BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.15.19//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H X-Robots-Tag:noindex X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/Los_Angeles BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART: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 BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20250309T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20251102T090000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 TZNAME:PDT DTSTART:20260308T100000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 TZNAME:PST DTSTART:20261101T090000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:UTC BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:UTC DTSTART:20230101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Asia/Shanghai BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0800 TZOFFSETTO:+0800 TZNAME:CST DTSTART:20230101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250122T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20241104T230038Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250109T235119Z UID:10000209-1737538200-1737547200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 22\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-22-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250117T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250117T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20250106T235002Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250115T223936Z UID:10000265-1737108000-1737115200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 17\, 2025 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-17-2025-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20241209T183510Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250121T165055Z UID:10000229-1737032400-1737046800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 16\, 2025 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 video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary Physical LocationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locationsNapa County Board of Supervisors District 5 Office\, 4381 Broadway Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503 \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/82307825258?pwd=7T0cKnOb2oS1saD3LkGNeT5Sf3xByA.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID823 0782 5258 \nPasscode553686 \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 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.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for December 19\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommissioner Workshop on Richmond-San Rafael BridgeCommissioners and Alternates will participate in a workshop to receive information\, engage with relevant data\, and discuss policy questions on a proposal to modify the existing operations of the separated Class I public pathway on the shoulder of the westbound upper deck of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge that is open 24 hours a day\, seven days a week. Caltrans has proposed to reduce the days and hours of operations of the public pathway for a two-year period to collect additional information about response times and delays related to incidents on the bridge.(Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]Attachment A // Attachment B // Public Comment Part I // Public Comment Part II // Presentation 1 // Presentation 2\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nRising tides could wipe out Pacifica\, but residents can’t agree on how to respond\nA unique floating lab in San Francisco Bay has been invaded — and researchers are learning from it\nOnce listed for $70 million\, controversial private Bay Area island to be auctioned off\nCaltrans to hold Jan. 14 meeting on Highway 37 project\, environmental opportunities\nVote Cinches Robust Regional Response to Sea Level Rise\nWhy seas are surging\nTiburon shoreline project gets closer to launch\n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-16-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250116T113000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20250103T230133Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251126T223820Z UID:10000264-1737021600-1737027000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 16\, 2025 Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-16-2025-environmental-justice-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250108T093000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250108T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20241104T225901Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241220T222859Z UID:10000208-1736328600-1736337600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 8\, 2025 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-8-2025-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250106T170000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250106T183000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20241217T182819Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250107T203750Z UID:10000252-1736182800-1736188200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 6\, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with Gov. Code 11123.5. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan 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/87962804176?pwd=SdYcE1qF49HYO3L0PBfTlFyqidC6oG.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers US Toll-Free1 (866) 590-50551  (816) 423 4282 Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID833 6137 5618 \nPasscode641630 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nBCDC Staff Updates\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nSan Francisco Marina Improvement & Remediation Project\, San Francisco; First ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold a preliminary review for the proposed Marina Improvement and Remediation Project\, located at the San Francisco Marina and Marina Green on the northern waterfront of the City\, west of Fort Mason. The project will implement renovations and remediation work to the West and East Harbors of the marina. Remediation activities will take place in the East Harbor. Both in-water and landside public access improvements are proposed including Bay Trail\, pedestrian walkways and viewing areas\, recreation improvements to Marina Green Triangle\, vehicular circulation\, and renovation of the restroom.(Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibit\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording and transcript\n Recording\n \n\nTranscript\n\nWould you like to ask questions of staff and then go to the project proponent? Well\, we usually do just check if there’s any clarifying questions on the staff presentation. \nAnything? No\, we’re fine. We can go ahead. Yep. \nGood evening. My name is Monica Scott and I’m a project manager with the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department. Thank you\, Rowan\, for that presentation. \nI’m here today to present the Marine Improvement and Remediation Project. \nAnd this is the first review. This is a joint project between Rec and Park and PG&E with Wreck and park leading the marina improvement portion and PG&E leading the environmental remediation. \nThis project is a historic opportunity to carry out an environmental cleanup and make improvements to the marina that has been decades in the making. \nThe project area of the East Harbor has contamination from manufactured gas plants or MGPs. \nThat operated over 100 years ago. In 2001\, upon discovery of MGP residues in the East Harbor\, the city commenced legal action against PG&E for the cleanup. \nOver the following 20 years\, the City and PG&E were in litigation with various investigations and studies taking place to assess the extent of the MGP residues. \nThe result of this legal action and subsequent investigations is a settlement agreement between the city and PG&E which was to develop a joint project. \nThe potential project scope was presented to the community in 2023. \nAnd it was modified by the Board of Supervisors in February of last year. \nI’m here today to review the project in its current conceptual form Taking into account the additional financial and design analysis conducted. \nWhat I’ll be discussing later in this presentation the numerous benefits we think this project brings to the bay and the marina. The overarching project goals that are guiding the project. \nAs defined in the settlement agreement\, our environmental remediation\, increased public access and amenities. \nAnd a fiscally sustainable marina. We’re fortunate at this project site to have numerous geographic and community assets\, and our project will enhance these for generations to come. \nWhile providing the city and the environment with a cleanup that is long overdue. \nHere you can see the extent of the marina in the context of the northern waterfront of San Francisco and the bay with Crissy Field to the west. \nAnd Fort Mason to the right. \nAnd here’s a plan view of the marina today. Please note that the docks in the southernmost portion of the east harbour have been recently removed due to their dilapidated condition and the risk of portions of them breaking off and causing hazards in the bay. \nThe piles will remain until the full project remediation begins. \nThe remediation component of this project is developed by PG&E and regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. \nI’ll summarize this briefly\, but I’m joined today by PG&E project manager Ryan Madsen\, who’s available to answer any remediation related questions you may have. \nAs mentioned\, one of the key goals of the settlement agreement and the project is to clean up the contamination in the East Harbour from the manufactured gas plants. \nThe proposed remediation plan will clean the East Harbor and outside East Harbor areas to be protected protective of human health and the environment by dredging and capping sediment with MGP residues and is compatible with our design for an improved East Harbor Marina. \nThe northern portion of the current East Harbor Marina\, including the boat docking area and entrance channel. \nWill be dredged and capped below the improved marina operational depth. \nThe southern portion of the current birthing area features a natural sediment cover over MGP residues which will be monitored under a program to be developed with the water board. \nThe area highlighted for targeted deeper dredging and capping is in the area where there is an occasional sheen on the water at low tides. \nAlso\, as seen on the map\, the red dotted line represents the reactive barrier that will be installed as an extra layer of protection against MGP residue migration. \nAnd lastly\, monitoring will be conducted in the sediments and upland during and after the project and institutional controls will be in place to protect the remedy’s integrity. \nBefore walking you through the proposed plans for the marina and upland areas\, I will briefly review the community engagement and feedback received that has informed the marina design and upland concept. \nAt Wreck and Park\, we pride ourselves on our comprehensive community outreach. In March and August of 2023\, we held two rounds of community meetings at the Moscone Rec Center. \nOver 400 people attended these meetings and we received over 800 responses to the two surveys that were conducted. \nWe received a lot of feedback on what made the marina special and how it could be improved. \nThis feedback was incorporated into the design for the public recreation amenities for the Marina Triangle and Lower East Harbor. \nHere are photos from the March and August community meetings. These meetings included an open house for people to interact with concepts on large boards\, a presentation\, and a question and answer period. \nWe shared precedent images for various activities and amenities to see what was of most interest to attendees. \nThese questions were also included in the surveys\, which could be completed on paper at the meetings or online. \nAnd here’s another board showing how people could select what matters most to them with sticky dots or write in new ideas. \nIn the development of the public access improvements for the marina\, the two main questions we focused on were\, what do you like to do in the marina today? \nAnd what improvements would most excite you. Nature views exercising and meeting up with other people were the most popular activities selected. \nAnd the improvements that generated the most interest were improved natural habitat and more recreational activities. \nAnd here you can see the responses to various questions that helped contribute to the marina and upland design\, focusing on different amenities\, attractions\, and additional suggestions. \nAs many of you may know\, there was strong opposition to the planned relocation of boats from the Lower East Harbor to the West Harbour extension in the project presented in 2023. \nThat’s what’s on the screen in front of you now. This opposition culminated in the Board of Supervisors passage of an ordinance that restricted the extent of the expansion of the West Harbor Marina to the western edge of the wave organ. \nAnd in so doing\, drastically reducing the number of boat slips in a renovated marina. \nFollowing this ordinance\, we conducted additional outreach to key stakeholders as well as design and analysis to develop a project that is financially sustainable while still complying with the ordinance. \nThese analyses included comprehensive morphological modeling to study the effect of a small breakwater on the sedimentation rates in the West Harbor. \nUpdated financial modeling of the projected operating budget for the marina with a reduction in slips. \nAnd a market analysis of marinas along the West Coast. I’m happy to share that the project that we’re presenting today\, which was also shared with the community at a meeting in early December. \nAnd with the Rec and Park Commission in mid-December\, we’ll meet the requirements and goals of this project. \nIn this slide\, you’ll see the proposed framework plan. With a small 225 foot breakwater off of the jetty past the wave organ We installed slips from an earlier West Harbor project to the south of the jetty. \nReoriented docs and an additional breakwater in the east harbor and a shared use community dock and visitors dock dividing the East Harbor with the marina to the north. \nAnd the shallow water basin to the south. Additionally\, we’ve had several conversations with the police and fire departments regarding their critical need For gasoline fuel dock to remain in the marina. \nIn the 2023 project\, the gas dock was located in the extension of the West Harbor. You can see it in the red rectangle there. \nWhile the remediation for this project will not allow for the fuel dock to be reinstalled in its current location in the East Harbor\, we’re studying the incorporation of a fuel dock in the West Harbour directly in front of the old harbormaster’s office. \nOr there’s an existing pump out. This proposed location is not final. \nAnd we’re giving careful study to multiple locations for locating the fuel block in the marina. \nBut need to be mindful of not losing additional boat spaces. \nHere’s a photo of the existing view taken from the Bay Trail to the east of the Harbormaster’s office looking towards the Golden Gate Bridge. \nAnd here’s a photo simulation showing the sheet pile breakwater off of the jetty. \nAnd the reinstalled docks to the west. Which had been removed in recent years due to sedimentation. \nThis is the same image just with call outs. The breakwater will function as an extension of the jetty and is designed to reduce the need to dredge the West Harbour entry channel annually\, which is currently required yearly and costs approximately $1 million with each dredge. \nWith this breakwater\, per the morphological model\, which measured the sedimentation rates over time. \nWill be able to delay the need to dridge to 10 to 15 years after construction. \nAnd reductions to every two to three years following that point. \nThe breakwater is also expected to calm the waters in the West Harbor. \nFollowing the remediation in the East Harbor\, the upper portion will be completely rebuilt with reoriented slips. \nThe existing breakwater will be repaired and have improvements which will allow for pedestrian access and fishing As well as an overlook to Angel Island. \nThe reorientation of the docks was done in response to feedback from the boaters about issues with the current layout. \nGiven winds and other unseasonal conditions. We’ll also be installing a sheet pile breakwater extending 180 feet to the south of the current East Harbor breakwater. \nThat will protect the boats from wave action in the bay that flows under the Fort Mason Pierce. \nAlong the southern portion\, you’ll see an accessible community dock. This will be open to the public\, but a gate will be installed for boater access to the long dock running east-west. \nWhich will allow for guest docking inside tie birthing locations. The boat sizes that can be accommodated in the East Harbour range between 25 to 45 feet in length. \nWith the majority of the boats slips sized for 30 to 35 foot boats. \nRecreation and public access are cornerstones of Rec and Park’s mission\, and we’re excited to be able to make changes to this area that will make it a community space for all to enjoy. \nAnd expand public access to the water. Here you can see the existing conditions in the Lower East Harbor and Marina Triangle with a fitness plaza in blue in the bike head path running along Marina Boulevard. \nThe dashed lines are indicating the BCDC shoreline band. \nBeyond the remediation\, increased access to the bay and recreational opportunities are the most significant transformation this project provides. \nTwo significant transformations are\, number one\, in the East Harbor\, we change over 10\,000 square feet of underutilized parking lanes to park amenities and coastal gardens and what we’re calling the Nature Exploration Terrace. \nSecondly\, we’ll be changing the East Harbor from the existing marina only accessible to marina tenants to a 5.5 acre publicly accessible shallow water basin. \nThat will serve a diverse array of recreational opportunities with the accessible community dock and viewing terrace. \nThe Marina Triangle will also be transformed from an open lawn framed by traffic lanes and to a much more ecologically and programmatically diverse public amenity. \nWe retain the flexibility of an open lawn\, but frame it with bluff plantings. \nWith this providing protection from the surrounding vehicle activities. The bluff plantings also serve to frame the proposed volleyball courts. \nWhich was a specific program highly requested by the public. The three courts proposed or arranged in a playful manner\, which result in a series of seating opportunities for spectators or seating spaces for families when courts are not in use. \nWe’re sure children will enjoy some playtime in the sand when games are not taking place. \nWe’ll also be making improvements to the existing restroom. While we expect the shallow water basin to be popular for kayakers\, stand-up paddle boarders\, and small sailboats. \nWe’ve also engaged with groups that are eager to utilize this space like Outrigger Canoe Clubs and an exciting program for kayak polo. \nWhile you all might be familiar with kayak Polo\, this was new to me. Kayak Polo\, this is a strong program that’s currently operating under the Berkeley Marina and down in San Mateo. It’s basically water polo\, but from a kayak. \nAnd they have an active youth and adult program\, and they’re very excited about the chance to be in this basin. \nAnd here you can see the precedent images for the other activities and features for the Marina Triangle\, including the lawn with the plantings\, volleyball\, nature exploration. \nThe viewing terrace and cafe style seating at the Marina Grove. \nHere you can see the existing circulation and access in the area with a bage trail running along the water’s edge\, access for marina tenants along the docks\, vehicular access through the parking lots. \nAnd the bike ped path and open space. \nAnd I just noticed\, I think we need to update our bay trail\, I believe from looking at Rowan’s slide\, the bay trail seems to not run along the parking lot there. \nHere’s the proposed circulation and access in the area with the major changes being the reduced paved area of the parking lot\, allowing for increased accessible open space and an undulating bay trail and public access to the water of the shallow water basin from the community dock. \nHere are some images of the various types of small watercrafts that will be able to utilize a shallow water basin like kayaks\, sailboats\, and paddle boards. \nAnd here are two sections showing the shoreline along the basin. \nThe project includes rebuilding and enhancing the shoreline. This includes adding a composite material permeable reactive barrier to further isolate the upland soil and groundwater from the bay. \nRiprap will be installed following the remediation\, which will secure the permeable reactive barrier and slope above the native soil and sediments. \nThe section at the top is along the western edge of the basin showing the parking lot. \nThe nature exploration area and the Bay Trail. As you can see\, we’ll be planting in pockets along the upper portion of the slope to increase habitat opportunities. \nAnd we’ll be focusing on plants that can handle saltwater. The section at the bottom is showing the step-down viewing terrace\, which will provide a view of the basin from the southern edge I want to point out that we’ve had conversations with scientists and \nInvolved with Eco RipRap. We were hoping to be able to install Eco RipRrap in this area. \nBut due to the rather slow flow rates. They said that this would not be a good use for that material here. \nAnd here you can see a rendering of the Nature Exploration Terrace\, Bay Trail\, and softened shoreline. \nAnd here’s the lawn area of the Marina Triangle as it appears today\, framed by several mature trees. \nAnd here’s our rendering of the same lawn area with views of the Golden Gate Bridge all framed by low bluff plantings to create some intimacy and buffer from the road and parking lot. \nIn this photo\, we’re looking out on the recently removed docks in the Lower East Harbour with Pier 1 of Fort Mason to your right. \nAnd this is a rendering of the accessible community doc\, which will provide access to the shallow water basin for small crafts. \nAnd for folks to just come down and walk out to be on the water. \nAnd this rendering shows the new view and experiences created at the public breakwater with an overlook to Angel Island and fishing access. \nWrapping up my presentation\, I just want to review our project schedule. As we conclude the community engagement phase\, we’ll be submitting our project application to the planning department to initiate the lengthy environmental review and permitting process. With that\, we’ll be entering the detailed design phase for the project. \nWith construction expected to start in mid-2027. We’re envisioning this project will be carried out in two phases. Phase one will be the remediation in the East Harbor and the work in the West Harbor. \nAnd phase two\, the marina and park improvements in the East Harbor and Marina Triangle. \nThe expected total project construction duration is estimated at three years. \nThank you very much for your time. I’m happy to answer any questions. And I’m also joined by our design team of Moffitt and Nickel and field operations and Ryan Mattson from PG&E. \nOkay\, thank you very much. That was an excellent presentation. And I have to say it’s very significant to have this project coming before the board\, this place that we’re looking at tonight is such a critical part of the waterfront and I feel it’s been very um under \nEnhanced if you like\, for a long time. So it’s very good to see this work underway. \nWe’ll just start with any clarifying questions that the board has on the presentation. \nYeah\, I have a couple of questions. I’m just curious\, what is the ownership structure? Is everything that you presented\, is that all city of San Francisco rec and park owned and operated? So it’s the marina the parking lot and the open space? \nYes\, it’s all within Rec and Parks jurisdiction. I believe a portion of the remediation\, however\, is under Pier 1 of Fort Mason\, which would be a National Park Service jurisdiction. \nAnd then… In the project drivers that you presented at the beginning\, is seismic improvements part of it. I’m just referring to that eastern edge of the seawall\, which is very degraded. Yes\, will be when these when that uh the revetments the area of riprap along that area will be reinstalled with \nSeismic improvements in mind. We’re not thinking of putting in like DSM\, like army corps plans\, as you probably know\, for other areas of the shoreline\, but definitely we need this area for the integrity of the remediation to be seismically stable. \nSo it sounds like it’s more like preparing the finishes on the wall like the the I don’t know\, cladding the cobbles whatever is protecting the wall more than their foundation work So in this area of gas house code the seawall along the marina and I think maybe I’m often a nickel engineers can speak more to this \nBut um there’s a lot of different types of walls here there’s like the rubble wall with the steps down that you see along the northern coast of the marina green\, right? And then you have like riprap\, rubble\, like 1906 \nBig chunks. Maybe\, Ryan\, you can speak to the shoreline treatment\, but my understanding is that we’re getting down to we’re removing enough of the riprap to be able to install the permeable reactive barrier to contain the material that’s below. \nYeah\, that’s correct. \nKristen? Yeah\, thank you. Thank you. \nThank you for the really informative presentation. I was just wondering\, one of the key things you mentioned at the beginning was feasibility. \nAnd I was wondering how that’s addressed. I sort of assumed it would be through rental of boat slips\, but it seems that there’s a net loss of boat slips. \nCan you speak to the decisions there? Yeah\, the feasibility question. Sure. So the settlement agreement was set up in such a way that PG&E is funding the entire project up front and they’re funding the majority of the project. This is $190 million settlement agreement. That’s the maximum amount. \nAnd Wreck and park of that 190 will be repaying approximately $29 million over a 30-year period. \nThat repayment will only be from marina revenues. So that’s why we were at such a critical juncture with the loss of approximately 170 slips. \nOne of the benefits of this rising to the level of the board is that they had their budget and legislative analysts take a look at the financial operations of the marina. And as I mentioned\, the dredging is a huge cost for the marina. \nRight now and right now But it’s at the board’s discretion to approve increased rates for the boat slips So we had always intended that with the East Harbor\, the East Harbor rates have been held artificially low without improvements being able to be made for 20 plus years. \nSo we were always intending to raise the rates of the East Harbor when people would return to those slips. \nWhat the board’s budget and legislative analysts proposed or suggested i guess was to increase the rates right now. \nTo not have rec and parks general fund subsidizing the marina operations today\, the cost of the dredging. \nRight. So that was a policy decision of Rec and Park to no longer have general fund subsidizing the marina when we there’s other priorities. \nSo what we did\, there was a financial analysis done back when that settlement agreement was underway. \nAnd we had a new one prepared with the different slip mix\, slip count\, and slip mix. \nWith the rates as they currently are and with rates that were basically suggested by the board. \nAnd that rate increase actually passed through the board in December of last year. \nSo with the increased rates overall to the West Harbor as well. \nWe’re able to pencil the marina now. \nIt was never… I would say it was never the project’s intention to increase the number of slips here But we did want to maintain them if we could and we wanted to support recreational boating. \nBut clearly\, but clearly there was not public support for that. And we did look at potentially pushing out the East Harbor to the north to have a second breakwater and closing more slips to the north. \nBut that didn’t work either. So we were left with a reduced number of slips and maximizing it as much as we can. \nAnd the breakwater\, as I mentioned\, the breakwater in the West Harbor was very beneficial for that financial modeling too\, if we could eliminate that million dollars a year in dredging. \nThank you. Another question about the sort of feasibility and operations. Is there\, I didn’t see anywhere\, there was a mention of boat storage in some of the Engagement materials\, kayak storage\, small craft storage. Is there a location for an operator or \nIs that sort of planned to be located or is there some access for that planned here? Yeah\, so I’ve been contacted actually recently by a kayak operator\, C-Trek out of Sausalito. \nIn Alameda\, I believe. We’re very much looking forward to partnering with operators here\, but until we get further along\, we don’t want to say\, oh\, your view will be blocked. \nBy this box. So what we’re looking for and what seems to work well is we’ll likely position something by the restroom\, which is in that northeast corner of the marina triangle\, which would just be a short short walk across to the accessible dock. \nBut we’ll be developing that further\, I expect\, by the time we return to you\, we’ll have more. \nOkay. And then just one other question on the um The reason that the additional slips were Next was because of view access is that Correct. That was the dominant. \nSentiment okay Is any of this area state lands by any chance? \nYes\, it is. All of it. I believe. I think there’s a dividing line somewhere in the West Harbor and East Harbor. Okay. But yeah. \nAnd do they have any restrictions on or requirements for parking or is there anything Well\, we are maintaining the same number of parking stalls So I hope we’re okay. I’ll look into that. I don’t believe that there’s any restrictions on parking as we’re not \nWe’ll actually be planning to turn back to a number of those parking stalls in that area are currently permit boat tenant parking stalls\, but with a reduction of slips I would assume we’ll be able to turn more over back to the public. \nOkay. And are there any other requirements that relate to state lands that are pertinent to like uses that you’re allowed to do here? \nWell\, we had considered putting in a playground and I believe that that is not compatible\, right? So\, okay. \nA nature exploration area is kind of a compromise that we’ve seen work really well at Heron’s Head Park and other areas not on the coast. And they consider small craft recreation\, sort of a regional recreation okay yeah Okay\, that’s all of my questions. Thank you. \nThank you. Leo? Yeah\, thank you for the presentation. I guess many of my questions have been answered. The only one I might have is perhaps more for Moffitt Nickel. \nIt appears from the diagrams that the bottom level of the East Harbor will be different where the boat slips are\, it’d be deeper and where the recreation area would be shallower Is there any expectations of changes in sedimentation patterns or potential buildup of sedimentation in the shallower areas \nI think I will pass that to Rich. It’s a good question. \nWe’ve done some numerical modeling using a mic 21\, a Danish Hydraulic Institute model to predict sedimentation in the future based on calibrating model. \nData we have and we don’t anticipate a huge change even a significant change. \nSedimentation patterns in East Harbor. Yes\, we don’t expect a change in sedimentation patterns in East Harbor based on the model studies that we’ve done. \nOkay\, thank you. Again\, just a couple of clarifying questions. Oh\, I’m sorry. Let’s just go to our online members. \nTom. \nThanks. That was a really great presentation. And maybe you’ve answered this question already\, but what I’m understanding is that all of the all of the edges. \nThat are facing the water are being protected from seismic liquefaction. \nI just want to confirm that’s And then are there areas behind the barrier within the scope of the project that are also subject to liquefaction. \nRich\, do you want to add? Respond. Another good question. The answer is still being addressed. \nWe have a geotechnical engineer. Local who’s done some sediment sampling and studies specifically for engineering properties But it’s been done in the water where the original project really involved most of the improvements In this round of this round project the improvements have \nIncluded the triangle. So we’re going to get additional data points in that triangle park area in which we can develop appropriate solution and be able to answer your question. \nThat’s going to be done shortly. \nGood. \nNo\, that’s it. \nAnything else\, Tom? Okay\, good. We’ll move to Bob. Bob\, I’m just going to make one comment before opening it up to you. \nAnd for everyone in the room as well\, this project is going to also be reviewed by the engineering design criteria board. \nThe staff have given us pretty clear direction that our priority is reviewing the landside access and some of the more technical aspects\, the technical engineering\, technical remediation aspects will be dealt with in detail at that meeting. So Bob\, I just wanted to give you a heads up on that in case \nWhether you were aware or not about that\, that you’ll be reviewing this again in that technical review environment. \nThank you\, Chair. We can. I actually wasn’t aware of that but we have we had looked at this before on the ECRB. \nFocus just on the remediation and ground stability but i uh thank you for that context. That’s very helpful. \nCan i should i proceed with? Any questions? Oh. \nYes\, go ahead. Yes\, please. Thanks\, Bob. \nThank you. Thank you. I just\, this is kind of a dumb question\, but I just want to clarify the extent of the marina expansion. \nIn front of the marina green. The exhibits we received Specifically on page 18 show a I think it’s called the 2023 framework plan Which I believe is no longer in consideration. Is that it? \nDo I have that correct? \nYes\, that’s correct. We were just showing that for context. For feedback that you may have heard. \nSo we’re not reviewing we’re not reviewing that extent\, which is much greater. \nThat’s correct. Yes. The plan on sheet 19 is the plan that’s being presented today. \nOkay. \nOkay. Thank you. I know it was kind of a stupid question\, but I just felt like I needed to be clear on that. \nYeah. \nCan you clarify nature investigation element of Improvements. \nI couldn’t quite follow that. Again\, I apologize if I missed something. \nSeems like I missed a couple of things. In preparation for this meeting but What is the nature investigation element in the project? \nOh\, I think you might be referring to our nature exploration area. \nOh\, nature exploration. I’m sorry. I don’t know where I got investigation. I think it’s in one of the slides again. \nBut what\, yeah\, that’s what I’m talking about. Yeah. \nThat’s okay. Yeah\, well\, there were investigations. There were investigations for sure. But let me flip to So on slide 27\, the proposed site plan There’s a precedent image showing another nature exploration area. It’s basically a playground without calling it a playground. \nMade. Comprised of mostly\, you know\, you can have big logs boulders It’s a spot for all to to kind of explore\, oh yeah\, sorry\, thanks. On slide 32\, there’s a rendering of the nature exploration terrace. \nSo… Yeah\, hopefully that will help clarify. And this is still in development \nOkay. Yeah\, I just\, it’s kind of hard for me to understand what it really is because I appreciate all the plants on the shore\, but right now it’s riprap and I’m not quite sure how you what the actions are to achieve this very \nColorful shoreline\, but that’s okay I have some other We can talk about that later. Maybe you can address that before your next submittal. \nOh\, okay. Sure. \nOh\, yeah. Actually\, a landscape architect wants to weigh in. Hi\, sorry. So basically\, the project is reducing the traffic lanes in the parking lot\, right? Like right now it’s a two-way traffic lane So by making it one way\, we gain about 20 feet for the shoreline itself. And now in that thickened shoreline\, right in between the riprap and the existing parking\, now we have a wider stretch of park \nWhere we are now meandering the Bay Trail. So as you’re along the Bay Trail\, you get different views and perspectives. \nBut also creating these wider nooks One of which is a nature exploration terrace. And as Monica said\, it’s basically an area for children and family to climb up on logs and boulders and play around adjacent to to the waterfront. \nOh\, I got you. But it’s not the the greenery and flowers that we see on the shore. It’s on the other side of the trail. It’s not part of the shoreline. \nNo\, no\, no. No. \nIt’s part of the upland fill area. \nIt’s still within the shoreline. It’s still within the shoreline band. But if you look at the plan\, the Baytrail meander. So in the belly of when the Bay Trail is most proximate to the shallow water basin\, that’s where we can accommodate this nature exploration terrace. \nOkay. So\, but it’s landward of the trail and it’s a flat area with some logs and rocks and stuff. \nOkay\, great. Thank you for clarifying that. I really appreciate it. \nExactly. Exactly. That’s exactly right. Absolutely. \nSo\, um. So I guess it’s the depth that displaces the births from the east Basin\, Gas House Cove\, to… the west basin is that is that the reason why the remediation triggered this shifting of the births from one basin to the other? \nThat’s in the original October 2023 framework plan\, correct? In this new project\, we are not relocating slips. We are just deleting slips. \nOh\, I got you. Okay. \nSo yeah\, and you’re right. The reason why we are not able to reinstall them in place in the Lower East Harbor is because basically the project cannot\, the project budget cannot cover that extent of remediation to return the entire \nEast Harbor back to a marine and navigable depth. \nOkay. Thank you. Yes\, I just… So that’s the nexus is you’re losing some ships in Gas House Cove or some berths. \nAnd you’re mitigating that somewhat by adding births in at West Harbor at the entrance. \nI think I got that right. And that’s the only reason why we’re really looking at the West Harbor. \nRight. \nOr… In the breakwater. \nAnd for the breakwater\, I believe\, I believe it’s under the purview of the design review board\, yeah. \nOkay. \nYeah\, and to note\, those slips in the West Harbor were originally in those replacement slips those had been installed in the 2012 West Harbor renovation project. \nBut due to the significant sedimentation rates\, they had to be removed. \nSo with the right\, you might be aware Yeah. \nYeah. Yeah\, I remember that\, actually. But there wasn’t a breakwater there on the east side\, was there or was there? \nThat’s correct. There was a floating wave attenuator which \nOh\, okay. But now you’re going to have a solid breakwater to to protect from the northeast winds. \nCorrect. Exactly. \nThat can put some ways. Okay\, I got it. So\, um. \nI think there are some historical assets within the the marinas\, especially in the West Harbor\, if I remember correctly. \nAnd I don’t know that that affects anything\, I think\, but And I’m not an expert on that. Obviously\, I’m an engineer but i think it’s it would be interesting if nothing else to have some maybe discussion of that\, a review of that next time you come around. There’s some pretty cool \nPieces in there in the West Basin. That’s more of a comment. \nUnless you wanted to to indicate that there is information on historical information assets in this submittal or in this review. \nRight. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah. \nSo at this time. We’re not prepared to really cover that except for the historic gas plants. We know about those\, but the planning department will be carrying out their environmental review. And so that will be going in depth into the historic significance of the site. \nOkay. Great. Yeah\, I think the members would find that interesting\, although I don’t know that it has any bearing\, but thank you for entertaining that. \nQuestion. So… Where does the sand go now? I know that sand\, I have some familiarity with the area. \nWaves drive sand\, primarily waves\, drive sand from the ocean through the Golden Gate\, along Christie Field\, and it deposits On the west side\, a little of the old breakwater and then also in a tip shoal at the mouth And that’s why\, as you say\, the births were removed before \nNow you have a breakwater extension And eastern breakwater. \nThat implies that the sand will just kind of move around those structures\, but may still deposit in the entrance or do you expect to I’m just kind of wondering what happens to the sand and You know\, just so I can maybe think about the implications. \nSure. Well\, I’ll definitely pass this off to Rich Dornhelm\, but I’ll just say that the summary\, the high level summary for the is that we expect the dredging to only need to be taking place not annually but for 10 to 15 years post installation of the breakwater. Following that\, we do expect \nThe sedimentation to have to be dealt with on probably twice every two years\, every two to three years It’s not going away. The sand will continue. But I’m going to pass it off to Rich\, who knows more about what will happen. \nRight. That’s a pretty good answer\, but I would like to hear from Rich if everybody has time. \nFor people that don’t know\, was my My supervisor for many years when I was with Moffitt and Nickel So it’s Still working hard there\, aren’t you\, Rich? \nBut you’re working harder. I only have one project with many. \nWell\, it’s nice to be back in touch\, mom. And it’s a tough question. \nYes\, thank you. Nice to see you. \nBecause it started out with a study of replacing the wave attenuator\, which had to be removed. \nWith a fixed breakwater to quiet the outer west harbor basin and we discovered through mathematical again computer modeling using our Mike 21 models that the sediment patterns circulation patterns\, along with the waves in the current. \nWere disrupted by this relatively short piece of breakwater that changed the way currents and waves pass around the tip. It’s like an airplane wing in certain respects. It flies. \nWhen they come in for landing\, they just trim things a little differently and that changes dramatically. \nHow the plane generates lift and slows down and lands. \nWe foresee that there will be a change in the deposition patterns as a result of this small breakwater extension. \nThat will not eliminate the need Bob has done some very nice studies that led us to this conclusion. \nAbout sand movements in the San Francisco literal cell that we can expect redistribution of the sand rather than trapping in the harbor. \nEventually\, there will be a need to dredge but has Monica pointed out where foresee about a 10\, maybe 15 year interlude While this redistribution occurs before it once again finds a way to migrate towards the entrance of the marina. \nOkay\, thank you\, Rich. I really appreciate it. I also appreciate the tolerance\, other patients\, other patients board members have for that question. It’s kind of a big deal in the circles that I move in\, although in this case\, I don’t see major concerns. \nI’m speaking to sand transport. But… Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Okay\, my last and final clarifying question. \nOkay. \nBut before I get off that is… \nBob\, just remember\, we also have our board discussion for other questions. So just if it’s a clarifying question\, yes\, fire away. Yeah. \nYeah\, yeah. I have one i have \nYeah\, so I have two quick ones. One\, can we see the… the studies about the sand transport Can the design review board see those or maybe public\, I don’t know. \nAnd then secondly. Are there any sea level rise criteria for this project or any elements that relate to sea level rise or is that something that will be has been put off to the ECRV. \nSo to answer your first question\, yes\, we can provide via Ashley\, I believe\, the studies on the morphological modeling. \nThank you very much. \nAnd yeah\, of course. And for sea level rise um what’s been designed so far\, and this is just as a concept level. \nWas taking into account BCDC sea level rise guidance and criteria. \nAs well as the city’s sea level rise\, their capital planning. So it went through\, there’s like a checklist that the city has. \nTo meet the standards. And so this is designed to 2067. \nOkay. \nAnd in the sections\, you can actually see those two sections. \nLet’s see\, slide 31. Those are showing in small print. \nProjected sea level rise. They’re showing the mean high\, high water and then 2050 as well as 2\,100 all the way up. \nSo even though this project isn’t technically designed to 2100\, We’re still looking ahead to that and what will happen with this area. \nOkay\, thank you. I’ve taken enough of everyone’s time. Thank you. \nChair McCann\, I’m done. \nYeah\, thanks\, Bob. Good questions. I just want to clarify one more thing before we move on. And it’s in the context of the outreach program\, which looks to be very effective and a lot of input. It’s always impressive to see 400 more than 400 people participating \nBut a question I have is how much outreach has happened with a key stakeholder\, which is Fort Mason\, immediately adjacent? \nTo these bases. So we’ve presented this project to National Park Service to their review board as well. And we just had a refresh meeting not that\, I think it was in December with the updated project as well. So they are \nWell aware we’ll be coordinating with them for NEPA\, for the remediation portion that will be taking place on their property. \nAnd they\, yeah\, they have been well informed of what we’re working on We’re also aware that the sand comes from a lot of places and there’s some concern that Rec and Park has about Chrissy field So we’re kind of \nWe’re all neighbors here. Yeah\, good. Great. And then just another quick follow up on the outreach um you know tourists are a very big component of the usage of this area. Were you able to capture any input from tourists or observational input? \nSo that’s a great question. I think through our actually through the Marina Harbor Association and the Marina Tenants\, a lot of the people a large number of people that have boats in the marina are not San Francisco residents. They’re coming here seasonally. \nBut in terms of tourists\, I would say It’s a hard one to capture aside from the conversations we’ve had with the bike rental people. We know that people are excited. We know people also have been excited about a water taxi potentially. \nThat’s not in our current plan. But we know that this is a popular destination all along this northern waterfront is a very popular destination for tourists. \nAnd we think it will continue to be. And just one more detail follow up. \nWith the removal of the fueling dock. I don’t know whether they’re related or not\, but on the land site up against the wall to Fort Mason\, there’s a large storage container and some other things that are pretty unattractive. Do they get to be \nReviewed as part of the project? So yes\, one of those containers is actually for the bike rental operator So yeah\, we are intending to improve that area as well. And with that\, we’ll be looking to relocate as much of that storage as possible. \nI think we can really make a big difference in improving the feel and also improve the connection between Fort Mason to the marina through that right okay thank you. I think that Oh\, I think this one will follow up. Sorry\, one more thing I’m dying to ask. So I was just wondering if you could share some of your design process. I was just noting that so much of the parking is inside the shoreline band. Was there ever \nYou know a thought about flipping the planting and the parking? There was\, yeah. Yep. Well\, that was also shared in 2023 \nAnd I have to say there was so much opposition to what we were really considering to be the goals of the project that we had to kind of let that pass. \nWhen you start talking about all the parking people get very\, very excited about it. So at this point. \nWe’re doing what we can to buffer the experience I think we also were considering that people are also having a very pleasurable experience going along the bike ped path now without parking up against it. \nSo kind of have some trade-offs. \nIf you can visualize that. \nDo you guys have the slide deck? Anyway\, yeah\, there’s a… It’d be better to get on the screen if it’s possible. \nOn the north side\, that’s where you still have most of the parking goes right up to the water’s edge\, whereas on the east side you have the planting buffer. \nSo I’m… The project isn’t proposing to kind of modify the parking towards the north of the triangle\, swapping the eastern edge of parking with the triangle itself was the first concept. But as Monica said that didn’t move forward during the community engagement process. \nAnd then the bike path that Monica is referring to is the one that’s kind of parallel to Marina Boulevard that right now runs next to the marina triangle green. \nSo the users of that path kind of enjoy not having moving vehicles and parked vehicles be what they see on both sides. So it’s kind of a trade-off in that regard. \nDoes this image help? Yeah\, yeah\, very much. Yeah\, I mean\, you know\, there’s this moment where you think\, oh\, wouldn’t it be great to have a park right at the water’s edge and then you have all this incredible views and a buffer on Marina Boulevard. \nAnd the parking in between the buffer. And anyway\, so I’m sure\, I mean\, it’s obvious that it had to have been discussed in detail. So I was just curious how that went. \nThank you. Okay\, very good. Well\, look\, that concludes the clarifying questions from the uh Proponent presentation and So now we will move to public comment and we have a combination of in-person people who will ask questions and then we have online questions and we also had submitted comments as well so we’ll take some time and go through all of those. \nShall we start with in the room? Yes\, please. The first person is Chrissy Kaplan. If you could come up to the mic and state your name and affiliation\, you’ll have three minutes. And next up will be Dan Clark. \nThank you. Good evening. My name is Chrissy Kaplan. I have operated the fuel dock at Gas House Cove for the last 51 years. It has been there for 55 years. \nI’m a huge proponent of public access. But public safety has to be kept in mind. \nThe fuel dock operates seven days a week with United States Coast Guard\, police. \nFire\, Caltrans\, Army Corps of Engineer\, the bulk of our day-to-day customers are either commercial fishermen or emergency services. \nWhere the fuel dock is currently located is in a nice little corner of San Francisco Bay. There’s no concerns about the neighborhood. There’s no concerns about other boats being impacted. It is by nature a rather dangerous occupation. \nWe have had two explosions. In the last 55 years\, but of no consequence either physically to anybody Or to anybody’s personal property. \nThe other thing I want to point out to this board is where the fuel tanks are currently located. \nThey have been there underground in a concrete vault for 60. \nNine years old since 1969. They have been updated\, the actual physical tanks themselves\, but the location has been through Loma Prieta. \nHas been through all of the\, well\, we had quite a tsunami in 2011. This most recent tsunami warning was quite interesting. \nAs soon as the warning subsided\, my phone was ringing off the hook. \nBy the Coast Guard\, by the police\, by the fire\, will you be there? We’re having to deploy our fleets and we need fuel to do that. \nI think having the one and only fuel dock in the city of San Francisco cannot be a second thought. We’re just going to unplug it here and plug it in somewhere else. It has to be a vital service to not just the boat owners\, but to our entire city. \nWhen Loma Prieta happened\, it was the fire boat that put out the marina grain\, not the fire department. It was seawater that was brought in. \nOn a very small note\, the floating docks that are being considered to be putting in the water\, when they’re not being used by the public\, they will be used by the sea life. \nSea lions and seals will occupy those docks\, will destroy those docks\, will take advantage of those docks. \nAnd they are not shy about taking over that kind of \nAccess because uh uh when a young pup gets kicked out of Pier 39\, he needs a new place to go set up camp. And it’s usually that gas house code. \nThe other thing I wanted to point out was the fiscally sustainable part of the project The fuel dock is not broken. Your three minutes are up. Thank you. Okay\, I’m sorry. \nThank you very much for your consideration. And I’d love to be part of the conversation. \nThank you. Going forward. Yep. Thank you very much. Okay\, up next\, I have Dan Clark. And following that will be Patricia Vonley. \nThank you\, Dan Clark. No affiliation. This project has been controversial from the get-go\, and I’m going to explain some of the reasons that it’s fundamentally flawed. And with all due respect\, Chair\, you’re remarks about the outreach to the community are possibly being\, you may be being led a little bit too much by the propaganda slides that are coming from the proponent about how much outreach \nWhat you see in this room is only a small fraction of the people who are having a problem with this with this project. So just be aware. \nThe problems here stem from the toxic chemicals that are beneath Gas House Cove that are driving everything. And what’s not being exposed to you or not being focused to you now is that this project is requiring an approval of land use changes to Gas House Cove \nThat have never been never been really discussed by any independent agency And these land use changes are they’re significant and they undermine the beneficial use of this public resource. So that is the subject that I want to bring up. \nI know you’ve heard here that there’s greater public access from some components\, for instance\, shallow water basin. \nAsk yourself\, would there be a paddlecraft recreation area in a shallow water basin had if there were no toxic chemicals that had to be kept in that place. \nAnd the answer is no. The income\, the financial questions. That’s really trying to make something good out of something that’s really bad. And so this is a fundamental thing. \nI realize I don’t have much time to go into all of this. I will point out that if you look at the San Francisco Bay Plan and the policy statements in there\, just Google hazardous substance in there\, you’ll find the guideline that at least talks about \nKeeping hazardous substances and what needs to be done about it. You’ll see that it talks about no harm to people And the harm to people from a hazardous substance will be handled by the water board But you\, BCDC\, should be looking at whether this \nKeeping this hazardous substance there in the form that it is now proposed at this time. \nIs the right answer. And is the right trade-off to do with these trade-off What I’m saying is the detrimental use of the uh of the beneficial use of gas house code. I know I’ve only got seconds\, but allow me to just say there are alternatives \nTo this plan. They are not being proposed because they cost more. \nIf you look into this in any detail\, you’ll see that\, yes\, there are viable alternatives\, reasonable alternatives that cost cost more\, but not significantly more. So that’s this whole subject about beneficial uses changes change of land use Thank you for your public comment. We’re out of time. And I just hope that it is done so. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. \nPatricia\, you’re up next. You’re next. Could you put a… Up here\, the picture of the picture existing plan and the new plan. \nI have something to show you. We may have to move between them and we only have three minutes for this comment. \nOkay\, that’s what the problem is with this hearing. And I will give you some writing on this. \nMarina\, I’m Patricia from Marina Calhalla Neighbors Merchants. And I have worked with the planning department the park and rec for years. \nAnd I’m very disappointed about the outreach on this The fact that we asked after 223 plan to work on this with the department before it got to you so that we could come up with some compromises. \nOne of my big issues is the big issues is What Christy talked about. \nIn the old plan\, we have a very long pumping station. \nIn the new plan\, we have one about a third the size with boats around it. I was at the Loma Prieta earthquake. \nThe boats were backed up. After that earthquake. \nIt was extremely important to have extremely important something that long. \nTo solve the problem for public safety. That is one of my main issues concerning this. \nAlso\, I have some serious concerns. I’m sorry you work for that company\, but we’ve gone through plans since 1960. \nAnd we’ve had every time a plan comes up\, it’s failed about the themselves. \nThe sales push really caused by when the Presidio changed to a coastal area and sand dunes back to sand dunes and that caused a lot of problems with the cell changes And we have to look at that sandpit. \nWe have a way to go\, but I am looking for compromises. \nAnd we need to have compromises. And right now\, all I’m saying is rush this through from this department. \nWe’ve got to have it bam\, bam\, bam. Where we can sit down and we can work out some issues. But we are not getting it. \nAnd this is what’s disturbing me the most. And I have a degree in environmental design. \nAnd I have some concerns about the toxics. With kayaks polo with the kayaks turning over. \nAnd is this going to cause a problem in volleyball on a previous toxic area. \nI’m not sure if the studies are good enough We have not had the privilege of having Being given the studies. \nHidden. What are they hiding? And I want us to have this as a good project. \nAnd one that we can all be proud of. And I have the statistics on the jurists\, we have thousands of tourists who go down there every day. \nHundreds\, thousands. And as the city builds back up again the marina green and these yacht harbors are between one of the largest national historical deals\, Fort Mason. \nAnd we’ve got Palace of fine arts and the Presidio on the other side. Thank you for your public comment. You’re out of time. Thank you. Thank you. \nThank you very much. We appreciate that. Steven Striels\, you are up next\, followed by Bill Clark. \nCan I get slide 23 put up on the screen? \nOh\, let me stop sharing. \nYeah\, that’s good. \nThis one\, yes. Thank you. \nBoard members. My name is Stephen Street. Sorry for the bad handwriting. I actually am a member. I live in the community at the in uh the marina. In fact\, I live adjacent to the triangle. \nThis area and this project\, this is probably one of the\, it’s an iconic world-class public environment with a public art installation. \nThis area as we all know. So this is vitally important both to the community and to everyone else. \nBoth in the city and in the nation and potentially the world. \nUnfortunately\, from the perspective of the community members\, I think that Parks and Rec has taken on a cavalier attitude towards the design of the project and has had ample disregard for the community input. \nAnd then we’re still trying to fix that. That’s why I think you’re hearing from us. \nAnd I brought this picture up it has a problem. It represents it from a camera angle not from a an eyeball angle. And what you don’t see from this is that that breakwater is not integrated into the rest of the breakwater environment. It’s a concrete pier square \nDoesn’t fit in there. It’s not visually the right thing for that space. \nSomething that’s iconic. Further\, the wave organ\, this public art installation\, is there. \nAnd I’ve been assured that the wave organ will still function. \nBut I have assurances of people that are probably not a marine public art experts. \nAnd I would have asked that\, I think this is an iconic feature of the area\, and I would ask that the board asked for some more questions about this. \nTo ensure that it’s still functional. And as we get to the end. \nI urge the board to request some design revisions to to the breakwater to ensure that it’s visually integrated. \nAnd then two\, because of the repeated failure of all attempts to prevent this silting. \nI would ask that the board recommend that additional conditions be put on their approval that the breakwater would be removed if it fails to meet the goal of preventing silting. \nBecause if we spend $5 million\, we put this in there\, we obstruct it\, we destroy the wave organ\, and then it doesn’t function and we’re still dredging every year. We haven’t accomplished the goal and we’ve only destroyed our environment. So I think there’s a reasonable condition. And I would also\, if the \nWave organ does no longer functions because of the breakwater we’re in worse shape. \nI would also ask that the breakwater then be removed. \nThank you for your time. I think that we’re very excited to participate and you’re hearing from just a small group of more than 500 people that objected to the original plans. Thank you very much. \nNext up\, we have Bill Clark\, followed by Maggie Hallahan. I may go over. I prefer not to speed read\, so I’m hoping I can get a little extra time perhaps. \nOkay\, here we go. My name is Bill Clark. And here we go. The issue with RPD’s design of East Harbor is that the southern half still contains a proposed recreation area where marina berths used to be. \nThere was some hope that a compromised solution for more births could be reached with the return of smaller powerboats requiring a shallow harbor depth and therefore less remediation. \nBut after over a year of deliberations\, no such alternative appears to be in the mix. \nEquity inclusion of the lower income small boat owning public who had mostly been left out of the previous design remain left out. \nNothing has changed regarding a toxic waste storage facility in our harbor posing as a paddle graft paddlecraft recreation Area. The same concerns for relocating the fuel dock storage tanks exist for the buried toxics without the benefit of being encased in cement. \nThe public will be encouraged to recreate in three to four feet of murky marina water with three to five feet of sediment cap covering the toxics. \nWould you trust three to five feet of shifting settlement between you and MPG contaminations? \nWhen you could launch your kayak from Aquatic park where no such threat exists. \nOr paddle in the dirty backwaters of East Harbor when the cleaner bay waters can be found nearby? \nKayaks are rarely seen in east and west harbors\, even with a fancy wheelchair accessible paddlecraft launch in West In the West Harbor that is never used Why would they suddenly appear now? \nIf we can all agree with the premise that the southern half of East Harbor is best suited for boats due to existing conditions\, why was this not the starting point for the redesign? \nWhat kind of public use will there be when three defeat water depth becomes one to two feet from silting? \nOr a mud flat like the West End of West Harbor. \nThe foreseeable obsolescence of the proposed paddlecraft area must be considered now while PG&E is still responsible for the contamination. \nAn ungrudgeable south southern east harbors offering PG a pass on their obligation\, leaving SF citizens with a future eyesore to bookend the other mud flat in West Harbor and a taxpayer liability to convert the area into something usable again. \nWe deserve a better plan from RPD with PG&E funds spent on contamination cleanup starting point\, not jumping the gun harbor retrofits. \nIf SF Marina is counting on the revenue from new births in the northern half of East Harbor\, how about starting with the dredging of multiple vacancant West Harbor berths that are too shallow to rent? \nConstrained by an outdated settlement. Rpds harbor improvement and remediation project simply doesn’t meet the severity of the environmental or best youth of the southern half of East Harbor. \nThank you very much. Appreciate that. \nOkay\, Maggie Hallen\, you’re up. You’re best. \nJust an overhead\, just the overhead one the original one before all the splits were taken out. \nThe existing or the plan that’s not happening? The existing. Or before you took out\, yeah\, the one before you took out the slips. \nYeah\, that’s fine. Or maybe this one. Yeah. \nHi\, everyone. Thank you very much for hearing from me. My name is Maggie Hallahan. \nAnd I’m a licensed captain. I also… I’m a sea scout. Okay. \nI’m working on that. Sorry\, I just… got over a cold. I’m a Licensed Coast Guard captain and i have been teaching youth boating canoeing For more than half my life\, I’m a sea scout leader and we used to have a Sea Scout base there in this marina. \n100 years ago when it first started. And we have a sea scout based in aquatic park When I’ve looked back on some of the research that the Park and Rec has done\, they haven’t really researched how youth are going to have access \nConsistent access to really learn how to navigate and to get on the water. And this space is ideal for that. \nI think that that it hasn’t been a great outreach to people. I grew up here. \nMy uncles used to call the area Gas House Cove and Small Boat Harbor\, but when they put out all the information\, they just call it East Harbor. And if you’re a navigator\, you never call that area east because it’s actually west \nSo I didn’t know for a long time that’s what they were talking about\, but they’d never used the word gas has coke\, which I think that the information should all be titled And if you look on the state sites of the waterways\, all the state sites call it gas house code so i think it should be called that. \nAnd I also think that we have our sea scout youth come across with our oil and things like that into the You know\, you said there was a lot of things over where the launch where the old boat launches\, that’s where we deposit our oil and other boats deposit \nOil and gas there. So we need to rebuild that And then also when I was young\, we used to launch boats there um Gatekeeper\, we launched our first boat right there. And I’d like to keep the boat launch there\, the crane and fix it. It’s been broken for 15 years. \nAnd we’d like to have a place to launch our boats per youth. And there could be storage there for seed track and other types of small sailing boats\, people that could lead trips for youth out of that area. \nSo anyway\, please think about the sea scouts and other youth. We have hundreds and hundreds of youth that want to get on the water and they need support in buildings and places to meet. \nTo be able to do that. So thank you so much. \nThank you. I appreciate the comments. \nOkay\, Chair\, we have four comments online Howard Strasner\, I’m going to unmute you and you have three minutes. \nHi. So I’ve heard some interesting comments. \nThere you are. \nI’ve had a birth in the guest house cove for over 50 years. \nAnd one of the things we have is very reasonable rent because it was subsidized by a very low interest rate loan. \nAnd I’m concerned that you keep space for small boaters. One nice solution seems to be to use some of this shallow water for motorboats that don’t draw very much. That may be a useful change I would also hold BCDC responsible \nTo doing a really deep study\, how much mud is enough to protect us from the the terrible stuff that’s underneath there. And I also note that you I look at the things and you have reduced parking and that’s okay. \nWhen you run out of money since you’ve already raised the cost of keeping a boat. \nIn the marina\, maybe you want to start getting some of that money from the parking that’s left. \nI would suggest that very much. I also want to say hi to Christy. I’ve known her for over 50 years. \nAnd you do need\, we’ve never bought gasoline from her. We just pick up\, fill a little tank of it for a small sailboat. \nBut certainly big boats need it and it has to be done very well. It’s a very important thing. I don’t know. \nI don’t hope enough is done about that. Oh\, I would support removing the parking from against the seawall. This is a major place to walk. \nAnd here are you devoting for people who want to drive there and sit in their cars and look at the weather. \nThat’s not a reasonable use of San Francisco Bay. This is a use for San Francisco Bay for sailors. \nFor walkers\, for hikers and everything You’re doing a lot of it well. I like the trail as it goes near the old guest house cove. That looks very nice. \nBut I think you can get some more nickels. From parking i would remind that they collect for parking in the Presidio and they collect the parking At the other place. \nWhy San Francisco can’t charge for parking for this really great place to visit. \nIs craziness you know um doesn’t make any sense. And there is transit very close. People can walk a few blocks from the transit so That’s enough. Good luck. I’m really concerned. \nHow many feet is enough mud over the that stuff that’s below. Thank you. \nThank you. \nOkay\, up next I have Danny\, no last name. You have three minutes. \nHello\, can we get the slide up of the new proposed Marina Green Triangle design \nI have to stop sharing. \nHmm. \nWhile that’s getting pulled up\, just want to thank Monica Scott for your work on this. And I am grateful of all the things that we are have lost the west harbor boat proposal that is a huge improvement and why there was \nYeah\, anyway\, so… that focusing on this next\, I do agree with many of the other people that the community outreach as far as designing some of these things is not as thorough as it was made out to be. \nSo the fitness plaza Is what I’m here to comment on today in this trail This actually is one of the This is one of the hallmarks\, I think\, of the marina\, the ability to have an outdoor workout area where you can \nHave space for dogs to play And that’s a huge part of the reason that I live here. Three volleyball courts. \nDoes a tremendous\, I think\, disservice to the space. I can’t see any use why three volleyball courts would be used. \nPeople do set up volleyball sometimes but those would be very\, very underutilized and would be really\, that would cost a lot of maintenance and they would take a huge amount of they would have a huge impact on that space. So there’s people that set up \nVolleyball elsewhere and it’s Fine\, but if maybe one is fine\, but three\, I think\, removes a huge amount of the ability for people to have dogs run in that area. \nSecondly\, on the bay trail parks about two or three years ago removed all of the trash cans that were along the water. So there’s like no place to put dog poop as you’re walking on the trail. \nSo if the idea for this area is community benefit hopefully we can increase get some of the trash cans back so that If people are walking on the trail\, they have a place to put poop and there will be less like litter and food scraps \nAnd dog poop that finds its way just on the side of the trail. \nThank you so much. \nThank you very much. I appreciate that comment. \nDo we have anyone else online? Two. Okay\, thank you. \nOkay\, next I have Steve Welch. Followed by Bruce Stone. \nHi\, I’m Stephen Welch. Can you hear me? \nWe can hear you\, yes. \nSo I’m the sea scout committee chair. We have a historic cultural connection We were operating in the San Francisco Marina East Harbor from 1920 to 1947. \nWhen San Francisco Rec Park moved us over to Aquatic Park. \nAnd now that the National Park Service is our landlord\, they have let our facility completely fall apart into the water this year they chainsawed our pilings we don’t have more than one boat that we can get to get kids in and out of. Since 2021\, we’ve had a 400% increase in membership. \nThis marina renewal is a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a new facility for our city junior high and high school kids who we introduced to the maritime careers to accommodate the needed youth training facility which can be accomplished if you just require that community doc to have an H \nConfiguration. So one side could be secured for youth boats and youth access and then where the enhanced bathrooms go or maybe somewhere else But we need like a clubhouse with a classroom you know this would be the largest park or marina facility \nWithout a supporting building. Anywhere around the Bay Area that I know of. And as the C. Scott committee chair i actually cover San Francisco\, Alameda\, Contra Costa\, Napa\, Solano and lake counties and work with many\, many of our programs. \nThat’s all I have to say. \nThank you for those comments. Next. \nOkay\, Bruce Stone\, you have three minutes. \nThank you. Can you hear me? \nYes\, we can hear you. \nSo I wanted to turn up my phone. Let me see the computer. Okay. So I’m head of the arena harbor association And we’ve got concerns about the gas dock location. \nThe proposed area that they’ve indicated\, which is a over at west harbor is too crowded. It’s a choke point for sailboats filling up and down the harbor without motors to get past that spot. \nAlso\, on the tour side\, you have a problem. Of the fuel trucks coming to a very congested area to refuel the tanks there It’s very difficult to make cars making that turn. Then you had some fuel trucks every two or three days in there\, that’s further issues. \nThe tanks that they’re proposing in West Harbor have to be vented directly upwind of the playgrounds. \nSo you’d be having toxic fumes going to hitting the soccer moms and their kids in that area. The better location is east harbor Just inside that breakwater that’s going to be built there. \nIt could be right along the new peer that they’re proposing for public access And if that peer moved maybe 30 feet further to the south\, you would have no impact really of the turning basin issue that they cite in there would go away. \nSo both could come in and refuel on a nice long dock\, a much safer location And without little sailboats coming by and trying to get past them. \nSo I really believe this is in your bailiwick as the PCDC people to really opine about the fuel dock location because the location in West Harbor is terrible from a toxic standpoint to pedestrians and and users of the park and also to the kids sailing up and down that harbor without motors to get around commercial boats trying to come in and refuel \nNeither the art clubs nor the Marina Harbor Association want that location. \nWe all want to see it over in East Harbor. Obviously\, it might not be able to be kept where Chrissy has her right now but transformed over to the north west corner is an area where fuel trucks could easily get in \nAnd the tanks that would be installed would vent back out towards the harbor and open water they wouldn’t affect people enjoying the marina green. \nSo appreciate if you take a look at that and get some guidance to RPD about that. Also to Steve Walsh’s idea about shore site amenities for youth sailing We’ve sent Rec and Park a detailed design about a clubhouse and a pier that could adopt that could have showers and lockers and \nFacilities for small boats to be stored there and launched off of a that area and wouldn’t need much dredging\, maybe a couple of feet from what they have right now. \nIf you’re interested\, I can send you those designs. They were done by a professional naval architect. \nThank you very much for those comments. Sarah had one more sneak in on us. Okay\, one more. Let’s go. Thank you. \nMargo Attard\, I’ve unmuted you and you have three minutes\, please. \nHello\, can you hear me? \nYes\, we can hear you. \nThank you all so much for your time this evening and for this presentation. And while I do think it’s a step improved from the initial proposals last year um i think there are still some major issues. And I just wanted to raise some concerns there. So I don’t have any personal relationship to the sea scouts \nBut I definitely love their ideas and want to support those initiatives. So anyway\, you could prioritize the needs of the sea scouts\, I think that’s great. \nI also wanted to emphasize something that the guy said earlier who had issue with like the volleyball courts and the\, you lack of trash cans and stuff like that. I just wanted to mention that the marina green can be used for volleyball\, not to officially put up a volleyball court\, but like people can use that for their volleyball needs. And I think that \nThe percentage of volleyball players in San Francisco and in the marina area as compared to like the percentage of dog owners. I think the dog owners are the majority by far and making sure that we’re able to keep the space for dog walks and fetch and stuff I think is pretty imperative. And I am a little confused by some of the \nLike the amount of recreation that is proposed at this time. I think being able to maintain at least You know\, some space and keeping things the way that they are. And like the person said about protecting the wave organ and stuff like that\, I think all of that is \nIs really crucial in maintaining the marina as we know it and love it. \nAnd that is all I have. Thank you. \nThank you very much. One more comment. Oh. \nWe do also have public comments submitted to staff and they will be posted to the website. \nDo you want me to read through now? Maybe a summary. Yes\, yes. \nBill Clark already spoke\, so I won’t review his comments. They were similar to what was submitted in the letter. \nJanet Rocco said\, please don’t obscure our shoreline and many more any more than it already is and boat slips are fine\, even desirable\, but anything else is a hard no. Let people enjoy what little is left of the views while walking marina green or driving down the marina boulevard. \nLi Wo of MTC The Bay Trail. Commented on the bay trail width and capacity the San Francisco Marina is a high use area. There’s a high demand for public shore and trail area or trail use in this area. \nAnd this project presents an opportunity to increase the capacity of the Bay Trail through widening the overall corridor designated for the Bay Trail and its users. \nCurrently\, the existing matril is 12 feet and they’re proposing to rebuild it at that same width\, but the bay trail guidelines request a starting point of about 18 feet. \nFor the Bay 12 corridor. With additional with additional width to be considered. \nBased on the level of use. Also\, Baytrail user amenities. We request that the DRB and project sponsor to include amenities valuable to bay trail users\, such as a bottle fill station\, water fountains\, and bike repair stations. \nAs part of the marina project. We appreciate that the project sponsor’s proposal to renovate the existing public restrooms that will be needed and a useful amenity to patrol users. \nAnd finally\, the connections to the Bay Trail. Mtc request that the DRB and project sponsor consider whether the existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the SF Marina Project provides safe\, usable\, and low stress connections to the bay trail for bicyclists and pedestrians from the surrounding areas and roadways. \nAnd whether additional connections are needed. Okay\, thank you for that summary. And I just want to say again how much we appreciate all of the public comment. \nPeople here in person\, people online\, people who submitted comments and I also want to say that we are in a process at this time. So I think this is perfect timing to be providing input like this. I know there has been outreach and \nSome of you may have been able to engage more directly than others. \nI’m sure the project proponents are writing as many notes as we are and we’ll be taking all of your comments on board. \nOkay\, at this point\, we’ll move to the next part of the agenda which is Board discussion and advice and what we do during this stage is we We have a comment period and discussion between ourselves. We base it on \nThe key objectives for public access\, which is our priority. And they are just a reminder to make the public access as accessible as possible for everybody and as public as possible. \nTo make sure that the visual access to the bays enhanced and maintained and is preserved as a resource for users. \nAnd to make sure we enhance or where we can and at least maintain the visual quality of the bay and the adjoining developments and making sure that to a point that Ashley was just making and is that the connections and the continuity to the Bay Trail and access are as optimal as possible. \nAnd making sure that we take wildlife into account and we take advantage obviously of the incredible base setting that exists at this location. \nAnd staff have asked us\, so I’m speaking to the board now\, staff have asked us to look at two\, well\, four questions and Rowan actually provided a number of sub points which are in your notes. I’ll just summarize the four questions and \nWhat we’ll do is we’ll go around and just have each board member comment on one or possibly two of the questions that really stand out to them. \nThe goal being at the end to make sure that we’ve addressed these questions in a way that the staff and the proponent can take this feedback forward. \nThe first question is… Is the proposed project concept plan that we’re reviewing tonight. Is it providing adequate\, usable and attractive public access that maximises the public use and enjoyment of the area. \nAnd so there are some sub points that were highlighted to do with creating a sense of place. \nDiverse activities Are we balancing? Is the proposal balancing the needs of the public Are there adequate microclimate considerations for users? \nFor example\, wind protection\, shade\, so on and uh And the… community engagement process\, a specific point here about will the project concept is presented\, preserve the open horizon and the views from Marina Green. So that’s all bundled up under question one. \nThe second question really concentrates more on the connections to and through the public access spaces that we’re reviewing tonight. \nThe public’s use and enjoyment of the site. So maybe if you could really focus on other connections being optimized in the proposal and other potential conflicts or congestion points the pedestrian paths\, parking lots\, bike paths and what could be done to mitigate \nThose conflicts if we see the conflicts there And then the third question\, are there adequate support facilities proposed for water oriented uses? \nAnd the support facilities that we would be considering\, of course\, parking and the vehicular circulation\, the restrooms\, equipment storage etc. And then does the project design adequately address resilience and future adaptation for sea level rise? \nNow\, I think we heard at the beginning of the proponent’s presentation that they anticipate coming back. So there’s definitely I think more. \nThe more data that we will have when we see the proposal again And more response to these questions of resilience an adaptation as needed. \nI’m going to start with the our online team here Tom\, do you want to just lead off with and address any one of those questions that really strikes you as being critical. \nSome of them are interrelated\, but you know it’s the location of open space relative to the shoreline\, I guess. \nOkay. \nI feel like we didn’t get an adequate answer to Gary’s question. \nLike why so much vehicular circulation so much parking in the shoreline band. \nAnd I can understand it’s probably a very Hot button\, but… I think we need to understand more. What is that hot button and are there no ways to Why is that such an overwhelming criteria here because normally Just like Gary said\, you’d expect to see parking to the rear. \nAnd see the public access maximized Unless somehow the parking is uh something more i don’t know. I don’t know. That part I don’t get. And then secondary concerns were uh I feel it seems like there’s a lot of questions to be answered about the fuel \nUh fueling. Location and safety and things like that. And third. \nI feel like the… amount of sand in volleyball is out of proportion I agree with some of these comments out of proportion to the amount of green open space there\, given that it’s kind of a at a premium. I’m all for recreation\, but I feel like the \nThe sand somehow is… taken up a bit too much space. \nYeah. Okay. Thanks\, Tom. We’ll go to Bob. \nThat’s all I’ve got. \nBob\, do you want to weigh in on any one of these questions issues that strike you? \nYeah\, I mean\, I really agree with what Tom said about the fuel dock and sea scouts and also what Gary brought up and Tom mentioned about the parking on the marina green i I sense that this is a very touchy subject any kind of change can \nRaise concerns about people. So I don’t mean to say I think that this is an easy topic necessarily but I do think it makes sense to move the Bay Trail back from the shore from the shore perspective of adaptation of that \nAmenity with sea level rise i think One way to handle sea level rise is to accommodate some overtopping and flooding by moving things back from the shore And maybe also raising them Bye. \nI also think that it would be\, I think it would be nice if people could stand near the shore And not worry about conflicts with bicyclists and vice versa. \nSo for pedestrians that are running or on their own. So I kind of feel like the trail should be moved back. I do know people like to park there and You know\, it’s a nice place to listen to music or whatever. \nElse that people do in their cars. Depending on the hour of the day. \nBut I think it’s maybe that’s a little old school. Maybe it’s something that needs to be changed. \nThe fuel dock rings really true to me as somebody that’s worked around marinas and facilities. \nBoats need fuel. If this is one of the only fuel docks around. \nI haven’t studied this\, but intuitively it makes sense that putting it over in the west harbor it might cause more problems? \nThen it solves. And I think that’s particularly strange to me. I’m sure there’s something I don’t understand. She’s got some very You know\, being a water person myself\, not a sailor i think Sea Scout facilities are\, I think it’s really important our children \nAnd I think the adults get a lot out of it too. They need things to do. \nAnd we’re by the water and it seems like a very healthy thing. So I would like to see the city County of San Francisco support. \nThat amenity. And then just jumping down to the uh… sea level rise thing\, I think there really are no criteria provided. I appreciate the explanation. It’s not clear what actions are being taken. \nRelated to sea level rise in this presentation. So if the DRB is going to review this\, I suggest there’s a few things that need to be included. \nAnd the next topic\, you know\, or if not certainly the ECRB would like to\, what are the datums used What are the elevations in a datum that I can understand? \nRelative to the ocean. How is sea level rise being considered? What does it look like in the future? Will the Bay Trail be underwater? \nEtc. And how do you adapt? I mean\, what’s the plan? \nSo there’s nothing really provided that I saw that really indicates it has even been considered. \nI don’t think that’s the case\, but certainly if we are going to review this or someone is\, there needs to be some information So those are my comments. \nI don’t think I have. Oh\, the one thing about the sand transport that is kind of a very interesting issue. \nAnd also\, again\, I think the history is very interesting. And I think we’ve lost some context here. \nThere’s a lot of context but i think This is an iconic area\, so I think a little more on the context. \nMight be of interest. And might actually be of interest to all the real… talented and effective designers on the design review board. \nWhich is not really my area of expertise. \nThank you. \nYeah\, thank you bob we’ll Keep going and then we’ll just see how these threads are coming together. Leo. \nDo you want to make some comments? Sure. Thank you\, Chair. \nFirst of all\, I want to thank the public for coming out. These projects are very challenging and it’s important that we hear everybody’s voices so thank you This project is so important to the city. This is one of our most important public spaces. It’s one of the most memorable. It’s what everybody \nThinks about\, I think\, when they think about San Francisco and certainly Just down the road\, Chrissy Field shows what can happen with significant transformation of a waterfront. \nThe design team is great and super capable. So I do think for me\, there are a couple of significant questions. I am very sympathetic to what Gary and Tom raised\, I think that It is strange that the most recreation focused portion of our waterfronts \nIs separated from the waterfront by parking and roads for its full length And it does get very congested. Those intersections on either side of the triangle Because of the odd geometry and the crossover of traffic\, I’ve seen it many\, many times\, particularly when there’s events over it. \nFort Mason gets very\, very overrun. The movement patterns are not obvious sometimes. And so\, you know\, people walking in the drive aisles and such So I do think it’s um more consideration. I think there are options probably to move the marina triangle closer to one side or the other of the waterfront without having to put the parking up against Marina Boulevard. I think there’s other ways to do it. \nI think that’s very important. And I think also it would improve access to the waterfront for the public. \nWe have… neighbors and residents of the area who use the space. We have folks from all over the city. There’s so many programs that are run out on the green. \nWe have tourists\, we have visitors. It’s a large and diverse group of users. And I think that the amount of options for usage seems like there needs to be more thought given into that. I think that there’s I think as the population of the city continues to grow and will continue to grow that \nDemand from open space and how it can serve our public is going to continue to grow. So we really need to think about what those options might be. \nI think that\, you know\, whether it’s sea scouts or supporting these uses is important. Most of the small neighborhood parks have community centers associated with them. \nIt’s a bit strange that this area does not have one. \nI can imagine it would be very popular with the public and well supported. \nAnd then\, um. I think just in general\, oh\, and on the parking The dedicated spaces right now are the ones obviously closest to the waterfront for the boats boat owners and users. \nI think it’d be worth thinking about how parking is dedicated to the boat users. I think there is a kind of preferential treatment for the boat users above and beyond everybody else in the public. And I think the convenience is important. I understand how that \nThe maintenance and equipping of the vessels is important\, but I think we can find other ways to do that. \nOh\, and one last comment. I think that for me\, the spaces are still And this is probably in the course of development they still feel a little transitory for me. There are pathways. \nAnd I think some consideration really about how people could occupy and use the spaces. So I would love to see more seating\, more variations on types of seating. \nThat really kind of support and encourage people to linger and enjoy what is going to be transformed. \nThank you\, Leo. Kristen. \nI have a lot of questions and I don’t have a lot of coherent sort of recommendations. But I sort of think of there’s this story about two people are fighting over an orange They both want the orange and it turns out one person wanted the juice and the other person wanted the peel. So they both get to have what they wanted out of the orange. \nAnd I think of design as sort of the opportunity to figure out how to have multiple users get what they would like. \nAnd I can see from the materials that were shared about outreach. And it’s difficult to wade into conversations like this that have obviously been ongoing. \nRpd is incredibly thoughtful about how to design parks and spaces and be stewards of these spaces. \nDefinitely believe that there’s been a lot of thinking put into it. \nExcellent team of design firms who are thinking about all of these things in very sophisticated ways. \nAnd it strikes me that we’re hearing a lot from the folks who are sort of users of the waterfront in a more industrial commercial way that maybe didn’t have an opportunity to be as involved in that outreach or Potentially. \nThat’s question. It strikes me that one of the things that is so wonderful about San Francisco\, I grew up sailing and paddling on the San Francisco Bay. And it’s true that these fuel docks are really important pieces of infrastructure. And it’s so great to stand at \nThese spaces and see all these boats out on the water and see the fishing boats going out. And the reason they can do that is because there are these pieces of infrastructure that support those uses like fuel docks\, which are incredibly important for even sailboats need fuel\, right? Everybody needs fuel. \nSo it also seems like that has been a little bit of an afterthought. \nAnd it maybe shouldn’t be. I also realized that there’s the settlement from PG&E that probably has a you know limit to how much money can be spent in which ways and probably this solution about the kind of shallow cove is a way to meet the remediation needs in a more cost-effective way and so \nI’m sure that’s why this solution has been decided and that the best use then of this shallow water area is for kayaking. \nAnd so then potentially this solution doesn’t allow for dredging and maintaining this fuel dock in this location. And so I understand how all of those things can kind of come to a decision like what we see here. \nSo it does seem very important you know as a boater and hearing the public comment and you know to be honest\, we rarely get this much public comment it’s really you know there’s obviously a lot of interest and sentiment in this issue \nAnd it came across very clearly that the fuel dock and the opportunity of the sea scouts is really important. \nSet of stakeholders in this area And I would love to see a way that the fuel dock can be maintained or moved in a way that is functional. \nI’m a little confused by why people are worried about spaces for dogs when there’s this huge green to the west that seems like a great space for dogs. \nThe volleyball courts\, there are lots of impromptu volleyball courts set up. There’s a whole big space here and we’re kind of only looking at this triangle and I’m assuming that that’s because people kind of like things the way that they are and there’s resistance to change there. \nI would also just say that as somebody who comes to this waterfront every weekend and I literally walk this whole thing every weekend. \nMarina Boulevard itself is this wonderful public space the street itself is this great public space and it’s really wonderful to be walking down that promenade and have the grass on the one side and the beautiful houses on the other and kind of enjoying that space. \nFrom that promenade\, your view is not really of the water. It’s of cars\, parked cars. \nAnd then you can see the hills in the distance. And I would think actually having some boats parked beyond the cars would be more scenic looking at a bunch of parked cars. \nOr bringing people out closer to the waterfront and having those cars be next to Marina Boulevard. I can understand why there’s tension around some of those design choices but And again\, this is a team that I’m sure has thought through all of these things. \nSo yeah\, I guess\, what am I trying to say? I think… If we want to see people continue to use the water the water. \nBeyond just recreation\, beyond paddling\, we really need to support those types of uses\, which require slips\, which require slips that are affordable to people and which require fuel docks and other pieces of infrastructure like that. \nIt’s a ramble. That’s my ramble. Okay. Thank you. An excellent ramble. \nWe’ll come back to some of those points. Yeah\, I agree. This is the most public participation we’ve had in a project probably in couple of years that I can remember. \nAnd\, you know\, it’s not everybody’s been heard. So I think that point’s been made. \nIt’d be great to try to resolve some of these comments\, including the wave organ kind of strikes me as a good one. Is it possible to do studies or to predict what is going to be the effect on the wave organ? Because that is an important monument in San Francisco. \nAlso wanted to mention a little bit Leo hit on a little bit\, you know\, the entrance to Fort Mason\, you know\, that big wide curb cut on the curve of Marina Boulevard there does create a lot of confusing congestion for pedestrians and \nCars and bikes already and i think that The triangle Park being more kind of intimately scaled than the Marina Green is going to probably get a lot of activity. So it’s going to\, I think it’s going to intensify the circulation \nIn this area and so The other thing is that there’s There’s the marina grove we haven’t really talked about. I think that’s another destination that’s going to bring people into that you know very complicated circulation Nexus. And then in addition \nAbove Fort Mason\, you know\, you have the Fort Mason park So people coming from aquatic park are walking on that roadway and up over the big meadow and then down and then you’re kind of unceremoniously dumped onto the Laguna where it meets Marina Boulevard. It’s a very narrow sidewalk there are bikes \nPeople\, I mean\, it’s such a such a difficult intersection there so I don’t know that we’re going to solve all that. I just want to bring it to everybody’s attention that the the you know it’s going to ripple out from here \nIt’s not just the triangle park i i think that intersection of Laguna and marina is a little bit problematic. \nEverything else I think has been said here. I just want to say the When I look at the conceptual sections and then look at the render of the very green shoreline\, I’m having a little bit of a disconnect and I’d love to see a section of how that really works. \nStructurally\, if it’s really possible. Because the image is really appealing\, but then I kind of feel like maybe we’re not actually\, it’s going to be hard to pull off. \nAnd then finally\, I think Bob didn’t mention that there’s all this historic debris because this was a fill area from the 1906 earthquake there are some classical columns that are sitting in the shallow basin that I saw the other day when I went by and i know that \nNorth of the marina green at a very low tide\, you used to be able to see all kinds of interesting things\, you know\, keystones and\, you know\, Corinthian column capitals. And I don’t know if it’s something washed\, you know\, further into the bay it seemed less \nVisible when I was there last. But anyway\, there’s definitely a story there that could be told. \nSo I think that’s it for me. Thank you. Yep. Thanks\, Gary and um Thanks\, everyone\, for just weighing in on those with your priority\, if you’d like\, reactions to this. \nI just want to pick up on A couple of points. I’m going to focus my comments here more on questions two and three\, I guess. \nAnd before I do that\, I just want to step back a bit because This is actually one of my favorite places along the entire San Francisco waterfront and The reason that I really like it is the um i like the \nContextual setting to it you know um marina green Fort Mason. \nWe talked about some of the other places in the environment but when you are in this location is a very intimate place. And I think there’s something incredibly… important that respond to when you see them walking or see them \nBicycling you know along uh it really is a place that has a different character to it and and it’s associated with the boating and the marina and a whole range of other things. \nI think the challenge with this is that When you look at it just as defined by the project site that we’re reviewing. \nYou look at it in a very specific almost it’s the inclination is to look at it as a in isolation almost from what’s immediately adjacent to it and And I think we can be To question three\, you know\, focused primarily on how the connections are being made \nBut perhaps not the primary question\, which is you know what is the uh what is the fundamental nature of this place? Is it is it a Is it a series of important connections with you know important infrastructure Is it an important park in itself? \nIs it something that everyone should put everything that they’ve ever wanted into you know or is it something that we should think about distributing you know\, some of these very interesting possibilities across a broader landscape. \nAnd I think\, you know\, the points that you guys were bringing up about the parking\, balancing parking\, where is it located? You know\, can it be taken away from the edge i i I really agree with that. I suspect. \nThat going back to some of the the first question about the first question budget and and how do you spend your money effectively. \nI’m sure there’s a lot that’s gone into how much can we move\, take away\, reconfigure versus what we bring in. \nBut I think for a space as important as this. And given everything we’ve heard tonight. \nI think it is\, I would like to see it some of these comments that you’ve made. \nJust brought into bear in the next iteration of this design. \nSo that the concept may be maybe everyone doesn’t get exactly what they want. \nBut maybe the fundamental importance of this space in terms of meeting critical access criteria\, critical connections and ensuring visibility to the bay which are out primary purviews as well as a good balance of uses is accomplished. I mean\, I like \nThere are things that I really like about this concept. I like the establishment of a clearer plaza\, the marina Grove space is currently named. \nAnd I think the connection to Fort Mason is very critical. And at the moment\, it’s not very well handled. The vegetation is really overgrown. There’s a narrow gateway that you walk through that doesn’t actually feel very safe. You know\, if it was dark\, I’m not sure I would want to walk through there. \nYou have… I’m not sure that the wayfinding for tourists is very clear. I mean\, even as a local\, if you don’t know this area very well you’re coming up over the Fort Mason Hill and coming down into Fort Mason coming\, which is a very popular direction for people to be going in\, heading towards the \nGolden Gate Bridge\, it’s not exactly clear what’s happening in this sort of mixing area. And maybe it’s fine for it to remain undefined. It mixes reasonably well most of the time. Sometimes it’s extremely busy and very sort of chaotic but uh \nBut I think… I think the just making sure that the connections at the eastern end of the I was the uh east bay here and bay here making sure that the connections at the West are accomplished adequately is important. \nI like the i like creation of the nature exploration terrorists. I think\, you know\, it’s definitely widening that area which is very narrow at the moment from the standpoint of pedestrian walkway. \nAnd so you know\, that’s a good start. \nIt would be good to understand more about what the real required level of parking is in this area versus perhaps just keeping it as close to the existing count as possible. I know that it does get very busy at \nYou know\, key times it would be good to look at that. \nA couple of small points. I’m just going to mention it because I was very intrigued in the in\, you know\, in terms of user groups And what came out as being important and maybe this is important you know we have the fuel dock\, which is such a critical infrastructure for the bay and \nI would like to understand better you know uh white here why not here perhaps further east uh you know we have the in fact we reviewed the um the fire uh the new fire department what pier is that again that’s at um \n35\, 35? Firehouse\, 35. Firehouse 35. Anyway\, you know what I’m talking about but uh you know and south beach harbour marina you know we’ve got a whole dotted series of very important places where people need to fuel so I’m not quite sure exactly \nYou know why why Exactly. It’s critical versus other locations. And do we need more than one? You know\, I mean\, what is the situation and I think the point made by the the public comment speaker in relation to safety is really critical as well. And I’d like to understand more about that. \nWhen we see it again. \nYou know\, on question three\, just a comment about support facilities you know again uh I think we should have. \nAs much water oriented uses as we can in this area. \nAnd landside facilities are obviously required. But again\, I think we have to be I’d like a lot of thought to go into\, you know\, at each point whether there’s uh \nWhether this is starting to be filled up too much you know or not with all of those facilities. I do agree with the I think someone made about making sure that there’s still plenty of places to sit. We obviously need trash cans \nAnd all the other things that I’m sure will be in the more detailed plans. There’s an excellent team on this project. \nSo I think that’s all I want to say. I’ll come back and just make a summary comment later on but I think there’s some… general agreement on a a lot of these issues from the board so I think we’ll pause there. \nAnd do you want me to just make a short summary as well? \nI will just sort of go down what I think we’ve all discussed tonight\, not necessarily with strong recommendations but you know for the fuel dock location I think we’d like to understand why it is so critical that it be here\, taking into account the historic \nAssociations with it and you know we’ve heard a lot about the importance of it. So like to really understand if it’s going to move somewhere Let’s have an agreed location for where it should be and make sure that the appropriate outreach has been done. \nThe Sailing use programs\, you know\, I just think So sad to see so sad the um The Sea Scouts building falling into the water around an aquatic park and so if there is some way to\, in a new way looking forward to incorporate \nSea Scouts operations into this area\, I think that would be\, especially with the removal of the docs here you know that that would be a very exciting opportunity The adequacy of mud cover on the contaminated areas has been brought up a number of times. And again\, I just think some \nClearer \nAnalysis or if you’ve done it just for people to understand the adequacy of that. \nThis is a very big project. I think everyone’s concern is that at the end. \nIt’s going to accomplish the objectives that you set out very clearly at the beginning of the presentation. \nThe sand buildup we we’ve and the potential for that to occur or not. It sounds like there’s technical studies there and it would be good to make sure that that’s thoroughly reviewed with the key stakeholders who are concerned about this before we see the project again. \nThere seemed to be some questioning\, you know\, are kayaks\, do we want kayaks or not? I think one speaker spoke with about some concerns about that. \nAnd again\, I think it just comes back to managing the uses and the stakeholder groups and\, you know\, is that a use that can be accomplished here\, which with the environment that exists here that makes sense. So some justification for that \nI agree there seems to be plenty of areas for dogs to play in. \nObviously appropriate disposal areas are needed. \nThe question of volleyball courts\, are there too many? I mean\, it is… when you think of that scale relative to the existing fitness plaza which is actually quite a strong focal point as you come along Marina Boulevard and This is a big zone and it’s a use that is very popular and I think the question there really is \nYou know do you need three permanent three permanent volleyball courts or you know Is there still the ability to balance? I just think evaluating the stakeholders who are behind that use and just understanding more whether three is really the number would be helpful to us. \nThe adequacy of outreach\, we hood the number of speakers. \nSpeak to the fact that they have not maybe don’t feel or have not had the the level of contact they would like to discuss their issues so maybe I would just suggest that there be some targeted outreach to continue with some of these stakeholders. \nWe talked about historical significance of the area and the wave organ. And again\, I think these elements that are So\, um. \nKnown to the community and the historical significance of this area is weighed into the concept as it continues to develop. So I’ll stop there but uh i I think that summarizes Our comments. \nCan I… add a comment. \nSure\, Bob\, go ahead. \nYeah\, you know\, I had mentioned\, I kind of alluded to historical aspects of the marina Just to clarify\, just working on memory here. \nThere was at one point a waiting area on the far west end of the marina when it was originally or constructed or subsequently modified where people were to walk into the marina waters and for various reasons\, including facilitation I don’t know that that ever really worked. \nAlso\, the marina has changed size various times because it’s it’s fill And there are some old kind of lighthouse looking structures that at one point were the entrance and now is part of a fairway. \nI just feel like there’s a number of those things. And of course\, the wave organ\, which I think is plugged with sand. Maybe it’s not now\, but it has been in the past. \nI think there’s just some really interesting aspects of this site. \nThat deserve some review for the context of the site in my So I just wanted to add a few more facts if those are correct. \nTo why I said that. \nYeah\, that’s great\, Bob. And I think… I think the proponents are making notes on this question about exploring the historical significance of a number of elements. Yeah. \nThank you. Okay. We can move to the proponent. Thank you. \nGreat. Well\, thank you so much for all of the comments and considerations. And thank you also to the public. \nI guess a couple of things that I just want to Really quickly\, high level\, I know it’s been a long long meeting already So the fuel dock\, we had analyzed keeping it in its existing location The cost of that would be about $20 to $25 million. So there’s \nThat one had a clear economic financial reason for why we could not keep it there. \nWe looked at about 15 other locations in other parts of the East Harbour and the West Harbor and Moffat and Nickel led that review with our harbormaster. We also reviewed that with Bruce Stone of the Harbor Association and some \nMembers of the yacht Club. We are also\, Wreck and Park is also eager to speak with the port about other potential locations for a fuel dock. \nAnd I had spoken with the fire department\, police department\, and the Coast Guard The fire department has mobile fueling options. That’s what’s happening now with Hyde Street Pier closing. \nSo this is definitely a citywide problem. It’s a bay wide problem\, but really a citywide problem and they seem to be closing I know at Oyster Point it closed\, Berkeley Marina closed so Yeah\, we’re doing our best and we’re continuing to to \nFind the best solution that will not annoy everybody. \nThen we have feasibility to the cover question\, and Ryan can maybe speak up\, but we have the feasibility studies were submitted to the water board They’ve reviewed them. Those are on our website as the project website\, as well as the water board’s website \nSo hopefully answers to concerns around the toxic toxicity in the cap can be reference there\, but we can also return with more information next time we come back to you. \nI have met repeatedly with the Exploratorium and the artist of the wave organ\, Peter Richards. \nSo he’s reviewed these plans. He’s on board with the understanding without the breakwater\, the wave organ would become a beach. And that’s not ideal for him and it yes we do expect it to continue to function with despite the breakwater with these change conditions. And we’re looking forward to keeping him engaged as the plans develop. \nThen let me see. Sea Scouts\, right? This is wonderful news actually for me to hear some more context. I’d spoken with Maggie at length. \nI didn’t realize the aquatic park facility was failing. I thought\, oh\, great\, you’re at Aquatic Park. \nThat’s close enough. But yeah\, we’re happy to work with them. I think Rick\, I can’t speak for all of Breck and Park\, but I know that We definitely are always looking for partnerships with community organizations and we understand the significance \nSignificance of the Sea Scouts. So I hope to contact Stephen Welch\, I believe is his name. \nUm and Great feedback on the volleyball. We’ll do more. We’ll do more research on this. \nAnd parking as well. Thank you for that feedback i think so many iterations of this have happened over the Now\, two years that I’ve been involved with this project but i think we’re I’m always happy to make it better if we can. So we’ll see what we can do there. \nYeah\, I will\, as was mentioned\, a lot of people aren’t here that had spoken up against the project or for the project. \nBut happy to do we do outreach is ongoing for rec and park and for me. So most of these people that you’ve heard from have my contact information. \nHappy to keep the conversation alive. And then\, yes\, thanks\, Bob\, for the references to all the historic features one of\, you know\, as a project manager\, it’s like scope creep is real But we’re happy to include what we can. I’m sure there’ll be some signage. \nI think some of the rubble and the remnants we hope to reinstall as riprap right so I think I’ll end there. \nThank you very much. And again\, I just want to say you know recognize the hard work that the project teams put in. This is a very complex and a very important project so Thank you for all the hard work today. We’ll look forward to seeing you \nAgain\, I usually ask the board if we should see the project again\, but I think in this case it’s a given the project will come back to us. \nWith that\, we’ll move to concluding the meeting. I’d like to entertain a motion and a seconder to… I will make a motion to adjourn. \nThank you\, Gary. Leo\, second. Okay\, thank you very much. All in favor? \nSecond. \nBye. \nBye. \nAll right. Okay. So the meeting is adjourned. Just want to thank everyone and particularly thank the people who took the time from people from the community who took the time to come here tonight and And make us aware of your concerns and interests. So thank you again \nAnd thank you to the staff for all your hard work. Okay\, see you next time. Thank you.\n \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-6-2025-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250102T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20250102T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20241209T183405Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241219T232725Z UID:10000228-1735822800-1735837200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:January 2\, 2025 Commission Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/january-2-2025-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241224T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241224T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T050519Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241205T184813Z UID:10000148-1735032600-1735041600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20241219T130000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20241219T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240127T065510Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241231T175750Z UID:10000112-1734613200-1734627600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 19\, 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 video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \n  \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \n  \nTeleconference locations \n\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, 3rd Fl\, City Clerks Conf. Rm.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\nNapa County District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway\, Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503\nCALTRANS: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 95415\n1028A Howard St.\, San Francisco\, CA 94103\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n176 E Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley CA 94941\n11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\n\n  \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \n  \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84286402603?pwd=iJ9G2kbab1r4zaWNahbqXQsGRptU5R.1 \n  \nLive Webcast \n  \nSee information on public participation \n  \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID842 8640 2603 \nPasscode299058 \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 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.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for December 5\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nProposed Adoption of Stipulated Civil Penalty Order No. 2024.002.00(Unauthorized Solar Plant)Staff proposes that the Commission adopt stipulated CCD 2024.002.00\, the terms of which have been agreed to by the respondent and BCDC staff\, to resolve ER2017.004.00 located in Richmond\, Contra Costa County.(Bella Castrodale) [415/ 352-3628; bella.castrodale@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on the Chipps Island Restoration in unincorporated Solano County; BCDC Permit Application No. 2024.001.00mdThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application for BCDC Permit No. 2024.001.00md\, a proposal by the California Department of Water Resources\, to restore and enhance approximately 910 acres of managed wetlands to tidal marsh habitat.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation // Exhibit A // Presentation // Staff presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nShould cyclists continue to have full access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge?\nKing tides surface a murky problem for the bay: debris\nRegional plan approved to prepare Bay Area for sea level rise\nRegional plan approved to prep Bay Area for sea-level rise\nBay Area Plan To Prepare For Sea Level Rise Approved\nBCDC Adopts Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan to Combat Climate Change in the Bay Area\nGuiding BCDC plan for sea rise actions approved\nTurning San Francisco Bay into a bathtub\nRegional plan approved to prepare Bay Area for sea level rise\nRegional plan approved to prepare Bay Area for sea level rise \nThe Bay Area Now Has Its First-Ever Regional Sea Level Rise\nGuiding BCDC plan for sea rise actions approve\nCan Democrats win climate messaging? – POLITICO\nThe Bay Area Now Has Its First-Ever Regional Sea Level Rise Plan\nHomes vs. beaches: Court makes key decision in battle over California seawall construction amid ocean rise\nRichmond setting up plan to deal with impending sea-level rise along its 32-mile coastline – Richmond Confidential\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording & transcript\n \n\nTranscript\n\n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GOOD \nAFTERNOON. THANK YOU \nCOMMISSIONERS. WELCOME TO OUR \nHYBRID COMMISSION MEETING. MY \nNAME IS REBECCA EISEN\, VICE \nCHAIR OF THE COMMISSION. I’M \nCHAIRING THIS MEETING BECAUSE \nVICE CHAIR WASSERMAN IS OUT OF \nTHE COUNTRY TODAY BUT HE WILL BE \nIN THIS CHAIR AT OUR NEXT \nMEETING WHICH IS JANUARY 16TH. \nI WANT TO THANK ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS HERE AT THE METRO \nCENTER FOR ATTENDING IN-PERSON. \nGOOD GROUP. AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF \nBUSINESS IS TO ROLL THE VIDEO. \nSIERRA\, WOULD YOU PLEASE DO \nTHAT? \n[RECORDED MEETING PROCEDURES \nANNOUNCEMENT]. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. NOW IT’S TIME TO CALL \nTHE ROLL\, COMMISSIONERS. THAT \nHAPPENS TO ZACK TOO. PLEASE \nENSURE YOUR CAMERA IS ON \nTHROUGHOUT THE MEETING IF YOU \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY AND \nFOR THOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY PLEASE UNMUTE \nYOURSELVES\, AND MUTE YOURSELF \nAFTER YOU RESPOND. ROLL CALL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGIOIA? GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSION ARE HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I’M HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRAMOS? \n>>BELIA RAMOS: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nHAVE A QUORUM. \n>>SPEAKER: >>ANDREW GUNTHER: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nAPOLOGIZE\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nYOU STILL HAVE A QUORUM. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nBECAUSE WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT \nAND MAY NOT HAVE ONE LATER IN \nTHE MEETING WE ARE GOING TO MAKE \nA SLIGHT ALTERATION TO OUR \nAGENDA AND MOVE ITEM EIGHT\, \nSOMETHING WE MAY VOTE ON IF YOU \nCAN TURN YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM \nEIGHT PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLE VOTE ON THE CHIPPS \nISLAND RESTORATION IN THE \nUNINCORPORATED AREA OF SOLANO \nCOUNTY\, WHICH IS WHERE I GREW \nUP. THE COMMISSION WILL NOW \nHOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLY VOTE ON AN APPLICATION \nFOR BCDC PERMIT 2024.001.00MDA \nPROPOSAL BY CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE TO \nRESTORE AND ENHANCE \nAPPROXIMATELY 910 ACRES OF \nWETLANDS TO TIDAL MARSH HABITAT \nON CHIPPS ISLAND. SAM FIELDING \nOF OUR STAFF WILL BEGIN THE \nAGENDA ITEM. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NTT\, \nIF WE COULD HAVE THE \nPRESENTATION BROUGHT UP\, PLEASE? \nTHANK YOU. \n>>SAM FIELDING: ALL RIGHT. \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, COMMISSIONERS\, \nAND THANK YOU. MY NAME IS SAM \nFIELDING\, AND I AM A PERMIT \nANALYST AT BCDC. TODAY YOU’RE \nSCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING \nAND VOTE ON THE CHIPPS ISLAND \nTIDAL RESTORATION PROJECT IN \nSUISUN MARSH IN SOLANO COUNTY. \nI’LL PROVIDE A BRIEF \nINTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT AND \nTURN IT OVER TO THE APPLICANT TO \nPROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS. AND \nI’LL CONCLUDE\, THEN\, WITH A \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. \nNEXT SLIDE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YEAH. \nNTT\, IT’S THE STAFF PRESENTATION \nSLIDES. APOLOGIES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NTT\, \nIF YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DROP THE \nPRESENTATION\, I’LL GO AHEAD AND \nSHARE. \n>>SAM FIELDING: THANK YOU AGAIN \nFOR YOUR PATIENCE AND SORRY FOR \nTHAT INCONVENIENCE. AGAIN THE \nPROJECT LOCATION IS LOCATED IN \nSUISUN MARSH IN THE EASTERN \nCORNER. THIS IS IN AN \nUNINCORPORATED SOLANO COUNTY \nTOWARDS THE EASTERN EXTENT OF \nBCDC’S JURISDICTION\, JUST \nBORDERED ON THE SOUTH BY \nSACRAMENTO RIVER\, TO THE WEST BY \nHONKER BAY\, AND TO THE NORTHEAST \nBY SPOON BILL CREEK. THE ISLAND \nIS APPROXIMATELY 910 ACRES. THE \nNEAREST PUBLIC BOAT RAMP LAUNCH \nIS ABOUT A MILE AND A HALF SOUTH \nAT THE BITS PITTSBURGH MARINA \nAND THE NEAREST LAND IS \nPRIVATELY MANAGED DUCK CLUB TO \nTHE NORTH VAN SICKLE ISLAND \nACROSS FROM SUNDOWN CREEK. THE \nPROJECT INVOLVES RESTORING TIDAL \nACTION TO 1/3 OF THE ISLAND \nAPPROXIMATELY 362 ACRES ALSO \nENHANCING THE REST OF THE ISLAND \nAPPROXIMATELY 546 ACRES OF \nEXISTING TIDAL MARSH HABITAT AND \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT IS TO \nBENEFIT FISH SPECIES IT WILL \nFULFILL A PORTION OF THE DWR’S \nMITIGATION REQUIREMENTS. TO \nOTHER NATURAL RESOURCE WILDLIFE \nAGENCIES FOR IMPACTS RESULTING \nFROM THE STATE WATER PROJECT. \nWORK WILL INVOLVE EXCAVATION OF \nSIX PRIMARY INTERIOR CHANNELS \nAND SEVERAL SMALLER CHARTER \nCHANNELS\, FILLING ONE INTERIOR \nCHANNEL AND DISTRIBUTED \nSEDIMENT\, REACHING EXTERIOR \nLEVEES AND REMOVING UP TO FIVE \nWATER CONTROL STRUCTURES AND \nOTHER DEBRIS. THE PROJECT WILL \nALSO REMOVE ONE SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER IN SPOON BILL CREEK \nWHICH WILL RESOLVE A 2017 \nENFORCEMENT CASE FOR ITS AHN \nAUTHORIZED PLACEMENT BY THE \nPREVIOUS LANDOWNER. NEXT SLIDE. \nTHE PROJECT INVOLVES FILL IN \nBCDC’S BAY AND MANAGED WETLAND \nJURISDICTIONS. THE PROPOSED \nFILL ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE USE \nOF EXCAVATED MATERIAL\, TO FILL \nINTERIOR CHANNELS\, TO BACK FILL \nLEVEES AFTER WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND \nDISTRIBUTING SEDIMENT THROUGHOUT \nTHE MARSH PLANE TO CREATE \nDYNAMIC TOPOGRAPHY. IN ADDITION \nTHE OLD INFRASTRUCTURE AND \nDEBRIS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE \nBAY AND MANAGED WETLANDS \nINCLUDING SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER IN SPOON BILL CREEK. \nIN TOTAL THE PROJECT WILL RESULT \nIN NO NET INCREASE AND FILL WITH \nALL EXCAVATED MATERIAL TO BE \nBENEFICIALLY REUSED ON-SITE AND \nNO IMPORTED FILL MATERIAL \nBROUGHT ON. RESTORATION WILL \nRESULT IN THE CREATION AND \nENHANCEMENT OF TIDAL WETLAND AND \nSUBTIDAL HABITATS\, WHICH WILL \nPROVIDE VALUABLE FOOD WEB \nBENEFITS TO NATIVE AND ENLISTED \nFISH SPECIES\, INCLUDING \nSALMONIDS\, SMELT\, LONG FIN \nSMELT. AND IN THE REGION IN \nADDITION THE PROJECT WILL \nPROVIDE CONNECTIVITY TO THE \nMARSH PLANE WILL IMPROVE WATER \nQUALITY AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL \nECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND BENEFITS. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nDUE TO THE ISLAND’S REMOTE \nLOCATION\, IN ACCESSIBILITY BY \nROAD AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION \nSTATUTES\, ON-SITE PUBLIC ACCESS \nOPPORTUNITIES WERE LIMITED. \nHOWEVER\, THE PROJECT WILL RESULT \nIN THE CREATION OF NEW TIDAL \nCHANNELS\, WHICH WILL BE \nACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC VIA \nSMALL WATERCRAFT. THIS WILL \nINCLUDE APPROXIMATELY THREE \nMILES OF NEW TIDAL CHANNELS\, AND \nTWO AND A HALF MILES OF ENHANCED \nEXISTING TIDAL CHANNELS. THE \nAPPLICANT WILL ALSO INSTALL NEW \nNAVIGATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE \nSIGNAGE ALONG THESE WATERWAYS. \nIN ADDITION\, THE APPLICANT HAS \nAGREED TO DEVELOP A CULTURAL \nLANDSCAPE AUDIO TOUR\, WHICH MAY \nBE ACCESSED ON-SITE FROM THE \nWATER\, AS WELL AS OFFSITE AS AN \nONLINE ONLY PROGRAM. THIS AUDIO \nTOUR WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON \nTHE SITE’S UNIQUE HISTORY\, \nINCLUDING ITS FORMER USE AS A \nCONNECTING SPUR FOR THE \nSACRAMENTO RAILROAD\, AS WELL AS \nITS INDIGENOUS GROUPS\, DUCK \nHUNTING\, AND NATIVE WILDLIFE \nSPECIES. FINALLY THE APPLICANT \nWILL ALSO CONTRIBUTE $150\,000 IN \nLIEU FUNDS TO FARTHER DEVELOP \nPUBLIC ACCESS IN SUISUN MARSH. \nTHIS WILL POTENTIALLY BE \nDEDICATED TO THE UPCOMING GOAT \nISLAND TIDAL MARSH RESTORATION \nAND PUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENT \nPROJECT AT RUSH RANCH AND LED BY \nTHE SOLANO LAND TRUST OR OTHER \nSIMILAR PROJECTS IN SUISUN MARSH \nIN THE PROJECT VICINITY. \nTHE PRIMARY ISSUES RAISED BY \nTHIS PROJECT ARE ITS CONSISTENCY \nWITH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, AND \nTHE SUISUN MARSH PRESERVATION \nACT AND SUISUN MARSH PROTECTION \nPLAN. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL TURN IT OVER TO \nSEAN OF VWR TO PROVIDE FURTHER \nDETAILS ABOUT THE PROJECT. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON \nEVERYBODY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \nALL RIGHT. I HAVE A \nPRESENTATION WE’LL PULL IT UP. \nBEFORE I GET GOING I WANT TO \nACKNOWLEDGE SAM AND THE REST OF \nBCDC STAFF AND TEAM THAT I HAVE \nBEEN WORKING WITH FOR TWO YEARS\, \nTO PROVIDE ME WITH THIS \nOPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR \nPROJECT. WE HAVE BEEN RUNNING \nQUITE SOME CHALLENGES ON THIS \nPROJECT AND I’LL GO OVER OUR \nKIND OF SCHEDULE AND WHERE WE \nARE IN THE PROJECT. OUR \nOPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THIS \nPROJECT PRESENTATION TO \nEVERYBODY IS CRITICAL. I’M \nSEAN\, DEPARTMENT OF WATER \nRESOURCES ON SENIOR \nENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST IN TIDAL \nHABITAT RESTORATION SECTION. \nDOANHA COULDN’T ATTEND IN-PERSON \nI’M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO \nTHE NEXT SLIDE. THE FISH \nRESTORATION PROGRAM IS \nRESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING 8400 \nACRES IN THE SUISUN MARSH AND \nSAN JOAQUIN SACRAMENTO DELTA FOR \nNATIVE FISH SPECIES\, I HAVE A \nMAP UP HERE\, ALL THE GREEN ARE \nSITES THAT HAVE BEEN \nCONSTRUCTED\, THE PURPLE IS A BIT \nOUTSIDE OUR PROGRAM BUT KIND OF \nIN OUR WHEELHOUSE\, YELLOW ARE \nOUR LAST TWO SITES TO BE \nCONSTRUCTED CHIPPS ISLAND\, THE \nONE DOWN THERE IN THE SOUTHERN \nPORTION KIND OF JUST WANT TO \nREITERATE THESE ARE REQUIRED \nPROJECTS WE HAVE TO RESTORE SO \nMUCH ACREAGE IN THE DELTA AND \nMARSH THESE ARE OFFSET \nOPERATIONS OF THE STATE AND \nFEDERAL WATER PROJECTS WE’RE \nGETTING PRETTY CLOSE WE’LL GO \nAHEAD AGAIN. NATIVE FISH — \nLONGER SMELT — WE COVERED THAT. \nNEXT SLIDE. CHIPPS ISLAND ON \nTHE LEFT — IT’S EVERYBODY’S \nLEFT. IT’S MY LEFT. CHIPPS \nISLAND\, THE BLUE SUISUN MARSH\, \nSAM HAD THIS MAP BUT THEN THE \nOTHER SIDE WE HAVE WHERE \nPRIORITY PROJECTS ARE IN CHIPPS \nISLAND FITS INTO THE SUISUN \nMARSH PRIORITY AREA FOR \nRESTORATION. AGAIN\, SAM COVERED \nPRETTY WELL\, OUR PROJECT GOALS \nARE TO BENEFIT NATIVE FISH \nSPECIES WE’RE GOING TO — OUR \nOBJECTIVE ENHANCE HABITAT FOR \nNATIVE FISH SPECIES AND PROVIDE \nCONNECTIVITY TO THE MARSH \nOUTSIDE THE MARSH BY\, AGAIN\, THE \nFISH FOOD MOVING OUT OF THE \nPROJECT SITE. SO\, THAT\, AGAIN\, \nSAME KIND OF THING WE’RE \nREQUIRED TO DO THIS WE HAVE SO \nMANY ACRES AND CHIPPS IS GOING \nTO BE A CRITICAL PN AND ONE OF \nTHE LAST PROJECTS TO BE \nCONSTRUCTED. NEXT SLIDE. THIS \nSLIDE BASICALLY WILL BE HISTORY \nOF CHIPPS ISLAND. CHIPPS ISLAND \nIS THREE DISTINCT PARCELS\, EAST\, \nWEST\, AND NORTH PARCEL. IF IT \nWASN’T CLEAR IN THE SLIDES\, I’LL \nGO INTO\, MOST OF OUR WORK IS \nCONDUCTED IN THE NORTH PARCEL\, \nMANAGED WETLAND FORMER DUCK CLUB \nTHE OTHER PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY \nMUTED TIDAL. WE’RE OPERATING \nTHE NORTH PARCEL AS A MANAGED \nWETLAND AND I’LL GET INTO \nDETAILS OF WORK WE’RE DOING \nRIGHT NOW. OVER HISTORY\, IT WAS \nTIDAL AT ONE POINT AND OWNERS \nBUILT UP LEVEES IT WAS USED FOR \nCATTLE GRAZING\, THERE WAS A \nFERRY THAT RAN TO CHIPPS ISLAND\, \nTHE RAILROAD RAN TO CHIPPS \nISLAND AND DUCK CLUB OPERATIONS \nWERE THE MOST RECENT USE FOR \nCHIPPS ISLAND. AND YOU CAN SEE \nIN THIS FIGURE THE NORTH PARCEL \nIS HEAVILY VEGETATED. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nONE THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON\, \nTHIS IS A UNIQUE PRESENTLY \nDELIVER METHOD FOR DWR\, OUR \nFIRST CMGC PROCESS. IT’S \nCONTRACT MANAGER GENERAL \nCONTRACTOR. BASICALLY\, WE \nUSUALLY DO A DESIGN BID BUILT \nWHEN IT COMES TO PROJECTS FOR \nTHIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WE KNEW \nIT WAS GOING TO BE CHALLENGING \nWE BROUGHT ON A CONTRACTOR THAT \nWE SELECTED IN EARLY 2023 BACK \nIN SPRING WITH DIXON MARINE \nSERVICES\, WORKING WITH THEM\, WE \nHAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK THROUGH A \nLOT OF CHALLENGES WE WILL BE \nSUCCESSFUL IN THIS PROJECT. WE \nHAVE THREE SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACTS\, PHASE 2A AND 2B ARE \nJUST MAINTENANCE AND WE HAVE \nBEEN UTILIZING REGIONAL GENERAL \nPERMIT THREE\, A PERMIT THAT \nFALLS UNDER SUISUN MARSH PROGRAM \nMANAGED WETLAND AND DUCK CLUB \nOPERATIONS THEN WE’LL TRANSITION \nTO RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION \nWHICH IS WHY WE’RE HAVING THIS \nPRESENTATION AND GETTING THE \nLAST BIT OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nPERMITS IN ORDER TO TRANSITION \nTO THAT RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACT. AND ONE OF THE ITEMS \nTHAT’S CRITICAL IS THE TIMING OF \nIT ALL\, GETTING THE PERMITS IS \nONE FACTOR THEN IT TAKES \nSOMETIME TO PROCESS CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACT. WE CAN’T JUST GET THE \nPERMITS AND SAY CONTRACTOR IS \nGOOD TO GO\, YOU HAVE A PROCESS \nTO GET THE CONTRACT THROUGH AND \nWHY PRESENTING ON THIS DATE IS \nHUGELY APPRECIATIVE ON OUR END. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. BY THE WAY \nTHAT LAST FIGURE\, THAT WAS AN \nEXAMPLE OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT \nOUR CONTRACTOR POSSESSES WHICH \nIS KEY IN OUR SELECTION\, THEY \nHAD SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT TO \nHANDLE WETLANDS AND PROJECT \nSITES. THESE TWO PICTURES ARE \nEXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE \nCHALLENGES WE FACE IN OUR \nMAINTENANCE PHASE. WE HAVE SOME \nBREACHES. THIS LOCATION WAS A \nWATER CONTROL STRUCTURE THAT \nFAILED. GENERAL PERMIT THREE IS \nFLEXIBLE BUT IT’S PRETTY \nSPECIFIC ON HOW TO REPAIR THESE \nSITES. WE WORK CLOSELY WITH \nSRCD AND ACTUALLY BCDC TO COME \nUP WITH SOME TEMPORARY REPAIR \nMETHODS THAT FALL UNDER \n[INDISCERNIBLE] RGB THREE IS ONE \nCONSTRUCTION SEASON FOR US\, WE \nWILL BE REMOVING THESE \nRESTORATION\, THE IDEA IS JUST TO \nNOT BE UNDER TIDAL INFLUENCE \nWHILE WE DO INTERIOR \nCONSTRUCTION. NEXT SLIDE. SAM \nBROUGHT UP THIS SLIDE\, THIS IS \nOUR RESTORATION CONSTRUCTION\, \nFOCUS IS NORTH OF US IS WHERE \nOUR RESTORATION DESIGN COMES IN\, \nWE DON’T WANT THE STRAIGHT \nCHANNELS WE WANT MORE CURVATURE \nIN THERE. THE STARTER CHANNELS \nAND IN THE WESTERN PARCEL YOU \nCAN SEE WE’RE GOING TO EXCAVATE \nA SLIGHT NEW CHANNEL THAT’S PART \nOF OUR ENHANCEMENT. YOU SEE \nBREACH 4 AND 5\, THOSE WILL BE \nALSO ENHANCEMENT\, BECAUSE WE’RE \nCONNECTING THE OTHER PARCELS TO \nOUR NORTH PARCEL AND THEN SOME \nWORK IN THE EASTERN PARCEL \nREMOVING WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES. AND SIX I’M GO INTO \nTHAT LATER\, THAT LOCATION IS \nWHERE THE SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER IS\, MADE SENSE TO HAVE \nA BREACH ON OUR RESTORATION \nDESIGN THERE AS WELL AND THE \nYELLOW IS FILL WE’RE NOT FILLING \nUP TO UPLAND LEVELS WE’RE GOING \nTO FILL MARSH POINTS WE HAVE \nMORE OF THAT GRADUAL HABITAT FOR \nOTHER SPECIES. NEXT SLIDE. ON \nTHIS SLIDE HIGHLIGHT\, RED \nCIRCLES ARE WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES THAT WE WILL BE \nREMOVING IN SOME PLACES\, WE’LL \nBE BREACHING IN SOME LOCATIONS \nAND OTHER LOCATIONS REMOVING AND \nBACK FILLING. WE HAVE DEBRIS \nLOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN \nLEFT OVER FROM THE FERRY WE’LL \nBE REMOVING THAT THEN KIND OF ON \nTHE TOP KIND OF ZOOMED IN \nPICTURES WE HAVE BUILDINGS THAT \nWERE REMNANT STRUCTURES FROM \nDUCK CLUB OPERATIONS WE’LL BE \nREMOVING THOSE THERE’S AN OLD \nPIECE OF FARMING\, LOOKS LIKE A \nCRANE\, IN THE CORNER THAT’S THE \nLOCATION OF THE SUNKEN SHIPPING \nCONTAINER WE’LL BE REMOVING THAT \nALL IN THE WATERWORKS WINDOW \nNEXT YEAR. STARTING AUGUST 1ST \nMAYBE SEPTEMBER 1ST DEPENDING ON \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS. NEXT \nSLIDE. OUR DIGITAL ELEVATION \nMODELS\, LIGHT GREEN UP TO DARKER \nGREEN MEAN HIGH WATER MARK LEVEL \nSO ONCE WE RESTORE THE SITE IT \nSHOULD ACT THE WAY WE EXPECT IT \nTO ACT. NEXT SLIDE. THIS FISH \nDATA SO THE STAR IS WHERE CHIPPS \nISLAND IS\, 2021\, AGAIN THIS DATA \nIS USED AND USEFUL TO US TO SEE \nIF THIS SITE IS A GOOD LOCATION \nFOR US. CHIPPS ISLAND IS A NICE \nLOCATION FOR RESTORATION IT’S AT \nTHE EDGE OF THE DELTA\, AND \nPASSAGE WAY FOR MIGRATING FISH \nTHAT WILL POTENTIALLY BE THERE. \nNEXT SLIDE. WE ARE RIGHT AT THE \nEDGE OF THE GREEN BOX IN 2024\, \nHAD TO MOVE THE ALL PERMITS \nRECEIVED LINE A FEW TIMES. BUT \nGOOD NEWS WE GOT WORD FROM THE \nU.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE \nFROM OUR BO\, WE SHOULD BE SEEING \nTHAT BY END OF THE CALENDAR \nYEAR. OUR 404 SHOULD ARE COMING \nA FEW WEEKS AFTER THAT NO \nPRESSURE TO THE FEDERAL \nAGENCIES. THEN WE CAN \nTRANSITION\, NOT GOOD FOR THE \nBCDC TEAM BECAUSE I WASN’T SURE \nWHEN WE WERE GOING TO GET THOSE \nPERMITS BUT AS MUCH YESTERDAY \nWE’RE IN BETTER SHAPE. SO THE \nPLAN WE WERE HOPING TO BE READY \nFOR CONSTRUCTION BY NOW BUT WE \nHAVE HAD SOME DELAYS. SO THE \nPLAN\, I HAVE GOT TO TALK TO THE \nDIVISION OF ENGINEERING TEAM BUT \nONCE WE GET THE CONTRACT READY \nTO ROLL WE CAN START ISSUING A \nWORK ORDER TO OUR CONTRACTOR. \nAS OF RIGHT NOW OUR TAKE-OFF \nDATE WAS MARSH FIRST HAVING A \nSCHEDULE FROM OUR CONTRACTOR \nSHOWS THAT WE WOULD BE PRETTY \nMUCH DONE WITH A CHANNEL \nEXCAVATION ALL THINGS GOING WELL \nABOUT MIDDLE OF JUNE GIVES FLOAT \nTO START WORKING IN THE \nWATERWORKS WINDOW STARTING \nAUGUST 1ST THEN WE HAVE UNTIL \nNOVEMBER 30TH OF 2025 TO WRAP \nTHIS PROJECT UP. AT THE END OF \nTHE WATERWORKS WINDOW WE’RE \nGOING TO BE BREACHING AND \nREMOVING THE WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES ALONG THE EXTERIOR \nISLAND LAST\, SHOULD BE THE \nCONTAINER OF COURSE SOME EFFORT \nTHEN ONCE WE GET CONSTRUCTIVE WE \nWILL TRANSITION TO A CREDITING \nTHE SITE THAT TARGET IS WHAT WE \nNEED THEN BY MARSH 2026 SO WHY \nOUR SCHEDULE IS PRETTY TIGHT. \nWE HAVE A NICE DEADLINE. I \nTHINK I’M FEELING CONFIDENT THE \nCLOSER WE GET TO THE END OF THE \nYEAR HERE. NEXT SLIDE. I WANT \nTO TOUCH ON NEW DWR PROJECTS WE \nTOUCH ON CLIMATE CHANGE \nPOTENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS \nFOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WE \nDID MODEL\, LOOK WHAT POTENTIAL \nCLIMATE CHANGE COULD BE AGAIN \nLIKE TO EMPHASIZE THIS IS A \nMITIGATION PROJECT. WE HAVE TO \nDO THESE PROJECTS. THE CHIPPS \nLEVEE IS NOT THE STANDARD FLOOD \nCONTROL LEVEE. IT’S MADE OF \nPRETTY POOR MATERIAL. WHAT THE \nMODELS KIND OF DON’T SHOW IS \nWHAT SOME OF THE WORK WE HAVE \nPUT INTO SINCE OUR MAINTENANCE \nPHASE. WE HAVE RAISED THE LEVEE \nIN SOME LOCATIONS\, WE WILL BE \nCREATING HABITAT TRANSITION \nZONES\, AS WE EXCAVATE THE \nMATERIAL\, IF WE DO NOT USE IT \nFOR FILL\, WE’LL BE SIDE-CASTING\, \nCREATING\, NOT BERMS OR POCKETS \nOR POOLS WHERE TIDAL WATER CAN \nGET CAUGHT SO NICE TRANSITION \nZONES AND HAVING OUR CONTRACTOR \nON BOARD RIGHT NOW\, WE’RE ABLE \nTO SORT THROUGH DISCUSSIONS NOW. \n— IT’S BEEN NICE HAVING THEIR \nINPUT. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nYES\, I MISSED THIS. OUR LARGER \nCONCERNS ARE OUR DIRECT IMPACTS \nTO OUR NEIGHBORS. SO\, VAN \nSICKLE\, IT DOES BORDERER OUR \nPROJECT SITE. WE EMPHASIZED \nHEAVILY IN OUR MODELING WHAT \nWILL THE VELOCITIES BE OF OUR \nBREACHES\, WOULD IT IMPACT THEIR \nPROPERTY AT ALL. AND EVERYTHING \nLOOKED PRETTY GOOD. IT’S KIND \nOF HOW WE ANGLE THE BREACHES AND \nHOW WIDE THEY ARE WITH THE \nVELOCITY. NEXT SLIDE. AN \nEXAMPLE\, THIS WENT INTO OUR BCDC \nAPPLICATION ABOUT POTENTIAL \nCLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS. THIS IS \nTOTAL LEVEL INCREASE 12 INCHES. \nCHIPPS ISLAND THERE IN DOESN’T \nSHAPE WEST PARCEL NOT SO GREAT \nSHAPE AGAIN WHAT WENT INTO OUR \nDESIGN IS THERE WILL BE SEDIMENT \nDISPOSITION OVER TIME WITH THE \nTIDAL ACTION. WE DID NOT — \nTHAT’S KIND OF HARD TO \nANTICIPATE BUT THAT’S PART OF \nOUR PROJECT PLAN AND DESIGN. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nI’M GOING TO TRY TO BE BRIEF I \nTHINK I HAVE BEEN TALKING TOO \nLONG ALREADY. ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT ONCE WE CONSTRUCT \nTHIS PROJECT WE WOULD LIKE TO \nDROPOUT MIC AND WALK AWAY BUT WE \nWILL MONITOR 5 TO 10 YEARS ON \nTHE PARAMETERS\, THE SITE WILL BE \nPROTECTED IN PERPETUITY. NEXT \nSLIDE I’LL GO OVER PARAMETERS. \nSOME OF THE ITEMS WE’LL BE \nMONITORING. DID WE CONSTRUCT \nTHE PROJECT AS DESIGNED\, IS IT \nWORKING AS WE ANTICIPATED\, ARE \nWE SEEING THOSE IMPACTS OR \nBENEFITS THAT WE WANTED TO FOR \nTHE NOT ONLY NATIVE FISH SPECIES \nBUT ARE OTHER NATIVE FISH \nSPECIES BENEFITTING FROM OUR \nPROJECT AND IF THERE ARE \nCHALLENGES OR ISSUES COMING UP \nHOW DO WE USE THAT INFORMATION \nTO CORRECT ACTION. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THESE ARE SOME OF THE \nMETRICS. I WOULD RATHER NOT GO \nINTO ALL OF THEM BUT WE’RE GOING \nTO LOOK AT THE HYDROLOGIC \nPROCESSES\, TIDAL REGIME\, WATER \nQUALITY\, FOOD WEB PRODUCTIVITY \nARE WE PRODUCING THE FOOD THIS \nWE ANTICIPATE TO PRODUCE\, \nWETLANDS AND VEGETATION\, I THINK \nONE ITEM I WANT TO POINT OUT IS \nINVASIVE PLANTS. THEY ARE \nALWAYS A PROBLEM. THEY WILL \nCONTINUE TO BE A PROBLEM AND \nTHEY’RE A PROBLEM RIGHT NOW AND \nPART OF OUR MAINTENANCE APPROACH \nIS TO MANAGE — WE HAVE \nPHRAGMITES ON OUR SITE OUR \nMAINTENANCE IS TRYING TO MANAGE\, \nONCE WE OPEN UP THE TIDAL \nINFLUENCE\, IT BECOMES MORE \nCHALLENGING TO MANAGE THOSE \nSPECIES. IT’S SOMETHING WE SEE \nON OUR OTHER PROJECTS AND ARE \nLEARNING A LOT MORE AS WE GO. \nTHEN [INDISCERNIBLE] HARVEST \nMOUSE HABITAT\, JUST OTHER \nMONITORING. WE WON’T BE \nTRAPPING FOR MICE BUT WE WILL BE \nASSESSING THEIR HABITAT THERE SO \nWE COULD ASSUME PRESENCE IF SO. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, APPROXIMATELY SIX \nWE WILL BE OPENING UP NEW \nNAVIGABLE WATERWAYS FOR OUR \nPROJECT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nPROTECTING THE SITE IN \nPERPETUITY THERE IS NO \nDEVELOPMENT THERE IS NO — \nPEOPLE CAN’T LIKE DOCK THEIR \nBOAT AND WALK AROUND. THEY WILL \nHAVE TO STICK TO THE WATERWAYS\, \nTHEN KIND OF WHAT ELSE — WE’RE \nGOING TO PROVIDE CULTURAL \nLANDSCAPE AUDIO TOUR. THIS \nISN’T IN MY WHEEL HOUSE\, WE WILL \nHAVE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS\, SO \nYOU PULL OUT YOUR SMART PHONE \nAND IT WILL TAKE YOU ON YOUR \nJOURNEY. WE’LL HAVE SIGNAGE\, \nTHIS SITE WILL BE PROTECTED IN \nPERPETUITY AND THEN IN LIEU \nFUNDS TOWARDS OTHER SUISUN MARSH \nPROJECTS. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS \nA FUN LITTLE GRAPHIC THAT EMMA \nPUT TOGETHER. NAVY LAUNCH \nPITTSBURGH IT IS THE CLOSEST \nBOAST LAUNCH AREA\, HOP OVER TO \nTHE SOUTH LANDING OF CHIPPS \nWHERE THE FERRY WOULD HAVE \nLANDED. [INDISCERNIBLE] THERE \n— I’M NOT SURE IF WE’LL HAVE QR \nCODES AT EACH STATION. THEN YOU \nKIND OF POP AROUND. WE’RE \nWORKING CLOSELY WITH NATIVE \nAMERICAN TRIBES THAN INTERESTED \nIN OUR PROJECT AND WE’LL WORK \nCLOSELY WITH OUR TRIBAL LIAISON \nOFFICE. WE’LL WORK CLOSELY TO \nPROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR \nNATIVE AMERICAN BACKGROUNDS. \nAGAIN\, I WOULD ASSUME\, UP THE \nEASTERN SIDE OF CHIPPS\, UP NEAR \nSPOON BILL SLOUGH WHERE OUR \nLANDING IS THAT’S WHERE THE \nRAILROAD BERM CROSSES CHIPPS \nISLAND\, SOME INFORMATION ON OLD \nRAILROAD TRACK ACROSS CHIPPS\, \nVAN SICKLE UP NORTH TOWARDS \nSACRAMENTO. THEN IF YOU’RE \nSTILL HUNGRY FOR MORE KNOWLEDGE \nYOU GO UP CHIPPS SPOONVILLE \nSLOUGH THERE AND YOU CAN GET \nSOME INFORMATION. I MEAN IT’S \nGOING TO BE OUR PROJECT \nSPECIFICALLY RESTORATION IN THE \nMARSH AND DELTA. DON’T KNOW IF \nWE FIGURED THAT OUT\, JUST \nRESTORATION IN THE MARSH IN \nGENERAL. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nTHIS IS PUBLIC ACCESS ONLINE \nLINKS. YOU CAN SEE OUR PAST \nPROJECTS UP THERE\, AND IMAGINE \nONCE CHIPPS UP AND ROLLING\, YOU \nWILL SEE THAT UP THERE. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nQUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGOOD. THANK YOU. WE’RE GOING \nTO NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING \nAND THE FIRST THING THAT WE CAN \nDO IS ASK COMMISSIONERS IF THEY \nHAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR \nEITHER SEAN OR SAM. \nANYBODY IN THE ROOM? \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I WAS \nWONDERING ABOUT YOUR ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT PLAN. IT SOUNDS LIKE \nA GREAT PROJECT. WHAT’S THE \nPROCESS FOR YOUR ADAPTIVE \nMANAGEMENT PLAN? DO YOU HAVE \nCIVIC CONFERENCES YOU HAVE? — \nYOU RUN? OR WILL THIS BE DONE \nEVERY OTHER YEAR? WHAT’S THE \nIDEA? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, SO ONCE WE \nFINISH OUR CONSTRUCTION\, THIS \nWILL BE SOMETHING LIKE WE HAVE\, \nALL OF OUR SITES CURRENTLY HAVE \nPROJECT MANAGERS THAT MANAGE THE \nSITE AFTER CONSTRUCTION. AND \nIT’S NOT JUST — SOMETHING LIKE \nONCE A YEAR WE’LL BE GOING OFF \nTO THE SITE. I SEE EMMA JUMPED \nON\, SHE MIGHT HAVE MORE ON IT. \nWE WILL BE VISITING THE SITE AS \nOFTEN AS POSSIBLE. WE DO WORK \nWELL WITH CDFW\, THEY DO A LOT OF \nLOWER TROPHIC SAMPLING. THEY \nVISIT THE SITE MORE OFTEN THAN \nWE MIGHT. THEY LET US KNOW IF \nTHERE IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE \nAWARE OF THEN WE DO WORK IN THE \nADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT. THE \nWORKING GROUP TEAM\, MAYBE EMMA \nWANT’S TO CHIME IN. DON’T MEAN \nTO PUT ON YOU THE SPOT\, EMMA. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT’S FINE. WE \nHAVE 11 DIFFERENT RESTORATION \nPROJECTS AND WE HAVE STACY \nSHERMAN IS OUR LEAD UNDER CDFW \nSO SHE BASICALLY RUNS THE \nADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT\, ITS PLAN \nFOR TEN YEARS FROM CONSTRUCTION \nAND TEN YEARS OUT. THERE ARE \nSEASONAL\, SO TYPICALLY SPRING \nAND FALL SAMPLING OF FISH\, MACRO \nINVERTEBRATES\, PHYTOPLANKTON\, A \nWHOLE RANGE OF ZOO PLANK TON. \nALSO PUT OUT CONTINUOUS \nMONITORING\, COLLECTIONS\, AND \nWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS\, AT \nLEAST ONE IF NOT MORE AT CHIPPS \nISLAND SPECIFICALLY THEN ALSO \nHAVE REFERENCE SITES TO BE ABLE \nTO COMPARE HOW OUR RESTORATION \nPROJECTS ARE DOING OVER TIME AS \nCOMPARED TO REFERENCE WETLANDS \nNEARBY. COMPARE ACROSS \nDIFFERENT SITES TO DETERMINE HOW \nTIDAL PROJECTS ARE DOING \nTHROUGHOUT THE OVERALL AREA. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK \nYOU. I FOUND OVER TIME THAT \nSTUDYING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND \nFOLLOWING UP IS VALUABLE FOR \nMAKING SURE THAT WE LEARN HOW TO \nDO RESTORATION BETTER. SO I’M \nGLAD TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE SUCH A \nWELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN. THAT’S \nGREAT. THANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: PAT\, \nI ALMOST DIDN’T SEE COMMISSIONER \nNELSON’S HAND BECAUSE YOUR \nEARRINGS HAVE BEEN DAZZLING ME. \n[LAUGHTER] \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: NOW MY \nEARRINGS. THREE QUESTIONS FOR \nTHE APPLICANT. FIRST IS ABOUT \nTHE FISH SAMPLING DATA. THIS IS \nA GREAT LOCATION FOR TIDAL MARSH \nRESTORATION FOR A HOST OF \nSPECIES. BUT I WAS CURIOUS \nABOUT THE FISH SAMPLING DATA \nTHAT YOU SHOWED. I DIDN’T SEE \nTHE LOCATION FOR THAT JUVENILE \nSAMPLING DATA WAS IT RIGHT AT \nCHIPPS ISLAND? \n>>SPEAKER: I BELIEVE SO. EMMA? \n>>SPEAKER: I KNOW WE HAVE A \nREFERENCE SITE AROUND BROWNS \nISLAND WHERE THE FISH SAMPLING \nTOOK PLACE\, OR CLOSE MIGHT RIGHT \nOUTSIDE OF THE RIVER OF THE \nSLOUGH. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I WAS JUST \nCURIOUS ABOUT THAT. TWO \nQUESTIONS\, PUBLIC ACCESS\, FIRST \nI WAS SURPRISED TO SEE FIVE AND \nA HALF TO SIX MILES OF POTENTIAL \nACCESS FOR SMALL CRAFT. I WAS \nWONDERING IF YOU COULD WALK US \nTHROUGH THAT. WHEN I LOOKED AT \nTHE MAPS IN THE REPORT IT WASN’T \nOBSTACLE WHERE THOSE FIVE AND A \nHALF TO SIX MILES WOULD BE \nLOCATED. AND IF IT’S EITHER \nEXISTING OR NEW CHANNELS\, IF YOU \nCOULD GIVE US A SENSE OF THE \nSIZE OF THESE CHANNELS. ARE \nTHESE SMALL CHANNELS FOR KAYAKS? \nARE THEY CHANNELS THAT LARGER \nCRAFT COULD GET THROUGH? \n>>SPEAKER: YES THE SMALLER \nSTARTER CHANNELS THOSE ARE GOING \nTO BE 15 TO 20 FEET WIDE AND 20 \nTO 30 FEET LONG. SO PRETTY \nSMALL\, BUT AGAIN THE POINT OF \nTHOSE WE’RE HOPING TO START THE \nCHANNELS AND ONCE WE RETURN THE \nSITE TO NATURE THE WATER KIND OF \nTAKES OVER. THE LARGER CHANNELS \nOUR BREACHES KIND OF VARY FROM \nSIZE. AND THOSE ARE THE \nCHANNELS THAT WERE\, LIKE\, THE \nDARK BLUE IN THE MAP. SOME OF \nTHOSE BREACHES ARE GOING TO BE \n55 FEET WIDE SO WE’RE TALKING \nABOUT SMALL CRAFT THAT CAN GET \nIN THERE. SOME OF THOSE ARE \nGOING TO BE LARGER\, THE CHANNELS \nARE ALL VARIED IN WIDTH\, LOOKING \nAT 20 TO 30 FEET WIDE AND THE \nLENGTH IS LIKE THAT LONG CHANNEL \nTHAT RUNS ALONG SPOON BILL WHERE \nWE’RE FILLING. A LOT OF \nDIFFERENT CHANNELS MADE UP OF \nONE LONGER CHANNEL. SO YEAH \nTHAT’S LIKE ONE\, CHANNEL 1\, 2\, \n3\, AND SO THAT YOU — THOSE ARE \nALL THE NEW CHANNELS\, ALL THE \nEXISTING CHANNELS ARE KIND OF \nLIKE THE WHITE ON THE MAP. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I SEE. \n>>SPEAKER: WE’RE TYING BREACHES \nINTO EXISTING CHANNELS WHERE \nWE’RE NOT EXCAVATING NEW \nCHANNELS. AGAIN THE NORTH \nPARCEL IS THE FOCAL POINT OF \nRESTORATION AND THE OTHER TWO \nPARCELS ARE ENHANCEMENT WHERE \nWE’RE KIND OF TYING THE WHOLE \nSITE TOGETHER. \n>>BARRY NELSON: FINAL QUESTION \nIS — AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR \nSTAFF\, AS WELL AS FOR YOU\, THIS \nIS A GREAT AREA FOR SMALL CRAFT \nFOR PADDLING\, BUT I’M A PRETTY \nDEDICATED PADDLER\, AND I HAVE \nNEVER BEEN OUT TO CHIPPS ISLAND \nBECAUSE YOU EITHER HAVE TO \nPADDLE ALL THE WAY OUT TO \nSUISUN\, IF I’M REMEMBERING \nCORRECTLY\, MAKE THE CROSSING \nFROM PITTSBURGH PADDLE ALL THE \nWAY FROM SUISUN CITY WHICH IS A \nLONG PADDLE AT MONTEZUMA TO GET \nDOWN THERE. I ALSO WONDERED IF \nTHE SUISUN MARSH COMMISSION OR \nWATERWAYS OR BCDC STAFF HAVE \nEVER LOOKED INTO WHETHER THERE’S \nA POSSIBLE LOCATION FOR ANOTHER \nBOAT RAMP IN SUISUN MARSH \nBECAUSE PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PADDLE \nCRAFT IN MOST OF THE MARSH IS \nNOW EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, AT LEAST ON \nOUR SIDE\, AND\, AGAIN\, IF EMMA \nHAS ANYTHING TO ADD. LIKE\, AND \nTHAT WAS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES\, \nWE REALIZE PUBLIC ACCESS EVEN \nJUST GETTING TO THE SITE FOR \nRESTORATION\, YOU NEED A BOAT\, \nYOU NEED A BARGE\, YOU NEED A LOT \nOF ITEMS TO GET THERE\, YOU CAN’T \nJUST ROLL UP WITH A TRAILER AND \nTHAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS\, LIKE\, \nWE DO HAVE THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR \nTHIS’S VAN SICKLE\, PRIVATE LAND. \nYOU’RE RIGHT SUISUN CITY MIGHT \nBE THE CLOSEST LAUNCHING POINT. \nPITTSBURGH IS CLOSE BUT BEING \nOUT THERE\, IN THIS PROJECT IT \nLOOKS FEASIBLE TO LAUNCH A CRAFT \nFROM PITTSBURGH THAT’S WHAT I \nWOULD CAUTION ESPECIALLY NOT \nEVERY DAY IS CALM AS SOME OF THE \nLAST DAYS HAVE BEEN OUT THERE\, \nMINUS THIS PAST WEEKEND\, AND I \nTHINK EMMA TO HER CREDIT\, I’M \nDRAWING A PLANK ON THIS\, LIKE A \nBOAT OR — NOT DAY USE BUT IT \nWAS LIKE A PATH FOR CRAFT WE \nWERE THINKING WE COULD GET \nCHIPPS ON THAT BUT IT’S \nCHALLENGING FOR KAYAKERS IT’S A \nTOUGH SPOT. \n>>BARRY NELSON: NOTE FOR STAFF \nI DON’T EXPECT WE’RE NECESSARILY \nGOING TO SOLVE THAT IF THIS \nPROJECT BUT PROJECTS IN SUISUN \nMARSH YOU KNOW THERE ARE PARCELS \nLIKE RUSH RANCH WHERE THERE \nMIGHT BE SOME POTENTIAL DOWN THE \nROAD\, NOT TOO FAR AWAY SOMETHING \nFOR STAFF TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE \nPUBLIC ACCESS BY IT SHOULD BE \nWONDERFUL PLACE TO BE ON THE \nWATER. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nASHLEY DID YOU WANT TO SAY \nSOMETHING ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS. \n>>ASHLEY TOMERLIN: I’M THE \nDESIGN ANALYST AT BCDC WE WORK \nON THE PUBLIC ACCESS WE ARE \nCONTINUE JUMP TRYING AND \nCONTINUED PURSUIT TO GET PUBLIC \nACCESS ESPECIALLY BOAT ACCESS IN \nTHE MARSH IT’S COMPLEX BECAUSE \nMOST OF THE PROJECTS ARE COMING \nARE IN RESTORATION PROJECTS THAT \nHAVE HABITAT CREDIT SO IT’S \nWILDLIFE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCOMPATIBILITY QUESTION\, RUSH \nRANCH WE HAVE A CURRENT PROJECT \nGOING THROUGH\, EXPLORING THE \nIDEA BOAT LAUNCH THERE IS \nMONTEZUMA DAY USE AREA THAT HAS \nHISTORICALLY HAD A BOAT LAUNCH \nIT WAS DAMAGED IN THE STORM \nPURSUING GETTING THAT \nRE-ESTABLISHED IT’S AN ONGOING \nEFFORT TO GET ADDITIONAL BOAT \nACCESS OUT THERE. WE’RE TRYING. \n>>BARRY NELSON: APPRECIATE IT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: PAT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I WANTED TO SAY \nTHAT HAVING WORKED FOR THE ARMY \nCORP AND US EPA FOR OVER 43 \nYEARS I’M VERY FAMILIAR BUT I’M \nNOT VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE \nCHIPPS ISLAND AND CHALLENGES \nTHAT ARE THERE. THIS IS AN \nINCREDIBLE MULTI-AGENCY \nCOORDINATION PROJECT THAT YOU \nHAVE LED WITH THE DIFFERENT \nPERMITS\, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT \nTHE WHOLE TEAM AT DWR AND ALSO \nTHE TEAM AT BCDC THERE IS ALWAYS \nA STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT \nAND REGULATORY AGENCY TRYING TO \nGET MORE PUBLIC ACCESS AND A BIT \nMORE EFFORTS. LIKE ONE OF THE \nQUESTIONS THAT I HAD IS THAT ONE \nPART OF THE REPORT SAID THAT NOT \nALL OF THE FILL IS GOING TO BE \nUSED\, WE’RE GOING TO PUT IT IN \nANOTHER LOCATION TO USE IT IN \nTHE FUTURE. BUT IS SOMEONE \nGOING TO MONITOR THAT? SO\, I \nHAVE THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS. \nBUT THAT — THAT’S NOT AS \nIMPORTANT AS SOME OF MY OTHERS. \nBUT COULD YOU GO TO YOUR SLIDE \nEIGHT? AND I REALLY WANT YOU TO \nHELP ME UNDERSTAND\, WHAT AM I \nLOOKING AT ON THE LOWER \nRIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THAT? AND \nIT’S THE ONE — IT JUST SAYS \nSLIDE EIGHT. AND IT DOESN’T \nHAVE ANY LANE OLE IT AT ALL \nWHICH WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING \nMYSELF. IT LOOKS LIKE IT’S A \nCONCRETE AREA. OR IT’S A — \nWITH THE — \n>>SPEAKER: OH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: IT’S SLIDE \nEIGHT. \n>>SPEAKER: THE BREACH AND \nSOMETHING — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S IT RIGHT \nTHERE. LOWER RIGHT. \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A WATER \nBARRIER. SO\, BASICALLY IT’S A \nBRAND\, AND I GUESS I COULD GIVE \nSOME SHOUT OUT TO THE COMPANY\, \nIT’S AN AQUA DAM. IN G P3 HOW \nYOU GENERALLY REPAIR LEVEES \nUNDER PERMIT YOU TAKE NATIVE \nFILL THEN BORROW FROM PITS YOU \nPLACE THEM IN THE LOCATION\, I \nWENT OUT TO DESIGN THE BUILDING \nSO THIS IS HOW YOU’RE GOING TO \nREPAIR IT THEY WOULD LAUGH SO \nTHERE’S NO WAY MATERIAL IS GOING \nTO STAY IN THIS LOCATION\, WITH \nBCDC AND RCD ALL THE OTHER \nAGENCIES — BREACH THE LOCATION \nBECAUSE IN OUR RESTORATION \nDESIGN. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO YOU’RE GOING \nTO BREACH THE AREA. \n>>SPEAKER: WE’RE GOING TO\, \nYEAH. KIND OF CLARIFICATION HOW \nIN OUR CASE WORK WITH THE \nAGENCIES TO GIVE US A YEAR TO 16 \nMONTHS\, DOUBLE TRIPLE HANDLE \nMATERIAL THAT GETS KIND OF \nCOSTLY\, HOW MUCH MATERIAL\, ARE \nWE GOING TO LOSE TO THE \nCONDITIONS AND SO FORTH THOSE \nHAVE BEEN WORKING OUT WELL BUT \nEVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE THREE \nBRIDGE LOCATIONS WE HAVE USED \nTEMPORARY MATERIALS AND WE WILL \nREMOVE ALL OUR RESTORATION \nCONSTRUCTION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WELL OVERALL \nQUESTION I HAVE TOO IS WHEN I \nSTARTED REALIZING THAT THERE IS \nA LOT OF CONTAINER SHIPS\, WHAT \nARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THOSE \nMETAL THINGS OR CONCRETE OR \nWHATEVER IT IS. WHAT ARE YOU \nGOING TO DO WITH THEM? TAKE \nTHEM TO A RECYCLING FACILITY? \n>>SPEAKER: WE CAN. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WE CAN. BUT YOU \nHAVE ACTUALLY CALCULATED OR \nIDENTIFIED WHAT CAN BE AND WHAT \nCAN’T BE? BECAUSE SOME OF THE \nSHIPPING CONTAINERS COULD HAVE \nSOME HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN IT. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nINVESTIGATING. INVESTIGATIONS \nON IF THERE IS ASBESTOS AND \nLEAD. WE HAVE DONE \nINVESTIGATIONS ON THAT AND IF \nONE OF THE BUILDINGS COME UP \nPOSITIVE FOR BOTH THAT’S ONE OF \nTHE BEAUTIES OF CMGC AS WELL. \nWE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WE \nHAVE NEGOTIATIONS\, WE HAVE TO \nIDENTIFY THE ISSUE\, WE HAVE \nASBESTOS TAKES A QUALIFIED \nINDIVIDUAL REMOVE THAT OVERSEE \nIT THEN KIND OF TALK ABOUT COST\, \nRECYCLING IS A GREAT OPTION IF \nWE CAN\, I THINK THAT WE HAVE\, IS \nTHE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS\, THAT \nGOES INTO OUR CONSTRUCTION \nCONTRACT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WHICH REGULATORY \nAGENCY IS GOING TO MANAGE THAT \nASPECT. \n>>SPEAKER: OUR FILL. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YOU’RE GOING TO \nBE TAKING MATERIALS OUT AND WHAT \nARE YOU DOING WITH IT IS THERE A \nREGULATORY AGENCY THAT’S GOING \nMONITOR THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T KNOW IF \nTHERE IS NECESSARILY AN AGENCY \nOR REGULATORY BODY THAT — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THERE ISN’T? \n>>SPEAKER: WELL\, THE COUNTY\, I \nIMAGINE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY WELL WE’LL \nHAVE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION \nABOUT THAT THEN. BECAUSE TAKING \nTHESE THINGS ALL TO THE \nLANDFILLS THE LANDFILLS YOU KNOW \nARE RIGHT ALONG THE BAY MOST OF \nTHEM ARE AND THEY’RE FILLING UP \nAND THAT’S REALLY IN MY OPINION \nNOT THE BEST THING TO DO GIVEN \nTHE CHALLENGE WE HAVE AS A \nCOMMUNITY IN CALIFORNIA ABOUT \nWHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO WITH OUR \nWASTE AND THAT’S WHY I’M A BIG \nPUSH FOR RECYCLING EVEN IF YOU \nHAVE TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE \nHAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ANYWAY \nTHAT’S A DISCUSSION — AN ISSUE \nFOR DISCUSSION LATER. \nSO\, CAN — I GUESS THE QUESTION \nFOR BCDC K WE REQUIRE SOME\, SORT \nOF\, A REUSE FOR THESE TYPES OF \nMATERIALS THAT ARE GOING TO BE \nREMOVED TO HELP MITIGATE THE \nIMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT? SO\, \nGREG\, IS THAT — YOU’RE OUR \nATTORNEY. I DON’T KNOW IF EP \nBCDC HAS ANY AUTHORITY OR IS \nTHAT SOMETHING THAT US EPA NEEDS \nGET INVOLVED WITH OR WHAT? \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I’M NOT SURE TO \nBE HONEST. I DON’T KNOW IF \nANYONE ELSE — YEAH\, WE CAN LOOK \nINTO IT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nMAYBE WE CAN GET BACK TO \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND ABOUT THAT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: SURE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. IT’S \nSOMETHING THAT I FEEL VERY \nSTRONGLY ABOUT. AND LET’S SEE\, \nYEAH\, YOU SAID OTHER EXISTING \nFEATURES\, INCLUDING BUILDINGS\, \nABANDONED SHELTER-IN-PLACING \nCONTAINERS AND BUILDINGS AND \nEQUIPMENT ALL OF THAT IS GOING \nTO BE REMOVED. \n>>SPEAKER: REMOVING ALL \nMAN-MADE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE \nISLAND. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S ANY TO \nTAKE PLACE. \n>>SPEAKER: I’LL NOTE THE \nSTANDARD CONDITION IS TO HAVE IT \nREMOVED OUT OF BCDC JURISDICTION \nBUT USUALLY PERMITS ARE AGNOSTIC \nON THE LOCATION OUTSIDE OF BCDC \nJURISDICTION IN THE PROCESS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: REALLY BCDC MAY \nNOT BE DOING — WELL\, I JUST \nTHINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT \nTHIS HOLISTICALLY\, IF IT \nGENERATES FROM THE BCDC AREA WE \nSHOULD HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY \nON WHERE IT GOES IT’S\, SORT OF\, \nLIKE IF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS \nWE HIRE A CONTRACTOR WE’LL JUST \nGET IT OUT OF THE CITY OF \nNOVATO. I DON’T CARE. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND\, I WANT TO CLARIFY BCDC \nWOULD HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY WE \nMIGHT HAVE REGULATORY AUTHORITY \nTO REQUIRE SOMEONE ELSE TO DO \nSOMETHING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S WHAT I \nMEANT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: WANT TO CLARIFY \nBECAUSE WE DON’T HAVE \nRESPONSIBILITY TO MOVE ITEMS TO \nBE RECYCLED OR SENT TO LANDFILL \nOR SOMETHING. I JUST WANT TO \nGIVE YOU — WE HAVEN’T BEEN \nDOING THAT AT BCDC AND DIDN’T \nWANT TO JUST GIVE YOU — YES\, WE \nCAN DO IT OR NO WE CAN’T — WE \nDON’T — I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT \nABOUT IT AND I’M NOT SURE STAFF \nHAS EITHER BEEN DOING GOING IN \nTHAT DIRECTION — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THIS \nIS SOMETHING YOU CAN LOOK INTO \nAND GIVE US MORE INFORMATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ON PAGE 15 STAFF \nREPORT TALKS ABOUT WATER CONTROL \nSTRUCTURES THAT ARE GOING TO BE \nREMOVED. ALONG WITH THE DEBRIS \nAND SUNKEN SHIPPING CONTAINER \nWHAT ARE THOSE STRUCTURES MADE \nOF? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHAT’S ALONG THE LINES OF THE \nSAME — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: IN THE STAFF \nREPORT SHOULD IDENTIFY A LITTLE \nBIT MORE SPECIFICS I GUESS IN \nTHE FUTURE IF ANYBODY KNOWS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: IF \nANYBODY KNOWS THE ANSWER? \n>>SPEAKER: SOME ARE CORRUGATED \nMETAL PLASTIC PIPES FLAT GATES \nTHAT MIGHT BE MORE METAL \nPLASTIC\, I DON’T THINK WE HAVE \nANY CONCRETE — [INDISCERNIBLE] \n>>PAT ECKLUND: LAST TWO \nQUESTIONS WHAT IS GOING TO BE \nTHE REPORTING AND TO BCDC ON HOW \nTHEY’RE PROGRESSING THROUGHOUT \nTHE PROJECT AND WHAT ARE WE \nGOING TO BE ACTUALLY DOING SOME \nINSPECTIONS ON SITE TO SEE HOW \nTHE MATERIAL IS BEING HANDLED? \n>>SPEAKER: JULIE — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YOU MIGHT WANT \nTO PULL THAT DOWN. \n>>SPEAKER: JULIE GUERIN\, \nRESOURCES PROGRAM MANAGER THE \nREPORTING THEY’RE DOING\, WITH \nTHREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nMONITORING THEY WILL BE \nSUBMITTING AN ANNUAL MONITORING \nREPORT TO US WE REVIEW AND MAKE \nSURE THEY’RE ON TRACK\, IF WE \nHAVE THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS\, NEXT \nSTEPS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT \nSOMEHOW THEY’RE NOT MEETING \nCRITERIA WE WOULD HAVE \nCONVERSATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: TYPICAL ANNUAL \nREPORTING ON A PROJECT LIKE \nTHIS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AT SOME POINT\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSION \nESPECIALLY ON A PROJECT LIKE \nTHIS IT’S A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME \nBECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DO THE WORK \nUNTIL NOVEMBER. \n>>SPEAKER: THIS IS AFTER THE \nCONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE FOR \nRESTORATION THEY DO THE \nMONITORING AFTER THAT WE DON’T \nDO ANY INSPECTIONS ON SITE \nOURSELVES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nOTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE \nCLARIFYING QUESTIONS OR \nCOMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. THAT \nLET’S LET THE PUBLIC WEIGH IN \nNOW WE’LL OPEN THE AGENDA FOR \nPUBLIC COMMENT EACH SPEAKER WILL \nHAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO \nSPEAK. SIERRA CAN YOU CALL \nFIRST THOSE IN THE ROOM THEN \nWHOEVER HAS THEIR HAND RAISED \nONLINE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nHAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE \nROOM CHAIR EISEN\, AND THERE ARE \nCURRENTLY NO HANDS RAISED \nVIRTUALLY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: DO \nWE WANT TO SEE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION BEFORE WE HAVE A \nMOTION? OR THE MOTION FIRST? \n>>GREG SCHARFF: STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION FIRST. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: CAN \nWE PUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nUP THEN? \nAND YES AS LARRY REMINDS MERE\, \nWE’RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: I \nMOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>SPEAKER: SECOND. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: DID \nYOU GET THE MOTION? ALL IN \nFAVOR\, SAY AYE. \n[AYES] \n. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. OPPOSED? \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NTT\, \nCOULD YOU PLEASE PULL THAT UP? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OH I \nSEE. \n>>SAM FIELDING: STAFF \nRECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE \nCHIPPS ISLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECT\, BCDC APPLICATION NUMBER \n202400100MD\, WITH THE CONDITIONS \nDESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT. \nAND THE SUMMARIZED ON THIS \nSLIDE. THEY INCLUDE CREATING \nAND ENHANCING NAVIGABLE CHANNELS \nON-SITE AND INSTALLING NEW \nNAVIGATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE \nSIGNAGE\, IMPLEMENTING IN LIEU \nPUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS \nINCLUDING DEVELOPING A CULTURAL \nAUDIO TOUR AND DEDICATING FUNDS \nFOR FURTHER PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS IN SUISUN MARSH \nMONITORING AND ADAPTIVELY \nMANAGING THE RESTORATION SITE \nAND IMPLEMENTING MEASURES TO \nPROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES AND \nWATER QUALITY DURING \nCONSTRUCTION. AS CONDITIONED \nTHE STAFF BELIEVES THE PROJECT \nIS CANNOT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS \nOF THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT\, SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, SUISUN MARSH \nPRESERVATION ACT\, AND SUISUN \nMARSH PROTECTION PLAN. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nBEFORE WE DO THAT\, PAT\, HOLD FOR \nA SECOND. DO WE HAVE AGREEMENT \nFROM THE APPLICANT DWR TO THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION? SOMEBODY? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nRECOMMENDATION. AND AFTER A \nSECOND — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANKS\, SEAN\, FOR YOUR \nAGREEMENT. ALL RIGHT. DO WE \nHAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: MOTION MADE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, PAT. ANY SECOND? \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD BE GLAD TO \nSECOND IT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER \nPESKIN CAME IN FIRST. THANK \nYOU. CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL \nTHEN? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: BEFORE WE CALL \nTHE ROLL ON THE MOTION CAN I ASK \nFOR A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AN \nAMENDMENT TO. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: NO YOU CAN’T — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I CANNOT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: YOU JUST MADE \nTHE MOTION. THE YOU MADE THE \nMOTION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ADDING \nADDITIONAL CONDITIONS? NO. YOU \nCAN’T DO THAT? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: FOR \nUS TO ACCEPT THAT’S THE \nVERBIAGE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: USUALLY AT OUR \nCITY COUNCIL WE MAKE THE MOTION \nTHEN START WITH THE CONDITIONS. \nI GUESS BCDC — \n>>GREG SCHARFF: WE DO IT \nDIFFERENTLY. ENROLLE SOMEONE \nELSE WOULD MAKE THE MOTION — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I WAS GOING ASK \nTHAT WE PUT A CONDITION THAT IF \nBCDC HAS THE AUTHORITY TO \nIDENTIFY WHERE THE MATERIALS ARE \nTAKEN FOR REUSE OR DISPOSAL THAT \nWE’RE NOTIFIED OF THAT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: WE HAVE A \nMOTION ON THE FLOOR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WE \nHAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. \nSIERRA\, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL \nTHE ROLL? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nYOU’RE OFF MIC. I NEED YOU BACK \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nSORRY. WE NEED 13 AFFIRMATIVE \nVOTES FOR THIS AND THE FEDERAL \nREPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT \nPERMITTED TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. \nSO\, WITH THAT\, CAN YOU CALL THE \nROLL\, SIERRA? THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSION ARE HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nEISEN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? YOUR AGENDA \nITEM MOTION PASSES WITH 15 \nYESES\, ZERO ABSTENTIONS\, AND \nZERO NOS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. ALL RIGHT \nWE’RE GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR \nAGENDA ITEM THREE. DON’T WE DO \nTHE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST? \n[LAUGHTER] \nLARRY IS ASKING ME TO GO TO ITEM \nNUMBER SIX\, THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CORRECT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND \nI GUESS THAT’S BECAUSE WE \nPOSSIBLY NEAT A VOTE ON THAT. \nTHERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR TODAY FIRST IS \nAPPROVAL OF THE MINUTES THEN \nTHERE IS A SECOND ITEM THAT \nAPPARENTLY REQUIRES THAT I GIVE \nYOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT IT. \nSO\, I’M GOING TO DO THAT NOW. \nIT HAS TO DO WITH THE PROPOSED \nADOPTION OF A STIPULATED CIVIL \nPENALTY ORDER FROM THE \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM REGARDING A \nPROPERTY IN RICHMOND. AT THE \nAPRIL 11TH\, 2024 THE MEETING \nENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE VOTED TO \nADOPT A RECOMMENDED ENFORCEMENT \nDECISION TO ISSUE A CEASE AND \nDESIST IN CIVIL PENALTY ORDER \nREQUIRING THE RESPONDENTS TO \nSUBMIT AND FILED A BCDC PERMIT \nAPPLICATION WITH A FEASIBLE \nPUBLIC ACCESS PLAN TO INSTALL \nAND OPERATED AN UNAUTHORIZED \nSOLAR PLANT WITHIN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND TO PAY A \n$30\,000 ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL \nLIABILITY PENALTY. THAT ORDER \nWAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE \nCOMMISSION FOR ADOPTION. \nHOWEVER\, IN THE INTERIM \nRESPONDENTS ADMINISTRATIVE \nPERMIT\, WHICH IS M2019.004.00\, \nWAS LISTED AT THE COMMISSION’S \nOCTOBER 17TH\, 2024 MEETING AND \nWAS ISSUED IN EARLY DECEMBER. \nAS MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nTHE EARLIER ORDER WERE SATISFIED \nWHEN PERMIT NUMBER M2019.004 WAS \nISSUED\, THE STIPULATED CIVIL \nPENALTY ORDER NOW ON THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR IS INTENDED TO SATISFY \nTHE REMAINING REQUIREMENTS \nTHROUGH THE RESPONDENT’S PAYMENT \nOF THE $30\,000 IN ADMINISTRATIVE \nCIVIL LIABILITY. THE ORDER\, \nWHICH HAS BEEN AGREED BY THE \nRESPONDENTS AND BCDC STAFF \nCOMPLETES RESOLUTION OF THE \nENFORCEMENT MATTER. \nFURTHERMORE\, THE ENFORCEMENT \nCOMMITTEE CHAIR\, MARIE GILMORE \nHAS ALSO CONCURRED IN THE \nINCLUSION OF THIS ORDER IN THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. \nSO\, FIRST\, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC \nCOMMENT REGARDING THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR\, SIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND NO HANDS RAISED\, \nCHAIR EISEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ARE \nTHERE ANY COMMISSIONERS WHO \nWOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR? ALL RIGHT. \nMAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE \nTHE — \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nSECOND. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN AND \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS \nSECONDS. \nSIERRA\, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE \nROLL ON THIS MATTER? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \nCHAIR EISEN. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nNELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPESKIN? \n>>AARON PESKIN: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? COMMISSIONER — VICE \nCHAIR MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AND \nCHAIR EISEN IF I HAVE NOT MISSED \nANYONE ELSE? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH 15 \nYESES AND ZERO NOS AND ZERO \nABSTENTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nUNLESS LARRY NUDGES ME AGAIN\, \nWE’RE GOING BACK TO ITEM NUMBER \nTHREE\, PUBLIC COMMENT. \nIF ANYONE WANTS TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION ON ANY MATTER WHICH \nTHE COMMISSION EITHER HAS NOT \nHELD A PUBLIC HEARING — NOT YET \nHELD A PUBLIC HEARING — OR IS \nNOT ON TODAY’S AGENDA\, YOU WILL \nHAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO. \nARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS WHO \nWISH TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND\, CURRENTLY\, NO \nHAND RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM \nFOUR THE CHAIR’S REPORT. FIRST\, \nWITH RESPECT TO THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN HAS ASKED ME\, AND I \nTOTALLY JOIN IN THE THANKS THAT \nWE WANT TO PROVIDE TO ALL THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE ALTERNATES \nWHO WERE — PARTICIPATED IN OUR \nVERY THOROUGH DISCUSSIONS AT OUR \nLAST COMMISSION MEETING\, WE KNOW \nTHAT THE MEETING RAN LONG\, AND \nIT DIDN’T — AND WE DIDN’T HAVE \nTIME THEN TO THANK EACH AND \nEVERYONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nPARTICIPATED IN THIS \nEXTRAORDINARY EFFORT\, IN \nPARTICULAR THE STAFF AND ALL THE \nWORK THAT THEY DID. SO WE \nWANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TODAY TO \nEXTEND THOSE THANKS. JUST AN \nAMAZING EFFORT. \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M SURE WOULD \nSHARE EVERYTHING THAT ANYBODY \nWILL WANT TO ADD TO THOSE \nCOMMENTS TODAY. \nWITH RESPECT TO THE RICHMOND SAN \nRAFAEL BRIDGE\, I KNOW EVERYONE \nHAS BEEN GETTING A LOT OF \nE-MAILS AND THERE ARE A LOT OF \nQUESTIONS ABOUT WHEN THIS IS \nGOING TO GET RESOLVED. SO\, WE \nHAVE A PLAN\, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF \nISSUES THAT CHAIR WASSERMAN AND \nTHE STAFF HAVE PUT TOGETHER\, TO \nHOLD A WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC \nDURING OUR JANUARY 16TH MEETING. \nSO\, IF YOU’RE INTERESTED IN THAT \nWORKSHOP\, YOU SHOULD BE SURE TO \nATTEND THAT MEETING. THERE WILL \nBE NO VOTES SCHEDULED ON THE \nMATTER ON THE 16th\, BECAUSE THE \nPURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP IS TO \nHEAR FROM OUR STAFF\, TO HEAR \nFROM SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS\, TO \nHEAR FROM THE MTC \nREPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS ABOUT \nTHE PROPOSAL AND TO HELP THE \nCOMMISSIONERS ASK QUESTIONS \nABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND PROVIDE \nTHEIR THOUGHTS\, AND ALSO TO GET \nTHE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE ITS \nCOMMENTS\, AS WELL. \nTHE WORKSHOP IS GOING TO PRODUCE \nTHE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT OUR \nSTAFF NEEDS TO ANALYZE THE \nPROPOSAL\, TO BRING IT TO THE \nCOMMISSION FOR A DECISION SOON \nTHEREAFTER\, AND AS SUCH\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN AND I STRONGLY URGE \nTHE COMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES \nTO ATTEND THAT WORKSHOP \nIN-PERSON IF THEY CAN\, AND BOTH \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES CAN \nATTEND THE WORKSHOP\, BOTH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THEIR \nALTERNATES. WHILE THE \nPRESENTATIONS WILL BE BROADCAST \nAS PART OF THIS HYBRID SYSTEM \nTHAT WE HAVE\, THE SMALL GROUP \nDISCUSSIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE \nMODERATED BY BCDC STAFF WON’T \nBE. SO\, WE ENCOURAGE ALL OF TO \nYOU PARTICIPATE IN-PERSON\, SO \nTHAT YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN \nTHOSE SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS \nAND HEAR THEM. \nSO\, THE COMMISSION IS NOT GOING \nTO BE VOTING\, AGAIN\, ON THE \nBRIDGE PROPOSAL ON JANUARY 16TH\, \nBUT WE WILL HAVE THIS WORKSHOP\, \nWHICH WILL MOVE US ALONG. \nMY PENULTIMATE ITEM ON MY \nCHAIR’S REPORT IS TO TALK ABOUT \nOUR THREE RETIRING \nCOMMISSIONERS. TWO OF WHOM ARE \nHERE IN THE ROOM. I DON’T KNOW \nIF SUPERVISOR SUSAN GORIN WAS \nABLE TO JOIN US. IT DOESN’T \nLOOK LIKE IT\, SIERRA SAID. BUT \nSUPERVISOR PESKIN OF SAN \nFRANCISCO AND SUPERVISOR DAVE \nBINE OF SAN MATEO ARE ATTENDING \nTHEIR LAST COMMISSION MEETING. \nAT LEAST UNTIL SOMETHING ELSE \nHAPPENS. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI KNOW THAT MANY OF US WOULD \nLIKE TO THANK THEM IN-PERSON FOR \nTHEIR SERVICE\, BUT CHAIR \nWASSERMAN HAS ASKED THAT WE PLAY \nA RECORDING THAT HE HAS MADE FOR \nTHE TWO OF YOU — SUPERVISOR \nGORIN. SO\, IF WE COULD HEAR \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S RECORDING. \nTHERE HE IS. \n>>SPEAKER: PERFECT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAPOLOGIES. GIVE ME ONE SECOND \nTO ADJUST AUDIO HERE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MUTE BUTTON \nON THE LEFT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nHAVE TO JOIN THE AUDIO\, \nUNFORTUNATELY\, WHICH IS THE \nISSUE. GIVE ME ONE SECOND. \nTRYING TO — \nAND OF COURSE — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nALMOST THERE. SIERRA\, IF YOU \nNEED A MINUTE\, I CAN DO A FEW \nOTHER THINGS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OKAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nCOMMISSIONER PINE\, DO YOU WISH \nTO SAY ANYTHING? \nI KNEW YOU WOULD \n>>DAVE PINE: IT’S BEEN A \nPLEASURE SERVING ON BCDC. IT’S \nBEEN A GREAT JOURNEY\, \nPARTICULARLY ON THE SEA LEVEL \nRISE CHALLENGES\, AND TO WATCH \nWHAT THIS COMMISSION HAS \nACCOMPLISHED HAS BEEN VERY \nGRATIFYING. IT’S BEEN A \nPLEASURE TO SERVE WITH ALL OF \nYOU. HAVE SUCH A TERRIFIC \nSTAFF\, AND THE GOOD WORK THAT WE \nHAVE ALL ACCOMPLISHED. I \nAPPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. \n>>AARON PESKIN: TO LARRY AND \nSTAFF AND TO PREVIOUS STAFF\, \nTRAV\, AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS \nTHEN AND NOW\, PARTICULARLY FOR \nAGAINST ALL ODDS STANDING UP TO \nTHE COUNTY THAT I REPRESENT AND \nTHWARTING SFOS ATTEMPT TO FILL \nIN TWO SQUARE FILES OF THE BAY \nHATS OFF TO YOU\, GLAD BLESS THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT AND SYLVIA \nMCLAUGHLIN AND ESTHER KERR\, AND \nKATE GULLICK\, AND EUGENE \nMaCTEER. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ARE \nYOU READY SIERRA. DO ANY \nCOMMISSIONERS WANT TO SAY \nANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO OUR \nDEPARTING COLLEAGUES? PAT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES\, I AM THE \nNEWEST COMMISSIONER HERE\, OR ONE \nOF THE NEWEST. I WANTED TO SAY \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN AND PINE\, I \nTHINK THE MEETINGS THAT I HAVE \nBEEN ATTENDING YOU HAVE ADDED A \nLOT OF VALUE AND I REALLY ADMIRE \nWHEN WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT \nALL YOUR CAREERS I REALLY ADMIRE \nYOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS AN \nELECTED OFFICIAL AND WISH THAT I \nHAD MORE TIME TO SERVE WITH YOU \nON THIS BOARD BUT AT LEAST I GOT \nA LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND \nCONGRATULATIONS AND I HOPE YOUR \nTRAVELS\, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM \nIN THE FUTURE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: I \nWANT TO THANK BOTH COMMISSIONER \nPINE AND MY LONG TIME FRIEND \nCOMMISSIONER PESKIN FOR YOUR \nLEADERSHIP ON THIS COMMISSION \nPARTICULARLY SEA LEVEL RISE BUT \nALSO ON OTHER ISSUES AND FORMER \nSUPERVISOR KATE SERIOUS JOINS ME \nIN THANKING YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS \nINTO MY NORTH BAY COLLEAGUE \nSUSAN GORIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR \nWORK IN THE NORTH BAY WE \nAPPRECIATE ALL YOU HAVE DONE AND \nWISH YOU ALL THE BEST. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND ANNETTE \nROWS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nOTHER COMMISSIONERS? NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: I SERVED ON THE \nTOWN COUNCIL FOR THE BETTER PART \nOF 20 YEARS WHERE ISSUES BECOME \nSOMEWHAT PREDICTABLE AS DO THE \nCOLLEAGUE’S RESPONSE ISSUES TO \nSO IT WAS ALWAYS REFRESH TO \nBEING COME TO THIS BODY\, THIS \nSTATE AGENCY\, AND BE PART OF THE \nSTAFF THAT’S TRULY AMAZING. BUT \nGETTING TO KNOW THESE THREE \nSUPERVISORS A LITTLE BIT BETTER. \nAARON PESKIN WAS MY SUPERVISOR \nWHEN I WAS LIVING IN SAN \nFRANCISCO AND ACTUALLY MET HIM \nAT A COMMUNITY MEETING RIGHT ON \nOUR BLOCK I FEEL LIKE I HAVE \nKNOWN DAVE FOR A LOT LONGER THAN \n12 YEARS\, AND SUSAN GORIN\, OUR \nFAMILY KEEPS A SMALL HOME IN \nSONOMA VALLEY AND I OCCASIONALLY \nBUMP INTO HER IN SONOMA\, SO \nTHESE FRIENDSHIPS\, AS THEY ARE\, \nYOU KNOW\, THE WORLD IS SMALL\, \nAND I’VE REALLY ENJOYED BEING A \nPART OF THIS BECAUSE OF THE \nCALIBER OF THESE PEOPLE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: I JUST WANT TO \nADD MY THOUGHTS ON BEHALF OF\, IN \nADDITION TO THE OTHER \nCOMMISSIONERS\, FOR ALL THREE OF \nTHESE COMMISSIONERS WHO IN ROLES \nAS SUPERVISORS HAVE BEEN REAL \nLEADERS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC \nSERVICE IN PARTICULAR LEADERSHIP \nON BAY ISSUES AND HEALTH OF THE \nBAY\, SEA LEVEL RISE\, PUBLIC \nACCESS\, AND A WHOLE HOST OF \nOTHER ISSUES. THEY HAVE DONE \nTERRIFIC WORK FOR A LONG TIME\, \nAND WE THANK THEM FOR THAT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: NOW \nWE HAVE LOST SIERRA ALTOGETHER. \nSHE’S BACK. HOW’S IT LOOKING \nFOR REMOTE? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nAPOLOGIZE. WE HAVE A SETTINGS \nISSUE WHICH DOESN’T ALLOW US TO \nSHARE VIDEO SOUND\, WHICH IS \nPROBLEMATIC. EVEN NTT IS NOT \nABLE TO SHARE THAT VIDEO AT \nMOMENT. GIVE US A FEW SECONDS \nAND WE’LL WORK TO RESOLVE THAT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCHAIR WASSERMAN IS GOING TO BE \nDISTRAUGHT TO HEAR THAT ALL OF \nTHE FINE WORDS THAT HE INTENDED \nFOR YOU TO HEAR TODAY\, YOU’RE \nGOING TO HAVE TO HEAR WHEN HE \nE-MAILS THEM TO YOU. OR MAYBE \nAT OUR NEXT MEETING. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: OR I WAS \nGOING SAY WE POST THEM ON THE \nWEB SITE SO EVERYBODY CAN GET TO \nTHEM. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nHAVE SHARE IT IN-ROOM BUT WILL \nNOT BE ABLE TO SHARE IT \nVIRTUALLY. THE SOUND WILL NOT \nTRANSFER. SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY \nTO SHARE IT IN THE ROOM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: LET’S SHARE \nIT IN THE ROOM IF THAT’S OKAY \nAND EVERYBODY ELSE WILL HAVE TO\, \nSORT OF\, TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A \nBREAK. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSOUNDS GOOD. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: YOU COULD \nE-MAIL IT TO ALL COMMISSIONERS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: WE WILL DO \nSO. \n[VIDEO PLAYING] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nGOOD AFTERNOON. I’M SORRY THAT \nI CANNOT BE THERE WITH YOU \nIN-PERSON TO RECOGNIZE AND \nCELEBRATE THE SERVICE OF THREE \nTRUE REGIONAL STEWARDS WHO ARE \nLEAVING THE COMMISSION. TODAY \nIS THEIR LAST MEETING. SUSAN \nGORIN\, AARON PESKIN\, DAVID P ARE \nALL OUTSTANDING REGIONAL \nSTEWARDS\, REGIONAL STEWARDS ARE \nLEADERS WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THE \nLONG-TERM WELL-BEING OF PLACES \nTHEY ARE INTEGRATORS WHO CROSS \nBOUNDARIES OF JURISDICTION\, \nSECTOR AND DISCIPLINE TO ADDRESS \nCOMPLEX REGIONAL ISSUES SUCH AS \nSPRAWL\, EQUITY\, EDUCATION\, \nECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT\, AND OF \nCOURSE RISING SEA LEVELS. THEY \nSEE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN \nECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND \nSOCIAL CONCERNS AND THEY KNOW \nHOW TO CONNECT THE DOTS TO \nCREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEIR \nREGIONS AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS. \nREGIONAL STEWARDS ARE LEADERS \nWHO COMBINE 360 DEGREE VISION \nWITH THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE \nDIVERSE COALITIONS FOR ACTION. \nSUSAN GORIN HAS BEEN A BCDC \nCOMMISSIONER SINCE 2013. SHE \nCLIMBED UP THE POLITICAL RUNGS \nIN THE OLD FASHIONED WAY \nSTARTING AS A MEMBER OF THE \nSANTA ROSA SCHOOL BOARD\, THE \nSANTA ROSA CITY COUNCIL\, \nBECOMING MAYOR OF SANTA ROSA IN \n2008\, AND BECOMING SONOMA COUNTY \nSUPERVISOR IN 2012. SHE HAS \nPROVIDED MAJOR SERVICE THROUGH \nTHE SONOMA VALLEY GROUNDWATER \nSUSTAINABILITY AGENCY\, BCD\, THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION \nAUTHORITY\, THE ABAG EXECUTIVE \nBOARD\, AND MOST RECENTLY AND \nVERY IMPORTANTLY\, THE HIGHWAY 37 \nPOLICY COMMITTEE TO REBUILD THAT \nVITAL LINK BETWEEN OUR COUNTIES. \nAMAZINGLY BEFORE THE PANDEMIC\, \nSHE NEVER MISSED A BCDC MEETING\, \nALWAYS GOING FROM SANTA ROSA TO \nSAN FRANCISCO TO OUR MEETINGS \nAND BACK. SHE HAS BEEN STEAD \nROCK AND REALLY HELPED OUR \nCOALITION TO DEVELOP OUR PLANS \nTO ADAPT TO RISING SEA LEVEL. \nAARON PESKIN\, THE QUITE AMAZING \nAARON PESKIN\, HAS SERVED ON BCDC \nSINCE 2017. HE IS NOW RETIRING \nAFTER FIVE CONSECUTIVE TERMS AS \nSUPERVISOR CURRENTLY SERVING AS \nPRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF \nSUPERVISORS. HE A FIRST \nGENERATION AMERICAN BORN IN \nBERKELEY. HE IS A BANANA SLUG. \nAND IN TERMS OF HIS \nENVIRONMENTAL CREDENTIALS\, HE \nWAS ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE \nFIGHT TO STOP THE EXPANSION OF \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO RUNWAYS INTO \nOUR BAY. HE WAS APPOINTED TO \nTHE COASTAL — CALIFORNIA \nCOASTAL COMMISSION IN 2017\, AS \nWELL\, REPRESENTING THE NORTH AND \nCENTRAL COASTS. \nAND HE HAS BEEN A VERY ACTIVE \nMEMBER OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY. A TRUE \nTRIFECTA\, HE HAS BEEN A MEMBER \nOF BCDC\, THE COASTAL COMMISSION\, \nAND THE RESTORATION AUTHORITY. \nHIS STEADY LEADERSHIP\, HIS \nSTEADY SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL \nACTIVITIES WHILE CERTAINLY \nPAYING ATTENTION TO THE ISSUES \nTHAT HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT TO SAN \nFRANCISCO AND HIS CONSTITUENTS. \nAND DAVID PINE\, WHO HAS SERVED \nON OUR COMMISSION SINCE 2011 AND \nWHO IS RECOGNIZED BY BCDC AT OUR \nRISING TOGETHER SUMMIT\, AS AN \nENVIRONMENTAL LEADER. HE HAS \nBEEN A VISIONARY LEADER WHOSE \nADVOCACY AND POLICY WORK HAVE \nBROUGHT ABOUT SIGNIFICANT \nCHANGES AT BOTH LOCAL AND \nREGIONAL LEVELS. HIS TIRELESS \nEFFORTS HAVE RESULTED IN THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF EFFECTIVE \nMEASURES TO COMBAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE BENEFITTING PRESENT AND \nFUTURE GENERATIONS. AS A BOARD \nMEMBER IN SAN FRANCISCO — \nEXCUSE ME — BCDC\, THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION \nAUTHORITY AND THE SAN \nFRANCISQUITO CREEK JOINT POWERS \nAUTHORITY HE HAS WORKED \nEXTENSIVELY ON THE INTERSECTING \nISSUES OF FLOOD CONTROL\, SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, AND TIDAL LAND \nRESTORATION. HE IS DEDICATED TO \nHELPING LEAD LOCAL ACTION AROUND \nCLIMATE CHANGE AND INDEED SAN \nMATEO IS GROUND ZERO FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND HAS RECENTLY \nCOAUTHORED THE SAN MATEO COUNTY \nCLIMATE EMERGENCY RESOLUTION. \nHE’S ALWAYS BEEN A QUIET STEADY \nVOICE WILLING TO PROVIDE GOOD \nADVICE. THAT’S WHAT WE WANT ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS TO DO\, AND DAVE \nHIS HELPED LEAD THE COMMISSIONS \nRISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP \nFROM EARLY IN HIS TENURE AND AS \nCOMMISSIONER HE ALWAYS ONE OF \nTHE COMMISSIONERS TO WHOM STAFF \nAND I TURNED TO AND ANSWERED \nQUESTIONS PATIENTLY AND PROVIDE \nUS ON THE GROUND PERSPECTIVES OF \nHOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WORK AND \nHOW BEST TO ADVANCE RESILIENCE \nWE THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR \nSERVICE AND ALL OF YOU WILL BE \nMISSED. BE WELL AND ENJOY YOUR \nTIME OUT OF THE PUBLIC \nSPOTLIGHT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WE \nWERE ALL GLAD WE WERE ABLE TO \nHEAR THAT. THAT WAS FANTASTIC. \nI HATE TO TURN TO MATTERS AS \nMUNDANE AS DISCLOSURES. BUT \nBEFORE YOU LEAVE THIS \nCOMMISSION\, I WANT TO KNOW IF \nYOU HAVE ANY. \n[LAUGHTER] \nANYBODY IN THE ROOM NEED TO \nPROVIDE AN EX PARTE DISCLOSURE? \nYOU KNOW ALL OF THE THINGS ZACK \nWOULD SAY. SO. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: DO I HAVE A \nQUESTION ON THE SMALL GROUP \nDISCUSSIONS ON THE CENTER FOR \nRICHMOND BRIDGE. ARE THOSE \nGOING TO BE ATTENDED BY THE \nPUBLIC. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THE \nDISCUSSIONS THEMSELVES ARE NOT \nGOING TO BE\, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL \nBE INVITED AND GIVE COMMENT. \nBUT THEY WON’T BE PART OF THE \nTABLES THEMSELVES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. WELL\, THAT LEADS US INTO \nTHE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH CHAIR EISEN. HISTORY \nDOES PROVIDE US WITH INTERESTING \nCOINCIDENCES\, FOR EXAMPLE\, ON \nTHIS DATE IN 1154\, HENRY THE \nSECOND WAS CROWNED AS KING OF \nENGLAND. YOU REMEMBER FROM YOUR \nHISTORY BOOKS THAT HENRY WAS AN \nADVENTURER WHO FOUGHT HAS WAY \nINTO THE CROWN BUT IN THE EARLY \nPERIOD OF MODERN ENGLISH HISTORY \nTHE COUNTRY WAS FAR FROM \nUNIFIED. HENRY’S GREATEST \nACHIEVEMENT WAS TO CREATE THE \nBEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH COMMON LAW \nWHICH HELPED INSPIRE CONFIDENCE \nAND CONSISTENCY WITHIN A NATION \nSYSTEM OF JUSTICE. I MENTION \nHENRY BECAUSE HE WAS THE SUBJECT \nOF THE GREATEST CHRISTMAS FILMS \nOF ALL-TIME\, “THE LION IN \nWINTER” THE CHRISTMAS COURT LATE \nIN HIS REIN AND RELATIONSHIP \nBETWEEN HENRY AND ELEANOR\, IN \nPRISON FOR TEN YEARS EARLIER FOR \nSUPPORTING REVOLT AGAINST HENRY \nTHREE SONS JEFFREY RICHARD AND \nKATHARINE HEPBURN WON THE \nACADEMY AWARD. ON THIS DATE IN \n1776 THOMAS PANE PUBLISHED THE \nFIRST IN A SERIES OF PAMPHLETS \nTHAT HE SIGNED AS COMMON SENSE \nIN WHICH HE STARTED TO LAY OUT \nHIS CASE AGAINST THE ENGLISH \nRULE CONTAINED IN THE ENGLISH \nCOMMON LAW THE FIRST PAMPHLET \nREMEMBERED THESE ARE THE TIMES \nTHE SOULS AND SUMMER SOLDIER \nSUNSHINE PATRIOT IN THIS CRISIS \nSHRINK FROM SERVICE OF HIS \nCOUNTRY BUT HE THAT STANDS NOW \nDESERVES THE LOVE AND THANKS OF \nMAN AND WOMAN. WHILE I WOULD \nMOST CERTAINLY NOT CHARACTERIZE \nBCDC’S CURRENT EXISTENCE AS IT’S \nWITHIN SUCH TROUBLED TIMES\, AT \nLEAST NOT YET\, I WANT TO THANK \nALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS FOR \nSTRENGTH THEY DEMONSTRATE DAILY \nAS THEY PERFORM THEIR PUBLIC \nDUTIES\, ESPECIALLY OUR RETIRING \nCOMMISSIONERS\, AARON PESKIN\, \nDAVE PINE\, AND SUSAN GORIN. \nOUR COMMISSIONERS\, ALTERNATES \nAND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS MERIT \nOUR APPRECIATION FOR THEIR \nDEVOTION TO BCDC AND THEIR \nWILLINGNESS TO DEBATE AND CRAFT \nMEANINGFUL AND SOMETIMES \nCONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS AND IN A \nCOUPLE OF MINUTES I’LL DESCRIBE \nONE OF THOSE TIMES. \nWITH REGARD TO BUDGET I WANT TO \nGIVE YOU A REPORT ON BCDC’S \nBUDGET SITUATION WHICH IS \nNEITHER FRAUGHT NOR GRINCH LIKE \nBUT MERITS YOUR ATTENTION. YOU \nREMEMBER THE STATE FACED A \nBUDGET DEFICIT OF AROUND \n$38 BILLION WHEN THE BUDGET WAS \nENACTED IN LATE JUNE. IN THE \nBUDGET\, THE GOVERNOR PROPOSED \nTHE LEGISLATURE APPROVE THE \nELIMINATION OF 10\,000 VACANT \nCIVIL SERVICE POSITIONS AND THE \nREDUCTION OF GENERAL FUND AND \nOTHER AND SPENDING BY EACH STATE \nORGANIZATION OF ABOUT 8%. THE \nDEPARTMENT OF FINANCE\, HOWEVER\, \nIS CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH \nTHESE NUMBERS EVEN AS THE FISCAL \nYEAR IS ALMOST HALF DONE. WE \nEXPECT THAT WE WILL RECEIVE \nFINAL BUDGET REDUCTION TARGETS \nPRIOR TO THE END OF THIS \nCALENDAR YEAR IF THE GOOD LORD \nBE WILLING. \nHOW WILL THIS AFFECT BCDC? \nFIRST\, THE NEWSOM ADMINISTRATION \nHAS STATED THAT NO LAYOFFS ARE \nTO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS \nDEFICIT REDUCTION PROPOSAL. FOR \nBCDC WE EXPECT WE’LL BE ABLE TO \nMEET BUDGET REDUCTION TARGETS BY \nLIMITING\, ELIMINATING JUST ABOUT \nALL WHAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED \nDISCRETIONARY SPENDING\, SUCH AS \nTRAVEL AND NON-MANDATORY \nTRAINING. JUST AS IMPORTANT\, \nHOWEVER\, WE ANTICIPATE THAT IT \nWILL BE VERY DIFFICULT TO FILL \nANY VACANCIES THAT HAVE OCCURRED \nTHIS YEAR. WE HAVE SIX \nVACANCIES AT THIS POINT\, WHICH \nIS MORE THAN 10% OF OUR TOTAL \nSTAFF COUNT. FIVE OF THOSE \nVACANCIES EXIST IN REGULATORY \nAND PLANNING. WE WILL NOT FILL \nTHEM UNTIL WE RECEIVE FILE \nNUMBERS FROM FINANCE REGARDING \nOUR CURRENT YEAR BUDGET. \nI HAVE DECIDED TO FILL OUR ONE \nVACANT COMPLIANCE POSITION\, BOTH \nBECAUSE I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT \nOUR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE \nTEAMS NEED TO BE AT FULL \nSTRENGTH AND BECAUSE THAT \nPOSITION IS PAID THROUGH OUR BAY \nFILL AND ABATEMENT FUND AS \nOPPOSED TO THE GENERAL FUND. \nI CERTAINLY HOPE THAT I CAN \nPROVIDE YOU MORE SPECIFICS AT \nOUR JANUARY 16TH COMMISSION \nMEETING. YOU HAVE PROBABLY \nNOTICED THAT WE DID NOT PROVIDE \nYOU WITH OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED \nOCTOBER BUDGET BRIEFING THAT \nDESCRIBES BOTH OUR PREVIOUS \nYEARS AND EXISTING YEARS’ \nBUDGETS. I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT \nIN FEBRUARY AFTER WE HEAR FROM \nFINANCE ABOUT THIS YEAR’S BUDGET \nAND AFTER WE ANALYZE THE \nGOVERNOR’S JANUARY BUDGET \nPROPOSAL. \nTWO PIECES OF REALLY GOOD NEWS. \nFIRST\, PRESIDENT BIDEN\, THIS \nWEEK\, SIGNED THE WATER RESOURCES \nDEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2024\, WHICH \nINCLUDES A SECTION INSTRUCTING \nTHE U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS \nTO CONDUCT A STUDY OF MEASURE TO \nADAPT TO RISING SEA LEVELS IN \nTHE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. THE \nSTUDY IS ANTICIPATED TO BEGIN IN \n2026. IT WILL BE DESIGNED TO \nADDRESS IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION \nTO SEA LEVEL RISE AND CLIMATE \nCHANGE IN THE NINE-COUNTY BAY \nAREA’S OCEAN AND BAY SHORELINES\, \nAND WILL CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF \nECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED \nCOMMUNITIES\, EXISTING VULNERABLE \nINFRASTRUCTURE\, AND THE USE OF \nNATURAL FEATURES AND BENEFICIAL \nUSE OF DREDGE SEDIMENT TO \nPROMOTE RESILIENCE. \nWE’LL CERTAINLY KEEP YOU \nINFORMED OF PROGRESS AS THE CORP \nBEGINS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO \nIMPLEMENT THE STUDY. \nFINALLY\, I WANT TO BUILD OFF OF \nCHAIR EISEN’S REMARKS. I \nAPPRECIATE RECEIVING E-MAILS \nFROM SEVERAL OF YOU THANKING \nSTAFF FOR THEIR DIFFICULT AND \nTREMENDOUSLY SUCCESSFUL WORK IN \nCREATING THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN\, BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT THAT YOU APPROVED \nUNANIMOUSLY TWO WEEKS AGO. AS \nJESSICA FAIN AND I DISCUSSED \nAFTERWARD\, I’M SURE ALMOST EVERY \nMEMBER BCDC HAD SOME PART IN ITS \nCREATION. NOT JUST OUR PLANNING \nAND LEGAL TEAMS WHO RODE THE \nLABORING OARS\, BUT ALSO OUR \nPERMITTING STAFF WHOSE \nCONTRIBUTIONS WILL ENSURE THAT \nWE GAIN CLOSE ALIGNMENT BETWEEN \nPLANNING FUNCTION AND FUTURE \nPERMITTING DECISIONS. THAT \nALIGNMENT WILL BE BASED ON THEIR \nDOZEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF \nPERMITTING RESILIENT \nDEVELOPMENTS ALONG THE BAY \nSHORELINE SINCE 2011 CLIMATE \nCHANGE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS. \nAND WE CANNOT SKIP OVER OUR \nADMIN TEAM THEY ENSURE WE CAN \nHIRE THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST \nAS MUCH AS THE STATE WILL ALLOW \nAND PROVIDE OUR STAFF AS MANY \nTOOLS AS POSSIBLE TO HELP US \nSUCCEED. THE NIGHT BEFORE THE \nMEETING I WAS REMINDED OF PRIME \nMINISTER WINSTON CHURCHILL’S \nFAMOUS SPEECH AFTER THE ALLIES \nDEFEATED THE GERMAN AND ITALIAN \nFORCES UNDER GERMAN FIELD \nMARSHALL IRWIN ROMMEL IN THE \nSECOND BATTLE OF EL ALAMAN IN \nEGYPT WHICH ESSENTIALLY WON THE \nNORTH AFRICA CAMPAIGN IN LATE \n1942. AFTER THE BATTLE\, \nCHURCHILL TOLD HIS AUDIENCE IT’S \nNOT THE END. IT IS NOT EVEN THE \nBEGINNING OF THE END. BUT IT \nIS\, PERHAPS\, THE END OF THE \nBEGINNING. \nCERTAINLY BCDC AND LOCAL \nGOVERNMENT COLLABORATORS HAVE A \nLONG WAY TO GO TO COMPLETE THE \nR-SAP. BUT AFTER A DOZEN OR SO \nYEARS OR SO OF STUDY BAY ADAPT \nACTION AND REGULATORY SUCCESSES \nFOLLOWING THE 2011 CLIMATE \nCHANGE BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS\, I DO \nBELIEVE THE PASSAGE OF R-SAP IS \nTHE END OF THE BEGINNING OF HOW \nTHE BAY AREA VIEWS AND RESPONDS \nTO RISING SEA LEVELS. \nAND I WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL \nOF YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU \nHAVE PUT IN DURING THAT TIME \nTHAT HAS MOVED US TO THIS POINT. \nFINALLY\, TO PUT A FINER POINT ON \nTHAT\, SINCE THAT MEETING BCDC \nSTAFF HAVE REVIEWED AND \nCONFIRMED FLOOR AMENDMENTS AND \nUSED A MAGNIFYING GLASS TO GIVE \nTHE R-SAP ONE LAST PASS TO MAKE \nANY REQUIRED NON-MATERIAL \nCHANGES. \nSTAFF ALSO HAVE PREPARED THE \nFINAL APPROVED RESOLUTION FOR \nSIGNATURE BY VICE CHAIR EISEN IN \nCHAIR WASSERMAN’S ABSENCE. WE \nANTICIPATE THAT THE R-SAP AND \nANY NECESSARY SUPPORTING \nMATERIALS WILL BE POSTED ON THE \nBCDC WEB SITE BY END OF DAY \nTOMORROW. \nDANA BRECHWALD CALLS THIS A \nCHRISTMAS MIRACLE. BUT IT’S \nREALLY JUST ANOTHER DAY IN THE \nLIFE OF OUR TERRIFIC STAFF. \nTHAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nEISEN\, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, LARRY\, WE HAVE ONE \nTINY LITTLE MATTER THAT STANDS \nBETWEEN US AND HANUKKAH\, \nCHRISTMAS\, AND HOPEFULLY A VERY \nBRIGHT NEW YEAR. LISTING OF \nADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. AND \nHARRIET ROSS IS HERE TO ANSWER \nALL OF OUR QUESTIONS. ALL OF \nOUR QUESTIONS. ANYONE? \nALL RIGHT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED\, CHAIR EISEN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. THAT MOVES US TO \nADJOURNMENT. MOTION TO ADJOURN\, \nANYONE? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: PAT. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nSECOND. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS. WE \nSTAND ADJOURNED. I’LL SEE YOU \nALL IN 2016 — SORRY \n[LAUGHTER] \n— 2025. JANUARY. \n[ADJOURNED] \n\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-19-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241210T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241210T150000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T060725Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241126T235552Z UID:10000160-1733835600-1733842800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 10\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location 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 Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan 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/84715067651?pwd=boRImiLjJlxbQD2SvGLjc4lbbRmr5X.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID847 1506 7651 \nPasscode671230 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nPublic Comment Period (15 minutes; Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the ECRB on any matter on which the ECRB 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.\nItem of Discussion: Legal Training on ECRB Laws and Policies and New Members Orientation (90 minutes) BCDC staff will brief new and current board members on their authority\, rights and responsibilities and the board’s function within the agency as prescribed in the McAteer-Petris Act\, the Bay Plan\, and the State regulations governing the board.  This technical advisory board reviews the safety criteria of complex engineering projects and advises the staff on the adequacy of such safety provisions in relation to relevant statutory\, policy\, and regulatory provisions.  (Jenn Hyman\, P.E\, Senior Staff Engineer) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov] (Michael Ng\, Senior Staff Attorney) [415/352-3610; michael.ng@bcdc.ca.gov] Presentation\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-10-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241210T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241210T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T050422Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241120T224059Z UID:10000147-1733823000-1733832000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 10\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-10-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241209T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241209T183000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T034919Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241210T203403Z UID:10000124-1733763600-1733769000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 9\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with Gov. Code 11123.5. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan 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/83361375618?pwd=RKN0bFlExeJDzMunsDWd5af2lV5YbX.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055(816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID833 6137 5618  \nPasscode641630 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nBCDC Staff Updates\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nMarina Point\, City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County; First ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold a preliminary review for the proposed 4.92-acre residential development located at 2100 Marina Way South. The proposed project is a residential development with 70 market-rate\, single-family homes and 30 junior additional dwelling units. Within the shoreline band\, there are 12 separate single-family units\, walkways\, utilities\, and landscaping. Public access improvements are proposed along the Bay Trail connecting Richmond Ferry Terminal to Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park. Improvements include additional seating\, landscaping\, signage\, bike infrastructure\, as well as a viewing platform\, picnic\, and fitness area.(Lisa Herron) [415/352-3654; lisa.herron@bcdc.ca.gov]Exhibits // Public comment\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording \n Video recording \n\n \n\nVideo transcript\n\nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for joining us for the Bcdc Design Review Board meeting. I’d like to remind Board members to please speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. And please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Ashley. Good evening\, everyone. My name is Jacinta Mccann. I’m the chair of the Bcdc. Design Review Board. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m located here at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our 1st order of business is to call the roll \nYerba Buena SX80: Board members. Can you unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding so\, staff\, could you please call the roll \nYerba Buena SX80: chair\, Mccann\, present Vice Chair\, Strang\, present Board\, Member Battaglio\, present Board\, Member Hall. \nYerba Buena SX80: present board\, member\, leader\, present and board Member Pellegrini\, present \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff\, or Pcdc. Staff attending this meeting are myself Ashley\, Tomerlin\, Yuri\, Jewett\, Catherine Pan\, and Lisa Herron. \nYerba Buena SX80: Very good. Thanks\, Ashley. We have a quorum presence\, so we’re duly constituted to conduct business. So we will move ahead with the agenda. To begin with\, I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nYerba Buena SX80: for everyone who’s joined us online and in the meeting room. Please make sure that you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it’s on. As Ashley just said. So everyone can see you. And for members of the public\, if you’d like to speak during a public comment period. That’s part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 3 ways. 1st of all\, if you’re here with us in person. \nYerba Buena SX80: we will ask you to form a line near the podium. If you wish to make a public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: speaker\, cards are available at the door\, and you’ll be asked to come up to the podium one at a time. \nYerba Buena SX80: and state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments during the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: After all\, individuals who are present make their comments. We shall call on those participants who are attending remotely \nYerba Buena SX80: the second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand \nYerba Buena SX80: in zoom. If you are new to zoom. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s hard to think of anyone who wouldn’t be new to zoom at this point in our in our world. But if you are new to zoom and you join our meeting using the zoom application\, click the hand at the bottom of your screen\, the hand should turn blue when it’s raised. And finally\, if you’re joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise or lower your hand to make a comment and 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. \nYerba Buena SX80: After you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nYerba Buena SX80: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and or abusive language. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission \nYerba Buena SX80: for public comments. If you are attending online\, please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you are attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform\, we recommend using the gallery view option in view settings in order to see all the panelists and audio for in-person panelists will be recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to the individual panelists videos. \nYerba Buena SX80: If 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 Tomelon\, whose contact information is on the screen. And it can also be found on the Bcdc’s website. \nYerba Buena SX80: With that\, we’ll move to Item 2\, which is the staff update. And Ashley\, I’ll hand to you for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair Mccann. 1st and foremost you will have received an email to complete your mandatory ethics. Training. \nYerba Buena SX80: Please complete this by the end of 2024\, and please reach out to me if you need the link. Resent \nYerba Buena SX80: for project updates. The regional shoreline adaptation plan was adopted by the Commission last Thursday. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Rsap. Framework in the public draft were brought to the Board in June and October of this year and staff look forward to bringing updates on the planning and technical guidance as the implementation of those efforts move forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff are working on the permit application for 1499\, Bayshore\, the R. And D. Campus in Burlingame\, came to you in November\, in 2023\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and we will also likely have Brooklyn Basin Channel Park. Coming to the Drb. In spring 2025. The Brooklyn Basin project most recently came before the Board in April 2019. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our next Drb. Meeting will be January 6\, th and will be a review of the San Francisco\, Rec. And Park district or Department\, East Harbor and Marina Green Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that\, concludes the Bcdc staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the Board already. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any questions from board members. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I just have one comment. I just want to congratulate all the staff at Bcdc. For accomplishing the regional shoreline adaptation plan. That was a big day on Thursday\, was it? Last week? Yeah\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: and it was fantastic to see so much interest in it. And it’s certainly got a lot of media attention. So I was really felt\, you guys have accomplished a lot with that. And and it’s work that’s going to be very impactful with all cities as we progress over coming years so well done to everybody. Thank you for the hard work. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so with that\, we’ll move to agenda. Item number 3 \nYerba Buena SX80: which is a public comment for items that are not on tonight’s agenda. So we’ll have public comment for the proposed development. But\, \nYerba Buena SX80: is there any public comment for anything that’s not on the agenda. I see no public comment. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, hearing that\, we will move on \nYerba Buena SX80: to agenda. Item number 4\, which is the 1st review of the Marina Point Development project in Richmond\, Contra Costa Costa County. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we have actually\, I’ll just run through the Project review order so that we can keep track of that. So we’ll start with the Bcdc. Staff project presentations\, and then we will move to clarifying questions from the board \nYerba Buena SX80: on the materials presented to us by the staff. Then we will go to public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we will move to board. \nYerba Buena SX80: discussion and summary\, and then we’ll have the staff response\, and I immediately following the Bcdc staff presentation and the clarifying comments\, we will have the proponent presentation as well. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I do want to welcome our in person representatives from the proposed development. It makes a big difference to us to have people in person. We really appreciate that. I think it helps the \nYerba Buena SX80: level of communication between us all. So\, thanks for being here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So with that. Bcdc\, permit analyst\, Lisa Herron will introduce the project. Thank you. Lisa. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Thank you. Chair Mccann\, and good evening board members. I’m Lisa Herron\, a shoreline development analyst at Bcdc. \nYerba Buena SX80: Before I present the staff introduction. I’d like to remind anyone who’s on the project team and staff to please turn on your video when you’re speaking or answering questions\, and when you’re not actively engaged \nYerba Buena SX80: with the board. Please turn off your video so that we can minimize the distractions on the screen. And for now I’d like to introduce the project for tonight’s Review. This is the 1st review of the Marina Point development in the city of Richmond and Contra Costa County \nYerba Buena SX80: boom. \nYerba Buena SX80: little Eager. Okay. The proposed project is located at the terminus of Marina Way\, south in Richmond’s Marina Bay and South Shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s located between Marina Way south\, a school in a park to the East and the National Park Service\, Rosie\, the Riveter Historical Park. To the west. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the north the site is bordered by industrial development\, and to the south the bay trail. On the bay side of the trail is the Ford Channel\, which connects both to Richmond’s inner harbor and to Marina Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: The site is highlighted in several local plans as an asset due to its location along the Bay trail proximity to open space and waterfront amenities. \nYerba Buena SX80: This includes the Richmond Ferry terminal and transit connecting Inner Richmond to the waterfront. We’ll detail this more in the planning context. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here are some local context for parks and public access along the shoreline. The open space areas are shown in yellow dashed lines with the existing bay trail alignment in green and the site of the future Richmond Wellness trail in red dashed lines. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Bay trail serves as a connection from the Richmond Ferry terminal along the coastline\, through neighborhoods down toward El Cerrito\, Albany\, and Berkeley. \nYerba Buena SX80: In addition to features mentioned in the previous slide\, there’s also a complex to the West that includes the historic Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion\, Events center and the assemble kitchen restaurant immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the site is Lucretia Edwards Park\, Benito Juarez\, elementary school\, and the future Richmond Wellness trail \nYerba Buena SX80: just for a little bit of historic background. In 1941 the Kaiser Richmond shipyards transformed the south shoreline\, including the project site into one of the West Coast\, most vital wartime industrial centers during World War Ii. The Kaiser shipyards constructed more ships for the armed forces than any other American shipyard\, and this is just an aerial. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the project site well\, you can’t see my arrow. \nYerba Buena SX80: all right. So now\, on to site conditions\, the site is about 4.9 2 acres in size\, and has remained undeveloped since the 19 eighties. It is surrounded by a chain link fence fence with overgrown fennel and other vegetation\, and there is no public access currently on the site itself. \nYerba Buena SX80: I conducted a site visit via Bike a few weeks ago and stopped to take photos\, most of which are from this visit. \nYerba Buena SX80: These photos features\, feature views from the east and west of the site along Great Bay trail frontage which runs along the southern portion of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: And now a closer look. \nYerba Buena SX80: These are photos of the southern edge of the site. The 1st photo is from a prior visit a few years back\, and the second photo shows the same area from my bike ride or from my site visit with more overgrown vegetation. You can see here again that the shoreline has subgrade seawall dike armored with large stone riprap. \nYerba Buena SX80: Marina way South runs along the eastern edge of the site. These are views as you approach the bay. This is where the previously mentioned Richmond Wellness Trail is located. \nYerba Buena SX80: This trail is a proposed 4 mile bicycle and pedestrian corridor that will run from downtown Richmond to the Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: It is not part of this development\, and is funded through a partnership with the city of Richmond\, and trust for public lands\, parks for people. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again. Here’s a closer look with a view of Brooks Island. \nYerba Buena SX80: and here’s another view west from the eastern side of Marina Bay \nYerba Buena SX80: towards the site from Vincent Park. So you can bike all the way around towards the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: All right. Now for planning context. \nYerba Buena SX80: this is the land use and planning map from Richmond’s general plan adopted in 2012. I’d like to focus in on the Marina Bay area so that we can see how the city and constituents have conceived of this site. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here you’ll see. The site is designated with deep\, with a deep red\, indicating the desire for it to be a major activity center or high intensity mixed use. \nYerba Buena SX80: The plan defines this as an area prime for mixed use and higher density development. In addition to streets with wide sidewalks and public spaces that are welcoming to pedestrians and transit riders. \nYerba Buena SX80: The general plan further emphasizes major activity. Centers should have generously landscape setbacks to enhance visual and physical connections to the waterfront\, and should include the integration of water or transit oriented development principles. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Richmond Bay specific plan was adopted in 2016. So 4 years later\, and it provides a stakeholder driven framework for development along a 320 acre portion of Richmond bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s the dashed red bit. The specific plan does not include the site itself\, but it did identify the site and water frontage as an asset in the planning process. \nYerba Buena SX80: The site is also identified as one of several potential complete neighborhoods in which local nodes of activity and amenities\, such as transit\, are located close together. \nYerba Buena SX80: Marina way south on the eastern edge of the proposed development\, is also identified as a key transit corridor and connection to the waterfront for Richmond residents and visitors. \nYerba Buena SX80: So here’s what the community vulnerability mapping tool demonstrates us about the area relative to the broader community of Richmond. The site is in a census block group that’s identified as having low social vulnerability and lower contamination vulnerability with only high percentiles for the following indicators disabled and very low income residents. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’d like to note that the surrounding the immediate census block there are areas identified as having highest social vulnerability and highest contamination vulnerability. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve included more census blocks in context\, because this is not only attraction and important waterfront site identified by Richmond planning documents\, it’s also highly used by the city’s residents for work and pleasure\, many of whom who live in more vulnerable communities. \nYerba Buena SX80: Regarding potential sea level rise. This map shows what 24 inches of sea level rise on top of mean\, high\, high water would look like if the site remain unchanged. \nYerba Buena SX80: using the ocean Protection council\, sea level rise guidance. 24 inches of sea level rise is equivalent to a king tide at mid-century under the intermediate high scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: This map shows what 66 inches of sea level rise on top of mean higher high water would look like at the site if it was unchanged\, which is anticipated to occur at roughly 2\,100 for the intermediate high scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: This also corresponds to the 100 year storm condition at 27 d. \nYerba Buena SX80: In this scenario the frontage would be flooded with overtopping\, occurring at the southeastern corner of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: I want to point out the overtopping along the bay trail and public access to the east and west and potential impacts to public access\, making the site an important one for future public access in this area. \nYerba Buena SX80: I should also note that the Fema flood insurance map indicated this area zone be meaning. There are significant waves at the shoreline of the site\, and it will be exposed to that during wind events or storms. \nYerba Buena SX80: So before we introduce the project proponents\, I’d like to quickly summarize the questions in the staff. Report that we’d like the Board to consider in your review. First\, st please consider how the project meets the public access objectives provided in Bcdc’s public access design guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then Staff has identified some specific questions. We’d like to ask the board about the design at this stage. These are\, does the project enhance. \nYerba Buena SX80: project\, design\, enhance the user’s access to and experience of the shoreline? What other opportunities are there to build connections or further improve existing public access as part of this project? \nYerba Buena SX80: 2. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does the project as designed\, provide sufficient capacity for future adaptation strategies. What can be incorporated into the design to facilitate shoreline change in the future? \nYerba Buena SX80: 3. Do the landscaping and fitness program along the eastern edge that Marina way south edge of the development. Read as a public connection to the shoreline. And what design recommendations can you provide to encourage public use for these areas? \nYerba Buena SX80: And 4. Does the Board have recommendations on the proposed plant and material palettes? \nYerba Buena SX80: All right. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we’ll open it up to. \nYerba Buena SX80: I wanna see if there’s any clarifying questions from the board. Wait anything \nYerba Buena SX80: on on the staff presentation. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just put this across to the board here for clarifying questions\, Bob. Go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hey? Thanks for that presentation. I noticed that. The applicant is\, I think they’re using 3 feet of sea level rise for their criteria. \nYerba Buena SX80: How do you know how that was determined? Or was that something that is \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not a Bcdc policy\, necessarily\, is it? Or just what they’re proposing? That might be a better question for the applicant that answers my question. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, any other questions on the staff report? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I mean\, I I note in one of the submissions public comment submissions there is some description of the 100 foot shoreline band and guidance on that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: could one of the staff\, just for for the benefit of everyone attending the meeting? \nYerba Buena SX80: for the board and and everyone else? Could someone just summarize what the key \nYerba Buena SX80: guidances associated or definitive requirements associated with the 100 foot shoreline band. \nYerba Buena SX80: So within the 100 foot shoreline band\, probably the key thing to keep in mind is that the Commission can only deny a project application based on a finding that it doesn’t provide maximum\, feasible public access consistent with the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s maximum feasible public access to the bay and shoreline. So otherwise. You know\, the Bay plan does contain like a large selection of policies related to like what makes public access. And so those things. \nYerba Buena SX80: or or maybe what we would look at in terms of it’s it’s a little bit more discretionary. There’s not like a little bit of a hard and fast. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, what can be approved\, what can be denied in the shoreline band? \nYerba Buena SX80: So in some cases\, you know\, we do see like structures. We see parks. We see various things\, but it’s all sort of has to be consistent with \nYerba Buena SX80: the the site context. Yeah. And I mean just to \nYerba Buena SX80: add to what you’re saying. The original designation of the 100 feet was put in place so that there would be additional scrutiny on that area right because of the sensitivity\, vulnerability from an access standpoint and \nYerba Buena SX80: and other considerations visual and so on\, that we have to take into account exactly. And in addition\, I think I did leave out. So if it is in some sort of a priority use area. That is another basis on which the Commission can consider whether to approve or deny an application. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. That’s very helpful. \nYerba Buena SX80: Go ahead\, Gary. One other thing. Do you have? Can you give us a quick summary of the Permit history \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of what previous permits have been approved\, and by by who? Because I understand it’s been through the city a few times. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, so I can start with like a broader overview. And then maybe we’ll call upon my colleagues. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this this specific site itself doesn’t have like an individual permit on it. But in 1989 is the is when the original permit was issued for the overall development of Marina Bay\, so that whole like master planned area and this site wasn’t part of \nYerba Buena SX80: part of that initially. And so in that initial initial permit\, there was lots of housing and kind of redevelopment things\, and then certain public access requirements. And it’s gone through about 6 amendment iterations\, most recent of which was in 1999\, \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, just kidding 2\,008 and \nYerba Buena SX80: What we know like during that process\, that some of the things that were permitted was that bay trail frontage lots of the public access in and around that area\, including that Lucretia Edwards Park\, and that in that 2\,008 permit. \nYerba Buena SX80: There was a an office building that was permitted for this particular site. But for whatever reason\, we don’t really have all of the details\, it didn’t go through\, or nothing was developed there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so it’s it’s remained undeveloped. But I don’t know if you want to add anything else. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, just a follow up question on that. Who is the current owner of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: You guys are the owner capital? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And was it\, was it? I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I presume it was part of the Ford factory. \nYerba Buena SX80: Land area. Yeah\, at some point some of it was owned by the Richmond Redevelopment Agency. And then so there was a Co. Permitee on this. It was Richmond redevelopment. And then another developer who was on this site prior. And now it’s guardian capital which Glenn is part of. Yeah. But I think I read that the city is not associated with this proposal. No\, yeah\, yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do any of you recall what happened with the 5 0 5 East Bayshore Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: where there were townhomes in the shoreline band. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So that was approved by the commission. This past June\, I believe. So that site was a I think it was a 2 point something 2.3 2.5 acre site in the South Bay\, \nYerba Buena SX80: Redwood City and it did provide a. \nYerba Buena SX80: It wasn’t part of the bay trail. There was a shoreline trail and some shoreline protection in behind the townhomes\, and also some other public access improvements along the roadway frontage. \nYerba Buena SX80: So yeah\, so that \nYerba Buena SX80: that end up being approved. And that was\, I’m gonna completely tax your memory if you can remember this. \nYerba Buena SX80: but we saw that in \nYerba Buena SX80: we saw that in August \nYerba Buena SX80: of 2021 is when I have. Is that the last time we saw it. I believe so. And so. The last version was the one that was approved. It may have changed slightly from the last time that it came to the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s funny I don’t know if anybody here was working on it. Maybe Yuri was. But no\, not at that point\, but\, like in the longer history of that project\, there was actually some reconfiguration of the original project in order to accommodate some more of that public access and like the drawing protection. And so that was a part of the design process that came out \nYerba Buena SX80: like discussions with\, I think\, the Drb. And Nbcdc\, okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so was this site designated as residential\, or is it? It doesn’t have any land use designation at all. \nYerba Buena SX80: You mean through the the city of Richmond general plan\, or in what? Yeah\, through the previous planning process. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it does. So the land use designations. I don’t know if you want to go back to the general plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So I think the the designation that they put on it was this high intensity\, mixed use activity center\, right? And but that’s not this \nYerba Buena SX80: parcel\, just this entire area. No\, no\, it’s that parcel\, or it’s the yeah. It’s that red zone \nYerba Buena SX80: like the overall. So just from like I don’t know if you actually want to respond to this. But \nYerba Buena SX80: those those red bars that we’re seeing. Yeah. So if you. If you look the deep\, the the deep\, dark red\, and I put a circle around it\, and if you look over to activity centers\, it has \nYerba Buena SX80: high intensity\, mixed use\, major activity center. And there’s quite a bit of big detail in the in the general plan about what that means and sort of design recommendations\, urban form\, that kind of thing. Yeah. And then the zone. The local zoning is consistent with this designation. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: like. So on the individual parcel basis. \nYerba Buena SX80: And is there any height limit restrictions in this area? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, yeah\, I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: 25. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just to clarify. I board Member Pellegrini just said\, 125 feet is the height in the general plan defined in the general plan. Yeah\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: don’t quote me on that. Well\, let’s make that a working. We’ll make that a working assumption\, for now we can take a quick look while you’re yeah\, I think. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: yes\, Tom\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, I live in Richmond\, and I recall that there was a previous single family home plan for this site \nYerba Buena SX80: which went through various processes and eventually went to a ballot measure. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I don’t know what happened after that. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is one of those questions where it will require more. Follow up. But yeah\, I did find an email exchanges of past Pcdc members that it did go to a ballot measure. And I don’t think that the project ultimately moved forward with the planning commission. But I’ll have to follow up on that. Yeah\, yeah. So yeah\, there’s interesting back and forth. I mean\, I think that was about 2016. Is that correct? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s about right. Yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. I mean\, I recall that as well\, Tom. But \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, well\, anyway\, we can always get more precise feedback on the as needed. Yup. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. Well\, I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: concludes the clarifying question. So we’ll go to the proponent presentation. Now\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: This work. Hi\, I’m Brian Winter. I’m the land use attorney on behalf of the applicant\, and I thought before the design team talks about the details of the project. I might address a couple of the contextual legal questions that have already come up. So just just very briefly\, Staff\, and appreciate Staff’s sorry the presentation first\, st rather than because I think this might help \nYerba Buena SX80: assist the presentation contextually. But it’s up to you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s have the developer introduce the project\, and then you can speak to any context that you’ll provide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it would be helpful to have the team introduced here as well\, and Speaker introduced. Thank you. Sounds good. Hi. My name is Marcia Vallier. I’m a landscape architect with Csw. St. 2. I merged with that firm about 2 years ago. I also have been a Richmond resident since 1990\, and I’ve worked a lot on the Richmond waterfront and within Richmond proper. I’d like to introduce our developer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to say? Say hello? It’s Glenn Powells\, and this is our land use Attorney \nYerba Buena SX80: Brian Winter\, Brian Winter with Mother Star. We go. Yeah\, thank you. And I’m Mike Beeder\, the civil engineer with Csw. Stuber Stro as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, my gosh. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m David Burden\, an associate principal with Ktgy\, and we’re the architects for the project. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what I’d like to do is\, I’ll go very quickly through our presentation. It mirrors very much what Lisa has presented. So this project? It’s a little bit of a delay. Sorry this project is an infill project proposed for the 4.9 2 acre site\, which was part of the Kaiser Richmond shipyards during World War 2. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we’re looking at putting 70 small lot \nYerba Buena SX80: single family homes\, 10% would be offered at affordable sales prices\, and we will have 30 adu units on the 1st floor. And that’s all part of the inclusionary housing land use laws. The location is in Richmond of Carson and Lisa did a great job showing you where all of that is. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wow! Sorry. The delay is \nYerba Buena SX80: a little crazy. So in the Marina Bay area you can see the the texture of the neighborhood. You’ve got single family residential\, detached along the Base\, Sunset Point and Bayfront over to the right. And then\, as you go to the top of the photograph\, you have \nYerba Buena SX80: condominiums all along the edge. 2 and 3 story condominiums. And as you go around there’s vacant parcels and commercial properties there. So we have the Marina Point project that is in green with the big \nYerba Buena SX80: Arrow going down to it. So this is what the neighborhood looks like\, and you can see over the bottom left hand corner. That is Sunset point\, and that’s the single family detached units\, and they’re about 10 feet apart\, and they’re single family small backyards. And then\, as you look towards San Francisco\, you can see that there is a lot of park space. And then also on that Sunset Point\, you can see how the frontage \nYerba Buena SX80: is the bay trail in Marina Bay. We call it the Esplanade\, and it’s a 12 foot wide bay trail that is lit and has different nodes along the the edge of the bay\, and it links a number of parks together\, and we’re also we also link to the Richmond Ferry. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the aesthetic that we were looking to go and to use\, for this project is kind of a mix of industrial coastal. And so\, you know\, since this was the shipyards\, we wanted to have some of the concrete\, more coastal landscape\, and really make sure that we brought home and linked into the Rosie the Riveter World War\, 2 Home \nYerba Buena SX80: Front National monument. And so we’ve been working with them. And I’ve been working with Donna Graves for a number of years on a lot of the interpretation in that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: The public art will be linked as well\, and I’ll illuminate that a little bit more. The top left hand is at the ferry. We’ve got those reeds in the ferry\, and then the entire perimeter of the esplanade has these shiphole interpretive signs that are dotted along the top one right in the middle. That’s Lucretia Edwards\, shoreline Parks. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s a park that I went to Bcdc. On about 25 years ago for that park\, and that is to tell the Bay Area’s contribution to the war effort\, and those Axial walls Point and to different shipyards\, and those are boot prints from Brockton Shoe Museum \nYerba Buena SX80: in Massachusetts. So you can stand in real boot prints that also links to the Cheryl Barton and Susan Schwarzenberg\, the Rosie\, the Riveter Monument\, and there are a number of other Shimada Park. There’s so so this whole area is really linked. And so we wanted to make sure our shoreline treatment linked to all the interpretation that exists and makes that that trail very rich. So this is the \nYerba Buena SX80: the plan itself. You can see that Lucretia Edwards is down in the bottom here\, where my little hand is\, and then the blue line is the Bcdc 100 foot line\, and then the red line is semi-private right along the faces of the homes\, but the rest is public access all along the frontage. \nYerba Buena SX80: The other connection that we’ve made is to the Richmond Wellness Trail. That is a it is \nYerba Buena SX80: It is work. Trust Republic lands is working on that. But there’s a project called Richmond Rising. They got a 30 million dollars grant to do different projects. And so this portion of the Wellness trail is being completed with those funds\, with the Trust for public lands. And so the frontage along the eastern side of the project links to that\, and it excuse me and addresses that\, and we try and and create nodes for wellness along that edge. \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: so. So this is the view along the esplanade looking towards the Ford building. That’s a historic Ford building\, and then over to the right\, at the end of where the housing is. That’s the National home. That’s the Rosie\, the Riveter National Park \nYerba Buena SX80: Space. And. \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s see. Sorry. And then this is a view from Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park. Out to the bay\, and to the right is the the area that we’re developing that is a fitness node along the terminus of the Wellness trail as it meets the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: the and again along the frontage. We are trying to make sure that we have an enlarged sort of coastal shoreline landscape along the edge to buffer the homes and to create this this more open space. Feeling along the edge of the housing. If you drive down Marina way south. You see\, there’s\, you know\, a lot of stuff that’s just right\, either parking lots or not a lot of stuff along the along that frontage. So we’ve tried to bring that \nYerba Buena SX80: landscape and that that kind of buffer along that edge. This is a view from Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park\, and so you can see the context of the homes. They’re not any taller than the \nYerba Buena SX80: then the Ford building from this view. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then this is a view from Vincent Park. Now Edwards and the Vincents were very\, very instrumental in developing the shoreline access within the city of Richmond. They used to have their little handbags\, and they would go from place to place to try and make sure that there was shoreline. And so now the city of Richmond has 36 miles of shoreline because of those ladies. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this is the elevation along the front from the San Francisco Bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are the elevations to show you the sea level rise\, the esplanade or the bay trail\, which is right here\, is at Elevation 13 to 15\, and we’re putting a plaza space. I think it’s going to be at around 15 at that elevation. And we’re doing stairs that go up and creating an amphitheater type space \nYerba Buena SX80: right at the center access to the to the project. You can see there’s a kind of a paseo right down the center and a little roadway down the center\, so that the residents can funnel down that walkway or down through the paseos to the Wellness trail into the Hub. The the thing that we really wanted to do is sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry about my little okay\, and and again\, this is the the view we wanted to create a plaza space\, because the when we spoke with Kaylin Berry from the National Park Service. They don’t have a lot of exterior space where they can do lectures or or different things like that. And this is an easy walk\, you know\, a couple 100 feet from the the \nYerba Buena SX80: the National Park Monument space right here. And so we’re going to be working with Donna Graves\, who has was instrumental in working on getting the Rosie the Riveter project going forward with the National Park Service\, and she’s going. She’s also written \nYerba Buena SX80: a guide with the National Park Service on Resilience and Climate change. And so this will be her 1st project using those national Park standards and doing interpretation in this particular node. \nYerba Buena SX80: The. And this is the kind of the look of all the different pieces the the project area does have remnant walls from the old Kaiser shipyards. And so that’s why we have these concrete walls here and there\, kind of creating where these old foundations were. And we’ve created this kind of carved out\, this wave of a plaza space that is going to be set in permeable pavers \nYerba Buena SX80: and have seat walls and interpretation in and around the ground plane and then on panels\, and we will be going with to the Richmond Arts and Culture Commission to go through the process of developing the public art\, and when that happens it goes all the way full to this full city of Richmond\, goes through the Design review goes to the Arts and Culture Commission\, the Public Art Advisory Committee National Park Service. So there’s a lot of involvement in the interpretation that we’re going to be doing \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: The let’s see. Go to the next slide. Then down on the end of the project area. There’s a trail as the trail goes through. You can see we’ve got sort of a gently sloped landscape area. What happens in Richmond on the 3rd of July\, because it’s less expensive than the 4th of July. The city has fireworks\, and so everybody in the city comes down and sits along the shoreline. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: these little\, these sloped areas with these grassy areas and the seat walls and these remnant walls will be wonderful places for people to watch the fireworks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park gets full of people. It’s it’s a really nice space for that. And then at the end \nYerba Buena SX80: right where the the terminus Marina way south\, at the terminus of the Wellness Trail. We’ve created a fitness hub and picnic area. We’ve taken cues from the \nYerba Buena SX80: all the site furnishings that are in the Marina Bay neighborhood as well as in Lucretia Edwards Shoreline Park next door\, and use some concrete tables because they do hold up a lot more on the shoreline. And so we’re going to be using those we’ve got bike racks\, tire changers\, drinking fountains with a bottle filler. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then fitness equipment in the top corner. Here you can see the the drainage area and the bioretention spaces where we want to use those as spaces for children or people to walk through and to jump from rock to rock\, and and so you know\, creating informal play all along that that frontage along the east and the south frontage\, and then it becomes a little bit more \nYerba Buena SX80: formalized with this robinia compan product\, that and the robinia is a type of wood that holds up very well in this environment. And so that’s the the major fitness. Hub that. And \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s see\, is there anything else? There’s also some interpretation that we’d like to bring down to this edge as well. This is the the view from \nYerba Buena SX80: the axial walkways that go down into the the park and into the edge of the development. So it feels to me it feels very public. \nYerba Buena SX80: And with that I’m going to stop the share on that \nYerba Buena SX80: And Brian\, would you like to explain the land use a little bit \nYerba Buena SX80: is now an appropriate time. Okay\, okay\, thank you. Brian. Winter again\, just a couple of points. I wanted to make. That\, I would hope would help the Commission understand the legal context for for this project. \nYerba Buena SX80: with respect to the city and with respect to the Commission\, one of which is that the project is being processed pursuant to several different State Housing laws\, namely\, Senate Bill 330\, and the Housing Accountability Act. \nYerba Buena SX80: the Housing Accountability Act being\, in my view\, the most important housing production law that we have in California\, and among many\, and it describes in detail the Legislature describes in detail its concerns with respect to the housing supply shortage that we have in California\, and how it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s existed and grown for decades\, and how this statute is meant to solve that\, and among other things\, it expresses the statewide housing policy that projects should be afforded the fullest possible agencies. Processing projects should give the fullest possible weight to the interest and provision of housing. \nYerba Buena SX80: This project\, as staff accurately described\, is in the city’s high intensity. Mixed use\, land use\, designation and zoning. The land use designation is one that allows densities of of up to up to right anything less than 125 units an acre up to 125 units per acre. \nYerba Buena SX80: And as the project’s been proposed with the city\, it’s been\, it’s been deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act\, and it’s also been deemed consistent with the city’s land use regulations. All of the city’s land use regulations \nYerba Buena SX80: under the Housing Accountability Act. I can talk about that in detail if the Commission has any\, or if the Board sorry if the Board has any interest\, but it’s it’s been deemed consistent. As a matter of law with the city’s land use regulations. I don’t know about the prior project that was subject to a ballot referendum. But ballot referendums can only sorry a citizens. Referendum can only be filed on a project that is seeking a needs\, discretionary legislative \nYerba Buena SX80: land use approvals\, things like general plan amendments\, specific plans and rezonings. It doesn’t. You cannot file a referendum petition with projects that need non legislative approvals like this project. This project only requires non legislative approvals\, so there’s no possibility of a ballot referendum for this project. I don’t know about any prior project\, but this is a project that does not require\, because it’s deemed consistent. It does not require a general plan\, amendment\, a specific plan\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: or a rezoning. I’m happy to answer any other questions about any of that. But I just thought it would be helpful to understand that specific legal context. Yeah\, well\, I appreciate that. And you also submitted a letter where you detailed a lot of this. So you’ve repeated a lot of that for us. So thank you. But \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, just to be clear for the board the purpose of the board\, and all the other groups that are going to be reviewing this \nYerba Buena SX80: we don’t start by saying\, this is a slam dunk. So let’s just give it\, you know\, approval. It comes across a bit like that. But so I know what the \nYerba Buena SX80: purpose of what you’re communicating is about. But let’s make sure that the processes that are defined in\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well regarded planning processes have the opportunity to proceed absolutely. I only wanted to speak to it because it came up in the beginning\, and I just thought it would be helpful to understand that context. But that’s the. And it’s it’s a useful context. So thank you very much. You’re welcome. Good \nYerba Buena SX80: and then to end. What I wanted to say is\, there are some. There are 5 metrics that we tried to meet. One was public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this is\, you know\, looking at what your purview is public access. So we’ve got the 12 foot esplanade and created 22% open space within the project area for public. One thing I forgot to mention is\, there’s a parallel walkway that’s up at Elevation 17 that goes to the cul-de-sac. So during sea level rise\, or if there’s any issues \nYerba Buena SX80: that will continue to be an open pathway for access along the shoreline. So we have something\, a little higher amenities. We have provided multiple amenities. We did see the abag comments we do provide a majority. Except for an 18 foot wide path. We have everything else that was asked for resilience. Again\, we do have that upper path. \nYerba Buena SX80: longevity\, the materials and the plant materials\, and the different site furnishings that we’ve proposed. We feel have a lot of longevity\, and having worked in Richmond for 35 years\, I kind of know what’s going to work\, and I know\, Gary\, you do\, too. And then\, as far as maintenance. This project will be maintained by the developer\, the public area will be maintained by the developer\, so it will not be a burden to the city of Richmond. With that I’d like to thank you \nYerba Buena SX80: and finish my presentation. Yeah\, thank you. Thank you\, Marcia. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, at this point we’ll move to public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: All clarifying questions. Maybe we’ll go to clarifying questions first\, st just to keep this in our usual sequence. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for the Board any clarifying questions\, Bob\, we’ll start with you. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair. I’ll try to be quick\, because I know we try to be quick on these things. But did you all consider water access like they have over at Vincent Park and what I used to call the Richmond Peninsula? That sounds like it has a different. I actually worked on that project a long time ago with Rhaa. But you know there’s some fishing steps and beaches. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did you consider that \nYerba Buena SX80: we did not consider that because Lucretia Edwards shoreline parks has a huge huge that that big stairway that comes down it has use or area\, for I think it’s like 50 feet wide\, and then then right on the the corner\, that whole thing has shoreline steps down. So we have. We have 3 areas that have public access within like \nYerba Buena SX80: couple 100 feet. And so we did not \nYerba Buena SX80: look at doing an additional step. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And and so that access is \nYerba Buena SX80: just steps. It’s not like you can’t necessarily get in the water. You can. Yeah\, we used to kayak off of those stairs\, so you just ported. Thank you. That’s good. That’s that’s helpful. Why\, only 3 feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I say\, only because typically we say 3 feet minimum. \nYerba Buena SX80: That kind of goes back to mid century. Of course we’re already \nYerba Buena SX80: getting close to that\, and then 6 to 7 feet towards the end of the \nYerba Buena SX80: century. So if you’re only going with 3 feet\, it’s going to be difficult to adapt \nYerba Buena SX80: another 3 to we. Yeah\, we took it from projection from Noaa and the Ipcc the intergovernmental Panel for climate change and taking their considerations for environmental changes and local impacts. So it can be something that we could look into. And \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, okay\, thank you for that. I just want to point out that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the 3 feet is is the. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, the intermediate curve. Correct. So you don’t have much safety factor there\, and you also\, as the staff pointed out\, this is a V zone \nYerba Buena SX80: which means you have a high velocity wave action which \nYerba Buena SX80: requires a special foundation. If and when the building is in that zone in the future has to be on \nYerba Buena SX80: pile supports and needs a foot of free board\, etc. So \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I’ll talk about this later. But I’m a little concerned about the future exposure here. \nYerba Buena SX80: How much settlement is anticipated after development. I see there’s some fill to be placed. \nYerba Buena SX80: I understand from one of the comment letters that the area was surcharged to consolidate underlying fill. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if you add\, fill\, you’re going to probably consolidate the prior fill and or the subgrade further. Yes\, the intent is to surcharge the site for 6 to 12 months. So then\, after this\, then\, we will remove the surcharge material and then build the building\, so there won’t be any future. So so the finished grade on your sections is your finished grade \nYerba Buena SX80: concluding any settlement? \nYerba Buena SX80: What? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, after after settlement\, that’ll be our okay great. Thank you very much. That’s important. Why encroach into the shoreline band? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not trying to be smart there\, but I’m just kind of wondering if that is necessary\, because I’m a little concerned about that where you have a shoreline that seems kind of compressed in a V zone\, and you’re only designing for 3 feet of sea level rise. Why encroach into Bcdc. Shoreline band\, where it might be an opportunity to set back? \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. Our team was trying to maximize the number of units within the the overall development. We were trying to get 100 units within that development and to and to do that with this product type a 3 story product type. That’s that’s how it laid out with roadways and Paseo’s and parking. And okay\, I kind of thought that was the case. But. \nYerba Buena SX80: The tide levels in your present in your exhibits are a little off. I was looking at the Richmond Peninsula. You might just want to look at that. And and I’ll have more to say about that. But\, \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s it’s what you presented. Wasn’t that far off of what you can get online. \nYerba Buena SX80: But those are from the \nYerba Buena SX80: the epic 83 to 2\,001 which is going to be updated. So it’s like over 20 years old. So you can just expect that the sea levels now are actually a couple of tenths of a foot higher. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, when those new title datum \nYerba Buena SX80: are released by Noaa. You’ll see that. So you probably just want to think about that. Get a coastal engineer or somebody to help you with that? Absolutely. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. Other clarifying questions\, Tom. \nYerba Buena SX80: Go ahead. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m confused on on something here in the letters that we’ve received. \nYerba Buena SX80: we have a letter from sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: Miller Star regalia\, and it talks about \nYerba Buena SX80: the pro the land use application \nYerba Buena SX80: and that it’s been deemed complete under the permit. Streaming \nYerba Buena SX80: act\, etc. And that is consistent with cities. \nYerba Buena SX80: land use\, regulations\, etc. So it makes it sound like everything’s going great. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we received another letter that said that there had been no response from the city \nYerba Buena SX80: to the application\, and it probably is kind of this is ha! If it’s happened\, it’s happened by default. \nYerba Buena SX80: because there was\, there is no position \nYerba Buena SX80: from the city. So my question is\, what? What is the the actual legal status in that regard? And has there been \nYerba Buena SX80: contact with the city? Is there a level of buy-in and and discussion going on with the city. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve been in regular contact with the city we’ve met with City before filing any applications. We’ve reached out and communicated with the city at various points. The city has \nYerba Buena SX80: largely\, in my view\, gone dark on us\, but the legal status of the project with respect to the city is exactly\, as I explained briefly\, the Permit streamlining act which has been on the deck\, on the statutes for decades provides that when you file a development application. An agency has 30 days to respond to that application and to determine\, based on its checklist whether the application is complete or not. \nYerba Buena SX80: If they don’t provide such a determination. The application is deemed complete as a matter of law\, and the Housing Accountability Act under recent changes. That I was involved in several years ago has a provision. That’s a similar provision that says that a project like this\, that’s 150 units or less. \nYerba Buena SX80: Once the application is deemed complete. The agency has 30 days to determine. This is in government Code section 6\, 5\, 5\, 8 9.5 J. 2 has 30 days to determine whether the application is consistent with its land use regulations\, and if they believe the application is not consistent\, they need to provide a letter to the applicant citing the provisions that they believe that are at issue\, and explaining why they believe the application is not \nYerba Buena SX80: consistent. And if an agency does not do that. Then you’re deemed consistent as a matter of law. That also happened in Richmond. So that is why these. That’s why it came up earlier\, and that’s why I brought up those 2 significant legal factors. That’s \nYerba Buena SX80: sets the stage for for the for the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: just a follow up. What is the plan going forward with city then. And it’s done via board and all that\, because you’re doing a concurrent process right? Bcdc and city\, yeah\, we’ve also filed Ceqa documentation with the city that’s been prepared by one of the strong\, regular \nYerba Buena SX80: consultants that prepare sequel documentation. We provided that to the city as well. I believe we’ve actually just now gotten\, or the consultant has now just received comments on that documentation that we provided a number of months ago. We’re not privy to that information at this point. But environmental review\, as you know\, environmental SQL review can happen at eirs\, mitigating exemptions\, etc. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve provided environmental documentation\, and I believe the city has just provided feedback\, finally\, to the consultant. But we need to coordinate with the city and try to figure out what the process is going to be with respect to the city going forward in terms of its hearing process. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. You’re welcome. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Kristen\, go ahead. So this is a this is a pud you’ve submitted\, or are you looking for? Is there any environmental clearances you need? Or do you anticipate any? This is no Pud is a form of rezoning. This project requires a subdivision map. \nYerba Buena SX80: It may require design review\, but those are the only city approvals that are needed for this project\, and even a non legislative approval cannot involve discretion as this one does. And as a result\, Ceqa is on the table for that reason. So again\, we’ve prepared our outside consultant has prepared documentation\, demonstrating that the project is eligible for the infill exemption under Ceqa\, as well as \nYerba Buena SX80: separately satisfying 2 other SQL. Streamlining provisions\, 1\, 5\, 1\, 6\, 8\, and 1\, 5\, 1\, 8\, 3 of the SQL. Guidelines\, which are for essentially for projects that are consistent with the density levels established in a \nYerba Buena SX80: a local planning document\, like a general plan for which an environmental documentation was prepared\, where the project will not have new \nYerba Buena SX80: significant impacts that weren’t already previously identified\, which which is true here. This project will not have more impacts than we’re already analyzed in the city’s sequel documents for its general planning. Ir. Thank you. Just reading between the lines on all of this. It’s my guess that folks in the area are looking for something more dense and maybe more mixed. Use \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m making the assumption that you’re planning single family homes because those are \nYerba Buena SX80: probably what’s pencilling. Well\, in this economy\, where multifamily housing is not pencilling well\, is that that’s the kind of approach here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, you have to have a project that makes financial sense\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: for better or worse. Unfortunately\, many times projects at higher densities are not financially feasible and won’t happen for decades. If ever. This is a site\, I believe other developers\, to my understanding\, have looked at this site as well. And if the obligation is to develop it. \nYerba Buena SX80: something near a hundred 25 units per acre. Nothing will happen. The site will sit vacant for decades. \nYerba Buena SX80: This\, this is what’s financially feasible. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And then my last question is\, there was mention of the Marina way. Wellness trail is the is the way that’s being incorporated through the adjacent street\, or how is that kind of being incorporated into the what? What’s the vision for that trail? And then how is that being incorporated? \nYerba Buena SX80: Excuse me\, Mike is actually working with placeworks and the trust for public land on that\, so he can answer a little bit more in detail. But at this point it we’re looking at doing it on the road. However\, we’re kind of talking a little bit about maybe taking that off off street and and putting in a class one. Yeah\, is that what we’re doing? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, currently\, right now\, it’s just designed as a shared street at the end of Marina way\, south in front of our project\, because that’s what fits with the city and their budget. And then it connects into the bay trail as it continues down the end\, and the vision for the Marina way. Wellness trail is like a really safe multimodal path\, the ultimate vision. Correct? Yeah. All the way from nodes or something along it is that is that correct? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, there’s there’s a section of the Welles trail that has been installed. And so it has separated bikeways. And then\, as there’s a section that’s going to have that as well. But at this end they’re trying to maximize in the iron Triangle neighborhood\, the separated because the traffic numbers are really low at the end of the street. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that was yeah. It’s a limit on space as well\, because there’s existing parking at the end of the terminal marina way south. So there’s no room to put in \nYerba Buena SX80: a protected bikeway. So that’s 1 of the design modifications to make it work. Okay\, thank you. Those are all my questions. Yeah\, I just want to confirm. So all the the homes on this site are for sale. Is that correct? Okay? And then there’s an affordable component to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I know you went through that quickly. Can you just tell us how that how that works \nYerba Buena SX80: below market rate. For sale units. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. So we have 10% would be the low income. I’m sorry. 30%\, 30 units. Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s 10% and 30 30 adus. Is that correct? Yeah\, it’s 10% of the housing units. \nYerba Buena SX80: And to clarify that when I read that description\, it looked like it read as if \nYerba Buena SX80: the the adus it was 10% of the adus. But how does it split out between the larger homes and the adus. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry. Yeah. My apologies. It’s currently 10% \nYerba Buena SX80: of of the proposed home. So that would be 7 of the single family homes. And that is\, I believe that is a prerequisite of the city that we followed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And then thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s see\, also was mentioned that it would be maintained by the developer. Is that the waterfront \nYerba Buena SX80: portion\, the frontage? Or is that the whole site? Or \nYerba Buena SX80: can you give me a detail on that\, as in past projects within the city of Richmond\, the Homeowners Association would take care of the area that is part of their property\, but it would be public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: So everything\, including the the Bay trail as well. The Bay trail itself has been\, is maintained by the city of Richmond\, the esplanade\, the concrete esplanade and the lighting. That’s part of a landscape and lighting district\, Marina Bay landscape and lighting district that takes care of that. And then I have one final question\, is it possible to pull up a Site plan? \nYerba Buena SX80: I was just curious. If if let’s say\, if you took one of the Northern units in the middle. And and you could just walk us through. How does that person get to the to the water? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, no worries. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. So this area. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I apologize. So what we have are the north\, South. I’m sorry. East\, west we have these Paseo’s. I’m going to just delete the you can see that all these walkways\, all these Paseo’s come down here \nYerba Buena SX80: to this area right along the Wellness trail\, and then there are sidewalks on both sides that come down\, and there’s a crosswalk\, and this is the main funneling point here\, and then there’s also sidewalks right along the inside that come out. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a little boardwalk right here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, God\, sorry I have an old \nYerba Buena SX80: copy. There’s a boardwalk here\, there’s a walkway here\, there’s you know\, so so there are multiple points \nYerba Buena SX80: that people can get through. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I was just noticing that the green areas\, the Paseo’s connect to the to the road\, not to the water\, and I’m sure you must have had some conversations about that. Maybe you could just walk us through the thought process there. Okay\, so we have them connecting to the Wellness trail as well as there’s the sidewalks that go right down along each side that go right to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let me just delete that. There we go. Now you can see it a little bit better. \nYerba Buena SX80: First.st \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, it’s really \nYerba Buena SX80: It gets down to kind of a simple density issue of. If you’re gonna turn those sales the other way and have to get the car circulation in there and stuff like that\, it would just require a lot more roadway and therefore less green space and fewer homes. So this was a way of trying to really get maximum \nYerba Buena SX80: efficiency out of the vehicular circulation. So we need the most room for open space residences and things like that. And we thought that the and the Paseo’s filtering to either out to Marina Bay\, south\, or to that interior street\, provides a good\, efficient. \nYerba Buena SX80: clear access to the water. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And those sidewalks are what like bye\, 6 feet something like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: 5 feet 5 feet. Got it? Okay. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Stefan\, thanks\, Jacinta. I just have one question related to adaptation. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, if I understand\, in the staff presentation\, the 66 inch end of century condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s some expectation of overtopping onto the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is\, has the applicant considered adaptation strategies\, if and when \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay trail frontage would not be accessible. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that’s where we have an additional path adjacent to the homes. That is a public access path\, and that is up at a higher elevation. 3 feet above 4 feet above the \nYerba Buena SX80: existing bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for sea level rise of the adaptation we’re is\, is that the line that’s adjacent to the red line on the plan? Yes\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so the distance between the front of the units\, and that path is \nYerba Buena SX80: so. It’s right. That path is right adjacent to the. So the front yard opens up to that path\, and that’s a public access path. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then it connects to Marina way South cul-de-sac all the way down. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I’m just going to. I just want to clarify a couple of things. If you could bring up that site plan again. \nYerba Buena SX80: It was just difficult in the package to actually see the details. \nYerba Buena SX80: Look\, I think we’ve got online people participate participating. So if you could go back to the Site plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. Now\, if you could just shift\, well\, I’m just gonna say\, shift up. Yeah. And then if you could zoom in on the area immediately adjacent the Rosie\, the Riveter Museum. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Are you able to enlarge that at all \nYerba Buena SX80: right? So so just to walk. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just so\, I understand there is a basically a a service. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know if you’re calling that a paseo as well. But it’s the service road between the 2 units. So that’s the garage that people go in and out of. And when you get to the end\, can you just walk me through how people actually back around and turn around and get in and out? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, the the the alleyway extends a little\, you know\, 2\, 3\, 4 feet beyond the where the garage door is\, and that’s a pretty standard thing in parking lots and things like that where somebody’s backs out\, and they have room that that \nYerba Buena SX80: between their garage door and the curb on the other side there’s at least 24 feet\, which is pretty standard dimension for aisles. Drive aisles and things like that. So somebody does have the room to back up \nYerba Buena SX80: and then drive out directly. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And then\, as we as we move\, I’m just gonna say\, left here\, towards the bay trail and the 100 foot shoreline band. And just for the benefit of everyone. Looking at this. \nYerba Buena SX80: the 100 foot shoreline band is that purple line right there? Correct? Yeah. So \nYerba Buena SX80: so the 100 foot shoreline band actually intersects with the front side of the Rosy the\, I should say\, about halfway along the Rosy\, the Riveter Museum. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the path that I think\, Stefan\, to your question. The path that we we’re told is the \nYerba Buena SX80: the path that would\, you know\, be an adaptation public access path \nYerba Buena SX80: then extends up\, but doesn’t. It’s at the moment it just cuts back into a house? Yeah. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I did have another question. So \nYerba Buena SX80: just from a design standpoint. Perhaps the architect could could explain. Front versus back versus side. It looks on the elevations like the sides. Really a typical side on it’s very plain elevation correct. Nothing much going on there\, except. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, a couple of bathroom windows\, or something like that bathroom windows\, some some bedroom window\, some additional bedside bedroom windows look real quickly at the second level\, where the main living spaces are. I think we’ve got at least some windows into the living rooms and dining rooms and things like that. But \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s really dictated a lot by what the \nYerba Buena SX80: anticipated furniture arrangements will be\, and stuff like that inside the in the inside the houses\, trying to make some furnishable. Yeah\, I mean\, so I mean\, it really looks to me like the intention architecturally is that you know the front of the house which you would expect is is facing the great views\, and you know the amenity in the trail\, and so on. So for the owners of each of those houses they have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can you just describe how how you would describe to them what their front yard is \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s there’s the the upper level walkway that that Michael was describing\, and then there’s a a small \nYerba Buena SX80: landscape band in between that and their front porch\, and so that would essentially be their front yard. It’s \nYerba Buena SX80: so. So that that’s what they would imagine is their private garden\, if you like\, versus the public space. I guess\, in the sense that it’s on their lot. Yeah\, it’s it’s made. You guys can correct me if I’m wrong. But that’s a landscape\, the landscape that would be maintained by the Homeowners Association. So it’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: well is the property line\, the red line \nYerba Buena SX80: it? That’s the lot\, not the property line\, but the lot line. So the existing \nYerba Buena SX80: property line. I don’t see it on this retentional. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think their lot line\, I think\, actually\, is the back of the sidewalk. Yeah\, okay\, so yeah\, right\, the lot line is the red line. But yeah\, the property line is that dashed black line in the middle of the bay trail. Okay? Just so\, just so we clear on exactly what’s going on here. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, yes\, Stefan\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Understanding that I believe that this site has a minimum density requirement. Do you do you agree with that statement \nYerba Buena SX80: that the Cm 5 has a minimum density requirement of 40 dwelling into the acre. \nYerba Buena SX80: The the regulation here is the general plan\, which is 0 to 125\, and again the zoning\, the zoning says\, 40 to 125. But the general plan\, the general plan is a higher level document in California land use law\, and again\, it’s been deemed consistent with the city’s regulations legally. So\, the general plan allowing \nYerba Buena SX80: down to 0\, allows the minimum density requirement of 40 to not be applicable. Correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, that was hopeful to see that in large. So thank you for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s the only question I have\, I think. Let me just double check that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, okay\, so I think that concludes clarifying questions. We will now move to public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we have\, received a number of public comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: written comments. And then we have in person or online comments. So actually\, should we do the in person 1st and then walk through the submitted comments\, we’ll do in person\, then online. And then anybody who hasn’t \nYerba Buena SX80: readdress their comments that they submitted. I will summarize those comments. Excellent! Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright. Jordan\, the stabler cool. \nYerba Buena SX80: So hit the button. Okay\, got you? Good. Good evening\, everyone. Boy\, with all these blinking lights. I feel like I’m in the house soup computer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anyway\, I’m a my name’s Jordan distabler. I’m a resident of the Point Richmond district of Richmond\, and I’ve been resident there for 10 years\, and from Berkeley originally\, and for what it’s worth. My background is masters in landscape architecture. And I served on the Berkeley City Planning Commission. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know. It’s my understanding that the current iteration of this project has evolved to this point in the planning process due in large part to the city of Richmond’s somewhat dysfunctional aspect of failing to submit a project review letter in a timely fashion. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s my understanding\, you know. I’m all for housing\, being built on the site. I don’t have any criticisms of this this current iteration. However\, I think it’s totally inappropriate to be building single family housing \nYerba Buena SX80: on a site that is in per the general plan of 2030 city general plan is designating that as a high intensity usage area\, and particularly a transit oriented development site in the sense that the Richmond Ferry terminal is right\, you know\, within a thousand feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it makes no sense. And I realize that maybe the the financials don’t pan out to a higher density project at this point in time. I say\, you know\, there’s a growing demand for housing. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it seems a shame to delegate waterfront living to single family housing\, when I think more people should be able to live on the \nYerba Buena SX80: on the shoreline in higher density medium to high density. I’m totally fine with that and I think we can do better here. And so I’m really against this current iteration. Nothing personal\, but I think we can do better\, and I’m just disappointed in the city of Richmond. We’re not doing their their jobs\, in my opinion. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, there’s like\, I said. There’s a lot of dysfunction in that city\, but I don’t think we should suffer for that \nYerba Buena SX80: because once these houses are built. They’re going to be there for decades\, and it’s a missed opportunity as far as I’m concerned. So thank you very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Jordan. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just want to offer anyone online. If you could raise your hand for public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. I have 2 comments. One is the 1st one is Bruce Brubaker. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m going to unmute mute. If you could state your name and affiliation\, and you’ll have 3 min. \nBruce Brubaker: Hello! Can you hear me? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, we can hear you. \nBruce Brubaker: Thank you. I am going to make a couple comments about the Richmond Wellness Trail. \nBruce Brubaker: The way the Wellness trail is being planned currently is a Class 4\, \nBruce Brubaker: protected bike lane on each side\, north of Hall Street. \nBruce Brubaker: where this project is\, is proposed to be a class 3. Sherro’s project and \nBruce Brubaker: I have 3 points to make. About that. One is to switch from the class 4 lanes down to a share. Rows is confusing for bus cyclists \nBruce Brubaker: and you know\, just isn’t clear and might be hazardous to make that switch. \nBruce Brubaker: I want to also make the point that there’s going to be additional traffic here. If this project moves forward. \nBruce Brubaker: That will be using that street where the where the share owes is \nBruce Brubaker: are not only coming into the street. But there’s additional traffic now\, because of this project. All vehicles entering the project will be going down that street Marine way south to go into the project. So there’s additional traffic there. I also want to point out that the plan shows that there’s perpendicular parking \nBruce Brubaker: that the project is planning along that stretch of Marina way south\, so that cars would actually back up into the street where there are sherrows \nBruce Brubaker: and bikes are sharing with with the vehicles. So I think I think that \nBruce Brubaker: the the project should have a better connection from the Wellness trail north of Hall to the Bay trail rather than going to Sherrow’s\, and one of the ways that that could happen \nBruce Brubaker: is to continue the Class 4 trail \nBruce Brubaker: to the bay trail\, and that would mean reducing or eliminating some parking\, some parallel parking \nBruce Brubaker: on a block\, and another way to do it would be to to make it a more slow shared street\, so in some way change the paving. \nBruce Brubaker: or make additional efforts to narrow the street in a way that makes it safe for cars and vehicles to share. So \nBruce Brubaker: that’s my comment. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Let’s see. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next\, I have Ahmad Anderson. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to do for sex? Oh\, I thought you wanted to do that. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, okay\, to unlock them. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry about that\, Ahmad. You’ll you’re next. If you could please state your name and affiliation\, you’ll have 3 min. Thank you. \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): Good evening. My name is Aman Anderson. I am a former economic development chair of the Economic Development Commission for the City of Richmond. Also\, I’ll give you some background. My mom was the former mayor of the city of Richmond\, who led the drive to bring the ferry back to the city of Richmond. \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): with the hopes that there would be this opportunity\, not necessarily for single housing\, but knowing the need of crisis for housing\, as we begin to look at the general plan and the great\, the greatness need for a mixed use. \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): The other thought process is\, I’m concerned\, like the 1st caller\, that the city of Richmond slept on this opportunity to hear the voice of the people and the voice of the people who were concerned about not only congestion\, but also seeing that way for the use of transportation \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): between the iron triangle\, safety for bicyclists\, safety for commuters at the same time\, but most importantly\, the voice of the people have said\, single family housing is not the direction they want to go \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): from Economic Development Commissioner standpoint. I I do agree that we in the city of Richmond. We do have some dysfunctions\, but there are voices that are crying out for you to take a moment to pause. Think about the good that this can do if we take a moment to really step back and focus \nAhmad Anderson (he\,his\,him): on what the folks need in the city of Richmond from housing\, better transportation\, safety\, and environmental concerns as well. I thank you very much for your time\, and have a good night. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Next I have Bruce Bayard \nYerba Buena SX80: going to unmute you\, and you have 3 min. \nBruce Beyaert: Am I unmuted. \nYerba Buena SX80: You are unmuted. We can hear you. \nBruce Beyaert: Thank you. Chair Mccann\, members of the board. My name is Bruce Byert. I’m the chair of track. The trails for Richmond Action Committee. \nBruce Beyaert: First.st I’d like to say that we support the comments made by Lee. Ho! Of Mtc’s Bay Trail group. \nBruce Beyaert: They’re very good and include the fact that bay trail should be widened to comply with the current design guidelines\, and\, moreover\, it seems\, from the staff presentation it should be elevated to allow for sea level rise. If I could have sheet 6 of the plans\, please. I’d like to address the need \nBruce Beyaert: to provide. Move the development back. So there’s more public access. \nBruce Beyaert: If you look at sheet 6 project sections\, you will see it’s counted as public space. \nBruce Beyaert: The landscaping adjacent to the front of the house. The front door of the house is public space. If you can believe that \nBruce Beyaert: in addition\, the 5 foot wide sidewalk is deemed public space\, and that is how people and service personnel and deliveries get to the front door of the house. How is that public space? \nBruce Beyaert: In fact\, you see the cross section here. There is\, in fact\, only about 15 to 20 foot \nBruce Beyaert: of the private property \nBruce Beyaert: inland of the of the property line that is really accessible public street\, other than the \nBruce Beyaert: 11 or 12 feet that’s adjacent to the front wall of the house. \nBruce Beyaert: The city of Richmond’s shoreline overlay district zoning \nBruce Beyaert: requires that there be no non-marine non water related property. \nYerba Buena SX80: Within the 100 foot band\, but unfortunately that was legally deemed complete. So I hope you can remedy that. \nBruce Beyaert: By moving the houses back out of the 100 foot band\, as well as a sidewalk and landscaping adjacent to the house\, and providing access to the house. \nBruce Beyaert: This clearly sure provided maximum feasible public access to the shoreline. \nBruce Beyaert: It’s very strange that the only way that people can get to their front door is using a public path. \nBruce Beyaert: and the public will not feel it to be very public. Walking immediately adjacent to somebody’s front door \nBruce Beyaert: and their front yard 6 foot wide landscaping \nBruce Beyaert: site. So thank you very much for this opportunity to comment\, and I hope that the problems in this plan can be remedied by Bcdc. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chair. That’s the end of public comments online. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Additionally\, Staff received the following public comments that have been distributed to the board and posted to the website in the order of reception from Tom Butt\, a Richmond Resident commented that \nYerba Buena SX80: the design is a suburban development of 20 units\, an acre on a site that is supposed to be a dense transit\, oriented development. The design does not take advantage of its base setting in that most of the homes have no water view\, and look across the street at other houses\, and that the houses located within the 100 foot \nYerba Buena SX80: within 100 feet of the mean high water line conflicts with the city’s shoreline overlay district ordinance for allowable structures that States quote no non water. Related structures are permitted outright within the 100 foot tidal buffer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lee\, Wo. From Mtc. Bay trail commented that the proposed project will have a significant impact on the level of use and demand for the bay trail\, with the additional units. In addition to existing high use and demand from nearby destinations. Consider increasing the capacity of the bay trail. Currently\, it’s roughly 12 feet in width\, but per the Bay trail guidelines it should be a minimum of 18 foot corridor with additional width. Considered for areas of higher use. \nYerba Buena SX80: there is opportunity to improve the existing nearby bay trail\, since the pavement for the existing trail is in need of repaving and rebuilding. \nYerba Buena SX80: consider public access improvements that could\, that would complement or support the Rosie. The riveter programs and activities\, including an area to congregate rest and picnic. \nYerba Buena SX80: Other improvements may be interpretation materials or a themed play area. As there are a few playgrounds in the area \nYerba Buena SX80: amenities serving the bay trail like water\, fill stations and bike repair stations. \nYerba Buena SX80: Consider additional seating and viewpoint viewpoint areas to take advantage of the natural viewpoints along this frontage. \nYerba Buena SX80: improving connections to the Bay trail and the shoreline in coordination with the Richmond Wellness trail and adjacent sites\, and the current design creates a barrier between the bay trail and the public space and the development itself. He encourages more gradual and seamless transitions from private to public. In order to minimize the quote private feel of the waterfront \nYerba Buena SX80: we received a public comment from the attorney for the developer\, Brian Winter. He’s gone over his comments\, so I won’t repeat those \nYerba Buena SX80: from the Trust for public land. They’re the developers of the Richmond Wellness Trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: they commented. The proposed Marina Point development greatly diminishes sight lines to the shoreline and falls short of enhancing public access and use of the waterfront open space. The proximity of the proposed homes to the public waterfront and bay trail disrupts the visual and physical connection. \nYerba Buena SX80: The proposed housing development does not acknowledge the adjacency to the Rosie of the River National Historic Park site. It diminishes the Museum building and its visibility and does not elevate the significance of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: The small picnic area and play areas on the southeast side of the project site are not well integrated into the public interface with the Bay trail\, and should be reconsidered to adequately serve the needs of trail users and the community. \nYerba Buena SX80: The proposed pull-in parking along Marina way\, south conflicts with the trails shared Bike Lane\, creating safety hazards. There are also concerns that the vehicular traffic in and out of the development will further compromise cyclist and pedestrian safety in the area. Their recommendations include providing a larger\, buffer zone \nYerba Buena SX80: along the shoreline\, enhancing the significance of the Rosa Riveter Museum\, including providing better visual access\, provide public park access\, and incorporate the proposed park into the existing open space system as a publicly accessible space. Take bicycle safety measures\, including reevaluating the Pull-in parking along Marina way south to reduce the conflicts of the Bike lane. \nYerba Buena SX80: We received a public comment from Bruce Bayer\, who just did his own \nYerba Buena SX80: public comment. And then\, finally\, this afternoon we received a comment from Lyzel Ayon of Caltrans\, stating the agency is interested in engaging in the multi-agency and regional collaboration to find multi-benefit solutions that protect vulnerable shorelines\, communities infrastructure and the environment emphasizing that any adaptation measures should be coordinated and consistent with any potential countywide efforts for shoreline adaptation\, climate adaptation and vulnerability assessments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those were the letters that we received. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Ashley. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I do want to thank everyone who’s provided either in person or written comments. These are extremely helpful and valuable\, because\, I would have to say\, you know\, we really are at the beginning of a process here\, even though it might seem like it’s a long way down the track. I noted that \nYerba Buena SX80: to date. There have been 3 public meetings held one with the community\, and for a project of this importance significance\, you know\, per the general plan per many of the comments here. One would have to expect that there is a realistic\, legitimate community process that will allow \nYerba Buena SX80: response from the proponent and and response in terms of you know how the development is approached. So thank you all for your comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, now\, with that we’ll move to the board discussion and summary\, and just for the proponents. This really is the opportunity for the board to share reactions\, ideas. We don’t typically engage with the proponent during this stage of the meeting. But at the end of the meeting we do. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know we do provide an opportunity for the proponent to respond. So with that\, I just want to frame this frame\, this for the for the board\, so that we are \nYerba Buena SX80: keeping ourselves on track here. At the beginning of the \nYerba Buena SX80: meeting we were given some guidance. Let me just get to the right piece of paper to make sure I stay on track. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the staff reminded us\, and and the proponent as well\, talked about the \nYerba Buena SX80: the core access\, the core. Public access objectives that we always focus on. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know the degree that public access is public and fills public\, the usability of the public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: the visual access making sure that it’s enhancing visual access to the bay and the shoreline enhancing the visual quality of the bay shoreline\, the adjacent developments. In this case there are some very significant adjacent developments providing connections to continuity along the shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: and again\, in this case it is at a very critical node. So we need to make sure we take that that particular point thoughtfully and carefully\, taking advantage of the base setting. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then making sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: the public access is compatible with the wildlife wildlife. So Staff have asked us to \nYerba Buena SX80: focus in on 4 particular questions that will help staff as they continue to engage with this project. So the 1st question is\, does the project design enhance the user’s access to\, and the experience of the shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what what other opportunities are there to build connections\, or to further improve the existing public access as part of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that’s really wrapping. You know\, our our dialogue should really really focus in on all related \nYerba Buena SX80: thoughts and questions in relation to access. Second question\, does the project is designed provide sufficient capacity for future adaptation strategies? \nYerba Buena SX80: And what could be done to the current design? What could be incorporated to make sure that shoreline \nYerba Buena SX80: changes in the future are able to be absorbed. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then the 3rd question\, Does does the landscaping and the fitness program along the eastern edge of the development\, read as a public connection to the shoreline. And what design recommendations would we provide to encourage public use for these areas? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then some comments on the. We didn’t hear a lot of detail in the presentation\, but any reaction to the proposed plant and material palettes which were in the package. So we should certainly comment on those. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So \nYerba Buena SX80: what I’d like to do as we usually do is just ask each member of the board to maybe focus in on particular aspects of any of these questions that you want to pick up on in in your comments. And then in our dialogue. So \nYerba Buena SX80: who would like to kick off kristen? Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think I have. Let’s see maybe 3 buckets of comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think. The 1st is about the waterfront itself\, and the design of the waterfront and \nYerba Buena SX80: the kind of de minimis dimensions of that public access along the waterfront. And I think the fact that a few board members were alluding to in our earlier questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: that these paths are very narrow. They don’t feel very public\, particularly the one that is sort of just a path to door yards and not really connecting \nYerba Buena SX80: between public paths. Public paths should connect to each other and have more permeability and accessibility\, and I think at least one of these paths should at least meet the minimum bay trail dimensions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think if we were aiming to have a great waterfront experience\, it should at least meet the minimum Bcdc requirements which are the minimum dimensions. Sea level rise\, access during sea level rise events\, and it sounds like wave run up is a big issue. And so maybe just taking a 3 foot elevation is not quite actually providing the right level of access. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s also difficult to say that this park. \nYerba Buena SX80: in this setting\, next to the Rosie\, the Riveter Museum\, next to a ferry landing next to a kind of a commercial area and waterfront parks. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s very difficult to say that this space is meeting public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: Given the encroachment of these townhomes into that 100 foot band\, and also the very kind of minimal \nYerba Buena SX80: attention to design in that band. So I think those 2 things combined. It doesn’t feel generous spatially\, and it doesn’t feel generous from a design perspective. And I think it’s really a missed opportunity. I mean \nYerba Buena SX80: this site. Actually\, you’re kind of missing the thing that’s so great about this site\, which is the waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: And in some ways this feels like a feasibility study turned into a master plan \nYerba Buena SX80: with some landscape around the edges. \nYerba Buena SX80: and not really a great master plan for such a fantastic waterfront site. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I really understand the feasibility issues right now with housing. It’s really\, I mean\, housing is hard to develop right now. But I do think that \nYerba Buena SX80: this site\, is it? It’s sort of undermining its own value with the current design\, particularly at the waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess one more. One more point just on access is\, I do think that the bike lanes \nYerba Buena SX80: are not really meeting the goals of the Wellness trail\, and having safer\, more visible\, more connected bike lanes. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I know it’s challenging sometimes within a section to get those bike lanes working. So maybe\, look. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, beyond the street section itself. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe look at the site itself for how to get bike access to the waterfront more safely\, particularly where the bike lanes are just kind of going straight through the cul-de-sac at the end. That feels \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of dangerous\, actually and then just one more point about the density. It’s my understanding that \nYerba Buena SX80: actually\, where \nYerba Buena SX80: general plan and zoning\, where there’s inconsistency between general plan and zoning\, the greater shall prevail. I believe that’s Ab. 2\, 34\, and the point of all of these State density bonuses is not to build housing at any cost. It’s to build more housing\, more dense housing\, more affordable housing. I’m not a lawyer. So obviously\, I defer to the lawyers on this. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I do. It does sound like the intention of the city is to have a more dense \nYerba Buena SX80: mixed use kind of a node here\, and so it’s hard to put that together with the kind of minimal waterfront design and say that this is meeting the intent of all of the plans. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, these are good points. And I think\, \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just gonna sort of speak \nYerba Buena SX80: jump in. If you don’t agree with what I’m going to say\, but I think the Board would \nYerba Buena SX80: have general agreement with what you’re you’ve just said so\, I think\, and and I like the way in which you have\, you know\, been very clear about the sort of the buckets of comments here. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think what we should do is just continue to. I mean\, I I continue to build out the other \nYerba Buena SX80: issues that are of concern relative to visual access safety access\, the bay trail itself. Let’s let’s just keep moving on those important topics and others that are important\, Tom\, do you want to \nYerba Buena SX80: jump in? \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, yeah\, I think we all agree with the kind of the basic observations of \nYerba Buena SX80: how we appropriately feel that this plan is on this site. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: I think this is probably the single\, most valuable and important parcel in the whole city of Richmond. \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of how this the future city is going to develop with respect \nYerba Buena SX80: to its number one visitor site which is rosy\, the river. That’s a number one tourist attraction \nYerba Buena SX80: to the Craneway pavilion where the public activities are supported there\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: the the position along the the waterfront\, and of course the the ferry terminal. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a new. This\, you know\, when people mention transit or in development. That’s what they’re talking about. \nYerba Buena SX80: Transportation\, too. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it would seem to indicate what the plan\, what the planning calls for\, which is high intensity\, mixed use\, etc\, etc. You know \nYerba Buena SX80: something that basically possible in this market. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, I don’t know if that’s really true. I know people’s judgment developers. Judgment in Richmond is that only single family housing can work\, and I don’t know if I understand or believe that. But that’s what comes through. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know that David Trachtenberg has done a pretty nice project called the Point. \nYerba Buena SX80: with a whole series of 3 story attached townhouses with a lot more density\, and they’ve he’s also provided space for a public cafe and some other things that are amenities for the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel like the pushing into the shoreline band \nYerba Buena SX80: when we approve stuff like that is because the there’s something the public’s getting. We’re not getting any public like anything out of the units being over the line. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that it should pull back \nYerba Buena SX80: behind the line number one. It should be a major public promenade of the amenities and scale that Marcia talked about already\, but much more expanded \nYerba Buena SX80: building on this incredible history\, and the views and the experience of the public expanding down the shoreline from from Rosa River\, expanding from Cranley Pavilion \nYerba Buena SX80: to create a public amenity\, a piece of public domain \nYerba Buena SX80: that is really major and significant. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it it’s true that if if you require all these things\, then how’s project gonna pencil? Just take our ball and go home. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would offer personally that I would trade \nYerba Buena SX80: won the 1st Level facing out onto this promenade \nYerba Buena SX80: for space\, which is a public use. \nYerba Buena SX80: whether it’s public\, supporting\, commercial or retail\, or anything like that\, and then stack up \nYerba Buena SX80: on top of that to the degree possible\, and then go forward with the plan. Maybe that would pencil. Maybe this could be a negotiation that could be considered in the current market. Understanding where we are\, I’d rather see \nYerba Buena SX80: much more dense project\, but I don’t not sure it’ll ever happen\, and we are under pressure to approve \nYerba Buena SX80: housing in this state. Now\, there’s there’s a lot of legislation\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: so forth\, that is pushing hard on this\, and people that don’t get with it\, you know\, they just get pushed to the side also. So I think there’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: potential negotiation over public domain that could be productive \nYerba Buena SX80: for this site and instill pencil for your project. Maybe \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s why I have a lot of things to say. But that’s my main point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Tom\, can I build on that just and if we could get the plan up. \nYerba Buena SX80: if someone could put the plan up \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, Tom\, one of the things that I think you know\, we’re all gonna be saying in different ways\, you know\, is the. \nYerba Buena SX80: But with the same conclusion is that the fact that so much of the housing is inside the 100 foot shoreline band that we simply run out of room to do the things that are the basic provisions that need to occur within the 100 foot shoreline band. For a variety of reasons\, visual access\, public access\, environmental conditions\, adaptation\, vulnerability. The list goes on\, and so we are faced with \nYerba Buena SX80: in fact\, I can’t even really think of a project that we’ve reviewed before that has this level of compromise in \nYerba Buena SX80: a section of the Bay trail which is in such an important area. Yeah. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, one thing that occurred to me is\, you know\, in the art of compromise. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just gonna \nYerba Buena SX80: say something here that we may. You know this is just the sort of process that I would hope \nYerba Buena SX80: that the development team is going through. So if you think about the importance of the bay trail in this segment\, and you look at \nYerba Buena SX80: the adjacent conditions to the Rosie\, the Riverdo Museum\, and it seems just \nYerba Buena SX80: impossible to me to have a single family home\, you know\, within \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know 8 feet 10 feet. Whatever the offset is from from that very important \nYerba Buena SX80: regionally\, actually\, nationally important venue. So you know\, could you pick up those 4 houses? \nYerba Buena SX80: And could you say \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re going to? I mean\, because this is for the people sitting over here. This is often the type of dialogue that we have. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re going to give you something because it’s within\, you know\, we’re going to give you something\, and you give us something. So if we took those 4 houses \nYerba Buena SX80: out \nYerba Buena SX80: on the basis that we want to create a meaningful plaza\, a meaningful transition. Widen the bay trail\, put in appropriate buffers\, landscape it appropriately. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then there are 4 houses that in the developer’s world have to be put somewhere else to make the project stack up. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: could you get creative\, you know? Could you attach a couple of the houses. Could you rethink that park in the middle that\, you know? Really? Do they need that park when there’s all the playgrounds and all of the waterfront to enjoy\, and perhaps a really much\, you know\, a much bigger space. Now I’m just thinking aloud. But this is the sort of this is the sort of thing that I would hope a development team would be going through this\, you know. Could you? Could you attach 5 or 6 houses at the back. And okay\, let’s \nYerba Buena SX80: less money. But at the moment\, you know\, less expensive real estate. But at the moment they’re on the backside facing industrial developments\, anyway. So what’s their sale price going to be like compared to you know the front? So \nYerba Buena SX80: this is the I just think that there is such a compromise on the bay trail and the \nYerba Buena SX80: and the shoreline band. As you progress towards the you know the core of this node that’s so critical for Richmond. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m going to stop there. But I’m just\, you know\, respond\, please. Others\, you know\, to to this theoretical \nYerba Buena SX80: possibility that I’m putting out there. \nYerba Buena SX80: I like the approach. I mean\, I\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: thinking creatively about the site. Could you have more height in the back\, and you would have attached units\, but at the same time those units would have views that they don’t have now. So\, you know\, is there some way of you know\, mixing it up a little bit. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I completely understand that having similar unit types\, you know\, repeated this many times\, that there’s an economy of scale there. But you just kind of wonder if there’s if there’s some room \nYerba Buena SX80: for flexibility there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, to get the units out of at least some units out of the shoreline band. I mean\, we’re all practical people. We have \nYerba Buena SX80: lived working with projects that we need to succeed all of our careers. So you know the we’re not here to block. But but we are here to protect the public interests in the bay trail and \nYerba Buena SX80: and to protect the future in the face of sea level rise. And I just find that this current proposal is really difficult to accept the way it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: presented at the moment. So Stefan\, jump in. Yeah\, I just want to say. I mean\, I think it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like to say out loud that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know our our focus is on the \nYerba Buena SX80: public access and the nature of public space in the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we see many projects where the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the full benefit of the public space is not compromised by what’s \nYerba Buena SX80: proposed in the private portion of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think that what we’re struggling with here is that this is this feels very much like a case where what’s being proposed in the private portion of the project is really compromising. \nYerba Buena SX80: The potential for public space? So you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not in our nature to comment on \nYerba Buena SX80: on the buildings and the nature of the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I would say that maybe sort of the the assumption here that 100 \nYerba Buena SX80: identical units should be the basis for the build out of the site. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is probably more central to a \nYerba Buena SX80: effective solution than in other locations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I would say that \nYerba Buena SX80: Even this architect has done much more innovative fee\, simple configurations \nYerba Buena SX80: within a few miles of the site \nYerba Buena SX80: that I think would bring benefit to this location. \nYerba Buena SX80: In Hercules there is the Bayside Development\, which my memory is \nYerba Buena SX80: about 335 units on 13 acres\, and it is one predominantly one and 2 units \nYerba Buena SX80: fee simple buildings\, many of which are on \nYerba Buena SX80: 26 by 45 foot parcels. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that neighborhood now is over a decade old and feels very good. \nYerba Buena SX80: and one of the key elements\, I think that makes that neighborhood special is that the the entry to the \nYerba Buena SX80: the units is actually separated\, vertically from the street space. \nYerba Buena SX80: Through a sort of a traditional stoop design \nYerba Buena SX80: which this project\, I think could benefit from \nYerba Buena SX80: and nearby the Bayside project is the promenade Development\, which is now on almost 20 years old. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where there are fee simple townhouses over live workspaces\, again on postage\, stamp parcels\, and that benefit from a situation where the alley \nYerba Buena SX80: is higher in elevation than the entry at the street\, which is similar situation that you have. \nYerba Buena SX80: And both of those scenarios could provide you with a little bit more breathing room \nYerba Buena SX80: at the edge. And I think would also benefit from \nYerba Buena SX80: creating a more public condition without you needing to revert to \nYerba Buena SX80: a mixed use or non fee\, simple configuration \nYerba Buena SX80: and so I would urge you to. I think\, if you are going to \nYerba Buena SX80: continue to think about this site as a townhouse location for townhouses or \nYerba Buena SX80: houses in a townhouse configuration. I would urge you to think more creatively about the site planning\, because I think that that would actually be instrumental in \nYerba Buena SX80: opening up the public view corridors and \nYerba Buena SX80: the public access at the shoreline that would \nYerba Buena SX80: meet many of the comments that we’ve made here today\, but also that have been recorded in the letters from others. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Stefan. Bob. Go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. See if I can \nYerba Buena SX80: look at people when I talk so. You know. So I’m a coastal engineer\, civil engineer\, and I’m really concerned about the limited amount of space \nYerba Buena SX80: for wave dissipation with sea level rise. I really the the bay trail \nYerba Buena SX80: will not be able to stay where it is with sea level rise. So there needs to be space to move it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you haven’t\, in my view\, provided enough space for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think you need I think there’s a need for an adaptation plan that addresses sea level rise 3 feet is\, I would say\, the minimum. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it should address higher amounts of sea level rise within the forecasting period \nYerba Buena SX80: or the life of the development \nYerba Buena SX80: and being careful to note that there are implications. If Fema mounts \nYerba Buena SX80: residential properties into the flood zone in the future \nYerba Buena SX80: they have. That’s a big issue for property owners. \nYerba Buena SX80: So besides\, the fact that there’s a real risk of damage and anything they were to that those houses would not really be accessible during certain conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: It wouldn’t be safe for people or bicycles or anything. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t. I mean\, I appreciate the \nYerba Buena SX80: interest in compromising with\, you know\, 5 of the units\, but I think all the the Bayside units should be moved out of the shoreline band \nYerba Buena SX80: from my perspective as a coastal engineer\, considering sea level rise. That’s kind of my\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: strong opinion on this. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just don’t think it works \nYerba Buena SX80: plus it would. It’s a great site to have space. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I mean\, you can see down the bay \nYerba Buena SX80: it. One of the reasons why there. There are wave issues. There is because there is a fetch down into the bay\, and when the winds blow out of the south during storms there are waves. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t see any profiles that show how deep the water is. I know\, over at the Richmond Peninsula there’s a pretty good mud flat at low tide. I’m not sure that’s the case here. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so I’m also concerned that I don’t think this topic has been given adequate attention \nYerba Buena SX80: in the in the development of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I’m a pretty strong negative \nYerba Buena SX80: vote on this on this plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And Bob\, just to be accurate\, you know\, I mean that \nYerba Buena SX80: throwing out\, can you? That statement? Can you shift 4 of the houses? I mean the the real \nYerba Buena SX80: purpose of saying that is just to try and open. I like where you’re going with it. I it’s just that. I I you know it doesn’t really change where I’m coming from for everyone else to consider\, and I just want to be really clear about it. I am an engineer. I’ve done a lot of coastal work. I’m not comfortable with the design. That’s this way\, I feel about it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So I think we’ve really covered the topic of access experience of the shoreline. And I would say\, the level of detail in these submissions is extremely helpful\, I think\, to Staff as well. I don’t think we need to reiterate them\, but there were a series of points made about. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, enhancing the quality of experience for the for people walking or or cycling\, adequate seating\, and so on\, some excellent comments which I would just endorse all of the comments that were made on those from those aspects. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, Bob\, you’ve been addressing? Question 2. Very clearly. \nYerba Buena SX80: can I make a comment about 2? Yes\, go ahead. Regarding the adaptation. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Bob\, you covered that super. Well\, I just want to say that the mitigation\, if there was any in the future that would happen by the Homeowners Association. So you know\, that is a pretty big lift to do coastal engineering\, you know\, for a small group like that. And then with the 10% affordable units\, it kind of reduces the pool that I think you could draw on to get funds\, you know\, to actually do that work. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we’re already not as high above sea level as we would like to be\, and that adaptation comes sooner than normal or sooner than we think\, and it seems like sea level rise is always accelerating\, not decreasing. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s it’s not. It’s a logarithmic curve. I think that should be taken into account. Because this is for sale housing. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And just to make a \nYerba Buena SX80: just an additional point about that\, you know\, we we frequently \nYerba Buena SX80: fairly frequently see see projects where there is some incursion into the 100 foot shoreline band. But\, you know\, when it’s a parking garage or a \nYerba Buena SX80: office building or a restaurant\, you know\, we see all sorts of different buildings in that May come into the zone some distance\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: we always take a different point of view with housing\, because housing is a 24 HA day occupied use. It’s not\, you know an office where people are there 9 to 5\, and it’s\, you know\, not there on the weekends. And so there is a level of \nYerba Buena SX80: enhanced \nYerba Buena SX80: risk going back to question 2\, you know\, in relation to future adaptation. I just think the question is much more serious when it is housing versus other land uses. So \nYerba Buena SX80: just to make that point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, just moving to question 3. There’s the fitness program along the corner of the development. And we saw we’ve seen. We have the plan here. We saw a rendering. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. The fitness is there again\, you know. Good to have the facilities very close to. It’s very. They’re very close to the house on the corner\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess everyone would coexist there. Yeah\, if you can just go in a little further. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I like the fact that that \nYerba Buena SX80: that I think the team’s done a nice job of putting something there. That bicycle \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, bicyclists and others can\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, use? It’s a it’s a great functional area. I I \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that along well\, just consistent with the comments we’ve made already. I think it’s it’s a fairly \nYerba Buena SX80: tight the way it’s positioned there. But \nYerba Buena SX80: any other thoughts on that to help the staff on this point\, Tom. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s working elsewhere. Put a fitness center there on the corner. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s simple. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gary\, any other thoughts on that are those private patios that are facing to the east. Well\, the side. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I\, I there could be great changes. Well\, there\, I’m not quite sure against the path\, like retaining more. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yeah\, I I don’t know what to say. I’m I think it’s good. The residents open to that to those green spaces. It does have a little bit the effect of making it feel more private\, perhaps. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think I would say to remove that. I guess it’s just something to to factor into the whole site plan and see how to compensate. And I think we’ve made comments pretty \nYerba Buena SX80: clearly now about sort of perception of private private versus public. And you know that’s something which is again a very fundamental concern of you know how people feel when they’re \nYerba Buena SX80: using the bay trail\, biking or walking or exercising. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, they will be within very close proximity of houses. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think there’s a few things here that specifically. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I would hope this whole area could become more generous and a little bit more \nYerba Buena SX80: thoughtful in terms of accessibility. I think a few specific things the way that this path that connects to the door fronts of each of those \nYerba Buena SX80: connects back to the sidewalk and doesn’t have any \nYerba Buena SX80: or many other cross connections between the bay trail\, and this path\, I think\, helps make it feel much more privatized. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the grade change makes it feel like a front walk for those units grade changes\, Stefan pointed out\, is a great way to differentiate between a public and private realm\, and I think even having a stoop or some other kind of social distance between the front door and the \nYerba Buena SX80: a public path helps a lot. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the fact that there is this kind of landscape moat between that path and then this other path\, which is sort of seems like the public path\, I think\, also helps define that to make it feel much more private rather than a public path there \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, also the small scale of it. The fact that it’s\, you know\, kind of a \nYerba Buena SX80: interior sidewalk scale rather than a public path along the waterfront sort of scale. I think all of those features \nYerba Buena SX80: contribute to the fact that it feels that feels like a private frontage separated from a public path\, and then on the bay trail portion of it. In the fact that there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: very little furniture. There’s almost no seating. There’s a kind of a small little gesture to a plaza entry \nYerba Buena SX80: to the interior of the site\, but it again\, because that kind of compresses\, then\, between these 2 single family homes that doesn’t feel sort of like an inviting access either. So a lot of kind of scale factors going into the way that this is feeling very privatized just to be specific. Yes\, and I think the I mean\, I want to commend the landscape architect on \nYerba Buena SX80: trying to include a program of lots of different activities. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s just insufficient space to allow each of those activities to exist in a way that feels very comfortable in public. The plaza mid block. If we just go up a little more to where the mid block walk is or the mid \nYerba Buena SX80: development walkies. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, just yeah. Where the plaza is. And the seating steps\, you know\, if you \nYerba Buena SX80: if you think about how people the general public would feel\, you know. Let’s just say an educational group stop there. And 20 people sitting on those stairs. The relationship to the front door of the house is a matter of you know\, it’s it’s 6 or 8 feet away. And \nYerba Buena SX80: I think again\, just that perception of public and private and and uncomfortableness with that proximity or lack of sense of it being really public\, will come into play there. It’s just too tight. \nYerba Buena SX80: So just a general question about the Site plan\, I mean or not a question\, but a comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s something about those green spaces going east\, West that that kind of you know. The view corridors into the property line and the Marina Marina way south. \nYerba Buena SX80: and if they were rotated 90 degrees\, I completely understand that it compromises the density\, as as you’ve said\, and then the question is. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, could you do anything to compensate for that? If the if those green spaces were running north\, south\, or maybe there was one green space running north south. Then from from the \nYerba Buena SX80: bay trail\, you know\, you could get some visual borrowing into the site\, even though it’s private\, and I think it would still give a feeling of openness to people passing by if there were\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: one or 2 of those events. And then \nYerba Buena SX80: which brings me to another comment about just the scale \nYerba Buena SX80: of the buildings in juxtaposition to the Ford plant. Which is this magnificent behemoth. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. That’s gotten all these\, you know\, national honor awards\, and you know it’s been decorated every way you could. You know William Mcdonough and Long Logan and Berkeley. It’s just \nYerba Buena SX80: magnificent piece of architecture\, and there’s a scale juxtaposition there that I think does effect one’s \nYerba Buena SX80: ability to enjoy the site. I think it does have something to do with user. The enhancing\, the user experience is what I’m really trying to address here. And if there were you know\, attached units on the \nYerba Buena SX80: west side of the of B street. There\, for example\, that had\, you know\, it wasn’t such a jarring scale transition from the from the plant to the smaller fine grained houses. I actually think it would be better\, you know\, to have some more from the user experience on the bay trail. And yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: and because I I do\, I think that that property line on the west \nYerba Buena SX80: would there be a fence there? I think there’s a good chance there might be a fence there and and it’s it just doesn’t seem like a great\, you know\, for those units that are facing west. It’s it’s not. It’s not a fantastic experience\, anyway. Maybe I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, plant materials plant palette. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe we\, if you wouldn’t mind. If if we could bring the Plant Pallet \nYerba Buena SX80: exhibit up\, that would. That would be great interest\, right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think one thing that would help me in a subsequent review\, would be to just have a clearer \nYerba Buena SX80: designation of what is actually in the 100 Foot Shoreline Band Zone versus elsewhere. I mean? It’s a it’s a. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. There’s a nice variety of plant material \nYerba Buena SX80: but I do think the you know\, we should really favor the native plants \nYerba Buena SX80: on the alongside the bay trail. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I mean\, there’s a zone that’s gonna get a massive blast of wind off the bay. This can be a little different than any of the other streets within\, so that \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s both dryness and and massive wind\, and a lot of takes a lot of abuse needs to be \nYerba Buena SX80: respond to that. Yeah\, yeah. I haven’t studied the palette\, but I I in general\, I would \nYerba Buena SX80: tend to push it in a much more extreme way towards the durable\, you know\, and the drought tolerant. And\, you know\, address issues of climate change and assisted migration. You know\, plants that are we’re used to seeing in the \nYerba Buena SX80: South and the Southwest are very rapidly making their way into the into the bay area. And\, you know. Yeah\, it’s it’s not only the wind and the and you know there’s just the durability of having plants in a public place. And and so I think I would \nYerba Buena SX80: tend towards you know more extreme choices. I you know there are certain things here that are very nice. There are maples\, and maybe they’re in protected areas between the buildings and so on. \nYerba Buena SX80: But you know\, I’m thinking about water use and and durability. Just make it easy for everyone. Yeah\, yeah\, this is not. I mean\, there are plants in here that would certainly. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, could thrive in the you know\, along the the waterfront. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I’m not seeing the sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: enough of the really hardy plants\, or maybe\, you know\, we I it would just be helpful to see the plants \nYerba Buena SX80: separated into 2 zones. You know the public zone and the residential areas. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would just add that seeing Marsha’s work for I don’t know how 1015 years in Richmond being on the city of Richmond. Drb. \nYerba Buena SX80: This woman’s fully capable. You got the right person on the project. Got got the right team\, too. Yeah\, that’s true. So we don’t need to dig too deeply into this. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re in safe hands. Good hands. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? But we were asked that question by staff. So \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s our comments. Could I make comment on the \nYerba Buena SX80: on the planting? Yeah\, this is kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: anecdotal. Yeah\, I’m not a botanist or a landscape architect. I don’t usually do planting plans \nYerba Buena SX80: except for maybe a Restoration project \nYerba Buena SX80: but over at the Peninsula \nYerba Buena SX80: last time I walked around there. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know the Vincent Park and that area. \nYerba Buena SX80: There are a lot of lawns\, and there there are these big geese that have taken over there\, and they kind of interfere with \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the uses. And then the other thing I noticed\, which \nYerba Buena SX80: I think just probably goes along with all the Riprap\, is there all these ground squirrels \nYerba Buena SX80: in the shore rocks? And you know a lot of people think they’re cute and all that. But they’re not really a native. I don’t know that they’re they seem to be more of them than would normally exist. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I I just \nYerba Buena SX80: I didn’t see a lot of turf here. There’s a couple of little lawn pieces\, but I see you have the coastal sage \nYerba Buena SX80: or a scrub whatever\, and that seems \nYerba Buena SX80: much better than the big grassy lawns from my comment regarding the geese. It’s kind of a big deal. Actually\, last time I walked over there it was pretty intimidating\, you know\, that the kids couldn’t go into the grass lawn because the geese were not not having it. So \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, look\, I’m just going to. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just want to summarize a few points here. \nYerba Buena SX80: bearing in mind there’s a lot more that is very important. But just 3 or 4 things that I think are are \nYerba Buena SX80: major points relating to access and the \nYerba Buena SX80: the actual viability of the the bay trail in this area\, and the 100 foot zone. So I think the 1st point I’d make is echoing Tom’s point. You know this is \nYerba Buena SX80: this is the most significant waterfront site in the city of Richmond. It is. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, it’s part of a designated node. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s certainly transit oriented. It’s got a number of aspects related to it\, including the relationship to the Rosie\, the Riveter Museum. All of these things add up \nYerba Buena SX80: to something that \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we need to see further examination of from the proponent to see how the Site plan could respond to that very critical point from the public enhancement and public experience\, standpoint and access. And then I think the second critical point is that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the program that is in the that is shown on the plan in the within the bay trail is a reasonable plan. The landscape architects done as good a job as as could be done within the constraints of a much narrower area than we would typically see \nYerba Buena SX80: but it’s not sufficient to be able to have the type of user experience that. And and the practical aspects of circulation and view experience. That we need to see in a plan. So somehow. \nYerba Buena SX80: there needs to be some more space created. And I think the 3rd point is related to \nYerba Buena SX80: adaptation and resiliency. And you know\, making sure that that\, the Site Plan \nYerba Buena SX80: is going to be safe and minimize risk for the future in future. People with future homeowners who will live in this development \nYerba Buena SX80: and would expect to live there for generations. And you know I think we have to be very responsible about \nYerba Buena SX80: taking a you know\, we need to have a position \nYerba Buena SX80: in relation to how the site will adapt\, how the path. Can the bay trail can be relocated? \nYerba Buena SX80: I would add to that that the the higher level front access path\, the public path adjacent immediately adjacent the houses is just not \nYerba Buena SX80: It doesn’t convey an adequate sense of public nature\, and the width of the path is not sufficient. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that needs to be reviewed as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there are specific points that \nYerba Buena SX80: are elsewhere. But I mean they’re the ones that rise to the top for me. Does that capture it. Have I left something critical out? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? So just to help Staff as you continue forward on this nice. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Look at\, if we’ve got\, I think we’ve covered everything at this point. So at this point we would \nYerba Buena SX80: ask Ashley\, we can ask the proponents to respond at this point just a brief response on what you’ve heard. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for the comments. This is helpful for us. We are one of the things I did want to address is the public comments we did reach out to the Marina Bay Neighborhood Council\, the Richmond Coordinating Council. We went through the city of Richmond process\, and it’s kind of an interesting response that we got from them. Most of the people were saying. \nYerba Buena SX80: we don’t want density. We want it to look just like our our development and but then some people like a planning commissioner that was on \nYerba Buena SX80: planning commission forever and ever\, she was saying\, well\, we want it to be the dense. We want it dense. But the residents in Marina Bay we don’t want traffic. We don’t want more housing. So it was really interesting to hear that. So I wanted to share that with you. When we talked to the National Park Service they were mostly concerned about the interpretation and bringing that interpretation along\, so that that was interesting. So I appreciate your comments about more outreach \nYerba Buena SX80: related to that. We also the the Wellness trail. It’s kind of interesting. Because the commenter was the designer on the width of the trail\, and it being on street\, and there’s existing parking\, and you know it was kind of interesting. So we’ll work with them because we’re sub consultants to them for that and say\, Well. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, that let’s work on that so so we will look at. Look at the off-site impacts. And I don’t know if I necessarily have any other comments related to that. We’ll go back and \nYerba Buena SX80: look at the plans and look at all of your comments\, Mike\, do you have anything? No\, just to reiterate. We’ll we’ll take all your comments into consideration and see how and what modifications we can make \nYerba Buena SX80: too much. I think it’s just\, you know\, appreciate all the observations\, and we’ll have to circle back with our client and see \nYerba Buena SX80: how we can respond. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you very much. Good. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, we normally at this stage \nYerba Buena SX80: decide whether we need to see the project again. And I think in this case we would definitely need to see the project again. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so I think with that\, we can \nYerba Buena SX80: move to adjournment of the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this concludes our project review\, and I want to entertain a motion and a seconder to adjourn our meeting could someone. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll second that Gary will second it all those in favor. Okay\, so the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Everyone. Thank you to the proponents for the hard work \nYerba Buena SX80: and scheme\, and thank you to the team\, and I just want to acknowledge\, well done. You’re the 1st time you’ve presented here to to the board. So so thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And look just actually\, just before we adjourn \nYerba Buena SX80: a completely different topic. But I had the opportunity to \nYerba Buena SX80: walk the 2 new Parks Admission Bay earlier this last week\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it would be good for us to as a group. Take a look at those 2 parks. There’s \nYerba Buena SX80: the Mission Rock Park has some very interesting\, I think\, instructive lessons that we could take from that. So and the other park. They’re both very interesting to look at. So you know\, let’s see if we could set something up in the New Year sometime and go for a walk. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks very much. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good night.\n \n\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-9-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241205T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241205T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240127T065400Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250107T203447Z UID:10000111-1733403600-1733418000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:December 5\, 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 video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nPrimary physical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, 3rd Fl.\, City Clerks Conf. Rm.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\nNapa County District 5 Office: 4381 Broadway\, Ste. 102\, American Canyon\, CA 94503\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n575 Administration Dr.\, Rm 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403\n675 Texas St.\, Rm. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n2379 Sheffield Dr. Livermore\, CA 94550\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\n176 E Blithedale\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88154227927?pwd=T8pag0NtsWQEjeV7sCbF0YePOSRQap.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID881 5422 7927 \nPasscode768254 \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 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.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for November 21\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration of Contract with the Exploratorium for the Shoreline Leadership AcademyThe Commission will receive a briefing\, consider a staff recommendation\, and possibly vote to authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract for up to $180\,000 with the Exploratorium to act as the Academy Manager for two Shoreline Leadership Academies. Funding for this contract is provided through an Inflation Reduction Act Non-Competitive Award granted by NOAA.(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3600; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nCommission Consideration and Possible Vote on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24)The Commission will consider a staff recommendation and possibly vote on proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24 (BPA 1-24). BPA 1-24 includes a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan which\, in part\, establishes guidelines for local governments to use as they prepare rising sea level plans pursuant to Senate Bill 272 (Laird\, 2023). BPA 1-24 would also amend several San Francisco Bay Plan Climate Change Findings and Policies. A public hearing was held on BPA 1-24 on October 17\, 2024.(Jaclyn Perrin-Martinez) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.perrin-martinez@bcdc.ca.gov]Corrections to Staff Recommendation for Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24Appendix A: Resolution 2024.05Appendix B: Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan \n\nVersion 1. Spreads (best layout view)\nVersion 2. Pages (best print view and ADA accessible)\n\nAppendix C: Public comment lettersAppendix D: Response to public commentsAppendix E: Text of Senate Bill 272 Presentation // Public comment received after the public comment period\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n \nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nGolden Gate Bridge suicide nets have been up for nearly a year. Are they effective? \nBay Area Group Reveals Worst Toxic Sites\, Refocusing Environmental Activism \nState\, local agencies remove long running Vallejo homeless encampment \nMass of bicyclists enjoy Richmond bridge ride but lane access remains at risk \nRegulators approve huge Ocean Beach seawall to avert prospect of ‘major emergency’ for S.F. \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording\n Video recording \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/december-5-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241127T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241127T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T050324Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241114T232445Z UID:10000146-1732699800-1732708800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 27\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-27-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241122T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241122T110000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240716T205519Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251119T180744Z UID:10000188-1732266000-1732273200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 22\, 2024 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-22-2024-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241121T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241121T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240127T065214Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241122T225017Z UID:10000110-1732194000-1732208400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 21\, 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 video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually are also specified below. \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference location \n\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nMountain View City Hall Council Chambers: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n14265 Highway 128\, Boonville\, CA 45415\n11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\nCity Council: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, #110\, Richmond\, CA 94804\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n890 Osos St Suite H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83508664944?pwd=0VzUkbbVulYCocycT3VpluMH89i0Wz.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID835 0866 4944 \nPasscode768254 \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 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.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment // Comments received after the public comment period on Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for November 7\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nVote on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Port of San Francisco’s Proposed Major Permit for the Piers 43½ – 39 Sediment Remediation Project. The Commission will hold a vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Port of San Francisco to remediate areas around Piers 39 – 43½\, remove 102\,900 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated sediment from 8.7 acres of subtidal habitat\, stabilize the dredged areas with sediment piles\, cap the dredged areas\, and place 3\,450 cy of riprap on and along the shoreline revetment area. The project is estimated to last five to seven years.(Pascale Soumoy) [415/352-3669; pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff Recommendation // Fact Sheet // Response to Commissioner // Presentation\nHoward Terminal Port Priority Use Briefing BCDC staff will brief the Commission on the automatic reinstatement on January 1\, 2025\, of the Bay Plan Port Priority Use Area designation to the Howard Terminal Property at the Port of Oakland previously removed by Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-19 on June 30\, 2022\, due to automatic operation of section 8(b) of Assembly Bill 1191 (Bonta\, 2019).(Erik Buehmann) [415/352-3645; erik.buehmann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nStrategic Plan Update Senior Staff will present and update on progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan(Larry Goldzband) [415/ 352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \nFlood Relief for Marin City: Feds Address 80-Year-Old Problem \nWhen Housing & Climate Collide: Marin’s Struggle for Affordable Apartments \nStriving to Teach Climate Science & Solutions to California K-12 \nJesse Arreguín leads Jovanka Beckles for East Bay state Senate seat \nRichardson Bay ‘eelgrass protection zone’ goes into effect \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording \n Video recording \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-21-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241119T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241119T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T060519Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241031T162842Z UID:10000159-1732021200-1732035600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 19\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-19-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241114T140000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241114T153000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T050206Z LAST-MODIFIED:20251023T174118Z UID:10000145-1731592800-1731598200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 14\, 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.  \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan 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/88564780821?pwd=JGg7580mGrhMWnLHUBa0anLUXzrejA.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID885 6478 0821 \nPasscode607971  \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment.The Committee will hear public comments on matters that are not on the agenda.\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the August 28\, 2024\, Enforcement Committee meeting\nEnforcement Report.Staff will update the committee on the current status of the enforcement program’s activities.(Matthew Trujillo) [415/352-3633; matthew.trujillo@bcdc.ca.gov]\nEnforcement Hearing.The Committee will hold a hearing on the staff’s recommended enforcement decision to resolve Enforcement Case ER2023.019.00 against the Union Pacific Railroad Company for unauthorized activities occurring at its property\, consisting of fill in the San Francisco Bay and use of the shoreline for camping in the vicinity of the mouth of Rodeo Creek in Rodeo\, Contra Costa County.(Bella Castrodale) [415/352-3628; bella.castrodale@bcdc.ca.gov]Union Pacific Statement of Defense // Executive Director’s Recommended Enforcement Decision and Proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty // Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording and transcript\n Video recording and transcript2024.11.14 Approved Minutes \nTranscript of items 6 and 7  \n  \n \n\nTranscript\n\nBob Bylsma: in participant mode so I and and I believe Staff could probably confirm that that encampment has been removed. \nBob Bylsma: But as soon as they’re removed\, oftentimes they come back. So how long that encampment was actually there \nBob Bylsma: we don’t know\, but that that was removed. Additionally. \nBob Bylsma: we had to explore whether or not a 4 0. 4 \nBob Bylsma: permit from the Corps of Engineers was required\, or a section 10 \nBob Bylsma: Rivers and Harbors Navigation Act permit was required by \nBob Bylsma: in order to remove this\, and so what was finally determined was that as long and \nBob Bylsma: and the need for those permits would have further delayed things\, let me digress to that. So what we determined was to actually physically have \nBob Bylsma: people go in the water to remove this\, rather than having further delays by putting in equipment to to remove the material. \nBob Bylsma: and at this point all the tires have been removed. \nBob Bylsma: I believe all the other trash has been removed. There are several shopping carts that are still in in the waterway. And the problem that we’re having removing those. \nBob Bylsma: I think I was told that it literally takes 4 people about a day to remove one and a half of those carts that’s at about the rate that they’re \nBob Bylsma: that they’re being removed. There’s definitely a safety issue doing it by having people walk into the bay\, they literally sink into the bay mud up to their waist. \nBob Bylsma: and you have that suction behind it. So we’re still struggling through that to try to find a solution to the shopping carts. \nBob Bylsma: But again\, at this\, at this point the cleanup is almost done\, and\, as I said\, this is not. This is not a situation where \nBob Bylsma: we believe we should be punished \nBob Bylsma: for inaction\, but what you would really be imposing a penalty for would be for our failure to communicate with Staff\, and I would just ask \nBob Bylsma: that commission. Take that into account in the event it determines to assess a penalty. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Hey? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much at this time. Do any commissioners have any clarifying questions for Mr. Blisma. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Gosh! I wish we could get that camera over here. So could you tell me\, Mr. Beelsma. \nBoardroom SX80: when you said that we \nBoardroom SX80: removed the encampment\, and that we can remove encampments when we can. \nBoardroom SX80: How do you do that? Do you \nBoardroom SX80: look to local law enforcement? Or do you literally send some of your staff in there to \nBoardroom SX80: move stuff and folks out. How do you do that? \nBob Bylsma: Commissioner\, our. \nBob Bylsma: we have our own police force. So we have. We have special agents. It’s sort of a unique \nBob Bylsma: situation of the railroad that we actually have \nBob Bylsma: peace officers who work for the railroads\, and they’re referred to as special agents\, and so they will go out\, and I believe they often go out with local law enforcement as well \nBob Bylsma: and physically \nBob Bylsma: clear these homeless encampments much much as a city or county would do on public land. \nBoardroom SX80: I see. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So I just have to share this. I’m having visions of the old trains in the Wild Wild West with the special agents who are trying to protect the trains from\, you know\, being robbed by outlaws. That’s kind of what \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: your words are invoking here. \nBob Bylsma: Madam Chair\, that is really essentially the origin of that practice. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, you learn something new every day. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. Let’s see. So before we start our Oh\, Commissioner Ranshaw\, is this a clarifying question? \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I believe so. It it wasn’t clear to me\, Mr. Bilsma\, from your remarks. If \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: you’re indicating that there’s any practice of of \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Union Pacific. Reviewing this\, the status of \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: properties such as this. \nBob Bylsma: I don’t. \nBob Bylsma: I’ll try to answer your question\, and if I don’t answer it\, please follow up \nBob Bylsma: the situation here\, as it relates to the material in the bay \nBob Bylsma: is the fact that \nBob Bylsma: Union Pacific owns a lot of property that is not operating right away. \nBob Bylsma: And we would not typically have \nBob Bylsma: a any of our real estate people \nBob Bylsma: looking at property that is actually in a waterway. \nBob Bylsma: So the only view that you’re that you’re having in terms of inspections of this property \nBob Bylsma: are going to be\, either from train men whose responsibility is to keep that train on the rails \nBob Bylsma: or \nBob Bylsma: track maintenance personnel again\, whose responsibility is to keep that operating corridor \nBob Bylsma: working properly to prevent derailments\, things of that nature. So people are really going to be focused in terms of anyone going through there on about 15 side 15 feet the side of either track? Maybe less than that. \nBob Bylsma: So you’re you’re simply not having people who are out looking into the bay to see what’s out there\, nor would they even know that that property was owned by Union Pacific. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: That’s helpful. \nBob Bylsma: That answer your question. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Thanks. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? Any other committee questions? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, not seeing any hands\, Margie. Do we have any public comment\, either in the room or online. \nBoardroom SX80: We don’t have any commenters. Chair Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. All right. So no public comment. So let’s start our discussion among the committee members. And I’m going to open the floor to the 1st hand I see. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And\, Commissioner Eisen\, I can’t see your hand. Is it? Up. \nBoardroom SX80: Might as well be. Yeah. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah\, I definitely have some questions so sort of back to the issue that that you suggested we park until now. \nBoardroom SX80: So \nBoardroom SX80: it’s a peculiar situation that Union Pacific has these lines that run alongside the edge of the bay. \nBoardroom SX80: and with that\, of course\, comes this obligation \nBoardroom SX80: because the edge of the bay is protected \nBoardroom SX80: and protected from fill\, among other things. So \nBoardroom SX80: I’m assuming that because this has train tracks literally within feet of the bay\, that there’s no public access issues here\, that there really is no public access to these \nBoardroom SX80: areas. \nBoardroom SX80: and so if you are going to have the permission to own land that close to the bay. Then it comes with these obligations. I know that \nBoardroom SX80: I didn’t know we were still using terms like train men. I’m I’m objecting to that \nBoardroom SX80: trained persons. But \nBoardroom SX80: I \nBoardroom SX80: it comes with an obligation to. I know it’s not typical to be looking out for whether things have happened along the edge of your property. But that’s that’s the obligation you have when you have property like that. \nBoardroom SX80: So none of that troubles me. I I don’t think we can \nBoardroom SX80: say that everybody gets off because somebody got sick when they were supposed to be tending to this\, or we would be hearing that. You know that\, or some other set of reasons. \nBoardroom SX80: ad nauseam. But \nBoardroom SX80: I’m I am concerned. I mean they have Union Pacific has\, as we just learned\, these special officers who are capable \nBoardroom SX80: of managing an encampment. But we have lots and lots of permits out there to folks who \nBoardroom SX80: find themselves with encampments on their property\, and \nBoardroom SX80: what they are supposed to do about that\, and whether that constitutes fill within \nBoardroom SX80: that very technical meaning that the Bcdc. Would apply to that. \nBoardroom SX80: Those are the issues I think we should discuss\, because \nBoardroom SX80: it’s not just a little isolated case here that could \nBoardroom SX80: possibly spill over to others \nBoardroom SX80: who have this situation\, and you know we always try to provide guidance to what people should be doing\, what \nBoardroom SX80: and what if they can’t do anything? They don’t have special officers. What is our position? Are they strictly liable for having an encampment on the edge of the \nBoardroom SX80: bay. Those are the issues that I’m concerned about. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can I just hold on a second sherry? The interesting thing about this case is \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: following up on what you just said\, Commissioner Eisen\, is that in most cases where we have jurisdiction and there are encampments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it becomes an issue of public access\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that my recollection is that that’s most of our cases this one seems to me to be kind of the oddball where we have an encampment within our jurisdiction\, but \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: because of the nature of the business\, the railroad tracks. There is no public access\, so. \nBoardroom SX80: It’s. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Seems to me like those 2 cases are very distinguishable. That’s just the 1st thought off the top of my head. Sherry. \nShari Posner: I was just gonna add a note\, and it’s really for the chair \nShari Posner: maybe to comment more on this. But I think the questions that Commissioner Eisen is asking are really good ones. But I’m not sure they’re for the context of this particular specific enforcement matter. \nShari Posner: It might be something\, perhaps\, that \nShari Posner: if the Enforcement Committee is interested\, Staff could prepare something on. \nShari Posner: But it the the broader \nShari Posner: those broader questions\, I’m not sure\, are within this particular agendized item. \nBoardroom SX80: And thank you\, Sherry. I I totally agree with you. But in order to decide whether there has been a violation here\, don’t we have to be satisfied \nBoardroom SX80: that having an encampment on your property constitutes fill. \nShari Posner: I think maybe I I would turn to \nShari Posner: enforcement staff to talk about what they consider fail. I mean\, I think physically\, sitting on top of \nShari Posner: What property within the jurisdiction can be considered\, Phil. But I think I I’m not the best person to ask that. But I understand your question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Staff. You want to take that one. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you. Just looking at 6\, 6\, 6\, 3\, 2\, a of the Mikketyr Petrus act\, I believe. Fill is defined very broadly to encompass any substance or material with a value of greater than $20. And so the reference to the homeless encampment as fill doesn’t refer to the individuals\, but rather the accumulation of \nBoardroom SX80: materials within our jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: Which can take many different forms. \nBoardroom SX80: But in our view\, are encompassed by this broad term of substance or material. \nBoardroom SX80: So I I just have one. Follow up\, then\, to that which makes sense to me\, that \nBoardroom SX80: accumulation of tents\, or whatever could constitute fill. But have we had a situation a prior situation. \nBoardroom SX80: where we took the position \nBoardroom SX80: that the \nBoardroom SX80: stuff that accumulates in a homeless encampment constitutes fill? Have we taken that position in prior cases? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: John and I are shaking our head. Yes. But I would like some confirmation from staff. \nBoardroom SX80: I would say that. Yes\, we have. If you’re asking me for a specific citation that would be a little harder to draw from at the moment. \nBoardroom SX80: they’re \nBoardroom SX80: we have dealt with. For example\, you. You are very familiar with the issues of. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sorry. Sorry\, can I? Can I interrupt\, since I can’t see who’s speaking from the boardroom\, and I don’t think the other commissioners can. Can you identify yourself for the record? Please. \nBoardroom SX80: Sure. Sorry\, Matthew Trio\, let me. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Sorry\, Matthew\, cause I’m I’m seeing I’m seeing you on my screen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: There you go. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Sure. Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: yes. So you’re familiar with. You’re all very familiar with issues we’ve had with \nBoardroom SX80: along the Oakland and Alameda estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: That is\, a area of the region that is rife with issues having to do with encampments as well as the detritus that results from that \nBoardroom SX80: at the staff level. \nBoardroom SX80: I. \nBoardroom SX80: I know that we’ve dealt with many cases in in those areas. \nBoardroom SX80: As for cases brought before this committee. \nBoardroom SX80: I can’t think of one that comes to mind\, and that’s only to say that \nBoardroom SX80: for the most part we we have been able to resolve these matters at the staff level. \nBoardroom SX80: I won’t speak to active cases. But there are cases currently in the pipeline that also speak to this issue \nBoardroom SX80: one moment. \nBoardroom SX80: Okay\, so you might have seen in the local media. I would say\, in the last year or so issues with regard to\, or issues of homeless encampments at Toll Plaza Beach\, \nBoardroom SX80: in Oakland\, at the entranceway to the Bay bridge. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s 1 of the \nBoardroom SX80: cases that we are that we have addressed. The reason I hesitated to bring that up is because it’s still ongoing\, and it may come before you. But that’s another in terms of the homelessness matter and the trash around that. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s something that we’ve been able to address at the staff level. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Chair. Gilmore’s \nBoardroom SX80: a point. \nBoardroom SX80: Aren’t those cases public access cases where the permit is being violated\, because the public access is not what it ought to be. \nBoardroom SX80: not in every case. \nBoardroom SX80: there’s \nBoardroom SX80: it’s often an overlapping problem. \nBoardroom SX80: Oftentimes \nBoardroom SX80: encampments will be\, say. \nBoardroom SX80: on the side of a public access trail\, whereas the trash or the detritus from the encampment could easily be clogging up a public access trail in the case of Toll Plaza Beach. \nBoardroom SX80: Sorry? Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Toll Plaza Beach. There actually is no public access\, formal Bcdc. Public access. It is a matter of this beach that has \nBoardroom SX80: traditionally been a public beach being basically taken over by \nBoardroom SX80: a lot of toxic waste and other trash as well as encampments that just\, you know\, they fall within our jurisdiction\, and therefore within our purview to address. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I think this is a very worthwhile discussion. But I’m gonna cut it off for this afternoon\, and I’m going to ask staff to do some more digging. Around this issue\, the the what constitutes fill and what happens if there’s fill? But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it’s not an issue of public access? Does that make sense \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to staff? Understand. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. And and Commissioner Eisen\, does that get to the root of of your question? \nBoardroom SX80: It does\, and I think we can decide it even without that\, only because of all of the tires and shopping carts and other things that may or may not be related to encampments. But I do think that we’re gonna if we bring this to the whole commission\, there will be. There will be questions about that\, and it would be good to have that research done so to help our fellow commissioners. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I was actually thinking about it in terms of the Enforcement Committee on cases going forward. I agree that I don’t think it’s something that that is necessarily pertinent for today’s action. Given the circumstances\, any other Commissioner comments \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Ranshaw. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yeah\, yeah\, I agree. It’d be helpful for purposes of consistency with respect to other \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: other matters that come before the Commission to better understand that? \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Could I ask\, Staff\, if you can elaborate on the position recommendation that with respect to the second violation\, understand violation? One. There’s there are 2 different violations\, each with a proposed penalty of $30\,000 \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: violation. One is the hill\, consisting of weights\, the tires\, shopping carts\, other trash. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and there’s a determination of the gravity of harm associated with that fill is major\, and the extent of deviation \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: to remove it is\, major\, and \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I appreciated the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: documents that were included in the materials \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: supporting the recommendation that demonstrate that include potential impacts from \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the tires on protected species\, such as coe\, salmon\, etc. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: With respect to the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the second violation\, could you\, elaborate on the\, on\, the position\, on as to the gravity of harm associated with \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: with that violation which I understand is is effectively the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: homeless encampment and failure to remove it. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you for your question. Our determination was that the gravity of harm for violation 2 was moderate\, and we made that determination\, using a 6 factor scoring system that’s provided by Appendix J. Of the regulations\, which considers the habitat value\, the durability\, the toxicity\, the size\, the nature of the violation \nBoardroom SX80: and the visibility\, and because the length of time that this violation persisted\, and the potential toxicity was much lesser than that of the dumping of tires\, the determination was made that it was a moderate rather than a major. The gravity of harm was moderate rather than Major. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: It. It does seem to me that the the gravity of harm \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: associated with the 1st violation is significantly greater. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that those materials had been there. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: and we have documentary evidence that they had at least some of them had been there for many more years. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: even if \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the respondent wasn’t put on notice of these violations until more recently. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: In that it seems to me just in the equity\, as between the 2 violations that \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: given that there’s no public access issue in that it’s unclear. What additional may have occurred from \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: the second alleged violation \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that that there’s a. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: That the committee may wish to look at those 2 differently. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Any other comments by commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. This is this is really a knit\, but in the recommended decision it says that the respondent should be ordered 2\, and then there’s a list of 5 things. \nBoardroom SX80: But the 3rd thing is not actually something that the respondent’s supposed to do. It’s something we’re supposed to do in terms of reviewing and getting back to the respondent. So I don’t know if it should be phrased differently\, because the way it reads is the respondent is ordered to review \nBoardroom SX80: something that the Bcdc. Is reviewing. So \nBoardroom SX80: a knit as I’m \nBoardroom SX80: acknowledging. Thank you for pointing that out. I believe we could make a revision to clarify that that would only \nBoardroom SX80: implicate the timing for the response by the respondent\, but not the respondent’s action. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I wanted to make a comment on the failure to communicate. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just wanted to say that while in the abstract I have sympathy for you because life happened for the respondent\, because life happens\, things happen. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But I think\, as one of the Commissioners pointed out\, is that we hear these reasons \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: all the time from respondents who who come before us\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know some have better reasons than others. Some just didn’t get to it\, you know\, whatever the reason may be. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but from the point of view of the Bcdc. Staff\, it looks like we contacted you. We told you what it was that was wrong. We were willing to work with you to resolve the issue. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: You drag your feet\, said you would get back to us. You didn’t get back to us for whatever reason\, because this happens all the time. And then it was only when we filed an Enforcement \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: case that you got serious about dealing with us\, and I can say\, having been on this committee for a long time\, this happens in the overwhelming majority of cases. So\, while I may have some sympathy for you \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in the abstract. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in the very practical point of view\, from staff having to deal with entities or people or corporations. This happens all the time. And I really. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: from my point of view\, it’s not a winning argument\, that’s all I wanted to say. Anybody else have any other comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Any other. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Follow up\, question sure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: With respect to the the assessment of penalties on the second violation\, it’s tough. Ex explain how that would be different\, if at all. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: if the determination of the harm associated with. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: But the second violation was downgraded. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I know you’ve proposed that it’s a moderate \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: level of harm\, I believe. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes\, thank you for your question. If the \nBoardroom SX80: second violation was downgraded from moderate to minor for gravity of harm\, but the extent of deviation from the legal requirement remained the same. The range of the per day penalty amount would be $800 a day to $1\,200 a day and staff would select a figure within that range. \nBoardroom SX80: and the reason that I didn’t propose changing the \nBoardroom SX80: factor for the extent of deviation from the legal requirement is because the legal requirement is the absence of the fill\, and so it can only be characterized as major as opposed to a case where there is a minor \nBoardroom SX80: noncompliance with a permit condition\, for instance\, where that the extent of deviation from the legal requirement could then be characterized as minor. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: I see. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: No\, thank you. I would feel more comfortable. Chaired with \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: that assessment of the of the nature of the harm. Because \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: to me it seems like the \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: but whatever harm is occurring is \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: should be tried. We should try to assess cumulatively and sorry separately from the harm that’s occurred as a result of violation\, one which there’s a fair amount of documentary evidence for to support the the proposed \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: gravity of harm being major. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. My! My comment to staff about that one is\, even if we downgraded \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the severity I mean the I’m sorry if\, even if we downgraded\, it wouldn’t the amount of time that the harm over which the harm occurred would that necessitate a change in the amount? Because the the amount is $30\,000. But it’s calculated per day. And I think we’re calculating over a year’s period of time. \nBoardroom SX80: That’s right chair\, Gilmore\, at the lower end. If the penalties were assessed at the minimum range $800 a day\, we would have reached the $30\,000 cap for violation\, 2 in about 40 days. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I guess what I’m saying is that even if we downgrade it the the statutory penalty doesn’t change. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Marie\, kind of along the line of your questioning. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I think the representative from you\, Pacific said they had one individual working on this\, and lost that person or 1st not. I don’t remember exactly what happened\, but \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: so it kind of fell through the cracks. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and I’m just wondering. Union Pacific. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Has 31\,000 employees. You would have thought they could have found one more employee to take care of that. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So I’m not in favor of reducing anything. And \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I will make the motion that we recommend Staff’s recommendation and forward it to the entire commission. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we have a second. \nBoardroom SX80: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That was Commissioner Eisen for the record. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so we have a motion and a second to approve the Executive Director’s recommended Enforcement decision. And so now we need a roll call. Vote. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you’re muted. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. Sorry\, Commissioner Beeland. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Hi! Here! \nBoardroom SX80: Is that a yay or a nay. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Not as ea sorry. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Eisen. \nBoardroom SX80: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Ranchad. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yes. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair\, Gilmar. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes\, yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: thank you. All. The motion carries unanimously\, and this will be sent on to a vote of the full commission at a date to be determined. Thank you. Everyone for attending today. Respondent. Thank you for being here\, and staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and we are going to adjourn this meeting. Thank you. \n\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-14-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241107T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241107T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240127T064947Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241108T161931Z UID:10000109-1730984400-1730998800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 7\, 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 video-conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually is also specified below. \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building: 575 Administration Dr.\, Rm 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave.\, 15th Fl\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nOffice of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530 (510) 942-2220\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n70 W Hedding St.\, San Jose\, CA 95110\nCNRA Headquarters: 715 P St.\, 20th Fl.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\nCounty Executive Office: 1195 Third St.\, 3rd Fl\, Napa\, CA 94559\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\n47 Clippers Reach\, Sea Ranch\, CA\, 95497\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85108251974?pwd=wlBlPzg4MrWnSgO5gNbH08khKU9OIb.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID851 0825 1974 \nPasscode279617 \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 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.(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for October 17\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and the Port of San Francisco’s Proposed Major Permit for the Piers 43 ½- 39 Sediment Remediation Project.The Commission will hold a public hearing and receive comment on PG&E and the Port of San Francisco’s (Port) proposed Piers 43½ – 39 Sediment Remediation project. To remediate areas around and under Piers 43½ – 39\, PG&E and the Port would remove 102\,900 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated sediment and debris from five separate areas over 8.7 acres of subtidal habitat\, stabilize the dredged areas with sediment pin piles\, cap the dredged areas\, and place 3\,450 cy of riprap on and along the shoreline revetment area. Red & White Ferry docking and boarding facilities at Pier 43½ and five boat docks and gangways in Pier 39 East Marina would be moved temporarily in advance of remediation work and replaced after it is completed. The project is estimated to last five to seven years.(Pascale Soumoy) Pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov\, 415 352-3669.Presentation // Staff presentation\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote to Re-Initiate Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17\, an Update to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area PlanThe Commission will conduct a public hearing and possible vote to authorize BCDC staff to re-initiate proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 3-17 to update the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan.(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Bridge Allision SafetyFollowing Baltimore’s F. Scott Key Bridge disaster in March 2024\, BCDC’s regional partners\, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission\, the federal Department of Transportation\, and the San Francisco Marine Exchange\, will brief the Commission on the safety status of bridges in the Bay and possible allision scenarios.(Cody Aichele) [(415/ 352-3641; cody.aichele@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Sediment Management Workshops and Action PlanCommission staff will provide a briefing on the Sediment for Wetland Adaptation Project\, a policy coordination effort and potential Bay Plan Amendment to increase the availability and use of sediments and soils to restore and adapt wetlands to rising sea levels. This briefing will update the work of BCDC and other staff following the two-day in-person workshop in early 2024 to review and discuss potential changes to sediment management and develop an action plan for the region.Rachel Cohen [415/352-3661; rachel.cohen@bcdc.ca.gov]San Francisco Bay Sediment & Soil Beneficial Reuse for Wetland Adaptation Action Plan // Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n \nPurpose of This Report \nThe purpose of this report is to inform the Commission about new administrative matters. \n\nThe Commission’s rules allow the Executive Director to take action on various administrative matters on behalf of the Commission. This report is provided for Commissioners and the public to learn about actions the Executive Director proposes to take or has recently taken.\nThis report also details new planning and permitting matters taken by local governments in the secondary management area of the Suisun Marsh.\n\nPending Administrative Permit Application \nWhat is being reported here: \nThe Executive Director acts on administrative permit applications. Pending administrative applications are reported here to inform Commissioners and the public and to answer any questions or concerns about the Executive Director’s determination that a project is “minor” in scope. \nThe Commission has two options regarding how to proceed \n\nIf the Commission takes no action\, the Executive Director will act on these pending applications within the deadlines established by state law; or\,\nIf a Commissioner objects to the classification of the project as “minor\,” and a majority of Commissioners agree\, a hearing will be scheduled to decide on the proper classification of the project.\n\nNew Administrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Vallejo555 Santa Clara StreetVallejo\, CA 94590 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.015.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/12/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/10/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\,in a Bay Plan-designated Waterfront Park\, Beach Priority Use Area\, at 50 Solano Avenue\, in the City of Vallejo\, Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nWithin the Shoreline Band\, to improve a site for future development\, including public access: \n\nExcavate an approximately 8\,500-square-foot area to a depth of approximately 15 to 20 feet below ground surface;\nRemove up to approximately 10\,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and extract contaminated groundwater\, and dispose of the soil and groundwater at sites outside the Commission’s jurisdiction;\nBackfill the excavated area with clean soil;\nInstall up to three monitoring wells; and\nRestore the site to its original grade.\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Lisa Herron; 415/352-3654 or lisa.herron@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\nNotice of Projects Proceeding Under Regionwide Permits \nWhat is being reported here: \nThe Executive Director takes action on requests by projects that apply to proceed under a regionwide permit. When the Executive Director grants permission for a project to proceed under a regionwide permit\, details on the project are reported here. \nThis update is provided for information only; there is no further action for the Commission to take. \nRecent Projects Authorized to Proceed Under a Regionwide Permit\n\n\n\n Permit ApplicationPermitteeProject LocationProject Description\n\n\n\n\n NOI2023.017.00Laurence BekinsIn the Bay\, at 85 Bellevue Avenue in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County.In-kind replacement of a 200-square-foot floating dock.\n\n\n NOI2024.001.00San Francisco International AirportIn the 100 foot shoreline band\, at San Francisco International Airport\, in San Mateo County.Improve existing stormwater drainage structures as a part \nof the Taxiway L Drainage Improvement Project.\n\n\n\n NOI2024.011.00South End Rowing ClubIn the Bay\, at the South End Rowing Club\, located at 500 Jefferson St\, in the City and County of San Francisco.Install an approximately 6-foot-high and 5.5-foot-long stainless steel and aluminum battery powered davit to an existing dock’s concrete piles.\n\n\n NOI2024.015.00Sausalito Yacht ClubIn the Bay in the City of Sausalito in the County of Marin marking the no wake zone of the Sausalito Yacht Club at 100 Humbolt Ave.Installing two new mooring buoys to demarcate the no wake zone for the marina.\n\n\n NOI2024.016.00Sara GriffithIn the Bay in the City of Belvedere in the County of Marin at 79 Bellevue Avenue.Replace residential dock and gangway.\n\n\n\n \nNotice of Recently Issued Emergency Permits \nThe Executive Director issues emergency permits\, in consultation with the Chair of the Commission if time allows. Any new emergency permits issued are reported here. \nThis update is provided for information only; there is no further action for the Commission to take. The Executive Director also describes the emergency permit at the next meeting of the full Commission. \nRecently Issued Emergency Permits \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit5401 Old Redwood Hwy\, Suite 200Petaluma\, CA 94954 \n\n\nEmergency Permit No. E2024.004.00 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at Black Point Bridge Crossing the Petaluma River just east of Novato in the Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemoving and replacing seven timber piles and various timber bracing and facing elements of the existing central dolphin fender system. The project will result in approximately no net increase in fill as all materials will be replaced in kind. \nJulie Garren [415/352-3624 or julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov]\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nRep. Huffman\, Richardson Bay Regional Agency Celebrate Launch of New Eelgrass Protection Zone\nCampaign finances surge for contender in San Mateo County District 4 supervisor race\nSausalito sea level rise plan advances\nMayor London Breed Celebrates Grand Opening of Bayfront Park in Mission Bay\nHere’s How SF Mayoral Candidates Plan to Address Climate Impacts on the City\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording\n Video recording \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-7-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241104T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241104T183000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T034827Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241101T172057Z UID:10000123-1730739600-1730745000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:November 4\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting Cancelled DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-4-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241023T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241023T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T050045Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241011T181149Z UID:10000144-1729675800-1729684800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 23\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-23-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241018T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241018T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20241014T213932Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241024T171949Z UID:10000207-1729245600-1729252800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 18\, 2024 Sediment & Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting Agenda \nPresentation URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-18-2024-sediment-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241017T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241017T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240127T064820Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241115T213757Z UID:10000108-1729170000-1729184400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 17\, 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 video conference link and teleconference information for members of the public to participate virtually. \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nSonoma County Administration Building: 575 Administration Drive\, Room 100A\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95403\nVTA Administrative Offices – Bldg B.\, 3331 N. First Street\, San Jose\, CA 95134\nCaltrans Building District 4: 111 Grand Ave\, Oakland\, CA 94612\nOffice of Supervisor John Gioia: 11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\n675 Texas Street Suite 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n2379 Sheffield Drive\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n360 Alcatraz Avenue\, Oakland\, CA 94618\n890 Osos Street\, Suite H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/88957377085?pwd=CFMFOs7GPYLNWvppuarJOk3QJXpcc1.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID889 5737 7085 \nPasscode640211 \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 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(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for the September 5\, 2024 Meeting\n(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters\n(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing on the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24)\nThe Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24 (BPA 1-24). BPA 1-24 would adopt a Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\, including guidelines for local governments to use to prepare rising sea level plans pursuant to Senate Bill 272 (Laird\, 2023). BPA 1-24 would also amend several San Francisco Bay Plan Climate Change Findings and Policies.\n(Jaclyn Perrin-Martinez) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.perrin-martinez@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAppendix A: Draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\nAppendix B: Detailed Staff Analysis of Proposed Revisions to Bay Plan Climate Change Findings and Policies\, and Appendix C: Clean Copy of Proposed Bay Plan Climate Change Findings and Policies\nPublic comment letters // Presentation // Letters received after the public comment period \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n Administrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nPatrick and Kathryn Craig9 Sandy Beach RoadVallejo\, CA 94590 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2022.015.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n06/10/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n09/08/2024 (after the fact authorization)\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at 9 Sandy Beach Road\, in unincorporated Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nAfter-the-fact authorization for the removal and reconstruction of an approximately 292-square foot existing carport\, including approximately 90 square feet in the Commission’s Bay jurisdiction and 202 square feet in the shoreline band. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nJHS Properties2173 Francisco Boulevard East\, Suite DSan Rafael\, CA 9490 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2019.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/21/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/19/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Goodrick Avenue and Elmar Court\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nTo authorize (after-the-fact) a solar farm and construct a new portion of the Bay Trail. \nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band \n\nAuthorize (after-the-fact) an approximately 75\,000-square-foot portion of an approximately 8-acre solar farm\, involving:\n\nApproximately 2\,735 linear feet of solar panels (7\,030 40- by 77-inch panels) arranged in rows measuring approximately 12 feet deep and no taller than 10 feet.\nApproximately 1\,200 linear feet of 8-foot-tall security fencing.\n\n\nRemove and/or relocate existing fencing and solar panels as needed to make room for construction of new Bay Trail segment\n\nRemove approximately 770 linear feet of existing unpermitted security fencing.\nRemove approximately 1\,500 square feet of existing unpermitted solar panels.\nRemove vegetation and rough grade trail area to contours shown on plan.\n\n\nConstruct an approximately 1\,200-foot-long new Bay Trail segment\, involving:\n\nAn approximately 1\,200-foot-long segment of 12-foot-wide asphalt path with 3 feet of decomposed granite shoulder on each side.\nAn interim trail terminus at the western edge of the property with 2 benches.\nApproximately 800 square feet of low-maintenance and drought tolerant planting.\nBay Trail signage at the entrance from Elmar Court.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording\n \nMeeting video\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-17-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241015T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241015T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T060347Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241105T171627Z UID:10000158-1728997200-1729011600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 15\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location 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 Location \nMetro Center\n375 Beale Street\, Temezcal Room\nSan 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/84996338811?pwd=uayRxrTs22k43tAsxKaZ0GbYuuoxpt.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers\n1 (816) 423 4282\n1 (866) 590-5055\nConference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID\n849 9633 8811 \nPasscode\n816334 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Draft Guidelines (120 minutes)\nThe Engineering Criteria Review Board will hold its second and final review of BCDC’s draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) guidelines\, which are currently out for public comment. When finalized by the end of 2024\, the RSAP guidelines will be used by local jurisdictions for developing Subregional Shoreline Resiliency Plans\, required by Senate Bill 272 (Laird 2023)\, that effectively address local and regional sea level rise risks. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n Video recording \n\n \n\nTranscript\n\nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hello! I’d like to welcome \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: oops. Sorry. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We have new microphones \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that are kind of echoing in this room. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’d like to welcome everyone to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This meeting is being recorded. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hey? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid in-person and online ecrb meeting. My name is Rod Iwashta. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I am chair of the Ecrb. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, should be. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Do you? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Do you want my mic on for my computer as well. No\, yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay. I’ll try to be. I’ll read closer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I have a few announcements. Our 1st order of business is to call the role board members. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please use the microphones on the table to respond\, unmute yourselves to respond and mute yourselves again. After responding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Jen\, please call the roll. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Roddy Washta chair of the board here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Jim French vice chair. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Sure. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bob Talia \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Geema Kasali. Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Chris\, may \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I know Chris was gonna be out today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Ramin Golisorki. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Here \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nick Sitar. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Gail Johnson. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Patrick Ryan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then we have some alternates present today filling in for people on the board. We have Bill Treme. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Great. And then I do see talia travisaru \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on the zoom. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And Ellie\, you can participate as a member of the public. If you want to comment at the end. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is there anyone else on the board I’ve omitted? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I believe Dylan might be joining us remotely later. But Justin is out. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Cherry Washedad. We have a quorum of at least 5 present. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. We have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. I now call the meeting to order. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I want to start with some instructions on how we can best participate in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: First\, st everyone on the board. When you are not involved in the active discussion. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: When you do speak today\, please move your microphone close to your mouth and speak loudly. So everyone in the room or on Zoom can hear you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Also. The mics are directional\, so you can leave them on during discussions\, if you prefer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you have a camera\, please make sure it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: also board members. If you would like to speak. During the meeting you may raise your actual hand or your virtual zoom hand\, whichever you prefer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host Margie\, who is working behind the scenes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please be patient with us if it’s needed \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ex parte communications as set forth in Bcdc’s communications \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or regulations. Sorry a member of the Ecrb shall not have any oral or written communication regarding a proposed project \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or other matter that has been noticed \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: prospective applicant or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Board members\, in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide the staff with a notice on any \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: written or oral ex parte communications. I invite you to report on any such communications at this point by raising your hand \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and unmuting yourself. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay for the record. No hands have been raised. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, now on to agenda. Item number 2 staff updates. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Jen\, can you provide us with? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Or now we will have a staff update from senior engineer and board secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Chair Washta. I would like to provide an update on upcoming meetings \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on November 19th Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I just found out that this meeting will be fully remote. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so people doesn’t\, don’t have to come in to the office for this training\, because it’s just a training. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I hope as many Ecrb members can attend as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The meeting will still be a public meeting and recorded. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There is currently nothing on the agenda for the December 10th meeting \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and as usual\, building management needs this room at 5 o’clock sharp. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and so we’ll \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t think we should have a problem winding up the meeting by 4 30 today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hopefully sooner than that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Lastly\, I appreciate all board members Rsvping via outlook to me. To the meeting invites\, so I can determine who will be present for the meetings. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and those are all my announcements. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: before we move on to the presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: are there any announcements from board members? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, I don’t see any raised hands\, so we’ll move on. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Now. We will move on to the main agenda. Item\, the discussion of the draft \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: regional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: also known as the Rsap Guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The Ecrb 1st held a meeting in June of this year to provide feedback \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on an earlier version of the draft Rsap guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bcdc has updated the document \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: based on extensive feedback and issued an updated public draft. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Rsap guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Today is our final meeting to provide feedback. This meeting will proceed according to the following agenda. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 1st up Dana Breckwald\, assistant planning director for the for climate adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and Jackie Perrin Martinez\, Senior Climate adaptation. Planner will make a 45 min presentation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask clarifying questions. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: At the end of the presentation we will open the meeting for public comments related to the presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: After hearing any comments from the public\, the Ecrb will resume the discussion with their questions\, comments\, and feedback on rsap guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: At the end of this discussion I will ask for final comments and then close the agenda. Item \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: bye. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I would like to ask board members and presenters to please turn on your cameras for any discussion during or after the presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I would now like to turn it over to BC. DC. Planning team to begin their presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Great. Thank you so much. Happy to be back today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Apologies for those of you who have heard this presentation multiple times\, Bob. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let me just get my screen share up here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, here we go. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so Bcdc is really excited that we’re here with the regional shoreline Adaptation plan. We have been in the midst of our public comment period on the public draft of the shoreline Adaptation plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It closes this Friday. So we’re nearing the end of this public comment period. We have a hearing on Thursday at our commission meeting that will allow us to discuss this further\, but we’re really excited to talk it through with you today. Share with you where we are and hear your thoughts on it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So as Rod said\, I’m Dana Breckwald. I’m the assistant plan director for climate adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Here are our goals\, really for the presentation today we want to make sure that you\, as Ecrb representatives\, and therefore associated with Bcdc. That you’re really familiar with the shoreline adaptation plan with the content\, purpose\, and outcomes\, and that you feel comfortable\, being able to talk about it with your colleagues. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We want to just clarify some things that you know are required. What’s to come? What? Sb. 272 actually says about the responsibilities for local governments. And Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We want you also to be advocates for the regional shoreline adaptation plan. So how can you share out what this means to communities\, to other interested parties and help them get engaged in the planning process throughout the bay that’s coming over the next 10 years. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then\, you know\, if you do have want to make official public comment\, we encourage you to do so between now and Friday. And hopefully\, this presentation will give you the knowledge that you need to be able to do that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I wanna just start again. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hold on. How do I \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hide this? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Minimize that here? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah. Oh\, yeah\, that’s not my computer. Okay\, so these are the questions that Jen sent in the staff report\, and we just want to pose them right now. So that you can think about them as you’re going through the presentation\, and then\, of course we will revisit these again at the end. But\, you know\, is there anything missing from the technical standards or anything that needs additional explanation? Are there any components of the guidelines themselves that are missing or are too burdensome? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Do you think the adaptation strategy standards will lead to the right kinds of projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: What are some trade-offs or challenges you can anticipate with applying the guidelines as they’re written. And then\, lastly\, what kind of technical assistance would be helpful to ensure the guidelines are most usable to cities and counties. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So let’s get into what this plan is and what it means for local governments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So September 16\, th we launched the public comment phase for the regional shoreline adaptation plan. It was distributed via email to thousands of affected local governments in the region along with other interested parties\, special districts\, etc. Everything is available which Jen links you to already\, but we have materials both on our Bcdc. And our Bay adapt websites. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I also wanted to point out that we have a link to an online data mapping platform which is currently in its draft form. This is not part of our official public comment\, because it’s not part of the Bay Plan Amendment\, but it is a preview to a tool that will be launching in early 2025. That will help users implement the guidelines with data. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There are 4 ways that we’re soliciting public comment. We have an online comment form. You can mail or email a letter\, although since it’s Tuesday you’ve got to get it in the mail today\, if you want to arrive by Friday\, and then\, as I mentioned\, we have a public hearing scheduled for this Thursday at one Pm. Here at BCC’s offices\, or via Zoom. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I just want to point out here that the questions and comments that are made today are actually are not recorded as official public comment. So please make sure that if you do have official public comment\, submit them through one of our formal channels. Of course we will take the note notes and take into consideration all the comments you make here today. But if you’d like it to be public\, please please use our formal channels. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So what is the regional shoreline adaptation plan\, or the Rsap\, as you’ll hear us call it\, in the simplest terms. It’s a region wide plan for the bay that guides the creation of locally\, of coordinated\, locally planned sea level rise\, adaptation actions that meet that work together to meet regional goals. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And it does this by combining a top down with a bottom up\, approach the regional approach. The top down includes a region wide\, one bay vision. For what adaptation along the bay shoreline should look like as well as strategic regional priorities that identify region-wide vulnerability issues that need to be addressed in local adaptation\, planning \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the plan guidelines and minimum standards set set the stage for sub-regional shoreline adaptation plans which are now required by all cities and counties to develop over the next 10 years. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The guidelines tell you how to develop the plans and how to create adaptation strategies that meet consistent standards and advance the one bay vision. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So later Jackie will spend some time covering what’s in this document and what each of these elements are. But we also\, as I mentioned\, want you to understand why it’s been created and what it means for local adaptation planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So before we get to the contents of the plan\, I just want to share a little bit of background about why Bcdc. Why was Bcdc. The agency that was named in this bill\, Bcdc. As you know\, has been serving the region since 1965\, and about a dozen years ago we recognized that the shoreline was changing. And so\, as you are aware\, we incorporated sea level rise into our body of work\, including policies that impact permitting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve also been leading our adapting to rising tides program\, and one of our recent accomplishments on the on the planning side is the publication of the Bay adapt joint platform which we have briefed you on in the past. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and the the regional shoreline adaptation plan actually builds on many of the actions named in the bay adopt joint platform\, and it was also named in Sb. 2\, 72. That the guidelines should follow. Bay adapts basic guiding principles. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve also been working for many years to align and support the work of other regional agencies like Plan Bay Area 2050\, and the estuary blueprint. So this is all just to say that we’re what we’re bringing into the guidelines and the regional Showing adaptation plan is built on a decade plus of foundational studies and initiatives. Arch Bay Area\, which is our major overview of vulnerability across systems in the Bay area. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and as well as all the work that we have been doing in engaging with local governments over the past decade plus. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And even though each city and county is unique\, we’re all linked due to our shared shoreline. So impacts in one part of the bay will have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the bay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and different communities are also in different stages of planning. Some need support to even get started. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So it’s really important that we work together as a connected region. We’ve enumerated some of the benefits here that we think\, come with regional planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ensuring that adaptation is coordinated to reduce UN \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unintended impacts on our neighbors. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that we prioritize resources in vulnerable frontline communities that have endured historic harms. We prioritize plan for and protect the long term health of our wetlands and coastal habitats. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re strategic about how we actually implement projects so that we target the most important systems. First\, st \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we have common standards and methods so that we can share data and information across the region. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we line up an effective pipeline for funding adaptation projects\, and lastly\, that we’re able to track and measure progress as a region as a whole\, so that we can continually adapt over time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So to add extra fuel to the fire of why\, we think it’s important for the Bay Area to plan for adaptation. Local adaptation planning is now recognized by the State as important and required by law. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Last year\, Sb. 272 was signed into law by the Governor\, and this requires that local jurisdictions develop subregional shoreline adaptation plans. By January 2034 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bcdc’s job is to develop the guidelines that these plants must follow for the bay for the outer coast. It’s the Coastal Commission. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then we have the authority to review and approve or deny sub-regional plans based on the consistency with these guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: cities\, and counties have the opportunity to apply for funding to complete this plans\, and in the bill it states that approved plans will also unlock dollars for implementation of projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And even though the law is new adaptation\, planning in the Bay area is not. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And while the regional Shoreline Adaptation plan sets out a complete process to develop a compliant plan. Many cities are likely to have pieces of this already completed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So just be aware\, as you’re listening through the guidelines that we are committed to working with each community\, to meet them where they are\, and complete the plans to build upon what has already been done locally. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So cities and counties within BCC’s jurisdiction within the 100 foot shoreline band are required to develop subregional shoreline adaptation plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This table shows the cities and counties that fall into this category. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and you’ll also see that some cities have an asterisk next to them. These are cities that are not within BCC’s jurisdiction\, but are projected to be impacted by coastal flood hazards as included in the plan in the near term\, and may want to participate in plan development. For that reason \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: special districts are also not required by the bill to develop plans\, but of course they could play a critical role in the development of these local plans as they own and manage a lot of the shoreline \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: cities and counties may choose to prepare their own plan\, especially if they’re already pretty advanced in their planning process\, but we also highly encourage neighboring cities and counties to work together\, to create a multi-jurisdictional plan that looks at impacts and solutions across jurisdictional boundaries. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So now I’m going to turn it over to Jackie to do a deep dive into the contents of the Rsap. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Great thanks\, Dana. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: all right. So I’m going to provide\, as you said\, an overview on the contents and the development of the draft regional shoreline adaptation plan. And I’ll also be abbreviating it as Rsap. We’ll be saying it often. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So next slide\, please. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I want to start by saying that we were really intentional about our goals for developing the Rsap\, and especially for developing\, developing the guidelines. In this document\, which outline the requirements for local jurisdictions to prepare subregional shoreline adaptation plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: from the very conception we aim to ensure that the guidelines are designed to be flexible and provide multiple avenues to meet requirements. We’re continuing to look at our language in the draft to make sure that we really are. We are committed\, as Dana said\, to working with jurisdictions on this level of flexibility. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We also want to ensure that they encourage alignment across multiple planning processes\, that they’re right size\, meaning that they recognize differing levels of capacity and don’t leave smaller or lower capacity jurisdictions behind \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that they build upon existing efforts through allowing use of existing elements that meet the guidelines again more to this flexibility\, and that they are impactful that they respond to the needs facing local jurisdictions and are locally adopted\, codified\, and provide the right level of information to catalyze implementation of policies and projects for sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and the draft Rc. Was collaboratively developed through multiple forms of engagement. We heard from community members through local community events and co-hosted local workshops with 5 community-based organizations to test our guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we deeply engage with subject matter experts through our advisory group who reviewed multiple drafts of the Rsap before the one that we’re sharing during this public comment period. And in fact\, this draft is Number 3. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We shared an early draft with local government planners and held a planning planner and practitioner workshop to ensure that the guidelines work for local planners. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And lastly\, we’ve been touring the region and speaking at Mayor’s Conferences and County Supervisor meetings to share what we’ve been working on as widely as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So thank you. To all those who have participated. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and all of this engagement yielded an enormous amount of feedback. I won’t be able to go through all of it\, but I do want to highlight just some of this feedback and how we’ve been addressing it in the plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve heard about the critical importance of emphasizing habitats and nature-based solutions throughout the document\, and we work to make it clear that a healthy future bay is an integral part of how we see the future of adaptation along the bay shoreline. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We heard about the need to provide consideration for existing as well as new developments which we’ve included in our strategic regional priority and adaptation standards which I will touch on in this presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We also heard a desire for flexibility to work with existing plans\, and we’ve been working to do that in this draft\, and we’ll continue to do so in the next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We heard the need to ensure that shoreline solutions are based on local context\, and we’ll share how the guidelines really include this bottom-up approach to achieve this local nuance while still working towards regional goals. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We also heard an ask for simplification and clarity about what is required\, and this draft seeks to provide clear instructions and remove guesswork about what we’re asking for. We include a complete plan submittal checklist to help make it clear what we’re asking for and why \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we’ve also had a lot of discussion about what flood hazards to include and the appropriate sea level Rise projections to use. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And lastly\, we’ve been. While this has been a relatively fast timeline. We have heard an appreciation for Bcdc’s efforts to include so many stakeholders and make meaningful changes to each of our drafts in response to those comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So now\, getting into the draft and what the sections of this contain\, there’s 3 sections that we have right now. Section one includes the introduction. It provides the underlying science and the context for the Rsap and the subregional adaptation plans. Dana shared a lot of that context in there at the beginning of this presentation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: section 2 is our one bay vision which includes our strategic regional priorities. This section can be thought about as that regional approach. The top down plan to ensuring that the contribution of local adaptation actions adds up to a shared set of outcomes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and section 3 provides the subregional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines\, which speaks to the requirements of Sb. 272. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This is that bottom-up component where local planning will engage with their local communities\, identify local priorities and develop adaptation strategies suitable to their local conditions\, context and community values. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And you can find this graphic in the beginning of our of our document to provide that orientation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So\, starting with the one bay vision\, this defines the regional outcomes of adaptation that all of adaptation should collectively be striving to achieve. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And this vision served as the foundation for the subregional plan guidelines to ensure that local planning contributes to these key outcomes that we think are necessary for a resilient future bay area. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The one bay vision includes a statement for the region as a whole which acknowledges the interconnectedness of our region and our societies and all of these different issues. But it also includes a vision statement and goal for 8 individual topic areas that represent key categories and that are addressed throughout the plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So to just give you a little highlight of what’s in this vision\, the regional vision starts by stating\, 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 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for each topic area. We have a high level vision statement\, and these state as sea levels rise\, communities are healthy and vibrant\, healthy baylands\, ecosystems\, thrive places are designed for changing shorelines. Critical services are reliable. The bay shoreline is accessible to all. Safe and reliable transportation connects us all. People and ecosystems are safe from contamination risks \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and regional collaboration drives efficient and effective adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Each of these 8 topic areas has a corresponding strategic regional priority. As Dana mentioned\, these are the critical issues that affect the well-being of our entire region and include issues that must be addressed across jurisdictional boundaries \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: through the sub regional plan guidelines. We require that local jurisdictions that contain any of these regional priorities include them in their local planning and describe their part in contributing to these regional and wide-ranging benefits. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m going to touch on each of these. So you have a sense of what these regional priorities are. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These include reducing displacement of communities on the front lines. To do this we ensure that local plans include actions to mitigate displacement\, risk \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ensuring Bayland’s ecosystems are complete and connected. We require that habitats are not only improved locally in planning\, but also planned for across jurisdictional boundaries. As nature doesn’t follow these lines \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: promoting safe and strategic growth and density\, we utilize Plan Bay Area’s growth geographies and encourage growth in these locations to meet regional housing and development needs \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: maintaining reliable critical and emergency services. We ensure key critical infrastructure are prioritized to maintain services provided which often cross jurisdictional boundaries. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: improving connected regional shoreline access. We require that public access and access to regionally significant parks and trails\, stays connected across shoreline adaptation plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: maintaining the regional movement of people and goods. We ensure that local plans incorporate how the functions of these key assets will be maintained into the future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Another priority is reducing contamination in and in environmental justice communities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So not only do we include contamination as an asset to be assessed across all plans. But we state a regional priority that contaminated sites in specific communities need to be highlighted and addressed 1st \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and last\, but not least is ensuring that flood risk. Reduction is achieved with neighbors\, and across jurisdictions we require that certain parts of the shoreline with high hydrologic connectivity demonstrate how their efforts work together to minimize unintentional flooding that could result. If everyone goes it alone. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: As you can see\, these are important and often interconnected issues and addressing them effectively\, means that cities and counties will likely need to work together\, or they’ll need to work together\, maybe likely\, even more than they already do to build this resilient future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So now\, going into the subregional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the guidelines lay out a planning process organized by elements in a subregional plan. These elements include planning process\, existing conditions\, vulnerability\, assessment\, adaptation\, strategies and pathways\, land use and policy. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: project implementation and funding and a project list \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for those who are familiar with sea level Rise adaptation. You may have heard me say this before\, but this shouldn’t look new\, and that is intentional. We developed this\, based on existing plans in the region\, and the plan requirements are structured similar to Fema’s local hazard mitigation plan guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Purpose of the guidelines is to standardize the process to ensure that all planning is using the best available science information and practices to help us achieve the one bay vision. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You can think about this as a cheat sheet for how to do good planning \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as part of the guidelines. We also developed 4 minimum standards\, while the plan elements describe a process for planning\, and will naturally include a lot of local nuance. The standards set consistent baselines for all adaptation planning\, and these will be used across the planning process. These include coastal flood hazards and sea level rise scenarios\, minimum categories and assets and equity assessment and adaptation strategy standards. And I will provide a really brief overview of these components in the next 2 slides. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So just again\, very briefly\, because there’s a lot more in the draft itself element\, a requires a description of the plan partners\, the planning area and equitable community engagement. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And I’ll just also note that the planning area\, as Dana mentioned\, can be a city county or a combination. And this could also include planning at the operational landscape units \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element B requires a list listing existing plans\, policies\, physical and social conditions that create the context for your plan \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element C is where there’s an assessment of the vulnerability of critical assets\, issues\, and populations to coastal flood hazards. This is where those strategic regional priorities get elevated into the process \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element D is where adaptation strategies are identified and preferred\, approaches are selected that respond to the vulnerabilities identified in the previous element. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Element. E requires a summary of the approach necessary\, and the land use changes and policies that are required to achieve the adaptation strategies identified in element D \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: element F requires a description of implementation\, including responsible parties. The timeline costs and potential funding sources. And lastly\, element. G. Is where we ask jurisdictions to provide their list of priority projects again\, stemming from the adaptation strategies. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The standards\, as I mentioned\, are referenced throughout the plan elements. The coastal flood hazards and sea level rise scenarios\, identify 4 minimum hazards that must be addressed\, all of which are exacerbated by sea level rise. These include tidal inundation\, the 100 year storm surge and shallow and emergent groundwater. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We set baselines for sea level rise scenarios based upon the Ocean Protection Council’s updated sea level rise guidance\, which includes point 8 feet by 2050\, and 3 scenarios for 2\,103 point one feet 4.9 and 6.6. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Again\, we’re very aligned with the State’s best available science. On this \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we also include minimum categories and assets to ensure that no key issues are being left out of planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These only apply if these assets appear in a given location\, and Bcdc. Provides regionally available data to meet many of these requirements for jurisdictions that don’t have easy access to some of this data. The Dana mentioned earlier\, the mapping platform or the draft data preview. That’s where we have included a lot of this data \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that we can make available. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The Equity assessment standard includes equity focused questions that must be answered throughout the plan elements to ensure that equity is being centered in the process. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And\, lastly\, the adaptation strategy standards lay out the outcomes of adaptation to guide the selection and development of strategies and adaptation pathways. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s 20 standards and they’re organized by 3 categories which I will summarize next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the adaptation strategy standards represent the key outcomes of adaptation\, recognizing that there’s many different ways that local adaptation can achieve\, those outcomes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: could be various strategies that work together to meet this set of outcomes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: standards with a green circle indicate that the outcomes these specific standards are related to the strategic regional priorities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So any of the standards with a green would only apply if a jurisdiction also has that strategic regional priority in their location. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: All of the standards are organized by 3 buckets\, starting with what’s at the water and maximizing the benefits of water\, dependent shoreline uses and Bayland’s habitats. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These standards include promoting public access. Water dependent uses\, such as ports\, marinas\, and water access points \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ensuring that Bayland habitats are improved and have the ability to exist into the future. The second grouping is improving. Community health\, economic development\, infrastructure and housing. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: These standards include achieving key outcomes related to reducing flood risk for existing developments and strategic planning for new development. Along with many of the key issues I mentioned earlier in the strategic regional priorities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and the last category is focused on creating pathways to respond to changing flood risks over time. This is the emphasis on building the adaptive capacity to implement adaptation pathways and be responsive to risk these actions. These include actions that governments can take such as updates to local standards\, codes\, and land uses. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I have the list here. And again you can read all about them in the draft. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Lastly\, I want to note that Bcdc. Has laid out a formal process for developing\, submitting\, and approving subregional plans with key responsibilities for both local government staff and Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The Rsap is intended to be adopted as a Bay Plan amendment\, and Dana will touch on that next which will give Bcdc. The ability to review subregional plans for consistency with the guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and our document sets these expectations for compliance. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This process includes a public noticing\, when plans are initiated\, a minimum number of consultation meetings between local government staff and Bcdc. That we can work with you on where you’re starting from and how we can ensure that maybe existing work that you’re doing can best meet the guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ll also then require a local approval by elected boards at the local level. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that there is a local adoption of these plans before they’re submitted to Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Once submitted to Bcdc. We also have laid out a process where we will review the plans\, develop our staff reports\, notice public hearing\, and bring to our Commissioners for a vote for approval. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I know that we have shared a lot of information with you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we want to emphasize again that we \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we intend to provide a lot of flexibility in how to create plans with and across local jurisdictions that make sense for your communities. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We want to work with you to help ensure that we’re truly building upon past and existing research and the decisions that have already been made. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and ensure that the guidelines really serve you and your communities\, that they do\, in fact\, provide a helpful cheat sheet for how to do good planning while still providing the necessary space for local solutions that can work towards both local and regional benefit. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And there’s no doubt about it that this work is very hard that the challenge of sea level rise before us is immense\, but we believe in the outcomes of good\, coordinated and consistent planning that we can achieve together \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and meeting these guidelines ensures that we are\, in fact\, prioritizing equitable processes and resources to frontline and environmental justice communities that we’re reducing flood risk to existing homes\, jobs and neighborhoods\, that we are ensuring flood safety in new developments\, that we are continuing to enjoy the things we love about the bay\, recreational areas\, habitats and access to nature\, that we can continue to rely on the services that we need\, the movement of people and goods and other connected systems \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that we’re prioritizing the cleanup of contaminated sites\, especially in areas susceptible and vulnerable to groundwater rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that we are creating collaborative governance with the ability to respond to these risks and continue to adapt over time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So with that\, thank you\, and I’ll turn it back over to Dana for a couple more closing slides for our presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks\, Jackie. So before we get into our discussion. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: just sharing with you a couple of what’s next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the 1st thing to note is that\, as Jackie mentioned\, in order for Bcdc. To carry out its responsibilities under Sb. 272\, we have decided to formally adopt the Rsap as a Bay Plan amendment to give us the authority internally to review and approve local government sub-regional shrine adaptation plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re adopting this through a process called a Bay Plan Amendment and staff is proposing that the Commission adopt the entire Rsap by reference as a component of the Bay plan. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re also proposing to make changes in the existing Bay plan\, climate change findings and policies. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Especially climate change policy 6\, which called for creating a regional showing adaptation strategy. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we’re amending this to say that the Rsap is now established for use and approval of these these plans. This is the strategy that was laid out in climate change policy. 6. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The policy also provides direction for future BC BCC action in this area\, such as providing ongoing technical and policy support. So that’s codifying. That’s being codified in the plan amendment or in the policy changes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But it’s also worth noting that these changes do not affect the way that BCC. Permits projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Some limited updates to policy. 7 allows Bcdc staff to use the Rsap and sub-regional plans in an advisory capacity when reviewing \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the benefits of projects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So all these changes can be found in the Bcdc staff report and preliminary recommendation online. If you’re interested in that sort of thing. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay? Sorry. My computer’s thinking here. We also are working on some tools to help support local jurisdictions and creating their subregional plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in 2025\, as we mentioned a few times\, we will be publishing the final version of our online mapping platform. This will provide a lot of the regionally available data layers that Jackie mentioned to help it visualize existing conditions\, map all of the strategic regional priorities\, support and vulnerability assessments and could inform adaptation strategies and pathways. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the mapping platform data and functionality will be updated regularly by BCC. Staff when best new available science is published. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And again\, you can see a preview of that online. Now\, it doesn’t contain all of the data layers that the final version will or all of the functions. But it is a taste of of what you of what you can expect. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re also begin in 2025 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to develop a local assistance program\, and this will help provide support on how to create plans\, support community capacity\, especially in frontline communities and stay connected with resources. So you’ll be hearing more about that as we develop it in the future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So this is just a visual look at at where we’ve been and what’s coming. We released the draft on September 16\, th \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we are frantically preparing for a public hearing on October 17\, th in 2 days and public comment period ending on Friday\, the 18th following\, that we will respond to public comment publicly and revise the draft to develop a final draft that will bring to BCC’s commission for their hopefully potential adoption\, and that is currently scheduled for December 5\, th 2024\, which puts us within the statutorily required timeline of adopting the guidelines by December 2024. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So this might be a little bit moot at this point unless you plan on spending the next 3 days reading this. But we we did want to offer just a couple of ways that you can dive into specific elements. And I know that Jen\, in the staff report also suggested some certain areas that might be helpful to look at if you don’t want to read the entire 200 page document \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but of course we have an executive summary for a general overview requirements for local plans that Jackie walked through. There are certain areas where we touched on how we’ve incorporated equity where we’ve talked about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: habitats and the health of the bay \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and certain areas where we’ve emphasized how the plan thinks about housing and development. So this\, this\, these slides will be posted. If you want to look at this slide more deeply. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and just want to reiterate\, please\, you know\, feel free to submit public comment. As I said we are\, we will listen to and consider all of your comments here today. But if you want us to publish your comments as public\, this is the process through which to do that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And the last thing I want to mention just at that is that we are working with Ocean Protection Council and their Sb\, one Grant program to make money available today for cities to be doing those plans. I think they’ve already \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: approved 6 or 7 grants for cities and counties in the Bay Area to develop these plans. And this is a noncompetitive Grant program that where applications are accepted on a quarterly rolling basis\, the next deadline is December 20\, th \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we are working closely with Ocean Protection Council to decide how and where this funding goes in the Bay area with the emphasis on funding these plans. There’s also a technical assistance program available for cities and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: lower capacity communities to access to right to apply for these grant programs. So if you know anyone who is seeking funding for this. This is the program to do it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So with that. This is our contact information. If you have any additional questions\, feel free to reach out. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then I guess we can jump back over to just reviewing these discussion questions before we move the conversation forward. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So do I can take this off\, or do you want me to leave the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: questions up? You can probably take it off. Okay. Also\, do you want to mention how \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there is. There is built into this process now\, future updates of the Rsop guidelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, good point. So we are planning on updating the Rsap guidelines approximately once every 5 years we know that our needs in the region will change sea level rise\, science will become more refined\, moving forward. So we are committed to sort of reassessing how things are going every 5 years. We don’t want to do it any more frequently than that\, because we don’t want to continuously move the needle on on what cities and counties have to do. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’re also requiring strategic updates to the plans themselves. This\, the sub regional shoreline adaptation plans to reflect the fact that these are active plans that should be implemented over time\, and therefore the conditions will be changing and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: cities will be reporting that back to Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Right? Thank you\, Dana and Jackie. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: At this point of the meeting we would like to receive any public comments \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: specific to the presentation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for members of the public. If you would like to speak today\, we request that you provide you only provide comments or questions \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: specific to the presentations given today. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you would like to speak\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you are here in person\, please raise your hand so we can call on you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: at which time you may come forward to the lectern. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or one of the microphones to speak. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please raise your virtual hand in zoom. You may do this by clicking the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you are attending via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to raise your hand to make a comment and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Starting with anyone present in person \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: when called upon\, you’ll be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks you will have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 3 min a limit of 3 min to speak \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as in any public meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established 3 min limit without permission \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: will be muted. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Margie\, are there any hands raised? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s no hand raised. Here. Okay\, thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. Well\, let’s return to board discussion. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Anybody on the board have a comment or a question. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and well\, then\, so then maybe I’ll ask a question. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if the the guidelines are changing\, and you’re updating the science every 5 years or so. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: What? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: What kind of provisions are there if a community or a city has \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: started down one pathway\, and then \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there is a change that is significant to affect their planning. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: They’ve already committed\, you know\, resources and funds to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that effort. How to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: How do they? Or would they be expected to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: find more money? Basically? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No\, I mean\, this is why we don’t want to necessarily move the needle to too much. There is some flexibility with the guidelines. And you know\, for example\, now\, if you already have a vulnerability assessment that is close to the sea level rise hazards that we list\, but not exactly. There is a process to sort of like work with us\, to account for work that is has already been done. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I anticipate that we will continue to do that. As we update the guidelines\, a lot of the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a lot of the work about making special accommodations or individual circumstances is going to be coming in the individual consultations that happen with cities and counties. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It’s difficult to put out guidelines that apply for to every single situation and every potential like special condition. So we are prepared to work out a lot of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how to actually make these guidelines work for individual communities as we’re doing our technical assistance program. That’s why we’re requiring so many consultations between BCC staff and cities and counties\, so I don’t have like a blanket. Answer for that. Aside from the fact that\, you know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: assuming that it’s within reason and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s there’s an understanding of sort of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Why\, we have the requirements that we do\, and that doesn’t create significant differences in the outcomes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: no matter what the situation. There’s always a commitment to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: trying to account for work that’s already been done\, particularly when it’s a change that we we make ourselves. So yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay\, thank you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Oh\, Bob Battaglia\, I see your hand is raised. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks\, thanks\, Rod. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so. I just thought I’d jump in while other people are thinking. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Have the infrastructure entities. I guess that would be like altrans and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the water districts and the wastewater \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: districts\, and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, Pg and E and etc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Have they developed? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: adaptation plans that include \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: clarification of how they’re going to maintain their infrastructure functions \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: with \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sea level rise it? I I think that would be really helpful \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: communities to try to figure out. And I guess you could add levies into that into that. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. So I? That’s my question. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I mean\, I can say we’ve definitely we’ve had. I mentioned this advisory group of about 40 individuals. So we work really hard to try to include. Just there’s so many topics. So we’ve had Caltrans involved. Bart. You know we haven’t hit everybody\, but we’ve tried to include some of those critical infrastructure folks. And we’ve thought about this a lot\, this kind of outside of a city or government\, we kind of call them like non-jurisdictional asset owners\, and especially those that cross a lot of jurisdictional boundaries. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we’ve done a lot to encourage that. They are part of these planning processes\, and we really want to be doing that in our consultations and our discussions on ensuring that if there’s a wastewater treatment district and some are public and some are not. And so encouraging\, even at that initial planning stage and project team that those folks are involved in the process. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And\, as I said\, there’s a lot of flexibility\, too\, and what these plans look like. And so they can include by reference some of the plans from those other entities. What we’re trying to do is ensure that planning is considered together and holistically\, and that people aren’t doing things along a shoreline that nobody knows about\, that they’re really kind of. There’s a space. Now to say\, This is our strategy. So and so you know\, this district owns this part of the shoreline. This is their plan\, but it’s kind of part of the picture. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So that’s ultimately what we want. The law requires that cities and counties are the ones that create or at least adopt these plans\, but we don’t specify who needs to lead the process. We just want to make sure that these jurisdictions are involved. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And in terms of what they’ve already done. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ve had various conversations with different entities about. Some are kind of doing a lot of planning. Lots are interested in working with us and with the cities. And\, as Dana mentioned\, we’ll be doing a lot of technical assistance going forward. And we’re going to scope out our role as Bcdc. And how can we support those entities working with cities and counties? How can we make sure that these connections are being made to the extent possible? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, thank you for that. And I I know I I expected at least that you you’ve been working on this\, but it seems that some of the entities for example. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and not to pick on anyone but like Caltrans\, or Pg and E\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or the railways\, and and the like. They \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it seems to me. I’m maybe I’m wrong\, but they don’t really have in their 30 or 50 year plan \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: clear ways of protecting their assets. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I don’t think I don’t know that those are actually planned for. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, I could be wrong about that. And so I don’t mean to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, act like they’re not working on it. But I I think from what I’ve seen in other places. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, the idea is\, you have a right away\, and you’re gonna stay in that right away. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know that may not actually work. And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: even so\, there’s a question\, are you gonna raise it\, or you know\, what? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: How do you tie into that? What? How does that work? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I mean? It really varies. You know\, I\, Caltrans and Pg and E both have just vast amounts of of infrastructure in the State\, and so there they might not have planned for everything. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But we have been work\, particularly with Caltrans. We’ve been working with them quite closely on how they’re doing adaptation\, planning in the region\, and ideally \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they plan \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: not on themselves and have a comprehensive picture for everything they’re going to do for every asset that they own in the Bay Area\, not done in consultation with the cities\, but ideally it is done in consultation with the cities\, so that the approach for adaptation for a particular asset is reflective of local needs as well. So it’s not necessarily like a trap. You know the worst thing. They don’t have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a plan for every piece of asset\, because we do think that it will be have better outcomes if they work in consultation with the cities and counties so hopefully\, this process will help to kind of spur that along here in the Bay area\, and they’ll you know the utilities will be good \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: partners\, and it it really varies as well like I said. Caltrans really present. The rail lines\, you know utility or rail rail owners. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they’re very hard to get a hold of. So it’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hard to answer that in a general sense\, because it’s a case by case basis. Really. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, I I just think it. I actually kind of feel like it would be a lot easier for the municipalities if \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there was a a bay vision that was a little more tangible in terms of where the major infrastructure corridors were gonna be\, and part of the reason why I say that is because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s not clear to me that they can stay where they are. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I know that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sounds like a \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: big judgment. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: until that’s shown that they can stay where they are. I think it’s a dangerous assumption \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to assume that they will stay where they are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in terms of\, you know\, big economic impact at some point in the future. Last lack of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: resilience\, you know\, kind of a brittle thing. And then\, if everyone’s planning on things to be where they are and they’re they’re not that that could be a problem. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I don’t know. I just bring that up I don’t have a solution. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But in the ideal world \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there would be some \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: regional \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: adaptation \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: vision for all the infrastructure \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that most of us don’t really have any control over. But we need to use \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is kind of where I’m coming. I think the the wastewater treatment districts are required. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: at least if they plan to do anything upgrade \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to consider sea level rise\, and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’ll leave it with that. Thanks for listening to my no\, I mean just one last thought. And\, Jack\, I have some thoughts\, too\, but we I think we do have components of that. I’m thinking of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: In our Bay area. We published a map with hotspots\, which are areas where there’s sort of a cluster of different types of infrastructure growth geographies\, vulnerable communities. It’s an overlaying of a bunch of different things. So that can be a starting point. For where we start looking at where infrastructure might need to be thought through first.st \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And we also have our strategic regional priorities which highlight the areas where \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s infrastructure that we rely on as a region. And therefore we should probably start thinking about those things sooner rather than later. And then the the question of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Does it stay in the same spot? I don’t think that’s a decision that I want the utilities to make on their own like\, I think that’s a question that needs to happen in consultation. I agree a lot of them are right through a bunch of wetlands and and a few others. So they’ve they’ve been able to stay where they are. So far it’s been interesting. So I hope I’m hoping that we have much more robust conversations about those as we as people are developing these plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And I’ll just note quickly to in our one Bay vision section. So I just read kind of the top line of it. But we have a couple more for each category\, and critical infrastructure is one we have that top line vision\, and then some specific goals. And so we’re really careful about our language about maintaining the functions of these services. These are services we need. And we’re really clear and kind of we define protection as a type of adaptation strategy\, but that we want people to reduce flood risk. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that you can do that in a lot of ways. And that’s going to be dependent on those local conditions. There\, you know\, it’s we as trying to create these standards for the region. Wanna. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s an interesting line of like\, how do we create those standards of maintaining the things that we need while allowing that local flexibility in the local conditions to dictate. What are the specific strategies to get there? So just take a\, you know. Take a look at that it doesn’t go into a ton of detail. But we try to set that value upfront in our one day vision. You know\, I think you guys have done a great job. I’ve looked at this report a couple times\, and I don’t fully understand. I haven’t fully digested it\, you know\, like a lot of people. It’s hard to focus \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 200 plus pages\, you know. When you’re a lot of other things happening. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I but this brings me to the thought which I think you’re already aware of. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that everything’s going to be adaptive. The adaptive plan will need to adapt \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and respond to challenges. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And there’s gonna be a need for what I would call technical development ways to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: address \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: data gaps \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in a way that works both sub-regionally and regionally and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so I think that adaptation concept\, even though you’re not going to update the Rsap \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: more frequently than 5 years. I mean\, I think it’s inevitable that it’ll \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: progress within the framework. I think you’ve done a really good job of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: laying it out\, but I think it. I don’t know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It might be helpful to people to understand that this is going to be a little bit of an adventure\, I think more broadly. You know\, people like the cities. It’s not going to be a 1 \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think it’s going to be very iterative in multiple ways\, multiple wheels turning. And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, and I\, I\, you know\, because this is being adopted as a bay plan\, and we don’t have the flexibility to update this on on a really super regular basis. We wanted the plan itself to be a bit timeless. And then the technical assistance program and the online mapping platform. Those are designed to be a lot more nimble and responsive\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and flexible in terms of what’s changing and the tools that we can provide to people. Which you know we’ll have tools in 3 years that we don’t have right now. And so I think that’s that’s our vision for how we we keep that nimble side. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, that’s excellent. i 1 more comment. I I would like to see more engineering. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Contribution and more content \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: within this process of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: technical development and adaptation. And I think there’s a a bunch of people that will \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: be interested in that\, and. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, should be interested in it\, and should be helpful \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in this regard. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but I’m gonna stop now and let someone else talk. And thank you. Appreciate it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks\, Bob. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Anyone else with comments \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or questions. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nope\, remain. Oh\, oh. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let Romine go 1st and then. Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thank you. Thank you\, Jackie. Thank you. Dana. Great presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: One thing that I think I’ve commented on previous discussions. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m having a hard time \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: kind of getting my head around \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bcdc’s position \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on this whole issue\, because this is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the bay impacting \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the shorelines. It’s not the other way around. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And because the charge of Bcdcs protect the waters of the bay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we’re not talking about protecting the waters of the bay. Now you’re protecting shorelines from the bay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so the narrative is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: flipped. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what I’m trying to get my head around is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is Bcdc. Now providing \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: just providing guidelines\, like\, you say maps\, for example\, to local jurisdictions. So that the local jurisdictions \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: require this adaption. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what’s happening? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, so land uses is always local\, and the projects that will occur along a shoreline in any city or county is not something that Bcdc. Will drive\, that those will be driven by local developers\, cities and counties themselves\, utilities\, etc\, the owners and managers of of that land. That’s not Bcdc. So what the authority will you are given with Sb. 272 is not more authority \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in the Bay \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or within our jurisdiction\, which does extend 100 feet\, you know\, upward from the shoreline\, but we were given the authority to set out the parameters through which people \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: think about adaptation. These these adaptation plans \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and and develop those plans locally. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we can put out our priorities. We can put out our regional vision. We can put out the priorities that the region thinks should happen. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: tie those to how cities and counties do adaptation locally? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But ultimately\, and then we can review and approve those plans based on the consistency with the guidelines that we created. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But you know\, the important thing is here is that it doesn’t Bcds. It doesn’t have any authority beyond that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So if if a city or county doesn’t do a plan\, we don’t have the authority to make them \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that you know. Sb. 2\, 72 mandates it. But you know \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: plenty of cities \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: don’t comply with state mandates because they don’t have the capacity\, or it’s not a priority\, or whatever. So our our authority is pretty conscripted in that sense based on what was given to us in the bill. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The other thing in question is\, is this. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: with this sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Does the shoreline or do you’re the 100 feet? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is it moving \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as well? We anticipate that it will. Yes. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the original makers of the Mcateer Petrus act. Didn’t think about that at the time. That’s our interpretation of the law. But there’s a lot to unpack here about BCC’s jurisdiction. Bcdc’s authorities in the future. How to better link these plans to permitting in the future. Our \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: our commission has the rising sea level working group\, and that’s really the venue that we plan on sort of workshopping a lot of these questions and identifying paths forward. And you know different roles that Bcdc could take on and play. And then how like the legal and policy pathways that would get us to that point. So if you are interested in that\, in those questions. I I recommend\, you know\, attending those working groups. I think we have one in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: November. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. There’s 1 coming up in November. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but we’re we’re really just scratching the surface on\, you know. Kind of what \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what Bcdc. Needs to do to change to meet. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, like you said the charge that we were given in 1965 was a bay that was shrinking. Now the bay is growing\, so it it mandates a rethinking of of how we do our work. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you\, Ramin geema! I think you had your hand up next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Well\, thank you so much for the great presentation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Like ramin. I’m trying to get my head around this thing\, too. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: looking at \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the Senate bill. 2 72. It seemed like. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s all carrot. No stick. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: basically. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You know\, if you do the plan by January 1\, st 2034\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know you’ve given priority for state funding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but if you don’t. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: then \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what I’m trying to get my head around is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this is the original problem. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Even if certain local jurisdiction \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: decide to do something \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unless the adjacent jurisdiction do something. I mean\, it’s not going to be. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: because we know that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know. Let’s say you want to address the issue of erosion along a shoreline. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: If you put \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: something a system there to minimize erosion \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: locally. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there are impacts \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on natural processes\, you know\, coastal processes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that affects. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, adjacent \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: basically jurisdiction. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m kind of wondering\, I mean. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how the PIN is practical \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: going to work. If \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there isn’t a mechanism to ensure that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: everyone is doing something \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the issue is regional. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Sure. Yeah\, yeah\, we can. We can both kind of probably say a lot to this. Yeah\, I mean\, so kind of 2 2 points here\, I mean\, and maybe I’ll start by saying\, you know\, this. This plan is a starting point. It’s not gonna solve everything. I think that’s kind of important to know\, too. So in the plan\, in our element\, a in our planning process. 1st off\, we’re really encouraging cities and counties to work together\, whether that’s a single plan that they create \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or separate plans. But we have a requirement that says\, Tell us how you’re coordinating with your neighbor\, and we want to see this. And in our consultation meetings we’re going to ask those questions about how are your strategies aligned? And so at various points of the process. You know\, when we ask for people to assess different assets for those strategic regional priorities\, those are the places where we’re really asking people to consider kind of impacts\, or how they fit into a broader picture. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And beyond that\, you know we are\, they said\, this is really a starting point. You know\, there’s a lot of not only do we intend to do a lot more technical assistance in the plans\, but we are working with other agencies. I think we intend as a region to develop out these programs. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You know\, for example\, there’s a science consortium that’s kind of getting off the ground\, and in the Baydap joint platform\, which is kind of where the Rsap also stems from a lot of sources. We list out all of these different types of needs for the region. And some of it is on more of these cumulative impacts\, which is what you’re you know you’re speaking to. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Those are hard to get at\, you know\, that takes a lot of kind of technical understanding. How does an adaptation strategy in this aspect actually affect those kind of hydrological processes\, and the currents and the sediments and other places. And so I think\, at least the way that I envision it is that we are. This is our starting point. We are going to iterate on this. As Bob was saying\, too\, this is an adaptive program\, and that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we want to be building up partnerships and those resources to do some more of that planning. As the technology gets better. As we build out our partnerships as we get more funding\, I think we see this only growing in terms of our ability to to make sure that people are putting in solutions that are not\, you know\, worsening things. And this is where we’re starting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Did you add anything to that? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: no\, I mean\, you know\, we are tracking the projects that people are proposing\, and we don’t have a mechanism right now\, for\, like assessing\, you know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we don’t have a plug and play system for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: putting a project in and seeing how it connects to the neighbors. That’s a dream. So if you have some technical advice on us for that\, that would be great. But until then we have to rely on kind of what what Jackie talked about. Given the absence of\, you know the stick in the bill? Given the fact that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we we\, you know\, we have to kind of rely on the goodwill of people to to do the work and to work together. But ideally\, we would have a better\, a better way of assessing \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: of the impacts \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if each individual project on the shoreline as a whole. But we’re just not there yet. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I would say there is a stick\, but it’s down the line\, and it’s if you don’t plan\, you know\, you will have these impacts\, and we’ve done some of the studies\, and we know the cost of inaction. It is far greater than the cost of doing something\, and we have more opportunities when we plan ahead. And so I think\, you know\, there’s eventually a consequence to not planning. But obviously we want to be working with the encouragement. And you know\, working in the system that we have. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Geema \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ultimately is the stick going to be? Well\, you’re not going to get your shoreline development permit. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unless you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: not\, as of now\, there’s no plans to to do that. Because the plans are not linked to permitting at this point. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Maybe that’s a path we explore in the future. But I I’m not gonna say that. That’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: okay. Thank you\, Jim. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Your hand up. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thanks. I’m like Ramine and Jim\, I guess\, trying to get wrap my head around this. I’m not not a planner. Sometimes I’m glad that I’m a geotechnical engineer. Sorry could you lean into your mic a little bit more? Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Sometimes I’m glad I’m a geotechnical engineer\, because it’s an easy \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: field to wrap your hands around and you just stomp on the ground\, and there’s there’s your field. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I just a couple quick observations on doing a control F search to the document. There’s no mention of settle or settlement. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m not sure what belongs in a planning document. Exactly\, but if we’re talking about what the hazards are\, I think\, settle and settlement are a couple of things that matter. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: That are going to affect how you design things and what’s going to be a problem in the future. If you’re designing fills to target we I mean\, we’ve talked about this in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: most of our Ecrb meetings\, I guess\, is that that fills settle. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So if you’re designing a levy for an elevation\, it’s you need to overbuild it by some amount that can be calculated. It’s not not difficult. This engineering. I’m not sure how much this is a planning topic\, but it needs to be associated with this \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: document in some way or other. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: No mention of stability or slope stability or levee stability\, which is kind of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the whole \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: ball of wax in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in flood protection in many areas where where you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we were not just built. At least 14 feet or 15 feet above sea level. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but where a levee is going to be protecting you\, stability\, slope\, stability\, levee\, stability are are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: are crucial again. I’m not sure exactly what belongs in a planning document like this. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I was \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: started off\, being somewhat distraught to see there was only one mention of the word geotechnical in the whole document\, and that was with respect to barriers or conflicts\, but no instructions as to what needs to be performed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s no instructions or expectations or no\, no \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: hinting that geotechnical work is needed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But then I felt pretty good when I realized geotech had one mention\, but structural had 0 references. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and civil had 0 references. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and geologist is not mentioned ever. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There are 2 mentions of the word geological \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but it’s not with regard to studies that are needed. So I’m not sure again\, what belongs in a study\, Doc. In a planning document. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But as the engineering Criteria Review Board. Eventually\, what we care about is what engineering criteria get \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: suggested or promulgated\, or\, you know\, carried it\, or sticked\, or whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: happens there. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s 2 mentions of liquefaction. That’s not too bad. Maybe that’s enough. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I didn’t have a chance to read the whole document\, but multimodal hazards seems to be a critical \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: issue. I think there’s a lot of emphasis on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on sea level rise\, which is clearly what the topic of the document is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But we’ve talked about this with Sfo recently\, and with other projects about how earthquakes affect us. Earthquakes are mentioned several times in the document. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Maybe adequately. I’m not sure. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one thought observation I had early in your presentation. You had this statement. These guidelines are designed to drive effective local adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but I think it might be useful to if it could be thought of as to drive and facilitate \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a lot of it seems like it’s sort of just laying down rules and regulations and hoops for people to jump through rather than saying\, Let’s help you. Let’s show you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what can be done \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: along those lines. I don’t know that this belongs in a planning document like this\, but somewhere\, I think it would be useful if \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there can be some way that you’re suggesting\, recommending\, requiring \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: engineering standards\, guides\, etc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Maybe it becomes an appendix to this document. Maybe it’s just a referenced document that exists someplace else in terms of. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, sticks and promulgation. I’m not sure that these guidelines are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: necessarily within the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: purview of a planning document. It’s it’s it’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sometimes ambiguous maybe about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: whether it’s in the purview of Bcdc overall. And we have. And that’s why we have an engineering criteria Review board\, because it’s not a simple\, straightforward question\, and it changes in every project changes year by year sometimes. And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know frankly\, everybody on the board here doesn’t always agree about every question. Although interesting\, we’re interestingly\, we’re really pretty close on most stuff. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So it seems like maybe there should be. It would be. I think it would be helpful along the lines of facilitating\, not just driving \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: effective local adaptation things to. I just. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think the list is probably not huge\, but several pages long. I have just a handful of things that I thought of along the way. Us. Corps of Engineer Levy regulations \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 44 Cfr. 65\, 10\, etc\, and related. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You have before and after 65\, 10\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the marine oil terminal. Whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: document Motems probably should be referenced. Someplace. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the the Cfr. 65\, 10. That’s the fema \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: of coastal floodplain regulations. I think \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that you mentioned you mentioned Cfr. 65 10. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, yeah\, I just wanted to. I’m sorry\, didn’t I probably shouldn’t have interrupted. But I just wanted to point out\, that’s \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s the those are the Fema regulations and the federal regulations. I think that’s the section you’re referring to? Right? Okay? Thanks. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes. Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: fema has other levy regulations as well as as 44 Cfr California building code. Cbc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that references Asce 7\, which talks about loading criteria demands what you’re designing for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: American lifelines. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alliance \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: has lots of information\, probably emphasizing earthquakes\, but they also are concerned about floods. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Katrina is is a \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: within the jurisdiction of or within the area of concern of American lifelines alliance. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and those are just a handful of things that I thought of\, but I think there’s I mean\, you probably yourselves could rattle off a handful of other things related to sea level rise in particular. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so on. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, I think these are really great. For inclusion in our technical assistance program. We want to provide as many targeted resources as we can. So if we. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if you don’t mind putting together a detailed list of the standards that you think \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: should be\, you know that we should be using here in the Bay Area. That would be very helpful as we build our our Ta library. How about this? You get paid more per hour doing this kind of work than I do not engineers. So we don’t have the the technical. I would suggest maybe you or Jen\, or whoever throw together\, you know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: just an initial draft list and say\, can you add on to this? We can and we can. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We can add on to that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’ll just say that was really helpful. Thanks for including those. Yeah. I mean as \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this\, this is a planning document\, and we’ve we’ve brought this to you all before\, too\, about kind of what’s that line between planning for strategies and designing them? And it’s just not a super clear line. I think everybody’s at a different place as well. Some local jurisdictions are just going to be drawing kind of lines on the map. It’s going to be conceptual. Other places are going to have\, you know\, actual projects which which have some of this. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But to your point I think we can probably do a better job of making it clear that like that is the ultimate endpoint. And there’s you know\, there’s a lot of considerations when you get to project design\, and maybe there’s even some considerations\, even at that planning scale. So it’s just that’s kind of the area. Where how far do we take it? What can we require? So I took a lot of notes on that. And actually\, maybe you could even say\, you know\, feel free to contact Bcdc staff\, we’d like to help you \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: do your plans. Yeah\, we’re not. We’re not the regulator against you\, but we’re \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: we’re trying to protect the bay\, and we’d like to make it as easy as possible. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Hey? I think there’s a complete place for planning document like what you have here. Everything you have seems to be \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: good. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I as ecrb\, but also as a consultant that gets assigned a project. You know City calls up and says\, Can you? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Can you give us proposal \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to comply with this Bcdc document. I’m going well. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what the heck do you want? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And you know it’s going to be \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it. It leaves things in a sense too wide open for for the cities and counties\, and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Caltrans\, and other\, whether whatever agencies and utilities are trying to respond to this and and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, we need to know what as a consultant or as ecrb. Even the more \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: guidelines we can have\, the easier it is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. Thank you\, Jim. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Patrick\, have your hands up \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: whether or not there’s much of a carrot\, probably a lot of jurisdictions\, will\, you know\, jump on this\, and and some won’t\, but some will. It seems like 2034 is a long ways away. So can you tell us a little bit about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the timeline between? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: You know\, when this gets finalized and published in 2034 are there. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or do you envision some intermediate deadlines? Or are we all just waiting for 2034\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is Bcdc going to lead some workshops or something? And to get these jurisdictions together to share ideas. What’s that process going to look like. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, I mean\, our legal. Our legal department’s interpretation is that we can’t set any intermediate deadlines that are required\, because that was\, that’s a legislatively mandated deadline. We think it’s a long time\, too. We certainly want people to be doing these plans before that. So the technical assistance program that we’re setting up. We know some early adopters are already underway. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So we’ll probably kind of like right out of the gate. There will be folks who’ve already been doing adaptation plans\, and they want to get that eligibility for funding. You know. Whatever that that benefit is. We don’t actually know what that pot of money is quite yet. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Depends on how the climate bond goes\, I guess. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we will also be doing outreach to cities that we know haven’t done any adaptation planning yet\, and might take them a while to get up to speed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We’ll be doing workshops\, most likely\, you know. We’ll be facilitating everything we can to get people to get these plans started sooner rather than later. We have a consultant right now. That’s developing a Ta program work plan for us that will sort of lay out some of the options that we have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for how to get that catalyzed. But you know we’re certainly not going to be sitting around for 10 years just waiting for plants to come in. We’re going to be actively working with \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: with our cities and counties to to make sure that they’re getting started\, and also some of them\, it may take 10 years to get to a point where they have built up that level of capacity\, so assessing where everyone is and what they might need to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: get going on. This is probably going to be a a big part of our early years as well. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I I think it. Yeah. It makes sense that you can’t. You know\, make a legally legally required intermediate deadline\, because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s no real requirement for them to comply at all\, even by 2034. But I wonder if there are some creative ways that you could have some kind of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: intermediate deadlines\, even if they’re somewhat voluntary. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: again\, there might be some carrots that Ecdc. Could throw out there. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: To at least get some jurisdictions to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: submit something\, you know\, for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: intermediate review. It seems like that would \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: help the process a lot. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. And that idea has come up. We’ve heard it from a couple of different cities\, especially the ones who already have some work\, and they want us to review it early. And so we have the 3 required consultations\, as people are developing their plans\, and those could be tied. You know\, we could have sort of interim deliverables at each of those \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: at each of those consultations\, maybe like a recommended benchmarks\, for you know by net by at this point\, you know\, you should have this\, and we’ll go over it with you before you move on to your next step. Our intention is certainly that nobody submits a plan that Bcdc. Hasn’t isn’t thoroughly familiar with already\, particularly because we’re requiring local adoption prior to submittal to Bcdc. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so I think it does make sense to have sort of interim steps where we review pieces over time. So it’s definitely come up. And I think it’s a really good idea to manage this this process and help it accelerate and stay on track. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Well. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let me let me follow up with just one quick observation. I \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: had to sit through a city council meeting recently for a contract approval. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and in that meeting you know\, I and I know I know there’s an election coming up. But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they it’s\, you know\, the condition of cities sounded pretty dire. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know I’m just worried about. And I think maybe this 10 year \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, timeline makes sense. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to give some of these cities that are just really having financial difficulties. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, time to plan for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and try to figure out how to fund \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this work\, and I don’t think it’s going to be \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: incredibly cheap. I think you know\, the consultants are\, gonna \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: have\, you know\, in in the requirements here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s a lot of requirements\, right? So I think it’s going to be\, you know\, a significant effort. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: maybe\, you know. And the carrots\, you know we keep on talking about carrots at 6. I think one of the carrots is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, being able to help \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: jurisdictions with grant funding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or you know or point them into the right direction and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: showing them what’s worked before. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, that’s why we’ve been working with Opc on their Sb one grant program and help like telling people to apply to that one. And I think the more scopes of work we see through grant programs and potentially for consultant scopes of work the better we’ll be able to help people hone in on exactly what the level of effort is. But\, like\, as you said\, it really depends on where they’re starting from as well. Yeah. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thank you. Sorry\, Ajima. You had a \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: quick\, a quick \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah\, that’s like. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m kind of wondering. I’m kind of surprised by the Senate\, because \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s an equivalent \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Senate Bill\, Senate Bill\, 1953\, about \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: seismic retrofit of hospital. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And and what has happened over the years is. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, hospitals wait until \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know it’s get into 2030\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then they realize they can’t do it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alright. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I I was hoping. I mean this. This is in support of what \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Rodent just said\, too\, that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if there’s a way to encourage \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this local jurisdiction. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you actually start on something. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know. Then by 2024\, you will get something. Otherwise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, we all procrastinate right \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: until it gets towards the deadline. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then you realize one. You don’t have enough time. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or you don’t have enough resource to to do the work. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Bill. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thanks. I just wanted to go back and expand a little bit on a comment that Geema had about considering adjacencies of jurisdictions. And I’m wondering \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: if there is scope in this document to consider\, perhaps buffer or transitionary zones between adjacent jurisdictions\, particularly where the adaptation strategies may differ significantly \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for various reasons\, and perhaps that would be a situation where retreat is considered by one jurisdiction and hardening of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the the shoreline as part of the strategy for an adjacent jurisdiction\, and perhaps having a transition zone at least where the strategies \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: are considerably different. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I and I know that you’re limited on the number of sticks that are available\, but perhaps at least saying that the strategies need to be mutually compatible\, or do no harm to the adjacent jurisdiction \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: might be something that can be written into the the regulations\, even if it’s not part of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this document that would inform \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: regulations coming down the line. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think that’s a great idea. Thanks for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: thanks for sharing. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you\, Bill. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I’m bob \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: your hand up. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yes\, thank you\, Ron. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I have a couple of quick thoughts about how engineers \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: can help. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I do think informed planning is important. Especially when you’re talking about adaptation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And just one comment on that. My experience has been that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, reality isn’t really a democratic process. And when you ask people what they want. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: sometimes you hear things that they want\, but may not be realistic. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then you argue about what is realistic. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that’s where you kind of wish you had some standards that were well vetted\, and that you had some \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: assistance from practitioners like engineers to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: explain to people things like codes and building standards. And you know\, reality. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: so but one. So that’s kind of a general statement. But but one area. I think the ecrb or flood control agencies\, etc\, could help with. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: engineering criteria. Specifically\, the sea level rise criteria based on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: kind of a a characterization of a project or an area in terms of the risk profile \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: property and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: life safety. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And you know\, perhaps also\, that could be broadened to include ecology. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: which is not necessarily engineering. But there are a number of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: There’s a strong restoration practice in the Bay area. So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it is multidiscipline. But there are a lot of engineers involved in it that can help balance different things. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. And speaking of that\, one of the the tools that we developed for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: large scale wetland restoration \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: planning. You know\, we collectively in the Bay area \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is what I call hydrogeomorphic modeling \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: that’s been. That term’s been used a lot. But by that what I mean is predicting how the landscape changes \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: based on a change or progression. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or both of drivers. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: such as sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and there are like simplified models\, such as the slam sea level affecting Mars model. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: That\, for example\, can be used in a gis framework to predict \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: emergent wetlands and other wetlands\, you know\, habitats \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: will evolve when you change sedimentation or sea level rise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think that’s really important\, the habitat part of the hydrogeomorphic modeling. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Because\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as we all know. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: people exist in certain areas and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: they want to stay where they are. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and so they think about staying. And then yet the bay moves\, and so you get the coastal squeeze and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the reality of the implications of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: not doing anything or just staying where you are \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in a moving framework is that that creates adverse effects \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: on public trust\, resources and other people. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and that needs to be kind of internalized into the commute\, the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the communication or the equation. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: because otherwise it’s external. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And then people just sit \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and you lose your wetlands or whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but within the hydrogeomorphic modeling is also the event type\, modeling like flood modeling. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so these types of things have been done for the Napa Salt Pond Complex. That’s about 10\,000 acres \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: for the South Bay Salt Ponds. There was \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: an attempt to actually predict how the Bay would respond to sea level\, rise back in the phase one or the programmatic phase. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: there’s a lot of other examples especially on the Pacific Coast\, where this has been tried\, and it’s very useful\, because number one\, you get a baseline \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: as to what will happen\, and then you can compare alternatives to that baseline. And also you then can tease out \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what the implications are to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one area doing something and how it affects other areas. So you get your integration regional integration. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and then\, you know\, department of water resources is looking at \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: how to make future conditions\, flood maps that look like Fema and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, the cosmos and art maps\, in my view\, aren’t really sufficient \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to clarify \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: what it means \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: a higher sea level and inundation\, especially in terms of a where a V zone is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: or where there’s compound flooding. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: which is a hot topic. Obviously. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So\, I think that there’s opportunities to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: through the processes that you’ve already identified. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know the mapping and the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: policy planning framework and the technical assistance program \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to kind of develop a\, you know\, a technical development program to help people and standardize things. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And I and I think also\, you’ll probably need somebody to look at things and say\, Well\, you know\, as \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: experienced engineers\, not just scientists and planners\, but actually experienced engineers \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and say\, Well\, you know this. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s probably gonna be a little different. Or this is what you think. You know. They just kind of have some judgment on \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: some of these plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I know Jan can help a lot with that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: but it’s hard for \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one person to do everything. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And so maybe if you add more staff\, you might. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, think about that. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to support them. Anyways\, those are just some of my thoughts. So I think engineers can be very helpful. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: especially engineers in San Francisco Bay that have \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: worked on these multi-objective problems for decades \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: in regional context. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: romine had was had his hand up or and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Ben\, we’ll call on you next. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Oh. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: oh\, okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: yeah. I just wanted to comment what Bob just said. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: you know\, \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: it’s become clear that that \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: having some \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: bay modeling that’s focused on Bcdc’s mission \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: would be extremely helpful\, and we don’t have the staff or the budget to do any of that right now. But there’s a lot\, you know I’ve been initiating\, initiating a lot of talk about it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and even also just to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: get some more accurate dates on sea level rise projections. I mean\, I know the Rsap right now is just looking at this range\, but it’s really important to have\, because we have such limited financial resources for this adaptation. Having \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: somewhat \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: reasonably \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: realistic projections of \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: where the water is going to be\, at what year. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and really is really important for capital improvement\, planning on funding plans. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and how high should things be when you put them in\, or when? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: And and the modeling\, I think\, is really key to help within San Francisco Bay\, because it’s so unique in its geometry and \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and with all the wetland restoration that’s going on to expand it. So we we have applied for some grants to do some modeling\, but it’s something that’s definitely on my radar to to push forward in the future. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thanks for suggesting. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you\, Ramin. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: My friend Geema mentioned Sb. 1953\, which is the seismic retrofit requirements for acute care \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: centers. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: facilities are islands. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This is a regional issue. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and I\, you know we can talk about engineering. That’s that’s fine. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But this has to be a mandate\, or it will never get done. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: and we go back to \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: one jurisdiction\, does it? The next one doesn’t do it or can’t do it. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: The framework has to be in the context of a mandate that has to come from the State and State has to take the leadership \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to make it happen otherwise. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: This is all good\, and you’re you’ve done excellent work here\, but it really. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: unless this is a mandate\, it’s it’s going to be very difficult to achieve whatever \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: is intended to be achieved. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, thank you. Oh\, Bob\, you’re gonna say something. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I was just gonna say\, yeah\, this is \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: About 20 years ago I I told somebody I was interested in this\, and they told me there’s no way in the United States that you’ll ever have regional coastal zone management. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: It’s just not gonna happen. And this person was \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: pretty well\, politically connected. I won’t get into specifics. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: But \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this is the San Francisco Bay Area\, and so we’ve done a lot of cool things in the past. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: So I mean. I I share what Ramin said\, but you know it’s a worthy \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: endeavor\, and I think you guys have done a great job. I think you’ll continue \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: to do a great job with it. It’s although it’s going to be difficult. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Things can be very difficult. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Nice. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, thank you\, Bob\, for the encouraging words for staff. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Any other? Any further questions? Comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, seeing none. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I think that concludes the Board’s consideration on this topic. Thank you very much for the presentation and the \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: the Q. And a. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Yeah\, thank you so much for the thoughtful comments. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: let’s continue on here. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: this concludes our meeting agenda. So I would entertain a motion to adjourn. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Is there a motion to adjourn? You guys want to just hang out for a long? \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you. Do I have a second \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: second. Okay\, all in favor. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Aye\, aye\, all those opposed. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Okay\, the motion to adjourn passes\, and we are now adjourned. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Thank you all\, and have a great rest of the day. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: We got finished at \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: 2\, 43. \n\n\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-15-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241010T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241010T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T045910Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240927T222801Z UID:10000143-1728552600-1728561600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 10\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-10-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241007T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241007T183000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T034701Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241010T175412Z UID:10000122-1728320400-1728325800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 7\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Design Review Board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with Gov. Code 11123.5. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed below. Physical attendance at the site listed below requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nPrimary Physical Location \nBCDC strongly encourages participation virtually through the Zoom link below due to changing COVID conditions. \nMetro Center\n375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena Room\nSan 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/88464493000?pwd=zkZqoxETCaUhpCIAIeahL99lbuVa8l.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers\n1 (866) 590-5055\n1 (816) 423 4282\nConference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID\n884 6449 3000 \nPasscode\n641630 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourself\nPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak \n \n \n \n \n Agenda\n \nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nBCDC Staff Updates\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nBay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan; Second Review\nThe Design Review Board will hold its review of the Public Draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP). When finalized\, the RSAP guidelines will be used by local jurisdictions for developing Subregional Implementation Plans\, required by Senate Bill 272 (Laird 2023)\, that effectively address local and regional climate risks.\n(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Report // Draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording \n \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Alright. Thank you for joining us tonight for the Bcdc Design Review Board meeting. I’d like to remind Board members to please speak directly into the microphone in front of you and have it on only when you want to speak. And please ensure that your video on your laptops is always on\, but your audio is disabled. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Ning. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: my name is Gary Strang. I’m the vice chair of the Bcdc. Design Review board\, and I’m sitting in tonight for Jacinta Mccann\, our chair\, who’s not able to be here? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’re located at the Metro Center in San Francisco\, and our 1st order of business is to call the Roll \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Board members. Please unmute yourself to respond and then mute yourselves again. After responding. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: These call the roles. Now \nTemazcal Meeting Room: vice chair\, string\, present \nTemazcal Meeting Room: board\, member\, Battaglio \nTemazcal Meeting Room: President. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Board\, member Chow. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Board\, Member Hall \nTemazcal Meeting Room: present \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and board Member Pellegrini will be joining us. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The staff in the room are myself\, Ashley\, Tomerlin\, Yuriko\, Jewett\, Dana Breckold\, and Jackie Perrin Martinez. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Hey? Thank you\, Ashley\, we have a quorum presence. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Do we have members from the public attending. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I know we have one here in person. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m thinking\, I might just read the 1st part. And if there are people online. I’ll read that\, too. But there’s a lot of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a lot to go through. Go through all of it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. I want to share some instructions on how we can best participate in the meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for everyone online. And in the meeting room. Please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for board members. If you have a webcam\, please make sure that it is on\, so everyone can see you \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for members of the public. You would like to speak during a public comment period. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It is part of an agenda item. You will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: First\, st if you are here with us in person\, we’ll ask you to form a line near the podium. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If you wish to make a public comment. Speaker\, cards are available at the door. You’ll be asked to come up to the podium one at a time\, and to state your name and affiliation prior to providing your comments \nTemazcal Meeting Room: during the meeting. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: After all individuals who are present make their comments. We will call on those participants who are attending remotely. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Second way\, if you’re attending on the Zoom Platform\, please raise your virtual hand \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in zoom\, if you are new to zoom\, and you joined our meeting\, using the zoom application. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Click the hand at the bottom of the screen. The hand should turn blue when it is raised. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Finally\, if you’re joining the meeting via phone. You must press Star 9 on your keypad\, or raise or lower your hand to make a comment \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and star 6 to mute or unmute your phone. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: After you are called on\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks. Remember\, you have a limit of 3 min to speak on an item\, and we will tell you when you have 1 min remaining. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us\, but everyone has the responsibility to act in a civil manner \nTemazcal Meeting Room: will not tolerate hate. Speech threats made directly or indirectly and or abusive language. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or who exceeds the established time limits without permission \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for public comments. If you’re attending online. Please note that we will only hear your voices. Your video will not be enabled. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You’re attending the meeting on the Zoom Platform. We recommend using the gallery view option and view settings in order to see all the panelists. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Audio for in-person panelists is recorded through the room’s audio system and is not synced to individual panelist videos. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties list\, be notified \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for future meetings concerning these projects. Please call or email Ashley Tomerlin. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: whose contact information is on the screen or is found on the Bcdc’s website. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Stefan Pellegrini has just \nTemazcal Meeting Room: joined us. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Ashley. Hi\, thank you. Gary. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I want to thank all the Board members for their feedback and direction you provided for updating the Drb. Staff reports at the last meeting \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we will be working to include the feedback in our upcoming staff reports. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We are not having a Drb. Meeting in November\, but have meetings tentatively\, tentatively scheduled for December 9th and January 6th \nTemazcal Meeting Room: December would be a review of a proposed housing development in Richmond\, near Craneway Pavilion and Rosie the Riveter \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and January would be a review of the San Francisco\, Rpd. East Harbor and Marina Green Project. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We have some projects of interest coming to the Commission before the end of the year \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in November an amendment to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge that\, among other changes\, would allow for the Bay trail pathway to be used as a breakdown lane and shoulder during higher commute days. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and India Basin shoreline Park is scheduled to go to the Commission in December\, India Basin\, Shoreline Park came to the Drb. In November 2016\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: February 2020\, and most recently in September 2023. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: As for new public access\, the port of San Francisco has installed a temporary public space activation project called Little Embarcadero at Fisherman’s Wharf. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It’s part of the ongoing efforts to enhance the embarcadero and fisherman’s wharf area with amenities to draw more visitors \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as part of the project. The port is collecting user data to inform success and operational needs. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Another longer term. Planning effort is looking to rebuild a pier 45 shed\, as well as renovating the triangle\, parking lot and staff hope to bring this project to you to the Board sometime in 2025\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and lastly\, you will have received an email to complete your mandatory ethics training. Please complete this by the end of 2024\, and please reach out to me if you need the link we sent. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: That\, concludes the Bcdc. Staff update. I’ll pause here to answer any questions from the board. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s no questions from the board. We’ll keep moving. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We have an opportunity for people to make \nTemazcal Meeting Room: public comments for items\, not on the agenda. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’ll start with those members of the public in our headquarters headquarters building today. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: please. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: let’s see all individuals who are present and the one that is present. You may make your comment. We will \nTemazcal Meeting Room: call on participants who are attending remotely. If you’re attending online and would like to make a public comment\, please raise your virtual hand to speak. Remember\, if you are joining our meeting via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: unmute or mute. Press\, star 6. You will be called on in the order. Your hand was raised\, and you’ll have 3 min to speak. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yuri will note when you have 1 min remaining. Please state your name and affiliation for the record. At the beginning of your comment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If you would like to add your contact information to the interested parties\, list to be notified of future meetings concerning this project\, please call or email Ashley. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: are there? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We have no public comments. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so with that\, we can move on to the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The review of the Bay\, adapt \nTemazcal Meeting Room: draft\, regional shoreline\, adaptation plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: This is agenda. Item 4\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: which is the review of the Bay. Adapt draft\, regional shoreline adaptation plan in June. The Board reviewed the draft\, adaptation\, Strategy and Pathways\, standard sections from the plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But to remind you of the Project Review order\, there will be a Bcdc. Staff presentation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: then Board clarifying questions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: period of public comment \nTemazcal Meeting Room: followed by board discussion and summary. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and a staff response at the end. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So with that Bcdc. Dana Breckwald\, assistant planning director for climate adaptation will introduce the project. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Great. Thank you. We’ll just get our slides shared up here. It’s a pleasure to be back today. The last time we spoke to you you had seen snippets of the draft\, and I’m pleased to say that we’ve come a long way since then in a very short period of time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we’re happy to share the complete draft with you today and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: let you know how you can \nTemazcal Meeting Room: provide comments today as well as the official public comment period that ends next Friday. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So you can just go to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so we’ll just start with there. We’re gonna take you through a journey this evening? In 3 different parts. First\, st \nTemazcal Meeting Room: actually talking about the background and context and the role of the regional shoreline adaptation plan. We’ve done some clarification since our meeting in June on how we’re describing what this is and and what it means for cities. Jackie will spend a good amount of time diving into the content of the draft. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: What are the requirements? What are the policy implications? What are the standards? And then I’ll talk a little bit again about what our next steps are for Bcdc. Our work does not end in December\, when this goes to the Commission for adoption \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and how you can participate in the public comment period. And then\, however long doesn’t have to be 45 min\, we have for questions and answers. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So let’s get into what this plan is and what it means for local governments. I 1st just want to. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If you haven’t gone through all this content already. Just let you know that we are in the middle of our public comment phase for the regional shoreline adaptation plan. The public draft went out on September 16\, th and it’s been distributed to all affected local governments in the region\, as well as other interested parties\, special districts\, etc. We had an interested parties list of of over a thousand. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The draft is available on the Bcdc and bead up websites along with a link to a staging viewer for an online data mapping platform. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And this is a precursor to a tool we will be launching in early 2025\, which I’ll talk about later. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s a 2 pager with some basics about the plan and all sorts of other goodies on our website. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There are 4 ways to provide official public comment\, an online comment form that you can fill out. You can either mail or email a public comment letter\, or and this is coming up quickly. And I encourage you to attend this\, if you if you so wish. We’re having a public hearing on October 17.th So a week from Thursday\, at one Pm. Here in \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Bcdc’s offices at our commission meeting\, and you can attend either in person or virtually over over zoom. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So just to know that questions and comments raised today are not recorded as official public comment on this item. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If you would like to submit comments through one of these 4 official \nTemazcal Meeting Room: avenues\, you can. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and we welcome that as well. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So you’ve probably seen a similar slide to this the last time we presented. But what is a regional shoreline adaptation plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and in the simplest terms. It’s a region wide plan for the bay shoreline that guides the creation of locally coordinated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: locally planned\, coordinated sea level rise adaptation actions that all work together to meet regional goals. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It works by combining a top down with a bottom up approach the regional approach includes a region wide. One bay vision. For what adaptation planning along the bay shoreline should look like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and and strategic regional priorities that identify region\, wide vulnerability issues that need to be addressed in local adaptation planning\, and Jackie will go into these in more detail later. In the presentation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the plan guidelines and minimum standards and minimums. Set the standards for regional shoreline \nTemazcal Meeting Room: regional. Sub. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Excuse me\, this is the second time we’ve given this presentation today. So apologies for this sets the standards for subregional shoreline adaptation plans which all cities and counties are now required to develop. The guidelines tell you how to develop the plan and create adaptation strategies that meet consistent standards that advance the one bay vision. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we’ll spend time going through this document today and talking about why it’s been created and what it means for local adaptation planning. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So before we get into the contents of the plan\, I want to share a bit of background about Bcdc. And why we’re the agency that was named to develop these guidelines and a review and approve these plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: As you know\, we’ve been serving the region since 1965 to protect the bay and its shoreline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and we have done a lot of work over the past dozen or so years to recognize sea level rise and the changing shoreline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’ve included policies that impact our permitting and done some non-regulatory initiatives\, such as the Bay adopt joint platform\, which was published in 2021 \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that establishes regional agreement on the actions necessary to protect people and the natural and built environment from rising sea levels. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The regional shoreline\, regional shoreline adaptation\, plan implements. Many of the actions in the bay adapt\, join platform\, and follows our bay\, adapt guiding principles. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and our work is also designed to align and support the work of other regional agencies like Plan Bay Area 2050\, and the estuary blueprint. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So\, in short\, what we’re bringing to the Rsap is building upon a decade plus of foundational studies and initiatives. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And it’s also responsive to all that we’ve heard from local governments and the extensive engagement we’ve done\, not just in the Rcep outreach process\, but over the past dozen or so years. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So\, though each city has and county has its own unique qualities\, concerns and priorities. We’re all linked due to our shared shoreline \nTemazcal Meeting Room: impacts in one part of the region will have a ripple effect throughout the whole bay\, and different communities are also at different stages of planning\, so some need support to even get started on this \nTemazcal Meeting Room: effectively protecting our communities now and into the future requires us to act together as a connected region. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Because of that\, the goal of our regional shoreline adaptation plan is to ensure that adaptation is coordinated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that we reduce and avoid unintended negative impacts on our neighbors. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Resources are available to frontline communities who’ve endured historic harms. We prioritize plan for and protect the long long term health for our wetlands\, coastal habitats. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We act strategically as a region to implement projects and support the systems we all rely on. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We develop common standards and methods so that we can share data and information. We develop a pipeline for effective funding\, and that we have the ability to track and measure our progress\, so that we know how to continuously adapt to this challenge over time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So by now \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’ve probably convinced you why sea level rise at an adaptation. Adaptation\, planning at the regional scale is important for the region\, but to add extra fuel to the fire. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Local adaptation\, planning is now recognized by the State as important and required by law. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Last year a new statewide legislation\, called Sb. 2\, 72 was signed into law by the Governor. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and this requires that local jurisdictions develop subregional shoreline adaptation plans. By January 2034 \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Bcdc’s job is to develop the guidelines that these plans must follow by December of 2024. So we’re under a legislative deadline here. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then following that\, we will review and approve or deny subregional plans based on consistency with the guidelines. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: cities\, and counties also have the opportunity to apply for funding to complete these plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then approved plans should unlock dollars for the implementation of projects. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and even though this law is new\, adaptation\, planning in the bay is not\, the Rsap sets out a complete soup to nuts process to develop a compliant plan\, but many cities are likely to already have pieces of these plans completed. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we’re committed to working with each community to meet them where they are and complete these plans and build upon what’s already been done locally. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I just want to acknowledge that even though we say this a lot in our presentations. We are working on updating the language in the plan itself\, to better reflect our commitment to flexibility. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So cities and counties within Bcdc’s jurisdiction\, which you know\, generally covers a hundred foot band inland from the shoreline are required to develop these subregional shoreline adaptation plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: This table shows the cities and counties that fall in this category. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and you’ll also see that some of the cities have an asterisk next to them who are not within BCC’s jurisdiction\, but are projected to be impacted by coastal flood hazards in the near term. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and may want to engage in planning for that reason\, even though it’s not required. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Special districts likewise are not required to develop plans\, but can and should play a critical role in the development of local plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And we’ve spoken with several special districts who are very interested in being engaged in this process. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Each city and county may choose to prepare their own plan\, especially if they’re already advanced in their planning process. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But we also encourage neighboring cities and counties to work together to create a multi-jurisdictional plan \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that looks across borders and looks at impacts and solutions across jurisdictional boundaries. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So now I’ll turn it over to Jackie to take a deep dive into the contents of the Rsap. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Great thanks\, Dana. Hello\, everyone! Jackie Perrin Martinez. I’m a senior climate adaptation planner at Bcdc. And the project manager for the regional shoreline adaptation plan. I’m excited to dive into a little bit more of an overview of the details. I know some of this should be familiar\, since you all saw it a few months ago\, but we have made a lot of\, I think\, refinements to what you’ll see today and going forward\, I’ll probably just say Rsap for short \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so I want to start by saying that we were really intentional about our goals for developing the Rsap\, and especially for developing the guidelines. In this document\, which outline the requirements for local jurisdictions\, to prepare subregional shoreline adaptation plans \nTemazcal Meeting Room: from the very conception we aim to ensure that the guidelines are designed to be flexible and provide multiple avenues to meet requirements that they encourage alignment across multiple planning processes. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The guidelines are right sized\, meaning that they recognize differing levels of capacity and don’t leave smaller or lower capacity jurisdictions behind \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that they build upon existing efforts through allowing use of existing elements that meet the guidelines \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that they’re impactful\, that they respond to the needs facing local jurisdictions and are locally adopted\, codified. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and provide the right level of information to catalyze implementation of policies and projects \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for sea level rise adaptation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The Rsap was collaboratively developed through multiple forms of engagement. We heard from community members through local community events\, and we co-hosted local workshops in partnership with 5 community-based organizations to test an initial version of the draft guidelines\, we deeply engage with subject matter experts through our advisory group who reviewed multiple drafts of the Rsap before the one that we’re sharing with you all today. And in fact\, this is draft number 3. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We also shared an early draft with local government planners and practitioners. We held a planner and practitioner workshop in July to ensure that these guidelines were reviewed by folks who would really be using this and that they work and make sense for for those audiences. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And lastly\, we’ve been touring the region and speaking at Mayor’s Conferences and County Supervisor meetings to share what we’ve been working on as widely as possible. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And thanks to all of you who have reviewed various versions of this\, and also provided comments. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as you might imagine all of this engagement yielded an enormous amount of feedback. Unfortunately\, I can’t go over all of the feedback that we received\, but I just want to highlight some of the common themes that we heard\, and that we have been working to address in this plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: First\, st we heard about the critical importance of emphasizing habitats and nature-based solutions throughout the document. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and we’ve worked to make it clear that a healthy future bay is an integral part of how we see the future of adaptation along the bay shoreline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We also heard about the need to provide consideration for existing as well as new developments\, and we’ve included this in our strategic regional priorities and in our adaptation strategy standards. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we heard a desire for flexibility to work with existing plans\, which we mentioned often is our intent and goal. And\, as Dana said\, we’re going to continue to really look at this draft and see how we can further make that clear in the document itself. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We also heard the need to ensure that shoreline solutions are based on local context\, and we’ll share how the guidelines include this bottom up approach to achieving this local nuance. While working towards regional goals. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we heard some requests for simplification and clarity about what is required. This draft really seeks to provide clear instructions and remove guesswork about what we’re looking for. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We include a complete plan submittal checklist to make it clear what we’re asking for and why \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we’ve also had a lot of discussion about what coastal flood hazards to include and the appropriate sea level rise projections to use. So we can follow up on some of those if if folks have questions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And lastly\, while BC. While this has been a relatively fast timeline\, we have heard an appreciation for Bcdc’s efforts to include so many stakeholders and make meaningful changes to our drafts in response to those comments. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So with that context\, let’s dive into an overview of the document itself. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s 3 main sections in this draft section one is the introduction. It provides the underlying science and context for the Rsap and the subregional shoreline adaptation plans \nTemazcal Meeting Room: section 2 is our one bay vision which includes our strategic regional priorities. This section can be thought about as our regional approach. That top down plan to ensuring that the contribution of local adaptation adds up to a shared set of outcomes for the region. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and section 3 provides the subregional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines which speak to the requirements of Sb. 2\, 72. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: This is that bottom up component where local planning will engage with their local communities identify local priorities and develop adaptation strategies suitable to their local conditions\, context and community values and goals. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You can find this graphic at the beginning of the document which provides a nice\, helpful orientation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So\, starting with the one bay vision\, we shared this with you earlier. But I’m just going to give a highlight of of it. In the context of the whole plan. The one bay vision defines the regional outcomes of adaptation that we’re collectively striving to achieve. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It serves as the foundation for the subregional plan guidelines to ensure that local planning contributes to these key outcomes that are necessary for a resilient future bay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The one bay vision includes a statement for the region as a whole which acknowledges the interconnectedness of our region society. And these issues\, and a vision statement and goal for 8 individual topic areas that represent key categories addressed throughout the plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The regional vision is is more than just this one paragraph. But I’ll start with the 1st sentence\, just as this overview. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And it starts by stating\, 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 for each topic area. The vision statements state that as sea levels rise\, communities are healthy and vibrant. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: healthy baylands\, ecosystems\, thrive places are designed for changing shorelines\, critical services are reliable\, the bay shoreline is accessible to all safe and reliable transportation connects us all people and ecosystems are safe from contamination risks \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and regional collaboration drives efficient and effective adaptation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Each of these 8 topic areas have a corresponding strategic regional priority. These are the critical issues that affect the well-being of our entire region and include issues that must be addressed across jurisdictional boundaries through the subregional plan guidelines. We require that local jurisdictions that contain any of these regional priorities include them in their local planning and describe their part in contributing to these regional and wide-ranging benefits. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I’m going to touch on each of these briefly. So you have a sense of what these priorities are. These include reducing displacement of communities on the front lines. Let me get my \nTemazcal Meeting Room: animations. Going. There we go\, reducing displacement of communities on the front lines. To do this we ensure that local plans include actions to mitigate this displacement risk \nTemazcal Meeting Room: ensuring Bayland’s ecosystems are complete and connected. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m 1 ahead. Let me back up. Okay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We require that habitats are improved not only locally in our adaptation standards\, but as a strategic priority that they are planned for across jurisdictional boundaries. As we all know\, nature doesn’t follow those lines \nTemazcal Meeting Room: promoting safe and strategic growth and density. We utilize plan bay areas. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: growth geographies and encourage growth in these locations to meet regional housing and development needs \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maintaining reliable critical and emergency services\, we ensure key critical infrastructure are prioritized to maintain the services provided which often cross jurisdictional boundaries. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: improving connected regional shoreline access. We require that public access and access to regionally significant parks and trails\, stays connected across shoreline adaptation projects \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maintaining the regional movement of people and goods. We ensure that local plans incorporate how the functions of these key assets will be maintained into the future. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Another priority is reducing contamination in environmental justice communities. I’m sorry. I’m sorry to scroll down and move this across all right there. We’re on the right one now. So reducing contamination in environmental justice communities. Not only do we include contamination as an asset to be assessed across all plans. But we state a regional priority. That contamination cited in specific communities needs to be highlighted and addressed 1st \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and last\, but not least\, is ensuring that flood risk. Reduction is achieved with neighbors and across jurisdictions \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we require that certain parts of the shoreline with high hydrologic connectivity\, demonstrate how their efforts work together to minimize unintentional flooding that could result if everyone goes it alone. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So as you can see\, these are important and often interconnected. Issues. Addressing them effectively means that cities and counties will need to work together\, maybe even more than than folks already do to make sure that we can build this resilient future \nTemazcal Meeting Room: moving slow. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. So now to the subregional shoreline adaptation plan guidelines which are specifically called for in Sb. 2\, 72\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the guidelines lay out a planning process organized by elements in a subregional plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: These include a planning process\, existing conditions\, vulnerability\, assessment\, adaptation\, strategies and pathways\, land use and policy plan\, project\, implementation and funding and a project list \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for those who may be familiar with sea level Rise adaptation. This shouldn’t look new. And that’s intentional. We developed this based on existing adaptation plans in the region\, and the plan requirements are structured similar to Fema’s local hazard\, mitigation plan guidelines. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The purpose of the guidelines is to standardize this process\, to ensure that all planning is using the best available science information and practices to help us achieve the one-day vision. You can think about this as a cheat sheet for how to do good planning \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as part of the guidelines. We also developed 4 minimum standards\, while the plan elements describe a process for planning and will naturally include a lot of local nuance. The standards set consistent baselines for all adaptation\, planning\, and these are used across the planning process. These include coastal flood hazards and sea level rise scenarios\, minimum categories and assets and equity\, assessment and adaptation strategy standards. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I’ll provide a brief overview of these 2 components \nTemazcal Meeting Room: element A requires a description of the plan partners\, planning area and equitable community engagement strategy. I want to note\, and as Dana mentioned\, that planning the planning area can be a city\, a county\, a combination\, and we also encourage the use of operational landscape units as a planning area where it makes sense in those different areas of the Bay \nTemazcal Meeting Room: element B\, our existing conditions requires listing\, existing plans\, policies\, physical and social conditions that create the context for the plan \nTemazcal Meeting Room: element. C is where there’s an assessment of the vulnerability of critical assets\, issues and populations to these minimum coastal flood hazards. This is also where the strategic regional priorities really get elevated into the process as both a regional priority\, in addition to locally identified priorities. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: element D is where adaptation strategies are identified and preferred\, approaches are selected. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Element E requires a summary of the approach that’s necessary that the the approach for land use changes that are necessary to achieve the adaptation strategies selected in element d. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Element F requires a description of implementation\, including responsible parties\, timeline costs and potential funding sources \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and element. G is where we ask jurisdictions to provide a list of their priority projects. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The standards are referenced throughout the plan elements. The coastal flood hazards and sea level rise scenarios identifies 4 minimum hazards that must be addressed\, all of which are exacerbated by sea level rise. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: These include tidal inundation\, the 100 year storm surge and shallow and emergent groundwater. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We set baseline sea level rise scenarios based upon the Ocean Protection Council’s updated sea level Rise guidance \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Which includes 0 point 8 feet by 2050 and 3 scenarios for 2\,100. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Again\, as aligned with that guidance. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We also include minimum categories and assets to ensure that no key issues are being left out of planning. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: These only apply if these assets appear in a given location\, and Bcdc provides regionally available data to meet many of these requirements for jurisdictions that don’t have easy access to some of this data. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The equity assessment standards include equity\, focused questions that must be answered throughout the plan elements to ensure that equity is being centered in the process. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And lastly\, the adaptation strategy standards lay out the outcomes of adaptation to guide the selection and development of strategies and adaptation pathways. There are 20 standards\, and they’re organized by these 3 kind of buckets of categories\, and I will summarize these buckets in this next slide. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: As I mentioned\, the adaptation strategy standards represents the outcomes of adaptation. Recognizing that there’s many different ways\, there’s many different specific strategies that local jurisdictions can take to achieve these outcomes. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Standards here with a green circle indicates that they are the standards for the strategic regional priorities. So those stand\, those standards with the green would only apply if that strategic regional priority was in a local jurisdiction. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: In general these are organized by 3 buckets. Starting with what’s at the water and maximizing the benefits of water dependent shoreline uses in Bayland’s habitats. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: These standards include promoting public access. Water dependent uses. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: such as ports\, marinas and water access points\, and ensuring Bayland’s habitats are improved and have the ability to exist into the future. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The second grouping is improving community health\, economic development\, infrastructure and housing needs. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: These standards include achieving key outcomes related to reducing flood risk for existing development \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and strategic plan\, existing development and strategic planning for new development along with many of the key issues I mentioned earlier in the strategic regional priorities. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the last category is focused on creating pathways to respond to changing flood risks over time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: This is the emphasis on building the adaptive capacity to implement adaptation pathways and be responsive to risk these include actions that governments can take such as updates to local standards\, codes and land uses. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Lastly\, and we’re getting near the end here. Lastly\, I want to note that we’ve laid out a formal process for developing\, submitting\, and approving subregional plans with key responsibilities for both local government staff and Bcdc. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: As Dana will elaborate a little bit further on. Next\, the Rsap is was planned to be adopted as a Bay Plan Amendment which will give Bcdc. The ability to review subregional plans for consistency with the guidelines. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The draft that we have set out today sets expectations for compliance\, and this process includes a public public noticing\, when plans are initiated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a minimum number of consultation meetings between local staff and Bcdc. So that we can work with you on where you’re starting from\, and how your existing work can help best meet the guidelines. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: followed by local approval by elected boards at the local level. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Local adoption must occur prior to submittal to Bcdc. And following this will be a formal review process\, public hearing and commission vote or approval. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I know that we shared a lot of information with you\, and I want to emphasize again that we do intend to provide flexibility\, and how these plans are created with and across local jurisdictions that make the most sense for your communities. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We want to work with you to help ensure that we’re truly building upon past and existing research and decisions made at the local and regional level. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and ensure that the guidelines really serve you and your communities\, that they provide a helpful cheat sheet for how to do good planning while still providing the necessary space for local solutions that can work for both local and regional benefit. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s no doubt that this work is hard. The challenge of sea level rise before us is immense\, but we believe in the outcomes of good\, coordinated and consistent planning that we can achieve together. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and meeting these guidelines\, ensures really addressing the issues Dana brought up earlier that we can\, that we\, though the outcomes are prioritizing equitable processes and resources to frontline and environmental justice communities\, reducing flood risk to existing homes\, jobs and neighborhoods\, ensuring flood safety and new developments\, continuing to enjoy recreation areas\, habitats and access to nature\, continuing to be able to rely on services\, the movement of goods and people and our other network systems \nTemazcal Meeting Room: prioritizing the cleanup of contaminated sites\, especially in areas of groundwater rise and creating collaborative governance with the ability to respond to changing risks of adaptation over time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: All right. So with that\, thank you\, and I’ll turn it back to Dana for a few next steps. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thanks\, Jackie. Just a couple more slides here to let you know what’s coming. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: As Jackie mentioned\, in order for Bcdc. To carry out its responsibilities under Sb. 2 72 Bcdc. Must formally adopt the Rsap to review and approve local government sub-regional shorine adaptation plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So Bcdc. Will be formally adopting the Rsap through a Bay Plan Amendment \nTemazcal Meeting Room: staff is proposing that the Commission adopt the entire regional short and adaptation plan by reference as a component of the Bay plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And we’re also proposing to make changes to existing Bay plan\, climate change\, policies. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: findings and policies. So climate change policy 6\, for example\, calls for creating a regional shoreline adaptation strategy. So we propose amending that to say that the Rsap is now established for use and approval of these subregional plans\, and it fulfills that shoreline adaptation strategy. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The edits also provide direction for future Bcdc action in this area\, such as providing ongoing technical and policy support. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I also want to emphasize here now that even though we are changing climate change policies. It doesn’t change the way the BCC. Will will permit projects. It just responds primarily to some of the updates\, some of the findings and responds primarily to the language in the shoreline adaptation\, strategy \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or sorry. And the climate change policy is the calls for the shoreline adaptation strategy. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’re also modifying policy. 7. That will allow Bcdc. To use the Rsap. And the subregional plans \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in an advisory capacity when reviewing permits. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: All of these changes can be found in Bcdc. Staff report\, as well as the preliminary recommendations. That’s all available on our website. In addition to the draft of the regional shoreline adaptation plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Bcdc is also committed to supporting local jurisdictions as they create these subregional adaptation plans and help implementation of the Rsap \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the 2 major ways that we’re doing this in the next year or so is starting in 2025. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mentioned this earlier. We’ll be publishing an online mapping platform that provides regionally available data layers that help to visualize existing conditions\, map the strategic regional priorities\, support vulnerability assessments at the local level and inform adaptation strategies and pathways. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The mapping platform data and functionality will be updated regularly by Bcdc. When the new science or data is published. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And\, as I mentioned before\, also\, we have a draft currently available. It’s not what it’s going to look like in its final version. And there may be additional data that gets added. But we welcome any feedback on how the mapping platform can work in concert with the guidelines to help people develop these plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’re also beginning to scope a technical assistance program. This will provide support on how to create plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: how to support the creation of community capacity locally for community members to engage in planning processes \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and also just provide resources that we think are supportive of how people should be doing adaptation plans. So\, for example\, lots of people have asked for templates\, plan submittals. We’re including some in the draft itself. But a lot more of those will be developed over the coming year or so. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: To build community capacity. We’re launching shoreline leadership academies around the bay\, starting in early next year \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to work with community members and educate them on climate adaptation. And we’ll provide a number of other resources to support adaptation. We don’t know exactly what that’s going to look like\, because we’re developing the scope for that project or for that program right now. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So here we are. This is just a visual look at the timeline that Jackie has already talked about. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The major thing to note here is that we are nearing the end of the public comment. We’re really emphasizing this public hearing next Thursday on the 17\, th \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then the public comment period will end the next day. After that we will take a couple of months to respond to public comment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: revise the draft as well as our staff report with the edits to the Climate Change policies. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then we’ll bring that final draft to Bcdc’s commission for potential adoption on December 5.th \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And just as a reminder. The legislative deadline was December 2024. So we’re we’re we’re getting there. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we recognize this is this is the document. It’s you know it’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: nighttime reading \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But if you don’t\, we are providing some some strategic places where people can look if they want to learn about how we’ve addressed certain issues so general overview\, you know. Read our executive summary. So the big buckets of things we’re addressing is\, what are the requirements for local plans. So if you’re a local jurisdiction\, wanting to know\, what do I have to do to get this done? We have some suggested pages and sections here. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You want to know how and where equity is integrated into the plan we are honing in on things like the Equity assessment standard\, and how we’re and our description of how equity is addressed in the Rsap. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You want to know how this plan supports healthy Bay habitats. We’re pointing you to certain areas where we’ve addressed that explicitly. And then\, if you’re interested in\, particularly in housing and development\, here are some sections that you might want to dig into in a more detailed way. We also recognize that a lot of the juicy\, really juicy stuff kind of comes near the back of the of the guidelines\, including the adaptation strategy standards. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So this is also our way of of letting you know that\, you know you don’t really have to read the introduction\, but definitely jump to the\, to the meaty stuff in the back. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So just a reminder here of how public\, how you can provide public comment. We do\, you know\, encourage you to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: speak with us in an informal way. We’ve done a couple of consultations on people\, you know\, people who just want to discuss comments. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: but we also\, of course\, are accepting the formal public comment. The reason why we’re doing this in such a formal way is because this is a Bay plan amendment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and therefore we need to have all the comments sort of documented and responded to according to law. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So just a reminder here of how to do that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And then the last thing I’ll say is that funding is available right now. We have been working with the S. But Sb. One Grant program that the Ocean Protection Council \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is currently administering. And they’re basically wanting to fund as many of these subregional shoreline adaptation plans as they possibly can. At this point. I think we’ve had 6 or 7 successful applications in the Bay area. So far\, applications are accepted on a quarterly rolling basis. The last deadline was just this past Friday\, which means next deadline is December 20th \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and it’s non-competitive in that. If you submit an application that meets all the minimum requirements you get the funds. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s also a technical assistance program available to help environmental justice communities\, tribal communities and small and rural communities \nTemazcal Meeting Room: understand the grant requirements. Write the grants come up with budgets\, engage stakeholders\, etc. So coastal quest is the entity that is providing that technical assistance. And we just really we want \nTemazcal Meeting Room: one of the amazing things about this Grant program is that the Bay Area has received a larger proportion of the statewide funds than La has\, and that never happens. So we want to keep it that way. And we want to make sure that the Bay area gets its fair share of these grants. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that’s all we have for you today. I’m sure you. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m sure you have our contact information memorized from the June meeting. But just in case you don’t please feel free to reach out to us in between. If you have anything else that you \nTemazcal Meeting Room: didn’t\, that doesn’t get addressed today. So thank you so much for your time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you very much for that presentation. Is there anything else? We’re gonna go into \nTemazcal Meeting Room: some board questions here? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Before we start? I just wanted to say\, that’s an incredible amount of work for the past 3 months. I’m a little overwhelmed by the 200 pages that I \nTemazcal Meeting Room: had to go through \nTemazcal Meeting Room: today and this weekend. So it is a lot to take in\, and we have a very short amount of time. It sounds like to incorporate our comments. So I have to steer our comments to something that’s useful\, especially me. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with that as an intro\, and and again\, many\, many thanks for all the work\, because \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, I think a lot of the comments that we had at our last meeting. I do see they’re incorporated here. The graphics are vastly improved. There’s much more emphasis on nature-based solutions. There’s some mention of managed retreat. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so I think that I still I’m trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. But I know that that you’ve covered a lot of territory there. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: fantastic. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I’m thinking\, maybe we just start down at the end with you\, Stefan\, to kick off your questions and the ideas that we’re \nTemazcal Meeting Room: asking only clarifying questions here. We’re not intending to get into a big discussion just yet. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I have a lot of questions\, but I think there are more discussions. So I might just hold mine until until later. Yeah. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sure\, thank you. Gary\, and thanks for really \nTemazcal Meeting Room: comprehensive presentation. I really appreciate it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I \nTemazcal Meeting Room: attended the public webinar a couple of weeks ago. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And this is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: just\, I think\, providing a really wonderful comprehensive level of detail which is really appreciated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think my main questions \nTemazcal Meeting Room: are \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe around the regional. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the subregional shoreline adaptation plans for program\, and I think this may have been mentioned before\, and so I apologize if I missed it. But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what is your expected timeline for the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: drafting and adoption of the sub regional plans? What’s the deadline around that? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So the legislative deadline is January 2034. We are certainly hoping that people develop plans earlier than that. We’re going to be rolling out the carpet and starting to assist folks next year. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the earlier you get in hopefully\, the earlier you can access the implementation funds. But the deadline deadline is January 2034. Thanks. That’s helpful. So the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the near term \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sea level rise scenarios which in that situation would be \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the point 8 feet\, would be very close to that threshold. It would be well within a traditional sort of long range\, planning threshold \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for a plan\, and the 3.1 at the low end of the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: end of century. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You’re sort of well into that strategy. So I’m curious about the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is\, are there expectations that are established about how \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the subregional plans will approach those \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the the baseline. For my question is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the policy guidance that we that we sort of use \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on the Drb side to try to differentiate \nTemazcal Meeting Room: resilience sort of shorter term resilience versus longer term adaptation. Where \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the shorter term piece you can speak to. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’ll say objective standards with a more\, with more clarity\, and the longer term adaptation piece \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is more about accommodating a range of scenarios. Could you speak a little bit sort of about what the expectations for the subregional plans are in that context. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, happy to take that. So what we’ve laid out is we have these. We’ve said that the standards are minimum. So I want to. And I want to make sure that that’s really clear as well. And if jurisdictions want to add more value\, more sea level rise values. And in between our 2050 and 2\,100 that’s really encouraged. And we have a lot of language in our standards\, for instance\, about thinking about. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, flood risk reduction through the end of a useful life of a project\, knowing that there’s a lot of nuance between 2050 and 2\,100. But wanting to just set some really clear kind of baseline standards for the region. And so the vulnerability assessment\, yeah\, requires evaluation of exposure at \nTemazcal Meeting Room: both of these scenarios. So the 2050\, and the 2\,100\, as well as for adaptation\, and how we’ve kind of\, I think\, addressed the the short and long term. You know\, we’ve we asked for \nTemazcal Meeting Room: feasible adaptation strategies that demonstrate a feasible ability to reduce flood risk in that 2050\, and at that 2\,103 point one feet. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then we ask for a narrative description about how those strategies would continue to function in a 2\,100 high. So that’s that 6 point \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 6 feet. And so in that we’re really trying to kind of embed this thinking of other adaptation pathways and getting ensuring that as people are planning their shorter term so that could be 2050\, but it could be values higher than that. Again\, we’re trying to just set the baseline based on the best available science\, but that those plans and those near term strategies are done with the understanding of kind of where those strategies will lend to in the future. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So that we’re knowing that those are investments that that we’ve thought through their their potential feasibility over the long term \nTemazcal Meeting Room: does that clarify? It does. Okay? The concept is that you would be updating these regional plans on like a 5 to 10 year. Yes. And is that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: seen as something that is required or recommended to establish those updates we have included in this draft a 5 year limited update. So after approval\, we would ask for a 5 year kind of check in with us. Let us know what’s changed. I think we spell it out in a bit more detail\, and then a 10 year comprehensive update. So after 10 years\, maybe we want to\, we’re going to ask more information about what has changed\, what new analysis might now need to be done. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We also intend to have the Rsap and the guidelines themselves be updated on a kind of fairly regular schedule at this point. I think we’ve listed no more or no less than about 5 years the Ocean Protection Council\, which comes out with the sea Level Rise guidance. They do that on a 5 year schedule. And actually\, we aligned really well in this in this instance. So our values are based on their 2024 guidance. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we’re aiming to try to keep that schedule with them that we update our science. And as we take as we are getting plans\, we learn from them as the the science and the techniques of adaptation evolve. We can make sure that we are kind of tweaking our work\, too\, to meet the needs of the region. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I have one more question for now\, which I think is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe oriented around capacity building. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I sort of appreciate the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the sort of the multiple range of pathways toward compliance. That sort of are described\, that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: individual jurisdictions and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sort of go their own way. There’s room for collaboration. There’s some guidance with the understanding that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: some jurisdictions are going to have more capacity than others to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with regards to sort of technical expertise\, but also implementation. Things of that nature. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Ultimately\, sort of what I’m assuming is that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: anything that’s a standard would sort of find its way back to that local jurisdiction\, if they’re participating in a multi-jurisdictional effort. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that projects in the future \nTemazcal Meeting Room: would have a mechanism to demonstrate compliance. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so we see some. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We operate in some jurisdictions like Burlingame\, for example\, that have made regulatory changes and the stuff that comes to us\, that’s reflected. But there’s others where it’s still kind of an open playing field\, and it’s a much more discretionary process to sort of arrive at that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: My experience \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as a professional working with local jurisdictions. The capacity is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: an incredibly difficult issue. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so I’m curious about sort of what the long term \nTemazcal Meeting Room: expectations are about. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: providing additional resources \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or capacity building for jurisdictions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: not only to be able to effectively participate in these kinds of plans\, but also to be able to implement them \nTemazcal Meeting Room: over the long term\, particularly if they needed to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: collaborate\, to create a new Gpa or something like that that’s managing like a regional flood district\, for example. So I would love to hear about what the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the the funding beyond the Sb. One mechanism that you think might be. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I guess. Well predicted. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, I mean. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: well\, we hope the climate bond passes because we think that’s that would be a big pot of money available for this as well. But we have other folks at Bcdc. Who are spending a lot of time and energy thinking about how we pay for this \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and working with other regional and state agencies\, and we have a couple of working groups going on right now. One is partnerships with the private sector. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So how can we\, you know\, not like\, just \nTemazcal Meeting Room: have them give philanthropy or grants\, but actually come up with public-private partnerships that are effective in getting developers to address sea level Rise adaptation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: One is is improving and aligning the public grant programs that we have right now \nTemazcal Meeting Room: making those easier to get making sure that if you don’t qualify for one\, you know\, that person passes you on to the neighbor where they know that that they can fund that particular grant program. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: In that one. We’re also looking about. we’re looking at the potential to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: create new sources of revenue. So do we need something like a measure\, Aa for sea level rise\, adaptation\, or an Rm. 3\, or whatever a regional measure of some sort that raises money for adaptation. And then the last piece that I’ll mention is we are developing. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It’s called the investment strategy. And it’s a\, it’s a basically a set of criteria that we apply to every project that is being planned or implemented that we know of. We have a large database right now. We’ve been collecting over the past few years all the adaptation projects that are occurring in the region\, and then \nTemazcal Meeting Room: putting some level of prioritization to those. So that we know that we’re funding the short term ones. First\, st we’re funding ones that probably wouldn’t get funded otherwise\, because the the jurisdictions in which they’re occurring are very low capacity\, or they’re protecting frontline communities or some other we have. We don’t have the criteria\, the prioritization criteria finalized yet. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But basically getting a short list of projects in the region similar to the way we do for transportation \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and ensuring that we’re sort of hitting things in the right order\, and that we have a short list that we can take to DC. Or Sacramento and and say\, like\, you know. Please fund these 10 projects so \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it’s a\, you know\, complicated answer. We don’t know. We don’t know what the future of funding is going to look like. Nothing is guaranteed\, especially at the state level and the the way that our State budgets are always kind of up and down. But we have many irons in the fire to kind of reduce some of that uncertainty\, and get some some streams of funding or or financing. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: That can be a little bit more reliable over the long term\, you know\, we released a study last year with Mtc. Saying that it’s going to cost us 110 billion dollars to do all this shoreline adaptation planning before 2030\, 2050\, sorry\, 2030 is a little too soon. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But the other part of the study said that if we don’t do this\, and this is why I had 30 in my head. It’s going to cost at least 230 billion. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And that’s just a really conservative estimate that’s like\, assessed property value\, not even market value. That’s just a subset of the major transportation assets that we would have to replace. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: even though it’s a lot of money\, it’s so much more expensive if we don’t\, and the impacts will really fall on a lot of individual property owners as well\, and they’ll be seeing\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: people are already seeing impacts. They’re already seeing their their \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what’s it called insurance? You know\, is is pulling out. So I think you know it’s the question is not \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is there certainty? But the question is\, how do we build more certainty? And to to the future this is just something we’re going to have to figure out how to do. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Add just 1 1 piece of that\, because the funding\, when I think about capacity funding is obviously a huge huge part of that just funding staff and people and projects and all and all that. I also think about the technical assistance and the local assistance program that we are working on now\, which will include both how Bcdc. And our staff\, how our team works to to provide support. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’re also in conversation with a lot of our regional agency partners through our kind of bay area\, regional\, collaborative barc does a lot of interagency. And so we’re talking about regional ta programs and how we can build on\, not just our capacity. But multi\, you know\, Mtc. And the air district and others. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And then the last thing I’ll say is just this idea of really kind of. We intend for this to be a living document for our work together as a region to evolve. And so I envision that\, as you know\, with this is our starting point\, as we do in the next iteration\, we’re likely to see more people might be facing new challenges\, and that as part of a program that we’re building as a whole region. Maybe there’s workshops. There’s experts\, I think there’s a whole range of those types of support that we could build. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And that’s definitely the direction that we’re headed in is is how we help implement these guidelines and then even update and change them as needed. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you very much. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Christine. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Do we get to have back and forth during the comment \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with Staff? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we need more of a conversation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Let’s leave this to clarifying questions\, not substantive questions\, and then we’ll have the public comment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then you can have discussion\, and then discussion can be back and forth \nTemazcal Meeting Room: great. I’ll save my back and forth. Thanks for that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I wanted to make sure\, though\, because I did have questions. And you guys have done so much great work. I didn’t wanna assume \nTemazcal Meeting Room: anything I wanted to make sure that I was understanding. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah\, I well\, I just want to say\, I really commend you. This is a beautifully written report. It’s so. It’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: very easy to understand. It’s really a lot of content. But it’s very easy to understand. And that’s a really challenging thing to do. And also it’s really full of these helpful\, bite-sized pieces of information that help tell the story really. Well. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: like there’s a lot of things I highlighted that I’m going to be quoting all over every dollar spent on hazard mitigation saves $6 and avoided cost of damages. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I know that that kind of analysis takes a while to get to\, and I think those pieces of information are so helpful. And you’ve told the story really well. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Also\, I didn’t know that we accounted for one for 1 3rd of all of California’s coastline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: but 2 thirds of the State’s total economic damage from sea level rise. That’s like a really \nTemazcal Meeting Room: important fact. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. So clarifying questions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: will the Board be? Will we? The board be participating in any way in reviewing city’s plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: not to add layers. But just to understand our role like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: our is this kind of our last chance to say anything about these things. In which case that’s good to know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, the subregional clients \nTemazcal Meeting Room: default to you on that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean\, we we actually don’t have the plan review\, like the internal plan review process laid out yet. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m I’m my understanding is that your statute is focused on \nTemazcal Meeting Room: projects \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for permits. So if we did want to have you involved\, we would have to re \nTemazcal Meeting Room: OP. Open that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that mandate and and review it. But honestly\, everything is open at this moment like we are looking at how we right now. There’s no connection\, as I mentioned\, between the plans and our permitting process. But we’re looking at different paths forward\, and there’s certainly an a universe in which that path involves the Drb. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And again\, I don’t necessarily have a I was just. I don’t have a recommendation there\, but just curiosity. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You just mentioned. You’re not really sure what the process is. You’ve talked about some sort of capacity building. Is there a process for cities to get input as plans develop? Have you kind of figured that out yet? Or is that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: works? Yeah\, I mean\, when I say\, we don’t have the process yet. It’s it’s really our internal process of how we link the plans to the permits. But we have laid out in the document. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Our our process for reviewing and approving the plans\, and we have 3 mandatory check-ins between Bcdc staff and the city or county \nTemazcal Meeting Room: one when they’re initiating to make sure that they really like understand the requirements\, and that we can go through the content that they already have\, and see what matches. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then 2 more at least at any point along the development of the plan. Because we’re asking cities and counties to adopt these plans locally before they submit it and have it approved by Bcdc. It’s really important that we’ve worked together to understand\, to make sure that the plans meet the guidelines before we go\, the cities go through that process\, and that could\, of course\, also involve environmental review at the local level. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I think staying connected and having lots of consultations\, and we’ve talked about\, you know\, having \nTemazcal Meeting Room: having this team be on our on our internal review panel and having folks from our regulatory side be on our internal internal review panel\, so that we get a 3 60 view \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on those plans and get a breadth and depth of expertise. But the expectation\, yes is that there will be no surprises. By the time somebody has completed a plan we’ll be have been working with them hand in hand. That’s great. Thank you. I’m sorry I missed that in the plan\, but that sounds great. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: trying to just think about clarifying questions right now. You’ve answered. I had a lot of questions about funding. You’ve answered a lot of those. Thank you for that. Input \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sorry\, will. The \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Bay area’s 27 different transit agencies also be \nTemazcal Meeting Room: us to do a similar sort of a planning effort. That seems like there’s a lot of focus on infrastructure and access and connectivity and the challenges. I think you know\, especially you look at a lot of our bayfront is by way. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: access \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and rail and is there a similar idea for transit agencies to go through a planning process like this? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean 272 only requires cities and counties. So if it’s a city department\, then yes\, if it’s a special district or some other\, you know\, Jpa\, or something like that\, they’re not technically required to. I can’t speak to what you know legislators are are seeking to adopt in the future to require these sorts of plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Personally\, I think that you know it’s a little bit limiting to not require the engagement of special districts\, transportation districts\, parks\, districts\, etc. Caltrans\, I mean\, we have been. Speak. We have been speaking\, Caltrans\, we’ve been speaking to Bart. There is a lot of willingness to work with these cities and counties to develop these plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I can only speak to Caltrans and Bart\, and you know the couple of other folks we’ve talked to. Obviously\, you know\, some other agencies might not be so interested in being involved\, such as some of our\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: freight rail lines. This has historically been difficult to engage with. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: our approach. In general\, there’s lots of recognition that a lot of the shoreline at which these adaptation strategies need to occur might not be owned\, operated\, managed\, or controlled by the local jurisdiction\, and our response to that is\, try your best to engage. These folks. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, develop approaches that may or may not include them\, and then we’ll just continue to try to build that capacity in the region. To get more great to get greater cooperation. But it is a limitation of you know what cities and counties are able to to maybe do in their adaptation strategy. Yeah. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that’s super helpful. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Last question on page 23\, page you show the different scenarios\, the kind of the curves. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: What is the 2018 plus plus scenario? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. So I believe you were talking to the the Ocean Protection Council. We actually pulled that right from the report\, though with their permission\, and so that has to do with as they updated their most recent oh\, right on the page as they updated their most recent. As I said\, every 5 years they kind of come together with scientific scientists\, kind of come to consensus. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The h plus plus was a scenario in their previous version that was kind of a in their previous version. They had probabilistic models of sea level rise. So it was more a percentage. They’ve shifted the approach this time around. It’s more scenarios and kind of an intermediate high\, you know\, level. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So the h plus plus was a previous \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I don’t want to say scenario\, but a previous projection that didn’t have a probability associated with it\, because it was a kind of worst case. This could happen if you know\, the most extreme level of flooding like this is the flooding that they thought was possible in that last iteration. And so what they’ve done in this graph. And we just we didn’t want to kind of manipulate their graph. So that’s why it’s still in there. They’re basically saying that the H plus plus is no longer \nTemazcal Meeting Room: believed to be feasible by the 2\,100\, which was the previous draft or the previous guidance had stated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The reality is that at sea that level of sea level rise is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: still possible at a later date. So really the challenge with sea level rise is that the trajectory is only going in one direction. It’s only increasing\, it’s accelerating. And what the scientific projections are doing is helping us hone in on the date in which we might expect that obviously the further out you go\, the more uncertainty there is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: both in the Earth system and our understanding of it\, but also in societal choices. That’s actually maybe even the the larger unknown is what decisions might we make between now and those years to either increase or decrease emissions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So it’s kind of a relic of a previous version. And we just didn’t want to manipulate their graph. So it’s still in there. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Leo. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I want to echo everyone’s kudos for a really really amazing document. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: managed to balance thoroughness\, big picture thinking\, and a lot of detail all at the same time. So it’s it’s great to see a plan like this. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I think in particular \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for me\, you know\, for when we. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the the idea of a more unified\, consistent submission\, I think\, is is really important\, because \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on various boards\, including this one\, we often get submissions\, and we see submissions of widely varying qualities and thoroughness. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and it makes it very difficult to evaluate them and compare them. So I think that’s really really critical \nTemazcal Meeting Room: thing that has been accomplished here. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I have a few\, maybe specific questions for clarification. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: one maybe starting off with one very straightforward one. You mentioned that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 2034 is the deadline for the regional plans. Is there a deadline for implementation? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, that is a really good question. No\, there\, once the plans have been adopted\, you know. That’s as far as the bill goes. But\, as Jackie mentioned earlier\, we do have plans to do a 5 year limited update where we ask people for progress on the strategies that they’ve laid out in the plans. And then a 10 year more comprehensive. Update where you revisit the strategies. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: make sure they’re still appropriate\, and then see if if any triggers or thresholds have been passed\, and how you need to make\, maybe add more detail to your longer term strategies. Okay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that might lead to a conversation. But I’ll go by that for now? Maybe in a related way\, is there any \nTemazcal Meeting Room: expectations around implementation\, whether that is something that is expected to be done by the local jurisdictions? Or is it something that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: can be pushed to? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: private ownership\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: etc. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think any number of public private partnerships are are on the table. It has to do with land ownership\, who owns and manages the land and funding\, you know\, who who can pay for it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and one of the elements that we do ask for is an implementation and funding plan. And that’s where we ask people to start figuring out who’s responsible for this for implementing the strategy\, or what group of individuals is responsible\, what different roles may be. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know how you might start taking some steps forward to implementing. So I think it’s highly variable. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe expanding on the question about \nTemazcal Meeting Room: transit and other agencies. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: How does that relate to? Then also \nTemazcal Meeting Room: other forms of infrastructure\, such as power. There’s there are substations and utility stations down near the water \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or sewage is a major consideration. Given relationship to water\, other kinds of infrastructure. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: What we’ve done in the document to try to. So we were trying to. As Dana said\, this is required by local cities and counties\, but the way that we’ve tried to frame it in this work is that we all need to be working together on this and ideally\, these plans are comprehensive plans that include partnerships. So there’s a various ways throughout the document that we really encourage. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: encourage planners to partner with others. I mean\, for instance\, we require that these plans are\, you know\, include cities and counties\, but they could also be in partnership with the water treatment district. A different entity could actually even lead these plans as long as the cities are part of it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the cities also then have that role in some some local adoption and codification. So up in our planning process. For instance\, we actually require a who are the affected parties\, and we list a varying example. So that’s really all of those entities outside of the local government special districts\, wastewater treatment plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we asked them to identify very clearly and also let us know in their engagement plan how they are working with those other entities. So that’s 1 way through that. Like human partnership\, we also have some minimum assets and categories that we ask to be assessed in these plans. So we include critical infrastructure. We include\, we require that jurisdictions. Look at these assets\, even if they don’t own them. What we were trying to set up is a way that communities can be participating in these planning processes and communities being either residents who live there \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and or the entities who own and operate \nTemazcal Meeting Room: assets. So we try to get. We try to make ensure that this planning process is looking at the full picture\, whether you kind of own it or not. But is it an important asset? And is it a required to to at least understand the vulnerabilities\, and then in terms of adaptation. That’s where it gets trickier. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I think over time we’re going to have to do need to do more work\, I think\, to bring\, you know\, for those who are willing. I think there’s some special districts who are really excited and willing and want to participate\, and so we encourage them to work with their city and partner\, and and do a plan holistically together. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: In the instances where there isn’t that willingness. I think that’s an area that we need to continue to figure out what are the tools that we have? Is it more? Carrots are there eventually sticks? I’m not sure you know\, down the line\, but we try to get at that through both a partner with other entities\, and also look at those assets. And in some ways this is a public disclosure document\, too. We are asking people to look at these risks and kind of share them. And so maybe that will have a role\, too\, in getting players involved. Because now more people can see that you are vulnerable. And we want you to be. Part of this \nTemazcal Meeting Room: last question is. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you’ve mentioned a few times this idea of being able to coordinate and understand how the the plans\, the regional plans are going to interact with one another. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and it may be in there\, I \nTemazcal Meeting Room: but I was trying to understand. Where? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Where does that occur? In the submission requirements? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Oh\, sorry. Where? Yeah. Where? Where does that occur in the submission requirements. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know I would. I would expect that perhaps the an understanding that part of the submission should include \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a scenario planning about \nTemazcal Meeting Room: how the plants interact with their neighbors \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sort of an edge condition. Right? So even though they’re not planning beyond their jurisdiction\, they need to understand how the adjacent jurisdictions may or may not be making \nTemazcal Meeting Room: their plans and depending on the scenario\, they may have to complete their plan in different ways. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, I would say\, there’s there’s\, I think there’s always room for improvement. So maybe there’s more places we can do this. But there’s 2 that come to mind for me. The 1st is in the planning process. We also ask for them to demonstrate how they’re coordinating with their neighbors. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So in that instance\, if you aren’t doing a plan together. We do have a description\, or you know\, we have more detail. It says\, let us know what are your points of connection and how you’ve been working with your neighbors. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: That’s 1 of them. The other way that I think we try to get at this issue is through the adaptation strategy standards and those strategic regional priorities that I mentioned earlier each. If you have a jurisdiction\, I mean\, in \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for some cases it will really be any shoreline city\, and the public access is a good one as well. Everyone will have their own kind of jurisdiction\, public access\, and we also ask you to coordinate and let us know. How is your strategy going to keep that connection to your neighbor? So that’s 1 instance\, at least for that strategic regional priority\, but those \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and those are only for specific issues. So maybe there’s some room to ensure that. But we think that that is covering kind of a lot of the key issues. So habitats and the connectivity across habitats\, public access transportation. So anything that we’ve identified as having that really clear cross-jurisdictional boundary\, we have a standard that asks \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a jurisdiction to just tell us really a description\, how have you worked with your neighbor on this? We don’t go further into any type of analysis. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But it’d be interesting if you have recommendations on what that would look like. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay\, thanks. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sorry. I did have one more question. And this relates to this idea of understanding the cumulative effects \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: given that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: each plan will be approved in its \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sequence. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You know\, I can imagine that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: At what point do we understand the net effects of all the plans? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Extreme case. Everybody decides to put a barriers on the west side and on the East side. They’re doing a retreat. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And suddenly we’ve got wave echoes going across the bay that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: impacts the plans that were being laid out on the East Side. So I \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m trying to understand. My head wrapped around about like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the the big goal of this plan which I really commend you on\, is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a coordinated\, cumulative. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: holistic vision and set of goals. What I’m trying to understand is the the more \nTemazcal Meeting Room: piece piece by piece. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: implementation and planning. How do we actually understand what it all means in the end. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, I mean. So we looked into several bay wide models that would allow us to sort of plug in different projects and model how\, what the impacts would be across the region. We’re just not there yet in terms of the technology. So we’re trying to get at it through asking people to think through the consequences of their decisions on their neighbors. As Jackie was talking about in the adaptation strategy standards. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so if somebody came to us\, and they’re like we just want to put a wall up on our entire shoreline\, we would say\, Hmm! I don’t think that meets the standards like\, let’s rethink that. Let’s think through how it impacts the neighbors. We’re also encouraging the multi jurisdictional plans also\, so that that the entire shoreline of an entire county \nTemazcal Meeting Room: thinks about it all at once\, so that we don’t have that kind of cascading like the 1st person in line\, you know kind of sets the tone for everybody that comes after it\, and all the plans that come after it have to respond to that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’re also tracking projects at a regional scale. We have a huge database\, our our sap map. This \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I can’t remember. What’s that map? Sure. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it stands for something. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and it’s not a model of how projects would interact with one another. But we are mapping them around the region so that we can start to see how\, how those projects might meet might interact with one another\, and none of this is is making its way into our our\, how we \nTemazcal Meeting Room: how we permit so far. But it could. I mean\, these are things that could feed back into the decisions about how we look at \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the implications of of individual projects\, and also looking at a plan as a whole\, could also have implications on how we look at individual projects as well. So the shoreline adaptation plans\, ask at least within your jurisdiction\, and if it’s a multi jurisdictional plan to have an understanding of the continuity of that shoreline protection. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the and the or or other strategies along the shoreline\, and that can be very useful in understanding an individual project in the greater context. But it’s something that I think we’re going to continue to pursue. How we actually. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, create a model that is\, is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is not so subjective. Maybe. so if you have any genius thoughts\, you know. Please share them. But it’s definitely a question that we’ve spent a lot of time \nTemazcal Meeting Room: trying to wrestle with. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. And I’ll just add to. I mean\, I think it’s such a good question. We’ve been thinking a lot about that cumulative impact. And how do you measure that? And I think the strategic regional priorities are one way that we are really trying to\, you know\, paint that comprehensive regional picture. One that comes to mind is\, you know\, that healthy habitats and ecosystems? Those are connected pieces. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: How do we ensure that? You know local action is adding up? Or how does somebody know how actions that they might make add up cumulatively through the region. So the strategic regional priorities are one way that we’re trying to get at that. The adaptation strategy standards that set some of those \nTemazcal Meeting Room: use nature-based adaptation first\, st before you look at another approach\, and some of the other ones are really trying to steer adaptation in ways that we think will have\, you know\, multiple benefits. And then the the update schedule\, I think\, is really another important tool that we have so that we can be monitoring and tracking. And. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as you know\, we can get a sense of what are the strategic regional priorities that are being advanced and which ones aren’t. And what are we missing here in terms of resources to support that? So I think it’ll be a lot of things until we get some really cool technology someday to be able to kind of plug and play. And just I think it’ll get more complicated. But we want to set that foundation \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with with the tools that we have now. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Hey\, Bob? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you. These are really good comments. And you covered a couple of mine\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or or questions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think you guys have done a fantastic job. This is a very difficult topic. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Lots of different \nTemazcal Meeting Room: parameters\, layers. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: edges of the cube of solution\, space\, or whatever \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so you know. And and one of the things I I like actually\, I was glad to see is that the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: appendix 4\, 3 has these recommended coastal flood hazards and assets. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: then it oh\, whatever that that one is\, where it acknowledges that there may be other \nTemazcal Meeting Room: things like waves and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: erosion\, and maybe even tsunami. Or you know\, whatever that people need to consider. And I I really think that’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a good way it leads me to the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: question of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: How do you see the Rsap \nTemazcal Meeting Room: itself adapting? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I know that they’re the sub regional \nTemazcal Meeting Room: plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Have you know timeframes and the like for updates. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: but I mean\, how how do you do? You have like a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: program\, or you know\, thoughts on how I mean\, I have a couple of thoughts\, but it’s it’s a leading question. But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is that is that that’s part of the process\, too. Right? I mean. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: like adapting the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: adaptation plan. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay? So you’ve that\, that’s gonna happen. And I think that’s important. Because. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: one of the things I’ve noticed is that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, this is a difficult topic. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: obviously\, and I think people sometimes have a hard time. People and their representatives have a hard time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Addressing the realities. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and especially if the realities are somewhat fungible. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: That leads me to my suggestion that one of the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: adaptive actions that you take with the Rsap \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is to look to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the engineering community to provide \nTemazcal Meeting Room: regional maps that address some of those additional factors in your appendix. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and there’s several reasons for that. Obviously it would be more standard. It would. You would have some consensus and some standing. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I noticed that I think it was the State \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or no\, the actual. The Vcdc’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sea Level Rise policy mentions that these maps should be \nTemazcal Meeting Room: led by an engineer. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Which I you know\, I think a lot of the maps are. But having done some of those maps. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: one of the things we’ve realized\, and I mentioned this before\, and you’ll probably see another comment to this effect. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that the the future conditions of flood and erosion hazard maps are very difficult for people to understand what they mean relative to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what they’re used to looking at\, which are the fema maps that have things like V zones\, which means certain things to your foundation and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: your risk and free board and everything else. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah\, one of my suggestions would be to want to hold your suggestions until after \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think recommendations\, we’ll do after our discussion. Can we do that? And then just do the clarifying question\, okay\, yeah\, no. I’m sorry. Actually\, I’m going to be done here pretty soon. Yeah\, okay\, I’m just trying to fire off some. Yeah\, no\, my\, my discussion has to leave a little bit early\, so I’d love to get in his comments on that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: no\, no\, really\, no\, do it. Do what you need to do. If you have questions\, go ahead. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, these will be everything I have to say\, unless somebody has questions for me\, and I’ll try to get through it very quickly. And I apologize. I I do have a tendency to go on. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, we talked about adaptation plans not being realistic. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: One of the things that can help is have\, you know\, a kind of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: credibility a little more detailed maps\, and in particular\, being able to map future conditions \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with or without action\, and actually get a tool together that can be used to look at alternatives and to provide some clarity \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and reality. Reality is very important. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and people will tend to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: discount \nTemazcal Meeting Room: certain risks. If they’re not\, you know\, in their interest. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think. How would the rcaps deal \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or the the sub regional rceps deal with \nTemazcal Meeting Room: realigning\, existing development \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and changing land use \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in that realignment is\, that is\, are there guidances on how \nTemazcal Meeting Room: guidance\, on how a city could consider \nTemazcal Meeting Room: changing their land use based on \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the bay. Moving. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for example\, is that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that part of the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean\, we do have recommendations and how to consider future land use based on various conditions\, whether you know you have development in that location\, or depending on the sort of spectrum of development that you already have in that location. And then we do ask people to think about if you’re protecting something. Now\, what’s the feasibility of continuing to protect that into the future based on changing conditions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And if so\, like\, does that trigger a land use change at some point? So I don’t think we have something in there that explicitly says\, you know as your as the bay migrates inland\, you know\, do XY. And Z. Change in land use. But we do ask a lot of prompting questions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Ask to have people consider the implications. The land use implications over time. Yeah\, no\, I saw that. And that’s really good. I guess. Then the question would be\, Is there an implementation plan element for the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: not only the Rsap but for the sub-regional rsaps? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I noticed that you have an implementation plan for projects. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: but that’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a little different than actually figuring. And this is what I was getting at in terms of how do you implement \nTemazcal Meeting Room: movement of a neighborhood to an area before it floods to an area that\, or\, you know\, move people around. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so I think\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we can just leave it at that. Because I think that’s just kind of something that needs to be developed over time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. And there is a 1 of the required elements is a land use and policy plan. So you could should look through the guidelines to what’s required in that section. Let me? Yeah\, because that’s that’s what we that’s what aims to get at those that laying out those changes over time and what it would take from a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: city perspective to get that achieved kind of like the last 3 elements. Let’s say\, D is developing adaptation strategies. And then EF and G are various ways in which you’re demonstrating kind of how you are enacting those strategies. So one is the land use component. Another is the project implementation. And that 3rd is then priority projects. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: How is the landward limit? I thank you for that. That’s really helpful. I think I missed that. And I’m definitely interested in seeing it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: how is the landward limit of the coastal floodplain\, the planning area determined. I think I saw something like 6 feet of sea level rise using art or something like that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Is that correct? That’s a good question. And we talked with our advisory group members and and tried to get some input on it. We ended up identifying at a minimum the 6.6 feet because it was our 2\,100 pie. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we just we’re trying to kind of keep some consistent values and not change them too much. But I think that there’s not a maximum\, and I think in many ways we might encourage people to look at \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know their risks\, you know\, beyond that\, if they based on what they are trying to accomplish. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that would that would probably include them\, considering the effect of that sea level rise on \nTemazcal Meeting Room: other flood sources\, such as rainfall\, runoff and groundwater. And and all that stuff. Okay\, yeah\, no\, that’s great. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So what happened? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You know\, going to the question about the 0 point 8 feet by 2050 as \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as the one criterion and then. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the other 3 being 2\,100 and that kind of a gap between them. So what happened to the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The Opc strategic plan? I think it was element\, one or action item\, one word\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the idea was for at least infrastructure\, I think. In California to be \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to have the capacity to handle 2 and a half feet of sea level rise by \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the year 2050\, which was \nTemazcal Meeting Room: different than saying\, Expect 2 and a half feet by 2050 it was \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to be ready for 2 and a half feet \nTemazcal Meeting Room: by 2050\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: which is kind of different than the 0 point 8 feet. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: My understanding of it. And I’m not kind of an expert in this space. Lots of lots of things that we all do. So we have some staff on our team that kind of our sea level rise more specialists on it. So my understanding is that the most recent Opc guidance has come out since then\, and that that kind of reflects more of the maybe scientific \nTemazcal Meeting Room: uncertainty about these risks. And so that’s what we decided to really lean on is kind of what’s most. You know. What is the State recommending at this point? And trying to be as consistent as possible. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’ll also add that is sea level rise plus free board. So you have. You would build higher than than what the actual projected sea level rise is. And and that’s that’s not. We’re not excluding in our standards that you would also add free board to these. If you’re evaluating your vulnerability at these different levels. And then\, when you \nTemazcal Meeting Room: plan a project that responds to that level of sea level rise\, then you would automatically include freeboard in that as well. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, I mean\, this gets to the risk \nTemazcal Meeting Room: assessment \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: perspective on risk. And whose risk is it? And what’s the State’s risk? Tolerance versus \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the city or the railroad? That’s an interesting one or the individual. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I think that’s a that’s a gonna be an interesting. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I I think those were all my questions. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: if you read into those you’ll probably \nTemazcal Meeting Room: know what my comments might be. But I’m not going to. I think I’m \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’ll participate in the next session\, but that that’s pretty much all I have. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. Hopefully. Quick answer here. Is there anything in the document? And I’m only asking because I may have missed it about levies \nTemazcal Meeting Room: which would be levies that exist\, or levies that are under construction currently\, or levies that are in the planning stage\, that we don’t might not know about. Yet \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in our minimum categories and assets we do include storm water infrastructure as part of it. We kind of have the topic area\, and then a category\, and then specific assets. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so levies are part of I forget kind of what what they are\, but or what what we’ve named them as but the intent is that yes\, that you would be. If you have existing levies\, you wouldn’t be including those. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s a couple other spots where we ask for if you have known projects. So if there’s known kind of changes to your shoreline\, so that would be an example as well of if there’s a levee being built. We would want to see that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: both in the existing conditions. And as part of your adaptation strategies. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay\, we can talk about that more after. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So now that the presentations and the board questions are complete\, we need to open the meeting to public comment. Any member of the public attending the meeting in person. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or online. Please notify the board if you would like to make a comment \nTemazcal Meeting Room: there. Any comment from \nTemazcal Meeting Room: persons in the room. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yes\, it is. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Push the button on the on the bottom. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There we go. Hello! Yeah. Yeah. I’m a boat architect here in San Francisco. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: For 25 years I had my own small practice. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it’s a lot to take in. It’s all new to me\, so I’m trying to digest it now and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I applaud your agenda. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and I’m I’m very concerned. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and it seems you are\, too\, and I plan to follow \nTemazcal Meeting Room: this process. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe I’ll have more to say at the next meeting in 10 days. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you for your efforts. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Great thank you. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thanks for your comment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Are there any online comments? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I have one comment\, Lucy Gill. I just unmuted you. So you have 3 min to speak. Please state your name and affiliation. Thank you. \nLucy Gill: Great. Thank you so much. Can everyone hear me? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yes\, we can hear you. \nLucy Gill: Great. My name is Lucy Gill\, and I am a cultural resources manager for the confederated villages of Lashawn Nation\, a tribal nation whose traditional territory encompasses Alameda Contra Costa\, San Joaquin counties as well as parts of Napa and Solano along the waterways. \nLucy Gill: And we’re really happy about this sea level rise\, adaptation\, plan\, particularly the focus on nature-based solutions and collaborative governance\, to ensure complete and connected ecosystems\, as well as the encouragement of engagement with tribal governments and incorporation of tribal cultural resources. \nLucy Gill: the La Shawn Nation has already been involved in some of this work through serving on the steering committee for the San Leandro Bay\, Oakland\, Alameda Estuary\, Adaptation\, Working Group\, and we also recently wrote a letter of support for a successful Ocean Protection Council grant for the city of Richmond. \nLucy Gill: and are partnering with them. On those efforts. However\, we are concerned that there’s no formal procedure outlined currently in the draft for government to government consultation on these drafts \nLucy Gill: between cities and counties and tribes\, and with Bcdc. Directly. \nLucy Gill: despite executive orders from Governor Brown and Newsom\, affirming and reaffirming State agencies responsibility to conduct tribal consultation on any agency activities that may impact them. We’re also concerned that there’s no discussion of tribal knowledge or traditional knowledge\, despite federal and State recognition that traditional knowledge is coequal to Western scientific knowledge \nLucy Gill: and calling for it to inform decision making. \nLucy Gill: We’re particularly concerned with this because tribes are the only communities that have been in the bay long enough to have actually lived through and seen sea level change substantially and adapt to it successfully. \nLucy Gill: So we think\, the best available science that you emphasize. We’re really happy to see that\, but that it also needs to incorporate tribal knowledge\, and the only way to incorporate tribal knowledge as well as the only way to identify and protect tribal cultural resources is to have a protocol for tribal consultation. There are already standards for this in State legislation\, like Sb. 18 and Ab. 52\, under Ceqa. \nLucy Gill: And so we would encourage the Commission to consider this recommendation\, and to engage with tribes in formal government to government consultation on these drafts. Thank you so much. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you for that comment. Appreciate you jumping in. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Think we need more of that? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Let’s see\, are there any other public comments? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: That is the end of public comment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Oh\, one thing. We did receive one public comment earlier today from the city of Alameda. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: That was forwarded to the board members this morning. The central comments were simple. To \nTemazcal Meeting Room: central comments were to simplify the requirements\, as the proposed plan requires extensive detail and resources. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Streamlined planning process to coordinate with other efforts and concern over the requirements related to areas outside the local agencies jurisdiction. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If there are no other comments\, then we’ll move on to the board discussion\, the board discussion section. I’d like to ask everyone except the Board to turn off their cameras so there can be a focused discussion \nTemazcal Meeting Room: board members. Please remember to turn your microphones on when you speak. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And this is a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: our opportunity to have a conversation. So if something seems unclear\, or if you want to add on or or disagree\, please do \nTemazcal Meeting Room: jump in. I think this is really critical\, that we have a lively conversation here\, and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Let me read the questions provided by Staff. Staff has requested the Board to give particular attention to the adaptation\, strategy standards. Additionally\, staff have the following specific questions for the Board’s consideration\, do you feel like you can support the guidelines as is? If not\, what would you change? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: What do you think are going to be the biggest challenges cities and counties will have as they develop these plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what sort of tools might be helpful for plan development \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and 3. What else do you need to know to fully understand how these plans will work? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think. Maybe I know you’re on a schedule\, Leo. So you want to go first.st \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Your comments? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thanks\, Gary\, thanks for thinking about that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I have maybe a couple follow up \nTemazcal Meeting Room: based on the questions I was asking. So I think the 1st is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the fact that there’s no implementation deadline\, I find particularly problematic. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, I think the history has had many\, many great plans that have been put onto shelves\, and then never fully\, either implemented or fully implemented\, and in this case \nTemazcal Meeting Room: partial implementation can be just as problematic \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so\, and I think\, combining that with the room for \nTemazcal Meeting Room: jurisdictions to allow for \nTemazcal Meeting Room: some mix of public and private implementation makes it even more problematic\, because you can imagine there might be scenarios where there might be property owners \nTemazcal Meeting Room: who simply don’t act \nTemazcal Meeting Room: because there’s no hard deadline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think an interesting example of that is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the Sb. 1953\, which was a bill that required \nTemazcal Meeting Room: hospitals to update themselves seismically. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and those deadlines kept sliding. But frankly\, if the bill hadn’t been there nothing would have happened. So I think that the deadlines are really important. I know that’s not central to the plan right now. I don’t know if there’s a way to make that part of the plan\, or \nTemazcal Meeting Room: do we have to advocate for legislation for something like that? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean\, I I can respond and say that we Ecdc. Has no teeth to make that happen. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we could link it to. You know our our permitting authorities in some way\, shape or form. I can’t imagine how. But that seems like that would some. That’s something that would need a legislative support. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that legislative support is something we could. That’s something. We could initiate a conversation around \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in Bcdc. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The only legislation that we can \nTemazcal Meeting Room: propose and advocate for is around our own jurisdiction. So we can. We? We have a rising sea level Commissioner working group. That meets approximately quarterly to talk through some of these underlying issues of jurisdiction\, and our our underlying mandate that created Bcdc. And how those might need to be adjusted. So this that can certainly be a part of that conversation. That’s the primary \nTemazcal Meeting Room: venue that we have right now. I mean\, we could\, you know\, bring bring back the findings of that to the Drb. And give you updates on that\, or anyone can engage in those rising sea level working group meetings. I will say we’re at the very early stages of this. We’re still kind of like legally assessing what are different paths and different outcomes that we might want to have happen. So it’s a very open conversation at this point. So I think any any ideas are welcomed. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay\, yeah\, yeah. I just think this is one of those \nTemazcal Meeting Room: situations where\, when problems are large and complicated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: there’s a real tendency to try and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: hope that they’ll go away or push them down the road or not. Address them right away. So I do think that’s something we need to figure out and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: happy to continue. Continue the conversation with you. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Maybe in regards to one of the questions that Staff asked about the strategy specifically. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I cannot. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: They are \nTemazcal Meeting Room: little open ended\, which I understand and I appreciate because it gives each jurisdiction the room to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to find what is the right solution for their circumstances. So I appreciate that. I do wonder\, though\, if we would want to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: require \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or ask for \nTemazcal Meeting Room: measurements\, specific measurements of how they have implemented these. So\, for example\, if it’s they’ve increased coastal access. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: How many lineal feeder yards have they \nTemazcal Meeting Room: increased it by right? So that that way cumulatively over time\, we’ll be able to. If each plan is submitting their their responses in the same metrics\, we’ll actually be able to understand cumulatively the net effects of what’s being proposed\, and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and what’s being accomplished\, which is really something we would want to celebrate. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So that’s a suggestion. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the other question about \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I guess. Super \nTemazcal Meeting Room: agencies\, agencies\, or organizations that are large infrastructure groups that are larger than a county \nTemazcal Meeting Room: such as Pg and E\, or others. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is there a way \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to perhaps \nTemazcal Meeting Room: encourage or develop a working group with them so that they start developing a holistic plan. Because I can imagine at a certain point they’re gonna they’re gonna have. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: however\, many jurisdictions we’re talking about here\, coming at them with questions\, and it seems like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: giving them the heads up and asking them to start planning in advance would make their lives easier\, and it would certainly make the lives of each of the jurisdictions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it would almost sort of take that topic out of their their concern. It seems like that would be helpful to them. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, I’ll just say we did. We started in February by convening a special districts Focus Group and gave them a heads up that this was coming. So a lot are prepared. And then our technical assistance program. We do intend to continue to kind of offer a venue so that those large entities can interface with multiple jurisdictions at once. So they don’t have to go out to\, you know\, it’s not like an ad hoc process. So that’s something we are \nTemazcal Meeting Room: planning on continuing in the technical assistance program. Great. So it’s like pretty high on our radar. I think of\, like what role Bcdc can play and maybe connecting those type of cross jurisdictional entities to each of their jurisdictions. It’s come up a lot in feedback. And so\, as we’re developing our ta and our capacity to be engaging and supportive\, that may be a really kind of may be a priority for us. Yeah\, great \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then going back to the question about cumulative effects\, I’m not quite sure what the answer is there\, because it again sounds large and complicated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And you did mention tools and other ways that we might address it. Maybe a related question is\, will these plans require an Eir to go with them? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It’s not a requirement that we will ask for in submission\, but it may be a requirement that’s determined locally for local adoption. So we’re leaving that up to the discretion of each individual city and county. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: cause it does seem like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a number of the things that you’re asking for\, and are maybe addressed in the comment letter we received \nTemazcal Meeting Room: are items that would come up under an eir\, so it might \nTemazcal Meeting Room: be in the jurisdiction. Jurisdictions\, interest to try and address them anyway\, because they it’s something that would come down the road. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think\, short of an eir\, I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: this is this is topic that goes. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m not an expert in this\, but certainly just kind of paying attention over time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: This is a topic that is not just about neighbors and flooding. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It is about \nTemazcal Meeting Room: tides and currents and sedimentation patterns in the bay \nTemazcal Meeting Room: being changed by the change in the shoreline condition. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So yeah. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as an example\, you know\, I grew up on the east coast\, and I just remember \nTemazcal Meeting Room: somebody would put up a breakwater and 20 miles down the road the beach would disappear \nTemazcal Meeting Room: right? So it’s those kinds of effects that are \nTemazcal Meeting Room: anticipatable\, but often unfortunately unanticipated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I do think it’s we should try to maybe develop a set of standards with somebody who really understands this topic. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or at least guidelines or \nTemazcal Meeting Room: studies that should be required\, so that we understand because it would be unfortunate to have somebody say\, do a nature based solution down with marshlands in a certain region\, and then another city puts up. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, raises their grade that causes the current to shift\, and all of a sudden that that marshland is submerged. So I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah\, that would be great. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Can I jump in on that topic a little bit for having? It’s okay that for us to discuss this\, I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah\, I agree with you completely. And and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that’s where I think\, having a set of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: accepted \nTemazcal Meeting Room: engineering what I would call actually hydrogeomorphic projections \nTemazcal Meeting Room: of what the landscape will look like. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: With no action plus sea level rise. And you know the associated climate change and blood issues. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You can project. We’ve done this for habitat projects. We’ve done this on some parts of the Pacific coast. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So it’s doable \nTemazcal Meeting Room: where you actually say\, Okay\, this is where the bay looks now\, with 3 feet of sea lies. This is the way it’s gonna look. Assuming nobody does anything \nTemazcal Meeting Room: more than they’ve already done. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and and then you can look at\, and that can be a tool that communities can use or somebody can use for them. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So you have an assessment of that you have confidence in as to what the implications are. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and if you just leave that to\, I think what you’re getting at is just leave that to the applicant or kind of leave it as something that’s not required. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It may not happen\, or it may be done wrong. Right? Yeah\, absolutely. A lot of times. Things that are encouraged. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: limitations in funding or attention or expertise leads to them to not being looked at. And I think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the the central tenant of this whole effort \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is around a comprehensive solution. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Based on allowing jurisdictions to find what’s best for them. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But how do we make sure what’s best for them is best for everybody? Because I think ultimately that’s the goal\, the one vision goal\, right? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So there’s the. There’s a hydrology of the bay. But I think there’s a lot of other topics\, such as \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Ecologies\, and and etc. Yeah. And and on that topic I don’t know that Bcdc. Will necessarily be able to referee that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But I think if the system and maybe Dcdc. Will\, I don’t know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: but I think that if there’s a system set up where there’s some confidence in the projections\, whether somebody likes them or not. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: then I think there are other things like you say an eir or \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, you know. The neighbors mayor talking to somebody other else\, you know. We’ll we’ll work that out. So I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah\, I don’t think Bcdc can do everything\, although maybe you guys should. But I don’t know they’re doing really well. Anyway\, this seems like a really rich opportunity to incorporate this into a future like a future edit of this shoreline adaptation plan. I will also say we. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: even though these requirements seem really \nTemazcal Meeting Room: comprehensive and big and like impossible. These are cut down from what we originally included and wanted to include\, just in recognition of the fact that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: if we have. If we have everybody look at everything\, it’s going to take them 20 years to do a plan. And it’s going to be really onerous. So we’ve been really trying to toe the line between comprehensiveness and accessibility. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And that’s 1 of the things that we’re kind of continually getting feedback on. So just thinking through how to make something like that be really accessible for for a user \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and incorporate it in a way that becomes second nature in the way people make decisions that that would be ideal. So I think it’d be great to continue to have those conversations about how we how we think that through. Yeah. And that’s exactly what I was thinking when I said I probably wouldn’t have any more specific like recommendations\, because \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think the question was for me. Anyway\, I the 1st one\, was\, yeah\, I I support what you’ve done\, and I can accept it \nTemazcal Meeting Room: based on\, you know\, like support it \nTemazcal Meeting Room: based on the idea that there’s recognition that there’s going to be adaptation as this goes forward. And in particular\, I like the fact that there’s a specific opening \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for improved mapping \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that would help everyone. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: adaptation is 5 years away is that I mean. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that’s what I’m concerned about the sequence that you’re getting these comments in that they’re too late. And then none of this is going to make it into the plan\, or that’s maybe that’s a question. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or is the next update in 5 years? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, yeah\, I mean\, I had the same concern. But I I’ve kind of been in this world before. And and I’ve \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If if they have the deadline\, which I think they do\, I don’t know \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that I would mess with it much\, and just say\, you know\, we’re gonna learn as we go. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean\, it’s all about adaptation\, right? So we’re adapting our adaptation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Or so \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I don’t know. That’s kind of my perspective. But I agree with you that yeah\, it’s I think it’s bigger conversation. I’m going to let others speak. But I I just want to say I mean\, the vision is beautiful\, you know. It’s uncomplicated when it’s a vision\, but when you get on the ground it’s actually \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m concerned that they’re they’re \nTemazcal Meeting Room: well\, I don’t know. Is there a focus on short term actions? That’s really my \nTemazcal Meeting Room: issue\, like\, what do you do tomorrow? And that’s why I raised the issue of the levies of all the cities \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in the South Bay. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The only projects we’ve reviewed in the last 2 years are San Mateo County\, where the problem is the worst\, and the go to solution is riprap and levees. Not. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: as in your plan. I think you refer to hard infrastructure and show nice little bay trail\, elevated 5 feet or something like that. But these are like these 20 foot walls that are going up in the South Bay \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and Foster City building 20 foot wall\, so that the homes no longer have\, you know\, view of the of the bay at all. So for a handful of citizens. They’re completely \nTemazcal Meeting Room: making huge impacts on the bay. And I’m just wondering\, like\, what are we doing about that? I didn’t see that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in the plan. And to me. That’s the most critical thing\, because I think we all agree on the vision. I’m not minimizing the work that you’ve done. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But I but I think that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: time is of the essence \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on that\, and what you know\, because I think it is\, it is pretty easy to just push it out there. It’s like this is the vision and and then you don’t have to do anything\, because that’s that’s tomorrow is somebody else’s problem. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: anyway\, Kristen. You said you had a comment. Well\, that’s it’s building on exactly what you just said. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I actually think this whole. I I look at this as quite similar to Mtcabags. Plan Bay Area. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And when that 1st came out everyone was like the regional housing needs assessment. How will it ever work? How will we ever meet these mandates? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s too much planning that needs to be done. There’s too many obstacles. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and I think what we’ve seen is just by starting \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to quantify\, to identify tiers\, to identify targets\, to quantify. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You know\, opportunities that each city needs to kind of really look at what they have. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what’s possible. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It started off. I mean the 1st iteration of it had no teeth right? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And now we have all of these laws coming down from the State. You have to meet Rena\, Hcd. Saying you are. I’m sorry. This is you’re not actually meeting Rena. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You know this strategy isn’t going to get you there and having more teeth. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and it might take us too long to get there. I mean\, just we have a collective action problem in the Us. You know\, this is just the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: nature of our democracy \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and our culture and our society. But I do think that this is a really really good start. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think\, requiring jurisdictions to\, as you called it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You had a great term for it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You said it’s a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: risk disclosure\, or whatever you say\, I wrote it down\, but I can’t find right now. But in order to really\, you know\, disclose what are the risks that we’re all facing\, and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: then we can’t back away from it. We may not get there in 5 years. We may not get there in 10 years\, probably a lot of property will be lost. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But so far \nTemazcal Meeting Room: this is. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, this is the best model that we have to do regional planning in an area where regional planning is really tricky. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and it turns out the local jurisdictions are the place to do this kind of work because you can work closest with the community. You can do those kind of trade-offs \nTemazcal Meeting Room: more closely\, you can build capacity \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and you can actually \nTemazcal Meeting Room: implement projects at that scale that that are very hard for us to do regionally\, unfortunately. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and I would just say\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Also\, the great is the enemy of the good\, you know. And so I think this is a really great start. I have a lot of thoughts about \nTemazcal Meeting Room: simplifying and questions about kind of like\, what’s the right level of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: goals to target and action to target from this plan. But I do think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, coupling it with funding. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: figuring out how to fund it. It could be a really effective start\, anyway. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: can I? Can I? Can. I add on to that? I just wanna \nTemazcal Meeting Room: tell you guys a quick story. I gave a presentation to a community \nTemazcal Meeting Room: down on the coast \nTemazcal Meeting Room: about some issues and adaptation\, and I decided to make my presentation \nTemazcal Meeting Room: about 40 min or 50 min long. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: because I wanted them to feel \nTemazcal Meeting Room: how difficult it’s going to be \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to get through all this. And if \nTemazcal Meeting Room: people told me\, you know\, you should just be really quick and tell them what you think and what you want and push on that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And the thing is we don’t really. It’s not up to one of us. I mean\, this is a process. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that’s where I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the added\, the Rsap \nTemazcal Meeting Room: could be a framework where some of these processes are developed like\, I always thought that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or I have thought recently that a redevelopment type concept. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I know we don’t do redevelopment anymore\, but a redevelopment type concept where there’s some \nTemazcal Meeting Room: funding financing that way. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and you can maybe move people that way\, or if it place gets blighted\, so to speak\, for whatever unfortunate reason\, there’s a way to help people \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or help \nTemazcal Meeting Room: businesses. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I mean\, I think there may be ways of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it’s hard to turn a ship this quick\, so to speak. I think I think that’s the fundamental. And then\, of course\, people don’t want to. They just want to sit in their lounge chair and drink a Mai tai or something. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m wondering \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on this question of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: timeframe. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The deadline for the plan is 10 years. Is there any way \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: encourage request? Require \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a 30%\, 60% or a 50% submission on the reports. The idea that they’re going to submit a plan \nTemazcal Meeting Room: all at once and have it reviewed\, and to maybe receive comment and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: find that they’re not adequate. And then suddenly\, they’re at risk of missing deadlines. Seems like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what we really should be doing is working with working with them\, and I know that there’s funding available now to try and encourage that. But I don’t know if that’s enough for everybody. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what happens when it runs out? Does everybody again just sort of say\, well. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: well\, we’ll let the the next \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Then the next election cycle take care of it. I had a similar thought about this\, which was what if you took maybe 2 thirds of the planning out of this. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and what you had was in 5 years\, or whatever the 3 years. I don’t know what the right time horizon is. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You have to do the analysis\, and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a next steps a series of next steps\, like one of the things in there is to do. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a land use. What is it? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Let me get this right \nTemazcal Meeting Room: short and long term land use changes identifying what the short and long term land use. Changes would be required to implement this. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean\, that could take a city \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 5 years to figure out\, especially through a public input process. You know\, working. That’s there’s so much potential \nTemazcal Meeting Room: value \nTemazcal Meeting Room: of land at stake with that question right? And and how do you determine who gets to build and who gets has to retreat? And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you gotta work with Caltrans and all of that. And so I’m wondering some of those things. It’s like\, what if a lot of the kind of plans that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: cities that like Stefan and I will have worked with on the with about cities working on their housing elements is like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you have to identify kind of all the risks and the kind of state of things\, and then you have to come up with a strategy of what are the next steps that you need to do? And maybe one of their next steps would be \nTemazcal Meeting Room: determine a land use\, plan that grapples with these risks rather than having to do that within this document. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so\, instead of trying to do all of it in 10 years. You’re trying to do the most important fact\, finding and kind of grappling with the facts and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: having the conversations \nTemazcal Meeting Room: about how you might start to think about this in the next 3 years. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then based on that. Then maybe there’s another set of strategies or something after that\, and you’ll have a better sense of like what all these jurisdictions are looking at. How many of them really do need to do\, Major? Down zonings. How many of them really are having major problems with like Caltrans not wanting to do \nTemazcal Meeting Room: upland migration or sediment\, you know\, whatever. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And then you’ll have a better sense of how to support these different jurisdictions\, moving forward \nTemazcal Meeting Room: rather than kind of asking them to do these huge pieces of planning work \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that require really so much community engagement \nTemazcal Meeting Room: when they already are going to have to do so much work to just try to understand the kind of technical aspects of. I mean\, I’ve been working in this kind of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the level Rise space for 10 years\, and every time Bob says something I’m like learning something new. You know\, it’s like a really complicated topic. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and to expect cities to be able to wrap their heads around these things and come up with \nTemazcal Meeting Room: not just come up with a plan for what to do next. But like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: talk to the community about what are the zoning changes? All of that. It’s incredibly onerous. I can understand how these cities would think that that’s really overwhelming. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I will say that a lot of our requirements are actually\, when you actually look at the submittal standards. They’re pretty lightweight. They are intended to really just get people thinking about certain topic areas and telling us how they’ve thought it through. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So the land use and policy plan. You know\, you could say\, like. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: this is in our next steps like we need to\, we need to develop a more robust land use and policy plan. A lot of our submittals are described how you’ve thought about this this thing. So we have tried to kind of dial back. You know the the submittals that you would need to have figured out\, and I’ll also say that even though we’re not doing interim kind of submittals over time and phasing the the how people turn in their plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think that the plan that we’re setting up for technical assistance and consultations is sort of unofficially doing that we’re going to start doing outreach to cities and counties who haven’t started their plans in a certain time. You know\, we’re going to check in with people on a very regular basis. We’re going to look at each of the pieces that they’re working on as they do it\, so that they don’t have to do the whole process \nTemazcal Meeting Room: at once\, and then say\, Oh\, gosh! We did it wrong. So I think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it’s not something that we necessarily wanted to put in a formal \nTemazcal Meeting Room: requirements in the in the plan itself\, because that’s part of our bay plan. And it’s it’s not as flexible to update\, but that in practice I think that the way that we will be engaging and learning from cities and counties is a lot more aligned with the process that you’re talking about \nTemazcal Meeting Room: anything. No\, I think that that makes sense. And I think you know as as it’s out for public review\, we’re also every time this happens we do our own internal review again\, because the fast moving process. So we’ve been kind of looking over all of that as well\, and trying to see where we can either add clarity. Where kind of we intended for this to be this like 1st step. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think what’s challenging\, too\, is that different jurisdictions may be at different phases. So this may and I don’t know yet how that translate into into what we write in the document versus just how we assess and how we communicate. But there are some jurisdictions that maybe they have a plan\, and so maybe there is a more of a conversation about what is next. You know you’ve already kind of done a lot of that. Your community is set up differently than \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe a jurisdiction or a plan that comes in. And this is really just their 1st bite at the apple. So I think we’re thinking through that as well\, and that’s always been on our mind\, which is like the variety of land\, the variety of the Bay area. It’s a big shoreline 3rd of California’s coastline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And how do we standardize something and allow look like that nuance? So I think there’s some\, maybe clarification. And also just looking at the language itself and making sure that\, are we asking for more than we need? Or or where are we allowing for that like discretion \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in terms of what we’re asking for? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think the templates you described \nTemazcal Meeting Room: would probably be really helpful\, because when I read. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Having describing the short and long term land use changes. I was like\, Oh\, my God\, I just can’t. I mean\, that takes \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that can take years with cities\, you know\, that can take. And that’s a huge I mean just talking about like up zoning along the Caltrain corridor \nTemazcal Meeting Room: like there’s in some cities. There’s ballot measures that you have to go through\, you know\, like there’s just so much process. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so if it’s not really asking them to make decisions about that or have a plan for that\, I think that is helpful to know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, one thing is\, we split the submittal requirements from the actual like plan requirements. And so you read the plan requirement. And you’re like\, oh\, my God\, that sounds! And then you can go several pages later and look at the submittal requirement and be like\, oh\, they just are asking for a couple of sentences. But I think maybe we did ourselves a little bit of a disservice by splitting those\, because then there isn’t the the link or that immediate \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Communication of the expectation of what? Of what we’re we actually mean by that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Stefan\, do you want to comment? Yeah\, I really appreciate this discussion. And I want to say that on the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: positive side \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think there is a lot of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: planning that’s been done \nTemazcal Meeting Room: through the lens of climate action plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sustainable components of like general plan updates. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But of course\, all that’s been done sort of in the bubble of an individual jurisdiction. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I can see a lot of incentive and value in encouraging jurisdictions to participate or collaborate. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Not only because \nTemazcal Meeting Room: some of those things could emerge as regional projects which could be more valuable. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: particularly if natural systems are involved. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: than individual jurisdictions\, saying\, to do levies\, for example\, to Gary’s point\, but also because\, for consistency reasons \nTemazcal Meeting Room: having fewer plans to administer. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it’s like good for everybody. And that’s it. I \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I I trust that you have a handle on that\, because I know that there’s some places like San Mateo where there has been a real. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a significant amount of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: cross jurisdictional collaboration around the shoreline. But there’s other places like Solano\, like where I would be like\, I have no idea what’s happening. So I’m gonna tell you my Marin county story. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I’m going to keep this short. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But so\, Sb\, 2 gets adopted in 2017. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And that’s basically right connecting funds for affordable housing. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Through real estate transaction tax. Sb. 35 gets adopted. The same year \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I had conversations with Abag\, Mtc. That year about the potential \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and State law was starting to require objective design standards for housing\, for ministerial housing projects\, but the potential for sort of regional \nTemazcal Meeting Room: zoning applications. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we spent 2 years having internal discussions. Is it possible? Are there any takers? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: All the jurisdictions we’re talking to is like\, no way. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’re not. We’re not like other people. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If you do something regional. It’s not going to be valuable. We can’t do this together with this other person\, because we’re just too different. Their zoning ordinances\, community commercial\, our zoning ordinances\, commercial community. It’s not the same thing. I know that the numbers are the same. There’s no way that we can collaborate with them. Lots of excuses. By 2019 we got the Marin jurisdictions to agree to do this together. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It took a while. And there’s Marina’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is useful because 10 of the jurisdictions are the same size. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so there’s like some\, there’s\, there’s a similar geography where people can get in the same room and say\, oh\, we’re similar. So! And it. What was pushing that? There was that there was a county collab that had been created\, which you guys know about those which had been \nTemazcal Meeting Room: directed to collaborate on housing issues that were shared \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 11 jurisdictions plus the county\, we got \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 10 of them\, plus the county to participate. One of them right away said\, I’m not going to do this with you. Of the 11 that participated \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we this was \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to fall back on \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the Mpo. Through State funding\, had created \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a whole library of technical assistance tools to say\, If you’re going to do this\, do it this way. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so they within that structure we got. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We drafted a regional toolkit for these these 10 jurisdictions \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 5 of them agreed to adopt from that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 2 of them \nTemazcal Meeting Room: subsequently agreed\, and are still working on it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And the other 3 said\, This is not us. We’re not going to do this. So if you took the reach like the regional lens in that county\, the goal would have been that there’s 1 \nTemazcal Meeting Room: solution that\, like the minimum number we’re getting is like 4 or 5. And this is like in the least populated\, most geographically similar \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sort of jurisdictional component. And I know that this is\, it’s a much different geography we’re talking about\, because we’re talking about a much more holistic and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: heterogeneous geography than what happens at the shoreline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But what that required to do that was one. We had to have \nTemazcal Meeting Room: really some regional champion or champions that was willing to take a leadership role among the jurisdictions. And we realized that that actually couldn’t be a consultant. It needed to be somebody who was local\, who was knowledgeable enough\, but also willing\, had the willingness to take that role. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We also found that there was like no \nTemazcal Meeting Room: structure for interagency collaboration. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that was also a situation where it was easy\, because the county controlled most of like right of ways and things like that. But that seems like it would be like a really important avenue \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to multi jurisdictional collaboration that the the agencies can come to the table. So if there’s a discussion of levies\, and there’s a lot of right-of-ways that are adjacent that are somehow out of the project description. There’s an opportunity to like mold those together. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The other thing was like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: some ability to generate a common lexicon between jurisdictions. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: because we do have these \nTemazcal Meeting Room: superimposed systems like Plan Bay Area. But everybody has their own general plan. It’s their own nomenclature. And there’s this insistence that they are \nTemazcal Meeting Room: somehow unique and different \nTemazcal Meeting Room: even from their neighbor\, which that can’t be overcome through this process. But the process can actually either rely on \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or generate a common lexicon that those jurisdictions can use. And I think that actually is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: super important\, because that’s when they start to understand. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Oh\, we could do this together\, and we could collaborate together. On this effort. And if there’s things like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: common regulations that would emerge from this where you could get multiple jurisdictions to adopt us an overlay or something where the sea level rise. Impacts are going to apply. That would be huge benefit. To being able to do that. So part of that is maybe how you set up the process. The other part is like what is in the technical assistance. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Library to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to implement that work? So I think all of those things \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is around answering this question of. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe it’s question number 2 around sort of what the biggest challenges are\, and what sort of tools? I think might be helpful for \nTemazcal Meeting Room: land development. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Hey? Hey\, Stefan\, on that that was really interesting and useful \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to me. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: In that process. It sounds like it was. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, a very much\, a an attempt to to\, you know\, to collab\, get people to collaborate\, or\, you know\, municipalities to villages whatever to collaborate. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Was there? Were there any like sticks or or constraints that that would\, you know\, kind of help people collaborate. Was there anything that came out of that? Or was all just like what people? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, I mean\, this gets to Christian’s point\, that\, you know\, like state law was basically mandating that you needed to have these tools in place \nTemazcal Meeting Room: by a certain time. Otherwise\, you know\, there was \nTemazcal Meeting Room: like ministerial approval was required. So it’s like\, if you didn’t have objective design standards and you had a project that was proposed. You just needed to approve it \nTemazcal Meeting Room: if it wasn’t in place. So there was a timeline. And because of the state mandate. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the community outreach process \nTemazcal Meeting Room: could be really minimized. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Because what are we really? There was very little \nTemazcal Meeting Room: asking their opinion\, and more about informing them about the process\, because again it was responding to a state mandate. But even with those 2 very heavy \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 6 we’re still talking about like a 7 year timeframe \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I would say\, get to sort of like a majority success in sort of implementing that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and I think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what the value that you would have here is that there’s these \nTemazcal Meeting Room: critical \nTemazcal Meeting Room: pieces of infrastructure that somebody has already \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the process for funding and improving and making that resilient is already in place before these individual subregional plans \nTemazcal Meeting Room: are going to be drafted\, and so that all that low hanging fruit in the implementation plan \nTemazcal Meeting Room: there ideally is already a structure in place to actually make sure that that gets built and funded \nTemazcal Meeting Room: all of the short term sort of year 0 stuff \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that all the plans would reflect. It doesn’t have to wait for these plans \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in order to implement that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But I think the opportunity in my mind to your point is like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: where you can get to a better natural solution. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The regional collaboration \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we? We don’t have a good model for that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: ask if our efforts here and on the East coast \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sort of resulted in the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: sort of a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: like. The lowest common denominator solution is sort of ultimately what what gets built. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean\, I think in my mind like\, that’s a big \nTemazcal Meeting Room: concern. If we’re looking at this critical like\, what can we do between now and 2050\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and to like be really \nTemazcal Meeting Room: innovative and like\, what? What can we do as planners to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: fear the process \nTemazcal Meeting Room: away from the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know the the 35 mile levee wall\, you know\, or whatever it is\, and and towards sort of like really innovative nature. Yeah\, I really share the concern about how we’re locking the shoreline into place\, as I’ve mentioned before. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and you know. But I just. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think this to your point. I think this probably will require \nTemazcal Meeting Room: some \nTemazcal Meeting Room: additional work at the regional level \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to guide\, and if not coax or even \nTemazcal Meeting Room: strongly encourage \nTemazcal Meeting Room: people to play together\, to try to result in a regional \nTemazcal Meeting Room: adaptation plan. Regional planning. It’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I haven’t seen it done yet actually on the Pacific Coast. We started talking about it in Monterey\, Southern Monterey Bay\, around \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 2\,008 or \nTemazcal Meeting Room: before that\, but anyway\, still hasn’t happened really completely yet. Last point that I wanted to make\, which is also sort of like heavy on my mind\, is that one of the things that slowed the implementation \nTemazcal Meeting Room: was literally just around capacity. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that the long range planners who are the best empowered to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: enable this kind of work \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on the jurisdictional side. They were all preoccupied with their State mandates to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: update their housing element. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and in many and in many cities\, because of\, like the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the gravity of that situation. State mandates around the timelines. They were sucking all of their resources\, you know\, in long range planning in most of these jurisdictions is maybe one full time person. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and they are spending all they’re spending all their time sort of preoccupied with \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the other stuff that was mandated by state\, which really sort of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it really limited the capacity to focus on a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: equally significant long range planning effort. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so that’s in my mind\, like on the technical assistance side. If there are not everything from \nTemazcal Meeting Room: resources that existing planners can obtain to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: actual planners that can sort of go into these jurisdictions to help implement these things\, it would help for a more successful outcome on the 2034 timeline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you for listening. I know that was really long\, so I appreciate the chance to talk about this. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: well\, I think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think that’s really I think that’s really good \nTemazcal Meeting Room: example of how this could play out. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I also think Bcdc. Has a unique \nTemazcal Meeting Room: opportunity \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with the permitting requirements that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: gives sort of regional teeth. And one of my\, you know\, I work with a lot of private developers on waterfront sites. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the thing that I’ve learned about working with developers is they just want certainty. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: They just want to know what the requirements are. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and I think we’ve talked a lot on this board about 24 inches. Is it really enough? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think this plan clearly indicates it’s not \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and I think just like if there was more clarity \nTemazcal Meeting Room: from Bcdc. Around things like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: like we\, how many slews have we seen where the strategy for public access was to harden the edge. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Right? We know that that’s not the ideal solution. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We know that a more natural solution is desired. But there’s this sort of like blunt \nTemazcal Meeting Room: requirement for public access that butts up against the property line and the feasible development of a site. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And therefore we get this hardened edge. And it’s just that on this very piecemeal basis. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And the bay plan itself does have \nTemazcal Meeting Room: requirements for things like this is a recreation area. And this is a protected wetland. And I wonder if \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the Bay plan could actually just do some of this work that Bob was talking about of kind of looking at the bigger picture and identifying places where \nTemazcal Meeting Room: there\, or maybe updating. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean\, I don’t know how frequently it’s updated\, but \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or clarifying or increasing the numbers\, or whatever it is around\, kind of bigger picture strategies\, so that when a developer goes to acquire a piece of land \nTemazcal Meeting Room: they go. Oh\, you know\, this is like\, got a requirement for a soft waterfront\, and it’s also got this access requirement and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 6 and a half feet. I got a plan\, for they have someone do a quick back of the envelope for them and they go. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: This site’s not developable. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Just so they have certainty ahead of time about what the requirements are\, rather than all of us kind of trying to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: gently or not\, so gently push them in a different direction when the site just won’t let them. Right? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I do think the permitting requirement is a really special tool that Bcdc has \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to take those kind of priority areas where we maybe really want to lose that carry sediment that are really\, you know\, the kind of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: how do you prioritize these places? How do we think about? You know the wave echoes and things like that kind of in this bigger picture\, and have more like clear strategies that are \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with higher levels of sea level rise anticipated\, and taking into account all of these things in a regional way\, so that when cities go to do their plans they can see that the Bay Plan says \nTemazcal Meeting Room: this slew is really not a place for channelization. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Full stop. And I think that’s a really unique opportunity that Bcdc. Has that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: there was\, you know. Mtc. And Abag don’t have that. They didn’t have that. And now Hcd. Has teeth\, but it took 20 years to get there 15 or whatever it was\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we’re really behind that. You know\, the Bcdc’s mandate is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: no bay fill and maximize public access. So there’s a lot that we can’t require at this point or deny at this point\, as long as you meet kind of those those mandates. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: This is what we’re looking at really diving deeper into\, so that we can make sure that our plans are reinforced by our permitting policies. But we’re not. We’re not. It’s going to take a little bit of time to get to that point. I thought the bay the Bay Fill rule was had been reconsidered. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s possible with a Bay plan. Amendment in 2019 was built for habitat. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So there is some consideration of the trade off between habitat. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: rebuilding habitats and bay fill. Yeah\, you’re correct. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Well. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I don’t. I don’t know what the answer is\, but I think\, after 10 years of reviewing projects that I would say 90% of what you know. What we’ve ever seen is riprap and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and levees. I don’t think we’ve ever. In fact\, I’ll say that we have never seen \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the project we’re looking for until we reviewed the Alameda project\, the deep Pave park. Okay? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And so I want to suggest that included in the report is case studies \nTemazcal Meeting Room: of successful examples \nTemazcal Meeting Room: around the bay that you can point to\, because I I think the whole thing is. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, I mean\, it’s it’s actually very frustrating to see how people interpret \nTemazcal Meeting Room: our feedback. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I will take Mission Rock Park\, for example\, as as an example. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: mission rock Park was planned\, as you know\, by the former chair of the Bcdc. Design Review Board \nTemazcal Meeting Room: best firms in the world\, and they did a great job. They had an incredible landscape architect. We approved the park. We saw it many times. They raised the site 7 feet. They did all these model things. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and I think a lot of that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: was looking good because there was this idea to create this soft shoreline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to step the park down into the bay\, and they hire\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: well-known landscape architect who’s known in New York City for doing similar work \nTemazcal Meeting Room: at the end of the day I watched that park get built. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You go out there. It’s a riprap shore. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay\, they raise the side 10 feet. It’s nothing but a levee\, and the 1st thing they did was pour \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so much concrete would never believe it. I mean concrete\, like 4\, 5\, 6 feet thick over that entire site. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: After they poured the concrete they put in foam blocks another whatever 6 feet of foam stacked up. I don’t know if you were there to actually witness this miracle of engineering. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then a cap of soil \nTemazcal Meeting Room: which was somewhere between\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: 2 feet and 4 feet or something\, and brought in big trees. But it’s it’s all just. It’s a terrarium. It’s a raised planter box\, that’s all it is\, and it looks beautiful\, and it’s a success\, and we can all declare it a wonderful triumph. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You know it’s like the best one of the best developers in the United States\, Tishman from New York City\, with the giants putting up\, you know\, their land and port \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and you know. Somehow I don’t know why\, but it didn’t happen. You know. They pulled back. There’s the money. There’s all the things you’ve probably been\, you know\, probably ran into a lot of logistical jurisdictional problems trying to implement that I call it. I use the analogy of\, have you ever driven a 4 wheel drive off road in the mountains where there’s logging trails. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I did that one time\, and my fear was that I would \nTemazcal Meeting Room: slide into the ruts that were so deep that my truck would just get ice centers. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Unfortunately\, we have these institutional practices where? And a lot of it’s engineering you. You just end up in a rut\, you know. It’s like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: they probably spent a lot of money on that\, too. I haven’t looked at it myself. But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah\, the engine\, you know it’s the flip side of of getting engineers involved sometimes that they just are really concerned about risk. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah\, overdo it. You know\, it works for people. The park is\, you know\, everybody loves it. But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the issues that we’re talking about here is try to hard to imagine how this plan\, you know\, disrupts that that process because we’ve seen it over and over again. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So I\, I personally feel like that. They’re the report is great\, and it’s better to get it out there than to not get it out there because it \nTemazcal Meeting Room: raises the bar\, gets people thinking about it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: but at the same time I feel like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it only really came to our attention a very short amount of time ago\, and I think it was a lot of information to absorb \nTemazcal Meeting Room: very quickly last time\, and we kind of got our toe in the water\, and you can see now that with this report that you put out all this detailed information. You’re getting very detailed feedback\, and I feel like it’s too rushed. I don’t know what we can do about that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But you know I \nTemazcal Meeting Room: if it was up to me\, or at least I would like to put on the table that there’s an interim meeting\, that instead of going from here to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the Commission that that maybe there’s another interim meeting where Jacinta can attend\, and we can get Tom’s feedback and maybe try to make sense out of comments\, because \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the 1st thing I said when we got here is like\, you don’t want big picture comments right now\, do you? You know\, knowing about the dates\, but that’s what \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I mean. I try to stay quiet because I want to see what other people think. But I but I see that we’re getting a lot of big picture comments. So what do we do with that? I think it’s a question to you\, Ashley. Where where do we go from here. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I don’t think the calendar for adoption from the State law 2 72. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Allow us for an interim meeting\, just because it is going to the Commission next Thursday \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for their public hearing. The vote is in December. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and just with \nTemazcal Meeting Room: mailing notices 10 days in advance of a meeting like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it is impossible. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so we can’t have another meeting after the Commission. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Oh\, we can have a follow up meeting after \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe after it’s voted on before. This is before this document is released the end of the year. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We don’t have the ability to take in comments after the end of the public comment period\, because we were doing everything we can to incorporate the public comment and put out the draft in time for the mailing for the December 5th meeting. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So it’s at at for this draft at least. The the door closes next next week. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If you think it’s fast for you. Imagine being the ones trying to write this and meet a legislative deadline. So we we. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Larry. One of Larry’s favorite lines is that we know we’re going to get it wrong the 1st time\, and I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong per se. But there is definitely recognition that there’s lots that we still need to work out. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And this is our first.st This is our 1st version of it. And when we’re going to learn a lot from cities and counties as they as they work through these plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: We’re going to learn a lot from our commissioners and from you\, and from the process that we go through to look at how we better link these plans to our \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to our permitting authorities. So we’re very much in recognition that this is fast for everybody. It was. It was something we were mandated to do in this timeline. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that we’re going to be working on this for for many years to come. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So could we. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: if we want to make a recommendation. W. Would it be that this process continues after this\, Rsap is continued \nTemazcal Meeting Room: because the Rsap in and of itself \nTemazcal Meeting Room: is about adaptation. So the art Rsap could be adapted. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And in particular. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what’s that every 5 years? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: What is that? The Rsap or the sub-regional rsaps? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, we’ve committed to updating the guidelines every 5 years. We don’t want to be. We don’t want to keep moving the needle. So we’re trying to find the the boundary between putting something out there that is not constantly shifting and changing and being timely enough to incorporate \nTemazcal Meeting Room: thought is\, if you can’t go straight\, then you go around something. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: what what about it? Having \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the recognition that there could be amendments or additional tools provided \nTemazcal Meeting Room: from a regional perspective to inform the rcaps. And this is like the map thing that I was talking about and maybe getting charged to help with some of these issues\, you know\, like a flood control group or something. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and and that we would recommend that the Drb. If not the ecrb as well. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Maybe participate in that process. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or or we would support. I don’t know. What do you think of that? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Actually\, I have a a similar kind of thought\, which is\, there’s a huge gap in knowledge\, right in terms like the cities that are going to be \nTemazcal Meeting Room: doing this planning. There’s so much to learn about sea level rise\, and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: even just the maps that you’ve asked\, I think\, are going to be like a huge. You know\, a lot of these cities are like\, I don’t even really understand what this map is about. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think in the way that you roll this out and roll out the technical assistance. There’s a huge opportunity there \nTemazcal Meeting Room: to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: have sort of like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: advocacy or directionality in terms of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that big picture thinking and the major opportunities that each of these jurisdictions have in order to think about things like sedimentation and green infrastructure. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And maybe that’s a way through the technical assistance and through. You know all the different ways that you’re going to be working with these jurisdictions to like really \nTemazcal Meeting Room: point them in the right direction. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, that’s what I was going to say. Things like case studies and templates. That’s all part of the technical assistance program. Because we didn’t. We actually intentionally stripped those out of this because it is a Bay Plan amendment. And therefore it can’t be updated on a regular basis. But the Ta program can. We can add in\, you know\, all the other things that we want people to know that we want people to consider different tools\, different examples like\, that’s the flexible portion of this. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the the amendment. The Bay Plan Amendment itself is a lot less flexible just because it’s it because of the process that we need to go through to get to it. But the you’re you’re you’re totally right there that the technical assistance program is. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, that’s where we can adjust. That’s where we can be nimble. That’s where we can reflect what we’re hearing from cities and counties. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I think also\, what I’m trying to say is \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that’s also a place where you can \nTemazcal Meeting Room: provide a lot more information and advocacy towards the kind of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: maybe not the 1st strategies off the rank of the levies and the the hard infrastructure. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and really \nTemazcal Meeting Room: like\, provide enough support that they can understand what this would mean. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And then\, if there’s a way later down the line for the Bay plan\, or the permitting authority to be able to be implementing some of those things at that higher level. I think that’s really \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a major opportunity. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think. Also\, Stefan\, what you mentioned about having enough staff resources. I think that for you guys. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, if you’re going to be reviewing all of these plans and giving all this technical capacity. That’s a huge lift for staff. And I think that’s important to consider. I mean\, I probably don’t have to tell you guys that. But whoever it is\, Larry\, if you’re listening. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You you guys are going to need to a lot of support in order to help pull this off also. Yeah. So we did get a a budget allocation over the next 3 years\, for it’s for 15 staff. 6 are replacing grant funded staff. So we have 9 new staff positions for this. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and they will be distributed kind of throughout the agency to help support this from from different departments\, including we have. We’re hiring a new lawyer to to help us with this. And \nTemazcal Meeting Room: so Gary. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: with your desire to see \nTemazcal Meeting Room: this in the future. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: would bringing back the technical assistance program as a way for the Drb. To review the recommendations\, and how staff are moving forward with the plans. Satisfy \nTemazcal Meeting Room: your need to see it again \nTemazcal Meeting Room: before 5 years are you talking about between now and the end of the year? Or you’re talking about over the next 5 years? I don’t think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: another meeting in 2024 is in the cards. Yeah. But I mean this technical assistance thing. But the technical assistance is not really about. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So if we brought the technical assistance program to you guys for guidance. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Would that satisfy your need to see it again? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Sure\, I I think that’s yeah. We should do whatever is the best thing we can. We can do. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. But are you saying that’s a 5 year process. So we would work on the I don’t. I don’t know what’s the relationship between these \nTemazcal Meeting Room: documents. You’re saying the technical assistance \nTemazcal Meeting Room: program can be implemented immediately. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. So we have a consultant right now\, who’s developing a work plan for us. That we will receive in January\, and then we will start. It will be something that will build over time. But we’ll open\, you know. Open the doors and hang our our sign early next year. And then that that ta program will start with a sort of basic set\, a basic management structure and a basic set of resources. And then just continue to to grow that over time. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and that is\, you know\, like\, like the the Dta program\, is any tool\, any guidance\, any interpretation? Any connections that we can make facilitation that helps to apply these guidelines. So there’s lots of opportunity there. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. So that you said\, you can include case studies in that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think that’s a good idea. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: What about the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Leo’s suggestion of having stages of submission for the subregional plans. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Is that something that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: anyone else would like to? Leo asked me to raise that\, and I think it’s a good idea. But I’m not a planner\, so I don’t know if you have on that\, or if it’s something that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: can be amended into the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: adaptation plan at this stage \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we likely wouldn’t have the Commission approve various phases of the plan that would just come at the at the end. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But it’s you know\, we could be open to having an interim deadline interim reviews. Yeah\, they don’t. I don’t think they have. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, I mean\, that is incorporated into the process with the required staff check-ins at least 3. We don’t. We could add some definition about what each of those check-ins needs to cover and what people should come prepared to to submit. But there’s only going to be one approval by the Commission. So. But but I think that’s consistent with what I’ve seen on the Pacific coast with the Coastal Commission is that there’s \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah. The whole set setup includes \nTemazcal Meeting Room: benchmarks where there’s at least a public meeting. Maybe a technical advisory committee\, or\, you know\, different groups meet \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and the staff might pay. Yeah\, participate or listen\, and then \nTemazcal Meeting Room: have a direct communication. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I I guess\, as needed\, but probably you know\, at that benchmark to see if things like. If they decide that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know groundwater is not an issue\, or I don’t know something\, you know\, that would be probably something that wouldn’t get too far. Or if it’s that that’s kind of a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: overplayed example. But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: it sounds like you would have \nTemazcal Meeting Room: intermediates the middles is part of the scope of work for the sub regional or set regional plans. Right? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Benchmarks. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. I mean\, there are various deliverables included in the submittal plan requirements\, and so we could easily kind of break those up into benchmarks that align with consultations. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: What I heard is\, and that’s what my experience has been\, because you want to catch people before they’re done. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: If they’re on the wrong path. Yeah\, yeah. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And I just want Jackie needs to run and catch the last ferry so I can. I’m happy to stay a little bit longer. But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: if you have any last minute thoughts for Jackie\, now’s the time. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay\, just thank you. I’m just trying to limit our comments at this point to things that are actually going to be useful for you. You know I think you you understand the kind of conversation that it raised\, and I think people are very appreciative of all the work you’ve done. And I think we’re \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we need to get this document out there into the world. But but is there anything else that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that are that would be considered to be very useful comments that would actually be incorporated into the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: document before. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It is completed that you have time to do that. I mean\, you basically have a week or something. Is that right? Or you have? Oh\, we have. We have time after the public comment period. Another update. Right? But I I do feel like we’ve gotten some really great thoughts from you all today some things that I think we can \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and think about incorporating in a lot of things that I think are going to be continued conversation were raised today\, and that we can continue to do that with you. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: either in discussing the Ta program or with our rising Sea Level Commissioner working group that’s talking. That’s going to be talking about like how we change our underlying laws and policies. So I certainly think there’s a lot more room for conversation. I think you raised a lot more\, a lot of things that are not easily resolved. And that’s okay. That’s good. You know\, we we knew \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we know already that there are a lot of things that fall into that category\, but I do feel\, at least in my notes. I have some some things that are applicable in this in the next draft that’s going to be coming to the Commission. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think it’d be helpful for us for our for feedback to just know of the things that you heard\, which ones \nTemazcal Meeting Room: our our \nTemazcal Meeting Room: useful\, and which ones would be addressed in this document before the end of the year. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then which ones could be placed in some other. You know there’s another mechanism to deal with the other comments\, and then maybe there’s other things you heard that just like there is no \nTemazcal Meeting Room: resolution for\, or something like that where we just \nTemazcal Meeting Room: put it aside or something. But I think it’s a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think this conversation is. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: would be good for \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for all the Board members to revisit\, like what was the impact of us having \nTemazcal Meeting Room: reviewed all this and told you\, and then what did what it did? It have any effect\, you know\, and if not\, why\, what do we do better\, you know\, next time \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and and then for future board members\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think \nTemazcal Meeting Room: we don’t want to lose track of this. Well\, we do have a much more transparent \nTemazcal Meeting Room: public comment and response \nTemazcal Meeting Room: process set up because this is a mandated public comment. So we are tracking every single comment. And\, as I said earlier\, this doesn’t count as official public comment for Bcdc. But we’re tracking internal comments as well. And you all are considered internal comments. So we’re organizing all the responses that we get and how we’re and how we’re going to respond to them. So that’s certainly something we could provide. Bcdc staff and and board members make public comments \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and staff. We asked to submit internally. But you all are not Bcdc. Staff\, even though you’re on an advisory board. So you you are welcome to provide official public comment. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I asked my friends to tell me all the things like secretly before before they set. Say it out to the world. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, no worries. I’m wrapping up. I think it’s fine. Yeah\, thanks a lot. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I just have one\, maybe concluding comment. And I think maybe my previous comment shows like what I’m preoccupied of what keeps me up at night. But I I think the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: technical nature of this of this document which I think is really to be commended because it’s really complicated. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: And the response from Alameda \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that sort of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: says to me that the successful implementation of this will be in fewer. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: fewer plans that can accommodate a higher degree of complexity and the ability to respond to the checklist \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and and more. And so I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: at given \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the planning situation that we have\, I would just want to make sure that there is a mechanism in place to \nTemazcal Meeting Room: steer this towards successful implementation. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and to like\, not let it get caught up in that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The the sound that individual jurisdictions will make to say\, this is too complicated. I don’t want to have to do this because of the complexity of what you’re asking me to do. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I have a couple of thoughts before you conclude. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: before we conclude he’s a concluding thoughts. So. But 2 of them are maybe ideas for support\, and 3 are just like annoying\, pedantic details. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I was wondering I was as I was reading it. I was thinking\, maybe if you created cohorts of cities that were kind of moving through the process at the same time who had similar issues. They could do \nTemazcal Meeting Room: kind of peer support. That’s something that \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Abag did with. They created a set of objective standards as kind of a catch-all that cities could adopt. But also they had \nTemazcal Meeting Room: a lot of meetings between similar cities where and it was helpful for them to be able to talk to each other about. How did you address this? How did you address that? So that might be a way to kind of give a lot of support to folks who you’re anticipating are going to have similar kind of issues. Maybe you’ve already thought about this. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I also really really think the idea of having a stepwise approach like these are the things we would like you to bring to the 1st meeting with Bcdc. These are the things we’d like you to bring to the second\, and these are the 3\, rd \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I think\, clarifying that for cities will really help them understand \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The best way to engage with you all\, but also it’ll help them write their scope for consultants\, because they’re gonna have to hire a lot of consultants to do this work. So if you can give them that and kind of expected timelines\, the extent that you can kind of spoon\, feed them. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: scope for their rfps\, I think would be really helpful\, especially because a lot of them probably don’t have expertise in. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: You know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: this kind of\, you know\, work. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay\, those are my 2 ideas. And then here’s my 3 pedantic things. I’m sorry. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: The maps have the legend on the facing pages\, not on the maps themselves\, and I think it’s so nice to be able to just pull the page and have all the information on the one page. So if you could\, just if you put those legends that just. It’s a simple thing. It makes it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, it makes it so much easier to use those maps in like presentations and things. They’re gonna do. Do you know what I mean by that? Yeah. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on page 83 \nTemazcal Meeting Room: on page 83. It’s the superfund sites. I think you might be missing Moffitt Field. I’m pretty sure that’s a superfund site. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Which site Moffitt Field at NASA Ames\, the whole \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and then on page 87\, \nTemazcal Meeting Room: the hydrological connectivity Map. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: It shows these kind of reaches or these kind of like larger areas. It’d be really helpful to have the outlines of the jurisdictions on that\, so they can just see really quickly. Where are their shared? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Where are the things that might be shared between jurisdictions? Because if I’m a jurisdiction. Looking at this\, I’d love to be able to quickly be like. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: oh\, I have nothing really to do with my neighbor to the north\, but there’s a lot to do with my neighbor to the south\, or\, Wow. All 3 of us have a lot of this stuff in common. Let’s work together. Just kind of \nTemazcal Meeting Room: make that really clear. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah. And to that last point\, the online online mapping platform does make that a lot more transparent. You can overlay all sorts of jurisdictional boundaries and things like that. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But yes\, thank you. Those are all great points. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Well\, the risk of being redundant. I just want to say again\, I think that the you know all the regulations\, everything that we do is all \nTemazcal Meeting Room: pointing to a different outcome than the one that we’ve seen implemented around the bay\, and that over time the bay. My biggest concern is that the entire bay gets a levy around it. The whole thing eventually. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: you know\, that’s that’s what we’re seeing. And I think a lot of it is under the radar. So we’re not really. It’s not in the public eye\, like. I think people would be shocked if they drove down to Alviso or or went through Foster City along the waterfront right now. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and just. It’s a kind of a big question. You know. What? What do we \nTemazcal Meeting Room: do differently? Or can we do anything differently? Because I know everyone \nTemazcal Meeting Room: here has made their very best efforts\, you know\, within\, with the tools they have. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Yeah\, you\, you know. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: that’s where I think the vision \nTemazcal Meeting Room: for this document is a little \nTemazcal Meeting Room: underperforming it. It’s really got a list of principles and \nTemazcal Meeting Room: or what I would call objectives. But \nTemazcal Meeting Room: no one’s done the hard work of envisioning what the bay is gonna look like \nTemazcal Meeting Room: in the future. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: under at least one or more scenarios. And that’s really kind of the only way you could \nTemazcal Meeting Room: tease that out\, I think. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and maybe that’s why they didn’t do it. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: But I agree with you. I think you know what? What is the vision for the bay \nTemazcal Meeting Room: bathtub \nTemazcal Meeting Room: hopefully. I don’t think so. And I I think the plan has the ecological \nTemazcal Meeting Room: objective or principle whatever. But yeah\, how you do. That is really the the question. So \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I agree. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Unsolvable problem. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Okay? I guess that concludes our comments. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: There’s no further comments. Are there any further comments from anyone? I think everyone’s had a chance. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Get a \nTemazcal Meeting Room: yeah. I will just say that. You know\, we’ve heard a lot of the same buckets of comments over and over again. We’ve talked to hundreds of people throughout this process\, and you all have a unique take on on it. And that’s like amazing. It’s much appreciated. So. Yes\, thank you so much for sharing all of your great thoughts. Well\, thanks for giving us the opportunity. Really appreciate it. It’s very important. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: So we’re happy to contribute hopefully. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: positively\, for your patience and all that. Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: and a second \nTemazcal Meeting Room: my motion that we adjourn? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: I second that motion. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Great hearing! Are there any objections? \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Hearing none\, the meeting is adjourned. \nTemazcal Meeting Room: Thank you. Thanks. Everyone. \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-7-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20241003T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20241003T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240127T064612Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240927T235211Z UID:10000107-1727960400-1727974800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:October 3\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION:Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative matters that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. Due to the cancellation of the meeting of October 3\, 2024\, and pursuant to Commission Regulation Section 10620(a)\, the Executive Director will take final action on these matters unless a Commissioner requests full Commission consideration by communicating with the staff . In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\nDefense Logistics Agency\n8725 John J. Kingman Road Suite 2828\nFt. Belvoir\, VA 22060\n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2024.005.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nAugust 2\, 2024\n\n\n75 Day\nOctober 16\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) Ozol\, located at 700 Carquinez Scenic Drive\, Martinez\, in Contra Costa County.\n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove an approximately 860-foot deteriorated timber fuel pier located at the end of an approximately 830-foot reinforced concrete pier\, constructed in the 1940s and out of service since 1999\, through the following activities: Remove 157 timber piles (133 18-inch-diameter piles and 24 12-inch-diameter piles) and all associated fenders\, decking\, framing\, bracing\, hand and guardrails\, piping\, structural conduit and wiring\, light pole structures\, two small cranes and storage equipment. The project will be conditioned to include avoidance and minimization measures to avoid possible adverse species and wildlife habitat impacts for listed species\, and to comply with requirements of other natural resource agencies. The estimated total volume of solid fill to be removed from BCDC’s Bay jurisdiction is 911.87 cubic yards; the estimated total surface area of Bay fill to be removed is 6\,560 square feet. The project will have no impacts to existing public access.\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Sam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov\n \n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nCounty of Marin\n3501 Civic Center Dr\, Suite 260\nSan Rafael\, CA 94903\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.009.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nSeptember 17\, 2024\n\n\n90 Day\nDecember 17\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, along the Mill Valley-Sausalito Multi-Use Path and Charles F. McGlashan Path in the cities of Mill Valley and Sausalito in Marin County\, and in unincorporated Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nWithin the Bay and and the Shoreline band\, to implement newly designed signage system with the following specifications: \n\nEntry Signs. Four-sided 23.25-inch-wide by 70.375-inch-tall sign mounted on a 2-foot-square concrete footing\, totaling 90 inches tall.\nDirectional Wayfinding Posts. 33-inch-wide by 6-inch-tall finger blade signs mounted on a 106-inch-tall post secured by 18-inch-square concrete footing.\nSite ID Signs. 12-inch (12 inches wide by 28.7 inches tall)\, 18-inch (18 inches square)\, or 24-inch (24 inches wide by 32 inches tall) signs mounted on existing or new posts\, with new posts secured by 18-inch-square concrete footings.\n\nSignage will be installed at the following locations\, from north to south\, involving the following work: \n\nEast Blithesdale Avenue (Mill Valley\, Shoreline Band Jurisdiction). Remove existing signs and post and install a new Entry Structure sign in new location.\nSycamore Avenue (Mill Valley\, Shoreline Band Jurisdiction). Remove existing kiosk and install new Entry Structure sign in same location.\nBayfront Park (Mill Valley\, Shoreline Band Jurisdiction) Install new 12” Site ID signs on new post at north entry and new 12” Site ID signs on a new post at south entry.\nMiller Avenue at Tam High (Mill Valley\, Shoreline Band Jurisdiction). Install new 24” Site ID sign on existing post.\nAlmonte Boulevard (Mill Valley\, Bay Jurisdiction). Remove existing signpost and trash can\, multi-use pathway sign\, and existing Bay Trail sign and post\, and install a new Directional Wayfinding Post\, a new 12” Site ID sign on new corral posts\, and a new 24” Site ID on existing post.\nMcGlashan Path Entrance at Coyote Creek (Marin County\, Bay Jurisdiction). Remove existing sign and post at south entry\, and install new Entry Structure sign at south entry and a new 18” Site ID sign on new post at north entry.\nPohono Street (Mill Valley\, Shoreline Band Jurisdiction). Remove existing pedestrians\, Bay Trail\, bike route signs\, and double poster from existing post\, and install a new 24” Site ID sign on existing post.\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Alysa Plese; 415/352-3600 or alysa.plese@bcdc.ca.gov URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/october-3-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240925T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240925T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T060008Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240927T222725Z UID:10000157-1727269200-1727283600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 25\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board (ECRB) meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format. To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location 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 location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena RoomSan 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/81787102673?pwd=vN89JOKiVyJskSGrBrIgssveWc91dm.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID817 8710 2673 \nPasscode387171 \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 Agenda\n \nCall to Order\, Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Shoreline Protection Project (Pre-Application). (120 minutes)\nThe Board will hold its second review the SFO (Applicant) proposed Shoreline Protection Project\, designed to address coastal flooding and sea level rise. The Board will review geotechnical engineering\, coastal hydraulics\, corrosion\, and flooding technical ports\, plus the operation and maintenance plan\, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first meeting with the Applicant on September 27\, 2023. These documents are related to the SFO permit application to the Commission for the proposed new sea wall and additional minor project components. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken to minimize the risk and consequences to the sea wall stability due to a seismic event\, flooding or sea level rise.\n(Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nSFO Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Audio Recording & Transcript\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nYerba Buena SX80: Science \nYerba Buena SX80: like to welcome everyone \nYerba Buena SX80: to this meeting of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Engineering Criteria Review Board. This meeting will be recorded. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, good afternoon. And welcome to to this hybrid in person and online \nYerba Buena SX80: Ecrb meeting. My name is Rod Iwashta. \nYerba Buena SX80: I am the chair of the ecrb and I have a few announcements. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our 1st order of business is to call the roll Board members. Please use the microphones on the table to respond. \nYerba Buena SX80: unmute yourselves to respond\, then mute yourselves again. After responding. Jen\, please call the role \nYerba Buena SX80: Rod Iwashta\, chair of the board. Here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jim French vice chair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob Battaglio on the board is not present. He is recused from this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Geema Casali. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chris May. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chris May is also recused from this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ramin Golserki \nYerba Buena SX80: present \nYerba Buena SX80: Nick Sitar \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gail Johnson. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know he is on vacation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Patrick Ryan \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Justin Vannever. \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bill Tremaine \nYerba Buena SX80: here. \nYerba Buena SX80: and Dilip Trivetti. \nDilip Trivedi\, Moffatt & Nichol: Here\, but I will be there in person in 5 min. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, great. See you soon. \nYerba Buena SX80: Cherry watched it. We have a quorum of of 8\, almost 9 \nYerba Buena SX80: And so \nYerba Buena SX80: quorum is present. Okay\, thank you\, Jen. So if we have a quorum present\, we’re duly constituted to conduct business. \nYerba Buena SX80: we may have some alternate board members who may be participating as members of the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it looks like Thalia is maybe one of those people. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you know\, Margie\, do you know if Sally is on the line. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, well\, I I called the meeting to order. \nYerba Buena SX80: I want to start with some instructions on how we can best participate \nYerba Buena SX80: in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. First\, st \nYerba Buena SX80: everyone. When you are not involved in the active discussion\, please make sure you have your microphones or phones muted \nYerba Buena SX80: to avoid background noise \nYerba Buena SX80: for board members. If you have a camera\, please make sure \nYerba Buena SX80: that it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you \nYerba Buena SX80: also board members. If you would like to speak during the meeting\, you may raise your actual hand or your virtual zoom hand\, whichever you prefer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host\, Margie\, who is working behind the scenes to ensure that the technology moves \nYerba Buena SX80: the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nYerba Buena SX80: Please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ex parte communications as set forth in Bcdc’s regulations. \nYerba Buena SX80: A member of the Ecrb shall not have any oral or written communication \nYerba Buena SX80: regarding the proposed project or other matter that has been noticed to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent 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 staff with \nYerba Buena SX80: a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nYerba Buena SX80: I invite you to report on any such communications \nYerba Buena SX80: at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, no raised hands. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. And now agenda. Item\, 2 staff updates. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, we will have a staff update from senior engineer and board. Secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Chair Washta. I would like to provide an update on some upcoming Ecrb meetings. \nYerba Buena SX80: On October 15th \nYerba Buena SX80: the Ecrb will review and discuss the updated regional shoreline adaptation plan or Rsap guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: At the end of this meeting\, Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to Ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb \nYerba Buena SX80: and that meeting had was just moved from its original date on October 23.rd So I apologize for the last minute change of date on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now it’s going to be on October 15th \nYerba Buena SX80: the November meeting has also been changed from the 12th to the 19.th \nYerba Buena SX80: Currently there is nothing on that agenda. \nYerba Buena SX80: also board members\, the building management like our last meeting. Needs this room at 5 o’clock sharp. And so if we can all try to wind up the meeting by around 4 30 building personnel would appreciate them. \nYerba Buena SX80: Lastly\, I would like to ask board members when you speak today and applicant team. \nYerba Buena SX80: please move the microphones pretty close to your mouth. \nYerba Buena SX80: And speak loudly\, so that everyone in the room and on zoom can hear you. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the mics are directional. So if it’s too much of a pain to turn them on and off. You can just keep them on \nYerba Buena SX80: if you’d like. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those are all my announcements. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. Jen. Before we move on to the presentation. Are there any announcement announcements from board members? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Seeing none. Let’s move forward to agenda. Item\, 3 \nYerba Buena SX80: items of discussion. San Francisco International Airport Shoreline protection project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now we will move on to the main agenda item related to the permit application \nYerba Buena SX80: for the San Francisco International Airport Shoreline Protection Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our discussion will focus on the stability \nYerba Buena SX80: of the proposed sheep steel sheet pile\, flood wall that is approximately 7 miles long. \nYerba Buena SX80: and would surround the airport along its shoreline. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen\, the Board Secretary and Senior Engineer for Bcdc. Has a slide presentation for us \nYerba Buena SX80: with an introduction and a bit of background. \nYerba Buena SX80: Since this is the second meeting on the topic \nYerba Buena SX80: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask brief\, clarifying questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like to ask board members and presenters. \nYerba Buena SX80: so please turn on your cameras for any discussion during or after the presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I would like now like to turn it over to Jen to begin her presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, this is Jen Hyman\, and I just have a few introductory slides regarding San Francisco International Airport Shoreline Protection Project. \nYerba Buena SX80: You’ll see it described as Sfo. Spp. That’s the shorthand for the project name. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Sfo. Has begun pre-application meetings with Bcdc. And submitted a draft permit application. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Ecrb review is focusing on the safety of the steel sheet pile flood wall\, which is about 7 miles long. \nYerba Buena SX80: One of the reaches in the project reach 7 also includes 26 acres of fill and special geotechnical treatments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sfo is pursuing Fema accreditation for the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: And because of that\, it’s being designed to Us. Army corps standards. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some of these design standards include looking at extreme \nYerba Buena SX80: wave loading and flood events. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the extreme scenario is a 750 year scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: and they presented some of the results of that. In the last meeting\, in 2023 \nYerba Buena SX80: the project will be bid design build \nYerba Buena SX80: the project. Life is estimated to be about 60 years \nYerba Buena SX80: and hopefully get them about \nYerba Buena SX80: sea level rise adaptation out to about 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: The airport is considered critical infrastructure. \nYerba Buena SX80: The 1st ecrb review of the project was on September 27\, th in 2023. \nYerba Buena SX80: The presentations at that time included structural analysis\, geotechnical analysis and sea level rise and flood hazards. \nYerba Buena SX80: In that meeting it was concluded that loads from flooding would govern over seismic loading. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Ecrb requested additional information regarding seismic stability. \nYerba Buena SX80: including a seismic and flooding scenario\, some information on corrosion and corrosion\, monitoring \nYerba Buena SX80: emergency operations and alternate designs. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is the second Ecrb meeting for this meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: San Francisco Airport provided \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the reports that have are required by Fema for accreditation of the flood wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and also they presented information to be responsive to some requests from staff as well as the Ecrb comments already discussed. \nYerba Buena SX80: Some of the additional topics \nYerba Buena SX80: staff asked for information on include \nYerba Buena SX80: actually the ecrb requested seismic modeling at other reaches\, then reach 6. To confirm that reach 6 was the most critical reach. \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff also asked if there were internal flood risks from deep wall construction or groundwater sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: land subsidence. \nYerba Buena SX80: wave reflection. \nYerba Buena SX80: operation\, maintenance plans and talking about the California seismic monitoring program \nYerba Buena SX80: were also topics that on Staff asked Sfo to report on today for the ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: So here are questions that Staff put together to help the Ecrb \nYerba Buena SX80: today and guide their discussion \nYerba Buena SX80: are the scenarios and design criteria. In the geotechnical stability analyses appropriate for the site\, hazards\, conditions\, and site criticality. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our flooding concerns\, IE from groundwater. \nYerba Buena SX80: coastal and rivering\, flooding\, flooding and sea level rise\, addressed adequately. \nYerba Buena SX80: has the applicant demonstrated that adverse impacts to adjacent properties \nYerba Buena SX80: have been minimized in the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: What future plan reviews or monitoring programs would you recommend that the applicant submit to confirm future project? Safety as the floodwall ages? \nYerba Buena SX80: Some topics to consider are design\, build\, phase\, submittals. \nYerba Buena SX80: corrosion\, monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: interior drainage system function\, monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: passive barrier function\, testing \nYerba Buena SX80: storms\, waves and sea level rise\, monitoring \nYerba Buena SX80: emergency preparedness or response systems testing. \nYerba Buena SX80: And maybe there are others \nYerba Buena SX80: not mentioned here. \nYerba Buena SX80: And lastly\, are there any other design or safety concerns that have not been addressed? \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s my final slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now the San Francisco airport team will make their technical presentations \nYerba Buena SX80: and pause for some Ecrb discussion after each topic. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will take public comments at the conclusion of the presentations. \nYerba Buena SX80: Take it away. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good afternoon\, Ecrb members. My name is David Kim. I’m the senior environmental planner for the San Francisco International Airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m responsible for getting our project shoreline protection program through environmental review and permitting. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m here today with my team of technical consultants to respond to questions from our 1st meeting last September on our project \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s the agenda for our presentation today. We took your questions from the last meeting\, and we’re here today to respond to each of them. \nYerba Buena SX80: The agenda here references each question. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll start with geotechnical analysis\, then operations and maintenance\, move on to groundwater and sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: subsidence\, and then finally monitoring for seismic activity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m joined by consultants from Esa Coe\, chair engineers and Geosyntech speakers will introduce themselves at the beginning of their presentations \nYerba Buena SX80: in the next few slides. I’m gonna go through very briefly since we’ve covered this last time and to maximize our time responding to your questions. We’re here because the airport is on the floodplain. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s at risk from flooding from sea level rise next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a number of excuse me \nYerba Buena SX80: so to address that we have a shoreline protection program which would consist of primarily steel sheet pile walls driven into the ground \nYerba Buena SX80: with some concrete walls. On the north side of reach one and south side reach 15\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and also a new perimeter dike at the end of our runway\, 19 End \nYerba Buena SX80: side. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a number of project objectives\, but they’re there primarily to protect our passengers\, workers and airport operations. We want to get off the flood map and protect the airport against sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: and to do it in a way that meets Faa. Design standards and requirements \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is a a. \nYerba Buena SX80: a summary of the project description. I’m not gonna go into this into too much detail. But they’re here for your \nYerba Buena SX80: for your review. Essentially\, we’re going to be removing the existing shoreline protection that’s there. Now and then we will be installing new shoreline protection\, mostly in the form of the steel sheet pile wall\, with some concrete walls in the north and south end\, establishing a new perimeter dike at the end of our runway. 19. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s like \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll have some associated improvements in addition to that\, including shifting out our vehicle service roads to meet Faa design requirements \nYerba Buena SX80: retrofitting our existing infrastructure of storm drain\, pump station outfalls. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the reconstruction of the lighting trestles at the end of runway 19 left \nYerba Buena SX80: anticipated fill is roughly 25 acres within BC. DC. Bay jurisdiction largely at the end of the runway\, 19 ends. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s a conceptual schedule of what this project might look like\, I just want to highlight. This is highly dependent on funding and budget authorizations. But we’re in the midst of going through Nepa right now. We cleared sequel last year. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re also in the midst of securing permit approvals with the regulatory agencies and also securing compensatory mitigation for the fill for our project. We would anticipate that the projects would be constructed in phases based on \nYerba Buena SX80: the construction\, methodology\, and the location of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will be employing a design build process as a delivery method for the shoreline protection program. \nYerba Buena SX80: The again. As Jen mentioned the design\, life is roughly 60 years. So we’re designing out about 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: At this point I’d like to pause to see if there are any questions on the project description\, for it passes along. \nYerba Buena SX80: David\, real real quick. Yeah\, \nYerba Buena SX80: so it’s gonna be design build \nYerba Buena SX80: So how far along is the design team here going to progress? The the design. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the team here was involved with the conceptual design. But we have yet to procure a design builder \nYerba Buena SX80: and that that can’t start until we get further along with our compensatory mitigation\, our regulatory approvals. So we have to wait until that point. \nYerba Buena SX80: Question\, \nYerba Buena SX80: when we say\, design life of 60 years\, are we? Are we really \nYerba Buena SX80: talking about performance life of 60 years \nYerba Buena SX80: beyond which there would be upkeep. \nYerba Buena SX80: and whatever maintenance retrofits might be needed to continue the useful life. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that something that you can address. Right? We’ve we’ve targeted 2085\, or basically 60 years establishing sort of like a sea level rise target and just general design life. The reality of is\, we have an operation and maintenance plan which will touch on the corrosion question \nYerba Buena SX80: that with proper maintenance this spot can easily extend past 60 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s just where we are with sea level rise in 60 years. Given the probabilities and the you know\, the different scenarios. That’s why we’re not saying it’s gonna last much beyond that\, with \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, I’m really confident it will. But we have to see how sea level rise happens first\, st \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m assuming that there’s adaptive capacity built into this design. Yes\, there would be. \nYerba Buena SX80: There are no other questions. I’m going to pass this on to Bob Kirby of Terra engineers to talk about the geotechnical analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, David. Yes\, my name is Bob Kirby. I’m a principal with terra engineers. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve been working on the geotechnical design concepts for several years now. \nYerba Buena SX80: To my left is Juan Pastana\, who’s been working with us for the last several years in a peer reviewed capacity on the \nYerba Buena SX80: on the geotechnical\, particularly the dynamic analysis aspects of the project. I’m gonna make a brief summary of our presentation. But during the Q. And a. 1\, i’m sure we’ll \nYerba Buena SX80: be available to to help me and help respond to your questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: And in terms of the supplemental geotechnical analysis. It’s really responding to an important question that the the Board raised during our meeting a year ago. \nYerba Buena SX80: we \nYerba Buena SX80: developed a and completed analyses for reach 6 reach 6 is A is the location where we have the \nYerba Buena SX80: the thickest amount of young bay mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: and our presumption was that\, given this analysis of the section with the thickest amount of young Bay mud\, that it would be a critical section for the for the seismic design. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the the the board brought up the point that we need to be careful here\, cautious because of the \nYerba Buena SX80: attenuation properties within the young bay mud. You know\, it could lead to something less than the \nYerba Buena SX80: the maximum thickness being the the critical section. And you asked us to perform additional analysis\, which we’ve done \nYerba Buena SX80: and will be presenting here this afternoon. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: our goal is to move through this quickly. There’s a document that supports the presentation I’m giving. It’s footnoted at on this slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a supplemental report for for the one that we prepared last year. \nYerba Buena SX80: just to give you a preview of what? How we’ll be approaching this presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll take a quick look at the at an overview of the shoreline protection program. The locations of the sections that we’ve analyzed. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll take a look at the average subsurface conditions and how they vary along by reach by reach. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we’ll take a look at soil conditions at the sections that we’ve actually analyzed\, which different \nYerba Buena SX80: usually somewhat from the average\, because we were getting sections that were of most interest to us whether that’s maximum thickness or \nYerba Buena SX80: where we had available information. \nYerba Buena SX80: at at that time\, too\, I think it might be good at the beginning to give you a quick preview of what we found. \nYerba Buena SX80: and just kind of go over those results in a in a rather quick way\, and having done that\, we would then walk through the the models that we developed at 2 additional sections for the plexus \nYerba Buena SX80: in addition to plexus analysis\, we did a number of sensitivity\, studies\, site\, response analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: using the deep soil approach if you will. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and that was also geared towards looking at the influence of the thickness of the young Bay mud on the\, on the performance of the of the system. \nYerba Buena SX80: So after. So those are the additional studies that we’ve done\, and then we’ll close with some summary and conclusions next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you’re probably familiar with this. And Jen showed something similar. These are the \nYerba Buena SX80: the shoreline protection program\, nominally 7 miles long. \nYerba Buena SX80: 15 reaches the reaches we spoke about last year last time. \nYerba Buena SX80: or reach 6 and 7 reach 6 is typical of most of the program\, and 7 is in this extended dike area. \nYerba Buena SX80: What we’ve added to that is plexus analysis at reach 5 and reach 14. And there there’s the locations of the \nYerba Buena SX80: analytical sections are shown on this slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here are a couple of tables. They’re kind of bookends\, if you will. From what we have in our report. \nYerba Buena SX80: Table one on the left. Indicates for the 15 reaches what are the the lengths of the reach and the average \nYerba Buena SX80: thickness of the existing fill the average thickness of the young bay mud. The depth to to rock\, have to keep in mind that the variation within a reach\, because the reaches are quite long can be pretty significant. So these are just the average values based on the \nYerba Buena SX80: borings that we have available. There’s lots of available information that we’ve summarized to to get these average values. We’ve shaded in the reaches where the analysis are being done just as shown on the previous slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: 5\, 6\, 7\, and 14 \nYerba Buena SX80: table\, 8 s. 8 is shown to the right\, and if we take a look at that\, we see that for each 6\, which is kind of our benchmark here our anchor for the analysis that we showed before what the conditions are. We had 20 feet of fill\, and some of the data that are shown here. Thickness of fill was nominally 20 feet thickness of young bay mud\, 61 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: and the analysis results that we got there are about 1.3 feet of lateral displacement \nYerba Buena SX80: for the for the top of the sheepah wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we had rather quite low and acceptable. Can I ask a question real quick? What level of earthquake is this? \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. It’s a 475 year return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: the earthquake. \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: So so we have. That’s some information about Route 6\, Route 6\, with the 475 year return earthquake \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, if we look at what we found out from our analysis of reach 5 and reach 14 just as a quick preview our reach 6 displacements of about 1.3 feet. Turned out to compare \nYerba Buena SX80: with we’ll see calculated displacement for reach 5 and reach 14 and point 8 \nYerba Buena SX80: feet and point 9 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: the variation in properties that we looked at for reach 5 and reach 14 are summarized there. The thickness of the fill. It was 20 feet of reach\, 6\, and we went to 30 feet of reach\, 5 and 7 feet at reach 14\, and as far as the young bay mud is concerned. We had 61 feet at reach 6\, and we went to 17 feet at reach 5 and 43 feet or so at reach 14 \nYerba Buena SX80: with respect to the bending moments and stresses\, they’re they’re summarized. They’re just in general comment. They they turn out to be \nYerba Buena SX80: really quite low\, well within the elastic range from the soil structure\, interaction perspective. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then the the PGA within the fill is a very important for the liquefaction assessment \nYerba Buena SX80: and the the values we had to reach 6.1 8 \nYerba Buena SX80: at reach 5 and 14. We’re point 2. 0\, and it’s actually point 2 3 at reach 5. That’s a typo in that table \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Please \nYerba Buena SX80: hang on\, Bob. Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: real quick. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: this. So the there are 3 new analyses that are being presented here today? 2\, 2. And what was the selection? Criteria for the 2 reach these 2 new reaches? It was to \nYerba Buena SX80: give give a good representation of the variability in subsurface conditions. So we started with the maximum value of young bay mud at reach 6 at 60 feet. So we went to 40 feet and \nYerba Buena SX80: 17 feet\, which which were the thicknesses that we’re looking. And if you look at the average values of the thickness of the young bay mud in that table to the left you’ll see that they tend to vary from 20 feet as the low at the low end to 60 feet at at the high end. So we’ve we’ve covered the range of thickness of the young bay mud\, I think pretty well\, and we are looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: some also some differences in thickness of the fill itself 20 feet at 6 went to 30 feet at 5\, went to 7 feet at 14. This it looks like the new sections that got selected have \nYerba Buena SX80: higher maximum displacements. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, no\, they no\, they don’t. They have less. \nYerba Buena SX80: If if we look at the table. Essay. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. Essay. So reach 5 is\, oh\, and 14. Okay\, I’m sorry. Yeah. Reach 5 and 14 are the new ones and reach 6. Is the the original. I was reading it wrong. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry? No problem. \nYerba Buena SX80: any any other \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I have a question. Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why is the 1st of all? Why are you? You have done a lot of work\, and you call the report preliminary. And just \nYerba Buena SX80: what is the intent of this being a preliminary? Is it in the context of the design build? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, yes\, I think that’s a fair way to put it. And also it’s in the context of the geotechnical explorations that have been made. I mean\, we. There’s a lot of data available\, and we summarize the information available from borings. \nYerba Buena SX80: There was a huge study done in 2\,001 on engineering properties\, none. Nonetheless\, there are a need for further geotechnical investigations. So with with that as a background\, it it really supports the notion of preliminary\, because there are additional \nYerba Buena SX80: investigations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the next question\, thank you. The next question\, why is the bending moment\, the maximum bending moment in reach? 14. So much \nYerba Buena SX80: less than everywhere else? It seems \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s it’s be and we’ll take a look at it\, it’s because there’s much less fill. I I think the main reason is this\, this\, there’s considerably less fill\, and I think the \nYerba Buena SX80: The bending moment in the in the sheep piles is driven by the interaction from from the fill. If you will. Yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So reach 5. \nYerba Buena SX80: the. It’s it’s quite a. It’s quite a busy diagram. The cross section that you see there is one that was prepared in 2\,001 by the Ada group. \nYerba Buena SX80: showing cpts. But it it. It shows how the general variation and \nYerba Buena SX80: the various young bay mud and fill\, and the the much stronger layers beneath. Are. \nYerba Buena SX80: What we’re looking at is a boring at the edge of the \nYerba Buena SX80: the fill\, if you will. There are 2 borings\, one very deep boring that we we had to. \nYerba Buena SX80: I extend those that information above 700 feet to to get there\, but it. It really provides good information on where the the top of the rock is. \nYerba Buena SX80: The the boring \nYerba Buena SX80: the other boring in that location gives us good delineation on the thickness of fill and young bay mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: And this was an unusual situation where there was quite a lot of fill and very little young Bay mud\, comparatively speaking\, but we decided to anchor on that and use that because we’re trying to get variability and judge the effects of having things that are really quite different. So that’s the reason we we selected that \nYerba Buena SX80: section for analysis. Next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So here’s the plexus model that was developed for \nYerba Buena SX80: for reach 5. The sheet pile is shown there. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s typical of what goes on and goes through the fill and penetrates into the young bay mud typically 10 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and what we’re looking at is the and this particular location of the \nYerba Buena SX80: quite\, quite an additional thickness of fill because of the way it was construction. There are some mud waves that that were probably created during construction of the airport at a number of places \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Bob\, can I back up to the previous slide for real quick question? Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, it’s pretty small. But\, for instance\, on the far left edge there\, what? What’s the color coding mean on the Cpt \nYerba Buena SX80: you’ve got. If you zoom in yellow\, red\, and blue\, I think\, and green. \nYerba Buena SX80: wondering what those different color codes are. I’m not \nYerba Buena SX80: really sure. I I’m quite sure the the higher values\, of course\, are associated with\, you know\, cohesionless type\, sandy materials\, stronger standing materials. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m not \nYerba Buena SX80: really positive about the \nYerba Buena SX80: the I and and I think it may tie into the color code that’s used in the in the boring logs\, for the. \nYerba Buena SX80: for the\, for the different layers that have been interpreted. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but that is straight from the the the 2\,001 Ada. Report. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please\, for going. After that I was just gonna add one more thing. If you\, if you I can zoom in and see the the horizontal axis. Here is the tip resistance\, if that helps with you tripping up. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, but I’m curious. Why\, there’s green\, red\, and blue on the the non yellow stuff \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It does look like tip resistance\, but but the color is some sort of an interpretation. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we could move ahead \nYerba Buena SX80: and then next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that was the model. And and and here are the results of the calculated lateral movements for for this\, for this section. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the color coding \nYerba Buena SX80: shows the higher displacements in in red with the lower displacements in blue. \nYerba Buena SX80: The \nYerba Buena SX80: should point out and remind folks that \nYerba Buena SX80: we have 7 ground motions that were used for the analysis. So the analysis was repeated for 7 different ground motions that are associated with the 475 year event. \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re positive and reverse normal and reverse polarity. So there’s actually 14 cases that are that are analyzed. \nYerba Buena SX80: If we the displacement. The average displacement was 0 point 8 feet for the top of the sheepah wall\, based on that analysis and the standard deviation was 0 point 3 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is information on the soil structure. Interaction for the sheet piles. \nYerba Buena SX80: What we’re looking at is the the maximum bending moment \nYerba Buena SX80: induced during shaking for each of the 7 \nYerba Buena SX80: ground motions\, and for both positive\, our normal and reverse polarity. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: and in a general sense the maximum moment occurs at about the interface between the fill and the young bay. Mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: The maximum bending moment is about 27 \nYerba Buena SX80: kip feet that compares to an allowable of 69 kip feet. And that’s just based on. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, permanent loading. What? What kind of allowable bedding moments for a mild steel. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these these are really relatively \nYerba Buena SX80: low\, and those red vertical lines are the allowables on either side. So you see that the the stresses and bending moments within the pile are actually quite small. \nYerba Buena SX80: And on the right are the the displaced position of of the pile for those 14 cases that were analyzed\, and the lateral movement is exaggerated by a factor of 10\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and in order to just \nYerba Buena SX80: allowed to see it if you will\, but it’s really very straight. So so the the soil structure interaction is rather small and obvious. Yeah\, quick question the so the at the piled the sheet pile tip. It looks like there is \nYerba Buena SX80: displacement. Yeah. And so \nYerba Buena SX80: they’re \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess maybe I’m getting out of my out of my lane here. But is there vertical settlements as well associated with all of this? With the \nYerba Buena SX80: with the the movement of a foot. Say. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Essentially\, the the pile is translating with with the with the ground. We see that in the lateral movement. And then that is what’s plotted there on the right is the lateral movement. There\, there will be some some vertical movement. That occurs. I think we’re \nYerba Buena SX80: but it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: and and when we look\, if if we could back up a moment\, Matt\, to that \nYerba Buena SX80: deform mesh\, so this on. These are typical lateral displacements. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, yeah\, no. These\, these are just the lateral displacements. So so \nYerba Buena SX80: we in in the analysis\, we’ve we’ve actually done a total stress analysis. And \nYerba Buena SX80: I\, I think we’re we’re probably overstating a bit the the vertical movements that that are recurring. Okay\, because it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s going to be shared constant volume\, you know\, and and during the earthquake for the for the young Bay mud. That’s that’s going. But but it’s a permanent set\, right. It’s a permanent okay\, this is permanent. Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question about this \nYerba Buena SX80: figure also looks like the the dashed red line is the allowable moment capacity\, and a couple of the cases. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ground motion one\, both normal and reverse\, exceed the allowable. \nYerba Buena SX80: I wonder if you can comment on that? \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, no\, let unless let’s review with this. So we are. Are we looking on the the left hand side\, right\, the left hand panel. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the the allowable bending moment of 69 foot kips is characterized by the \nYerba Buena SX80: the 2 vertical lines on either side. Oh\, I see. There’s another dashed line. Dash\, red line. Okay? I got it. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that 69 on either side\, plus or minus 69 compares to the width of the yeah\, there’s there’s 2 dash red lines. Yeah. So when when you say reverse polarity\, you mean you’re applying it as pushing the \nYerba Buena SX80: the mass in this case to the left. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that what you mean by that? Yeah. And maybe Juan can help with this. But it’s it’s my understanding that you \nYerba Buena SX80: you you take the ground motions and on face value or normal\, and you shake it. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it’s not symmetrical. And it’s and it’s a two-dimensional problem. That’s that’s asymmetrical itself. So depending on on which way the average movement is\, you’ll get some different results\, whether it’s normal polarity or reverse polarity. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, that’s if it was level ground\, the answer \nYerba Buena SX80: from the standard. So the the question is whether\, there’s only one motion that we need to be applied\, and if it’s level ground it doesn’t matter \nYerba Buena SX80: but if the ground is not level\, if the geometry is not \nYerba Buena SX80: is symmetric in the sense we have to use. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have to apply the direction of the motion in the \nYerba Buena SX80: direction of the S. Axis\, and then in the opposite direction\, because we don’t know which direction it’s going to go. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So it’s the same. It’s the same motion. Yeah\, it just reverse\, because the geometry is not symmetric. Right \nYerba Buena SX80: on \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Matt hang on a second. I \nYerba Buena SX80: get a ton of zoom spam callers\, and seems like they just temporarily cut us off \nYerba Buena SX80: back with you in a minute. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Does the allowable bending moment for the steel sheet pile wall change with time during its 60 year life. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I can cover that. We actually trust that in the corrosion section. So we I don’t wanna get ahead of myself\, but I’ll get ahead of myself. We have accounted for future corrosion loss. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so when we did our structural checks\, we took some very conservative approaches on reduced wall thickness which in theory would reduce the capacity. But in that slide I’ll go into. Why\, we believe that is an extremely conservative approach\, and where the operation and maintenance manual airport will implement will actually result in likely vary to 0 to very little loss over the life of the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but 69 is the uncorroded \nYerba Buena SX80: allowable \nYerba Buena SX80: up? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that I mean\, that was for for that section. Given the the properties. Yeah\, I didn’t reduce it. \nYerba Buena SX80: We we did on our end. And again\, based on\, you know\, just looking at that diagram. There’s plenty of room at the start. And we looked at a more conservative approach. If we lost this based on these values. \nYerba Buena SX80: and again\, this is seismic bending. The the flood case actually ends up controlling from a structural perspective. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so that induced the actual maximum moments. But we’ll touch on that later. And again\, there’s there’s quite a bit of reserve capacity on this. The wall thickness was actually selected \nYerba Buena SX80: primarily for installation. We didn’t want to go below 3 eighths inch wall thickness\, just for driving purposes. So again\, there’s there’s a lot of extra reserve structural capacity. \nYerba Buena SX80: But in 60 years this dash red line down the right edge would be shifted in theory. Yes\, yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: James\, did you also\, while we have this plot up? Do you want to talk about where the corrosion would be more significant relative to where the maximum. \nYerba Buena SX80: Why don’t we table that up? \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe if we wait to? A little later we could come back to the slide. If there’s further questions\, because I do talk about corrosion rates\, and where that corrosion will occur\, you know\, in ground atmospheric splash zone. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, based on where this wall is relative to the actual water level\, I have a graphic and some discussion there\, I think\, will help with this discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the structural \nYerba Buena SX80: properties of these walls you provided to the geotechs correct. The sheet is a little small there\, but the sheet pile the Az. 19700 was the basis of our structural design and Bob’s geotechnical analysis. We established a 36 inch\, 36 ksi yield\, which again \nYerba Buena SX80: the design build team may select 50 ksi if needed. We just picked a conservative value. And in this particular case the the stresses on the wall due to the seismic movement under the 475 is just not inducing a significant structural load. The sheet is essentially \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of sliding\, moving with the mass of soil. There’s not a lot of differentials. It’s not retaining any soil in essence. But the shoreline does move as Bob has indicated. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I had a question\, too. Here\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe you have slides that cover it. But my question was on slope stability. \nYerba Buena SX80: Primarily\, because \nYerba Buena SX80: these are non tied back. These are cantilevered sheets right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And so they are relying on the passive \nYerba Buena SX80: pressure from the buttress in front of it. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so slope stability\, analysis for existing case \nYerba Buena SX80: and post sheet pile construction case for the same design. Earthquakes that you have analyzed are those forthcoming in the slides that we’re going to see. \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re actually included. \nYerba Buena SX80: Mike. Sorry\, I’m sorry. Thank you. The the plexus analysis is a is a nonlinear analysis. It it takes into account yielding\, that goes on\, and the and the movement associated with with that yielding \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: we and and what what it’s doing is the the movements aren’t taking the the system to failure\, if you will. They’re they’re just analyzing the system as as it’s loaded by these inertial forces \nYerba Buena SX80: during shaking but but the the displacements that we see here include the yielding that that’s going on within the \nYerba Buena SX80: within the various soil layers \nYerba Buena SX80: understood. But for existing case all of the slopes \nYerba Buena SX80: meet \nYerba Buena SX80: the criteria of greater than 1.1 under seismic conditions\, right? And and and of course they’ll they’ll there’ll be design criteria for the there’s going to be some regrading going on. And what have you that that’ll \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, in the final design? There’ll there’ll be minimal \nYerba Buena SX80: adjustment in geometry\, because we? \nYerba Buena SX80: We? We have a situation that’s out there already\, and we’re not trying trying to avoid new loads. \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, the current situation has is stable. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there is no rotational movement because of the imbalance in \nYerba Buena SX80: peace. Love. \nYerba Buena SX80: pre-previous slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And you can see the movement. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: So one of the things you see there is that the sheet pile \nYerba Buena SX80: in the vicinity of the sheet pile? The ground level is is pretty much the same\, so the the wall is not holding anything. So I\, I understand your question about cantilever\, but this is really not cantilever. This is \nYerba Buena SX80: this is essentially like an eye wall. It’s just providing flood protection is not retaining soil. That’s not the design criteria for the. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I have a question about how the movement was considered\, and the analyses that you’ve been presenting are looking at out of plane response of the the wall and the different reaches\, and I was interested to know if there’s any consideration given to \nYerba Buena SX80: in plane\, the potential for any in plane differential movement to accumulate along the length of the wall. Given \nYerba Buena SX80: the preponderance of the movement appears to be in the soil. \nYerba Buena SX80: Obviously\, there’s different conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: As you work your way around the different reaches of the the seawall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. Well\, again\, I think there’s a specific question of the joint. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, this is designed primarily as a flood protection element. \nYerba Buena SX80: There is seismic again\, different. The 4 75 year event as Bob is presenting does create some movement. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we have some slides about how jointly \nYerba Buena SX80: that\, like post seismic flood protection will be provided by Sfo. In this this structure we do make some rough assessments of where we think there could be some potential post 4\, 75 year event damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a little hard to specify\, particularly when we looked at kind of where discontinuities and alignment\, where the wall makes a 90 degree turn. You know\, these are generally movements trying to move towards the bay. So obviously\, if you have 2 walls at angle each other\, they’re going to want to move in different directions. The sheets are quite \nYerba Buena SX80: flexible. Accordion. Ask\, but there still is limits. And so the expectation is there is potential \nYerba Buena SX80: for some interlock breakage. And then we discuss what new risk that induces from a flood protection standpoint back on the airport. And so I have a series of slides that I’ll go into that shortly. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And and I just might add that \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It is a 2 dimensional analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so we have these estimated estimated movements from the 2D analysis. And we also \nYerba Buena SX80: took a look at the potential for differential movements along the along the the outer plane. Much the way you would looking at a \nYerba Buena SX80: a settlement of a building? Or what have you get? What’s the total settlement? What’s the differential settlement? And for this the analysis we use was the I estimated the differential settlement might be about half the total settlement\, and then compare that to the kind of longitudinal strains that we would have along the alignment of the Shepa wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what kind of rotations these are? Zz! These aren’t flat sheet piles. These are Z shaped so they they have the ability to to handle some some longitudinal strains just just because of rotation\, if you will. And and the \nYerba Buena SX80: James\, that doesn’t look like there’s much much of a worry about breaking interlocks in for that mechanism. But but for when you have sharp ends\, know that that where it’s it’s more \nYerba Buena SX80: correct\, our our assumption right? Our analysis and evaluation is in alignment\, like essentially one of the reaches. That’s a straight reach like reach 12 along that the general expectation is the movement will be towards the bay. It’s going to be fairly uniform across the alignment\, obviously with variability in soil and so on. There could be some differential. But the differential isn’t significant enough where we’d expect a lot of breakages along those interlocks. Essentially\, that whole wall is going to kind of move along. \nYerba Buena SX80: or when it reaches\, reach 11 and reach 13 and makes a 90 degree turn. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s going to induce significant\, more stresses. And again\, our theory is that there could be a gap there. Now we present where we think the gaps will happen. But our solution to that could apply. If there was a gap on a straight segment\, because of unknown changes and stiffnesses and soils\, it would still get addressed the exact same way at these other discontinuities. I would point out that our design purposely did not design a concrete cap initially for this project. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have a bent plates\, and it’s because of the concrete caps rigidity. We felt that by binding all of the sheets together it would remove some of this kind of flexibility to accommodate these differential movements\, and it would create sort of less predictability and more difficult repairs in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: The steel sheets itself don’t need that cap from a structural standpoint to resist these loads from the flood wall\, and the sheets themselves will act well in cantilever. However\, we didn’t want to\, also a rough looking sheet. So we provided a \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of a capping element. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob\, my question is\, is the profile that you analyze and considered \nYerba Buena SX80: the most critical profile \nYerba Buena SX80: that you know you can think of. All could happen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Which means that anything that happens\, you know\, from natural phenomena \nYerba Buena SX80: will result more in accretion \nYerba Buena SX80: of flattest love. \nYerba Buena SX80: and there is no potential for removal of material which will change the slope. \nYerba Buena SX80: Something more critical than this. Yeah\, and that. That’s a good question that what we’re looking at here are various sections now to to understand the impact of differing subsurface conditions on how the energy gets. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, leads to seismic or influences seismic performance. \nYerba Buena SX80: So our presumption was that reach 6 because of its largest thickness of young Bay mud would be the critical location in terms of seismic performance. So this this is a case now\, where there’s very little young bay mud. So we’re at the other end of the spectrum. We’re trying to understand \nYerba Buena SX80: how things behave for different soil profiles at this point. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, the the basic idea\, I think. And and I think it’s proven to be probably okay \nYerba Buena SX80: is that\, you know. Reach 6 is a good \nYerba Buena SX80: good predictor of the the maximum movements that that we’re gonna encounter. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I guess the question is\, I mean\, do you foresee a potential that this profile. \nYerba Buena SX80: for example. \nYerba Buena SX80: could be \nYerba Buena SX80: the slope in front of the wall could be steeper \nYerba Buena SX80: due to \nYerba Buena SX80: coastal processes. Wow! I could take this one \nYerba Buena SX80: So in our cross section we do have riprap protection on the outboard side of all the reaches to provide that protection. So we’re not having soil loss or erosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Matt\, why don’t we move? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so that was reach 5. That. So we’ve covered that now. \nYerba Buena SX80: Similarly\, we we analyze\, analyzed reach 14 \nYerba Buena SX80: the\, this is \nYerba Buena SX80: along the mud flat. At at the airport. It’s on the on the on the eastern side. \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: the we. We have a deep boring at the location of our analytical section\, the the one that’s normal to the to the shoreline. We we have information\, then\, on the on the depth to the rock\, and and the the various layers \nYerba Buena SX80: beneath it. The the young bay mud is nominally in 40 feet or so thick. Here the the fill itself was was only 7 feet thick. So it’s it’s an intermediate thickness of young bay mud and a and a very nominal\, a small thickness of fill for this analysis \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is the plexus model that that we developed for that \nYerba Buena SX80: the situation. \nYerba Buena SX80: And on the next slide we look at the \nYerba Buena SX80: the contours of lateral displacement and and the the average and the standard deviation of the \nYerba Buena SX80: of the movement of the sheep pile itself. And that’s the 0 point 9 feet on average. \nYerba Buena SX80: with a standard deviation of 0 point 4 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so those are the the this\, that’s the displacement information\, and that we tried to capture in that table. We looked at at the beginning of the \nYerba Buena SX80: of the talk \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and this is the the moment behavior. And\, as as you noted earlier\, they’re they’re smaller still at at reach 14 than they are at the others. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I think again\, that’s driven by the fact that there’s relatively little fill that that’s that’s that’s associated with with this particular section. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so that’s kind of a summary that is a summary of the the 2 new reaches that we’ve done\, the plex analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: We we also spent a fair amount of effort looking at site\, response analysis\, and how it varies with soil conditions. And that’s next next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: you. You may recall from our last meeting that we looked at Reach 6. This is the site. Response analysis for reach 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: 1. 1 of the interesting things and and a question that came up at our meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Last time was\, boy that \nYerba Buena SX80: that very stiff layer beneath\, right at the bottom of the young bay mud\, I mean\, what? How important is that in terms of the performance. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: after our meeting\, we we decided to take a a second look at that. On the next slide we can see \nYerba Buena SX80: the the peak ground acceleration panel that we had on the previous slide is shown again. That hasn’t changed. That’s the reach 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: psa values and the panel just to the right of it is a an analysis where we said\, Okay\, assume that that stiff layer is in there\, and that the engineering properties\, the material underneath it extend through that. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what? What are the implications of that for the results of the analysis? \nYerba Buena SX80: So we we see that by removing that stiff layer we do get some increase in the PGA in the lower portions of the young bay mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: but as it works its way up \nYerba Buena SX80: and to towards the fill it. It winds up actually at at the same PGA within the fill\, or not exactly the same\, but 0 point 1 8 became 0 point 1 9 g. In terms of the the PGA with within the fill. So so we see that the PGA within the fill\, which is \nYerba Buena SX80: but you know\, the most important thing from a liquefaction. Assessment point of view is\, is is pretty pretty stable. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s it’s it’s not affected much by these kind of deep differences. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we also looked at \nYerba Buena SX80: other sensitivities. We went to reach 5 where the rock is not as deep. \nYerba Buena SX80: You you see\, the rock. Is higher up\, and what we did there on on that reach. 5. We we looked at \nYerba Buena SX80: This happens to be a thickness of 40 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: of of young bay mud compared to the the 60 feet that we had at at reach 6. And what we see there is that the that the PGA \nYerba Buena SX80: within the fill is again \nYerba Buena SX80: 0 point 1 9. So so we see cutting that young vein thickness in half. \nYerba Buena SX80: really didn’t bother the it didn’t change anything within the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the fill. And 1 1 of the important things to \nYerba Buena SX80: that we have to keep in mind. We’ve kept the thickness of the fill the same across the sensitivity. Study. But but we see that the that \nYerba Buena SX80: that there’s really been hasn’t been a change in the in the PGA\, and then we we reduced it even further in the final panel. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I guess that thickness there\, I think it’s about 20. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure what. I don’t recall what that is. About 28 feet or so\, and and there we have similar results. And the the the PGA in in that particular case\, went to 0 point 2 0\, as I recall. So so you know again\, we’re we’re we’re seeing that we can \nYerba Buena SX80: turn the knobs in terms of the various thicknesses. And it’s not changing things in any substantial or material way. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry. Good question. Just \nYerba Buena SX80: when you remove that that stiff layer just below the bay mud \nYerba Buena SX80: did the displacement\, profile\, change of the \nYerba Buena SX80: of the soil column. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t have that in front of me. One\, do you? \nYerba Buena SX80: I I don’t have that information in front of me\, but I I don’t remember\, it was very significant. So the results\, the results were very\, very similar. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just curious are these plexus results or deep soil results here. These are deep soil results. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Next next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: This. This is a separate study that we made. It was actually\, we reached out to on Gsntech \nYerba Buena SX80: to to do this for us. \nYerba Buena SX80: we most of our work is for the 475 year earthquake\, but what we wanted to do was to take a look at. \nYerba Buena SX80: How does the magnitude of the earthquake change the the the PGA within the fill? So what this is? A plot showing the the PGA within\, at the surface\, within the fill\, on the vertical axis and the horizontal is the PGA at at the input motion at the rock. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what we’re looking at here are return intervals of 72 years\, 2\, 25\, \nYerba Buena SX80: 4\, 75\, and 9\, 75. So we’re kind of looking at a full spectrum. \nYerba Buena SX80: and each of the diamonds that you see there represents a result\, an analysis result for one of the ground motions. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there were 7 data points that that we analyzed for each of those return intervals. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now\, this happens to be one where you don’t do the normal and reverse polarity. Because it’s a 1 dimensional problem. It’s not asymmetric. So \nYerba Buena SX80: then that’s that’s why there are only 7 of those diamonds. And and the the average values. \nYerba Buena SX80: For for those \nYerba Buena SX80: groups of 7 are captured with the red\, the red circles\, and the and the curve that goes through it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what? What we\, what we see is a a really\, quite a well defined bend over curve\, if you will\, \nYerba Buena SX80: When we get to the design earthquake\, which which has a PGA at the rock of about point 3 2 or so. We’re we’re at that 0 point 1 9 number \nYerba Buena SX80: that we saw before. And then when we get up to the 975 year event\, it’s it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: leveled off asymptotically\, it appears at about point 2. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It just gives us a feel again for the the sensitivity of these results to the to the the intensity of of the ground\, shaking. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the the next slide\, please. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so here are the site. Response analysis\, deep soil analysis for reach 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: that really are a companion to the plexus analysis that we’ve done for reach 5 \nYerba Buena SX80: and it and it shows actually\, for for reach 5\, \nYerba Buena SX80: the and and here the the thickness of the field is 30 feet rather than 20 feet\, which is what we had it. \nYerba Buena SX80: reach 6 \nYerba Buena SX80: and and we we do have a PGA of of about 0 point 2 3 is what we came up with here compared to the you know\, the point 2 saturation number at \nYerba Buena SX80: at reach 6. Question. Yep. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if I look at this\, obviously\, you have the classic behavior between soft and stiff boundaries \nYerba Buena SX80: that could \nYerba Buena SX80: translate into issues of curvature on the sheet piles. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that that is additive to the. \nYerba Buena SX80: if you will\, the inertial kind of demands on these. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s that been looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, well\, just to make sure I understand the. \nYerba Buena SX80: Of course the pox is modeled of \nYerba Buena SX80: that. We have \nYerba Buena SX80: has built into it those those various stiffnesses\, and you know\, soil properties. And and we are looking at the soil structure\, interaction\, which \nYerba Buena SX80: which reflects that so \nYerba Buena SX80: it the the displacement shapes\, and the the moment diagrams that we looked at before. I mean they. They reflect the \nYerba Buena SX80: the difference in stiffness. Now\, there are really only 2 materials that the pile is in. It’s in the fill\, and it’s in the young bay. Mud. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but the the effect of differing stiffness is is captured by plexus. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: it begs the question \nYerba Buena SX80: if these 2 analyses need to be kind of calibrated \nYerba Buena SX80: against each other\, if you will. \nYerba Buena SX80: or how calibrated are they? \nYerba Buena SX80: So the deep soil analysis\, the one dimensional analysis\, was used to calibrate \nYerba Buena SX80: the plexus analysis. So plexus was. \nYerba Buena SX80: in a sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: was used to replicate the one dimensional assets we got from deep soil. So those are compatible. Okay\, okay\, they’re not identical because they’re 2 different tools\, but they are. They are compatible regarding your questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: of the moment. \nYerba Buena SX80: the moments that we shown were the envelope of moments. So there was a maximum moment. \nYerba Buena SX80: It could have been at any given time\, any given time or at the end. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it’s the envelope is not\, is not necessarily capturing the inertial. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. I can tell you what the moment was at every point in time. But the those graphs show the envelope for all time\, all depths. Instantaneous. Highest value. Yeah. Okay\, thank you \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide. Oh\, wait sorry\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: the the airport. I’m assuming that that the airport is classified as an essential facility\, or is it? I I guess \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m curious about the 475 year versus\, you know\, 975 year \nYerba Buena SX80: selection\, especially if you know from the previous \nYerba Buena SX80: slide that you know that there really isn’t a lot of \nYerba Buena SX80: additional ground acceleration occurring between those 2 events. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and I\, miss and I apologize. I missed the the 1st meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: or last year’s meeting. I I just was curious. If there was \nYerba Buena SX80: an explanation or thought as to why 475 year return period \nYerba Buena SX80: was selected as the criteria rather than the 975 year return period. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know we we did a quite a quite a careful study on that. And have a tech memo that describes it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s included as an appendix within our original report \nYerba Buena SX80: and it has to do with the the kind\, the potential for damage and loss of life\, and the nature of the damage and and the return interval of the of the of the ground motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: We and we have to keep in mind that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the saturation that we saw in the PGA for the fill is \nYerba Buena SX80: I I think it’s it’s correct. It’s it’s for the fill. But but the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the increased magnitude of of shaking is is going to have an impact\, not only on the fill\, but on the on the young bay mud. And you know\, so we? We want to choose an appropriate design level and I I wouldn’t \nYerba Buena SX80: necessarily. \nYerba Buena SX80: I wouldn’t. \nYerba Buena SX80: Conclude off the bat that that that this insensitivity to the level of shaking is is \nYerba Buena SX80: is is based on all failure mechanisms\, if you will\, I would add again\, just the fundamental function of this is a flood wall. Yeah\, and so\, and we again\, I’ll dress on it a little later\, when we look at combined flooding and seismic. But essentially. \nYerba Buena SX80: we do not want it to fail during the flood. That is its design. There would be consequential impacts if you had the 100 Year Flood\, especially when you start looking at sea level rise. If this wall failed at that moment\, it’d be quite consequential to the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: If there’s an earthquake and we’ll talk about it later. And gets damaged at these interconnections. There’s no \nYerba Buena SX80: the life safety risks. There’s no general risk. And obviously what the flood combined case \nYerba Buena SX80: which we’ll demonstrate in some slides. It doesn’t the airport. It’s not like a New Orleans situation where it’s retaining wall water continuously. If it fails\, you have an instant flood. It’s quite the difference. 99% of this time over this life of this wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ll see no load. It’s only during these few rare events. \nYerba Buena SX80: and at that point\, obviously a combined seismic event hitting at that exact moment would be very bad. But again\, we’re going to go into \nYerba Buena SX80: that kind of risk profile. Yeah\, okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: What I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just wanna comment that PGA is a very \nYerba Buena SX80: simple \nYerba Buena SX80: parameter. I don’t disagree about saturation\, but it’s because of a lot of straining and nonlinear behavior that you’re not getting PGA to really be different for input levels that are \nYerba Buena SX80: higher necessarily. But a lot of other things can happen. So so I think \nYerba Buena SX80: the discussion about PGA being saturated and doesn’t matter. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not the whole picture. \nYerba Buena SX80: but \nYerba Buena SX80: to the point of of this being a critical lifeline facility. It’s an airport. It’s an international airport \nYerba Buena SX80: 10 miles south of here. \nYerba Buena SX80: while I understand the intent of this system. \nYerba Buena SX80: But \nYerba Buena SX80: if there is a higher level of shaking\, and the intent of the system is compromised. \nYerba Buena SX80: is there some redundancy there? Against that? Again\, we’re probably a few slides away to walking through our approach to this? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: hopefully\, one last question\, or maybe a response is\, Wait \nYerba Buena SX80: but these reaches all show the \nYerba Buena SX80: sheet pile through an existing perimeter. \nYerba Buena SX80: The new fill. The 26 acre of new fill is the cross section at the perimeter similar to these reaches. Ultimately it’ll be very similar. The wall we at the top of the slope with the Riprap. How we get there there’s\, you know\, it’s modern construction versus 19 thirties fill. So we’re going to accommodate for \nYerba Buena SX80: that\, making sure we’re taking out initial settlements. But ultimately the cross section is very similar\, Bob. Anything to add. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it is a. It is a. It is a new \nYerba Buena SX80: levee\, right? Or a deck. Essentially\, if you went out there after construction\, it’ll look like everything else. Basically\, we’re building out riprap on the shoreline. There’ll be a flood wall right at the edge of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And so you have cross sections within the new fill area\, so reach 7\, which was previously presented\, was at that particular reach. Yes\, and and the \nYerba Buena SX80: The the analysis we did at Reach 7 was covered in our report from last year. \nYerba Buena SX80: Of of course\, the requirements today are. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, they tend to be more stringent than than they were 50 years ago\, you know. So we’re we have preloading. We’re going to be installing wick drains to to allow this the settlement to occur more quickly. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re we’re going to be \nYerba Buena SX80: treating the fill with with vibratory\, deep\, vibratory compaction to \nYerba Buena SX80: aggressively mitigate liquefaction. Potential. \nYerba Buena SX80: and yeah. So. So I I think that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the expectation is\, and then the goal is\, it’s going to be the the new construction is going to be better than than the old. The thing that the old construction has going for it\, though\, is old\, I mean it’s good. I mean\, it’s been there a long time\, and then that that’s a good thing in terms of \nYerba Buena SX80: stability and and the like. So much much of the effort for the new construction is getting it to fully consolidate and strengthen. And what have you quickly? Which? Because we don’t have the the luxury of time \nYerba Buena SX80: in that regard? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, and I think we’re some. Yeah. So the the next \nYerba Buena SX80: and yeah\, reach reach 14 is essentially the same. There we we\, we have about 40 feet of young bay mud\, and the the PGA in that thinner is is 0 point 2 0 from from from this analysis\, the deep soil analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we move on to the \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we can skip this because we’ve already looked at it. But just kind of the summary slide. Mark Matt next \nYerba Buena SX80: would be good. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I I think the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the 4 reaches analyzed. They. We think they bracket the most subsurface conditions along the shoreline prediction program. \nYerba Buena SX80: alignment \nYerba Buena SX80: on the additional plexus analysis and the and the site. Responsive analysis \nYerba Buena SX80: indicate that reach 6 provides a conservative estimate of the magnitude of lateral displacement of the Xipa wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where the reaches of the young bay mud is is less than at reach 6\, and new fill is not added. That’s the case. \nYerba Buena SX80: the source structure. Interaction stressors are remarkably small\, and it’s and that that’s what leads to kind of a counterintuitive conclusion that the calculated stresses \nYerba Buena SX80: for the flood walls under the flood loading are larger\, and you know\, in many ways controlling the design. I’ve just a general question. \nYerba Buena SX80: earlier on you gave us that tabulation of the 4 different cases that you had run with Reach 7 \nYerba Buena SX80: being an a year old study result \nYerba Buena SX80: having \nYerba Buena SX80: twice as much deformation. I think it had higher \nYerba Buena SX80: moments also. \nYerba Buena SX80: But you didn’t present the plexus results on that is that coming up later in the presentation\, we presented them last time \nYerba Buena SX80: the the reach\, 7 analysis\, were were summarized\, so no no changes\, no change in that\, including the deep soil. And all right\, right? There’s no changes. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and the \nYerba Buena SX80: right? And you’re you’re right. The the displacements every 7 are larger. We we had \nYerba Buena SX80: 1 1.3 feet at reach 6\, and we have 2.1 feet\, and I’ll get\, and that’s something I cover in a in a wrap up\, slide the next wrap up\, slide \nYerba Buena SX80: So if we could get to the summary Matt \nYerba Buena SX80: and the the sensitivity studies. \nYerba Buena SX80: that varied the magnitude of the shaking we we looked at\, and and show the maximum expected PGA within the fill is about \nYerba Buena SX80: 0 point 2 g. \nYerba Buena SX80: The the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Th\, this gets to the reach. 7 question that that you asked the \nYerba Buena SX80: The new fellow read 7. \nYerba Buena SX80: It. It’s gonna cause somewhat larger\, estimated lateral displacements there. \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 2 feet versus 1.3 feet \nYerba Buena SX80: but the maximum transient bending stresses. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the she power wall at sixes and 7 at reach 6 and 7 would be less than 11 ksi. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, really a very small stress. From a steel point of view. \nYerba Buena SX80: and far below the allowable bending stress on the for steel under permanent loading \nYerba Buena SX80: and and the final bullet here is in some ways a non sequiturge\, but just to emphasize that \nYerba Buena SX80: as we discussed last time\, we we really do need to do \nYerba Buena SX80: a very extensive program of of cone penetrometer tests to characterize the fill \nYerba Buena SX80: so that we get \nYerba Buena SX80: good good average properties within the field and are able to delineate areas that may require ground improvement. \nYerba Buena SX80: Of of the film. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that that’s that’s the last slide that I have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, any other. Oh\, Jim\, you still got your mic on. Is there any other questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just looking through last year’s presentation for 6. Well\, maybe I can. And and it’s probably non-technical. But in the reach 7 area\, where there is a new \nYerba Buena SX80: containment levy being created. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is there a need to put in the cut off wall or a flood wall there\, rather than just elevating the the levee to what it’s need to be. \nYerba Buena SX80: There was some reviews of different options\, including our earthen levees\, other structures. There was actually a cantilever cheap pile solution originally through kind of evaluation of each of those options. This was determined in the most cost\, effective solution. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it also includes a sheep pile in the in the perimeter diet \nYerba Buena SX80: that goes into the young B. Martin. \nYerba Buena SX80: here’s the \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, that that is. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s conceptual. But it’s showing the the dyke. The preload fills the the wick drains\, and the \nYerba Buena SX80: and the sheepah wall\, which would be installed last\, you might say\, once \nYerba Buena SX80: mo- movement\, sir. \nYerba Buena SX80: are are done\, then you would be yeah installing the sheet piles within that perimeter deck. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did did you want me to pull up the results from the last? The presentation last time\, or are you okay checking it on your own? \nYerba Buena SX80: Gee! \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you? Do you have them? Do I have them? Do you want me to pull them up for all of us is what I’m asking. Would that be helpful? \nYerba Buena SX80: I wouldn’t mind looking at. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hang on. \nYerba Buena SX80: remember which 7 is new construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. So that’s the difference between Reach 6 and reach 7 reach 7. We’re extending into the bay. So all that is new construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry\, isn’t it. What? Oh\, it is part of the project. Yeah\, interested in the entire project\, which? \nYerba Buena SX80: And so you’re presenting everything except everything today except for the worst case. \nYerba Buena SX80: And actually\, I think those results are in appendix C \nYerba Buena SX80: of the turn your mic on. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I’m sorry. I think those results are an appendix C of last year’s report. I don’t think you have those with you. I do\, do you? Okay? And I’ll add again\, it looks like we’ll pull it up. But last year\, when we met\, we focused exclusively on Reach 6 and 7. And then the question basically was like\, well\, is that indicative of the entire report \nYerba Buena SX80: the exercise that we’ve been through is to demonstrate that we feel it’s representative. Again\, given\, this is a design build projects and trying to kind of fit that middle ground of going too far into design versus giving you assurances that we’ve captured a solution that’s representative. That’s where we’ve selected 2 additional reaches\, but I think here we go. It’s pulled up so we can discuss about reach 7. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s this one\, and then I think \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s the envelopes \nYerba Buena SX80: the moment command envelopes. And and I think \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s Route 6. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I saw the deep 6 deep soil either reach 6 deep soil\, but not reach 7. \nYerba Buena SX80: That might be in the report. Hang on a second. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Well\, well\, Matt’s looking for \nYerba Buena SX80: the slide. Just do a quick time check. It’s almost 2 30. \nYerba Buena SX80: How how are we doing in in terms of your presentation? \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re about 20 min over where we said we were\, gonna be we had left a \nYerba Buena SX80: about a half an hour allowance so that we’ve eaten up 2 thirds of our contingency. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do. I can keep looking for this in the background\, and we come back to this one at maybe after James is done. Does that work for? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, if it’s in last year’s presentation you give me some time notified. Yeah\, I’m not all that worried about it just seems like if we’re comparing. Well\, if you’re saying\, all the new stuff is representative or last year’s was representative of what you’re showing now. It’d be nice to see the last year’s. It was included as a supplemental to the materials provided ahead of time. \nYerba Buena SX80: So there was an attachment to the geotech report that was focused on the new material was also provided was the old material well\, so we didn’t focus it on this meeting\, since it was repeat\, but it was provided in the materials were provided\, I think which appendixes I have all those attachments right now. Okay\, let’s have James get started. Bob’s going to look through the ones\, and and we can get you like the page numbers in those things. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: now\, I gotta figure which version hang on a second. \nYerba Buena SX80: This \nYerba Buena SX80: actually\, can I ask a question in the meantime\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a question more about the process. You talk about design build. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re looking at some very specific analyses. So how does the design come into this if if these analysis are not part of the design\, so I could try. So I’m trying to understand who’s designing what? So again\, it’s it’s with a design build approach. And we’ve been through this from some of our other clients generally. In order to \nYerba Buena SX80: get through a board like yourself. There has to be a certain level of analysis completed to establish the criteria and the general concept. So Sfo has asked us to take the analysis far enough to gain general acceptance of the approach that we’re taking here\, and then this information will be established in the design criteria that will be used by the design build team. \nYerba Buena SX80: which we’re gonna help the airport which will be established by the airport. The design build team. Then ultimately\, as the engineer of record will have to design\, finalize the design to adhere to the criteria that we have established \nYerba Buena SX80: and provide additional analysis supporting all the reach designs. Our expectation is when they come to reach 6\, 5\, 7. Their results should essentially mirror or be very similar to what Bob and his team has presented. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, it’s it’s in that process of design\, build doing enough upfront to gain assurance of the criteria\, but giving the contractor that kind of design\, build advantages\, especially in an airport project like this with a lot of the coordination \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s really going to be a challenge. And so they felt that models the best. So that’s generally how we see this project moving forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’ll add a comment that \nYerba Buena SX80: Bcdc’s permit\, which will be based on the conceptual design that you’re hearing about today. There will be a condition\, special condition in the permit that \nYerba Buena SX80: the permitee will have to submit the final design documents and \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll review them to make sure that they conform with. All the reports that they’ve already submitted. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. That’s what I was asking. At which stage do we make sure that actually\, what was what was presented here \nYerba Buena SX80: is taken into account in the final design. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: So Jen. Would. Does that mean that \nYerba Buena SX80: The engineer of record may not. \nYerba Buena SX80: or the Ecrb wouldn’t hear from the \nYerba Buena SX80: engineer of record with the final design. \nYerba Buena SX80: or would I? I think that’s where Nick’s going. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I don’t want to speak for you guys. But design build packages. Typically have some. The design criteria written into them that have to be met right\, and an example of a project that went through this full process is Redwood City wharfs one and 2 Koe. On that project was same position where the owners\, engineer\, preparing design build contract. We met with Bcdc. Went through this process\, established the criteria\, and then our job as the owner’s engineer kind of representing was to make sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: did final design adhered to the criteria that was agreed upon through this process it was submitted back through Bcdc. Again. I don’t know the how the wheels turn at Bcdc. But at that point it was they. There was enough checks completed that everyone agreed that this was in adherence with the permits. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I \nYerba Buena SX80: don’t recall it having to come back to Ecrb. But again\, it’s somewhat up to your discretion. Okay\, thank you. Yep\, makes sense. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean just one. So you guys will be 7 as peer reviewers. Then \nYerba Buena SX80: I cannot speak for Sfl. \nYerba Buena SX80: but we’ve been involved for this project for a while\, and assuming they would like to keep us on\, we would be. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: because that’s the only way you can assure that you know the criteria you’ve established. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? So if you are not peer reviewing what they’ve done. \nYerba Buena SX80: there is no way of ensuring that the criteria be met. \nYerba Buena SX80: Understood. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: should I jump on in? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. So I’ll try to talk fast\, but feel free to stop me at any point. So this is related to operation and maintenance. In particular\, you had a question \nYerba Buena SX80: you asked for a scenario of combining looking at both earthquake and flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So summary of our analysis to date is\, we did evaluate both earthquake and flooding\, but we looked at them initially as independent events. We looked at a hundred year flood event\, which included a 3 and a half feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, this is a flood wall. We designed it to remain completely elastic. No damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also looked at. Okay? And again\, what we classified as medium hazard level. We call it 72 year. That’s terminology. We use for this. But it was a 72 year event \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, that remains there’s no damage where they they’re the ground shaking is enough to create this lateral movement. The wall is essentially a sheet\, pile. \nYerba Buena SX80: self weight. It can accommodate this. The loading on the wall is much less than the flood case \nYerba Buena SX80: is where we run into the 475 year event. As Bob just presented. There is some movement\, so our expectation is there could be some localized\, but we would assume\, or we believe is repairable. Damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: A load case looking at specifically a flood case. So you have the 100 year Flood\, and the seismic event happening at the exact same time given just the probabilities of the return periods of those is extremely \nYerba Buena SX80: improbable. Event very bad day for Sfo. I’m not saying could not happen. But just again\, from a risk-based design standpoint\, I think it wasn’t concern wasn’t happened at exactly the same time\, which is an extremely rare event. But it’s a chance of what happens in the next 6 months. I’m glad you’re seeing that because that was a little worried you want at the same time. But so we focused our analysis is on that particular approach. Okay\, you do have a seismic event. You do get the 475 damage occurs. \nYerba Buena SX80: What happens. Now\, what risk have you reintroduced the airport from a flood perspective? \nYerba Buena SX80: So this analysis we present here is basically demonstrating what we believe is the post seismic behavior of the flood wall\, the response for implementing temporary and permanent repairs. And generally\, what is the risk the airport is looking at if you go to the next slide. And there’s a lot of kind of like moving targets in this. So we’ve had to make some key assumptions because there’s what’s occurring today\, and I have a slide coming up. But what happens with civil level rise? So we do look at this at sort of 3 time horizons. \nYerba Buena SX80: 1st off. What is the expected post seismic behavior? \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, after the sizing event\, some gaps are expected to form at discontinuities\, and I have a figure that shows our estimate of where that might occur \nYerba Buena SX80: in this case. From 0 days to week\, one after the seismic event\, there is going to be gaps in the wall. That wall will not provide flood protection. At those particular gaps\, however\, the remaining portions will remain intact\, providing a level of flood protection. So it’s not as if the entire wall collapses\, just gaps will open. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it does reduce the flood protection\, and we’ve made a conservative assumption that’ll get reduced down to the existing ground\, level as it is\, so that wall will split all the way down to the current ground level. We went through and looked at Lidar along the current proposed alignment and took basically the lowest elevation of each reach \nYerba Buena SX80: right at the wall\, not behind the wall\, because it does the wall. The land does dip down a little bit\, but right in the alignment \nYerba Buena SX80: week\, one to 6\, the expectation is within one week the airport would be able to implement some level of temporary repairs\, and we’re envisioning \nYerba Buena SX80: sandbags fill. They’ll be able to place and fill these gaps with a roughly up to about 3 feet\, and again it will provide some level of flood protection. There might be some seepage through that gap\, but it won’t be a free path of water. \nYerba Buena SX80: The airport will be responding to this event. You can imagine a 4\, 75 year event \nYerba Buena SX80: is likely. Have other consequences at the airport. There’ll be a full response. So our expectation is they would have the the manpower and the personnel to inspect the wall and make these decisions within about a 1 week period. Let’s get some sandbags and close these gaps. \nYerba Buena SX80: Our expectation is the full\, permanent repairs would take roughly about 6 months to implement\, and that would generally consist of\, probably\, again\, depends on what the exact damage\, but probably pulling some sheets\, driving some new sheets\, welding in some interlocks\, basically closing the gaps. \nYerba Buena SX80: So those are some just basic assumptions to set this analysis moving on to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: we talk about where these gaps could form. And again\, this is based on where we believe a discontinuity could create enough stress in those interlocks where you potentially could pop them. And you’d have a gap. \nYerba Buena SX80: We looked at each of the reaches\, and you can see some of them have very distinct direction where it changes\, and so we circle these at each of these discontinuity or changes in directions\, and we roughly estimated 30 degrees. I’m not going to say here we analyze it to get exactly the 30 degrees. It was a engineering judgment on that. Just to get a order of magnitude\, of potential gaps in this for this exercise. Next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again we looked at 3 different timelines\, the sea level rise. For this project we looked at a medium high risk aversion\, so to add into the probability of all this that has a 1 in 200% chance of occurring \nYerba Buena SX80: of exceedance by the target date of 2085. So based on this\, we’re saying\, sea level rise by 2030\, we just is it truly 0? No\, it’s going to be a little bit more than 0 by 2030. But just for by the time this wall is built we just said 0 at that point 2050 would have 1.9 feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: and by the end of the project. Essentially\, design life would be about 3 and a half feet of sea level rise is our target \nYerba Buena SX80: moving on the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: We looked at. Okay after the seismic event. When are we really vulnerable to flooding? Again\, we assume the existing ground. Elevation at the wall would be essentially our lowest level of flood protection at that point\, right after a seismic event. If the mean high high water exceeds that floods that elevation\, the expectation is you could have some water pouring through \nYerba Buena SX80: could essentially create some flooding. Matt has some slides later\, if in that scenario like\, how much would then get sucked into the interior drainage. But for this purposes we’re assuming. If it reaches that level\, we’re going to have some widespread flooding. It would be an area of concern. \nYerba Buena SX80: still water level. Now this requires a hundred year flood event to happen\, or some lesser storm. That’s again the water raises to that full elevation. If that starts pouring through \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, you could get some widespread flooding. The final one is total water elevation. Now\, that’s sort of wave splashing over the top of your wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s definitely more of a localized area. You wouldn’t\, you know. It’s just a splash over the top. So our expectation\, if that’s coming through your gaps of lesser concern\, and it’s a little hard to see on the image on the right. But I do want to point out. I think this is a key point to this whole project \nYerba Buena SX80: is\, if you stand out there currently on the shoreline\, you are above mean high high water. You’re above the extreme atmospheric annual water elevation. The airport would only flood in this case if you had a storm event getting close to 100 year Flood\, as it currently sits. \nYerba Buena SX80: When you start adding sea level rise only when we reach 2085 will the mean high water at any given day just barely get above our lowest point currently on ground elevation\, which is elevation 10. So\, and essentially\, this wall is not under any load. It’s not under any flood \nYerba Buena SX80: cases. On every given normal tides. If you had earthquake and the storm hit\, then yes\, you would have some flooding. But you do need those combined events to occur \nYerba Buena SX80: next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: when you said on the last slide\, 30 degrees of movement is that vertical? Oh\, no\, no sorry apologies. If you go back to it’s 30 in Plan View\, where the wall direction makes a tangle change of more than 30 degrees. The most pronounced is at the end of the runways. You can almost see it like a 90 degree bend and the sheet direction changes. But we said anything over 30 degrees. \nYerba Buena SX80: And there’s been some questions like\, Why don’t we just straighten out the wall? There’s a lot of stuff along 7 and a half miles. So we do have to accommodate existing infrastructure which does create some \nYerba Buena SX80: undulations of the wall alignment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just a quick question. This long-term projection of levels does that include settlement of the of the airport itself? I mean\, there’s a huge field that is slowly settling. We have some later slides on on settlements\, I would say\, to keep the variables down. One. I didn’t include the \nYerba Buena SX80: the\, the expected settlement of the grade\, the existing grade behind the wall. You’re correct over a long period of time\, our elevation. I have some slides here\, like our lowest elevation\, is at reach 4. That’s at the Coast Guard. It’s about elevation 10 ish \nYerba Buena SX80: in theory. If there was subsidence now\, 10 might turn into \nYerba Buena SX80: 9.5 9 point\, you know some value\, and we might have some slides later on that. But in the overall response post seismic I don’t believe it’ll change the results. Okay\, I understand post seismic. But \nYerba Buena SX80: unfortunately\, there\, there are a couple of very modern airports that are becoming essentially unusable \nYerba Buena SX80: in situations like this because of the long term settlement\, not because of other issues. We have a whole segment on subsidence that was looked at in detail\, and it was about one to 4 inches\, which would be about\, you know\, 0 point 1 to 0 point 3 feet. If you want to think of that in terms of these sea level rise amounts as a compensatory relative to seal rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Matt. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so moving on past this slide again\, these are a little hard to read here\, but they’re presented in the report\, but these are snapshots in time so essentially per reach. We establish what is the current design elevation of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, that’s account for the sea level rise plus 2 free free boards. So it’s quite above the potential flood level. \nYerba Buena SX80: at the yeah post earthquake. Again\, the existing minimum ground elevation per reach. \nYerba Buena SX80: The lowest is about 10. It goes up to around elevation 12 in some locations. So again\, the risk at each reach varies\, just depending on the existing grade. After you place the sandbags we’re assuming. Within a week you get 3 feet of flood protection back in there and then we looked at how many gaps within that area so potential spill points. And so if you start looking at 2030 \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at just basically mean high high water again. You’re not going to get that every day\, but you can get that several times a month. There’s no point as exceeding the existing ground elevation. So it’s essentially today \nYerba Buena SX80: at 1%. Still\, water elevation. Even that is just barely above. So you’d have at reach for some very limited exposure. If you had the 100 year event within one week. But after the sandbags are placed\, you’re essentially going to have protection from that event. Oh\, sorry! \nYerba Buena SX80: Isn’t it correct that the titled items which you point out are from the \nYerba Buena SX80: a previous title epic. \nYerba Buena SX80: that when sea level rise is 0. \nYerba Buena SX80: Those \nYerba Buena SX80: elevations are really more closer to the year. Like 2\,000\, not 2030 \nYerba Buena SX80: there could be some nuance in there. It might fluctuate these results a little bit. But again\, for this purposes of trying to limited variables we assume that the Navd 88\, the 0 out datum\, as is currently published by the Noaa’s type charts and data would be representative of 2030. It’s not completely true\, right? There will be some increase in the Navd 88\, but not enough to significantly change the results. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you for bringing that up. I did have. You know. I don’t think it’s going to change the results\, but sea level rise of 0\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know I would take. I would take objection to that. \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, as Jen mentioned\, all of these sea level rise numbers are based from 2\,000\, and we are already at 24\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think the existing. We just did some of the recent NASA ultimatery data measurements we looked at as part of \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the other projects that we were responding to Vcdc for. And it’s about 4 inches has occurred to date right? And by 2030\, yeah\, it’s going to be about\, you know\, I’d say about 5 inches is baked into it. So you know 0 may not be\, and I fully admit that is again\, maybe my effort to keep things slightly simpler. I may have added this extra comment\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: I think once we go to the next slides when we are\, those were really\, we’re targeting the sea level rise 1.9 feet 3.3 and a half feet. Those results in the future we’ll have those slides again\, showing that there’s quite a bit of post seismic protection \nYerba Buena SX80: and immediate flooding is not expected. I was trying\, I guess\, in essence\, with this current base case 2030 in essence. If you had this seismic event for about a 1 week period you’d have essentially the current flood risk potential that the airport has right now\, as we sit here today. \nYerba Buena SX80: reach for has no protection. Currently\, it’s the lowest point in the airport. It’s very vulnerable. So our goal is to get this wall built. Yes\, there may be some damage after a seismic event. But the reintroducing risk is less than what you experience today. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you know the benefit of getting the flood protection in versus the cost of trying to mitigate all seismic damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s just it’s the balance is just not there. The value to the airport isn’t significant enough to try and prevent all seismic damage. \nYerba Buena SX80: especially when you’re compared against how much benefit this provides from a flood protection standpoint. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so in conclusion\, on this slide is is\, you know\, there’s very limited risk after the projects are initially constructed. Even in the short period of time\, post seismic event of widespread flooding and essentially\, at worst\, you’re back to where you are sitting today for that week period. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you go to 2050 things start getting a little bit worse\, but not much. Again in the week period after. You know\, there’s no mean high water that’s above the existing ground elevation. Even when you add in the 1.9 feet of sea level rise to the mean high high water value. \nYerba Buena SX80: So again\, our expectation is in a regular tide event. You shouldn’t have water pouring through. If you had the storm or event\, the 1% yes\, during the one week gap\, you are vulnerable\, for sure. But again\, that would be very similar to where you’re sitting today. When you start looking at sandbags getting placed\, you’re going to get that protection for that 6 month period\, and eventually you’ll get your wall built back up\, and again the protection will be placed there \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at 2085 things do start to get a little worse. But I would point out that this is at the very end of the project. It assumes a 1 in 200 chance of sea level rise\, meeting 3 and a half feet\, and the one reach that really has the biggest problem \nYerba Buena SX80: is reach 4\, where\, if you had a mean high high water elevation plus sea level rise\, you could get a flood event coming across that one particular reach\, and Matt will demonstrate later. Then\, again\, we believe the interior drainage can accommodate some of this spillage. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would say again\, this also is a big assumption. The Coast Guard’s facility is \nYerba Buena SX80: 50 60 years old. \nYerba Buena SX80: The expectation that they will do no projects\, no improvements to their airfield between now and 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and my opinion is very low\, so our expectation is sometime between now and 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: they will likely have reconstructed that there’ll be some benefits to their project to raise their existing elevation\, and so we think this risk at the end of our project. Life is actually probably over pronounced here. \nYerba Buena SX80: but not to say it’s it’s it’s 0. Again. You do have more flood risk in 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: If we had the large seismic event you would be looking at a little bit more flood risk. But again\, is it worth the airport spending the money now \nYerba Buena SX80: to protect something at the end of your flood walls? Service life? And our opinion at this point is \nYerba Buena SX80: not necessarily. \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks\, James. The question is the existing minimum ground elevation \nYerba Buena SX80: post project going to be raised at all? Or are we going to have an 8 foot stick up at reach \nYerba Buena SX80: 8 7 in general. Yes\, if you go out there and go along the shoreline\, the wall will basically be placed at the current top of shoreline. So where the Riprap meets the shore. \nYerba Buena SX80: there is some existing berms and other infrastructure. Some of that’s going to have to get cleaned off in order to install the new flood protection. So the last specific grade this is again\, is going to be where the design build comes in. It’s probably varying a little bit\, I’d say\, plus minus a foot from the values I’ve had here. But again\, the general conclusions I feel are fairly accurate. \nYerba Buena SX80: But the idea is\, we’re not planning to use this as a retaining wall structure. We’re not going to pile up soil on the inside. The wall itself is the flood protection element. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s it. I have a conclusion slide that I think I’ve more or less stated all of these. \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, there is some exposure. I’m not going to sit here and say there’s 0 risk\, but we feel it’s quite low. \nYerba Buena SX80: The site is not expected to be a risk of flooding due to daily tides until the very\, very end of the project. And even that’s very limited. And that’s based on one and 200%\, 200 \nYerba Buena SX80: chance of exceedance and sea level rise. The expectation is\, repairs can be placed within 7 days. Airport has a very robust group that can accommodate these these repairs\, and we have an operation and maintenance plan in place that would work in this response. \nYerba Buena SX80: and essentially to prevent all of this damage that Bob had presented\, or that movement. The cost of that just does not make a lot of economic sense\, especially considering this is a flood protection project. \nYerba Buena SX80: And again\, at no point. If there was an earthquake\, it’s retaining a significant amount of water that would create a risk to the public \nYerba Buena SX80: unless we have a very\, very unfortunate event of the flood a hundred year\, Flood\, and that seismic event occurring at the very same time. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s my presentation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any more questions on that \nYerba Buena SX80: aspect of the combined event. \nYerba Buena SX80: just really quickly. You mentioned subsidence as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that included in this? \nYerba Buena SX80: A. A. Again\, I did not add that variable into those tables just because of the the amount as Matt had mentioned. It’s it’s minimal. And also just was one extra variable that’s trying to keep it simple. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. You could also think of it from 2050. The 1.9 value comes from some of the higher 2018 Opc. Values. Those have since been ratcheted down. So actually\, now\, 1.9 for 2050 is pretty high. So if you want to take your subsidence and park it into the sort of top end of that 1.9. It gets you there for 20. Yeah\, yeah\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a just a \nYerba Buena SX80: I. I have no issues with the analysis. I have more. You. You refer to operations and maintenance\, and I think I mentioned it before. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does the does the airport stack a bunch of sandbags in ready made the idea after an earthquake looking for sandbags? That’s little too late. And again\, this is part of the design process as it moves to design build. There’s been there’ll be agreements and requirements established with the maintenance group. \nYerba Buena SX80: we’ve had some on early ongoing discussions about the expectations of what we’d be looking for them to provide. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have one location. There’s a deployable barrier. We’ve walked through them like again. Nothing’s gonna get built there for a while. But we’ve already had those open\, those discussions of a post Pre pre flood event. \nYerba Buena SX80: They may have to implement those post seismic event. This would be another thing that they would have to accommodate. Yes\, and I think I asked this question \nYerba Buena SX80: in the previous meeting. Sandbags are low cost\, low tech electrical supplies\, and all of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s not easily replaceable. If it gets flooded\, I hope\, and I assume that the airport is \nYerba Buena SX80: putting all of these things sufficiently high\, that there is\, however\, incidental\, flooding\, electrical\, you know\, essential electrical services will not be flooded. \nYerba Buena SX80: That to me is this is what happened in Tokyo happened. You know\, other places\, I mean Japan. Those things you cannot repair in 3 days\, and that’s something that really the airport should be looking at in terms of potential flooding \nYerba Buena SX80: send backs is not a problem. And again\, I would say that the primary line of defense from flooding is this flood wall \nYerba Buena SX80: and the expectations. It will be intact \nYerba Buena SX80: in the unlikely event of a seismic event. There will be a 1 week. Vulnerability? So yes\, there will be some vulnerability to that. Some of that equipment. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I would say it is at less risk in the future than it is as we sit here\, currently \nYerba Buena SX80: lower risk in the future. I’m happy to hear that. But the point is\, it’s still a risk. If you had gone to Japan the day before Tohoku earthquake and looked at those flood walls\, you would have thought that the Japanese were crazy. All those flood walls were 4 meters too short. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, the day after. And the point is\, if some of that equipment in the nuclear power plant had been elevated \nYerba Buena SX80: that power plant would still be there. So my point is that there are other ways of protecting yourself besides just putting the flood wall. I have no problems with the flood wall\, I’m simply saying \nYerba Buena SX80: there is a there is value in looking at cumulative protection understood. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, maybe what’s not not in here. And and that’s probably gonna happen at a later stage with the design builder is that you’re going to the airport is going to approach Fema for \nYerba Buena SX80: a Lomar application as part of that Lomar application. \nYerba Buena SX80: All of the electrical infrastructure will \nYerba Buena SX80: need \nYerba Buena SX80: backup systems\, an alternative power system. So that’s all part of Fema’s requirements which will be baked into the design anyway\, maybe not into the design. But to get the fema certification. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I can say we are actually right involved in the Clomar process right now we’re actually in. We’ve received our 90 day letter. We’re working through our last few comments. So you’re correct all those discussions through Fema\, so the goal of the project will to have a Clomar in hand which \nYerba Buena SX80: then leads to the design build team\, and ultimately a Lomar at the end. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and I would also say\, I suppose\, as part of a broader citywide program is working on its overall emergency response programs and responses that would probably envelope over top of this. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was wondering if you could go back to the slide that has the table with the results. Sure\, you talked about the lateral displacement of the wall\, but we didn’t really talk about the water side of the wall where the rock slope protection is. Presumably there would be some damage or displacement of the rock protection as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: And like\, when I look at these ground elevations around the perimeter. \nYerba Buena SX80: I they’re kind of surprisingly high. I I didn’t really think that they would be that high\, because the airport is kind of mostly lower than that\, and I guess it sort of comes up around the perimeter. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I guess just my concern would be \nYerba Buena SX80: if the focus is on filling gaps and other activities in the airport to address damage\, and you sort of have this exposed unarmored\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Earthen material it could erode there. So those elevations may not persist for very long. \nYerba Buena SX80: I was just wondering if that had been kind of considered sort of the waterside response. And I would say\, Yeah\, ultimately\, our expectation post sizing event. Someone will go and inspect the entire wall\, both the riprap\, the sheet piles\, and so on. The immediate concern will be the the gaps. The longer. A little bit further field. You’re absolutely right. We we do not want unprotected riprap \nYerba Buena SX80: like Riprap\, that sloughed away. The way we assume is Riprap\, in a certain sense as we get these movements as Bob had presented. \nYerba Buena SX80: the Riprap is going to go along for the ride and somewhat be self healing. It’s gonna fall back in. But it doesn’t mean there won’t be some exposed areas\, and the expectation is after that those will be filled if we get widespread just like\, wow! This rip out really slid in \nYerba Buena SX80: first\, st it’s more moving than we are calculating\, and then you would have to be looking at some other post media post seismic event to stabilize that area. So you don’t get erosion. But ultimately our most of our plan is most repairs will be implemented within 6 months. \nYerba Buena SX80: To be honest\, there’s probably going to be a lot of other things of critical importance that are going to get damaged. The airport. We’re just trying to make sure the floodwaters don’t add to this problem. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And along those lines I would second the comment about looking at stockpiling materials nearby. And then\, I guess\, just in terms of like the one week and 6 month timeframe. I know that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: your assumption. \nYerba Buena SX80: But were those sort of vetted in in any way. Is that like a reasonable timeframe? So we’ve met with the maintenance group\, and they confirmed the 7 days. They thought that was reasonable. The 6 months is a little bit more that’s based on our engineering like. \nYerba Buena SX80: how long is it gonna take permits? How long is the get a contractor on board. It’s a little hard to predict\, but the level of damage we’re expecting within 6 months. If you could get a you know\, a contractor out here with a driving rig\, he should be able to fill that pretty quick. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s hard to predict the permitting process in the future. And that response. But we felt 6 months is a reasonable estimate\, especially \nYerba Buena SX80: being a critical infrastructure. We’re hoping they’ll have enough urgency to get. \nYerba Buena SX80: say\, the front of the line. But get in the line pretty quick. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you think those passive gates will fail in an earthquake? \nYerba Buena SX80: There is some vulnerability to them\, I would say\, of those passive gates\, especially once we start getting towards the later 2050\, 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: only one should remain operational. There are others assuming flood protection programs for South San Francisco\, San Trans Island\, Millbrae are implemented. \nYerba Buena SX80: These will all fall behind there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Flood protection will be sort of a uniform\, so there’ll be less importance there. The one that would be required is at the Mr. Our expectation is there could be some vertical settlement. It’s a little hard to predict honestly\, it might be something. We’ll look at a little bit further on a design perspective. If that’s where we have some localized ground improvement. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just to make sure that is less vulnerable\, and that could be a good \nYerba Buena SX80: way to mitigate that risk. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a related question to Justin’s\, and taking the focus from the \nYerba Buena SX80: the water side to the land side. \nYerba Buena SX80: and looking at those gaps\, I was curious. If there are always\, wherever those gaps are expected to form. Is it always adjacent to hardscape? Or are there areas that may be more vulnerable to say \nYerba Buena SX80: erosion? If a flood were to occur and leak through those gaps\, and perhaps scour out \nYerba Buena SX80: the material that’s otherwise stabilizing the the edges of the sheet pile where it’s damaged. \nYerba Buena SX80: And is that a consideration\, perhaps\, for the \nYerba Buena SX80: the maintenance operation plan\, we would I’d have to go back and look at what’s behind each of those gaps. And again I would say\, these are our best estimate of where the gaps ultimately\, it’s going to be hard to predict exactly where all these reform. These are just a higher probability. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d say majority of them have a roadway or some infrastructure right behind it. I wouldn’t say it’s all of them there may be somewhere. It’s sort of like we’re kind of our the Vsr. The roadway\, and then you have like a berm or gravel gap. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d say it’s probably a mixed match. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d also say again\, the the basic geometry \nYerba Buena SX80: of most of these is the interior ground surface is relatively flat. You saw that in Bob’s plots as well. So it’s not like. It’s coming over a levee\, and you have the backside plunge that you might be thinking of in like a levee where you have really high free board over the backside of the levee. It’s coming out\, and it’s mostly flat \nYerba Buena SX80: doesn’t extend that far here on this one. But if you take this figure here. But if you take this and Bob’s figures sort of from the cross sections\, you could remember that. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean 20 to one slopes 50 to one slopes behind it. It’s not 3 to one\, the back of a levee where it’s\, you know\, rushing back down the other side that you get the big erosion issues. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Matt. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Anybody else. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, okay\, let’s move. Move forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? Corrosion. So there was a question related to corrosion in particular \nYerba Buena SX80: discussion about providing a monitoring program to measure the actual corrosion rates as the site. So coding maintenance can be timed appropriately. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we’ll talk 1st about kind of our design assumptions. And then what is the current approach to inspection and monitoring corrosion? So again\, the wall is designed with additional thickness\, essentially sacrificial steel\, and a coating system. \nYerba Buena SX80: The sheet piles have been selected as 3 8th inch minimum wall thickness. That’ll be part of the criteria\, and the code is at least 10 feet below the mud line. The 3 eighths inch wall thickness\, as we really mentioned\, was selected for more drivability than pure structural capacity. \nYerba Buena SX80: We did assume. All this structural analysis was done with corrosion of the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we followed the California Department of Transportation corrosion guidelines. Version 3.2 \nYerba Buena SX80: these provide different corrosion rates. And essentially\, we’ve assumed for the atmospheric zone \nYerba Buena SX80: which is the sheet pile above there. And again\, as I previously said\, I have one coming up. It’s going to be dry. \nYerba Buena SX80: 99.9% of the life of this structure. It’s not in the water\, it’s not retaining water. So we feel the atmospheric zone is representative. So we use that. And in the fill and subsoil we use the values provided by Caltrans\, we’ve assumed\, the coating is good for 10 years. We’re made a conservative assumption. The airport is ignoring\, coating and never going to maintain it. That’s not their plan\, but from a structural analysis standpoint. We built that in \nYerba Buena SX80: so we have enough life with a 3 eighths inch wall. And as kind of Bob presented in our own structural calculations\, we submitted. There’s plenty of capacity for all the load cases \nYerba Buena SX80: going on to the next slide talks about \nYerba Buena SX80: really\, the operation and maintenance manual. So the plan is to the sheep piles will be visually inspected. Every 5 years is the current plan\, and any damage will be documented and repairs will be implemented. The sheep piles will be accessible fully from land side and the waterside at the majority of tides. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, in 2030\, all tides in 2085. Again\, you may not want to head out on a high to mean high high water day. \nYerba Buena SX80: The inspection program calls for the Asc. Waterfront facility. Inspection \nYerba Buena SX80: plan is a level one\, general visual inspection on a 5 year basis. If corrosion is encountered\, maintenance hasn’t been maintained\, then we may trigger a level 3\, which would be the ultrasonic testing at that point. And then we would check what the corrosion loss essentially\, looking at the geotechnical results that we have. There’s no corrosive soils been identified to date\, and that’ll be confirmed during the detailed design phase. \nYerba Buena SX80: You mean\, even the Bmart is not corrosive. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: pay months corrosive not per our results correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I can’t speak to that again. From what we’re seeing and the corrosion rates we’re assuming\, we feel that we’ve captured it. But again\, this is assumption. So the final geotechnical investigation usually provides a report on the corrosive \nYerba Buena SX80: of the soils. And the if you had a higher corrosion rate\, the final design would have to accommodate that\, and we say 3 eighths inch minimum if they find that that case is higher corrosion rates\, they would have to increase that for the final design. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that so so\, not being corrosive\, that really is a misstatement there\, you don’t know. Well\, I would say everything we have from all the existing borings that we went through. There’s been no reports or nothing mentioned in any of the geotechnical reports to date that have said it is corrosive soil so based on that\, we feel it’s a valid conclusion. It’s something we feel needs to be validated. \nYerba Buena SX80: There is quite an extensive database borings. I would have thought it would have popped up at least one of them\, but I could be wrong. And again\, that’s where we feel the validated \nYerba Buena SX80: even if it admittedly my perspective\, even if we did find we had some corrosive soils\, feel the corrosion rates relative to the wall thickness\, and then the demands on the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: I feel like this design in essence would still work. We just may have to increase the wall thickness of the sheets \nYerba Buena SX80: when you say there’s no mention of corrosion. Are you saying that they tested? And and they say it’s non corrosive\, or they just never tested it and never mentioned it \nYerba Buena SX80: could be either again. I’m not gonna swear on my kids. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s not. Hence the final conclusion. This needs to be validated during the design build phase. \nYerba Buena SX80: But\, Bob\, I mean\, you guys just some boring out there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did you still saw corrosivity tests on the materials you encountered. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And \nYerba Buena SX80: I I think it’s something that James\, that we can have. \nYerba Buena SX80: We we can look into and evaluate\, you know\, based on existing data. But I I just can’t speak to it this this afternoon. I I haven’t \nYerba Buena SX80: personally\, you know\, looked at that information. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now Rod Washita would probably have a good handle on corrosion\, resistance and young bay mud for piles. But it \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I I would expect there to be some. But but you know these piles\, I’m you’re I’m hearing that they’re coded. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the only the question that was kind of coming into my mind is the installation technique. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ve noticed \nYerba Buena SX80: just anecdotally that you know driven pile \nYerba Buena SX80: especially in hard driving tends to affect the coding. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’ve seen locations where the top you know the top section of pile piling \nYerba Buena SX80: the coding fails much sooner than \nYerba Buena SX80: you know anticipated\, whereas the you know the lower sections are okay\, and that’s correct. I’ve seen that also. Our approach here is these will be driven with a vibratory hammer. Yeah\, we’re coating the top\, 10 feet into the ground\, and then everything to the top are the plan would be the design build contractor at the installation would have to repair any visibly damaged coating. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then at that point\, Sfo’s operation and maintenance. 5 year annual inspection. \nYerba Buena SX80: Now you can’t really control what’s happening below ground. And again. Your point about corrosive soils is a good one. There is where we’d have to accommodate with a combination of sacrificial steel \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we put the coating at least 10 feet in even though some of it may get damaged\, the bulk of it won’t\, and that still adds some level of protections. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it is anaerobic at some point below. So you need you need that oxygen to make it grow. That’s usually where we pick about 10 feet. It’s kind of the general rule of thumb in the industry. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do we want to go back to that question we had with the bending moments\, and how that affect corrosion. Because I think this relates to this point of where the maximum bending moments were were usually at those depths where you were starting to go anaerobic \nYerba Buena SX80: anybody. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think that’s I think that’s the the kind of the conclusion of that. If \nYerba Buena SX80: the corrosion is expected at \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of in the upper exposed areas of the sheet pile. \nYerba Buena SX80: The maximum moments are not. It’s it’s further away from the maximum moments. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not an expert on coercion. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I assume you all are\, and for the portions of the wall that are buried you mentioned something about there being this anaerobic environment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wouldn’t the if the soils are corrosive \nYerba Buena SX80: and also if they’re if the young bay mud is corrosive\, and also\, if there are currents stray currents in the steel. \nYerba Buena SX80: Wouldn’t those corrode the buried steel? And you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t know about it? Or are you saying that there’s certain there’s going to be this anaerobic environment that’s gonna quash corrosion. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, just just based on our design experience. Waterfront structures generally. Once you start getting below 10 feet\, the expectation is\, there’s not enough oxygen to create widespread. You do consider some corrosion\, and that’s built in the corrosion allowance \nYerba Buena SX80: working with the geotech and ultimately establishing if it’s corrosive soils that then would factor into what corrosion rate you would use from that zone\, from like the ground surface to that area where you’d feel the oxygen would drop off\, and then you would have to reestablish your calculations on expected corrosion rate\, and\, if necessary\, increase the wall thickness once it’s installed. It’s not really practical to inspect\, and you have to pull out sheets. It seems pretty. \nYerba Buena SX80: Be destructive\, and it’s usually not done. Again. My experience with waterfront structures in that zone. It’s not 0 concern\, but it’s often. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, you can mitigate it through design good design practices. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do people ever put in just a couple of extra sheet piles and then pull them out later \nYerba Buena SX80: to see what’s going on. No\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Here’s the figure with the maximum bending moment\, which again\, yeah\, the maximum is down at like negative 10. And so the ground surface in this figure is at about 10 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: because this is in Navd. So the maximum bending moments are about\, you know\, 20 feet below. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is where you would yeah expect to see that corrosion happening\, though\, is in the splash zone. So not at the top of the sheet. Right? Yeah\, exactly. That’s what I was coming. But coming back to the point about where the corrosion would happen relative to the maximum bending moments. This is those zones don’t overlap. Yeah\, and it’s more pronounced when you look at the flood case\, which is the design event. Obviously you have your flood event. It’s cantilevered. Wall. Your maximum is in the ground. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s at depth. So we don’t expect a significant amount of corrosion. But we have accounted for in our design. \nYerba Buena SX80: and if you go back to our structural calculations. You’ll see the DC ratios are quite low\, so there’s quite a belt and suspenders with a coating extra thickness. And again\, we in theory\, we could have picked a sheet thinner than 3 eighths\, but from a drivability practicality of it\, it’s not advisable we need to get these sheets in. So that ended up kind of dictating the wall thickness. Not so much the structural of the corrosion \nYerba Buena SX80: expectations. So we feel there’s a fairly robust solution. And again. Ultimately the design builder will \nYerba Buena SX80: validate all of this. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I mean\, in looking at these results\, I mean\, the sheets are not very deep\, right? These are 40 foot sheets\, I think\, is maximum. I saw\, yeah\, 30 to 40 feet sheets. We’re extending them deeper than they need to be\, geotechnically or structurally to act as a potential help\, as a cut off a little bit from and just allow the airport to mitigate it. If there’s any groundwater issues in the future\, right? And and so. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, and that’s being driven by very little loading. Right? I mean\, there’s very little loading except \nYerba Buena SX80: hydrodynamic dynamic wave loading. That’s probably the largest loads\, I guess\, in this case\, with sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: and largest wave heights there. That’s probably the largest loads. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so you’re \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It looks like you’re going to specify the thickness. \nYerba Buena SX80: Minimum 3 eights minimum. \nYerba Buena SX80: And you’re not specifying embedment depth. It’ll just be based on the analysis with us\, or are you? I think we’ve we specified? And again\, this will ultimately get in the design\, build criteria. But I believe the goal right now is to have them seeded into the young bay muds. \nYerba Buena SX80: so they have to tow into that. And that is again\, even if it’s not necessarily needed from a geotechnical standpoint\, we want to at least tow it in there to provide again. Cut off a seepage path through the fills. If you ever had any sort of groundwater or seepage issues\, especially when you start looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: future sea level rise\, when the water in the bay could start getting higher than some elevations on land. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, yeah\, it’d be good to specify that\, as part of the criteria. And the reason I’m saying is\, you know\, a design builder would look at loading and say\, You know my sheets could be just 25 feet deep. \nYerba Buena SX80: I concur\, and that\, I believe\, is our plan. Yes\, I’m pretty sure all the reaches and the design drawings show it towed in 10 feet into the young bay mud. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: that was our design recommendation that it be 10 feet into the \nYerba Buena SX80: but but\, as Dilip says\, it might be good to put that as a design criteria rather than looking at design\, build\, their response is much more. It will be sorry. That’s too wishy-washy it will be. \nYerba Buena SX80: And to to that point I think it’s really critical not to let them drive it into the denser\, stiffer material. So you want to make sure that that doesn’t happen. I mean\, you could think that it’s better. But it’s not really better from a kinematic standpoint\, understood. And I can speak from being a lot of design build teams. They don’t like to drive them any longer than they want to. \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s say we have them in the yard\, and we’re gonna use it. \nYerba Buena SX80: But no point taken we would be looking for\, and we’re trying to reach the young Bay. MoD. But we don’t necessarily need to go beyond it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, they they should be floating files right? \nYerba Buena SX80: There is no connection at the top at all right. I know you’re going away from a pile cap\, but even even a simple connection to just well again\, there’ll be a bent plates which will be\, have tabs attaching it to each of the individual sheets to hold it in place. But it’s not a structural element per se. So it’s not going to have it acts. Lock everything in together. \nYerba Buena SX80: We move towards Foster City. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that project. They do have a concrete cap along their seawall. \nYerba Buena SX80: It creates a lot of construction issues. And again\, I haven’t seen their seismic design. But how do you manage this movement. Unless you have 0 movement on the wall\, you’re going to get a lot of post cracking that you. It’s hard to predict\, and it’s going to be difficult to repair. \nYerba Buena SX80: Given that\, we don’t need that continuity from a structural standpoint. We felt this was the best approach. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And the reason I bring it up is\, you know\, depending on driving conditions\, 7 miles of of sheets. \nYerba Buena SX80: It gives you some. Fluff gives the contractor some fluff to\, you know to have some amount of \nYerba Buena SX80: inaccuracies in the top. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, elevation of the sheets\, and so pile cap sort of covers all of that\, you know\, and you could have joints in there. If you don’t want to transfer the load\, the bend plate provides that similar behavior again. It’s gonna it’s like a cap. So from a visual perspective\, it’ll flatten it out. There’s gonna be\, you know\, underneath that cap. The walls might be up and down a few inches right\, and they’ll have a tab attaching\, but it gives you that same visual look without all the kind of locked in concrete. But I agree I’ve seen concrete caps do that. It does look very nice. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I’ve also seen this detail used elsewhere. And we feel it’s effective \nYerba Buena SX80: in okay\, great just one going back to the 3 eighths inch minimum thickness \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s been a rule of thumb for for us or for me \nYerba Buena SX80: forever. So Jen\, just make sure. Put it in the conditions right that we’re we are gonna maintain that at least a minimum. 3 eights inch wall thickness. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And with the variability. Again. We’ve done checks\, and you know \nYerba Buena SX80: the odds of them hitting something down there is pretty good at some point\, you know. It’s all fill. It’s not a lot of rock fill. But we do expect. And being I have a 3 eighths inch\, we feel that’ll improve the drivability and create less issues of them having to continuously go down and dig something out. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m just gonna make a note on note on time. We’ve gone through the 30 min contingency. We had the end\, and we’ve also gone through 5 min of the 10 min contingency of the break. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I wanted to check with you on the order which we’re presenting these things. So far\, the order of questions that have come up that we’ve said is coming next. We’ve managed to hit all those \nYerba Buena SX80: because we got the geotech. Then we got the earthquake and flood. We got to corrosion. There were the gates and flood operations\, which is next we touched on the groundwater one\, which is the one after that. So we’ve hit all those\, and then the ones we end in subsidence. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we have strong motion at the end. So I think we still relatively have them prioritized to the interest. But if there’s any particular need\, or someone needs to go early\, they’re sort of modular\, and we can move them around. \nYerba Buena SX80: So again\, those remaining topics are flood operations. \nYerba Buena SX80: groundwater subsidence and strong motion\, monitoring \nYerba Buena SX80: any thoughts on changing those\, or I\, I I think what you guys have \nYerba Buena SX80: got organized is fine. It’s just \nYerba Buena SX80: talk faster. Everyone has to talk faster. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, so responding\, this\, this one on flood operations responds to a series of both Ecrb questions and also some Bcdc. Staff questions which are overlapping will be dealt with in the permit process. We sort of group them together because they have you know\, sort of overlapping topics and the things that they touch. \nYerba Buena SX80: This 1st comment that we had here from Ecrb was talking about emergency events\, and was one of the ones that we sort of roughly talked on is\, how would emergency services and electrical \nYerba Buena SX80: things be provided in backup power. 1st on the flood case. What you see it in the lower left panel of this is the results of some of the modeling that was done for the fema Lomar application. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s considered the extreme event for interior drainage assessment. That’s the 100 year precipitation event\, and also\, since some of the riverine channels\, that sort of run behind and around the airport do not contain everything within the flood walls. It also includes inputs. \nYerba Buena SX80: In a few overtopping events from there. And in this situation you see that the this is the depth around. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some of the low lying parts of the area\, and these blue shadings are all less than a foot and generally cursive there in the \nYerba Buena SX80: And the other thing I’ll point out is what’s overlaying on this as well is the storm drain system is the series of sort of purple lines there. It’s a little bit hard to read\, but the red dots on the shoreline are the pump stations themselves. So you can see that the pump stations are not overlapping with where the low lying areas are\, and the areas that would tend to pond even for this extreme case with the 100 year precipitation and the inflow from the adjoining cases. \nYerba Buena SX80: In the event that there is a power failure because of earthquakes or reasons to go down for other \nYerba Buena SX80: events. The airport plans to use portable electrical generators\, such as those pictured in the lower right. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that would be in response to. There’s a they already have a standard operating plan that’s alluded to there. That’s sort of\, you know\, monitoring the pump stations\, and when they’re needed\, and that changes obviously between sort of a date\, you know\, once a day feature to when it’s raining more common\, more recent updates. And so those cases\, those portable generators\, you know\, basically have sort of an additional free board of a foot. So those 2 combinations of the pump stations are not in the areas where water would be expected to pool \nYerba Buena SX80: and the free board of the portable generators. \nYerba Buena SX80: Providing the capacity for backup power. \nYerba Buena SX80: The question also included considerations of earthquakes. We I’m going to refer back to the discussion we just had about this combined event of the 100. Well\, the the 100 year Flood events. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the 475 year earthquake event occurring in the same year. \nYerba Buena SX80: being a relatively unlikely consideration. But in the event that it does happen\, most of those 1st couple bullets have already been addressed by James. I’ll just point out\, and we’ll get to a little bit later. That second to last bullet \nYerba Buena SX80: that that he touched on. We’ll go into a little bit more detail. The floodgates themselves are only anticipated to be need to block water rails for a few hours\, so\, in terms of like blocking access \nYerba Buena SX80: to the site that would only be like during the most extreme tide. So it’s not like the it’s not expected the floodgates would be up in such a way that they would be blocking the tide gate elevations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, also\, there was a question about who would need to access the site. So just to follow up on that again with some of the discussion of the Sfo’s operations staff. You know the temporary repairs. If there’s not too many wall breaks. If there’s enough sandbags on hand\, those sorts of things may involve just Sfo. Possibly an external contractor. Permanent repairs would likely include an outside contractor because of those things about driving additional walls. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where are the floodgates on the graphics? The floodgates will come up in a few slides. Oh\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so then another question that is\, is a follow on. And again\, sorry that we’ve we’ve changed over some of the Bcdc. Staff questions here a following was\, how much water could pour in. So now we have sort of\, you know\, in combination of \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: 475 year earthquake event a week to repair to get those temporary structures up to about 3 feet high\, and then\, in that circumstance\, what sort of inflow volumes would you have? So I followed for this sort of James’s designation of where they would happen by using this sort of green and orange. And if you remember from James’s\, you really didn’t see anything significant happening until 3 and a half feet of seal rise. So just sort of skipped to that case \nYerba Buena SX80: and look for those conditions. I also took a worst case of assuming. There’s that column there that’s assumed number of gaps. Those are 56 of those at those junctions where the wall bends by at least 30 degrees\, so I assumed all of those could possibly fail. You see\, you know\, it’s reach\, for\, as James alluded to before\, is the one that even for mean higher high water starts\, you know\, earliest and sort of turn orange\, although point of that case you only have 0 point 3 feet of free board. \nYerba Buena SX80: But in the event of if you had the 1% Stillwater case\, you have 4 reaches where you have gaps in them. So I took for those 4 reaches and assumed all the gaps that could fail in those reach fails. I think you ended up with about \nYerba Buena SX80: sorry reach. 12 doesn’t have any assumed gaps. So you end up with 9 gaps. Think of them\, each being 10 feet wide. Think of a maximum flow velocity! Think of a you know time that the tide would be at 100 year water level to get an estimated total still water inflow. And so I got that one on the upper right of about 24 million gallons\, and then compare that to the overall stormwater pumping capacity again just at a very bulk level may not \nYerba Buena SX80: where it’s going to appear\, and how it get routed to it didn’t cover at that point. But if you look at those you’re under an hour to\, so the amount of water that could inflow during a hundred year tide happening after a 475 year earthquake. \nYerba Buena SX80: you still have the pumping capacity of only needing an hour to remove that amount of inflow. If you take a more extreme case of considering also the overwash from total water level and so wave splash as well\, which would affect a few more reaches. \nYerba Buena SX80: You get a higher rate\, maybe double. It’s about 2 h to remove the inflows. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chen. \nYerba Buena SX80: in this scenario\, where there’s 3 and a half feet of sea level rise. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m also envisioning that groundwater levels at the airport will be like close to ground level. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that the storm drain system\, unless pumps are pumping continuously\, the storm drains would be filled with groundwater. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that have? \nYerba Buena SX80: What do you? What do you imagine is going on in the storm drain system and the shallow groundwater in this scenario? \nYerba Buena SX80: So we we didn’t envision that for the particular case in the groundwater study\, which we’ll get to in a minute. We also compare those \nYerba Buena SX80: we looked at the maximum inflow rate from groundwater into the storm drain system was about \nYerba Buena SX80: 500 Gpm. And so that’s relative to the 500\,000 Gpm. Capacity\, the pump stations. So the pump stations may have \nYerba Buena SX80: a slight increase. If you were looking at the dry season pumping. \nYerba Buena SX80: you might have to turn on your sort of\, you know low flow pump a little bit more often. But during the stormwater\, heavy precipitation event it’s going to be really that precipitation event and the stormwater that’s coming that the stormwater system was designed for was really the surface water precipitation\, and the groundwater is a minor part of that\, either now or with seal for us. So it’s not the controlling factor. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure how you estimated that in the future \nYerba Buena SX80: high groundwater levels would only contribute 500 gallons a minute to the storm drain system. So we have a presentation coming that was detailed in the demo. So we and we have a presentation coming up. So maybe we should. Just yeah\, we should work on that one that we do. They did a whole full groundwater model for that one. But are you? Are you envisioning in the future? Because I think in the last Ecrb meeting you did mention that \nYerba Buena SX80: the storm drain system is going to need upgrades in the future because of sea level rise. And I’m assuming that that’s because of groundwater rise\, and the fact that groundwater will \nYerba Buena SX80: will continue to increase in how much it infiltrates into the stormwater system. \nYerba Buena SX80: And it’s my understanding that that actually the stormwater system currently operates like at high tide on a sunny day. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that not? Is that so? The the airport does want to meet\, and some of the \nYerba Buena SX80: ways the airport would like to continue to maintain. Groundwater is to maintain it at roughly the same level. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s why they’re willing to invest in the additional sheets getting driven down to the young Bay mud\, because that provides part of their. It increases their capacity to manage the groundwater level\, because there won’t be as much groundwater infiltrating from higher bay water levels into the site. So that’s part of the reason why that you know they’re willing. The additional depth of seats is going to cost more\, and that’s 1 of the things that are trying to do is to cut that off \nYerba Buena SX80: and provide a cutoff wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: Previously\, when we had talked about the storm drain systems need to be improved. We recognize that though we we I think we said something like it could. \nYerba Buena SX80: It may need to be improved\, depending on how much infiltration rates there were into it. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so then that was one where we\, as part of the groundwater study\, tried to figure out sort of the overall water balance of like when we said it may need to be improved in the future\, but we don’t know exactly when we just think it’s far as we wanted to\, you know\, be more specific about that response. And so that’s why we work with Geosyntech. They developed the whole groundwater model to provide at least a screening level approach for what those orders of magnitude would be that Julie’s going to present in a bit. And from that model results is where we’re getting the \nYerba Buena SX80: what seem to be the infiltration rates into the storm drain system of on the order of 500 Gpm\, we don’t have. Maybe I’ll hold off my questions until that those slides. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: thank you. Yep. \nYerba Buena SX80: onto the floodgate locations. So there are 7 closures along the the edge. \nYerba Buena SX80: most of them are like sort of in reach\, one and 15. Those are the reaches that you know have more crossings that come in because of roadways and things like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you know\, that’s where you want to have this ability to have the gate down most of the time. But then deployed during the flood event. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is what James was referring to before\, where he thought\, there’s a likely chance that\, as other communities go forward with their their own flooding their own sea level rise. Prevention that these gates would maybe behind those\, and that would be Gates one and 2 on the \nYerba Buena SX80: north side and reach one\, and then gates 5\, 6\, and 7 on the other reach\, and then at the end\, I’ll show a little bit more detail on the 2 gates that are more exposed reaches 3 and 4 \nYerba Buena SX80: so \nYerba Buena SX80: 4 with a gate. Elevations for that were shown in that previous table. Here’s a comparison of taking those and looking at how the gate\, the the low point of where the gate lies \nYerba Buena SX80: along the reach compares to mean higher high water\, so would the gate have to close about every day to as compared to the 100 year still water level. Like I said\, most of these gates are inboard from the edge\, and would probably be more exposed to the 100 year. Still water level rather than total water level\, and looking at\, you know under what conditions would they have to close? And so again\, the apologies for using 0 feet of sea level rise rather than some small 0 point 3 or some amount to account for present day conditions relative to 2\,000. \nYerba Buena SX80: You see that for both 0 feet of sail rise\, and one and a half feet of sail rise for mean higher\, high water. We don’t expect any of the gates to need to be closed on a daily basis. You will see with 1.5 gate 5 is the one that basically is these numbers. Here are the free board. So all these are positive free board means no cancel flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So gate 5 right at one and a half feet of silver rise gets to 0. \nYerba Buena SX80: The exact. As if that’s 1 of those gates that’s interior to the site and would likely be \nYerba Buena SX80: integrated as part of more of a regional flood protection program. \nYerba Buena SX80: The gates would need to be closed even present day\, for the 1% floodwater levels for gates\, 3 through 7 gates\, one and 2 are the ones that are higher and the ones that are actually gate. One is basically from the north access road into like a maintenance yard \nYerba Buena SX80: gate 2 is the gate that’s really across the North access road. That would be the most impactful if it was closed for an extended period of time in terms of access to the site. And you see that gate 2\, even for 3 and a half feet of Seville rise doesn’t need to be closed \nYerba Buena SX80: for mean high tides\, and that’s also\, again\, if a project came regionally that sealed it off. It wouldn’t really need to be closed at all. So Gate 2\, which is the one that had the biggest impact on access is really the gate that is least likely to ever be deployed. It is also the gate that would not is the only actively deployed gate as opposed to a passive gate\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, but presumably you’d have knowledge of forecasts. It would have to again probably be with fair amount of civil rights not likely to even be need to be deployed. Even for up to one and a half years civil rise. And so it’s really that last case of in the event that a regional shoreline planning doesn’t happen and you have the 100 year events. Then you might need to deploy. Gate. 2 \nYerba Buena SX80: thanks\, man for the information mean high high water\, and 1%\, you know\, typically \nYerba Buena SX80: as engineers\, we do like to know\, just on an annual high tide\, you know what? How is this going to function? And what I’m looking at here is that \nYerba Buena SX80: the closure number 5 is probably going to operate every year in December \nYerba Buena SX80: with a king tide. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you have one and a half\, it would be at the edge if you could see. Well\, we can go back and zoom where it is\, but where it is. I it it’s currently there. And it’s currently exposed under present day conditions\, and they don’t currently close it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these assumptions are. Again\, this is because it’s set back from the shoreline. There’s actually high ground between it and the thing. So this is also sort of the the fema approach of assuming the 100 year water level can get all the way up to where the gate is located. \nYerba Buena SX80: This current place they do not close every time it’s a it’s a there’s an extra access road where there’s like an emergency access on the the south part of the runway. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ye yeah. Because last year we had actually what a foot above King Tide. Right? So in that case\, if \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, this would have operated\, I’m not like\, I said. It’s not changing the grade. There’s a current gap there\, because it’s just the main reason why it’s there is. It’s emergency access like for vehicles to come in from the Millbrae side if they need to. And as far as I’m aware\, it’s not a place that currently floods. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s right. At this bend \nYerba Buena SX80: As you go from along the shoreline I reach 14\, and then\, as you come in along like that’s where the uber waiting lot is \nYerba Buena SX80: gas station. There’s a few other things right there. So Gate 5 is inboard from that. And so it’s not actually right on the shoreline. It’s maybe 30 feet in from the shoreline. It’s actually \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s a little hard to see here\, but they call it the fueling station entrance. There’s like a basically a parking lot. That’s not part of so those campus but so runs it. And so the plan is to provide flood protection around that. And so the 2 entrances \nYerba Buena SX80: get floodgates as part of this program\, but\, as as mentioned\, the water has to get 1st get across their higher elevation and then dip back down is\, if it ever did get in from the shore\, it is a low spot\, so the idea is to protect it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Where again\, if mill great moves forward with their project. And again\, they’re in that planning process. \nYerba Buena SX80: This\, all will be behind theirs\, and it becomes a moot point. \nYerba Buena SX80: any more questions on blood. What we can go back to? \nYerba Buena SX80: now to those 2 gates that would remain sort of\, you know\, not behind a regional flood protection. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we’re specifically asked about one was Sam. Trans Island. So that’s case. Reach 3 out here. So North access comes in just along reach one. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then Sam trends \nYerba Buena SX80: I think they’re the sole owner of the island. There might be one or 2 other sites that there’s a \nYerba Buena SX80: But San trench is the main user of the island. That’s where they store buses and things like that. So in this particular case\, you know\, they need access to move their equipment back and forth on a daily basis. So this would be one of the a passive floodgates sort of shown here in the conceptual cross section that deployed by buoyancy. Once there’s enough water \nYerba Buena SX80: approaching them. So while there would be issues for this\, if this gate was up\, it would impact access to Sam. Trans. The road that is outboard of that that is outside of the area. The airport’s control would be flooded as well\, because it’s actually lower elevation by a foot or so. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. In this particular case the floodgate would be protecting the airport. But you wouldn’t have access\, or you lose access previously for Samtrans\, and to that point Sam trans. Is working on its own sea level\, rise\, protection\, effort\, and would address these sorts of things in the future. And again would be a case where likely the need to close the gate would decrease \nYerba Buena SX80: in the future. With Sam Trans’s efforts. I would just say there has been conversations between Sfo and Samtrans to coordinate their efforts. Again\, we’re only showing this from a Clomar Fema perspective. Ultimately the goal would be to eliminate this from the project. If Sam\, trans. And Sfo’s project align \nYerba Buena SX80: and from a timing perspective. \nYerba Buena SX80: additionally there’s reach 4 which includes the Murph\, the marine emergency response facility. This is a place to store marine rescue vehicles that I think are primarily focused around\, you know\, emergency response to airplane issues out in the bay \nYerba Buena SX80: And so this is another case where\, again\, because of the desire to maintain access for all but the most extreme cases\, there would be a passive floodgate. Basically\, at the end of this pier\, approaching the facility you can see here under present conditions. Sorry wouldn’t need to be closed for high tides until you’re starting to get to about 3 feet of seal rise \nYerba Buena SX80: again\, that in that time period the mer facility itself might be would probably need to undergo its same sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: sea level rise protection\, and this is also the reach for that James mentioned before is the Coast Guard reach\, that they are also probably looking at raising the grade on the inboard side again as well\, so that this again is a gate to \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, Dot\, i’s and cross t’s from a clomar perspective under present day conditions. But you know we’ll change in the future and likely \nYerba Buena SX80: be less of a risk pathway in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: The last part on the on the operation side was just the details of the operations maintenance for these gates. 6 of the gates were passive gates. So self activating don’t need any power\, human intervention that one deployable gate that I talked about across North Access Road. But it’s also the one that’s highest and would least likely need to be deployed. \nYerba Buena SX80: All the gates would be managed by the Sfos facilities. Their paving and grounds group that manages basically everything that’s out there at the airport. They would be inspected\, annually\, repaired as they get needed. Follow vendor maintenance procedures\, make sure that staff is trained. If they are deployed either for training purposes or in an actual event. Make sure they’re cleaned and restaged after that \nYerba Buena SX80: and in during an actual operational deployment. Of course\, they would be sort of added into the things that would get checked to make sure that they’re not leaking \nYerba Buena SX80: what is the typical lifespan of a passive gate. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know the answer. I mean\, they’re built to be deployed outside\, I from roughly looking at. I think they’re mostly made out of fiberglass\, stainless steel and there’s I would guess the things they do have things like a few rubber gaskets in a few areas that I could guess would be something you might want to check every 10 years and maybe replace if they start to break down. \nYerba Buena SX80: a. Again. If you ask the manufacturer plenty long. \nYerba Buena SX80: But generally the idea with the maintenance program we would be replacing certain components and the idea we can extend that life through 50 years with our regular operation and maintenance\, or sorry? 65 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any other questions about the flood operations. \nYerba Buena SX80: I had a couple of questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: can you go to the slide that has the flood map with the precipitation and riverine \nYerba Buena SX80: is is that showing \nYerba Buena SX80: flooding extents assuming the pump stations are operational like that. They don’t lose power. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s assuming they’re operational. Yes. So if they did lose power. \nYerba Buena SX80: the flood extent could be greater than shown on the map. Yes\, okay. And then I just I feel compelled to comment on the portable generator. Just it just doesn’t seem like the best solution. And maybe maybe there’s a reason \nYerba Buena SX80: why\, like a kind of permanent installation of a generator co-located with the pump stations\, just seems like something that might be worth considering. \nYerba Buena SX80: at least for ones that \nYerba Buena SX80: are critical or or vulnerable to flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that would be one comment I have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Do you want to? Has there been any discussion with Fema about whether or not this meets their interior drainage criteria. Again\, we’ve presented this\, and they’ve accepted that again as far as redundant power. And they haven’t commented on that yet. I mean\, your point is \nYerba Buena SX80: a good one\, and I think we probably have to have some further discussion with Sfo about how this would be handled. How many portable generators does Sfo have? Could you supply all of the pump stations? Right? I can say again\, the interior drainage system has been in place for a very long period of time. These rain events are probably what it sees. More than any of these flood. Events were occurring so\, and we being a low line area\, if the pumps were out\, there would be \nYerba Buena SX80: some issues based on interior drainage. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure we can quite give. I I think it’s a good point. I just can’t speak to what that supposed plans are for that. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for the for I’m sorry if it’s on that same topic\, is it? Okay? Then\, in that case I’ll I’ll maybe I’ll chime in. So I mean\, Fema does require a backup system\, anyway\, right as part of the existing. So this would be a backup of a backup. Correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: I believe. Well\, I’ll have to look back again what their requirements are. But we definitely have presented the operation and maintenance\, and within the operations of that we outline exactly how Sfo is operating it currently and to date. We’re not fully through the process. But they have. That’s not been one of their comments or concerns. Yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, as far as I’m aware\, I think the backup \nYerba Buena SX80: is an alternative grid which is still electric and not propane or natural gas. \nYerba Buena SX80: or any other backup. And so maybe that \nYerba Buena SX80: would be good to know at some point internally. Yeah\, we’ll we’ll reach back\, or I could reach back to H. And Tb. And suffl counterparts on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? And then the one actively deployed gate would just just curious the reason why that one alone is active as opposed to passive. So we did study this a lot\, and it came down to the gap. It’s essentially crossing the roadway. There’s a spill point from our flood \nYerba Buena SX80: analysis. It’s a very as Matt presented at a higher point. But when you start looking at the future sea level rise and the Fema’s requirement of a 2 foot \nYerba Buena SX80: or one foot air gap it was below that point. So then we went through a whole series of concepts of \nYerba Buena SX80: how do we raise the grade here? Because we can’t put a flood wall across a permanent flood wall across the road. The road needs to remain open. We started looking at different options\, raising grade. There’s a off ramp coming off the freeway. It started to snowball pretty rapidly into impacts. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we started evaluating\, and in conversations with Sam Trans. Island and some other South San Francisco\, it became pretty apparent that they have flood protection programs that are going to tie in at essentially where our reach 2 ends right at Sam trans. Island. \nYerba Buena SX80: and this reach one will be behind all of that flood protection. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we felt that this solution\, although it does require active deployment. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s a stopgap until those future projects. Now\, if we are sitting here having this conversation in 2070\, and they never did anything in South San Francisco. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know that probably would have taken a different approach\, and maybe looked at more permanent passive area that would open itself. But given that the likelihood they’ll never need to deploy this. We felt this was the the kind of the best path forward to be honest\, to get through the Clomar Fema process. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and I assume that a requirement of that would be that there’s some kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: storm monitoring in place to identify those events in advance of when it has to be deployed as part of the Clomar package\, we’re required to submit an operation and maintenance guidance\, and we do have submitted that to fema how this would get deployed and what the process would be. And again they’re in review. I can’t say here they’ve accepted officially\, but so far they haven’t commented on that. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just have a little question. \nYerba Buena SX80: Towards the end of the design. Life looks like \nYerba Buena SX80: half a dozen gates are gonna open and close every day. Right? I mean\, that’s a couple 1\,000 openings and closings\, I would say. Most likely one. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Murph will be my suspicion in 2085. My expectation is\, Millbury will have introduced a flood protection along their shoreline \nYerba Buena SX80: South San Francisco and Sam Trans. Will have also by 2085. Otherwise they’re going to be. Their entire towns will be flooding on a very regular basis. So it’s really the Murph will be the only location \nYerba Buena SX80: if we’re thinking at end of project life. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m curious\, are there gates like this that are currently opening and closing every day? Are they pretty darn reliable for so generally they’re not something you want opening and closing every day\, but they have been Foster City. They have 2 of these gates as part of their flood protection\, which has been built\, we actually had a chance to tour it\, and this gates have been used quite extensively now\, being deployed in like back in New York. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s a lot of different cities that have around hospitals\, critical infrastructure. So it’s a. \nYerba Buena SX80: the technology is proven. So that’s why we selected that particular. It’s proven in the sense that they’re actually opening and closing on a semi somewhat regular basis. There are many openings and closings that have functioned properly correct under flood events again\, I would not recommend this if we were in a case where you’re on a daily tide\, and I understand in the future this is something that would be starting to creep in. If sea level rise at one and 200% chance. \nYerba Buena SX80: If that is the case\, you know\, I could imagine a future generation looking at that particular passive gate and looking at the vulnerability of its deployment \nYerba Buena SX80: on a regular basis. But as it stands right now\, yes\, this is a proven technology used at other projects. And again\, you have a chance to visit Foster City. It’s they have 2 of them on that site. \nYerba Buena SX80: Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry I missed this\, if you already said it. Where are there already? Emergency generators on site for each of the storm drain\, pump stations \nYerba Buena SX80: again. We’d have to get back to you on that one. I don’t know the exact appointment. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’re getting a head nod from Rinaldi behind us from Sfo. There we go. Yes\, you can introduce yourself. So Rinaldi Project Manager Sfo. So the airport actually interconnects to the high voltage transmission at 2 locations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, as the power is fed into the airport\, it actually is transformed from 1 15 kv. To 12 kv. And we operate a 12 Kv. System. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we have about 32 miles of cable. So that’s going away from the discussion here. But what I was gonna say was\, each of the stations can be affected multiple locations. So there’s a redundancy built into the electrical distribution system. We that we manage as an airport \nYerba Buena SX80: in addition to the belt and suspenders of the electrical generators. Some of it’s mobile\, but there are permanent ones\, too. Yeah. But anyway\, I think there is. There is a plan for resiliency and redundancy in the electrical system\, especially for a critical facility like \nYerba Buena SX80: our assets\, such as the outfalls and home stations which are primarily needed to \nYerba Buena SX80: collect and convey the storm water\, especially during storm events. \nYerba Buena SX80: So cause I’m imagining that in in the large earthquake scenario also\, the power will be out\, and that you would have to deploy the emergency generators to keep the pump stations running. And so it sounds like you have emergency generates for each \nYerba Buena SX80: of your storm drain pump stations. Is that right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Also\, I had a question\, are there any \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, during the these time frames when \nYerba Buena SX80: in these emergency scenarios \nYerba Buena SX80: where the pond stations could be out. And there’s flooding. Are there any basements \nYerba Buena SX80: or subsurface areas on the airport \nYerba Buena SX80: that people are in that could be vulnerable to flooding. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll \nYerba Buena SX80: I can give it a 1st attempt. And\, Ronaldo\, you can correct anything. Say\, but yeah\, there is like at that central parking garage at the center of the airport. That is a low point. So in theory. \nYerba Buena SX80: if you had the flood event and it got through like right now\, if you had the flood event 100 year flood event\, the expectation is the water could get into those areas. Yeah. But there’s there’s no people in those spaces. It’s actually a bunch of chillers and boilers for the facilities. So it’s not a habitable space. So there’s nobody in there. I think\, Rinaldi\, you previously told me. It’s more of an operational impact than a life safety impact like you would lose critical infrastructure to run the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, okay\, so there are. There are components of critical infrastructure in below grade areas. Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: How we doing with time\, Matt. \nYerba Buena SX80: do you want it with the break or without the break? \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think we yeah\, I don’t think we can take a break\, and and our board members or folks. If you need to go\, you need to go if we take the breakout then\, and we’ve used our contingency. We’re we’re on track\, but we gotta keep everything else to where \nYerba Buena SX80: we might make \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. I’m Judy Shaman from Geosyntech\, and I’m gonna \nYerba Buena SX80: excuse me. \nYerba Buena SX80: Address common number A\, that relates to \nYerba Buena SX80: the potential impact of the Spp on groundwater. And to address these comments we perform a quantitative assessment of potential changes in groundwater levels due to the Spp and Sea level rise\, using a screening level groundwater model for Sfo and its immediate vicinity. \nYerba Buena SX80: This analysis really focused on evaluating the differences between current groundwater condition and future groundwater condition\, taking into account sea level rise\, and then looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: 2 scenario with and without the Spp. To really look at the impact that the Spp may have on groundwater. \nYerba Buena SX80: The evaluation was based on a screening level\, steady state groundwater model using mud flow\, and the area I evaluate is shown here on the figure\, and it represents Sfo and its vicinity\, including the San Francisco Bay to the east\, and then we can see the proposed Spp as an orange line. \nYerba Buena SX80: The screening level model is \nYerba Buena SX80: is a simplified tool that can be used to evaluate the differences between current and future conditions\, but because of the simplifications. It doesn’t necessarily accurately represent the current condition and the groundwater elevations at Sfo. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look at the next slide \nYerba Buena SX80: cool. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this slide provide an overview of how the groundwater model is set up\, and so for the model layering. It represents the observed geology with artificial field\, with variable thickness that is overlying the young bay mud and the upper layered sediment that are below \nYerba Buena SX80: the bay area. The bay is represented with a specified head boundary condition\, and that’s shown in purple on the figure. \nYerba Buena SX80: And the values that I use are based on the current water levels at 3.3 2 feet and then increase to 3.8 2 feet to account for sea level. Rise in 2085 \nYerba Buena SX80: for the scenario with the proposed Spp. The subsurface barrier is represented with a hydraulic flow barrier that is \nYerba Buena SX80: along the reaches one through 15\, and is shown on in orange. Here on the figure\, and the barrier is specified in the field and 10 feet into the bay\, which\, as we heard previously from James\, that’s a design future of the proposed Spp. \nYerba Buena SX80: The Sfo. White Storm drain system that we just talked about and is shown here. The actual drains are shown with green lines here on the figure. This is represented with a drain boundary condition in the model where groundwater can infiltrate into the drain. When the groundwater elevation is above the drain elevation. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the amount of water that infiltrates into the drain is controlled by the drain conductance that is basically representing how leaky the drain might be. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we also represent an air recharge over the inland portion of the of the model. \nYerba Buena SX80: because we have some uncertainties in terms of how much recharge is occurring\, and how leaky\, or what is the conductance of the of the storm drain? We looked at 3 pairs of parameters\, or 3 combination for the recharge and the conductance of the drains \nYerba Buena SX80: to account for this uncertainty. And look at how those parameters may impact the results. We selected those 3 pairs of parameters based on \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at the the simulated groundwater elevations with the model\, and we wanted this to be consistent with what is currently observed at Sfo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Look at the next line. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we looked at 2 different metrics to evaluate the results. And this slide provide an overview of the results. For the 1st metric meaning the simulated granular level increase under future conditions as compared to current conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: And here we see the results on the images for the 3 pairs of recharge conductance parameters\, and then also for these 2 future conditions\, which are \nYerba Buena SX80: for all of them silver rise. But then\, without the subsurface barrier that’s on the left side\, and with a subsurface barrier\, and that’s on the right hand side. \nYerba Buena SX80: The colors indicate the simulated water level increase as compared again to future conditions from 0\, which are shown in blue to 3 feet\, which are shown in red. \nYerba Buena SX80: Based on these results\, we can see that the extent of the serrated groundwater level increase from the shoreline depends on the drain conductance\, and we can see it by comparing the different \nYerba Buena SX80: figures from top to bottom with a larger extent. \nYerba Buena SX80: for a smaller conductance\, and then the proposed Spp translated to result in less increase to future groundwater levels at Sfo as compared to future conditions where we take into account sea level rise\, but without the subsurface barrier\, and this can be seen by comparing the 2 columns for the figures. \nYerba Buena SX80: and finally\, more than half of the western portion of Sfo is not significantly influenced by silver Rise and the proposed Spp. And those are shown with the area in blue and light blue on the figures. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look at the next line. \nYerba Buena SX80: The other metric that we looked at for this evaluation was a simulated \nYerba Buena SX80: flow rates\, and here go back to the previous discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: We looked at both the simulate inflows into the drainage system\, and also the simulate flow from the bay into the field\, and for both of those flows those are lower with the proposed Spp. As compared to future conditions\, we still have arise\, but without this subsurface barrier. \nYerba Buena SX80: and while we\, it is anticipated that the ground that the groundwater infiltrating into the drainage system is going to increase \nYerba Buena SX80: the estimated increases which are shown here in highlighted in blue in the in the table for the case \nYerba Buena SX80: with with the Spp. Those values are less than 50 gallons per minute\, and are really negligible as compared to the capacity of the storm drain system. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look at the next line. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so to conclude\, the proposed stp is anticipated to result in less increase to future groundwater levels as compared to without the Spp subsurface barrier which is really limiting groundwater intrusion from the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: the increase in glomadar levels over more than half of the western portion of the airport\, considered to be less than one foot. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we can see that the influence of the sea level rise on groundwater is limited to westward\, due to the attenuation from the bay\, and also the existing storm drainage system that is providing some control \nYerba Buena SX80: the estimated water infiltration increase into the storm drainage system\, which is estimated to be less than 50 Gpm. Is negligible compared to the capacity of this system that is really designed to handle to handle big storm events \nYerba Buena SX80: based on this evaluation\, it is recommended that to monitor the groundwater elevation\, and also the infiltration of groundwater into the storm drain system to refine the understanding and also detect changes that may warrant some adaptive measures. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I think that’s that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did. \nYerba Buena SX80: I didn’t\, really. I read this this report\, and I didn’t really understand how \nYerba Buena SX80: the 50 gallons per minute\, how the infiltration \nYerba Buena SX80: in current conditions in the storm drain was assumed. Is it? Is it assuming a certain amount of like cracks in the pipes\, and a certain amount of head on the pipe based on its elevation. Or how does that work? Yeah. So how? How this is? If you go back to 3 slides before just to see the the drains. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: basically how this is set up. We don’t have a lot of detailed information on the on the condition of the storm drain system. So here it’s assumed that \nYerba Buena SX80: all of the trains have the same the same characteristics and the same conditions. And we assume\, based on the information that we had\, that the drains are 6 feet 6 feet below the ground surface\, and then we assume that they have a certain conductance\, or they have a certain \nYerba Buena SX80: leak ends\, and it’s the same for all of the drains. What is probably the case\, that some of them are more leaky\, and some of them may be less leaky. But here it’s assumed that it’s an average condition\, and then we are looking at when \nYerba Buena SX80: the groundwater is simulated to be above the elevation of the drain\, then the water is infiltrating into the drain\, and how much is infiltrating. Depend on how leaky this drain is. But this this process will occur everywhere where we have those green lines and where the groundwater elevation is above the bottom of the drain. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just out of curiosity. \nYerba Buena SX80: How? \nYerba Buena SX80: What area is subject to recharge from rainfall? I mean\, you got a lot of pavement. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the way I see it is\, the storm drains actually will feed the groundwater rather than the other way around in many situations. Isn’t that the case? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And here we applied research recharge kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: uniformly over the entire area\, and this recharge would take into account both recharge from precipitation\, and also any \nYerba Buena SX80: and any leakans from from the drain. \nYerba Buena SX80: And and here we that’s why we looked at 3 cases\, the case where very\, very low recharge only half an inch per year\, and then a case with higher recharge\, 3 and a half inches per per year\, and that would that would account both for again precipitation and leakage. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you were looking at it on an annual basis. You didn’t consider a little storm in middle of winter where everything’s saturated. Yeah\, that’s correct. This is looking at \nYerba Buena SX80: steady state conditions and then \nYerba Buena SX80: go ahead. I was just going to follow up on that. So the the calibration that was done for the combination of drain\, conductance\, and recharge shares was calibrated to like the Sfei Groundwater data set\, which is based on like the highest observed water levels in a series of wells in that local area. \nYerba Buena SX80: The length varies\, but it’s something like 20 ish years depending on which particular well record. So the the conditions that it was calibrated to was calibrated to the wet state conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that may answer\, perhaps part of my question. I’m out of curiosity. \nYerba Buena SX80: You got so many borings\, and and probably even monitoring wells. What is the elevation of the groundwater for summer and for wet weather out at the airport? Is it significantly below the pavement elevations\, Bob\, do you want to take this one? Or since you’ve been? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, we. We have installed some odometers\, and they’ve been monitored now for a couple of years. \nYerba Buena SX80: What what we find is that? \nYerba Buena SX80: typically\, the groundwater levels are essentially at mean sea level. \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: on on in in the runways. And and what have you? However\, we we do have good evidence of local conditions where you can have \nYerba Buena SX80: significant\, particularly in areas that are not paved where you can have significant seasonal fluctuations in in groundwater level \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: and and we we have seen situations \nYerba Buena SX80: which are near the storm systems stormwater systems which really suggests that locally there\, there is some \nYerba Buena SX80: connection and and infiltration into the stormwater system that’s lowering the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the water \nYerba Buena SX80: table. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I I guess the my general assessment is a feeling that \nYerba Buena SX80: it it it’s a the storm motor system is one that wasn’t designed to be a leaky system. It it happens to leak some in some places. And and you know. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s the the water balance that’s being done is is an interesting exercise\, but it’s it’s it’s probably\, you know\, just in the long run\, or in particular\, quite quite more complicated than \nYerba Buena SX80: than that. And \nYerba Buena SX80: and maybe a quick \nYerba Buena SX80: assessment would be just how often are the strong drain pumps running? \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, they’re probably not running all year round\, right? I mean\, probably just in the winters. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so that could be our answer. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again. They I’ve been out there. They do run occasionally in the summer dry season though. Maybe one of the 7 pumps together\, one of them will go off and drain out a little bit\, but they are running year round. Obviously they’re designed for the winter months. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that’s where you see the largest amount of use. So if they’re operating year round\, there is groundwater infilled\, so they are\, they are draining. So the groundwater is pretty close to the \nYerba Buena SX80: pavement\, elevations. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the\, to the drain\, to the drain elevation which\, based on information that we had from the storm drains. It was around 6 feet below ground surface on on average \nYerba Buena SX80: and just wanted to add on the \nYerba Buena SX80: the depths to groundwater around Sfo. It’s and we have it in the memo. It’s between 4 4 and 14 feet below ground surface. \nYerba Buena SX80: January. \nYerba Buena SX80: but \nYerba Buena SX80: ultimately \nYerba Buena SX80: the groundwater level is going to be the bay level. \nYerba Buena SX80: right? I mean\, this whole barrier business is just for instances where there’s a storm surge that yes\, there is a you know. I mean\, it’s it’s very much is low hydraulic contractivity. It’s not gonna react instantaneously on on the on the airport side. \nYerba Buena SX80: But ultimately your model considers the groundwater to be 3 feet higher than the sea level of today. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: If we go back to the previous slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. So here\, that’s where we we are seeing on the left hand side. If the subsurface barrier is not present\, then you would expect the groundwater level to be \nYerba Buena SX80: 3 feet higher than today\, really\, along the in this red area\, along the edge of the along the shoreline. And then this this value would decrease as you go westward towards the blue area\, and that would be the \nYerba Buena SX80: increase in groundwater as compared to the groundwater elevation that we see today. \nYerba Buena SX80: and some of this \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the difference of why it doesn’t increase everywhere by 3 and a half feet\, which is a increase in the along the bay is due to the presence of the storm drainage system that is controlling. How much water the storm drain is a sink. So it’s going to. \nYerba Buena SX80: Whatever your pump is. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s going to be at that level. But ultimately it seems like that system needs to be working 24\, 7 \nYerba Buena SX80: to keep it at that level. So so this gets kind of the next point that Jen was referring to before about how much would it have to be referring. So this was this idea of quantifying the amounts. \nYerba Buena SX80: So you’ll see. The the 500 Gpm. That I was quoting before is from the case of sensitivity. 3. Which is the highest recharge and drain conductance. So I was rounding up the 460\, so that the model is saying that \nYerba Buena SX80: for the highest cases of recharge that you need to reproduce observed groundwater levels. \nYerba Buena SX80: The recharge. The rate flowing through the storm drain system today \nYerba Buena SX80: with just due to groundwater is about 500 Gpm. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then it’s saying that these are the increases. Without the Spp it would increase up to about 620 to say\, take that case\, but if you build the Spp\, then it’s only going to increase \nYerba Buena SX80: by about 10\, because you have that cutoff wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: So yes\, it would mean that the storm drain system is currently playing a role in the groundwater elevations there. \nYerba Buena SX80: The rates at which it’s inflowing all the time. In 24\, 7\, but the inflow rates are relatively low on the order of 500 Gpm. Per day for current conditions. If you build the Spp slightly higher. But this cutoff well is relatively effective. So the relative change in inflow to the system just due to groundwater and the higher bay water levels is pretty small in a time. Frame. Yes\, in in like today. Versus tomorrow. Yes\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: in 80 years\, 50 years\, 100 years\, it’s going to be at the level of the bay. Yes\, I’m not following this business of cutoff. It’s not a cut off. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. Well\, if if you have a cutoff\, but you have a very slow infiltration rate\, and you’re removing it from the other side. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, that’s what I’m saying. So it wants to come up to the level that is going. It’s the increase that is being considered. \nYerba Buena SX80: And if your pump is at a level that this water reaches it\, it has to pump 24\, 7\, basically\, because you’re you’re not going to drain the San Francisco Bay\, are you? No\, you’re not. But right. But the they currently already they don’t pump 24\, 7\, because the wet well holds more than 500 gallons right between the accumulated wet wells of all of them. \nYerba Buena SX80: So the pumps don’t go on all the time. They go on to accommodate the present day in the extreme case\, roughly\, 500 Gpm. The pumps occasionally turn on\, even throughout the dry period. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you build also the cutoff wall\, the relative change of that\, even with sea level\, rise in the high rails\, we relatively small\, so the pumps may need to turn on somewhat more frequently \nYerba Buena SX80: to accommodate that additional inflow. But the amount is going is the increase with the Spp. Is only 10 Gpm. From 460 gpm\, so they’re managing it now\, with occasional pumping throughout the year \nYerba Buena SX80: by building the Spp. And by cutting off the inflow from the bay. They will have to manage slightly more\, but only 10 gpm. More. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a hard time. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I mean I I the way I’m understanding. Ramin’s point is that \nYerba Buena SX80: you are not fully cutting off the flow. Right? There is seepage around the embedment. You are reducing the energy that is pushing the water out\, but the water is still going to come right. You’re just slowing it down. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you don’t have the \nYerba Buena SX80: the the wall \nYerba Buena SX80: right. I mean the flow rate into the storm drain system is going to be faster. \nYerba Buena SX80: right? But how much faster? Right? And not much. I mean\, I don’t know. I think I think you need to think about this. The system we’re dealing with here is we’ve got bay mud underneath. You’ve got pavement on the top. You’ve got a cutoff through the fill that’s going in there\, that yeah? Sure\, the cutoff can be a little leaky. \nYerba Buena SX80: The indications from the modeling are that \nYerba Buena SX80: that the storm drain system is having an impact\, whether it’s 10 Gpm. Or an order of magnitude higher or whatever there\, there will be some additional need down the road\, and we’ve recommended that there be monitoring of the system in order to see. But there doesn’t appear to be a critical. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know that that a critical thing where you need to go fix this right now or this\, you know where the or the airport’s going to go underwater. We have a system that is carrying groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: out of there right now. The change seems to be relatively mild. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so we’ve said\, we think you need to monitor this system as we as we go along and adjust if you need to. \nYerba Buena SX80: if if it if you see something different. But yeah\, so you’re going to need to to pump more sure. But how much more we got bay mud underneath\, and we got. We’ve got sheet piles through the fill\, and we’ve got pavement. We’ve got all these things. There’s it’s it’s a monitorable system\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, I think you know\, maybe to Rameen’s point. There. You know just what is the elevation of the airport \nYerba Buena SX80: tarmac and most other places \nYerba Buena SX80: compared to the future ground level right compared to the future bay water level. And you said\, it’s about mean sea level \nYerba Buena SX80: is about where the groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: is that? Yeah? 3 feet to it. Are you above that? I think you are \nYerba Buena SX80: on the pavement elevations above plus 6 around the airport. Most places majority of them are. Yes\, there’s a couple of low\, lying\, grassy areas. But yeah. And and again\, I think in theory\, if you turn the pumps off today and never had a pump\, you’re correct. The groundwater will eventually reach a stable point. \nYerba Buena SX80: But the fact is\, they’re gonna maintain the pumps. We’re gonna install the sheets\, and it’s a way of managing \nYerba Buena SX80: that increasing ground or sea level rise and the increase in water elevation in the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s very similar to. Again\, if you go to New Orleans they have pumps working all the time because they’re already below water. That’s how they often will manage this problem. It’s just eventually Sfo will have to be slightly similar. But they have an existing pump system that’s proven that \nYerba Buena SX80: it it seems to be pretty effective\, but needs monitoring. Yeah. But you’ve gone through your fema studies\, and the barrier is not \nYerba Buena SX80: a seepage barrier? Is it being designed as seepage control barrier with certain amounts of pumping? \nYerba Buena SX80: And is that \nYerba Buena SX80: baked into your design criteria? Again\, the as you mentioned runways. The critical infrastructure is all above. Even when you start looking at sea level rise. But \nYerba Buena SX80: to assist with this\, we’ve driven the sheets lower to act as an effective way to help mitigate this \nYerba Buena SX80: in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: Because if we stop the sheets in the fill\, the flow rates as presented are much higher. So that’s why the recommendation to go into the young bay months \nYerba Buena SX80: here\, I just wanted to add on\, why those flow are are much are very low is because groundwater flow is is very low. The gradient is very\, very flat\, and the hydraulic conductivity of both the field and \nYerba Buena SX80: really the young Bay mud\, where groundwater from the bay\, with the present of the of the subsurface by air\, has to go through the young bay mud. And so that’s creating a very low\, a very small inflow\, and that’s it needs to be continuous. But those continuous pumping would be very\, very low magnitude \nYerba Buena SX80: if I may\, but your evaluation here? \nYerba Buena SX80: Does it have time element in it? Because ultimately\, again. \nYerba Buena SX80: if you say the groundwater is mean\, sea level\, mean sea level is where the \nYerba Buena SX80: level of the bay is on average. So if in 50 years it’s going to be 3 feet higher\, it’s going to be 3 feet higher on the on the everywhere. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s where I I’m not following the yeah\, I think if yeah\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: there are currently areas around the bay which are below mean sea level and are dry for a substantial portion of the year. A lot of those are either managed by local \nYerba Buena SX80: stormwater systems nearby\, or they’re managed by. There’s enough evaporation that you don’t see groundwater building up\, because you basically can remove the water faster than an inflows. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so this is just a large case like that of the other factors that are removing the water from the basin that is Sfo. And and the more depressed basin it will become relative with sea level rise \nYerba Buena SX80: is you’re able to remove the water faster than it accumulates. If if all the pumps went off and and you had an extended period\, you would lose it. But \nYerba Buena SX80: I wasn’t. I’m not talking about that. All I’m saying is \nYerba Buena SX80: in your evaluation \nYerba Buena SX80: is\, does it consider \nYerba Buena SX80: that the \nYerba Buena SX80: level of the groundwater \nYerba Buena SX80: at 50 years from now is 3 feet higher than what you consider today. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it is 3 feet higher at the along the show\, and then there is a grade. There will be a gradient inward based on. So it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s currently. \nYerba Buena SX80: let’s say it’s currently at \nYerba Buena SX80: 0 mean sea level. And then it’s gonna raise 3 feet along the floor. The show. And that’s gonna create a gradient. And that’s what we are seeing in this \nYerba Buena SX80: in this figure. And here I want to point. There is no time element\, because all of those are steady state. So it’s really assuming that it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s continuous\, and it’s for an indefinite amount of time. And so that creates this gradient. And then this gradient is needs to be \nYerba Buena SX80: high enough so that water \nYerba Buena SX80: water would infiltrate into the into the Bay mode\, and it would be at at steady state and at equilibrium. \nYerba Buena SX80: Was \nYerba Buena SX80: with the inland portion \nYerba Buena SX80: is that because the groundwater and ground surface elevation is higher on the land side. \nYerba Buena SX80: as you get farther away from the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: because this is\, if I understand this correctly. These are deaths\, not elevation correct. \nYerba Buena SX80: So these are. These are water level increases. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it’s so level. So it but doesn’t \nYerba Buena SX80: connect to an elevation. There. There isn’t\, I mean\, there isn’t a groundwater set groundwater within the airport\, right as a boundary condition for the model. It’s you’ve got the bay on the outside\, which is set 3 and a half feet higher. \nYerba Buena SX80: and you’ve got \nYerba Buena SX80: a boundary condition on the on\, you know\, from the upland flow from west to east. I don’t know the specifics of that\, but once you get into the airport\, you have this pervasive train network \nYerba Buena SX80: right? And so that’s so. So it’s so. That’s so. What’s happening. I believe I’m not the modeler. But I talked to Julie a lot about this \nYerba Buena SX80: is that is\, that when you’re coming from from west to east towards towards the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: It doesn’t take much capacity in the drain system to handle that amount of flow right when you’re coming from east to west. You’ve got that 3 and a half foot higher at the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: but is now\, you know\, is now flowing well\, even without the the cutoff wall in there it dies down quickly\, because it comes in at a certain rate through the permeability of the soil\, and it gets into the drainage system. \nYerba Buena SX80: And that’s so\, so the drainage system picks it up. But it doesn’t pick it up as quickly because you know. But but if you have the sheet file walls in there that limits\, how much can come in from the bay? So that’s what you’re seeing is\, that is is where the water is getting into the to the drainage system\, and the drainage system has so much more capacity than the amount of flow that’s coming in. \nYerba Buena SX80: I have a problem with defining it as a flow. \nYerba Buena SX80: When your groundwater level is here and your drain is down here\, it has to bring it down to that level continuously\, because that’s the head \nYerba Buena SX80: that it’s not a flow. It’s not like a. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Damn cut off kind of a thing that you have a head\, and you’re talking about flow. This is \nYerba Buena SX80: everything going up so it has to pump \nYerba Buena SX80: to get it down to whatever that the pump level is right. \nYerba Buena SX80: can I interject? Sure? I I think I I understand your point. \nYerba Buena SX80: and and I completely agree with you. If there were no drains whatsoever. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: if the bay raises 3 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: the ground everywhere was raised. There is no question. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, what they’re what they’re saying\, and please correct me if I’m wrong it was a they are including. \nYerba Buena SX80: They are not fixing a boundary condition \nYerba Buena SX80: on the west side. They’re not saying that the the elevation stays at 0. \nYerba Buena SX80: They are. They are mauling the entire basic. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. They are raising the water level. And with the current conditions. Which again\, one of the things that you may ask is\, are the recharges for the current conditions remain the same for these next 60 years? And that may not be the case. That’s a different story. But let’s assume that it is the case. They are not fixing the boundary condition with the West. They’re having the flow. \nYerba Buena SX80: They’re having this\, and they have the drainage condition. They have the drainage and those strains. The existence of those drains is enough to keep that level at that elevation. \nYerba Buena SX80: That that’s what I understand. If those things were not there\, I have to. If they were giving a different answer. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know I will strangle them myself. So the level will be completely the same. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And we are talking about flow\, because basically\, what is happening is that the drainage system is slightly decreasing. The groundwater elevation within the Sfo\, and that creates a gradient between what is in the bay and what is in Sfo. And this gradient is equilibrating when the gradient is high is high enough so that the inflow into the bay correspond to how much\, then\, is \nYerba Buena SX80: coming out of the drainage system\, and that’s where we reach this equilibrium between with the groundwater elevation \nYerba Buena SX80: within the Sfo. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, since I’m the modeler here\, let me let me come back to this thing. I’m not worried about the Bay mud. I’m sorry that’s a red Herring Bay mud has low hydraulic conductivity. Yes\, at steady state it’s gonna bring in certain amount of water. What I’m interested in is the boundary condition on the west. Okay from basically San Bruno. \nYerba Buena SX80: because\, as was mentioned there\, the water level is going to rise with the the base level basically will be the bay so 3 feet higher. So your recharge boundary is going to have 3 feet higher head at that point. How much water are you? Were you able to calibrate it for how much water you’re getting across that western boundary? \nYerba Buena SX80: I know we we didn’t change what was coming across the western boundary. Okay. But there\, there\, that water level has to respond to the sea level in all of Millbrae and San Bruno just to check. I think I brought the map with the I believe there is a fixed boundary condition along the west side\, where the purple line is\, and I think it was something on the order of like 10 feet based on local well data. So \nYerba Buena SX80: across the airport you have a rough gradient of 10 feet on the west to 3 feet at the bay\, so that you already have a gradient. It has a gradient\, and it has flow. So if you took every\, you know\, just a very simple model\, you’d have it wedging out to the bay right? And the stormwater system currently pulls it down a little bit \nYerba Buena SX80: effectively\, right? Right? And now you’re gonna raise the bay 6\, you know\, from about 3\, 3 and a half feet to 6 feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: but you still keep the inland boundary at 10 feet\, which is\, that’s what I have a problem with\, because the inland boundary will go up as well. That’s what people don’t understand your groundwater overall. The regional groundwater is going to go up as the bay goes up\, and I think that’s probably where \nYerba Buena SX80: where Ramin was having a problem is that you know you’re raising the regional water table. You have to think about that. I’m not. I’m not worried that the strong drain is not strong enough\, that I’m not worried. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if you’re thinking about modeling the original response\, you also have to consider the regional response of the water. Yeah. So there has been. Regional work has been done. The beef is at all work. It’s part of the cosmos modeling. And we’ve looked at that\, and that has been like a water-based scale that goes up to the watersheds. And we’ve looked at those in terms of differencing \nYerba Buena SX80: the amount of change that occurs\, and what you see when you do the difference in those elevations\, because I think there’s some issues with that groundwater model in terms of its absolute amounts. You see the same kind of pattern that we’re seeing here\, that the ring of rise is very much constrained to\, only like within a thousand feet or so of the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: So raising. And so that’s a full Usgs\, you know you could. So so it’s I think\, if you’re upslope enough. Right? It doesn’t matter what the bay \nYerba Buena SX80: changes. \nYerba Buena SX80: Like\, I understood\, yeah\, I understand. But here we are\, Bayshore Freeway. We are not upslope. Okay? And so the point is that there the water level is going to be higher. Okay? I mean\, Caltrans is having problems where the drains are blowing up in major storms\, because wherever they have an underpass they don’t have enough capacity because nobody thought about it. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it is a standing problem. You know. We had orchards there. A long time ago people were using groundwater. We no longer use groundwater. All I’m saying is that when you do this I’m not worried from everything you say you have the capacity. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if you’re building a model like this\, you do have to consider the regional response locally. You cannot use the Usgs. I’m sorry I love Usgs\, but their regional models are just that they’re regional. They don’t really tell you what’s happening locally\, Nick. It won’t go up 3 and a half feet\, though. Right? Go up a foot 9 inches. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I mean\, is there some number that you suggest that they increase the west boundary by. Well\, I think it’s just matter. As I said\, I think the capacity you have shown\, because the hydraulic conductivity of the fill is not infinite\, and you know you consider that. But I would certainly consider \nYerba Buena SX80: looking at what happens if the water level goes up on the you know\, on the San Bruno\, the you know\, on the west side\, and what it does to the overall. You say that there is a basically a 7 foot gradient right now. \nYerba Buena SX80: what if the gradient stays the same? What I gather is in that model? You? You assume that the gradient decreases because the sea level comes up. But actually\, what if you just assume that the gradient stays the same? \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s that’s all I’m saying. \nYerba Buena SX80: And if there’s a gradient from the west towards this new wall\, wouldn’t it pile up behind the wall as well it could conceptually\, if there were no conceptually. But the drain is already doing its business. Yeah. So yes\, it would if there is no drainage. \nYerba Buena SX80: The point is that there’s a huge network of French drains\, essentially\, that are keeping it from rising above the bottom of the French drains. Yeah\, I mean\, it’s big. I mean\, the French drains are leaky storm drains which are not supposed to leak\, but they do\, and that I mean\, that’s the assumption. And that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: observed\, standard practice. It’s the way these pipes work. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And it’s just what I thought we can. \nYerba Buena SX80: that definitely can be a sensitivity case to to look at that\, but wanted to point out that because the the gradient is very flat and that’s consistent with what is what is observed. The the flow from the west side is is also very\, is very small\, and and a lot of the \nYerba Buena SX80: the inflow\, release from the assume arrow\, recharge\, and then from \nYerba Buena SX80: and then we still have arise from the flow from from the bay\, so would it be a simple sensitivity. Analysis just to like Nick suggested. Raise the grade\, keep the gradient the same. So you’re raising the west side 3 and a half feet. \nYerba Buena SX80: and instead of less than 50 gallons a minute\, it’s gonna be less than 70 gallons a minute\, or something like that. \nYerba Buena SX80: or still less than 50\, probably. Still. \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess I would just note that \nYerba Buena SX80: based on what we’re seeing now\, with the 3 and a half foot rise against on the on the base Bay side. If we if we raise things a little bit on the west side. \nYerba Buena SX80: we might see a little bit of an effect on the west side\, but pretty far away from the wall. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, and it’ll be picked up by those 1st drains\, and it’s it’s gonna have a pretty minor effect on the overall. So \nYerba Buena SX80: oh\, maybe I’ll just say that. \nYerba Buena SX80: When I was part of the what is it? The San Francisco sea level rise and flood Hazards committee \nYerba Buena SX80: groundwater inundation was a phenomenon that we were looking at\, and I wish Chris May was here because she was leading that \nYerba Buena SX80: so I would. \nYerba Buena SX80: I\, I think\, recommend that you do look at this as a sensitivity study. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I don’t know what the con \nYerba Buena SX80: conductivity\, or whatever that the the term is that brings the water in on the the west border or the boundary condition. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I but I think it is worth. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, satisfying the the Board’s curiosity. Here \nYerba Buena SX80: 3 and a half foot rise on the West End would be an upper bound that one could have possibly imagined. I think right? \nYerba Buena SX80: And so it’s gonna be a 9 inches foot. I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you can do it on your iphone. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, we are at 4 30. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I don’t think there’s a plan B for for us \nYerba Buena SX80: and going past 5. Right? Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, can we? What do we have left? \nYerba Buena SX80: We? We have 2\, we have subsidence. And the seismic monitoring. \nYerba Buena SX80: the presentation for both of those we think are relatively quick. 4 to 6 min. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, we. We still have to do public comment to make this a meeting. Right? So \nYerba Buena SX80: subscience is the one that’s come up the most. \nYerba Buena SX80: or has come up before the the \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean we can do it\, whichever order you want if we are going to cut off. No\, I think subsidence would be the the one to get to next. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, you get to hear from me again. This is Chris Hunt\, Chris Hunt\, with Geosyntech. I’m a principal geotechnical engineer in the Oakland in the Oakland office. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the question was\, what is the expected amount of land subsidence that could cause the proposed wall to sink over the life of the project. The way the approach really took at this was just kind of what is the amount of subsidence that the that we are seeing at the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what will be project out to this to 2085. \nYerba Buena SX80: We didn’t want to focus on Reach 7 where they’re doing new construction\, new design. And they’re they’re handling all that. It’s it’s we just focused on. Kind of what do we project for the future settlement at the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, the fills are over 50 years old\, and the last major fill was over 50 years old. So so there’s there’s there’s 3 sources of data. There’s some satellite. There’s 1. There’s a base station shown in blue on there which has satellite data. \nYerba Buena SX80: There are set. There’s a there’s a whole series of benchmarks around the airport\, and we received data from a few different years. We focused in on \nYerba Buena SX80: the 2012 and 2015 sets of survey data and then towel. Recently did a ground validation survey at the end of 2023\, with with points all over the airport. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we we use that data at the at those benchmark locations. So we have one base station with a good\, a really good data set. And we have\, we have a few years of data at the 5 red benchmark locations. So if you go to the next slide. \nYerba Buena SX80: so so all those those black circles on there\, that’s the satellite kind of GPS data. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what it shows. This is a\, this is a a linear timescale that that we’re showing here. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but between 2011\, and the end of 2022. So right about the right\, about right\, about the start of 2023\, \nYerba Buena SX80: we had about 3.3 and a quarter inches of settlement that occurred. \nYerba Buena SX80: We fit a a log linear. \nYerba Buena SX80: best fit line through that through that data\, because this is\, it’s 50 years since they’ve had any settlement\, any any and any real fill placement. So this is secondary compression\, which is an exponential decay \nYerba Buena SX80: process. So the if we look at that as a just as a linear. In the last few years\, between between 2014 and 2220\, 22. It’s been going about point 2 little over point 2 inches a year. \nYerba Buena SX80: But if we do that log linear fit to that\, and we forecast it out to 2085\, we get out to about 6 inches total\, but that’s only about 2 and a half\, 2.7 inches over. Then\, you know\, out to 2085. Chris\, I have a quick question. Is that projection out 60 years \nYerba Buena SX80: just based on this curve? Fit \nYerba Buena SX80: log\, linear line? Or is that based on? If you just extend the T in your secondary compression calculation\, it’s it’s the it’s the fit. It’s the it’s the linear. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s the linear extension out. So if you put T equals 60 more years. \nYerba Buena SX80: does it look about like this also? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, well\, you’re going to get a look\, you mean\, am I gonna get more settlement\, or or what do you? What do you mean \nYerba Buena SX80: if I have a different T. \nYerba Buena SX80: So this is based on a curve fit. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think you also at some point talked about using an alpha value\, secondary compression value\, and which I have\, which I have in 2 slides. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: so this is the one. This is the base station GPS data which we get. We get the A forecast of about about another 3 inches out to 2085. We go to the next slide. We have the survey data \nYerba Buena SX80: where we have measured settlement. From the 1st data point we had was 2012\, and the last one was 2023. \nYerba Buena SX80: So we’ve had one to 3 and a half inches of settlement between those between those 2 dates. If we project each one of those out following that\, you know\, giving each one of them a log linear fit out there. We we get about \nYerba Buena SX80: another \nYerba Buena SX80: 3.1 1.4 to 3.7 inches between the different benchmarks over those next next 6 years I’ll just point out that the range. That linear fit over the last few years is 0 point 1 2 inches per year and point 3 2 inches 2.3 2 inches per year\, with an average of 0 point 2 1 so very similar to what the satellite data was showing us\, that point about 0 point 2 inches per year. \nYerba Buena SX80: but the exponential decay only gets us another 4 inches or so out another 60 years. If we look the next slide\, we look at the kind of fundamental principles and some lab data\, we\, we turned each one of those forecasts into a strain rate based on the thickness of the bay mud. At each one of those benchmark locations. \nYerba Buena SX80: And what you see in that table. 2. So this C. Epsilon\, Alpha number as geotechs all know. That’s basically a strain\, a strain rate in in log time\, space\, but that range in in table\, in table\, 2 in the bottom\, right corner of table 2 shows that \nYerba Buena SX80: that those strain rates are 0 point 0 0 4 to 0 point 0 0 1 with a mean of point 0 0 7. As those C. Epsilon alpha. If we go to that Adx study that Bob was talking about earlier\, where they looked at soil properties\, they did. They did a lot of lab tests. And if we look at the C alpha values that they measured in the lab from 0 point 0 1 to 0 point 0 3\, and the equivalent void ratios from 1.1 to 1.8\, all within the stress range of interest for the bay mud\, we get a very similar answer. We get \nYerba Buena SX80: C. Epsilon\, Alpha\, 0 point 0 0 4 to 0 point 0 1 2. With a best estimate of 0 point 0 0 8\, which gives us so we’re saying that the survey data and the geotechnical data lab data is telling us the same rates of strain out here. So we thought we thought that was good confirmation. So I think the last slide after that just kind of summing it up. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve got consistent between survey and and geotech tests. We’ve got recent rates of settlement going to be at the point 1 2 to 0 point 3 2\, with a mean of 0 point 2 1 inches per year\, but these are going to reduce over the long term. We forecast that out\, and along the perimeter we see one and a half to 4 inches of settlement through 2085\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Obviously\, this needs to be considered. That\, there’s gonna be a few more inches of settlement out there\, and in places where you’re actually gonna add new load\, add\, fill. Do other things like that. You need to. You need to do the actual analysis. And that would be part of that design build process. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it’s it’s pretty. It’s a pretty limited amount of settlement for a thick bay mud site\, and it’s because we haven’t put any major fill out there for over 50 years. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I understand there was some work along the perimeter \nYerba Buena SX80: of the airport\, right? So going back. So could this be a relic of some of the construction work in terms of raising. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, depending on how close your your base station is to the perimeter where work was done. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s the I mean. So so the \nYerba Buena SX80: geotechnical settlement you have. Primary settlement and secondary settlement and primary is the kind of the it’s not always short term. It depends on how thick that layer of bay mud is\, but you have more settlement early on in response to a load\, and then you get this long\, exponential decay\, which is what we’re what we’re seeing here\, and that that satellite data \nYerba Buena SX80: matched really nicely with this concept of kind of that\, that exponential decay. So we just we think it’s just secondary compression. And it’s just going to go on. It’s just going to keep getting lower and lower and lower over over time. It’s just a log\, linear. \nYerba Buena SX80: straight\, straight relationship. \nYerba Buena SX80: Hi\, Dilip\, can you clarify the question about what work was done. I mean\, I’m starting to see 3 inches of settlement that occurred between 2011 and 2022. There was no fill place in the airport at all. Yeah\, I think the most recent set of work that was on our perimeter. Yeah\, I don’t think there’s any work. \nYerba Buena SX80: The sheet piles were installed\, probably in the nineties. That was it. The vinyl sheet piles that we have. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, but I don’t think there’s any \nYerba Buena SX80: work on the perimeter. There were emergency repairs done. But you know that was at the edge of the the 19th \nYerba Buena SX80: runaways. That was it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: Any other \nYerba Buena SX80: good source of science? I think we’re good to go. Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: for this last one\, can I? Maybe it’s a last\, but not here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Satellite data. You know. I’m I’m separating subsidence from vertical land motion. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know there have been some studies\, I think lately that we have seen where they’ve tried to \nYerba Buena SX80: isolate and understand what’s the vertical land motion \nYerba Buena SX80: separate from\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: consolidation due to \nYerba Buena SX80: due to due to fill \nYerba Buena SX80: the satellite picks up all of that also. Right? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, so I didn’t visit the site. But my understanding is that is a \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s. It’s a base station with elevation collected on a daily or at least weekly\, I think\, with every day. Same point. How’s that elevation changing based on? \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s Gnss. Which I think is also the same same\, essentially a generic name for GPS in this case\, probably. But I’m not. I’m not a surveyor\, so it’s capturing the vertical settlement of that base at that base station location. At whatever the point where it’s measuring\, it is right? So it’s ectonic activity plus secondary compression. Right? That’s what I was trying. Well\, it’s whatever is called yeah. All vertical movement would be captured in that. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I would just like to throw one thing in\, and we don’t need to discuss it at all. But \nYerba Buena SX80: you got 10 or 12 years of data and extrapolating it \nYerba Buena SX80: 60 more years. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s a long extrapolation. If I look at the the your satellite data. \nYerba Buena SX80: I would be happier with a slightly \nYerba Buena SX80: do do a different logarithmic curve. That \nYerba Buena SX80: gives it more settlement\, I think. Just \nYerba Buena SX80: eyeball curd fitting it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m not sure. I trust these numbers. I’m not sure that it matters much\, but just \nYerba Buena SX80: the the memo has it in in in semi log space. You can see what the curve fit is. Sure you could. You could\, I mean\, if you went \nYerba Buena SX80: for the high end at the at the you know in in the\, in the early stages\, and a low end you could come up with a with a longer line\, I guess. \nYerba Buena SX80: When we looked at the different benchmarks\, and it all came into the same general area. It was still a matter of a few inches. \nYerba Buena SX80: So\, Chris\, do you have a plot where you superimpose your \nYerba Buena SX80: using the \nYerba Buena SX80: empirical approach to the secondary settlement. \nYerba Buena SX80: to the \nYerba Buena SX80: satellite data that \nYerba Buena SX80: well\, so what I what I had was those tables\, where I looked at the thickness of the bay mud at the base station\, and used that to come up with the strain rate and the strain rates were about the same. I didn’t. I didn’t then try to plot that. Oh\, yeah\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll just say that I think the satellite data. There’s 2 sets. There’s the GPS satellite data\, right? And I think people are also referring to some more recent insar satellite data that’s been used to detect elevations. And I’ll just say that \nYerba Buena SX80: that information\, I think\, is regional. I haven’t seen it locally validated at the airport\, which you would do by ground truthing it with local elevation. So basically\, instead of the satellite data\, that’s regional data. If you wanted to ground truth that at the airport you would go find the base stations. \nYerba Buena SX80: the benchmarks\, and those surveys like we’ve done here. And you’d find the GPS data. If you have that collected daily\, and you’d compare that to the satellite data from the insar data. So you know\, we know that there’s other data set out there. But this was to try to \nYerba Buena SX80: provide local \nYerba Buena SX80: measurements from what was collected locally. Not not sort of a regional\, remote\, sensing approach. \nYerba Buena SX80: it seems 3 inches in 11 years. That’s a lot for secondary\, it seems to me \nYerba Buena SX80: any lights you can share shed on that. It. \nYerba Buena SX80: It was a it it as a geotechnical engineer. I thought this was an amazing data set to have. No\, no\, this is a great \nYerba Buena SX80: field level consolidation test. That’s good. But it seems\, after 50 years. For 11 years\, 3 inches. That’s if you if you go to table. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that last the table in there. So at the base station \nYerba Buena SX80: we estimated 35 feet of of young bay mud under there. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it’s a pretty small relative to the thickness of the bay mud. But yeah\, I mean\, it’s certainly not something that a normal structural engineer would want to design a new building on with 3 inches of. \nYerba Buena SX80: But that’s I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: But but if this is\, in fact\, some residual primary consolidation or tail end of primary consolidation. \nYerba Buena SX80: It’s gonna the the rate will decay even faster than if this is actually secondary. So this is\, I really don’t think it’s primary from what? From what we’re looking at\, though. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean. \nYerba Buena SX80: I just don’t know what the driver would be. I’m saying if it were\, then your calculation becomes a conservative one. Yeah\, yeah. Okay\, yes\, I would just say\, going back fundamentally to the flood wall as a structure\, these settlements are not a concern. There’s\, and again\, the vertical settlement. It should slide right by the sheet. \nYerba Buena SX80: We have plenty of extra height on it with the Fema fema free board. So ultimately. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, additional settlements. Long term is not going to impact the flood protection of the project. Yeah\, I was going to. Actually\, when when did it. Final comment\, I guess\, on this. I think that the \nYerba Buena SX80: the subsidence \nYerba Buena SX80: report that you submitted \nYerba Buena SX80: alludes to\, and Chris mentioned that you you were paying attention to everything except for 7\, which is where new fill is going to be placed\, which is where primary will be initiated. \nYerba Buena SX80: Just to make sure that you know\, we think that \nYerba Buena SX80: primary needs to be looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: And there we have a much different approach. Again\, we’re gonna address the settlements directly in the construction. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it will make a little bit of a difference in needing to over Bill. And you’re doing. I know you’re doing some surcharge\, and I think wicking also \nYerba Buena SX80: correct cause. We identified that as a definitely an issue. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: James\, just a clarification\, since I’m not a geotechnical engineer on your comment? \nYerba Buena SX80: As the soil settles\, does the wall height settle with it? Or is the soil settling again? We’d have to study again where in the soil column. If it’s going to have some down drag\, or if the whole soil mass is settling\, if the whole mass is going down the expectation\, the wall might come down a little bit\, but again given the wall height. Given the Freemore fema free board. Given some of these uncertainties on sea level rise\, it’s all within \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: acceptable levels. If we’re losing a couple inches on top plus\, there is some future adaptation. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, extensions of the wall. Again\, as much as I wouldn’t like to at the end of the service life. If you had to put a concrete cap on this\, you could and gain another\, you know easily a foot to 2 feet of wall height\, if necessary\, in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: I again\, from a structural capacity of putting a lollipop concrete block on there from a seismic. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will sleep very well. It’s not a problem. It’s not again. As long as you don’t pile up a bunch of soil and has become a retaining wall. Then that’d be a different story \nYerba Buena SX80: understood. But where we’re at on the DC ratios\, I’m just not sweating it like it’s I’ve I’ve designed walls for retaining much larger loads than this. And you know there\, this is pretty much holding back air most of the time. So \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, let let\, can we do the seismic instrumentation in \nYerba Buena SX80: 5 min? I think so\, Jackie\, you ready. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Yes\, I can. So hi everyone. My name is Jackie Almond. I’m a senior geotechnical engineer with Geosyntech. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): I’m here to talk about the strong motion instrumentation\, and specifically the Ecrb comment number 12\, which is shown in the upper right hand. Here it’s really a 2 part comment. The 1st part is to check in with the California strong motion instrumentation program manager. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And the second part of the comment is to provide a draft seismic instrumentation plan\, and that’s to provide a seismograph to be incorporated into the State seismic instrumentation network. So earlier this year in May\, the project design team met with the Cgs Csnp program manager \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): and 2 other Cgs technical leads. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): We started the meeting by providing and giving a brief description of the Sfo Spp. And then Cgs stepped through and summarized the instrumentation requirement itself and the process\, and also provided Bcdc’s written steps for required instrumentation projects\, and those written steps are shown over on on the right hand side there. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Really\, the takeaway from this meeting is that the instrumentation planning process is a collaborative effort between the design team\, Bcdc. Cgs\, and also Cgs’s strong motion Instrumentation Advisory Council. There’s my Act subcommittee. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So if you go to the next slide\, we’ll look at some things that we’ve done since that meeting. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Sfo. Provided Cgs with pertinent Spp design drawings and documents\, and that’s really in support of Cgs’s review process \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): in response to comment number 12\, we prepared a memorandum with recommendations for a strong motion instrumentation plan. It included the things that are bulleted here. I’ll really only have time to talk about the station location\, but the memo also includes things like the foundation and enclosure layouts\, equipment requirements\, some power supply and communication needs. And then also some site specific information related to site access and points of contacts as well. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): The recommendations in that memorandum were developed to meet the instrumentation requirement for the Sfo Spp. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And were built with consideration of the Bcdc. Instrumentation process that was shown on the previous slide. The State’s instrumentation specifications and state of practice guidelines for strong motion stations. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So if we move to the next slide\, I’ll just briefly cover our strong motion station location\, selection criteria. We’re trying to balance a lot of different things in selecting a location. Those are listed here in the memo. We’ve got the location identified shown on the right hand side as our the approximate station location between reaches 4 and 5. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): The criteria that we’re that we’re trying to meet really are considering airport runway and operations activity. Thinking about site access and restricted entry access points wanting to avoid those those points for off site personnel\, getting on to the site and accessing the strong motion station. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): We also want a location that’s a distance away from existing buildings and existing infrastructure. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And then we also wanted to pick a location where not only we have subsurface geologic information\, but the subsurface geology is in line with the goals of the Cgs season program. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So with all those things considered\, we’ve laid out this proposed location. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): So on to the next slide. We just have a few next steps and sort of our path forward in this process. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Cgs recently presented candidate locations via email and has requested review and feedback regarding their proposed locations. The design team will meet with Cgs to discuss those locations and also other elements of the strong motion instrumentation plan \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): and then the design team will continue our collaboration with Bcdc. Cgs and their Smiac Subcommittee in order to develop a strong motion instrumentation plan as part of the Sfo Spp. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): And that’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Any comments from from the board. Yep\, I do have a comment. You had a red star there on the on the\, on\, the\, on the drawing where you proposed to put it. \nYerba Buena SX80: You have a you have a boat ramp on one side\, you have an approach to the Coast Guard facility\, which at 1 point is going to be upgraded\, which means piles are in the ground. That is a terrible location\, and and I see it all the time that we put these strong motion stations \nYerba Buena SX80: in a place where there are adjacent structures that totally interfere with the ground response. Why couldn’t you pick anywhere along the whole thing where there is nothing adjacent except the wall that’s coming in? \nYerba Buena SX80: You know. I just like to raise it up there. I look at these stations. You know we have them in California all over the place where are in locations that are completely impossible to analyze after the earthquake because of the adjacent structures\, and and we do it all the time. And with all the consultation with Usgs\, Cgs\, everybody sitting there\, and we stick them into\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, that is easily accessible. But these days\, with satellite communication\, and whatever else you don’t really need to be there in person to get the data\, so I would strongly urge you. Please take a look at where you not next to adjacent infrastructure. \nYerba Buena SX80: anyway. Thank you. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): I mean\, I think you’d be. You’d be hard pressed to find a location at the airport that wasn’t next to existing infrastructure or existing activity\, daily activity. So in the proposed area is shown sort of in the inset in the middle of the of the slide there. And there’s the kind of yellow dash area\, really\, that would probably come back some. We wouldn’t really want to put it quite close to the ramp\, and also the the outfall pipes. So something quite farther away from that but again. \nYerba Buena SX80: I miss. Sorry I misunderstood. Okay\, I saw your arrow and I thought it was\, gonna Be right there. Okay\, never mind. \nJackee Allmond (Geosyntec): Oh\, no\, sorry. Yeah\, it’s it’s really that kind of area. It’ll be a collaborative process with Cgs. But we certainly want to pick a location that is far away from existing infrastructure. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Okay\, sorry. I missed. As I said\, I looked at the arrow\, and I just couldn’t believe it. So thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you\, Nick? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: going to assume there are no more comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you very much for your presentations. It’s been really great. \nYerba Buena SX80: we have to go to public comment before conducting ecrb discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for members of the public\, if you would like to speak today\, we request that you only provide comments or questions specific to the presentations given today. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you would like to speak\, we will need you to do one in. Do so in one of 3 ways. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you are here in person. \nYerba Buena SX80: please raise your hand so we can call on you. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we’ll at which time will. You may come forward to the lectern. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you’re attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer\, please raise your virtual hand in zoom. \nYerba Buena SX80: You may be you may do this by clicking on the hand at the bottom of your screen. If you are attending via phone\, you must press Star 9 \nYerba Buena SX80: on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment\, and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nYerba Buena SX80: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in order \nYerba Buena SX80: in the order they are raised during the public comment period. Starting with anyone present in person when called upon\, you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments. Please state your name and affiliation at the beginning of your remarks. \nYerba Buena SX80: Normally\, we give folks 3 min to make comments this time. I’m going to make it 1 min per speaker. \nYerba Buena SX80: For your comments as in any public meeting\, please keep your comments respectful. \nYerba Buena SX80: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. Hate speech\, threats made directly or indirectly\, and abusive. Language will not be tolerated\, and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines or exceeds the established 1 min limit without permission will be muted. \nYerba Buena SX80: Margie\, are there any hands \nYerba Buena SX80: raised. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, we have no public comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. Now\, let’s return to board discussion. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we’ve been pretty \nYerba Buena SX80: comprehensive in our comments during \nYerba Buena SX80: the presentations\, but if somebody has a a concern \nYerba Buena SX80: that they would like to raise right now\, I’d like I’d like to hear it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I made there. There is only 1 1 concern which I raised earlier\, which was the issue of continuity \nYerba Buena SX80: in this design build process. And is it possible to put a condition that the current \nYerba Buena SX80: team that has done the analysis be then retained as a as a reviewer for future steps. So we we are assured that there is continuity in the in the thought process behind it. Is that something that we can do? \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t think we’ve mandated. They hire. \nYerba Buena SX80: we can. I think we can mandate who they hire retainer\, or when they get fed up with them and replace them\, needs to be design continuity. In some matters\, such as retaining the same team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, you don’t wanna shut out some of these other engineering firms that \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, I I agree\, Nick\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: You know\, the way I would approach it is that\, you know. And like like this\, you know\, there’s a basis of design. There’s criteria that is very clearly \nYerba Buena SX80: delineated. And you know that that helps provide the continuity. \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah\, I don’t know. I don’t think we can. We can dictate. \nYerba Buena SX80: who who the applicant hires \nYerba Buena SX80: who is hired? \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, we would. So I think we suggest peer review of of \nYerba Buena SX80: engineer records. Design. Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: For for consistency with the original analysis. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, just a quick comment. Well\, I mean\, I was trying to follow Jen’s. You know the advice on the questions that we\, as the Ecrb should answer. So I’ve been listening to the presentations. The only thing that I haven’t heard much about is impact on adjacent \nYerba Buena SX80: existing structures \nYerba Buena SX80: are there any existing structures that \nYerba Buena SX80: the proposed construction the Svp is going to impact? \nYerba Buena SX80: And has that been \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of been incorporated into? \nYerba Buena SX80: You are thinking. \nYerba Buena SX80: not not directly. Again\, we’ve we’ve established and selected a location for this alignment that would have least impacts to existing infrastructure as as possible. Again\, the majority of it is within Sfo’s property. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I’ve attempted to limit the impacts\, obviously from a cost perspective\, if we have to take a lot of things out. Really\, the biggest impacts is the existing flood protection systems there. Essentially\, this is going to be replacing it. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll just add there was one \nYerba Buena SX80: we didn’t cover all the 12 ecrb questions before\, partly\, as you saw for time\, we had to select some one of the ones that did come up that was related to the offsite impacts was the potential for wave reflection. So we referred to the coastal hydraulics report. So I’ll just briefly just \nYerba Buena SX80: and so there was a concern about way reflection. So again\, I just wanted to \nYerba Buena SX80: show what was done for that. So a reminder again\, as you saw the Cross section today is most of the time. The waves aren’t even reaching the sheet pile wall. And they’re basically just dissipating on the rock slope in front of it. And so we don’t really see that as a wave reflection issue as part of the coastal hydraulics assessment\, we used Xpeach\, which is a non hydrostatic model which allows you to understand the wave dynamics in more detail than a normal \nYerba Buena SX80: phase average model. So these are just some sample results here on the side. This is for reach 7. So that’s the case where you were\, you know\, you would be building out the perimeter dike. So that’s why you moved from the upper panel which is existing conditions to building out into the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so for this case\, this is for the 100 year water level \nYerba Buena SX80: under current conditions. And you can see. And in the this is the shear stresses\, we’re basically using the bottom axis as the shear stresses. So as you would expect they’re occurring where the waves break at the shoreline. So they’re basically on the rock slope protection that doesn’t change. \nYerba Buena SX80: If you look in sort of a more detailed\, you know\, from the toe outward. And you consider what the changes. Again\, this is using bed shear stress as a surrogate \nYerba Buena SX80: for that. That’s what we were looking at before was more focused on localized impacts to the bed. You can see between the existing\, the sort of fainter\, lighter weight red line versus the Width project line. You know\, they change in variation because it’s non-hydrostatic models. They bounce off in different ways. But you know\, didn’t really see any change in the mean in the sort of couple 100 feet in that area. So we don’t think that wave impacts are going to be an issue. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. Thanks. Geema. Jen. \nYerba Buena SX80: do you know\, normally\, I think we ask you to summarize questions and conditions. But you know\, given our time constraints\, I’m assuming you’re just \nYerba Buena SX80: gonna pass out to the board \nYerba Buena SX80: for review some of the major points or questions or further actions. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, I think you know\, if there aren’t really any lingering \nYerba Buena SX80: questions about \nYerba Buena SX80: the stability of the wall. And it seems like \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s quite a lot of monitoring planned\, and we can. Bcdc. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ll be requesting information on that. There was the issue about the coercive of the soils\, which I think we can request that in a sort of a plan review process as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s 1 question about \nYerba Buena SX80: how much flooding would occur in a power outage \nYerba Buena SX80: and also sort of what’s the long term plan for the storm drain\, pumping system? \nYerba Buena SX80: and if those aren’t urgent issues\, those could also be handled in the future as permit conditions as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: do I? I see nodding heads here. Perhaps we \nYerba Buena SX80: just take a very quick boat \nYerba Buena SX80: on \nYerba Buena SX80: on those permit conditions. \nYerba Buena SX80: do I? And so I guess the motion is. And the big question is\, should they come back for anything? \nYerba Buena SX80: thoughts I I we’re gonna I guess that’s something we have to discuss. Are there any thoughts about \nYerba Buena SX80: whether or not the airport comes back? \nYerba Buena SX80: It seems to me that we’ve expressed our \nYerba Buena SX80: engineering criteria concerns\, and they’ve been responded to in a way that seems\, I think\, adequate \nYerba Buena SX80: to me\, and there’s some ongoing responsibilities and work that needs to be done. And I think you know some of the corrosion thing things that you mentioned. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’d like to make sure there’s some continuity between \nYerba Buena SX80: the design team and the design build team \nYerba Buena SX80: to make sure that all these \nYerba Buena SX80: design criteria that we’ve been talking about get implemented on into the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: Otherwise I don’t think \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t see a reason we need to have them come back to us again. \nYerba Buena SX80: plus things change a lot. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, I see nodding heads. \nYerba Buena SX80: so the motion is to not ask the airport to come back based on the presentation today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Second. Well\, I think the motion is actually slightly different. The motion is that we don’t need to see them again. But we’ll we’d like to make sure that Jen continues to carry through. To be sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: design considerations that have been discussed here are carried through the design build process. Okay\, thank you. Jim. Yeah. Second. \nYerba Buena SX80: all in favor. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, unanimous. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that is. \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s \nYerba Buena SX80: So let’s have a. Is there a motion to adjourn? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, all right. All in favor. All right. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. Everybody. \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-25-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240925T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240925T120000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240130T045756Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240911T182943Z UID:10000142-1727256600-1727265600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 25\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-25-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240919T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240919T170000 DTSTAMP:20260420T025749 CREATED:20240127T064527Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240903T210655Z UID:10000106-1726750800-1726765200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 19\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-19-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR