVIRONMENTAL LEAD\, \nAND VIRTUALLY\, WE HAVE ELIZABETH \nDIONNE. OUR LEAD PLAN \nFORMULATOR\, AND ELLIE C\, WHO IS \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL COLEAD AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nSPECIALIST. I’M ALSO JOINED \nHERE BY THE PROJECT DELIVERY \nTEAM ON THE PORT SIDE. JUSTIN \nTASCHEK. I BELIEVE THE PORT \nWOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FEW \nCOMMENTS. IF THAT’S OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: GREAT. \nAPPRECIATE THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON \nHONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE BCDC \nCOMMISSION. BCDC STAFF\, AND THE \nPUBLIC. \nMY NAME IS JUSTIN TASCHEK\, AND I \nAM THE PORT OF OAKLAND PROJECT \nADMINISTRATOR FOR THE PROPOSED \nPROJECT TO WIDEN THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR TURNING BASINS. WITH ME \nMY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUES\, EDWIN \nDRAPER\, LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL \nSCIENTIST\, CAMERON CHUOP\, AND I \nWOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO \nBCDC STAFF FOR THEIR COMMITMENT \nAND SUPPORT FOR BRINGING THIS \nITEM BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY \nAND SECONDLY\, I WOULD LIKE TO \nTAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK \nTHE U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nFOR DETERMINATION AND LEADERSHIP \nIN ENSURING THE PORT CONTINUES \nTO DELIVER ECONOMIC PROSPERITY \nTO THE REGION. THE PORT\, IN \nCOLLABORATION WITH COMMUNITY \nMEMBERS\, ENVIRONMENTAL \nORGANIZATIONS\, INDUSTRY\, AND \nLOCAL AGENCIES\, INCLUDING BCDC\, \nIS COMMITTED TO A DECARBONIZED \nFUTURE AND PROUDLY ALIGNS ITSELF \nWITH THE MUTUAL GOAL OF \nDELIVERING SUSTAINABLE \nTRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES. \nWIDENING THE TURNING BASINS IS \nONE SUCH PROJECT THAT HELPS \nDELIVER ON THIS COMMITMENT. \nWITH WIDENED TURNING BASINS\, THE \nPORT CAN ACCOMMODATE SAFE \nEFFICIENT ACCESS FOR A \nTRANSITIONING GLOBAL FLEET THAT \nINCLUDES NEWER\, LONGER\, AND MORE \nENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY SHIPS \nWHICH ARE SHORE POWER READY. \nTHAT IS THE SHIPS CAN PLUG IN \nAND TURN THEIR ENGINES OFF WHILE \nAT BERTH. THANK YOU FOR BCDC’S \nONGOING SUPPORT. OUR SHARED \nPURSUIT OF REGIONAL PROSPERITY \nAND BAY RESILIENCE UNDERSCORES \nTHE IMPORTANCE OF THIS AGENDA \nITEM AND WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY. \nTHE PORT LOOKS FORWARD TO OUR \nCOLLECTIVE ENDEAVORINGS AS WE \nNAVIGATE A COURSE TOWARDS A \nTHRIVING\, SUSTAINABLE\, AND \nDECARBONIZED FUTURE. AS A \nREMINDER\, THE PORT\, AS LEAD \nAGENCY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA \nENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT\, AS \nMENTIONED PRIOR\, RELEASED A \nDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT \nREPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nON OCTOBER 3RD. COMMENTS ARE \nDUE DECEMBER 18TH. \nRESPECTFULLY\, WE ARE IN THE OPEN \nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE \nCEQA DOCUMENT\, AND ALL QUESTIONS \nDIRECTED TO THE PORT HERE TODAY \nWILL BE INCLUDED AND RESPONDED \nTO IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACT REPORT. \nAND I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE \nPUBLIC RECORD\, LAST FRIDAY\, \nDECEMBER 1ST\, THE PORT SUBMITTED \nA COMMENT LETTER FOR STAFF’S \nCONSIDERATION\, AS WELL AS THE \nCOMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION\, \nFURTHER EXPANDING ON INFORMATION \nRELATED TO THIS PROPOSED \nPROJECT. WITH THAT I’LL HAND IT \nBACK TO ERICA. THANK YOU. \n>>ERIKA POWELL: ALL RIGHT. \nTHANK YOU TO THE PORT FOR BEING \nHERE TODAY. I AM EXCITED ABOUT \nGIVING CREDIT TO BCDC STAFF. \nTHAT WAS A FANTASTIC \nPRESENTATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH \nYOU’RE GOING TO MAKE MY JOB SO \nMUCH EASIER. \nSO\, NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, JUST TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH \nTHIS SLIDE A LITTLE BIT. ON THE \nFAR LEFT\, FOR THOSE OF YOU NOT \nENTIRELY FAMILIAR WITH THE MAKE \nUP OF THE SEAPORT AREA. ON THE \nFAR LEFT IS AN ARROW THAT POINTS \nTO THE ENTRANCE TO THE \nNAVIGATION CHANNEL. ON THE \nUPPER PART OF THAT — THE SLIDE\, \nIS AN ARROW THAT POINTS TO THE \nOUTER BASIN AND THEN THE FAR \nBOTTOM RIGHT IS AN ARROW THAT \nPOINTS TO THE INNER BASIN. THE \nBLUE DASH LINE SHOWS THE FEDERAL \nCHANNEL LIMITS OF THE OAKLAND \nHARBOR WHICH INCLUDES DEEP \nNAVIGATION CHANNELS AND TWO \nTURNING BASINS. A TURNING BASIN \nIS VERY SIMILAR TO A CUL-DE-SAC \nON A STREET. RIGHT? SO THE \nWHOLE POINT OF A TURNING BASIN \nIS TO ALLOW VESSELS ENTERING OR \nDEPARTING OR EXITING THE PORT TO \nTURN AROUND. SO THAT’S JUST TO \nKIND OF GIVE YOU A BIRDS EYE \nVIEW OF THE PORT. NEXT SLIDE\, \nPLEASE. \nWE HAD ANOTHER SLIDE SIMILAR TO \nTHIS ONE\, JUST TO KIND OF SPEAK \nTO THE PROBLEM. THE EXISTING \nTURNING BASINS WERE DESIGNED FOR \nCONTAINER VESSEL OF \nAPPROXIMATELY 1139 FEET. \nVESSELS LARGER THAN THAT HAVE \nRESTRICTIONS SO THE EXPERIENCED \nRESTRICTIONS FOR TODAY WHEN \nUSING THE EXISTING TURNING \nBASINS. THESE RESTRICTIONS \nINCLUDE SCHEDULING TRANSITS \nAROUND SPECIFIC TIDE\, CURRENT\, \nAND WIND CONDITIONS. LIMITING \nTO DAYLIGHT TIMES. USES OF \nADDITIONAL PILOT AND REQUIRED \nNUMBER OF VESSEL — \n[INDISCERNIBLE] ARE NEEDED\, \nTHAT’S HOW THEY MITIGATE THESE \nRESTRICTIONS. THESE CAN DELAY \nVESSELS FROM ARRIVING OR \nDEPARTING A BERTH. IN ADDITION \nVESSELS LONGER THAN 1200 FEET IN \nLENGTH ARE USED IN THE HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN AND ARE RESTRICTED \nTO DOCKING PORT SIDE ONLY \nPOINTED EAST. THAT CAN IMPACT \nTHE ABILITY FOR THE VESSEL TO \nUSE SHORE POWER\, AND IF NEEDED\, \nIT PREVENTS — IT PREVENTS THE \nABILITY TO DEPART IN AN \nEMERGENCY. SO\, ONE THING THAT’S \nKIND OF IMPORTANT HERE TOO THAT \nI WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IS \nTHAT IN THE FUTURE\, EXISTING \nFLEETS OF SMALLER VESSELS WILL \nBE REPLACED BY LARGER VESSELS\, \nAND WE DO HAVE A SLIDE THAT \nSHOWS THAT TREND. WE HAVE DATA \nTHAT SHOWS THAT TREND. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY\, \nANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE \nVESSELS THAT ARE — OR THE CLASS \nOF THAT — THE VESSEL CLASSES \nTHAT ARE VISITING OR CALLING ON \nTHE PORT TODAY. SO\, ANY VESSEL \nABOVE A THOUSAND FORTY-FIVE \nFEET\, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP \nBLUE TABLE DOESN’T EXPERIENCE \nTHE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE \nMENTIONED EARLIER. HOWEVER\, IF \nYOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM TABLE\, \nTHERE ARE ALL SORTS OF \nRESTRICTIONS FOR ANY VESSEL \nTHAT’S OVER 1200 FEET. AND AS \nYOU HEARD MY SAY\, THERE IS TIDE\, \nCURRENT\, AND WIND CONDITIONS \nTHAT IMPEDE THE PROPER \nNAVIGATION OF THESE VESSELS. \nTHEY NEED ADDITIONAL PILOT\, THEY \nNEED ADDITIONAL TUGBOATS TO HELP \nTHEM NAVIGATE SAFELY IN AND OUT \nOF THE PORT. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED\, \nTOO\, ON THAT LAST SLIDE\, THAT \nALL OF THOSE VESSELS ARE COMING \nINTO THE PORT TODAY. A BRIEF \nDESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND I \nTHOUGHT BRENDA DID A GREAT JOB \nIN DETAILING IT PART OF THE U.S. \nARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS PLAN \nFORMULATION PROCESS IT WAS \nDETERMINED THAT THE INNER HARBOR \nTURNING BASIN SHOULD BE WIDENED \nBY AN ADDITIONAL 334 FEET AND TO \nA DEPTH OF 50 FEET WHICH IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT \nDEPTH OF THE TURNING BASIN AND \nTHE INNER HARBOR CHANNEL. THE \nPURPLE AREAS WHERE THE LAND \nEXCAVATION AND DREDGING OCCUR \nBOTH IN THE OAKLAND SIDE AND THE \nALAMEDA SIDE. THE TWO \nWAREHOUSES ON THE BOTTOM WHERE \nIT SAYS ALAMEDA THEY ACTUALLY\, \nDEMOLITION WE SAY PARTIAL \nDEMOLITION\, I DON’T KNOW IF \nYOU’RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE \nWAREHOUSES\, WE HAVE TWO BAYS \nTHAT WOULD BE IMPACTED IN THE \nFRONT AND THREE BAYS IN THE \nBACK. THE DARK ORANGE DASH \nLINES REPRESENT THE NEW BULK \nHEAD AND YOU CAN SEE BOTH ON THE \nOUTER EDGE OF THE GREEN CIRCLE \nON THE HOWARD SIDE AND THEN ON \nTHE ALAMEDA SIDE. THE NEW BULK \nHEAD SERVES AS SEPARATION OF \nLAND AND WATER. ON THE RIGHT IS \nTHE SCHNITZER STEEL NOW WHAT IS \nCALLED RADIUS RECYCLING THAT IS \nAN INWATER STRUCTURE AND THE \nPOINT OF THAT LITTLE WALL IS TO \nPREVENT SLOPE FROM — TO PREVENT \nSLOPE FROM SLIPPING THERE. THE \nTILL OF THE SLOPE. IT IS \nPROPOSED THAT INFRASTRUCTURE \nWOULD BE INSTALLED AT THE \nSOUTHEAST CORNER OF HOWARD \nTERMINAL TO FACILITATE ELECTRIC \nDREDGING TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION \nAND EMISSIONS FOR THE PROSED \nPROJECT. OKAY. THE LAST THING \nI WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU \nAS A TAKE AWAY FOR THIS IS A \nTOTAL OF 2.4 MILLION CUBIC YARDS \nOF DREDGE MATERIAL IS EXPECTED\, \nAND DIRT WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE \nINNER AND OUTER BASIN SO THE \nTOTAL IS 2.4 MILLION. A LITTLE \nMORE THAN 2 MILLION WOULD \nACTUALLY BE TAKEN BY BARGE TO \nNEARBY WETLANDS RESTORATION SITE \nFOR BENEFICIAL USE AND \nAPPROXIMATELY 400\,000 CUBIC \nYARDS WHICH ARE NOT\, RIGHT NOW\, \nESTIMATED NOT SUITABLE FOR \nBENEFICIAL USE\, IS PROPOSED TO \nBE TAKEN TO A LANDFILL AND/OR \nRECYCLED. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHE OUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN \nWOULD BE WIDEN TO APPROXIMATELY \n315 FEET AND AGAIN TO THE SAME \nDEPTH AS THE EXISTING CHANNEL \nWHEN WHICH IS MINUS 50\, THIS \nWOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY \nDREDGING SHOWN IN THE PURPLE \nHATCH AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY \nREMOVAL OF ANY LAND. IN \nADDITION\, AND BASED ON PUBLIC \nFEEDBACK SPECIFICALLY FROM THE \nBAR PILOTS\, THE BASIN WOULD BE \nSHIFTED AWAY FROM THE BERTH AREA \nTO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE ACCESS. \nBERTH 26 IS WHERE WE WOULD \nPROPOSE ELECTRICAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE FOR ELECTRIC \nDREDGING AND BERTH TEN WOULD BE \nUSED FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGING \nAND REHANDLING OF NON-HAZARDOUS \nDREDGE MATERIAL THAT REQUIRES \nLANDFILL DISPOSAL. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \nSO\, ACTUALLY BEFORE I TALK ABOUT \nTHIS SLIDE\, I DID WANT TO SAY A \nSPECIAL THANKS TO BCDC EPA \nREGION NINE AND THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND FOR THEIR COLLABORATION \nWITH OUR DISTRICT TO ENSURE \nMEANINGFUL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT\, \nAND EFFECTIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. \nWE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY \nBASIS. IT’S BEEN A YEAR SINCE \nWE STARTED MEETING ON A WEEKLY \nBASIS WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE \nRELEASE OF THE SECOND DRAFT IFR \nEPA INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY \nREPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT \nAND TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT I \nBELIEVE IT WAS AROUND THE END OF \n2022\, THAT WE HAD POLICY \nGUIDANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE. SO THAT ALLOWED US TO \nSTEP UP OUR ENVIRONMENTAL — I’M \nSORRY — OUR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. \nSO\, WE\, THE CORP\, ARE TRYING TO \nDO MORE THAN THE BEAR MINIMUM \nNOW\, AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. \nSO\, WITH THIS NEW GUIDANCE WE \nWERE ABLE TO CONSIDER \nCOMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. AND \nTHAT’S AN INTERESTING TERM BUT \nWHAT IT SAYS IS WE WERE ABLE TO \nLOOK AT ELECTRIC DREDGING DURING \nCONSTRUCTION AND BENEFICIAL USE \nOF DREDGE MATERIAL\, EVEN THOUGH\, \nFOR EXAMPLE\, FOR DREDGE \nMATERIAL\, WE’RE NOT REQUIRED TO \nDO IT AS MITIGATION\, BUT THIS IS \nSOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE \nTO GO TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY \nOF THE ARMY AND ASK FOR \nPERMISSION TO BE ABLE TO COST \nSHARE THAT WITH THE LOCAL \nSPONSOR. THEY APPROVED THAT\, SO \nTHAT’S A RECOMMENDATION THAT’S \nBEING MADE BY THIS REPORT. IN \nADDITION\, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS \nACTUALLY GOING TO BE FULLY \nPAYING ENTIRETY FOR THE ELECTRIC \nDREDGES. SO THAT’S SOMETHING \nTHAT THE PORT IS DOING\, AS WELL. \nAND THAT’S JUST TO POINT OUT \nTHAT WE HAD AS MANY MEETINGS AS \nPOSSIBLE. WE HAD SOME \nNEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL MEETINGS\, \nWHICH WERE — IT’S NOT SOMETHING \nTHAT WE TYPICALLY DO BUT WE WERE \nASKED TO BE INVITED TO THEIR \nMONTHLY MEETINGS\, AND THAT’S ONE \nWAY THAT WE WERE TRYING TO REACH \nOUT. WE ALSO MET WITH THE WEST \nOAKLAND ENVIRONMENTAL \nINDICATOR’S PROJECT TWICE\, ONCE \nIN ’22\, AND ONCE IN ’23. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE \nRECEIVED MULTIPLE TIMES\, AND \nWE’RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT\, \nWAS RELATED TO INDUCED GROWTH. \nAND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE \nWOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IS THAT \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES NOT \nCHANGE HOW MANY VESSELS CAN BE \nADOPTED AT ANY TIME. SO \nINCREASING THE DIAMETER OF THE \nTURNING BASINS DOES NOT ADD \nBERTHING SPACE. \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO DOES \nNOT CHANGE THE CONTAINER \nHANDLING FACILITIES. SO\, THE \nPORT’S LAND SIDE CONTAINER \nHANDLING CAPACITY REMAINS \nCONSTANT\, REMAINS THE SAME. \nTHIRDLY\, THE RECOMMENDED PLAN \nDOES NOT AFFECT CONSUMER \nECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN THE BAY \nAREA\, OR IN THE CENTRAL AND \nNORTHERN CALIFORNIA MARKET. \nECONOMIC FACTORS SUCH AS \nRECESSIONS\, TRADE AGREEMENTS\, \nMICRO ECONOMIC DEMANDS\, \nECONOMIES OF SCALE AFFECT GLOBAL \nSHIPPING SUPPLY AND DEMAND. \nWHAT THE RECOMMENDED PLAN DOES \nIS IT ALLOWS FOR SHIPS TO TURN \nMORE SAFELY\, AND FOR SMALLER \nSHIPS TO BE PHASED OUT FOR \nBIGGER MORE EFFICIENT FLEETS. \nTHE RECOMMENDED PLAN ALSO ALLOWS \nFOR EFFICIENCY IN DEPARTING AND \nARRIVING AT THE PORT WITH FEWER \nIDLING SHIPS\, FEWER RESTRICTIONS \nON SHIPS ALREADY IN THE HARBOR. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nAND THEN\, AS I INDICATED \nEARLIER\, I WAS GOING TO PROVIDE \nYOU WITH A SLIDE THAT \nILLUSTRATES THE TRENDS OF \nSHORTER AND LONGER VESSEL CALLS \nTO THE PORT OF OAKLAND. IN THIS \nGRAPH\, IF YOU LOOK ON THE FAR \nLEFT\, YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF \nCALLS. ON THE BOTTOM\, YOU HAVE \nTHE YEAR STARTING IN 2014 TO \nTODAY\, AND ON THE FAR RIGHT YOU \nHAVE THE TEUS OR THE THROUGHPUT \nPER YEAR. SO THE VESSELS ARE \nGROUPED INTO TWO CATEGORIES \nHERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SOLID \nNAVY BLUE LINE\, THAT IS THE \nLONGER VESSELS. THE DASHED LINE \nIS THE SHORTER VESSELS\, AND \nTHERE IS A VERTICAL LINE THAT \nSHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THE \nPANDEMIC\, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF \nSHORTER UNRESTRICTED VESSELS \nCONTINUED ITS DOWNWARD TREND. \nAND THEN THROUGH SEPTEMBER OF \nTHIS YEAR\, THE PORT HAS SEEN 406 \nLONG VESSELS CALL THE PORT\, \nCOMPARED TO 319 SHORTER VESSELS \n— OR SHORT VESSELS\, I SHOULD \nSAY. \nTHEN THE — OKAY\, THE BIG TAKE \nAWAY HERE IS THE GRAY SHADED \nAREA DEPICTS TOTAL CARGO HANDLE \nFOR THE LAST TEN YEARS DURING \nWHICH TIME CARGO VOLUME HAS \nREMAINED RELATIVELY CONSTANT. \nTHOUGH THE NUMBER OF VESSELS HAS \nCONTINUED TO DECREASE. SO\, \nTHANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO \nPRESENT THOSE SLIDES. ALLOWING \nME TO PRESENT THOSE SLIDES. I’M \nGOING TO HAND IT OFF TO ERIK \nJOLIFFE. \n>>ERIC JOLIFFE: THANKS ERICA. \nTHANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nSPEAK TO YOU. WHAT I’M GOING TO \nTALK ABOUT HERE HAS ALREADY BEEN \nDISCUSSED IN BRENDA’S \nPRESENTATION BUT LET’S GO OVER \nIT. WHERE WE’RE AT IN OUR NEPA \nCOMPLIANCE\, A LONG TIME AGO IN \nSEPTEMBER 2020 WE SENT OUT \nREQUESTS FOR COOPERATING \nAGENCIES\, THE ONLY AGENCY THAT \nACCEPTED WAS EPA SO THEY ARE \nCONTRIBUTING AS A COOPERATING \nAGENCY IN THIS STUDY. BETWEEN \nDECEMBER 17TH AND FEBRUARY 14TH \nWAS OUR COMMENT PERIOD FOR OUR \nINITIAL DOCUMENT THAT WE \nRELEASED\, AND BASED ON COMMENT \nTHAT WE RECEIVED FROM THAT \nDOCUMENT\, WE CHANGED THE DESIGN \nA LITTLE BIT THAT REQUIRED US TO \nRERELEASE\, AGAIN\, IN APRIL 26\, \n2023 TO JUNE 16TH\, 2023 WE HAD \nTHE COMMENT PERIOD ON OUR SECOND \nDOCUMENT THAT WE SENT OUT TO THE \nPUBLIC THAT ADDRESSED THE SHIFT \nIN ALIGNMENT THAT WE SHOWED YOU\, \nAND IT ADDRESSED SOME NEW \nREQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD TO DO\, \nWE HAD TO — THE 50 DOCUMENT \nDIDN’T REQUIRE GUIDANCE DURING \nTHE FIRST DOCUMENT DIDN’T \nREQUIRE US TO ANALYZE GREENHOUSE \nGAS IMPACTS AND THE DOCUMENT NOW \nCONTAINS ANALYSIS OF THAT. \nAND THAT BRINGS US TO WHERE WE \nARE AT NOW. AND THEN WE ARE IN \nTHE FINAL PROCESSES OF \nADDRESSING COMMENTS\, PUBLIC \nCOMMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS\, AND \nFINALIZING THE DOCUMENT. AND IN \nJANUARY\, HOPEFULLY ON THE 17th\, \nWE’LL TRANSMIT THAT TO OUR SOUTH \nPACIFIC DIVISION\, WHICH IS THE \nNEXT LEVEL ABOVE US\, AS A FINAL \nREPORT. AND SOMETIME AFTER — \nTHAT’S — AND IN THE PROCESS \nTHAT THEY TALKED ABOUT GETTING \nAWARDED AUTHORIZATION\, HOPEFULLY \nIN 2024\, AND AFTER THAT TIME\, \nWE’LL BE COMING BACK FOR A PHASE \nTWO CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nONCE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL \nINFORMATION WE’LL HAVE MORE \nDETAILED SEDIMENT \nCHARACTERIZATION\, WE’LL HAVE \nMORE DETAILED ENGINEERING \nINFORMATION\, AND WE’LL HAVE DONE \nSOME FURTHER COORDINATION WITH \nSOME OF THE AGENCIES. OKAY. \nGO AHEAD BRENDA. \nSO\, THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED \nTHROUGH THE BOTH OF THESE \nCOMMENT PERIODS\, SOME OF THEM \nWERE FAIRLY CONSISTENT AND FROM \nNUMEROUS GROUPS\, ESPECIALLY WITH \nRELATION TO THE NOTION OF DOING \nAN EA\, INSTEAD OF AN EIS. AND \nIN CONCERT WITH THAT\, THE \nDECISION NOT TO COMBINE THE \nDOCUMENTS IN AN EA EIR. \nAND WE DECIDE THAT WE WERE ON \nTHE RIGHT PATH\, THAT THE \nDOCUMENT\, WE DIDN’T HAVE ANY \nSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT WEREN’T \nMITIGABLE. SIMILAR IMPACTS TO \nAIR QUALITY SIMILAR TO TRUCK \nTRAFFIC AND THE PERCEPTION THAT \nTHIS PROJECT IS GOING TO INDUCE \nGROWTH AND INCREASE THE TRUCKS \nGOING THROUGH THEIR \nNEIGHBORHOODS\, THAT WAS STILL \nWHAT WE’RE WORKING THROUGH WITH \nTHE OAKLAND NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS\, \nESPECIALLY THE INDICATOR \nPROJECT. \nTHERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT \nIMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY. \nTIMING\, WE GOT SOME COMMENTS. \nBECAUSE THE PORT IS STILL \nELECTRIFYING THINGS\, MOST FAST \nAS THEY CAN\, AND THEY’RE ASKING \nUS TO DELAY THE PROJECT INTO THE \nFUTURE ONCE EVERYTHING’S \nELECTRIC. THERE WERE COMPLAINTS \nTHAT WE WEREN’T ENGAGING WITH \nTHE PUBLIC SUFFICIENTLY. SOME \nPEOPLE ASKED US ONLY DO THE \nOUTER HARBOR TURNING BASIN. \nTHERE WAS SUPPORT FOR THE \nPROJECT FROM A NUMBER OF GROUPS \nAND PEOPLE WERE VERY HAPPY THAT \nWE WERE COMMITTING TO BENEFICIAL \nUSE OF EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD. \nAND THE SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF \nELECTRIC DREDGING WHICH REDUCES \nTHE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS OF \nCONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. \nRESPONSES WILL BE INCLUDED IN \nTHE DOCUMENTS THAT WE’RE \nFINALIZING NOW\, AND WE’LL HAVE \nADDITIONAL COORDINATION THAT \nI’LL TALK ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT \nTHAT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN THE \nFUTURE. GO AHEAD\, BRENDA. \nSO THESE AREN’T REALLY \nMITIGATION MEASURES\, BUT \nAVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION \nMEASURES THAT WE WILL BE USING. \nIF YOU LOOK AT THE APPENDIX\, \nTHIS IS A LONG LIST BUT BRIEF \nVERSION OF THAT. RELATED TO \nPILE DRIVING\, PLACING BULK HEADS \nIS GOING TO REQUIRE SHEET PILE \nDRIVING\, AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO \nUSING VIBE TORE METHODS FOR THAT \nWHICH PRODUCES LESS NOISE AS \nMUCH AS POSSIBLE. IT WON’T BE \nPOSSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING BUT \nWE’LL TRY TO MINIMIZE THE \nIMPACT. WE’LL BE USING NOISE \nATTENUATION MEASURES FOR IN \nWATER NOISE\, SO THE BIOLOGICAL \nACOUSTICAL MONITORING AND NOTION \nOF USING SOME NOISE — I’M \nTRYING TO REMEMBER THE TERM — \n>>SPEAKER: DAMPENING. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU BRENDA \nWE’LL BE COORDINATING WITH THE \nPHASE 2C D FOR MARINE MAMMAL \nIMPACTS\, AND THERE WILL BE HOW \nMANY PILES AND LOCATIONS AND \nWE’LL GET INTO THAT WITH NOAA \nAND WE’LL DEVELOP SOME \nREQUIREMENT FOR THE PROJECT TO \nPROTECT MARINE MAMMAL \nPOPULATIONS. WE’LL BE DOING EEL \nGRASS SURVEYS IN THE OUTER \nHARBOR\, THERE IS EEL GRASS \nFAIRLY CLOSE TO BE DOING \nDREDGING SOLELY PRE AND POST \nSURVEY AND SOME LIGHT MONITORING \nLIKE WE NORMALLY DO FOR O&M IN \nTHAT AREA WE’LL BE USING CLAM \nSHELL BUCKETS WE WON’T BE DOING \nHYDRAULIC DREDGING. THE TUG \nMOVEMENT NIGHT TIME ISN’T \nCORRECT. WE WERE CONSIDERING \nTHAT BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT’S NOT \nNECESSARY. THAT HAD TO DO WITH \nNOISE IN ALAMEDA DURING THE \nNIGHT TIME\, BUT IT TURNED OUT \nTHAT SLIPPED IN THERE IT’S NOT \nSUPPOSED TO BE THERE. THERE \nWERE VARIOUS VMTS FOR REDUCING \nPARTICULATE EMISSIONS AND \nFUGITIVE DUST. BUT KEEPING A \nLOW SPEED LIMIT\, LIMITING IDLING \nTIME FOR TRUCKS\, AS THEY’RE \nWAITING FOR STUFF TO LOAD AND \nUNLOAD. AND REQUIRING THAT ALL \nTHE CONTRACTORS USE EQUIPMENT \nTHAT MEET CARB’S CERTIFICATION \nSTANDARDS\, THINGS LIKE TIER FOUR \nENGINES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. \nBUT I SHOULD SAY HERE THERE ARE \nSOME MITIGATION MEASURES THAT \nARE REDUCING IMPACTS TO LESS \nTHAN SIGNIFICANT\, AND THOSE ARE \nTHE ONES THAT PEOPLE ARE \nPROBABLY MOST INTERESTED IN\, AND \nTHAT WOULD BE THE USE OF SILT \nCURTAINS WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT \nON THIS SLIDE\, BUT TO PREVENT \nEXPOSURE TO MARINE FAUNA\, TO \nSUSPENDED SEDIMENTS AND TO \nPOTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS THAT MAY \nBE CONTAINED IN THERE\, IN THE \nAREAS WHERE WE EXPECT \nCONTAMINATED MATERIALS TO BE\, \nWE’LL BE DOING THE DREDGING \nBEHIND A SILT CURTAIN. THE \nOTHER ONE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT \nWITHOUT MITIGATION WOULD BE THE \nPILE DRIVING\, THE NOISE IMPACTS \nFROM THAT\, BUT WE’LL BE \nDEVELOPING BUBBLE CURTAINS AND \nAPPROPRIATE DISTANCES WHEN WE \nCOORDINATE. AND THE OTHER ONE \nIS AGREEING TO COMPLY WITH THE \nLTMS WINDOW THAT IS ESTABLISHED \nFOR AT LEAST IN WATER DREDGING \nFOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC \nSPECIES. SO WE HAVE COMMITTED \nTO CONFORMING WITH THAT\, AS \nWELL. OKAY. THAT’S IT. \nBRENDA. \nSO\, THIS IS KIND OF A RECAP OF \nWHAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT. \nWE’RE LOOKING TO GET OUR \nCONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL IN \nJANUARY OF 2024 AND \nPRECONSTRUCTION\, WE’RE GOING \nINTO OUR PRECONSTRUCTION \nENGINEERING AND DESIGN\, WHERE WE \nFINALIZE THE TECHNICAL \nINFORMATION AND DEVELOP A FULL \nDESIGN\, AND WE’LL COME BACK TO \nBCDC FOR OUR PHASE TWO \nDETERMINATION ONCE WE HAVE \nENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT 35%. \nWE ASSUME THAT WILL BE IN 2026 \nCOULD BE AS EARLY AS 2025 WE \nHOPE TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION IN \nJULY OF 2027 THAT WOULD RUN INTO \nOCTOBER OF 2029. THANK YOU\, \nBRENDA. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU ERIK AND \nERIKA. \n>>SPEAKER: I WANT TO SAY FOR \nTHE RECORD\, ON THAT SLIDE WHERE \nWE SAY MITIGATION MEASURES\, FOR \nTHE RECORD\, IT’S MINIMIZATION. \nSO WE’LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION ON \nTHE POWERPOINT BEFORE WE SUBMIT \nIT\, IF THAT’S OKAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ABSOLUTELY. \nTHANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. \nI WANT TO MENTION ONE THING I \nACCIDENTALLY OMITTED AT THE \nOPENING OF MY STATEMENTS\, THE \nPORT AND CITY OF ALAMEDA\, THE \nSTAFF MET WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA AND PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nARMY CORP REGARDING SOME \nCONCERNS AFTER THE STAFF SUMMARY \nWAS SENT OUT\, AND AS A RESULT \nBOTH ENTITIES PROVIDED SOME \nIMPROVED LANGUAGE FOR US. THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND INCLUDED SOME \nVERY EXTENSIVE LANGUAGE WHICH WE \nSUMMARIZED IN AN ADDENDUM AND \nATTACHED ERRATA SHEET THAT WAS \nSENT OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AT \n10:00 A.M. THIS MORNING SO IT IS \nIN YOUR COMMISSION PACKET. AND \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA INFORMATION \nIS INCLUDED SPECIFICALLY \nREGARDING THE ALAMEDA LANDING \nAREA. I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO \nTHE COMMISSION THAT WE DO \nAPPRECIATE ALL THREE ENTITY COME \nTOGETHER TO HELP US CLARIFY AND \nIMPROVE THE STAFF SUMMARY WHERE \nWE HAD SOME CLARITY NEEDS AND \nMISUNDERSTANDINGS OF PARTS OF \nTHE PROJECT. SO I JUST WANT TO \nTHANK THEM FOR THAT. AND WITH \nTHAT\, CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I WILL \nGIVE THE MEETING BACK TO YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. \nI WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. ANY MEMBERS OF THE \nPUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A \nPUBLIC COMMENT\, PLEASE LINE UP \nAT THE PODIUM OR RAISE YOUR HAND \nIN ZOOM. WE WILL START WITH \nTHOSE IN THE ROOM. REYLINA\, DO \nWE HAVE ANY IN THE ROOM \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nPUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW \nABOUT ON ZOOM? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: YES. \nALAN TAI. PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF \nTHE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ALAN \nTAI\, I AM THE PLANNING BUILDING \nAND TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR OF \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA WHERE A \nPORTION OF THIS PROJECT IS \nLOCATED. THE CITY OF ALAMEDA \nWANTS THE COMMISSION TO BE WAIR \nTHAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO \nOUR LOCAL DISCRETIONARY \nAPPROVALS. THE PROPERTY THAT’S \nAFFECTED BY THE PROJECT FALLS \nWITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA’S \nALAMEDA LANDING MASTER PLAN \nAREA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nWOULD REMOVE SIX ACRES OR A \nTHIRD OF THE 18 ACRES THAT THE \nCITY HAS PLANNED FOR EMPLOYMENT \nLANDS AND THAT’S PART OF THE \nMASTER PLAN. SO WE BELIEVE THE \nPROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR \nLOCAL MASTER PLAN AND WILL \nREQUIRE A MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT. \nAND THAT ACTION IS SUBJECT TO \nAPPROVAL BY OUR ALAMEDA CITY \nCOUNCIL. THE CITY ALSO HAS MANY \nCONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT ON \nMATTERS NOT WITHIN THE BCDC \nJURISDICTION\, BUT THE PROPERTY \n— I’M SORRY — THE PROJECT’S \nLACK OF FLOOD AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nPROTECTIONS AND WATERFRONT \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, WHICH ARE WITHIN \nTHE COMMISSIONS REGULATORY AND \nPOLICY SCOPE AND AUTHORITY\, AND \nTHE CITY RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE \nCOMMISSION AND BCDC STAFF TO \nTAKE THE CITY’S CONCERNS INTO \nCONSIDERATION FOR YOUR UPCOMING \nACTIONS ON THIS PROJECT. THESE \nCOMMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN A \nLETTER ADDRESSED TO YOU BY OUR \nMAYOR AZZY ASH CONTRACT AND IS \nINCLUDED IN YOUR MEETING \nMATERIALS. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS \nITEM. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: MIKE \nJACOB. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HI I’M MIKE JACOB \nWITH PACIFIC MERCHANT SHIPPING \nASSOCIATION WE REPRESENT \nTERMINAL OPERATORS DOING \nBUSINESS AT PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nOBVIOUSLY WE SUPPORT THE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nREQUEST FROM THE ARMY CORP AND \nSUBMITTED COMMENTS IN WRITING. \nAND JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS \nAND TO EXPAND ON SOME OF THE \nCOMMENTS YOU HEARD FROM THE PORT \nAND THE ARMY CORP WITH RESPECT \nTO ISSUES REGARDING GROWTH AND \nAIR QUALITY. I THINK IT’S WORTH \nMENTIONING THAT THE ISSUES FOR \nUS ARE NOT THAT THE PORT WILL OR \nWILL NOT GROW WITH RESPECT TO \nTHE PROJECT. THE QUESTION IS \nWHETHER OR NOT THE PORT WILL \nGROW SAFELY\, AND WHETHER OR NOT \nWILL GROW CONSISTENT WITH THE \nTERMS OF OTHER PORTS THAT ARE ON \nOUR SAME VESSEL STRINGS AND DO \nSO IN A WAY WHICH REDUCES COST \nAND INCREASES EFFICIENCY. MAYBE \nTHE ANALOGY BEST USE IS WHEN YOU \nTHINK OF A VESSEL STRING PER \nCONTAINER LINES LIKE A BUS \nSERVICE WE SET UP A ROUTE AND \nSERVICE THAT ROUTE FOR OUR \nCUSTOMERS AND CUSTOMERS THEN \nWILL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT \nIMPORTS AND EXPORTS BASED ON \nTHOSE SERVICES. THE SIZE OF THE \nBUS THAT SERVES THAT ROUTE\, \nWHETHER IT’S A SMALL BUS\, A \nLARGE BUS\, DOUBLE DECKER BUS\, \nDOESN’T MATTER IF YOU HAVE TO \nGET FROM PLACE A TO PLACE B. \nAND IT’S SIMILAR FOR US. YOU \nBOOK CARGO\, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A \nBUSINESS IMPERATIVE TO IMPORT OR \nEXPORT CARGO. IT DOESN’T MATTER \nTO THE IMPORTER OR EXPORTER THE \nSIZE OF THE VESSEL THAT COMES \nAND DOES THAT WORK. BUT IT DOES \nMATTER TO US\, AS THE OCEAN \nCARRIER\, WHEN YOU HAVE LARGER \nVESSELS\, YOU HAVE HIGHER \nEFFICIENCY\, LESS FUEL\, AND \nBECAUSE YOU’RE BURNING LESS FUEL \nPER BOX\, YOU’RE ACTUALLY \nDECREASING EMISSIONS PER UNIT\, \nAND OVERALL. WE WANT TO BRING \nIN THE LARGER VESSELS. WE WANT \nTO BRING IN THE MOST EFFICIENT \nVESSELS AND THE NEWEST VESSELS \nAND HAVE THEM IN THOSE STRINGS. \nAND THAT IS AT THE CORE OF WHY \nTHIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US\, FROM A \nCOMMERCIAL POINT OF VIEW\, IN \nADDITION TO THE REST OF THE \nISSUES WITH RESPECT TO SAFETY. \nWE LOOK FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING \nIN ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS ON \nTHIS PROJECT\, BUT IT’S \nIMPERATIVE THAT THIS MOVE \nFORWARD. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR \nCONSIDERATION. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KATRINA \nTHOMAS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M KATRINA THOMAS \nWITH EARTH JUSTICE ALONGSIDE \nWITH WEST OAKLAND ENVIRONMENT AT \nINDICATOR’S PROJECT HAS BEEN \nENGAGING ON THIS PROJECT\, \nCOMMENTING TODAY TO URGE BCDC TO \nREJECT THE CORP REQUEST FOR \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nBECAUSE THE CORP HAS NOT \nCONDUCTED EQUITABLE OUTREACH AND \nTHE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ABOUT \nIMPACTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS NOR \nHAS THE COURT ADDRESSED \nCOMMUNITY CONCERNS CLEARLY \nIDENTIFIED MITIGATION FOR \nPROJECTS IMPACTS WHILE \nACKNOWLEDGING THE COURT HAS HELD \nPUBLIC MEETINGS ON THIS PROJECT \nNONE HAVE CONSISTED OF A \nDIALOGUE AND THE COURT HAS NOT \nENGAGED IN COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER \nCONVERSATION ABOUT THE PROJECTS \nDURING DRAFTING OF ITS ANALYSIS \nTO IDENTIFY MITIGATION MEASURES. \nTHAT DOES NOT LIVE UP TO THE \nCOMMITMENTS IN THE WEST OAKLAND \nCOMMUNITY ACTION PLAN OR BIDEN \nADMINISTRATION’S RECENTLY \nADOPTED EXECUTIVE ORDERS \nREQUIRING AGENCIES THAT INVEST \nIN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT TO \nALSO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES THAT \nWILL YIELD EQUITABLE OUTCOMES \nFOR UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. \nTHE COURT’S FAILURE TO \nCOORDINATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW WITH THE PORT HAS LEFT \nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS IN THE DARK \nWITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND \nTHE COMERY CORP DATA ANALYSIS \nDIDN’T FIND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS \nBUT THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND CEQA \nREVIEW CONCLUDES THE PROJECT \nWOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT \nUNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS TO NEARBY \nCOMMUNITIES EVEN ARCH PROPOSED \nMITIGATION. THE FAILURE TO \nCOORDINATE HAS LEFT QUESTIONS \nENTIRELY UNANSWERED. I ALSO \nWANT TO NOTE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nANALYSIS OF ALL IMPACT AREAS \nINCLUDING WATER QUALITY AND \nBIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACT. WE \nDON’T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT \nIMPACTS WILL BE AS MORE SHIPS \nBEGIN TO VISIT. ALSO BECAUSE \nCORE CONSTRAINTS SCOPE OF \nANALYSIS IS LIMED TO ONE MILE \nRADIUS FROM PROJECT SITE IT \nDOWNPLAYS BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND \nOPERATION IMPACTS TO WATER \nQUALITY AND WILDLIFE IN THE BAY. \nBCDC SHOULD REJECT THE REQUEST \nFOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION \nBCDC IS NOT BEHOLDEN TO INDUSTRY \nINTEREST AND WE ENCOURAGE THE \nCOMMISSION TO LISTEN TO THE \nCOMMUNITY CONCERNS AND USE YOUR \nAUTHORITY ON THIS PROJECT TO \nPREVENT A HOST OF ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPACTS. THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ROBERT \nROGERS. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR \nWASSERMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. MY NAME \nIS ROGER\, AND I AM HERE ON \nBEHALF OF THE BAY PLANNING \nCOALITION ALIGNING WITH THE \nORGANIZATIONS MISSION OF \nPROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL \nSUSTAINABILITY AND ECONOMIC \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE REGION BCDC \nWOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR \nSUPPORT FOR THE OAKLAND TURNING \nBASIN-WIDENING PROJECT BY \nINCREASING EFFICIENCY AND \nENHANCING CAPABILITIES AT THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND. THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND GENERATES 98\,340 LOCAL \nJOBS AND IS THE SECOND LARGEST \nJOB GENERATOR IN THE CITY OF \nOAKLAND AND FIFTH LARGEST IN THE \nREGION IT REMAINS CRITICAL \nSOURCE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY \nAND JOBS IN THE NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA MOREOVER VALUE \nHIGHLIGHTS FROM BUSINESS REVENUE \nCONSUMER SPENDING AND TOTAL \nVALUE OF GOODS SERVICES THE PORT \nADDS $174 BILLION IN ECONOMIC \nVALUE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nWOULD IMPROVE NAVIGATIONAL \nACCESS FOR LARGER VESSELS. BY \nOPTIMIZING OPERATIONS THE \nPROJECT WILL SUPPORT A GREENER \nFUTURE FOR OUR COMMUNITIES BY \nREDUCING CONGESTION AND \nMINIMIZING STAGNANT VESSELS THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND IS A VITAL \nECONOMIC HUB FOR THE REGION AND \nTHE NATION. ALLOWING FOR THE \nWIDENING OF THE TURNING BASIN \nENSURES PROSPERING ECONOMIC \nCONDITIONS CONTINUE TO THRIVE I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON BEHALF \nOF THE BAY PLANNING COALITION. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SEAN \nSWENDSEN. PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, CAN YOU HEAR ME \nALL RIGHT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: YES. \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, MY CONCERN IS \nVERY BRIEF. WE HEARD FROM THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA TODAY. I \nBELIEVE HAS NAME IS ALAN TAI\, \nAND I’M WONDERING\, HE REFERENCED \nA LETTER THAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA TO BCDC FOR \nCONSIDERATION AS PART OF THIS \nAPPROVAL PROCESS\, AND I WAS \nWONDERING IF YOU WOULD BE SO \nKIND AS TO INCLUDE THAT LETTER \nIN THE BCDC’S PORTAL OF OTHER \nDOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS \nAPPROVAL PROCESS SO THAT THOSE \nIN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO \nREAD THE LETTER CAN ACCESS IT. \nTHAT’S ALL. THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EVEY\, \nPLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO. MY NAME IS \nEVEY FONG\, A MEMBER OF THE \nCUSTOMS BROKERS FORWARDERS \nASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA. I WANT TO SPEAK UP \nTODAY AND OFFER SUPPORT FOR THE \nTURNING BASIN PROJECT. THE \nTURNING BASIN IS NECESSARY AND \nRESPONSIBLE PROJECT TO ENSURE \nTHE PORT OF OAKLAND CONTINUES AS \nAN ESSENTIAL WEST COAST GATEWAY \nTO U.S. COMMERCE. WE\, AT THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND\, IT IS \nNECESSARY\, AS A REGIONAL PORT \nAND WITH THE LARGER COMMERCIAL \nSHIPS\, THIS WILL ENSURE THE \nPORT’S FUTURE AS THE NECESSARY \nREGIONAL PORT. DECISIONS MADE \nTODAY WILL ENSURE CURRENT \nCONTRACTS TO ENDURE AND SUCCEED \nINTO THE FUTURE. THIS TURNING \nBASIN WILL TAKE ABOUT TEN YEARS. \nIT IS NECESSARY THAT THE \nDECISIONS MADE WILL GO FORWARD \nWITH THE PROJECT. THE FACT THAT \nTHE EXISTING CHANNEL AND TURNING \nBASINS WERE LAST UPDATED 25 \nYEARS AGO\, I THINK IT’S TIME TO \nREDESIGN THE PORT INTO THE NEXT \n25 YEARS. AND THEN LASTLY\, \nINFRASTRUCTURE. AS SAID FOR \nCARB CONCERNS\, THE TURNING BASIN \nACCOMMODATES FOR SHORE POWER \nINFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND \nOTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED THAT \nTHE — ANY ENVIRONMENTAL \nCONCERNS AND ELECTRIFICATION CAN \nBE ACCOMMODATED. THOSE ARE GOOD \nTHINGS. AND THAT IS THE AIR \nQUALITY MEASURES THAT ARE NOW \nREQUIRED BY THE STATE. THIS \nWILL BE SUSTAINABLE\, COMPATIBLE \nGROWTH FOR THE PORT AND CITY OF \nOAKLAND. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR \nALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SUNG \nLEE. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO. THIS IS SUNG \nLEE. I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF \nNORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT \nEXPORT COUNCIL. A PRIVATE \nINDUSTRY ADVISORY GROUP \nAPPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF \nRAI MONDO OF DEPARTMENT OF \nCOMMERCE ALSO REPRESENTING HERE \nAS PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA CUSTOM BROKERS AND \nFREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSOCIATION \nTHAT CLEARS CUSTOMS AT THE \nPORTS. WE’RE SUPPORTING THE \nTURNING BASIN AT THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED \nTO IMPROVE VESSEL TRANSIT \nEFFICIENCIES AND NAVIGATIONAL \nSAFETY AND WE FULLY SUPPORT THAT \nMORE ALSO ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS \nINCLUDING REDUCTION OF EMISSIONS \nAT THE RATE OF GROWTH OF \nEMISSIONS PER CONTAINER AND \nDECREASING GHG EMISSIONS BY \nBOATING CARGO\, THE DIVERSION IS \nONE OF OUR GOALS. I WORK IN THE \nCONTAINER SHIPPING INDUSTRY THE \nSHIPPING COMPANIES THAT ARE \nCALLING PORT OF OAKLAND ARE \nPURCHASING PLACING ORDERS ON \nNEWER AND CLEANER VESSELS THAT \nIS GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF \nTHE LARGER TURNING BASIN THEY \nWILL BE COMPLETED ABOUT THE SAME \nTIME AS WHEN THE TURNING BASIN \nIS COMPLETED SO WE LOOK FORWARD \nTO HAVING THE CLEANER SHIPS CALL \nOAKLAND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SUSAN \nRANSOM. \n>>SPEAKER: HI EVERYBODY\, WITH \nSSA TERMINAL IN OAKLAND FIRST I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL THE \nPARTIES FOR CONTINUING TO WORK \nTOWARDS THE TURNING BASIN THE \nDISCUSSIONS ARE GOOD IT’S \nESSENTIAL TO THE FUTURE OF \nOAKLAND ECONOMIC ENGINE THAT \nSUPPORTS EVERYONE NEAR AND FAR I \nHAVE ALL DREDGING EQUIPMENT \nNEEDED TO WIDENING THE DURING \nBASIN WOULD BE ELECTRIC AND SOIL \nWOULD BE REPURPOSED. AS FAR AS \nADDITIONAL CONTAINER TRAFFIC \nTHAT WOULD BE DICTATED BY THE \nMARKETPLACE. THE TURNING \nPROJECT CHANGES THE NUMBER AND \nTYPE OF SHIPS FACILITATING THAT \nCOMMERCE. THIS WON’T BE BRING \nMASSIVE ADDITIONAL CONTAINERS IT \nWILL CONSOLIDATE CARGO WITH \nOLDER SMALLER SHIPS BEING \nDEPLOYED ELSEWHERE AND THE NEWER \nLARGER SHIPS WILL BE MORE \nENVIRONMENTALLY CLEAN COMING \nINTO THE PORT ALL OF THE MARINE \nTERMINALS IN THE PORT ITSELF ARE \nCOMMITTED TO DOING BUSINESS \nZERO-EMISSIONS. KEEP IN MIND \nTHE WIDER THE TURNING BASIN THE \nSAFER AND FASTER SHIPS TURN IT’S \nA WIN-WIN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT \nAND ECONOMY. IN ADDITION TO \nMANDATES AND REGULATIONS \nCALIFORNIA IS PUTTING ON \nTRUCKING COMPANIES TO BE RUNNING \n0 EMISSIONS\, IT’S LIKELY THAT \nTHE INDUSTRY WILL LOSE ABOUT 25% \nOF TRUCK CAPACITY AS MANY WON’T \nBE ABLE TO AFFORD THE NEW TRUCKS \nSO THERE WILL BE LESS TRAFFIC \nOVERALL AND LESS POLLUTION NOT \nMORE. ALREADY INVESTING \nMILLIONS OF DOLLARS GETTING TO \nTHE GOAL OF ZERO EMISSIONS AND \nVESSELS ARE ALREADY PLUGGING \nINTO SHORE POWER ELIMINATING \nNEED FOR DIESEL GENERATORS AT \nTHE PORTS WE HAVE AN \nENVIRONMENTAL TEAM WITHIN OUR \nCOMPANY WORKING ENDLESSLY WITH \nTHE PORT AND ALL OTHERS TO MEET \nCHALLENGES OF NEW CALIFORNIA \nREGULATIONS WE ARE NOT DONE BY \nFAR BUT ARE CONTINUING TO \nADVANCE THE GOAL. WE ARE \nCRITICAL PARTNERS INCLUDING THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND AND ASK THAT IT \nBE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BY THE TIME \nTHIS PROJECT BREAKS GROUND WE’LL \nBE ONE OF THE CLEANEST PORTS IN \nTHE WORLD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO \nFURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, ALL\, FOR THAT. \nI WOULD NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION \nTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nA SECOND\, PLEASE? \n>>SPEAKER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nVICE CHAIR MOVES. AND I’M \nSORRY. WHO SECONDED? \nOH I SEE SEVERAL HERE. I’LL \nTAKE COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S \nSECOND. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nPLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU \nAGREE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. ANYBODY OPPOSED TO \nCLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? \nPUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. \nTHANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. \nWE WILL NOW ENTERTAIN COMMISSION \nQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. \nI’M GOING TO RECOGNIZE \nCOMMISSIONER EISEN FIRST\, AND \nTHEN I’LL GO TO THE SCREEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I \nHAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I \nDON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHO TO DIRECT \nTHEM TO. AND I DON’T KNOW IF \nTHEY’RE PREMATURE. BUT THERE \nWAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC \nACCESS AND\, OF COURSE\, MIDDLE \nHARBOR SITS BETWEEN THESE TWO \nTURNING BASINS. AND MIDDLE \nHARBOR IS THE BIGGEST AREA OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS THAT OAKLAND HAS. \nI WAS THERE A WEEK AGO\, BECAUSE \nIT’S A MASSIVE BIRDING \nDESTINATION\, AND THE — I DON’T \nKNOW IF THIS IS RELATED IN ANY \nWAY\, SHAPE\, OR FORM\, BUT ALL OF \nTHE VEGETATION HAD BEEN REMOVED \nFROM MIDDLE HARBOR. AND I DON’T \nKNOW HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE \nIMPACTED BY THIS — WHAT SOUNDS \nLOOK A VERY LARGE PROJECT\, \nWHETHER IT’S GOING TO BE \nEXPANDED IN TERMS OF PUBLIC \nACCESS ON OR WHETHER IT’S GOING \nTO BE — WE HAVE TALK ABOUT IT \nBEFORE ON THE COMMISSION\, THAT \nIT IS A SAD AND UNHAPPY PLACE\, \nAND THAT THERE WAS COMMITMENTS \nBY THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND \nOTHERS THAT THEY WOULD IMPROVE \nIT. SO\, I’M NOT — I REALLY \nWOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT \nHAPPENS TO MIDDLE HARBOR IN THE \nMIDST OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT. \nTHAT’S NUMBER ONE. AND\, SORT \nOF\, RELATED\, I HEARD FROM ONE OF \nTHE PRESENTERS THAT ONE OF THE \nMITIGATION MEASURES IS TO AVOID \nDOING CONSTRUCTION DURING BIRD \nBREEDING SEASON. I WONDER WHO \nIS GOING TO HELP DETERMINE WHEN \nTHAT IS AND WHAT KIND OF IMPACT \nTHAT HAS ON THE PROJECT. \nBECAUSE JUST NOT CONSTRUCTING AT \nALL DURING BIRD BREEDING SEASON \nIS GOING TO BE\, YOU KNOW\, \nCOSTLY\, AND DIFFICULT TO \nSCHEDULE. SO\, I REALLY WANT TO \nUNDERSTAND THAT. \nBRENDA MENTION THAT WE NEED TO \nDECIDE NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN \nCONCUR AND THAT CAN BE ATTACHED \nTO THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT\, I \nTHINK WAS THE EXPRESSION. AND I \nWONDER IF THE CHIEF’S STATEMENT \nIS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO \nCONGRESS\, BECAUSE THE TIMELINE \nSAYS THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nASKING — THE ARMY CORP IS GOING \nTO BE ASKING CONGRESS FOR\, I \nGUESS\, VOTE ON THIS IN JANUARY\, \nWHICH IS JUST TWO WEEKS AWAY. \nSO\, AND ONLY TEN DAYS AWAY FROM \nOUR NEXT MEETING. I’M WONDERING \nWHAT THE ANSWER IS TO THE \nQUESTION ABOUT WHY WE NEED TO \nEXPAND BOTH TURNING BASINS\, WHY \nIT ISN’T SUFFICIENT JUST TO \nEXPAND THE ONE THAT’S IN THE \nOUTER HARBOR AND NOT THE ONE \nTHAT’S IN THE INNER HARBOR. AND \nMAYBE ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO BE \nANSWERED AT OUR NEXT MEETING? \nOR MAYBE IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR \nUS TO HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE \nPRIOR TO OUR DECISION ON WHETHER \nTO CONCUR. THERE IS A LOT OF \nCOMMENT ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING \nTO BE BENEFICIAL FOR SAFETY \nREASONS AND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL \nREASONS BUT IT’S NOT NECESSARILY \nGOING TO CHANGE\, SORT OF\, THE \nECONOMICS. BUT I REALLY DON’T \nUNDERSTAND SOME BASIC THINGS. I \nMEAN\, HOW MUCH GROWTH IN THESE \nLARGER SHIPS ARE WE SEEING? IS \nIT EXPECTED TO CONTINUE? AND \nFOR HOW LONG? SO THAT THAT\, \nSORT OF\, DATA\, WHETHER THIS IS \nREALLY A NECESSARY PROJECT\, I \nDON’T HAVE THAT. MAYBE IT’S IN \nSOME DOCUMENTS\, MAYBE SOMEONE \nCAN POINT ME TO IT. WITH THAT I \nHAVE EXHAUSTED MY TIME ASKING \nQUESTIONS \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWE’LL WORK ON ANSWERS. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL TAKE THE EASY \nONE. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT \nWHEN IT’S GOING TO CONGRESS. \nRIGHT NOW THE REPORT IS BEING \nFINALIZED AND IT’S GOING TO \nHEADQUARTERS IN JANUARY AND THEN \nTHE CHIEF’S REPORT IS COMPLETED \nAND SUBMITTED IN MAY\, END OF \nMAY\, 2024\, TO CONGRESS. YEAH\, \nTHE CHIEF’S REPORT THAT GOES TO \nCONGRESS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: I’M \nPRETTY SURE THAT I SAW THAT IT \nWAS ON JANUARY ON THE SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: I THINK IT WAS \nINCORRECT\, AS WELL. YEAH. SO \nIT STARTS — ONCE WE SUBMIT IT \nTO HEADQUARTERS IT\, SORT OF\, \nSTARTS THAT PROCESS OF GETTING \nIT TO — GETTING THE CHIEF’S \nREPORT PREPARED AND SUBMITTING \nTO CONGRESS FOR CONGRESSIONAL \nAPPROVAL. WE’LL MAKE A \nCORRECTION ON THAT POWERPOINT. \nSO THAT WAS THE EASY ONE. ON \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL ONE\, REGARDING \nTHE BIRD NESTING SEASON\, I’LL \nLET ERIK THEN ON THE ECONOMICS \nWE’LL BRING JUSTIN UP TO ANSWER \nTHAT QUESTION. AND ALL OF THIS \nIS IN THE REPORT. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, WE HAVE THE \nRESTRICTION ON TIMING FOR BIRDS \nWAS RELATED TO PILE DRIVING \nONLY. IT WAS ONLY IN THE \nPILE-DRIVING MEASURES. WE’RE \nGOING TO ATTEMPT TO STAY WITHIN \nTHAT WINDOW\, THE ONLY BIRDS WE \nWOULD BE COMING INTO CONTACT \nWITH FROM A NESTING STANDPOINT \nAT HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD BE \nPOTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCONS THAT \nWOULD BE IN THE CRANES BUT IT’S \nHIGHLY INDUSTRIALIZED CONTAINERS \nBEING MOVED AROUND BY TRUCKS ALL \nOVER THE PLACE BUT IT’S IN \nMOTION AND COMPLETELY PAVED AND \nCONTAINED. WITH INTERRUPTING \nFORGING OF SOME BIRDS\, WE \nBELIEVE IN OUR INNER AND OUTER \nHARBOR BASINS ARE NOT PREFERRED \nHABITAT FOR THE TURINS. THE \nPROJECT SHOWED THAT THE MOST \nOVERWHELMING LARGE AMOUNT OF \nFORAGING HAPPENS SOUTH OF \nALAMEDA. THERE IS A BIG COLONY \nIN ALAMEDA AT THE AIR FIELD \nLARGEST COLONY IN NORTHERN \nCALIFORNIA\, LARGELY FORAGED \nWITHIN THREE MILES SOUTH OF THE \nISLAND TOWARDS BAY FARM AND \nTHAT’S WHERE THE OVERWHELMING \nAMOUNT OF THAT HAPPENS SINCE \nIT’S NOW STARTING TO HAPPEN IN \nTHE MIDDLE ONCE WE CREATED THAT \nHABITAT DURING THE 50 FOOTWORK. \nWE’RE STILL WORKING ON MILL \nHARBOR WE’RE DOING EEL GRASS \nSURVEYS WE DID PLANTING LAST \nYEAR AND ARE ANALYZING POTENTIAL \nFOR ADDITIONAL PHASE TWO \nPLANTING OF EEL GRASS. WE NEED \nTO COMPLETE THE MARSH THAT’S IN \nTHAT CORNER THAT LOOKS \n[INDISCERNIBLE] NOW\, WE’RE \nCOMMITTED TO DOING SOME TIDAL \nMARSH FOR INTERPRETATIVE \nPURPOSES\, AND WITH THE OAKLAND \nCOMMUNITY CAN COME AND SEE WHAT \nTHE MARSH IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK \nLIKE. WHICH CROSSES BOTH \nPROJECTS AT SHORELINE PARK AND \nIT WILL ENHANCE THE AREA AND \nWE’LL HAVE SOME OPTIONS TO FIX \nTHAT BEACH AND I CAN’T ANSWER \nTHE QUESTION ABOUT THE PLANTS IN \nTHE UPLAND AREAS SOMEBODY AT THE \nPORT MIGHT KNOW THE ANSWER TO \nTHAT ONE. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: JUSTIN \nTASCHEK\, PORT OF OAKLAND I’LL \nADDRESS THE QUESTION RELATED TO \nHASH BORE OUTER BASIN ONLY. \nTHERE ARE TWO TURNING BASINS AND \nIT MIGHT HELPFUL TO PULL UP THE \nPRESENTATION MATERIAL THAT DOES \nHAVE THE SEAPORT OVERVIEW\, IF \nTHAT COULD BE PULLED UP\, FROM \nBRENDA? \n>>SPEAKER: WORKING ON IT. JUST \nA SECOND. \n>>SPEAKER: WHILE SHE’S DOING \nTHAT\, I WANT TO MENTION HERE \nEACH TURNING BASIN PROVIDES ITS \nOWN UTILITY FOR TURNING BASINS \nFOR THE OUTER HARBOR TURNING \nBASIN AND PROPERTIES IN THE \nINCARBON TURNING BASIN THESE \nPROPERTIES ARE LEASED OUT THAT \nOPERATES THE FACILITIES AND \nTHESE LEASES DO COMPETE FOR THE \nBUSINESSES SO THE VESSELS WE \nTALKED ABOUT THAT VISIT THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND FULL-SIZED VESSELS\, \nGO TO BOTH THE OUTER AND INNER \nHARBOR IT’S INTEGRAL AND \nIMPORTANT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE \nTHROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PORT \nCOMPLEX TO ALLOW ALL VESSEL \nSIZES TO VISIT ALL PROPERTIES \nWITHIN THE PORT COMPLEX AS THOSE \nARE MARINE TERMINAL PROPERTIES. \nBRENDA COULD YOU PULL UP THE ONE \nBEFORE THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ONE? \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THE SEAPORT \nFIGURE THAT HAS ALL THE \nDIFFERENT BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS\, \nI WOULD MENTION SUZANNE PROVIDED \nPUBLIC COMMENT THEY DO OPERATE \nTHE LARGEST FACILITY IN THE PORT \nOF OAKLAND KNOWN AS OAKLAND \nINTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL \nIT IS RIGHT NOW MOVING GREATER \nTHAN HALF OF THE TOTAL VOLUMES \n60% CATEGORY OF THE VOLUMES \nTHAT’S SERVED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE \nINNER HARBOR TURNING BASIN IT’S \nVERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO \nPROVIDE THAT COMPETITIVE \nLANDSCAPE TO WIDEN BOTH THE \nTURNING BASINS. THANK YOU. \nBRENDA — \n>>SPEAKER: I’M JUST \nEMBARRASSING MYSELF AT THIS \nPOINT. THANK YOU. \n>>JUSTIN TASCHEK: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT EKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. FIRST OF ALL\, FOR FULL \nDISCLOSURE\, I WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT I DID \nWORK FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS FOR EIGHT YEARS\, AND \nAM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE \nDREDGING ISSUES. AND I ALSO \nWORKED FOR THE U.S. \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \nFOR 35 YEARS WHERE AT ONE POINT \nI WAS IN CHANGE OF THE NPDS \nPERMITTING PROGRAM SECTION 404 \nWHICH DEALT WITH A LOT OF \nDREDGING\, AND A LOT OF OTHER \nWATER RELATED ISSUES. \nI HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT \nI’M GOING TO — WOULD LIKE TO \nSTART OUT WITH A COUPLE OF THEM\, \nAND THEN ASK THAT WE HAVE AN \nOPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT WRITTEN \nQUESTIONS — OR ASK WHEN WE CAN \nALSO SUBMIT WRITTEN QUESTIONS \nAFTERWARD AND MAYBE GET SOME \nANSWERS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. \nBUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT \nLATER. SO FIRST OF ALL\, I AGREE \nWITH THE SPEAKER REQUESTING A \nCOPY OF THAT LETTER OF THE \nLETTER FROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA. \nI WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BETTER \nUNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT \nALAMEDA\, CITY OF ALAMEDA’S \nCONCERNS ARE. AND I’M NOT QUITE \nSURE TO WHAT EXTENT\, AND THIS IS \nA QUESTION\, DOES BCDC NEED TO \nMAKE ANY TYPE OF A DECISION \nWHERE THAT — THIS ACTION IS \nALSO GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE \nWITH LOCAL — A NEARBY \nJURISDICTION\, OR A JURISDICTION \nTHAT’S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY \nTHE ACTIVITY. SO\, SHOULD WE — \nIS IT REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE A \nBETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE \nIMPACT IS GOING TO BE TO THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA? AND WHAT \nREMEDIES ARE POSSIBLY AVAILABLE? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I CAN TAKE \nTHAT ITEM AS A STARTER AND \nOTHERS CAN JOIN IN. THE LETTER \nFROM THE CITY OF ALAMEDA IS \nCURRENTLY POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE \nUNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL \nINFORMATION IF YOU GO TO THE \nAGENDA THAT’S THE SUPPLEMENTAL \nINFORMATION THERE\, WE RECEIVED \nTHREE PUBLIC COMMENTS WRITTEN \nBEFORE THE COMMISSION MEETING. \nSO THAT WAS ONE OF THEM. ALSO \nTHE ADDENDUM\, WHERE I TRIED TO \nEXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT BETTER SOME \nOF THE INFORMATION WE DIDN’T GET \nQUITE RIGHT IN THE STAFF SUMMARY \nIS IN THERE. SO REGARDING THE \nLOCAL DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL IN \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA. RIGHT NOW \nWE’RE AT THE FEASIBILITY STAGE \nSO THE CORP FINISHED THE STUDY \nOF WHETHER OR NOT IT’S FEASIBLE \nFOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO \nHAVE A PIECE IN THIS AND THEY \nHAVE SAID YES FIRST PHASE \nCONSISTENCY SO WE’RE LOOKING TO \nFIND OUT NEXT MEETING AS THE \nCOMMISSION SEES THE PROJECT IS \nGENERAL CONSISTENT WITH ITS LAWS \nAND POLICIES NEPA — EXCUSE ME\, \nIT DOES REQUIRE THAT THE LAWS \nAND POLICIES OF THE COMMISSIONER \nMET AS PART OF THE FILL STILL \nPART OF THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nTHERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE \nFILL ON THE PROPERTY THAT THERE \nIS PROPERTY INTEREST SO WE \nCANNOT REQUIRE THE PORT OR CORP \n— THE LOCAL SPONSOR THE CORP IS \nREQUIRED TO GET THE LAND’S \nEASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY \nBEFORE THE CORP CAN CONSTRUCT \nTHE PROJECT SO THAT MEANS THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND HAS TO GET THOSE \nPROPERTIES THEY WOULD GET THAT I \nBELIEVE WORKING WITH THE CITY OF \nALAMEDA AND IN ORDER FOR US TO \nISSUE A PERMIT TO THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND FOR THIS PROJECT OF \nTHEIR UPCOMING APPLICATION IN A \nCOUPLE OF YEARS\, THEY WOULD HAVE \nTO PROVIDE THE LOCAL \nDISCRETIONARY APPROVAL AND THE \nPROPERTY INTEREST BECAUSE THAT \nPROJECT IS FULLY UNDER THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY \nPLAN AND OUR STATE AUTHORITY \nVERSUS OUR FEDERAL AUTHORITY \nUNDER CDMZMA. THAT WAS A LOT. \nDOES IT MAKE SENSE? \n>>PAT EKLUND: YEAH IT IF WE \nTOOK ACTION AT THE NEXT MEETING \nTHAT WOULD STILL ALLOW US AS THE \nTIME COMES BACK TO ADD SOME \nADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IF WE \nWANTED TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF. \n>>ANDREW FREMIER: IMPACTS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES AND WE WILL NOT \nBE RECOMMENDING THAT WE ALLOW \nTHE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD WE \nWILL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY WORK AT \nTHIS TIME SO IF WE DON’T HAVE \nTHOSE DETAILS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: THAT HELPS ME A \nLOT. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT IS \nPROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LARGER AND \nI’M ASSUMING THAT BCDC HAS AN \nINTEREST IN IT I WORKED FOR U.S. \nEPA\, I PUSHED REALLY HARD\, WE \nTRIED TO SET UP A PROGRAM TO \nREUSE THE DREDGE MATERIAL \nBECAUSE AS YOU KNOW THERE’S NOT \nENOUGH DREDGE MATERIAL AVAILABLE \nTO DO ALL THE WETLAND \nINSPIRATION THAT’S NEEDED AROUND \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY ESTUARY AREA\, \nAND SO I SAW IN THE REPORT \nTHEY’RE TALKING ABOUT NOT ONLINE \nLOOKING TO REUSE THE MATERIAL \nBUT I DIDN’T SEE SPECIFIC AREAS \nOR WHETHER IT’S MARSH LANDS\, I \nSAW FILL\, BUT I DIDN’T SEE ANY \nWETLAND RESTORATION. YOU CAN \nHELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT \nMATERIAL MIGHT OR WHETHER IT HAS \nBEEN DETERMINED BECAUSE I KNOW \nTHEY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF TESTING \nFIRST. \n>>SPEAKER: FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE \nI THINK WE MENTIONED HERE \nWETLAND RESTORATION\, WE THINK \nTHEY MIGHT GO TO BENEFICIAL \nDEEPER MATERIAL\, IT HAS NOT BEEN \nIMPACTED BY INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY\, \nAND HAVE RECEIVED SUSTAINABILITY \nDETERMINATION IN THE 1990S THAT \nMATERIAL IS CLEAN ENOUGH TO GO \nTO BENEFICIAL REUSE. I BELIEVE \nTHE PORT HAVE BEEN TALKING TO \nMONTEZUMA WETLANDS BECAUSE THEY \nCAN TAKE BOTH FOUNDATION AND \nCOVER QUALITY MATERIAL THAT IS \nNOT DETERMINED YET BECAUSE WE’RE \nNOT AT THAT LEVEL OF DESIGN\, IF \nBEL MARIN KEYS CAME ONLINE SOME \nOF THE MATERIAL COULD GO THERE\, \nIF COLIN IS OPERATIONAL SOME OF \nTHE MATERIALS COULD GO THERE\, \nTHERE IS SITES THAT MAY NOT HAVE \nBEEN IDENTIFIED\, BUT THERE IS \nANTICIPATION COMMITMENT FROM THE \nCORP AND THE PORT THROUGH THEIR \nBENEFICIAL — I’M NOT \nREMEMBERING THE NAME — BUT THEY \nDID APPROVAL TO TAKE MATERIAL TO \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WE DO \nANTICIPATE THAT TO BE WETLANDS. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IS IT GOING TO BE \n100% I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE \nPROPOSING REUSE FOR FILL VERSUS \nWETLAND RESTORATION OR LEVELS OR \nWHATEVER. \n>>SPEAKER: SORRY THAT WAS NOT \nCLEAR. FILL PROPOSED IS PILE \nSHEET PILES RIP RAP\, IT’S NOT \nDREDGE MATERIAL. SORRY THAT WAS \nNOT SUPER CLEAR. \n>>PAT EKLUND: IS THERE ANY \nDREDGE MATERIAL THAT’S BEING \nPROPOSED FOR DUMPING IN THE BAY \nOR IN THE OCEAN? \n>>SPEAKER: NOT AT THIS TIME. \n>>PAT EKLUND: DO WE HAVE A \nREQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO \nREUSE ALL OF THE DREDGE \nMATERIAL? \n>>SPEAKER: THAT WOULD COME IN \nTHE DESIGN PHASE WHEN WE HAVE \nBETTER INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nQUALITY OF THE MATERIAL\, THAT \nWOULD BE THE SECOND PHASE \nCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION BUT I \nBELIEVE THEY’RE COMMITTED IN THE \nROOM THERE\, THEY CAN VOUCH \nWHETHER OR NOT THIS MATERIAL IS \nSUITABLE FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. \nTHAT IS MINDING AT THIS TIME. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS IS ERIK AGAIN \nWE DO HAVE PERMISSION FROM \nHEADQUARTERS THAT WE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE ALL MATERIAL. THE BULK IS \nWETLAND COVER AT THIS POINT \nBASED ON ASSUMPTIONS WE HAVE \nMADE WHICH TECHNICALLY MEANS \nMONTEZUMA AT THIS POINT THEY’RE \nTHE ONLY ONES THAT CAN TAKE THAT \n1.71 MILLION YARDS GOING THERE\, \n150\,000 YARDS OF COVER THAT \nCOULD GO TO ANY WETLAND \nRESTORATION SITE. \n>>PAT EKLUND: OKAY GREAT. \nTHANK YOU. AND THEN\, LET’S SEE\, \nWHAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION? YOU \nCAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND AT WHAT \nPOINT THROUGH THE THIS WHOLE \nPROCESS BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL\, \nIS IT GOING TO BE COMING BACK TO \nTHE COMMISSION SO THAT IF NEEDED \nWE CAN ADD SOME ADDITIONAL \nCONDITIONS BECAUSE IF THIS IS \nTHE ONLY TIME WHERE WE CAN ADD \nSPECIFIC CONDITIONS\, THEN I \nPROBABLY GOING TO LOOK AT THIS \nWITH A FINE TOOTH COMB BUT I WAS \nHOPING WE GOING TO GET ANOTHER \nBITE AT THE APPLE WHICH IS \nTYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN \nTHE PAST BUT I DON’T KNOW IF THE \nPROCESS HAS BEEN CHANGED SINCE I \nLEFT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES THIS IS A PHASE \nCONSISTENCY. FIRST PHASE IS A \nGENERAL AUTHORIZATION BUT AS \nWRITTEN SO FAR IT’S IN REVIEW. \nTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOES \nINCLUDE SOME GENERAL CONDITIONS \nBUT NOT THE FINAL SET. IT ALSO \nLISTS OUT SOME POTENTIAL \nADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE NOT \nBEING REQUIRED AT THIS TIME BUT \nWOULD LIKELY BE REQUIRED. AT \nTHE SECOND PHASE WHEN WE’RE IN \nTHE PRECONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING \nAND DESIGN PHASE\, THE CORP WILL \nBE COMING BACK TO US ANTICIPATED \nIN 2025\, ’26\, PROBABLY 2026\, WE \nWILL HAVE A MORE DEFINITIVE \nCOMPLETE PICTURE OF THE PROJECT \nAND WILL LIKELY MAKE MORE \nREQUIREMENTS AT THAT TIME. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I DIDN’T SEE IT \nIN THE CONDITIONS OR MAY HAVE \nMISSED IT THAT THEY WILL REUSE \nALL OF THE DREDGE MATERIAL. \n>>SPEAKER: YOU DON’T HAVE TO \nYET THAT’S WHY YOU MISSED IT \nIT’S COMING OUT IN REVIEW AND \nI’M SHARING IT WITH THE CORP IN \nTHE REPORT THEN YOU WILL SEE IT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GREAT. SO OVER \nTIME IT WILL BE HERE IN 2026 \nIT’S GOING TO BE HARD TO KNOW \nBUT ANYWAY\, OKAY. THAT’S GREAT. \nIS IT POSSIBLE TO SEND \nADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN WRITING \nBEFORE THE NEXT MEETING? OR IS \nTHAT SOMETHING YOU PREFER NOT TO \nDO? \n>>SPEAKER: I’M HAPPY TO RECEIVE \nWRITTEN COMMENTS. WE’LL DO OUR \nBEST TO GET ANSWERS FOR YOU \nBEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. I’M \nFINE WITH THAT\, BUT TO THE CHAIR \nAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT WOULD BE \nGREAT. IF I COULD GET FEEDBACK \nTHAT WOULD BE GREAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO \nCOMMENTS BEFORE I GO TO THE NEXT \nCOMMISSIONER. \nYES\, CERTAINLY QUESTIONS AND \nCOMMENTS CAN COME IN. THIS IS \nAN ONGOING PROCESS IT MAY NOT \nAFFECT THIS VOTE. BUT THIS IS \nNOT THE LAST TIME THIS PROJECT \nWILL COME BEFORE US\, AND THE \nSECOND POINT\, UNLESS I’M WRONG\, \nIN ADDITION TO COMING BACK FOR \nFURTHER CONCURRENCE ON \nCONFORMANCY\, OR CONFORMANCE\, \nIT’S GET TO COME TO US FOR A \nPERMIT. SO\, WE WILL HAVE MORE \nTHAN ONE ADDITIONAL BITE AT THIS \nAPPLE. \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU \nMR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR THE \nREALLY DETAILED RICH \nPRESENTATION. I REALLY \nAPPRECIATE IT. I JUST HAVE TWO \nQUICK QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL\, \nTHE ELECTRICAL WORK THAT’S GOING \nTO BE DONE AS PART OF BUILDING \nTHE TURNING BASIN. I MEAN\, \nELECTRIFICATION OF OPERATING \nDIESEL MOTORS AT THE PORT IS A \nVERY\, VERY IMPORTANT PART OF \nIMPROVING THE HEALTH OF THE \nLOCAL COMMUNITIES IN REDUCING \nEMISSIONS. SO\, IT DOES — DOES \nTHAT WORK WHICH WAS DESCRIBED AS \nFACILITATING THE USE OF \nELECTRICAL DREDGES\, DOES THAT \nALSO CONTRIBUTE\, SORT OF\, AS THE \nPORT AS A WHOLE\, FOR \nELECTRIFICATION FOR OTHER \nPROCESSES AT THE PORT OR FOR \nCHARGING SOME OF THE BATTERY \nOPERATED MACHINERY THEY HAVE \nNOW? I HOPE THAT WE CAN MAKE — \nTHAT THIS WILL NOT ONLY REDUCE \nMISSIONS DURING DREDGING\, BUT \nALSO CONTRIBUTE TO REDUCING \nEMISSIONS IN THE FUTURE. AND \nTHEN\, SECONDLY\, I DIDN’T SEE \nMUCH DISCUSSION OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE. NOW\, I HAVE A FEELING \nTHAT’S BECAUSE OF THE NATURE — \nTHAT’S — MAYBE THAT’S IN PHASE \nTWO\, BRENDA? BUT I JUST WANTED \nTO MAKE SURE THAT AS THIS \nPROJECT GOES FORWARD AND SO MUCH \nOF THE SHORELINE IN THAT REGION \nIS ALTERED\, BUT IT’S ALTERED IN \nA WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH \nBUILDING RESILIENCY TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE\, WHICH I ASSUME IS KIND OF \nINTEGRATED INTO OUR PERMIT \nDECISION\, IF I UNDERSTAND IT \nRIGHT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WILL START \nTO ADDRESS THAT. THE CORP AND \nPORT CAN BACK ME UP — TRY TO \nSAY THAT FIVE TIMES FAST — BUT \nI WOULD ALSO ELECT THE PORT TO \nADDRESS THE ELECTRIFICATION \nISSUE BECAUSE I’M UNFAMILIAR \nWITH THEIR PLANS. REGARDING SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, WHICH SAY CONCERN OF \nTHE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND OTHERS\, \nTHE PORT AND THE CORP VIEW THIS \nAS A NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT \nPROJECT. THEY’RE NOT PROPOSING \nSHORELINE PROPOSE PROTECTION. \nTHEY’RE BUILDING A BULK HEAD. \nAS I UNDERSTAND THE PLANS\, AND \nTHE ARMY CORP’S ANALYSIS OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, UNDER THEIR \nGUIDANCE\, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME \nAS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA \nGUIDANCE\, IT’S SIMILAR BUT A \nLITTLE DIFFERENT\, THE PROJECT IS \nRESILIENT TO FLOODING THROUGH \nALL PHASES OF THEIR PROJECT\, I \nBELIEVE\, TO 2090. AND I’M \nTALKING ABOUT THAT OFF THE TOP \nOF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW. SO DON’T \nQUOTE ME ON THAT\, AND THERE IS \nONLY ONE AREA THAT IS NOT \nRESILIENT. SO\, THE WAY THEY \nPROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT IT\, IT’S \nAT OR ABOVE THE EXISTING \nELEVATION. THEY DON’T \nANTICIPATE FLOODING IN THAT \nREGION. THE OTHER ANSWER\, WHICH \nCAME UP DURING THE ENGINEERING \nCRITERIA REVIEW BOARD — AND I \nBELIEVE BARNEY IN THE ROOM\, SO \nHE MAY WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS \nFROM THE ARMY CORP — THE \nQUESTION WAS DID YOU INCORPORATE \nSEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE IN \nTHIS PROJECT; AND HIS ANSWER \nWAS\, UNDER THIS FEASIBILITY \nSTUDY\, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE\, IT \nDOES NOT INCLUDE SHORELINE \nPROTECTION. THAT WOULD BE A \nDIFFERENT AUTHORITY AND A \nDIFFERENT FEASIBILITY FOR THE \nCITY OF ALAMEDA. AND THEY COULD \nREQUEST THAT OF THE CORP\, BUT \nTHE CORP WOULD HAVE TO FIND A \nNATIONAL ECONOMIC INTEREST AND \nHAVE THAT AS A SEPARATE KIND OF \nPROJECT. IT’S BULKHEAD\, NOT \nSHORELINE PROTECTION. YES THERE \nIS FLOODING ON ALAMEDA FROM OUR \nLOOK AT IT COMES FROM A NUMBER \nOF OTHER SOURCES NOT \nSPECIFICALLY THIS AREA EXCEPT \nFOR THE LIMITED HIGH ELEVATION \nISSUE HIGH SEA LEVEL ELEVATION \nISSUE. THAT’S THE WAY THE \nCOMMISSION STAFF HAS ADDRESSED \nIT AT THIS POINT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SO YOU’RE \nSAYING BRENDA THAT AS IMAGINED \nCURRENTLY\, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS \nGOING TO BE MUCH MORE WORK DONE \nON THE SPECIFICS OF A PROJECT. \nTHE PROJECT WILL — WHEN THE \nPROJECT IS COMPLETED\, THE \nSHORELINE IN THAT AREA WILL BE \nRESILIENT TO A SEA LEVEL RISE AT \nA CERTAIN AMOUNT. I JUST WANT \nTO MAKE SURE WE’RE NOT PROPOSING \nTO SPEND $500 MILLION IN AN AREA \nAND NOT HAVE THAT PRODUCE A \nRESILIENT SHORELINE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I UNDERSTAND \nWHAT YOU’RE SAYING\, AND \nAPPRECIATE IT. I MEAN BASICALLY \nA BULK IS CREATING A NEW \nSHORELINE BUT NOT YOU KNOW\, \nINCREASING THE HEIGHTS OF THE \nSHORELINE IT’S SIMPLY INCREASING \nTHE NEW SHORELINE THERE IS NO \nPROPOSED PROJECT THAT RAISES THE \nELEVATION OR PROTECTS THE \nSHORELINE FROM SEA LEVEL RISE AT \nTHIS TIME AND FROM WHAT I \nUNDERSTAND FROM THE CORP THAT \nWOULD BE A DIFFERENT PROJECT \nTHAN WHAT IS AUTHORIZED THROUGH \nTHEIR PROGRAM SO MAYBE THE CORP \nOR PORT WANT TO STEP IN AT THIS \nPOINT AND HELP ME OUT? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: I WOULD ADD \nTHAT POLICIES ON RISING SEA \nLEVEL REQUIRE LARGER PROJECTS TO \nBE RESILIENT TO MID-CENTURY AND \nHAVE AN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN \nTO END THE CENTURY. BUT THAT’S \nFOR THE PROJECT\, AND THE PROJECT \nIS A TURNING BASIN. SO\, YOUR \nPOLICIES WOULD REQUIRE THAT \nPROJECT ITSELF THAT BEING THE \nTURNING BASIN BE RESILIENT NOT \nNECESSARILY PROVIDE PROTECTION \nFOR ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: THANK YOU\, \nSTEVE. ALSO WE CAN DIRECT YOU \nTO POLICY SEVEN WHICH SAYS WHEN \nWE’RE IN THIS SITUATION WE DON’T \nHAVE A REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION PLAN PROJECT THAT ARE \nREGIONAL BENEFITS INCLUDING \nTRANSITION TRANSPORTATION AND \nTHEN THIS IS THE MARINE \nTRANSPORTATION ISSUE. \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: THAT’S NO \nOPINION FROM STAFF ON WHETHER IT \nWOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE GREATER \nPROTECTION OF THE SHORELINE BUT \nSIMPLY YOUR POLICIES CALL FOR \nTHAT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU\, STEVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WOULD \nLIKE ANOTHER BRIEF UNDERSTANDING \nOF A CHIEF’S REPORT. SORT OF\, \nFROM A HIGH-LEVEL MY \nUNDERSTANDING OF THE CHIEF’S \nREPORT IS BASICALLY IF IT GIVES \nENOUGH SPECIFICITY THAT THE \nHEADQUARTERS OF THE CORP OF \nENGINEERS FEELS CONFIDENT TO ASK \nCONGRESS FOR AUTHORIZATION \nAND/OR FUNDING TO GO FORWARD \nWITH THIS PROJECT\, IS THAT \nCORRECT? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. I THINK I CAN \nANSWER THAT WHEN WE SUBMIT IN \nJANUARY IS GOING TO BE A FINAL \nREPORT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION \nAND THAT GOES TO HEADQUARTERS \nAND THEN WE — WE PRODUCE A \nCHIEF’S REPORT THAT WOULD MAKE \n— THAT WOULD BE DONE BY THE END \nOF MAY OF 2024\, AND THAT IS A \nRECOMMENDATION TO CONGRESS. \nCONGRESS CAN DECIDE WHETHER\, AT \nTHEIR DISCRETION\, WHETHER \nTHEY’RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE IT SO \nIT CAN GET INTO [INDISCERNIBLE] \n2024 AND AT THEIR DISCRETION \nWHETHER THEY WANT TO APPROPRIATE \nFUND AS WELL. THOSE ARE TWO \nSEPARATE DECISIONS THAT THEY \nNEED TO MAKE AND THEY CAN DECIDE \nTO SAY NO TO BOTH\, SAY YES TO \nBOTH\, OR THEY CAN AUTHORIZE AND \nTHEN AT A LATER TIME \nAPPROPRIATE. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU \nERICA. THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT I \nREMEMBERED. BUT I WANTED TO \nMAKE SURE. SO\, I GUESS WHAT MY \nFEELING IS THAT BECAUSE THIS IS \nTHE PHASE WE’RE AT\, IT’S \nAPPROPRIATE\, I FEEL LIKE\, FOR US \nTO SUPPORT THIS GOING FORWARD AT \nTHIS PHASE. I MEAN\, GRANTED\, \nWHEN WE GET MORE DETAILS\, WE \nWILL HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS \nAND THERE WILL BE THINGS WE WANT \nTO MAKE SURE ARE TAKEN CARE OF. \nBUT AT THIS POINT\, TO GET — YOU \nKNOW\, TO GET — MAKE SURE THAT \nTHIS PROCESS GOING FORWARD IN A \nTIMELY MANNER\, I’M VERY \nSUPPORTIVE OF IT. AND \nPARTICULARLY\, THE REUSE OF THE \nDREDGE SEDIMENT. THAT IS A \nWONDERFUL FEATURE. AND \nSOMETHING THAT IS VERY\, VERY \nIMPORTANT FOR OUR OTHER SEA \nLEVEL RISE PROTECTION EFFORTS\, \nPARTICULARLY MARSH RESTORATION \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY. SO\, I’M \nREALLY GLAD TO SEE THIS. AND I \nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING ON IT \nFOR QUITE A WHILE. THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONER. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nHAVE A HAND\, COMMISSIONER \nNELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: [LAUGHTER] \nIT KEEPS DROPPING AWAY. TWO \nISSUES FOR STAFF. QUESTIONS \nABOUT — FIRST IS ABOUT HOWARD \nTERMINAL. IF I AM REMEMBERING \nCORRECTLY\, WHEN WE DELETED THE \nSEAPORT PLAN DESIGNATION FOR \nHOWARD TERMINAL\, IT CAME WITH \nTHE CONDITION THAT IF AS DID NOT \nCONSTRUCT A BALLPARK AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL\, THAT SEAPORT WOULD \nREVERT BACK TO PLAN \nJURISDICTION. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: ALMOST. IT \nREVERTS BACK TO PORT PRIORITY \nUSE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: IF THAT HAD \nHAPPENED LAST MONTH\, AND THE AS \nMOVED TO LAS VEGAS\, AND THEY’RE \nNOT BUILDING A TERMINAL THEN THE \nPORT PRIORITY DESIGNATION WOULD \nBE ON THE SITE AND I ASSUME THE \nSTAFF WOULD INCLUDE ANALYSIS OF \nWHAT THIS MEANS FOR HOWARD \nTERMINAL. SOME OF THIS WOULD BE \nEXCAVATED\, HOWARD TERMINAL WOULD \nBE SHORTER\, ONLY ACCOMMODATE \nCERTAIN SHIPS AND SO FORTH. \nTHAT DECISION HASN’T BEEN MADE \nBY THE CITY AND THE AS\, IT SEEMS \nLIKE SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT \nTHAT ISSUE? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I WOULD SAY\, \nAS I LOOK TO MY ESTEEMED \nCOLLEAGUES\, DEPUTY DIRECTOR\, \nEXECUTIVE DEPUTY DIRECTOR\, IS \nWE’RE CURRENTLY BEHOLDEN TO THE \nLAWS AND POLICIES THAT WE HAVE\, \nBECAUSE THE REVERTING ACTION HAS \nNOT TAKEN PLACE\, AND IT WILL \nLIKELY NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE \nDECEMBER 21ST A.M.\, WE NEED TO \nUSE THE POLICIES AND THE \nPRIORITY USE AREAS THAT WE HAVE \nIN FRONT OF US AT THAT TIME. IF \nTHE PRIORITY USE AREA REVERTS TO \nPORT PRIORITY USE BEFORE THE \nNEXT PHASE CONSISTENCY \nDETERMINATION\, WE WOULD CONSIDER \nIT DIFFERENTLY AND LOOK FOR \nDIFFERENT INFORMATION. BUT\, AT \nTHIS TIME\, THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION EXPLAINS THAT \nTHERE IS NO PORT PRIORITY USE AT \nHOWARD TERMINAL AT THIS TIME. \n>>BARRY NELSON: AND THAT LEAVES \nTHE QUESTION ABOUT PHASING AND \nSEGMENTATION. WHAT HAPPENS IF \nWE LOOK AT IT NOW AND SAY \nTOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR \nPLAN\, AND THEN WE LOOK AT IT IN \nA YEAR OR WHENEVER IT COMES BACK \nTO US FOR THE NEXT PHASE\, AND \nTHE AS HAVE MADE THEIR DECISION\, \nPORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION IS \nBACK ON THE SITE\, AT THAT POINT \nWE DO AN ANALYSIS ABOUT IMPACTS \nON THE PORT PRIORITY USE. WHAT \nHAPPENS IF WE REACH A DIFFERENT \nCONCLUSION ON THE SECOND PHASE \nBECAUSE THE PORT PRIORITY USE \nISSUE GIVEN THAT WE FOUND \nCONSISTENCY OAT FIRST PHASE WITH \nDIFFERENT CONSISTENCY — WITH \nDIFFERENT DESIGNATION FOR THE \nSITE? \n>>SPEAKER: I CAN ADD A LITTLE \nBIT TO THE CONVERSATION MICHAEL \nNG G STAFF ATTORNEY. WE LOOK AT \nWHETHER THE CONTINUED PLACEMENT \nOR REMOVAL OF PORT PRIORITY USE \nAREA DESIGNATION AT HOWARD \nTERMINAL HAD ANY PARTICULAR \nSIGNIFICANCE OR CONSEQUENCE WITH \nTHE RESPECT TO REALIZATION OF \nOAKLAND TURNING BASIN PROJECT IF \nWE PROCEED WE ANALYZED THAT AT \nTHE TIME OF THE BPA 2/19 WHEN \nTHAT DESIGN DESIGNATION WAS \nREMOVED\, AND I BELIEVE OUR VIEW \nAT THAT TIME WHICH I THINK IS \nSTILL OUR VIEW IS THAT IT IS NOT \nWHETHER IT’S THERE OR NOT IS NOT \nA HINDRANCE TO THE REALIZATION \nOF THE TURNING BASIN’S PROJECT I \nTHINK WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO \nIS THE A.B. 1191 WHICH WAS THE \nSPECIAL HOWARD TERMINAL BALLPARK \nPROJECT THAT DOES HAVE THIS\, \nSORT OF\, AUTOMATIC REVERSION \nCLAUSE THAT IF THERE’S NO \nDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN \nTHE CITY AND THE AS BY 2025 THAT \nTHE DESIGNATION WILL BE \nREINSTATED AS IF IT HAD NEVER \nBEEN REMOVED BUT AGAIN WHETHER \nIT’S THERE OR NOT GIVEN THE \nPURPOSE OF WHAT THE PA \nDESIGNATION IS FOR WHICH IS \nMINIMIZE MITIGATE PRESSURE FOR \nTHE INCREASED FILL FOR PORT \nPURPOSES I DON’T THINK THAT THIS \nPROJECT IMPLICATES THAT POLICY \nISSUE. \n>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND \nQUESTION. ALAMEDA AND THE \nSPEAKER FROM EARTH JUSTICE ON \nBEHALF OF WEST OAKLAND \nINDICATORS RAISED A NUMBER OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT\, \nLAND USE\, OPERATIONS \nCONSISTENCY\, WITH FEDERAL \nPOLICIES AND A NUMBER OF OTHER \nTHINGS. WE HAVE SOME OF THOSE \nCONCERNS\, SOME ARE OUTSIDE OUR \nJURISDICTION\, WE HAVE OUR OWN \nEQUITY POLICIES THAT MAY OVERLAP \nBUT ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE \nFEDERAL POLICIES. I DON’T KNOW \nIF BRENDA YOU’RE READY TO \nDISCUSS THIS NOW OR SOMETHING \nSTAFF WANTS TO THINK ABOUT \nPREPARING FOR THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. BUT I WOULD \nLIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE \nCONCERNS RAISED BY ALAMEDA AND \nEARTH JUSTICE IN PARTICULAR\, \nOVERLAP WITH THE COMMISSION’S \nPOLICIES AND THEIR ISSUES THAT \nWE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING AND \nCONSIDERING IN MAKING THIS \nDECISION OR WHETHER THEY’RE JUST \nOUTSIDE OUR AUTHORITY AND \nTHEY’RE NOT GOING TO BE A PART \nOF OUR CONSIDERATION OF THE \nPROJECT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: I GUESS I \nCOULD MENTION THEM IN BRIEF. \nSO\, AS MICHAEL SPOKE TO OR \nACTING UNDER COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nACT\, AND AROUND THAT ACT WE ARE \nDIRECT TO LOOK AT THE EFFECTS TO \nTHE COASTAL ZONE\, WHICH IN THIS \nCASE IS SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND \nWE INVESTIGATED ACTUALLY VERY \nTHOROUGHLY OVER THE LAST TWO \nYEARS WHETHER OR NOT AIR QUALITY \nIMPACTS WERE SOMETHING THAT THE \nCOMMISSION COULD ADDRESS UNDER \nCZMA\, AND I THINK WE DETERMINED\, \nMICHAEL\, STEVE\, CORRECT ME IF I \nAM WRONG\, DETERMINED THAT WE DID \nNOT HAVE NEXUS THAT THE AIR \nQUALITY THAT ARMY CORP HAS TO BE \nRESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL CLEAN \nAIR ACT AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT \nTHEY INCLUDE THAT INFORMATION AS \nPART OF THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL \nREVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS \nPROJECT. SO WE DON’T HAVE THAT \nNEXUS. WHERE WE HAVE A BIT OF \nNEXUS ON AIR QUALITY IN MY \nHUMBLE OPINION\, AND I’M WAITING \nTO FIGURE OUT IF I’M RIGHT IS \nTHAT PARTICULATE MATTER FROM \nEMISSIONS FROM TRUCKS AND SHIPS \nACTUALLY DO IMPACT WATER \nQUALITY. AND SO WE’RE DO HAVE A \nBRIEF REQUIREMENT LOOKING AT \nTRUCK ENGINES FOR REDUCTION OF \nPARTICULATE MATTER BECAUSE OF \nTHE CONNECTION TO WATER QUALITY. \nIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nWE’LL SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT \nCONSIDERATION. THE CORP IS \nRESPONSIBLE TO THE FEDERAL LAWS. \nWE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO CZMA. WE \nDO NOT INVESTIGATE VESSEL \nTRAFFIC OR REGULATE VESSEL \nEMISSIONS WE DO NOT REGULATE \nTRUCK TRAFFIC. WE DO NOT \nREGULATE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT \nBUT WE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS \nAROUND IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY\, \nFIDUCIARY AND WILDLIFE\, \nCONTAMINANT ISSUES. AND SO \nWHETHER THERE IS A NEXUS TO \nTHOSE ITEMS PER THE POLICIES \nTHAT WE LAID OUT FOR YOU TODAY\, \nWE CAN MAKE REQUIREMENTS\, BUT \nWHERE WE DON’T HAVE POLICIES OR \nAUTHORITY\, WE DON’T — WE CANNOT \nMAKE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND \nREGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAS PHOENIX LAID OUT\, THE WAY OUR \nPOLICIES ARE WRITTEN — AND I \nTHINK I’M FROZEN IN SOME \nSCREENS\, WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT \nPUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS APPROPRIATE \nAND CULTURALLY RELEVANT. AND WE \nCAN WORK WITH THE FEDERAL AND \nLOCAL PROJECT SPONSOR TO \nCONTINUE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND \nTRY TO WORK HARDER TO MAKE IT\, \nENSURE THAT THEY DO CULTURALLY \nRELATIVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND \nTHAT THEY WORK WITH THE \nCOMMUNITY TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION \nMEASURES WHERE WE HAVE \nAUTHORITY. AND\, AGAIN\, OUR \nAUTHORITY IT LIMITED IN THAT \nREGARD. AND THEN REGARDING MED \nNEED LANDING\, I THINK I \nMENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE PORT \nIS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING \nPROPERTY RIGHTS AND IF THEY \nCAN’T GET PROPERTY RIGHTS THEY \nCANNOT GET A PERMIT FROM BCDC. \nAND REGARDING THEIR CONCERNS \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS. CERTAINLY \nTHE ALAMEDA LANDING AREA IS AN \nAREA THAT BCDC STAFF HAS \nIDENTIFIED AND ALREADY TALKED TO \nTHE PORT AND CORP ABOUT A \nPOTENTIAL PUBLIC ACCESS AMENITY \nAT THAT SITE BECAUSE THEY WILL \nBE CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION \nSITE VIA REMOVING SOME OF THE \nWATERFRONT WHARF AND DEM OCEAN \nPORTIONS OF THE TWO WAREHOUSES \nWHICH SHOULD OPEN UP VIEWS AND \nPROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS. AND THEN WE HAVE ALSO \nTALKED TO THEM ABOUT THE \nPOTENTIAL FOR IN LIEU PUBLIC \nACCESS NEARBY. AND POTENTIALLY \nPROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO AN EJ \nOR DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED \nCOMMUNITY\, BECAUSE THAT ALSO \nPART OF OUR PUBLIC ACCESS \nPOLICIES. I AM HOPING THAT’S \nHELPFUL. \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. THAT’S \nALL OF THOSE THAT WILL BE \nADDRESSED IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATIONS WHEN IT COMES \nBACK TO US. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \nI WANT THANK BARRY AND BRENDA \nBECAUSE YOU ANSWERED QUESTIONS I \nWAS ABOUT TO ASK. I WAS\, SORT \nOF\, DISTURBED BY THE OPPOSING \nENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS THEY \nSEEM TO COME OUT AT EITHER ENDS \nOF THE SPECTRUM. BUT THANKS TO \nYOUR EXPLANATION\, BRENDA I FEEL \nBETTER ABOUT IT. I’M ASSUMING \nTHAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST \nDISCUSSED DOES NOT HAVE TO BE \nDETERMINED BY THE 21st. WE’RE \nGOING TO GET ADDITIONAL BITES AT \nPUBLIC MEETINGS\, ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS \nTHAT YOU JUST\, SORT OF\, LISTED \nOFF AND EXPLAINED. RIGHT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YEAH. THAT IS \nTHE PLAN. RIGHT NOW\, I THINK WE \nHAVE EIGHT OR NINE REQUIREMENTS\, \nWHICH ARE GENERAL\, IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION WHICH ADDRESS \nTHESE ISSUES THAT ARE \nOUTSTANDING. PARTICULARLY THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS ENGAGEMENT\, I \nTHINK IS ONE THAT YOU WILL BE \nHEARTENED TO SEE IN SOME \nADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nCONTAMINANTS ASSOCIATED WITH \nBOTH THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND \nTHE DREDGING. AND I’M NOT \nREMEMBERING THE REST OF THEM OFF \nTHE TOP OF MY HEAD\, BUT\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE SILT CURTAINS AND THE \nPROTECTIONS FOR THE FISH AND \nWILDLIFE AND WATER QUALITY. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: OKAY. AND SO \nAS WE\, ASSUMING THIS PROJECT \nMOVES FORWARD\, WE WILL — AND WE \nFIND OUT MORE ABOUT EXACTLY \nWHAT’S BEING PROPOSED\, WE CAN \nADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR \nTIGHT END UP CERTAIN CONDITIONS. \nSO WE’RE LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE \nPROJECT ABOUT THE 300 FOOT \nLEVEL\, AND AS TIME GOES BY WE’RE \nGETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO \nGROUND LEVEL KIND OF THE WAY I \nLOOK AT IT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDEN: YES. \n>>MARIE GILMORE: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nOTHER QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? I WOULD HAVE \nEXPECTED TO YOU HAVE A LOT. \nI JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUICK \nONES. \nI HAVE A LITTLE FAMILIARITY WITH \nDREDGING IN THE OAKLAND ESTUARY. \nI HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE \n1978. I\, IN PARTICULAR\, \nREMEMBER A HELICOPTER RIDE WITH \nMAYOR LIONEL WILSON AND \nCONGRESSMAN RON DELLUMS WHEN WE \nWERE FIGHTING FOR FUNDS TO \nDREDGE TO THINK IT WAS 38 FEET\, \nAND THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE WHO \nDID NOT BELIEVE THAT WAS \nNECESSARY THAT THESE BIG SHIPS \nTHAT EVERYBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT \nWERE SIMPLY NOT ACKNOWLEDGE\, \nTHEY WERE PIE IN THE SKY. OR I \nGUESS\, IN THE WATER. CLEARLY \nTHEY ARE INCREASE THEY CAME\, \nTHEY ARE INCREASING IN SIZE. \nAND I DO THINK THAT SOME \nADDITIONAL ATTENTION — NOT BY \nTHE 21st; I’LL ADDRESS IN THAT \nMOMENT — BUT AS THIS COMES BACK \nTO US IN THE FUTURE ITERATIONS \nTHAT NEEDS SOME MORE FACTS AND \nATTENTION\, AS VICE CHAIR EISEN \nINDICATED. I ALSO THINK\, AS WE \nMOVE FORWARD\, WE NEED AS A \nCOMMISSION TO BE VERY CAREFUL \nAND THOUGHTFUL — AND MICHAEL \nTOOK US THROUGH A LONG TUTORIAL \nEARLIER THIS AFTERNOON\, BUT IT \nWAS APPROPRIATE\, BECAUSE WE HAVE \nNOT DONE THIS IN A WHILE\, AND \nTHERE ARE NEW COMMISSIONERS. WE \nHAVE GOT FAIRLY LIMITED \nJURISDICTION IN A LOT OF THESE \nTHINGS AND IT’S NOT THAT WE \nSHOULDN’T VOICE OUR CONCERNS\, \nBUT WHEN IT COMES TO DIRECTOR \nSTAFF AND VOIDING AND VOTING\, WE \nNEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AND HERE \nWE DO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDING \nOR NOT CONFORMANCE IS QUITE \nDIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE CAN DO \nAND SHOULD DO WHEN IT COMES \nBUDGET US FOR A PERMIT AND I \nTHINK UNDERSTANDING THOSE \nDIFFERENCES BUT I WANT TO BE \nCLEAR THAT IT’S AN ONGOING \nPROCESS AND THAT MEANS THAT THE \nPUBLIC OUTREACH AND IN \nPARTICULAR THE OUTREACH TO EJ \nTHAT’S PART OF OUR POLICY \nONGOING PROCESS I’M NOT SAYING \nANYBODY HAS SUGGESTED THAT BUT \nTHE DIALOGUE IS NOT OVER IT WILL \nCONTINUE AS THIS PROJECT GETS \nFLESHED OUT AND MORE DETAILS \nEMERGE. COMMISSIONER ECKLUND \nHAS HER HAND UP. \n>>PAT EKLUND: I’M SORRY FOR A \nSECOND BITE AT THE APPLE. BUT \nYOU TRIGGERED ME TO ASK A \nQUESTION. IS THERE A \nPOSSIBILITY WE COULD GET A \nROADMAP OF WHERE BCDC IS GOING \nTO HAVE INPUT ON THIS ISSUE \nFIDUCIARY THE NEXT 5\, 6 YEARS\, \nOR WHATEVER? JUST SO WE HAVE A \nBETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE \nMIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING DIFFERENT \nISSUES? \nTHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nAGREE. THAT’S A VERY GOOD \nSUGGESTION. \n>>SPEAKER: WE CAN BRING THAT TO \nTHE NEXT MEETING ON. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ON \nTHIS WILL COME BACK ON THE 21st \nFOR A VOTE ON THE CONFORMANCE \nISSUE FOR THE FIRST PHASE. AND \nWITH THAT\, I WOULD ENTERTAIN — \nI’M SORRY. YOU WANT A LAST \nWORD. SURE. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. I DID. THANK \nYOU SO MUCH. THROUGH THE CHAIR\, \nWE WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF \nTHINGS FOR THE RECORD\, AND ONE \nIS GOING TO BE RELATED TO \nELECTRIC DREDGING\, AND SINCE THE \nPORT IS PAYING FOR THAT 100%\, \nI’M GOING TO ASK JUSTIN TO COME \nUP HERE IN A MINUTE. WE WILL \nPROVIDE RESPONSES TO ALL THE \nQUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY TO \nBRENDA FOR HER STAFF\, TO MAKE IT \nEASIER FOR HER STAFF REPORT. TO \nALL THE QUESTIONS WE HEARD TODAY \nIT’S NOTHING NEW IT’S ALL IN THE \nREPORT AND WE’LL POINT TO WHERE \nTHEY CAN BE FOUND. SPECIFICALLY \nFOR COMMISSIONER EISEN\, THE \nECONOMIC APPENDIX HAS REALLY \nGOOD INFORMATION. THERE IS AN \nECONOMIC MODEL WE CALL THE \nHARBOR SIM MODEL THAT’S USED TO \nDETERMINE\, LOOK AT PROJECTIONS\, \nCONSEQUENCES\, A FUTURE WITHOUT \nTHE PROJECT. SO THAT IS A \nREALLY GOOD DOCUMENT. AND WE’LL \nALSO PROVIDE SLIDES THAT WILL \nHAVE CORRECTIONS IN THERE TO \nMAKE IT CLARIFY. \nAND I THINK THIS’S ALL I HAVE. \nSO\, WE WILL PROVIDE \nCLARIFICATION DIRECTLY TO BRENDA \nAS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND ONE \nLAST THING. ELECTRIC DREDGING \nAND BENEFICIAL USE THAT WAS NOT \nREQUIRED IS MITIGATION\, THIS IS \nTHE FIRST TIME A CORP OF \nENGINEERS PROJECT HAS SUBMITTED \nTO HEADQUARTERS A REQUEST TO \nASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY \nTO COST SHARE THAT WITHOUT BEING \nREQUIRED TO DO IT. THIS IS \nCALLED COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS. \nIT’S A NEW POLICY. WE WERE THE \nFIRST TO DO THAT\, FROM WHAT I \nUNDERSTAND. \nSO\, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE \nREALLY APPRECIATE IT. JUSTIN? \n>>SPEAKER: JUSTIN. PORT OF \nOAKLAND. DIDN’T WANT TO LEAVE \nTHAT HANGING. ELECTRIC \nDREDGING\, THE INFRASTRUCTURE \nPROPOSED TO BE INSTALLED \nPURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT \nIS DISCRETE AND SPECIALIZED FOR \nTHE ELECTRIC DREDGERS. BUT REST \nASSURED THAT THE ELECTRICAL \nPOWER THAT WOULD BE MADE \nAVAILABLE FOR THOSE UNITS DURING \nCONSTRUCTION WOULD CERTAINLY BE \nVALUABLE AS WE ALL STRIVE AND \nMOVE FORWARD TO DECARBONIZE THE \nPORTS. SO THE DEMANDS FOR \nELECTRICITY WILL ONLY INCREASE \nOVER TIME AND REST ASSURED THAT \nPOWER THAT WILL BE MADE \nAVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT WILL \nBE UTILIZED FOR OTHER THINGS IN \nTHE FUTURE. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT TRIGGERED IN ME TWO QUICK \nTHINGS. ONE\, THANK YOU FOR \nEMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE IN \nPIONEERING EFFORT OF THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE IN THIS \nPROJECT. IT IS SOMETHING THIS \nCOMMISSION HAS CERTAINLY BEEN \nSTRIVING FOR SOMETIME\, AND WE \nARE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THE CORP \nFULLY ON BOARD FOR THIS. \nSECOND\, WELL\, IT MAY OR MAY NOT \nBE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS \nPROJECT — CERTAINLY RELATED TO \nCONCERNS\, THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS \nUNDERTAKING A VERY MAJOR PROJECT \nTO REDUCE EMISSIONS\, BOTH IN THE \nMODERATELY SHORT-TERM AND IN THE \nLONGER TERM\, REALLY WITH A \nZERO-EMISSION EMPHASIS TO WHICH \nPOINT THEY HAVE REDESIGNED THEIR \nPORT LOGO TO EMPHASIZE THAT. \nSO\, THIS IS NOT — THE WORDS \nTHAT HAVE BEEN HEARD HERE BEFORE \nARE BEING LISTENED TO. I THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. I WILL ENTERTAIN \nA MOTION TO ADJOURN. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nMOVES TO ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO SECONDS. SEEING NO \nOPPOSITION THIS MEETING \nADJOURNS. WE’LL SEE OUT 21st \nENJOY HANUKKAH\, ENJOY YOUR TIME. \nBE SAFE. \n[ADJOURNED] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-7-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231206T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231206T170000
DTSTAMP:20240213T235959Z
CREATED:20231019T011653Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235959Z
UID:10000074-1701867600-1701882000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:December 6\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings
DESCRIPTION:he meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format\, via Zoom and in person \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro CenterYerba Buena Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84343056351?pwd=LWLyZoyLy1zVQOsCJN2gXApP8rPpJA.cORnRbl1Sun0oXV0 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID843 4305 6351 \nPasscode679717 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review\nPublic Comment Period on Items Not on the Agenda\nStaff Updates\nItem of Discussion: India Basin Shoreline Park Project (Pre- Application) The Board will review the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (Applicant) proposed India Basin Shoreline Park Project\, designed to provide improved public access to the Bay and sea level rise resilience. The Board will review the proposed design of the new South Marine Way and piers in the boat launch dock. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the stability of the structures due to anticipated loads and scenarios including seismic events\, storm waves or sea level rise. The public may comment on the Applicant’s presentation at its conclusion. (Schuyler Olsson) [415/352-3668; schuyler.olsson@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/12-06-ECRB-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Can everybody hear me? \nYerba Buena SX80: We ready to go \nYerba Buena SX80: us? \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry for me being late? I guess there’s other \nYerba Buena SX80: challenges to \nYerba Buena SX80: anyway. Jen like to welcome everyone to the BC. DC\, \nYerba Buena SX80: ecrb meeting the engineering Criteria Review board \nthis meeting will be recorded. So everybody knows that. \nYerba Buena SX80: I. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: of the engineering Criteria Review Board\, EC. Rb. Of the BCDC. \nYerba Buena SX80: My name is Jim French. I’m the acting chair to day of the DE. Crb\, because our regular chair rod has been recused for this particular project. \nI’d like to announce that we also have a new \nYerba Buena SX80: board member\, New ECEC. Rb. Member Patrick Ryan\, Structural Engineer\, and a principal of Ryan Joyce\, structural design. And Ryan’s not here right? \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s recused\, I know\, but he didn’t show up anyway. So \nYerba Buena SX80: so we look forward to working with Patrick in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: also recused today is a board member board\, alternate delete travidi \nYerba Buena SX80: our first oh\, and and our \nYerba Buena SX80: chair is recused\, wrought iwash Iwashta. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our first order business is to call the role Board members. Please please unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m gonna call off everybody’s name\, you know. They’re not here today\, so I’ll start with roddy washed chair of the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know he’s not here today since he was recuse. Jim French vice chair of the board today’s chair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob\, tell you present \nYerba Buena SX80: so Holmes present \nYerba Buena SX80: Jima Kasalli present \nYerba Buena SX80: Chris\, may \nYerba Buena SX80: I know Chris wanted to be here\, but she was sick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Rameen Golzorkey present \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick Sotard here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gail Johnson\, present \nYerba Buena SX80: Talia Trevasaru. She was not going to show up today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Dylan Trevetti we mentioned. He was recused. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin Vannevar present. \nYerba Buena SX80: and Patrick Ryan. \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s recused. \nYerba Buena SX80: we have \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 board members present. Jim. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s correct. The quorum is 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: This will be louder than sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll keep going. Then a second. If you’re attending on Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand \nYerba Buena SX80: in zoom if you’re new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting using the zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen and the hand should turn blue\, I think maybe different color on different platforms. \nYerba Buena SX80: Third\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone press star 9 \nYerba Buena SX80: on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, we will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period for each project. Well\, one project today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every now and then I might refer to the meeting host Grace\, who is working behind the scenes to ensure the technology\, moves forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Smoothly and consistently. Please be patient with us as needed. Next ex parte communications as set forth in BCD. C’s regulations\, a member of the Ecr shall not have any oral or written communications regarding a proposed project \nYerba Buena SX80: or other matter \nYerba Buena SX80: that has been noticed to be considered at the Ecrb meeting with the project proponent \nYerba Buena SX80: permit applicant prospective applicant or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: board members in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a notice on any written or oral ex parte. Communications invite members who have engaged in any such communications \nYerba Buena SX80: to report on him at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself \nYerba Buena SX80: for the record. No hands have been raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Second agenda. Item\, public comment period on items not on the agenda. We have set a time \nYerba Buena SX80: set set aside time now for hearing public comment on items related to BC DC policies\, or permits that are not explicitly on the agenda. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you have anyone present or online who would like to make a comment not related to the planned project for the India Basin Shore Basin Shoreline Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: No hands online or no hands in person here\, either. Okay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Agenda. Item\, 3 staff updates. Now we’ll have a staff update from Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair French. I would like to provide an update to the board on a few items Ecrb meeting dates have been set for 2\,024 and are posted on the Bcbc website. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve started to send out meeting invitations to board members\, so you can reserve that time on your calendar. \nYerba Buena SX80: Regarding upcoming Ecrb meetings. There are currently no projects \nYerba Buena SX80: right now scheduled for the meetings in 2024. But please keep these dates open on your calendar. Since there there are some applicants we know\, we’ll need to return to the Ecrb. Particular Cargill salt. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also San Francisco International Airport are gonna schedule second meetings. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, it a follow up meeting in the New year. Lastly\, I wanted to let the Board members know that Bcd\, C has updated the policy regarding the role that Ecrb members can play as consultants to permit applicants. \nYerba Buena SX80: Board members are no longer allowed to represent permit applicants before the Ecrb board. Members who have been \nYerba Buena SX80: recused for assisting permit. Applicants are not allowed to speak to the Board in a presentation\, or answer questions while being paid by the applicant. \nYerba Buena SX80: Recused board members may attend meetings in person or remotely\, as a member of the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: If they do want to speak as a member of the public\, they may\, as long as they are not being compensated by the applicant. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do board members have any questions about this? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Great that’s all I have to for announcements. \nThen \nYerba Buena SX80: let me do that over again. She’s sorry about that. Okay\, with a microphone on this time before we move on to the presentation proper. Are there any announcements from board members? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, no hands raised. So we will move on to the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: the India Basin Shoreline Park. The discussion and presentation will follow. The meeting will proceed according to the following agenda\, first\, Jen Hyman\, senior engineer from BCDC. Will make a short presentation on the project\, followed by the presentation by the application team. \nYerba Buena SX80: By the applicant team during the presentation. It’s fine for board members to ask short\, clarifying questions or have limited discussion\, but the primary discussion will follow later \nat the end of the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, we’ll open the meeting for public comments related to engineering issues in the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: After hearing any comments from the public. The Ecrb will resume the discussion with their questions and comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: and at the end of the discussion I’ll ask for final comments and any emotions\, and then close our consideration of the project. This time I would like to ask board members and other participate. Our other participants. \nYerba Buena SX80: To please turn on your cameras. You’re speaking or actively engaged with the discussion. When you’re not actively engaged with the discussion. Please turn off your cameras so that we minimize distractions on screen and possibly bandwidth issues as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: I now ask Jen to provide the introduction to the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good afternoon\, chair. French and members of the Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: My name is Jen Hyman\, and I’m the senior engineer at Bcd. C. And Secretary of the Ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: This will be the Board’s first review of the India Basin Trolley Park Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have some background information on the project to share with you first. \nYerba Buena SX80: There we go. \nYerba Buena SX80: We already went over. The meeting agenda \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: let me share with you a little bit about India Basin Trolling Park. \nYerba Buena SX80: India Basin\, Shoreline Park is located just north of Hunters Point and Candlestick Park\, and just south of Mission Bay and Herons Head Park\, in the southeast corner of San Francisco. \nYerba Buena SX80: There is an existing park there that is being completely renovated. \nYerba Buena SX80: San Francisco Department of Recreation\, parks has submitted pre application materials to BC. DC. And has had a meeting with the Design Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: The adjacent 900 Innis Avenue project is a separate concurrent project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Also with extensive new public access features. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lenia Bison Shoreline Park Project is designed to renovate the entire park\, based on extensive community input \nYerba Buena SX80: includes 2 new full sized basket ball courts and a cook out terrace. \nYerba Buena SX80: It also includes new water oriented activities\, including boating and waiting\, which are the focus of this meeting\, and also provides sea level rise. Resiliency to the park. \nYerba Buena SX80: Today’s meeting of Ecrb is focused on the engineering design of 2 structures that are in the Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: The first is the boathouse pier and intermediate landing \nYerba Buena SX80: of the new boating dock. \nYerba Buena SX80: These 2 piling supported structures are connected by gangways and lead to a floating dock for launching kayaks. \nYerba Buena SX80: The second item of discussion is the South marine ray wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a hundred 65 foot long concrete walkway. It’s about 12 foot 10 to 12 feet wide on top. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it holds up the new gently slipped beach. and is also designed to allow the public to walk on top of it. Down to the end of the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: The design issues\, which will be explained shortly in the presentation by the applicant’s team include challenging geology. \nYerba Buena SX80: including undocumented\, fill and highly compressible clays below the fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: seismically active region leading to strong ground shaking and liquefaction of soil layers. \nYerba Buena SX80: wind and wave loads. \nYerba Buena SX80: potential impacts from construction of a flat concrete wall in the bay and sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: So questions I put together for the board to consider as they hear the presentation today are one. \nYerba Buena SX80: are the scenarios and design criteria in the stability analyses for the piers and the South Marine Way wall appropriate for the site hazards\, site conditions and site criticality \nYerba Buena SX80: to our potential hydrodynamic impacts from the South Green Way wall a concern \nYerba Buena SX80: 3. Our future coastal flooding concerns from sea level rise\, addressed adequately in the park. Design \nYerba Buena SX80: 4. Is there any data monitoring you recommend? Bcdc. Require the applicant to enhance the future safety of the project in light of its projected 40 year\, estimated design life. \nYerba Buena SX80: and lastly\, 5. Are there any design and physical concerns that have not been addressed? \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we will hear the presentation from the applicant team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Hello. I’m Catherine lists from Ggn. We’re the landscape architect and design lead on this project. India based in Shoreline Park. \nI just wanna thank you all for taking the time to review this on behalf of our design team and project partners. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just quickly. These are the project partners and the team that will be speaking today. So as I noted\, I’m from Ggn\, and then Sean Hart from often Nicole and Cameron from Ags will also be speaking. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will provide a brief overview very similar to what Jen just went through\, and then I’ll hand it over to Shawn and Cameron to go through the technical and engineering elements \nYerba Buena SX80: so\, as noted\, we are located on the southeast corner of San Francisco\, right on the bay\, zooming in on the image on the right. We’re also located along the bay trail. That’s that purple line that’s winding its way through\, connecting basically Pg and E directly to the north with the future 900 Dennis project\, once it’s constructed to the south. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then this is a view of the existing site. It is an existing park\, India\, based in Sherline Park\, outlined in the dashed black line that you see there. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a park that really is underutilized and needs some renovation. And specifically focusing along the shoreline\, you can see an image number 3 in the bottom right hand corner. We do have a rip wrap protection there right now\, but it is in disrepair\, and is still showing signs of erosion\, even with that protection there. \nYerba Buena SX80: so as noted. I will now hand it over to Cameron and Sean to go through these 3 key elements of our design on the from the engineering standpoint. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you so much\, Katherine. This I’m Cameron Gelson with a GS. A. Gs has done Joe technical investigation in 2 phases for this project \nYerba Buena SX80: on phase one\, we focus on 900 inner sight and on phase 2\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: supplement our work in 900 in s. And also did the India basic \nYerba Buena SX80: in phase one\, we performed 10 test speeds for soar boring and 7 Cpt’s. and on phase 2. We did 14 additional onshore\, boring \nYerba Buena SX80: to depth\, ranging between a to 100 feet. 5 offshore boarding \nto also depth of the homework. you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, yes. \nyeah\, you’re not \nYerba Buena SX80: cool. \nYerba Buena SX80: I apologize. For the delay. We lost our wi-fi here in the meeting room we’re in\, and it just came back so we’ll be restarting the presentation. \nyou know. \nBill Holmes: I think anybody \nBill Holmes: that’s oh\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yes\, so we perform geotechnical investigation in 2 phases and phase one\, we focus on 900 in a side with 10 test speed for sole boring and 7 Cpt’s \nYerba Buena SX80: on A and on the phase 2. We combine the India Basin project\, as well as the 900 in. As. \nand we perform additional 14 boardings \nYerba Buena SX80: 9 Cpt’s \nYerba Buena SX80: also there’s 8 of them was onshore\, and 5 of them was offshore on one of the boardings. We also perform Ps suspension downhole logging for the Joe physical to determine the sheer velocity of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: as in total we did 29 boardings. \nYerba Buena SX80: which 24 of them was offshore\, and 5 of them offshore\, 9\, Cpt’s 1010 test pits there. \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 of the boarding was focused on this area that we have these 2 structures which are concerned with the Bcd C. And which 4 of them was offshore\, and 4 of them was onshore. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we did 3 CP. Ts in there \nYerba Buena SX80: as a summary. We had a very \nYerba Buena SX80: no previous one. Yeah\, very\, very complex subsurface conditions. We had some area we had undocumented feel. The feel was very heterogeneous. \nthe depth\, thickness of it it was ranging between nothing from 0 to 41 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: in some area underneath of it\, typically\, we had young Bay mode. which\, with the thickness of the between 0 to 77 feet. \nBelow young Baymont we encounter interbedded sand and clay \nYerba Buena SX80: sometimes\, and the thickness of it ranges between 0 to 30 feet. and below that is old bait clay with the thickness of the 0 to 20 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then collovium or residual soil between 0 to 20 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the bedrock with. We encounter most of our \nYerba Buena SX80: our borings in offshore and near the shoreline reached the bedrock. There \ngroundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: ranges from 9 to 22 feet below ground surface the ground surface at those locations. The elevation of it was plus 5 2 plus 13 feet\, with \nYerba Buena SX80: NAVD. 88. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nSole parameters were developed \nYerba Buena SX80: by the information from the field and the lab. Most of it was developed by either published relationship or guidelines from the public agencies there \nYerba Buena SX80: residual under shear strain parameter for Lico. Fibrous soul was determined from correlation with the N. 1 60 \nsuggested originally by seed\, and then later by other researchers like Kramer and Wang in 2\,015\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and for the bedrock \nYerba Buena SX80: we estimated the module of the elasticity by a relationship between that with unconfined\, compressive strength of the rock\, and conservatively\, we use a hundred for the ratio there\, Cameron. I have a quick question\, I guess. Pretty obvious\, maybe\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: effective unit weights. I assume that’s when it’s below the ground water table\, right? But above the ground water table your effective unit weights will be \nYerba Buena SX80: much higher\, 50 pounds heavier\, 60 pounds heavier. Correct. You didn’t use 62\, for that is correct. There. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: This plate shows the distribution of our boring and Cpt’s and test speeds\, as you can see that we try to characterize the site by going along the proposed structures as well as the other places that we are play planning to place\, feel. \nYerba Buena SX80: to determine settlements and other Joe technical considerations. There also we perform \nYerba Buena SX80: slope stability analysis along 9 cross sections. Those cross sections are shown by green \nYerba Buena SX80: arrows there. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we develop 7 generalized subsurface profile which are showing with the dark blue \nlines in there \nYerba Buena SX80: next\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is one of the cross-sections near the proposed 2 structures that it is concerned for the PC. DC. As you can see them is already generalized\, but the the materials are relatively heterogeneous. They pinch out in some area. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the artificial feel is actually pretty thick. In some in the onshore portion of that \nYerba Buena SX80: next one. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is the generalized geologic cross section along the profile\, EE. Prime. and you can see that in this one. We don’t have some of some of the subsurface material\, or missing like interbedded sand and clay is missing\, and or old baked clay is missing in some area\, and the artificial field was directly on top of the bedrock. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the thickness of the bay mode was also very significantly there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nexus. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is also another one along this more or less the same area. That’s also you can see that some of the thicknesses are variable. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some layers are missing in that section according to our boring locks \nYerba Buena SX80: and the next one. So we determines some major geotechnical considerations that affecting the project because of the placing the beach one item would be static settlement \nand a \nYerba Buena SX80: and also due to the this settlement also can be due to the undocumented field and highly compressible clay below the field. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also have a seismically induced deformation due to the potential liquor\, fibrous soil\, and lose unsaturated soil \nYerba Buena SX80: above and below the groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: both for the field and also the Sam lenses below the young Bay mode. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also have a strong ground shaking\, like everywhere else in the area. and we also have some ground movement due to earthquake. Induce slope failure \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Following the procedure in sc. 7\, 16\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and also A. C. 41\, 17. We developed seismic criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: For the 900 in s. We have some structure which they remain in place. So that’s why we use the sc. 7\, 41 17. But for the other project\, other part of the project and the new\, the structures we use. We follow the sc. 7\, 16 there. \nYerba Buena SX80: next one\, please. Oh\, I’m yeah. \nSo \nYerba Buena SX80: based on the site. Information that we had\, we develop. We classified the sub surface condition to 2 site classification \nYerba Buena SX80: D. One of them was D\, with the shareware velocity\, average shareware velocity of the about a thousand feet per second. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then one of them\, of course\, would be F because of the presence of the liquefiable soil and collapsible solar. \nYerba Buena SX80: We cider specific acceleration was developed\, following\, sc. 7\, 16\, for 50 years\, return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then Pg. A. M. Of the point 7 8 and point 6 5 was the term or calculated for onshore and offshore. \nYerba Buena SX80: Harder \nYerba Buena SX80: a maximum moment\, Max. We use the San maximum moment. Magnitude of the 8.0 5 for San Andros fault\, which is the governing fault for this site. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we also use the design seismic criteria by multiplying it by 2\, 3 of the Mca level there \nfor the legal faction analysis. Also\, we use a magnet moment magnitude of the 8.0 5\, \nYerba Buena SX80: with the Pgm. Of the point 7 8 G \nYerba Buena SX80: no depth limit was applied. Thin layer transition\, you know\, was applied for the Cpt logs. There \nYerba Buena SX80: we also use the clay like\, and sand like method as a proposed by Bowlinger and Idris\, and then ground water level was as the highest point of plus 8 feet for the onshore and 0 for the offshore developer. \nYerba Buena SX80: for the assumptions that we did for local faction induced lateral deformation. We were looking at the continuity of the layers\, making sure that because this the cofaction that we calculate was very localized in some areas because of the this field was very heterogeneous in some areas that a lot of the gravels\, rocky materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: and in some area they had young Bay mode\, and this that it was mixed with the field and some area was just a sand and clay there. So we were looking at the continuity of that layer to determine if the lateral deformation can occur. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the free phase\, we apply the free face condition for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we use the lateral displacement index method to calculate the\, you know\, liquor faction in these lateral deformations \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide \noff \nYerba Buena SX80: for the Marine Walk project. There is gonna be some beach level and some raising the grade there. so to \nYerba Buena SX80: provide a support for this field \nYerba Buena SX80: originally retaining wall was considered. \nYerba Buena SX80: but that it was very difficult to come up with the design due to liquefi soil and the young and thickness of the young bay mart there. therefore\, instead\, we are so we decided to use a \nYerba Buena SX80: Msc. \nYerba Buena SX80: Embankment for supporting that engineered field\, and that Mse. \nYerba Buena SX80: By itself is going to be supported by the Dsm. \nBecause of the \nYerba Buena SX80: Bay MoD. That we have in there is a very highly compressible. We estimate that the settlement could be on order of the several feats over many years. \nYerba Buena SX80: and therefore we wanted to improve that soil by \nYerba Buena SX80: constructing the deep soil mixing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we we develop some plans for it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we try to keep that as a performance based. Approach \nYerba Buena SX80: that the specified maximum design bearing capacity of the treated young Bay mode of the 20 psi psi for a debt plus livelo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a cross section along the peer\, and you will see that. \nWe have. \nYerba Buena SX80: and young Bay mode which is gonna be treated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and underneath of it we have bedrock\, the sensual leader. \nYerba Buena SX80: So all the Dsm are gonna be extending to the entire length of the young. Baymot goes to the bedrock. and we are using\, maybe hopefully\, the line to to improve that funder. \nYerba Buena SX80: and above that above the Dsm. Will be Msc. Wall\, that we are. Gonna place it there \nYerba Buena SX80: next one\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Msc wall is also what’s considered to be the most cost effective solution for that. So to pro\, to provide the support for the marine way\, beach or field and walkway slab. There \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, performance-based approach was selected to a specified minimum safety factor against sliding \nYerba Buena SX80: Crip and constructions. Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are showing several sections of the Msc. And then Ds involved \nYerba Buena SX80: to have a face set for the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: We try to stay\, provide a gap between the Msc. And the face of face of all there \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the Msc. Has in one side has up to 70 degree \nYerba Buena SX80: angle\, and the other side has about 45 handholders. It’s gonna be all wrapped in filth in the \nYerba Buena SX80: Joe Grid\, and also with the filter fabric in\, lay inside of it\, there to make sure that we have appropriate drainage \nYerba Buena SX80: as well as the supporter \nYerba Buena SX80: next one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some by that I’m gonna pass it to Shawn. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright moving on. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nI guess this \nYerba Buena SX80: slide shows the \nYerba Buena SX80: items that we’re considering during this meeting. So you can see the pier and the intermediate landing on the left that are pile supported\, and then on the right that red line\, that kind of curls around. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s the marine way \nYerba Buena SX80: walkway that has a \nYerba Buena SX80: like Cameron just said has a Msc \nYerba Buena SX80: structure that’s retaining and a \nYerba Buena SX80: cast in place. Concrete facial wall in front for corrosion concerns more than anything else. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve listed \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: design criteria items here on the table. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the right. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think most of those are fairly self-explanatory. \nYerba Buena SX80: they. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess we’re concentrating on the peers in the pile supporting structures first. But dead live. There’s no\, we’re not considering our \nYerba Buena SX80: wave and current loads aren’t going to govern on these structures. \nYerba Buena SX80: No birthing loads would have to be a very \nYerba Buena SX80: shallow ship. Wind loads\, not gonna govern seismic loads \nYerba Buena SX80: we are designing this per category is low and based on low importance. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we’re using a two-thirds. Mcr. Like Cameron spoke before\, and all those that spectrum was developed by ags. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think an important \nYerba Buena SX80: wow\, no\, keep going. Go next. Yep. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright so this is just kind of the method\, a method that we use. \nYerba Buena SX80: we used a \nYerba Buena SX80: pushover analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: And 16 different directions with\, you know\, the 100% plus 30% to account for \nYerba Buena SX80: torsional items. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we calculate the displacement demand for the design\, earthquake. \nYerba Buena SX80: for each brochure curve. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and then we’re using \nYerba Buena SX80: life safety as the limit state for the hinges. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is another important criteria\, and we have in the table over here on the bottom right? We have the strain limits. \nYerba Buena SX80: That apply for the life safety criteria\, both for \nYerba Buena SX80: above ground hinges in the piles and below ground hinges. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. No requirements for deepened ground for the life safety protection. Item. \nYerba Buena SX80: criteria so \nYerba Buena SX80: form joint share. I think we could go to the next slide. It’s basically A/C 61. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this is kind of a snapshot of what the sap. \nYerba Buena SX80: finite element model looks like. We developed Pmem hinges\, which I think I’ve talked about briefly on the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: The soil springs that are along. The piles were developed with the help of A. GS. And \nYerba Buena SX80: the tables that are on this slide kind of tell you the layering that was assumed for the location of these 2 structures. So we have the \nYerba Buena SX80: intermediate landing that’s in the darker green. And then the pier that’s in yellow. \nYerba Buena SX80: A note to be made is that we just we I assumed that \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: what was liquefiable was liquefied during the allows. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: you know it. It’s it’s already in the liquefied state\, right? So the fill that could liquefy. We just assumed it was liquified. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go\, Shawn. I have a quick question\, I think. Let me see if I can get my \nYerba Buena SX80: video going again. \nYerba Buena SX80: How are you imposing these springs\, or do you have deformation from the geotech that pushes against the back of the springs. And that’s what’s pushing against. No we are. We are calculating\, and displacement demand with a substitute structure method. And so. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, so we get a displacement requirement. And then we’re checking. So we’re forcing it and then getting and how are you comparing what? The what’s actually going to push on that from the soil? \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s gonna push? Well\, we are getting What’s going to push on it from the soil. There’s no loads from the soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we determined that there was no lateral spread loading from it. If that’s what you meant by that. Yeah\, because of the discontinuity that exists between the Lico fiber layers. There. There. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Gotcha. \nyeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is just a basic extract analysis to get plastic moments. we’re using expected values for the materials to \nYerba Buena SX80: via tinge capacities. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. And that little box on the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is one of the cases case. A one shows the hinges in the pile\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: above ground hinges. There you can see them as green dots \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the below ground hinge in \nYerba Buena SX80: low ground at the maximum moment. Location? \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you could go to the next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: this is an elevation view of the different structures. I think it kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: gives you a good idea of what’s going on otherwise. So you have the boathouse pier that’s on the top. \nYerba Buena SX80: You arrive from the boathouse\, and there’s like a walkway. I believe\, is also cloud supported. But it’s not part of this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then you transition onto the Votehouse pier. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 gangways that connect the boathouse pier to the intermediate landing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the intermediate landing to a float system is another gambling. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: These are some basic structural details\, for those 2 pile supported elements. concrete. There’s gonna be a \nYerba Buena SX80: wood deck on top. I don’t think that makes much difference to us \nYerba Buena SX80: today. \nYerba Buena SX80: and go next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Basic detail for a reinforced concrete pile. go to next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So now we are over to the marine way. Wall\, \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, as Cameron discussed \nYerba Buena SX80: previously. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know the text. Sorry. The text is a little small on the detail on the top left\, but you can see the trapezoid of Msc. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s there. And then below that is Dsm\, the cross hatch. and then we have some engineered fill in the back of all that. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there’s the gravel beach\, which is a fill and back that are on top of that\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: concrete fascia panel is sitting in the front of all of those items with a void between it and the \nYerba Buena SX80: MSE. And the purpose of the void is we’re trying to disconnect \nYerba Buena SX80: from the Msc. So any lateral translation of Msc. Won’t \nYerba Buena SX80: load the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: the what else? \nYerba Buena SX80: We were asked to talk about the so that the concrete wall will have a textured surface. it’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: so e concrete\, I guess\, is what they’re the proprietary brand is\, but it’s a textured surface that promotes \nYerba Buena SX80: marine growth. The picture below is a picture I took last week out at \nYerba Buena SX80: Peer. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s 45 over by Fisherman’s Wharf\, where they have a the port has these test panels that they hung. So the comparison is on the top. There’s the sheet pile wall\, and that’s the amount of growth that \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re getting in the bottom is a concrete panel which \nYerba Buena SX80: looks to have more growth. So I\, you know\, qualitative. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, my. \nYerba Buena SX80: there you go. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So II want. I wanted to know a little bit more about the scar protection apron that you’re talking about. I mean\, what’s the extent of that? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then as well \ncan do that for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s a cross-section as the \nYerba Buena SX80: Why \nstate \nto call the limits of it. \nOkay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this supported on the DSM. System. \nplease. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe that within \ndown. \nessentially the extent stand them up \nYerba Buena SX80: on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, can you review it? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, he said\, that this. The scar. Put that. Dsm is going to extend 4 to 5 feet in front of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: What about the sparrow protection? It’s 8 feet wide. Right \nYerba Buena SX80: size. \nThe \nYerba Buena SX80: is our. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, can I follow up and just \nYerba Buena SX80: what size way is being \nYerba Buena SX80: assumed for that? Because that sounds very small\, I can point to \nYerba Buena SX80: real problems with the \nYerba Buena SX80: because you have a\, you have a solid wall\, and the wave impact is goes going straight down\, and it will every 5 5 to 8 inch cargo right out. That that’s not. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not rock of any significance. Actually\, when it comes to wave action. So II would strongly suggest that somebody look at the size of the waves and make sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: this is\, in fact\, adequate\, but just \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of looking at it. It doesn’t look adequate. And since we are added\, there is the other issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure why \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re so worried about separating the wall from the mechanically stabilized embankment behind. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: We have plenty of examples. City of Pacifica specifically. Where the waves coming\, go right behind the wall and rip the panels out from behind the point being that you really have to have. If if there is going to be gap\, it has to be really carefully sealed \nYerba Buena SX80: or protected from direct water entry. And the other thing is that \nYerba Buena SX80: since you’re talking\, my understanding is geography\, and the wrap \nYerba Buena SX80: that there’d be again erosion protection\, basically a fabric around the wrap. So there is no opportunity for basically erosion. If\, should the Ms. You all get saturated \nYerba Buena SX80: by. You know\, things happen so extra protection. And that’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: a very difficult thing to do that would \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s try and keep these comments. For now. \nYerba Buena SX80: One. \nOkay\, so very. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, okay\, mine’s working. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. awesome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. is this possible to have mads? And \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, II was trying to get mad to kind of take over for the next slide. But \nMads Jorgensen M&N: yes\, I apologize. I had a sequence just before we got to this point where I lost audio. I could see the slides moving on. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and but I could speak to the size of the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: stone or the rock for the scour apron. We did look at that. and we sized that to be appropriate \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so the condition in the bay there is that it’s it’s really a mud flat at at low tide. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: A large extent of the bay is dry\, and it’s mud flat\, so very\, very flat. shallow pan coming up to these structures. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so in many cases \nMads Jorgensen M&N: of intermediate tight conditions\, the waves coming in are going to be depth limited. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So there’s certain size they can get to\, and they start breaking \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and then for a more severe \nMads Jorgensen M&N: case of storm surge and waves coming in. There’s considerably deeper water along these wall structures. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: but we have sort of considered the envelope of these exposures as resized the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: the stone for the scour apron. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. Should we continue on with the slides. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: mads! Can you speak to the sea level? Rise analysis? And \nMads Jorgensen M&N: yeah. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So I don’t know if this slice been \nMads Jorgensen M&N: been presented earlier\, but the table on the left summarizes all the different \nMads Jorgensen M&N: title datum plates that exist at the site. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: That’s the upper part of the table. and the lower portion has the storm water \nMads Jorgensen M&N: levels with tide up to the 100 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: return period water level at the bottom row. and \nMads Jorgensen M&N: the table below that\, then\, has the tidal plains projected with a future civil rise\, and this is assuming the \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Opc. A medium tool. Low risk aversion\, sorry medium to high risk aversion. Projection. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: which is a pretty conservative solarized projection \nMads Jorgensen M&N: to to apply to this kind of project\, it puts us on the safe side of things. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: And site. Features are generally \nMads Jorgensen M&N: at innovation\, plus 15 enabled. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: So we’ve evaluated the risk of exposures to seal arise for future projected conditions \nMads Jorgensen M&N: and finding that the site is basically resilient to solar rice \nMads Jorgensen M&N: through mid-century and going towards end of century. King tides would not be \nMads Jorgensen M&N: a concern until around the time 2070 or thereafter. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: so\, in terms of public access her features\, the site is \nMads Jorgensen M&N: resilient through 2050\, and beyond. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question. \nYerba Buena SX80: But chair. Can I ask you a quick question. What’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry I got that turned on? But wrong one. \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s the design life of the project? I\, Jen said in her introduction\, that it was 40 years \nYerba Buena SX80: 40 years plus now is 2065\, which I don’t see down here. \nYerba Buena SX80: You have a bunch of other things. What is it? That’s our actual target? \nYerba Buena SX80: 2\,070. II had the same question\, where did the 40 years come from? It’s a funny number \nYerba Buena SX80: that I read in one of the reports. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what is the design life of the project? \nYerba Buena SX80: 40 to 50 years? I mean\, design. Life is \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, 40 to 50 years. So 2\,075 ish\, or something like that? 2\,070. \nYerba Buena SX80: How was that established? Does that come from the from the owner or the \nYerba Buena SX80: the city. \nYerba Buena SX80: Don’t. I don’t actually know that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: no\, I don’t. I don’t. I mean\, we decided on how \nYerba Buena SX80: long was reasonable. I mean. I think that’s some of it is\, you know\, some of the these elements obviously will last longer than that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think that was a reasonable projection. \nYerba Buena SX80: I thought it was for the peers. It was reasonable. Yeah\, so that’s different. Yeah. For the peers. I thought that was the reasonable projection from like you you’re talking about when they have to move. I’m just talking about for the design life of the structure\, I mean\, that’s reasonable last longer. But I mean\, there’s plenty of peers in San Francisco that are over 100. So \nYerba Buena SX80: well\, well\, I mean Mo. In fact\, most structures are are assumed to be\, have a design life longer than 40 years. That’s why I’m wondering where it came from. The funny number. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a very short number. \nYerba Buena SX80: It should be based on the the lifespan of the materials used to construct a project. Well\, it should be\, it should be based upon what whoever’s paying for this wants it to be. I mean\, that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not usually made up by the design team. In my experience\, someone says\, I want this to be. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, so so long \nYerba Buena SX80: we can double check on that. I’m David Frolick from Wrecking Park City of San Francisco\, and it may have been established as a as a departmental number 40 to 50 years based on material life. And and \nYerba Buena SX80: then we reevaluate and we’ll see if it needs to be renovated. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so what have you been you? You have been working as if it is 40 to 50. \nYerba Buena SX80: without quite knowing exactly how that was established. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so everything you’ve done so far\, everything you’re presenting here is based on a 40 to 50 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, go ahead. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was looking at the coastal engineering report. I think it was\, and it showed\, I think\, figure 5 and or 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: showed that the pier at the India Basin Shoreline Park to the float\, the the lower pier. \nYerba Buena SX80: the lower peer deck. There’s a first pier\, then a ramp\, and then a lower pier\, and then a ramp to the flow\, so that lower peer is \nYerba Buena SX80: under water at 2050\, II guess\, during the 100 year event\, or the 1% annual chance. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Oh. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is getting very complicated. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks for reminding me. yeah. So III just wanted to clarify that. I guess we can have discussion later. And I think that’s because of access. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think I understand that. But I just wanted to get that out there and then I have a question which may or may not be in your presentation. But since I’m talking\, and may also be to Jen \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m really interested in the motions of the floats and what the programming is\, or for the multiple floats \nYerba Buena SX80: and the public safety associated with that. And I don’t know that that was in our \nYerba Buena SX80: requested review. But I would like to hear about it. If that’s okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, basically\, what kind of motions do you expect on the public access flows. And what what’s their programming are? Are you gonna have commuter ferries\, or just\, you know\, small boats\, or what you know\, what’s what’s happening. So II just. \nYerba Buena SX80: however\, you want to finish your presentation\, but if if somebody could address that\, I would really appreciate it. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: refinance presentation first\, or do you want to? Well\, I think we can just address that if you wanted. Talk about the wave component of it. And then I well\, I can start with the program. \nYerba Buena SX80: So in terms of the program\, the main feature is the the reason why it has to go out this far is again\, because it’s such a shallow bay. And so we need that distance to get basically to make the stock as usable as possible. I think we’re again. We’re trying to get it to about 95% usable. So like 5% of the time at like very extreme tides\, it wouldn’t be. It would be kind of grounded. But at that 95% \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re getting enough water underneath so that it can be usable. And it’s for very shallow water craft or human powered craft water craft. I guess. So like kayaks or small boats. That you can kind of paddle up to. And there’s a portion of the dock. That’s actually a lower free board dock than the rest of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: which you can kind of see on this top image here. So there’s actually the very end of it is about a 20 by 20 area. That is just 2 picnic tables. And that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: how high I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re going for something like 4 or 5 inches. so the rest is higher\, like 14 or 16. I forget the number portion that 20 by 20 would be \nYerba Buena SX80: that upper\, higher \nYerba Buena SX80: distance away from the water\, and that’s just\, you know\, meant to be for everyone to kind of come and enjoy the kind of the end of the floating dock. You know. Gather there. You could have kind of lunch spot. And then again\, that other. Actually\, yeah. So that other portion is that lower portion that has the kayaks\, and then also on the other side\, there’s an accessible component. It’s like an accessible access \nYerba Buena SX80: for Kayak\, so you can kind of get on and off excessively. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. And that makes sense to me. It’s consistent with what I was looking at. But on the access or the programming there is another peer\, and I think this is still under our review\, and I thought I read in a report that something about ferries could dock on either side. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that the 700 or the 900 in us? Well\, okay\, thank you. And III did read it so II might have been in an older. I think it was the older report off the nickel report on coastal I’ll look again while we’re on. Maybe it was my mistake\, but I wouldn’t have \nYerba Buena SX80: said that unless I thought I read alright. Thank you. My mistake. \nYerba Buena SX80: my my specific concern which we can discuss later. and I’d like to hear your take on. It is the structural loading. Look at a 2.7 foot wave at a 50 year. Recurrence\, wind\, wave. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m just interested in how the float will risk the floats that are publicly accessible with\, you know picnic cables. Whoever will respond to that wave action\, what kind of float motion is anticipated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then \nYerba Buena SX80: which raises\, you know\, maybe a question about safety\, for you know the general public\, and maybe some management of access to that \nYerba Buena SX80: and that \nYerba Buena SX80: the tech at the intermediate level\, the lower level power supported structure. Landing would be underwater during a hundred year. Event within the project life \nYerba Buena SX80: also indicate some need to manage access\, although it might be obvious that \nYerba Buena SX80: they shouldn’t go\, but you never know. So those are the reason why I’m asking the question\, so I don’t know if you can address that now or later\, or we can just discuss it along the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I can just clearly quickly. Sorry. Explain the the kind of rationale between that intermediate here. It basically is for access. So we wanted to kind of create a series. You know\, because this route is quite a distance out in the water\, we had to have more than one gangway. So we wanted to\, and needed to actually create an intermediate point at which there could be\, you know\, kind of a \nYerba Buena SX80: initial peer\, and then there’s a a slope down to the intermediate pier. And then that intermediate peer is really what starts that second gangway which allows for the flexibility of floating dock to go up and down. So we really need that intermediate peer in order to essentially not have a very long gang way that has\, you know\, a very extreme slope when the dock is grounded\, and\, you know\, could have other kind of slope issues. So it kind of allows that piece to happen. And actually\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: have. I think I have it in here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, we had this strategy where you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: In the future\, you know\, as sea levels rise\, and maybe that intermediate peer isn’t needed. Sorry the entr orientation changed a little bit here\, but when this intermediate appear isn’t needed in the future. The idea is that the floating Doc and that gangway that fluctuates can just be reattached to the more fixed peer up further upland. Yeah\, that makes sense to me that all makes sense. I\, with the access. I just wanted to clarify it\, and perhaps the board or the staff might be interested in in that detail about how \nYerba Buena SX80: within the project life at a hundred year water level. \nYerba Buena SX80: That would not be accessible without getting your feet wet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then also there may be waves of over 2 feet\, maybe 2.7\, I think at a 50 year event which would probably cause the floats to move. which may add questions to whether what kind of public access. So that’s really where I’m I’m okay with the ramps and everything that makes total sense to me\, and I thank you for clarifying that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But my other question still not answered. Yeah\, I think if you could show a design drawing of the float to see how many corners it’s attached to the pilings. If it’s just on one side or both sides \nYerba Buena SX80: then\, and sort of what the clearances where the pilings go through the float. I think that could probably reassure Bob that it’s not gonna till \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re all on one edge. Any ideas that you’re trying to provide\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: places where kayaks can birth\, I guess\, is the word\, even as kayak \nYerba Buena SX80: right\, most more importantly on the on the end than \nYerba Buena SX80: But we are not currently showing them on both sides. I kiss \nYerba Buena SX80: on the approach section. There’s not really any reason why we couldn’t swipe. Swap\, you know\, back and forth\, and it would provide a more stable \nYerba Buena SX80: platform. Okay\, thank. I think that answers my question\, and we’ll have some discussion on this topic. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Couple of questions\, cause I’m quick clarification questions still\, are these longer discussion kind of questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. If it’s longer it needs to be now\, because we’ll we’ll lose our place. That’s fine. If we’re just. I think I’d like to try and finish the present\, and then we’ll come back. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the rest of it could be pretty quick. I don’t think. Do you want. Do you want to go for it? \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. So this slide just shows \nYerba Buena SX80: the elevations of the different items. Design items on here. \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: intermediate landing\, as Bob brought up is at plus 10\, and then the \nYerba Buena SX80: finish floor elevation of the boat house is at 16\, which is over. I think it was 15\, the flood elevation and then on the \nYerba Buena SX80: marine way. Wall\, we’re at \nYerba Buena SX80: basically mean high water there at the plus 6 at the bottom of the marine level. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we can go to the next slide. \nI think the \nYerba Buena SX80: sequence of the last 3 or 4 slides here just projected sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: And where that puts the water within a planned view. \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s not really right. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it creeps up\, I guess as the \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t really have any more discussion on that than yeah\, I can\, I can speak to this. So \nYerba Buena SX80: now\, jeez. okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so yeah\, I mean\, I’m just. You know\, they’re a series of slides\, and and the purpose of them is to really show in the 3 levels of blue how those 3 different title. \nYerba Buena SX80: Datums are \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of tracing the topography on the site. So the mean high water that came tied in the base flood elevation at each of the sea level rise projections. So kind of skip to 2050. Just so you could see that \nYerba Buena SX80: and then I’ll move through. Okay\, so then 2070. Again\, the main takeaway here is that our design \nYerba Buena SX80: elements that are structures and the bay trail\, and even the space City ferry deck\, which is basically a gathering deck\, are all well above the bfe at 2070 we do see inundation into the gravel shore and upland into this area. That’s a grass transition zone. But this is designed to have that flexibility with these higher tides\, to be able to have that inundation come in and then recede \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, at this time\, you know\, Recon Park could also determine to add more gravel shore. If that was desirable from a programming standpoint. They could just add more gravel at this point\, and to kind of replace the grass area. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then in 2\,100 again\, you can see those 3 title datums. So the lightest color is the one at Bf\, the second darkest is the king tide. At 14.7. Again\, you can see it’s coming into these areas at that point. Over the \nYerba Buena SX80: the fixed pier\, the upper fixed pier. But it’s still below the top finished floor of the boathouse. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the bay trail is set above that 14.7 as well. So really\, in 2\,100 the bfe will \nYerba Buena SX80: flood over the bay trail\, but just in one portion\, and the bay trail is exposed area concrete. So this should be a fairly\, you know\, when this event happens\, there’s just going to need to kind of be some potential minor repair \nYerba Buena SX80: of that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then this is just again a summary of those elements. So the key elements boat house\, the base city ferry deck and the trails and the bay trail \nYerba Buena SX80: dashed\, and magenta here\, looking at 2050 on how they’re all above those levels. And then\, just looking back at our site\, \nYerba Buena SX80: just seeing that main lawn unfold down the center with that gravel shore at the very end\, and then the marine way wall on the left side\, and then the floating dock coming forward towards us on the right side. This is a rendering. Yes\, sorry. Thank you. That’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm\, everyone can turn it. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: so board members\, if you’re \nYerba Buena SX80: getting ready to present something actually\, right now\, we’re not doing board member stuff\, right? We have public comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. Right? So so thanks. Project team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, public comments at this point like to receive public comments\, if any on the project. specific to the presentation\, please raise your hand digital hand. If you’re online or \nYerba Buena SX80: nobody’s in the audience. One person in the audience. If you’re in the audience and want to talk\, raise your hand physically. \nYerba Buena SX80: please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of remarks. Remember\, you have a 3 min \nYerba Buena SX80: time limit. \nYerba Buena SX80: as in any meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. We’re here to listen to every one who wishes to address the meeting. but\, as always\, we ask every one act in a civil manner. \nYerba Buena SX80: hate\, speech\, threats\, threats made public\, directly or indirectly\, and abusive. Language will not be tolerated\, and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: or who exceeds the established 3 min limit without permission will be muted. \nGrace\, we let us know if there’s any one who has their hands raised\, and call their names and state \nYerba Buena SX80: when no more hands are raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: there are no hands raised for public comments. Oh\, there is one hand raised behind you\, a physical hand. Wow! Physical hand! That’s a exciting thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello\, everyone! My name is Jade Carter. I’m an undergrad student at University of San Francisco\, and I’ve been involved with the Equitable Development Plan port portion of this project through rec parks. I just have a question for you all about kind of how you’re drilling into the bay for this construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m aware that one of the remediation techniques in the clean up process at 900 was to place sand and soil caps offshore to prevent the re exposure of soil contaminants. I’m curious how this offshore construction aims to prevent the re-exposure or uncovering of these contaminants back into the bay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: You can stay there for a minute if you want\, while they respond. I can provide a quick answer. The remediated area was at 900\, Dennis. Not at India\, based in Shoreline Park. So we’re actually not penetrating any caps at this portion of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to? \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to bring up a map and kind of show generally\, where those remediation there are compared to the project site. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the 900 in a site is if you can see the mouse kind of moving around. That’s the site \nYerba Buena SX80: right there and then the basin\, which is \nYerba Buena SX80: looks like a lighter brown area was the area that was remediated\, and we didn’t remediate all the way out to where that color changes in the water tide. But maybe about midway through is where we removed about 2 to 5 feet of sediment\, both upland and in the water off hauled it\, and then imported new sediment or new fill to \nYerba Buena SX80: cap\, that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does that address? Your question? Excellent. Yeah. And Grace\, are there any other hands raised online. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello\, Caller\, please for the record. Please state your name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Hi! My! My name is Katherine Langsteiff. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I’m with the wild oyster project. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I’ve been interested in using living shorelines here at the site to help buffer wave action\, but also \nAutopoiesis LLC: to increase biodiversity. And I’ve had the pleasure of talking with some of the design team\, but I wanted BCDC. To understand that there’s an opportunity here that I think would be a really great one. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can you share a little bit more about your ideas? \nAutopoiesis LLC: Yeah\, I mean. I’m sorry. Do you have an echo? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is is that better. \nAutopoiesis LLC: So if you go to. If you go to the slides with the inundation. \nAutopoiesis LLC: you can see\, and also with a discussion around the fascia panel\, there’s an opportunity there where you were talking about. I think you call that scouring\, that we could use oyster reefs as a way to buffer the wall\, but also to help \nAutopoiesis LLC: sort of seed the wall with native oysters\, and we’ve had success with the port of San Francisco right across India\, based in at Herons Head park. \nAutopoiesis LLC: and I think it’s a great opportunity for us to continue \nAutopoiesis LLC: using nature-based solutions \nAutopoiesis LLC: in this area. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Another idea would be to line the shore line\, as you see\, when you get to the \nAutopoiesis LLC: 2\,100 by that point you have a lot of \nAutopoiesis LLC: flooding which which would allow oyster habitat \nAutopoiesis LLC: to have the the to move inland. \nAutopoiesis LLC: which becomes water right at. As this hole over this 60 year period or longer. You can see how the oyster habitat could keep buffering the shoreline as it moves inward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do we respond to the public comment\, Would the team like to respond to the public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll have our time\, our chance\, sure we can. So we we recently met with Katherine from the wild oyster project to look at our site and and and try to see if there were any opportunities or possible opportunities for \nYerba Buena SX80: oyster reef balls. It. It looks like due to elevations that \nit may be difficult at our site within our project limits to achieve\, but we’re still looking into it. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I don’t remember the numbers off the top of my head\, but I think they have to be submerged for a certain amount of time. \nYerba Buena SX80: do you remember? Yeah. So in \nYerba Buena SX80: trying to find a good image. \nYerba Buena SX80: So basically\, our extent of kind of grading work into the shoreline ends at about elevation one\, and from my understanding the oysters do best when they’re set at about an elevation of 0 at their at their kind of base\, because of the tide fluctuations that we have here that allows them. It would still be visible because we go out to a negative one or negative 2 tides sometimes. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it gives them enough water most of the time that they’re mostly covered at that 0. So there are certain areas where we might explore having them. The if you can see my mouse kind of this area\, upper left \nYerba Buena SX80: corner is a potential site where we’re the existing topography brings us pretty close to the 0 contour \nYerba Buena SX80: but in these other areas\, further upshore\, or I don’t know what the right term is. But basically we’re up at elevations 1\, 2 or 3\, even though it is showing inundated right? Because our high waters at around 5 right? But at those hires elevations \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s just a mud flat\, and so the it may just not be the best place for the oysters\, but we are exploring them on or along the the marine way. Wall. So I think the Catherine is asking specifically about\, although elevation elevations change effectively. Due to sea level rise. So in 30 years\, elevation 0 is what I mean\, it will look like 0 \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s right now\, elevation 3 or whatever\, and that if you do it now\, the oysters can kind of walk their way up the slope as sea level rise occurs. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that how does that fit with what you just said? What you just described? \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, well again. We’re\, you know\, we recently met with her\, and and we’re looking at opportunities to \nYerba Buena SX80: try to incorporate them if possible. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Grace\, any more hands. Thank you. \nI do have one more. It might be the same caller\, but I’m not sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hello! For the record. Please state your name and affiliation. You have 3 min. \nAutopoiesis LLC: Yes\, thank you so much. This is Katherine Langstein. I appreciate the team and meeting with me\, and I just wanted to say that we’re exploring\, not reef balls. \nAutopoiesis LLC: but oyster reefs that are created through bag shell. \nAutopoiesis LLC: And I think that that’s something that \nAutopoiesis LLC: that might change the elevation in our favour. So thank you for her listening. Appreciate it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Catherine lists our \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you guys have other \nYerba Buena SX80: respond to what you just said? Is that still part of your discussion\, same as what you’re doing. Yeah\, I would say that we’re still\, you know\, trying to evaluate. If if it’s a possibility at our our project site\, you know\, I just wanna comment on this if I can. I was thinking the same thing. I mean most of the oyster work in the bay is with these \nYerba Buena SX80: cast structures where the reef falls\, or castles\, or whatever but you know\, in other parts of the world. \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe historically\, in the bay there were reefs\, or\, or\, you know\, just benthic type coverings of of oysters\, and maybe the rocks that are part of the design could be \nYerba Buena SX80: a substrate. I don’t know. I’m not a biologist\, but you know what she said sounded like it. It might be a little more feasible \nYerba Buena SX80: than if you’re placing a refall\, which is\, you know\, has some high to it. The one thing I would say is\, you probably don’t want the oysters where people are gonna walk like at the bottom of the \nYerba Buena SX80: gravel beach. I mean assuming somebody might walk out there. I mean\, it’s not too bad if if if you know they’re there. But you really don’t want to step on oysters\, I don’t think that would. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it’s it’s gonna be a balance between public use and and kayaks are entering\, and it could be potentially entering from the floating dock and the gravel beach\, so we don’t want them to \nYerba Buena SX80: impede on on \nYerba Buena SX80: fe potential future future oyster habitat. Yeah\, we are also looking at possibly incorporating oyster shells into the marine way. Walls to kind of try to increase the habitat on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks\, Grace. Any more now. Okay\, no more hands in the audience here and no more hands online. \nSo then we will move on to board. Discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: to start\, please raise your hand\, turn on your mic. Make sure your camera is on while you’re speaking. And Bob stuck his hand up first and Remine is \nYerba Buena SX80: right behind him. Okay\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I just would like a \nYerba Buena SX80: I have an echo. or do. I thought I had an echo. Now I don’t \nBill Holmes: alright. \nYerba Buena SX80: You do. I do. Somebody does. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. How was that somebody else has a microphone \nYerba Buena SX80: or somebody. How’s their \nYerba Buena SX80: your computer? \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s unmuted. \nYerba Buena SX80: The volunteers is not safe. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not using my computer audio. So it’s not me. So now it sounds okay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: well. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I just. I’m \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like. So I think\, just to cut to the chase. Probably I will suggest that recommend that \nYerba Buena SX80: supervision and adaptive management of operational restrictions to occur\, due to wave action that induces float motions and the high water levels that inundate the lower peer deck and flows. So that’s kind of not worded that. Well\, but basically I \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I guess we could ask for some sort of analysis of the float motions during certain wave conditions\, and have a better understanding of \nYerba Buena SX80: what level of wave action 10\, year 20 year 50 year type wave action would induce float motions that aren’t really \nYerba Buena SX80: appropriate for public access. If that’s the case\, in in which case. \nYerba Buena SX80: perhaps the public shouldn’t have free access to the \nYerba Buena SX80: floats and and or if it’s flooded\, and and then and then so what would you do about it? And that would be some sort of management of the operational conditions. But I think\, in lieu of asking for a whole study and stuff\, and and realizing that the designs not complete yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: an alternative would be to \nYerba Buena SX80: expect that that would be addressed in the design \nYerba Buena SX80: and or in the operational management\, or the management of operational conditions\, which would be some sort of closure or other \nYerba Buena SX80: approach which could be adaptively managed. which might be more practical\, I don’t know\, so I just throw that out there\, but I think I do have a concern about having a float that far out \nYerba Buena SX80: where the waves could be. Get to the point where somebody might fall off. \nYerba Buena SX80: or you know something like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would the team like to respond to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I’ll just. I can note that we will have a just a a kind of chain at the very top here\, next to the boat house before you start the entering the first kind of fixed pier which can be managed. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know when. Yeah\, we can. We? We’ve discussed with our operations and maintenance that. \nYerba Buena SX80: we will need to adaptive or do some sort of adaptive management depending on on how this is \nYerba Buena SX80: how the how you know what happens after it’s built? But we are currently having a chain\, a chain put in so that we could close it off. We went back and forth with having a chain or a gate\, and you know\, if someone wants to jump over\, they’re gonna jump over\, no matter what it is so we thought that we would put a chain in for now\, and and sign it if needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: depending on the situation. So\, Bob\, is that sufficient? Or do you need something more than that? No\, I think it’s I mean\, the risk is on the city \nYerba Buena SX80: and others\, and you know so \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel like they’re aware of it and motivated to deal with it. So I don’t have any. So I think we’re on record. Now. \nYerba Buena SX80: be being aware of the concerns and having a a response. So I think maybe that’s out. Thank you \nYerba Buena SX80: for me \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you all for for your presentation the. I heard some words that I needed clarification in my mind. \nYerba Buena SX80: I heard performance base. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then I heard response. I heard pushover analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anytime history type\, any response history analysis. So it’s basically a spectral type analysis. So I don’t know if that \nYerba Buena SX80: qualifies as performance based type approach or not. But so that that’s one thing. \nand the other thing is in my mind. I’m I’m very surprised. \nYerba Buena SX80: considering the soft conditions out there\, that such high pgas were used for the compaction. Evaluation mean your grand response analyses computes almost half of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m I’m I’m kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: little unclear on that. You can use a code value. I guess it’s really high. But since you have done all the site specific evaluations\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: it begs the question\, what is the impact? And does it need this level of of perhaps ground notification that you’re considering the other \nYerba Buena SX80: So in other words\, they may be over conservative attenuation of the ground motions. Not only that\, also\, considering that this interbedded sand and clay\, the the lower below the fill\, \nYerba Buena SX80: doesn’t seem to me based on the results from your boring logs. \nYerba Buena SX80: that is \nYerba Buena SX80: as potentially liquifiable as as you have \nYerba Buena SX80: considered it\, especially with very low. It seems to me residual strength that you’re assigning? \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think \nYerba Buena SX80: you should take a look at that and see if if that’s really justified. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what is the basis really more than anything. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure\, thanks. So I think actually\, the \nYerba Buena SX80: we have some layers of the lico fiber layers. It’s very thin in that interbedded sand below the young bay mode. \nYerba Buena SX80: The below counts. I think it was in high teens \nYerba Buena SX80: even though in most cases was in on the top twenties or thirties. That portion was not Nico fibro. \nYerba Buena SX80: but for the those areas which was high teens\, it turns out to be liquor fiber by by procedures that we followed there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. Then the next follow up question would be like\, for example\, in your \nYerba Buena SX80: ideologic section DD plate 5 d. In your report. I think it’s part of the presentation. Yeah\, right there. Yeah\, that’s what. So so that layer is about \nYerba Buena SX80: 20 feet or so thick \nYerba Buena SX80: and at least based on \nYerba Buena SX80: based on table you provided you’re assigning a residual strength of 400 Psf. To that layer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that what was used in your evaluations? \nYerba Buena SX80: Let me see what was the I have the porting logs for the right. \nYerba Buena SX80: so you can see that we have \nYerba Buena SX80: some below counts in the order of like 20\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s all been potentially liquefy with the upper portion of it is very \nYerba Buena SX80: dance. I mean\, it’s not even dense. It’s medium dance\, because that’s their moth\, Cal. So we have to multiply it by point 6 to get the Sbt values. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s that’s about high twenties. But as it goes down it’s it is turning all everything to potentially lico fibro. And I think it gets clear\, too. \nSo \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it\, it begs the question whether or not it’s the look of action issues\, especially in that deeper layer\, is as \nYerba Buena SX80: severe. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if so\, there’s some sense in which us as representing public agency that’s looking out for the health and safety of of the public. They’re they’ve got health and safety. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe beyond what is. you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, they got some conservatism that’s not perhaps even needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: But we’re not objecting to it being unsafe. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not objecting to being unsafe. I’m just saying \nYerba Buena SX80: what is the basis? This is an engineering review board. So you’re reviewing engineering criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we are just following the procedures by Oringer and Itris for triggering the licoaction. And for that particular layer. It seems to be trigger. It may not be \nYerba Buena SX80: everywhere. \nYerba Buena SX80: but when we are designing for the pies we are\, we are kind of designing it based on that particular wonder. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what\, when one way to look at it\, pre perhaps\, is \nYerba Buena SX80: blow count sampling doesn’t account for thin layer correction. Very well. You can get one low blow\, count and it looks like it’s 5 feet thick on your the way you want applies it\, whereas if you look at that back as a \nYerba Buena SX80: Cpt\, you might see that it’ll look okay. There are some sequential \nYerba Buena SX80: thin zones that are\, you know\, 12 inches thick\, but but they’re inner\, interlayered\, interfingered\, and so on\, and so \nYerba Buena SX80: some of that can go away frequently with \nYerba Buena SX80: others. Seelick\, you can. You can get rid of that off and get rid of much of that. I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: oops it has. There’s some some other newer methods as well. yeah. Actually\, if you look at the boring B 9. Also\, you will see that \nYerba Buena SX80: we have some layers with the teens. I mean\, not even low teens a blow counting there. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I looked at B 9 to my so even better in d 9. Now\, one thing I would like you to comment on. \nYerba Buena SX80: because it does say\, this has gravels in it. Hmm. If \nYerba Buena SX80: you are from your judgment\, considering that your blow counts in a small sampler\, is\, is elevated artificially because of presence of gravel. That’s one thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I didn’t see any statement to that effect in in the\, in the report that qualifies or the the particular blow counts in that sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, I go back to also\, like faction evaluation based on PGA values which I don’t think are reasonable for the conditions you have\, and your own analysis is showing it too. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? So if you look at the blow counts in B 9 30 feet. We have \nYerba Buena SX80: 21\, \nYerba Buena SX80: at 35\, we have 10\, \nYerba Buena SX80: at 40\, we have 15. There’s a very low blow down for that. That depth. \nYerba Buena SX80: Get into this type. Right? Those are pretty clean sounds. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s about 15 feet of I mean \nYerba Buena SX80: it\, says Clay. Lens in in. \nYerba Buena SX80: So should based on your own boring bonds. It has a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: perhaps finer material and plays and sils that reduces the blowcast and potentially is not as severe in terms of look of action\, behavior\, and all of that just suggesting that it seems to me to be overly conservative\, assigning \nYerba Buena SX80: these very low values to to this \nYerba Buena SX80: fairly thick layer \nYerba Buena SX80: have to? Very good. I ran out of battery. So I have to plug in. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So when they go with their setting a performance criteria for the ground treatment for the Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, is this conservative assumption mean that they’ll they will over treat they over treat the soil \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s probably not related to whether needs to be treated or not\, because the treatment is\, I think\, primarily for bay mud\, which is not a liquid faction issue. It’s a softness\, weakness\, compressibility\, issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: we are not doing sole improvement for the co-faction purposes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think the suggestion from remine is that you take this under consideration\, and go back and take a look. And that seems like a reasonable thing to me is to take it back and take it under consideration and \nYerba Buena SX80: and and re-look at it and \nYerba Buena SX80: as a as a role of in our role of protecting the public\, I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: if you leave it where it is. \nYerba Buena SX80: With respect to this comment\, at least\, you’re on the conservative safe. Public is protected side of things\, and so we wouldn’t object necessarily. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s maybe more conservatives necessary. Maybe it’s gonna cost more money than necessary. Maybe it doesn’t make that much difference\, after all. But \nYerba Buena SX80: but I think if you consider it again. \nYerba Buena SX80: city and county of San Francisco is a public entity as well. So that’s public funds as well. So \nYerba Buena SX80: not representing them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. \nYerba Buena SX80: See\, Bob\, I think your hand is still residually left up. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’ll lower my hand. II was mistaken. Thank you? And I think Gail is up next. \nOkay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Could you go to? I think it’s slide 25 that has the elevation of the pier with all the structures. \nYerba Buena SX80: Elevation one. That \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, that that one right there. Few questions for me on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: the gangways that connect the peers. \nYerba Buena SX80: What’s the what’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: intent for? How those are attached \nto the pure structures? \nYerba Buena SX80: Will they be attached on one side with the Slider roller on the other end? \nYerba Buena SX80: I can’t turn my camera on\, because it’s it. But yeah. So they’re basically pinned on the top. And then for the first 2 gangways\, so that for segment. They are on like Uhw pads\, because they’re not expecting much movement. And then the next ones are on rollers. Okay? So each one of them is attached\, one roll in the other. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: So in the. in the basis of design. when they talk about the the design as a the design of the pure and and intermediate landings. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a mention of one of the steps is to develop actual deck displacements at the 4 corners of the deck \nYerba Buena SX80: corresponding to displacement\, demand to verify that the seismic gap is adequate. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I didn’t understand what was being checked when they said seismic gap. \nYerba Buena SX80: because I think what needs to be checked is to make sure that if you get \nYerba Buena SX80: differential movement where the 2 piers are or 2 structures are going different directions. you wanna make sure you just have a large enough seat that you’re not \nYerba Buena SX80: dropping your gangway into the water. So that’s agreed. Yes\, and this is actually well\, there’s the gangways\, but then there’s also the land side\, right there’s a gap. There’s a small gap. Well\, there’s like 12 inches there. Gap right there where the arrow is that that’s allowed to move well\, between the pier and the. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s to avoid pounding. And then there’s also a plate. Then I assume. That’s over. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So I just think for all of these interfaces. I think you need to consider \nYerba Buena SX80: moving apart from each other and just make sure that you’re not going to lose. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So that I think that just needs to be added as a specific criteria because it wasn’t clear \nYerba Buena SX80: on a related issue you mentioned about these things \nYerba Buena SX80: actually being underwater at some point further down. Is that right? The last gangway\, maybe underwater. So I think\, then\, is\, is anyone looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: these actually become buant and potentially uplift and come off. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have not looked at that\, but I think I think you just need to look at an uplift condition from buoyancy. and you can just probably detail it with stops of some kind of passive restraints. But anything that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: going underwater that’s not designed for it. You gotta look at the buoyancy uplift. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then the last comment I had was that \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen\, one of your one of the questions had to do with instrumentation. And I think there’s a requirement for \nYerba Buena SX80: seismic instrumentation on a new project. And \nYerba Buena SX80: you guys are aware of that. I assume II know that they did that at Treasure Island. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And you need to interface with Cgs on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And they’ve they’ve had a lot of personnel changes there. \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think Jen can \nYerba Buena SX80: make sure you have the right person to talk to. I don’t. I don’t know if if I don’t\, I don’t know that there’s any special features on this that require \nYerba Buena SX80: any any fancy monitoring of multiple instruments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would think just some free field. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s free field. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: Accelerometers would be good enough. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any anybody else have any opinions on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jim\, or no \nYerba Buena SX80: anything special that you see\, II don’t think the peer needs anything. I think \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s anything with the Dsm. That needs any special. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, okay. So just \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll trust Staff to take your making sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s done. Then \nYerba Buena SX80: just that they need to interface with Cgs for for monitoring seismic instrumentation. And it should be fairly minimal here. \nYerba Buena SX80: No special things that we think are. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, need need to be addressed. There’s nothing unique about this site. Well\, I mean\, that’s one of the things that Jen\, you had reiterated in your \nYerba Buena SX80: staff summary. I think there’s some questions about \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the criteria. The Bcd see is to provide seismic instrumentation for any significant projects. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s what you’re yeah and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I’m I’m sure if Roger were here he would say\, you got to put in lots of instrumentation. This is \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m a little bit on the fence on this project. It’s relatively modest project. There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean like life. Safety is life\, safety that matters. But but as far as any structures there’s nothing very big\, it seems to me. And \nYerba Buena SX80: so yeah\, and C. And Cgs may say we have free field instruments nearby\, and there’s really no value in it. I mean\, I think that’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: discussion with them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So I’m not quite sure how that how we should attack this ability. No\, I think I think these instruments are \nYerba Buena SX80: part of a system. So if there are nearby\, then that that would say you may not need one. But if there isn’t one nearby\, then that site may\, you know\, fill in the system somehow\, so there should be some interaction. But \nYerba Buena SX80: the last time I checked in with Cgs and the engineer they’re in charge of their seismic monitoring program. They said they wanted to hear recommendations from from the Board on where the devices should go\, and that they weren’t \nYerba Buena SX80: the going to be making decisions on where it should go. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it would be beneficial to at least put one \nYerba Buena SX80: on the structures \nYerba Buena SX80: to see the peer behavior. And also where you have the \nYerba Buena SX80: fill in the bay mud. That that you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: more data is always better. So \nYerba Buena SX80: that will be my recommendation. Safer. \nYerba Buena SX80: A big time. \nYerba Buena SX80: would you say? Towards the end of the Dsm. I would assume. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. right\, cause it’s pretty long. \nYerba Buena SX80: My interest would be on the soft ground\, not on the improved ground. Okay? Because \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s an area that data is lacking. \nYerba Buena SX80: See\, I can see 3 points of interest. One would be out on the pier \nYerba Buena SX80: one would be on top of the Msc. To see how how the ground improvement \nYerba Buena SX80: strengthens and stiffens things\, changes\, periods and and amplifications. and so on\, and one would be on the soft ground. So you know what the Msc slash? Dsm. Has changed it from. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe what we do is we send this off to whoever’s handling this now with Cgs and let Jen and the team interact with with Cgs about what would be appropriate. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I’m happy to do that. \nPerfect \nYerba Buena SX80: and yes\, Skylar wants to. continue my phone. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hmm. \ncancels. \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, she actually does. But it’s not working. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gayle is still on the floor. \nSomething \nYerba Buena SX80: you guys know. So \nYerba Buena SX80: i can read it. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, no it’s not the way\, it was\, yet \nYerba Buena SX80: you are. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry we interrupted our discussion because there’s someone from the public who also wants to make a statement named Art. And if you can hear \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: We have promoted you to Speaker\, and so you can go ahead and unmute yourself and talk \nYerba Buena SX80: he’s on. He’s just\, I know. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: Awesome \nYerba Buena SX80: a chance of your opportunity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I’m I’m my comments are done. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. Are you able to get your microphone working? \nYerba Buena SX80: You see that you’ve joined the meeting \nhome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why don’t we? Oh\, Art. can you go ahead and speak? It looks like you might be unmuted. \nHmm! \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll just read the comment from art. He says\, I was watching the presentation\, and was interrupted on my end. \nYerba Buena SX80: I may have missed it\, but wanted to mention that it appears that the bfe calculations and corresponding elevation benchmarks do not include free board\, a factor of safety which typically ranges from \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 feet to 4 feet and will likely be required for final fema certification. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Is fema certification a part of this project? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, but we will confirm that we don’t think so. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. This is not a flood protection slash fema regulated \nYerba Buena SX80: project. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not. No we there. There may be requirements in the coastal floodplain management \nYerba Buena SX80: of for the project\, which perhaps\, is what the commenter \nYerba Buena SX80: is commenting on. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that would be. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. City County\, San Francisco Blood plane manager judgment \nYerba Buena SX80: on the criteria. And II don’t have it. I can’t think exactly what. Usually it’s a foot above the total water level. But there\, perhaps there’s a another one for peers. I’m not. I’m not aware of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: We can look into it and get back to you. Yeah\, okay\, thanks. Jim’s hand doesn’t show up on Zoom\, but he had his hand up. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Cameron\, I have a few questions for you. \nYerba Buena SX80: where you describe the the materials as heterogeneous. So \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s a lot of variability\, especially in the film. But I see that you just have a single \nYerba Buena SX80: value for the strength of these materials which are really \nYerba Buena SX80: variable. \nYerba Buena SX80: how did you decide on just a single valley for \nYerba Buena SX80: potentially variable properties for these layers? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, so essentially\, the values that you are looking at is mostly for the peers. So it’s a closest poring\, using the closest boring\, and then we use the closest poring for the you know that we encounter feeling there \nYerba Buena SX80: off offshore boarding. Of course we didn’t have feel. \nYerba Buena SX80: but for the onshore we use a conservative value for that field material that we had in there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, my camera is not. Unfortunately\, I’m not appearing. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, so\, but you have the fell for the slope stability analysis that you did also\, right where you interface for the Msc wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: you did some slopes. That’s an engineer field that we are. Gonna place it. Oh\, it’s engineered. Yes\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. So what kind of material are you looking to specify for \nYerba Buena SX80: that? Engineered Phil. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry I couldn’t hear. What material are you looking to specify for the engineered Phil. Well\, I mean\, typically\, we are just going to. I think they are going to put maybe more granular granular material there \nYerba Buena SX80: and compact it to minimum 90%. That’s what they are planning to do\, I think. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So when you talk about the contiguousness of the liquefibles\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: were you talking? Is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: which layer is that referring to this is the existing field\, the existing fill. Okay? And I think you’ve concluded that \nYerba Buena SX80: they are not contiguous. Correct. The Leco fibrill layers are not necessary. \nYerba Buena SX80: continues. They are localized mostly. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also we have a revet revett man next to the road that also prevent the movement there also. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. You are thinking of using line treatment to for your Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this a dry or where? No\, it’s a wet okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright wet\, quick climber. hydrated lyme hydrated lime\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. alright and I think you mentioned that you wanted tangential. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, because this is essentially providing a bearing for the material on the top. Then we wanted to have tangential with a Geo grid \nYerba Buena SX80: on on top of it there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I mean\, why not see cats? Because. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I mean\, you have this stiff material \nYerba Buena SX80: that you want to act together. You want them to act together. Right? Are you opposed to using a see? Can? I’m not opposed to using? Okay? Yeah. Because the way I see it is that the whole system. \nYerba Buena SX80: Your Msc wall. then this. Dsm. it’s kind of like a stress magnet. you know\, within the matrix of\, you know. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: failure\, loose material\, soft material\, and so it would tend to attract forces to it. Understand? So as as best as you can\, you want it to interlock them. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: listen. So I’m curious\, Jimo. If it was \nYerba Buena SX80: If they’re doing Dsm cells or Dsm wall\, then seek an overlapping is is critical because but they’re filling in the entire mass. I think right\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s there’s all the circles are bumped into all the circles. \nYerba Buena SX80: so there’s not really wide open spaces\, so so is\, seek it quite as important when they’re when they have a mass bill rather than just a you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: filling in\, you know\, creating Dsm cells. Well\, I mean the the what is good to happen is that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know these are going to be install at different times. Right? So by the time you \nYerba Buena SX80: do the next one\, you know\, one is already queued\, and so\, I think getting everything to add together \nYerba Buena SX80: because it’s acting as a stress magnet is is beneficial to the overall response of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, let’s see what else I have here. \nYerba Buena SX80: so II mean\, I know. Jen mentioned. You know whether there’s a need for data or \nYerba Buena SX80: Gadarin or not. But the way that then\, that I see might be useful \nYerba Buena SX80: is actually to monitor displacement\, especially. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, near the interface of the fell. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and this what I call the system\, the Msc. Wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the Dsm. Wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: So something like an in kilometer\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: at that location would kind of give you an idea of what is happening. you know\, between \nYerba Buena SX80: the stress magnet and the material\, you know\, on offshore to the onshore side \nYerba Buena SX80: of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: doing about for earthquake displacements\, or for during construction displacements. Well\, earthquake\, earthquake displacement\, especially \nYerba Buena SX80: So you want an interanometer between the Msc and the infield in the walkway. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So because you will see what is happening. Any kind of displacement is going to be happening \nYerba Buena SX80: more on the onshore side of that of that system. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s that’s it for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hi\, Nick. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, thank you. If you would be kind enough with slide 20 \nYerba Buena SX80: on there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And really my comment follows the the discussion on the clean on how to instrument this. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would submit that if you look at this you have a outline of a basic ferry remains. You have bunch of different structures here. \nYerba Buena SX80: I do not see a place that \nYerba Buena SX80: one could place a seismic instrument that one could then actually interpret the results with any kind of useful \nYerba Buena SX80: way. However\, as Jima mentioned\, and inclinometer. \nYerba Buena SX80: or possibly a fiber optic \nYerba Buena SX80: in there\, because that gives you continuous response and can even manage size. Me. \nYerba Buena SX80: would be a really good implementation and call Francis working on it\, and I know Cgs is working some. Some displacement measurement would be better. And these days \nYerba Buena SX80: why.is cheap. \nYerba Buena SX80: Light out before\, and afterwards we’ll give you the \nYerba Buena SX80: ground displacement very nicely as well. So there! There are alternatives. I just \nYerba Buena SX80: from the We. We started with question of instrumentation\, and we promptly went up to possibly 3 instruments\, and I am racking my head. Where would I put a useful instrument in here that one could actually interpret the results based on the complexity of the different structures \nYerba Buena SX80: and the ground conditions. So my recommendation would be to be cautious on putting a lot of effort into instrumentation \nYerba Buena SX80: but displacement measurements would be incredibly valuable. But we we lack those in general along the day margins. \nYerba Buena SX80: That that’s that’s my comment. Otherwise\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: any thoughts. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we will look into putting displacement\, measuring devices right? That makes sense \nYerba Buena SX80: where? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, it’s too much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Or if it’s something that that happens \nYerba Buena SX80: that the monitoring could happen manually in different locations and doesn’t necessarily need to happen continuously with instrumentation. That’s something that we’ve also manual. And Nick’s fiber optic can be remotely monitor. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: but there are digital and phenomena still. I mean\, where you have senses till tilt senses\, and you can actually monitor them remotely. Use this solar kind of system. And can \nYerba Buena SX80: we did in that time. \nYerba Buena SX80: So no power required just this whole thing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and busy after earthquakes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Jim. Yeah\, thank you all for your work on this project. I look forward to visiting the park when when it’s completed. My questions will be coastal\, related. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just first one quick follow up. On Bob’s comment about the floating deck. I mean\, in addition to the motions of that deck you mentioned. It’s a low\, free board \nYerba Buena SX80: decks\, so there’s also a potential for waves splashing up on it\, which could also be a safety hazard. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then on the comment about free board and fema accreditation\, I think\, as Jim noted. The fema accreditation is not applicable\, probably cause this is not a flood protection structure. \nYerba Buena SX80: not to say that consideration of free board is not\, you know\, bad idea. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think the place to look would be the city’s flip plan\, management ordinance \nYerba Buena SX80: although that probably relates more to buildings than these kind of public access features. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some \nYerba Buena SX80: but kind of on that topic of free board. A lot of the the design flood elevations \nYerba Buena SX80: primarily represent\, like a still water elevation without the effective wave run up and so I just wanted to note that \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the discussion of like the timing of inundation and impacts due to sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know that. You know\, if there are wave events\, those could impact those elevations sooner than is kind of laid out here. And so for some of those lower elevation areas\, you could have events that would splash up\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: so that you know those surfaces should be able to accommodate that kind of overtopping and scour of any pathways and things like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then \nYerba Buena SX80: on the \nYerba Buena SX80: the marine way\, wall\, II guess I’m just still kinda struck me as like\, what’s the the primary purpose of that? Is it to contain that gravel beach fill? Because it\, you know\, it’s a big\, substantial structure. And I was like\, wait is the only purpose of this to sort of prop this beach up is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: primary function? \nYerba Buena SX80: So it it’s not just the gravel shore. Sorry I’m looking for a plan so essentially our \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, there’s there’s a design intent here that we didn’t go through because we wanted to focus on the engineering components. But overall the Marine Way lawn is a major design feature of this park that continues all the way down to the gravel shore and the water. And this was really this came out of our earlier concept design that we shared with the community\, and it really resonated with the community because of \nYerba Buena SX80: the fact that this provided that generous space and view down to the water. And really and it’s kind of gesture and \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of openness really emphasize that connection down to the water and that welcoming down to the water. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s that whole kind of design move all the way down with the pathways\, which are also actually a reference and a little bit of an abstraction to the boatyard history of 900\, and with. You know the marine rails that pulled up\, you know. You pull up boats on those like marine rails right? Which are much smaller than this. \nBut that’s the idea behind it. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s where this came from in terms of its geometry and design. And but yes\, it does hold the gravel shore and that portion of the lawn\, allowing it to be that continuous \nYerba Buena SX80: welcome\, Matt\, down to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: It also does serve other purposes\, though\, because if we you know\, if the Bay City Ferry directly kind of to the east of that\, there’s a an artifact in the water that we can’t kind of fill over or penetrate through. And so that kind of limited us on that edge of you know\, what could we do? Kind of outboard of that? \nYerba Buena SX80: We also obviously wanted to minimize fill. So this is basically the solution we determined that would kind of meet all those program and community goals while minimizing fill and \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of\, you know\, maintaining that the basic artifact where it was obviously so thank you. That makes sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: The reason I was asking is just \nYerba Buena SX80: for Pcdc’s question about the potential hydrodynamic impacts of the wall. You talked a little bit about wave reflection. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this is also sort of like a \nYerba Buena SX80: a jetty sticking out into the water\, and with \nYerba Buena SX80: tattle currents\, you know\, it could cause some interesting dynamics there. So I think I don’t know if there’s been any \nYerba Buena SX80: assessment of sort of how that \nYerba Buena SX80: structure could affect the circulation and that area. And you mentioned that \nYerba Buena SX80: this remnant ship\, and it sounds like that portion of the shoreline is not armored. So at the end of the combination of \nYerba Buena SX80: the tidal circulation and waves reflecting off the wall that could be like a vulnerable spot in the shoreline that could be exposed to erosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the drawings as they are now. \nYerba Buena SX80: my understanding is we couldn’t do anything on where the ship is. But actually it turns out that we can regrade. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the plan is to fix the armoring. That is there. So there will be shoreline protection. Whether this the \nYerba Buena SX80: ship artifacts. because we yeah\, we did see that as a \nYerba Buena SX80: and I just want to \nYerba Buena SX80: rip\, wrap\, slope that’s currently there will effectively maintain grading and re establish the rock. But we still are not filling or placing anything over the part that’s in the water. Because there’s it’s kind of a big boat. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And then just one last question\, there was mention of a 50 Year design wave\, looking at the loading on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: It just looking at the wind and kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: knowing the wave dynamics it. It feels like going up to like a hundred year design wave probably would not be that much bigger\, but might give you a little bit additional factor of safety\, or just wondering \nYerba Buena SX80: why a 50 year Wave condition was selected as opposed to a hundred year. Design condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey\, Mads\, are you still on the call? \nYerba Buena SX80: I am. Yes. Can you answer that question? I think you’re the best suited for it? \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Er yes. I think that is correct. Yeah\, that a current year wave exposure would not be significant. Higher in the 50 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: they tend to sort of taper off \nMads Jorgensen M&N: but I think the 50 year is a consideration of maybe 100 year \nMads Jorgensen M&N: in the perspective of that is\, and maybe too conservative. even the life of these types of structures. And there’s maintenance\, too. So I think\, putting in these dark state \nMads Jorgensen M&N: probably wouldn’t \nMads Jorgensen M&N: last\, for I’m not a talk expert\, but they probably wouldn’t last for 4 years or longer without some \nMads Jorgensen M&N: significant amount of maintenance of replacement along the way. and \nMads Jorgensen M&N: I think that’s the idea behind that. \nYerba Buena SX80: But in in addition to the docks\, I think the 50 year wave was used for the wave loading \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the wall\, which presumably could last longer than 40 years. Yeah\, but\, Shawn\, correct me if I’m wrong\, but I don’t believe wave loading \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the war would govern. It’s pushing in that material behind it. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, it it would govern\, that was. That’s one of the main loads that we’re using. On the wall. Matt is the waylock\, because it’s not really retaining any soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the the wave load is one of the main. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess. \nYerba Buena SX80: out of that it probably would make sense to look at a little bit longer. Design or design wave. Yeah\, at least check it. See what the sensitivity of the design is to the 100 year. That’s fair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it may not. Okay. Thank you. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Yeah. II would just comment\, too\, that I think for the case with \nMads Jorgensen M&N: there would be substantial or significant. A wave loading on the wall would be high \nMads Jorgensen M&N: water level condition\, right so\, but then for the exposed portion that would be. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: there’d be water behind the wall\, too. Is that right\, Shawn? So \nMads Jorgensen M&N: you have a high study pressure on the back side of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s true. But there’s still the impact load from the wave. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: Yeah\, but that would then be \nMads Jorgensen M&N: discontinuous along the wall right so where you would have a \nMads Jorgensen M&N: a wave splashing up er in other portions of the wall there would be a wave trough\, or \nMads Jorgensen M&N: on the change in water labels\, so \nI don’t know how we applied the load\, but if we applied. \nMads Jorgensen M&N: or the 50 year wave load as a continuous line\, load along the wall. That would likely be pretty conservative. \nYerba Buena SX80: That is what we did. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, we can look at sensitivity\, at least\, to see what \nYerba Buena SX80: how much of a fix. \nYerba Buena SX80: So my hand is up\, so I’ll call on myself. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a few comments\, base\, basically nice looking presentation and overall. Well done. I think I have a few comments. Slide 10. Maybe you can cost slide 10 up. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll I’ll justify this as engineering criteria as in. We ought to follow good geological principles in in geomorphology \nYerba Buena SX80: and if you look in the the middle of those explorations at Cpt\, I guess it shows that actually the the left one to B 3 shows \nYerba Buena SX80: bay mud being at elevation 3 or 4\, it looks like\, which is probably not correct in this case. My guess is there’s some soft undocumented existing fill \nYerba Buena SX80: it won’t make any difference in analysis other than it sort of looks \nYerba Buena SX80: funny to me. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you go to the next slide slide 11\, there’s bay mud that’s above \nYerba Buena SX80: above \nYerba Buena SX80: elevation 0 also. But I think that one I can defend as as being. There’s probably a mud wave it looks like\, because bay mud is lower on the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: and when Phil was placed it may have pushed the bay mud up \nYerba Buena SX80: in that spot where it’s too high. So that seems reason why I wouldn’t change that. But anyway. \nYerba Buena SX80: nitpicky stuff just to prove that we read the materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: more substantive\, perhaps. Qc\, testing on the Dsm\, I think I read some place. There’s a pilot program planned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so that’s all good. I think I didn’t see anything\, at least about a Qc. Program for the Dsm seems like\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, 20 psi is \nYerba Buena SX80: probably pretty achievable. but it’s\, you know\, if it’s what your assumptions are\, you need to document somehow\, that not just in the pilot program\, but that you have some sort of a Qc. I think it needs to be emphasized somewhere in \nYerba Buena SX80: the reports that Qc. On the Dsms. Is important. \nYerba Buena SX80: Along the same lines. I guess I in the drawings it looks like Dsm\, kind of is sitting on top of what’s the bottom? That’s rock\, I think right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And it seems like there should be some discussions at least you probably wanna tow a foot into it or 2 feet into it. I’m not sure how you know that you’re on top of bedrock unless you push hard enough to grind into it a little bit. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so probably some discussion about how you know that you’re in bedrock\, when how you know you’ve reached the maximum depth required for the Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just document that it’s required that you you feel the rock and add a foot or 2 or something like that doesn’t need to be a lot\, I think. But \nYerba Buena SX80: settlement\, I think. Cameron\, you said that you might get a couple of feet of settlement under the Msc. Which is why you’re putting the Dsm. In. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the fill behind the Mse is almost as high\, so presumably the settlement of the fill behind the Mse would still be something like 2 or 3 feet\, and I didn’t see that discussed any place \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s gonna affect \nYerba Buena SX80: may affect drainage may affect \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean the grading it. I mean it more than a few inches. You’re gonna start to affect the way sidewalks cross it or way drainage happens the way things pond behind the Msc. Wall. If it rains heavily. Something \nYerba Buena SX80: curious. \nYerba Buena SX80: How if that’s how that\, how that has been addressed since I was one of the 5 critical geote Geo technical issues. I didn’t really see that addressed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, thank you. So definitely\, we will do the pilot program for Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: During the pilot program. We will develop some sort of the Qc. Also that to go with it there \nYerba Buena SX80: the athletes to fit into the bedrock. We were thinking that maybe have one foot\, but then we during the pilot program\, we will develop some sort of the pressure that they have to place it there\, or the dragging\, and everything’s there. \nWe do\, of course\, getting some course \nYerba Buena SX80: during for that and test it\, and and during the courting we can figure out that if they are penetrating into the bedrock or not. That so all that sounds good. I’m just saying that should be documented. I didn’t see it. Maybe I didn’t read everything word for word through all your large presentation\, it will all gonna be into the project specifications there for the Dsl. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So anyway. So I think what your plan is sounds good\, but just documented in in the geotech report\, or in the drawings\, or someplace. Jim\, could I follow up on something you said? Were you saying that you’re concerned about the settlement where the gravel is being placed between the \nYerba Buena SX80: in the kind of marine railway. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the gravel beach\, or the \nYerba Buena SX80: whatever is behind the Msc. Which is not just gravel\, is\, it’s oh\, there’s some engineered filling behind. Yeah\, you know. I was wondering a little bit about that\, too\, in terms of placing the engineer. So down in the lower parts where you it’s kind of low or inner title. \nYerba Buena SX80: and as I guess there’d have to be some sort of coffee damning or something. But \nYerba Buena SX80: There was a project just recently across the way at Haron’s Head\, where gravel was placed on\, on mud and fill. and on the on the mud. There were places where it it\, you know\, sank immediately\, and there are little mud waves and mud boils and interesting things. So that is something to be aware of. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if that if you’re placing a lot of Phil\, is it? Is it going? It must be going directly over bay mud\, in some places at least\, right\, and so the whole bay\, the whole mud wave criteria should be addressed and talked about pretty carefully. And you know\, research that because there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: lots of old experience about \nYerba Buena SX80: placing thick fills on top of bay mud and developing mud waves where\, you know\, you can get multiple feet of settlement at the beginning of the fill. And then multiple feet of heave in front of where the fill is being placed\, and then you place it in it. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: Much of the time it may not matter\, but it may have impact on stability analysis\, if the mud wave is happening under the toe bubbles upright. Yeah\, but it. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, obviously. to some extent\, once that happens\, you have something that continues to move as you place more fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’m not a Geo. Technical expert\, soft and bay mud strength instead of sensitive strengths which are weak but but not softened. \nYerba Buena SX80: What? He said\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So so probably should be some discussion about mud wave prevention\, you know. Start with some thin levels of layers of fill to try and get it all held down. And \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe you even need to. Hmm. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe you can potentially put geote textiles that may not prevent ways from happening\, or I mean\, for the first few lifts at least\, the geotext. I won’t help it would help after you get the \nYerba Buena SX80: the first couple of lifts\, and if you put the geotextile under the first couple of lists. it’ll help for the subsequent lists. \nYerba Buena SX80: But so there should be probably some discussion about how to prevent mud ways from happening. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure\, yes\, we will. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s what I had for new stuff\, Jen\, did you want to talk about combined that email you sent me just before the meeting. Did you want us to talk about it? \nThanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: the app can ask me\, we are unclear as to which scenarios\, with both earthquake and flooding\, should be analyzed\, and what analysis should be. Request is being requested to the ecrb. Please expand on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh. \nthat’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, take that back. Strike that from the record. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: any other new topics. And we’ll talk about what needs to be required. If we’re gonna have any requirements to add to what you said about the \nYerba Buena SX80: mud wave\, I mean\, you can also consider the use of lightweight material right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Reduce the thickness of the pill \nfor lightweight. My techno\, we have to just make sure it doesn’t coming up. But yeah\, like\, maybe lightweight aggregate or something like that. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: or what’s been used most reliably in the bay mud. Marginsville is municipal waste. \nYerba Buena SX80: The one thing about the lightweight. That was an engineering joke. \nYerba Buena SX80: One thing I like but about the the lightweight aggregate. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not gonna be as stable under way. So the upper layers probably have to be a denser gravel\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: the aggregate is going to have to be sized so appropriately for the way of exposure given if if it has a lower density. But I think your coastal folks can sort that out. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t see any other comments from the Ecr\, go ahead\, Katherine. Yeah\, I just had a clarifying question. From our team here related to the monitoring. We just wanna understand. Is the monitoring a requirement \nYerba Buena SX80: for the project because it may influence our design? Or is it monitoring for \nYerba Buena SX80: another kind of purpose? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, the seismic monitoring which is within the purview of the Ecrb \nYerba Buena SX80: is for the benefit of the future. Science and \nYerba Buena SX80: ongoing profession. \nYerba Buena SX80: monitoring of displacement \nYerba Buena SX80: is you know\, it’s not as not an explicitly \nYerba Buena SX80: mandated direction or not a directive that we have as the ecrb and it probably won’t change your design because you won’t find out about the displacements till after the fact. \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure. And you know\, II \nYerba Buena SX80: we we can discuss it amongst the board here. Somebody wants to chime in\, whether we have the authority to require that sort of a thing\, because it won’t change the design\, and it won’t protect things right now. There’s some good ideas. There’s some interest\, there’s some\, you know\, potentially\, if we think there’s really gonna be some hazard and life safety types of things \nYerba Buena SX80: that are gonna be moving. We wanna know about it early in the deformation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey\, Joe? If I if I understood the question. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re asking whether. if I understood the question you were asking whether it’s something that’s gonna meant to influence a structural designer. If it’s just something you’re required to do for other purposes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that really what \nYerba Buena SX80: cause? I mean? I think you\, I think you and and was it\, Jim? Sorry? Yeah. Understood the question correctly. It’s just basically\, yeah\, yeah\, it’s trying to. It’s it’s really not. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every project has to has to. It’s like an opportunity for the state to increase our seismic network. So really\, that’s why you’re being \nYerba Buena SX80: required to do it. It’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: to change what you’re doing on your project. But it does affect your project. Obviously\, because \nYerba Buena SX80: you have to accommodate it. And there are issues\, especially with power and things like that. So it’s it\, can’t. It can be a \nYerba Buena SX80: you. You wanna be careful in how you how you do it. You know you don’t want it to become a \ntoo huge of a burden that it \nYerba Buena SX80: drives everyone nuts\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: in in general\, I don’t have in front of me the language that gives us the directive to implement ground monitoring. But my recollection is on the way. We’ve always done it in my. \nYerba Buena SX80: however\, many years as I’ve been on the the ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s been to put in accelerometers. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, site response\, type of instrumentation. And I don’t know that we’ve ever \nYerba Buena SX80: required \nYerba Buena SX80: inclinometers physical or or \nYerba Buena SX80: fiber \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’m not sure if \nYerba Buena SX80: where that fits. \nSee? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, thank you. I was gonna mention there\, we do have a safety of sales policy number 3. It says\, to provide bodily needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds of soils. \nYerba Buena SX80: Insulation of strong motion seismographs should be required on all future \nYerba Buena SX80: major landfills. In addition\, the Commission encourages insulation of strong motion seismographs and other developments on problem soils and in other areas recommended by the \nYerba Buena SX80: Us. Geological Survey for purposes of data\, comparison and evaluation \nYerba Buena SX80: displacement in there. And it was worse. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: still. So I think\, monitor. yeah. I mean\, I think the way we need to look at it\, though\, is. you know\, they are simplifying assumptions that yeah. we are making \nYerba Buena SX80: with respect to something which is is really a system. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, we break it down to make it easy to analyze. And it’s it’s food\, and to verify that the assumptions\, the way you expect this system to behave is the way it’s behaving. \nYerba Buena SX80: Because if there should be failure\, the impact is significant. Right? So you have an opportunity to react. If you see that something is happening. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think that falls on the\, you know\, kind of you can interpret that to mean that we don’t want failure. We don’t want the failure placed into fail. \nYerba Buena SX80: You don’t want to jeopardize life\, you know\, and so\, monitoring what you have put in\, based on your analysis\, I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s important \nYerba Buena SX80: it could just like remain. And then your next. I reread this sentence that includes seismographs. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think both sentences included seismographs. But I guess I’ll just read it again. So to provide vitally needed information on the effects of earthquakes on all kinds of soils. Insulation of strong motion seismographs \nYerba Buena SX80: should be required on all future major landfills. \nYerba Buena SX80: In addition\, the Commission encourages installation of strong motion seismographs in other developments on problem soils and in other areas recommended by the US. Geological Survey for purposes of data comparison. \nYerba Buena SX80: an evaluation. And I’ll put it in the chat as well. if \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I’ll do that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s see what what is your inclination? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, I’m sorry that was Nick. Nick. Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t have an objection to your \nYerba Buena SX80: proposal\, if you will\, but I think \nYerba Buena SX80: the directive is really about \nYerba Buena SX80: recording earthquakes rather than \nYerba Buena SX80: than ground deformations. Yeah\, yeah\, that’s right. And and and the other thing about \nYerba Buena SX80: your point about failure. If we’re talking about static movements of the ground being an issue\, that’s a completely different. I mean\, we we cannot have that. That’s their design should be robust enough that \nYerba Buena SX80: that issue is not \nYerba Buena SX80: even part of the discussion that should issue should be \nYerba Buena SX80: address as part of their design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I think I would just add to that\, maybe by saying\, if you agree with your design criteria. and I’m not sure additional monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m I’m not sure that that \nYerba Buena SX80: can be an additional requirement. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think there may be cases where it might be but \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure that’s the case right now. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, okay\, yeah. \nTrying to understand this. First. First of all\, I don’t see this as a major fail. \nYerba Buena SX80: It is a film. It’s not a Major. okay\, I don’t see this as a major structure. This is actually a relatively minor structure. It has impact on the shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: As we discussed. You know\, there are elements of we want it to perform as designed. Because it is in a challenging environment. You got way by action. You got title action. You got currents and all of that\, and that affects the Short Line\, and we already discussed the shoreline protection. So from the standpoint you know the question is\, do we insist on instrumentation just because we can put instruments in there? Or are we trying to get something useful \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of displacements. I was worried about seismic displacement. We have very little data on seismic displacement. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a lot of acceleration records. Of course\, you can get displacements out of acceleration records no question about it. But then II as I said\, I pointed out\, you show me where you want to put those instruments and get information that actually can be interpreted in any useful way. And that’s my concern. I know lot of lot of instrumentation in California \nYerba Buena SX80: in places that is being used that actually serves no useful purpose. When you actually look at the location of the instrument. \nYerba Buena SX80: I can name any number of dams \nYerba Buena SX80: where we have a lot of instruments that only confuse\, but don’t improve. So my concern here is\, if we’re going to put instrumentation there\, somebody should look very carefully \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s located. so that the information obtained \nYerba Buena SX80: actually serves the purpose that it’s supposed to\, which is inform about size week \nYerba Buena SX80: response. So that that would be my comment\, and frankly\, from my perspective\, II am challenged to suggest where we would put it. You can certainly put it on the breakwater and see how the breakwater behaves. But \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s a very unique situation\, anyway. And you you’re saying that about seismographs specifically commenting on strong motion instruments. You know the the thing is \nYerba Buena SX80: how to put it. You can publish it in the journal of your producable results. \nYerba Buena SX80: If that’s what we get\, then that’s not helpful. And so all I’m saying is that then very careful attention should be to put the instrument someplace where the results will actually \nYerba Buena SX80: serve to enhance the database in in a useful way. So that’s all. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what we talked about earlier was potentially having them talk with Usgs and negotiate what to put in. \nYerba Buena SX80: Would you say they don’t need to do that even\, or encourage them that they they would talk to us Usgs or Cgs\, whoever? It’s gonna yeah. Cgs\, whoever’s gonna be monitoring things. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. Brief. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anybody. Wanna speak differently than what Nick just said. It sounds reasonable to me. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we’re we we love data. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this is II mean\, so the the language that they just provided says major projects. And it says\, or other projects on problem soils\, and I think we might fall under. Not necessarily\, major fills\, although this is one of the biggest fills I’ve seen in a dozen years on the board recently\, and we don’t put any very massive fills in the bay anymore. \nYerba Buena SX80: in part because of BC. DC. Is blockade\, I suppose\, but and concern\, for you know there’s plenty of base \nYerba Buena SX80: 100 years old. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve filled in what? A third already. So I think I think it makes sense that we go on record as recommending that they talk with Cgs. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we would support whatever the Cgs \nYerba Buena SX80: would would request \nYerba Buena SX80: on this anything new. I think maybe we’re done with new topics that we can go on to figure out. What do we need to summarize for requests. And or do we want to see the project again? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll summarize what I’ve got\, I think\, so far. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, from Remine’s early comments. We wanna advise the team to re-look at some of the \nYerba Buena SX80: what? What accelerations you’re putting in to the liquid analysis and relook at \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the blow counts and susceptibility\, and you’ve already talked about discontinuity. Maybe thin layer correction would be a part of that discussion\, maybe presence or absence of gravels would be a question. \nYerba Buena SX80: No. \nYerba Buena SX80: maybe the you know\, influence of of plast plastic materials on driving blow counts down\, which make the blow counts go down\, but the plasticity itself makes them not liquifiable. So \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: summarize your concern more or less with that collection of of concerns at least\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I need for us to see it again. \nYerba Buena SX80: Or I mean\, there’s there’s 2 options I get\, I mean 3 options. We can say. \nYerba Buena SX80: do it and and resubmit it in your materials. But we don’t need to see it again. We can say\, Do it and submit it to Jen\, and she’ll distribute\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know one of us will take a look at it and say\, Yeah\, looks looks good\, or we can say no. The we\, as the Board want to see the project again. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, in my view\, is. if the conclusions and recommendations are gonna be changed because of these particularly valuations\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: for sure it has at least document has to come to us. Sure. Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that part of it would be then that we would like to have the results resubmitted whether or not it comes as before\, a regular board meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that could be potentially evaluated by staff\, I guess\, in particular\, potentially and \nYerba Buena SX80: consultation with the chair or somebody. \nYerba Buena SX80: That was point 1 \nYerba Buena SX80: art\, suggested that free board be looked at. So I think we’re gonna recommend that you look at freeboard. fema is probably rolled out. But what do you say\, Bob? Coastal Commission \nYerba Buena SX80: may have some input on free board requirements. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll I’ll let Justin respond to that. But I was thinking that the City county\, San Francisco is because of their participation in national flow insurance program would \nYerba Buena SX80: be the ones that would identify and articulate any coastal floodplain management requirements \nYerba Buena SX80: for development in the floodplain. Yeah\, it may just be a matter sort of looking at the design elevations and and the projected timing of impacts with sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: with the run up component and and just sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: discussing how your sort of sea level rise. Lifespan of the project might change with consideration of \nYerba Buena SX80: wave run up as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Could if I could just make a comment on that clarifying. I use the term total water level before and total water level in the sense of fema is the \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay water level plus the wave run-up \nYerba Buena SX80: or the wave crest above the water level. Total water level in the Bcd Sea adapting to rising tides is a slightly different definition. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m referring. And I think Justin is referring to. \nYerba Buena SX80: although it’s your fault that \nYerba Buena SX80: art doesn’t include waves. Right? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, that’s an another engineering joke. Sorry. But \nYerba Buena SX80: so we’re talking about the wave run up over and above the still water\, even though the waves are supposedly small. Your documents indicate a 3.7 or something foot wave in a 50 or one wave event. So that’s not. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Nothing. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry\, Jim. I was just trying some notes for myself. That was good. Thanks\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: a. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we had talked about inclinometers. I think we kind of established that we don’t have that’s not within our purview to require. But I think we wanna just go ahead and be documented as saying\, we think that some sort of defamation \nYerba Buena SX80: instrumentation is a cool idea. \nYerba Buena SX80: The potentially could be useful. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it is within our purview to request you at least talk with Cgs about a strong motion instrumentation\, and we have suggested 3 potential locations. One would be the \nYerba Buena SX80: the peer. \nYerba Buena SX80: One would be on top of Msc. Slash\, Dsm. \nYerba Buena SX80: And want to be somewhere on soft ground. \nYerba Buena SX80: And\, Jim\, I just wanted to make sure we didn’t forget the the I think the Board recommends \nYerba Buena SX80: that city county\, San Francisco\, and perhaps are consultants. \nYerba Buena SX80: Consider the operational constraints on public access to the \nYerba Buena SX80: floats and along the gangways\, due to wave-induced float motions and wave and water level induced flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So they had said that they’re gonna put a gate up there which is kind of keeping people out \nYerba Buena SX80: by suggestion. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I mean said already that people can jump over gates if they want to\, or over over chains if they want to\, and I thought you had said more or less. That was a a good enough response. Well\, I’m not sure II don’t. I don’t want to be on the record\, supporting or not supporting that response. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would just say that the city county\, San Francisco is responsible for it\, as their design consultants are\, and in my view\, and that \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m okay with not understanding what the operational criteria are and how that’s managed. As long as it’s clear that \nYerba Buena SX80: they have to take care of it\, whether it’s a chain or maybe something else. I think it’s the issue of the operational control rather than what the devices? Yeah\, yeah\, that’s kind of where I was going. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s a. It’s an important issue that I think should be on the record. And II know that you heard it\, but I just feel like we should write it down specifically different than I understood previously. I just didn’t catch it is that I think our recommendation is that they go to City county and \nYerba Buena SX80: work it out well. I think the reason why I say City can in San Francisco is because reckon Park is the app the owner applicant. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s why I said that. But I think also their consultants are professionally responsible for for that without having analyzed those motions. I mean it could. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you found that it would be frequently unusable. Maybe there’s a design change that could be made \nYerba Buena SX80: to make it safer. \nYerba Buena SX80: so it might be worth looking at in the design phase as opposed to just waiting to see how it does\, and closing it when it’s dangerous. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, II agree. That would be perhaps a more detailed response. And I don’t know why I’m being so easy on everyone today\, but that would be the typical action would be actually address. Like\, if you’re designing a ferry berth\, there are operational limits on the motions based on the waves\, and then the ferry operators shut down the facility\, if not the ferries themselves. In that condition \nthis is a little different. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I would recognize that. Not only do you have people that might come on from land\, you have people that may approach from the water\, so maybe some signage is\, or some sort of notice to mariners\, or there may be a number of items that make sense that may evolve. Actually\, as you figure out how people are. Gonna use this \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, in the Design Review Board meeting I mentioned having a docent or somebody that’s kind of close to a harbor master that might just be aware of what’s going on and at least have an emergency response capability. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think the operational limits are important for the general public on the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: II think if I if I may your point your point\, that operational limits\, if\, in fact\, the facility has to be shut down more than 50% of the time because of wave action\, then it doesn’t serve the purpose that it was intended for. And I think that’s the that’s the direction from which it should be looked at. What percentage of time would the conditions be so adverse that you would have to limit access \nYerba Buena SX80: to the public to to protect their safety. And\, as I said\, if it exceeds 50 of the time. \nYerba Buena SX80: it becomes a red herring as opposed to a useful facility. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think that’s that’s a good point. Yeah\, thank you. That that’s a better way of saying it appreciate that. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, you guys are\, gonna look into the basis of the 40 to 50 year design life. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s actually based on the life of the or what we expect\, the life of the floats would be \nYerba Buena SX80: float\, float the \nYerba Buena SX80: right because they’re aluminum\, and they move around maximum. \nYerba Buena SX80: I should be. It just should be documented somehow. I mean formally. It’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: not that I don’t trust your judgment\, but it shouldn’t be your judgment. I mean\, the owner should know. What’s what do you think the life is? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I think there’s 2 things we’re talking about. There’s the talk\, the the lifespan of the actual material. The flow which he just mentioned is 40 years. And then there’s the anticipated lifespan of the the park features\, and and that’s something that we can look into as a department\, and what Rec. Park \nYerba Buena SX80: usually uses as our our criteria for design longevity and and get back to you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And you were\, gonna look into 100 year versus 50 year Wave. \nYerba Buena SX80: You gotta include a document documentation somewhere of the Qc. Program for the \nYerba Buena SX80: the The Dsm \nYerba Buena SX80: and include documentation about the tow embedded. How that’s going to be determined and controlled in the field \nYerba Buena SX80: and discussion of settlement behind the MSE. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wall of the engineered film. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it seems to me that what we’re looking for is to have it be resubmitted. Some of this stuff\, Doc. Redoc the new documentation and discussions. You missed a couple for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry I had 2 other recommendations. One was \nYerba Buena SX80: the seating of the gangways to verify the seating on the gangways. They need to add that to their design criteria\, and the other was to include buoyancy. \nYerba Buena SX80: uplift\, uplift. to look at the uplift that needs to be \nYerba Buena SX80: put into the criteria. Okay. thanks. Anything else I missed. \nYerba Buena SX80: seems to me that what makes sense is that we that it be resubmitted to the to staff. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we don’t de facto\, we we’re not determined that we need to see it again. But we may depending on how the impact of some of these relooks goes\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: that can be determined by staff. And or\, you know\, staff potentially discussion with \nYerba Buena SX80: one or more of us on the board\, although they’re limited to how many people they can talk to because of Bagley keen act. So\, Mr. Chairman\, may I move that once the report is finished that you resubmit a quick \nYerba Buena SX80: summary of the major \nYerba Buena SX80: changes so responses to the questions that were raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that the staff evaluate \nYerba Buena SX80: the need to consult the whole board \nYerba Buena SX80: based on \nYerba Buena SX80: substance of the changes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Second\, that \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, it’s been moved and seconded. Do I need to restate the motion that that when they just said that\, Bill\, you’ll resubmit in re with responses to what we just summarized here \nYerba Buena SX80: to this to staff and staff will evaluate whether how whether you see our me needs to look at it further. \nStatic. \nYerba Buena SX80: present school? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that clear enough to you\, Jen. Yes\, okay\, it’s been moved and seconded \nYerba Buena SX80: any further discussion on the motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: hearing none. All those in favor say\, aye\, aye. \nYerba Buena SX80: a post the motion carries \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s been moved to June. Is there a second second? It’s been a second and third and fourth\, and a fifth we have a motion before us to adjourn all those in favor all opposed. \nYerba Buena SX80: We are adjourned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, all nice present to you. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-6-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings/
LOCATION:Yerba Buena Room First Floor of the Metro Center\,  375 Beale Street\,\, San Francisco\, United States
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231122T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231122T170000
DTSTAMP:20240131T055858Z
CREATED:20240131T055858Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055858Z
UID:10000168-1700640000-1700672400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 22\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-22-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231117T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231117T120000
DTSTAMP:20240319T204543Z
CREATED:20240205T193328Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240319T204543Z
UID:10000174-1700215200-1700222400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 17\, 2023 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meetings
DESCRIPTION:AgendaPresentationMeeting Summary
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-17-2023-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group-meetings/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231116T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231116T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T224326Z
CREATED:20231017T045435Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T224326Z
UID:10000049-1700139600-1700154000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 16\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Due to the APEC conference in San Francisco\, this meeting will be held online and through teleconference only. \nNote: Agenda Item 9 has been postponed. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for November 2\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nVote on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19The Commission will vote on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, an amendment to the Bay Plan to update the findings\, policies\, and map designations of the Seaport Plan. The public hearing was heard on November 2\, 2023.(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]Final Staff Recommendation (PDF) // Appendix A: Resolution 2023.02 (PDF) // Envionmental Assessment Final (PDF) // Seaport Plan Final (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning ActivitiesPOSTPONEDThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Fiscal Year 2023 BudgetThe Commission will receive a briefing on the Budget Act (SB101) and reimbursable awards that will include an update of the first quarter 2023 expenditures and cost recoveries.(Sean Williamson) [415/352-3637; sean.williamson@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Presentation (PDF)\nBriefing on Resilient State Route 37 ProjectsThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of Caltrans State Route 37 interim and long-term highway improvements and developments projects along the corridor\, from Highway US 101 (Novato\, Marin) in the west to I-80 in the east (Mare Island\, Vallejo).(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3670; [larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on the BCDC Enforcement ProgramThe Commission will receive a quarterly update on the ongoing program improvements and developments since the last briefing in September 2023.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nFederal Consistency Actions \n\n\n	 Applicant\n\n\n\nU.S. Department of Transportation	  Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA) 	  55 Broadway 	  Cambridge\, MA 02142	     \n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2023.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n09/07/23\n\n\n75th Day\n\n	11/21/23\n\n\n\n		Location \n\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MotCo) in northern Contra Costa County\, California (lat. 38.0464\, long. -122.0335). \n\n\n\n\n		Description\n	\n\nDecommission and remove existing outdated infrastructure used by the FAA and restore the project area to near pre-existing conditions through the following activities: \n\nRemove a 6-foot by 8-foot prefabricated fiberglass building;\n\nRemove a 10-foot-tall antenna pole; 3) Remove a 30-foot antenna pole;\n\n Construct 600 linear feet of chain-link fencing; and \n Remove surface gravel\, and backfill with clean fill and native vegetation.\n\nThe project will be conditioned to include avoidance and minimization measures to avoid possible adverse species and wildlife habitat impacts for listed species\, including the salt marsh harvest mouse. Monitoring of site conditions to evaluate restoration performance will be conducted in coordination with other natural resource agencies\, in accordance with Bay Plan Policies on Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats. The total project area is approximately 0.7 acre\, and the project will result in an increase in Bay fill of no greater than 30 cubic yards\, resulting from backfilling the removed building and antenna foundations. The project will have no impacts to existing public access. \n\n\n\n\n		Tentative Staff Position:\n	\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. (Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov) \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-16-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231116T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20231116T113000
DTSTAMP:20240205T202531Z
CREATED:20240205T201658Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240205T202531Z
UID:10000175-1700128800-1700134200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 16\, 2023 Environmental Justice Working Group Meeting
DESCRIPTION:Join the meeting via ZOOMhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84258841304?pwd=QXBrUWZCVkFnbndmWFFOY3BHQzBTdz09 \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID842 5884 1304 \nPasscode415352 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\, Roll Call\, Introductions and Approval of AgendaWorking Group member roll will be called and introductions from visitors and staff will be made.\nRacial Equity Action PlanLita Brydie\, Assistant Manager for Climate Equity and Community Engagement\, will report back on development of BCDC’s Racial Equity Action Plan.(Lita Brydie) [415/352-3626; lita.brydie@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommissioner Toxic Tour SurveyEJ Advisor Anthony Khalil will present a survey for the EJ Working Group Commissioners on the plan for Toxic Tours.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-16-2023-environmental-justice-working-group-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231109T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231109T170000
DTSTAMP:20240131T073313Z
CREATED:20231019T011513Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T073313Z
UID:10000073-1699534800-1699549200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 9\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-9-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231109T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231109T120000
DTSTAMP:20240206T225609Z
CREATED:20240131T060305Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240206T225609Z
UID:10000170-1699522200-1699531200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 9\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION:his Enforcement meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPhysical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83980384080?pwd=YmlaazJCOE56MzdjUjBra1dyVUxqUT09 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID839 8038 4080 \nPasscode824357 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic CommentThe Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the September 27\, 2023\, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement ReportStaff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nHearing and Vote to Recommend Approval of Stipulated Orders CCD2023.002.00 and CCD2023.003.00The Committee will review\, discuss\, and vote whether to recommend to the full Commission for approval two stipulated orders to resolve BCDC Enforcement Case No. ER2019.063.00 against Seaplane Investments LLC alleging unauthorized development activities and violations of BCDC permits 1973.014.04 and M1985.030.01 in Sausalito\, Marin County.(Adrienne Klein) [415/352-3609; adrienne.klein@bcdc.ca.gov];(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision with exhibits // Staff Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Meeting Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2024/01/11-09-EC-Audio-Recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Eating of the beast. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The Bcd. C. Enforcement Committee is here by call to order. My name is Marie Gilmore\, and I am the chair of this Committee for Commissioners\, including those attending at Field Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Our first order of business is to call the role. Matthew. Please call the role commissioners. Please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves after responding. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Mr. Bieland. \nBoardroom SX80: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Gilmore. I’m sorry. Share it\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business\, and that brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So\, in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda. We will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and\, as far as I know\, we have received no general public comments in advance of this meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s correct. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. So for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak either during the general public comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants\, icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then Dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make a comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order in which they were raised. After you are called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by first and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Please queue up at the speaker’s podium and wait to be called upon to speak. Commenters are limited to 3Â min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focus. We are here to listen to any individual who requests to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner as determined by the chair. We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any commenters? \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: since I’m I myself at my location\, I have no commenters. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  Any anybody else zooming in as public speakers. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Chair\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: nobody’s at my location\, either. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so that brings us on to Item Number 4\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is approval of draft minutes. From the last meeting. We have all been furnished with draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved \nBoardroom SX80: second \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Billen and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anybody opposed to this motion \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any extensions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you all. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Item 5 is the Enforcement report. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Enforcement policy manager Matthew Trujillo will now provide the Enforcement report. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: I have 3 items to report out on today. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: First\, the case update since our last meeting on September twenty-seventh. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: In the past 43 days we received 7 new cases\, resolved 11 cases\, and as of today\, there are 74 unresolved cases in the queue\, which is a net change of negative 5. Since my last report. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: second\, is an update on the status of compliance with issued orders by the Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Tony Daysau\, one of our company’s analysts reports that he has been monitoring compliance with Ccd. 2022 0 0 3\, which was issued to the port of Oakland in july 2022\, to address public access maintenance issues at Jacqueline Square. He notes that there are no issues of concern. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: John Creech reports that he’s been monitoring compliance with Ccd 2\,020 dot 0 0 2 \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: issue to Param and Amande Dylan for illegal filling in white\, slew in Bolivo also for an authorized fill at the Family Gun Club and the Zoom\, March \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and Ccd 2020 dot 0 0 1 issue to the city of Oakland for failing to maintain the public access and shoreline areas at Union Point Park. He reports that there are no issues of concern with the Dillon and Family Gun Club orders\, and that the City of Open has not responded to his outreach efforts lately. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Finally\, I’m pleased to report that\, thanks to the fine investigative work of Rachel Cohen\, of our Enforcement staff and the negotiations led by former chief counsel\, Mark Zapatelo\, who\, generous\, generously donated his time to assist us in its resolution. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The case against the Bay Area Council for failing to abide by the terms and conditions of its permits. 2021 dot 0 0 one\, which was to redevelop the historic ferry boat climate for public access of tier 9 in San Francisco has been settled. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: The settlement agreement was executed by our executive director on November seventh\, and the settlement establishes a timeline by which the Council must complete his public access obligations under its permit\, and pay a fine of $50\,000. Executive director gold span will provide further comments on the settlement at the next Commission meeting on the sixteenth\, where\, incidentally\, I am scheduled to deliver my third quarterly report on the status of the Enforcement program to the full Commission. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: and this concludes my report. I’d be glad to entertain any. Follow up questions that you may have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew\, do any members of the Enforcement Committee. Have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. I’m just curious. I think you said we got 7 new cases and settled 11\, and we’re still down minus 5 instead of minus 4. Is that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: because something dropped off somehow? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  I believe that that report\, probably incorporates cases that yes\, have been either combined or were closed\, and we didn’t get to it right away. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Sometimes those things happen. It’s a pretty big \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.:  database\, and we don’t really have a systematic way of\, you know\, tracking everything in real time. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay\, great thanks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other committee members have questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, do we have any public comment on the Enforcement report. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. Chair Gilmore. Commissioner Vasquez has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Welcome\, Commissioner. Good morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Wasn’t raining cats and dogs\, but I cats and dogs problem this morning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I know how that happens. So just for the record. Do you have any members of the public at your location. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. The next item on our agenda is item number 6\, which is seaplane investments. Llc. Stipulated orders. This is going to be a briefing and a vote on a proposed recommended decision to adopt 2 stipulated Cease and assist orders to be issued to seaplane investments. Llc. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Porto\, Madera\, Marin County. If this committee votes to adopt \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either or both of these stipulated orders than the recommended Enforcement decision. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which includes the orders\, will be put up for a vote for approval or rejection by the full Commission at its December seventh\, 2023\, meeting\, which is scheduled to be held online and in person at the Metro Center\, located at 3 75 Beale Street\, in San Francisco. Beginning at one Pm. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After Vcdc. Staff gives its opening remarks\, I will ask the respondent to affirm its agreement with the terms and conditions of the stipulated order. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Then I will allow public comment on this item\, and then afterwards the committee shall hold our discussion and vote on Staff’s recommendation. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So at this time will the representative or representatives or the responded please identify themselves for the record. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Good morning\, Commissioners. This is Gillian Blanchard with Rudder log group\, and I represent seaplane investments. Llc. The respondent. \nLou Vasquez: Thank you very much and welcome\, and I have with me here today\, Lou Vasquez\, the managing member seaplane investments. Lllc. Morning\, everyone. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning and thank you both for being here. \nKey. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I. Now I’m going to ask general counsel\, Greg Sharff and principal enforcement analyst\, Adrian Klein\, to begin their opening remarks. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you\, Chair Gilmore. So I first wanted to start off by just really thanking the respondents\, Lou Vasquez and Milly Ricklin\, as well as their counsel\, Gillian Blanchard\, for really their hard work in resolving this matter. \nGreg Scharff: You know it wasn’t easy\, but we worked through all the issues\, and II thought we did it in an open and collaborative manner that resolved all of the outstanding issues. \nGreg Scharff: And I just wanted you to know that that was very helpful. And it was sort of unusual. And I’m feeling really positive about \nGreg Scharff: see plan on a going forward basis that they’ll get all the work done they’ve promised to do\, and that they’ll honor their their agreement. Adrian Klein will provide the highlights of the settlement for you and I and Ms. Blanchard are available to answer any questions that you may have regarding the settlement. \nGreg Scharff: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Adrian. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: good morning. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Everyone can see this screen and hear me. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, yes. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: thanks for confirming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: in in July of 2022\, Staff issued a violation reporting complaint to resolve 6 unresolved violations\, and in October of 2022 staff issued a complaint for administrative penalties to resolve the penalty portion of 3 resolved violations \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: during a public hearing or 2\, rather on May thirtieth\, 2023\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the Enforcement Committee directed Staff to enter into settlement negotiations\, and today’s public hearing provides an Enforcement committee\, recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed\, stipulated\, cease and assist orders. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Let’s see here. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m just. Oh\, there we go! I’m so sorry. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So\, for \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the presentation will cover the site location. Describe the 9 violations and summarize the staff recommendation. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and for some reason my progression is not occurring. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Hmm! \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Pardon me. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Matthew\, since I seem to be stuck. Do you wanna share the screen instead of me? \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Yes\, I’m gonna need to open it up one moment. Let me try one more time. I’m really sorry about this \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: works fine when I’m not sharing. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Oh\, thanks\, Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: So third slide\, third slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Sorry about that. Everyone. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: this one \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bingo\, so the red PIN on the vicinity map shows the location where the violations occurred and are occurring\, known as 240242 Redwood highway frontage road\, in an unincorporated area of Marin County. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next. the image on the left shows the site looking to the northeast. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The site contains a number of businesses and operations\, while some of the ground level uses and the associated fill appear to have been ongoing in 1965. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: At the time of enactment of the Mackette\, Petr Sack changes to the ongoing uses and associated fill within Bcd’s jurisdiction\, including maintenance that occurred after the law was enacted\, require A\, BC. DC. Permit or amendment. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Vcdc. Permits run with the land\, and new owners are responsible for resolving inherited violations and also violations that they themselves undertake \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: as new owners. Respondents should have. But did not contact. Bcd see as part of a due diligence review to obtain site status in relation to the law\, and existing\, permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: the image on the right has an overlay of the approximate locations of the 2 privately owned parcels number 164 and 167\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: with the street rights of way that surround them. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The docking facility is located on Marin County property. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 6 unresolved violations that would be the next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: violation. One respondent is violating special condition. 2 C. Public access of permit\, 197301404. By failing to provide the public shore signage and the public access connection from the site to the Marin County public access west of the site. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 2. Respondent is violating special condition 2 c. 2. Maintenance. By failing to maintain the existing required public short pathways and landscaping. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The bulkhead. Apparepa Street is severely eroded\, and the adjacent public shoreline pathway is frequently inundated by tides. The northeastern tip of this area is eroded to the point of being gone\, and the remainder is collapsing into the Bay. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 3 respondent is violating mackature. Petrus act section 6\, 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a. By placing unauthorized fill in San Francisco Bay and or the shoreline band on Yolo Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The unauthorized fill includes vehicle\, parking and or equipment\, storage. seaplane\, storage\, repair and maintenance\, seaplane fueling tank and elevated asphalt path across yellow street to allow access during \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to the to the seaplane. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I’m sorry to the Healyport launching area. During high tides. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Some of this unauthorized fill also violates special condition to the use of solid fill of the 1973 permit\, by using filled areas at designated to be used only for landscaping\, landscape\, public access and pedestrian and bicycle pathways for private use. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation for respondent is violating the Mac at your Petrus act by placing unauthorized fill in Bcd’s jurisdiction\, consisting of an unauthorized helicopter landing pad \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 4 paved walkways on block 1\, 6\, 4. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Violation 5. Respondent is violating the mackature Petrus Act by placing unauthorized\, fill in the bay on Marin county property by expanding an existing U-shaped floating dock during 3 separate episodes with new floating\, fill 2 pilings and relocating an on water fueling station. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and finally\, violation. 6. Respondent is violating the Macer Petras Act by placing unauthorized fill in BC. DC. Jurisdiction\, consisting of excavation and fill to construct a new concrete and rebar water access ramp in the yellow street right of way. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: This completes the violation summary of the 6 unresolved violations. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: I will now describe the 3 resolved violations next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to our respondents. Failure to take assignment of both the 1973 and the 1\,985 permits\, and the third is\, respondents\, failure to complete a project prior to the permit\, expiration\, date\, and continuing work with an expired permit \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So the staff recommendation for the 6 unresolved violations\, will be covered in the following 4 slides. So first\, there is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an agreement by respondent to cease and desist from violating the Macintosh Petras Act\, and both the 1\,973\, and the 1\,985 permits \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: by the thirtieth of June 2024 respondents has stipulated to comply with the existing permits as follows\, by maintaining the permit required public access along the existing shoreline pathway within respondents. Current property \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street\, from the termination of the shirlin pathway located within the dedicated public access area within respondents\, property to stripe and maintain by restriving is often as necessary to maintain a clearly delineated public shirling pathway \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: an 8 foot wide. Accessible path of travel\, as shown on a plan that will be attached to the order \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: to install a total of 8 public shore signs\, consisting of 5 directional arrows on Belina Street\, \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: And one sign each on prefa and yellow streets\, and a back-to-back sign visible from the Mill Valley \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: bike path. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and 3 additional public shore signs \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: respondent agrees to permanently relocate accessible parking to the west side of Elena Street. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: on Yellow Street to Rou to remove the asphalt path constructed. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and to confirm with Bp. B Cdc. Staff\, which helicopter pads and walkways are covered within the existing permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Next slide \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: within 12 months of the date of the order to file a complete application. to amend the 1973 permit. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That would include revised landscaping for areas adjacent to the required public access \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: that includes installation and maintenance of several picnic tables. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That will be Ada accessible. And if new public access is proposed\, in a following section\, that that those amenities will be included on the revised landscaping plans. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and also to request\, after the fact authorization for any heliport pads\, fuel tanks\, and walkways not otherwise permitted. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: The 3 unauthorized finger piers that are part of the docking system. The unauthorized \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: launch ramp next slide. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: Respondent also agrees to provide additional public access. Which would either be provision of the existing required connection to the Marin County bike path from the site. If local approval is \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: obtained. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: or if it is not to provide alternate access on site \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: finally respond and agrees to prepare and submit a sea level rise\, risk assessment that addresses potential sea level rise in all permit\, required public access areas \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and and in additional public access series \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: described above\, and to implement that plan within time frames to be specified. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: and it shall include adoptive measures to maintain the Peripa Street public access that is frequently flooded and eroded\, and adaptive measures to maintain public access for the life of the project\, or until 2050. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: That concludes the injunctive relief in the next slide outlines the penalty\, which is 43\,800 10\,000 of which to be paid within 60 days of order issues 16\,900 do within 12 months of order\, issuance\, and 16\,900 do within 24 months of order issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So that concludes the terms of the stipulation for the 6 unresolved violations\, and for the 3 resolve violations. The next slide outlines the administrative civil penalty of $5\,000\, half of which is due within 12Â s half\, is due within 12 months of order\, issuance. \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: So together\, the 2 recommendations result in a total penny penalty of 48\,000 and $800. And this concludes the staff presentation. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much\, Adrienne. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair:  now\, I would like to ask respondents to affirm their agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions of the stipulated orders. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Ccd. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: 202-30-0200 and Ccd\, 202-30-0300. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Thank you\, Commissioner Gilmore. Yes\, I first wanna say\, thank you very much to staff working with Mr. Sharf. Mr. Trujillo has been very\, very collaborative and we appreciate the opportunity to resolve this matter and move forward with compliance. And I can say\, on behalf of seplain investments\, that we do agree to all the terms and the stipulated orders. And I’ll just to ask \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Mr. Vasquez to come off mute and confirm as well. \nLou Vasquez: Yeah\, I also want to thank Staff for their cooperation and and help in resolving these issues. And we do agree to the stipulated terms. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Now\, before we turn to public comment. I wanna ask if any of the Commissioners have any clarifying questions? Not discussion\, just clarifying questions at this point. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I am not seeing any Commissioner hands raised? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so at this point in time we will take public comments on this item. First of all\, Margie\, have we received any written comments. \nBoardroom SX80: No\, we did not. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Do we have any public speakers? I don’t see anybody in the room. \nBoardroom SX80: Yeah\, no\, nobody. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Nobody in the room and nobody online. \nBoardroom SX80: Correct? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Then. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I guess I was a little bit ahead of myself. I since \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I guess I need a motion to close the public hearing. So somebody wanna okay\, Commissioner Eisen? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And did I see Commissioner Blynn raise her hand \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: alright. So now that we’ve done that\, are there any? I’m gonna open it up to discussion from committee members. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Well\, I wanna join in the thanks to our staff\, and also to the respondent and the Respondents Council for getting done what was seeming back when we last heard about it\, to be a very difficult and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: almost intractable problem. So you have done fantastic work getting this done. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: My understanding is that the first thing that will happen in terms of whether we know whether enforcement has occurred is the 60 days penalty that will be due. That will be the first indication of \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: whether we’re going to be able to stay on track with all of the different settlement requirements\, and but \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I am certainly hoping that we never have to really answer this question. But I am curious\, Greg\, if you could explain to us \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if for some reason \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: the settlement agreement were not was not complied with either whole or part. \nGreg Scharff: So what would be the steps then? Are we back to square one\, or would we be able to go directly to some kind of enforcement mechanism to make sure the settlement agreement is complied with. So it’s actually not a settlement agreement. It’s a stipulated order. \nGreg Scharff: So what we would do\, we would turn it over to the Attorney General’s office in the worst case\, and they would then prosecute it. \nGreg Scharff: and then fines could be up to $2\,000 a day \nGreg Scharff: for not being in compliance. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: it would not come back to this Enforcement Committee. That’s correct. It would not great. Okay\, thanks for that. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anyone else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I just want to echo the comments and thanks to both the respondents and staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This has been a set of issues going back a long time. I’m just gonna make comment for the record that some of the issues occurred before the respondents. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: bought the property. So that’s that’s always an issue. And just it the length of time that this has gone on and the complexity of the issues. So I wanna say I really appreciate staff and response willingness to work together in a very\, very positive manner. And I’m thankful and grateful for this very positive outcome. And \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m going to look for a motion and a second to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Accept the recommended Enforcement decision and move it on to the full commission. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’ll move it \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: second. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and need to hear the recommendation before we vote\, or that’s a good point. We do \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Keeping me on the straight and narrow here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright\, staff \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: break. You want me to make the recommendation. Yes\, go ahead\, Adrian. so I’m assuming \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: you don’t want me to go into the details\, so the recommendation would be to adopt. The Enforcement Committee recommended Enforcement decision\, and 2 proposed stipulated Cease and desist orders to resolve \nadrienne klein\, bcdc: 6 unresolved\, and 3 resolved violations. Is that adequate? \nGreg Scharff: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: okay\, thank you. So once again the staff recommendation was moved by Commissioner Vasquez and seconded by Commissioner Eisen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so now we will take a roll call vote. I believe that’s Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Okay. Commissioner Bielin. \nYes. \nMatthew Trujillo\, Enf. Program Mgr.: Commissioner Eisen. Commissioner Vasquez. chair. Gilmour. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. Everyone. The motion passes unanimously\, and once again thank you. To everyone involved great work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And now\, committee members\, I will entertain a motion and a second to adjourn our meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Moved by Commissioner Eisen\, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez\, and I will note for the record that it is 1001 Am. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, everybody. This meeting is now adjourned. \nJillian Blanchard\, RLG\, Seaplane Investments LLC: Thank you. \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-9-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231106T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231106T210000
DTSTAMP:20240213T235455Z
CREATED:20231019T002240Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240213T235455Z
UID:10000064-1699290000-1699304400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 6\, 2023 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. The Zoom video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85438410738?pwd=cH3_YSGq54uFndlO4_vkkut948dABA.pmVE-cNEVYy1Zz5n \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 259552 \nMeeting ID854 3841 0738 \nPasscode259552 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summaries for August 7\, 2023  and September 11\, 2023  Meetings\nStaff Update\n1499 Bayshore\, Burlingame\, San Mateo County; First Pre-Application ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold their first pre-application review of the proposal by King Street Properties to redevelop an approximately 384-foot-long portion of the shoreline along Mills Creek with a new 8-story Life Science/Research and Development (R&D) building and a freestanding 7-story parking garage. The project proposal includes an approximately 7\,000-square-foot public plaza and an approximately 400-linear-foot public trail.(Jessica Finkel) [415/352-3614; jessica.finkel@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits \nBioMed Island Parkway Life Sciences Development Project\, City of Belmont\, San Mateo County; Second Pre-Application ReviewPOSTPONEDThe Design Review Board will hold their second pre-application review of the proposal by BioMed Realty Properties to develop a new life sciences campus at a mostly vacant site in the City of Belmont with three 8 to 11-level office buildings and a new 10-story parking garage. The project would make improvements to the O’Neill Slough Trail and create a publicly accessible plaza with public art installations\, diverse seating areas\, and native gardens\, and provide public shore parking spaces.(Shruti Sinha) [415/352-3654 shruti.sinha@bcdc.ca.govExhibits // Public Comment Letter\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-6-2023-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231102T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231102T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T225222Z
CREATED:20231017T045353Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225222Z
UID:10000048-1698930000-1698944400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:November 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 143 (2023). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location below. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.\n(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes for October 19\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)\n(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nRecommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\nThere is no administrative listing\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)\nThe Commission will hold a public hearing on the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, an amendment to the Bay Plan to update the findings\, policies\, and map designations of the Seaport Plan.\n(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nDraft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF) // Staff Presentation (PDF)\nCommission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to Fund Planning Activities \nPOSTPONED\nThe Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with the Port of San Francisco to fund a planning position that will lead several activities\, including amending the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17) and coordinating between Port of San Francisco and BCDC on regulatory and planning issues.\n(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Resilient State Route 37 Projects\nPOSTPONED\nThe Commission will receive a briefing on the status of Caltrans State Route 37 interim and long-term highway improvements and developments projects along the corridor\, from Highway US 101 (Novato\, Marin) in the west to I-80 in the east (Mare Island\, Vallejo).\n(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3670; [larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing October 20\, 2023 \n\nSan Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan update\, Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-19 (PDF)Draft Seaport Plan (PDF) // Environmental Assessment (PDF) // Public Comments (PDF) // Addendum to the Cargo Forecast (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 27\, 2023 \n\nNovember 2\, 2023 Commission Meeting – POSTPONED Agenda Item 9\nDraft Minutes of October 19\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nPublic Comment Letter (PDF)\nStaff Recommendation for Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB Member Appointment) (PDF)\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nWhat Does ‘Unavoidable’ West Antarctic Ice Shelf Melt Mean for the Bay Area?\nThe sea is rising — and the clock is ticking\nGiant Ferris wheel closes at Golden Gate Park. It will return for APEC in new location\nCalifornia Mandates Coastal Cities Plan for Future Sea-Level Rise\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/10/11-02-CM-audio-recording.mp3 \nAudio Transcript \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WITH THAT INTRODUCTION AND RECORDING \nIN PROGRESS\, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM \nTHE CHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, LET ME TAKE CARE OF A COUPLE OF AGENDA \nITEMS. WE ARE GOING TO DELAY OUR DISCUSSION OF THE UPCOMING CONTRACT \nWITH THE SAN FRANCISCO PORT TO FINISHED WATERFRONT PLANNING ACTIVITIES. \nSTAFF HOPES TO BRING THAT CONTRACTITOUS AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN EARLY DECEMBER. \nIN ADDITION TO THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE \nIN NOVEMBER THAT WILL BE ON THAT AGENDA. WE WILL DELAY ON THIS AGENDA \n— OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONERS\, IF YOU \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF TO ANSWER AND THEN \nMUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN. AFTER RESPOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR WASSERMAN? \n>>ZACK WASSERMAN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: AHN? >>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: BEACH? >>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: EKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nEL-TAWANSY? >>DINA EL-TAWANSY: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GILLMOR? >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? >>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PESKIN? RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nRANDOLPH? RAN. >>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ZAPEDA? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I MISS \nANYONE? GORIN? THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE HAVE QUORUM AND CONDUCT BUSINESS. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEM THREE\, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION ON A MATTER NOT ON OUR AGENDA\, OR WE HAVE NOT HELD A PUBLIC \nHEARING MAY DO SO NOW AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \nPRIOR TO STARTING THE COMMENT\, I DO WANT TO REEMPHASIZE WHAT WAS SAID IN \nTHE VIDEO. WE HAVE\, UNFORTUNATELY\, ACROSS OUR REGION IN THE COUNTRY\, \nEXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN A TOMORROW I WOULD JUST AS SOON NOT KNOW\, ZOOM \nBOMBING\, IN WHICH PEOPLE UTILIZE TIME TO ENGAGE IN HATE SPEECH\, PERSONAL \nATTACKS\, OR THREATS. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT AS CHAIR THAT WILL NOT \nBE TOLERATED\, AND PEOPLE WILL BE CUT OFF QUICKLY. \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT\, I’M GOING TO START WITH PEOPLE HERE IN OUR HEADQUARTERS \nBUILDING. PEOPLE HAVE SUBMITTED CARDS. IF YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK AND HAVE NOT\, \nPLEASE SEE REYLINA. AND THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER IS SUNG LEE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I APOLOGIZE. SORRY. SORRY. OH\, IT’S \nALL — HOLD ON. MY APOLOGY. I MISUNDERSTOOD THE MESSAGE. \nWE ONLY HAVE ONE COMMENT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE ROOM\, JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSER COMMISSIONERS AND BCDC STAFF. FOR \nTHOSE WHO DON’T KNOW ME I’M THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICEROFFICER. EVERYBODY \nSHOULD GET THEIR SECOND OR THIRD SHOT IF THAT’S NECESSARY. _ HERE HERE TO \nINTRODUCE A NEW PERSON ON OUR STAFF. ROBERT ROGERS TO MY RIGHT IS A NEW \nPOLICY ASSOCIATE HE COMES FROM SONOMA WATER. HE HAS A BACKGROUND IN WATER \nRESOURCES AS WELL AS LEGISLATION\, AND I WAS ABLE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO SOME OF \nYOU HERE AND CLEARLY SOME OF THE PEOPLE ON THE SCREEN. I COULDN’T INTRODUCE \nYOU TO HIM. BUT WE WELCOME HIM AND YOU WILL \nPROBABLY SEE OR HEAR FROM HIM AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I ASKED HIM IF \nHE WANTED TO SPEAK NOW AND HE SAID NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT. \nOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH BCDC\, 11\, 12 YEARS AGO\, I THINK THOSE AROUND CAN \nATTEST TO THE FACT THAT IT’S MUCH DIFFERENT NOW. \nWE MAY NOT ALWAYS AGREE\, THAT’S FINE. MY WIFE AND I DON’T ALWAYS AGREE \nEITHER. WE WORK THROUGH ISSUES WHEN ISSUES COME UP IN A COLLABORATIVE \nMATTER TO SUPPORT HOPEFULLY ISSUES COMING UP BEFORE YOU. WE BELIEVE THAT \nBCDC PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN NOT ONLY PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT BUT THE \nECONOMY OF OUR REGION. THAT’S WHAT WE ENJOY AND WHY WE’RE HERE. IF WE TOUCH \nTHE WATER OR DRIVE OVER THE WATER WE WANT TO MAKE SURE RESOURCES ARE \nPROTECTED FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS TO COME. \nWITH THAT\, AGAIN\, ROBERT ROGERS. AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, JOHN. WELCOME TO THE COMMUNITY\, ROBERT. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO WE \nHAVE REMOTE SPEAKERS\, REYLINA? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRINGS US TO ITEM FOUR\, APPROVAL OF \nTHE MINUTES OF OUR OCTOBER 19TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED \nDRAFT MINUTES. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE \nMINUTES. DO I HEAR A MOTION? \n>>PAT EK LUND: I’LL MOVE IT. \nANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. IS ANYBODY IN OPPOSITION \nOR WISHES TO ABSTAIN FROM THE MINUTES. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL ABSTAIN. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMINUTES ARE APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE\, MY REPORT. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS \nINTRODUCE ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE AND WATCHING\, \nTO A MARVELOUS NEW VIDEO THAT HAS BEEN CREATED AS PART OF OUR BAY ADAPT \nREGIONAL SHORELINE OUTREACH PROGRAM. IT HAS BEEN CAREFULLY WORKED ON. \nI’M SURE YOU COULD FIND SOMETHING TO IMPROVE IN IT THERE’S\, ALWAYS \nSOMETHING TO IMPROVE. BUT IT’S GOOD AND IT HELPS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT \nAND WE’RE GOING TO SHARE IT. I THINK. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ANGELA? [ VIDEO PLAYING ] \n>>SPEAKER: EXERCISE WITH STUNNING VIEWS WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE \nHOME TO FISH\, FREEWAYS AND TRANSIT AND BAY TRAIL LEAD US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER \nPOWER LINES AND WATER LINES PROVIDE CRUCIAL SERVICES WHERE DIVERSE \nCOMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER TO LIVE\, WORK\, AND PLAY\, MAKING THE BAY AREA A \nONE-OF-A-KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME. >>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK \nAS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUND WATER BENEATH US TO \nRISE. WITHOUT ACTION\, THOSE RISING WATERS \nWILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE \nGROCERY STORE EVEN ING TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS\, BART\, \nAND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE WILL ALL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE \nDON’T LIVE IF A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME EFFECTS ARE LEAD HERE. IN RECENT \nYEARS RISING GROUNDWATER HAVE LED TO FLOODING. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING\, \nOUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO \nNEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE. \nIF WE DON’T ACT\, 190\,000 JOBS\, 83\,000 HOMES\, AND 20\,000 ACRES ARE WET LANDS \nARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960s WHEN \nTHE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT CONCERNED \nCOMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY FOUNDING SAFETY SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. NOW BCDC IS ORGANIZING \nAROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY \nPARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING \nOTHERS TO GET STARTED. WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE\, WE CAN \nPLAN FOR A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT CREATES NEW WALKING AND BICYCLE TRAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES AURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE. \n>>SPEAKER: SOME AREAS HAVE HIGHER RISK OR ALREADY AT PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR \nDUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST. _. \n>>SPEAKER: WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING. \nBECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE. \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT \nCAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO LEARN AND WORK TOGETHER \nOVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS \nUNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US \nFOR GENERATIONS TO COME. (END OF VIDEO) \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT SHOULD BE \nPOSTED SHORTLY ON THE WEB SITE. IT IS THERE NOW. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE \nA COPY FOR DISTRIBUTION\, PLEASE CONTACT LARRY OR STAFF\, WE WILL GET THAT TO \nYOU. MY NEXT PIECE IS THE NOMINATION OF A NEW MEMBER OF THE ENGINEERING \nCRITERIA REVIEW BOARD AS AN ALTERNATE. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, ONE OF MY DUTIES AS \nCHAIR IS APPOINT MEMBERS OF THE ECRB. WE HAVE A VACANCY\, AND HAVE GONE \nTHROUGH A PROCESS TO FIND A NEW ALTERNATE. JENN HYMA\, IN OUR CHIEF \nENGINEER DID A SEARCH PROFITED ON THE BCDC WEB SITE LINKEDIN AND REACHED OUT \nTO LOCAL UNIVERSITIES UC BERKELEY\, STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND SAN FRANCISCO \nSTATE AND SENT TO LOCAL CHAPTERS OF SOCIETY OF WOMEN ENGINEERS\, SOCIETY OF \nHISPANIC ENGINEERS AND SOCIETY OF BLACK ENGINEERS WITH COMPLEX PROJECTS IN AND \nNEAR THE BAY AND BROADENING DIVERSITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH \nTHE COMMISSION RECENTLY ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL \nEQUITY GUIDING PRINCIPLES. AFTER THE SCREENING\, AN INTERVIEW \nPROCESS THERE\, IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT PATRICK RYAN BE APPOINTED TO THE OPEN \nALTERNATE POSITION. MR. RYAN IS A LICENSED SPECIAL INFRASTRUCTURE \nENGINEER AND PRINCIPLE COFOUNDER OF RYAN JOY STRUCTURAL DESIGN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM. \nHE HAS 31 YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE\, MANAGING BAY AREA PROJECTS \nWITH STRUCTURES ON LAND ALONG THE SHORELINE\, AND IN THE BAY. HE SERVED \nAS A STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE EXPLORATORIA RENOVATION\, AND SEISMIC \nRETROFIT AT PEERS 15 AND 17 AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENTS IN MISSION BAY AND OYSTER \nPOINT. HAS RECENT DESIGN WORK APPEARS AT SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCE\, HE IS \nCONSTRUCTION NEAR ON THE ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SERVES ON \nBOARDS OF AIA\, SAN FRANCISCO\, AND SAN FRANCISCO SPECIFICATION IN SAN \nFRANCISCO. I CONCUR THIS RECOMMENDATION UNLESS I HEAR AN \nOBJECTION I WILL APPOINT MR. RYAN TO THE ECRB. \nSEEING\, HEARING NONE. HE IS SO APPOINTED. THANK YOU\, JENN\, FOR YOUR \nWORK. WE CONTINUE AS THE VIDEO INDICATED \nADVANCING BAY ADAPT FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CAN DO\, STAFF IS WORKING HARD ON \nTHE IMPLEMENTATION AND ROLLING OUT UNDER RESPONSIBILITIES OF SB272. \n_ I AM GLAD TO SEE SO MANY COMMISSIONERS IN THE ROOM. AND HOPE \nTHAT OTHERS WILL JOIN US FOR OUR POST MEETING GET TOGETHER SOCIAL HOUR IN \nTHE TEMESCAL ROOM\, RIGHT OVER THERE. AFTER WE CONCLUDE OUR MEETING. \nNO DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC BUSINESS UNDER BCDC JURISDICTION WILL OCCUR AT \nTHE SOCIAL GATHERING SO IT IS NOT A MEETING SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nBAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETINGS ACT BUT IT’S A CHANCE FOR US TO TALK TO EACH OTHER\, \nINCLUDING ALTERNATINGS\, SENIOR STAFF\, AND SENIOR STAFF WHO ARE HERE ARE \nWELCOME. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD NOVEMBER 16TH HERE AT THE METRO \nCENTER. AT THAT MEETING WE HOPE TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS CONTRACT \nWITH PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT AREA WATER \nPLAN DISCUSSION ON THE PROGRAM TO RECONSTRUCT STATE ROUTE 37 IN THE \nNORTH BAY AND UPDATE ON OUR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM\, AND A BRIEFING ON OUR CURRENT \nAND PAST YEAR’S BUDGET. WE EXPECT TO HOLD ALL OF OUR REGULAR \nSCHEDULED MEETINGS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THIS YEAR\, INCLUDING A MEETING ON \nA.M. SO\, PLEASE KEEP THOSE ON YOUR CALENDAR AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE \nAVAILABLE. WE WILL PROBABLY NOT MEET ON JANUARY 4TH OF 2024. \nTHIS BRINGS US TO THE ALWAYS EXCITING EX PARTE REPORTS F ANY OF YOU HAVE HAD \nDISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THE COMMISSION MEETINGS ON MATTERS THAT ARE \nADJUDICATORY OR YOU THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO DISCLOSE. YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO \nDISCLOSE THOSE IN WRITING. IF YOU HAVE DONE SO\, OR FOR OTHER REASONS WISH TO \nDO SO VERBALLY\, NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT BUT AGAIN YOU MUST DO IT IN \nWRITING. ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? SEEING NONE. \nWE MISSED THAT EXCITEMENT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. TAKE IT AWAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. ONE THING WE ALL HAVE TO LEARN AS MANAGERS\, LEADERS COLLEAGUES\, \nPARENTS OR FRIENDS IS THAT SIMPLY SOMETIMES THINGS JUST GO WRONG. \nSOMETIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T THOUGHT THROUGH ALL POSSIBLE \nRAMIFICATIONS OF AN IDEA. OTHER TIMES IT’S BECAUSE WE OVERPLAY OUR HANDS AND \nTHINK WE’RE JUST SMARTER THAN THE OTHER GUY OTHER AND TIMES IT’S SOMETHING \nTOTALLY DIFFERENT. FOR EXAMPLE\, ON THIS DAY IN 1948\, PRESIDENT HARRY \nTRUMAN WON AN ASTOUNDINGLY SURPRISING REELECTION BID. BUT WHAT WE ALL \nREMEMBER ISN’T HOW WE WON IT\, BUT THAT AFTER THE ELECTION WAS CALLED\, HE WAS \nPHOTOGRAPHED HOLDING THE FRONT PAGE OF THE CHICAGO DAILY TRIBUNE WITH THE \nHEADLINE “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.” OR WHY DID CORNELL UNIVERSITY GRADUATE \nROBERT MORRIS DECIDE ON DECEMBER 2ND\, 1988 THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO LET \nLOOSE HAS MORRIS WORM FROM MIT COMPUTER NETWORK TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. \nCOSTING PROBABLY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FIX THE UNINTENDED RAMIFICATIONS OF \nTHE FIRST WORM EVER LET LOOSE ON THE INTERNET. \nI BRING THESE EXAMPLES UP BECAUSE OF TODAY’S VERY SHORT AGENDA. WE HAD \nPLANNED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO OR THREE MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA INCLUDING \nDISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY 37 IN THE NORTH BAY\, AND A CONTRACT TO MOVE FORWARD \nSAN FRANCISCO’S WATERFRONT PLANNING PROGRAM\, BUT NEITHER OF THOSE ISSUES \nCOULD MOVE FORWARD IN TIME. SO\, WE PLEAD FOR YOUR INDULGENCE AND WANT TO \nLET YOU KNOW THAT WE SHALL ENDEAVOR TO PLAN BETTER THROUGHOUT THE REMAINDER \nOF THE YEAR AND BEYOND. AND I WANT TO REINFORCE SOMETHING THAT CHAIR \nWASSERMAN JUST SAID\, WE WILL HAVE COMMISSION MEETINGS TWICE IN NOVEMBER\, \nAND TWICE IN DECEMBER\, AS PLANNED. AND WE NEED YOU AT EACH OF THEM. \nDECEMBER WILL BRING A CONTENTIOUS PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN A VOTE TWO \nWEEKS LATER. I WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT \nI HAVE MADE A DECISION TO REQUIRE OUR STAFF TO WORK IN THE OFFICE TWO DAYS \nPER WEEK STARTING IN JANUARY\, AN INCREASE FROM THE CURRENT ONE DAY PER \nWEEK. ONE OF THOSE TWO DAYS WILL BE ON THURSDAYS EACH WEEK WHEN OUR ENTIRE \nSTAFF WILL COME INTO IS THE OFFICE TO MAXIMIZE INTERDIVISION WORK AND ALIGN \nWITH COMMISSION MEETING DAYS. TIM COOK CALLS THIS AN ANCHOR DAY. \nWHILE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET WORK COMPLETED AND WELL WHILE WORKING \nREMOTELY I BELIEVE WE CAN PRODUCTIVITY GAINS IF WE WORK PHYSICALLY ONE CHA \nDAY PER WEEK. NOT INCREASING BCDC COLLABORATIVE CULTURE EXPANDING \nABILITY TO LEARN FROM EACH OTHER _ FORMALLY AS WELL AS INFORMALLY AND \nCAPITALIZING ON SOCIAL ASPECTS OF ALL IN FAVOR LEAD TO A PRODUCTIVE AND \nINSIGHTFUL STAFF. THE STATE’S CURRENT SYSTEM FAVORS ENABLING OUR STAFF TO \nCOME INTO THE OFFICE TWO DAYS PER WEEK AND I HAVE NO PLANS TO INCREASE THAT \nANY FURTHER. OF COURSE\, WE SHALL REMAIN AS FLEXIBLE AS WE ALWAYS HAVE \nBEEN REGARDING ATTENDING FAMILY AND CARE — OR OTHER PARTS OF THE BAY \nAREA\, I RECOGNIZE THIS MAY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND RECRUIT STAFF \nBUT I BELIEVE THE ADVANTAGES FAR OUTWEIGH RISKS INVOLVED I’M HAPPY TO \nDISCUSS THIS WITH ANY OF YOU AS COMMISSIONERS JUST AS I’M DOING WITH \nSTAFF THIS WEEK AND NEXT. GIVEN THE COMMISSION AND COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY HAVE STARTED BRINGING BACK STAFF TWO DAYS PER WEEK I DO NOT \nANTICIPATE OUR BARGAINING UNITS WILL OPPOSE THE CHANGE. HAPPY TO REPORT WE \nHOSTED OVER 180 PARTICIPANTS IN BCDC FIRST BAY ADAPT REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN GUIDANCE WORKSHOP. THAT A MOUTHFUL TO BE SURE AND I WANT \nTO LET YOU KNOW IT WAS REMARKABLY ACTIVE VIRTUAL WORKSHOP LOTS OF \nDISCUSSION ABOUT THE BAY SB272 DEFINITION OF REGIONAL PLANS \nEVERYTHING STAFF BRIEFED YOU ON TWO WEEKS AGO. TERRIBLY EXCITING. NOW \nFOR DISAPPOINTING NEWS FOR OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND MAYBE FOR \nYOU. STARTING IN JANUARY\, STATE LAW WILL AGAIN REQUIRE COMMISSIONERS WHO \nARE NOT PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET DURING OUR FULL COMMISSION MEETINGS TO \nPROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH THE ADDRESSES FROM WHICH THEY WILL BE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. AND OUR REMOTE PARTICIPANTS WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO SO IN A \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND NOTICED PHYSICAL SPACE. \nWHILE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN ENACT THAT ESTABLISHES THE BAGLEY-KEENE ACT \nPUBLIC PARTICIPATION — ONLY IF MAJORITY OF COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT \nHERE AT METRO CENTER. STAFF CANNOT ENSURE THAT A MAJORITY OF \nCOMMISSIONERS WILL BE PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET FOR ANY GIVEN MEETING AND \nWE WILL NOT RUN THE RISK OF NOT HAVING A QUORUM AS FOR THE COMMISSION’S \nADVISORY BODIES WE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH LOCATIONS OF ADVISORY BODY \nREMOTELY SO LONG AS ONE STAFF MEMBER IS PRESENT AT 375 BEALE STREET AT THE \nMEETING THAT ISN’T AN EASY BAR TO CLEAR. THAT COMPLETES HIGH REPORT \nCHAIR HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>ANDREW GUNTHER: LARRY\, I’M GLAD TO \nHEAR YOU ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE TO COME IN TWICE A WEEK. \nTHIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS \nTHAT I AM ON THE BOARDS OF\, AND EXECUTIVES SEEM TO BE KIND OF COMING \nBACK TO THAT PLACE. HOWEVER\, I’M QUITE AWARE OF IT\, THAT IT’S REALLY \nCOMFORTABLE FOR THOSE IN MY GENERATION. BUT THE YOUNGER GENERATION\, I HAVE \nHAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM WHO INSIST PRODUCTIVITY. _ I WOULD ASK YOU TO \nSHARE WITH US IN 3 TO 6 MONTHS HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND I HAVE \nEXPERIENCED SOME PEOPLE WHO SAY\, YAY\, I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE OFFICE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: GREAT QUESTION YES WE WILL. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT\, IF WE \nFIGURE IT OUT\, WE’LL TELL YOU. THIS HAS BEEN REALLY\, FROM AN \nORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR PERSPECTIVE\, FROM A LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVE\, THIS \nHAS BEEN ONE OF THE MORE INTERESTING — AND I MEAN THAT NOT IN AN OBFUSCATE \nWAY BUT AN INTERESTING PROCESS FOR ME. \nI AM\, I’LL TELL YOU ALL\, I NOW CARRY A MEDICARE CARD AS OF THIS YEAR WHICH \nHAS AFFECTED ME GREATLY IN A LOT OF WAYS. BUT THE POINT IS THAT I GREW UP \nPROFESSIONALLY IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, OF 40 OR \nMAYBE UNDER 30 HAVE NOT. AND THAT’S COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAD A \nPANDEMIC IN WHICH EVERYBODY CHANGED THE WAY THEY BEHAVE IN TERMS OF HOW WE \nWORKED. AND SO\, I THINK THAT THE REALLY INTERESTING POINT ABOUT THIS IS \nTHAT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITH OUR FRIENDS WHO ARE ALSO IN \nTHE WORKING WORLD ON SATURDAY NIGHTS OR AT DINNER PARTIES OR WHATEVER\, IT \nREVOLVES AROUND THIS. WE’RE ALL INTERESTED IN HOW WE WORK NOW. \nAND I HAVE BEEN REALLY GRATIFIED THAT A NUMBER OF OUR STAFF WHO ARE YOUNGER\, \nLESS VETERAN THAN WE ARE\, BY FAR\, ARE EAGER TO COME BACK INTO THE OFFICE A \nCOUPLE OF DAYS A WEEK AND A COUPLE HAVE GONE SO FAR AS TO SAY I REALLY WANT TO \nMEET EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T MET EVERYBODY. AND SO BECAUSE WE \nHIRED A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A RELATIVE WAY\, OVER THE PANDEMIC\, AND \nOVER THE PAST YEAR. AND SO THE THURSDAY ANCHOR DAY I THINK IS GOING \nTO BE REALLY\, REALLY PERSONALITY. AND I DO THINK\, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT \nIN THE DAYS THAT I’M IN THE OFFICE THREE DAYS A WEEK\, THAT WHEN PEOPLE \nARE SITTING NEXT TO EACH OTHER\, THEY TALK WITH EACH OTHER\, AND THEY WILL \nRUN INTO EACH OTHER\, AND I HAVE SEEN INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, \nWOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN PLACE\, HAD THEY NOT BEEN IN THE OFFICE\, AND THEY’RE \nLEARNING THINGS FROM THEIR COLLEAGUES. \nI’M LEARNING FROM THEM. SO\, I THINK IT’S REALLY\, REALLY IMPORTANT TO DO \nTHIS. IT’S ONLY TWO DAYS A WEEK\, COMPARED TO FIVE DAYS PRE-PANDEMIC\, \nAND WE WILL GIVE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY — \nWELL\, MAXIMUM IS THE WRONG WORD — WE’LL GIVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY ON \nTHAT SECOND IS DAY. WE’LL LET THE MANAGERS CHOOSE WHEN THAT’S GOING TO \nBE AND THEY WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT’S BEST FOR THEIR TEAMS. SO THERE WILL BE \nFLEXIBILITY THAT WAY TOO. SO WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED. \nYOU KNOW\, PRODUCTIVITY IS NOT MEASURED AT P PG&E? IT’S NOT MEASURED BY \nWIDGETS AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE\, IT’S NOT AS IF YOU CAN QUANTIFY — \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER — OR INCREASE A \nSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PERMITS THAT WE ISSUE BECAUSE WE’RE HERE. THAT’S NOT \nTHE WAY THE WORLD WORKS. BUT PRODUCTIVITY CAN WELL BE MEASURED BY \nINCREASING CULTURE\, BY INCREASING SOCIAL ASPECTS AT WORK AND THE LIKE. \nSO\, I THINK BY DOING THIS WE WILL INCREASE OUR GENERAL PRODUCTIVITY. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. >>SPEAKER: I’LL ALSO POINT OUT MY \nEXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HEARD FROM OTHERS THAT — THAT THOSE WHO SUFFER \nGREATLY FROM REMOTE WORK ARE THE YOUNGEST STAFF MEMBERS WHO ENDS UP NOT \nHAVING ANY KIND OF REGULAR MENTORING THAT HAPPENS JUST KIND OF ELBOW TO \nELBOW WITH PEOPLE. AND I WOULD SUGGEST MR. CHAIRMAN WE CONSIDER POSSIBLY \nHAVING ANCHOR MEETINGS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER GIOIA? WHO DISAPPEARED. \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH. WE’LL COME \nBACK TO COMMISSIONER GIOIA. >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE BEEN BACK NOW\, AT \nMY ORGANIZATION 2\, 2 DAYS A WEEK\, BUT THE TREND IS TOWARD THREE. AND WE’RE \nCLEARLY A BETTER TEAM AND WE’RE EFFECTIVE WHEN WE’RE TOGETHER AND \nHAVING THOSE KIND OF INTERACTIONS. AND I THINK WHAT YOU’RE PROBABLY GOING TO \nSEE IS A TREND IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. \nIT’S TWO DAYS A WEEK NOW\, BUT TRENDING TOWARD THREE\, AND PROBABLY FOUR DAYS \nOVER THE NEXT MAYBE TWO YEARS. IT’S NEGOTIATION\, IT’S A CULTURAL SHIFT. \nWITH US\, AS WELL\, AND MY YOUNGER WORKERS. BUT AFTER A SPUTTERING \nATTEMPT TO DO THIS IN 2022\, I THINK YOU’RE SEEING MORE OF A CONSENSUS IN \nPRIVATE INDUSTRY THAT WE’RE BETTER TOGETHER AND\, SORT OF\, ACTUAL \nSTANDARDS BEING ENFORCED BY COMPANIES TO ENSURE — I’M NOT SUGGESTING THIS \nFOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT THAT\, YOU KNOW\, PEOPLE’S SALARIES\, THEIR VALUATION OR \nEMPLOYMENT WILL DEPEND ON ACTUALLY BEING IN OVER TIME. SO\, I THINK WHAT \nYOU’RE DOING NOW IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION WE’RE SEEING IN THE PRIVATE \nSECTOR. AND IT’S A TRANSITION\, BUT I THINK OVER PROBABLY THE NEXT TWO \nYEARS\, MAYBE THREE\, PROBABLY WE’LL ALL BE BACK 3 TO 4 DAYS. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I RESPOND TO THAT FOR A SECOND? BECAUSE I WANT TO EDUCATE THE \nCOMMISSION ABOUT SOMETHING WITH CAL HR AND THE WAY WE WORK WITH THE STATE. \nYOU KNOW THIS. I MENTIONED IN MY REPORT\, THERE IS \nTHIS SPLIT WITHIN THE STATE IN TERMS OF HOW THE STATE LOOKS AT TWO DAYS VERSUS \nTHREE DAYS. WHAT THE STATE DID WHEN PEOPLE WERE \nCOMING BACK\, WHEN STATE WORKERS WERE COMING BACK WAS PROVIDE A STIPEND\, AND \nTHIS’S THE AMOUNT OF THAT STIPEND DEPENDS UPON WHETHER YOU ARE EITHER \nOFFICE CENTRIC OR REMOTE CENTRIC. AND YOU’RE OFFICE CENTRIC IF YOU ARE LESS \nTHAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE\, AND YOU’RE REMOTE CENTRIC IF \nYOU ARE MORE THAN TWO AND A HALF DAYS OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. WE DON’T HAVE TIME \nAND A HALF AT BCDC THAT BASICALLY MEANS TWO VERSUS THREE. I FIGURED\, AND I \nTHINK THIS IS RIGHT\, AND I THINK THIS IS FAIR _ I DON’T WANT TO GET IN FRONT \nOF THE STATE F THE STATE DECIDES TO CHANGE THE 2/3 SPLIT INTO SOMETHING \nELSE IF THE NEXT GOVERNOR DECIDES TO DO THAT\, I DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT. \nBUT AT THIS POINT SINCE EVERYBODY AT BCDC IS REMOTE CENTRIC WITH EXCEPTION \nOF ME BECAUSE I COME IN THREE DAYS A WEEK AND EVERYONE ELSE IS COPYING IN \nTWO DAYS A WEEK I’M NOT GOING TO GO PAST TWO DAYS THAT’S HOW THE STIPEND \nWORKS WITHIN CAL RHR AND IT’S A 2/3 SPLIT. YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE COMING IN \nCERTAIN DAYS. >>SPEAKER: YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT \nLARRY IT DEPENDS ON THE BUSINESS NEEDS AND EVERY DISTRICT IS DIFFERENT \nDEPENDING ON NEEDS. OUR CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE FOLKS HAVE BEEN IN FIVE \nDAYS A WEEK THEY NEED TO BE. OTHER DIVISIONS WE’RE ASKING THEM TO COME \nINTO THE OFFICE MINIMUM OF TWO DAYS. THIS IS A DISTRICT FOUR OR BAY AREA \nDIRECTION. WE SEE DEFINITELY THERE IS A NEED WITH A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE \nCOMING INTO THE ORGANIZATION WITHOUT ANY PRIOR EXPERIENCE. WE WANT TO BE \nABLE TO DO SOME TEAM BUILDING\, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO GET TO KNOW \nTHEIR TEAMMATES\, AND ASK QUESTIONS FACE-TO-FACE. THERE IS A LOT OF VALUE \nIN HAVING PEOPLE INTERACT FACE-TO-FACE. SO THAT’S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SO \nFAR. AND WE’RE GOING TO BE REEVALUATING EVERY SIX MONTHS OR SO TO \nSEE IF WE’RE ON POINT OR NOT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: I JUST WANT TO SAY WHEN \nWE GET INTO JANUARY AND THE REGIONAL CENTERS I’M WILLING TO HAVE MY OFFICE \nBE A REGIONAL LOCATION\, JUST LIKE WE CURRENTLY ARE FOR THE AIR DISTRICT AND \nTHE SAN 47ING BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY. SO WE GET OTHER BOARD \nMEMBERS IN THE AIR DISTRICT COMING TO MY OFFICE. \nBECAUSE WE ARE HAVE STAFF THAT CAN RUN THIS WHETHER I’M HERE OR NOT\, BUT I \nWILL USUALLY BE HERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT \nTHERE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE DOING WHAT THE AIR DISTRICT IS DOING AND\, \nYOU KNOW\, AND WORKING WITH CURRENT MEMBERS WHO ARE ASSOCIATED WITH \nAGENCIES WHERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC OFFICES. AND I SEE MY FRIEND COUNCIL \nMEMBER ZEPEDA HERE\, CESAR CAN COME UP TO MY OFFICE OR WE CAN TAKE THE FERRY \nTO SAN FRANCISCO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS AVAILABLE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE WILL TAKE YOU UP ON THAT I’M SURE. \nMY COMMENT IS IT’S PARALLEL IN PART TO THE COMMENT ABOUT EMPLOYEES COMING IN\, \nAND THAT’S ABOUT OUR MEETING IN-PERSON\, VERSUS THESE HYBRID MEETINGS. \nONE\, THERE IS JUST AS MUCH UNCERTAINTY AND EXPERIMENTATION GOING ON IN THAT \nAS THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SERVE ON OTHER REGIONAL \nBOARDS KNOW. I THINK\, IN PARTICULAR\, THEY HAVE NOT — THEY\, THE LEGISLATURE \n— HAVE NOT LOOKED VERY CLOSELY AT THE DIFFERENCES FOR REGIONAL BOARDS SUCH \nAS OURS. BECAUSE\, AS MUCH AS I THINK HAVING \nPEOPLE HERE IN THE ROOM MAKES A DIFFERENCE\, TO WIT OUR SOCIAL HOUR \nAFTER THIS MEETING\, THERE ARE ALSO OTHER FACTORS. \nRANGING FROM ENVIRONMENTAL TO\, PLAIN AND SIMPLE\, EFFICIENCY\, WHEN YOU HAVE \nGOT PEOPLE COMING IN FROM ALL OVER THE BAY AREA. \nAND MY HOPE IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL CONTINUE REVIEWING THIS AND\, \nPERHAPS\, COME TO SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS THAN THE LEGISLATION THAT WILL TAKE \nEFFECT IN 2024\, IT APPEARS\, AT LEAST TO ME. \nOKAY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS. OH\, PAT? \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THE CONCEPT ANCHOR MEETINGS AND I \nPRESUME THAT’S A MEETING THAT WE EXPECT EVERYBODY TO SHOW UP TO IN-PERSON. \nAND HAVING SERVED ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS\, I HAVE \nOBSERVED THAT IF YOU HAVE AN ANCHOR MEETING EVERY QUARTER OR EVERY SIX \nMONTHS\, YOU CAN DO YOUR WORK PRETTY WELL OVER THE PHONE OR BY ZOOM. THOSE \nANCHOR MEETINGS ARE IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD BE AGENDAIZED WELL IN ADVANCE \nSO WE CAN PLAN FOR THE TRANSPORTATION TIME. AND\, OF COURSE\, THEY SHOULD \nINCLUDE A SOCIAL HOUR. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS WHERE\, FOR THE \nSECOND TIME IN A ROW\, ARE STILL MODERATELY NEW STAFF MEMBER HARRIET \nROSS GETS OFF EASY. ITEM EIGHT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE\, BAY PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER 119. \nTHE COMMISSION WILL NOW HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT PLAN TO UPDATE \nTHE FINDINGS\, TELLSES\, AND MAP DESIGNATIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN. WE \nHAVE NOT SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THIS ITEM TODAY TO ENSURE THAT COMMISSION STAFF \nAND MEMBERS CAN ANALYZE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INCLUDE THE FINAL DRAFT PROPOSAL. \nANY IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATE CHANGES. \nBEFORE WE HEAR THE STAFF REPORT FROM PRINCIPLE WATERFRONT PLANNER CORY \nMANN\, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE VICE CHAIR EISEN WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE SEAPORT \nPLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE CONTEXT IF SHE DESIRES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SHE DOES DESIRE. I WAS GRATEFUL CHAIR \nWASSERMAN IS ASKING ME TO SPEAK IT GAVE ME TIME TO TAKE A TRIP DOWN MEMORY \nLANE IN THE PAST FEW DAYS. IT WAS BACK IN JANUARY 2019 WHEN THE COMMISSION \nWAS ASKED TO CONSIDER TWO BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS. ONE IS THIS ONE TO REVISE \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN\, AND THE SECOND ONE WAS TO REMOVE HOWARD TERMINAL FROM THE \nPORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION THAT COVERED IT. FOR REASONS OUR CHAIR \nKNOWS VERY WELL\, WE CHOSE TO ADDRESS THE HOWARD TERMINAL AMENDMENT FIRST. \nAND DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT CONTENTIOUS HEARINGS? \n[LAUGHTER] SO IT WAS — THOUGHT MAYBE I SHOULD \nISSUE A TRIGGER WARNING BEFORE I MENTIONED HOWARD TERMINAL. BUT \nLOOKING BACK ON IT\, IT FEELS SOMETIMES IT WAS AN EXERCISE\, IT PROLONGED \nEXERCISE IN IF YOU TILLITY BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER WE \nREACHED OUR CONCLUSION IN JUNE 2022. IN CONNECTION WITH THIS BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT TO REVISE THE SEAPORT PLAN IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE LEARNED A LOT \nDURING THAT PROCESS. WE LEARNED A LOT THAT TURNS OUT TO BE VERY HELPFUL IN \nWHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE DOING NEXT. FOR EXAMPLE\, WE LEARNED ABOUT THE SPECK\, \nTHE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE EXPERTISE WE HAVE THERE _ AND \nHOW IMPORTANT THEY PLAY A ROLE IN ADVISING THIS COMMISSION. I HOPE \nTHERE IS SOMETHING SPAC MEMBERS HERE TODAY. WE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE \nPORTS. A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE PORTS AND DIFFICULTIES IN PLANNING AND \nMAKING SURE THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THIS HUGE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE BAY \nAREA. WE LEARNED MORE THAN I EVER THOUGHT I WOULD KNOW ABOUT CARGO \nFORECAST\, AND HOW DIFFICULT LONG-TERM PLANNING IS. AND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS \nTO UPDATE THESE LONG-TERM PLANS REGULARLY SO THAT WHEN WE DO GET \nCALLED ON TO MAKE DECISIONS\, WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN REALLY USE AND \nRELY UPON. AND THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT WAS \nREALLY IMPORTANT IN THAT PROCESS IS WE LEARNED\, OR RELEARNED HOW IMPORTANT IT \nIS WHEN WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS TO INVOLVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITIES\, \nAND THE EQUITY COMMUNITIES IN THE PROCESS. \nAND I WAS REALLY HAPPY WHEN I SAW THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN A COUPLE OF MONTHS \nAGO\, I GUESS IT IS NOW\, JESSICA. IT WAS CLEAR THAT OUR STAFF HAS TAKEN \nEVERY ONE OF THOSE LESSONS TO HEART AND HAS INCORPORATED THEM IN THE DRAFT \nSEAPORT PLAN THAT WE’RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IN A SECOND\, AND IN THE PROCESS \nOF CREATING THAT DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, IT WAS NOT ALL FOR NOT. IN FACT\, \nI THINK IT ACTUALLY PLAYS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE IN WHAT WE’RE GOING TO \nBE DOING NEXT. THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEARN \nFROM HISTORY. I WOULD NOW ASK CORY MAN TO PRESENT \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN DRAFT. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. \nTHANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. \nI’LL GO AHEAD AND SHARE MY SCREEN WITH THE PRESENTATION. \nAND I’LL ASSUME THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THE PRESENTATION OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE’RE GOOD. \n>>CORY MANN: WELL\, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. I AM EXCITED TO GIVE YOU A \nPRESENTATION ON THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT PLAN. \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN WAS FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1982\, AND AS YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE BEEN \nUNDERTAKING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PLAN. \nIN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S MEETING\, STAFF CIRCULATED A NEW DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN \nALONG WITH A STAFF REPORT\, A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT\, AS WELL AS \nAN ADDENDUM TO THE CARGO FORECAST AND I BELIEVE CAT IS GOING TO ADD A LINK TO \nTHE ZOOM DOCUMENTS SO YOU CAN REFER TO THEM. THIS IS A PRESENTATION OF 30 \nMINUTES BUT I’M GOING TO TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. \nAPOLOGIES IF THIS IS ON THE LONGER SIDE BUT THERE IS A LOT TO COVER TODAY AND \nWE’LL HAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. \nHERE IS A PREVIEW OF WHAT I’LL BE TALKING THROUGH. FIRST GOING THROUGH \nBASIC BACKGROUND ABOUT THE SEAPORT PLAN LIKE THE PURPOSE OF THE PLAN AND HOW \nBCDC HAS BEEN USING IT IN THE PAST AND HOW WE’RE WORKING TO UPDATE. \nAND THEN I’LL GET TO THE DRAFT PLAN ITSELF. I’LL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF \nPROPOSED CHANGES TO THE POLICIES OF THE PLAN. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO GO \nINTO DEPTH OF EVERY POLICY IN THE PRESENTATION I’LL DISCUSS THE LEVEL OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGE IN THE DRAFT BUT MORE THAN HAPPY TO \nANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY POLICY INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT. \nAFTER THAT I’LL SHARE — I’LL TAKE A BREAK TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I’LL \nSHARE MORE ABOUT PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART TWO OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AND \nTHAT’S THE MAPPED BOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS IN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND SOME RELATED POLICIES. AND THEN FINALLY I WILL OUTLINE NEXT \nSTEPS. SO\, FIRST JUST SOME BACKGROUND ABOUT \nTHE HISTORICAL AND\, LIKE\, LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN. MOST \nSIMPLY YOU CAN THINK OF THE SEAPORT PLAN AS A SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. SO THE BAY PLAN HAS A SECTION OF FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES SPECIFIC TO THE PORTS. AND THOSE FINDINGS STATE\, I’LL PARAPHRASE\, \nTHAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CENTRAL AGENCY TO COORDINATE THE PLANNING AND \nDEVELOPMENT OF BAY AREA SEAPORT TERMINALS\, THERE IS A RISK OF \nUNNECESSARY BAY FILL. THEN IT GOES ON TO STATE THAT A \nSEAPORT PLAN IS BASICALLY THEREFORE NEEDED TO COORDINATE THE PORT \nDEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE RISK FILL. \nIN THE 1980s ACTUALLY LATE 1970S BCDC BEGAN TO WORK WITH THE PORTS AS WELL \nAS THE SEAPORT PLANNING AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE\, AND I’LL TALK MORE ABOUT \nTHE COMMITTEE IN THIS PRESENTATION\, TO CREATE THE FIRST SEAPORT PLAN\, IT WAS \nPUBLISHED IN 1982. THE EXISTED PLANNING WAS ACTUALLY \nPUBLISHED IN 1996. AND AS YOU WILL LEARN DURING THIS PRESENTATION IT TOOK \nA PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO PLANNING FOR MARINE TERMINAL DEVELOPMENT\, KIND OF \nON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS\, BUT AGAIN WITH THAT GOAL OF MINIMIZING BAY \nFILL. OF COURSE\, A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE \n1996 AND BECAUSE MANY OF THE PLAN’S POLICIES ARE OUTDATED\, THE COMMISSION \nDECIDED THERE WAS A NEED TO UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE AND THAT’S WHAT \nWE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO\, SOME FAMILIAR \nTHINGS HERE. BUT THAT’STHAT’S CONTEXT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN I WANT TO EXPLAIN \nHOW IT WORKS AND HOW IT FITS INTO BCDC’S AUTHORITY. AS YOU KNOW \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT ENABLES THE PETITION TO ENABLE WATERWAY FOR ORIENTED USES \nONE OF THOSE IS FOR PORTS THESE ARE CALLED PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. \nWITHIN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ONLY USES ARE BASICALLY FOR PORT PURPOSES \nOR TEMPORARY OTHER USES. AND THE INTENT OF THIS DESIGNATION IS \nTHAT BY RESERVING SPECIFIC AREAS FOR MARITIME CARGO AS A REGION WE CAN MAKE \nSURE THOSE AREAS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PORT USE THEREBY MINIMIZING AMOUNT OF BAY \nFILL THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT. SEAPORT PLAN \nDESIGNATES THESE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ACROSS THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS. \nAND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE THAT INCLUDES THE PORTS OF BENECIA\, \nOAKLAND\, SAN FRANCISCO\, RICHMOND\, AND REDWOOD CITY. \nTHERE ARE ALSO TWO RESERVE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WERE NEVER \nDEVELOPED. THAT’S SELBY AND THE CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND I’LL \nTALK MORE ABOUT THOSE AND APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES TO THESE AREAS. \nAS YOU MIGHT RECALL FROM PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS THE FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES IN THE PLAN ARE UNDERPINNED BY A REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST THAT HELPS \nUS UNDERSTAND CARGO GROWTH AND CAPACITY ACROSS THE BAY AREA. \nSO THE PREVIOUS CARGO FORECAST EXPIRED IN 2020 THAT WAS ANOTHER IMPETUS FOR \nUPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER SOME OF THIS\, \nBUT BCDC WORKED WITH A PRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP A NEW CARGO \nFORECAST WITH THE PORTS PROVIDING SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CARGO \nACTIVITIES OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS IN 2019 AND 2020. \nTHE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS APPROVED BY THE SEAPORT PLANNING ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE IN MAY OF 2020 AND IT’S A 30 YEAR FORECAST. SO IT UNSETS IN 2050 \nNOW. WE HAVE CIRCULATED AN ADDENDUM WITH THE CARGO FORECAST WITH MATERIALS \nTHAT REFLECTS INFORMATION CONCERNING DURING THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 2019. \nYOU MIGHT RECALL IT FORECASTS THREE TYPES OF CARGO THAT MOVE THROUGH THE \nBAY AREA PORTS CONTAINER CARGO\, ROLL ON\, ROLL OFF\, ROLL ROW VEHICLE CARGO\, \nAND THE THIRD IS DRIVE OFF CARGO\, AND THAT AFFECTS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. \nIN ADDITION TO DEMAND AND GROWTH FORECAST IT HAS HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF \nCAPACITY WITHIN BCDC EXISTING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS DESCRIBES WHERE \nTHERE IS ROOM FOR EXPANSION AT THE EXISTING MARINE TERMINALS IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WITHIN BCDCEE JURISDICTION. \nSO FOR BCDC STAFF\, THE CARGO FORECAST IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL PROVIDING DATA TO \nEVALUATE PORTS BASED ON POLICIES AND THE FORECAST ANTICIPATES GROWTH ACROSS \nALL THREE TYPES OF CARGO TYPES THROUGH 2050 WHICH REQUIRES AS A REGION TO \nPLAN CAREFULLY FOR THE FUTURE. SO\, BCDC HAS A SEAPORT PLANNING \nADVISORY COMMITTEE\, OR SPAC. AND THE SPAC OVERSAW DEVELOPMENT OF \nTHE ORIGINAL SEAPORT PLAN IN 1982\, AND ALL OF ITS CONSEQUENTLY UPDATES\, \nINCLUDING THIS ONE. SPAC IS AS AN ADVISORY BODY TO THE \nCOMMISSION AND PROVIDES STAKEHOLDER INPUT ON SEAPORT RELATED MATTERS. \nSPAC IS COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FIVE BAY AREA PORTS\, BCDC \nCOMMISSIONERS\, MTC AND ABAG\, THE SAN FRANCISCO MARINA EXCHANGE CALTRANS AND \nSAVE THE BAY. AS PART OF THE UPDATE WE’RE PROPOSING REVISIONS TO THE \nCOMPOSITION OF THE SPAC AND I’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. \nCOMMISSIONER REBECCA EISEN IS CHAIRING THE SPAC AND COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS \nSTEPPED IN AS VICE CHAIR I WANT TO THANK THEM BOTH FOR PROVIDING FEEDBACK \nON THE DRAFT PLAN. COMMISSIONER HASZ HAS TAKEN IN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT \nPROVIDING VALUABLE EDITS AND SUGGESTIONS. AT THIS POINT IF THERE \nARE AREAS IN THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S PROBABLY BECAUSE I MANAGED TO \nREINTRODUCE THEM AFTER COMMISSIONER EISEN FIXED THEM. _ WITH THAT GENERAL \nOVERVIEW IN MIND I’LL RECAP MAJOR REASONS FOR UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN \nNOW. WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THE REGIONAL CARGO FORECAST. WE NEEDED TO REMOVE \nOUTDATED INFORMATION AND UPDATE THE PLAN’S FINDINGS AND POLICIES. WE \nWANTED TO INTRODUCE SOME NEW TOPIC AREAS ESPECIALLY ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND \nON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT PLAN WITH \nCHANGES TO THE BAY PLAN THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS. \nWE WANTED TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS FROM THE PORTS TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. MOST OF THAT’S TO REFLECT ON THE GROUND \nCHANGES TO CARGO ACTIVITY THAT HAVE OCCURRED SINCE THE SEAPORT PLAN WAS \nLAST UPDATED. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE WANTED TO GENERAL REALIGN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO BETTER REFLECT THE SCOPE OF BCDC’S AUTHORITY AND TO \nENCOURAGE MORE REGIONAL COORDINATION. THOSE TRANSLATED TO GOALS FOR OUR WORK \nON THE PLAN. FIRST WE WANT TO HAVE POLICIES IN THE PLAN THAT PROVIDE \nCLEAR AND STREAMLINED GUIDANCE FOR PORTS ABOUT WHAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE \nFOR BCDC WHEN THEY HAVE A PROJECT OR WHEN THEY WANT TO REQUEST A CHANGE FOR \nPORT PRIORITY USE BONDRIES TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING AND PLANS FOR \nTHE PORTS AND ALSO TO GIVE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO BCDC STAFF WHEN THEY \nEVALUATE THOSE PROPOSALS. WE WANT TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR HOW PORTS \nDEVELOPMENT WHILE MINIMIZING BAY FILL AND MAKE SURE WE’RE RETAINING IT \nCAPACITY FOR OUR PORT SYSTEM. WE WANT POLICIES THAT ARE MORE FIRMLY \nROOTED IN BCDC’S AUTHORITY TO MINIMIZE BAY FILL PROMOTE WATER ORIENT THE USES \nAND MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESSES TO THE BAY. AND WE WANT TO SEAPORT PLAN THAT \nIS CLEAR AND EASY TO UNDERSTAND WITH POLICIES THAT ARE GOING STAY \nUP-TO-DATE AS SPECIFIC PROJECTS COME AND GO. \nALTHOUGH IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PLAN TO BE TIMELESS THOSE ARE IDEAS WE TRIED \nTO KEEP IN MISUNDERSTOOD WHEN REMOVING OUTDATED POLICIES AND DRAFTING NEW \nONES. TAKEN TOGETHER THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE AND STREAM PERMITTING FOR \nPORT PROJECTS BY MAKING THE PLAN EASIER TO READ AND USE. AND WE BELIEVE THE \nDRAFT PLAN ACHIEVES THAT VISION. SO NEXT I’LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT \nTHE TIMELINE\, WHICH HAS BEEN PROLONGED AND THIS IS A RELATIVELY CONDENSED \nVERSION. BUT AS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO INITIATE A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN \nIN 2019. BCDC STAFF THEN BEGAN TO WORK WITH A \nPRIVATE CONSULTANT TO DEVELOP THE CARGO FORECAST\, AGAIN WITH THE GUIDANCE OF \nINDIVIDUAL PORTS\, AS WELL AS THE SPAC\, AND THE NEW CARGO FORECAST WAS \nPUBLISHED IN MAY OF 2020. AFTER THAT STAFF BEGAN TO WORK WITH \nTHE PORTS ON SPECIFIC REQUESTS THAT THEY WERE SUBMITTING TO MODIFY THE \nBOUNDARIES OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. I’LL SHOW YOU THE MAP IN A FEW \nMINUTES. THAT PROCESS WAS ONGOING IN 2021 BUT AS MENTIONED EARLIER\, WE HAD \nTO PAUSE WORK ON THE BAY PLAN WHILE CONSIDERING BAY PLAN AMENDMENT 219 \nBECAUSE THAT HAD A LEGISLATIVE TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH T WE WERE ABLE TO \nREMOVE WORK ON THE SEAPORT PLAN LAST FALL AND WE BEGAN BY REACHING OUT TO \nPORT AND PORT STAFF REMOVING MAP CHANGES AND WERE ABLE TO START \nDRAFTING NEW FINDINGS AND POLICIES FOR THE PLAN OF THE WE FIRST CIRCULATED \nTHE PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE NEW SEAPORT PLAN THIS JULY — SDPSH HELD A PUBLIC \nMEETING OF THE SPAC TO REVIEW THE DRAFT. SPAC VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO \nAPPROVE THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN IN THAT MEETING WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT BCDC \nSTAFF WOULD BE INCORPORATING REVISIONS AND FEEDBACK THAT CAME UP BOTH BEFORE \nAND AT THAT MEETING. SO\, WE DID EXACTLY THAT. WE \nINCORPORATED SOME CHIANGS TO THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE PLAN\, BASED ON INPUT FROM \nSPAC MEMBERS\, FROM THE PORTS\, AND FROM OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WHO PROVIDED PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. AND THERE IS A SECTION IN TODAY’S STAFF REPORT THAT DESCRIBES \nEXACTLY WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE. WE HAVE SENT THE REVISED DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN TO YOU AT THEN OF SEPTEMBER AND THAT BRINGS US TO THE PRESENT. SO \nAFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING\, WE’LL UNDERTAKE A FINAL ROUND OF REVISIONS \nTO THE PLAN AS NEEDED AND THEN CIRCULATE A FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nTHAT DESCRIBES LAST NEW CHANGES RAINING A COPY OF THE DRAFT PLAN. LASTLY \nWE’LL HOLD ONE MORE PUBLIC MEETING FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A VOTE ON THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN. IT’S BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL PROCESS WE HAVE HAD FIVE \nPUBLIC MEETINGS OF OUR SEAPORT PLAN MEETING BRIEFINGS TO STAKEHOLDERS AND \nINDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH PORT AND PORT STAFF TOO BUT ALL HAS SUBSTANTIALLY \nIMPROVED THE DRAFT PLAN AND WE’RE EXCITED TO SHARE IT WITH YOU TODAY. \nBEFORE I GET INTO CONTENT OF THE NEW DRAFT PLAN I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE TO \nDISCUSS THE STATUS OF THE SEPARATE AMENDMENT. AS YOU MAY RECALL THE \nCOMMISSION VOTED TO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA FROM THE HOWARD \nTERMINAL SITE AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IN JUNE OF 2022. AT THE REQUEST OF THE \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS ALONG WITH THE CITY OF OAKLAND AND PORT OF OAKLAND. \nHOWEVER\, HOWARD TERMINAL REMAINS SUBJECT TO REQUIREMENTS OF ASSEMBLY \nBILL 1191. SO\, I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT A RELEVANT PROVISION OF THIS BILL\, AND \nSORRY FOR THE SMALL TEXT BUT I WILL READ IT. IT STATES IF THE PORT AND \nOAKLAND ATHLETICS HAVE NOT ENTERED INTO A BINDING AGREEMENT BY JANUARY 1ST\, \n2025\, THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OAKLAND SPORTS AND MIXED USE \nPROJECT THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED ON THE HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DELETED \nPURSUANT TO BCDC’S SEAPORT PLAN AND BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THE REMOVAL OF THAT DESIGNATION FROM HOWARD TERMINAL WAS A \nSEPARATE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT PROPOSED SEAPORT PLAN THE \nCOMMISSION ACTED ON LAST SUMMER SO BCDC STAFF DOESN’T TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO \nTHE CURRENT STATUS OF HOWARD TERMINAL AS PART OF THE GENERAL UPDATE TO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. HOWEVER SHOULD AN AGREEMENT NOT BE REACHED REGARDING THE \nPORT AND BETWEEN THE PORT AND OAKLAND ATHLETICS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2025\, AT \nTHAT TIME\, BCDC STAFF WILL REVERT THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BACK TO HOWARD \nTERMINAL PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nTHE FIRST DRAFT OF THE SEAPORT PLAN THAT WAS CIRCULATED BACK IN JULY \nDIDN’T INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL AND SOME OF THE SEAPORT PLANS TABLES THAT \nCONCERNED SOME STAKEHOLDERS DUE TO THE FACT THAT HOWARD TERMINAL MAY GO BACK \nTO PRIORITY USE. DUE TO COMMENTS STAFF REVISED THE DRAFT SEAPORT PLAN THAT WE \nSENT TO YOU TODAY TO INCLUDE HOWARD TERMINAL IN THE RELEVANT TABLE OF THE \nPLAN\, THAT LISTS OUT MARINE TERM NAT EXPANSION SITES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, \nWITH A FOOTNOTE TO DESCRIBE ITS UNIQUE STATUS. \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BCDC STAFF HAVE INTENTIONALLY USED A LIGHT TOUCH HERE \nIN THE UPDATE THE SEAPORT PLAN REGARDING HOWARD TERMINAL IN A PROCESS \nTO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE PLAN IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION MUST \nREVERT TO PORT PRIORITY USE ON JANUARY 25\, ’20. \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SIMPLE AND EASY TO ADD HOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO PORT \nPRIORITY USE NOT TRYING TO CREATE BARRIERS IN REQUIREMENTS OF THAT BILL. \nSORRY THAT’S A LOT. BUT THAT’S AN \nOVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS AND TIMELINE TO DATE. SO NOW I’M GOING TO SHIFT TO \nCONTENT AND PREVIEW PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN. YOU \nKNOW\, THIS UPDATE IT’S TECHNICALLY A REVISION TO THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT WE’RE REVAMPING THE ENTIRE PLAN. IT’S GOING TO BE A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW \nOF TOPIC AREAS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED FROM THE 1996 PLAN TO THE NEW \nDRAFT. BUT AGAIN HAPPY TO GO INTO DEPTH ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR POLICIES \nAFTER THE PRESENTATION IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. \nSO\, FIRST\, AS I MENTIONED\, THE ENTIRETY OF THE SEAPORT PLAN HAS BEEN REWRITTEN \nINTRODUCTION TO THE 1996 PLAN IF YOU LOOK AT IT IT’S REALLY TECHNICAL AND \nWE TRIED TO SCALE THAT BACK IN THE NEW DRAFT PLAN TO IMPROVE THE PLAN’S \nGENERAL READABILITY AND CLARITY. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN IT’S A \nREGULATORY DOCUMENT AND MANY PEOPLE WHO ACCESS IT ARE LIKELY TO BE PORT STAFF \nOR OTHER BCDC APPLICANTS. WE WANTED TO USE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO \nMAKE SURE THAT ANYONE WHO PICKS THIS UP CAN LEARN ABOUT BCDC\, UNDERSTAND BCDC \nROLE AS IT RELATES TO THE PORTS\, AND LEARN SOME BASIC INFORMATIONS ABOUT \nTHE FIVE PORTS AND WHY THEY’RE VITAL TO THE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY. SO \nTHE INTRODUCTION WITH SOME MAJOR GOALS OF THE PLAN AND IT EXPLAINS BCDC \nAUTHORITY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PLAN AND HOW IT WAS UPDATED \nTHEN THERE ARE NICE SUMMARIES OF EACH OF THE FIVE PORTS AND THEIR \nACTIVITIES. THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PORTS THEMSELVES WHICH \nWAS REALLY NICE OF THEM. AND THEN THERE IS A HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE \n2050 CARGO FORECAST. THEN WE GET TO THE ACTUAL POLICY TOPIC \nAREAS. IN EACH OF THESE TOPIC AREAS THERE ARE NUMEROUS FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES. I’LL GO INTO EACH TOPIC AREA IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. AS AN \nOVERVIEW YOU SEE THERE ARE FOUR NEW TOPIC AREAS. ONE IS ON THE SEAPORT \nPLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ITSELF AND THEN CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY AND REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN \nUPDATES. WE ARE ALSO RETAINING A COUPLE OF \nTOPIC AREAS AND RECITATION THEM IN THE NEW PLAN. ONE OF THOSE IS ON \nPRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND THE OTHER ARE THE \nPOLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. AND THEN FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE TWO TOPIC AREAS\, NOT BECAUSE THE ISSUES THEMSELVES ARE UNIMPORTANT\, BUT \nJUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE ESSENTIALLY BECOME OUTDATED AND REDUNDANT WITH \nOTHER REGIONAL PLANNING EFFORTS OR OTHER EFFORTS THAT BCDC HAS \nUNDERTAKEN. BUT WE ACTUALLY RETAIN STILL A COUPLE OF POLICIES \nPARTICULARLY RELATED TO GROUND TRANSPORTATION. BUT HAVE BROUGHT THEM \nOVER TO THE NEW SECTION ABOUT REGIONAL COORDINATION. \nTHAT’S A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE TOPIC AREAS. \nSO\, THE FIRST NEW TOPIC AREA\, IT’S SPECIFIC TO THE SPAC ITSELF. THE SPAC \nWAS ESTABLISHED\, ORIGINALLY\, THROUGH A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING\, AN MOU\, \nBETWEEN BCDC IN 1978\, THE SEAPORT PLAN NICKS INCONSISTENCIES PLAN DOESN’T \nHAVE FINDINGS OR POLICIES THAT SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE WHAT THE PURPOSE \nAND ROLE OF THE SPAC. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THIS \nTO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF. WE ADDED FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES TO IDENTIFY COMPOSITION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SPAC. \nPREPSED CHANGES TO THE COMPOSITION OF THE SPAC. I KNOW THIS SLIDE IS A BIT \nHARD TO READ YOU ABOUT BASICALLY WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE A COUPLE OF \nDEFUNCT POSITIONS. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE IS AN APPOINTMENT FOR SOMEONE \nFROMENSENAL TERMINALS WHICH DOESN’T EXIST ANYMORE. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO REBALANCE BCDC AND MTC AND ABAG APPOINTMENTS\, AND WE’RE \nSUGGESTING TO ADD TWO NEW MEMBERS FROM COMMUNITY-BASED AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND ONE FROM A MARITIME INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER. \nWE HOPE THESE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE GOING TO STRENGTHEN THE SPAC’S ROLE AS \nAN EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP TO THE COMMISSION. BUT I ALSO WANT TO \nEMPHASIZE\, AND THIS IS ALSO DESCRIBED IN A FINDING ABOUT THE SPAC THAT THE \nPURPOSE OF THE SPAC IS TO PROVIDE BASICALLY EXPERT TECHNICAL ADVICE TO \nTHE COMMISSION. THE SPAC PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME STAKEHOLDERS TO \nADVISE THE COMMISSION ON PORT RELATED TOPICS\, BUT CONSULTATION WITH THE SPAC \nIS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE MEANINGFUL INVOLVEMENT OF PORT COMMUNITIES IN \nDECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. Y IS EMPHASIS OF THE COMMITTEE IS ON \nTECHNICAL EXPERTISE. NEXT ABOUT POLICIES OF THE FORECAST WE \nHAVE WRITTEN FINDINGS THAT SUMMARIZE CONCLUSIONINGS OF THE CARGO FORECAST. \nTHERE ARE TWO POLICIES IN THIS TOPIC AREAS. \nFIRST DESCRIBES HOW THE FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED AND THE SECOND DESCRIBES \nHOW THE SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD IMPLEMENT AND RELY ON THE FORECAST. \nSO THOSE POLICIES IN PART STATE THAT THE CARGO FORECAST SHOULD BE UPDATED \nAT LEAST ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS BUT THERE ARE ALSO ALLOWANCES FOR UPDATES \nBASICALLY BASED ON THE COMMISSION’S DISCRETION. \nNEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT THE POLICIES FOR THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. SO THESE \nARE THE BULK OF POLICIES THAT WOULD BE RELIED ON WHEN A PORT OR ENTITY NEEDS \nA PERMIT FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION. \nWE’RE PROPOSING TO SIMPLIFY FOUR TOPIC AREAS FROM THE 1996 PLAN BY COMBINING \nTHEM INTO A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED\, PRESERVING AND ENHANCING PORT PRIORITY \nUSE TOPIC. THE 1996 PLAN HAD SOME OUTDATED CARGO SPECIFIC POLICIES THAT \nWERE BASICALLY WANTING TO REMOVE IN A SINGLE TOPIC AREA THAT’S ALIGN WITH \nBCDC’S SCOPE MISSION AND AUTHORITY. _ THIS TOPIC AREA HAS A RANGE EVER \nPOLICIES. MOST RELATE TO DEVELOPMENT OR ALLOWABLE USES IN PORT PRIORITY USE \nAREAS. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ALL THIS INCLUDES POLICY FOR ADDING OR \nREMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS\, FILL\, USING TERMINALS TOPICS LIKE INTERIM \nUSES\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, FERRIES AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS. \nHAPPY TO ANSWER ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THESE POLICIES \nAGAIN. YOU KNOW\, IN THIS SECTION\, STAFF BASICALLY SOUGHT TO IMPROVE THE \nCLARITY OF THE FINDINGS AND\, ESPECIALLY\, THE DEFINITIONS OF \nDIFFERENT TERMS. THERE IS ALSO A GENERAL FOCUS ON THE PROCESS AND \nSTANDARDS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPLY TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. \nSO\, COMBINED\, WE HOPE THESE CHANGES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE TO \nPORTS\, AS WELL AS FOR BCDC STAFF TO USE TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS. BASICALLY\, \nLIKE\, HERE IS THE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE IN AN APPLICATION\, AND HERE IS \nWHAT THE INFORMATION NEEDS TO SHOW TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SEAPORT PLAN. \nSO TRYING TO REMOVE ANY AMBIGUITY AND HOPE TO STREAMLINE PERMITTING. \nWE’RE HOPES PROPOSING A NEW TOPIC ON ADDING CLIMATE CHANGE WHICH IS NOT \nADDRESSED IN THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN THE INTENT IS TO ALIGN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN WITH POLICIES. THIS IS BRIEF RECOGNIZING THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF IS \nUNLIKELY TO BE A DRIVING FORCE FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA\, \nRATHER FINDINGS AND POLICIES ARE INTENDED TO BRIDGE AND REFERENCE OUT \nTO EXISTING AND PLANNED EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE. SO THEY’RE \nNOT NECESSARILY NEW REQUIREMENTS BUT INSTEAD THEY REFLECT REQUIREMENTS THAT \nARE ALREADY LAID OUT IN THE BAY PLAN POLICIES ON CLIMATE CHANGE. \nSO\, THERE ARE FOUR NEW FINDINGS THERE THAT SUMMARIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF \nPORTS\, GENERAL VULNERABILITIES\, BCDC LED ADAPTATION EFFORTS AND THE ROLE OF \nTHE PORTS IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE. AND THERE ARE THREE NEW POLICIES THAT YOU \nCAN SEE ON THE SLIDE\, THEY SPEAK TO THE NEED TO INCLUDE PORTS AS CRITICAL \nSTAKEHOLDERS IN ADAPTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nNEED TO INCORPORATE SEA LEVEL RISE CONSIDERATIONS INTO ANY FUTURE UPDATES \nTO THE SEAPORT PLAN OR THE CARGO FORECAST. AND NEED TO RECOGNIZE THE \nROLE OF THE PORTS IN DISASTER RESPONSE. \nSO WE RECOGNIZE THAT MANY OF THE PORTS ARE UNDERGOING THEIR OWN SEA LEVEL \nRISE PLANNING PROCESSES THOSE ARE RAMMED RAPIDLY EVOLVING AT DIFFERENT \nSTAGES. BAY ADAPT IS GOING TO IMPACT HOW LOCAL PORTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLAN \nFOR RISE IN SEA LEVEL. NOW THAT IS. B 272 HAS PASSED THAT’S GOING TO BE A \nPRIMARY FOCUS FOR BCDC WORK. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PORTS ARE INFORMED AS \nPART OF THE PROCESS AND WE WANT POLICIES TO ACT AS A BRIDGE TO PROVIDE \nGUIDANCE WHILE WE SEE HOW THE LANDS SCAPE EVOLVES OVER THE NEXT FEW \nYEARS. WE HAVE INTRODUCED A NEW TOPIC AREA ON \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY. THIS IS\, AGAIN\, TO ALIGN THE \nBAY PLAN POLICIES ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY THAT WERE \nADOPTED IN 2019. SO\, AS YOU KNOW\, THE BAY PLAN REQUIRES \nEQUITABLE\, CULTURALLY RELEVANT COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT TO \nBE CONDUCTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROJECT APPLICANTS TO MEANINGFULLY \nINVOLVE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED COMMUNITIES FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE IN \nUNDERREPRESENTED\, VULNERABLE\, OR IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. SO THOSE \nPOLICIES ALSO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL DISPROPORTIONATE \nIMPACTS OF PROJECTS AND TAKE MEASURES THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND \nPERMITTING PROCESSES TO REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR ANY DISPROPORTIONATE \nADVERSE PROJECT IMPACTS. SO\, THOSE REQUIREMENTS\, OF COURSE\, \nALSO APPLY TO ANY ACTIVITIES IN THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN\, WE HAVE INTRODUCED THREE NEW FINDINGS THAT DESCRIBE GENERAL \nPORT RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH IMPACTS\, EFFORTS TO REDUCE \nENVIRONMENTSAL BURDENS AND ROLE AND AUTHORITY THAT BCDC OTHER AND AGENCIES \nAND MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IN REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IMPACTS. \nWE HAVE INTRODUCED 33 NEW POLICIES HERE — FIRST ONE INTRODUCES PLANS AND \nPOLICIES\, PROJECTS REDUCE AIR MUSICIANS\, REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND \nSEAPORT PLAN UPDATES AND STREAMLINE PROJECTS FOR SOAR POWER IMPROVEMENTS \nOR INFRASTRUCTURE MODIFICATIONS THAT COULD BE IMPROVED IN THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS. AND THIRD SPEAKS TO REGIONAL COLLABORATION AND FUTURE PLAN \nUPDATES. _ IMPORTANTLY\, THERE ARE OTHER POLICIES IN THE DRAFT SEAPORT \nPLAN THAT HAVE EJ RELATED REQUIREMENTS\, BUT SOMETIMES THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE \nWOVEN INTO THE APPROPRIATE RELEVANT POLICIES THEMSELVES. \nFOR EXAMPLE\, THE POLICY FOR ADDING OR REMOVING PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WILL \nNOW HAVE A REQUIREMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE BAY PLAN FOR APPLICANTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT IN CONSISTENCY WITH EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY \nPOLICIES. AS I MENTIONED\, WE’RE PROPOSING TO \nREMOVE DREDGING AND NAVIGATION FINDINGS AND POLICIES FROM THE EXISTING SEAPORT \nPLAN. BOTH POLICIES WERE WRITTEN PRIOR TO \nTHE COMPLETION OF THE BAY AREA LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OR LTMS \nFOR DREDGING BACK IN 2001. SO THEY HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE AND THE \nBAY PLAN ALREADY CONTAINS POLICIES ON DREDGING. SO WE LOOKED AT THIS AND \nDIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT ALREADY COVERED BY THE BAY PLAN\, LTMS \nOR OTHER EXISTING EFFORTS SO WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE THAT SECTION FROM THE \nSEAPORT PLAN TO REMOVE REDUNDANCY. THIS DOESN’T AFFECT PLANS FOR DREDGING \nPROJECTS THIS IS CLEAN UP OF OUTDATED INFORMATION. \nAND FINALLY WE’RE PROPOSING TO DELETE A TOPIC AREA THAT INCLUDES SOME GROUND \nTRANSPORTATION POLICIES THAT SPOKE MORE DIRECTLY TO MTC’S PRIOR ROLE IN THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. INSTEAD WE HAVE DEVELOPED A NEW TOPIC \nAREA CALLED REGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN SEEP UPDATES TO \nBETTER REFLECT BCDC ROLE IN JURISDICTION. SO THE FIRST TWO \nPOLICIES IN HERE WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE GROUND TRANSPORTATION TOPIC AREA OF \nTHE PLAN AND WE BROUGHT THEM INTO THE PLAN WITH MINOR REVISIONS. FIRST \nSPEAKS TO THE NEED TO PRESERVE _ ACCESS TO MARINE TERMINALS AND SECOND FOCUS \nIS ON MITIGATION RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF TRAFFIC. \nPOLICY THREE HERE IS NEW. IT ENCOURAGES BCDC AND MTC TO COORDINATE \nREGARDING MAP CHANGES WHEN EITHER BCDC UPDATES THE SEAPORT PLAN OR MTC \nUPDATES PLANNED BAY AREA. SO\, BASICALLY BCDC AND MTC WANT TO MAKE \nSURE THAT WE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO ALIGN OUR REGIONAL THINKING AND REDUCE \nANY POTENTIAL CONFLICTS IN THESE KIND OF DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES. \nAND FINALLY POLICY FOUR HERE SETS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR UPDATING THE \nSEAPORT PLAN AND ENCOURAGES FUTURE UPDATES WE DO TO BE SYNCHRONIZED WITH \nTIMING OF MTC’S SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN AND/OR PLANNED BAY \nAREA UPDATES WHEN POSSIBLE. NEXT TIME WE GO TO UPDATE THE CEQA PLAN WE HOPE \nTO PLAN AND COORDINATE THE TIMING OF THAT WITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. \nSO\, THAT’S AN OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE POLICY CHANGES TO THE PLAN. \nBEFORE I TALK ABOUT PART TWO OF THE PLAN\, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS THE MAPS OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS AND SOME POLICIES RELATED TO SOMETHING CALLED \nMARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS\, I THOUGHT I SHOULD PAUSE HERE\, JUST TO ANSWER IF \nTHERE ARE ANY BRIEF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ABOUT \nJUST WHAT I HAVE PRESENTED SO FAR. SO\, I’LL BRIEFLY STOP SHARING MY SCREEN SO \nI CAN SEE YOU ALL. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS THUS FAR? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? >>SPEAKER: YOU HAD SAID THAT THE \nCARGO FORECAST IS A CRITICAL COMPONENT OF THE PLAN. AND MY MEMORY\, FROM OUR \nPREVIOUS HEARINGS WAS THAT THERE WAS REALLY UNAVOIDABLE UNCERTAINTY IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST. LIKE\, I REMEMBER PARTICULARLY PROJECTIONS OF ROLO CARGO \nWERE SOMETHING LIKE TESLA WOULD MAKE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WAS THE FORECAST \nPROVES INACCURATE? AND WAS THERE A PREVIOUS FORECAST THAT WE WERE ABLE TO \nLOOK AT AND SEE HOW ACCURATE THE PROJECTIONS WERE? \n>>CORY MANN: GREAT QUESTION. THANKS. I THINK THAT’S RIGHT. \nTHERE IS INHERENT UNCERTAINTY TO FORECASTING. IT’S DEFINITELY REALLY \nCHALLENGING AND ESPECIALLY DOING SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THE BAY AREA \nREGION. AND I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT \nIN MIND IN OUR DECISION-MAKING. WE REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT WHEN MAKING \nNEW POLICIES FOR THE CARGO FORECAST ITSELF. SO\, ONE OF THE POLICIES CALLS \nFOR THE COMMISSION IN THE SPAC IN COORDINATION WITH THE PORTS TO TRY TO \nMONITOR THE REGION’S CARGO VOLUMES\, MARINE TERMINAL USES AND SHIP CALLS AS \nNEEDED. AND\, ALSO\, TO KEEP AN EYE ON EMERGING \nTRENDS THAT COULD IMPACT THE REGION’S CARGO CAPACITY. FOR EXAMPLE\, LIKE\, \nINFRASTRUCTURE FOR ZERO-EMISSIONS TRUCK CHARGING\, OFFSHORE WIND HAS COME UP\, \nAND TRYING TO KIND OF CONTINUOUSLY COLLECT AND ASSESS THAT DATA. \nWE ALSO ADDED A BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SEAPORT PLAN FOR FIRST THE \nCOMMISSION TO REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATES TO THE CARGO FORECAST IF \nGROWTH IS SIGNIFICANTLY DEVIATING FROM EXPECTED TRENDS OR IF\, YOU KNOW\, A \nPARTICULAR CHANGE\, LIKE ADDING OR REMOVING A PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nCOULD IMPACT A REGION’S CAPACITY FOR CARGO GROWTH. \nTHERE IS QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION IN THERE\, THERE IS ANOTHER POLICY WE \nADDED IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTING THE CARGO FORECAST. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER IT \nHAS DIFFERENT GROWTH SCENARIOS AND HAS A MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO WHICH WAS \nDEVELOPED BASICALLY AS THE BASELINE FORECAST\, AND SO WE HAVE PUT A POLICY \nIN THERE SAYING SPAC AND COMMISSION SHOULD GENERALLY RELIES ON THE \nBASELINE FORECAST BUT THE COMMISSION CAN ALWAYS CONSIDER NEW INFORMATION ON \nCARGO GROWTH\, YOU KNOW\, IF IT’S DEVIATING FROM THAT TREND IN ORDER TO \nSUPPLEMENT THE CARGO FORECAST. AND WE ALSO SAID WHEN POSSIBLE IT SHOULD BE \nUPDATED PRIOR TO A PARTICULAR ISSUE. THOSE ARE THINGS WE TRIED TO THINK \nABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE FOR THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER THEN \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THIS WAS REALLY \nVERY\, VERY FASCINATING. AND I WANT TO MAKE MAINLY A FEW \nCOMMENTS AND I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS TO. ONE COMMENT IS THIS IS A SEAPORT PLAN \nBUT IS REALLY A CARGO — A SEAPORT PLAN RELATED TO CARGO. SEAPORTS DO OTHER \nTHINGS IN OUR WORLD BESIDES JUST FOR CARGO\, THEY’RE USED FOR RECREATION\, \nAND THEY’RE — YOU KNOW\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, THERE IS OTHERS THINGS THAT WE USE OUR \nSEAPORTS FOR. AND WIND POWER WAS MENTIONED AS LOCATIONS AT SEAPORTS \nBECAUSE IT’S OFTEN WINDY AT THE EDGES OF WATER BODIES. ANOTHER THING I WANT \nTO MENTION IN THE LARGE VIEW TALKING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE\, WE HAVE TALKED \nABOUT HOW TO PROTECT THE SEAPORTS. BUT ANOTHER THING I THINK WE WANT TO TALK \nABOUT IN A SENSE IS HOW DO THE SEAPORTS PROTECT US. BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK \nABOUT THE ENERGY THAT’S INVOLVED IN MOVING CARGO\, IT’S MUCH\, MUCH MORE \nEFFICIENT TO MOVE IT BY BARGE THAN IT IS BY AIRPLANE. AND PARTICULARLY FROM \nGHG EMISSIONS. NOW THAT\, IT DEPENDS A LOT ON HOW THE SHIPS ARE\, YOU KNOW\, \nARE POWERED\, BUT THERE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT TO BE IMPROVED DRAMATICALLY. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WHEN WE THINK OF \nCONTRIBUTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE IMPROVEMENTS\, THIS ISN’T SO MUCH OF AN \nADAPTATION THING\, IT’S A MITIGATION\, A HUGE MITIGATION\, ALLOWING THIS CARGO \nINDUSTRY TO PERSIST AND PROSPER IN OUR AREA IS JUST A LONG-TERM BIG \nMITIGATION. SO\, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT JUST \nTHESE STRUCTURES\, THESE SEAPORTS THEMSELVES\, THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE \nINFRASTRUCTURE. I MEAN\, THEY DO FUNCTION THAT WAY. THE ROADS INSIDE \nTHEM OFTEN FUNCTIONS AS LEVIES FOR FLOODING. WE DON’T USUALLY THINK \nABOUT IT THAT WAY BUT IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE BAY AREA\, IT’S REALLY CLEAR \n_ THAT OUR ROADS ARE\, SORT OF\, A — THE ULTIMATE LEVEES. AND THEN ANOTHER \nTHING I WANTED TO MENTION THAT IS\, SORT OF\, THE OPPOSITE IS FROM AN ENDANGERED \nSPECIES PROTECTION POINT OF VIEW. CARGO SHIPS HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD ACTOR \nOVER TIME IN BRINGING IN INVEGAS INVASIVE SPECIES IN THEIR HULLS. HOW \nWE OPERATE SEAPORTS CAN BE PROTECTIVE OF\, YOU KNOW\, OF THE NATURAL — OUR \nNATURAL BIODIVERSITY. NOW\, I PRESUME THAT NOAA FISHERIES IS TAKING CARE OF \nTHAT. WE’RE NOT TAKING CARE OF THAT. I WANT TO MENTION IT AS ANOTHER \nENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT’S ASSOCIATED WITH THIS\, THAT WE SHOULD — YOU KNOW\, \nI THINK WE SHOULD JUST BE KEEPING IN MIND IN THE BIG PICTURE. \nAND THEN I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I\, JUST AS A QUESTION\, THAT THE — \nTHIS IS SILENT ON DREDGING. AND THAT’S BECAUSE\, OF COURSE\, OF THE LTMS\, SINCE \n2001\, AND IT’S ALSO BECAUSE OF THE POLICY WORK THAT WE’RE DOING IN THE \nSEDIMENT\, WORKING GROUP\, RIGHT NOW\, TO PRODUCE NEW POLICIES FOR THE BAY PLAN. \nSO\, THAT IS BEING DEALT IN A DETAILED MANNER SOMEWHERE ELSE. \nI WANTED TO CONFIRM\, EVERYBODY\, YEAH\, THAT’S THE CASE. OKAY. \nTHEN MY OTHER QUESTION\, MORE DETAILED\, IS ABOUT POLICY FIVE. \nPOLICY FIVE IS\, CORY\, IS BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE TERMINALS. \nAND WHEN I READ POLICY FIVE\, GRANTED IT DOES HAVE LANGUAGE THAT SEEMS SIMILAR \nTO THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT\, BUT IT ALSO SEEMS VERY RESTRICTIVE ALL AVAILABLE \nBERTHS WILL HAVE BEEN USED\, ALL REASONABLE INVESTMENTS\, NO OTHER \nFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES. I MEAN\, DOES THAT GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE \nMAY NEED IN THE FUTURE? >>SPEAKER: DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER \nTHAT? >>CORY MANN: I CAN START. \nTHANKS FOR THE QUESTION. THERE ARE TWO RELATED POLICIES NEXT TO EAR OTHER \nTHERE\, THERE IS THE BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE POLICY\, AND BAY FILL TO DEVELOP \nEXISTING MARINE TERMINAL SITES. POLICY FIVE THERE\, BAY FILL FOR NEW MARINE \nTERMINALS IS BASICALLY — THAT POLICY IS ORIENTED TOWARD IF A \nBRAND-NEW MARINE TERMINAL WAS TO BE PROPOSED. WHERE ONE DOESN’T CURRENTLY \nEXIST SO THAT’S THE KIND OF PROJECT WHERE YOU WOULD BE CONTEMPLATING \nLARGER VOLUMES OF BAY FILL THAN A SITE THAT’S BEING REDEVELOPED. \nAND\, SO THAT’S WHY THE STANDARD THERE IS HIGH. \nAND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ERIK. \n>>SPEAKER: I CAN SAY IT ECHOES THE MAC TEAR PET RICK REQUIREMENTS. WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT BAY FILL FOR PORT USE. MCATEER-PETRIS ACT HAS TO DO WITH \nEXCEEDING THE FILL\, WATER USE WATER FILL NECESSARY AND NO ALTERNATIVE \nLOCATION. WHEN WE’RE DOING WITH PRIORITY USE AREAS IN MARINE TERMINALS \nTHAT COULD EXIST OUTSIDE OF THOSE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS WE WANT TO BE \nTHINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS THAT’S WHY WE’RE USE THE PRIORITY USE \nAREAS FOR INFILL FOR SOME PLACE THAT ALREADY HAS A LOCATION. _ THAT’S WHY \nWE DRAFTED IT THAT WAY. THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS COULD BE ADDED TO \nOR CHANGED BASED ON REGIONAL NEEDS OVER TIME. SO THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WOULD \nRECOMMEND IN THAT CASE BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSORRY. A LITTLE BIT OF A CATERING ISSUE FOR THE SOCIAL HOUR. \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? >>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. ONE COMMENT\, ON THE BCDC APPOINTMENTS TO THE SPAC\, ONE OF THEM \nSAYS COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATION\, \nAPPOINTED BY BCDC. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN JUST ADD \nTO THAT DESCRIPTION\, A CBO\, OR EJ ORGANIZATION FROM A COMMUNITY IMPACTED \nBY THE — BY ONE OF THE PORTS. WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE IS\, LET’S SAY \nSOMEONE APPLIES THAT’S NEAR THE PORT OF OAKLAND\, VERSUS SOMEONE WHO MAY COME \nFROM AN EJ COMMUNITY THAT IS NOWHERE NEAR A PORT. SO\, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE \nIF WEEKEND ADD THAT DESCRIPTOR THAT IT WOULD BE\, YOU KNOW\, ONE OF THOSE \nORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES IMPACTED BY A PORT. CAN WE DO THAT? \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: YEAH. THANK YOU FOR \nTHAT RECOMMENDATION. >>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION? \nWE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO WELCOME COMMENTS \nFROM ANY MEMBERS — >>SPEAKER: WE HAVE PART TWO? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M SORRY. CORY. YOU HAVE PART TWO. \n>>CORY MANN: SORRY. IT’S A LONG PRESENTATION. \n[LAUGHTER] NO PROBLEM. I’LL DO PART TWO NOW. \nPART TWO IS SHORTER\, TOO. OKAY. I’LL ASSUME EVERYONE CAN SEE MY \nSLIDES AGAIN. THANKS FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. NEXT I’LL TALK ABOUT\, THIS \nIS BOTH PART TWO OF THE PRESENTATION\, AND PART TOFT SEAPORT PLAN. THIS PART \nOF THE SEAPORT PLAN IS CALLED THE MARINE TERMINAL DESIGNATIONS. \nAND WE’RE PROPOSING SOME CHANGES IN TERMS OF HOW WE APPROACH THIS IN THE \nNEW DRAFT PLAN. AND THEN FINALLY I’LL REVIEW THE MAPS OF THE PORT PRIORITY \nUSE AREAS THEMSELVES AND CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL PORTS. \nANOTHER RELATIVELY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW BUT OF COURSE I’M HAPPY TO TAKE \nQUESTIONS AGAIN ON ANYTHING SPECIFIC. FIRST I’LL TALK ABOUT THE MARINE \nTERMINAL DESIGNATIONS WHICH ARE PART OF THE 1996 SEAPORT PLAN. THIS IS A BIT \nIN THE WEEDS BUT A BIG COMPONENT ABOUT HOW THE 1996 PLAN WORKS. I WANTED TO \nMAKE SURE TO DESCRIBE HOW THIS IS CHANGING. SO\, I MENTIONED AT THE \nBEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN APPLIES SPECIFIC POLICIES \nTO THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS. AND IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, IT BASICALLY \nALLOCATES PROJECTED CARGO VOLUMES TO EVERY MARINE TERMINAL IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. SO I HAVE INCLUDED AN EXAMPLE TABLE \nFROM THE PORT OF OAKLAND UP ON THIS SLIDE\, BUT IT WORKS THE SAME FOR ANY \nOF THE PORTS. AND THIS TABLE BASICALLY ASSIGNS OUT \nCARGO VOLUMES AND CARGO TYPES TO EACH OF THE BOARDS BASED ON THE CARGO \nFORECAST PROJECTIONS. THEN THERE’S A POLICY THAT ACCOMPANIES EACH TABLE \nTHAT SAYS EACH OF THE MARINE TERMINALS SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING CARGO BY \n2020. AT THE TIME WE COULD ACCURATELY PROJECT CARGO VOLUME AND ASSIGN TO THE \nPORTS AND ANTICIPATE WHERE BAY FILL WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED TO MEET THE \nREGION’S NEEDS. BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE\, IN PRACTICE\, ALLOCATING \nSPECIFIC CARGO TYPES AND PROJECTED VOLUMES TO INDIVIDUAL TERMINALS IS \nVERY DIFFICULT FOR A FEW DIFFERENT REASONS. YOU KNOW\, FIRST\, AND THIS \nKIND OF ALREADY CAME UP\, BUT UNLESS THE CARGO FORECAST AND THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS ARE UPDATED VERY FREQUENTLY. THIS INFORMATION IS GOING \nTO BE OUTDATED BY THE TIME A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR PERMIT ARISES. AND INDEED \nTHESE TABLES HAVEN’T BEEN UPDATED IN QUITE SOMETIME. \nSECOND\, AS I WAS GETTING TO\, THIS APPROACH MAKES ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHERE \nFUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND BAY FILL MIGHT OCCUR AND THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE ALSO \nUNLIKELY TO BE ACCURATE AS CONDITIONS AND AS TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER THINGS \nCHANGE. SO THE PROPOSAL FROM STAFF IS BASICALLY TO REMOVE THOSE TERMINAL \nDESIGNATIONS TO SIMPLIFY THE SEAPORT PLAN\, PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE \nFLEXIBILITY FOR THE PORTS\, BUT WE DON’T THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE LOSING \nANYTHING BY MAKING THIS CHANGE. WE ALREADY HAVE POLICIES IN THE SEAPORT \nPLAN TO GUIDE THE COMMISSION’S DECISION-MAKING ABOUT PERMITS OR ABOUT \nPROJECTS THAT MIGHT BE REQUESTED BY THE PORTS. AND WE HAVE WORKED TO MAKE \nTHESE POLICIES MORE ROBUST AND MORE CLEAR IN THE UPDATE. AND OF COURSE\, \nWE CAN STILL RELY ON INFORMATION FROM THE CARGO FORECAST TO MAKE DECISIONS. \nBUT BY NOT HAVING ALL OF THESE TABLES IN THE PLAN IT’S GOING TO SIMPLIFY THE \nSEE PORT PLAN HOW IT READS MAKE IT MORE APPROACHABLE TO UNDERSTAND. SO THAT \nIS OUR SUGGESTED CHANGE FOR THAT. AND SO FINALLY I’LL GET TO THE ACTUAL \nMAPS THEMSELVES. BEGINNING IN 2021\, BCDC RECEIVED \nREQUESTS TO MODIFY THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA BOUNDARIES FROM THE PORT OF \nREDWOOD CITY\, THE PORT OF RICHMOND\, THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO\, AS WELL AS THE \nCITY OF OAKLAND. BCDC ALSO RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS REQUESTING TO REMOVE \nCELLY STATUS AS A RESERVE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA. \nSO\, WHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER\, THE ONLY ALLOWABLE \nUSES IN PORT PRIORITY USE AREAS ARE FOR CARGO OR OTHER RELATED USES. \nSO\, ADDING THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BASICALLY PROTECTS A SITE \nFOR PORT USES. CONVERSELY\, HOWEVER\, REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION FROM A SITE\, IT DOESN’T ACTUALLY PREVENT PORTS FROM \nUSING THAT AREA FOR CARGO PURPOSES. THEY CAN CERTAINLY STILL DO THAT\, BUT \nIT DOES FREE THE SITE UP TO POTENTIALLY BE USED FOR NON-PORT USE. \nSO\, THAT’S THE KIND OF\, LIKE\, WHY IT MATTERS. AND\, SO\, AT ITS MARCH 2021 \nMEETING\, THE SPAC RECEIVED A PRESENTATION BY BCDC STAFF SUMMARIZING \nSTAFF’S ANALYSIS OF THESE CHANGES. AS YOU MAY RECALL\, DELETIONS OF PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH BCDC’S POLICIES FOR REMOVING PORT \nPRIORITY USE AREAS\, GENERAL POLICY FOUR IN THE EXISTING PLAN\, AND IT STATES \nTHAT DELETION SHOULD NOT RETRACT FROM THE ABILITY TO MEET THE GROWTH IN \nCARGO. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT ANALYSIS\, STAFF ALSO SUMMARIZED \nINFORMATION ON SOME OTHER RELEVANT TOPICS\, INCLUDING PORT PLANNING AND \nOPERATIONS\, LAND USE CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, AND BAY FILL TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL \nCONTEXT FOR THE SPAC IN MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION ON THE PORT’S REQUESTS. \nPOTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS \nASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES HAVE ALSO BEEN ANALYZED IN THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT THAT WE DISTRIBUTED IN SEPTEMBER. AND THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN ANY SUBSTANTIAL AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. \nTHE CARGO FORECAST DIDN’T IDENTIFY ANY OF THE AREAS BEING REQUESTED FOR \nREMOVAL FROM PORT PRIORITY USE AS BEING FEASIBLE SITES FOR CARGO HANDLING. \nAND THUS STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THOSE REQUESTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE \nSEAPORT PLAN POLICY. IN EFFECT\, IT MEANS THESE REMOVALS \nWERE ACCOUNTED FOR ALREADY IN THE CARGO FORECAST SINCE THESE WEREN’T ACTIVE \nSITES AND MAKING THESE CHANGES WON’T IMPACT WHAT THE CARGO FORECAST SAYS. \nSTAFF ALSO ASKED THE PORTS TO \nUNDERTAKE MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE \nCOMMUNITIES\, COMMENSURATE WITH THE NATURE OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY \nREQUESTED REGARDING THE PROPOSED MAP CHANGES. SOME PORTS HAD ALREADY TAKEN \nUNDER\, LIKE\, AN OUTREACH RELATED TO THEIR OWN PROCESSES OR THEIR OWN \nREQUIREMENTS\, THEIR OWN MEETINGS\, THEIR OWN BOARDS AND SOME UNDERTOOK OUTREACH \nTO BCDC REQUEST THAT IS SUMMARIZED IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT NEITHER THE PORTS \nNOR BCDC STAFF IDENTIFIED ANY SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED MAP \nCHANGES. AND\, FINALLY\, THE SPAC VOTED IN FAVOR \nOF THE PROPOSED CHANGES\, BOTH AT ITS MARCH 2021 MEETING\, AND THEN THEN THIS \nJULY WHEN APPROVING THE DRAFT PLAN. I’LL RUN THROUGH EACH OF THE FOUR \nREQUESTS. FIRST THE PORT OF REDWOOD CITY IS PLANNING A FUTURE EXPANSION OF \nA WHARF TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW OMNI TERMINAL THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE DRIVE \nOFF OR RAIL CARGOS TO ENSURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE THE \nPORT IS ADDING 1.3 ACRES TO THE WHARF\, OR TO AN AREA SOUTH OF WHARF FIVE TO \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION. AND STAFF ANALYZED THAT REQUEST IN \n2021 AND RECOMMENDED AND STILL RECOMMEND APPROVING IT. \nTHE CITY OF RICHMOND HAS REQUESTED REMOVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE AREA \nFROM THE ENGRAVING DOCKS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING SOUTH OF THE MARINE TERMINAL \nDUE TO HISTORIC STATUS AS WELL AS A SITE AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF \nHARBOR WAY SOUTH ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. \nTHOSE DOC DOCKS ARE PART OF THE ROSY THE RIVETER NATIONAL PARK AND THE SITE \nIS ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LAT TO THE FERRY TERMINAL\, OFFERS PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND A FISHING PEER AND CONNECTS TO THE BAY TRAIL THOSE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS \nBEING VIABLE FOR CONTINUED CARGO USE AND STAFF RECOMMENDED AND CONTINUED TO \nRECOMMEND APPROVING THAT REQUEST. A FEW DIFFERENT CHANGES FOR THE PORT \nOF SAN FRANCISCO. PEER 48 UP THE NORTH THERE\, AND A RELATED AREA WERE \nACTUALLY ALREADY REMOVED FROM PORT PRIORITY USE IN 2016. PER AN ASSEMBLY \nBILL THAT FOUND THAT THE PIER IS A CONTRIBUTOR TO THE EMBARCADERO \nHISTORIC DISTRICT AND NO LONGER VIABLE FOR CARGO OPERATIONS. SO IN THAT CASE \nWE’RE UPDATING THE MAPS. THE PORT REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE \nPORT AT PIER 50 NO LONGER VIABLE FOR BULK OPERATIONS BUT THE PORT IS \nRESERVING FOR MARITIME PURPOSES SUCH AS PORT MAINTENANCE. PORT 70 REQUESTED \nTO REMOVE SIX ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT INCLUDES A PIER THAT WAS \nPHYSICALLY REMOVED AS WELL AS AN AREA THAT ENCOMPASSES PARKING. \nFINALLY THE PORT REQUESTED TO REMOVE ABOUT TEN ACRES OF PORT PRIORITY USE \nFROM PIER 94 DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A WETLAND AS WELL AS 15 ACRES FROM \nUPLAND SITES\, BASICALLY DUE TO THEIR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER ELEVATION \nRELATIVE TO THE MARINE TERMINAL. THEY ALSO REQUESTED TO ADD TEN ACRES \nBETWEEN PIERS 92 AND 94 TO REFLECT WHERE THERE ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY DRY \nBULK OPERATIONS BUT TO MAKE SURE THE AREA IS PROTECTED FOR FUTURE PORT USE. \nTHIS WAS ANALYZED IN 2021 AND STAFF \nFOUND NONE OF THOSE SITES REQUESTED FOR APPROVAL IDENTIFIED AS SITES FOR CARGO \nHANDLING AND CONTINUED TO HANDLING REQUESTS. _ FINALLY 20 TOUR BCDC HAD \nREQUEST TO SPOP PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT’S FOR ANCILLARY USE\, SPAPD AN \nADDITIONAL 1.2 ACRINGS OF PORT PRIORITY USE AREA THAT REQUESTS STEMS BACK TO \nAN EARLY 2000s AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PORT THAT THEY BOTH MADE \nTO PROVIDE TRUCK PARKING WHEN THE OAKLAND ARMY BASE WAS REDEVELOPED. SO \nTHE SITE THE CITY WANTS TO REDESIGNATE FOR PORT PRIORS USE HAS BETTER \nLOCATION AND ACCESSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE AREAS FOR MARITIME SERVICES THAN \nTHE CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AREA. BOTH AREAS PROPOSING TO BE ADDED OR REMOVED \nARE INLAND FROM THE MARINE TERMINALS NEITHER SITE WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE \nCARGO FORECAST FOR HANDLING BOTH SITES ARE WELL OUTSIDE BCDC PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION. IF BCDC SEES APPROVAL OF THE PORT PRIORITY USE SWAP HERE ONE \nWAY OR THE OTHER IT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE CITY OF OAKLAND’S ABLE FOR TRUCK \nPARKING. BECAUSE USES OF THE SITE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PORT PRIORITY USE \nDESIGNATION THAN THE CURRENT ONE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVING THAT REQUEST. \nFINALLY\, SO I MENTIONED THE EXISTING SEAPORT PLAN 96 PLAN DESIGNATED TWO \nPORT PRIORITY USE SITES CONCORD NAVAL WEAPONS STATION AND SELBY. CONCORD \nRESERVE AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY A NAVY MILITARY BASE CALLED CONCORD NAVAL \nWEAPONS STATION. IN 2005 THE NAVY TRANSFERRED PART OF \nTHE BASE TO THE ARMY\, AND IT’S NOW OCCUPIED BY THE MILITARY OCEAN CONCORD \nMOTCO. AND THEN THE SELBY SITE ON THE RIGHT \nTHERE IT WAS ANOTHER RESERVE AREA\, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY THE SITE OF A SMELTING \nOPERATION THAT PRODUCED SWAG AS A WASTE PRODUCT AND _ DEPOSITED ON THE SITE \nTHAT SITE IS UNDERGOING REMEDIATION FOR EXTENSIVE HEAVY METAL CONTAMINATION. \nBCDC RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT LETTERS FROM CONCERNED CITIZENS IN THE AREA \nNEAR SELBY REQUESTING WE MOVEMENT THAT SITE FOR PORT PRIORITY USE. STAFF \nLOOKED AT BOTH OF THESE SITES BOTH DESIGNATED FOR PORT PRIORITY USE IN \n1982 AS POSSIBLE RESERVE SITES THAT THE REGION COULD POTENTIALLY ACTIVATE AND \nDEVELOP IF NEEDED FOR CARGO HANDLING BUT NO PLANS TO DEVELOP EITHER SITE \nFOR PORT USE HAVE EMERGED IN THE 40 YEARS SINCE. STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING \nTO REMOVE THE PORT PRIORS USE STINGS FROM BOTH SITES. TIMELINE OF \nFEASIBILITY OF REDEVELOPING EITHER FOR CARGO USE IS UNCLEAR. OF COURSE\, \nEITHER SITE COULD BE ADDED BACK INTO PORT USE INTO THE FUTURE BUT AT THIS \nPOINT WE’RE RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSION ESPECIALLY TO OCCUR AS TO \nTHE PROCESS IN THE FUTURE IF IT ENDS UP WARRANTED. _ THOSE ARE THE LAST OF \nTHE PORT PRIORITY USE BOUNDARIES. FINALLY TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT’S \nHAPPENING HERE AFTER TODAY’S PUBLIC HEARING STAFF WILL WORK TO REVISE THE \nDRAFT PLAN IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER FEEDBACK OR PUBLIC COMMENTS. \nAFTER THAT WE’LL RELEASE A FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN ALONG WITH THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS AND SOME OTHER INFORMATION \nTHAT MAKES UP THE FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. \nTENTATIVELY THOSE ITEMS MIGHT BE MAILED ON NOVEMBER 10TH OF THE FINALLY THERE \nWILL BE ANOTHER COMMISSION MEETING TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO ADOPT THE NEW \nSEAPORT PLAN WE’LL VOTE AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 16TH \nDEPENDING ON REQUESTED REVISIONS. I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY THANKING EVERYONE \nWHO HAS CONTRIBUTED THEIR TIME ON GETTING TO THIS POINT. THIS WAS A \nCHALLENGING PROJECT. THERE WERE DELAYS. AND SO I REALLY \nWANT TO THANK THE FIVE BAY AREA BOARDS AND THEIR STAFF FOR WORK STICKING WITH \nBCDC ON THIS PROJECT\, PUBLIC FEEDBACK AND COMMENT ALONG THE WAY\, AS WELL AS \nSEAPORT PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS\, AND STAFF WANT TO EXTEND \nGRATITUDE TO OUR FORMER COMMISSIONER TO JIM McGRATH FOR SUPPORT DURING EARLIER \nPHASES OF THIS PROJECT AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LATE COMMISSIONER ANNE \nHALSTED WHO CHAIRED WHEN THIS WAS LAUNCHED AND THIS WOULDN’T HAVE \nHAPPENED WITHOUT HER LEADERSHIP. THAT’S IT FOR ME AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHERE MAY BE QUESTIONS\, BUT WE’RE ACTUALLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, GOING TO OPEN \nTHE HEARING. UNLESS THERE IS A THIRD PART? \nAND I WOULD LIKE TO START BY OFFERING ANY MEMBERS OF THE SPAC OR ANY PORT \nREPRESENTATIVES\, IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS. \nANYBODY OUT THERE IN PUBLIC LAND\, REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ALL RIGHT. THEN\, I THINK WE WILL GO — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. THAT’S WHAT I WAS GOING TO. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD. \n>>SPEAKER: I HAD ONE COMMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OR ONE \nQUESTION\, IN THE DOCUMENTS WE GOT IT STATED THERE WASN’T ANY EVIDENCE \nBEFORE BCDC OF FAILED PROPOSAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPOSED SEAPORT \nPLAN UPDATE. AND I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT’S STILL THE CASE F STAFF CAN \nCONFIRM THAT? >>SPEAKER: I CAN PROBABLY FIELD THAT \nQUESTION. MICHAEL AMES STAFF ATTORNEY FILLING IN FOR GREG SCHARFF TODAY. \nDISCUSSION OF SUBSEQUENT PROJECTS IN RELATION TO THE REMOVAL OF THE POA \nDESIGNATIONS IS RELATED TO A CONCEPT IN CEQA\, BASICALLY EVALUATING THE \nINDIRECT EFFECTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT\, YOU KNOW\, IS \nBEFORE YOU TODAY\, UPDATING THE SEAPORT PLAN. SO\, OBVIOUSLY THOSE PROJECTS \nARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT\, THE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATE. BUT THERE HAS TO \nBE CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER\, YOU KNOW\, THERE WILL BE\, SORT OF\, THESE INDIRECT \nEFFECTS\, VIS-A-VIS\, THOSE PROJECTS AS A RESULT OF WHEN WE’RE DOING TODAY. AND \nBASED ON OUR WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT\, YOU KNOW\, THE EVALUATION WAS BASICALLY \nTHAT THOSE PROJECTS\, WHILE\, YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE GENERAL DISCUSSION OR \nIDEAS FLOATING OUT IN THE ETHER ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, THE POSSIBILITY THAT THEY’RE \nNOT THE KEY TERM OF ART IS THEY’RE NOT REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF \nWHAT WE’RE DOING. YOU KNOW\, THERE MAY BE SOME IMPETUS TO PURSUE THOSE \nPROJECTS BUT IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING THAT THOSE PROJECTS WILL \nBE REALIZED OR THE LEAD AGENCIES WILL BE PURSUING THOSE PROJECTS. THAT’S \nWHERE THAT STATEMENT COMES FROM. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. I WILL NOW GO TO THE SPEAKERS IN THE \nROOM AND NOW WE’LL START ON THE APPROPRIATE ITEM WITH SUNG LEE. \n>>SPEAKER: BEFORE YOU MAKE MY REMARKIS JUST WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE \nCOMMISSION AND STAFF FOR THIS WONDERFUL REPORT. \nSOMEBODY FROM THE TRADE COMMUNITY. IF I COULD GIVE YOU IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK\, \nVERY GOOD JOB\, LOOKS AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. SO\, MY NAME IS SUNG LEE. \nI AM THE PRESIDENT OF CB\, ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE AN \nINTERNATIONAL TRADE PROFESSIONAL REPRESENTING CLIENTS BEFORE YOU. \nOUR CLIENT COMPRISES OF IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA SUCH \nAS RETAILERS\, FARMERS AND MANUFACTURES. IT IS OUR POSITION TO SUPPORT STAFF \nAMENDED BPA 1-19 TO INCLUDE STIPULATION THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT \nEXECUTED BETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AS\, PORT AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY \n1ST\, 2025 THE PORT PRIORITY USE DESIGNATION BE AUTOMATICALLY \nREINSTATED FOR MARITIME AT HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY. I AM ALSO VICE \nCHAIR OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL A PRIVATE INDUSTRY ADVISORY \nBOARD FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE A POSITION OF EXPERT COUNSEL ADVISORY \nBOARD THAT BCDC SUPPORT MARITIME BUSINESS AT THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS\, MANDATE CLEAN TRUCKS\, CLEAN \nPORT OPERATIONS\, AND ALSO CLEAN CONTAINER SHIPS CALLING THE PORT OF \nOAKLAND. AND TO THAT END\, PRESIDENT BIDEN IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL HAS \nPROVIDE HAS PROVIDED UPGRADES TO THE COMMUNITY. THE GOALS SET BEFORE US WE \nASK BCDC TO CONTINUE TO AND GIVE THE ADMINISTERED — \nDEMONSTRATED WITH THIS REPORT THAT YOU ALL\, THE GOALS OF THE FEDERAL \nGOVERNMENT\, STATE GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES TO PROMOTE\, EXPORT AND TRADE WITH OUR \nTRADE PARTNERS ALLIES OVERSEAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: EVY WANG. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS BUTTON. OKAY. I HAVE PRESSED THE BUTTON. MY NAME IS \nEVY WONG. I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE CUSTOM [INDISCERNIBLE] ASSOCIATION OF \nCALIFORNIA\, A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER WAS SUNG LEE. I WANT TO COMMEND CORY MANN \nAND THE SUPPORT PLANNING STAFF. WHAT AN OUTSTANDING REPORT. AND I \nUNDERLINED REWRITTEN FOR READABILITY AND CLARITY\, THAT IS SUPER. THANK YOU \nSO MUCH. SO\, I — WE ARE USERS AND SUPPORTERS \nOF THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND RELATED MARITIME SERVICES. WE CONTINUE TO \nSHOW UP BECAUSE AS SEAPORT STAKEHOLDERS WHO CARE DEEPLY FOR OUR HOME PORTS \nFUTURE\, I WANT TO EXPRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEAPORT PLAN TO \nINCLUDE STATEMENTS THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE \nPORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1ST\, 2024\, THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL BE REINSTATED BACK TO HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTY. I WOULD ALSO REQUEST THAT ANY PROPOSAL FOR THE HOWARD TERMINAL \nPROPERTIES\, OR ANY OTHER PORT ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES\, THAT IT MIGHT BE \nCONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL OR CONTRARY TO MARITIME SERVICES THAT THEY UNDER \nGO THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR THE \nOPPORTUNITY\, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION\, WE’RE GRATEFUL BCDC FOR ITS CONTINUED \nTHOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR STATE LANDS IN RELATION TO MARITIME \nSERVICES. AT AND ADJACENT PORT LANDS WHICH IS \nREALLY IMPORTANT. LET’S KEEP THE BUSINESS AT THE PORT\, LET’S GROW \nCENTRIC AND SUSTAINABLE INTO THE FUTURE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALL OF \nTHE WORK THAT IS DONE FOR OUR PUBLIC USE AND MARITIME AT THE PORT OF OAK. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. NEXT IS BILL DOW WHO WILL \nBE FOLLOWED BY BILL DOW. >>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS \nBILL TAO\, LOCAL SIX RETIRED MEMBER OF OUR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT \nCOUNCIL. OAKLAND IS A WORKING PORT. NOT\, YOU \nKNOW\, IT — IT’S TOO — PARDON ME FOR A SECOND. I’M WATCHING \nTHIS CLOCK. IT INTIMIDATES ME. BUT ANYWAY\, OAKLAND\, I’M HERE HERE TO URGE \nYOU TO REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, TO PUT PORT DESIGNATION BACK ON HOWARD \nTERMINAL. WHEN YOU REMOVE THE PORT DESIGNATION\, YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG \nINFORMATION TO THE MARITIME INDUSTRY\, YOU SAY YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED IN PORTS \nANYMORE. PORT OF OAKLAND IS TOO IMPORTANT FOR US IN THE AREA\, FOR \nWORKING — IT’S A WORKING CLASS PORT. AND WE HAVE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. AND \nBY REMOVING THE PORT DESIGNATION YOU SEND OUT THE WRONG MESSAGE. PUT IT \nBACK ON\, SEND OUT THE MESSAGE THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. MELVIN MCKAY FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE \nRANSON >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. \nLONG TIME COMING. YOU KNOW? LIKE BILL SAID\, WE SENT THE WRONG MESSAGE OUT TO \nA LOT OF OUR SHIPPERS AND LABOR. WHEN WE STARTED THIS\, WE HIRED OVER A \nTHOUSAND PEOPLE TO WORK IN THESE PORTS WE LOST A LOT OF COMMODITY HERE. I \nHEARD SOMETHING DISTURBING WE USED TO BE 3 AND 4 IN THE WORLD NOW WE’RE \nNUMBER TEN TO GEORGIA. WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE THIS \nSTARTED. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIR. SUZANNE RANSON FOLLOWED BY MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: IS THERE A BUTTON TO PUSH \nHERE? IT’S ON. HELLO I’M SUSAN SSA TERMINAL THE LARGEST PORT TENANT WITH \nPORT OF OAK AND WE’RE ON THE INNER HARBOR. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME TODAY LISTENING TO COMMENTS REGARDING \nIMPORTANCE EVER UPDATING EPA 1-19 TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO THE STATE LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT\, AND A \nTHIRD TIME WE’RE GOING TO SAY THAT IF A BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT EXECUTED \nBETWEEN THE PORT OF OAKLAND AND OAKLAND AS BY JANUARY 1\, 2025 THAT THE PORT \nPRIORITY USE DESIGNATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE REINSTATED AT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY AS REQUESTED TO SPAC AT OUR LAST MEETING. WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO BEING AT THE TABLE AND SUPPORTING THE PORT OF OAKLAND ON \nIDEAS FOR USAGE OF HOWARD TERMINAL THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO GROWING THE \nECONOMY\, A WIN-WIN FOR THE PORT\, ESTATE\, ENVIRONMENTALISTS\, AND \nMARITIME STAKEHOLDERS. AS THE AS HAVE MADE THEIR INTENTIONS CLEAR AFTER \nPUTTING EVERYONE THROUGH THE RINGER\, WE ENCOURAGE BCDC TO ACCEPT SPAC’S \nRECOMMENDATION AND SEVEN. AMENDMENT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA SEAPORT \nPLAN. IT REALLY IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. \nLAST TWO COMMENTS\, COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER\, I PERSONALLY INVITE YOU TO \nSSA TERMINAL TO SHOW YOU THE GREAT STRIDES WE HAVE MADE\, ENVIRONMENTALLY\, \nWE HAVE INVESTED MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ENVIRONMENTAL — \nEXCUSE ME — CLEAN UP IN TANDEM WITH THE PORT OF OAKLAND. \nEVERYBODY ON THIS COMMISSION CAN COME TO SSA TERMINAL\, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE \nIMPORTANT DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AND YOU REALLY NEED TO COME AND SEE WHAT \nTHE TERMINALS ARE DOING. FOR YOU I’M LEAVING MY CARD PLEASE FEEL FREE TO \nGIVE MY E-MAIL AND PHONE NUMBER TO EVERYBODY HERE. \nLASTLY AS YOU KNOW PART OF HOWARD TERMINAL PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED FOR \nTHE TOURNEY BASIN WHICH IS SO FAR MOVING FORWARD WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT \nTHAT. THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS A HUGE CHEER LEADER FOR THAT\, THANK YOU. \nPLEASE COME SEE ME AT THE TERMINAL. _ \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MIKE JACOB. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN\, MIKE JACOB WE REPRESENT \nOCEAN CARRIERS\, ALL OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PORTS INCLUDING PORT OF \nOAKLAND. WE DID SUBMIT EXTENSIVE COMMENTS TO SPAC AT THE JULY MEETING \nBUT IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING WE SUBMITTED COMMENTS THAT ARE PRETTY EXTENSIVE AT \nMOST OF THE SPAC MEETINGS GOING BACK OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. IT WAS A \nLONG PROCESS. I’M GLAD THE STAFF RECOGNIZED THE EFFORTS OF BOTH THE \nFORMER CHAIRS IN THIS PROCESS. IT TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN \nDUE TO SOME DISTRACTIONS BUT THE PRODUCT IN FRONT OF YOU IS NOT ONLY \nSOUND IN TERMS OF THE FACTS\, BASED ON A VERY ROBUST\, AND WE THINK WELL DONE \nCARGO FORECAST IN EXERCISE\, BUT THE STAFF THEN WAS ABLE TO SYNTHESIZE \nTHOSE IN IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR CURRENT PLAN. WE SUBMITTED A LOT OF COMMENTS. \nAND THOSE COMMENTS REALLY DID RANGE \nFROM SMALL SCALE\, NIT-PICKY ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO HOW INDIVIDUAL POLICIES \nWOULD BE ADDRESSED VERSUS OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER THE SCOPE IN \nTHE LAST FOUR YEARS WITH RESPECT TO THE MARKET SPACE INCLUDING NEW OFFSHORE \nDEVELOPMENT PRESSURES WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS\, \nADDITIONAL PRESSURES ON DEDICATION OF PORT PROPERTY\, FOR THINGS SUCH AS \nCHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PORT TRUCKS. THOSE ARE NEW DEVELOPMENTS\, \nNEW PRESSURES ON PROPERTY THAT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. THEY DO EXIST NOW. SO\, \nTHE PROCESS THAT WAS SET UP IN PROPOSING THIS PLAN\, TAKE THOSE INTO \nACCOUNT\, PROVIDE A PATHWAY NOT JUST FOR THE COMMISSION\, BUT FOR THE PUBLIC AND \nFOR PORTS TO MAINTAIN OUR IMPORTANT PLACE IN THE FABRIC OF THE BAY\, WHICH \nIS OUR WATER DEPENDENT USES FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES THAT CANNOT BE \nREPLICATED. WE CANNOT DO WHAT WE DO ANYWHERE ELSE\, EXCEPT IN THE AREAS \nTHAT YOU DESIGNATE. THOSE ARE NOT GETTING BIGGER\, AND WE \nDO NOT ANTICIPATE THEY WILL BE GETTING BIGGER OVER TIME SO WE HAVE TO USE \nWHAT WE HAVE MORE EFFICIENTLY E EFFECTIVELY AND MOVE MORE PRODUCT AS \nTHE ECONOMY GROWS AS WE ADD MORE PEOPLE BUT ALSO ADDING DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEM \nINCLUDING ENERGY AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE APPRECIATE THE WORK. WE \nAPPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US ON MAKING THIS A BETTER PLAN MOVING \nFORWARD\, AND\, OF COURSE\, I DON’T THINK IT SHOULD GO UNRECOGNIZED THAT YOU ARE \nSTILL HEARING FROM STAKEHOLDERS BECAUSE WE’RE HERE AND WE CARE ABOUT THIS \nPROCESS AND OUR PORT INVESTMENTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH ONE \nPARCEL. [LAUGHTER] \nIN ONE PORT. THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: JOHN COLEMAN. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN COMMISSIONERS. I USUALLY DON’T SPEAK \nAT MEETINGS NOR TWICE. I WANT TO THANK BCDC ON THIS PROCESS. I HEARD THE \nINITIAL PRESENTATION AT A SPAC MEETING. I REACHED OUT TO LARRY GOLDZBAND\, AND \nCORY AND ERIK MADE A PRESENTATION WHO OUR MEMBERS AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT OUR MEMBERS ARE AWARE OF WHAT YOU’RE DOING SO WE WOULDN’T HAVE THE \nISSUE WE HAD A DECADE AGO WITH THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS AND WE DID NOT HAVE \nNEGATIVE FEEDBACK FROM OUR MEMBERS ON THIS\, AND I THINK THAT’S KUDOS TO THE \nHARD WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR STAFF AND SPAC HAVE DONE IN PRAYING TO EMBRACE \nDIFFERENT ISSUES THAT EXIST OUT THERE. \nAND SINCE I HAVE TWO MINUTES AND 14 SECONDS LEFT\, THE PORTS PLAY A \nCRITICAL ROLE TO THE ECONOMY NOT ONLY OF OUR REGION\, OUR STATE\, AND OUR \nNATION. THE AMOUNT OF GOODS THAT GO IN AND OUT OF OUR PORTS DRIVE THE ECONOMY \nTO A VERY LARGE EXTENT OF CALIFORNIA\, THE TAX REVENUE AS GENERATED BY THE \nPORTS IS HUGE FOR OUR ECONOMY. AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR STATE AND FEDERAL \nMONEY COMING IN\, WE WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CLEAN THE PORTS UP AS THEY NEEDED TO \nBE CLEANED UP IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE. AND DREDGING GOES ALONG \nWITH THAT. IF WE DON’T DREDGE WE’RE NOT GOING TO GET THE BIG SHIPS IN FF \nWE DON’T GET THE BIG SHIPS IN THEY’RE GOING TO GO ELSEWHERE AND THAT DOESN’T \nHELP US BECAUSE WE HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS THAT ARE HIGH PAYING \nUNION JOBS THAT BENEFIT ACTIVITIES AT THE PORT AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT \nALL THE PORTS IN THE REGION ARE BENEFITTING\, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PORTS IN OUR REGION. AND I \nBELIEVE THAT THIS SEAPORT PLAN ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES. AND\, AGAIN\, \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. KRISTINE ZINTMAN. >>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. KRISTINE \nZORTMAN\, I AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE PORT. THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT PROCESS \nFROM OUR PERSPECTIVE _ AS MR. COLEMAN MENTIONED\, YOU KNOW\, PORTS ON AN \nECONOMIC ENGINE FOR THIS REGION\, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA\, \nTHERE ARE 11 MUNICIPAL PORTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE PORTS \nTHAT ARE IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, FOUR OF THOSE PORTS\, ONE IS PRIVATE\, BUT \nFOUR OF THOSE PORTS ARE IN YOUR JURISDICTION\, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT \nTHROUGH THIS PROCESS I HAVE TRULY APPRECIATE THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH. \nI KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE DIFFICULTY THERE SOMETIMES\, BUT I \nTHINK THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH\, IN PARTICULAR\, I WANT TO DEFINITELY \nRECOGNIZE CORY AND ERIK\, BECAUSE — AND OTHER BCDC STAFF\, IN REACHING OUT TO \nMEMBERS OF THE SPAC\, IN REACHING OUT TO PORT STAFF\, AND OTHERS TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT WHAT WAS COMING INTO THIS PLAN IS TRULY A PLAN THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL \nBE PROUD OF\, AND WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THE COLLABORATION AND THE COOPERATION \nTHAT EXISTS. AND SO WITH THAT\, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. \nANY SPEAKERS REMOTELY? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nOTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? COMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>SPEAKER: I FIRST WANT TO THANK \nEVERYBODY WHO TOOK THE TIME TO COME HERE AND TELL US HOW GREAT WE ARE. \nTHAT’S REALLY — THAT’S ALWAYS NICE TO HEAR. \nBUT OF COURSE COMMISSIONERS LIKE ME HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. \nTHAT’S RESPONSIBILITY OF STAFF AND ALL OF YOU WORKING TOGETHER AND I’M JUST \nREALLY\, REALLY PLEASED TO HEAR THAT\, YOU KNOW\, THAT WHILE I’M SURE THERE \nWERE DISAGREEMENTS\, THAT EVERYBODY FEELS HEARD\, RESPECTED AND \nCOLLABORATED WITH\, AND THAT THAT’S GOING TO SERVE AS GOING FORWARD. SO \nTHAT’S REALLY WONDERFUL. CORY\, I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU IN REGARDS TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENT — ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE AMONG OUR PORTS? \nAND I KNOW JUST ENOUGH TO BE DANGEROUS ABOUT THIS\, THAT I WAS SURPRISED AT \nONE POINT TO LEARN THAT THE PORT OF OAKLAND IS ACTUALLY LESS VULNERABLE \nTHAN I EXPECTED BECAUSE [INDISCERNIBLE] \nWERE RISEN _ YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT? \n>>CORY MANN. I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I’LL SEE IF STAFF WANT TO \nJUMP IN\, OF COURSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AMONG PORTS IN TERMS OF \nVULNERABILITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE. I THINK THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK FOR \nUS TO DO AT BCDC IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SB272 AND OUR \nPLANNING PROCESSES AS IT RELATES TO PORTS. TO BE HONEST WE DIDN’T \nUNDERTAKE REALLY IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND MAKING \nTHE POLICIES FOR THE SEAPORT PLAN THOSE POLICIES ARE A BRIDGE TOWARDS EFFORTS \nTHAT WE’RE WORKING ON NOW. I’M NOT SURE IF I HAVE ANY PARTICULARLY GOOD \nINSIGHTS OTHER THAN TO SAY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. \n>>ERIK BUEHMANN: CAN I JUST ADD\, THERE WASN’T A BIG\, SORT OF\, RESILIENCE OR \nRISK ASSESSMENT TAKEN TO THE PORTS AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. THE PROCESS WAS \nDRIVEN BY THE THE CARGO FORECAST BEING\, SORT OF\, OUTDATED. THE PREVIOUS CARGO \nFORECAST THAT GOVERNED THE PLAN AND TO DO A NEW CARGO FORECAST AND UPDATE THE \nPOLICIES. WE ACKNOWLEDGED WHILE WORKING THROUGH IT THAT THE PLANNING \nLANDSCAPE ESPECIALLY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE IS SHIFTING A LOT. \nOBVIOUSLY WE HAVE SB272\, BAY ADAPT\, AND ALSO THE STATE LEGISLATION THAT \nREQUIRES THE PORTS TO INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH A RISK ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS \nFOR SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THAT WAS\, SORT OF\, ONGOING AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE \nDOING THIS PROCESS. SO WE THINK IT’S VERY LIKELY ESPECIALLY WITH SB272 AND \nSOME OF THE SUBREGIONAL PLANS THAT WILL BE CREATED THROUGH BAY ADAPT\, THAT \nWE’LL BE LOOKING AT THIS IN MORE DETAIL IN TERMS OF RESILIENCE TO THE PORTS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING ASK YOU TO GO \nTO JESSICA. >>SPEAKER: I WANT GOING ADD ON \nSPECIFICS TO THE PORTS THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION THERE WAS A LAW THAT STATE \nLANDS COMMISSION REQUIRED EACH OF THE PORTS TO PREPARE A SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION PLAN. IN ADDITION OUR BAY AREA REPORT LOOKED ACROSS THE REGION \nOF THE PORTS WHAT WE FOUND IS AT THE LOWER LEVELS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IT’S \nTRUE THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE RISKS TO PORT OPERATIONS THAT YOU MAY EXPECT \nBUT AS YOU LOOK OUT TO THE HIGHER NUMBERS OF COURSE THESE ARE AREAS ON \nWATER GOING TO BE INUNDATED WITH CONNECTIONS AND BEHIND PORTS SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS IMPORTANT AND PORTS CAN’T RETREAT _ WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THOSE FUNCTIONAL IT’S NOT OVER TOPPING AT THE TERMINALS \nIT’S WATER COMING IN FROM OTHER WAYS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: . >>SPEAKER: I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE \nPORTS ARE PLACES WHERE THERE ARE NEIGHBORING LOWER LANDS THAT MIGHT \nHAVE VULNERABILITY ALTERS AND I ASSUME THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR ANALYSIS OF \nEQUITY IN THE PLAN. _. >>SPEAKER: YES\, THANK YOU. YOU KNOW\, \nI — SO\, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THIS DECISION TO RENAME\, TAKE AWAY THAT \nSECTION THAT WAS ON GROUNDS TRANSPORTATION AND RENAME IT TO \nREGIONAL COORDINATION AND FUTURE SEAPORT PLAN UPDATES. I WAS ASKING \nMYSELF WHAT BOTHERED ME ABOUT IT AND PART OF IT IS\, YOU KNOW\, JUST THINKING \nABOUT WHAT BCDC’S ROLE\, WHICH IS — I MEAN IT’S KIND OF FOCUSED ON THE 100 \nFOOT BAN AND BAY FILL\, AND I GET THAT\, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE \nCARGO FORECAST\, YOU’RE KIND OF LOOKING AT IT\, THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY MOSTLY \nFROM THE WATER SIDE. BUT I DON’T SEE AS MUCH ANALYSIS\, YOU KNOW\, FROM THE \nLAND SIDE IN TERMS OF\, YOU KNOW\, THE — AND I KNOW THERE IS MANY OTHER \nAGENCIES INVOLVED IN ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIFICATION\, AND \nTHAT’S GREAT. BUT THERE IS NOT A LOT ABOUT THE MULTIMODAL CONNECTIONS AND \nDO WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR\, YOU KNOW\, ALL THE STAGING THAT NEEDS TO TAKE \nPLACE THERE\, BUT\, SO\, I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW MUCH THOUGHT HAS GONE \nINTO THE LAND SIDE PLANNING FOR THE 100 FOOT BAN FOR THE PORTS. BAND FOR THE \nWORDS. _. >>CORY MANN: THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT \nQUESTION. THERE ARE ORIGINS TO THE SEAPORT PLAN AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE \nWITH THE UPDATE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. \nOF COURSE\, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SHIFTS\, ESPECIALLY THE FIRST SEAPORT \nPLAN WAS PUBLISHED BUT IN LAST VERSIONS\, IN TERMS OF REGIONAL \nPLANNING IN HOW DIFFERENT AGENCIES ARE COORDINATING ON THAT KIND OF WORK. \nEARLIER VERSIONS OF THE SEAPORT PLAN WERE DEVELOPED AS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT \nORIGINALLY BETWEEN BCDC AND MTC. SO THAT A SEAPORT PLAN CONSTITUTED \nMARITIME MANAGEMENT PLAN AND USED BY TO MAKE PROJECT FUNDING DECISIONS \nSENTENCE THEN MTC HAS SHIFTED ITS FOCUS AND HAS PUBLISHED SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nGOODS MOVEMENT PLAN WHICH IS THE PLAN THAT SPEAKS MOST TO THE QUESTIONS \nYOU’RE RAISING PLANNED BAY AREA. AND SO THE SEAPORT PLAN ITSELF HAS NOT \nBEEN AN EFFECTIVE DRIVER OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, WE\, OF COURSE\, WORK WITH MTC ON UPDATING THE PLAN\, BUT THE KIND \nOF THE SCOPE OF THE UPDATE HAS BEEN MORE FOCUSED ON BCDC’S SPECIFIC KIND \nOF LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND THE BAY PLAN. \nSO THOSE EFFORTS HAVE CHANGED. BUT THAT’S ALSO WHY WE INCLUDED A POLICY \nIN THAT SECTION ON REGIONAL COORDINATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY \nTO TIME THE TIMING OF FUTURE UPDATES TO THE SEAPORT PLAN TO SYNCHRONIZE THAT \nWITH SOME OF MTC’S WORK. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH MTC STAFF ABOUT THAT. WE \nTHINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO WORK TOGETHER AND MIGHT HELP US TO LEVERAGE \nSUPPORT FOR THINGS LIKE OUTREACH AND PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THAT KIND OF \nTHING. SO THAT’S SOME OF THE THINK THAT’S GONE INTO THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT BCDC WILL BE A BIG PARTNER OR PARTICIPANT \nIN THE GOODS MOVEMENT PLAN? >>CORE M: I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO. \nYEAH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nCOMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER MOVED. COMMISSIONER RANCHOD SECONDS. \nIF THERE IS NO OPPOSITION\, AND SEEING NONE\, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED\, AS \nWE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED\, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THIS TODAY\, BUT WE DO LOOK \nFORWARD TO IT COMING BACK TO US WITH THE INCLUSION OF THE COMMENTS AND \nQUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND RAISED. \nWITH THAT\, AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY INDICATED THAT BOTH ITEMS 9 AND 10 ARE \nPOSTPONED\, WE COME TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \nREMINDING EVERYONE\, PLEASE\, TO ADJOURN TO THE TEM TEMESCAL ROOM FOR SOCIAL \nTIME. MOTION TO ADJOURN? COMMISSIONER \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-2-2023-commission-meeting-2/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231025T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231025T170000
DTSTAMP:20240131T055618Z
CREATED:20240131T055618Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055618Z
UID:10000167-1698220800-1698253200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 25\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-25-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231019T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231019T170000
DTSTAMP:20250320T225949Z
CREATED:20230920T040845Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250320T225949Z
UID:10000047-1697720400-1697734800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 19\, 2023 Commission Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/81421033671?pwd=ZTRqWHRDcTd6YmNWanJRbk52eXJsdz09 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID814 2103 3671 \nPasscode080569 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period (Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public Comment Letters (PDF)\nApproval of Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Meeting (PDF)(Reylina Ruiz) [415/352-3638; reylina.ruiz@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nConsideration of an Environmental Justice Advisors Organizational Development Contract (PDF)The Commission will consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract of up to $45\,000 with MIG\, Inc. and Benchmarq Consulting\, LLC to provide organizational development support for the Environmental Justice Advisors Program.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov\nBriefing on Updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance – POSTPONEDRepresentatives of the California Natural Resources Agency Ocean Protection Council (OPC) will brief the Commission on updates to the California Sea-Level Rise Guidance\, last issued in 2018. This update aims to incorporate the most current scientific knowledge and improved planning and decision-making guidance to support preparedness for rising sea levels\, and is used by BCDC to determine how best to ensure that projects and plans are resilient to rising sea levels.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nRegional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Presentation and DiscussionThe Commission will hear an update on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan’s vision and goals phase\, including initial takeaways from pop-up events throughout the region and the online survey. The update will include the most recent Bay Adapt website improvements and Commissioners may discuss considerations of the next phase of the project\, including how subregional plans should be organized.(Jaclyn Mandoske) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.mandoske@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Commission Strategic Plan ProgressSenior staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation (PDF)\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permits Applications \nApplicants \nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94105 \nSkyStar Wheel\, LLC1610 Des Peres Road\, Suite 130St. Louis\, MO 63131 \nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.023.00 \nFiled on 10/13/23 \n90th Day on 01/11/24 \nLocationWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at Seawall Lot 301 between The Embarcadero and Jefferson Street\, in the City and County of San Francisco \nDescriptionTemporarily install and operate a ferris wheel and associated facilities within a footprint of approximately 5\,634 square feet for a period of six months\, with the option to extend the authorization for up to an additional 18 months. The project will include: \n\nConstructing an approximately 148-foot-tall ferris wheel with 36 fully enclosed gondolas that hold six people each; and\nConstructing support structures including an operations office\, a retail and photo pick-up tent\, an employee break room\, a storage container\, an emergency back-up generator\, ADA-accessible ramps\, 10 concrete planters\, bicycle and scooter parking\, a photo capture tent\, a queuing area with stanchions\, a ticketing counter/kiosk\, a temporary diesel generator\, informational and wayfinding signage\, and security fencing.Tentative Staff Position:Recommend Approval with Conditions. Please note that the City of San Francisco’s environmental review of the project is still in progress and is anticipated to be completed by October 20\, 2023.Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\nEmergency PermitsThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \nApplicantReclamation District1607 4301 Inverness DrivePittsburg\, CA 94565 \nEmergency Permit No. E2023.005.00 \nFiled on 08/28/2023 \n90th Day on 11/26/2023 \nLocationIn the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh at Van Sickle Island\, on the Sacramento River in Solano County. \nDescriptionRepair a 500-linear-foot section of a breached exterior levee by placing 1\,100 cubic yards of rip rap and 3\,400 cubic yards of imported fill to replace material that had been lost after storm damage in December 2022. The fill will not extend or increase fill in the Bay beyond what existed prior to the damage. The project was authorized via email on August 18\, 2023. The permit includes special conditions requiring the permittee to monitor the levees over the next rainy season and submit a permit application for further repairs to the Island’s levees by March 31\, 2024 to forestall the need for future emergency permitting at this Island. \nRowan Yelton [415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov] \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Commission Mailing October 6\, 2023 \n\n Staff Report and Recommendation on a Contract for Environmental Justice Advisors Organization Development (PDF)\nA joint statement on Senator Feinstein’s passing (PDF)\n\nCommission Mailing October 13\, 2023 \n\nDraft Minutes of September 7\, 2023 Hybrid Commission Meeting (PDF)\nIssued Permits and Received Permit Applications\nApplications for Permits\, Federal Consistency Actions\, and Amendments\nPublic Comment Letters (PDF) – Sierra Club letter regarding Oakland Trash Diversion\n\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nA big cleanup is underway on San Francisco Bay. Here’s what’s involved\nS.F. power plant set to become new ‘neighborhood’ with 2\,600 homes\, 1.6 million feet of commercial space\nAt the end of the Mississippi\, a saltwater wedge overwhelms a community\nIn the battle over hate speech at Bay Area public meetings\, are the Zoombombers winning?\nSeverely congested Bay Area highway is about to see first phase of $1.6 billion revamp\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				Audio Recording \nhttps://www.bcdc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/354/2023/09/10-19-cm-audio.mp3 \nTranscript \nUNDER TELECONFERENCE RULES ESTABLISHED BY THE BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETING ACT. \nCOMMISSIONERS ARE LOCATED BOTH AT METRO CENTER AND AT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE \nVENUES THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AS SPECIFIED ON THE MEETING NOTICE. \nCOMMISSIONERS WHO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY WILL KEEP THEIR CAMERAS ON THROUGHOUT \nTHE MEETING SO THEY WILL BE VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \nATTENDING VIRTUALLY\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK EITHER DURING THE PUBLIC \nCOMMENT PERIOD\, WHICH IS ITEM THREE ON THE AGENDA OR DURING A PERIOD RESERVED \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM YOU WILL NEED TO DO SO IN \nONE OF TWO WAYS. FIRST IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM\, PLEASE \nRAISE YOUR HAND IN ZOOM. TO DO SO CLICK THE PARTICIPANTS ICON \nAT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN\, FIND YOUR NAME AND THE SMALL HAND TO THE LEFT \nAND CLICK ON THAT HAND. IF YOU ARE JOINING OUR MEETING VIA PHONE\, YOU \nMUST PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR KEY PAD TO UNMUTE YOUR PHONE TO MAKE A COMMENT. \nINDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THEY HAVE \nBEEN RAISED AND THEY WILL BE UNMUTED. ATTENDING THIS MEETING IN-PERSON \nEITHER AT METRO CENTER OR AT A PUBLICLY NOTICED TELECONFERENCE LOCATION WHO \nWANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION SHOULD FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL AT YOUR LOCATION. \nTHOSE ATTENDING THE MEETING AT THE \nMETRO CENTER WILL USE THE PODIUM ON THEIR RIGHT. \nWHEREVER YOU CHOOSE TO ATTEND FROM PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME TO PROVIDE YOUR \nCOMMENTS. ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. \nCOMMENTS MUST BE RESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY \nTO ACT IN A CIVIL MANNER WITHOUT USING HATE SPEECH DIRECTOR\, INDIRECT \nTHREATS\, AND/OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. BCDC HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED AN E-MAIL ADDRESS \nTO COMPILE PUBLIC COMMENTS ITS ADDRESS PUBLIC COMMENT AT BCDC@CA.GOV. \nE-MAILS RECEIVED BEFORE TEN THIS MORNING HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ANY RECEIVED SINCE THEN WILL ALSO BE SHARED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND WELCOME TO \nOUR HYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I AM THE \nCHAIR OF BCDC. BEFORE WE START\, I DO WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE \nWILL POSTPONE OUR DISCUSSION OF THE STATE’S NEW RISING SEA LEVEL GUIDANCE \nBECAUSE THE OCCASION PROTECTION COUNCIL HAS NOT YET PUBLISHED ITS DRAFT OF \nTHAT POLICY. WE HOPE TO LEARN ABOUT THAT FORECAST AND HOW BCDC MAY \nIMPLEMENT IT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AS ALWAYS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \nCOMMISSIONERS IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF WHEN \nYOU ARE CALLED THEN UNMUTE YOURSELF AFTER RESPONDING. REYLINA\, WELCOME \nBACK. IT’S GOOD TO HAVE YOU. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT ANUP DID A SPLENDID \nJOB IN YOUR ABSENCE. PLEASE CALLING THE ROLL \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR \nEISEN? >>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? >>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? >>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: RAMOS? >>BELIA RAMOS: HERE\, 95 THIRD STREET. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? >>JOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: DID I FORGET ANYONE? BAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: >>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER NELSON IS HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT ITEM IS THREE PUBLIC COMMENT IF \nANYONE WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A MATTER THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA \nOR ON WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC HEARING\, YOU WILL HAVE THREE \nMINUTES TO DO SO. PRIOR TO STARTING PUBLIC COMMENT I WANT TO REEMPHASIZE \nONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE VIDEO INTRODUCTION. AND WANT TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE INCREASE IN A PHENOMENON THAT UNFORTUNATELY NOW \nHAS ITS OWN NAME\, ZOOM BOMBING\, IT IS MAKING RACIST OR HATE COMMENTS BY ZOOM \nAT PUBLIC AND LOCAL AND REGIONAL MEETINGS. \nAS STATED IN THAT VIDEO\, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE ANY FORM OF HATE SPEECH OR \nTHREATS AGAINST ANY GROUP OR ANY INDIVIDUALS. AND AS CHAIR\, I WANT TO \nLET EVERYONE KNOW THAT I WILL ENFORCE THAT RIGIDLY. \nI HOPE NOT TO HAVE TO DO SO. I AM GOING TO START WITH MEMBERS OF \nTHE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE. REYLINA\, DO WE HAVE ANY CARDS FROM \nPEOPLE IN THE ROOM? >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO CARDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO PUBLIC CARDS. \nAND ANY HANDS FROM PEOPLE ON ZOOM WHO WISH TO ADDRESS US FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: ALLISON \nMADDEN. LET ME GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE YOURSELF. \n>>SPEAKER: OKAY THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M REALLY SAD ABOUT THE ZOOM BOMBING TOO. I WANTED \nTO BE THERE IN-PERSON TODAY BECAUSE I WANTED TO THANK YOU\, AND I WANTED TO \nSHOW THAT EXTRA EFFORT TO BE THERE IN-PERSON. NOT ONLY BECAUSE I’M \nINTERESTED IN ALL OF THE CONTENT OF YOUR MEETINGS\, BUT DUE TO HOW \nCOMPASSIONATE YOUR DISCUSSION WAS ON SEPTEMBER 7TH\, AGENDA ITEM 11 NOT JUST \nON LIVEABOARD POLICIES BUT ON OYSTER COVE SITUATION IN GENERAL ALSO THE \nDISCUSSION THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE PRESENTATION WAS REALLY SOPHISTICATED \nPOLICY ANALYSIS THAT SHOWS THE LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING YOU ALL HAVE OF THE \nPUBLIC TRUST AS POLICY MAKERS BOTH ELECTED AND APPOINTED\, AND OF THE \nNUANCES\, NOT JUST OF THE PUBLIC TRUST\, BUT THE BCDC UNDERLYING POLICIES. \nAND\, SO\, WERE REALLY ENCOURAGED BY THAT. DURING THIS YEAR\, WHICH IS \nBOOKENDED BY SEPTEMBER 15TH OF 2022 WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT OYSTER COVE \nAND TALKING ABOUT THE LIVEABOARD POLICIES IN SEPTEMBER 7TH OF THIS \nYEAR\, YOU KNOW\, WE HAVE TRIED TO SHOP AND SPEAK\, NOT TOO MUCH\, AND NOT TOO \nLITTLE BUT TO ASK FOR THAT PUBLIC PROCESS BUT BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE \nINFORMATION THAT IT SEEMS LIKE COMMISSIONERS WERE ASKING ABOUT THE \nDATA WOULD REALLY COME FORTH IN A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT INCLUDES THE \nPUBLIC ACCIDENT UPLANDOWNERS\, LIVEABOARDS\, HASH BORE AND MARINA \nOWNERS AND OPERATORS AT HARBOR MASTERS ET CETERA\, AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE \nBEEN SPEAKING WERE AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION OF DOZENS OF LIVEABOARDS \nWE HAVE BEEN MEETING FOR OVER A YEAR AND SOME OF US WORKING ON THIS FOR \nEVEN OVER A DECADE AND REALLY WANTED TO PARSE OUT IN THAT PUBLIC PROCESS HOW \nMUCH LIVEABOARD COMMUNITIES SERVE THE PUBLIC TRUST WHICH IS WHY I’M KIND OF \nSAD HOW PRIMARILY IT’S TIED TO THE RECREATION POLICY. \nBECAUSE A LOT OF LIVEABOARDS HAVE A SEPARATE RECREATIONAL BOAT THAT THEY \nTAKE OUT. SO THERE\, IS SO MUCH INFORMATION TO CONVEY. BUT ONE OF THE \nTHINGS I WANT TO SAY IS\, ONE OF THE LAST THINGS THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DID\, \nTHE LAST BILLS HE SIGNED BEFORE HE LEFT OFFICE WAS A FUNDING BILL FOR THE \nCOAST GUARD AND THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEER THAT PRESERVED 1500 \nHOUSEBOATS ON THE TVA PROPERTIES ON THE 13 SOUTHEASTERN STATES IN THE UNITED \nSTATES\, AND AT FIRST IT WAS THE REPUBLICS THAT CAME TO THE AID OF THE \nPEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO BE DISPOSSESSED\, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS \nDID IT TOO\, BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS UNANIMOUSLY OVERWHELMINGLY \nTHEY GRAND FATHERED TO PRESERVE ALL OF THAT WHICH AVOIDED THE KIND OF CARNAGE \nTHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH OUR LOSS OF MARINAS SO WE’RE OFFERING TO BE A \nCONDUIT OF THE INFORMATION WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT \nTHE MARINAS AND LIVEABOARDS OVER THE LAST YEAR SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE \nCONTINUING THE DISCUSSION YOU HAD LAST TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHERS? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. YOU\, CERTAINLY\, WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC \nITEMS ON THE AGENDA AS THEY COME UP. ITEM FOUR IS THE APPROVAL OF THE \nMINUTES OF OUR SEPTEMBER 7TH MEETING. WE HAVE ALL BEEN FURNISHED DRAFT \nMINUTES OF THAT MEETING. I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE THE MINUTES. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE \nMOTION. >>SPEAKER: SO MOVED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PESKIN MOVES. AND? \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO SECONDS. \nDO I HEAR ANY OBJECTIONS TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OR ABSTENTIONS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN I ABSTAIN? CHAIR\, [INDISCERNIBLE] HAS ABSTAINED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO — >>SPEAKER: THIS IS THE COURT \nREPORTER\, WHO WAS THE FIRST ABSTENTION? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA\, THE NEW \nCOMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER ECKERLE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MY FIRST \nITEM IS TO RECOGNIZE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER JESSE \nARREQUIN WILL NO LONGER BE REPRESENTING THE EAST BAY ON BEHALF OF ABAG\, AND \nABAG HAS APPOINTED RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER SEIZURE CESAR ZEPEDA AS \nTHE REPLACEMENT\, NO STRANGER TO BCDC HE IS A MEMBER OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED TASK \nFORCE THAT HAS BEEN HELPING OUR BCDC PREPARE OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN STARTING WITH OUR GUIDELINES I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT HIS \nALTERNATE IS RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER HELIA BANA\, AND WE WILL BE \nHEARING MORE ABOUT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN LATERED IN \nTHE MEETING. CESAR IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE. \nRICHMOND DOES HAVE 32 MILES OF SHORELINE THE MOST OUT OF ANY OTHER \nBAY AREA CITY. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING TOGETHER. \nTHANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE HAS \nAPPOINTED STEVEN BEN SENAS ITS NEW COMMISSIONER\, THE DEPARTMENT’S NEW \nPRINCIPAL PROGRAM BUDGET ANALYST FOR THE SECTION THAT INCLUDES BCDC. WE \nLOOK FORWARD TO WORKING CLOSELY WITH HIM AND HIS STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: HE TOLD ME BEFORE THE MEETING HE CANNOT ATTEND THIS MEETING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HE CANNOT \nATTEND THIS MEETING BUT I AM SURE HE WILL ATTEND FUTURE ONES. \nI WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SOME SADNESS\, BUT NOT TOTALLY SAD\, TO SAY A \nFEW WORDS ABOUT DIANNE FEINSTEINFEINSTEIN. WITH HER PASSING\, \nWE HAVE LOST A TRUE PUBLIC SERVANT. ONE OF HER MANY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE \nBAY AND ITS PEOPLE WAS HER INVOLVEMENT IN MEASURE AA. TO THE FRUSTRATION OF \nSOME OF ITS SUPPORTERS. SHE PUSHED TO MAKE IT BETTER. AND SHE DID MAKE IT \nBETTER AND SHE HELPED SUPPORT IT AND TO PASS IT AND IT’S A VERY IMPORTANT PART \nOF OUR EFFORTS TO BOTH PRESERVE THE BAY AND TO PROTECT IT. \nI ALSO WANT TO RECOGNIZE SOME LESS RECOGNIZED CONTRIBUTIONS THAT SHE MADE \nOVER THE YEARS TO A NUMBER OF BLACK ORGANIZATIONS. \nSHE HOSTED THE FIRST ANNUAL RETREAT FOR BLACK WOMEN ORGANIZED FOR POLITICAL \nACTION. ONE OF THE — A STRONG LOCAL AND LONG \nINVOLVED ORGANIZATIONS. AND SHE\, WHICH HAS BEEN A STRONG VOICE \nFOR BLACK WOMEN THROUGH THE OUR COMMUNITIES AND SHE WAS ONE OF THE \nORIGINAL SUPPORTERS OF BLACK AMERICAN POLITICAL ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA \nFOUNDATIONED BY PERCY PINKNEY WHO WORKED ON HER STAFF. BUT MOST OF ALL\, \nI WANT TO RECOGNIZE HER STEADY\, COMMITTED\, AND DEDICATED LEADERSHIP\, \nAS SAN FRANCISCO’S MAYOR AND AS OUR UNITED STATES SENATOR. TO SOME SHE \nWAS NOT AS AGGRESSIVE OR PROGRESSIVE AS THEY WOULD LIKE YET SHE WAS NOT ONLY \nTHE AUTHOR BUT REALLY THE CHAMPION OF THE 1994 FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN \nAND HEAVEN ARE KNOWS WE NEED MORE OF THOSE. SHE BROKE THROUGH SO MANY \nGLASS SEALINGS\, I CAN’T COUNT THEM SHE WAS A CHAMPION OF THE PEOPLE AND SHE \nWILL BE MISSED. AS YOU KNOW\, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE LAIRD BILL SB272\, \nAND I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATIONS WHO HELPED SUPPORT THAT \nAND PERSUADE THE GOVERNOR THAT THIS TIME ROUND\, YOU REALLY SHOULD SIGN IT \nAND IT WORKED. AND WE WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT \nIN THIS MEETING AND IN FUTURE MEETINGS. IT’S GOING GIVE US SOME VERY NEEDED \nHELP IN BOTH PROVIDING GUIDANCE\, BUT\, ALSO\, BEING ABLE TO PUSH LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS TO ADOPT THE PLANS THAT ARE VERY NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR BAY. \nI WANT TO ALSO NOTE THAT LARRY AND I \nHAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE LEADERS OF MTC AND ABAG AND THE CALIFORNIA \nCONSERVANCY TO COASTAL CONSERVANCY\, TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE CAN COORDINATE \nEFFORTS IN SEEKING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ADAPTING TO RISING SEA LEVEL. THE \nGOAL IS TO MAKE US MORE EFFECTIVE AND TO ENSURE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THAT \nLOCAL COMPETITION DOESN’T HURT US. WE HAD A SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE OF THIS WITH \nTHE APPLICATION TO NOAA FOR LOCAL FUNDS THAT WE ARE HOPEFUL WILL BE SUCCESSFUL \nSO WE KNOW IT CAN WORK BUT WE NEED TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE VIGOROUS AND MUCH \nMORE THOUGHTFULLY COORDINATED. YOU WILL BE HEARING MORE ABOUT THESE \nEFFORTS AT FUTURE MEETINGS. I HOPE WE’LL GET A MAJORITY OF OUR \nCOMMISSIONERS HERE IN PHYSICAL PRESENCE FOR OUR NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING. I’LL BE \nHOSTING A GET-TOGETHER HERE AT 375 BEALE STREET AFTER OUR COMMISSION \nMEETING\, FOR OUR COMMISSIONERS\, AND SENIOR STAFF\, SO THAT WE CAN TALK A \nLITTLE\, AND SOCIALIZE AND RENEW OUR BONDS WITH EACH OTHER AS WE\, MORE OR \nLESS\, COME OUT OF COVID. SO\, HOPEFULLY THAT YOU CAN COME FOR \nTHAT. OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE ON NOVEMBER \n2ND\, AND AT THAT MEETING\, WE EXPECT TO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS. \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO REGARDING THE \nSAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT SPECIAL AREA PLAN\, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE UPDATED \nDRAFT SEAPORT PLAN\, A BRIEFING AND STATUS REPORT ON DEVELOPMENTS \nCONCERNING HIGHWAY 37. AND THIS IS THE MOMENT IN TIME WHEN \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY REPORT ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAVE NOT \nREPORTED IN WRITING\, REMEMBERING THAT YOU DO NEED TO REPORT THEM IN WRITING \nANYWAY. SO\, IF ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO MAKE A REPORT ON COMMUNICATIONS\, \nTHEY HAVE RECEIVED FROM OUTSIDE ON MATTERS BEFORE THE COMMISSION\, NOW IS \nTHE TIME TO DO SO. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I DO NOT \nSEE ANY HANDS. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX\, THE — \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR WASSERMAN. I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S REMARKS ON THE PASSING OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN. AS MANY \nOF YOU KNOW I WAS SENIOR MEMBER OF SENATOR PETE WILSON’S GUBERNATORIAL \nCAMPAIGN IN 1989 AND 1990 SO I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT MAYOR FEINSTEIN \nTHEN WITHOUT TELLING LONGER STORIES I CAN SAY THAT EACH CANDIDATE HAD \nRESPECT FOR OTHERS GIVEN THEY WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL BIG CITY MAYORS. MY \nFAVORITE SENATOR FEINSTEIN STORY\, HOWEVER\, OCCURRED FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN \nI WAS LAST IN WASHINGTON\, D.C. I WAS WAITING FOR OUR FLIGHT BACK TO SAN \nFRANCISCO WHEN THE SENATOR CAME INTO THE GATE AREA SHE WAS GREETED BY THE \nVIRGIN AMERICA STAFF WHO OBVIOUSLY KNEW HER TRAVEL HABITS VERY WELL. \nWHILE WE WERE WAITING FOR OUR BOARD DELAYED FLIGHT I SCREWED UP MY COURAGE \nAND WALKED OVER TO HER AND INTRODUCED MYSELF AS BCDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND \nAS A FORMER FELLOW. NOT A SECOND AFTER I DID AND THANKED HER FOR BEING SUCH A \nVISIBLE SUPPORTER OF THE COMMISSION SHE BROKE ENTER A BIG SMILE AND LET ME \nKNOW IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS HOW MUCH SHE ADMIRED BCDC AND HOW MUCH SHE ENJOYED \nBEING A COMMISSIONER SHE OBVIOUSLY LOVED THE BAY AND ASKED ME A COUPLE OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT OUR WORK DURING THE PAST 20 YEARS I HAVE MET WITH SEVERAL \nSTAFF MEMBERS AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IMMEDIATELY THE \nREPORTS THAT HER STAFF HAD TO WORK VERY HARD TO KEEP UP WITH HER. SHE WAS \nTREMENDOUSLY GRACIOUS THAT EVENING AND MAY HER WORK AND DEVOTION TO WHAT WE \nDO KEEP HER AS A BLESSED MEMORY FOR ALL ASSOCIATED WITH BCDC. \nFOR THE FIRST TIME IN BCDC HISTORY STAFF HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE \nCALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORP TO PLACE CORP MEMBER ROSE ONE VELAZQUEZ AT BCDC \nAS AN INTERN TO BE PAID FOR BY THE CONSERVATION CORP. ROSE ONE HAS BEEN \nA CORP MEMBER FOR 18 MONTHS DURING WHICH SHE HAS CANDIES EXPERIENCE IN \nTRAIL BUILDING SALAMON RESTORATION AND FUEL REDUCTION AND NOW IS ON THE FIRE \nCREW MAYBE WE COULD HAVE USED HER THIS MORNING DURING THE EARTHQUAKE DRILL. \nA HORN ET FROM FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE GRAD FROM \n>>MARY SACKETT: STATE UNIVERSITY FROM WHICH SHE EARNED BACHELOR OF SCIENCE \nIN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES WITH MINOR IN SPANISH AND CERTIFICATE IN HEALTH CARE \nSPANISH ROSY WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS AND \nWILL HELP US GROW OUR SMALL SOCIAL MEDIA PRINCES CONCURRENTLY AND WE’RE \nPLEASED SHE VOLL TIERED TO JOIN US. ALSO INTRODUCING A MEMBER OF OUR \nCLIMATE POLICY FOR THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HARRIET ROSS HAS JOINED AS \nBCDC REGULATORY DIRECTOR YOU WILL SEE HER IN A MOMENT SHE WONDERED WHETHER \nTHERE WILL BE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING. BCDC HAS \nPOWED TO PARTNER WITH THE COASTAL CONSERVANCY SAVE THE BAY\, BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY PROGRAM ESTUARY INSTITUTE \nDUCKS UNLIMITED AND BAY JOINT VENTURE TO ISSUE A COLLABORATIVE COMPREHENSIVE \nSTATEMENT AFTER SENATOR FEINSTEIN’S PASSING IT’S BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO EACH \nOF YOU AND IS POSTED ON OUR WEB SITE AS WELL. I WANT TO NOTE COMMISSIONER \nJENN ECKERLE HAS BECOME A NUMBER OF THE NOAA’S NEW NA RENE AND COASTAL AREA \nBASED MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE NATIONAL BODY ADVISES UNDER SECRETARY \nOF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS ATMOSPHERE ON SCIENCE BASED APPROACHES TO AREA BASED \nPROTECTION CONSERVATION RESTORATION MANAGEMENT COASTAL MARINE AREAS ITS \nMEMBERSHIP REPRESENTS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICA’S OCEAN \nCOASTAL AND GREAT LAKES COMMUNITIES RELYING ON INCLUDING RESOURCE MANAGERS \nCOMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USERS AND SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS INDIAN TRIBES AND \nINDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES PHILANTHROPIC NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND EDUCATORS \nIN SHORT A TERRIFIC PLACE FOR CALIFORNIA POLICY MAKERS AND WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT ITS WORK LAST MONTH BCDC WAS PLEASED TO SUPPORT THE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY’S REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS US ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nAUTHORIZING COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE NINE COUNTIES SHORELINE OF THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY WHICH WOULD HELP THE REGION PREPARE AND ADAPT TO RISING SEA \nLEVELS. OCTOBER 9TH IN THE ABSENCE OF CHAIR WASSERMAN VICE CHAIR EISEN \nAPPROVED AN EMERGENCY PERMIT APPLICATION FROM THE OWNERS OF A HOUSE \nBUILT ON PILES OVER THE BAY IN TIBURON WHILE DOING OTHER WORK ON THE HOUSE \nENGINEERS FOUND THAT THE ROCK SEA WALL UNDER THEIR HOUSE HAD BEEN \nDESTABILIZED ALONG ITS ENTIRE LENGTH DUE TO WAVE ACTION AND MAY FAIL \nCOMPLETELY AT ANY TIME WHICH WOULD RESULTED IN CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF \nHOUSE FOUNDATION THE ENGINEERS ALSO ADVISED THE OWNERS TO VACATE THE HOUSE \nIMMEDIATELY. I WANT TO THANK VICE CHAIR EISEN FOR WILLINGNESS TO STEP \nINTO THE CHAIR’S SHOWALTER SHOES SO THE REPAIRS COULD BEGIN. \nFINALLY I’M PLEASED TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT THE BCDC BOCCE \nTEAM\, THE MEAN HIGH TIDES EMERGED AS VICTORS IN THE WEDNESDAY FERRY \nBUILDING BOCCE LEAGUE PLAY OFFS. BCDC’S TEAM WHICH INCLUDES STALWARTS \nTOLL HALLENBECK\, JIM\, KATHARINE PAN AND STEVE GOLDBECK AMONG OTHERS THE PLAY \nOFF GAMES AGAINST THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND POVERTY \nSAN FRANCISCO WEREN’T GRUDGE MATCHES OR ANYTHING STEVE IS ACTUALLY SHOWING THE \nMEDAL THAT EVERYBODY RECEIVED AFTER WINNING. HAPPY TO REPORT THAT OUR \nFRIENDS WHO PLAY FOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION TEAM THERE’S A GRUDGE MATCH \nLOANED BCDC SUPPORT IN A TERRIFIC DISPLAY OF COLLABORATION WHICH NO \nDOUBT PRESTAGES COLLABORATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT \nSB272. THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR ON HIS REPORT? >>SPEAKER: NOT A QUESTION. BUT A \nCOMPLIMENT. I WANT TO COMPLIMENT OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR COMING OUT TO \nOUR MARIN MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GATHERING LAST MONTH AND GIVING A \nFABULOUS BCDC 101 AND THEN ENGAGING ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AFTERWARDS. IT WAS \nFANTASTIC\, LARRY. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I WANT TO \nMAKE A BRIEF COMMENT ON THE EMERGENCY PERMIT. I HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS \nWITH SOME CONTRACTORS AND OTHERS\, AND I THINK THE PROBLEM THAT CAUSED THE NEED \nFOR THAT EMERGENCY PERMIT IS NOT UNCOMMON. \nAND I’M NOT SURE THERE IS A LOT WE CAN DO. BUT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nPURCHASED HOUSES OVER THE WATER\, PARTICULARLY IN MARIN\, NOT \nEXCLUSIVELY\, THERE ARE SOME IN CONTRA COSTA AND ELSEWHERE\, DON’T EVEN KNOW \nTHEY HAVE PERMITS FROM BCDC OR THAT THEY’RE REQUIRED\, AND THEY MAY WELL \nNOT KNOW THAT THE WORK THAT WAS DONE PURSUANT TO THOSE PERMITS MAY HAVE \nBEEN UNDERMINED. SO\, I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE A LITTLE \nBIT OF THOUGHT ABOUT HOW WE CAN PUBLICIZE THAT AND ALERT THEM SO THAT \nWE DON’T FACE A RASH OF EMERGENCY PERMITS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, CONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE RECEIVED A POSTING ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND AS LARRY \nSAID\, OUR NEW HEAD OF REGULATORY MATTERS\, HARRIET ROSS IS HERE\, EAGER \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. \nNOBODY WANTS TO JUMP IN. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC REYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU GET OFF EASY. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS \nCONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISERS PROGRAM. \nPHOENIX ARMENTA\, OUR SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMATE EQUITY AND COMMUNITY \nENGAGEMENT WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. >>PHOENIX ARMENTA: THANK YOU\, CHAIR\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. AGAIN I’M PHOENIX ARMENTA\, SENIOR MANAGER FOR CLIMB \nEQUITY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT COMING BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR CONSIDERATION OF \nAN ENVIRONMENT JUSTICE ADVISERS ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. \nNEXT SLIDE. THE EJ ADVISORS PROGRAM RECENTLY \nCOMPLETED ITS SECOND YEAR THE PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED AFTER THE CREATION OF \nOUR EJ AND SOCIAL EQUITY POLICIES IN 2019. BCDC CREATED THE PROGRAM \nBECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR EJ POLICIES WERE IMPLEMENTED WITH THE \nHELP OF OUR PARTNERS. THIS EJ ADVISERS PROGRAM IS A PILOT PROGRAM AND A \nUNIQUE MODEL BEING EMULATED BY OTHER AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE. THE \nPROGRAM WAS CODEVELOPED WITH EJ ADVISORS AND OVER THE TWO YEARS HAS \nSEEN MANY SUCCESSES WHICH INCLUDE HELPING US TO DEVELOP OUR RACIAL \nEQUITY ACTION PLAN\, ADVISING US ON CREATING AN EQUITY PROCESS AND BAY \nADAPT WORK\, ALSO SEEN CHALLENGES OVER THE YEARS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE RECENT \nRESIGNATION OF THREE ADVISORS. WITH ANY PROGRAM IT’S IMPORTANT TO \nEVALUATE HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING AND ASSESS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO \nIN THE FUTURE\, ISSUING RFP FOR ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT \nTO CONDUCT ANALYSIS OF THE EJ PROGRAM AND HELP DESIGN THE PROGRAM FOR \nMAXIMUM IMPACT. NEXT SLIDE. THROUGH A COMPETITIVE \nBIDDING PROCESS STAFF HAS SELECTED MIG\, INC. IN COLLABORATION WITH BENCHMARQ \nCONSULTING LLC. MIG HAS FOUR DECADES OF PLANNING RESEARCH AND STRATEGY \nSUPPORT TO A DIVERSE ARRAY OF PARTNERS THEIR BACKGROUND INCLUDES WORKING WITH \nPUBLIC AGENCIES COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS FACILITATING THESE \nINSTITUTIONS UNDERSTANDING EQUITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION WHILE LEADING \nCOLLECTIVE CULTURAL SHIFTS TO COLLABORATIVE DYNAMIC BETWEEN \nGOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS WORKING DIRECTLY WITH \nBCDC AND EJ ADVISERS IN THE BAY AREA. \nWORKING WITH 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN HIGH IMPLEMENTING SPECIALIZED TRAINING \nSOLUTIONS FOCUSING ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nDIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AND OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES. \nCONSULTING IS A FORM PARTNERING ON THIS CONTRACT. I’LL OPEN UP TO ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS MATTER? I WOULD \n— I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION. I WOULD MAKE ONE COMMENT. NOT SO MUCH \nRECENTLY BUT OVER THE YEARS WITH A NUMBER OF PUBLIC AGENCIES I HAVE \nREPRESENTED I WORKED WITH MIG AND FOUNDATION THEM TO BE AN EFFECTIVE \nCREATIVE ORGANIZATION ASSISTING PUBLIC AGENCIES. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THEIR \nWORKING ON THIS PROJECT. SEEING NO QUESTIONS. STAFF — \nOH\, PUBLIC. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC — >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENTS. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nYOU CAN PUT UP THE SLIDE FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? \nOKAY. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZES ITS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT UP TO $45\,000 CONTRACT WITH \nMIG INC. PARTNERSHIP WITH BENCHMARQ CONSULTING \nHLLC PROVIDING THE COMMISSION FACILITATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL \nDEVELOPMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORS PROGRAM OVER A PERIOD \nFROM OCTOBER 19TH\, 2023 THROUGH MARCH 1ST\, 2024 STAFF FURTHER RECOMMENDS \nTHAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO AMEND THE \nCONTRACT AS NECESSARY INCLUDING REVISING THE AMOUNT AND DURATION OF \nTHE AGREEMENT. >>SPEAKER: I WILL MOVE THE ITEM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER PETERS MAKES THE MOTION. \nCOMMISSIONER AHN SECONDS. CALL THE ROLL\, PLEASE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? COMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? >>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER BURKE? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKERLY? >>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? >>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER LEE? \n>>OTTO LEE: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? >>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? >>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: COMMISSIONER VAZQUEZ? \n>>JOHN VASQUEZ: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? >>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. >>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: 17 YESES\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. NO-NOS HEARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. \nWE LOOK FORWARD TO THE WORK GOING FORWARD. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, SINCE ITEM NINE HAS BEEN POSTPONED. THIS IS AN \nUPDATE ON THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN’S VISION AND GOALS \nPHASE. JACKIE MENDOSKY OUR SENIOR CLIMATE \nADAPTATION PLANNER WILL PRESENT THE ITEM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BEFORE JACKIE STARTS\, I JUST — I HAVE RECEIVED \nQUESTIONS FROM\, NOW\, THREE COMMISSIONERS SAY WHEN ARE WE GOING TO \nTALK ABOUT 272. [LAUGHTER] \nPAY ATTENTION TO JACKIE\, PLEASE. >>JACLYN MANDOSKE: ALL RIGHT LET ME \nGO AHEAD AND GET MY SCREEN SLIDES UP. OOPS. \nSORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU EVERYONE. \nGOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR WASSERMAN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JACLYN \nMANDOSKE\, I AM A SENIOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNER HERE AT BCDC AND \nTHE PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN HERE TO \nSHARE AN UPDATE ON OUR PROGRESS TOWARDS DEVELOPING GUIDELINES FOR O A REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. YOU LAST HEARD UPDATE ON THIS PROJECT BACK IN \nFEBRUARY WHEN WE INTRODUCED THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND \nWE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF EXCITING WORK SINCE THEN. I WANT TO REMIND US \nWHY WE’RE HERE AND WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE. AS WE ALL KNOW RISING SEA \nLEVEL AND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER WILL AFFECT ALL OF US WHO LIVE NEAR AND \nEVEN FAR FROM THE BAY SHORELINE AND WHILE LOCAL ADAPTATION IS OCCURRING \nIT’S HAPPENING UNEVENLY AND DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE SHORELINE FACE DIFFERENT \nRISKS AND DIFFERENT RESOURCES TO RESPOND JURISDICTIONS ARE WELL ON \nTHEIR WAY WHILE OTHERS HAVE NOT YET GUN WHILE FLOODING DOESN’T CARE ABOUT \nJURISDICTION AT BOUNDARIES PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES NOW AND IN THE FUTURE \nWILL REQUIRE US TO ACT TOGETHER AS A CONNECTED REGION THAT WE ARE IN WAYS \nTHAT ARE COORDINATED AND CONSISTENT THIS IS WHY WE’RE DEVELOPING A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS A REMINDER THIS THIS PROJECT IS WOW OF \nMANY WAYS WE’RE IMPLEMENTING THE BAY ADAPT JOINT PLATFORM IT’S FUNDED BY \nTHE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL AND THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND IS \nENVISIONED TO SERVE AS A MODEL FOR HOW REGIONS IN CALIFORNIA CAN PLAN \nCOLLECTIVELY FOR CLIMATE IMPACTS AS COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR LARRY GOLDZBAND SAID IN THE OPENING REMARKS WE HAVE VERY EXCITING \nNEWS ON OCTOBER 7TH GOVERNOR OF — HOW DOES THIS AFFECT OUR WORK WHAT DOES IT \nCHANGE? THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS AND WE’LL ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS LATER IN \nTHE PRESENTATION. STAY TUNED. I’M GOING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE WORK \nTHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING TO DEVELOP THESE GUIDELINES. \nWHEN WE USE THE TERM REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN WHAT WE MEAN BY THAT \nIS THREE MAIN PARTS FIRST PART IS CREATING GUIDELINES THIS WORK WE’RE \nDOING WILL INCLUDE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THAT WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE \nSUBREGIONAL PLANS FOLLOWING ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES THE NEXT STEP IS \nSUPPORTING LOCAL JURISDICTION THROUGH POLICY AND TECHNICAL STANZAS IN \nCREATING THEIR OWN SUBREGIONAL PLANS LASTLY DEVELOPING AN ONLINE MAPPING \nPLATFORM TO SUPPORT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND COMMUNITIES TO ACCESS GUIDELINES \nTO ALLOW US TO TRACK PROGRESS ON ADAPTATION SO WE CONDITIONED HOW AND \nWHERE THE REGION IS WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE SHARED SUCCESS. WHERE ARE WE \nIN THE PROCESS TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES? WE’RE HERE IN LATE \nOCTOBER AND HAVE BEEN SPENDING THE LAST TWO MONTHS CONDUCTING OUTREACH WITH \nPRACTITIONERS PLANNERING RESIDENTS AND MORE TO ASK PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR VISION \nSUPERVISOR VALUES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BAY SHORELINE WE HAVE HELD MEETINGS \nWITH OUR EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP ATTENDED LOCAL COMMUNITY EVENTS AND CURRENTLY \nHAVE A SURVEY OUT TOGETHER FOR FEEDBACK ON THE VISION WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST \nPUBLIC WORKSHOP TO HELP US WRAP THE VISION A BIT LATER I’M LOOKING HERD \nYOU CAN SEE IN THE TRANSITION DEPENDING GUIDELINES IN THE COMING MONTHS. \nEQUITY STRATEGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED THIS PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND EQUITY SUBCOMMITTEE STRATEGY ALLOWS US TO TRANSPARENTLY \nDOCUMENT PRACTICES OF EQUITY THAT WE’RE FOLLOWING IN THIS WORK IT CONTAINS TWO \nPARTS\, PROCESS HOW WE PAY OUR EQUITY REPRESENTATIVES\, CONDUCT OUTREACH WORK \nIN PARTNERSHIP WITH COMMUNITIES DEVELOP GUIDELINES AND SECOND PART IS ENSURING \nTHAT WE’RE EVALUATING AT EACH STAGE OF THE PROCESS AND HOW AND WHERE EQUITY \nIS BEING INTEGRATED ACROSS THE OUTCOMES OF OUR WORK. DEVELOPING VISIONS FOR \nTHE FUTURE WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE GUIDELINES REFLECT OUR \nVALUES AS A REGION AND ARE COLLECTIVE ACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE SUBREGIONAL \nPLANS ADDING UP TO SHARED OUTCOMES WE HAVE DEFINED. \nTOPICS AND ISSUES WE’RE PLANNING INCLUDE GUIDELINES\, PEOPLE AND HEALTH \nECOSYSTEMS RESILIENCE DEVELOPMENT AND MORE WILL BE DEVELOPING VISION \nSTATEMENTS GUIDELINES WILL BE WRITTEN TO GET US TOWARDS THESE MEASURES\, \nCONTINUING TO ELEVATE EQUITY ALONG WITH EVALUATING PRIORITIES PRIORITIES SUCH \nAS IMPROVING NATURE-BASED INITIATION AND ADAPTATION\, ACHIEVING MULTIPLE \nBENEFITS. WE HAVE ATTENDED NINE COMMUNITIES EVENTS IN THE LAST TWO \nMONTHS AND WE HAVE ONE MORE COMING UP THIS WEEKEND WE HAVE BEEN OUT IN \nCOMMUNITIES EVERY WEEKEND SINCE SEPTEMBER. WE HAVE BEEN ALL OVER FROM \nTHE NORTH BAY TO THE CENTRAL BAY AND THE SOUTH BAY. AND I WANT TO NOTE \nTHAT WE WERE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN EACH OF THESE EVENTS THROUGH \nPARTNERSHIPS INCLUDING THROUGH THE SUPPORT OF MANY OF OUR COMMISSIONERS\, \nAS WELL AS ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL ELECTED’S \nREGIONAL TASK FORCE. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYBODY WHO \nHELPED US GET INTO THE EVENTS THEY HAVE BEEN REALLY SPECIAL AND IMPORTANT \nEXPERIENCES. YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL HOPEFULLY RECEIVED \nAN E-MAIL FROM US THIS MORNING THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT E-MAIL WITH A LINK TO \nTHIS SURVEY. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY THAT WE’RE CAPTURING FEEDBACK ON THE \nVISION. IF YOU DIDN’T GET THAT E-MAIL PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I AM HAPPY TO \nRESEND. I’LL MAYBE PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT AND ASK FOLKS IF THEY WOULD \nLIKE TO TAKE THEIR PHONES OUT AND SCAN THE QR CODE. SAVE IT FOR LATER. \nTHE SURVEY IS ABOUT 5 TO 7 MINUTES SO MAYBE AFTER THE MEETING TODAY. WE \nENCOURAGE ALL OF TO YOU TAKE IT AND SHARE IT WITH YOUR NETWORKS AND \nCOMMUNITIES. WE’LL BE CLOSING THE SURVEY AT THE END OF THIS MONTH ON \nOCTOBER 31ST. SO\, WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING AT ALL OF \nTHESE EVENTS? WE HAVE TALKED TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. \nWE HAVE HAD OVER 250 INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE INTERACT WITH OUR — OR ENGAGE ON OUR \nINTERACTIVE BOARD. AND ON THIS BOARD\, WHICH YOU CAN SEE A BIT IN THESE \nPHOTOS\, WE ASK PEOPLE WHAT’S IMPORTANT TO YOU. WE PROVIDED A SERIES OF VALUE \nSTATEMENTS AND ASKED PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY THE TOP THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO \nTHEM RIGHT NOW. AND WE ALSO ASKED THEM THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO THEM FOR \nFUTURE GENERATIONS. WE USED THIS ACTIVITY TO INITIATE CONVERSATIONS AND \nSHARE THE CONTEXT THAT SEA LEVEL RISE WILL HAVE LONG-TERM GENERATIONAL EXACT \nIMPACTS AND CHOICES TODAY WILL AFFECT OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. \nINCLUDING TOP PRIORITIES FROM ALL NINE COMMUNITIES BOTH IN RIGHT NOW AND FOR \nTHE FUTURE. UNSURPRISINGLY RIGHT NOW PEOPLE ARE \nTHINKING ABOUT THE DAY-TO-DAY ISSUES INCLUDING COST OF LIVING AND HOUSING \nAFFORDABILITY. WE SAW THAT PEOPLE VALUE PHYSICAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING \nOF BAY AREA RESIDENTS IT WAS A HIGH PRIORITY TODAY AND FOR FUTURE \nGENERATIONS AS WE LOOK AT PRIORITIES HELD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS WE SEE \nVALUES CHANGED A BIT. YES FOLKS ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT COST OF LIVING \nBUT THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE FUTURE BY FAR IS PROTECTING NATURAL HABITATS \nAND WILDLIFE. IT’S REMARKABLE THAT NEARLY EVERY COMMUNITY PRIORITIZED \nTHIS FOR THE FUTURE. WHILE THIS ACTIVITY WAS NOT INTENDED \nTO BE AN OFFICIAL SURVEY WE WILL USE THESE RESULTS TO HELP US VERIFY OUR \nVISION STATEMENTS. THROUGH THE EVENTS WE INTERACTED WITH A BROAD RANGE OF \nPEOPLE WITH VARYING LEVELS OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE TOPIC SOME HAD \nNEVER HEARD OF SEA LEVEL RISE. WE TALKED WITH KIDS AND ADULTS WE HAD \nMATERIALS AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH AND WE FORMED RELATIONSHIPS \nWHICH WE HOPE WILL BE PART OF OUR PROCESS MOVING FORWARD. WE HAVE BEEN \nGATHERING FEEDBACK FROM OUR ONLINE SURVEY WHICH YOU ALL HAVE THE QR CODE \nON YOUR PHONE. AMONG MANY QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY WE ASKED PEOPLE TO SHARE IN \nTHEIR OWN WORDS THEIR VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE SHORELINE. I WON’T READ \nALL OF THEM BUT DRAW ON I A COUPLE OF THEMES THAT STOOD OUT TO ME. \nPEOPLE ARE ENVISIONING A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS AT ALL \nLEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER TOWARDS THE SAME SET OF BOLD \nOBJECTIVES THAT SEA LEVEL RISE CLIMATE CHANGE OFFER OPPORTUNITY TO RETHINK \nOUR CURRENT SYSTEMS AND FOSTER HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS WITH ONE ANOTHER AND THE \nNATURAL WORLD. SO FAR THE SURVEY HAS GENERATED 170 RESPONSES AND WILL CLOSE \nIN OCTOBER THIS INFORMATION ALSO IS BEING USED TO CONFIRM OUR VISION \nSTATEMENTS AND VALIDATE AND GATHER VOICES FROM PEOPLE AROUND THE REGION. \nLASTLY WE’LL HOST OUR FIRST PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT THURSDAY OCTOBER 26TH ON \nZOOM PLEASE TENANTS IN THE MORNING THIS MORNING’S E-MAIL YOU RECEIVED A ZOOM \nREGISTRATION LINK FOR THIS WORKSHOP. IT WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO \nLEARN ABOUT DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT DEBUTING CHALLENGES \nOPPORTUNITIES AND BAY AREA ADAPTATION SHARING MORE RESULTS FROM ALL FEEDBACK \nWE HAVE BEEN GATHERING IN THIS PHASE\, AS WE BEGIN TRANSITIONING INTO THE \nNEXT PHASE WHICH IS DEFINING SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS. \nWHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN WE HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT \nTHIS THROUGH A COUPLE OF MAJOR BUCKETS. 50 FIRST IS WHAT’S IN THE PLAN\, \nWHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE AND WHAT ARE GOOD PLANS THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS \nHAVE BEEN DOING THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM. NEXT THINKING ABOUT WHAT’S THE \nPROCESS FOR HOW THESE PLANS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED. IMPORTANT PART OF THE \nQUESTION IS WHAT’S THE SCALE OF THE PLAN OR SUBREGION\, WHO LEADS AND \nIMPLEMENTS IT: THERE ARE IDEAS FOR HOW WE MIGHT CONSIDER SCALE OF PLANS FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE’LL BE EXPLORING MULTIPLE SCALES CITIES COUNTIES OPERATIONAL \nLANDSCAPE UNITS EVALUATING TRADE-OFFS DIFFERENT APPROACHES LASTLY THINKING \nABOUT PLANS ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTED WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WILL BE \nTACKLING THESE QUESTIONS WITH US WE’LL BRING THESE QUESTIONS TO OUR RISING \nSEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP MEETINGS AS WELL AS CONSIDERING FOCUS \nGROUPS TO ENSURE THE WAY WE DEFINE THESE PLANS IS RESPONSIVE TO \nCHALLENGES AT HAND. NOW WE’RE HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE LAIRD BILL. OUR \nNEXT STEP IN SUBREGIONAL PLANS IS EXCITING WITH THE PASSAGE OF SB272. \nWHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY DO? IT REQUIRES LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ALONG THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE TO DEVELOP SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE RESILIENCY \nPLANS. THESE ARE NOT DEFINED IN THE BILL BUT ARE BEING DEFINED THROUGH OUR \nPROJECT. THIS IS A STATEWIDE BILL FOR THE OUTER COAST\, THE CALIFORNIA \nCOASTAL COMMISSION HAS EQUIVALENT RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH THEIR LOCAL \nCOASTAL PROGRAM AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO ENSURE ALIGN. THIS BILL REQUIRES BCDC TO DEVELOP \nGUIDELINES BY THE END OF 2024 WHICH WE’RE CURRENTLY DOING AND SPECIFICALLY \nCALLS OUT THAT THE GUIDELINES WILL BE BUILT ON BAY ADAPT’S GUIDING \nPRINCIPLES. IT REQUIRES THAT SUBREGIONAL PLANS ARE \nSUBMITTED TO BCDC FOR APPROVAL BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH GUIDELINES AND SETS \nUP IMPORTANT PROJECTS AND STRATEGIES CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPROVED PLANS \nWILL BE PRIORITIZED FOR STATE FUNDING. \nSETS A TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF SUBREGIONAL PLANS BY JANUARY 2034 \nALTHOUGH WE’RE HOPING TO EXCEED THAT TIMELINE IN THE BAY AREA. \nWHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF SB272 FOR ADVANCING SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION? \nIT HELPS US ACHIEVE OUR GOALS FOR REGIONAL PREPARATION. AS I MENTIONED \nEARLIER A RISING BAY DOESN’T FOLLOW JURISDICTIONAL LINES AND ONE DECISION \nIN ONE LOCATION CAN HAVE CASCADING NEGATIVE IMPACTS ACROSS THE BAY AREA \nBAY ADAPT SB272 WILL HELP SOLVE THOSE THREATS BY ESTABLISHING COMMON \nREGION-WIDE STANDARDS SUPPORTING PLANS THAT TRANSCEND JURISDICTIONS. THE \nSAME IS TRUE ACROSS THE ENTIRE CALIFORNIA COAST THIS BILL COMPELS ALL \nCOMMUNITIES ACROSS CALIFORNIA TO PREPARE ADAPTATION PLANS THAT \nPRIORITIZE DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES\, IS BASED ON SCIENCE AND PROTECTS \nCRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEIR NEIGHBORS OR \nHABITATS AND CREATES A PRIORITY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION AND FUNDING. A \nRECENT MTC BCDC REPORT ESTIMATES IT WILL COST $110 BILLION IN THE BAY AREA \nALONE TO ADAPT TO MID-CENTURY SEA LEVEL RISE. SB272 WILL HELP US PLAN WHERE \nWE NEED SMART INVESTMENTS TO PRIORITIZE AT RISK LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES NATURAL \nAREAS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL AS LINK THOSE PLANS TO STATE \nFUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THEM. WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE \nBILL\, SETS MINIMUM STANDARDS INCLUDING USE OF BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE LOCAL \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT INCLUDES EFFORTS TO ENSURE EQUITY FOR AT RISK \nCOMMUNITIES THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES \nRECOMMENDED PROJECTS IDENTIFICATION OF LEAD PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION AGENCIES \nA TIMELINE FOR UPDATES AS NEEDED AS DETERMINED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN \nAGREEMENT WITH BCDC OR THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF \nANALYSIS OF AT LEAST COST FOR CRITICAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDED \nAPPROACHES FOR IMPLEMENTING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES PROJECTS THROUGH OUR \nCURRENT WORK WE INTEND TO NOT ONLY MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS BUT ALSO EXCEED \nTHEM. WE’RE INCLUDING A BROADER RANGE OF TOPIC AREAS IN OUR GUIDELINES \nWORKING COLLABORATIVELY WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND ELEVATING EQUITY IN \nNATURE-BASED ADAPTATION SOLUTIONS THE GOOD NEWS\, WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED AND \nARE WELL ON OUR WAY BCDC REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDELINES \nWILL ADDRESS MINIMUM STANDARDS AND MORE. \nADAPTING REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN SB272 ARE ALIGNED ON TRACK AND \nLINK FUNDING WE’RE ALIGNED WITH THIS BILL BCDC WORKED CLOSELY WITH SENATOR \nLAIRD AND A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP SB 272 AND THE COMMISSION AND \nMANY OTHERS ARE AROUND THE REGION TOOK SUPPORT VISION SUPPORT POSITIONS ON \nTHE BILL AND WE THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE ANTICIPATED THE ADOPTION OF SB272 WE \nSTARTED MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS EVEN BEFORE THE BILL WAS SIGNED AND THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DEVELOPED LAST YEAR AS YOU CAN SEE IN \nTHE BLUEPRINT OF SB272 OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS WE HAVE WORKED \nCOLLABORATIVELY WITH THE VOLUNTARY BAY AREA LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIONAL \nPARTNERS TO DEVELOP BAY ADAPT AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS WE IMPLEMENT THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE BILL. WE WILL ALSO BE PROVIDING POLICY TECHNICAL \nASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS THEY APPLY THE GUIDELINES AND \nDEVELOP THESE PLANS WE’RE ON TRACK TO DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES BY THE END OF \n2024 IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE BILL REQUIREMENTS AND IMPORTANTLY THIS BILL \nIS RANKED TO FUNDING AND THIS IS NOT AN UNFUNDED MANDATE FOR LOCAL \nJURISDICTIONS A GRANT FOR FUNDING DEVELOPING BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPLANS WILL ISSUE AVAILABLE STARTING AT THE END OF 2023 FROM THE OCEAN \nPROTECTION COUNCIL AND OTHER POTS COULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS PURPOSE AS WELL\, O \nTHIS. PC HAS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR PHASING AND IMPLEMENTING \nPLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTATION WORK WITH OPC ON THE CURRENT GRANT ON THEIR \nCURRENT GRANT CRITERIA ONCE THESE GUIDELINES ARE COMPLETE WE WILL WORK \nWITH OPC TO UPDATE THOSE FUTURE ROUNDS THESE ARE HISTORIC LEVELS OF FUNDING \nFOR ADAPTATION SO IT IS IN JURISDICTIONS BEST INTEREST TO GET \nTHESE PLANS DEVELOPED SOON THE STATE HAS ALLOCATED $690 MILLION IN \nMULTI-YEAR FUNDING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION BETWEEN NOW AND 2050. \nWHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US? SB272 PRESENTS CHALLENGES AND \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR BCDC IN THE BAY AREA WE’LL CONTINUE TO DEVELOP GUIDELINES \nAND NOW HAVE SB272 BEHIND IT WHILE THE BILL CALLS FOR SUBREGIONAL PLANS TO BE \nCOMPLETED BY 2034 WE THINK THE REGION CANNOT WAIT THAT LONG TO PLAN FOR IT. \nWE CAN COLLECTIVELY WORK TOGETHER TO ADOPT PLANS SOONER ONE WAY IS BCDC \nWILL ESTABLISH AS I MENTIONED A SUPPORTIVE FLEXIBLE POLICY AND \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO MEET CITIES AND COUNTIES WHERE THEY ARE \nCONNECT THEM TO FUNDING AND REDUCE BURDEN OF ADDITIONAL PLANNING COSTS WE \nWILL CONTINUE TO DEFINE THE SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ENSURE LOCAL PLAN APPROVAL \nPROCESS CLEAR AND CODIFIED SO THAT GOVERNMENTS KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT. \nFINALLY BCDC STRATEGIC PLAN FORESEES A UNIFIED CONSISTENT REGIONAL APPROACH \nACROSS BCDC PLANNING AND REGULATORY FUNCTIONS IN LIGHT OF RISING SEA LEVEL \nAND DIRECTS THE COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHETHER BCDC REGULATORY AND PLANNING \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO FOSTER LARGER SCALE \nADAPTATION EFFORTS. AS BCDC IMPLEMENTING SB272 WE’LL HOLD \nPUBLIC DISCUSSIONS WHETHER AND HOW TO CHANGE OUR LAWS AND POLICIES TO BEST \nIMPLEMENT THIS NEW BILL. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. I’M \nSURE YOU HAVE LOTS MUCH QUESTIONS. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM AND WILL GO AHEAD \nAND TURN IT BACK OVER TO COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN. THANK YOU \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS? \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? VICE CHAIR EISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, JESSE. THAT WAS FANTASTIC. \nTHE 272 REFERS TO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AND YOU SAID IN ONE OF YOUR EARLIER \nSLIDES THAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN COULD BE BASED ON THE CITY\, THE COUNTY\, OR AN \nOLU\, I THINK IS THE TERM WE’RE NOW USING. WHO DECIDES THAT QUESTION? \nOAKLAND AND ALAMEDA COULD EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PLAN? OR THEY COULD DO IT \nON A COUNTY-WIDE BASIS OR AS PART OF AN LOU? WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? \n>>SPEAKER: RIGHT NOW OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS THROUGH AS I MENTIONED OUR \nADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS WORKING WITH OUR RISING SEA LEVEL COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP AND FOCUS GROUPS ACTUALLY TO COME UP WITH THAT DECISION IN THE PROCESS \nTO DEFINE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN IS AND THAT INCLUDES ANY KIND OF \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ASPECTS SO OUR INTENTION AT THIS POINT IS NOT THAT \nEVERYBODY POSSIBLY GETS TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES ALTHOUGH WE WANT TO EXPLORE \nAND ENSURE WHEN PEOPLE ARE PLANNING THEY’RE DOING SO IN WAYS THAT REALLY \nSUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION\, AT THIS POINT WE DON’T INTEND EVERYBODY GETS \nTO CHOOSE ON THEIR OWN BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PHASES OF THE PROJECT \nWE’LL BE EVALUATING THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET INTO \nTHE DEVELOPING OF GUIDELINES WE’LL HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROACH THAT WE’LL BE \nUSING. >>SPEAKER: ADDING TO THAT\, WE’LL \nINCLUDE IN THE GUIDELINES WHAT THE DEFINITION OF SUBREGION IS. WE WON’T \nLEAVE IT OPEN AND WE’LL BRING THAT BACK TO YOU AS COMMISSIONERS TO WEIGH IN ON \nAS WELL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU. WELL\, FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ADD\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK JACKIE AND TODD HALLENBECK FOR COMING TO MOUNTAIN \nVIEW’S BIRTHDAY PARTY FOR SHORELINE PARK. IT WAS OUR 40th ANNIVERSARY AND \nFOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON’T KNOW\, SHORELINE PARK WAS BUILT UPON A — \nABOUT A 30-YEAR LANDFILL THAT WAS BUILT WITH SAN FRANCISCO GARBAGE. AND IT’S \nREALLY QUITE AN INTERESTING PUBLIC WORKS SUCCESS STORY. \nIT’S A BEAUTIFUL 700 FIRST ACRE REGIONAL PARK NOW. BUT WE DO HAVE \nFOREVER TO TAKE CARE OF THIS LANDFILL THAT’S UNDERNEATH IT\, BUT ON THE GOOD \nSIDE\, IT RAISED THE SURFACE ELEVATION OF THE AREA OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ADJACENT \nTO THE BAY BY NINE FEET. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO PROTECT THE REST OF THE \nWAY IS A LITTLE LESS THAN SOME PEOPLE IN OTHER AREAS MAY HAVE TO DO. \nANYWAY\, I WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL THANK THEM FOR COMING. PEOPLE WERE HAVING A \nGREAT TIME. TODD TOOK SOME FOLKS OUT ON TOUR OF RESTORATIONS THAT ARE GOING \nON AND JACKIE WAS VERY BUSY ASKING QUESTIONS SO WE REALLY APPRECIATED THE \nINVOLVEMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY CELEBRATION. THEN I WANT TO ASK ABOUT \nTHIS WHAT IS SUBREGIONAL. THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW DEVELOPED A PLAN\, AND \nABOUT 2013\, AND WE REVISED IT A FEW TIMES. IT HAS 14 PROJECTS THAT WE \nNEED TO DO. AND WE COORDINATE WITH PALO ALTO AND \nSUNNYVALE AND THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT\, AND THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AND ALL SORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. BUT WE — \nYOU KNOW\, I THINK IT’S VERY IMPORTANT TO BUILD ON THAT PLAN. SO\, I’M REALLY \nINTERESTED IN SEEING HOW THIS SUBREGION GETS DEFINED AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE \nBUILD ON WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE\, EVEN THOUGH IT’S — I KNOW THE \nPLANNING IS QUITE UNEVEN THROUGHOUT THE AREA. SO\, MY QUESTION\, REALLY\, IS \nJUST\, GENERALLY\, HOW ARE WE PLANNING TO DO THAT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THIS IS DANA BRECHWALD\, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR \nFOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION WE’RE IN THE BEGINNING PHASES OF DEFINING THAT \nRIGHT NOW\, I WANT TO REASSURE PEOPLE WE DON’T HAVE A FINAL OUTCOME IN MIND \nRIGHT NOW IT WILL BE A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WE’LL HAVE A WORKING GROUP AND \nBACK TO THE SEA LEVEL RISE WORKING GROUP AND BRING IT BACK TO THE \nCOMMISSION WE’LL HAVE SOME FOCUS GROUPS TO HELP DEFINE THAT\, LOOKING AT THE \nPROCESS AND BUILDINGS ON THE PLANNING THAT PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE. SO WE \nDON’T HAVE ANY FINAL ANSWER. [LAUGHTER] \nFOR YOU AT THIS TIME. BUT YOU DO RAISE GOOD POINTS AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nGOING TO CONSIDER AS WE COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF WHAT A SUBREGIONAL PLAN \nS >>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: GREAT. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS\, AROUND THE BAY\, WHO \nHAS\, SORT OF\, JURISDICTION FOR FLOOD PROTECTION\, WHICH IS WHAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE PROTECTION S REALLY IT’S COASTAL FLOOD PROTECTION FROM COASTAL FLOODING \nAND IT VARIES ALL OVER THE MAP IT’S LIKE A PATCHWORK QUILT I WANT TO MAKE \nSURE YOU’RE INCLUDING THE FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCIES AS WELL IN THIS \nGROUP. RIGHT? THAT YOU’RE TALKING TO. ARE THEY — \nYOU DIDN’T MENTION THEM IN THE SPECIFICALLY IN THE PRESENTATION\, BUT \nI AM SURE THEY’RE PART OF THE MIX. IS THAT CORRECT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE HAVE AN ADVISORY GROUP OF 40 INDIVIDUALS THAT PANT \nGAMUT OF PRACTITIONERS WE HAVE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES ON THAT \nWE’RE LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE MORE FOCUS GROUPS AND MAKE SURE THAT \nAT DIFFERENT PARTS TO ENSURE THAT WE’RE CAPTURING THOSE EXPERT VOICES\, THAT WE \nCREATE SPACES IN THIS PROCESS TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. SO. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OH YES THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THAT. I KNOW \nSEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING ON THAT EXPERT ADVISORY GROUP. THAT FILLS \nTHAT BILL. THANKS VERY MUCH. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: THANKS. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR THE BRIEFING AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF\, ESPECIALLY LARRY AND SPECIFICALLY STEVE AS WELL\, SB272 \nIS A REAL STEP FORWARD FOR THE COMMISSION\, JUST A MILESTONE I THINK \nWE SHOULD RECOGNIZE. WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS OVER THE LAST \nSEVERAL YEARS ABOUT THE SORT OF LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HELP US WITH \nADAPTATION EFFORTS AND 272 REALLY TICKS A LOT OF THOSE BOXES SO IT’S IMPORTANT \nAS A STEP FORWARD AS REGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS COME TOGETHER AND WE \nTHINK ABOUT GOING BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR \nESPECIALLY FOR THE LEGISLATURE WHETHER IT’S FOR POLICY LEGISLATION REGARDING \nIMPLEMENTATION OR ESPECIALLY NEXT STEPS ON FINANCING AND FUNDING ADAPTING A \nEFFORTS\, THE FACT THAT WE’RE DOING ALL OF THIS WORK IN RESPONSE TO A MANDATE \nFROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE\, AS OPPOSED TO DOING IT JUST BECAUSE THE \nCOMMISSION THINKS IT’S A GOOD IDEA\, IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO\, I JUST WANTED \nTO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS STEP. AND\, REALLY\, THANK STAFF AND \nCONGRATULATE STAFF FOR MAKING SURE THAT THIS BILL IS SO CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH \nOUR THINKING AND OUR EXISTING EFFORTS. AND I THINK IT WILL REALLY GIVE US A \nBOOST. THANK YOU. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS CHAIR WASSERMAN. THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR \nTHIS EXCELLENT COMPREHENSIVE PRESENTATION. \nOBVIOUSLY THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING MOMENT TO BE N AS I’M THINKING ABOUT \nTHIS QUESTION OF SUBREGIONAL\, HOW TO DEFINE SUBREGIONAL. THERE IS ALREADY \nI THINK IT YOU HAVE HEARD PEOPLE ALREADY IDENTIFYING DIFFERENT STARTING \nPOINTS DIFFERENT RESOURCES DIFFERENT PRIORITIES AMONG ALL THE DIFFERENT \nACTORS AND I THINK FRANKLY IN SOME CASES DIFFERING LEVELS OF TRUST \nBETWEEN DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF WHOM I CONSTITUTE WHAT A SUBREGIONAL \nJURISDICTION LOOKS LIKE SO WHAT OCCURS TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT ALSO BE THINKING \nABOUT AS YOU’RE CONSIDERING HOW TO DEFINE SUBKNEE REGIONAL IS ALSO HOW TO \nTHINK ABOUT ENSURING INTEGRITY ACROSS SUBREGIONAL PLANS SO WE HAVE A KIND OF \nSECONDARY WAY TO BACKSTOP ANY GAPS IN THE SYSTEM. WHICH THIS LEGISLATION \nWAS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GIVES BCDC THE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY HOLD THE \nWHOLE PICTURE SO CONSIDERING YOU CAN DO THAT IN A WAY THAT MATCHES UP WITH \nDEFINING AREAS I THINK WILL BE IMPORTANT. THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: COMMISSIONER NELSON. YOU STILL HAVE \nYOUR HAND UP. DO YOU WANT ANOTHER SHOT? OR YOU JUST HAVEN’T PULLED IT \nDOWN? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ECKERLE RELATED TO THIS. \nAND THAT IS IF YOU CAN GIVE US ANY SENSE OF THE TIMING OF THE ROLE ROLL \nOUT ON THE FUNDING FROM OPC FOR THESE PLANNING EFFORTS. \n>>JENN ECKERLE: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO GIVE AN \nOVERARCHING REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION\, THE \nOCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL’S SB1 GRANT PROGRAM WHICH IS WHERE THIS 95 MILLION \nWILL LIVE IS GOING TO OFFER TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS FOR FUNDING ONE FOR \nPLANNING ONE FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SO EXAMPLES OF PLANNING PROJECTS \nINCLUDE COMMUNITY VISIONING VULNERABLE ASSESSMENTS DATA COLLECTION ADAPTATION \nPLANS AND ELIGIBLE IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS INCLUDE NATURE-BASED GREEN \nGRAY HYBRID ADAPTATION PROJECTS FEASIBILITY STUDIES PROJECT DESIGN SO \nYOU HAVE HEARD THAT THIS PROGRAM INCLUDES A SET OF ADAPTATION CRITERIA \nWHICH ARE THE STANDARDIZED SET OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WANT TO \nSEE\, THE CRITERIA DRAFT STANDS NOW AIMING TO ESTABLISH BEST PRACTICES AND \nCONSISTENCY ACROSS OUR ADAPTATION EFFORTS WE DEVELOPED IN THAT CLOSE \nCOORDINATION WITH STAFF FROM BCDC AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND OTHER \nMEMBER AGENCIES OF OUR STATE. SEA LEVEL RISE COLLABORATIVE SO THAT FINAL \nCRITERIA FOR THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR GRANT PROGRAM SOLICITATION WHICH \nWE ANTICIPATE RELEASING BY THE END OF THIS YEAR. SO ONCE THE SOLICITATION \nIS RELEASED WE INTEND TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE PLANNING PROJECTS THROUGH \nROLLING QUARTERLY NON-COMPETITIVE PROCESS PROVIDING THEY SATISFY THE \nREQUIREMENTS IN THE FINAL SEA LEVEL RISE CRITERIA AND WE WILL BEGIN \nACCEPTING IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS IN THE COMET PETATIVE PROCESS MID-TO LATE \n2024 THEN ONE OTHER NOTE THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR EQUITY WORK WE ARE \nENSURING THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO THIS FUNDING OPC IS SIMULTANEOUSLY \nLAUNCHING A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WILL PROVIDE DIRECT GRANT \nAPPLICATION SERVICES TO LOCAL REGIONAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS REPRESENTATIVE \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES SO TO QUALIFY FOR THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nAPPLICANTS MUST MEET SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT CRITERIA IS CURRENTLY UNDER \nDEVELOPED BUT THE GOAL IS TO PRIORITIZE FUNDING TO COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nUNDERRESOURCED AND ARE LACKING NECESSARY CAPACITY TO COMPETE FOR THIS \nFUNDING. SO INTERESTED LOCAL AND REGIONAL AND TRIBAL JURISDICTIONS TO \nMEET THAT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CRITERIA CAN APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE THAT \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT SO I’M COMMITTED TO KEEPING THE COMMISSION \nAPPRISED ON THE NEXT STEPS AND ENCOURAGE ANYONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN \nLEARNING MORE ABOUT BEING NOTIFIED ABOUT WHEN OUR FUNDING BECOMES \nAVAILABLE TO VISIT OPC’S WEB SITE AT WWW.OPC.CA.GOV. AND I’M HAPPY TO \nANSWER ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BURKE? >>SPEAKER: I WANT TO ECHO \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S POINT ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE’RE ENGAGING WITH \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES SO FOR EXAMPLE\, THE SAN FRANCISCO SIS QUIT OWE CREEK \nFLOOD CONTROL AGENCY REPRESENTS BOTH SAN MATEO\, SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND THE \nCITIES EAST OF PALO ALTO\, BECAUSE SOUTH OF THE CREEK IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY \nPALO ALTO\, ALLEY WATER AND MOUNTAIN VIEW ARE IN COLLABORATION TOGETHER \nNORTH OF THE CREEK SAN MATEO COUNTY EAST PALO ALTO DID NOT HAVE THE \nRESOURCES AND SAN MATEO COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE ESSENTIALLY FLOOD CONTROL \nDISTRICT AND FUNDING SO THE FLOOD CONTROL JOINT POWER AUTHORITY HAS \nASSUMED THE LEADS ROLE ON THE BAY SHORELINE ADAPTATION INITIATIVE FOR \nEAST PALO ALTO. SO\, THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE \n— ARE WORKING TOGETHER\, HAS BEEN MORPHING BASED UPON KIND OF ORGANIC \nCIRCUMSTANCES. AND IT WON’T BE EASY SORTING ALL THAT OUT. BUT THE FLOOD \nCONTROL AGENCIES\, CERTAINLY\, ARE\, I THINK\, MAYBE MORE IMPORTANT PLAYERS \nTHAN WE HAVE APPRECIATED. THANKS. >>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS? I HAVE GOT A COUPLE BEFORE WE GO TO THE PUBLIC. \nONE\, I CERTAINLY ECHO THOSE REMARKS\, AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ON AND OFF \nWITH STAFF ABOUT INVOLVING THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS. NOT AN EASY TASK\, \nJUST TO NOTE. BUT A CRITICAL ONE\, INCLUDING THE FACT \nTHAT\, OVER THE LONG RANGE\, THEY MAY BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE FUNDING GAP. \nBECAUSE AS SOME OF YOU MAY REMEMBER\, \nTHERE HAS BEEN AN EFFORT IN THE PAST TO PUT A MEASURE ON THE STATEWIDE BALLOT \nTO CHANGE THE WAY THEY COLLECT FEES TO MAKE THEM MORE LIKE THE UTILITIES \nREQUIRING ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE INSTEAD OF A TWO THIRD’S VOTE. SO\, FOR A \nRANGE EVER REASONS\, THEY ARE VERY IMPORTANT. \nI WANT TO EMPHASIZE COMMISSIONER ECKERLY’S REMARKS AS WELL AS THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION. THE FUND THAT’S OUT THERE IS NOT COMING ALL AT ONCE IT’S \nGOING TO BE A ROLLING PROCESS IT’S BEING PUT IN PLACE FORMULATED AND SOME \nOF THE EFFORTS REGARDING THAT GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID IN MY OPENING REMARKS \nABOUT WORKING TO BETTER COORDINATE THE PROCESS OF THE VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS \nGOING AFTER THAT FUNDING SO THAT WE ARE HELPING EACH OTHER AND NOT HURTING \nEACH OTHER. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nREYLINA? \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU’RE NOT FROM THE PUBLIC. YES YOU \nMAY. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, AND THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES. \nYOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WHEN THE GOVERNOR SIGNED 272 STEVE SOMEHOW FOUND THAT \nOUT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY\, AND E-MAILED ME\, AND I THINK THE REST OF SENIOR \nSTAFF AT THE SAME TIME. AND I WANT TO SAY\, FIRST OF ALL\, THAT THIS BILL \nWOULD NOT BE WHAT IT IS WITHOUT STEVE. HE DID AN ABSOLUTELY SUPERB JOB \nLEADING THE EFFORT AND WORKING WITH SENATOR LAIRD’S STAFF\, WORKING WITH \nCOMMITTEE STAFF\, MAKING SURE THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION KNEW WHAT WE WERE \nDOING\, MAKING SURE THAT WE KNEW WHAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WAS DOING. \nHE HAD A LOT OF HELP FROM JESSICA AND DANA AND JACKIE AND SOME FROM ME AND \nCERTAINLY FROM MICHAEL AND GREG. BUT STEVE DESERVES TREMENDOUS PRAISE FOR \nHIS WORK ON THIS. WE WOULDN’T BE HERE WITHOUT WHAT HE DID. \nTO ANSWER COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER’S QUESTION\, WHICH IS HOW\, AND ALSO \nCOMMISSIONER BURKE’S AND EVERYBODY’S\, HOW WE’RE GOING TO DO THIS WITH \nREGIONAL SHORELINE PLANNING. MY ANSWER IS\, WITH GREAT LACRITY. \nTHERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF COMPLEXITY ALONG THE SHORELINE WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT. THERE WILL BE SURPRISES DURING THE NEXT YEAR\, YEAR \nAND A QUARTER AS WE DO THIS BUT WE ARE GETTING OUR DUCKS IN A ROW INTERNALLY \nTO MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW HOW WE CAN FORECAST AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE \nSO THERE ARE AS FEW SURPRISES AS POSSIBLE. \nWITH REGARD TO THE OPC’S FUNDING\, I THINK COMMISSIONER ECKERLE WOULD \nEXPECT ME TO SAY THIS BUT I HAVEN’T CLEARED IT WITH HER. LET ME — THANK \nGOD SHE’S SMILING. LET IT BE STATED HERE THAT AS SOON AS WE HEAR ANYTHING \nABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT FUNDING BEING AVAILABLE\, \nBECAUSE WE WILL NO DOUBT DISTRIBUTE IT JUST AS THE OPC WILL. AND WE WILL\, \nALSO — I HAVE AUTHORITY\, THE DISTRICT WRITTEN MYSELF A NOTE PUT THE OPC WEB \nSITE ON MY COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY TODAY SO THAT YOU ALL CAN JUST CLICK \nAND FIND OUT JUST AS MUCH AS YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH FUNDING. \nFINALLY\, I WANT TO SAY WITH A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL CONTEXT THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVED THE CLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENTS BACK IN 2011. SO\, THAT WAS \nA DOZEN YEARS AGO. IT HAS TAKEN US A DOZEN YEARS TO GET TO 272. BUT I \nDON’T THINK THAT CANDIDLY IS NECESSARY TOO LONG. I THINK THAT SO MUCH HAS \nHAPPENED OVER THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS THAT HAS CHANGED THE CONTEXT TO \nWHICH PEOPLE VIEW CLIMATE CHANGE AND RISING SEA LEVEL THAT WE PROBABLY \nCOULDN’T EVEN HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING A 272 BACK IN 2017 OR 2018. AND I \nWANT TO THANK ALL OF THE FOLKS WHO BEEN WITH US OVER THE PAST DOZEN YEARS. \nAND I WAS REMINDED OF THIS YESTERDAY AS I WAS DRIVING AND LISTENING TO OF ALL \nTHINGS\, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN AND THOUSAND DOLLARS THUNDER ROAD. THERE IS A LINE \nIN THERE AS HE LOOKS AT MARY AND SAYS — THEY WANT TO ESCAPE THAT TOWN\, BUT \nTHE DOOR IS OPEN BUT THE RIDE AIN’T FREE SO WE HAVE EARNED THIS DOOR BEING \nOPENED\, THE RIDE IS GOING TO BE COMPLEX. BUT WE’RE GOING TO GET IT \nDONE WITH YOUR HELP INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY AND WE WANT TO THANK YOU \nFOR ALWAYS COMING TO BCDC AND PUTTING ON YOUR REGIONAL HAT DISTINGUISH — \nBECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO TAKE. \nWITH THAT CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR \nLEADERSHIP FOR HELPING US GET TO 2272 AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AS IMPATIENT AS I NORMALLY AM\, I’M ALMOST \nINCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE TIMING OF 272. \nI DO WANT TO REPEAT MY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU AND ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT \nSUPPORTED GETTING 272 SIGNED THIS ROUND\, INCLUDING THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS \nWHO\, IN MANY WAYS\, REPRESENT THE LARGEST MOST ORGANIZED PART OF WHAT I \nVIEW AS OUR CONSTITUENCIES\, SAFETY BAY AND THE BAY PLANNING COALITION. IT \nWAS A UNITED AND COMMUNITY EFFORT THAT GOT THAT DONE. SO\, I THANK YOU ALL. \nWITH THAT\, WE WILL TURN TO ITEM 11. THANK YOU VERY MUCH\, JACKIE\, FOR AN \nEXCELLENT PRESENTATION. THANKS\, STAFF\, FOR THE WORK. \nAND\, YEAH\, THE RIDE AIN’T FREE\, AND IT AIN’T OVER YET. \nALMOST 11 IS A BRIEFING ON THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK TO IMPLEMENT THE \nCOMMISSION’S 2023 STRATEGIC PLAN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GOLDZBAND WILL \nSTART THE BRIEFING. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: SO THIS FLOWS \nRIGHT FROM 272. BELIEVE IT OR NOT T REALLY DOES. AND IT FLOWS FROM BAY \nADAPT. I DON’T KNOW WHO HAS THE PRESENTATION\, BUT IF SOMEBODY COULD \nSTART BRINGING IT UP\, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE PROMISED YOU WHEN YOU ALL \nADOPTED THE STRATEGIC PLAN IN THE SPRING\, THAT WE WOULD COME AT YOU IN \nTHE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. \nWELL\, AUGUST DIDN’T HAPPEN BECAUSE WE COULDN’T MEET IN AUGUST AND WE ONLY \nHAD ONE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. SO WE’RE HERE IN OCTOBER AND WILL BE BACK TO \nYOU IN EITHER DECEMBER OR JANUARY WITH AN UPDATE AS WELL. \nBUT THIS IS\, I THINK\, BASICALLY\, DUE TO\, IN GREAT PART\, CHAIR WASSERMAN’S \nINSISTENCE\, A REAL WAY FOR US TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON JUST PARTS OF \nTHE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE THINK YOU MIGHT WELL BE MOST INTERESTED IN\, AND \nTHAT WE\, CERTAINLY\, ARE INTERESTED IN\, AS WELL AS GIVING YOU A LARGER SCALE \nUPDATE. SO\, JESSICA\, ARE YOU GOING TO DO THIS OR AM I GOING TO DO THIS? \nI’M GOING TO DO THIS? THANK YOU. YOU CAN TELL WE PRACTICED THIS. BUT I \nWANT TO THANK JESSICA FAIN A LOT BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN TREMENDOUS IN \nPUTTING THIS TOGETHER. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: WE’RE ALL GOING TO DO THIS LARRY. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WE’LL ALL BE DOING THIS BUT I’LL START IT OFF. YOU \nREMEMBER THAT WE CREATED YOU ALL WITH OUR HELP CREATED A NEW VISION WE HAVE \nFIVE GOALS EACH WITH ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES THIS IS NOT NEWS TO YOU \nNOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH REGARD TO THE GOALS OR ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. THE CORE VALUES REMAIN\, EQUITABLE AND \nINCLUSIVE SCIENCE BASED AND DATA-DRIVEN\, AGILE AND PROACTIVE\, \nALACRITY IS IN THERE\, INCLUSIVE SERVICE ORIENTED TRUSTED ACCOUNTABLE AND WE \nWANT TO LIVE UP TO THAT ON A DAILY BASIS. NEXT SLIDE. \nWE HAVE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND YOU WILL REMEMBER \nTHAT WE HAVE FIVE GOALS SOME OF SOMETHING LIKE 24 OR 25 DIFFERENT \nOBJECTIVES WITHIN THEM. YOU WILL SEE A HISTORY OF WHAT WE SINGLE ON TRACK\, \nTHERE HAVE BEEN A FEW DELAYS OR BASICALLY ISSUES\, A COUP EL \nTHATHAVEN’T BEEN COMPLETED AND A BUNCH THAT HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN STARTED YET. \nTHESE ARE BASED UPON THE DIFFERENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WHICH THEN \nHAVE UNDERNEATH THEM A SERIES OF ACTIONS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE. \nSO THIS HISTOGRAM ISN’T THE GOALS\, IT’S NOT THE OBJECTIVE\, IT’S THE ACTUAL \nACTIONS THAT WILL COMPLETE THOSE OBJECTIVES AND GET US TO THAT GOAL. \nSO THAT’S WHY YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE 70 OR SO\, 65\, OR 70 DIFFERENT ACTIONS \nWE’RE NOT GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH 65 OR 70 ACTIONS\, GOD FORBID\, BECAUSE WE \nWANT YOU TO STAY AWAKE. BUT WHAT WE WILL DO IS LEAD YOU THROUGH A COUPLE \nOF THOSE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES EACH OF THOSE FIVE GOALS SO YOU CAN SEE HOW WE \nARE PROGRESSING. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WHICH IS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE \n1.1. SO THAT’S WHERE I THROW IT OVER TO JESSICA. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: THANKS LARRY. SO\, STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1.1 IS HOW WE \nSUCCESSFULLY LEAD OUR BAY ADAPT PROGRAM. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OVER THIS \nPAST QUART INCLUDE ACTUALLY COMPLETING ONE OF THE TASKS IN THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM. WE PUBLISHED WITH MTC A REPORT CALLED THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK THAT WE BRIEFED YOU ON\, WE \nHAVE KICKED OFF LEADERSHIP GROUPS TO GUIDE BAY ADAPT IMPLEMENTATION \nINCLUDING OUR ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE AND IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSE \nPARTICIPATION IN THE VARIOUS BAY ADAPT GROUPS AND FOCUSED ON COMMUNICATIONS \nUPDATED OUR WEB SITE\, WE STARTED A BLOG THANKS TO SOME SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE \nFROM SOME CONSULTANTS TO REALLY UP OUR COMMUNICATIONS GAME. \nONE OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT — SOME OF THE NEXT CHALLENGES THAT WE’LL BE \nFACING ARE COMING OUT OF THAT FUNDING AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK\, HOW DO WE \nACTUALLY PULL TOGETHER AN INTERAGENCY PROCESS AND AGREEMENT TO HELP FILL \nTHAT GAP. SO WE’RE WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS AT \nTHE BAY AREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION\, MISSISSIPPI ABAG REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATIVE TO UNDERSTAND ACROSS OUR AGENCIES TO TRY TO SOLVE THIS. WE’RE \nALSO — WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE HOW WE’RE DOING ON BAY ADAPT SO OUR \nTEAM IS DEVELOPING METRICS ON HOW TO MEASURE PROGRESS. \nFINALLY ONE THING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO NEXT SUMMER IS TO HOST AN ANNUAL \nFORUM ON REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION. THIS WILL BE A NEW EVENT \nWE’RE JUST STARTING TO SCOPE IT OUT. IF YOU HAVE IDEAS LET US KNOW BUT \nTHAT’S SOMETHING WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO. NEXT SLIDE. \nANOTHER STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE OF GOAL ONE IS AROUND OUR REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN. I’M NOT GOING TO GO INTO MUCH DETAIL HERE YOU HEARD A LOT \nFROM JACKIE ON THIS. NEEDLESS TO SAY WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF ENGAGEMENT\, \nWE’RE HOSTING A PUBLIC WORKSHOP NEXT WEEK AND HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS \nAROUND THIS PHASE WHICH IS BACKGROUND VISION AND MEASURING OUR SUCCESS. \nMOVING FORWARD AS WE ENTER INTO OUR NEXT PHASE AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED \nDEFINING WHAT THESE SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLANS ARE DEVELOPING THOSE \nGUIDELINES AND INTEGRATING SB272 INTO THIS. I THINK I TURN IT OVER TO \nHARRIET. >>HARRIET ROSS: I’M NEXT. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES\, 2.1. THAT’S MINE. THAT REALLY SPEAKS TO \nDETERMINING — >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THAT’S THE NEXT \nSLIDE. >>HARRIET ROSS: SORRY. NEXT SLIDE. \nREALLY SPEAKS TO DETERMINING IF AND HOW BCDC AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION SHOULD \nBE EXPANDED TO FOSTER THESE LARGER SCALE ADAPTATION EFFORTS WHICH ARE WE \nHAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY. LUCKY ME\, I’M NEW\, SO I GET TO SHARE \nTHE GREAT WORK AND THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT MY REGULATORY TEAM HAS BEEN \nWORKING ON. SO\, SOME OF OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS WORKING TOWARDS THIS \nSTRATEGY REALLY INCLUDES UNDERTAKING A COACH OF COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF OUR \nPERMITTING PROGRAM. WE REVIEWED 15 MAJOR STUDIES LOOKING AT REGULATORY \nCHALLENGES POSED BY ADAPTATION AND WE HAVE IDENTIFIED OVER 30 MAJOR \nRECOMMENDATIONS FOR BCDC AND OUR REGULATORY PARTNERS TO CONSIDER. \nWE’LL BE TAKING LESSONS LEARNED FROM THESE STUDIES AND USING THEM TO INFORM \nSPECIFIC PROJECTS THE REGULATORY TEAM CAN PURSUE IN THE COMING YEARS. AND \nWE HAVE ALSO DEVOTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE DEPARTMENT \nFINANCE LED EMISSION BASED REVIEW FOR OUR PERMITTING PROGRAM\, WHICH YOU \nHEARD ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING. WE\, AND ALMOST EVERY MEMBER OF OUR \nREGULATORY TEAM IS PROVIDING INPUT AND EXPERTISE ON THAT REVIEW. THE PROJECT \nWILL RESULT IN A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFINANCE STAFF ON HOW BCDC CAN BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN \nPERMITTING AGENCY REALLY READY TO TACKLE MAJOR ADAPTATION PROJECTS \nCOMING AHEAD OF US. SOME OF OUR UPCOMING WORK INCLUDES \nSCOPING OUT A PROPOSAL FOR REIMAGINED BCDC JURISDICTION THAT WILL ALLOW THE \nCOMMISSION TO IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AS WE HAVE \nTALKED ABOUT OBVIOUSLY THE PLAN IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT BUT THAT WORK IS \nTO DEVELOP THE INCLUDING REGULATORY STAFF AS WELL AS THE GOAL FOR OUR \nULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS THE COMMISSION’S FUTURE REGULATORY PROGRAM \nTO REFLECT THE PRIORITIES DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THAT PLAN AND LASTLY WE’LL \nBE WORKING WITH A REGULATORY PARTNER TO SCOPE OUT THE PROPOSAL FOR THE \nIMPROVED MULTI-YEAR AGENCY ADAPTATION OVER THE COMING YEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NEXT SLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: WE HAVE A NEW GROUP COMPLIANCE. AND COMPLIANCE SITS \nBETWEEN PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT. AND THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO INTEGRATE \nTHE COMPLIANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO AND INTO THE REGULATORY PROGRAM. \nAND I GOT TO SAY\, THE GOOD NEWS IS COMPLIANCE IS UP AND RUNNING\, DOING A \nGREAT JOB. WE HAVE SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATED THEM BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT \nAND PERMITTING\, POSITIVE RESULTS HAVE BEEN SEEN IN COMPLIANCE AND BY \nPERMITTEES\, AND IN OTHER — AND IN DIVERSIONS FROM FORMAL \nENFORCEMENT. LESS ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY AND MORE IN COMPLIANCE WHICH IS THE \nGOAL HERE. IT’S INTERESTING IN DISCUSSIONS AT TIME WHEN WE SEND \nSOMETHING TO COMPLIANCE\, COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN LOOKING AT OUR PERMITS WHICH HAVE \nA WHOLE RANGE OF THINGS OVER TIME AND IT’S THE TIME THAT MAKES COMPALESTINES \nHAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND WHEN THINGS START TO FALL OFF COMPLIANCE CAN OFTEN \nGET THINGS BACK ON TRACK. I WOULD SAY THAT’S GOING REALLY WELL. \nCOORDINATION MEETINGS BETWEEN ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE WHICH IS \nGREAT REALLY OPERATING THERE AND FIVE MONTHLY MEETINGS BETWEEN COMPLIANCE \nAND REGULATORY TO WORK OUT SOME OF THE PERMITTING ISSUES MAKING THEM \nENFORCEABLE AND MAKING THINGS MORE COMPLIANT ALSO HOW TO TAKE SOME OF THE \nLOAD OFF OF PERMITTING. OUR NEXT CHALLENGE AND GRAY AREAS\, DOCUMENTING \nAND PROCESS AND RESOLVING THOSE AREAS. LAST PART IS HOW TO MEASURE THOSE \nEFFICIENCY GAINS SEEING WE’RE ACTUALLY GETTING BENEFITS FROM HAVING OUR \nCOMPLIANCE TEAM AND BEING ABLE TO SHOW MEASURABLE BENEFITS THOSE ARE OUR \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN 2.4. >>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3.2 HIGHLIGHTS THE WORK ON BCDC RACIAL EQUITY PLAN SINCE \nLAST WE CAME TO YOU WE HAVE HAD REVIEW FROM SENIOR STAFF AND HAVE BEEN \nWORKING TO INTEGRATE COMMENTS WE HAVE ALSO BEEN REVIEWING ACTIONS WITH \nSUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS EVEN THOUGH THE PLAN HAS NOT BEEN FINALIZED WE MADE A \nLOT OF PROGRESS ON SEVERAL ACTIONS INCLUDING INCREASING FUNDING TO THE \nADVISERS BEGINNING BIANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR PROGRAM CURRENTLY WORKING ON \nFINAL DRAFT AND WILL BRING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR AND \nTO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL IN WINTER OF 2024. \nNEXT SLIDE. 3.3 FOCUSES ON STRENGTHENING COMMISSIONER EQUITY \nAWARENESS BRINGING TRAININGS TO ALL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AGENCY STAFF. \nSENIOR STAFF AT OUR AGENCIES HAVE REGISTERED ARE PLANNING TO GO TO \nTRAINING BEYOND LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT\, AFTER TRAINING WE’RE GOING TO INVITE \nTHE RESOURCES GROUP TO GIVE TRAINING TO ALL STAFF. WE ALSO CONTINUE TO HAVE \nEJ OFFICE HOURS FOR STAFF EVERY TWO WEEKS AND A MONTHLY RACIAL EQUITY \nMEDIA CLUB WE’RE READING THIS BOOK EVOLUTION OF A MOVEMENT ABOUT THE \nHISTORIED OF CALIFORNIA EJ MOVEMENT WE’RE PLANNING A SERIES OF EJ AND \nTRAVEL ENGAGEMENT TRAININGS IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AND TRAINING WORK PLAN WITH \nCOASTAL COMMISSION AND STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY FOR CDMA STAFF. \n>>SPEAKER: NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AS YOU CAN TELL \nMOST SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS HAVE A PARTICULAR GOAL FOR WHICH THEY ARE \nRESPONSIBLE PLUS PHOENIX ON THE EJ. MINE IS GOAL FOUR. AND YOU WILL \nREMEMBER THAT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.1 BASICALLY SAYS WE HAVE TO DO A BETTER \nJOB WITH OUR STAKEHOLDERS IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION AND WE NEED TO BE MORE \nACCESSIBLE. WE NEED TO INCREASE AWARENESS AND WE HAVE TO FOSTER \nSUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY DIALOGUES. WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS \nAS PART OF BAY ADAPT WE HAVE HELD TWO ELECTED OFFICIAL TASK FORCE MEETINGS \nAND WE HAVE HAD A SERIES OF POP-UP COMMUNITY EVENTS AND YOU SAW THE \nRESULTS OF THAT EARLIER TODAY WHEN JACKIE SHOWED YOU THE COMMENTS ON \nVISIONING AND THE LIKE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD WITH A GREAT \nGROUP OF STAFF ON DEVELOPING A NEW WEB SITE THAT WILL BE FAR MORE USER \nFOCUSED. WE JUST FOUND OUT THIS WEEK THAT THE \nMIGRATION HAS ACTUALLY OCCURRED\, WHICH DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE GOING TO SEE A NEW \nWEB SITE TOMORROW\, BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT AT LEAST THE WEB SITE WILL BE UP \nAND RUNNING WE CERTAINLY THINK BY THE END — CERTAINLY WITHIN NOVEMBER. \nAND WE HAVE DEVELOPED THE FIRST EVER TRANSLATION SERVICES CONTRACT\, WHICH \nYOU HAVE APPROVED TO PROVIDE MORE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC ACCESS TO COMMISSION \nDOCUMENTS. SO OUR NEXT CHALLENGE IS\, ESSENTIALLY TO FINISH THE FIRST PART \nOF THE NEW WEB SITE\, PUT IT UP\, AND THEN CORRECT T BECAUSE WE KNOW IT’S \nNOT GOING TO BE PERFECT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO BRIEFINGS AT \nTHE COUNTY AND CITY LEVELS ABOUT BCDC AND THE BAY\, WHETHER THEY BE IN MARIN \nOR IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND OR WHEREVER THEY ARE\, AND WE ACCEPT ALL \nINVITATIONS AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO ASK MORE OF YOU IN ASSISTING WITH \nOUTREACH. BECAUSE YOU ARE GREAT PROSITIZERS\, AND GREAT VEHICLES FOR US \nTO GET PLACES. NEXT SLIDE. \nSTRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4.2 WAS REALLY SIMPLE. HIRE A PIO. \nWELL\, WE HAVEN’T. BUT WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT CNRA\, \nTHAT THE RESOURCES AGENCIES APPROVE THE DRAFT SENIOR LEVEL POSITION CALLED \nBCDC DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THAT DUTY STATEMENT BASICALLY SAYS \nTHAT THAT PERSON WILL BE A PART-TIME PAI\, PART-TIME LEGISLATIVE LIAISON \nPART-TIME CMA EXPERT AND BASICALLY ENSURING THAT AS WE LOOK OUTSIDE BCDC \nWE HAVE A PERSON WHO UNDERSTANDS HOW TO CONNECT THOSE DOTS AND WE ARE LOOKING \nFORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CNRA TO GET THAT FUNDED. WE HAVE STARTED \nDISCUSSIONING WITH THEM AND WE ASSUME WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE AND HEADING OFF TO GOAL FIVE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK YOU. >>SPEAKER: ONE OF OUR OBJECTIVES OF \nGOAL FIVE WAS TO HAVE OUR STAFF REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF THE BAY AREA WE HAVE \nBEEN ABLE TO MOVE TOWARDS BY CONTINUING TO RECRUIT GREAT TALENT FOR POSITIONS \nAND WE’RE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING SPECIAL SALARY INCREASES FOR SEVERAL \nCLASSIFICATIONS USED AT BCDC. NEXT QUARTER WE’RE CONDUCTING AN \nORGANIZATIONAL HEALTH SURVEY AND INCLUDING A SEPARATE SURVEY ON RACIAL \nEQUITY. NEXT SLIDE. ANOTHER OBJECTIVE OF GOAL FIVE IS TO \nIMPLEMENT TECHNOLOGICAL UPGRADES TO IMPROVE PROCESSES. \nOUR CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER ANDREW CHEN DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF WORKING \nWITH NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY TO ON BOARD THEIR SECURITY OPERATIONS CENTER \nWHICH ENHANCES OUR OVERALL CYBER SECURITY BY PROACTIVELY IDENTIFYING \nSECURITY THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES ANDREW WORKED WITH THE CALIFORNIA \nMILITARY DEPARTMENT TO COMPLETE OUR BIANNUAL IT SECURITY ASSESSMENT WHICH \nIS A TECHNICAL ANALYSIS TO MEASURE CYBER SECURITY INCLUDING \nVULNERABILITY\, FIRE WALL ANALYSIS PHISHING SUSCEPTIBILITY AND MORE. \nLASTLY WE INITIATED THE WATCHED HOSTING SERVICES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF \nTECHNOLOGY WHICH PROVIDES A STANDARDIZED STATE WEB SITE TEMP PLATT \nAND ENHANCES SECURITY AND IMPROVES CONTENT MAINTENANCE. \nTHIS QUARTER WE REVIEWING FINDINGS FROM IT ASSESSMENT ENSURING WE ADDRESS ANY \nCONCERNS THEN WE’LL BE WORKING ON FINALIZING THE NEW WEB SITE WHICH WILL \nALSO INCLUDE A PAYMENT PORTAL TO ALLOW FOR ONLINE PAYMENT OF FINES AND PERMIT \nFEES. >>LARRY GOLDZBAND: NEXT SLIDE. \nSO THAT\, IS AN OVERVIEW. WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE\, IF YOU \nWOULD LIKE IT\, THE FULL ACTION PLAN\, WITH ALL — I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY — \n75\, 85 DIFFERENT ACTIONS\, EACH OF WHICH HAS BEEN COLOR-CODED\, GREEN\, YELLOW\, \nRED OR BLUE. IF YOU ARE CERTAINLY INTERESTED. \nBUT WE’RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nI SEE NONE. OH OF COURSE. WHEN I SAY QUESTIONS I \nMEAN COMMENTS\, AS WELL. >>SPEAKER: OKAY. I SHOULD KNOW THAT \nBY NOW. LARRY\, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF. YOU ARE MAKING TANGIBLE \nPROGRESS ON ALL THESE GOALS AND IT WAS GREAT TO SEE HOW YOU ALL BROKE IT DOWN \nTODAY. THANK YOU. GOOD TO SEE THE PROGRESS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? \nBECAUSE THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHAT I MEAN. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THANK YOU. I SHARE IN THE \nCONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYBODY FOR THE PRESENTATION\, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY \nTHAN THE PRESENTATION\, THE WORK ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND EVALUATING IT AND \nMONITORING IT. I THINK WE ARE MAKING GREAT STRIDES. WE MAY HAVE TO THINK \nABOUT A LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID FOR 272 FOR OUR PIO \nFUNDING. I SAY THAT ONLY SEMI FACETIOUSLY BECAUSE IN FACT IT IS A \n  \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-19-2023-commission-meeting-2/
LOCATION:Webinar
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231012T080000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231012T170000
DTSTAMP:20240131T055514Z
CREATED:20240131T055514Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240131T055514Z
UID:10000166-1697097600-1697130000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 12\, 2023 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-12-2023-enforcement-committee-meeting-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20231011T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20231011T170000
DTSTAMP:20231121T060424Z
CREATED:20231012T011242Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231121T060424Z
UID:10000072-1697029200-1697043600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:October 11\, 2023 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meetings (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-11-2023-engineering-criteria-review-board-meetings-cancelled/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR