BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.16.2//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 END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:UTC BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:UTC DTSTART:20230101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241018T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20241018T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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:20260627T104514 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 BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240919T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240919T143000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240912T163212Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T153552Z UID:10000194-1726750800-1726756200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 19\, 2024 Public Webinar: Introducing the Draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan DESCRIPTION:You are invited to join a webinar: Introducing the Draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) \nWebinar registration via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_oOVwNpWTSyqUKwdgeAp_dg#/registration \nLive Webcast \n  URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-19-2024-introducing-the-draft-regional-shoreline-adaptation-plan/ END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240919T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240919T113000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240909T155247Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T225327Z UID:10000193-1726740000-1726745400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 19\, 2024 Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting agenda \nEJ Advisors Workplan 2024-2026 URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-19-2024-environmental-justice-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240912T143000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240912T160000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240826T174513Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T224558Z UID:10000192-1726151400-1726156800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 12\, 2024 Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force DESCRIPTION:This Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force meeting will operate as a hybrid meeting under teleconference rules established by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. Committee members 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. \nPhysical location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Redwood Room\, Fifth FloorSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\n\n\nSan Rafael City Hall\, 1400 Fifth Avenue\, San Rafael CA 94901\nFairfield City Hall\, 4th Floor Board Room\, 1000 Webster Street\, Fairfield CA 94533\nSausalito City Hall\, 420 Litho Street\, Sausalito CA 94965\nUC Davis Medical Center\, 4636 X Street\, Sacramento CA 95817\n11780 San Pablo Avenue\, Suite D\, El Cerrito CA 94530\nMenlo Park City Hall\, Downtown Conference Room\, 1st Floor\, 701 Laurel Street\, Menlo Park CA 94025\nSunnyvale City Hall\, Room 135\, 456 West Olive Avenue\, Sunnyvale CA 94086\nAmerican Canyon City Hall\, Suite 201\, 4381 Broadway Street\, American Canyon CA 94503\n732 Carlsbad Court\, Petaluma CA 94954\n\n\n\nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/84014610643?pwd=TGPXCzbqQatT3vM8Eiarlcj8CmeEeU.1 \n  \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference number1 888 278 0296 Conference Code900680 \nMeeting ID840 1461 0643 \nPasscode882673 \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 \n1. Call to Order\nRoll Call\nChair Report/Welcoming Remarks\nRound Robin UpdatesTask Force Members will have the opportunity to share updates related to climate and sea level rise adaptation in their jurisdictions.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3631; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nRegional Shoreline Adaptation Plan UpdateStaff will provide a preview of the draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan\, including the One Bay Vision\, strategic regional priorities\, and planning guidelines for subregional adaptation plans. Staff will summarize stakeholder engagement and major themes that have helped shaped the draft plan. Finally\, staff will describe the process and timeline for the upcoming 30-day public review and comment period that will begin in mid-September. Task Force members may ask questions\, discuss the plan content\, and advise on outreach.(Jaclyn Perrin-Martinez) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.perrin-martinez@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nDiscussion: Assistance for Cities and Counties to Complete Local PlansStaff will facilitate a discussion about the assistance that cities and counties may need to successfully complete subregional shoreline adaptation plans. This may include technical support\, policy guidance\, funding\, education or more. What role can Task Force members can play in supporting the development of the plans?(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3631; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nPublic Comment\nNext Steps\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/september-12-2024-bay-adapt-local-electeds-regional-task-force/ CATEGORIES:Bay Adapt Local Electeds Regional Task Force END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240912T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240912T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240130T045708Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240826T204716Z UID:10000141-1726133400-1726142400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 12\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-12-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240911T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240911T170000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240726T163055Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T200817Z UID:10000190-1726059600-1726074000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 11\, 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\, Temazcal 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/83392573066?pwd=aw8DAOGta5yvr8nqr0OepxtY5KlHgh.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055(816) 423 4282 Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID833 9257 3066 \nPasscode331214 \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 (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: Cargill’s Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project – Berm Stability (BCDC Permit Amendment Application 2021.003.00). (150 minutes)The Board will review geotechnical and coastal engineering reports and data from Cargill on berm stability and safety\, addressing issues raised by the ECRB in their first and second meetings with the Applicant on November 16\, 2022 and August 30\, 2023. These documents are related to the Cargill’s application to the Commission for the “Solar Sea Salt System Maintenance and Operations Project” (O&M Project)\, BCDC Permit Application No. 2021.003.00\, to continue maintenance and operational activities at Cargill’s solar salt facilities located in Newark\, Fremont and Redwood City over a ten-year authorization period. The Board will advise BCDC staff and the Applicant as to additional studies\, analyses\, or actions to be undertaken\, if recommended\, to minimize the risk and consequences to the berm stability due to a seismic event\, overtopping\, erosion\, or sea level rise. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Sam Fielding) [415/352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation A (AECOM slides)  //  Presentation B (Anchor slides) \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Recording & Transcript\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: muted. Can everybody mute? \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: the script that we have? It’s fine fine! \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: Oh\, I know. Sorry! That’s me. \nTemazcal Room: We can go ahead and start right. Rod \nTemazcal Room: the microphones. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid in person and online Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Rod Iwashta. I am the chair of the Ecrb\, and I have a few announcements. \nTemazcal Room: Our 1st order of business is to call the roll board. Members\, please \nTemazcal Room: unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, please call the roll \nTemazcal Room: okay\, and actually make sure to \nTemazcal Room: microphones for \nTemazcal Room: for speaking and pushing the buttons to turn it on and off. \nTemazcal Room: rod you want to share here. \nTemazcal Room: Jim French vice chair. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Bob Natalia. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Chris may \nTemazcal Room: here \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Gosarky. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. \nTemazcal Room: Present. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Hello. \nTemazcal Room: Patrick Ryan. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Cherry Washta. We have a forum of at least 5 present. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. Jen. We have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nTemazcal Room: we may have some alternate board members who may be participating as members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: Names I see listed are Thalia\, Travaceru\, Philip Trevetti. \nTemazcal Room: Justin Van Diever\, and Bill Tremaine and I now call the meeting to order. \nTemazcal Room: I wanna \nTemazcal Room: Carrie Washer Robert Batali would like to speak. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry I didn’t know how I had my hand raised. I was trying to figure out how to get myself on the \nTemazcal Room: video on Zoom\, oh\, yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, okay. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. I want to start with some instructions\, and how we can best participate \nTemazcal Room: in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nTemazcal Room: First\, st everyone\, when you are not involved in the active discussion. Please make sure \nTemazcal Room: you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nTemazcal Room: for board members. If you have a camera\, please make sure that it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you. \nTemazcal Room: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host Margie\, who is working behind the scenes \nTemazcal Room: to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nTemazcal Room: Ex parte communications \nTemazcal Room: as set forth in the Bcdc’s regulations. A member of the Ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Shall not have any oral or written communication regarding a proposed \nTemazcal Room: project or other matter that has been noticed \nTemazcal Room: to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant\, prospective applicant \nTemazcal Room: or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nTemazcal Room: Board members\, in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide \nTemazcal Room: the staff with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nTemazcal Room: I invite you to report on any such communications at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I don’t see any. \nTemazcal Room: for the record. No hands have been raised. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, are you going to talk about the timing of this\, the room and and all of that? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: then let’s have a staff update \nTemazcal Room: from senior engineer and board. Secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Cherry Washta. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to provide an update on upcoming meetings \nTemazcal Room: on September 25\, th the Ecrb will have a second meeting with the Representatives from the San Francisco International Airport on their shoreline protection project. \nTemazcal Room: On October 23\, rd the Ecrb will review and discuss the updated regional shoreline adaptation plan or Rsap guidelines. \nTemazcal Room: At the end of that meeting\, Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to Ecr Ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb \nTemazcal Room: and board members. I would like to \nTemazcal Room: let everyone know and app permit applicants today that we building management asked us to vacate the room at 5 o’clock sharp\, because\, that’s the end of their workday\, and we’re getting their assistance in running this meeting\, and they have to leave so hopefully\, we can try to\, if possible\, wind the meeting up by around 4 30 today. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, if need be. If we have to go beyond 5 o’clock\, then we’ll \nTemazcal Room: probably all just log into zoom without any of the screens or anything. \nTemazcal Room: if if need be. \nTemazcal Room: Those are all my announcements\, Cherry Rashta. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jan. \nTemazcal Room: Before we move on to the presentation. Are there any announcements from board members. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Seeing none. Let’s let’s move on \nTemazcal Room: to agenda. Item\, 3 \nTemazcal Room: Cargills\, solar sea salt system\, maintenance and operations project firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: So the main agenda item related to the permit application for Cargill Cargills. \nTemazcal Room: solar sea salt maintenance or system\, maintenance and operations. Our discussion will focus on the stability of the berms surrounding the mixed sea. Salt or Mss. Ponds. \nTemazcal Room: p. 12\, p. 2\, 12\, and p. 2\, 13. \nTemazcal Room: Mixed tea salts are also referred to as Bittern \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, the Board Secretary and Senior engineer for Bcdc. Has a slide presentation for us \nTemazcal Room: with an introduction and a bit of background \nTemazcal Room: since is. This is this is the 3rd meeting on this topic \nTemazcal Room: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask clarifying questions. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to ask board members and presenters to please turn on your cameras for any discussion \nTemazcal Room: during or after the presentation. \nTemazcal Room: and I will now turn it over to Jen to begin her presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just going to give some brief introductory slides on the Project \nTemazcal Room: and the Permit history and the history of the Ecrb meetings for this project. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill salts\, current maintenance and operation activities are regulated by Vcdc. By a 10 year permit \nTemazcal Room: that was issued by Bcdc. In 1\,995. \nTemazcal Room: This permit has been extended numerous times. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has applied to renew the 10 year Permit and staff plan to present the new permit to the Commission. In December of this year \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. Has prepared a draft environmental assessment \nTemazcal Room: to comply with Ceqa assessing the potential impacts from Cargill’s maintenance and operational activities. \nTemazcal Room: The draft Ea is currently out for the 30 day public comment period right now. \nTemazcal Room: and that comment period will be ending on September 21\, st \nTemazcal Room: the Ea can be accessed at the Bcd Bcdc. Website. \nTemazcal Room: The link is provided in the slide. But there’s also a link on Bcdc’s homepage. \nTemazcal Room: The Engineering Criteria Review Board’s review \nTemazcal Room: has been. \nTemazcal Room: and today we’ll focus on the stability and safety of the earth and berm surrounding ponds. P. 212 and p. 213. At Cargill’s Newark plant number 2. \nTemazcal Room: These ponds store mixed sea salts\, which \nTemazcal Room: we you will hear the acronym Mss. For these mixed sea salts \nTemazcal Room: due to its high salinity\, and the fact that its Ionic balance differs from bay water. \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Could contribute to potential environmental impacts if overtopping scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the bay. \nTemazcal Room: Important to note\, however\, that once Mss. Is diluted with seawater. \nTemazcal Room: it no longer exhibits toxicity. \nTemazcal Room: The static and seismic stability of the berms is also a concern. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb’s engineering review today has prompted some draft permit conditions\, and Bcdc. Is in the process of drafting \nTemazcal Room: the updated permit. Right now. \nTemazcal Room: these are some examples. \nTemazcal Room: Argill will be raising the berms around the Mss. Ponds to an elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: nabbed 88 by the end of the 10 year permit period. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has also proposed to raise the external berm at Pond\, p. 212 to 11.5 feet at a slightly earlier date. Because that’s the berm \nTemazcal Room: of all the of the of the 2 ponds that is facing the bay. \nTemazcal Room: They’re proposing to do that earlier by 2029 \nTemazcal Room: cargo will track and report potential seepage from the Mss. Ponds annually. \nTemazcal Room: The permit \nTemazcal Room: will present the Ecrb’s concluding assessment of the Mss. Burn safety to the Commission. \nTemazcal Room: The other \nTemazcal Room: function that Ep\, the Ecrb’s input has had on the permit is Cargill’s technical reports that were requested by the Ecrb have informed portions of the environmental assessment. \nTemazcal Room: This map shows a location of the Mss. Ponds\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13\, \nTemazcal Room: close to Newark. \nTemazcal Room: and along the shores of San Francisco’s South Bay\, south of the Dumbarton Bridge. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb meetings on the topic of stability of the mixed sea. Salt Pond berms \nTemazcal Room: were previously held\, first\, st on November 16\, th 2022\, \nTemazcal Room: and a second meeting was held on August 30\, th 2023. \nTemazcal Room: The remaining issues to discuss today are as follows. \nTemazcal Room: updated sea level rise\, risk assessment focusing on wave run up and wave induced firm erosion \nTemazcal Room: results from the geotechnical investigation of the berms \nTemazcal Room: using Cone penetrometer testing. \nTemazcal Room: also known as Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: that was performed just this summer. \nTemazcal Room: Updated stability analyses for the Mss. Berms based on the new geotechnical data. \nTemazcal Room: including \nTemazcal Room: post slope and non-circular failure surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: seismic and funny scenario \nTemazcal Room: firm keying and layering scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: firm displacement and settlement\, analysis \nTemazcal Room: a consideration of settlement \nTemazcal Room: of the Nss. Palm berms \nTemazcal Room: and questions regarding seepage of the Mss. Out through the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Those were all the results \nTemazcal Room: that all the comments that the Ecrb had made \nTemazcal Room: on the issues at the last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I’ve put together these questions for the Board to consider for this 3rd meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Number one is Cargill’s plan to maintain the berms to a crest elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: plus inspections and maintenance adequate to address the risk posed by sea level rise and and waves \nTemazcal Room: did the field investigation adequately characterize the subsurface. Geology and geotechnical parameters \nTemazcal Room: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic berm stability analysis adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at the Mss. Ponds \nTemazcal Room: do the updated static and seismic stability calculations for the berms adequately characterize and model the berm stability. \nTemazcal Room: including any berm raising \nTemazcal Room: possible subsidence and sea level rise predicted for 2030\, and 2040 \nTemazcal Room: for the stability analyses that indicate areas where the berms do not meet. The 1.1 factor of safety are the risks adequately addressed? \nTemazcal Room: Does the presentation on Mss. Seepage and Berm coring adequately address the concerns and comments from the Ecrb? \nTemazcal Room: Do the do the results of the updated berm stability\, modeling\, utilize adequately conservative assumptions and meet adequate levels of safety\, so that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed. \nTemazcal Room: This was a statement made by Cargill in the second Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: responding to the Ecrb’s request in the 1st meeting to provide a risk assessment. \nTemazcal Room: And lastly\, does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed. \nTemazcal Room: and that’s the end of my \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nTemazcal Room: Now Jeremy Mull\, of Aecom will make a presentation on behalf of Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey\, everybody! Can you hear me? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m gonna share my screen. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And someone confirm that they’re they can see a Powerpoint presentation up on the screen. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great\, thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): My name is Jeremy Mull. I’m a coastal engineer with acom. Thank you. Everybody for attending and listening. Today I’m going to give a brief presentation on the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The wave run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and overtopping analysis that we perform for Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’ll note that Justin Vannever was the coastal engineering lead for this project. But because he’s part of the the ecrb that I’m presenting. \nTemazcal Room: Excuse me\, Jeremy\, can you? Do you mind turning on your camera. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Not at all. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Can you guys see me now? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yes\, okay\, thanks. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. So just a a quick background on the project. I know some of this was outlined by Jen and her presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In 2\,020 and 2\,021\, Cargill prepared a sea level rise assessment \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to support his long-term operations and the Bcdc. 10 year operations and maintenance permit renewal. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment included a mapping of the shoreline and the England berms\, including some assets of the site. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): An evaluation of sea level rise impacts for the year 2\,100 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the identification of vulnerable berm segments. That could be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerable to us\, overtopping from storm surge. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerability and risk assessment\, for you know\, some of the assets on Cargill side\, including operations and and the environment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then a conceptual phase\, sea level rise\, adaptation\, approach. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That included adaptation considerations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then\, in December 2022 Bcdc. Requested that Cardio evaluate. The impacts of wave run up and overtopping\, including future sea level\, rise on the bayfront berms. So those are the berms between the ponds and shoreline of San Francisco Bay\, and this was based on requests from the Ecrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In August 2023\, Cargill presented preliminary wave run up methods and findings to Dcrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): worth noting that the the methodology and the results largely haven’t changed since this presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then in 2023\, through 2024 we run up an overtopping analysis. Memo was prepared and then submitted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to the the Bcdc \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these slides are just going to be a high\, level overview of the project. It’s my understanding that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the presentation that was done previously had a pretty detailed overview of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the methods and findings\, and then those are also included in a lot of detail in in the technical memo \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so prior sea level rise assessments\, those focus on impacts of of high tides and combined the storm surge and more of a overtopping from the still water level of the berms. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment evaluated the potential for way run up and overtopping on those bayfront berms. For existing conditions\, and then future conditions with sea level rise under a no action scenario. And what that means is the analysis assumed that the berms would not be elevated from their their current elevations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we developed 2 kind of metrics to evaluate the impacts of waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st included the duration of the berm toe exceedance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): by the total water level with a wave height greater than one foot\, and we calculated the average hours per year that this might occur. So this was kind of a proxy for the amount of time that the waves \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): excuse me that the berms would be exposed to significant wave energy in a year we then looked at the frequency of berm crest overtopping and we evaluated this\, based on the return period\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for different storm events. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these results are helping Cargill identify and prioritize maintenance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the burn segments that may experience\, increased exposure \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to wave impacts due to sea level rise. It also can help inform the development of a long term adaptation management plan for these Burns. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick overview of the technical approach. This\, the approach is detailed or presented more detailed report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This slide just conceptually shows each of the steps in the technical analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting with step\, one on the top left\, and then all finishing up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry I have something on the screen\, the firm exposure metrics on the bottom. Right? So\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting in step one\, we applied a 1-dimensional transact based analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Where transects are spaced. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicular \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicularly to the the berm\, we place transacts \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): based on segments of berm with different \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposures to wave energy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then all of our empirical equations to calculate over top and run up and overtopping were applied in in one dimension. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 2. We extracted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): cross shore profiles from topographic and bathymetric data\, and then identified the key features of the berms that were used in our our engineering calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 3. We assigned representative transects to each berm segment. So the berms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re divided into short segments. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the results of the analysis were then compared to the elevations of each burn segment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each berm segment came with a representative transect. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): As it’s described in the report\, we rely primarily on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a a multi decatal wave and water level model that was used in a fema coastal flood. Study of San Francisco Bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Model was built by dhi and had waves and water levels\, I believe\, every 15 min for over 50 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each transect was paired with a model output station. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We then calculated \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the total water level at each of those time steps \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the entire hindcast and use statistical extreme value analysis \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to come up with the conditions for storms for different return periods. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Finally\, with the results of the total water levels at each transect\, we map those spatially onto the the berm segments with different different elevations and presented those results as \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): as results. Maps. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick like overview of what the total water level is this is just a conceptual slide and hopefully helps orient Orient people to the total water level because it drives a lot of flooding in San Francisco Bay\, so the total water level consists of several different components. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It includes the astronomical tide sometimes referred to as predicted tide\, which ranges about 6 to 8 feet in the bay \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and includes storm surge\, which is composed of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): yeah atmospheric pressure events\, winds\, atmospheric pressure effects\, wind setup\, and El Nino effects. It ranges on the order of like one to 3 feet in the bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It also includes wave components like wave setup and wave wave run up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and those range about 2 to 5 feet. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then you add that all up and you get the total water level. Extreme total water\, total water level events on the Bay range from about 10 to 15 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any vd\, 88\, depending on the storm conditions you’re looking at. And each\, you know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): areas exposure to wave energy and things like that. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In the cartoon on the bottom. You can see how all these components add up. You see the tide. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): How time and storm surge add up to the still water level\, and then\, if a segment of the berm is exposed to wind waves\, those waves usually propagate up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): propagate through the marsh\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): near\, or at the Bernto\, and the uprush \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of water can come up the outward side of the berm\, and then potentially over top levee \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so we did incorporate future sea level rise\, and that would be that was incorporated into the still water level in which we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then we ran all of our total water level calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just an overview of some of the results. These figures are all \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): presented in the report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re focused on Pond 12 today. Which is shown in the upper left of all the figures. It’s highlighted in the 1st figure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st figure is the baseline conditions\, which are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): approximately from the year 2\,010\, and then the results. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The different figures show the results for 6 inches\, 12 inches and 36 inches of sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We are using the sea level rise estimates from the Ocean Ocean Protection Council report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): From 2\,024 you can see the timing of those different amounts of sea level rise in the bottom right there. This table. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as an example for 12 inches of sea level rise that could occur as early as the year 2\,050. If you’re looking at the intermediate high scenario\, it’s likely by 2\,055\, if you’re using the intermediate scenario. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these the slides show the results for the berm toe exceedance. Remember\, this is the average number of hours per year that the total water level \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would exceed the burnt tow with a wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of at least one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So it’s kind of a measure of how often the outboard the bayfront firm is being impacted by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Up in the upper left. You have the baseline conditions\, and you can see all. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? This is Bob Battaglio. Hi\, Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey! Bob! \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to ask a question. \nTemazcal Room: so \nTemazcal Room: I was a little surprised by this slide\, because if I understand it correctly. \nTemazcal Room: Under existing conditions the toe of the berm\, which is the base \nTemazcal Room: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: is exceeded by the total water level. \nTemazcal Room: Less than 1 HA year is\, am I interpreting this correctly? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Mostly. So remember it’s 1 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): hour per year\, combined with a wave height greater than one foot. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: So the toe of the berm is in places is fronted by Marsh\, which is around me. High water\, I mean higher high water. \nTemazcal Room: so just the still water level alone should exceed the tow \nTemazcal Room: of the lev of the levy like 8% of the time\, or something like that is that \nTemazcal Room: just just because of the tide\, not including non tidal residuals. So \nTemazcal Room: it just seems like this is. \nTemazcal Room: there should be waves \nTemazcal Room: during some of those 8% of the time. So \nTemazcal Room: it seems like the total water level would be \nTemazcal Room: higher. So I have a concern about that. I don’t know if you wanna \nTemazcal Room: address that now or. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I mean\, I I guess I can just speak conceptually to that. It’s it’s it’s a good question. And I think \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you have to. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I imagine it’s through a combination of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): high tides combined with \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposure. So waves approaching at the right angle to attack. You know the burn you kind of think about like \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every firm has a little bit different. Exposure in this firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, is really only vulnerable to ways that are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coming in\, you know\, a bit from maybe the South Southwest here. So it would be those times when you have a combination\, the high tide. So the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry advance the slide\, so the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tide\, like you said\, is coming up above the berm toe\, but then that also has to coincide with a wind event\, where the wind’s approaching from the right direction to to generate those waves. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so it sounds like the way you’re filtering it. The waves are not above one foot \nTemazcal Room: when the tide is above the marsh in her high water \nTemazcal Room: more than 1 HA year\, if I understand that correctly. And again\, that just seems \nTemazcal Room: less than I would expect. \nTemazcal Room: So I you know I just have a concern there. Can I? Ask you another question? \nTemazcal Room: How was the wind setup computed? Was it \nTemazcal Room: extracted at the offshore wave location. \nTemazcal Room: or was it \nTemazcal Room: recomputed\, based on the profile \nTemazcal Room: towards shore\, towards the tow. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Are you asking about the wave set. \nTemazcal Room: By the wind. The wind set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: Start with. The wind setup. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, it’s good question. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I would have to go \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): back into the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): dhi methodology for the model. What? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I? So we didn’t \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): adjust \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water levels at all. We took them straight from the model output. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): They ran my \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): my 21 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): about the the water level wave conditions. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so we extracted those from\, you know\, each each output station in the transects I would have to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): not familiar enough with to say offhand exactly how they handled when set up in the model. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, that’s okay. I I just I’ll make a point here that \nTemazcal Room: The wind setup increases with \nTemazcal Room: proximity to the shore\, because the wind blows the water on shore\, and as it gets shallower the return flow \nTemazcal Room: is suppressed. So you get a setup. \nTemazcal Room: So the wind setup profile is not horizontal\, it should actually increase as you get closer to the levee \nTemazcal Room: and your offshore way of reference point is not \nTemazcal Room: close to the total levee\, so I think the water depth would be higher. \nTemazcal Room: Then\, perhaps\, is being modeled\, which\, of course. \nTemazcal Room: allows larger waves to propagate \nTemazcal Room: landward to reach the toe. \nTemazcal Room: which may also be contributing to this very low \nTemazcal Room: wave total water level exceedance at the toe of the berm. I think I’ve made my point\, but I had. That’s that’s 1 of the concerns I have. And we can discuss more. \nTemazcal Room: In the discussion. \nTemazcal Room: Is is that okay? \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Thanks. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so let’s see\, we this slide. We’re looking at the berm tail exceedance. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and that’s the average number of hours per year\, where the total water level is exceeding the berm tail with a wave height greater than one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So under baseline conditions\, you can see in the upper left. The levee is completely colored and green\, and that’s \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): entire berm. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so that’s less than 1 h per year. The legends\, the color legends here. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to interpret the different colors. You look at \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 6 inch sea level Rise scenario\, which is what we’re considering to be the the 10 year sea level rise amount \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the berm is still mostly green with some yellow\, so that would bump the segment of berm up into the one to $12 per year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That it’s been impacted by these waves\, and then you can look at the results for the higher sea level rise scenarios of 12 inches and 36 inches sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The next thing we looked at was the frequency of crest overtopping by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And we looked at the approximate return period. Total water levels. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That would result \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): in in overtopping. So these would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): from events as frequent as 2 years. So a total water level with 2 year term period \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): through 1050\, and then on up to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 100 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and same as before. Baseline conditions are shown here in the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): upper left\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on 36 inches of sea level rise. Most extreme scenario shown here on the bottom right? So for baseline conditions. You can see here. Most of the the berm is shaded in orange\, which \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): indicates that it’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping from a storm with a roughly 10 to 50 year return period. There is a small segment in red which is more vulnerable to the light red\, so that’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 year. Total water level with 6 inches of sea level rise. More of the berm here is colored in red meaning. It’s more vulnerable. Obviously\, to to storms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with lower return periods. So it happened more frequently. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, hey\, Jeremy? This is Bobby again. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Ha! The dynamic water level\, or the wave set up\, you know\, like the wind setup is \nTemazcal Room: sloping upwards towards shore. \nTemazcal Room: A lot of the same physics. \nTemazcal Room: The wave setup? Was it \nTemazcal Room: associated with \nTemazcal Room: the wave height at the toe of the levee\, or with the wave\, the largest wave breaking farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That’s a great question. And \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): it really I I guess it depends on the wave condition. So I’ll kind of walk you through what we did. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We generally follow the the engineering guidance\, and that the Fema \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Pacific Islands. So \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): guidelines for the west coast\, and so for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 1st step in the run up calculation. We use the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the Bim equation\, the direct integration method equation to calculate both \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): wave setup \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and we run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then we looked at the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the dynamic water level so that would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water level plus static wave set up\, and the dynamic wave set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then\, if that exceeded the berm toe\, we switched to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tar equation\, which is a wave wave wrap equation for steep \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coastal barriers. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then we did a check. So we use the the near shore wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): shoaled to the depth of the toe. If that exceeded \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the depth limited wave height we would use the depth limited wave height\, until\, if it did it\, we would use that wave height to calculate \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): way round up with tall. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I I think that all sounds good. I’m I’m familiar with that methodology. It makes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I mean\, I think the question is\, where was the what wave was used? At? What pansec location offshore \nTemazcal Room: to calculate the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: The dynamic water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sorry. So you’re are you asking what wave I was used in tall\, or what? What wave height. \nTemazcal Room: I know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Extracted from the the model to start the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I think I understand that the wave height for the run up calculation using the paw equation \nTemazcal Room: was the maximum expected. \nTemazcal Room: That’s limited or otherwise wave height at the toe of the levee. \nTemazcal Room: But the question is. \nTemazcal Room: what wave height was used to compute \nTemazcal Room: the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: which may be a wave that’s bigger farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think I get what you’re saying. So we use the near shore wave. I extracted from the the dhi model. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so it wouldn’t be an offshore wave. And people are being a nearshore wave. \nTemazcal Room: So it’s the offshore. It’s at the extraction point. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe. Can I? Ask one question as well\, Jeremy? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know if it’s you\, but we’re using. You’re using overtopping \nTemazcal Room: as kind of the measurement metric for \nTemazcal Room: for the hazard. And can you maybe just explain what \nTemazcal Room: that that \nTemazcal Room: what that does to the the bittern? And \nTemazcal Room: ultimately\, I think we’re concerned about release \nTemazcal Room: of the bittern from into the bay\, right? And so \nTemazcal Room: is there like a sequence of that happens. \nTemazcal Room: That you know that that causes you to use the overtopping as \nTemazcal Room: the \nTemazcal Room: the measurement of the risk. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So I I think what you’re asking is like\, what’s the impact of wave over topping to the the the contents of the Mss. Fund. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, what I mean. I assume that’s the hazard that we’re that we’re all concerned about\, right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. So we so we considered. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I I guess. We looked at Wave\, overtopping as really \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the risk from like a flooding standpoint. And as I guess\, really\, for just a like a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a metric on how vulnerable upon \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would be to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): storm conditions and then future sea level rise. We didn’t do any \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): detailed analysis on\, like what the actual impacts of the overtopping would be. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so my name is Matt Pitcher. I’m the operations guy for Cargill. So the overtopping can scour the top of the berms so it wouldn’t be. One wave wouldn’t do anything right. And one wave going into the pond is just a drop\, right\, you know. I mean. So there! There’s plenty of free board in the pond\, so it would take many waves \nTemazcal Room: scouring the top to erode the top of the berm\, so that then the level in the pond was higher than whatever got scoured\, so that that would be the risk. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. And and then it’s just the release of the bittern into the bay\, and I’m understanding that \nTemazcal Room: the dilution it dilutes. But there is still \nTemazcal Room: is there like a time\, hazard\, or or a hazard in \nTemazcal Room: a short period of time\, as the the matrix is released. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So the the hazard would be. Yes\, the bitterin getting out of the pond and getting onto the vegetation\, or coming in contact with a aquatic species out there\, or or whatever but it dilutes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, with all the water out there\, so it dilutes quickly. But it it all depends on how much of a release. It is right. \nTemazcal Room: The the majority of the Mss. Pond is a solid \nTemazcal Room: salt \nTemazcal Room: or different types of salts\, but there is a liquid component in it\, too. That’s in inside the matrix. And so that’s really what you’d be worried about is that liquid component because it would take a lot to dissolve the salt and then get \nTemazcal Room: that high of a concentration. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. I’d I’d like to follow up on that discussion. I I understand what you were saying that. \nTemazcal Room: The ponds are very big\, and so if there’s a couple of waves that come over\, it really doesn’t provide that much \nTemazcal Room: water volume\, and it doesn’t necessarily raise the water level that much\, yet \nTemazcal Room: I think I understand that the plan is to continue to \nTemazcal Room: increase the the amount of what is it? Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Whatever in these ponds\, so that the water level is going to go up over time. Right? Correct. We are still using the the ponds for the Mss. To to store the Mss. So so the water level is going to go up over time\, and then with sea level\, the amount of wave overtopping is going to increase over time. And so \nTemazcal Room: I think what Rod’s question is\, you know\, how does all this translate to the \nTemazcal Room: threshold? Criterion for \nTemazcal Room: the ponds not overflowing\, or \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it’s hard for us to have a feel for that. It doesn’t seem like that was analyzed. Yeah\, there’s a there’s. There’s \nTemazcal Room: feet of free board\, you know\, a couple of feet at least at the minimum inside the pond\, so it would take a large amount\, and your accumulation per year is \nTemazcal Room: less than a half inch. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah. So I think it sounds like it’s apparent to you. I guess it’s just not apparent to us. But I appreciate. Thank you for the answer. I I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, this is Chris. \nTemazcal Room: My understanding is the purpose of what Jeremy is presenting is less \nTemazcal Room: accumulation of bay water in the Mss. Ponds. But looking at the risk to these berms of being \nTemazcal Room: eroded or made less stable by the wave overtopping\, so it’s the risk of damage to these \nTemazcal Room: which would then allow for a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s why we’re looking at like the wave impacts. And the overtopping is that going to damage \nTemazcal Room: these burns and cause a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: Is that is that right? \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, that’s correct. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. I mean\, yeah\, to to get a large release of it. You would need a lot of scouring \nTemazcal Room: which would take \nTemazcal Room: it would take a lot of waves\, and all those waves would have to happen at a high tide \nTemazcal Room: with surge to to get there\, because you’ve got you’ve got a large amount. It’s hard to see in the picture\, but there’s a large amount of marsh in front of here\, so the marsh\, the only time the marsh gets covered would be like a king tide. \nTemazcal Room: so it would have to happen during a king tide. All the other high tides\, you know\, or the majority of the high tides during a year don’t even cover the marsh. \nTemazcal Room: so you’d have your waves would break up before they ever got through the mark. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah\, I mean I. And then I understand that you’re looking at \nTemazcal Room: into the future with different rates of sea level rise right? So that the risk increases as you move forward in time. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Please please continue. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): No\, no problem at all. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I let’s see. I think that I had covered the results for the the baseline conditions. Here\, and then the 6 inch sea Level Rise scenario which we’re considering that the sea Level Rise scenario for the next 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And see that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): roughly. I mean\, there’s there’s different spots. But roughly\, we’re switching from \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping\, occurring from a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 10 to 50 year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): return period total water level. Then to one with a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the term period of 2 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so this slide has a little bit of the same information. But it’s just kind of more of a focus on on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or a summary of the results\, I guess\, for point 12. So we’re obviously focused on. Here’s 1 12. Here’s the the bayfront. Berm and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So if you’re reading the report\, you’re curious what transects were used for this section. We looked at transacts. 2122. Well\, 21 through 24\, and they’re shown here in the snapshot \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on the right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The existing Bay front crest elevations for this firm range generally from 11 to 12 feet. Any vd\, 88. See that in the picture and also in the report\, there’s a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): color index here shows that the different elevations you’ve got some high spots\, some low spots. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The majority of the pond. 12 burn crops are above the 100 year. Still water elevation\, which is roughly around 11 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and DVD 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and just a summary set for baseline conditions. Wave overtopping. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Generally occurs for a 10 year storm and greater \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and as a reference\, the 100 year \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): total water level is 11 to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 13 feet. Any vd\, 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as a note\, we’ve been referring to storms in terms of return period. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 10 year storm is actually a 10\, a storm with a 10% \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): annual chance of occurrence. And so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on average\, we would expect it to occur once \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so for future conditions\, that’s 6 inches of sea level rise\, wave overtopping roughly occurs\, and for a 5 year storm. So it’s more frequent. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That has about a 20% annual chance of occurrence\, and under your total water level is \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 12 to 13 feet. Any Bd 88. With that amount of sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, Jeremy? Sorry to interrupt again. This is Bob again. \nTemazcal Room: So you’re saying that the the levee crest elevations are somewhere around the 100 year. Still water level SW. EL. \nTemazcal Room: Of about 11 feet in Avd. \nTemazcal Room: So that means there’s really no free board. \nTemazcal Room: Essentially \nTemazcal Room: so with sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Wouldn’t it be possible that \nTemazcal Room: at that 100 year water level water would \nTemazcal Room: spilled over the levee. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so that right now. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the bird crests are above the 100 year. Still water level elevation\, the majority of them. It’s around 11 feet. So nothing. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): If if there was no raising of the firms\, yes\, there would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): potentially subject to to flooding \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): but a hundred years still water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So what happens. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then my other comment is\, it seems that the total water level 100 year listed there of 11 to 13 feet \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t seem to be \nTemazcal Room: that much higher than the 100. You’re still water level of 11 feet\, and I understand that the bigger winds and waves don’t happen necessarily during the 100\, you’re still water level. But still. \nTemazcal Room: or even so \nTemazcal Room: again\, the total water levels seem a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: And I don’t know if that’s because of the wind setup computation or other computation. But \nTemazcal Room: And furthermore\, usually you would like to have free board unless \nTemazcal Room: there’s no consequence to\, I guess\, the overtopping in terms of \nTemazcal Room: the internal water levels or the levee erosion\, etc. So I know. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s still a concern that I have\, both in terms of the total water level\, seeming a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: and also the implications of the apparent overtopping that will will occur. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think\, it’s a it’s a good comment. And you know it. It could potentially be due to yeah\, the exposure like we talked about different orientation of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, segments of berm. And then how much \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Windfash they’re exposed to. And then the frequency that you actually get big wind events time with those high still water levels that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re actually able to generate waves. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Rod\, can I ask a question? Too? \nTemazcal Room: Sure. Yeah\, Jeremy\, this is Gail Johnson \nTemazcal Room: actually had a similar question to Rod about the \nTemazcal Room: what are the actual \nTemazcal Room: hazards associated with the overtopping? \nTemazcal Room: And Chris mentioned about erosion? \nTemazcal Room: maybe this is a question for Cargill. We saw photographs from Jen’s staff. Report of \nTemazcal Room: that. You trench in the center of the berm \nTemazcal Room: and put some kind of a slurry mix. \nTemazcal Room: And and you’ve created kind of a \nTemazcal Room: interior wall\, if you will. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So it we’re just putting dirt in there. So it’s it’s just. It’s nothing\, nothing that. No\, it’s not. It’s not hardens it\, so to speak. No\, okay\, no. \nTemazcal Room: And but we are compacting it. And his \nTemazcal Room: oh\, sorry and historically\, when you have had \nTemazcal Room: overtopping in the past. \nTemazcal Room: is it? Has it been in the form of \nTemazcal Room: massive breaches or over extensive lengths? Or what what is it? What’s what’s the his history of \nTemazcal Room: of damage that’s occurred. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, from from single\, from single storms. Assuming you can do repairs. \nTemazcal Room: It’s been very minor. I I mean you can. You can tell where some water has gone over\, you know\, but it’s not. I mean\, we haven’t even lost. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t even see an inch \nTemazcal Room: of material off the top of it. \nTemazcal Room: Just you can. You can just sort of see where the where the waves came over. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I was\, I was having a hard time envisioning \nTemazcal Room: what would cause them. \nTemazcal Room: Ms. Has to \nTemazcal Room: come out of the levee. Because just water going in \nTemazcal Room: isn’t the hazard. As far as I can see\, that’s what that’s why\, I was a little confused. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Don Brown. I’m the land resources manager for Cargill. So \nTemazcal Room: they asked me to cover this slide. \nTemazcal Room: What we’re going to do with this information that we received. It really allows us to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, identify those specific areas for inspection and maintenance. \nTemazcal Room: and that allows us to \nTemazcal Room: work our maintenance plan to prioritize\, you know\, working on those. \nTemazcal Room: perhaps more vulnerable segments of of those firms. \nTemazcal Room: And and this is in addition to what we already do with regard to you know\, we’re we’re out there. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Matt’s team is out there inspecting the berms all the time\, especially after storms identifying any area that may need some additional maintenance \nTemazcal Room: and inspection. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, this the the study here was under what Jeremy explained as a \nTemazcal Room: no action scenario. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, we’re we’re planning on increasing the height of those berms. So we’ll increase it to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: Nabbed \nTemazcal Room: 88 by 2034. \nTemazcal Room: We’ve worked with BC. Bcdc staff on on how we’re going to do that. \nTemazcal Room: We are going to prioritize the pond. 12 firms. \nTemazcal Room: We’ll have that \nTemazcal Room: up to that 11.5 by the end of 2029\, and\, in fact\, we’ve already started working on it. Matt’s team is out there already \nTemazcal Room: is is increased \nTemazcal Room: small segments of those berms \nTemazcal Room: already to that that height. So \nTemazcal Room: and and we’ll continue to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, evaluate any impact that overtopping might have as far as scouring or having any impact to to the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So and anything that might anything that might impact firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, we’ll be closely monitoring. \nTemazcal Room: And and then during the next 10 year period\, we’ll have a longer term \nTemazcal Room: adaptation plan. How do we? How do we make sure that those those berms around those mixed sea salt palms \nTemazcal Room: remained \nTemazcal Room: stable and and safely \nTemazcal Room: hold that that Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? Can I ask a question. Oh. \nTemazcal Room: oh\, you go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: So we should see a 5\, 6 inches of sea level rise by 2\,034. So it seems like you would be building a system that would be \nTemazcal Room: too short by 2\,034\, since we’re supposed to have\, it’s highly likely that we would have 11 inches of sea level rise by 2\,050 \nTemazcal Room: so it would seem like it would be more prudent to build now for a 2050 condition instead of building. Now \nTemazcal Room: for a condition that you’re going to start exceeding already by 2\,034 with that 100 year. Fill water \nTemazcal Room: something we’re going to look at in the next 10 year. Permit period the issue would be\, you start getting too high. You might have to build horizontally out in order to support the height. \nTemazcal Room: So one thing that we’ll be looking at the next 10 years is \nTemazcal Room: is really that long term adaptation plan. This is just a commitment we want to do to stay ahead of sea level rise. But \nTemazcal Room: we will. That will be part of a long term plan that we look at. How do you actually. \nTemazcal Room: make sure that those berms\, you know\, withstand again\, even higher sea level rise? \nTemazcal Room: I think you would need to start implementing your long term plan by 2\,029. So I\, yeah\, that that just concerns me. I guess. Yeah\, I I had a follow up. I had a similar question. So how was the 11.5 elevation \nTemazcal Room: that you’re going to raise the levies to? \nTemazcal Room: How was that selected? \nTemazcal Room: I was 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: It was just based on sea level rise projections\, on what \nTemazcal Room: you know\, as far as the vulnerability of having wave overtopping \nTemazcal Room: so that that was based on\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: a projection from the existing condition which you consider to be \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then \nTemazcal Room: a certain amount of sea level rise like half a foot or something like that. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry. So it sounds like you’re using the existing condition\, plus \nTemazcal Room: something like half a foot of sea level rise. Is that? Or how? \nTemazcal Room: Yep. Yeah. So that \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s what we’re struggling with a little bit. What are the criteria for? The initial \nTemazcal Room: levee crest elevation rise. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: it sounds like it might actually be limited by geotechnical factors rather than \nTemazcal Room: something that was developed\, based on the hydraulics\, the hydraulic exposure. You mentioned the concern that if you raised it higher than that now\, which is what Chris was suggesting. \nTemazcal Room: That that might be problematic\, necessarily problematic. But it’s something that we’re just not permitted to do in our our current maintenance. So it’s that’s why we want to spend the you know. \nTemazcal Room: during that 10 year permit period \nTemazcal Room: term. And you know\, if we want to\, if we need to build it even higher or raise them even higher\, how would you go about doing that because you know that we can raise it to 11.5 under. You know\, that’s part of our existing maintenance that we \nTemazcal Room: that we do every year. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That is all that we have for this live presentation\, unless there’s any more questions. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jeremy. \nTemazcal Room: Are there any \nTemazcal Room: further comments from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, Jen\, yes. \nTemazcal Room: I have a comment question. Do these analyses depend? Did they take into account the dampening \nTemazcal Room: effect from the tidal marshes that are there. \nTemazcal Room: so that if the tidal marshes\, for example\, either eroded or were not able to create\, to keep up with sea level rise. Would that change the outcome of the modeling. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So the answer to your 1st question is\, no\, that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the analysis did not. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): did not account for the dampening of of the marsh\, except for the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): You know the elevation of the marsh\, so that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the way we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): calculated way to set up and run up is purely. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): purely based on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I guess\, depth and and elevations only. So it considered. Like the you know\, the the flooded depth of the the toe of the berm \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): which is impacted by the marsh elevations. But it didn’t account for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any any kind of like future \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): changes to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): like the marsh\, potentially rising to keep pace with sea level\, rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): A marsh actually potentially dampening the waves a little bit to drag and friction \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): stuff like that. \nTemazcal Room: This is this is Chris again. \nTemazcal Room: When I look at figure one of your wave analysis. Memo. It looks like you are accounting\, at least in that figure for the dampening \nTemazcal Room: of the wave height. Under existing conditions. That’s what the figure shows. But I think then\, when you’re adding the 6 inches of sea level rise or \nTemazcal Room: higher. In your analysis\, I’m assuming you’re just keeping that marsh plain edits \nTemazcal Room: existing condition. So\, not accounting for the rise that it could have. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, that’s a good point. So that we’re accounting for the dampening that might occur. Due to shallow water of the marsh. So as the waves come in. You know they could potentially break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, and the the shallow water and you get death limited waves at the tail of the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the marsh elevation is not changed for the with future sea level rise\, so it stays the same\, and we add sea level rise into the calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): But there’s no dampening like to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or from the marsh grass. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): right like providing friction and stuff like that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that make any sense\, Chris. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Got it? Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Thank you\, Chris. Any any other questions from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Jeremy. You \nTemazcal Room: see next page of the script. \nTemazcal Room: Now Michael Whalen\, of Anchor Qea will make a presentation \nTemazcal Room: on behalf of Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: Hello! \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, hello! My name is Michael Whalen. I am with the firm anchor. Qea. I’m a principal geotechnical engineer. I will be leading this \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: should I \nTemazcal Room: log in and do it from my screen\, or is there a more? What would be the most practical way to go through the \nTemazcal Room: okay? I haven’t actually \nTemazcal Room: logged in. So let let me let me do that. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m I’m joined on the virtually by my colleagues\, Andrew Barrett and Cole bales. \nTemazcal Room: I’m a i’m Andrew performed a lot of the analyses under my direction. \nTemazcal Room: and Cole and I have been \nTemazcal Room: the folks to review it and put it all together. \nTemazcal Room: So let me \nTemazcal Room: let me get get myself logged in to this. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I got. I got that. \nTemazcal Room: I have 45 slides. I do\, and I will. I do want to be conscious of time. And I know folks may have comments as I go. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yep\, okay. I’m I’m getting. I’m getting in there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: just \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And there’s me. \nTemazcal Room: okay? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, join as panelists. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: there’s me. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then if I share my screen. \nTemazcal Room: we \nTemazcal Room: we’ll be good \nTemazcal Room: share screen. \nTemazcal Room: Mike\, yeah\, let us know when you’re ready\, Michael. But I think we want to wait for the board members to okay to show up. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Yep\, okay\, I I will. That’s I’m all set. And I will. \nTemazcal Room: I will hold up. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael. I think we’re we’re back now. So \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: very good. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thanks again. Yeah. Michael Whalen\, principal geotechnical engineer\, anchor. Qea. I. I spoke in the in our last 2 engagements on this topic. \nTemazcal Room: and I will go through our updated analysis of \nTemazcal Room: static and seismic stability for the for the Pond\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. Firms. \nTemazcal Room: And I will start \nTemazcal Room: with a short recap of what you heard from us last summertime. \nTemazcal Room: where we had obtained all the available information on the sub service conditions that existed at the time performed by other parties. \nTemazcal Room: Several borings 24\, and\, to be exact\, were had been done. We had access to that information. \nTemazcal Room: I’m including 2 deeper ones to 80 feet. \nTemazcal Room: We had quite a few cone penetration tests or cpts to use \nTemazcal Room: many of them with hydraulic profiling tools. \nTemazcal Room: although those tended to go to depths of like around 20 feet. So there were some limitations on how deep into the subservice we could obtain information\, but we used what we had. \nTemazcal Room: and developed a model \nTemazcal Room: of the subsurface and performed stability analyses for the berm for the berms. \nTemazcal Room: And you’ll remember our technical memo. We discussed it. Our conclusions at the time was that the berms showed an adequate level of \nTemazcal Room: stability\, factors of safety under static and seismic conditions. \nTemazcal Room: and we did the analysis for 2 distinct earthquake \nTemazcal Room: magnitudes a 50 year earthquake and a 475 year earthquake \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: We discussed it\, and one of the takeaways from our engagement with the Board was that you’re at. You were recommending that \nTemazcal Room: a a \nTemazcal Room: further series of field investigations be performed \nTemazcal Room: specific to this type of analysis. \nTemazcal Room: focusing on Cpts\, getting to greater depths\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s what we put together. And you saw our work plan \nTemazcal Room: right at the end of the year last year. \nTemazcal Room: and\, as was mentioned early in this conversation in this meeting. \nTemazcal Room: we performed that work plan. The investigations described in that work plan \nTemazcal Room: late this spring. We got out there as soon as we could\, and we we had to wait through difficult weather and rain conditions\, but we got out there and did the work. We’re finished by May 3\, rd \nTemazcal Room: and again consistent with the work plan that we prepared. We did \nTemazcal Room: 24 Cpts \nTemazcal Room: to as much as 100 feet below below ground surface. Oftentimes\, though\, they didn’t actually get that far. \nTemazcal Room: they got to 64 to 65 feet\, and then kind of refusal\, but significantly deeper than what we had before. \nTemazcal Room: 2 of them were seismic cones\, which is\, which is a useful way to get an understanding of \nTemazcal Room: some of the seismic properties that came into our analysis\, as you’ll see in a in a few minutes. \nTemazcal Room: We did one deeper boring to help us understand seismic properties. In the subsurface \nTemazcal Room: we obtained a handful of undisturbed samples by pushing Shelby tubes. \nTemazcal Room: and used those as well as \nTemazcal Room: the samples we obtained \nTemazcal Room: from the deep boring to perform a series of laboratory tests \nTemazcal Room: strength test for the triaxial equipment. You’ll see that comes into play in some of this presentation\, and some various index properties of the subsurface\, elasticity\, grain\, size\, moisture\, content. So all in all\, we’re able to successfully execute the program that was described in our \nTemazcal Room: in our work plan. \nTemazcal Room: And this is a map \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: the 2 ponds in question. \nTemazcal Room: and I could zoom in if folks\, and maybe as we go through this\, there may be opportunities to zoom in and take a look closer. But there’s a number of things that are depicted on this map. \nTemazcal Room: You see\, a whole string of little circles\, and that is\, showing both \nTemazcal Room: the preceding existing explorations that we had used for last year’s analysis \nTemazcal Room: as well as \nTemazcal Room: in the\, in the darker color. I I realize that \nTemazcal Room: they’re a little small here\, but \nTemazcal Room: the new ones that we did. \nTemazcal Room: and I guess the the takeaway I wanted to show all of you is that we \nTemazcal Room: we got information all along these these berms \nTemazcal Room: around these ponds. On the bayward side\, and between ponds 12 and 13 on both sides of plumber slough. So \nTemazcal Room: we were able to get to all these places and get our information. Another thing that appears on this map in our report is \nTemazcal Room: the fact that as we discussed a few minutes ago in the in the preceding presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has performed the keying process where the the trench is excavated and then imported\, fill\, controlled fill is put back in a in a compacted fashion. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: This map includes the areas that were \nTemazcal Room: keyed over the last 5 years\, and our series of explorations included going right through some of the keyed areas and also going through places that had not been \nTemazcal Room: need. So we’re able to\, you know. Look and compare. And I’ll I’ll talk about that in a \nTemazcal Room: in a few minutes. What what did we learn from that? \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask a question before you change the slide? \nTemazcal Room: when you get further in the presentation section CC is\, gonna be kind of right on the line. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: and so my question is\, can you tell us a little bit more about how you selected these critical sections. Yeah. And how do you know there isn’t 1 that’s worse. \nTemazcal Room: And just from a very simplistic perspective\, it looks like down to the right of CC. The berm gets narrower. \nTemazcal Room: which would seem to indicate\, you know\, more vulnerable. So can you tell us a little bit about that. Sure? Yeah\, thanks that I really should. As a matter of fact\, because you do see the 5 sections that we selected on these maps \nTemazcal Room: the what we used to select these 5 sections was\, \nTemazcal Room: a combination of things \nTemazcal Room: we had. Even before we went out in the field we had existing Lidar survey. Information allowed us to see how high is the berm\, how wide is the berm? \nTemazcal Room: Does it vary? Are there places where it’s higher than in other places. \nTemazcal Room: what we. \nTemazcal Room: So we looked specifically at places where \nTemazcal Room: the top of the berm elevation \nTemazcal Room: and the the \nTemazcal Room: the adjoining low spot\, whether that’s the toe of the berm\, or\, in fact\, something even deeper than the toe of the berm\, notably the the bottom of plumber slough. \nTemazcal Room: Thus kind of being a change in elevation. We looked for places where that change of elevation was \nTemazcal Room: largest \nTemazcal Room: and closest. In other words\, where do we have the biggest\, most abrupt change from bottom to top. \nTemazcal Room: That was a big factor\, in fact\, that ended up being the primary factor in how we chose these sections. \nTemazcal Room: We were also on the lookout for indications of \nTemazcal Room: might. There be places geographically where we’re finding \nTemazcal Room: softer material than in other places? If we had seen such things that would have been a really important part of our selection. But we didn’t really see a a trend of softer geographies. \nTemazcal Room: So what these ended up being was really based on. \nTemazcal Room: shall we say? Abruptness of \nTemazcal Room: elevation change from top to bottom? \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: well\, there are 5 \nTemazcal Room: lines on this map. We actually \nTemazcal Room: looked at 7 sections. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: sections B and C cross all the way across plumber slough and include both the the flanking berm. So our models are set up to to evaluate \nTemazcal Room: 7 sections. But \nTemazcal Room: it was. It was the changing grade that would that ended up being the primary driver for us to \nTemazcal Room: choose these places for our analysis. So so is there anywhere that’s worse than C. \nTemazcal Room: Not not that we can tell. \nTemazcal Room: not not from the evidence that we saw. \nTemazcal Room: And you are right. C is is the more critical player as as we’ll talk about in a bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Michael\, I have. another question that I was. \nTemazcal Room: Since we’re talking about this now I’ll go ahead and jump in. \nTemazcal Room: I hope. \nTemazcal Room: and it’ll come back again a little bit later on\, about 8 slides further ahead\, I think\, but the southwest corner there at the south side of the \nTemazcal Room: Greek or channel whatever that is. \nTemazcal Room: Cpts 8 and 9. \nTemazcal Room: so 2 questions\, I guess \nTemazcal Room: part of it is related to \nTemazcal Room: to the geometry. It looks like\, since you have. You know\, the southwest corner there is kind of west southwest\, the creek. It looks like there might be. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. Aq. Cpt and 9 Ccp\, 8 and 9. Okay\, yeah\, the 2 yellow ones I I had misspoke. By the way\, folks that yeah\, the yellow ones are the new ones. But anyway\, it looks to me I’m I’m curious. Why\, you cut off Bed Bay mud at 30 feet when it looks like those 2 have Bay mud at 32 and 36 feet. Oh\, yeah\, is one question. That sort of okay. \nTemazcal Room: related to a few slides further down the road. But it also looks like this particular geometry might be a more critical one\, because you have that that channel out in front of you. There\, that \nTemazcal Room: have you? \nTemazcal Room: Have. You looked at the geometry \nTemazcal Room: sort of going left from Cpt. 9\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Are you describing how \nTemazcal Room: like the slough is relative to the berm? When you when you say that. Is that what you’re but also\, as you move\, just sort of straight west\, you get that wider water body. I’m not sure if that’s \nTemazcal Room: Creek channel\, or what? That is exactly. But those guys\, you have a wider water body that \nTemazcal Room: looks like it might be deeper channel. Okay? Less. Cpt. 9\, \nTemazcal Room: as it looks to me like bay mud bottom is about 36 feet rather than 30 feet\, which make it \nTemazcal Room: potentially\, geotechnically more critical\, but also\, maybe geometrically more critical. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: it is. It is possible. I I will admit it’s possible that there could be some places whose combination of factors is somewhat different\, or even worse\, than our selections. I think our selections are are pretty solid\, that in this case and and I’m able to speak from having gone through the analyses. One thing\, couple of things we found\, and we’ll be looking at this soon when I\, you know\, should we look at all the slip services? \nTemazcal Room: The slip services? \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s fair to say Andrew is gonna ping me if I say this wrong\, but \nTemazcal Room: that the slip surfaces that were critical for analysis didn’t go so deep that the the acknowledged fact that young bay mud does sometimes go below 30 feet. You’re absolutely right. There’s places 32\, 34\, 36 feet deep. \nTemazcal Room: We haven’t seen that that \nTemazcal Room: has translated to where the critical slip services end up. Being \nTemazcal Room: so true though it is\, I don’t know that it \nTemazcal Room: affects the the conclusions we’re drawing. \nTemazcal Room: Similarly\, I I understand your observation about the the slough and the water bodies offshore from these locations. \nTemazcal Room: I’m thinking. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, I’ll you know\, as we go through\, and Andrew might speak up on this when we’re kind of going through some things. But \nTemazcal Room: I think that still may be far enough away from the berm that \nTemazcal Room: that water body\, even if it ends up\, being really deep over here on the left. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know that that is\, would end up affecting our results very much. That that’s my suspicion about how those might play out. \nandrew barrett: Michael\, that’s pretty much exactly what I was. Gonna say. At at Cbt. 9 and Cbt. 8. You do see that the young Bay mud is deeper than the 30 feet that we used as our average in our models. \nandrew barrett: But one thing that we found is that the critical region\, I guess you could call it in terms of stability in terms of strength is between 10 and 20 feet\, where we saw a lot of failure services go through. \nandrew barrett: So one of the things you’re gonna notice is that what. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry\, Andrew\, do you mind turning on your camera when you’re talking? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nandrew barrett: Oh. \nandrew barrett: hello! \nandrew barrett: And that was that was all I had to say. We we noted that the the critical area\, the critical region \nandrew barrett: of the strength parameters in the models was between 10 and 20 feet. \nandrew barrett: So that deepening there around the the 30 to 36 range \nandrew barrett: didn’t seem to have any effect on the the overall stability. \nTemazcal Room: I have a few more questions about stability. Maybe we can wait until we get down to the stability section of the presentation. Okay? I mean\, it’ll sort of follow on these. But I wanted to jump in and \nTemazcal Room: about some \nTemazcal Room: geometry here. Good. Yeah\, that that makes sense. Okay. So I’ll keep moving up\, moving forward. Alright. \nTemazcal Room: But oh\, yeah\, let me clear in my mind \nTemazcal Room: you had Lidar information to give you the the crest of the burns\, if you will. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: the toe of the berms \nTemazcal Room: did. You have also lighter information about that? \nTemazcal Room: We did we? We did have Lidar information. But one thing I should mention \nTemazcal Room: it’s in my notes is that part of our field engagement wasn’t just to do all these cpts and boardings\, but we also did. We didn’t take a survey crew out there\, but we checked manually all the dimensions out there in terms of berm width\, and maybe even more notably berm height\, just to do a ground check on what we had from the Lidar. \nTemazcal Room: which was really helpful to us. Because the berms aren’t all that high as you’re as you’re standing there and kind of looking at them\, and we needed to make sure we had that right in the cross sections we set up. So I guess what I’m saying is we had Lidar\, but we also. Field checked it. \nTemazcal Room: That that’s the issue that in my mind I I want to make sure that \nTemazcal Room: you’re saying you’re \nTemazcal Room: analyzing the steepest slopes. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: that that is our intent. Yup. That’s right. Okay\, that’s fine. I I want to \nTemazcal Room: understand it better for myself. How the toe was\, I mean\, how did you measure it in terms of height or elevation\, and and kind of the inclination to say\, Hmm. \nTemazcal Room: this is the steepest at this location. Yeah. And I should. I should probably clarify that a little further\, because what we measured in the field was the observable \nTemazcal Room: berm. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: plumber slew particularly\, being a really important factor in this whole evaluation for our selection of \nTemazcal Room: steepness. We didn’t go into plumber\, slew and measure that that was from the Lidar\, for sure. That’s where we and and that kind of goes back to what I was kind of \nTemazcal Room: describing in our selection. It turned out that our selection isn’t based on like \nTemazcal Room: standing there and and seeing the burn be steep. It was based on recognizing that plumber slew out here or bay waters offshore. \nTemazcal Room: Those are getting deep faster. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: that ended up to us being the the real critical definition of \nTemazcal Room: what’s the most critical place. Where is it steepest? If if that makes sense? I I in other words\, I’m I’m describing steepness\, not just at the the immediate face of the of the berm as is visible. But all the way out to the nearest deep water. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, continue forward. And we can obviously revisit these things as we go. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, berm cross sections developed for analyses. Let me start with just some very generic ones. I don’t know like I’d rather focus more on the the scaled ones we did. You’ve you may remember seeing these \nTemazcal Room: before. I haven’t even changed these for this presentation\, although in reality we have made some updates till we actually modeled. \nTemazcal Room: But the general geometry of things \nTemazcal Room: stays the same. Really. What I wanted to show everybody is our understanding of what the deal is with these berms. \nTemazcal Room: They’re built out of densified fill upon young bay mud. That’s the real point I’m trying to make. Here you see the mixed sea salts on the left. \nTemazcal Room: You see the berm crest\, and I didn’t say the stirring \nTemazcal Room: Jeremy’s earlier talk\, but \nTemazcal Room: I feel like the the fact that the surface of this\, these densified fill berms and the and the cover with the \nTemazcal Room: the surface and gravel. Sh! I’m not going to try to quantify that and what I’m saying. But surely that has some innate resistance to wave overtopping erosion. \nTemazcal Room: Just want to make that side observation. But any case just wanted to show this\, and also\, as I scroll to the next \nTemazcal Room: slide \nTemazcal Room: the this keying activity that Cargill has been performing where \nTemazcal Room: a trench\, his dog and and compact and material placed back. \nTemazcal Room: So that that’s the general concepts. I think this is all familiar. We’ve \nTemazcal Room: gone through all this before. \nTemazcal Room: What I wanted to do next was just run through \nTemazcal Room: the 5 critical sections that we selected and modeled. \nTemazcal Room: Those of you who are familiar ask real quick question. I think it’s be easy. The keying is to cut off seepage\, or for stability or settlement\, or what \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s primarily driven by cutting off seepage right primarily to reduce permeability \nTemazcal Room: to reduce permeability. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. And we’ll comment in a few minutes about what might that imply for stability? And see? Bitch? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: have a question about the previous slide. \nTemazcal Room: Is that slide? Is this slide intended \nTemazcal Room: as schematic? Or\, I mean. This has elevation on it\, it has \nTemazcal Room: exaggeration on it. \nTemazcal Room: It is intended as a schematic. \nTemazcal Room: it it definitely is intended as a schematic. I say that because we didn’t put this into our model. \nTemazcal Room: We put what I’ll show next into our model. I mostly want. This is a schematic\, and it’s true. This has \nTemazcal Room: various elevations described on it. It’s a it can be a little confusing\, I realize\, because \nTemazcal Room: we developed it with a different kind of \nTemazcal Room: one data. And then we used aecoms findings. So \nTemazcal Room: I I want this to be considered as a schematic. That’s why it’s intended. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: These. So this is the 1st of 5. \nTemazcal Room: these aren’t schematic. I mean\, these are literally what we put into our \nTemazcal Room: slope stability model. Those of you who are familiar with this slope stability software recognize that \nTemazcal Room: nowadays\, when you build this model\, you can very quickly run all sorts of different combinations of situations\, all sorts of different water levels\, you can vary the strengths of the soils. You can do a lot of these things. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: what you are seeing in this slide set. And frankly\, what you see in our report isn’t everything we run. We ran a lot of things because you can do it quick. \nTemazcal Room: So\, for example. \nTemazcal Room: these all show a certain assumption of water levels. \nTemazcal Room: But I think\, as as you are all aware\, you know\, part of our work was to study the effects of different water levels. So these are just selected images. The real thing I wanted to show is just is the geometry \nTemazcal Room: of the berm\, and and you see \nTemazcal Room: there’s the berm in the middle. \nTemazcal Room: But as you go out to the left the outside of the pond\, now you’re dropping out into the the offshore area to the north \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: of the pond at this particular location. \nTemazcal Room: And the reason\, I say that is because when I was talking a few minutes ago about you know how we define this\, the top to the bottom at the closest proximity. \nTemazcal Room: We’re kind of looking at. Where might this overall slope that I’m tracking with my cursor be most dramatic? And how might that be our critical second? \nTemazcal Room: Anyway. \nTemazcal Room: there’s location a \nTemazcal Room: I’ll comment on the sub service in a minute here\, because\, you see all these colors\, I just have a quick question\, what are the units of the X and Y axes on these. \nTemazcal Room: Those are in feet. \nTemazcal Room: elevation and feet. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: a arbitrarily selected horizontal location and feet. \nTemazcal Room: Was\, was there another \nTemazcal Room: question. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, you know what? Let me let me hang on this one just a little further\, because \nTemazcal Room: there! There’s some colors that we use\, that I will. I I \nTemazcal Room: I want to explain. \nTemazcal Room: we have young bay muds everywhere below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and then\, as you get lower on the figures \nTemazcal Room: there\, there’s green bands for young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: and then all the way down to the bottom of the figure. \nTemazcal Room: In in reality \nTemazcal Room: Although\, as I was saying a little bit ago\, and and Andrew also said this. \nTemazcal Room: the you know\, the the young bay mud\, reaching depths of 30 feet or 34 or 36\, didn’t really affect our analysis. So once we found that out\, these graphics were simplified. \nTemazcal Room: But the point is\, everything’s young bay mud with kind of down below. There’s an old bay mud floor. \nTemazcal Room: and all the action that we’re talking about here happens\, of course\, in the young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I also want to explain why we have this different color scheme protruding down below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where you see like green and pink. \nTemazcal Room: If if you’re seeing the colors \nTemazcal Room: that that’s the information we picked up and used from our analyses directly\, and I’ll explain in a few minutes how we\, you know\, came up with these layers \nTemazcal Room: versus the places to either side of the berm that are just kind of this consistent kind of dark blue. \nTemazcal Room: The the dark blue on either side of the berm is where we applied kind of the worst case strength parameters. And the reason we looked at it this way is because we expect that the presence of the berm has \nTemazcal Room: probably cause some strength gain that we’re observing\, and we shouldn’t expect that that strength gain exists to either side of the berm. \nTemazcal Room: We’re we’re really trying not to. \nTemazcal Room: We’re just trying to stay appropriately conservative with our assumptions and not \nTemazcal Room: not be overly optimistic about things. And that’s why the colors appear \nTemazcal Room: the way that they do. There’s just a distinction. But below the berm versus not below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: Very similar storyline for these other locations. \nTemazcal Room: There’s location B zoomed in. \nTemazcal Room: Here’s Location C\, where you can actually note that plumber slough is in the middle\, and we got \nTemazcal Room: we got some of the modeling on both sides of of the slew. But \nTemazcal Room: the critical situation was here right in the middle. What you’re seeing there? \nTemazcal Room: Location DA little smaller berm \nTemazcal Room: and location E\, and and again\, these are zoomed in just to kind of show you folks how we developed these these models and kind of the scale of of the size of the berms themselves\, because these are all the \nTemazcal Room: to scale. \nTemazcal Room: I I have a quick question. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think the the purple line is the water level\, and I think your purposely have the water level high on the pond side and low on the outboard side for stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: so on the pond side\, it seems like it’s \nTemazcal Room: not that far below the crest is that is\, that the existing condition? Or is this a more conservative. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, the the free board on the inside seems kinda \nTemazcal Room: free. Board on the inside is not intended to be particularly \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, what you’re seeing in this case is about. What is that about 2 feet of of height \nTemazcal Room: above ground surface\, each of those? Okay\, it’s 2 feet. Okay. \nandrew barrett: This is one of the examples of the existing marshes to be seen from the edge of Pond 12. Cross. Section Ede. Prime is on Pond 12. \nandrew barrett: There’s several 100 feet of soil. \nandrew barrett: you know\, that’s above the water line. This is at low tide. \nandrew barrett: the pond \nandrew barrett: water level. We were told by cargo that doesn’t change\, which stays roughly around 9 depending using pumps. And if there’s rainfall\, then they bring it back down. So in these models the the elevation is plus 9 nav. D. 88 for all of the ponds. Well\, all of the models that show the pond water side\, and then the elevation that’s changing is is the \nandrew barrett: the water level \nandrew barrett: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Which side is upon\, and which side is obey. \nandrew barrett: In this case this is a low water condition. So \nandrew barrett: if you’re looking at the screen\, the left side is the pond. \nandrew barrett: And and you’ll see. Generally speaking\, the water level being higher on the pond side is is the condition where we would expect to see the lowest factors of safety. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that a lot\, generally speaking\, in the models that are shown in this presentation \nandrew barrett: are the low tide conditions. \nTemazcal Room: Good thanks. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that the pondsight is usually higher. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s a little bit frustrating with this is that there’s no strings \nTemazcal Room: shown on these plots here. And so you’ve described what happens with the different shades of green and blue and \nTemazcal Room: and pink \nTemazcal Room: and even in your \nTemazcal Room: port \nTemazcal Room: I think 80% or more of the civility sections don’t have the strengths actually shown on them. There’s there’s a few that do. \nTemazcal Room: If we look at one of them that does \nTemazcal Room: it says that the pink \nTemazcal Room: has a strength of 2 75\, increasing by 15 psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: It also says that the \nTemazcal Room: blue \nTemazcal Room: which is adjacent to the pink well. \nTemazcal Room: the dark blue\, the \nTemazcal Room: the thing to the left and right of the pink yeah\, teal. It’s different on my screen than on your screen than up on the wall there\, right. But what’s right and left of the pink \nTemazcal Room: says that it’s 2\, 75 \nTemazcal Room: increasing by 15 per foot. But if it’s 2\, 75 at the top\, and increases by foot by 15 per foot. \nTemazcal Room: By the time the blue gets down to an elevation of the height of the top of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be stronger than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you have cpt data that goes right down the middle of the levee. Right? Yeah\, and I think everything outside of the levee is inferred because you can’t drive rigs out over the that’s right. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that the reason you have that \nTemazcal Room: that trapezoid underneath \nTemazcal Room: levee is because you’re assuming there’s some consolidation that happens from the weight of the levee. That’s right\, right\, which means that the blue on the sides of the pink should be weaker than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: unconsolidating. You’re actually analyzing it. They’re stronger than \nTemazcal Room: well\, let’s if you give me a \nTemazcal Room: seconds you’d have to look at page 5 0\, 5. In your report \nTemazcal Room: I have 5 0\, 2\, \nTemazcal Room: which is another example. The same thing. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, hold on. Let me \nTemazcal Room: zoom \nTemazcal Room: share. \nTemazcal Room: You are talking about this. \nTemazcal Room: I think this table\, the company ha happened to be looking at a different page. Yeah\, same table. Okay\, I think I think this is 5. This is\, in fact\, 5 on you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: this lower row. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, actually\, so I’m looking at. \nTemazcal Room: I’m looking at Page. \nTemazcal Room: You maybe\, are you on? \nTemazcal Room: I need to move my little sorry folks for the all the \nTemazcal Room: flipping of pages. \nTemazcal Room: This this is. Page 5\, 0\, 1. \nTemazcal Room: Right here\, right here. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay\, so 2\, 75 and 15 and 2\, 75 and 15 on both. \nTemazcal Room: 2\, 75 and 15. Yeah\, you’re talking about you guys. See what I’m doing there when I draw these little \nTemazcal Room: think\, yeah\, you’re talking about \nTemazcal Room: this right here\, right? And you’re comparing it to the I think the 275 is the strength at the top of the layer. \nTemazcal Room: and I see by that 15 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: That’s right \nTemazcal Room: below the top of the layer\, and if you scroll down on this page\, then \nTemazcal Room: you can see where the the blue is higher. The top of blue is higher than the top of pink. \nTemazcal Room: which means that the 2 set the the blue starts at 2 75 at the top. \nTemazcal Room: and increase down so it will be \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet. \nTemazcal Room: So by the. So you’re suggesting that the arithmetic works out such that by the time you’re down at the depth of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: You’ve actually got higher strengths on either side of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: I had a comment\, for later on\, again I would say\, I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: that you try putting these tables on every printout page. \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit of a nuisance when you’re setting it up. But yeah\, once you get every run\, it shows on every run. So like you’re saying\, the software is awesome because you can do lots of runs. \nTemazcal Room: Once a table set up\, it follows you through on all the runs\, and I I think that’s as simple as a \nTemazcal Room: probably a button push to make it come out. Yeah\, it’s a little bit of a nuisance to set it up sometimes to get it okay\, scaled and formatted. And you have to move it left or right to get it out of the way of the \nTemazcal Room: safety factor pronounced. But \nTemazcal Room: sure\, okay\, that’s that. That makes sense that’s good. \nTemazcal Room: But by putting it on every one\, and you can just \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, we don’t have to \nTemazcal Room: flip around. I wonder what you’ve used on this particular one\, and one of the things that sort of alarms me now is the table you were looking at a second ago. Different page than this one has different numbers\, which means that I assume that every single table I wonder how many different \nTemazcal Room: variations there are. Sure\, and I can’t follow that at all as a checker. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The other one. \nandrew barrett: What he was looking at was. \nTemazcal Room: Doing Andrew’s work won’t be able to tell what he’s doing\, either yeah or Cole’s work. Whoever’s doing. Sure. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Andrew\, you had a comment. \nTemazcal Room: I think that was Andrew. \nandrew barrett: Yeah\, yeah\, I was just gonna say\, the table that \nandrew barrett: the table that you were showing earlier. Michael was one of the checks that we ran using different parameters. That were found from the triaxial test data. So that’s why the values are different and that they are labeled on each page \nandrew barrett: what? You know which system we’re using. So I know it’s not super intuitive and can’t be seen right now on the screen. But it it is there. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, I don’t mind. I don’t mind having different \nTemazcal Room: cross sections having different numbers on them. That would be \nTemazcal Room: probably expected. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, there’s most of the \nTemazcal Room: profile cross slope stability profiles that are shown in the report don’t have the table shown at all\, so I don’t know which table is applicable\, for which one \nTemazcal Room: I can assume that all the ones for B is the same as all the ones for B\, \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: but just print it out\, and then it’s there because I I know I’ve I’ve done thousands \nTemazcal Room: thousands of runs over the years\, and I know you. You tweak one. And it \nTemazcal Room: right? How can you prove? How do I know for sure\, when my Qc. Person is looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: that that tweak got carried through on every other right. I don’t have a residual B analysis \nTemazcal Room: that has the previous \nTemazcal Room: unodated. \nTemazcal Room: I I can appreciate that. I mean\, it’s 1 thing for Cole and I to work with Andrew and know everything’s spread out\, and what was done\, in what order we have that advantage. But as a reader and someone coming into this I can appreciate how\, if you’re missing that stuff\, it is nearly impossible to piece together. Why not just do it \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: That makes sense 2 \nTemazcal Room: to follow on on Jim’s point. \nTemazcal Room: How would you distinguish \nTemazcal Room: these strength parameters that \nTemazcal Room: presumably \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: left and right of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: is the natural material right? And then the the \nTemazcal Room: the key is this \nTemazcal Room: engineered material. \nTemazcal Room: presumably. \nTemazcal Room: When you say the key engineered key correct \nTemazcal Room: when you you\, too\, when you well\, it’s a tiny little thing. It’s basically above well\, but it’s shown in a way here that it implies that this trapezoid is the key. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I that I don’t want to imply that cause. It’s not. But your point is that it could look that way right? And then it creates confusion with respect to all of these strength parameters that are being assigned particular layers. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I certainly don’t want people to get the impression that’s intended to be the key\, but I suppose it does kind of look like key. That’s right. If you look at a certain way\, right? That’s another reason to. \nTemazcal Room: With this table on every printout\, because that table labels the pink as young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And so if you happen to look at one of the ones that has the table. \nTemazcal Room: then you’re set. \nTemazcal Room: but I think actually none of your presentation. But most of them don’t have the table. It is true there’s a whole bunch of them. And just if you had the table. \nTemazcal Room: But it yeah\, that that is not the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I I understand your point. That is that the key? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, that’s that’s good. I mean these these. Okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: where am I? Here? Okay\, so \nTemazcal Room: alright. So we’ve been talking about the sections and the analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I was next going to talk about how we came up with new strength parameters for these layers. \nTemazcal Room: Do. I need to be worried about timing as I go through this or just keep. We got lots of time\, I guess\, right. \nTemazcal Room: for now \nTemazcal Room: we’re we’re \nTemazcal Room: we’re on Slide 15 out of 45. So. \nTemazcal Room: I am just showing this \nTemazcal Room: graphic\, because this is what you saw. Last year. \nTemazcal Room: when we had 3 layers defined\, we identified Berm Fill. We had young bay mud. There was comments on how we were showing the strengths of the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: There was old bay mud\, that was it. We’ve taken that a step further now\, in 2\,024. So let’s let’s go on to what we did here in 2\,024. \nTemazcal Room: So the previous \nTemazcal Room: slides you where you’re shown with the the soil properties are those from \nTemazcal Room: before you’ve done the the Cpts or this new round of they’re for the new. They’re they’re all new. Okay. Thank you. What I’m about to show here explains how we came up with those \nTemazcal Room: you mean this\, this page here. \nTemazcal Room: Well. \nTemazcal Room: this is this\, let’s let’s let’s tackle that on in a couple of slides\, because then\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: let’s look at how we did it. This definitely doesn’t match. \nTemazcal Room: We. We have changed this. \nTemazcal Room: and here’s how we did it. \nTemazcal Room: This is a compilation of all the Cpts that were conducted. \nTemazcal Room: If you can see all the colors \nTemazcal Room: you’ll recognize. There’s a whole bunch of different colors\, and that’s because we just assign a different color to every Cpt. So all 2 dozen of the Cpts get its own color\, and we \nTemazcal Room: plotted them all up to see what it told us. And \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, there’s a lot of scatter\, but you also see some trends\, and and it suggested to us that it would be more precise for us to subdivide \nTemazcal Room: the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: And and so that’s what we’ve done\, and on the next slide. \nTemazcal Room: We \nTemazcal Room: you talking about here \nTemazcal Room: like this? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: bye. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry \nTemazcal Room: I can lean in \nTemazcal Room: sorry. You want me to start over again? No\, no\, I I mean I I’m getting it. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I well. \nTemazcal Room: you’re talking about Cbt. 8 and 9. So\, 8 and 9 \nTemazcal Room: you know\, everything is consistent. It looks like Cpt. 8 to 9. Go down with bay mud down to 32 feet down to 36 feet\, and it looks like really on that far west. \nTemazcal Room: southwest\, south\, south\, west\, southwest Point. \nTemazcal Room: It looks like that’s got deeper may but bay mud that stays with a nice smooth bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: strength\, profile. \nTemazcal Room: and and I’m wondering whether that geometry might look critical also\, and in any case\, even if it doesn’t\, I think that probably there needs to be some still stability done done \nTemazcal Room: with that location that shows it going to 36 feet. Okay\, I understand. It sounds like you\, unless you can explain to me why it shouldn’t be that way. That’s how it looks to me. \nTemazcal Room: And you’re. It sounds like you’re talking not only here about the depth \nTemazcal Room: there of of the young Bay mud\, but potentially also where it plots up on these graphs. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, are you also? No\, I think that’s like it’s going to plot just nicely that it’s\, I assume\, that’s going at about 15 psf. Per foot. Okay. So if you just extend the bay mud an extra 6 feet\, you’d have that same profile going an extra. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, an extra 6 feet. I understand? You’re really making the point. There’s been some stability cases at least. \nTemazcal Room: I would expect that the circles are going to try and climb as deep as possible\, climb downwards as deep as possible. It looks like some of your spill analyses. If you just scan through \nTemazcal Room: the geotech report\, some of them go down to 30 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think that those ones presumably bumped into something at 30 feet\, and if you allow them\, go to 36 feet and allow the Bay Ma to stay soft at 36 feet. I think they’ll extend a little bit deeper. They might go deeper\, and typically if it if it bottoms out at a depth\, and then you allow it to go a little bit deeper. The stability safety factor is going to go a little bit lower \nTemazcal Room: it. Yeah\, if it wants to bottom out and the bottom drops\, it’ll probably keep chasing it down so that could that could be the case. If if you’re allowing the circle to go as deep as you want and it and it \nTemazcal Room: finds a critical minimum safety factor. That’s higher than that. Then you say the \nTemazcal Room: the depth doesn’t matter that much\, but there were at least a few of the circles \nTemazcal Room: in your report where the bottom is 30 feet\, and I assume that that’s bottoming out\, because there’s some constraint that it bumps into right there. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: all of which is a an advocate you’re advocating that we might benefit by looking at what’s going on there in the \nTemazcal Room: that western \nTemazcal Room: edge where Cpts 8\, 9 are. I think it’s only relevant to Cpt. 8 and 9. Nothing else goes deeper than 30 feet. A lot of it’s more like 24 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, that could be I. I hear you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, let let me just give an explanation of what we did with this information. \nTemazcal Room: We took. We broke it into the kind of subdivisions and the upper 5 feet. We looked at that. And for each of these subdivisions we did a probabilistic \nTemazcal Room: plot of strength versus how often it occurs. And that’s what this \nTemazcal Room: on the right is. It’s all the strengths plotted by the \nTemazcal Room: frequency of occurring. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s a pretty wide band. There’s a scatter \nTemazcal Room: and what we did was in the next. In this case\, and the next one\, we chose \nTemazcal Room: the 30 percentile level. In other words\, we chose a strength that 30%\, only only 30% of the day is below and the other 70% is above. We felt that was a reasonable way to \nTemazcal Room: come up with an estimated strength. \nTemazcal Room: Now for is particularly for wide ranges. \nTemazcal Room: and and the same is true. 5 to 10 feet below ground service. \nTemazcal Room: now 10 to 20 feet below ground service\, a little different\, in our opinion\, because there’s more of a clustering of the strengths. It’s not as broad. It’s not as much of a bell curve. It’s more of a sharp curve. \nTemazcal Room: and here we felt it was \nTemazcal Room: reasonable to choose \nTemazcal Room: the most typical strength. In other words\, the \nTemazcal Room: the top of the curve. \nTemazcal Room: That wasn’t done to try to get a high strength. It just like that. Seems like that’s the dominant strength. \nTemazcal Room: Alright! Let me jump in again. \nTemazcal Room: so averaging works nicely when the data \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if you’re if you have cpt variable data and you’re driving a pile through it. The pile is picking up a little bit of strength from 0 to 5. A little bit of strength from here\, you know\, and an average is an appropriate number. \nTemazcal Room: but if you look at some of those colors\, it looks like you’ve got straight down the far left edge of that all the way\, and so some profiles. \nTemazcal Room: some cpts at least\, are all the way on the left edge there. \nTemazcal Room: most of them. Maybe you nudge it up a few percent or so I don’t know. But really pretty darn close to that left edge is where some profiles are going to be. \nTemazcal Room: Some profiles aren’t going to be averaged \nTemazcal Room: over there. If you want to know whether the whole thing is going to slide or not\, then you can say\, Yeah\, at least 50% of the sections are not going to slide because we’ve used 50% Median value here. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t think we want 50% of the sections to be stable. I think we want all of them to be stable. And we’re looking for the worst. \nTemazcal Room: not the not the average case\, but aren’t by doing this. Aren’t we? Basically taken like down the middle of that? You’re right. I mean\, almost all of them are clustered there on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and there’s a bunch. There’s a bunch of stragglers off to the right. But \nTemazcal Room: aren’t we choosing the most prominent \nTemazcal Room: band \nTemazcal Room: through this approach? \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what we’re we’re we’re trying to rep. We’re trying to \nTemazcal Room: capture the fact that there is a definitive. \nTemazcal Room: a clustering of them on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and and certainly aren’t looking to go past that it does seem like the appropriate strength is \nTemazcal Room: right there in in the dentist part of the graph. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, for a stability analysis like this\, where you have some cones that are far. If you have data on each cone that’s scattered \nTemazcal Room: and the slope circle comes through all of those different layers\, and you average it. \nTemazcal Room: But I think if you got a single cone that’s \nTemazcal Room: straight down the left edge\, and you have actually. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: it looks like you got 6 or 8 \nTemazcal Room: cones that are straight down the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know how you can be really confident \nTemazcal Room: that there’s not going to be some location out there where you have a slope circle that’s going to be able to find that weak spot. \nTemazcal Room: and maybe it happens to be offset a hundred feet from where you did your cross section. \nTemazcal Room: your cross section has to be representing \nTemazcal Room: the safety factor of 100 feet away from where you did your section. And I think I mean\, without having any geometry attached to the figure. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you gotta \nTemazcal Room: you gotta do something further left in your green 50 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I understand what you’re saying. I will. I will mention. Although it’s not in this slide deck. I’m not even frankly sure if it’s in our report. \nTemazcal Room: because we can do these things so quickly and easily\, we did look to see what happens if we \nTemazcal Room: like\, take the 30 percentile version of this \nTemazcal Room: which is like 250 to 300 sheer strength. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m interested in other geotechs because I’m I’m \nTemazcal Room: we’re a crowd here. But but I think that 30 percentile is \nTemazcal Room: pretty optimistic for \nTemazcal Room: this data with a slope stability analysis\, what would you choose? \nTemazcal Room: Like? 10% pretty close to the lower edge. \nTemazcal Room: But just so\, I make sure. I understand\, like the blue one is at maybe 200 or so. \nTemazcal Room: and the 50 percentile that you’ve chosen is more like 3\, 50 or something like that. Yeah\, so it’s not a geotech. But \nTemazcal Room: I am an engineer\, and I would think if you’re interested in the location where the blue one is\, you want to be at about 200. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll I’ll add some to that as well. \nTemazcal Room: I mean anything that you’re looking at really\, in this depth range that is beyond\, say\, about 500 Psf. \nTemazcal Room: these are sandy layers that you are. \nTemazcal Room: I mean all of those things. You’re not going to get a bay mud value. That is 2\,000 Psr. \nTemazcal Room: Those are sandy \nTemazcal Room: layers within the Baymark. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, if if you are modeling this as Bay MoD\, \nTemazcal Room: then \nTemazcal Room: I will agree with my friend Jim here that you are in a very tighter band\, that the upper bound of that tighter band is more like \nTemazcal Room: 400\, the lower bound would be more like \nTemazcal Room: 200\, something like that\, and that would represent \nTemazcal Room: more appropriately \nTemazcal Room: this young bay mud at these depth ranges that you are considering it \nTemazcal Room: all those other points to me. Yes\, they exist\, and they are \nTemazcal Room: what you measured\, but they don’t represent \nTemazcal Room: they mud in the context of what we are talking about. \nTemazcal Room: Right? The so what we’re using right now is about 3. \nTemazcal Room: So around 3 50 that the black line is about what reason? \nTemazcal Room: And when you you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: what about? What if the Black Island were here? What if the black line were here. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s basically what we’re talking about\, right is\, where’s that line\, either? \nTemazcal Room: Strictly envelope the entire data set. \nTemazcal Room: But I think he ought to be somewhere towards the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I mean 2\, 50 or something. I don’t know \nTemazcal Room: more toward the left edge. I mean\, I feel like we are kind of toward the left edge. But you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should be worse for the left edge right? \nTemazcal Room: But put your 3\, your 3 50. What’s your vertical Median number that you have? That’s 3 \nTemazcal Room: like 325\, which would fall like\, I don’t know. I’m just obviously eyeballing\, but it’s about there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, man\, hold on \nTemazcal Room: so what this looks like is that \nTemazcal Room: you know at least \nTemazcal Room: 50% of your cross sections would be good \nTemazcal Room: 50% are worse than what your analysis shows. \nTemazcal Room: Statistics are awesome. \nTemazcal Room: but I think they’re \nTemazcal Room: have to be applied pretty cautiously \nTemazcal Room: with it. \nTemazcal Room: This type of \nTemazcal Room: analysis. \nTemazcal Room: I I agree with you there when we have\, when we have. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if every single cpt was jumping back and forth all over the place. \nTemazcal Room: you know that it maybe it’s different. But if you look at the Cpts themselves\, a lot of them are pretty smooth. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, a linear \nTemazcal Room: linear tracks remain \nTemazcal Room: points out that a lot of those things that are further off towards the right are probably \nTemazcal Room: a sand. \nTemazcal Room: thin sand lenses that \nTemazcal Room: really appropriately or not even \nTemazcal Room: clay\, and shouldn’t be analyzed as a clay. But because A/C petite or coelec even \nTemazcal Room: analyzes these\, the thin layer factor doesn’t really \nTemazcal Room: those are all outliers right? And and so the strengths are are \nTemazcal Room: really not supposed to be averaged. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, they’re not really part of the the su behavior of the material. \nTemazcal Room: What what are we? So what do we take? We’re taking by taking the 50 percentile \nTemazcal Room: we’re taking them. Are we doing a mode? Isn’t that a statistical mode like the \nTemazcal Room: I should be okay. I don’t want to turn this into probability statistics discussion\, but I do agree. The statist\, the use of the statistics is very important. We do need to do that very thoughtfully. I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: The way we thought about that \nTemazcal Room: principle was when we said\, All right\, we’re we’re presenting the 50% tile like I’m showing here. \nTemazcal Room: We also recognized \nTemazcal Room: what if we just stay consistent with what we’re doing\, the other ones and use the 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: And we did do those runs\, and they don’t make that big of a difference necessarily. But \nTemazcal Room: there’s an argument to be made for doing that\, or even or even farther down. I think\, for instance\, I mean\, I’m curious\, I can’t tell\, but that left edge there \nTemazcal Room: looks pretty close to the same gray that’s at Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: 9\, \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, like goes to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: someplace that profile exists\, and if if you want you can. You can get a little more detailed and look at specific C specific \nTemazcal Room: profiles and say\, You know\, this one is averaged up and down it. But \nTemazcal Room: but averaging. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, composited a whole bunch of locations is \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s a it is a simplification. It’s it’s at at the least\, it is a simplification \nTemazcal Room: right to average a bunch of locations. And \nTemazcal Room: and I understand the point that you know there are occasions when you want to bore 0 in on a specific \nTemazcal Room: location. I think that \nTemazcal Room: is part of where your comments are now\, maybe that you’ve got you’ve got a band there\, and maybe you look at some of your profiles\, and they \nTemazcal Room: cpts on both \nTemazcal Room: there and on both sides are. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, towards the right edge of your dense band there\, and maybe that \nTemazcal Room: profile you use a slightly better. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If you I mean ideally\, you look at some sort of geomorphological background and say\, Yeah\, we think it makes sense. This one’s a little bit stronger. This one’s a little bit weaker. It may well be that Cpt. 9 is a little bit deeper\, because it’s further out towards the bay\, and everything is just and does tends to slope that way. And \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, and maybe because it’s out further towards the bay\, maybe it happens to have been younger and less desiccation. And it all happened during the you know\, post gold rush. I was actually expecting to see more of that\, the bay muds there\, and so it really is weaker than all the others which might be a few 100 years old. \nTemazcal Room: I mean to be honest\, we were kind of expecting to see more of that than we did. We think we might end up in a situation where there was a strong signal that \nTemazcal Room: the Western Cpts are worse than the Eastern ones. I mean\, that wouldn’t have shocked us if we’d seen it. Now\, admittedly. Yeah\, there are some Cpts that \nTemazcal Room: are lower than others. You’re pointing out numbers 8\, 9. Those are in the same place. So is that a geographic trend? Maybe it is\, I mean. \nTemazcal Room: but it’s not one that we’ve seen propagated throughout the rest of them. But \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, your point\, your points are well taken about. \nTemazcal Room: Might there be more critical places\, both in going back earlier here. \nTemazcal Room: based on\, you know\, topography. \nTemazcal Room: And might there be more critical places based on \nTemazcal Room: specific Cpt logs \nTemazcal Room: understood. \nTemazcal Room: There might be \nTemazcal Room: cherry washta Nick would like to make a comment. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, so let me 1st put my geologist hat on \nTemazcal Room: I was as I was looking at all of this I was \nTemazcal Room: well\, I have this microphone on\, so I don’t worry. \nTemazcal Room: Putting my geologist hat on as I was looking. All of this. \nTemazcal Room: There surely are all channels underneath all of this that are sandy \nTemazcal Room: and that’s as was suggested. That may explain some of those very high \nTemazcal Room: or relatively high strengths that you see\, and possible\, even refusal \nTemazcal Room: would have been nice to map those out\, but you know\, that requires going through a whole lot of very old Usgs coastal maps\, and so on. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not necessarily convinced that that would help. Now\, when it comes to this kind of discussion of statistics. On on one hand\, I don’t see this as a life safety situation\, so necessarily taking the lowest strength is in my view\, not \nTemazcal Room: required. \nTemazcal Room: however clustering it like this\, while interesting\, is not really helpful when one looks at a long linear structure. \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what you have. You have a very long structure\, and what I would have liked to have seen\, and that \nTemazcal Room: well\, I I don’t know how this microphone works. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if I stick it in my mouth\, then \nTemazcal Room: maybe \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: The the \nTemazcal Room: because it is a long linear structure. I would like to have seen this parsed out \nTemazcal Room: bisection. \nTemazcal Room: As you’re looking at the different sections where you put your cross sections\, I would have preferred to see this data presented for that particular section\, because you actually have a pretty good coverage of of field data. \nTemazcal Room: and that would allow you to do a better assessment whether you really have to go with the lowest strength\, or whether\, in fact\, the local variability is such that some higher value is is \nTemazcal Room: recommended rather than looking at all of the data in you know\, in an aggregate. So I think that would be \nTemazcal Room: my suggestion that that’s a much better way to approach it\, I think. \nTemazcal Room: seeing the scattering all of the data is is great. That’s that’s a beautiful plot. I love it\, you know\, if you if I present it for Young Bay mud\, then you can probably plot all the data that we have for Young Bay mud from the Bay Area\, and it will all nicely plot within this range. But \nTemazcal Room: because it’s such a long linear structure\, it would have been more \nTemazcal Room: informative and probably useful for you to \nTemazcal Room: look at the section where you \nTemazcal Room: the nearby data from the section where you actually did the slope stability analysis based on your criteria\, which I’m actually not taking exception with but looking at this discussion\, and\, as I said in my view. \nTemazcal Room: it’s not necessary to take the absolutely lowest value\, since this is not a life safety situation\, but at the same time there may indeed be a section where all the data is in this lowest thing\, which is what the Jim French suggested\, that there may be a section where all of the data nicely plots\, all on that low end\, in which case \nTemazcal Room: you have to use whatever you have. \nTemazcal Room: So that that would be my comment on on this whole. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Discussion. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: No\, that that’s good. I mean\, I I understand what you are all saying. I understand that and there’s no doubt there is\, I’m sure\, more that can be gleaned from this data. This is a lot of data. And and you guys all well know part of our job. And our judgment is to say\, all right\, we got all the say\, what is the best amount of \nTemazcal Room: processing and analysis we should devote to this data to answer the question \nTemazcal Room: at hand. Now\, as we get into the latter part of this presentation. I think we’re gonna see. \nTemazcal Room: even with what we have done here. There’s some pretty clear answers becoming evident about \nTemazcal Room: the situation and and I\, I would imagine\, if we \nTemazcal Room: kind of chase down some of these additional levels of \nTemazcal Room: detail behind these analyses and \nTemazcal Room: maybe make less conservative assumptions. \nTemazcal Room: There may be more of that. That is possible. \nTemazcal Room: But but there’s no doubt there could be more analysis always done on this stuff. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, Bob’s got a question. Yeah\, I just wanted to follow up on this. I I find this really interesting. Would you mind going back to that slide that showed the plan view\, and it showed some of the adjacent marsh. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, one of the things I’ve done a lot of is \nTemazcal Room: Wetland restoration\, and these dikes subsided\, Balens\, and you can see where there’s the existing marsh which is green in the upper left. \nTemazcal Room: You can see that there’s a \nTemazcal Room: a whole bunch of channels. \nTemazcal Room: and what we do find is when\, \nTemazcal Room: the water starts moving\, or whatever the the old channels are often reoccupi. The old channels are often reoccupied. \nTemazcal Room: Because they’re just more erodible. I’m not as familiar with the Mss. And \nTemazcal Room: it’s sheer strength or or erosion resistance. But \nTemazcal Room: The comment that Nick made\, that there may be some sections that cross \nTemazcal Room: old channels that aren’t otherwise apparent in the just the existing terrain. I think it’s a very good one. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: One way to look at that would be to look at some old \nTemazcal Room: tea\, sheet maps or other maps which I think the South Bay Salt Ponds. People have that show where the the channels were. \nTemazcal Room: especially the you know\, the larger channels. \nTemazcal Room: and then that might affect your your section \nTemazcal Room: location selection. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I will. I will say there’s no doubt there. There is evidence for lots of \nTemazcal Room: channels\, you know. There’s a lot. In other words\, there. There’s evidence for lots of sand lenses all through here\, and I I presume geologically\, that that’s just a representation of the \nTemazcal Room: ongoing meandering of them over\, you know\, millennia. \nTemazcal Room: and but the the way it looks to us is they’re just kind of like all over the place. There’s this \nTemazcal Room: a galaxy of little sand lenses\, and I don’t even know if we could map them. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, yeah. And I just want to state that it may be their sand lenses in in traditional dykes applied to Balens\, especially when they get \nTemazcal Room: wet and they’re managed ponds. You often have \nTemazcal Room: weaker material depositing in the old channels. It’s just \nTemazcal Room: organic or other stuff that really erodes in this case. If it’s sand\, maybe it’s less erosional. I don’t know. \nTemazcal Room: But a geomorphic interpretation of the \nTemazcal Room: subsurface might be might be helpful. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Is my only point. Thanks. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean one of the takeaways. I’m I get from this. I mean you. You are all making you’re you’re observing. You’re pointing out \nTemazcal Room: the ways. We have simplified the analysis. \nTemazcal Room: No doubt we have taken the State\, and we have tried to find \nTemazcal Room: you have to simplify to some degree right to do an analysis\, there’s no way around it. So we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve said\, all right. What’s the right amount of simplification to give us \nTemazcal Room: to tell us what’s going on here \nTemazcal Room: to a sufficient level of\, you know\, understanding to help everyone make decisions. And \nTemazcal Room: and so your your points about some of the additional ways we can. Analysis are well taken\, and and maybe that’s what we should do \nTemazcal Room: to better understand the story. I must say I’m \nTemazcal Room: really eager to hear your comments on the \nTemazcal Room: the end of this presentation\, because that’s I think we’re really the storyline is going to come through. \nTemazcal Room: are we? Are we? Good? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I think. So keep going. Yeah\, please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, let me get. Let me catch this up to where I left us off. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, th\, this is what we ended up with. After all that statistical analysis and all that data. This is the new table we are now using where the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: is subdivided into \nTemazcal Room: 4 layers. \nTemazcal Room: Really the lowest of these\, where it says\, Ybm. 20 feet below ground service\, and below\, that’s really 20 to 30 feet\, and Jim was making comments earlier about how \nTemazcal Room: there are some places. It’s deeper than 30\, that is true. \nTemazcal Room: But in our models. It goes to 30\, and then it’s underlain by old bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: and these are the properties \nTemazcal Room: we’ve used. \nTemazcal Room: There’s been comments about how it would be helpful to kind of map this onto all the slide outputs. But that’s that’s the that’s the new \nTemazcal Room: set of properties we’ve been using. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: just to compare what we had last year to what we have now \nTemazcal Room: this graph \nTemazcal Room: compares them\, and and the real difference \nTemazcal Room: now versus last year \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: we are now\, seeing evidence that the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: stays \nTemazcal Room: soft to a greater depth \nTemazcal Room: than what we had expected from last year’s data. That’s the real \nTemazcal Room: take away from what we did. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not as good. \nTemazcal Room: it’s softer\, and it goes deeper. \nTemazcal Room: And the e even on the simplified profiles. That’s what you see. Now\, you know \nTemazcal Room: all the other comments acknowledged \nTemazcal Room: I mentioned. We also did triaxial strength testing in the laboratory \nTemazcal Room: on undisturbed samples \nTemazcal Room: which allowed us to develop a best fit \nTemazcal Room: strength\, envelope. \nTemazcal Room: or effective stresses. \nTemazcal Room: And as I’ll show you in a few minutes\, we used that as another form of our analysis to see what it tells us \nTemazcal Room: so. Those are the soil strengths we used\, and we used\, and we did it\, and and put into the \nTemazcal Room: put those into those cross sections I was showing you. And then we ran a whole bunch of stability analysis to figure out \nTemazcal Room: what are the factors of safety at this site? \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: before I get to that\, though\, let me let me go back to this concept of keying for a moment. That’s been an important subject \nTemazcal Room: for our evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: We\, as I said\, had explorations going through places that had been keyed\, and we had explorations that went through places that had not been keyed. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, with that we plotted all of those strength points together. \nTemazcal Room: this actually shows a comparison. If if you can pick it up between \nTemazcal Room: places that were keyed\, and dark dots and places that were not in light dots. And and really \nTemazcal Room: the the bottom line that we found from our explorations is \nTemazcal Room: minimal appearance of strength \nTemazcal Room: gain \nTemazcal Room: from King J. I’m just talking about strength gain. How much resistance did the cone pentromer experience? \nTemazcal Room: A a little bit more\, but almost not enough more to even put a number on it. That’s why I describe as minimal \nTemazcal Room: change. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, he doesn’t seem to have that big of an effect \nTemazcal Room: on the strength \nTemazcal Room: in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: what kind of material are you using for the keying? You know\, in one of the write-ups somewhere \nTemazcal Room: read that. It was maybe your response to questions. \nTemazcal Room: from staff. \nTemazcal Room: It had some criteria that says \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t have \nTemazcal Room: deleterious material\, or some some sort of generic kind of thing\, but nothing about plasticity\, nothing about grain\, size\, distribution. Right? Is this some bay mud that you’re back filling again with? Or I mean\, it’s a bay mud\, or is it import gravel? Right? \nTemazcal Room: So ability. Obviously\, it’s not gravel. But you guys have your set of criteria. No deleterious material. It is a little bit broad like like you say that that’s the kind of rule book you guys use. But we did go out. I think it was a couple of years ago when \nTemazcal Room: surveyed all the it’s all imported material you have. \nTemazcal Room: and we did a a reconnaissance of it. We took samples. We characterized it. It is not a young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: it is\, it is silty. It’s largely a fine grained mix of silt with some sand. If I remember what \nTemazcal Room: our results told us \nTemazcal Room: so. It was still a. It was still a pretty fine material\, but not \nTemazcal Room: not to the degree like a bay. Mud would be plasticity. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. I do recall\, though\, that \nTemazcal Room: in addition to the lack of deleterious material in it. \nTemazcal Room: It looked like a material that if under the right moisture\, conditions could be compacted. \nTemazcal Room: and from what we understand from your team and what we’ve seen on our explorations. It appears to be a well compacted matrix of \nTemazcal Room: sandy silt materials \nTemazcal Room: placed into the trench. Not a big difference in strength from what was there before. \nTemazcal Room: but in terms of the activity itself. \nTemazcal Room: and the way in which you you for the cargo team specifically goes after places that might \nTemazcal Room: have had some deleterious materials in them\, and replaced it with a better\, more consistent material. \nTemazcal Room: It appears to us \nTemazcal Room: that it’s going to have benefit of \nTemazcal Room: the intention of making it more suitable against seepage\, but not really with a \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: a change in strength. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. Just I’m in a \nTemazcal Room: general observation is that \nTemazcal Room: bill that’s compacted to 90% play. Phil \nTemazcal Room: should typically have an unconfined\, compressive strength \nTemazcal Room: I would expect of at least \nTemazcal Room: 6 to 706 to 800. Psf. \nTemazcal Room: almost everything is \nTemazcal Room: less than that. I guess. The top\, the top several feet. \nTemazcal Room: half of it’s like that. \nTemazcal Room: What would you? What was your estimate? 60 packed it to? 95%. It should be \nTemazcal Room: yep. \nTemazcal Room: 1\,500 pso. \nTemazcal Room: Your your 1st estimate was like 6\, 6 to 800 for like a 90% compaction\, I know right? \nTemazcal Room: Mediocre compaction. 90% ish sure \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: and you know\, one of the photos\, and I’m not sure if it was in the presentation or report\, or someplace showed you guys with a sheep’s foot on the end of a \nTemazcal Room: of an excavator which should put this stuff down at. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, it’s Cape. If this\, if the trench is solid enough\, that should put it down at 95% without much difficulty. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. It look\, it looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: below water\, or \nTemazcal Room: maybe maybe not 90\, probably not 95%. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s not a structural. \nTemazcal Room: Then it should be off the charts with tip resistance\, and it shouldn’t. \nTemazcal Room: Shouldn’t give you a tip. Reason it shouldn’t give you an su out of it. It should give you a \nTemazcal Room: friction angle \nTemazcal Room: as a granular deposit if it’s granular yeah \nTemazcal Room: are you observing relative to its \nTemazcal Room: what? You’d interpret its ability to resist seepage as being \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I would I don’t. I don’t think this is a heavily like structural fill level compaction. I don’t think this is a necessarily \nTemazcal Room: a 95% compact in drawing that \nTemazcal Room: our findings bear that out in Bay mud. There is 0 chance that you’re going to get. I mean\, if it’s surrounded by soft levee\, and \nTemazcal Room: that’d make it tough until the last couple of feet. Possibly. But it looks like to us. It’s a it’s probably more likely you’re down in May \nTemazcal Room: 88% range. I would \nTemazcal Room: might have guessed. Maybe \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s a \nTemazcal Room: compacted material. \nTemazcal Room: not not not heavily compacted\, but \nTemazcal Room: but compacted and \nTemazcal Room: better controlled\, material wise. But the strengths are 4 to 600 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. \nTemazcal Room: down below. 5 feet they are. That’s a\, you know\, pocket 10 of \nTemazcal Room: or Tsf or something. \nTemazcal Room: I mean isn’t most of the action here\, though. Kind of in the down to 5 feet level \nTemazcal Room: isn’t most of the seepage resistance\, though\, in the upper 5 feet\, I mean\, that’s where we see the biggest benefit here. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, that’s where we see the highest strength\, I should say. \nTemazcal Room: and probably the most compaction activity occurring. \nTemazcal Room: I think once we get below 5\, we’re starting to get into just pre-existing young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I’m actually\, frankly\, not very concerned about the strength of the material. I’m just sort of \nTemazcal Room: commenting on. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: mediocre. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: And maybe gotcha fine. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: right? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I know. I mean\, I know you’re \nTemazcal Room: your intention is not to make a \nTemazcal Room: structural fit\, and I don’t think that’d be necessary anyway. \nTemazcal Room: excuse me\, Nick would like to speak. \nTemazcal Room: can I? Just. \nTemazcal Room: if I may just add my concern actually would be reactivity of whatever this fill is with salt water. \nTemazcal Room: If the clay happens to be \nTemazcal Room: what we normally want to use for impervious fill\, which is high plasticity clay. Those shrink when exposed to salt water. So actually\, they’re not the best material \nTemazcal Room: to be used. \nTemazcal Room: And so at some point\, somebody looking at it to make sure that you’re basically not putting in material that eventually over a period of time is gonna shrink and cracks are gonna develop. And it’s gonna yeah\, yeah\, shrinkable in the sense that a high salt concentration will shrink to double layers. Yeah. And you know\, it’s a fairly well known phenomenon. \nTemazcal Room: but sometimes we kind of forget that that’s what happened. So I don’t. I don’t think that’s what they have out here\, though you know it’s worth checking that it’s not happening. That’s all. Okay. Yeah\, that’s fair. We we can have some commentary to that. I mean\, based on what we saw\, the fill on the ground and based on what we see it in its \nTemazcal Room: placement in the keys. I I don’t think that’s what they have here. But yeah\, I could. I could imagine a scenario where you brought a material that happened. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, I’m gonna point out that we’ve got about an hour \nTemazcal Room: left of \nTemazcal Room: meeting time here. If we’re trying to hit our 4 30 \nTemazcal Room: target of getting out of here. \nTemazcal Room: Just just wanted to point that out. Okay\, I am happy to move faster. Actually\, some of this might go fast\, because \nTemazcal Room: this part about the seismic events has not changed. And so maybe I’ll just boil down. Say\, as you remember. \nTemazcal Room: we analyzed for a 50 year earthquake event and a 475 earthquake event and determined peak ground accelerations for both of those \nTemazcal Room: partly based on the soil properties we saw at the site and partly based on the Usgs\, derived compilation of all earthquakes and faults in the region. \nTemazcal Room: so no change there. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t. I don’t think that was a \nTemazcal Room: I know there’s some discussion last year about \nTemazcal Room: is a 475 year. Earthquake \nTemazcal Room: too big\, bigger than it needs to be for this analysis. Would a 200 year earthquake make more sense \nTemazcal Room: to that? I guess I’d say\, maybe. But why not \nTemazcal Room: see what happens with the bigger one? \nTemazcal Room: alright! Let me let me go through the analyses\, findings of of stability\, because \nTemazcal Room: th this is this is\, I think\, the thing I I’d like to hear input\, on \nTemazcal Room: Here’s the sections we analyzed. \nTemazcal Room: You remember this. \nTemazcal Room: and we analyze for Factor safety\, as we know. \nTemazcal Room: And let me just let me just skip to the \nTemazcal Room: to the results. Under normal static conditions the factors of safety were quite high. \nTemazcal Room: 2.8 9. In this case \nTemazcal Room: these berms are sitting there stable. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? I don’t think that’s a surprise to anybody. The question is\, what happens in an earthquake? \nTemazcal Room: And so I have a couple of slides presenting a 50 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: In this. This example is at Section D\, and you see a \nTemazcal Room: all of these analyses basically go through the berm and out past the tow. They’re \nTemazcal Room: slip services that involve \nTemazcal Room: a potential for tow failures of the \nTemazcal Room: of the berm. We analyzed a variety of these. These are always the the critical ones we came up with \nTemazcal Room: in this section. The the berms factor. Safety is\, is above the desired level of 1.1. So that’s good \nTemazcal Room: in the next slide at section CC\, it is below 1.1. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. \nTemazcal Room: what type of search constraints you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: How is this searching\, is it? I mean\, at some point in the draft. \nTemazcal Room: Powerpoint. We had it said\, No\, sir\, no surfaces are are circular\, or all are non-circular\, or something like that\, and I think \nTemazcal Room: I can’t remember what the note was there. All slide models shown are non circular. \nTemazcal Room: That \nTemazcal Room: slide got deleted from the final presentation\, which which is fine \nTemazcal Room: it looks like there are some circular circles. Oh\, definitely\, this looks \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: clearly non-circular looks like a not on typical type of non-circular surface. The \nTemazcal Room: I think it was the next one that \nTemazcal Room: is non circular\, but it looks kind of like a sloppily drawn circle\, or I mean\, it looks like an awkwardly circle. I’m curious what? How this came up with that geometry for the circle. \nTemazcal Room: And and in general. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, what is the \nTemazcal Room: search algorithm that you’re using here? Are you limiting it? Is it circular? Are you limiting? The entry points? Exit points? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know. Slide 2 as well as I know. Slope W slope W. You can \nTemazcal Room: print out the entry point \nTemazcal Room: limits and the exit point limits\, and the printout\, if you’re allowing it to search to a certain depth maximum\, if that’s what you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And I\, you know\, I \nTemazcal Room: I think if you’re presenting this to \nTemazcal Room: someone to review\, it ought to have \nTemazcal Room: some sort of explanation\, preferably a graphic depiction on every \nTemazcal Room: printout that says\, this is what the slide constraints\, the the slide surface constraints were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I see\, cause there are a lot of different ways to do it \nTemazcal Room: right\, because there are a lot of different ways to do it. Like you’re saying\, which ones did we use. Right? Yeah\, do we use this? Do we use that\, you know? And my guess is that most of the time circular\, I mean circular needs to be checked. I think \nTemazcal Room: especially if you have soft clay\, the most common expected case is going to be a deep circle that’s going to include most of the embankment and going to take it with it. \nTemazcal Room: especially with seismic. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m all in favor of \nTemazcal Room: looking at other types of configurations also\, because \nTemazcal Room: other things \nTemazcal Room: can happen. But but somehow\, if if I’m checking this\, I just need to know what the \nTemazcal Room: what the search methodology is. And okay\, I think the most helpful is is if you can give it graphically on the printout. \nTemazcal Room: and then I just know every single time \nTemazcal Room: what you do. I’d rather than a paragraph at the front than I go? Well. \nTemazcal Room: okay. But was it. \nTemazcal Room: does it? Does it allow it go to 36 feet this time\, or is it trunking? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: we. I mean\, at the risk of \nTemazcal Room: sounding like\, I’m oversimplifying things. We ran it a bunch of different ways\, right? Circular\, non circular wedges \nTemazcal Room: some other\, I mean. I I could probably ask Andrew to tell us for\, like 15 min about all the things he did\, and maybe that would be worthwhile. But at the very least\, I think what I’m hearing is kind of like your comment on the \nTemazcal Room: tabulation of the properties. It would be helpful as reviewers to understand. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, for this output. That’s the style of \nTemazcal Room: search that was done. \nTemazcal Room: Because if we ran 5 different styles of churches of searches. Why not \nTemazcal Room: tell you the 5 different ones\, and label them each accordingly. Is that \nTemazcal Room: that’s kind of what I’m taking away is that without that it’s just hard for you to understand sometimes what? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: the implication that we’re saying raffle here on the printout is the most useful\, and it’s\, you know\, for your own internal. Qc\, it’s most useful. \nTemazcal Room: you know for the \nTemazcal Room: people\, that are doing the runs\, you’re trying to keep track of all your burnouts. And yeah. \nTemazcal Room: got to make sure that you’ve got it. And the printout Graphic just shows that you’ve got it \nTemazcal Room: right exactly what it is. \nTemazcal Room: It was a little easier when I was a young engineer doing this myself because I didn’t. I couldn’t do 100 runs a day. I did like 2 runs a day\, so I didn’t have as many\, but I understand\, understand. Give. It would be helpful to understand. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that I\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: referring back to some previous discussions. I think there’s \nTemazcal Room: some questions about the blue strength profile being stronger than the pink strength\, profile\, right? Which I think is going to potentially change \nTemazcal Room: many\, most all of the \nTemazcal Room: all of these results. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Jim. Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: couple of questions. I don’t know if this is a typo or not\, but \nTemazcal Room: it for this OLE. Level or lower level\, and one of these \nTemazcal Room: I think \nTemazcal Room: it is. It’s \nTemazcal Room: it may be the next one. \nTemazcal Room: Are you looking at the oh\, yeah\, it says. \nTemazcal Room: this is. \nTemazcal Room: I guess. PGA point 3 7. Is that it? I pull? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, is that a typo? Or it’s supposed to be point 3 4. \nTemazcal Room: Not that. Oh\, you’re talking about here? The yeah\, the PGA that’s applied. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Because in the previous slides it says\, you know\, the only level is point 3 4. Just curious. If \nTemazcal Room: this was \nTemazcal Room: so\, I’m sorry. Hold on. Yeah. I want to go back. Yeah\, right there point 3 4G\, and your point is\, why does this one show point 3 7 g\, not that it’s a big difference. But but \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: And the other question is\, are you applying a pseudo static of like? Let’s say in this case\, point 3 7\, \nTemazcal Room: or are you reducing it for the slope. Stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: because that’s the PGA. That’s the peak value. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, correct me if I’m wrong. The these are pseudo static analyses. \nTemazcal Room: So I believe we batcher the PGA accordingly\, for a pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: enough\, so. \nandrew barrett: You didn’t apply any factoring for these. We started off with the analysis with a 2 thirds factor and then \nandrew barrett: eventually move to the full PGA value \nandrew barrett: conversations at our last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, do you? Do you remember the point? The reason for the point 3 7 here instead of a point 3 4? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you’re sleeping. \nandrew barrett: As it is. \nandrew barrett: I I think that I don’t know. I don’t think it would make much of a difference to be honest\, but I I’m not sure if that’s just a \nandrew barrett: in error. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: In any event\, \nTemazcal Room: did that answer your question? Well. \nTemazcal Room: not quite. Let me. \nTemazcal Room: I’m curious. If this number is \nTemazcal Room: 2 thirds. Is this mislabeled by any chance as being OLE. \nTemazcal Room: It’s definitely not. Cle\, it’s definitely not the larger one. \nTemazcal Room: What? What is hold on a second? \nTemazcal Room: Precisely. \nTemazcal Room: then. \nTemazcal Room: this point 3 7. \nTemazcal Room: I \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know what this is. \nTemazcal Room: It’s a little higher point 3 4\, right? What is it like? 2 thirds of point 5. \nTemazcal Room: But it’s mislabeled as OLE. \nTemazcal Room: You follow what I’m saying. Yeah\, I I do. \nTemazcal Room: I know that’s not what happened\, but I understand why you’re asking that question. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, 2 thirds is more like point 33 and point 34. And this is point 3 37. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just. \nTemazcal Room: We’re trying to follow what what’s being done? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, and part part of the reason\, I say\, that’s because when we go to the next ones\, you do see a higher one for the contingency level event\, right? \nTemazcal Room: In fact\, since we’re talking about it \nTemazcal Room: like\, for example\, when I go ahead a couple of slides\, there’s a point 5. So that’s what you’d expect to see from the earlier statement of PGA. Right? The intention is for that to show the PGA \nTemazcal Room: just what is the PGA that we derive from the \nTemazcal Room: the earlier evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: I understand. But what is your pseudo static \nTemazcal Room: value that you’re putting for your slope? Stability \nTemazcal Room: analysis\, is it? Are you using full PGA\, or are you reducing it by \nTemazcal Room: some number? \nTemazcal Room: I think we’re Andrew again. Correct me wrong. I think we’re using the full number. \nandrew barrett: Using the. \nTemazcal Room: The number we’re using. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: so why is the 1.3 7 instead of point 3? I’m I’m frankly not sure but the intention is to just \nTemazcal Room: plug in the PGA. Okay\, so that’s \nTemazcal Room: bully. All right. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Rameen Nick. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: so hopefully you can hear me now. I. I like this picture because \nTemazcal Room: it becomes non circular\, simply as a function of your layering that that’s a very normal thing that will happen. \nTemazcal Room: If you have a gradually increasing strength with depth\, then you get a completely different failure surface. \nTemazcal Room: So\, as you can see\, it follows the layer that where you have a transition in strength. Okay? So you have actually predetermined the failure surface in here. \nTemazcal Room: That that that is a problem. \nTemazcal Room: Say say that you\, predetermined by by your layering\, you have predetermined where that thing will is going to flatten out. \nTemazcal Room: See what I mean? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I see how our layering dictates where? Well\, that’s what I mean. So you predetermined by by where you put the layer boundary\, you have actually determined where the bottom of this thing’s going to be. If you moved it lower down\, it would move lower down. That’s what happens in these non\, so non circle analysis\, which I’ve done a lot. \nTemazcal Room: But I have a question which really follows up \nTemazcal Room: 1st of all. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know how to put it. \nTemazcal Room: Has anyone here actually checked slide against any other code\, or even a hand calculation where it actually does all of this correctly. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: Many years ago I had experience with rock science\, where they were very loose \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: codes. \nTemazcal Room: and I have not used them since. \nTemazcal Room: For that reason I have not gone back\, presumably over the years they’ve improved. \nTemazcal Room: But I have not been impressed by a QR. Qa. Qc. Their own. What? What software were you carrying issues with? We were using slide and for for some other purposes\, and things weren’t quite right. So we use other software. I’m simply asking\, has anybody \nTemazcal Room: my colleagues done any Qa. Qc. Normally\, when you adopt the code. Of course you trust the \nTemazcal Room: people who published it. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: I generally run it against something that I know\, just to make sure that it \nTemazcal Room: gives me the results in any case. But looking at the seismic analysis you know\, I think\, what my colleagues were asking. You know\, Magdi\, Cnc. If you go back to it is those are the reduction coefficients that people take the \nTemazcal Room: maximum acceleration\, whatever you come up\, and then you come up with a pseudostatic\, coefficient\, based on the thickness of the profile\, and so on. And so I guess that’s the question\, because\, applying full point 5G. Of course \nTemazcal Room: you can look at it. It’s conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But\, on the other hand\, I don’t think it really gives the right response\, and so puts you in a situation where you’re presenting point 7 5 \nTemazcal Room: factor of safety\, which\, in fact\, may be real underestimation of what you have. So I would suggest. Take a look at how \nTemazcal Room: you derive the seismic coefficient for this. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not PGA. \nTemazcal Room: If if anything\, we’re overestimating the seismic forces\, we’re absolutely\, I think we’re being either corporately conservative or we’re being overly concerned. If if you’re applying\, if you’re applying full PGA\, then yes\, you’re being very conservative\, conservative on a \nTemazcal Room: in a way that I don’t think anybody here would suggest that you should be. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, why. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Jima\, you had something. \nTemazcal Room: Are you done\, or you still have some more. \nTemazcal Room: I I have one more part to discuss\, which is the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. Why don’t you finish that? Okay\, yeah. Let’s look\, because I think we have these examples where the factor safety is less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe we’re being overly conservative. \nTemazcal Room: probably are. I mean\, we want to purposely be conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But we got these factors\, maybe below 1.1\, particularly in the 475 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: Frankly\, I like using that earthquake at all is pretty darn conservative\, but it’s appropriate for us to look at it. But what does that mean? What is what is this telling us about the behavior of the berm in this \nTemazcal Room: large earthquake. So \nTemazcal Room: to understand that we performed a \nTemazcal Room: displacement analysis\, not not a \nTemazcal Room: real fancy one. \nTemazcal Room: We all know you could do that some very advanced ways. You could do full models. We didn’t do that. We \nTemazcal Room: looked at. Oh\, yeah\, I’m sorry. Here’s the examples in yellow\, where we have factors\, safety less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: They are in cross sections B and C\, \nTemazcal Room: and they are mostly in the large earthquake\, and in one case in the smaller earthquake. But what do those tell us? So? Let me\, let me tell you what we came up with there and then. I think we can\, you know\, talk about \nTemazcal Room: things. \nTemazcal Room: deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: We used \nTemazcal Room: an established \nTemazcal Room: Co available code. Andrew can cite it. I’m not going to try to state the name of it at the moment\, but I will tell you it is a \nTemazcal Room: sliding block model. \nTemazcal Room: but classic\, you know\, fairly simple model that \nTemazcal Room: takes the weight of the berm. The frictional force of the base of the berm applies \nTemazcal Room: the acceleration from the earthquake to it\, and determines. How much is it going to move if the Thatcher safety is low\, how much is the berm going to move? Is it going to completely move out of the way\, or what is going to happen. \nTemazcal Room: and we ran it for the worst case we had\, which is a section CC. In a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and the answer we get from that is that it will move \nTemazcal Room: along the slip plane 2 to 9 inches \nTemazcal Room: with 5 inches\, being the \nTemazcal Room: the best estimate of movement. \nTemazcal Room: That’s a result I wanted to make sure to put in front of everybody within the board and \nTemazcal Room: get reactions to\, because \nTemazcal Room: when we see that answer come up. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. The factors of safety are sometimes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, well\, below 1.1\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is not an amount of deformation that is going to mean \nTemazcal Room: a berm breach. I know ultimately\, when you boil this all down. This\, the whole purpose of this analysis we’re doing is are the berms gonna hold up. \nTemazcal Room: And we’re our conclusion is even in these earthquake events. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, there will be some \nTemazcal Room: deformation\, but not enough to affect their ability to hold the mixed sea salts. And it seems like\, isn’t that really the bottom line of all this analysis \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: will they hold up \nTemazcal Room: so right? And and so you’re talking about horizontal movement. I guess \nTemazcal Room: the question is\, is there vertical settlement as well? Yeah. So the way I would describe this movement is when I say along the slip service. I mean\, it’s like \nTemazcal Room: vertical atop and horizontal out at the toe. So it’s some of both. \nTemazcal Room: is is what we would imagine. \nandrew barrett: As an aside before that discussion keeps going. It’s the brain. Macedo method\, 2\,018\, I believe\, is the \nandrew barrett: year that that paper was published I could look it up specifically. It’s the modified Newmark sliding block analysis that uses \nandrew barrett: earthquake analysis from actual earthquakes. Thank you. \nandrew barrett: Yep. \nTemazcal Room: Good. \nTemazcal Room: So we we would interpret it. That’s why we put this little picture of an example slip service on the slide that we’d interpret as moving \nTemazcal Room: 2 to 9 inches along that surface. \nTemazcal Room: and and we don’t see that as being something that affects the \nTemazcal Room: robustness or \nTemazcal Room: retaining ability of the of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So to us all this said that to us seems like that’s feels like that’s the ultimate conclusion. Did you ever \nTemazcal Room: so? What method did you use for doing the deformation analysis? \nTemazcal Room: what what Andrew just described is is a is a codified version of the sliding block \nTemazcal Room: analysis. The Newmark sliding block analysis. But whose implementation of that. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, can you say that one more time. \nandrew barrett: Brain Macedo Method. \nTemazcal Room: Say it again. \nTemazcal Room: Say that again\, Andrew\, I’m gonna pull up the statement in our \nTemazcal Room: Brian macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: meaningful? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, after what you said about rock science. Goodness. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: Brian\, what about Brian Macedo? \nTemazcal Room: No\, I see. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If we I will say I mean\, if we were. We’ve been using slide 2 forever\, I mean\, and if \nTemazcal Room: I have not yet been like Oh\, my gosh! What is going on? If we had had a moment\, even one moment. We’re like what is going on with this thing. I think we’d be digging in. Sounds like you did\, but \nTemazcal Room: I have not had that yet. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, that that I I skipped over some slides in there. But \nTemazcal Room: that’s that’s what we’ve come up with. I mean\, this is our summary. \nTemazcal Room: Our impression is\, and and recognizing yes\, for sure\, we could \nTemazcal Room: go into further analyses. Further data. We could do some more critical sections\, certainly run some more ones like it. \nTemazcal Room: Location 8\, 9. \nTemazcal Room: Probably. Maybe we find low factors of safety there\, too. \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t shock me\, I suppose. But \nTemazcal Room: ultimately this deformation analysis seems to us like\, that’s what’s really \nTemazcal Room: going on. \nTemazcal Room: And and I and I\, I also recognize that earthquakes that have been experienced at this facility in the past are not 475 year events. We know that there have been earthquakes. There’s 1\,989 \nTemazcal Room: that was not at that size\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is a data point\, and there was no deformation in that earthquake. So that does give us\, I think\, some \nTemazcal Room: confirmation that we’re using \nTemazcal Room: appropriate values for this. \nTemazcal Room: so I almost feel like that in some ways might end up being more important than delving further into what the factors safety are. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: can you talk about the the low tide? Elevation that you selected\, how you selected it? And if \nTemazcal Room: power \nTemazcal Room: sensitive\, the deformation results are to that number. Yup \nTemazcal Room: we selected 2 feet for our low tide. For most of these analyses not 0 feet. We. We recognize low tide goes below 2 every day. \nTemazcal Room: But our 1st batch of analyses use 2 simply because we’re compounding probabilities. We’re talking about what happens during an earthquake\, which is\, you know\, a 4 min event. \nTemazcal Room: and the likelihood of the earthquake occurring during the \nTemazcal Room: tiny part of the day when the low tide occurs\, we said\, Okay\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: 2. Seems like a more reasonable expectation of what might happen. So we ran a bunch of these with 2\, \nTemazcal Room: but also recognize that there’s interest \nTemazcal Room: from from everybody and understand? Okay\, you know\, that’s great. But what about like a really low tide\, which is really like more like 0? So we did a comparison. It made no effect whatsoever on the deformation. It made a very marginal effect on the factors of safety\, but not even enough to \nTemazcal Room: to round out to the numbers shown in our table. So whether or not it’s a 0 or a 2 foot low. Tide doesn’t really affect what we came up with\, but those are the numbers that that we used in our analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I have a question. \nTemazcal Room: This relates to the previous \nTemazcal Room: presentation that \nTemazcal Room: run up goes up to elevation 11 or something like that. Okay\, is that elevation that you’re kind of considering as being the the berm. Or are you using today’s elevation? We’re using today’s elevations. \nTemazcal Room: We didn’t. We didn’t go in and make them 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: In other words. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t \nTemazcal Room: really expect it would do much to change them to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: But we use the elevations that are current. \nTemazcal Room: How much higher would 11 and a half be \nTemazcal Room: from current television? A fraction of a foot \nTemazcal Room: fraction of a foot. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. All right. \nTemazcal Room: So thank you for your \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t remember whether you had told us this \nTemazcal Room: during your previous presentation or not. But I’m just curious about \nTemazcal Room: the colored section \nTemazcal Room: of the broom and the pink and the \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, how did you get the configuration of those \nTemazcal Room: 3rd section. \nTemazcal Room: Let me go back to the figure that shows one of those examples. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. So the here’s a good one. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t say there was any science behind. How we exactly defined the trapezoid that you see other than we just wanted to have a trapezoid\, we said\, let’s just have a trapezoidal distinction between \nTemazcal Room: what’s under the berm and what is not under the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and the distinction. There\, again\, is \nTemazcal Room: what we have used under the berm is strictly from our analysis of the Cpt data. \nTemazcal Room: whereas what’s outside of that trapezoid \nTemazcal Room: is a an attempt to estimate \nTemazcal Room: what we would. \nTemazcal Room: the the deeper material layer unaffected by the berm. It it is. It is an engineering judgment attempt to estimate that. \nTemazcal Room: There has been a suggestion that might some of our values be\, in fact. \nTemazcal Room: making that \nTemazcal Room: stronger than what’s under the berm \nTemazcal Room: that could be. I I’m not sure what my answer that is at the moment\, but that is\, that’s that was our intention with the analysis. And that’s that’s what the trapezoid means. And that’s how we developed it. So it was strictly based on Strand\, not on \nTemazcal Room: some historical information on what \nTemazcal Room: it’s. It’s all strength and just our interpretation that there would be an an area \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: soil \nTemazcal Room: affected by the berm’s presence. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So from my perspective\, you know\, based on the presentation\, the thing that I’m \nTemazcal Room: really concerned about is \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: right? And I think the way you did it was based on \nTemazcal Room: what the geometry is. Yeah\, based on lighter data \nTemazcal Room: and measurements that you took in the field. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I think what Nick said \nTemazcal Room: is really the most important aspect of this. \nTemazcal Room: because \nTemazcal Room: if you don’t find the critical \nTemazcal Room: section \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: you you might not be representing what the risk really is\, because it’s a long \nTemazcal Room: linear structure. And so I would echo what Nick had previously said\, which is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, use the data close to \nTemazcal Room: this section \nTemazcal Room: that you have picked \nTemazcal Room: rather than the average. \nTemazcal Room: Right? I think. Now\, yeah\, that’s that’s going to be very important. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing that right\, I think you should also use in terms of \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because you are picking geometry. And he said\, if it’s narrower. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s likely to be \nTemazcal Room: critical\, because\, you know\, it’s narrower\, like\, the berm is narrower. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: But you could also use. Look at the strength. \nTemazcal Room: Right? Yeah\, you could go to sections and see in this area there’s a concentration \nTemazcal Room: of soft material\, even though the geometry \nTemazcal Room: might be \nTemazcal Room: logic\, right? \nTemazcal Room: So so you have to look at it \nTemazcal Room: from that perspective \nTemazcal Room: as well. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing which caught my eye \nTemazcal Room: really is the the weird shape \nTemazcal Room: of the burn. \nTemazcal Room: you know. I mean\, I was kind of looking at the firm. I’m wondering what made them ship there. \nTemazcal Room: The sheep. \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: You know the way that the way it’s shown in our model \nTemazcal Room: or the way it really is. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, in the photos. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I’m kind of wondering \nTemazcal Room: why would \nTemazcal Room: they build a firm \nTemazcal Room: and kind of shape it the way they did \nTemazcal Room: what is\, what is what is about the shape that is weird? Well\, I’m I’m I’m just looking at. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you want to build a you want to build a firm right? \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, normally \nTemazcal Room: right\, you would expect that. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, you want to make the things straight. You know there are these segments to it. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m kind of wondering whether this was built in stages. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Maybe there was a time ago\, right? I don’t know whether you have any historical information. Was this all built? You know there was a plan. \nTemazcal Room: and the plan was that sense should be shaped \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: So so you’re talking. You’re talking about the curves. Yeah\, how it curves around and everything. Yeah\, I don’t. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know why they built them the way they did. I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, yeah\, because they’re 100 years ago is when when they built these. Yeah\, because sometimes what happens is\, maybe the initial plan was to build something small\, and there was something small. \nTemazcal Room: and he decided to expand it. \nTemazcal Room: So you know\, from \nTemazcal Room: where the previous one ended. You know. \nTemazcal Room: you want to hit the roadway so \nTemazcal Room: it ends up being shaped like that. \nTemazcal Room: But if that’s the case\, I mean. What would happen is that you have \nTemazcal Room: sections \nTemazcal Room: of the berm \nTemazcal Room: which are different by virtue \nTemazcal Room: of age. \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: And so I mean\, it kind of made me curious that \nTemazcal Room: somehow. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, like that \nTemazcal Room: bad section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, close to them at all. \nTemazcal Room: What was that for? \nTemazcal Room: Because\, I think \nTemazcal Room: you know\, looking at the shape \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it might drive you into saying. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, maybe this\, then the site development history. \nTemazcal Room: It’s also an important factor \nTemazcal Room: in determining \nTemazcal Room: what is the most critical section \nTemazcal Room: you know. If yeah\, I understand behind it\, I mean\, I can understand it \nTemazcal Room: but it’s kind of. \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: pick my curiosity as to \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s \nTemazcal Room: it it. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Why would anyone build the firm the way it is? \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit like our \nTemazcal Room: I I will tell you. You know\, when we were out there at all these places\, looking and measuring this berm\, if we had seen a stretch of berm that was distinctly different than another stretch of berm. \nTemazcal Room: We would have said\, Wait a minute. \nTemazcal Room: maybe that needs to be analyzed separately\, because that’s him. But we didn’t really see that I mean\, it was pretty consistent throughout. I know the \nTemazcal Room: the\, the alignment of it’s kind of odd and changes a lot\, but the berm itself didn’t change enough for us to see anything that would prompt us to \nTemazcal Room: analyze that specifically. But we did. We did look for it\, and it was a little bit like what we did with all the \nTemazcal Room: Cpt logs again we’re like\, are there places out here where the soil is worse or softer? \nTemazcal Room: And we didn’t see that regionally. I I know there’s been discussion here\, and i 1 of the takeaways from this discussion. I feel like is. \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should analyze over at Cpt. 8 and 9. Maybe that’s a little batch of yeah. A situation that\, you know\, warrants its own analysis may maybe so\, although I will say one advantage of having done all these analysis. I can offer a prediction of what we will find. \nTemazcal Room: If we do that I will. I will bet \nTemazcal Room: I’ll bet a Starbucks card \nTemazcal Room: we will find a factor safety of like point 7\, \nTemazcal Room: and we’ll run a deformation analysis. It’ll be like 2 to 9 inches. I think that’s probably what we’re gonna learn. Yeah. And so we’re gonna have to reckon with. What do we all make of that\, you know\, is. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I mean I I am \nTemazcal Room: okay with what you’ve done. I think you’ve made an effort. \nTemazcal Room: You know you’ve done your due diligence. \nTemazcal Room: and the only thing that I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: be done is to kind of look more closely at the issue of \nTemazcal Room: what is the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because ultimately the behavior of this\, then\, is going to be in 3 dimensions. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, even if you have a weak section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when this thing is subjected to an earthquake is going to respond as a system rather than the \nTemazcal Room: you know the section that you have true \nTemazcal Room: 3 dimensional effects\, you know\, compete. Your due diligence is to kind of look at it \nTemazcal Room: a little bit more in terms of \nTemazcal Room: is there any either due to site\, development\, history. \nTemazcal Room: or the strength of the material you’re encountering is there potentially a more critical section \nTemazcal Room: than what you have looked at. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when we 1st got involved with Cargill on this question. We were prepared with Cargill team to look at 3 like\, if this firm is going to breach\, how big an area is gonna breach\, and what are the 3 dimensional effects? We were all prepared to do that until our analysis suggested \nTemazcal Room: it isn’t actually gonna breach. So once we found that we’re like\, okay. Well. \nTemazcal Room: suddenly\, there isn’t such a need for that sort of 3 dimensional analysis. Now\, we’re faced with this amount of deformation\, and \nTemazcal Room: there are surely 3 dimensional\, you know\, effects going on with that\, too. But \nTemazcal Room: given the magnitude and scale of it\, it seems like we’re kind of getting our answer now\, yeah\, well\, I mean\, the 3 dimensional response is actually going to be better. It’ll probably make the numbers even less. Yeah\, exactly. \nTemazcal Room: you know. And you know\, but I think that \nTemazcal Room: the one piece is to \nTemazcal Room: look at the sections\, you know\, in terms of strength\, not there’s a geometry. \nTemazcal Room: and see whether that would drive you \nTemazcal Room: into looking at a particular section. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Gma. \nTemazcal Room: See\, Romaine\, you got your hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: I was wondering because I was looking your report\, and it said that the yield acceleration is like point 1 9 \nTemazcal Room: I I’m curious what parameters you used in the beret and macedo \nTemazcal Room: approach \nTemazcal Room: to get the deformations you’re getting. \nTemazcal Room: It looks a little low to me\, but \nTemazcal Room: in fairness the deformation does\, or the yield. No\, no\, the yield. I’m I’m okay with the yield. I think the deformation numbers look a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, for that yield \nTemazcal Room: and the materials that we have at at the site. So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, 7\, 5. Or I mean\, even the 4 75 is \nTemazcal Room: basically a big San Andreas \nTemazcal Room: event. If you\, or pay or 2\, but 7 and a half or 8 doesn’t matter which one. But I’m curious \nTemazcal Room: what parameters you used in your Bra Msato evaluation to come up with \nTemazcal Room: deformations you came up with\, okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, \nTemazcal Room: I I get that and we can provide. We can provide that. I mean\, we could kind of walk through with the team. Here we could provide a separate\, follow up the kind of details\, allow folks to kind of dive in and see it. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, I get I I understand your takeaway is like you were a little surprised. The numbers were what they were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Alright. We we can. \nTemazcal Room: We can give more detail behind the inputs to the bray. Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Michael. \nTemazcal Room: Very good. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Now we go to public comment before Ec. Further Ecrb discussion. \nTemazcal Room: So for members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: if you would like to speak today\, we request that you \nTemazcal Room: only provide comments or questions specific to the questions given today or the presentations given today. \nTemazcal Room: If you would like to speak\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nTemazcal Room: If you are here in person. \nTemazcal Room: Please raise your hand so we can call on you\, at which time you may come forward\, and \nTemazcal Room: I’ll have a lectern\, but you can come forward to speak. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer\, please raise your virtual hand and zoom. \nTemazcal Room: You may do this by clicking on the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nTemazcal Room: and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nTemazcal Room: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period. \nTemazcal Room: Starting with anyone present in person \nTemazcal Room: when called upon\, you’ll be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nTemazcal Room: Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks \nTemazcal Room: you have a limit of 3 min to speak. \nTemazcal Room: as at any public meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. \nTemazcal Room: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nTemazcal Room: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. \nTemazcal Room: hate speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and abusive language will not be tolerated. \nTemazcal Room: and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or exceeds the established 3 min without permit\, or 3 min limit without permission \nTemazcal Room: will be muted. \nTemazcal Room: Margie\, are there any hands raised? \nTemazcal Room: I do not see any. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I do not see any hand. \nTemazcal Room: That is the end of public comment. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So let’s \nTemazcal Room: return to board discussion. \nTemazcal Room: think there were a lot of questions today\, and and \nTemazcal Room: for the most part they’ve been answered\, but it sounds like \nTemazcal Room: there are some \nTemazcal Room: additional pieces of information or analysis that \nTemazcal Room: are going to be required. And I’m just \nTemazcal Room: wondering. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, and or I think the question to the board right now is. \nTemazcal Room: is there a path forward without a further \nTemazcal Room: meeting? \nTemazcal Room: Is there an information package or a calculation package \nTemazcal Room: that Cargill can provide to us. \nTemazcal Room: That satisfies everyone’s. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, comments. And I think \nTemazcal Room: and so I put that that question to the board here. \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to see some clarification of the \nTemazcal Room: set up and run up analysis. And I could be more specific \nTemazcal Room: if that’s helpful to the people. \nTemazcal Room: and then I also had a question\, for \nTemazcal Room: I also had a a more general question to \nTemazcal Room: I think to Janet\, to the staff. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know when we should do that. But to answer your question\, I think I’d like to see more on the way. Run up \nTemazcal Room: still. Water analysis. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: And Jen\, I I assume you’ve been taking lots and lots of notes. And so the concerns of the Board of the questions. \nTemazcal Room: Do you think that that can be. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, summarized and and turned into a request for Cargill to respond to\, or \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, like cause\, the thing\, I I \nTemazcal Room: what I don’t I mean I. \nTemazcal Room: If we have to have another meeting\, we have to have another meeting. But if the if the board is \nTemazcal Room: satisfied that in general or not in general\, that they are satisfied \nTemazcal Room: that\, you know conditions are being met\, or the calculations and the analyses are \nTemazcal Room: or proper. \nTemazcal Room: with a few adjustments and clarifications. \nTemazcal Room: You know I think we \nTemazcal Room: I’m happy to go that way. But \nTemazcal Room: you know again I’m asking the board here if \nTemazcal Room: if there is something that is \nTemazcal Room: troubling you enough to the point where. \nTemazcal Room: you know you think we need to come back? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I guess maybe a question could be\, for the Board to think about is what kind of deformation \nTemazcal Room: would be a deformation that would be a concern. \nTemazcal Room: So\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: is is 9 inches a concern. \nTemazcal Room: Is it something that they can address through inspections and maintenance \nTemazcal Room: in this? In the worst case\, scenario\, and \nTemazcal Room: and perhaps \nTemazcal Room: you know\, because they do \nTemazcal Room: endeavor to have 2 feet of free board. \nTemazcal Room: If their deformations don’t exceed 2 feet\, then perhaps \nTemazcal Room: The risk is very low that there could be a release \nTemazcal Room: and so we could ask them\, for \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it sounds like there’s a concern about how the \nTemazcal Room: the bay muds outside of the zone\, under the berms\, were treated with their strength parameters\, and also \nTemazcal Room: that they may not have picked the most conservative \nTemazcal Room: parts of the berm to model\, and so maybe they could. They could run those and provide those results. And if the results were. \nTemazcal Room: the deformations were within a certain range. Then then it would be fine. \nTemazcal Room: Jen. In. In addition to those\, there was the question of just the strength that was that was chosen. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, the 3 50 versus like 200\, \nTemazcal Room: I think I think that’s an important one. \nTemazcal Room: And then there was also like a question of whether we’re using the full PGA or \nTemazcal Room: something less than that. \nTemazcal Room: Those 2 might be compensating changes that might get you back to the same answer. But I feel like all those things you said\, and the 2 that\, I added could be addressed in a you know\, a\, a written. \nTemazcal Room: a response\, sort of a thing \nTemazcal Room: is\, should they be applying a factor to the the peak\, the PGA\, instead of using the PGA in their analyses? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, they actually being conservative. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if they apply a factor\, that deformation. \nTemazcal Room: that factor of safety\, is going to be higher. So yeah\, Erin\, on the safe side\, is the way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: frame. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: still. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. But I think I think ultimately\, is that defamation \nTemazcal Room: is the factor of safety. The limit equilibrium analysis \nTemazcal Room: is given as factor of safety which is low. \nTemazcal Room: But the deformation analysis is saying\, these are the kind of displacements \nTemazcal Room: that we are getting. \nTemazcal Room: and so it kind of \nTemazcal Room: makes the limit. Equilibrium results\, you know\, less \nTemazcal Room: significant. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Jim. \nTemazcal Room: It looks to \nTemazcal Room: hey\, Kevin? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, sorry\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if if I may. I \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: you know overall. This is a tremendous amount of work. \nTemazcal Room: and in general it’s been quite carefully done. I think we’ve identified a couple of places. The the seismic deformation is interesting because brain macedo formulation is completely independent of the slide analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It only you only use the geometry of whatever’s the potentially failing mass. The rest of it is independent\, I think\, in the seismic analysis\, I I really do suggest that you actually look at proper\, whether the slide code in itself \nTemazcal Room: has a reduction formula in it for the pseudostatic\, for the pseudostatic\, which \nTemazcal Room: would be nice. But whether you’re applying the right seismic coefficient. \nTemazcal Room: that normally would be used in this kind of analysis\, because if you did not\, then this was an incredibly conservative \nTemazcal Room: result\, and the other one is\, as Jen already mentioned. I I agree. If \nTemazcal Room: you\, I would suggest that you do look whether there is a more critical \nTemazcal Room: area based on the shear strength\, the actual shear strength\, data that you have. \nTemazcal Room: and if the deformation then following proper procedures\, comes less than I would say\, I agree 2 feet. Then we’re obviously in a reasonably good shape and and a memo to the effect\, explaining what exactly the analysis were probably may suffice. \nTemazcal Room: At least\, that’s that’s my view. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: I had a hard time hearing. What Nick was saying. Can you rephrase it? \nTemazcal Room: Maybe broad or \nTemazcal Room: presenter from from your commentary. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, you’re you’re advocating that. It would be wise to check an additional area as a critical section for stability. \nTemazcal Room: That was one. \nTemazcal Room: And the second \nTemazcal Room: comment was that we should \nTemazcal Room: either confirm or modify appropriately the pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: number in the model. \nTemazcal Room: in in the slope\, stability model in the slope stability model. And are we using the number that we should? Or could we really be using a smaller number? And that’s factored? And I mean\, basically ask double check that you’re using the right numbers in your brain\, macedo \nTemazcal Room: analysis. And and the 3\, rd that’s right. The 3rd one is the the numbers that went into the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Romine\, I’m \nTemazcal Room: I agree at the end of the day\, if the deformation analyses\, that \nTemazcal Room: I guess this board feels \nTemazcal Room: comfortable with the numbers\, and you don’t get any breach or any overtopping. Obviously that that’s that’s the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I like to \nTemazcal Room: emphasize that \nTemazcal Room: from your report. It says the yield is point 1 9\, and even if you use two-thirds of the \nTemazcal Room: lower level\, you get like point 2 2. So you’re above it already. Now it’s important that well\, all of those numbers are in the context of the strength parameters that you have used\, which we have had questions about. So if if you use lower strength \nTemazcal Room: parameters and you get \nTemazcal Room: lower yield\, you will get invariably larger deformations\, and if those deformations are still within the limits that \nTemazcal Room: there are no issues with breach and overtopping\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: Then those \nTemazcal Room: will give at least me a lot more confidence that\, hey? We are good. You have done a lot of good work\, but \nTemazcal Room: I think there are some loose ends that needs to be kind of \nTemazcal Room: tidied up\, so that \nTemazcal Room: at least I can get a good sense that we are good good to go the way you are approaching it. \nTemazcal Room: It’s\, I think\, one of the one of the points I I hear from. That is \nTemazcal Room: not only your interest in understanding the parameters that went into the brain Macedo \nTemazcal Room: displacement\, analysis\, but making sure that those parameters match up with \nTemazcal Room: whatever modifications may be appropriate in the strengths. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you Jim. \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: think this is probably everyone’s agreeing that something more needs to be resubmitted. There’s a question that remains outstanding whether the Ecrb wants to see that again. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m somewhat up in the air about that somewhat undecided. \nTemazcal Room: I I \nTemazcal Room: heard some of what Nick said\, and \nTemazcal Room: Michael’s summary\, and and remain. And so some. This is \nTemazcal Room: a lot of it’s been said before\, but I think \nTemazcal Room: there’s several things that need to be resubmitted\, one is\, and I’m going to add a couple. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, over that \nTemazcal Room: west\, southwest corner. \nTemazcal Room: Probably a need. A new section needs to be done there. \nTemazcal Room: with bay mud going down to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think probably the strengths need to be reevaluated and not use a median\, and probably not even a 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: but probably closer towards a lower bound less. You want to get section by section and cone by cone\, and use specific sections with specific cones. \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s hard to review and to know. I mean in terms of engineering criteria. I think the engineering criteria is that you need to do a robust search. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be sure\, to find the critical shape and depth \nTemazcal Room: of of the stability surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: and I think that we can’t know that from what’s been given \nTemazcal Room: so far. \nTemazcal Room: And you know\, if if you were to provide something with \nTemazcal Room: you know\, entry and exit points \nTemazcal Room: or bottom tangent depths that are allowed\, or and so on. \nTemazcal Room: Then that needs to be resubmitted to \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. \nTemazcal Room: maybe Jen’s okay with looking at at that. Maybe Jen looks at it and says\, Oh\, this is over my head. I need the ecrb to look at it again. \nTemazcal Room: It may be relatively straightforward\, but it’s \nTemazcal Room: but there’s there’s a lot of material that’s going to have to be looked at\, not necessarily super complicated or difficult\, I think. Yeah\, I think \nTemazcal Room: these instructions we’re giving are pretty straightforward. These requests we’re giving are pretty straightforward\, and they’re they’re done\, or they’re not done. \nTemazcal Room: let’s see\, I I think that there’s some problems with the \nTemazcal Room: pink being weaker than the surrounding blue\, and that should be revisited. \nTemazcal Room: I understand that\, you know\, under\, you know\, in the trapezoid\, where you have cones pushing through it and borings and lab data. \nTemazcal Room: Probably your your results are pretty good. \nTemazcal Room: but the way you put that outside\, and where you start that from should not be weaker than the \nTemazcal Room: should not be stronger than the \nTemazcal Room: pink in particular. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe there’s others \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: and then and then the parameters with for Bray Macedo. I think that needs to be \nTemazcal Room: explained what it’s there. \nTemazcal Room: and it seems a little surprising\, maybe\, for \nTemazcal Room: Rameen\, who’s more familiar with brand Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: that with a yield coefficient of 19\, you get only 9 inches. \nTemazcal Room: I mean I\, \nTemazcal Room: without knowing Brand \nTemazcal Room: Macedo myself. You know\, I got to think that point 19 yield coefficient should give you give you substantially more displacement than that \nTemazcal Room: what’s too much displacement is an interesting question that in itself might \nTemazcal Room: ask for a \nTemazcal Room: ecrb review\, because it’s there’s not a simple\, easy answer. \nTemazcal Room: 9 inches is probably\, I mean\, there’s 2 issues with with displacement. One is\, you know. How low does it get? And when does it get overtopped? And does the hydraulic\, you know. The overtopping frequency increases as soon as you get some \nTemazcal Room: some seismic settlement\, and so you have to jump back on it real quickly and build it back up as soon as you can\, so you don’t have 10 years \nTemazcal Room: of return interval to happen before you know\, with the Lower Cross elevation. \nTemazcal Room: The second thing that’s a little more tricky and more judgmenty\, maybe\, is \nTemazcal Room: at some level\, probably with bay mud 9 inches. You don’t get cracking\, but at 2 feet you start to have to ask about. Are you getting cracking of the embankment materials itself\, and do you \nTemazcal Room: get up to? Not over topping? But you get seepage through these \nTemazcal Room: cracks that you know\, tension cracks that have developed and so on. \nTemazcal Room: So at some point \nTemazcal Room: that gets to be another more complicated issue \nTemazcal Room: that I \nTemazcal Room: that \nTemazcal Room: It’s not worth speculating about all the different ramifications until we. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, find out what the the final numbers are for displacement. \nTemazcal Room: I think those need to be resubmitted\, and \nTemazcal Room: much of that\, at least\, I think \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay if Jen feels comfortable with it. \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay with us looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: I I am able to run submittals by less than a quorum of the board to assess if they’re satisfactory. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I think that’s \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, well\, Nick\, you mean Chris has had her hand up. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: I had. Well\, one question for Jen. You mentioned that they were adding 2 feet of free board\, and I don’t think I heard that they were adding free board. I think they were just going to the 11.5 \nTemazcal Room: when you mentioned earlier that maybe 9 inches of deformation was okay\, since they were having adding free board. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, add\, if I said\, adding\, that was a miss. \nTemazcal Room: a bad choice of words. They maintain 2 2 feet of free board in the ponds. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s my understanding. And and maybe you know\, cargo. You can comment that that the elevation of the water in the pond in the Mss. Ponds doesn’t get above 9 feet elevation. \nTemazcal Room: and if they raised the berms. Then it would. \nTemazcal Room: It would go up to 9.5 feet if they raised the berms to 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Got it? That’s super helpful. \nTemazcal Room: The other question I had or comment is\, we talked about the locations of the marsh channels\, and so \nTemazcal Room: I looked up. I looked at them\, and then I made my computer die\, so I shouldn’t have been doing that but there are some great maps that show the mark marsh channels\, and even on the 1993 aerial imagery\, if you go through Google Earth\, you can see some of the nice big ones. \nTemazcal Room: And they’re not at the sections\, and there is one that was to the right of Section C\, so I think if they are going to do some analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It would be good to look at the Marsh channel\, so I can send you Jen\, a link to what I was looking at\, so you can share that out. Later. \nTemazcal Room: And then my other question\, is that I was also seeing and looking at the image imagery. The large borrow pits around the inside of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Cause when they were\, you know\, they excavated material from inside the ponds to build up the berms. \nTemazcal Room: But it didn’t look like in any of the sections that they were analyzing. It included that deep borrow pit\, and I am not a geotechnical engineer. \nTemazcal Room: so I wasn’t sure if that configuration impacts any of the analysis. If we should be considering the fact that there is that deep borrow pit on the pond side of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s it. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Chris Gail. \nTemazcal Room: Alright\, yeah\, we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve made several requests\, some of which are \nTemazcal Room: adding conservatism and a couple of which are potentially \nTemazcal Room: reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: And this is actually a question more for my geotechnical colleagues. \nTemazcal Room: and it has to do with the title Lag. \nTemazcal Room: And right. Now they’ve done it with high tide and low tide. Obviously. \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s \nTemazcal Room: but a 30% difference in most cases on the \nTemazcal Room: factors of safety. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m used to looking at this for bulkhead design. But \nTemazcal Room: in a case like this. \nTemazcal Room: do you have a sense of \nTemazcal Room: how conservative or what is the likelihood of \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: considering the the low tide on the \nTemazcal Room: what is it? The high tide on the \nTemazcal Room: out inside\, and the low tide on the outside right\, which is obviously the most conservative. \nTemazcal Room: Is that necessary? \nTemazcal Room: They’ve given us results for both. Is that something where \nTemazcal Room: we could reasonably \nTemazcal Room: allow them to \nTemazcal Room: as as they do. These additional analyses \nTemazcal Room: do something either a Median Median tide. \nTemazcal Room: or \nTemazcal Room: consider \nTemazcal Room: no\, no title\, no title\, lag. \nTemazcal Room: In the analysis. Why\, I wanted the opinion of my \nTemazcal Room: geotech colleagues on this one. \nTemazcal Room: I think all of the critical \nTemazcal Room: circles that you looked at were sliding waterward right rather than land. Yeah\, they all were in. In that case low tide is going to always be \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: but that’s again assuming \nTemazcal Room: inside the berm. \nTemazcal Room: The water table is high. Side is is that high tide right? \nTemazcal Room: Which is a \nTemazcal Room: which which assumes there’s a title lag. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m asking\, is that isn’t that what it is? Is that what causes it. I don’t think their title. I I don’t think their title. I think it’s just the static Waterloo. \nandrew barrett: The the pond stays at plus 9 feet\, nav. D. 88 at at all times. Essentially\, besides\, rainfall is my understanding. When the water is pumped out\, then to make it back to be at 9. So inside the pond\, at least in our models\, and the way it was told to us by the car representatives on site. \nandrew barrett: it stays at plus 9 all the time in the pond. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, so that water level\, the water level inside is not \nTemazcal Room: driven by the tide. It’s driven by something that Cargill’s doing. \nandrew barrett: These ponds are completely removed from being connected. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nandrew barrett: To the tidal effects of the bay. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. No. Title. Effects. Inside. \nandrew barrett: Trying to keep them that way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? So then\, so then the then the question would just be. \nTemazcal Room: is it reasonable to \nTemazcal Room: use a meet? Use a Median tide if you will. \nTemazcal Room: or a mean tide. \nTemazcal Room: instead of low or high\, instead of low. \nTemazcal Room: If we\, if we\, if we want to allow \nTemazcal Room: something for reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: question for the question for my colleague. \nTemazcal Room: and start with a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and if it becomes problematic and expensive\, repairs are called for\, or something like that\, then fine it a little bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, just to comment on that. I think I heard that a was it a plus 2 tide was used \nTemazcal Room: plus 2 plus 2 for low tide\, and and that’s is that mean lower low water or Navd? Or are they about the same here? I can’t remember. It’s \nTemazcal Room: project datum. \nTemazcal Room: And Abd\, 88. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I mean\, a\, a really low tide is like\, minus 2 or something. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, yeah\, just so it’s not. It’s not a \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The mean lower\, low water \nTemazcal Room: is 0. Let’s say that’s close to NAVD. \nTemazcal Room: In the South Bay. This the tide drops well below \nTemazcal Room: mean lower\, low water. That’s \nTemazcal Room: so. If you wanted to be really conservative\, you could add another 4 feet of height to your water difference \nTemazcal Room: which I’m not suggesting\, but I’m not sure. Was it quite as conservative as it may seem? \nTemazcal Room: You think they’re not being too conservative by using. Well\, I don’t know I it just as a coastal person. It made sense to me to assume a low tide on the outside \nTemazcal Room: as a conservative measure. What water elevation were you using \nTemazcal Room: 2 \nTemazcal Room: elevation\, too? Yeah\, in in the remember\, this is in the seismic analysis I’m talking about. So that was part of our reasoning is like a seismic is a distinct\, you know\, momentary event. So \nTemazcal Room: what’s the likelihood of that? Overlapping with an extreme low tide? We used to then we did it with 0 as well. It didn’t change much. We have not run it at minus 2. That would. That would definitely be a compounding of I’m not suggesting that you do. I just wanted to point out that the tide can be a lot lower. \nTemazcal Room: I’d \nTemazcal Room: it’s it’s a it’s it’s on the low end of the title cycle. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: It’s just \nTemazcal Room: it’s a dropping tide. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, it’s below Msl\, and and what they’re getting at is the joint probability. Right? Like\, if you’re looking at a yeah\, 475 year\, I I think I think it’s okay. \nTemazcal Room: Sure\, okay\, \nTemazcal Room: okay\, Nick\, you had you had your hand up earlier. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, Mr. Chairman\, actually\, I was going to make a motion\, but I’ll let go ahead before. \nTemazcal Room: I have my hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, but Bob has his hand up as well. \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m I’m going to talk coastal stuff\, so I’ll let if it’s geotech. I think you need to go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not suggesting that \nTemazcal Room: different levels of earthquake shaking should be used\, but these are not the largest levels either. So there is some inherent. If there is some conservatism somewhere else. We’re not \nTemazcal Room: looking at the largest level of shaking either\, so that I’m I’m not suggesting that you should. But just put it in context as well. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. \nTemazcal Room: continuing the geotax. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael\, I don’t remember whether you mentioned he said anything about cpage. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, I I actually I all I said about seepage was when I was talking about our \nTemazcal Room: conclusions regarding the effects of keying in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where we really didn’t see any appreciable strength increase in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: but because of our \nTemazcal Room: observations of the keyed material in place\, it’s apparent level of compaction\, which which is not a huge amount of compaction we discussed\, but \nTemazcal Room: but there is compaction that has occurred that we see\, and our observations of the material used. \nTemazcal Room: that it’s our conclusion that \nTemazcal Room: that should improve seepage \nTemazcal Room: just based on that alone\, you may minimize seepage. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, minimize seepage\, minimize seepage. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: alright. \nTemazcal Room: that that’s our conclusion based on what we see. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then. \nTemazcal Room: from the perspective of the overtopping presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I think you alluded to \nTemazcal Room: the material being used to top the broom. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I should minimize scarring. \nTemazcal Room: I think it should be pretty resistant to scouring. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you had waves hitting it\, for\, you know\, days upon days\, of course\, but \nTemazcal Room: for a short \nTemazcal Room: wave over topping event. I think that with that compacted material \nTemazcal Room: and the gravel servicing\, I think that’s going to resist scour pretty well. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I think maybe. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, what happened where? \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: perhaps not. I think maybe that should be something that you should \nTemazcal Room: formalize as a recommendation to address the issue of of our observations about its apparent resistance to a wave over tapping scour. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: do that? \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Jima. Bob. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. So from the coastal side. I’d be interested in seeing \nTemazcal Room: selected profiles of the one or more transects \nTemazcal Room: showing the static and dynamic water levels and other parameters used. \nTemazcal Room: That would be for Jeremy. I don’t know if he’s still on the phone \nTemazcal Room: and then I’d also like to see those values tabulated. Some representative \nTemazcal Room: portion of all the wave run up\, runs \nTemazcal Room: tabulated\, so I can see what the wave heights\, water depths. \nTemazcal Room: dynamic water\, level\, etc\, are. \nTemazcal Room: or a representative number of the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: I I don’t think that’s that hard to do. It’s it is something that Fema did for their flood studies and in their intermediate data submittals. And I think the software probably allows you to do that. \nTemazcal Room: But separate from that. \nTemazcal Room: I wanted to say that I think \nTemazcal Room: Chris and I\, \nTemazcal Room: Chris May and I could \nTemazcal Room: look over what you get on that topic and work with you\, Jen\, or one of us. \nTemazcal Room: If if we didn’t want to bring it back. So I I don’t know that. \nTemazcal Room: That might. That might make it easier. \nTemazcal Room: But I had an overall question\, and I’m sorry I’m not if I’m supposed to be up to speed on this. But my concern with this \nTemazcal Room: situation \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: the material \nTemazcal Room: is \nTemazcal Room: has salt levels and certain types of salt levels that could adversely affect wildlife \nTemazcal Room: if released into the bay. \nTemazcal Room: That’s what I\, my concern\, has been \nTemazcal Room: more than a life safety. \nTemazcal Room: and I thought I heard somebody say that that’s not really a concern\, because the material the \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Just \nTemazcal Room: dissolves immediately or something\, and I’m not sure I understand that \nTemazcal Room: is. Is\, am I \nTemazcal Room: wrong to be concerned or wrong to not understand that it dissolves \nTemazcal Room: right away? \nTemazcal Room: Listen to that while we’re here. It depends on the concentration. \nTemazcal Room: So it it depends on how much is is\, you know. It’s a it’s a concentrated salt\, right? So. \nTemazcal Room: But the\, but the concentrations themselves are are quite high because it’s crystallized\, and some of it might be \nTemazcal Room: more soluble than others\, but certainly. \nTemazcal Room: if it was a hundred parts per 1\,000\, which I think is \nTemazcal Room: lower than it is\, and it was liquid\, and that was released. I think that could probably kill fish\, couldn’t it. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I just trying to understand how serious this is if we have a release which is an important consideration in terms of what the criteria are. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know the exact levels. But if you put a bowl of this and dissolve the mix sea salts in it\, and then put the fish in it. Yeah\, the fish wouldn’t \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t be good\, but that’s a big difference than a little bit getting out into the ocean and diluting. \nTemazcal Room: I do remember working on the Napa Salt Ponds. Of course that was way a long time ago\, and I think everyone’s learned a lot more since then\, but we had a pond with up to maybe 100 parts per 1\,000 pond 3\, \nTemazcal Room: and there was quite a bit of concern about diluting that before it was released. \nTemazcal Room: That was one of our major challenges\, and we got through that in 2\,005. \nTemazcal Room: But Newark slew has a number of \nTemazcal Room: protected species in it. \nTemazcal Room: So I I have to admit that I haven’t analyzed this or read everything about that. But what I’ve seen is not really satisfied me. \nTemazcal Room: In terms of my concern\, and we don’t have a biologist on here. So I’m I’m wondering what the implications are. If the implications are serious\, then this could be a risk level that is higher \nTemazcal Room: than we think. \nTemazcal Room: which case\, if it was a new project\, it might have to be designed to a higher standard than what we’re talking about. \nTemazcal Room: So\, on the other hand\, I think \nTemazcal Room: it needs to be managed. Cargo has a lot of experience. \nTemazcal Room: you know. They they should be able to maintain. This is in everybody’s interest. \nTemazcal Room: But I’m \nTemazcal Room: a little unclear on how serious the situation is. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know is that generally\, just because I didn’t read everything\, or is there? \nTemazcal Room: No\, just I mean to recap a little bit in the very 1st meeting of the ecrb Ecrb asked Cargill to present information on the risk of \nTemazcal Room: the mixed sea salts on the ecology and human health. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: instead of providing that information\, Cargill said that instead they would model the most conservative scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s that’s where we’re at \nTemazcal Room: the most conservative levy failure or defamation scenarios or release scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: But there’s been no modeling of the okay. \nTemazcal Room: So I I just think that’s an important context. And \nTemazcal Room: for me\, anyway\, if somebody’s worked around the bay a lot on restoration projects and around Newark Slough in particular\, and \nTemazcal Room: sufficient wildlife\, reserve\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: So I just think that’s something \nTemazcal Room: to think about\, and why I would like to \nTemazcal Room: review the wave\, run up information again. \nTemazcal Room: even though I don’t doubt the Cargill’s judgment that some wave overtopping probably has no significance. \nTemazcal Room: And so I appreciate that viewpoint quite a bit. Actually. \nTemazcal Room: sure\, if I could just add the reason we didn’t do the you know environmental assessment\, because. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, the studies indicated that we went to have\, we would not have a breach\, or we would not have mixed. See salt \nTemazcal Room: going out into the pond\, which is why. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, that’s why we didn’t proceed with doing an environmental \nTemazcal Room: assessment. You didn’t think that\, you know there’s no breach. It’s not going to be in a \nTemazcal Room: any ecological impact. \nTemazcal Room: That’s kind of the reason why we didn’t. Do you know\, further environmental. So so I think in that case\, I just want to be more sure that we understand what the wave run up and overtopping potential are\, and \nTemazcal Room: how that feeds into the geotech\, and how the \nTemazcal Room: would apply to our judgment regarding whether or not \nTemazcal Room: the analysis indicates that this somewhat ambiguous failure\, scenario of \nTemazcal Room: possibly some levee erosion or possible breaching and release that’s undefined is likely not to be exceeded. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s kind of where I am. I want to be more careful. \nTemazcal Room: so I would like to see the wave run up \nTemazcal Room: information. \nTemazcal Room: And I would like the geotech to be comfortable with the situations\, too. Recognizing \nTemazcal Room: that impacting ecology is a big deal. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Think that’s that’s it. Now\, \nTemazcal Room: so it sounds like. \nTemazcal Room: everybody is okay with \nTemazcal Room: additional information and clarification from Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: that we’re okay\, recommending approval of the permit \nTemazcal Room: ending \nTemazcal Room: the middle of clarifications and information \nTemazcal Room: to the satisfaction. Yeah\, right? And and so \nTemazcal Room: I think we would\, Jen\, you’d have to pick \nTemazcal Room: 4 of us who are\, you know\, so we don’t have a quorum issue. \nTemazcal Room: But you know I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: Bob and \nTemazcal Room: Jim \nTemazcal Room: remain\, and \nTemazcal Room: probably \nTemazcal Room: Nick \nTemazcal Room: to\, or maybe\, or maybe\, if somebody’s not interested\, I I would be \nTemazcal Room: a good person to help. \nTemazcal Room: But one of 4 of those 5 names \nTemazcal Room: would be \nTemazcal Room: reviewers of the information and pending that set\, you know\, pending our satisfaction to that\, then we would recommend \nTemazcal Room: approval \nTemazcal Room: of a permit. \nTemazcal Room: Can I? Have a little discussion? Chris did. Were you interested? Or \nTemazcal Room: so it’s 5 for the quorum. So it’s like one coastal\, and which is probably enough. But it could be Chris or I. But if there’s room it might be good at both of us. Okay\, 4. \nTemazcal Room: See yourself. \nTemazcal Room: That’s all right. \nTemazcal Room: But for the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, I can go either way with it. I just wanted to give Chris an opportunity to \nTemazcal Room: to weigh in. See how interested she is. And no\, I’m I’m happy to review the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: but I don’t think I think the geotech issues are \nTemazcal Room: our significance. I don’t think they could have both of us if we only have 4 got it. \nTemazcal Room: So either one whatever. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. So do I have a motion? \nTemazcal Room: Second. \nTemazcal Room: all in favor. \nTemazcal Room: or do we? Do you need to do a \nTemazcal Room: a roll call\, or can we just do a voice? Vote? Jen. \nTemazcal Room: let’s do a roll call just \nTemazcal Room: to be thorough. \nTemazcal Room: we are going to have a roll call vote now on the motion which is \nTemazcal Room: to \nTemazcal Room: request additional information based on our discussion today. \nTemazcal Room: and if it seems like it satisfies \nTemazcal Room: our our concerns. Then the Ecrb will find that the safety issues have been addressed by cargo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay \nTemazcal Room: Roddy washedatch here. Aye. \nTemazcal Room: Jim\, French \nTemazcal Room: Bob Italia. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Chris May. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Golisarki. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: and Patrick Ryan. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: right. Yeses have it. \nTemazcal Room: I have another. So we will. \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, I assume you’re going to put together minutes and the \nTemazcal Room: the request for information. Additional information and clarification will go to Cargill right? And \nTemazcal Room: copied to \nTemazcal Room: the ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So what I’ll do is I’ll draft a letter summarizing the information request. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll probably run a draft of it by \nTemazcal Room: couple of people on the ecrb\, maybe the chair\, the chair and vice chair. \nTemazcal Room: and then \nTemazcal Room: and then send it off. \nTemazcal Room: We will all to Cargill. Try to do that in \nTemazcal Room: in a week. \nTemazcal Room: And then this meeting\, which is being recorded\, will also be posted. \nTemazcal Room: On our website at the meeting. Notice? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. There. A motion to adjourn. \nTemazcal Room: Second\, okay\, all those in favor. \nTemazcal Room: Aye. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Cargill. Thank you. \nZOOM TRANSCRIPT \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: muted. Can everybody mute? \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: the script that we have? It’s fine fine! \nJenn Hyman\, BCDC: Oh\, I know. Sorry! That’s me. \nTemazcal Room: We can go ahead and start right. Rod \nTemazcal Room: the microphones. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to this hybrid in person and online Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Rod Iwashta. I am the chair of the Ecrb\, and I have a few announcements. \nTemazcal Room: Our 1st order of business is to call the roll board. Members\, please \nTemazcal Room: unmute yourselves to respond and then mute yourselves again after responding. Jen\, please call the roll \nTemazcal Room: okay\, and actually make sure to \nTemazcal Room: microphones for \nTemazcal Room: general observation is that \nTemazcal Room: bill that’s compacted to 90% play. Phil \nTemazcal Room: should typically have an unconfined\, compressive strength \nTemazcal Room: I would expect of at least \nTemazcal Room: 6 to 706 to 800. Psf. \nTemazcal Room: almost everything is \nTemazcal Room: less than that. I guess. The top\, the top several feet. \nTemazcal Room: half of it’s like that. \nTemazcal Room: What would you? What was your estimate? 60 packed it to? 95%. It should be \nTemazcal Room: yep. \nTemazcal Room: 1\,500 pso. \nTemazcal Room: Your your 1st estimate was like 6\, 6 to 800 for like a 90% compaction\, I know right? \nTemazcal Room: Mediocre compaction. 90% ish sure \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: and you know\, one of the photos\, and I’m not sure if it was in the presentation or report\, or someplace showed you guys with a sheep’s foot on the end of a \nTemazcal Room: of an excavator which should put this stuff down at. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, it’s Cape. If this\, if the trench is solid enough\, that should put it down at 95% without much difficulty. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. It look\, it looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: below water\, or \nTemazcal Room: maybe maybe not 90\, probably not 95%. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s not a structural. \nTemazcal Room: Then it should be off the charts with tip resistance\, and it shouldn’t. \nTemazcal Room: Shouldn’t give you a tip. Reason it shouldn’t give you an su out of it. It should give you a \nTemazcal Room: friction angle \nTemazcal Room: as a granular deposit if it’s granular yeah \nTemazcal Room: are you observing relative to its \nTemazcal Room: what? You’d interpret its ability to resist seepage as being \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I would I don’t. I don’t think this is a heavily like structural fill level compaction. I don’t think this is a necessarily \nTemazcal Room: a 95% compact in drawing that \nTemazcal Room: our findings bear that out in Bay mud. There is 0 chance that you’re going to get. I mean\, if it’s surrounded by soft levee\, and \nTemazcal Room: that’d make it tough until the last couple of feet. Possibly. But it looks like to us. It’s a it’s probably more likely you’re down in May \nTemazcal Room: 88% range. I would \nTemazcal Room: might have guessed. Maybe \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s a \nTemazcal Room: compacted material. \nTemazcal Room: not not not heavily compacted\, but \nTemazcal Room: but compacted and \nTemazcal Room: better controlled\, material wise. But the strengths are 4 to 600 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. \nTemazcal Room: down below. 5 feet they are. That’s a\, you know\, pocket 10 of \nTemazcal Room: or Tsf or something. \nTemazcal Room: I mean isn’t most of the action here\, though. Kind of in the down to 5 feet level \nTemazcal Room: isn’t most of the seepage resistance\, though\, in the upper 5 feet\, I mean\, that’s where we see the biggest benefit here. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, that’s where we see the highest strength\, I should say. \nTemazcal Room: and probably the most compaction activity occurring. \nTemazcal Room: I think once we get below 5\, we’re starting to get into just pre-existing young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I’m actually\, frankly\, not very concerned about the strength of the material. I’m just sort of \nTemazcal Room: commenting on. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: compaction is \nTemazcal Room: mediocre. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: And maybe gotcha fine. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: right? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I know. I mean\, I know you’re \nTemazcal Room: your intention is not to make a \nTemazcal Room: structural fit\, and I don’t think that’d be necessary anyway. \nTemazcal Room: excuse me\, Nick would like to speak. \nTemazcal Room: can I? Just. \nTemazcal Room: if I may just add my concern actually would be reactivity of whatever this fill is with salt water. \nTemazcal Room: If the clay happens to be \nTemazcal Room: what we normally want to use for impervious fill\, which is high plasticity clay. Those shrink when exposed to salt water. So actually\, they’re not the best material \nTemazcal Room: to be used. \nTemazcal Room: And so at some point\, somebody looking at it to make sure that you’re basically not putting in material that eventually over a period of time is gonna shrink and cracks are gonna develop. And it’s gonna yeah\, yeah\, shrinkable in the sense that a high salt concentration will shrink to double layers. Yeah. And you know\, it’s a fairly well known phenomenon. \nTemazcal Room: but sometimes we kind of forget that that’s what happened. So I don’t. I don’t think that’s what they have out here\, though you know it’s worth checking that it’s not happening. That’s all. Okay. Yeah\, that’s fair. We we can have some commentary to that. I mean\, based on what we saw\, the fill on the ground and based on what we see it in its \nTemazcal Room: placement in the keys. I I don’t think that’s what they have here. But yeah\, I could. I could imagine a scenario where you brought a material that happened. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, I’m gonna point out that we’ve got about an hour \nTemazcal Room: left of \nTemazcal Room: meeting time here. If we’re trying to hit our 4 30 \nTemazcal Room: target of getting out of here. \nTemazcal Room: Just just wanted to point that out. Okay\, I am happy to move faster. Actually\, some of this might go fast\, because \nTemazcal Room: this part about the seismic events has not changed. And so maybe I’ll just boil down. Say\, as you remember. \nTemazcal Room: we analyzed for a 50 year earthquake event and a 475 earthquake event and determined peak ground accelerations for both of those \nTemazcal Room: partly based on the soil properties we saw at the site and partly based on the Usgs\, derived compilation of all earthquakes and faults in the region. \nTemazcal Room: so no change there. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t. I don’t think that was a \nTemazcal Room: I know there’s some discussion last year about \nTemazcal Room: is a 475 year. Earthquake \nTemazcal Room: too big\, bigger than it needs to be for this analysis. Would a 200 year earthquake make more sense \nTemazcal Room: to that? I guess I’d say\, maybe. But why not \nTemazcal Room: see what happens with the bigger one? \nTemazcal Room: alright! Let me let me go through the analyses\, findings of of stability\, because \nTemazcal Room: th this is this is\, I think\, the thing I I’d like to hear input\, on \nTemazcal Room: Here’s the sections we analyzed. \nTemazcal Room: You remember this. \nTemazcal Room: and we analyze for Factor safety\, as we know. \nTemazcal Room: And let me just let me just skip to the \nTemazcal Room: to the results. Under normal static conditions the factors of safety were quite high. \nTemazcal Room: 2.8 9. In this case \nTemazcal Room: these berms are sitting there stable. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? I don’t think that’s a surprise to anybody. The question is\, what happens in an earthquake? \nTemazcal Room: And so I have a couple of slides presenting a 50 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: In this. This example is at Section D\, and you see a \nTemazcal Room: all of these analyses basically go through the berm and out past the tow. They’re \nTemazcal Room: slip services that involve \nTemazcal Room: a potential for tow failures of the \nTemazcal Room: of the berm. We analyzed a variety of these. These are always the the critical ones we came up with \nTemazcal Room: in this section. The the berms factor. Safety is\, is above the desired level of 1.1. So that’s good \nTemazcal Room: in the next slide at section CC\, it is below 1.1. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. \nTemazcal Room: what type of search constraints you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: How is this searching\, is it? I mean\, at some point in the draft. \nTemazcal Room: Powerpoint. We had it said\, No\, sir\, no surfaces are are circular\, or all are non-circular\, or something like that\, and I think \nTemazcal Room: I can’t remember what the note was there. All slide models shown are non circular. \nTemazcal Room: That \nTemazcal Room: slide got deleted from the final presentation\, which which is fine \nTemazcal Room: it looks like there are some circular circles. Oh\, definitely\, this looks \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: clearly non-circular looks like a not on typical type of non-circular surface. The \nTemazcal Room: I think it was the next one that \nTemazcal Room: is non circular\, but it looks kind of like a sloppily drawn circle\, or I mean\, it looks like an awkwardly circle. I’m curious what? How this came up with that geometry for the circle. \nTemazcal Room: And and in general. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, what is the \nTemazcal Room: search algorithm that you’re using here? Are you limiting it? Is it circular? Are you limiting? The entry points? Exit points? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know. Slide 2 as well as I know. Slope W slope W. You can \nTemazcal Room: print out the entry point \nTemazcal Room: limits and the exit point limits\, and the printout\, if you’re allowing it to search to a certain depth maximum\, if that’s what you’re doing. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And I\, you know\, I \nTemazcal Room: I think if you’re presenting this to \nTemazcal Room: someone to review\, it ought to have \nTemazcal Room: some sort of explanation\, preferably a graphic depiction on every \nTemazcal Room: printout that says\, this is what the slide constraints\, the the slide surface constraints were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I see\, cause there are a lot of different ways to do it \nTemazcal Room: right\, because there are a lot of different ways to do it. Like you’re saying\, which ones did we use. Right? Yeah\, do we use this? Do we use that\, you know? And my guess is that most of the time circular\, I mean circular needs to be checked. I think \nTemazcal Room: especially if you have soft clay\, the most common expected case is going to be a deep circle that’s going to include most of the embankment and going to take it with it. \nTemazcal Room: especially with seismic. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m all in favor of \nTemazcal Room: looking at other types of configurations also\, because \nTemazcal Room: other things \nTemazcal Room: can happen. But but somehow\, if if I’m checking this\, I just need to know what the \nTemazcal Room: what the search methodology is. And okay\, I think the most helpful is is if you can give it graphically on the printout. \nTemazcal Room: and then I just know every single time \nTemazcal Room: what you do. I’d rather than a paragraph at the front than I go? Well. \nTemazcal Room: okay. But was it. \nTemazcal Room: does it? Does it allow it go to 36 feet this time\, or is it trunking? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: we. I mean\, at the risk of \nTemazcal Room: sounding like\, I’m oversimplifying things. We ran it a bunch of different ways\, right? Circular\, non circular wedges \nTemazcal Room: some other\, I mean. I I could probably ask Andrew to tell us for\, like 15 min about all the things he did\, and maybe that would be worthwhile. But at the very least\, I think what I’m hearing is kind of like your comment on the \nTemazcal Room: tabulation of the properties. It would be helpful as reviewers to understand. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, for this output. That’s the style of \nTemazcal Room: search that was done. \nTemazcal Room: Because if we ran 5 different styles of churches of searches. Why not \nTemazcal Room: tell you the 5 different ones\, and label them each accordingly. Is that \nTemazcal Room: that’s kind of what I’m taking away is that without that it’s just hard for you to understand sometimes what? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: the implication that we’re saying raffle here on the printout is the most useful\, and it’s\, you know\, for your own internal. Qc\, it’s most useful. \nTemazcal Room: you know for the \nTemazcal Room: people\, that are doing the runs\, you’re trying to keep track of all your burnouts. And yeah. \nTemazcal Room: got to make sure that you’ve got it. And the printout Graphic just shows that you’ve got it \nTemazcal Room: right exactly what it is. \nTemazcal Room: It was a little easier when I was a young engineer doing this myself because I didn’t. I couldn’t do 100 runs a day. I did like 2 runs a day\, so I didn’t have as many\, but I understand\, understand. Give. It would be helpful to understand. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that I\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: referring back to some previous discussions. I think there’s \nTemazcal Room: some questions about the blue strength profile being stronger than the pink strength\, profile\, right? Which I think is going to potentially change \nTemazcal Room: many\, most all of the \nTemazcal Room: all of these results. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Jim. Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: couple of questions. I don’t know if this is a typo or not\, but \nTemazcal Room: it for this OLE. Level or lower level\, and one of these \nTemazcal Room: I think \nTemazcal Room: it is. It’s \nTemazcal Room: it may be the next one. \nTemazcal Room: Are you looking at the oh\, yeah\, it says. \nTemazcal Room: this is. \nTemazcal Room: I guess. PGA point 3 7. Is that it? I pull? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, is that a typo? Or it’s supposed to be point 3 4. \nTemazcal Room: Not that. Oh\, you’re talking about here? The yeah\, the PGA that’s applied. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Because in the previous slides it says\, you know\, the only level is point 3 4. Just curious. If \nTemazcal Room: this was \nTemazcal Room: so\, I’m sorry. Hold on. Yeah. I want to go back. Yeah\, right there point 3 4G\, and your point is\, why does this one show point 3 7 g\, not that it’s a big difference. But but \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: And the other question is\, are you applying a pseudo static of like? Let’s say in this case\, point 3 7\, \nTemazcal Room: or are you reducing it for the slope. Stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: because that’s the PGA. That’s the peak value. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, correct me if I’m wrong. The these are pseudo static analyses. \nTemazcal Room: So I believe we batcher the PGA accordingly\, for a pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: enough\, so. \nandrew barrett: You didn’t apply any factoring for these. We started off with the analysis with a 2 thirds factor and then \nandrew barrett: eventually move to the full PGA value \nandrew barrett: conversations at our last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, do you? Do you remember the point? The reason for the point 3 7 here instead of a point 3 4? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you’re sleeping. \nandrew barrett: As it is. \nandrew barrett: I I think that I don’t know. I don’t think it would make much of a difference to be honest\, but I I’m not sure if that’s just a \nandrew barrett: in error. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: In any event\, \nTemazcal Room: did that answer your question? Well. \nTemazcal Room: not quite. Let me. \nTemazcal Room: I’m curious. If this number is \nTemazcal Room: 2 thirds. Is this mislabeled by any chance as being OLE. \nTemazcal Room: It’s definitely not. Cle\, it’s definitely not the larger one. \nTemazcal Room: What? What is hold on a second? \nTemazcal Room: Precisely. \nTemazcal Room: then. \nTemazcal Room: this point 3 7. \nTemazcal Room: I \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know what this is. \nTemazcal Room: It’s a little higher point 3 4\, right? What is it like? 2 thirds of point 5. \nTemazcal Room: But it’s mislabeled as OLE. \nTemazcal Room: You follow what I’m saying. Yeah\, I I do. \nTemazcal Room: I know that’s not what happened\, but I understand why you’re asking that question. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, 2 thirds is more like point 33 and point 34. And this is point 3 37. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just. \nTemazcal Room: We’re trying to follow what what’s being done? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, and part part of the reason\, I say\, that’s because when we go to the next ones\, you do see a higher one for the contingency level event\, right? \nTemazcal Room: In fact\, since we’re talking about it \nTemazcal Room: like\, for example\, when I go ahead a couple of slides\, there’s a point 5. So that’s what you’d expect to see from the earlier statement of PGA. Right? The intention is for that to show the PGA \nTemazcal Room: just what is the PGA that we derive from the \nTemazcal Room: the earlier evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: I understand. But what is your pseudo static \nTemazcal Room: value that you’re putting for your slope? Stability \nTemazcal Room: analysis\, is it? Are you using full PGA\, or are you reducing it by \nTemazcal Room: some number? \nTemazcal Room: I think we’re Andrew again. Correct me wrong. I think we’re using the full number. \nandrew barrett: Using the. \nTemazcal Room: The number we’re using. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: so why is the 1.3 7 instead of point 3? I’m I’m frankly not sure but the intention is to just \nTemazcal Room: plug in the PGA. Okay\, so that’s \nTemazcal Room: bully. All right. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Rameen Nick. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: so hopefully you can hear me now. I. I like this picture because \nTemazcal Room: it becomes non circular\, simply as a function of your layering that that’s a very normal thing that will happen. \nTemazcal Room: If you have a gradually increasing strength with depth\, then you get a completely different failure surface. \nTemazcal Room: So\, as you can see\, it follows the layer that where you have a transition in strength. Okay? So you have actually predetermined the failure surface in here. \nTemazcal Room: That that that is a problem. \nTemazcal Room: Say say that you\, predetermined by by your layering\, you have predetermined where that thing will is going to flatten out. \nTemazcal Room: See what I mean? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I see how our layering dictates where? Well\, that’s what I mean. So you predetermined by by where you put the layer boundary\, you have actually determined where the bottom of this thing’s going to be. If you moved it lower down\, it would move lower down. That’s what happens in these non\, so non circle analysis\, which I’ve done a lot. \nTemazcal Room: But I have a question which really follows up \nTemazcal Room: 1st of all. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know how to put it. \nTemazcal Room: Has anyone here actually checked slide against any other code\, or even a hand calculation where it actually does all of this correctly. \nTemazcal Room: I. \nTemazcal Room: Many years ago I had experience with rock science\, where they were very loose \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: codes. \nTemazcal Room: and I have not used them since. \nTemazcal Room: For that reason I have not gone back\, presumably over the years they’ve improved. \nTemazcal Room: But I have not been impressed by a QR. Qa. Qc. Their own. What? What software were you carrying issues with? We were using slide and for for some other purposes\, and things weren’t quite right. So we use other software. I’m simply asking\, has anybody \nTemazcal Room: my colleagues done any Qa. Qc. Normally\, when you adopt the code. Of course you trust the \nTemazcal Room: people who published it. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: I generally run it against something that I know\, just to make sure that it \nTemazcal Room: gives me the results in any case. But looking at the seismic analysis you know\, I think\, what my colleagues were asking. You know\, Magdi\, Cnc. If you go back to it is those are the reduction coefficients that people take the \nTemazcal Room: maximum acceleration\, whatever you come up\, and then you come up with a pseudostatic\, coefficient\, based on the thickness of the profile\, and so on. And so I guess that’s the question\, because\, applying full point 5G. Of course \nTemazcal Room: you can look at it. It’s conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But\, on the other hand\, I don’t think it really gives the right response\, and so puts you in a situation where you’re presenting point 7 5 \nTemazcal Room: factor of safety\, which\, in fact\, may be real underestimation of what you have. So I would suggest. Take a look at how \nTemazcal Room: you derive the seismic coefficient for this. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not PGA. \nTemazcal Room: If if anything\, we’re overestimating the seismic forces\, we’re absolutely\, I think we’re being either corporately conservative or we’re being overly concerned. If if you’re applying\, if you’re applying full PGA\, then yes\, you’re being very conservative\, conservative on a \nTemazcal Room: in a way that I don’t think anybody here would suggest that you should be. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, why. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Jima\, you had something. \nTemazcal Room: Are you done\, or you still have some more. \nTemazcal Room: I I have one more part to discuss\, which is the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. Why don’t you finish that? Okay\, yeah. Let’s look\, because I think we have these examples where the factor safety is less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe we’re being overly conservative. \nTemazcal Room: probably are. I mean\, we want to purposely be conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But we got these factors\, maybe below 1.1\, particularly in the 475 year earthquake. \nTemazcal Room: Frankly\, I like using that earthquake at all is pretty darn conservative\, but it’s appropriate for us to look at it. But what does that mean? What is what is this telling us about the behavior of the berm in this \nTemazcal Room: large earthquake. So \nTemazcal Room: to understand that we performed a \nTemazcal Room: displacement analysis\, not not a \nTemazcal Room: real fancy one. \nTemazcal Room: We all know you could do that some very advanced ways. You could do full models. We didn’t do that. We \nTemazcal Room: looked at. Oh\, yeah\, I’m sorry. Here’s the examples in yellow\, where we have factors\, safety less than 1.1. \nTemazcal Room: They are in cross sections B and C\, \nTemazcal Room: and they are mostly in the large earthquake\, and in one case in the smaller earthquake. But what do those tell us? So? Let me\, let me tell you what we came up with there and then. I think we can\, you know\, talk about \nTemazcal Room: things. \nTemazcal Room: deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: We used \nTemazcal Room: an established \nTemazcal Room: Co available code. Andrew can cite it. I’m not going to try to state the name of it at the moment\, but I will tell you it is a \nTemazcal Room: sliding block model. \nTemazcal Room: but classic\, you know\, fairly simple model that \nTemazcal Room: takes the weight of the berm. The frictional force of the base of the berm applies \nTemazcal Room: the acceleration from the earthquake to it\, and determines. How much is it going to move if the Thatcher safety is low\, how much is the berm going to move? Is it going to completely move out of the way\, or what is going to happen. \nTemazcal Room: and we ran it for the worst case we had\, which is a section CC. In a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and the answer we get from that is that it will move \nTemazcal Room: along the slip plane 2 to 9 inches \nTemazcal Room: with 5 inches\, being the \nTemazcal Room: the best estimate of movement. \nTemazcal Room: That’s a result I wanted to make sure to put in front of everybody within the board and \nTemazcal Room: get reactions to\, because \nTemazcal Room: when we see that answer come up. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. The factors of safety are sometimes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, well\, below 1.1\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is not an amount of deformation that is going to mean \nTemazcal Room: a berm breach. I know ultimately\, when you boil this all down. This\, the whole purpose of this analysis we’re doing is are the berms gonna hold up. \nTemazcal Room: And we’re our conclusion is even in these earthquake events. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, there will be some \nTemazcal Room: deformation\, but not enough to affect their ability to hold the mixed sea salts. And it seems like\, isn’t that really the bottom line of all this analysis \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: will they hold up \nTemazcal Room: so right? And and so you’re talking about horizontal movement. I guess \nTemazcal Room: the question is\, is there vertical settlement as well? Yeah. So the way I would describe this movement is when I say along the slip service. I mean\, it’s like \nTemazcal Room: vertical atop and horizontal out at the toe. So it’s some of both. \nTemazcal Room: is is what we would imagine. \nandrew barrett: As an aside before that discussion keeps going. It’s the brain. Macedo method\, 2\,018\, I believe\, is the \nandrew barrett: year that that paper was published I could look it up specifically. It’s the modified Newmark sliding block analysis that uses \nandrew barrett: earthquake analysis from actual earthquakes. Thank you. \nandrew barrett: Yep. \nTemazcal Room: Good. \nTemazcal Room: So we we would interpret it. That’s why we put this little picture of an example slip service on the slide that we’d interpret as moving \nTemazcal Room: 2 to 9 inches along that surface. \nTemazcal Room: and and we don’t see that as being something that affects the \nTemazcal Room: robustness or \nTemazcal Room: retaining ability of the of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So to us all this said that to us seems like that’s feels like that’s the ultimate conclusion. Did you ever \nTemazcal Room: so? What method did you use for doing the deformation analysis? \nTemazcal Room: what what Andrew just described is is a is a codified version of the sliding block \nTemazcal Room: analysis. The Newmark sliding block analysis. But whose implementation of that. \nTemazcal Room: Andrew\, can you say that one more time. \nandrew barrett: Brain Macedo Method. \nTemazcal Room: Say it again. \nTemazcal Room: Say that again\, Andrew\, I’m gonna pull up the statement in our \nTemazcal Room: Brian macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: meaningful? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, after what you said about rock science. Goodness. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: Brian\, what about Brian Macedo? \nTemazcal Room: No\, I see. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If we I will say I mean\, if we were. We’ve been using slide 2 forever\, I mean\, and if \nTemazcal Room: I have not yet been like Oh\, my gosh! What is going on? If we had had a moment\, even one moment. We’re like what is going on with this thing. I think we’d be digging in. Sounds like you did\, but \nTemazcal Room: I have not had that yet. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, that that I I skipped over some slides in there. But \nTemazcal Room: that’s that’s what we’ve come up with. I mean\, this is our summary. \nTemazcal Room: Our impression is\, and and recognizing yes\, for sure\, we could \nTemazcal Room: go into further analyses. Further data. We could do some more critical sections\, certainly run some more ones like it. \nTemazcal Room: Location 8\, 9. \nTemazcal Room: Probably. Maybe we find low factors of safety there\, too. \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t shock me\, I suppose. But \nTemazcal Room: ultimately this deformation analysis seems to us like\, that’s what’s really \nTemazcal Room: going on. \nTemazcal Room: And and I and I\, I also recognize that earthquakes that have been experienced at this facility in the past are not 475 year events. We know that there have been earthquakes. There’s 1\,989 \nTemazcal Room: that was not at that size\, but \nTemazcal Room: that is a data point\, and there was no deformation in that earthquake. So that does give us\, I think\, some \nTemazcal Room: confirmation that we’re using \nTemazcal Room: appropriate values for this. \nTemazcal Room: so I almost feel like that in some ways might end up being more important than delving further into what the factors safety are. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: can you talk about the the low tide? Elevation that you selected\, how you selected it? And if \nTemazcal Room: power \nTemazcal Room: sensitive\, the deformation results are to that number. Yup \nTemazcal Room: we selected 2 feet for our low tide. For most of these analyses not 0 feet. We. We recognize low tide goes below 2 every day. \nTemazcal Room: But our 1st batch of analyses use 2 simply because we’re compounding probabilities. We’re talking about what happens during an earthquake\, which is\, you know\, a 4 min event. \nTemazcal Room: and the likelihood of the earthquake occurring during the \nTemazcal Room: tiny part of the day when the low tide occurs\, we said\, Okay\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: 2. Seems like a more reasonable expectation of what might happen. So we ran a bunch of these with 2\, \nTemazcal Room: but also recognize that there’s interest \nTemazcal Room: from from everybody and understand? Okay\, you know\, that’s great. But what about like a really low tide\, which is really like more like 0? So we did a comparison. It made no effect whatsoever on the deformation. It made a very marginal effect on the factors of safety\, but not even enough to \nTemazcal Room: to round out to the numbers shown in our table. So whether or not it’s a 0 or a 2 foot low. Tide doesn’t really affect what we came up with\, but those are the numbers that that we used in our analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I have a question. \nTemazcal Room: This relates to the previous \nTemazcal Room: presentation that \nTemazcal Room: run up goes up to elevation 11 or something like that. Okay\, is that elevation that you’re kind of considering as being the the berm. Or are you using today’s elevation? We’re using today’s elevations. \nTemazcal Room: We didn’t. We didn’t go in and make them 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: In other words. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t \nTemazcal Room: really expect it would do much to change them to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: But we use the elevations that are current. \nTemazcal Room: How much higher would 11 and a half be \nTemazcal Room: from current television? A fraction of a foot \nTemazcal Room: fraction of a foot. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. All right. \nTemazcal Room: So thank you for your \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t remember whether you had told us this \nTemazcal Room: during your previous presentation or not. But I’m just curious about \nTemazcal Room: the colored section \nTemazcal Room: of the broom and the pink and the \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, how did you get the configuration of those \nTemazcal Room: 3rd section. \nTemazcal Room: Let me go back to the figure that shows one of those examples. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. So the here’s a good one. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t say there was any science behind. How we exactly defined the trapezoid that you see other than we just wanted to have a trapezoid\, we said\, let’s just have a trapezoidal distinction between \nTemazcal Room: what’s under the berm and what is not under the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and the distinction. There\, again\, is \nTemazcal Room: what we have used under the berm is strictly from our analysis of the Cpt data. \nTemazcal Room: whereas what’s outside of that trapezoid \nTemazcal Room: is a an attempt to estimate \nTemazcal Room: what we would. \nTemazcal Room: the the deeper material layer unaffected by the berm. It it is. It is an engineering judgment attempt to estimate that. \nTemazcal Room: There has been a suggestion that might some of our values be\, in fact. \nTemazcal Room: making that \nTemazcal Room: stronger than what’s under the berm \nTemazcal Room: that could be. I I’m not sure what my answer that is at the moment\, but that is\, that’s that was our intention with the analysis. And that’s that’s what the trapezoid means. And that’s how we developed it. So it was strictly based on Strand\, not on \nTemazcal Room: some historical information on what \nTemazcal Room: it’s. It’s all strength and just our interpretation that there would be an an area \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: soil \nTemazcal Room: affected by the berm’s presence. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So from my perspective\, you know\, based on the presentation\, the thing that I’m \nTemazcal Room: really concerned about is \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: right? And I think the way you did it was based on \nTemazcal Room: what the geometry is. Yeah\, based on lighter data \nTemazcal Room: and measurements that you took in the field. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I think what Nick said \nTemazcal Room: is really the most important aspect of this. \nTemazcal Room: because \nTemazcal Room: if you don’t find the critical \nTemazcal Room: section \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: you you might not be representing what the risk really is\, because it’s a long \nTemazcal Room: linear structure. And so I would echo what Nick had previously said\, which is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, use the data close to \nTemazcal Room: this section \nTemazcal Room: that you have picked \nTemazcal Room: rather than the average. \nTemazcal Room: Right? I think. Now\, yeah\, that’s that’s going to be very important. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing that right\, I think you should also use in terms of \nTemazcal Room: finding the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because you are picking geometry. And he said\, if it’s narrower. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s likely to be \nTemazcal Room: critical\, because\, you know\, it’s narrower\, like\, the berm is narrower. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: But you could also use. Look at the strength. \nTemazcal Room: Right? Yeah\, you could go to sections and see in this area there’s a concentration \nTemazcal Room: of soft material\, even though the geometry \nTemazcal Room: might be \nTemazcal Room: logic\, right? \nTemazcal Room: So so you have to look at it \nTemazcal Room: from that perspective \nTemazcal Room: as well. \nTemazcal Room: The other thing which caught my eye \nTemazcal Room: really is the the weird shape \nTemazcal Room: of the burn. \nTemazcal Room: you know. I mean\, I was kind of looking at the firm. I’m wondering what made them ship there. \nTemazcal Room: The sheep. \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: You know the way that the way it’s shown in our model \nTemazcal Room: or the way it really is. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, in the photos. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: I’m kind of wondering \nTemazcal Room: why would \nTemazcal Room: they build a firm \nTemazcal Room: and kind of shape it the way they did \nTemazcal Room: what is\, what is what is about the shape that is weird? Well\, I’m I’m I’m just looking at. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you want to build a you want to build a firm right? \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, normally \nTemazcal Room: right\, you would expect that. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, you want to make the things straight. You know there are these segments to it. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m kind of wondering whether this was built in stages. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Maybe there was a time ago\, right? I don’t know whether you have any historical information. Was this all built? You know there was a plan. \nTemazcal Room: and the plan was that sense should be shaped \nTemazcal Room: the way it is. \nTemazcal Room: So so you’re talking. You’re talking about the curves. Yeah\, how it curves around and everything. Yeah\, I don’t. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know why they built them the way they did. I mean\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, yeah\, because they’re 100 years ago is when when they built these. Yeah\, because sometimes what happens is\, maybe the initial plan was to build something small\, and there was something small. \nTemazcal Room: and he decided to expand it. \nTemazcal Room: So you know\, from \nTemazcal Room: where the previous one ended. You know. \nTemazcal Room: you want to hit the roadway so \nTemazcal Room: it ends up being shaped like that. \nTemazcal Room: But if that’s the case\, I mean. What would happen is that you have \nTemazcal Room: sections \nTemazcal Room: of the berm \nTemazcal Room: which are different by virtue \nTemazcal Room: of age. \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: And so I mean\, it kind of made me curious that \nTemazcal Room: somehow. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, like that \nTemazcal Room: bad section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, close to them at all. \nTemazcal Room: What was that for? \nTemazcal Room: Because\, I think \nTemazcal Room: you know\, looking at the shape \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it might drive you into saying. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, maybe this\, then the site development history. \nTemazcal Room: It’s also an important factor \nTemazcal Room: in determining \nTemazcal Room: what is the most critical section \nTemazcal Room: you know. If yeah\, I understand behind it\, I mean\, I can understand it \nTemazcal Room: but it’s kind of. \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: pick my curiosity as to \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s \nTemazcal Room: it it. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Why would anyone build the firm the way it is? \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit like our \nTemazcal Room: I I will tell you. You know\, when we were out there at all these places\, looking and measuring this berm\, if we had seen a stretch of berm that was distinctly different than another stretch of berm. \nTemazcal Room: We would have said\, Wait a minute. \nTemazcal Room: maybe that needs to be analyzed separately\, because that’s him. But we didn’t really see that I mean\, it was pretty consistent throughout. I know the \nTemazcal Room: the\, the alignment of it’s kind of odd and changes a lot\, but the berm itself didn’t change enough for us to see anything that would prompt us to \nTemazcal Room: analyze that specifically. But we did. We did look for it\, and it was a little bit like what we did with all the \nTemazcal Room: Cpt logs again we’re like\, are there places out here where the soil is worse or softer? \nTemazcal Room: And we didn’t see that regionally. I I know there’s been discussion here\, and i 1 of the takeaways from this discussion. I feel like is. \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should analyze over at Cpt. 8 and 9. Maybe that’s a little batch of yeah. A situation that\, you know\, warrants its own analysis may maybe so\, although I will say one advantage of having done all these analysis. I can offer a prediction of what we will find. \nTemazcal Room: If we do that I will. I will bet \nTemazcal Room: I’ll bet a Starbucks card \nTemazcal Room: we will find a factor safety of like point 7\, \nTemazcal Room: and we’ll run a deformation analysis. It’ll be like 2 to 9 inches. I think that’s probably what we’re gonna learn. Yeah. And so we’re gonna have to reckon with. What do we all make of that\, you know\, is. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I mean I I am \nTemazcal Room: okay with what you’ve done. I think you’ve made an effort. \nTemazcal Room: You know you’ve done your due diligence. \nTemazcal Room: and the only thing that I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: be done is to kind of look more closely at the issue of \nTemazcal Room: what is the critical section. \nTemazcal Room: because ultimately the behavior of this\, then\, is going to be in 3 dimensions. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, even if you have a weak section. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when this thing is subjected to an earthquake is going to respond as a system rather than the \nTemazcal Room: you know the section that you have true \nTemazcal Room: 3 dimensional effects\, you know\, compete. Your due diligence is to kind of look at it \nTemazcal Room: a little bit more in terms of \nTemazcal Room: is there any either due to site\, development\, history. \nTemazcal Room: or the strength of the material you’re encountering is there potentially a more critical section \nTemazcal Room: than what you have looked at. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, when we 1st got involved with Cargill on this question. We were prepared with Cargill team to look at 3 like\, if this firm is going to breach\, how big an area is gonna breach\, and what are the 3 dimensional effects? We were all prepared to do that until our analysis suggested \nTemazcal Room: it isn’t actually gonna breach. So once we found that we’re like\, okay. Well. \nTemazcal Room: suddenly\, there isn’t such a need for that sort of 3 dimensional analysis. Now\, we’re faced with this amount of deformation\, and \nTemazcal Room: there are surely 3 dimensional\, you know\, effects going on with that\, too. But \nTemazcal Room: given the magnitude and scale of it\, it seems like we’re kind of getting our answer now\, yeah\, well\, I mean\, the 3 dimensional response is actually going to be better. It’ll probably make the numbers even less. Yeah\, exactly. \nTemazcal Room: you know. And you know\, but I think that \nTemazcal Room: the one piece is to \nTemazcal Room: look at the sections\, you know\, in terms of strength\, not there’s a geometry. \nTemazcal Room: and see whether that would drive you \nTemazcal Room: into looking at a particular section. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Gma. \nTemazcal Room: See\, Romaine\, you got your hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: I was wondering because I was looking your report\, and it said that the yield acceleration is like point 1 9 \nTemazcal Room: I I’m curious what parameters you used in the beret and macedo \nTemazcal Room: approach \nTemazcal Room: to get the deformations you’re getting. \nTemazcal Room: It looks a little low to me\, but \nTemazcal Room: in fairness the deformation does\, or the yield. No\, no\, the yield. I’m I’m okay with the yield. I think the deformation numbers look a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, for that yield \nTemazcal Room: and the materials that we have at at the site. So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, 7\, 5. Or I mean\, even the 4 75 is \nTemazcal Room: basically a big San Andreas \nTemazcal Room: event. If you\, or pay or 2\, but 7 and a half or 8 doesn’t matter which one. But I’m curious \nTemazcal Room: what parameters you used in your Bra Msato evaluation to come up with \nTemazcal Room: deformations you came up with\, okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, \nTemazcal Room: I I get that and we can provide. We can provide that. I mean\, we could kind of walk through with the team. Here we could provide a separate\, follow up the kind of details\, allow folks to kind of dive in and see it. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, I get I I understand your takeaway is like you were a little surprised. The numbers were what they were. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Alright. We we can. \nTemazcal Room: We can give more detail behind the inputs to the bray. Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Michael. \nTemazcal Room: Very good. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Now we go to public comment before Ec. Further Ecrb discussion. \nTemazcal Room: So for members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: if you would like to speak today\, we request that you \nTemazcal Room: only provide comments or questions specific to the questions given today or the presentations given today. \nTemazcal Room: If you would like to speak\, you will need to do so in one of 3 ways. \nTemazcal Room: If you are here in person. \nTemazcal Room: Please raise your hand so we can call on you\, at which time you may come forward\, and \nTemazcal Room: I’ll have a lectern\, but you can come forward to speak. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending on the Zoom Platform on your computer\, please raise your virtual hand and zoom. \nTemazcal Room: You may do this by clicking on the hand at the bottom of your screen. \nTemazcal Room: If you are attending via phone\, you must press Star 9 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a comment. \nTemazcal Room: and star 6 to unmute or mute yourself. \nTemazcal Room: We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order they are raised during the public comment period. \nTemazcal Room: Starting with anyone present in person \nTemazcal Room: when called upon\, you’ll be unmuted so that you can share your comments. \nTemazcal Room: Please state your name and affiliation. At the beginning of your remarks \nTemazcal Room: you have a limit of 3 min to speak. \nTemazcal Room: as at any public meeting. Please keep your comments respectful. \nTemazcal Room: We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address the meeting. \nTemazcal Room: but\, as always\, we ask that everyone act in a civil manner. \nTemazcal Room: hate speech threats made directly or indirectly\, and abusive language will not be tolerated. \nTemazcal Room: and anyone who fails to follow these guidelines\, or exceeds the established 3 min without permit\, or 3 min limit without permission \nTemazcal Room: will be muted. \nTemazcal Room: Margie\, are there any hands raised? \nTemazcal Room: I do not see any. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I do not see any hand. \nTemazcal Room: That is the end of public comment. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: So let’s \nTemazcal Room: return to board discussion. \nTemazcal Room: think there were a lot of questions today\, and and \nTemazcal Room: for the most part they’ve been answered\, but it sounds like \nTemazcal Room: there are some \nTemazcal Room: additional pieces of information or analysis that \nTemazcal Room: are going to be required. And I’m just \nTemazcal Room: wondering. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, and or I think the question to the board right now is. \nTemazcal Room: is there a path forward without a further \nTemazcal Room: meeting? \nTemazcal Room: Is there an information package or a calculation package \nTemazcal Room: that Cargill can provide to us. \nTemazcal Room: That satisfies everyone’s. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, comments. And I think \nTemazcal Room: and so I put that that question to the board here. \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to see some clarification of the \nTemazcal Room: set up and run up analysis. And I could be more specific \nTemazcal Room: if that’s helpful to the people. \nTemazcal Room: and then I also had a question\, for \nTemazcal Room: I also had a a more general question to \nTemazcal Room: I think to Janet\, to the staff. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know when we should do that. But to answer your question\, I think I’d like to see more on the way. Run up \nTemazcal Room: still. Water analysis. Okay\, yeah\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: And Jen\, I I assume you’ve been taking lots and lots of notes. And so the concerns of the Board of the questions. \nTemazcal Room: Do you think that that can be. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, summarized and and turned into a request for Cargill to respond to\, or \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, like cause\, the thing\, I I \nTemazcal Room: what I don’t I mean I. \nTemazcal Room: If we have to have another meeting\, we have to have another meeting. But if the if the board is \nTemazcal Room: satisfied that in general or not in general\, that they are satisfied \nTemazcal Room: that\, you know conditions are being met\, or the calculations and the analyses are \nTemazcal Room: or proper. \nTemazcal Room: with a few adjustments and clarifications. \nTemazcal Room: You know I think we \nTemazcal Room: I’m happy to go that way. But \nTemazcal Room: you know again I’m asking the board here if \nTemazcal Room: if there is something that is \nTemazcal Room: troubling you enough to the point where. \nTemazcal Room: you know you think we need to come back? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I guess maybe a question could be\, for the Board to think about is what kind of deformation \nTemazcal Room: would be a deformation that would be a concern. \nTemazcal Room: So\, you know. \nTemazcal Room: is is 9 inches a concern. \nTemazcal Room: Is it something that they can address through inspections and maintenance \nTemazcal Room: in this? In the worst case\, scenario\, and \nTemazcal Room: and perhaps \nTemazcal Room: you know\, because they do \nTemazcal Room: endeavor to have 2 feet of free board. \nTemazcal Room: If their deformations don’t exceed 2 feet\, then perhaps \nTemazcal Room: The risk is very low that there could be a release \nTemazcal Room: and so we could ask them\, for \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it sounds like there’s a concern about how the \nTemazcal Room: the bay muds outside of the zone\, under the berms\, were treated with their strength parameters\, and also \nTemazcal Room: that they may not have picked the most conservative \nTemazcal Room: parts of the berm to model\, and so maybe they could. They could run those and provide those results. And if the results were. \nTemazcal Room: the deformations were within a certain range. Then then it would be fine. \nTemazcal Room: Jen. In. In addition to those\, there was the question of just the strength that was that was chosen. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, the 3 50 versus like 200\, \nTemazcal Room: I think I think that’s an important one. \nTemazcal Room: And then there was also like a question of whether we’re using the full PGA or \nTemazcal Room: something less than that. \nTemazcal Room: Those 2 might be compensating changes that might get you back to the same answer. But I feel like all those things you said\, and the 2 that\, I added could be addressed in a you know\, a\, a written. \nTemazcal Room: a response\, sort of a thing \nTemazcal Room: is\, should they be applying a factor to the the peak\, the PGA\, instead of using the PGA in their analyses? \nTemazcal Room: Well\, they actually being conservative. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if they apply a factor\, that deformation. \nTemazcal Room: that factor of safety\, is going to be higher. So yeah\, Erin\, on the safe side\, is the way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: frame. \nTemazcal Room: Oh. \nTemazcal Room: still. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. But I think I think ultimately\, is that defamation \nTemazcal Room: is the factor of safety. The limit equilibrium analysis \nTemazcal Room: is given as factor of safety which is low. \nTemazcal Room: But the deformation analysis is saying\, these are the kind of displacements \nTemazcal Room: that we are getting. \nTemazcal Room: and so it kind of \nTemazcal Room: makes the limit. Equilibrium results\, you know\, less \nTemazcal Room: significant. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Jim. \nTemazcal Room: It looks to \nTemazcal Room: hey\, Kevin? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, sorry\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if if I may. I \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: you know overall. This is a tremendous amount of work. \nTemazcal Room: and in general it’s been quite carefully done. I think we’ve identified a couple of places. The the seismic deformation is interesting because brain macedo formulation is completely independent of the slide analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It only you only use the geometry of whatever’s the potentially failing mass. The rest of it is independent\, I think\, in the seismic analysis\, I I really do suggest that you actually look at proper\, whether the slide code in itself \nTemazcal Room: has a reduction formula in it for the pseudostatic\, for the pseudostatic\, which \nTemazcal Room: would be nice. But whether you’re applying the right seismic coefficient. \nTemazcal Room: that normally would be used in this kind of analysis\, because if you did not\, then this was an incredibly conservative \nTemazcal Room: result\, and the other one is\, as Jen already mentioned. I I agree. If \nTemazcal Room: you\, I would suggest that you do look whether there is a more critical \nTemazcal Room: area based on the shear strength\, the actual shear strength\, data that you have. \nTemazcal Room: and if the deformation then following proper procedures\, comes less than I would say\, I agree 2 feet. Then we’re obviously in a reasonably good shape and and a memo to the effect\, explaining what exactly the analysis were probably may suffice. \nTemazcal Room: At least\, that’s that’s my view. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Nick. \nTemazcal Room: I had a hard time hearing. What Nick was saying. Can you rephrase it? \nTemazcal Room: Maybe broad or \nTemazcal Room: presenter from from your commentary. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, you’re you’re advocating that. It would be wise to check an additional area as a critical section for stability. \nTemazcal Room: That was one. \nTemazcal Room: And the second \nTemazcal Room: comment was that we should \nTemazcal Room: either confirm or modify appropriately the pseudostatic \nTemazcal Room: number in the model. \nTemazcal Room: in in the slope\, stability model in the slope stability model. And are we using the number that we should? Or could we really be using a smaller number? And that’s factored? And I mean\, basically ask double check that you’re using the right numbers in your brain\, macedo \nTemazcal Room: analysis. And and the 3\, rd that’s right. The 3rd one is the the numbers that went into the deformation analysis. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Romine\, I’m \nTemazcal Room: I agree at the end of the day\, if the deformation analyses\, that \nTemazcal Room: I guess this board feels \nTemazcal Room: comfortable with the numbers\, and you don’t get any breach or any overtopping. Obviously that that’s that’s the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I like to \nTemazcal Room: emphasize that \nTemazcal Room: from your report. It says the yield is point 1 9\, and even if you use two-thirds of the \nTemazcal Room: lower level\, you get like point 2 2. So you’re above it already. Now it’s important that well\, all of those numbers are in the context of the strength parameters that you have used\, which we have had questions about. So if if you use lower strength \nTemazcal Room: parameters and you get \nTemazcal Room: lower yield\, you will get invariably larger deformations\, and if those deformations are still within the limits that \nTemazcal Room: there are no issues with breach and overtopping\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: Then those \nTemazcal Room: will give at least me a lot more confidence that\, hey? We are good. You have done a lot of good work\, but \nTemazcal Room: I think there are some loose ends that needs to be kind of \nTemazcal Room: tidied up\, so that \nTemazcal Room: at least I can get a good sense that we are good good to go the way you are approaching it. \nTemazcal Room: It’s\, I think\, one of the one of the points I I hear from. That is \nTemazcal Room: not only your interest in understanding the parameters that went into the brain Macedo \nTemazcal Room: displacement\, analysis\, but making sure that those parameters match up with \nTemazcal Room: whatever modifications may be appropriate in the strengths. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, you Jim. \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: think this is probably everyone’s agreeing that something more needs to be resubmitted. There’s a question that remains outstanding whether the Ecrb wants to see that again. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m somewhat up in the air about that somewhat undecided. \nTemazcal Room: I I \nTemazcal Room: heard some of what Nick said\, and \nTemazcal Room: Michael’s summary\, and and remain. And so some. This is \nTemazcal Room: a lot of it’s been said before\, but I think \nTemazcal Room: there’s several things that need to be resubmitted\, one is\, and I’m going to add a couple. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, over that \nTemazcal Room: west\, southwest corner. \nTemazcal Room: Probably a need. A new section needs to be done there. \nTemazcal Room: with bay mud going down to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think probably the strengths need to be reevaluated and not use a median\, and probably not even a 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: but probably closer towards a lower bound less. You want to get section by section and cone by cone\, and use specific sections with specific cones. \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s hard to review and to know. I mean in terms of engineering criteria. I think the engineering criteria is that you need to do a robust search. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be sure\, to find the critical shape and depth \nTemazcal Room: of of the stability surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: and I think that we can’t know that from what’s been given \nTemazcal Room: so far. \nTemazcal Room: And you know\, if if you were to provide something with \nTemazcal Room: you know\, entry and exit points \nTemazcal Room: or bottom tangent depths that are allowed\, or and so on. \nTemazcal Room: Then that needs to be resubmitted to \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. \nTemazcal Room: maybe Jen’s okay with looking at at that. Maybe Jen looks at it and says\, Oh\, this is over my head. I need the ecrb to look at it again. \nTemazcal Room: It may be relatively straightforward\, but it’s \nTemazcal Room: but there’s there’s a lot of material that’s going to have to be looked at\, not necessarily super complicated or difficult\, I think. Yeah\, I think \nTemazcal Room: these instructions we’re giving are pretty straightforward. These requests we’re giving are pretty straightforward\, and they’re they’re done\, or they’re not done. \nTemazcal Room: let’s see\, I I think that there’s some problems with the \nTemazcal Room: pink being weaker than the surrounding blue\, and that should be revisited. \nTemazcal Room: I understand that\, you know\, under\, you know\, in the trapezoid\, where you have cones pushing through it and borings and lab data. \nTemazcal Room: Probably your your results are pretty good. \nTemazcal Room: but the way you put that outside\, and where you start that from should not be weaker than the \nTemazcal Room: should not be stronger than the \nTemazcal Room: pink in particular. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe there’s others \nTemazcal Room: with their \nTemazcal Room: and then and then the parameters with for Bray Macedo. I think that needs to be \nTemazcal Room: explained what it’s there. \nTemazcal Room: and it seems a little surprising\, maybe\, for \nTemazcal Room: Rameen\, who’s more familiar with brand Macedo. \nTemazcal Room: that with a yield coefficient of 19\, you get only 9 inches. \nTemazcal Room: I mean I\, \nTemazcal Room: without knowing Brand \nTemazcal Room: Macedo myself. You know\, I got to think that point 19 yield coefficient should give you give you substantially more displacement than that \nTemazcal Room: what’s too much displacement is an interesting question that in itself might \nTemazcal Room: ask for a \nTemazcal Room: ecrb review\, because it’s there’s not a simple\, easy answer. \nTemazcal Room: 9 inches is probably\, I mean\, there’s 2 issues with with displacement. One is\, you know. How low does it get? And when does it get overtopped? And does the hydraulic\, you know. The overtopping frequency increases as soon as you get some \nTemazcal Room: some seismic settlement\, and so you have to jump back on it real quickly and build it back up as soon as you can\, so you don’t have 10 years \nTemazcal Room: of return interval to happen before you know\, with the Lower Cross elevation. \nTemazcal Room: The second thing that’s a little more tricky and more judgmenty\, maybe\, is \nTemazcal Room: at some level\, probably with bay mud 9 inches. You don’t get cracking\, but at 2 feet you start to have to ask about. Are you getting cracking of the embankment materials itself\, and do you \nTemazcal Room: get up to? Not over topping? But you get seepage through these \nTemazcal Room: cracks that you know\, tension cracks that have developed and so on. \nTemazcal Room: So at some point \nTemazcal Room: that gets to be another more complicated issue \nTemazcal Room: that I \nTemazcal Room: that \nTemazcal Room: It’s not worth speculating about all the different ramifications until we. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, find out what the the final numbers are for displacement. \nTemazcal Room: I think those need to be resubmitted\, and \nTemazcal Room: much of that\, at least\, I think \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay if Jen feels comfortable with it. \nTemazcal Room: I’d be okay with us looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: I I am able to run submittals by less than a quorum of the board to assess if they’re satisfactory. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I think that’s \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, well\, Nick\, you mean Chris has had her hand up. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: I had. Well\, one question for Jen. You mentioned that they were adding 2 feet of free board\, and I don’t think I heard that they were adding free board. I think they were just going to the 11.5 \nTemazcal Room: when you mentioned earlier that maybe 9 inches of deformation was okay\, since they were having adding free board. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, add\, if I said\, adding\, that was a miss. \nTemazcal Room: a bad choice of words. They maintain 2 2 feet of free board in the ponds. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s my understanding. And and maybe you know\, cargo. You can comment that that the elevation of the water in the pond in the Mss. Ponds doesn’t get above 9 feet elevation. \nTemazcal Room: and if they raised the berms. Then it would. \nTemazcal Room: It would go up to 9.5 feet if they raised the berms to 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Got it? That’s super helpful. \nTemazcal Room: The other question I had or comment is\, we talked about the locations of the marsh channels\, and so \nTemazcal Room: I looked up. I looked at them\, and then I made my computer die\, so I shouldn’t have been doing that but there are some great maps that show the mark marsh channels\, and even on the 1993 aerial imagery\, if you go through Google Earth\, you can see some of the nice big ones. \nTemazcal Room: And they’re not at the sections\, and there is one that was to the right of Section C\, so I think if they are going to do some analysis. \nTemazcal Room: It would be good to look at the Marsh channel\, so I can send you Jen\, a link to what I was looking at\, so you can share that out. Later. \nTemazcal Room: And then my other question\, is that I was also seeing and looking at the image imagery. The large borrow pits around the inside of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Cause when they were\, you know\, they excavated material from inside the ponds to build up the berms. \nTemazcal Room: But it didn’t look like in any of the sections that they were analyzing. It included that deep borrow pit\, and I am not a geotechnical engineer. \nTemazcal Room: so I wasn’t sure if that configuration impacts any of the analysis. If we should be considering the fact that there is that deep borrow pit on the pond side of the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s it. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Chris Gail. \nTemazcal Room: Alright\, yeah\, we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve made several requests\, some of which are \nTemazcal Room: adding conservatism and a couple of which are potentially \nTemazcal Room: reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: And this is actually a question more for my geotechnical colleagues. \nTemazcal Room: and it has to do with the title Lag. \nTemazcal Room: And right. Now they’ve done it with high tide and low tide. Obviously. \nTemazcal Room: it looks like it’s \nTemazcal Room: but a 30% difference in most cases on the \nTemazcal Room: factors of safety. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m used to looking at this for bulkhead design. But \nTemazcal Room: in a case like this. \nTemazcal Room: do you have a sense of \nTemazcal Room: how conservative or what is the likelihood of \nTemazcal Room: you know. \nTemazcal Room: considering the the low tide on the \nTemazcal Room: what is it? The high tide on the \nTemazcal Room: out inside\, and the low tide on the outside right\, which is obviously the most conservative. \nTemazcal Room: Is that necessary? \nTemazcal Room: They’ve given us results for both. Is that something where \nTemazcal Room: we could reasonably \nTemazcal Room: allow them to \nTemazcal Room: as as they do. These additional analyses \nTemazcal Room: do something either a Median Median tide. \nTemazcal Room: or \nTemazcal Room: consider \nTemazcal Room: no\, no title\, no title\, lag. \nTemazcal Room: In the analysis. Why\, I wanted the opinion of my \nTemazcal Room: geotech colleagues on this one. \nTemazcal Room: I think all of the critical \nTemazcal Room: circles that you looked at were sliding waterward right rather than land. Yeah\, they all were in. In that case low tide is going to always be \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: but that’s again assuming \nTemazcal Room: inside the berm. \nTemazcal Room: The water table is high. Side is is that high tide right? \nTemazcal Room: Which is a \nTemazcal Room: which which assumes there’s a title lag. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m asking\, is that isn’t that what it is? Is that what causes it. I don’t think their title. I I don’t think their title. I think it’s just the static Waterloo. \nandrew barrett: The the pond stays at plus 9 feet\, nav. D. 88 at at all times. Essentially\, besides\, rainfall is my understanding. When the water is pumped out\, then to make it back to be at 9. So inside the pond\, at least in our models\, and the way it was told to us by the car representatives on site. \nandrew barrett: it stays at plus 9 all the time in the pond. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, so that water level\, the water level inside is not \nTemazcal Room: driven by the tide. It’s driven by something that Cargill’s doing. \nandrew barrett: These ponds are completely removed from being connected. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nandrew barrett: To the tidal effects of the bay. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. No. Title. Effects. Inside. \nandrew barrett: Trying to keep them that way. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? So then\, so then the then the question would just be. \nTemazcal Room: is it reasonable to \nTemazcal Room: use a meet? Use a Median tide if you will. \nTemazcal Room: or a mean tide. \nTemazcal Room: instead of low or high\, instead of low. \nTemazcal Room: If we\, if we\, if we want to allow \nTemazcal Room: something for reducing conservatism. \nTemazcal Room: question for the question for my colleague. \nTemazcal Room: and start with a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: and if it becomes problematic and expensive\, repairs are called for\, or something like that\, then fine it a little bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, just to comment on that. I think I heard that a was it a plus 2 tide was used \nTemazcal Room: plus 2 plus 2 for low tide\, and and that’s is that mean lower low water or Navd? Or are they about the same here? I can’t remember. It’s \nTemazcal Room: project datum. \nTemazcal Room: And Abd\, 88. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I mean\, a\, a really low tide is like\, minus 2 or something. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, yeah\, just so it’s not. It’s not a \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The mean lower\, low water \nTemazcal Room: is 0. Let’s say that’s close to NAVD. \nTemazcal Room: In the South Bay. This the tide drops well below \nTemazcal Room: mean lower\, low water. That’s \nTemazcal Room: so. If you wanted to be really conservative\, you could add another 4 feet of height to your water difference \nTemazcal Room: which I’m not suggesting\, but I’m not sure. Was it quite as conservative as it may seem? \nTemazcal Room: You think they’re not being too conservative by using. Well\, I don’t know I it just as a coastal person. It made sense to me to assume a low tide on the outside \nTemazcal Room: as a conservative measure. What water elevation were you using \nTemazcal Room: 2 \nTemazcal Room: elevation\, too? Yeah\, in in the remember\, this is in the seismic analysis I’m talking about. So that was part of our reasoning is like a seismic is a distinct\, you know\, momentary event. So \nTemazcal Room: what’s the likelihood of that? Overlapping with an extreme low tide? We used to then we did it with 0 as well. It didn’t change much. We have not run it at minus 2. That would. That would definitely be a compounding of I’m not suggesting that you do. I just wanted to point out that the tide can be a lot lower. \nTemazcal Room: I’d \nTemazcal Room: it’s it’s a it’s it’s on the low end of the title cycle. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not a low tide. \nTemazcal Room: It’s just \nTemazcal Room: it’s a dropping tide. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, it’s below Msl\, and and what they’re getting at is the joint probability. Right? Like\, if you’re looking at a yeah\, 475 year\, I I think I think it’s okay. \nTemazcal Room: Sure\, okay\, \nTemazcal Room: okay\, Nick\, you had you had your hand up earlier. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, Mr. Chairman\, actually\, I was going to make a motion\, but I’ll let go ahead before. \nTemazcal Room: I have my hand up. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, but Bob has his hand up as well. \nTemazcal Room: I’m I’m I’m going to talk coastal stuff\, so I’ll let if it’s geotech. I think you need to go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not suggesting that \nTemazcal Room: different levels of earthquake shaking should be used\, but these are not the largest levels either. So there is some inherent. If there is some conservatism somewhere else. We’re not \nTemazcal Room: looking at the largest level of shaking either\, so that I’m I’m not suggesting that you should. But just put it in context as well. \nTemazcal Room: Dima. \nTemazcal Room: continuing the geotax. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael\, I don’t remember whether you mentioned he said anything about cpage. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, I I actually I all I said about seepage was when I was talking about our \nTemazcal Room: conclusions regarding the effects of keying in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where we really didn’t see any appreciable strength increase in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: but because of our \nTemazcal Room: observations of the keyed material in place\, it’s apparent level of compaction\, which which is not a huge amount of compaction we discussed\, but \nTemazcal Room: but there is compaction that has occurred that we see\, and our observations of the material used. \nTemazcal Room: that it’s our conclusion that \nTemazcal Room: that should improve seepage \nTemazcal Room: just based on that alone\, you may minimize seepage. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, minimize seepage\, minimize seepage. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: alright. \nTemazcal Room: that that’s our conclusion based on what we see. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then. \nTemazcal Room: from the perspective of the overtopping presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I think you alluded to \nTemazcal Room: the material being used to top the broom. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I should minimize scarring. \nTemazcal Room: I think it should be pretty resistant to scouring. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, if you had waves hitting it\, for\, you know\, days upon days\, of course\, but \nTemazcal Room: for a short \nTemazcal Room: wave over topping event. I think that with that compacted material \nTemazcal Room: and the gravel servicing\, I think that’s going to resist scour pretty well. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean\, I think maybe. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, what happened where? \nTemazcal Room: I’ve \nTemazcal Room: perhaps not. I think maybe that should be something that you should \nTemazcal Room: formalize as a recommendation to address the issue of of our observations about its apparent resistance to a wave over tapping scour. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: do that? \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Jima. Bob. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. So from the coastal side. I’d be interested in seeing \nTemazcal Room: selected profiles of the one or more transects \nTemazcal Room: showing the static and dynamic water levels and other parameters used. \nTemazcal Room: That would be for Jeremy. I don’t know if he’s still on the phone \nTemazcal Room: and then I’d also like to see those values tabulated. Some representative \nTemazcal Room: portion of all the wave run up\, runs \nTemazcal Room: tabulated\, so I can see what the wave heights\, water depths. \nTemazcal Room: dynamic water\, level\, etc\, are. \nTemazcal Room: or a representative number of the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: I I don’t think that’s that hard to do. It’s it is something that Fema did for their flood studies and in their intermediate data submittals. And I think the software probably allows you to do that. \nTemazcal Room: But separate from that. \nTemazcal Room: I wanted to say that I think \nTemazcal Room: Chris and I\, \nTemazcal Room: Chris May and I could \nTemazcal Room: look over what you get on that topic and work with you\, Jen\, or one of us. \nTemazcal Room: If if we didn’t want to bring it back. So I I don’t know that. \nTemazcal Room: That might. That might make it easier. \nTemazcal Room: But I had an overall question\, and I’m sorry I’m not if I’m supposed to be up to speed on this. But my concern with this \nTemazcal Room: situation \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: the material \nTemazcal Room: is \nTemazcal Room: has salt levels and certain types of salt levels that could adversely affect wildlife \nTemazcal Room: if released into the bay. \nTemazcal Room: That’s what I\, my concern\, has been \nTemazcal Room: more than a life safety. \nTemazcal Room: and I thought I heard somebody say that that’s not really a concern\, because the material the \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Just \nTemazcal Room: dissolves immediately or something\, and I’m not sure I understand that \nTemazcal Room: is. Is\, am I \nTemazcal Room: wrong to be concerned or wrong to not understand that it dissolves \nTemazcal Room: right away? \nTemazcal Room: Listen to that while we’re here. It depends on the concentration. \nTemazcal Room: So it it depends on how much is is\, you know. It’s a it’s a concentrated salt\, right? So. \nTemazcal Room: But the\, but the concentrations themselves are are quite high because it’s crystallized\, and some of it might be \nTemazcal Room: more soluble than others\, but certainly. \nTemazcal Room: if it was a hundred parts per 1\,000\, which I think is \nTemazcal Room: lower than it is\, and it was liquid\, and that was released. I think that could probably kill fish\, couldn’t it. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, I I just trying to understand how serious this is if we have a release which is an important consideration in terms of what the criteria are. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know the exact levels. But if you put a bowl of this and dissolve the mix sea salts in it\, and then put the fish in it. Yeah\, the fish wouldn’t \nTemazcal Room: wouldn’t be good\, but that’s a big difference than a little bit getting out into the ocean and diluting. \nTemazcal Room: I do remember working on the Napa Salt Ponds. Of course that was way a long time ago\, and I think everyone’s learned a lot more since then\, but we had a pond with up to maybe 100 parts per 1\,000 pond 3\, \nTemazcal Room: and there was quite a bit of concern about diluting that before it was released. \nTemazcal Room: That was one of our major challenges\, and we got through that in 2\,005. \nTemazcal Room: But Newark slew has a number of \nTemazcal Room: protected species in it. \nTemazcal Room: So I I have to admit that I haven’t analyzed this or read everything about that. But what I’ve seen is not really satisfied me. \nTemazcal Room: In terms of my concern\, and we don’t have a biologist on here. So I’m I’m wondering what the implications are. If the implications are serious\, then this could be a risk level that is higher \nTemazcal Room: than we think. \nTemazcal Room: which case\, if it was a new project\, it might have to be designed to a higher standard than what we’re talking about. \nTemazcal Room: So\, on the other hand\, I think \nTemazcal Room: it needs to be managed. Cargo has a lot of experience. \nTemazcal Room: you know. They they should be able to maintain. This is in everybody’s interest. \nTemazcal Room: But I’m \nTemazcal Room: a little unclear on how serious the situation is. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know is that generally\, just because I didn’t read everything\, or is there? \nTemazcal Room: No\, just I mean to recap a little bit in the very 1st meeting of the ecrb Ecrb asked Cargill to present information on the risk of \nTemazcal Room: the mixed sea salts on the ecology and human health. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: instead of providing that information\, Cargill said that instead they would model the most conservative scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s that’s where we’re at \nTemazcal Room: the most conservative levy failure or defamation scenarios or release scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: But there’s been no modeling of the okay. \nTemazcal Room: So I I just think that’s an important context. And \nTemazcal Room: for me\, anyway\, if somebody’s worked around the bay a lot on restoration projects and around Newark Slough in particular\, and \nTemazcal Room: sufficient wildlife\, reserve\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: So I just think that’s something \nTemazcal Room: to think about\, and why I would like to \nTemazcal Room: review the wave\, run up information again. \nTemazcal Room: even though I don’t doubt the Cargill’s judgment that some wave overtopping probably has no significance. \nTemazcal Room: And so I appreciate that viewpoint quite a bit. Actually. \nTemazcal Room: sure\, if I could just add the reason we didn’t do the you know environmental assessment\, because. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, the studies indicated that we went to have\, we would not have a breach\, or we would not have mixed. See salt \nTemazcal Room: going out into the pond\, which is why. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, that’s why we didn’t proceed with doing an environmental \nTemazcal Room: assessment. You didn’t think that\, you know there’s no breach. It’s not going to be in a \nTemazcal Room: any ecological impact. \nTemazcal Room: That’s kind of the reason why we didn’t. Do you know\, further environmental. So so I think in that case\, I just want to be more sure that we understand what the wave run up and overtopping potential are\, and \nTemazcal Room: how that feeds into the geotech\, and how the \nTemazcal Room: would apply to our judgment regarding whether or not \nTemazcal Room: the analysis indicates that this somewhat ambiguous failure\, scenario of \nTemazcal Room: possibly some levee erosion or possible breaching and release that’s undefined is likely not to be exceeded. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s kind of where I am. I want to be more careful. \nTemazcal Room: so I would like to see the wave run up \nTemazcal Room: information. \nTemazcal Room: And I would like the geotech to be comfortable with the situations\, too. Recognizing \nTemazcal Room: that impacting ecology is a big deal. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Think that’s that’s it. Now\, \nTemazcal Room: so it sounds like. \nTemazcal Room: everybody is okay with \nTemazcal Room: additional information and clarification from Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: that we’re okay\, recommending approval of the permit \nTemazcal Room: ending \nTemazcal Room: the middle of clarifications and information \nTemazcal Room: to the satisfaction. Yeah\, right? And and so \nTemazcal Room: I think we would\, Jen\, you’d have to pick \nTemazcal Room: 4 of us who are\, you know\, so we don’t have a quorum issue. \nTemazcal Room: But you know I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: Bob and \nTemazcal Room: Jim \nTemazcal Room: remain\, and \nTemazcal Room: probably \nTemazcal Room: Nick \nTemazcal Room: to\, or maybe\, or maybe\, if somebody’s not interested\, I I would be \nTemazcal Room: a good person to help. \nTemazcal Room: But one of 4 of those 5 names \nTemazcal Room: would be \nTemazcal Room: reviewers of the information and pending that set\, you know\, pending our satisfaction to that\, then we would recommend \nTemazcal Room: approval \nTemazcal Room: of a permit. \nTemazcal Room: Can I? Have a little discussion? Chris did. Were you interested? Or \nTemazcal Room: so it’s 5 for the quorum. So it’s like one coastal\, and which is probably enough. But it could be Chris or I. But if there’s room it might be good at both of us. Okay\, 4. \nTemazcal Room: See yourself. \nTemazcal Room: That’s all right. \nTemazcal Room: But for the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, I can go either way with it. I just wanted to give Chris an opportunity to \nTemazcal Room: to weigh in. See how interested she is. And no\, I’m I’m happy to review the coastal part. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: but I don’t think I think the geotech issues are \nTemazcal Room: our significance. I don’t think they could have both of us if we only have 4 got it. \nTemazcal Room: So either one whatever. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: okay. So do I have a motion? \nTemazcal Room: Second. \nTemazcal Room: all in favor. \nTemazcal Room: or do we? Do you need to do a \nTemazcal Room: a roll call\, or can we just do a voice? Vote? Jen. \nTemazcal Room: let’s do a roll call just \nTemazcal Room: to be thorough. \nTemazcal Room: we are going to have a roll call vote now on the motion which is \nTemazcal Room: to \nTemazcal Room: request additional information based on our discussion today. \nTemazcal Room: and if it seems like it satisfies \nTemazcal Room: our our concerns. Then the Ecrb will find that the safety issues have been addressed by cargo. \nTemazcal Room: Okay \nTemazcal Room: Roddy washedatch here. Aye. \nTemazcal Room: Jim\, French \nTemazcal Room: Bob Italia. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Chris May. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Golisarki. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: and Patrick Ryan. Yes. \nTemazcal Room: right. Yeses have it. \nTemazcal Room: I have another. So we will. \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, I assume you’re going to put together minutes and the \nTemazcal Room: the request for information. Additional information and clarification will go to Cargill right? And \nTemazcal Room: copied to \nTemazcal Room: the ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So what I’ll do is I’ll draft a letter summarizing the information request. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll probably run a draft of it by \nTemazcal Room: couple of people on the ecrb\, maybe the chair\, the chair and vice chair. \nTemazcal Room: and then \nTemazcal Room: and then send it off. \nTemazcal Room: We will all to Cargill. Try to do that in \nTemazcal Room: in a week. \nTemazcal Room: And then this meeting\, which is being recorded\, will also be posted. \nTemazcal Room: On our website at the meeting. Notice? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thanks. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. There. A motion to adjourn. \nTemazcal Room: Second\, okay\, all those in favor. \nTemazcal Room: Aye. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Cargill. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: for speaking and pushing the buttons to turn it on and off. \nTemazcal Room: rod you want to share here. \nTemazcal Room: Jim French vice chair. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Bob Natalia. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Jima Kasali. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Chris may \nTemazcal Room: here \nTemazcal Room: Rameen Gosarky. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Nick Sitar. \nTemazcal Room: Present. \nTemazcal Room: Gail Johnson. Hello. \nTemazcal Room: Patrick Ryan. \nTemazcal Room: Here. \nTemazcal Room: Cherry Washta. We have a forum of at least 5 present. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. Jen. We have a quorum present. So we are duly constituted to conduct business. \nTemazcal Room: we may have some alternate board members who may be participating as members of the public. \nTemazcal Room: Names I see listed are Thalia\, Travaceru\, Philip Trevetti. \nTemazcal Room: Justin Van Diever\, and Bill Tremaine and I now call the meeting to order. \nTemazcal Room: I wanna \nTemazcal Room: Carrie Washer Robert Batali would like to speak. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry I didn’t know how I had my hand raised. I was trying to figure out how to get myself on the \nTemazcal Room: video on Zoom\, oh\, yeah. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, okay. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. I want to start with some instructions\, and how we can best participate \nTemazcal Room: in this meeting\, so that it runs as smoothly as possible. \nTemazcal Room: First\, st everyone\, when you are not involved in the active discussion. Please make sure \nTemazcal Room: you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise \nTemazcal Room: for board members. If you have a camera\, please make sure that it is on during the meeting. So everyone online can see you. \nTemazcal Room: Every now and then I may refer to the meeting host Margie\, who is working behind the scenes \nTemazcal Room: to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and consistently. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: please be patient with us if it’s needed. \nTemazcal Room: Ex parte communications \nTemazcal Room: as set forth in the Bcdc’s regulations. A member of the Ecrb. \nTemazcal Room: Shall not have any oral or written communication regarding a proposed \nTemazcal Room: project or other matter that has been noticed \nTemazcal Room: to be considered at an Ecrb meeting with a project proponent permit applicant\, prospective applicant \nTemazcal Room: or member of the public\, except on the record during an Ecrb meeting \nTemazcal Room: Board members\, in case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide \nTemazcal Room: the staff with a notice on any written or oral ex parte communications. \nTemazcal Room: I invite you to report on any such communications at this point by raising your hand and unmuting yourself. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I don’t see any. \nTemazcal Room: for the record. No hands have been raised. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, are you going to talk about the timing of this\, the room and and all of that? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: then let’s have a staff update \nTemazcal Room: from senior engineer and board. Secretary\, Jen Hyman. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you\, Cherry Washta. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to provide an update on upcoming meetings \nTemazcal Room: on September 25\, th the Ecrb will have a second meeting with the Representatives from the San Francisco International Airport on their shoreline protection project. \nTemazcal Room: On October 23\, rd the Ecrb will review and discuss the updated regional shoreline adaptation plan or Rsap guidelines. \nTemazcal Room: At the end of that meeting\, Bcdc. Council\, Michael Ng. Will give a legal training to Ecr Ecrb members on regulations and policies of the Ecrb \nTemazcal Room: and board members. I would like to \nTemazcal Room: let everyone know and app permit applicants today that we building management asked us to vacate the room at 5 o’clock sharp\, because\, that’s the end of their workday\, and we’re getting their assistance in running this meeting\, and they have to leave so hopefully\, we can try to\, if possible\, wind the meeting up by around 4 30 today. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, if need be. If we have to go beyond 5 o’clock\, then we’ll \nTemazcal Room: probably all just log into zoom without any of the screens or anything. \nTemazcal Room: if if need be. \nTemazcal Room: Those are all my announcements\, Cherry Rashta. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jan. \nTemazcal Room: Before we move on to the presentation. Are there any announcements from board members. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Seeing none. Let’s let’s move on \nTemazcal Room: to agenda. Item\, 3 \nTemazcal Room: Cargills\, solar sea salt system\, maintenance and operations project firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: So the main agenda item related to the permit application for Cargill Cargills. \nTemazcal Room: solar sea salt maintenance or system\, maintenance and operations. Our discussion will focus on the stability of the berms surrounding the mixed sea. Salt or Mss. Ponds. \nTemazcal Room: p. 12\, p. 2\, 12\, and p. 2\, 13. \nTemazcal Room: Mixed tea salts are also referred to as Bittern \nTemazcal Room: Jen\, the Board Secretary and Senior engineer for Bcdc. Has a slide presentation for us \nTemazcal Room: with an introduction and a bit of background \nTemazcal Room: since is. This is this is the 3rd meeting on this topic \nTemazcal Room: during the presentation. It is fine for board members to ask clarifying questions. \nTemazcal Room: I would like to ask board members and presenters to please turn on your cameras for any discussion \nTemazcal Room: during or after the presentation. \nTemazcal Room: and I will now turn it over to Jen to begin her presentation. \nTemazcal Room: I’m just going to give some brief introductory slides on the Project \nTemazcal Room: and the Permit history and the history of the Ecrb meetings for this project. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill salts\, current maintenance and operation activities are regulated by Vcdc. By a 10 year permit \nTemazcal Room: that was issued by Bcdc. In 1\,995. \nTemazcal Room: This permit has been extended numerous times. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has applied to renew the 10 year Permit and staff plan to present the new permit to the Commission. In December of this year \nTemazcal Room: Bcdc. Has prepared a draft environmental assessment \nTemazcal Room: to comply with Ceqa assessing the potential impacts from Cargill’s maintenance and operational activities. \nTemazcal Room: The draft Ea is currently out for the 30 day public comment period right now. \nTemazcal Room: and that comment period will be ending on September 21\, st \nTemazcal Room: the Ea can be accessed at the Bcd Bcdc. Website. \nTemazcal Room: The link is provided in the slide. But there’s also a link on Bcdc’s homepage. \nTemazcal Room: The Engineering Criteria Review Board’s review \nTemazcal Room: has been. \nTemazcal Room: and today we’ll focus on the stability and safety of the earth and berm surrounding ponds. P. 212 and p. 213. At Cargill’s Newark plant number 2. \nTemazcal Room: These ponds store mixed sea salts\, which \nTemazcal Room: we you will hear the acronym Mss. For these mixed sea salts \nTemazcal Room: due to its high salinity\, and the fact that its Ionic balance differs from bay water. \nTemazcal Room: Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Could contribute to potential environmental impacts if overtopping scour and erosion caused a release of brine to the bay. \nTemazcal Room: Important to note\, however\, that once Mss. Is diluted with seawater. \nTemazcal Room: it no longer exhibits toxicity. \nTemazcal Room: The static and seismic stability of the berms is also a concern. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb’s engineering review today has prompted some draft permit conditions\, and Bcdc. Is in the process of drafting \nTemazcal Room: the updated permit. Right now. \nTemazcal Room: these are some examples. \nTemazcal Room: Argill will be raising the berms around the Mss. Ponds to an elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: nabbed 88 by the end of the 10 year permit period. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has also proposed to raise the external berm at Pond\, p. 212 to 11.5 feet at a slightly earlier date. Because that’s the berm \nTemazcal Room: of all the of the of the 2 ponds that is facing the bay. \nTemazcal Room: They’re proposing to do that earlier by 2029 \nTemazcal Room: cargo will track and report potential seepage from the Mss. Ponds annually. \nTemazcal Room: The permit \nTemazcal Room: will present the Ecrb’s concluding assessment of the Mss. Burn safety to the Commission. \nTemazcal Room: The other \nTemazcal Room: function that Ep\, the Ecrb’s input has had on the permit is Cargill’s technical reports that were requested by the Ecrb have informed portions of the environmental assessment. \nTemazcal Room: This map shows a location of the Mss. Ponds\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13\, \nTemazcal Room: close to Newark. \nTemazcal Room: and along the shores of San Francisco’s South Bay\, south of the Dumbarton Bridge. \nTemazcal Room: The Ecrb meetings on the topic of stability of the mixed sea. Salt Pond berms \nTemazcal Room: were previously held\, first\, st on November 16\, th 2022\, \nTemazcal Room: and a second meeting was held on August 30\, th 2023. \nTemazcal Room: The remaining issues to discuss today are as follows. \nTemazcal Room: updated sea level rise\, risk assessment focusing on wave run up and wave induced firm erosion \nTemazcal Room: results from the geotechnical investigation of the berms \nTemazcal Room: using Cone penetrometer testing. \nTemazcal Room: also known as Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: that was performed just this summer. \nTemazcal Room: Updated stability analyses for the Mss. Berms based on the new geotechnical data. \nTemazcal Room: including \nTemazcal Room: post slope and non-circular failure surfaces. \nTemazcal Room: seismic and funny scenario \nTemazcal Room: firm keying and layering scenarios. \nTemazcal Room: firm displacement and settlement\, analysis \nTemazcal Room: a consideration of settlement \nTemazcal Room: of the Nss. Palm berms \nTemazcal Room: and questions regarding seepage of the Mss. Out through the berms. \nTemazcal Room: Those were all the results \nTemazcal Room: that all the comments that the Ecrb had made \nTemazcal Room: on the issues at the last meeting. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I’ve put together these questions for the Board to consider for this 3rd meeting. \nTemazcal Room: Number one is Cargill’s plan to maintain the berms to a crest elevation of 11.5 feet. \nTemazcal Room: plus inspections and maintenance adequate to address the risk posed by sea level rise and and waves \nTemazcal Room: did the field investigation adequately characterize the subsurface. Geology and geotechnical parameters \nTemazcal Room: are the scenarios and criteria in the static and seismic berm stability analysis adequate for assessing the risk of berm failure at the Mss. Ponds \nTemazcal Room: do the updated static and seismic stability calculations for the berms adequately characterize and model the berm stability. \nTemazcal Room: including any berm raising \nTemazcal Room: possible subsidence and sea level rise predicted for 2030\, and 2040 \nTemazcal Room: for the stability analyses that indicate areas where the berms do not meet. The 1.1 factor of safety are the risks adequately addressed? \nTemazcal Room: Does the presentation on Mss. Seepage and Berm coring adequately address the concerns and comments from the Ecrb? \nTemazcal Room: Do the do the results of the updated berm stability\, modeling\, utilize adequately conservative assumptions and meet adequate levels of safety\, so that an ecological and human health risk analysis is not needed. \nTemazcal Room: This was a statement made by Cargill in the second Ecrb meeting. \nTemazcal Room: responding to the Ecrb’s request in the 1st meeting to provide a risk assessment. \nTemazcal Room: And lastly\, does the Board have any other concerns regarding burn stability that have not been addressed. \nTemazcal Room: and that’s the end of my \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jen. \nTemazcal Room: Now Jeremy Mull\, of Aecom will make a presentation on behalf of Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey\, everybody! Can you hear me? Okay. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m gonna share my screen. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And someone confirm that they’re they can see a Powerpoint presentation up on the screen. \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, great\, thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): My name is Jeremy Mull. I’m a coastal engineer with acom. Thank you. Everybody for attending and listening. Today I’m going to give a brief presentation on the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The wave run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and overtopping analysis that we perform for Cargill. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’ll note that Justin Vannever was the coastal engineering lead for this project. But because he’s part of the the ecrb that I’m presenting. \nTemazcal Room: Excuse me\, Jeremy\, can you? Do you mind turning on your camera. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Not at all. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Can you guys see me now? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yes\, okay\, thanks. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. So just a a quick background on the project. I know some of this was outlined by Jen and her presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In 2\,020 and 2\,021\, Cargill prepared a sea level rise assessment \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to support his long-term operations and the Bcdc. 10 year operations and maintenance permit renewal. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment included a mapping of the shoreline and the England berms\, including some assets of the site. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): An evaluation of sea level rise impacts for the year 2\,100 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the identification of vulnerable berm segments. That could be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerable to us\, overtopping from storm surge. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): vulnerability and risk assessment\, for you know\, some of the assets on Cargill side\, including operations and and the environment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then a conceptual phase\, sea level rise\, adaptation\, approach. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That included adaptation considerations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then\, in December 2022 Bcdc. Requested that Cardio evaluate. The impacts of wave run up and overtopping\, including future sea level\, rise on the bayfront berms. So those are the berms between the ponds and shoreline of San Francisco Bay\, and this was based on requests from the Ecrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In August 2023\, Cargill presented preliminary wave run up methods and findings to Dcrb. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): worth noting that the the methodology and the results largely haven’t changed since this presentation. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then in 2023\, through 2024 we run up an overtopping analysis. Memo was prepared and then submitted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to the the Bcdc \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these slides are just going to be a high\, level overview of the project. It’s my understanding that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the presentation that was done previously had a pretty detailed overview of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the methods and findings\, and then those are also included in a lot of detail in in the technical memo \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so prior sea level rise assessments\, those focus on impacts of of high tides and combined the storm surge and more of a overtopping from the still water level of the berms. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This assessment evaluated the potential for way run up and overtopping on those bayfront berms. For existing conditions\, and then future conditions with sea level rise under a no action scenario. And what that means is the analysis assumed that the berms would not be elevated from their their current elevations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we developed 2 kind of metrics to evaluate the impacts of waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st included the duration of the berm toe exceedance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): by the total water level with a wave height greater than one foot\, and we calculated the average hours per year that this might occur. So this was kind of a proxy for the amount of time that the waves \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): excuse me that the berms would be exposed to significant wave energy in a year we then looked at the frequency of berm crest overtopping and we evaluated this\, based on the return period\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for different storm events. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these results are helping Cargill identify and prioritize maintenance \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the burn segments that may experience\, increased exposure \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to wave impacts due to sea level rise. It also can help inform the development of a long term adaptation management plan for these Burns. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick overview of the technical approach. This\, the approach is detailed or presented more detailed report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): This slide just conceptually shows each of the steps in the technical analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting with step\, one on the top left\, and then all finishing up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry I have something on the screen\, the firm exposure metrics on the bottom. Right? So\, \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): starting in step one\, we applied a 1-dimensional transact based analysis. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Where transects are spaced. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicular \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): perpendicularly to the the berm\, we place transacts \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): based on segments of berm with different \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposures to wave energy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then all of our empirical equations to calculate over top and run up and overtopping were applied in in one dimension. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 2. We extracted \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): cross shore profiles from topographic and bathymetric data\, and then identified the key features of the berms that were used in our our engineering calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In step 3. We assigned representative transects to each berm segment. So the berms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re divided into short segments. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the results of the analysis were then compared to the elevations of each burn segment. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each berm segment came with a representative transect. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): As it’s described in the report\, we rely primarily on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a a multi decatal wave and water level model that was used in a fema coastal flood. Study of San Francisco Bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Model was built by dhi and had waves and water levels\, I believe\, every 15 min for over 50 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So each transect was paired with a model output station. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We then calculated \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the total water level at each of those time steps \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for the entire hindcast and use statistical extreme value analysis \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to come up with the conditions for storms for different return periods. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Finally\, with the results of the total water levels at each transect\, we map those spatially onto the the berm segments with different different elevations and presented those results as \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): as results. Maps. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just a quick like overview of what the total water level is this is just a conceptual slide and hopefully helps orient Orient people to the total water level because it drives a lot of flooding in San Francisco Bay\, so the total water level consists of several different components. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It includes the astronomical tide sometimes referred to as predicted tide\, which ranges about 6 to 8 feet in the bay \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and includes storm surge\, which is composed of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): yeah atmospheric pressure events\, winds\, atmospheric pressure effects\, wind setup\, and El Nino effects. It ranges on the order of like one to 3 feet in the bay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): It also includes wave components like wave setup and wave wave run up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and those range about 2 to 5 feet. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then you add that all up and you get the total water level. Extreme total water\, total water level events on the Bay range from about 10 to 15 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any vd\, 88\, depending on the storm conditions you’re looking at. And each\, you know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): areas exposure to wave energy and things like that. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): In the cartoon on the bottom. You can see how all these components add up. You see the tide. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): How time and storm surge add up to the still water level\, and then\, if a segment of the berm is exposed to wind waves\, those waves usually propagate up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): propagate through the marsh\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): near\, or at the Bernto\, and the uprush \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of water can come up the outward side of the berm\, and then potentially over top levee \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so we did incorporate future sea level rise\, and that would be that was incorporated into the still water level in which we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Then we ran all of our total water level calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay\, so just an overview of some of the results. These figures are all \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): presented in the report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re focused on Pond 12 today. Which is shown in the upper left of all the figures. It’s highlighted in the 1st figure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 1st figure is the baseline conditions\, which are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): approximately from the year 2\,010\, and then the results. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The different figures show the results for 6 inches\, 12 inches and 36 inches of sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We are using the sea level rise estimates from the Ocean Ocean Protection Council report. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): From 2\,024 you can see the timing of those different amounts of sea level rise in the bottom right there. This table. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as an example for 12 inches of sea level rise that could occur as early as the year 2\,050. If you’re looking at the intermediate high scenario\, it’s likely by 2\,055\, if you’re using the intermediate scenario. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So these the slides show the results for the berm toe exceedance. Remember\, this is the average number of hours per year that the total water level \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would exceed the burnt tow with a wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): of at least one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So it’s kind of a measure of how often the outboard the bayfront firm is being impacted by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Up in the upper left. You have the baseline conditions\, and you can see all. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? This is Bob Battaglio. Hi\, Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Hey! Bob! \nTemazcal Room: I’d like to ask a question. \nTemazcal Room: so \nTemazcal Room: I was a little surprised by this slide\, because if I understand it correctly. \nTemazcal Room: Under existing conditions the toe of the berm\, which is the base \nTemazcal Room: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: is exceeded by the total water level. \nTemazcal Room: Less than 1 HA year is\, am I interpreting this correctly? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Mostly. So remember it’s 1 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): hour per year\, combined with a wave height greater than one foot. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? \nTemazcal Room: So the toe of the berm is in places is fronted by Marsh\, which is around me. High water\, I mean higher high water. \nTemazcal Room: so just the still water level alone should exceed the tow \nTemazcal Room: of the lev of the levy like 8% of the time\, or something like that is that \nTemazcal Room: just just because of the tide\, not including non tidal residuals. So \nTemazcal Room: it just seems like this is. \nTemazcal Room: there should be waves \nTemazcal Room: during some of those 8% of the time. So \nTemazcal Room: it seems like the total water level would be \nTemazcal Room: higher. So I have a concern about that. I don’t know if you wanna \nTemazcal Room: address that now or. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I mean\, I I guess I can just speak conceptually to that. It’s it’s it’s a good question. And I think \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you have to. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I imagine it’s through a combination of \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): high tides combined with \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): exposure. So waves approaching at the right angle to attack. You know the burn you kind of think about like \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every firm has a little bit different. Exposure in this firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, is really only vulnerable to ways that are \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coming in\, you know\, a bit from maybe the South Southwest here. So it would be those times when you have a combination\, the high tide. So the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): sorry advance the slide\, so the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tide\, like you said\, is coming up above the berm toe\, but then that also has to coincide with a wind event\, where the wind’s approaching from the right direction to to generate those waves. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so it sounds like the way you’re filtering it. The waves are not above one foot \nTemazcal Room: when the tide is above the marsh in her high water \nTemazcal Room: more than 1 HA year\, if I understand that correctly. And again\, that just seems \nTemazcal Room: less than I would expect. \nTemazcal Room: So I you know I just have a concern there. Can I? Ask you another question? \nTemazcal Room: How was the wind setup computed? Was it \nTemazcal Room: extracted at the offshore wave location. \nTemazcal Room: or was it \nTemazcal Room: recomputed\, based on the profile \nTemazcal Room: towards shore\, towards the tow. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Are you asking about the wave set. \nTemazcal Room: By the wind. The wind set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Okay. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: Start with. The wind setup. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, it’s good question. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I would have to go \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): back into the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): dhi methodology for the model. What? \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I? So we didn’t \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): adjust \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water levels at all. We took them straight from the model output. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): They ran my \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): my 21 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): about the the water level wave conditions. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so we extracted those from\, you know\, each each output station in the transects I would have to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): not familiar enough with to say offhand exactly how they handled when set up in the model. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, that’s okay. I I just I’ll make a point here that \nTemazcal Room: The wind setup increases with \nTemazcal Room: proximity to the shore\, because the wind blows the water on shore\, and as it gets shallower the return flow \nTemazcal Room: is suppressed. So you get a setup. \nTemazcal Room: So the wind setup profile is not horizontal\, it should actually increase as you get closer to the levee \nTemazcal Room: and your offshore way of reference point is not \nTemazcal Room: close to the total levee\, so I think the water depth would be higher. \nTemazcal Room: Then\, perhaps\, is being modeled\, which\, of course. \nTemazcal Room: allows larger waves to propagate \nTemazcal Room: landward to reach the toe. \nTemazcal Room: which may also be contributing to this very low \nTemazcal Room: wave total water level exceedance at the toe of the berm. I think I’ve made my point\, but I had. That’s that’s 1 of the concerns I have. And we can discuss more. \nTemazcal Room: In the discussion. \nTemazcal Room: Is is that okay? \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Thanks. Jeremy. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so let’s see\, we this slide. We’re looking at the berm tail exceedance. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and that’s the average number of hours per year\, where the total water level is exceeding the berm tail with a wave height greater than one foot. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So under baseline conditions\, you can see in the upper left. The levee is completely colored and green\, and that’s \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): entire berm. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And so that’s less than 1 h per year. The legends\, the color legends here. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to interpret the different colors. You look at \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 6 inch sea level Rise scenario\, which is what we’re considering to be the the 10 year sea level rise amount \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the berm is still mostly green with some yellow\, so that would bump the segment of berm up into the one to $12 per year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That it’s been impacted by these waves\, and then you can look at the results for the higher sea level rise scenarios of 12 inches and 36 inches sea level rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The next thing we looked at was the frequency of crest overtopping by waves. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And we looked at the approximate return period. Total water levels. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That would result \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): in in overtopping. So these would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): from events as frequent as 2 years. So a total water level with 2 year term period \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): through 1050\, and then on up to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 100 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I’m \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and same as before. Baseline conditions are shown here in the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): upper left\, and then \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on 36 inches of sea level rise. Most extreme scenario shown here on the bottom right? So for baseline conditions. You can see here. Most of the the berm is shaded in orange\, which \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): indicates that it’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping from a storm with a roughly 10 to 50 year return period. There is a small segment in red which is more vulnerable to the light red\, so that’s vulnerable to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 year. Total water level with 6 inches of sea level rise. More of the berm here is colored in red meaning. It’s more vulnerable. Obviously\, to to storms \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): with lower return periods. So it happened more frequently. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, hey\, Jeremy? This is Bobby again. Sorry. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Ha! The dynamic water level\, or the wave set up\, you know\, like the wind setup is \nTemazcal Room: sloping upwards towards shore. \nTemazcal Room: A lot of the same physics. \nTemazcal Room: The wave setup? Was it \nTemazcal Room: associated with \nTemazcal Room: the wave height at the toe of the levee\, or with the wave\, the largest wave breaking farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That’s a great question. And \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): it really I I guess it depends on the wave condition. So I’ll kind of walk you through what we did. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): We generally follow the the engineering guidance\, and that the Fema \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Pacific Islands. So \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): guidelines for the west coast\, and so for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the 1st step in the run up calculation. We use the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the Bim equation\, the direct integration method equation to calculate both \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): wave setup \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and we run up \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then we looked at the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the dynamic water level so that would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the still water level plus static wave set up\, and the dynamic wave set up. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and then\, if that exceeded the berm toe\, we switched to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the tar equation\, which is a wave wave wrap equation for steep \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): coastal barriers. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And then we did a check. So we use the the near shore wave height \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): shoaled to the depth of the toe. If that exceeded \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the depth limited wave height we would use the depth limited wave height\, until\, if it did it\, we would use that wave height to calculate \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): way round up with tall. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So I I think that all sounds good. I’m I’m familiar with that methodology. It makes. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So I mean\, I think the question is\, where was the what wave was used? At? What pansec location offshore \nTemazcal Room: to calculate the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: The dynamic water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sorry. So you’re are you asking what wave I was used in tall\, or what? What wave height. \nTemazcal Room: I know. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Extracted from the the model to start the calculations. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I think I understand that the wave height for the run up calculation using the paw equation \nTemazcal Room: was the maximum expected. \nTemazcal Room: That’s limited or otherwise wave height at the toe of the levee. \nTemazcal Room: But the question is. \nTemazcal Room: what wave height was used to compute \nTemazcal Room: the way it’s set up. \nTemazcal Room: which may be a wave that’s bigger farther offshore. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think I get what you’re saying. So we use the near shore wave. I extracted from the the dhi model. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so it wouldn’t be an offshore wave. And people are being a nearshore wave. \nTemazcal Room: So it’s the offshore. It’s at the extraction point. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Maybe. Can I? Ask one question as well\, Jeremy? \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know if it’s you\, but we’re using. You’re using overtopping \nTemazcal Room: as kind of the measurement metric for \nTemazcal Room: for the hazard. And can you maybe just explain what \nTemazcal Room: that that \nTemazcal Room: what that does to the the bittern? And \nTemazcal Room: ultimately\, I think we’re concerned about release \nTemazcal Room: of the bittern from into the bay\, right? And so \nTemazcal Room: is there like a sequence of that happens. \nTemazcal Room: That you know that that causes you to use the overtopping as \nTemazcal Room: the \nTemazcal Room: the measurement of the risk. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So I I think what you’re asking is like\, what’s the impact of wave over topping to the the the contents of the Mss. Fund. \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, what I mean. I assume that’s the hazard that we’re that we’re all concerned about\, right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Right. So we so we considered. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I I guess. We looked at Wave\, overtopping as really \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the risk from like a flooding standpoint. And as I guess\, really\, for just a like a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): a metric on how vulnerable upon \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): would be to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): storm conditions and then future sea level rise. We didn’t do any \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): detailed analysis on\, like what the actual impacts of the overtopping would be. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, so my name is Matt Pitcher. I’m the operations guy for Cargill. So the overtopping can scour the top of the berms so it wouldn’t be. One wave wouldn’t do anything right. And one wave going into the pond is just a drop\, right\, you know. I mean. So there! There’s plenty of free board in the pond\, so it would take many waves \nTemazcal Room: scouring the top to erode the top of the berm\, so that then the level in the pond was higher than whatever got scoured\, so that that would be the risk. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you. And and then it’s just the release of the bittern into the bay\, and I’m understanding that \nTemazcal Room: the dilution it dilutes. But there is still \nTemazcal Room: is there like a time\, hazard\, or or a hazard in \nTemazcal Room: a short period of time\, as the the matrix is released. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So the the hazard would be. Yes\, the bitterin getting out of the pond and getting onto the vegetation\, or coming in contact with a aquatic species out there\, or or whatever but it dilutes. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, with all the water out there\, so it dilutes quickly. But it it all depends on how much of a release. It is right. \nTemazcal Room: The the majority of the Mss. Pond is a solid \nTemazcal Room: salt \nTemazcal Room: or different types of salts\, but there is a liquid component in it\, too. That’s in inside the matrix. And so that’s really what you’d be worried about is that liquid component because it would take a lot to dissolve the salt and then get \nTemazcal Room: that high of a concentration. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. I’d I’d like to follow up on that discussion. I I understand what you were saying that. \nTemazcal Room: The ponds are very big\, and so if there’s a couple of waves that come over\, it really doesn’t provide that much \nTemazcal Room: water volume\, and it doesn’t necessarily raise the water level that much\, yet \nTemazcal Room: I think I understand that the plan is to continue to \nTemazcal Room: increase the the amount of what is it? Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Whatever in these ponds\, so that the water level is going to go up over time. Right? Correct. We are still using the the ponds for the Mss. To to store the Mss. So so the water level is going to go up over time\, and then with sea level\, the amount of wave overtopping is going to increase over time. And so \nTemazcal Room: I think what Rod’s question is\, you know\, how does all this translate to the \nTemazcal Room: threshold? Criterion for \nTemazcal Room: the ponds not overflowing\, or \nTemazcal Room: you know\, it’s hard for us to have a feel for that. It doesn’t seem like that was analyzed. Yeah\, there’s a there’s. There’s \nTemazcal Room: feet of free board\, you know\, a couple of feet at least at the minimum inside the pond\, so it would take a large amount\, and your accumulation per year is \nTemazcal Room: less than a half inch. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah. So I think it sounds like it’s apparent to you. I guess it’s just not apparent to us. But I appreciate. Thank you for the answer. I I understand. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, this is Chris. \nTemazcal Room: My understanding is the purpose of what Jeremy is presenting is less \nTemazcal Room: accumulation of bay water in the Mss. Ponds. But looking at the risk to these berms of being \nTemazcal Room: eroded or made less stable by the wave overtopping\, so it’s the risk of damage to these \nTemazcal Room: which would then allow for a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: So that’s why we’re looking at like the wave impacts. And the overtopping is that going to damage \nTemazcal Room: these burns and cause a larger release. \nTemazcal Room: Is that is that right? \nTemazcal Room: Yes\, that’s correct. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah. I mean\, yeah\, to to get a large release of it. You would need a lot of scouring \nTemazcal Room: which would take \nTemazcal Room: it would take a lot of waves\, and all those waves would have to happen at a high tide \nTemazcal Room: with surge to to get there\, because you’ve got you’ve got a large amount. It’s hard to see in the picture\, but there’s a large amount of marsh in front of here\, so the marsh\, the only time the marsh gets covered would be like a king tide. \nTemazcal Room: so it would have to happen during a king tide. All the other high tides\, you know\, or the majority of the high tides during a year don’t even cover the marsh. \nTemazcal Room: so you’d have your waves would break up before they ever got through the mark. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, yeah\, I mean I. And then I understand that you’re looking at \nTemazcal Room: into the future with different rates of sea level rise right? So that the risk increases as you move forward in time. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Please please continue. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): No\, no problem at all. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I let’s see. I think that I had covered the results for the the baseline conditions. Here\, and then the 6 inch sea Level Rise scenario which we’re considering that the sea Level Rise scenario for the next 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): And see that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): roughly. I mean\, there’s there’s different spots. But roughly\, we’re switching from \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): overtopping\, occurring from a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 10 to 50 year. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): return period total water level. Then to one with a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the term period of 2 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): to 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so this slide has a little bit of the same information. But it’s just kind of more of a focus on on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or a summary of the results\, I guess\, for point 12. So we’re obviously focused on. Here’s 1 12. Here’s the the bayfront. Berm and \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So if you’re reading the report\, you’re curious what transects were used for this section. We looked at transacts. 2122. Well\, 21 through 24\, and they’re shown here in the snapshot \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on the right. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The existing Bay front crest elevations for this firm range generally from 11 to 12 feet. Any vd\, 88. See that in the picture and also in the report\, there’s a \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): color index here shows that the different elevations you’ve got some high spots\, some low spots. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The majority of the pond. 12 burn crops are above the 100 year. Still water elevation\, which is roughly around 11 feet \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and DVD 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and just a summary set for baseline conditions. Wave overtopping. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Generally occurs for a 10 year storm and greater \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and as a reference\, the 100 year \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): total water level is 11 to \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 13 feet. Any vd\, 88 \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): just as a note\, we’ve been referring to storms in terms of return period. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): The 10 year storm is actually a 10\, a storm with a 10% \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): annual chance of occurrence. And so \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on average\, we would expect it to occur once \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): every 10 years. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): so for future conditions\, that’s 6 inches of sea level rise\, wave overtopping roughly occurs\, and for a 5 year storm. So it’s more frequent. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That has about a 20% annual chance of occurrence\, and under your total water level is \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): 12 to 13 feet. Any Bd 88. With that amount of sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Hey\, Jeremy? Sorry to interrupt again. This is Bob again. \nTemazcal Room: So you’re saying that the the levee crest elevations are somewhere around the 100 year. Still water level SW. EL. \nTemazcal Room: Of about 11 feet in Avd. \nTemazcal Room: So that means there’s really no free board. \nTemazcal Room: Essentially \nTemazcal Room: so with sea level rise. \nTemazcal Room: Wouldn’t it be possible that \nTemazcal Room: at that 100 year water level water would \nTemazcal Room: spilled over the levee. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, so that right now. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the the bird crests are above the 100 year. Still water level elevation\, the majority of them. It’s around 11 feet. So nothing. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): If if there was no raising of the firms\, yes\, there would be \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): potentially subject to to flooding \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): but a hundred years still water level. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So what happens. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? And then my other comment is\, it seems that the total water level 100 year listed there of 11 to 13 feet \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t seem to be \nTemazcal Room: that much higher than the 100. You’re still water level of 11 feet\, and I understand that the bigger winds and waves don’t happen necessarily during the 100\, you’re still water level. But still. \nTemazcal Room: or even so \nTemazcal Room: again\, the total water levels seem a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: And I don’t know if that’s because of the wind setup computation or other computation. But \nTemazcal Room: And furthermore\, usually you would like to have free board unless \nTemazcal Room: there’s no consequence to\, I guess\, the overtopping in terms of \nTemazcal Room: the internal water levels or the levee erosion\, etc. So I know. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s still a concern that I have\, both in terms of the total water level\, seeming a little low to me. \nTemazcal Room: and also the implications of the apparent overtopping that will will occur. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, I I think\, it’s a it’s a good comment. And you know it. It could potentially be due to yeah\, the exposure like we talked about different orientation of the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, segments of berm. And then how much \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Windfash they’re exposed to. And then the frequency that you actually get big wind events time with those high still water levels that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): we’re actually able to generate waves. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Rod\, can I ask a question? Too? \nTemazcal Room: Sure. Yeah\, Jeremy\, this is Gail Johnson \nTemazcal Room: actually had a similar question to Rod about the \nTemazcal Room: what are the actual \nTemazcal Room: hazards associated with the overtopping? \nTemazcal Room: And Chris mentioned about erosion? \nTemazcal Room: maybe this is a question for Cargill. We saw photographs from Jen’s staff. Report of \nTemazcal Room: that. You trench in the center of the berm \nTemazcal Room: and put some kind of a slurry mix. \nTemazcal Room: And and you’ve created kind of a \nTemazcal Room: interior wall\, if you will. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. So it we’re just putting dirt in there. So it’s it’s just. It’s nothing\, nothing that. No\, it’s not. It’s not hardens it\, so to speak. No\, okay\, no. \nTemazcal Room: And but we are compacting it. And his \nTemazcal Room: oh\, sorry and historically\, when you have had \nTemazcal Room: overtopping in the past. \nTemazcal Room: is it? Has it been in the form of \nTemazcal Room: massive breaches or over extensive lengths? Or what what is it? What’s what’s the his history of \nTemazcal Room: of damage that’s occurred. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, from from single\, from single storms. Assuming you can do repairs. \nTemazcal Room: It’s been very minor. I I mean you can. You can tell where some water has gone over\, you know\, but it’s not. I mean\, we haven’t even lost. \nTemazcal Room: I wouldn’t even see an inch \nTemazcal Room: of material off the top of it. \nTemazcal Room: Just you can. You can just sort of see where the where the waves came over. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Yeah. Cause I was\, I was having a hard time envisioning \nTemazcal Room: what would cause them. \nTemazcal Room: Ms. Has to \nTemazcal Room: come out of the levee. Because just water going in \nTemazcal Room: isn’t the hazard. As far as I can see\, that’s what that’s why\, I was a little confused. \nTemazcal Room: Thanks. \nTemazcal Room: My name is Don Brown. I’m the land resources manager for Cargill. So \nTemazcal Room: they asked me to cover this slide. \nTemazcal Room: What we’re going to do with this information that we received. It really allows us to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, identify those specific areas for inspection and maintenance. \nTemazcal Room: and that allows us to \nTemazcal Room: work our maintenance plan to prioritize\, you know\, working on those. \nTemazcal Room: perhaps more vulnerable segments of of those firms. \nTemazcal Room: And and this is in addition to what we already do with regard to you know\, we’re we’re out there. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Matt’s team is out there inspecting the berms all the time\, especially after storms identifying any area that may need some additional maintenance \nTemazcal Room: and inspection. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, this the the study here was under what Jeremy explained as a \nTemazcal Room: no action scenario. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, we’re we’re planning on increasing the height of those berms. So we’ll increase it to 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: Nabbed \nTemazcal Room: 88 by 2034. \nTemazcal Room: We’ve worked with BC. Bcdc staff on on how we’re going to do that. \nTemazcal Room: We are going to prioritize the pond. 12 firms. \nTemazcal Room: We’ll have that \nTemazcal Room: up to that 11.5 by the end of 2029\, and\, in fact\, we’ve already started working on it. Matt’s team is out there already \nTemazcal Room: is is increased \nTemazcal Room: small segments of those berms \nTemazcal Room: already to that that height. So \nTemazcal Room: and and we’ll continue to. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, evaluate any impact that overtopping might have as far as scouring or having any impact to to the berms. \nTemazcal Room: So and anything that might anything that might impact firm stability. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, we’ll be closely monitoring. \nTemazcal Room: And and then during the next 10 year period\, we’ll have a longer term \nTemazcal Room: adaptation plan. How do we? How do we make sure that those those berms around those mixed sea salt palms \nTemazcal Room: remained \nTemazcal Room: stable and and safely \nTemazcal Room: hold that that Mss. \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask? Can I ask a question. Oh. \nTemazcal Room: oh\, you go ahead. \nTemazcal Room: So we should see a 5\, 6 inches of sea level rise by 2\,034. So it seems like you would be building a system that would be \nTemazcal Room: too short by 2\,034\, since we’re supposed to have\, it’s highly likely that we would have 11 inches of sea level rise by 2\,050 \nTemazcal Room: so it would seem like it would be more prudent to build now for a 2050 condition instead of building. Now \nTemazcal Room: for a condition that you’re going to start exceeding already by 2\,034 with that 100 year. Fill water \nTemazcal Room: something we’re going to look at in the next 10 year. Permit period the issue would be\, you start getting too high. You might have to build horizontally out in order to support the height. \nTemazcal Room: So one thing that we’ll be looking at the next 10 years is \nTemazcal Room: is really that long term adaptation plan. This is just a commitment we want to do to stay ahead of sea level rise. But \nTemazcal Room: we will. That will be part of a long term plan that we look at. How do you actually. \nTemazcal Room: make sure that those berms\, you know\, withstand again\, even higher sea level rise? \nTemazcal Room: I think you would need to start implementing your long term plan by 2\,029. So I\, yeah\, that that just concerns me. I guess. Yeah\, I I had a follow up. I had a similar question. So how was the 11.5 elevation \nTemazcal Room: that you’re going to raise the levies to? \nTemazcal Room: How was that selected? \nTemazcal Room: I was 11.5. \nTemazcal Room: It was just based on sea level rise projections\, on what \nTemazcal Room: you know\, as far as the vulnerability of having wave overtopping \nTemazcal Room: so that that was based on\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: a projection from the existing condition which you consider to be \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then \nTemazcal Room: a certain amount of sea level rise like half a foot or something like that. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry. So it sounds like you’re using the existing condition\, plus \nTemazcal Room: something like half a foot of sea level rise. Is that? Or how? \nTemazcal Room: Yep. Yeah. So that \nTemazcal Room: I think that’s what we’re struggling with a little bit. What are the criteria for? The initial \nTemazcal Room: levee crest elevation rise. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: it sounds like it might actually be limited by geotechnical factors rather than \nTemazcal Room: something that was developed\, based on the hydraulics\, the hydraulic exposure. You mentioned the concern that if you raised it higher than that now\, which is what Chris was suggesting. \nTemazcal Room: That that might be problematic\, necessarily problematic. But it’s something that we’re just not permitted to do in our our current maintenance. So it’s that’s why we want to spend the you know. \nTemazcal Room: during that 10 year permit period \nTemazcal Room: term. And you know\, if we want to\, if we need to build it even higher or raise them even higher\, how would you go about doing that because you know that we can raise it to 11.5 under. You know\, that’s part of our existing maintenance that we \nTemazcal Room: that we do every year. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): That is all that we have for this live presentation\, unless there’s any more questions. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thank you\, Jeremy. \nTemazcal Room: Are there any \nTemazcal Room: further comments from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, Jen\, yes. \nTemazcal Room: I have a comment question. Do these analyses depend? Did they take into account the dampening \nTemazcal Room: effect from the tidal marshes that are there. \nTemazcal Room: so that if the tidal marshes\, for example\, either eroded or were not able to create\, to keep up with sea level rise. Would that change the outcome of the modeling. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): So the answer to your 1st question is\, no\, that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the analysis did not. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): did not account for the dampening of of the marsh\, except for the \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): You know the elevation of the marsh\, so that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): the way we \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): calculated way to set up and run up is purely. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): purely based on \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): I guess\, depth and and elevations only. So it considered. Like the you know\, the the flooded depth of the the toe of the berm \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): which is impacted by the marsh elevations. But it didn’t account for \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): any any kind of like future \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): changes to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): like the marsh\, potentially rising to keep pace with sea level\, rise. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): A marsh actually potentially dampening the waves a little bit to drag and friction \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): stuff like that. \nTemazcal Room: This is this is Chris again. \nTemazcal Room: When I look at figure one of your wave analysis. Memo. It looks like you are accounting\, at least in that figure for the dampening \nTemazcal Room: of the wave height. Under existing conditions. That’s what the figure shows. But I think then\, when you’re adding the 6 inches of sea level rise or \nTemazcal Room: higher. In your analysis\, I’m assuming you’re just keeping that marsh plain edits \nTemazcal Room: existing condition. So\, not accounting for the rise that it could have. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): Yeah\, that’s a good point. So that we’re accounting for the dampening that might occur. Due to shallow water of the marsh. So as the waves come in. You know they could potentially break \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): you know\, and the the shallow water and you get death limited waves at the tail of the firm. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): and the marsh elevation is not changed for the with future sea level rise\, so it stays the same\, and we add sea level rise into the calculations. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): But there’s no dampening like to the marsh. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): or from the marsh grass. \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): right like providing friction and stuff like that \nJeremy Mull (AECOM): that make any sense\, Chris. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Got it? Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Thank you\, Chris. Any any other questions from the board? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: thank you\, Jeremy. You \nTemazcal Room: see next page of the script. \nTemazcal Room: Now Michael Whalen\, of Anchor Qea will make a presentation \nTemazcal Room: on behalf of Cargill. \nTemazcal Room: Hello! \nTemazcal Room: Yes. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, hello! My name is Michael Whalen. I am with the firm anchor. Qea. I’m a principal geotechnical engineer. I will be leading this \nTemazcal Room: presentation. \nTemazcal Room: should I \nTemazcal Room: log in and do it from my screen\, or is there a more? What would be the most practical way to go through the \nTemazcal Room: okay? I haven’t actually \nTemazcal Room: logged in. So let let me let me do that. \nTemazcal Room: and I’m I’m joined on the virtually by my colleagues\, Andrew Barrett and Cole bales. \nTemazcal Room: I’m a i’m Andrew performed a lot of the analyses under my direction. \nTemazcal Room: and Cole and I have been \nTemazcal Room: the folks to review it and put it all together. \nTemazcal Room: So let me \nTemazcal Room: let me get get myself logged in to this. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I got. I got that. \nTemazcal Room: I have 45 slides. I do\, and I will. I do want to be conscious of time. And I know folks may have comments as I go. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yep\, okay. I’m I’m getting. I’m getting in there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, yeah. \nTemazcal Room: just \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: And there’s me. \nTemazcal Room: okay? \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, join as panelists. Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: there’s me. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: And then if I share my screen. \nTemazcal Room: we \nTemazcal Room: we’ll be good \nTemazcal Room: share screen. \nTemazcal Room: Mike\, yeah\, let us know when you’re ready\, Michael. But I think we want to wait for the board members to okay to show up. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Yep\, okay\, I I will. That’s I’m all set. And I will. \nTemazcal Room: I will hold up. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, Michael. I think we’re we’re back now. So \nTemazcal Room: okay. \nTemazcal Room: very good. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, thanks again. Yeah. Michael Whalen\, principal geotechnical engineer\, anchor. Qea. I. I spoke in the in our last 2 engagements on this topic. \nTemazcal Room: and I will go through our updated analysis of \nTemazcal Room: static and seismic stability for the for the Pond\, p. 2\, 12 and p. 2\, 13. Firms. \nTemazcal Room: And I will start \nTemazcal Room: with a short recap of what you heard from us last summertime. \nTemazcal Room: where we had obtained all the available information on the sub service conditions that existed at the time performed by other parties. \nTemazcal Room: Several borings 24\, and\, to be exact\, were had been done. We had access to that information. \nTemazcal Room: I’m including 2 deeper ones to 80 feet. \nTemazcal Room: We had quite a few cone penetration tests or cpts to use \nTemazcal Room: many of them with hydraulic profiling tools. \nTemazcal Room: although those tended to go to depths of like around 20 feet. So there were some limitations on how deep into the subservice we could obtain information\, but we used what we had. \nTemazcal Room: and developed a model \nTemazcal Room: of the subsurface and performed stability analyses for the berm for the berms. \nTemazcal Room: And you’ll remember our technical memo. We discussed it. Our conclusions at the time was that the berms showed an adequate level of \nTemazcal Room: stability\, factors of safety under static and seismic conditions. \nTemazcal Room: and we did the analysis for 2 distinct earthquake \nTemazcal Room: magnitudes a 50 year earthquake and a 475 year earthquake \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: We discussed it\, and one of the takeaways from our engagement with the Board was that you’re at. You were recommending that \nTemazcal Room: a a \nTemazcal Room: further series of field investigations be performed \nTemazcal Room: specific to this type of analysis. \nTemazcal Room: focusing on Cpts\, getting to greater depths\, etc. \nTemazcal Room: And so that’s what we put together. And you saw our work plan \nTemazcal Room: right at the end of the year last year. \nTemazcal Room: and\, as was mentioned early in this conversation in this meeting. \nTemazcal Room: we performed that work plan. The investigations described in that work plan \nTemazcal Room: late this spring. We got out there as soon as we could\, and we we had to wait through difficult weather and rain conditions\, but we got out there and did the work. We’re finished by May 3\, rd \nTemazcal Room: and again consistent with the work plan that we prepared. We did \nTemazcal Room: 24 Cpts \nTemazcal Room: to as much as 100 feet below below ground surface. Oftentimes\, though\, they didn’t actually get that far. \nTemazcal Room: they got to 64 to 65 feet\, and then kind of refusal\, but significantly deeper than what we had before. \nTemazcal Room: 2 of them were seismic cones\, which is\, which is a useful way to get an understanding of \nTemazcal Room: some of the seismic properties that came into our analysis\, as you’ll see in a in a few minutes. \nTemazcal Room: We did one deeper boring to help us understand seismic properties. In the subsurface \nTemazcal Room: we obtained a handful of undisturbed samples by pushing Shelby tubes. \nTemazcal Room: and used those as well as \nTemazcal Room: the samples we obtained \nTemazcal Room: from the deep boring to perform a series of laboratory tests \nTemazcal Room: strength test for the triaxial equipment. You’ll see that comes into play in some of this presentation\, and some various index properties of the subsurface\, elasticity\, grain\, size\, moisture\, content. So all in all\, we’re able to successfully execute the program that was described in our \nTemazcal Room: in our work plan. \nTemazcal Room: And this is a map \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: the 2 ponds in question. \nTemazcal Room: and I could zoom in if folks\, and maybe as we go through this\, there may be opportunities to zoom in and take a look closer. But there’s a number of things that are depicted on this map. \nTemazcal Room: You see\, a whole string of little circles\, and that is\, showing both \nTemazcal Room: the preceding existing explorations that we had used for last year’s analysis \nTemazcal Room: as well as \nTemazcal Room: in the\, in the darker color. I I realize that \nTemazcal Room: they’re a little small here\, but \nTemazcal Room: the new ones that we did. \nTemazcal Room: and I guess the the takeaway I wanted to show all of you is that we \nTemazcal Room: we got information all along these these berms \nTemazcal Room: around these ponds. On the bayward side\, and between ponds 12 and 13 on both sides of plumber slough. So \nTemazcal Room: we were able to get to all these places and get our information. Another thing that appears on this map in our report is \nTemazcal Room: the fact that as we discussed a few minutes ago in the in the preceding presentation. \nTemazcal Room: Cargill has performed the keying process where the the trench is excavated and then imported\, fill\, controlled fill is put back in a in a compacted fashion. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: This map includes the areas that were \nTemazcal Room: keyed over the last 5 years\, and our series of explorations included going right through some of the keyed areas and also going through places that had not been \nTemazcal Room: need. So we’re able to\, you know. Look and compare. And I’ll I’ll talk about that in a \nTemazcal Room: in a few minutes. What what did we learn from that? \nTemazcal Room: Can I ask a question before you change the slide? \nTemazcal Room: when you get further in the presentation section CC is\, gonna be kind of right on the line. It looks like \nTemazcal Room: and so my question is\, can you tell us a little bit more about how you selected these critical sections. Yeah. And how do you know there isn’t 1 that’s worse. \nTemazcal Room: And just from a very simplistic perspective\, it looks like down to the right of CC. The berm gets narrower. \nTemazcal Room: which would seem to indicate\, you know\, more vulnerable. So can you tell us a little bit about that. Sure? Yeah\, thanks that I really should. As a matter of fact\, because you do see the 5 sections that we selected on these maps \nTemazcal Room: the what we used to select these 5 sections was\, \nTemazcal Room: a combination of things \nTemazcal Room: we had. Even before we went out in the field we had existing Lidar survey. Information allowed us to see how high is the berm\, how wide is the berm? \nTemazcal Room: Does it vary? Are there places where it’s higher than in other places. \nTemazcal Room: what we. \nTemazcal Room: So we looked specifically at places where \nTemazcal Room: the top of the berm elevation \nTemazcal Room: and the the \nTemazcal Room: the adjoining low spot\, whether that’s the toe of the berm\, or\, in fact\, something even deeper than the toe of the berm\, notably the the bottom of plumber slough. \nTemazcal Room: Thus kind of being a change in elevation. We looked for places where that change of elevation was \nTemazcal Room: largest \nTemazcal Room: and closest. In other words\, where do we have the biggest\, most abrupt change from bottom to top. \nTemazcal Room: That was a big factor\, in fact\, that ended up being the primary factor in how we chose these sections. \nTemazcal Room: We were also on the lookout for indications of \nTemazcal Room: might. There be places geographically where we’re finding \nTemazcal Room: softer material than in other places? If we had seen such things that would have been a really important part of our selection. But we didn’t really see a a trend of softer geographies. \nTemazcal Room: So what these ended up being was really based on. \nTemazcal Room: shall we say? Abruptness of \nTemazcal Room: elevation change from top to bottom? \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: well\, there are 5 \nTemazcal Room: lines on this map. We actually \nTemazcal Room: looked at 7 sections. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: sections B and C cross all the way across plumber slough and include both the the flanking berm. So our models are set up to to evaluate \nTemazcal Room: 7 sections. But \nTemazcal Room: it was. It was the changing grade that would that ended up being the primary driver for us to \nTemazcal Room: choose these places for our analysis. So so is there anywhere that’s worse than C. \nTemazcal Room: Not not that we can tell. \nTemazcal Room: not not from the evidence that we saw. \nTemazcal Room: And you are right. C is is the more critical player as as we’ll talk about in a bit. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Michael\, I have. another question that I was. \nTemazcal Room: Since we’re talking about this now I’ll go ahead and jump in. \nTemazcal Room: I hope. \nTemazcal Room: and it’ll come back again a little bit later on\, about 8 slides further ahead\, I think\, but the southwest corner there at the south side of the \nTemazcal Room: Greek or channel whatever that is. \nTemazcal Room: Cpts 8 and 9. \nTemazcal Room: so 2 questions\, I guess \nTemazcal Room: part of it is related to \nTemazcal Room: to the geometry. It looks like\, since you have. You know\, the southwest corner there is kind of west southwest\, the creek. It looks like there might be. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. Aq. Cpt and 9 Ccp\, 8 and 9. Okay\, yeah\, the 2 yellow ones I I had misspoke. By the way\, folks that yeah\, the yellow ones are the new ones. But anyway\, it looks to me I’m I’m curious. Why\, you cut off Bed Bay mud at 30 feet when it looks like those 2 have Bay mud at 32 and 36 feet. Oh\, yeah\, is one question. That sort of okay. \nTemazcal Room: related to a few slides further down the road. But it also looks like this particular geometry might be a more critical one\, because you have that that channel out in front of you. There\, that \nTemazcal Room: have you? \nTemazcal Room: Have. You looked at the geometry \nTemazcal Room: sort of going left from Cpt. 9\, I guess. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Are you describing how \nTemazcal Room: like the slough is relative to the berm? When you when you say that. Is that what you’re but also\, as you move\, just sort of straight west\, you get that wider water body. I’m not sure if that’s \nTemazcal Room: Creek channel\, or what? That is exactly. But those guys\, you have a wider water body that \nTemazcal Room: looks like it might be deeper channel. Okay? Less. Cpt. 9\, \nTemazcal Room: as it looks to me like bay mud bottom is about 36 feet rather than 30 feet\, which make it \nTemazcal Room: potentially\, geotechnically more critical\, but also\, maybe geometrically more critical. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: it is. It is possible. I I will admit it’s possible that there could be some places whose combination of factors is somewhat different\, or even worse\, than our selections. I think our selections are are pretty solid\, that in this case and and I’m able to speak from having gone through the analyses. One thing\, couple of things we found\, and we’ll be looking at this soon when I\, you know\, should we look at all the slip services? \nTemazcal Room: The slip services? \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s fair to say Andrew is gonna ping me if I say this wrong\, but \nTemazcal Room: that the slip surfaces that were critical for analysis didn’t go so deep that the the acknowledged fact that young bay mud does sometimes go below 30 feet. You’re absolutely right. There’s places 32\, 34\, 36 feet deep. \nTemazcal Room: We haven’t seen that that \nTemazcal Room: has translated to where the critical slip services end up. Being \nTemazcal Room: so true though it is\, I don’t know that it \nTemazcal Room: affects the the conclusions we’re drawing. \nTemazcal Room: Similarly\, I I understand your observation about the the slough and the water bodies offshore from these locations. \nTemazcal Room: I’m thinking. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, I’ll you know\, as we go through\, and Andrew might speak up on this when we’re kind of going through some things. But \nTemazcal Room: I think that still may be far enough away from the berm that \nTemazcal Room: that water body\, even if it ends up\, being really deep over here on the left. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t know that that is\, would end up affecting our results very much. That that’s my suspicion about how those might play out. \nandrew barrett: Michael\, that’s pretty much exactly what I was. Gonna say. At at Cbt. 9 and Cbt. 8. You do see that the young Bay mud is deeper than the 30 feet that we used as our average in our models. \nandrew barrett: But one thing that we found is that the critical region\, I guess you could call it in terms of stability in terms of strength is between 10 and 20 feet\, where we saw a lot of failure services go through. \nandrew barrett: So one of the things you’re gonna notice is that what. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry\, Andrew\, do you mind turning on your camera when you’re talking? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nandrew barrett: Oh. \nandrew barrett: hello! \nandrew barrett: And that was that was all I had to say. We we noted that the the critical area\, the critical region \nandrew barrett: of the strength parameters in the models was between 10 and 20 feet. \nandrew barrett: So that deepening there around the the 30 to 36 range \nandrew barrett: didn’t seem to have any effect on the the overall stability. \nTemazcal Room: I have a few more questions about stability. Maybe we can wait until we get down to the stability section of the presentation. Okay? I mean\, it’ll sort of follow on these. But I wanted to jump in and \nTemazcal Room: about some \nTemazcal Room: geometry here. Good. Yeah\, that that makes sense. Okay. So I’ll keep moving up\, moving forward. Alright. \nTemazcal Room: But oh\, yeah\, let me clear in my mind \nTemazcal Room: you had Lidar information to give you the the crest of the burns\, if you will. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: the toe of the berms \nTemazcal Room: did. You have also lighter information about that? \nTemazcal Room: We did we? We did have Lidar information. But one thing I should mention \nTemazcal Room: it’s in my notes is that part of our field engagement wasn’t just to do all these cpts and boardings\, but we also did. We didn’t take a survey crew out there\, but we checked manually all the dimensions out there in terms of berm width\, and maybe even more notably berm height\, just to do a ground check on what we had from the Lidar. \nTemazcal Room: which was really helpful to us. Because the berms aren’t all that high as you’re as you’re standing there and kind of looking at them\, and we needed to make sure we had that right in the cross sections we set up. So I guess what I’m saying is we had Lidar\, but we also. Field checked it. \nTemazcal Room: That that’s the issue that in my mind I I want to make sure that \nTemazcal Room: you’re saying you’re \nTemazcal Room: analyzing the steepest slopes. \nTemazcal Room: Correct? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: that that is our intent. Yup. That’s right. Okay\, that’s fine. I I want to \nTemazcal Room: understand it better for myself. How the toe was\, I mean\, how did you measure it in terms of height or elevation\, and and kind of the inclination to say\, Hmm. \nTemazcal Room: this is the steepest at this location. Yeah. And I should. I should probably clarify that a little further\, because what we measured in the field was the observable \nTemazcal Room: berm. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: plumber slew particularly\, being a really important factor in this whole evaluation for our selection of \nTemazcal Room: steepness. We didn’t go into plumber\, slew and measure that that was from the Lidar\, for sure. That’s where we and and that kind of goes back to what I was kind of \nTemazcal Room: describing in our selection. It turned out that our selection isn’t based on like \nTemazcal Room: standing there and and seeing the burn be steep. It was based on recognizing that plumber slew out here or bay waters offshore. \nTemazcal Room: Those are getting deep faster. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: that ended up to us being the the real critical definition of \nTemazcal Room: what’s the most critical place. Where is it steepest? If if that makes sense? I I in other words\, I’m I’m describing steepness\, not just at the the immediate face of the of the berm as is visible. But all the way out to the nearest deep water. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, continue forward. And we can obviously revisit these things as we go. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, berm cross sections developed for analyses. Let me start with just some very generic ones. I don’t know like I’d rather focus more on the the scaled ones we did. You’ve you may remember seeing these \nTemazcal Room: before. I haven’t even changed these for this presentation\, although in reality we have made some updates till we actually modeled. \nTemazcal Room: But the general geometry of things \nTemazcal Room: stays the same. Really. What I wanted to show everybody is our understanding of what the deal is with these berms. \nTemazcal Room: They’re built out of densified fill upon young bay mud. That’s the real point I’m trying to make. Here you see the mixed sea salts on the left. \nTemazcal Room: You see the berm crest\, and I didn’t say the stirring \nTemazcal Room: Jeremy’s earlier talk\, but \nTemazcal Room: I feel like the the fact that the surface of this\, these densified fill berms and the and the cover with the \nTemazcal Room: the surface and gravel. Sh! I’m not going to try to quantify that and what I’m saying. But surely that has some innate resistance to wave overtopping erosion. \nTemazcal Room: Just want to make that side observation. But any case just wanted to show this\, and also\, as I scroll to the next \nTemazcal Room: slide \nTemazcal Room: the this keying activity that Cargill has been performing where \nTemazcal Room: a trench\, his dog and and compact and material placed back. \nTemazcal Room: So that that’s the general concepts. I think this is all familiar. We’ve \nTemazcal Room: gone through all this before. \nTemazcal Room: What I wanted to do next was just run through \nTemazcal Room: the 5 critical sections that we selected and modeled. \nTemazcal Room: Those of you who are familiar ask real quick question. I think it’s be easy. The keying is to cut off seepage\, or for stability or settlement\, or what \nTemazcal Room: I I think it’s primarily driven by cutting off seepage right primarily to reduce permeability \nTemazcal Room: to reduce permeability. Sorry. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. And we’ll comment in a few minutes about what might that imply for stability? And see? Bitch? Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: have a question about the previous slide. \nTemazcal Room: Is that slide? Is this slide intended \nTemazcal Room: as schematic? Or\, I mean. This has elevation on it\, it has \nTemazcal Room: exaggeration on it. \nTemazcal Room: It is intended as a schematic. \nTemazcal Room: it it definitely is intended as a schematic. I say that because we didn’t put this into our model. \nTemazcal Room: We put what I’ll show next into our model. I mostly want. This is a schematic\, and it’s true. This has \nTemazcal Room: various elevations described on it. It’s a it can be a little confusing\, I realize\, because \nTemazcal Room: we developed it with a different kind of \nTemazcal Room: one data. And then we used aecoms findings. So \nTemazcal Room: I I want this to be considered as a schematic. That’s why it’s intended. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: These. So this is the 1st of 5. \nTemazcal Room: these aren’t schematic. I mean\, these are literally what we put into our \nTemazcal Room: slope stability model. Those of you who are familiar with this slope stability software recognize that \nTemazcal Room: nowadays\, when you build this model\, you can very quickly run all sorts of different combinations of situations\, all sorts of different water levels\, you can vary the strengths of the soils. You can do a lot of these things. And the reason I say that is because. \nTemazcal Room: what you are seeing in this slide set. And frankly\, what you see in our report isn’t everything we run. We ran a lot of things because you can do it quick. \nTemazcal Room: So\, for example. \nTemazcal Room: these all show a certain assumption of water levels. \nTemazcal Room: But I think\, as as you are all aware\, you know\, part of our work was to study the effects of different water levels. So these are just selected images. The real thing I wanted to show is just is the geometry \nTemazcal Room: of the berm\, and and you see \nTemazcal Room: there’s the berm in the middle. \nTemazcal Room: But as you go out to the left the outside of the pond\, now you’re dropping out into the the offshore area to the north \nTemazcal Room: of \nTemazcal Room: of the pond at this particular location. \nTemazcal Room: And the reason\, I say that is because when I was talking a few minutes ago about you know how we define this\, the top to the bottom at the closest proximity. \nTemazcal Room: We’re kind of looking at. Where might this overall slope that I’m tracking with my cursor be most dramatic? And how might that be our critical second? \nTemazcal Room: Anyway. \nTemazcal Room: there’s location a \nTemazcal Room: I’ll comment on the sub service in a minute here\, because\, you see all these colors\, I just have a quick question\, what are the units of the X and Y axes on these. \nTemazcal Room: Those are in feet. \nTemazcal Room: elevation and feet. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: a arbitrarily selected horizontal location and feet. \nTemazcal Room: Was\, was there another \nTemazcal Room: question. \nTemazcal Room: okay\, you know what? Let me let me hang on this one just a little further\, because \nTemazcal Room: there! There’s some colors that we use\, that I will. I I \nTemazcal Room: I want to explain. \nTemazcal Room: we have young bay muds everywhere below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: and then\, as you get lower on the figures \nTemazcal Room: there\, there’s green bands for young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: and then all the way down to the bottom of the figure. \nTemazcal Room: In in reality \nTemazcal Room: Although\, as I was saying a little bit ago\, and and Andrew also said this. \nTemazcal Room: the you know\, the the young bay mud\, reaching depths of 30 feet or 34 or 36\, didn’t really affect our analysis. So once we found that out\, these graphics were simplified. \nTemazcal Room: But the point is\, everything’s young bay mud with kind of down below. There’s an old bay mud floor. \nTemazcal Room: and all the action that we’re talking about here happens\, of course\, in the young bay muds. \nTemazcal Room: I also want to explain why we have this different color scheme protruding down below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: where you see like green and pink. \nTemazcal Room: If if you’re seeing the colors \nTemazcal Room: that that’s the information we picked up and used from our analyses directly\, and I’ll explain in a few minutes how we\, you know\, came up with these layers \nTemazcal Room: versus the places to either side of the berm that are just kind of this consistent kind of dark blue. \nTemazcal Room: The the dark blue on either side of the berm is where we applied kind of the worst case strength parameters. And the reason we looked at it this way is because we expect that the presence of the berm has \nTemazcal Room: probably cause some strength gain that we’re observing\, and we shouldn’t expect that that strength gain exists to either side of the berm. \nTemazcal Room: We’re we’re really trying not to. \nTemazcal Room: We’re just trying to stay appropriately conservative with our assumptions and not \nTemazcal Room: not be overly optimistic about things. And that’s why the colors appear \nTemazcal Room: the way that they do. There’s just a distinction. But below the berm versus not below the berm. \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: Very similar storyline for these other locations. \nTemazcal Room: There’s location B zoomed in. \nTemazcal Room: Here’s Location C\, where you can actually note that plumber slough is in the middle\, and we got \nTemazcal Room: we got some of the modeling on both sides of of the slew. But \nTemazcal Room: the critical situation was here right in the middle. What you’re seeing there? \nTemazcal Room: Location DA little smaller berm \nTemazcal Room: and location E\, and and again\, these are zoomed in just to kind of show you folks how we developed these these models and kind of the scale of of the size of the berms themselves\, because these are all the \nTemazcal Room: to scale. \nTemazcal Room: I I have a quick question. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: I think the the purple line is the water level\, and I think your purposely have the water level high on the pond side and low on the outboard side for stability analysis. \nTemazcal Room: so on the pond side\, it seems like it’s \nTemazcal Room: not that far below the crest is that is\, that the existing condition? Or is this a more conservative. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, the the free board on the inside seems kinda \nTemazcal Room: free. Board on the inside is not intended to be particularly \nTemazcal Room: conservative. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, what you’re seeing in this case is about. What is that about 2 feet of of height \nTemazcal Room: above ground surface\, each of those? Okay\, it’s 2 feet. Okay. \nandrew barrett: This is one of the examples of the existing marshes to be seen from the edge of Pond 12. Cross. Section Ede. Prime is on Pond 12. \nandrew barrett: There’s several 100 feet of soil. \nandrew barrett: you know\, that’s above the water line. This is at low tide. \nandrew barrett: the pond \nandrew barrett: water level. We were told by cargo that doesn’t change\, which stays roughly around 9 depending using pumps. And if there’s rainfall\, then they bring it back down. So in these models the the elevation is plus 9 nav. D. 88 for all of the ponds. Well\, all of the models that show the pond water side\, and then the elevation that’s changing is is the \nandrew barrett: the water level \nandrew barrett: on the bay side. \nTemazcal Room: Thank you. Which side is upon\, and which side is obey. \nandrew barrett: In this case this is a low water condition. So \nandrew barrett: if you’re looking at the screen\, the left side is the pond. \nandrew barrett: And and you’ll see. Generally speaking\, the water level being higher on the pond side is is the condition where we would expect to see the lowest factors of safety. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that a lot\, generally speaking\, in the models that are shown in this presentation \nandrew barrett: are the low tide conditions. \nTemazcal Room: Good thanks. \nandrew barrett: So you’ll see that the pondsight is usually higher. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: one of the things that’s a little bit frustrating with this is that there’s no strings \nTemazcal Room: shown on these plots here. And so you’ve described what happens with the different shades of green and blue and \nTemazcal Room: and pink \nTemazcal Room: and even in your \nTemazcal Room: port \nTemazcal Room: I think 80% or more of the civility sections don’t have the strengths actually shown on them. There’s there’s a few that do. \nTemazcal Room: If we look at one of them that does \nTemazcal Room: it says that the pink \nTemazcal Room: has a strength of 2 75\, increasing by 15 psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: It also says that the \nTemazcal Room: blue \nTemazcal Room: which is adjacent to the pink well. \nTemazcal Room: the dark blue\, the \nTemazcal Room: the thing to the left and right of the pink yeah\, teal. It’s different on my screen than on your screen than up on the wall there\, right. But what’s right and left of the pink \nTemazcal Room: says that it’s 2\, 75 \nTemazcal Room: increasing by 15 per foot. But if it’s 2\, 75 at the top\, and increases by foot by 15 per foot. \nTemazcal Room: By the time the blue gets down to an elevation of the height of the top of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: It’s going to be stronger than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you have cpt data that goes right down the middle of the levee. Right? Yeah\, and I think everything outside of the levee is inferred because you can’t drive rigs out over the that’s right. \nTemazcal Room: And I think that the reason you have that \nTemazcal Room: that trapezoid underneath \nTemazcal Room: levee is because you’re assuming there’s some consolidation that happens from the weight of the levee. That’s right\, right\, which means that the blue on the sides of the pink should be weaker than the pink. \nTemazcal Room: unconsolidating. You’re actually analyzing it. They’re stronger than \nTemazcal Room: well\, let’s if you give me a \nTemazcal Room: seconds you’d have to look at page 5 0\, 5. In your report \nTemazcal Room: I have 5 0\, 2\, \nTemazcal Room: which is another example. The same thing. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, hold on. Let me \nTemazcal Room: zoom \nTemazcal Room: share. \nTemazcal Room: You are talking about this. \nTemazcal Room: I think this table\, the company ha happened to be looking at a different page. Yeah\, same table. Okay\, I think I think this is 5. This is\, in fact\, 5 on you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: this lower row. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, actually\, so I’m looking at. \nTemazcal Room: I’m looking at Page. \nTemazcal Room: You maybe\, are you on? \nTemazcal Room: I need to move my little sorry folks for the all the \nTemazcal Room: flipping of pages. \nTemazcal Room: This this is. Page 5\, 0\, 1. \nTemazcal Room: Right here\, right here. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay\, so 2\, 75 and 15 and 2\, 75 and 15 on both. \nTemazcal Room: 2\, 75 and 15. Yeah\, you’re talking about you guys. See what I’m doing there when I draw these little \nTemazcal Room: think\, yeah\, you’re talking about \nTemazcal Room: this right here\, right? And you’re comparing it to the I think the 275 is the strength at the top of the layer. \nTemazcal Room: and I see by that 15 \nTemazcal Room: Psf. Per foot. \nTemazcal Room: That’s right \nTemazcal Room: below the top of the layer\, and if you scroll down on this page\, then \nTemazcal Room: you can see where the the blue is higher. The top of blue is higher than the top of pink. \nTemazcal Room: which means that the 2 set the the blue starts at 2 75 at the top. \nTemazcal Room: and increase down so it will be \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet \nTemazcal Room: 10 feet. \nTemazcal Room: So by the. So you’re suggesting that the arithmetic works out such that by the time you’re down at the depth of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: You’ve actually got higher strengths on either side of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: I had a comment\, for later on\, again I would say\, I would suggest \nTemazcal Room: that you try putting these tables on every printout page. \nTemazcal Room: It’s it’s a little bit of a nuisance when you’re setting it up. But yeah\, once you get every run\, it shows on every run. So like you’re saying\, the software is awesome because you can do lots of runs. \nTemazcal Room: Once a table set up\, it follows you through on all the runs\, and I I think that’s as simple as a \nTemazcal Room: probably a button push to make it come out. Yeah\, it’s a little bit of a nuisance to set it up sometimes to get it okay\, scaled and formatted. And you have to move it left or right to get it out of the way of the \nTemazcal Room: safety factor pronounced. But \nTemazcal Room: sure\, okay\, that’s that. That makes sense that’s good. \nTemazcal Room: But by putting it on every one\, and you can just \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, we don’t have to \nTemazcal Room: flip around. I wonder what you’ve used on this particular one\, and one of the things that sort of alarms me now is the table you were looking at a second ago. Different page than this one has different numbers\, which means that I assume that every single table I wonder how many different \nTemazcal Room: variations there are. Sure\, and I can’t follow that at all as a checker. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: yeah. The other one. \nandrew barrett: What he was looking at was. \nTemazcal Room: Doing Andrew’s work won’t be able to tell what he’s doing\, either yeah or Cole’s work. Whoever’s doing. Sure. Sure. \nTemazcal Room: Go ahead\, Andrew\, you had a comment. \nTemazcal Room: I think that was Andrew. \nandrew barrett: Yeah\, yeah\, I was just gonna say\, the table that \nandrew barrett: the table that you were showing earlier. Michael was one of the checks that we ran using different parameters. That were found from the triaxial test data. So that’s why the values are different and that they are labeled on each page \nandrew barrett: what? You know which system we’re using. So I know it’s not super intuitive and can’t be seen right now on the screen. But it it is there. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, no\, I don’t mind. I don’t mind having different \nTemazcal Room: cross sections having different numbers on them. That would be \nTemazcal Room: probably expected. \nTemazcal Room: But yeah\, there’s most of the \nTemazcal Room: profile cross slope stability profiles that are shown in the report don’t have the table shown at all\, so I don’t know which table is applicable\, for which one \nTemazcal Room: I can assume that all the ones for B is the same as all the ones for B\, \nTemazcal Room: but \nTemazcal Room: but just print it out\, and then it’s there because I I know I’ve I’ve done thousands \nTemazcal Room: thousands of runs over the years\, and I know you. You tweak one. And it \nTemazcal Room: right? How can you prove? How do I know for sure\, when my Qc. Person is looking at it. \nTemazcal Room: that that tweak got carried through on every other right. I don’t have a residual B analysis \nTemazcal Room: that has the previous \nTemazcal Room: unodated. \nTemazcal Room: I I can appreciate that. I mean\, it’s 1 thing for Cole and I to work with Andrew and know everything’s spread out\, and what was done\, in what order we have that advantage. But as a reader and someone coming into this I can appreciate how\, if you’re missing that stuff\, it is nearly impossible to piece together. Why not just do it \nTemazcal Room: right. \nTemazcal Room: That makes sense 2 \nTemazcal Room: to follow on on Jim’s point. \nTemazcal Room: How would you distinguish \nTemazcal Room: these strength parameters that \nTemazcal Room: presumably \nTemazcal Room: on the \nTemazcal Room: left and right of the pink. \nTemazcal Room: is the natural material right? And then the the \nTemazcal Room: the key is this \nTemazcal Room: engineered material. \nTemazcal Room: presumably. \nTemazcal Room: When you say the key engineered key correct \nTemazcal Room: when you you\, too\, when you well\, it’s a tiny little thing. It’s basically above well\, but it’s shown in a way here that it implies that this trapezoid is the key. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I that I don’t want to imply that cause. It’s not. But your point is that it could look that way right? And then it creates confusion with respect to all of these strength parameters that are being assigned particular layers. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I certainly don’t want people to get the impression that’s intended to be the key\, but I suppose it does kind of look like key. That’s right. If you look at a certain way\, right? That’s another reason to. \nTemazcal Room: With this table on every printout\, because that table labels the pink as young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. And so if you happen to look at one of the ones that has the table. \nTemazcal Room: then you’re set. \nTemazcal Room: but I think actually none of your presentation. But most of them don’t have the table. It is true there’s a whole bunch of them. And just if you had the table. \nTemazcal Room: But it yeah\, that that is not the key. \nTemazcal Room: But I I understand your point. That is that the key? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, okay\, that’s that’s good. I mean these these. Okay\, I understand. \nTemazcal Room: where am I? Here? Okay\, so \nTemazcal Room: alright. So we’ve been talking about the sections and the analyses. \nTemazcal Room: I was next going to talk about how we came up with new strength parameters for these layers. \nTemazcal Room: Do. I need to be worried about timing as I go through this or just keep. We got lots of time\, I guess\, right. \nTemazcal Room: for now \nTemazcal Room: we’re we’re \nTemazcal Room: we’re on Slide 15 out of 45. So. \nTemazcal Room: I am just showing this \nTemazcal Room: graphic\, because this is what you saw. Last year. \nTemazcal Room: when we had 3 layers defined\, we identified Berm Fill. We had young bay mud. There was comments on how we were showing the strengths of the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: There was old bay mud\, that was it. We’ve taken that a step further now\, in 2\,024. So let’s let’s go on to what we did here in 2\,024. \nTemazcal Room: So the previous \nTemazcal Room: slides you where you’re shown with the the soil properties are those from \nTemazcal Room: before you’ve done the the Cpts or this new round of they’re for the new. They’re they’re all new. Okay. Thank you. What I’m about to show here explains how we came up with those \nTemazcal Room: you mean this\, this page here. \nTemazcal Room: Well. \nTemazcal Room: this is this\, let’s let’s let’s tackle that on in a couple of slides\, because then\, let’s \nTemazcal Room: let’s look at how we did it. This definitely doesn’t match. \nTemazcal Room: We. We have changed this. \nTemazcal Room: and here’s how we did it. \nTemazcal Room: This is a compilation of all the Cpts that were conducted. \nTemazcal Room: If you can see all the colors \nTemazcal Room: you’ll recognize. There’s a whole bunch of different colors\, and that’s because we just assign a different color to every Cpt. So all 2 dozen of the Cpts get its own color\, and we \nTemazcal Room: plotted them all up to see what it told us. And \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, there’s a lot of scatter\, but you also see some trends\, and and it suggested to us that it would be more precise for us to subdivide \nTemazcal Room: the young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: And and so that’s what we’ve done\, and on the next slide. \nTemazcal Room: We \nTemazcal Room: you talking about here \nTemazcal Room: like this? \nTemazcal Room: Right? \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: bye. \nTemazcal Room: I’m sorry \nTemazcal Room: I can lean in \nTemazcal Room: sorry. You want me to start over again? No\, no\, I I mean I I’m getting it. \nTemazcal Room: No\, I well. \nTemazcal Room: you’re talking about Cbt. 8 and 9. So\, 8 and 9 \nTemazcal Room: you know\, everything is consistent. It looks like Cpt. 8 to 9. Go down with bay mud down to 32 feet down to 36 feet\, and it looks like really on that far west. \nTemazcal Room: southwest\, south\, south\, west\, southwest Point. \nTemazcal Room: It looks like that’s got deeper may but bay mud that stays with a nice smooth bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: strength\, profile. \nTemazcal Room: and and I’m wondering whether that geometry might look critical also\, and in any case\, even if it doesn’t\, I think that probably there needs to be some still stability done done \nTemazcal Room: with that location that shows it going to 36 feet. Okay\, I understand. It sounds like you\, unless you can explain to me why it shouldn’t be that way. That’s how it looks to me. \nTemazcal Room: And you’re. It sounds like you’re talking not only here about the depth \nTemazcal Room: there of of the young Bay mud\, but potentially also where it plots up on these graphs. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, are you also? No\, I think that’s like it’s going to plot just nicely that it’s\, I assume\, that’s going at about 15 psf. Per foot. Okay. So if you just extend the bay mud an extra 6 feet\, you’d have that same profile going an extra. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, an extra 6 feet. I understand? You’re really making the point. There’s been some stability cases at least. \nTemazcal Room: I would expect that the circles are going to try and climb as deep as possible\, climb downwards as deep as possible. It looks like some of your spill analyses. If you just scan through \nTemazcal Room: the geotech report\, some of them go down to 30 feet. \nTemazcal Room: I think that those ones presumably bumped into something at 30 feet\, and if you allow them\, go to 36 feet and allow the Bay Ma to stay soft at 36 feet. I think they’ll extend a little bit deeper. They might go deeper\, and typically if it if it bottoms out at a depth\, and then you allow it to go a little bit deeper. The stability safety factor is going to go a little bit lower \nTemazcal Room: it. Yeah\, if it wants to bottom out and the bottom drops\, it’ll probably keep chasing it down so that could that could be the case. If if you’re allowing the circle to go as deep as you want and it and it \nTemazcal Room: finds a critical minimum safety factor. That’s higher than that. Then you say the \nTemazcal Room: the depth doesn’t matter that much\, but there were at least a few of the circles \nTemazcal Room: in your report where the bottom is 30 feet\, and I assume that that’s bottoming out\, because there’s some constraint that it bumps into right there. Okay. \nTemazcal Room: all of which is a an advocate you’re advocating that we might benefit by looking at what’s going on there in the \nTemazcal Room: that western \nTemazcal Room: edge where Cpts 8\, 9 are. I think it’s only relevant to Cpt. 8 and 9. Nothing else goes deeper than 30 feet. A lot of it’s more like 24 feet. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. Okay. But \nTemazcal Room: okay\, that could be I. I hear you. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. Well\, let let me just give an explanation of what we did with this information. \nTemazcal Room: We took. We broke it into the kind of subdivisions and the upper 5 feet. We looked at that. And for each of these subdivisions we did a probabilistic \nTemazcal Room: plot of strength versus how often it occurs. And that’s what this \nTemazcal Room: on the right is. It’s all the strengths plotted by the \nTemazcal Room: frequency of occurring. \nTemazcal Room: And it’s a pretty wide band. There’s a scatter \nTemazcal Room: and what we did was in the next. In this case\, and the next one\, we chose \nTemazcal Room: the 30 percentile level. In other words\, we chose a strength that 30%\, only only 30% of the day is below and the other 70% is above. We felt that was a reasonable way to \nTemazcal Room: come up with an estimated strength. \nTemazcal Room: Now for is particularly for wide ranges. \nTemazcal Room: and and the same is true. 5 to 10 feet below ground service. \nTemazcal Room: now 10 to 20 feet below ground service\, a little different\, in our opinion\, because there’s more of a clustering of the strengths. It’s not as broad. It’s not as much of a bell curve. It’s more of a sharp curve. \nTemazcal Room: and here we felt it was \nTemazcal Room: reasonable to choose \nTemazcal Room: the most typical strength. In other words\, the \nTemazcal Room: the top of the curve. \nTemazcal Room: That wasn’t done to try to get a high strength. It just like that. Seems like that’s the dominant strength. \nTemazcal Room: Alright! Let me jump in again. \nTemazcal Room: so averaging works nicely when the data \nTemazcal Room: is. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if you’re if you have cpt variable data and you’re driving a pile through it. The pile is picking up a little bit of strength from 0 to 5. A little bit of strength from here\, you know\, and an average is an appropriate number. \nTemazcal Room: but if you look at some of those colors\, it looks like you’ve got straight down the far left edge of that all the way\, and so some profiles. \nTemazcal Room: some cpts at least\, are all the way on the left edge there. \nTemazcal Room: most of them. Maybe you nudge it up a few percent or so I don’t know. But really pretty darn close to that left edge is where some profiles are going to be. \nTemazcal Room: Some profiles aren’t going to be averaged \nTemazcal Room: over there. If you want to know whether the whole thing is going to slide or not\, then you can say\, Yeah\, at least 50% of the sections are not going to slide because we’ve used 50% Median value here. \nTemazcal Room: I don’t think we want 50% of the sections to be stable. I think we want all of them to be stable. And we’re looking for the worst. \nTemazcal Room: not the not the average case\, but aren’t by doing this. Aren’t we? Basically taken like down the middle of that? You’re right. I mean\, almost all of them are clustered there on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and there’s a bunch. There’s a bunch of stragglers off to the right. But \nTemazcal Room: aren’t we choosing the most prominent \nTemazcal Room: band \nTemazcal Room: through this approach? \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what we’re we’re we’re trying to rep. We’re trying to \nTemazcal Room: capture the fact that there is a definitive. \nTemazcal Room: a clustering of them on the left. \nTemazcal Room: and and certainly aren’t looking to go past that it does seem like the appropriate strength is \nTemazcal Room: right there in in the dentist part of the graph. \nTemazcal Room: I think\, for a stability analysis like this\, where you have some cones that are far. If you have data on each cone that’s scattered \nTemazcal Room: and the slope circle comes through all of those different layers\, and you average it. \nTemazcal Room: But I think if you got a single cone that’s \nTemazcal Room: straight down the left edge\, and you have actually. \nTemazcal Room: But \nTemazcal Room: it looks like you got 6 or 8 \nTemazcal Room: cones that are straight down the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: and I don’t know how you can be really confident \nTemazcal Room: that there’s not going to be some location out there where you have a slope circle that’s going to be able to find that weak spot. \nTemazcal Room: and maybe it happens to be offset a hundred feet from where you did your cross section. \nTemazcal Room: your cross section has to be representing \nTemazcal Room: the safety factor of 100 feet away from where you did your section. And I think I mean\, without having any geometry attached to the figure. \nTemazcal Room: I think that you gotta \nTemazcal Room: you gotta do something further left in your green 50 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, I understand what you’re saying. I will. I will mention. Although it’s not in this slide deck. I’m not even frankly sure if it’s in our report. \nTemazcal Room: because we can do these things so quickly and easily\, we did look to see what happens if we \nTemazcal Room: like\, take the 30 percentile version of this \nTemazcal Room: which is like 250 to 300 sheer strength. \nTemazcal Room: And I’m I’m interested in other geotechs because I’m I’m \nTemazcal Room: we’re a crowd here. But but I think that 30 percentile is \nTemazcal Room: pretty optimistic for \nTemazcal Room: this data with a slope stability analysis\, what would you choose? \nTemazcal Room: Like? 10% pretty close to the lower edge. \nTemazcal Room: But just so\, I make sure. I understand\, like the blue one is at maybe 200 or so. \nTemazcal Room: and the 50 percentile that you’ve chosen is more like 3\, 50 or something like that. Yeah\, so it’s not a geotech. But \nTemazcal Room: I am an engineer\, and I would think if you’re interested in the location where the blue one is\, you want to be at about 200. \nTemazcal Room: I’ll I’ll add some to that as well. \nTemazcal Room: I mean anything that you’re looking at really\, in this depth range that is beyond\, say\, about 500 Psf. \nTemazcal Room: these are sandy layers that you are. \nTemazcal Room: I mean all of those things. You’re not going to get a bay mud value. That is 2\,000 Psr. \nTemazcal Room: Those are sandy \nTemazcal Room: layers within the Baymark. \nTemazcal Room: Now\, if if you are modeling this as Bay MoD\, \nTemazcal Room: then \nTemazcal Room: I will agree with my friend Jim here that you are in a very tighter band\, that the upper bound of that tighter band is more like \nTemazcal Room: 400\, the lower bound would be more like \nTemazcal Room: 200\, something like that\, and that would represent \nTemazcal Room: more appropriately \nTemazcal Room: this young bay mud at these depth ranges that you are considering it \nTemazcal Room: all those other points to me. Yes\, they exist\, and they are \nTemazcal Room: what you measured\, but they don’t represent \nTemazcal Room: they mud in the context of what we are talking about. \nTemazcal Room: Right? The so what we’re using right now is about 3. \nTemazcal Room: So around 3 50 that the black line is about what reason? \nTemazcal Room: And when you you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: what about? What if the Black Island were here? What if the black line were here. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, that’s basically what we’re talking about\, right is\, where’s that line\, either? \nTemazcal Room: Strictly envelope the entire data set. \nTemazcal Room: But I think he ought to be somewhere towards the left edge. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I mean 2\, 50 or something. I don’t know \nTemazcal Room: more toward the left edge. I mean\, I feel like we are kind of toward the left edge. But you’re saying \nTemazcal Room: maybe we should be worse for the left edge right? \nTemazcal Room: But put your 3\, your 3 50. What’s your vertical Median number that you have? That’s 3 \nTemazcal Room: like 325\, which would fall like\, I don’t know. I’m just obviously eyeballing\, but it’s about there. \nTemazcal Room: Oh\, man\, hold on \nTemazcal Room: so what this looks like is that \nTemazcal Room: you know at least \nTemazcal Room: 50% of your cross sections would be good \nTemazcal Room: 50% are worse than what your analysis shows. \nTemazcal Room: Statistics are awesome. \nTemazcal Room: but I think they’re \nTemazcal Room: have to be applied pretty cautiously \nTemazcal Room: with it. \nTemazcal Room: This type of \nTemazcal Room: analysis. \nTemazcal Room: I I agree with you there when we have\, when we have. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, if every single cpt was jumping back and forth all over the place. \nTemazcal Room: you know that it maybe it’s different. But if you look at the Cpts themselves\, a lot of them are pretty smooth. \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, a linear \nTemazcal Room: linear tracks remain \nTemazcal Room: points out that a lot of those things that are further off towards the right are probably \nTemazcal Room: a sand. \nTemazcal Room: thin sand lenses that \nTemazcal Room: really appropriately or not even \nTemazcal Room: clay\, and shouldn’t be analyzed as a clay. But because A/C petite or coelec even \nTemazcal Room: analyzes these\, the thin layer factor doesn’t really \nTemazcal Room: those are all outliers right? And and so the strengths are are \nTemazcal Room: really not supposed to be averaged. \nTemazcal Room: I mean\, they’re not really part of the the su behavior of the material. \nTemazcal Room: What what are we? So what do we take? We’re taking by taking the 50 percentile \nTemazcal Room: we’re taking them. Are we doing a mode? Isn’t that a statistical mode like the \nTemazcal Room: I should be okay. I don’t want to turn this into probability statistics discussion\, but I do agree. The statist\, the use of the statistics is very important. We do need to do that very thoughtfully. I understand what you’re saying. \nTemazcal Room: The way we thought about that \nTemazcal Room: principle was when we said\, All right\, we’re we’re presenting the 50% tile like I’m showing here. \nTemazcal Room: We also recognized \nTemazcal Room: what if we just stay consistent with what we’re doing\, the other ones and use the 30 percentile. \nTemazcal Room: And we did do those runs\, and they don’t make that big of a difference necessarily. But \nTemazcal Room: there’s an argument to be made for doing that\, or even or even farther down. I think\, for instance\, I mean\, I’m curious\, I can’t tell\, but that left edge there \nTemazcal Room: looks pretty close to the same gray that’s at Cpt. \nTemazcal Room: 9\, \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, like goes to 36 feet. \nTemazcal Room: And so \nTemazcal Room: someplace that profile exists\, and if if you want you can. You can get a little more detailed and look at specific C specific \nTemazcal Room: profiles and say\, You know\, this one is averaged up and down it. But \nTemazcal Room: but averaging. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, composited a whole bunch of locations is \nTemazcal Room: well\, it’s a it is a simplification. It’s it’s at at the least\, it is a simplification \nTemazcal Room: right to average a bunch of locations. And \nTemazcal Room: and I understand the point that you know there are occasions when you want to bore 0 in on a specific \nTemazcal Room: location. I think that \nTemazcal Room: is part of where your comments are now\, maybe that you’ve got you’ve got a band there\, and maybe you look at some of your profiles\, and they \nTemazcal Room: cpts on both \nTemazcal Room: there and on both sides are. \nTemazcal Room: you know\, towards the right edge of your dense band there\, and maybe that \nTemazcal Room: profile you use a slightly better. \nTemazcal Room: you know. If you I mean ideally\, you look at some sort of geomorphological background and say\, Yeah\, we think it makes sense. This one’s a little bit stronger. This one’s a little bit weaker. It may well be that Cpt. 9 is a little bit deeper\, because it’s further out towards the bay\, and everything is just and does tends to slope that way. And \nTemazcal Room: yeah\, and maybe because it’s out further towards the bay\, maybe it happens to have been younger and less desiccation. And it all happened during the you know\, post gold rush. I was actually expecting to see more of that\, the bay muds there\, and so it really is weaker than all the others which might be a few 100 years old. \nTemazcal Room: I mean to be honest\, we were kind of expecting to see more of that than we did. We think we might end up in a situation where there was a strong signal that \nTemazcal Room: the Western Cpts are worse than the Eastern ones. I mean\, that wouldn’t have shocked us if we’d seen it. Now\, admittedly. Yeah\, there are some Cpts that \nTemazcal Room: are lower than others. You’re pointing out numbers 8\, 9. Those are in the same place. So is that a geographic trend? Maybe it is\, I mean. \nTemazcal Room: but it’s not one that we’ve seen propagated throughout the rest of them. But \nTemazcal Room: anyway\, your point\, your points are well taken about. \nTemazcal Room: Might there be more critical places\, both in going back earlier here. \nTemazcal Room: based on\, you know\, topography. \nTemazcal Room: And might there be more critical places based on \nTemazcal Room: specific Cpt logs \nTemazcal Room: understood. \nTemazcal Room: There might be \nTemazcal Room: cherry washta Nick would like to make a comment. He has his hand raised. \nTemazcal Room: Nick. \nTemazcal Room: Okay. \nTemazcal Room: please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, so let me 1st put my geologist hat on \nTemazcal Room: I was as I was looking at all of this I was \nTemazcal Room: well\, I have this microphone on\, so I don’t worry. \nTemazcal Room: Putting my geologist hat on as I was looking. All of this. \nTemazcal Room: There surely are all channels underneath all of this that are sandy \nTemazcal Room: and that’s as was suggested. That may explain some of those very high \nTemazcal Room: or relatively high strengths that you see\, and possible\, even refusal \nTemazcal Room: would have been nice to map those out\, but you know\, that requires going through a whole lot of very old Usgs coastal maps\, and so on. \nTemazcal Room: I’m not necessarily convinced that that would help. Now\, when it comes to this kind of discussion of statistics. On on one hand\, I don’t see this as a life safety situation\, so necessarily taking the lowest strength is in my view\, not \nTemazcal Room: required. \nTemazcal Room: however clustering it like this\, while interesting\, is not really helpful when one looks at a long linear structure. \nTemazcal Room: And that’s what you have. You have a very long structure\, and what I would have liked to have seen\, and that \nTemazcal Room: well\, I I don’t know how this microphone works. So \nTemazcal Room: you know\, if I stick it in my mouth\, then \nTemazcal Room: maybe \nTemazcal Room: anyway. \nTemazcal Room: The the \nTemazcal Room: because it is a long linear structure. I would like to have seen this parsed out \nTemazcal Room: bisection. \nTemazcal Room: As you’re looking at the different sections where you put your cross sections\, I would have preferred to see this data presented for that particular section\, because you actually have a pretty good coverage of of field data. \nTemazcal Room: and that would allow you to do a better assessment whether you really have to go with the lowest strength\, or whether\, in fact\, the local variability is such that some higher value is is \nTemazcal Room: recommended rather than looking at all of the data in you know\, in an aggregate. So I think that would be \nTemazcal Room: my suggestion that that’s a much better way to approach it\, I think. \nTemazcal Room: seeing the scattering all of the data is is great. That’s that’s a beautiful plot. I love it\, you know\, if you if I present it for Young Bay mud\, then you can probably plot all the data that we have for Young Bay mud from the Bay Area\, and it will all nicely plot within this range. But \nTemazcal Room: because it’s such a long linear structure\, it would have been more \nTemazcal Room: informative and probably useful for you to \nTemazcal Room: look at the section where you \nTemazcal Room: the nearby data from the section where you actually did the slope stability analysis based on your criteria\, which I’m actually not taking exception with but looking at this discussion\, and\, as I said in my view. \nTemazcal Room: it’s not necessary to take the absolutely lowest value\, since this is not a life safety situation\, but at the same time there may indeed be a section where all the data is in this lowest thing\, which is what the Jim French suggested\, that there may be a section where all of the data nicely plots\, all on that low end\, in which case \nTemazcal Room: you have to use whatever you have. \nTemazcal Room: So that that would be my comment on on this whole. \nTemazcal Room: you know. Discussion. Thank you. \nTemazcal Room: No\, that that’s good. I mean\, I I understand what you are all saying. I understand that and there’s no doubt there is\, I’m sure\, more that can be gleaned from this data. This is a lot of data. And and you guys all well know part of our job. And our judgment is to say\, all right\, we got all the say\, what is the best amount of \nTemazcal Room: processing and analysis we should devote to this data to answer the question \nTemazcal Room: at hand. Now\, as we get into the latter part of this presentation. I think we’re gonna see. \nTemazcal Room: even with what we have done here. There’s some pretty clear answers becoming evident about \nTemazcal Room: the situation and and I\, I would imagine\, if we \nTemazcal Room: kind of chase down some of these additional levels of \nTemazcal Room: detail behind these analyses and \nTemazcal Room: maybe make less conservative assumptions. \nTemazcal Room: There may be more of that. That is possible. \nTemazcal Room: But but there’s no doubt there could be more analysis always done on this stuff. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, yeah\, Bob’s got a question. Yeah\, I just wanted to follow up on this. I I find this really interesting. Would you mind going back to that slide that showed the plan view\, and it showed some of the adjacent marsh. \nTemazcal Room: You know\, one of the things I’ve done a lot of is \nTemazcal Room: Wetland restoration\, and these dikes subsided\, Balens\, and you can see where there’s the existing marsh which is green in the upper left. \nTemazcal Room: You can see that there’s a \nTemazcal Room: a whole bunch of channels. \nTemazcal Room: and what we do find is when\, \nTemazcal Room: the water starts moving\, or whatever the the old channels are often reoccupi. The old channels are often reoccupied. \nTemazcal Room: Because they’re just more erodible. I’m not as familiar with the Mss. And \nTemazcal Room: it’s sheer strength or or erosion resistance. But \nTemazcal Room: The comment that Nick made\, that there may be some sections that cross \nTemazcal Room: old channels that aren’t otherwise apparent in the just the existing terrain. I think it’s a very good one. \nTemazcal Room: and \nTemazcal Room: One way to look at that would be to look at some old \nTemazcal Room: tea\, sheet maps or other maps which I think the South Bay Salt Ponds. People have that show where the the channels were. \nTemazcal Room: especially the you know\, the larger channels. \nTemazcal Room: and then that might affect your your section \nTemazcal Room: location selection. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I will. I will say there’s no doubt there. There is evidence for lots of \nTemazcal Room: channels\, you know. There’s a lot. In other words\, there. There’s evidence for lots of sand lenses all through here\, and I I presume geologically\, that that’s just a representation of the \nTemazcal Room: ongoing meandering of them over\, you know\, millennia. \nTemazcal Room: and but the the way it looks to us is they’re just kind of like all over the place. There’s this \nTemazcal Room: a galaxy of little sand lenses\, and I don’t even know if we could map them. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, yeah. And I just want to state that it may be their sand lenses in in traditional dykes applied to Balens\, especially when they get \nTemazcal Room: wet and they’re managed ponds. You often have \nTemazcal Room: weaker material depositing in the old channels. It’s just \nTemazcal Room: organic or other stuff that really erodes in this case. If it’s sand\, maybe it’s less erosional. I don’t know. \nTemazcal Room: But a geomorphic interpretation of the \nTemazcal Room: subsurface might be might be helpful. \nTemazcal Room: Okay? Is my only point. Thanks. Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: Well\, I mean one of the takeaways. I’m I get from this. I mean you. You are all making you’re you’re observing. You’re pointing out \nTemazcal Room: the ways. We have simplified the analysis. \nTemazcal Room: No doubt we have taken the State\, and we have tried to find \nTemazcal Room: you have to simplify to some degree right to do an analysis\, there’s no way around it. So we’ve \nTemazcal Room: we’ve said\, all right. What’s the right amount of simplification to give us \nTemazcal Room: to tell us what’s going on here \nTemazcal Room: to a sufficient level of\, you know\, understanding to help everyone make decisions. And \nTemazcal Room: and so your your points about some of the additional ways we can. Analysis are well taken\, and and maybe that’s what we should do \nTemazcal Room: to better understand the story. I must say I’m \nTemazcal Room: really eager to hear your comments on the \nTemazcal Room: the end of this presentation\, because that’s I think we’re really the storyline is going to come through. \nTemazcal Room: are we? Are we? Good? \nTemazcal Room: Yeah\, I think. So keep going. Yeah\, please. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, let me get. Let me catch this up to where I left us off. \nTemazcal Room: Okay\, th\, this is what we ended up with. After all that statistical analysis and all that data. This is the new table we are now using where the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: is subdivided into \nTemazcal Room: 4 layers. \nTemazcal Room: Really the lowest of these\, where it says\, Ybm. 20 feet below ground service\, and below\, that’s really 20 to 30 feet\, and Jim was making comments earlier about how \nTemazcal Room: there are some places. It’s deeper than 30\, that is true. \nTemazcal Room: But in our models. It goes to 30\, and then it’s underlain by old bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: and these are the properties \nTemazcal Room: we’ve used. \nTemazcal Room: There’s been comments about how it would be helpful to kind of map this onto all the slide outputs. But that’s that’s the that’s the new \nTemazcal Room: set of properties we’ve been using. \nTemazcal Room: And \nTemazcal Room: just to compare what we had last year to what we have now \nTemazcal Room: this graph \nTemazcal Room: compares them\, and and the real difference \nTemazcal Room: now versus last year \nTemazcal Room: is that \nTemazcal Room: we are now\, seeing evidence that the young bay mud \nTemazcal Room: stays \nTemazcal Room: soft to a greater depth \nTemazcal Room: than what we had expected from last year’s data. That’s the real \nTemazcal Room: take away from what we did. \nTemazcal Room: It’s not as good. \nTemazcal Room: it’s softer\, and it goes deeper. \nTemazcal Room: And the e even on the simplified profiles. That’s what you see. Now\, you know \nTemazcal Room: all the other comments acknowledged \nTemazcal Room: I mentioned. We also did triaxial strength testing in the laboratory \nTemazcal Room: on undisturbed samples \nTemazcal Room: which allowed us to develop a best fit \nTemazcal Room: strength\, envelope. \nTemazcal Room: or effective stresses. \nTemazcal Room: And as I’ll show you in a few minutes\, we used that as another form of our analysis to see what it tells us \nTemazcal Room: so. Those are the soil strengths we used\, and we used\, and we did it\, and and put into the \nTemazcal Room: put those into those cross sections I was showing you. And then we ran a whole bunch of stability analysis to figure out \nTemazcal Room: what are the factors of safety at this site? \nTemazcal Room: yeah. \nTemazcal Room: So \nTemazcal Room: before I get to that\, though\, let me let me go back to this concept of keying for a moment. That’s been an important subject \nTemazcal Room: for our evaluation. \nTemazcal Room: We\, as I said\, had explorations going through places that had been keyed\, and we had explorations that went through places that had not been keyed. \nTemazcal Room: And again\, with that we plotted all of those strength points together. \nTemazcal Room: this actually shows a comparison. If if you can pick it up between \nTemazcal Room: places that were keyed\, and dark dots and places that were not in light dots. And and really \nTemazcal Room: the the bottom line that we found from our explorations is \nTemazcal Room: minimal appearance of strength \nTemazcal Room: gain \nTemazcal Room: from King J. I’m just talking about strength gain. How much resistance did the cone pentromer experience? \nTemazcal Room: A a little bit more\, but almost not enough more to even put a number on it. That’s why I describe as minimal \nTemazcal Room: change. \nTemazcal Room: In other words\, he doesn’t seem to have that big of an effect \nTemazcal Room: on the strength \nTemazcal Room: in the berm. \nTemazcal Room: Yeah. \nTemazcal Room: what kind of material are you using for the keying? You know\, in one of the write-ups somewhere \nTemazcal Room: read that. It was maybe your response to questions. \nTemazcal Room: from staff. \nTemazcal Room: It had some criteria that says \nTemazcal Room: doesn’t have \nTemazcal Room: deleterious material\, or some some sort of generic kind of thing\, but nothing about plasticity\, nothing about grain\, size\, distribution. Right? Is this some bay mud that you’re back filling again with? Or I mean\, it’s a bay mud\, or is it import gravel? Right? \nTemazcal Room: So ability. Obviously\, it’s not gravel. But you guys have your set of criteria. No deleterious material. It is a little bit broad like like you say that that’s the kind of rule book you guys use. But we did go out. I think it was a couple of years ago when \nTemazcal Room: surveyed all the it’s all imported material you have. \nTemazcal Room: and we did a a reconnaissance of it. We took samples. We characterized it. It is not a young bay mud. \nTemazcal Room: it is\, it is silty. It’s largely a fine grained mix of silt with some sand. If I remember what \nTemazcal Room: our results told us \nTemazcal Room: so. It was still a. It was still a pretty fine material\, but not \nTemazcal Room: not to the degree like a bay. Mud would be plasticity. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. \nTemazcal Room: I do not remember what the plasticity was. I do recall\, though\, that \nTemazcal Room: in addition to the lack of deleterious material in it. \nTemazcal Room: It looked like a material that if under the right moisture\, conditions could be compacted. \nTemazcal Room: and from what we understand from your team and what we’ve seen on our explorations. It appears to be a well compacted matrix of \nTemazcal Room: sandy silt materials \nTemazcal Room: placed into the trench. Not a big difference in strength from what was there before. \nTemazcal Room: but in terms of the activity itself. \nTemazcal Room: and the way in which you you for the cargo team specifically goes after places that might \nTemazcal Room: have had some deleterious materials in them\, and replaced it with a better\, more consistent material. \nTemazcal Room: It appears to us \nTemazcal Room: that it’s going to have benefit of \nTemazcal Room: the intention of making it more suitable against seepage\, but not really with a \nTemazcal Room: a \nTemazcal Room: a change in strength. \nTemazcal Room: So I’m curious. Just I’m in a \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-11-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240909T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240909T183000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240130T034610Z LAST-MODIFIED:20241010T170314Z UID:10000121-1725901200-1725906600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 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. \nBoard Member\, Patricia Fonseca Flores will participate remotely in the meeting.\nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center\n375 Beale Street\, Yerba Buena\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/88625158987?pwd=zDPPn6rA4RaMKfMsLGfrp0E4SVQLfd.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers\n1 (866) 590-5055\n1 (816) 423 4282\nConference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID\n886 2515 8987 \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 announcements and approval of draft summary for the June 10\, 2024 Meeting\nPublic Comment for items not on the agenda\nDRB Staff Report UpdateThe Board will meet to discuss updating the DRB Staff Reports. The intention is to make sure the Board receives the information and analysis necessary to review projects and improve or remove any unnecessary sections.(Ashley Tomerlin\, 415/352-3657 ashley.tomerlin@bcdc.ca.gov)\nAdjournment.\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, remote attendees. Can you hear us? \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, new audio. \nYerba Buena SX80: You can \nYerba Buena SX80: are connected on Facebook. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay? 2 seasons. Yes\, alright. \nYerba Buena SX80: He’s gonna make it soon. \nYerba Buena SX80: Ethan\, you can come to the table. Yes. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: See? \nYerba Buena SX80: See? \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright\, I will \nYerba Buena SX80: start with the call to order. So thank you for joining us tonight for the Bcdc Design Review Board meeting. I’d like to remind the Board members to please speak directly into the microphone 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: Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: we are located at the Metro center in San Francisco\, and our meeting will include participants who are here and those are who are participating online. \nYerba Buena SX80: I will call the roll. \nYerba Buena SX80: alright\, and note the staff in the room. \nYerba Buena SX80: Chair. Mccann. \nYerba Buena SX80: present vice chair\, string\, present board\, member Battaglia. \nYerba Buena SX80: present \nYerba Buena SX80: Board. Member Chow. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right here\, Board\, member leader here\, board members attending online board\, member Anderson. \nCody Anderson: Here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Board\, member Fonseca Flores. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Here\, here. \nYerba Buena SX80: And board. Member Pellegrini. \nStefan Pellegrini: Here. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright and staff attending tonight are myself\, Ashley\, Tomerlan. \nYerba Buena SX80: Gary Jewett\, Ethan Levine\, and Catherine Penn will be joining us later today. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay. So the next item on the agenda is the meeting summary\, and I \nYerba Buena SX80: that was a meeting summary from our last meeting. If I recall from a few months ago\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: as always\, really good notes it was a very interesting meeting. I I can’t recall. It’s in the note. It’s in the notes\, of course\, but I think not. Everyone was able to be there. And this is an ongoing very large\, complex project that \nYerba Buena SX80: people here at Bcdc are working on as well as people around the bay and so it was a productive meeting and good to \nYerba Buena SX80: see the summary. \nYerba Buena SX80: Are there any comments on the meeting notes. Any corrections that anyone has \nYerba Buena SX80: anyone online? \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, now. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, I just had one very small comment\, which was\, page 6.3. \nYerba Buena SX80: It was just! I’d just like to insert a word. There was the the sentence starts. Jacinda Mccann observed that \nYerba Buena SX80: biodiversity and it kept going on after that is threatened\, etc. But and I just wanted to insert a word that\, maintaining biodiversity with what the intention of that \nYerba Buena SX80: sentence was \nYerba Buena SX80: Apart from that\, no other comments \nYerba Buena SX80: so those were present at the meeting. Could someone move to accept the meeting notes\, make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll second. Thanks\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, all in favor. \nYerba Buena SX80: Actually. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I think it’s past. I think there were only a few of us at that meeting. So yeah\, okay. \nYerba Buena SX80: as always. Excellent meeting notes. So thank you. And you know\, for the newer board members\, it is always helpful to go back and read the meeting notes\, because they are particularly good now\, and we have gone through various iterations over many years of \nYerba Buena SX80: level of detail in meeting notes\, not having meeting notes\, all sorts of variations. So we’re very grateful for the work that’s going into them at the moment. \nYerba Buena SX80: So thank you. Ashley and team. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, next item \nYerba Buena SX80: staff update. So thank you. Chair Mccann. \nYerba Buena SX80: we will be having a board meeting on October 7\, th and it will be a review of the public draft of the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan guidelines\, a section of which the Board reviewed in June \nYerba Buena SX80: the public draft. The public draft is to be released on September 23\, rd and I aim to get the mailing and meeting materials out. Then\, to maximize the time you will have reading that through the document. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does the Board have any questions? \nYerba Buena SX80: so are you saying that we’ll get the document in the beginning of October\, and then we’ll have an opportunity to provide comments to you or to the Rsap \nYerba Buena SX80: people. The R. The planning staff developing the Rsap will be bringing the public draft to the board \nYerba Buena SX80: the public draft is being posted online on September 23\, rd which is before our typical mailing cycle. We typically mail out materials 10 days before the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so I’m going to try to have all of our mailing materials out at the 23rd the 1st day that it’s open and available. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so you’ll have a few extra days to review it before the Drb. And then \nYerba Buena SX80: or before the Drb. Meeting\, and then we’ll collect the comments at the Drb. Meeting\, and that will go into the public comment record for the Rsap. \nYerba Buena SX80: So so any comments we have will be part of the public comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: The document won’t change before it’s released to the public. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? Okay\, thank you. Appreciate it. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, just to comment on that. When we met and reviewed the partial document\, which was only a small part of the document. We really only got through part of that. \nYerba Buena SX80: but \nYerba Buena SX80: amounts of narrative\, and that with the dialogue\, and so on\, that we had. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s sort of hard to visualize this. But we’re gonna need some guidance\, I think on. You know how to make \nYerba Buena SX80: best use of the time\, because by the time they which we need a presentation \nYerba Buena SX80: by the time that happens\, and with the level of detail in the document\, you know\, we we might struggle to provide comprehensive feedback. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I actually have another comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry. And when you’re \nYerba Buena SX80: every way. I actually think this is a pretty pretty important document\, the Rsap. I think it’s really a a great endeavor\, and I agree with the state that there should be adaptation plans. And it’s great that Dcdc is\, you know\, doing this? \nYerba Buena SX80: it seems that it’s a bit rushed \nYerba Buena SX80: and I say that because \nYerba Buena SX80: I I feel like I’d like to provide more. Input. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I\, as I’ve said in other meetings\, I can’t remember who is Drv. Or the ecrb. \nYerba Buena SX80: I really don’t think my input is just like the general public \nYerba Buena SX80: being on both of these boards and having the experience that I do. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s a little odd\, because I don’t \nYerba Buena SX80: think that it’s not apparent to me that the Ecrp and Dr. B. \nYerba Buena SX80: Roles\, in addressing \nYerba Buena SX80: adaptation on a project level are \nYerba Buena SX80: necessarily incorporated or \nYerba Buena SX80: reflected? Or are you sure if they’re even mentioned in the Rsap which \nYerba Buena SX80: results in kind of a funny situation where communities may be following one set of protocols. But then\, when a project comes up \nYerba Buena SX80: which \nYerba Buena SX80: is consistent with that municipal municipalities\, protocols. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the rsat will not be necessarily consistent. \nYerba Buena SX80: what I might say\, or other people might say so. I think it’s a little odd\, you know. I’m a little frustrated by the situation. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, Bob\, at least the the report’s gonna be posted the draft 23rd of September. So there’s some time there to digest it. Yeah\, that’s true. That’s true\, I I agree\, and I I do appreciate the opportunity to review it as a member of the general public. \nYerba Buena SX80: Did did anyone say how many pages there are in this document. Did I miss that? I’m just\, is it? You know? I mean\, you were saying it’s gonna take some time. How are we gonna get through all that. So I’m just planning ahead how? How? You know how many pages are in this document? How long will it take to review it\, and should we divide it up so that\, you know\, maybe board members would take charge of the chapter\, or some portion of it to review\, I mean\, I think everybody should should kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: skim it\, review it\, but maybe dive deeper into certain portions. Yeah\, or get some help from the staff on the areas that you think are most relevant to the expertise of this committee to focus on in the document. Because there’s a lot in that document. A lot of technical \nYerba Buena SX80: material. \nYerba Buena SX80: So yeah\, it could be some combination of that. Yeah\, it’s a good idea. It is lengthy. I haven’t. I haven’t seen the laid out version\, but I think it’s probably on the \nYerba Buena SX80: order of magnitude of 80 pages or so 80 to 100 pages. \nYerba Buena SX80: And we we could we could pose that question to the team that’s leading up the development of the Rsap to see if there’s particular sections. They think the Board review would would be particularly helpful for yeah. And and in terms of the level of you know where they’re at in the process\, you know what? What’s \nYerba Buena SX80: most helpful\, most relevant for us to be commenting on\, I mean\, are there some things that are now? Clearly\, you know the framework is clearly established? You know\, some of the higher level principles\, you know\, really sorted out\, you know\, it’s like\, what? What level of detail do you want us to focus on. \nYerba Buena SX80: Actually\, one more question relating to that. There’s a commission \nYerba Buena SX80: workshop on this as well. Is that correct? Did I read that? \nYerba Buena SX80: Not email correctly? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. I let me let me try and pull it up. I’m pretty sure that the Commission is hearing it. Sec. It’s holding a workshop on the second meeting in October\, and there’s also gonna be a public workshop next Friday\, the 13th is\, Larry said. They’re not superstitious\, so\, but they’re they’re holding a public workshop\, which board members are\, of course\, \nYerba Buena SX80: more than welcome to to attend. But yeah\, I believe the Commission is next year\, and at the end of October\, right? Okay\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: There are no members of the public online. So I’m just gonna go past the public comment \nYerba Buena SX80: for items not on tonight’s agenda. \nYerba Buena SX80: Give me a second as I pull up the presentation \nYerba Buena SX80: on the updated stuff for us. \nYerba Buena SX80: You’re not moving forward. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m feeling very rusty with the presentations right now. Yeah\, \nYerba Buena SX80: here we go. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sure. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I just in addition to what Ethan mentioned. So the September 19th Commission meeting is cancelled\, and instead\, we’re going to be having a webinar and the rsap guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is that I thought that was the the webinars on the 13\, th but I could. Well\, I don’t know. So \nYerba Buena SX80: Jackie had said \nYerba Buena SX80: today. So October 17th is the rcap. Hearing September 19th is a webinar introducing the Rcep draft guidelines. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, we can confirm. But I think that that is\, I think that that’s that was the plan. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, I mean\, Bob\, to your point. If you were available to get online. Even\, you know\, that’s another opportunity to provide input. \nYerba Buena SX80: get online for which the Commission \nYerba Buena SX80: sessions online on the guidelines. The Commissioner sessions. Yeah\, okay\, yeah. I could think about that. I’m sorry I was thinking about something else. But I did go to the practitioners meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: Haven’t really heard much back\, and I’ve tried to reach out to a few people\, and I haven’t had any response. So I’m assuming it’s simply because they’re too busy. \nYerba Buena SX80: But that doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that my input has been considered adequately. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I just wanted to remind the board of the regulatory back on\, that is\, or regulatory framework that established the board. \nYerba Buena SX80: and what the Board was envisioned to provide with. Provide the commission. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it’s the Board shall advise the Commission and the staff on the appearance and design of projects for which a commission permit or consistency determination is needed\, particularly as the project affects public access to the bay and shoreline\, and in practice we’ve seen this is the more of a quality or qualitative assessment of the public access the quantity of \nYerba Buena SX80: amenities\, and the area that is consistent with the project being reviewed. \nYerba Buena SX80: So what the Dr. B. Reviews \nYerba Buena SX80: or when reviewing the project\, the Drb. May rely upon \nYerba Buena SX80: among other things\, the Bay Plan policies\, the public access design guidelines\, the Commission’s regulations\, consideration of environmental factors\, and their experience and expertise to evaluate design issues raised by proposed projects. \nYerba Buena SX80: and the typical observations are the quality\, quantity\, and usefulness of the public access is part of the overall post project\, the resilience of the design and the longevity of the construction\, the opportunities foreign\, the constraints to public access. \nYerba Buena SX80: Oh\, this is the one that had notes. We’ve heard over the years that there are some issues with our stack reports\, and we want to improve them to best serve board members \nYerba Buena SX80: for efficient reviews. But also from the staff perspective\, making sure that they’re spending their time efficiently and not on something that’s not being used. So from board members. We’ve heard that \nYerba Buena SX80: more transparency on issues or on the issues that staff want feedback on would be appreciated. \nYerba Buena SX80: Board members may skim some of the less valuable sections. So we wanna know what those sections are. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then certain sections of the report provide more value than others \nYerba Buena SX80: and sections detailing the history of a project and its past interaction with the Cdc. Are most helpful\, while the sections detailing these policies and guidelines provided less value. \nYerba Buena SX80: And from staff we’ve heard that permit staff spend significant times developing a report to brief the Drb. On upcoming projects. Staff and managers expressed concern that the length and complexity of these reports has increased in recent years \nYerba Buena SX80: from roughly 5 page or 5 to 6 pages to 12 to 15 pages. \nYerba Buena SX80: And whether or not this is means that \nYerba Buena SX80: the effort expended exceeds their value\, and that Staff noted. These reports may provide more detail than necessary for the boards to understand a project. \nYerba Buena SX80: the typical outline for a Drv. Staff report. Is the introduction. So this is usually like the executive summary\, one page \nYerba Buena SX80: naming the project proponent\, the representatives. \nYerba Buena SX80: a vicinity map. \nYerba Buena SX80: a brief project overview which is like a hundred to 150 words. \nYerba Buena SX80: just high\, very high level points and list\, also the prior reviews by the Drp. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we move on to the second section of the reports. Which is the project site. We go into a description of the site history. \nYerba Buena SX80: the existing conditions and the public access. And then the social environmental context. \nYerba Buena SX80: This is when I’m really wishing I had my notes. \nYerba Buena SX80: might \nYerba Buena SX80: escape that they fast. \nYerba Buena SX80: Alright\, we got. \nYerba Buena SX80: What is it? \nYerba Buena SX80: 3 dots \nYerba Buena SX80: this point? I’m just gonna read my notes. \nYerba Buena SX80: So for the site history\, how far back do you want us to go? This currently shows up as both physical and cultural site history. And usually this gets into the prior site uses\, but occasionally will describe pre-development state of the site. And does that help you? Or should we focus on conditions that inform current proposal. \nYerba Buena SX80: the existing conditions and public access. This also mixes the physical site and the cultural uses\, including existing public access\, both required and not required by Vcdc \nYerba Buena SX80: and the social and environmental context. This section relies on the community vulnerability mapping tool to identify socioeconomic indicators and contamination burdens in the nearby communities based on 2\,020 census data. \nYerba Buena SX80: Currently\, we will make a statement similar to \nYerba Buena SX80: the site is located within a 2020 census block \nYerba Buena SX80: in the city that is designated as having a high level of social vulnerability based on high percentiles\, 70th or above. For the following indicators renter no vehicle disabled single parent and very low income. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this a usable\, or is this usable for you in relating to the project design? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is there a way to present that information that would better suit your needs \nYerba Buena SX80: alright. \nYerba Buena SX80: The next section of \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: staff reports are the current proposal \nYerba Buena SX80: where we get into the project description. That’s \nYerba Buena SX80: usually multiple paragraphs describing the overall design. \nYerba Buena SX80: Then we go into the public access elements and uses\, and that section is coordinated with the exhibits showing proposed plans and drawings\, and frequently becomes an inventory list in the Staff Report \nYerba Buena SX80: for sea level rise. This section of the report is typically paired with a series of graphic exhibits \nYerba Buena SX80: showing site sections relative to current and future water levels. \nYerba Buena SX80: Is this section useful for you? And is there too little or too much information? And what else would you be looking for \nYerba Buena SX80: community engagement? And this typically describes the strategy and efforts made or planned for community engagement and then goes into the feedback received? Is the board interested in the strategy? Or should we focus more on the outcomes that have informed the design? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then we also will include the approval and construction timeline for the context of \nYerba Buena SX80: where the project is \nYerba Buena SX80: After the proposed project we move into the Commission plans and policies and guidelines section where staff will do an initial analysis on a plan. The relevant a plan policies. \nYerba Buena SX80: flag\, any \nYerba Buena SX80: priority use area special area plan and bay plan map notes specific to the site\, and then we’ll also describe some of the public access design guidelines \nYerba Buena SX80: and finally\, the last section of the staff reports are the Board questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: Staff recommends that the Board Frame usually recommends that the Board frame their remarks of the proposed park or proposed site\, considering the 7 public access objectives from the public access design guidelines and then provide feedback on the proposed access \nYerba Buena SX80: related to the Commission’s policies on sea level rise\, environmental justice and social equity. And then the project has will have specific staff questions \nYerba Buena SX80: as a reminder. The 7 objectives for public access are\, make the public access public\, make the public access usable\, provide\, maintain\, and enhance visual access to the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: maintain and enhance visual quality. \nYerba Buena SX80: provide connections and continuity\, take advantage of the base setting and ensure that the public access is compatible with wildlife. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: share my screen with the questions \nYerba Buena SX80: that we have for tonight. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s which sections are essential for a review\, and are there report? Are the reports missing any information or analysis that is critical\, to reviewing the proposed designs? \nYerba Buena SX80: What sections are less helpful or non-essential. \nYerba Buena SX80: And do you have recommendations for where framing of a project information could be improved? \nYerba Buena SX80: Is the current board question section effective in guiding discussion\, or are more pointed questions helpful to better steer the review? \nYerba Buena SX80: And does the report format effectively present the relevant information? \nYerba Buena SX80: Our paragraphs are listed are. \nYerba Buena SX80: are paragraphs or lists preferred? And does integrating graphics into the report help hinder? Or is a reference to the relevant exhibit document sufficient \nYerba Buena SX80: with that \nYerba Buena SX80: just to get us more focused. \nYerba Buena SX80: on this. You sent 3 examples around of 3\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, reviews. I’m I’m sure everyone’s\, you know\, scroll through them. And I’m thinking\, particularly people who may not have been on the board for that long. It’s sort of helpful to see different examples. But could you provide some context on why you selected those 3 because they they do have. In my mind they had different there were different points in a process\, or they were\, there were certain characteristics that \nYerba Buena SX80: determine some of the content of that report or the level of detail. So maybe you could just explain to us why you pick those 3 and what they represent? Yeah. So 2 of them were from January 2024. One was for Depave Park in Alameda\, and the second was for 1\,301 Shoreway in Belmont. \nYerba Buena SX80: And those 2 projects being more recent examples of what the template is we’re using now. \nYerba Buena SX80: I thought it was appropriate to use those more recent reports. \nYerba Buena SX80: but they also\, like the Dupa Park\, was a Brit project\, the Bay Right \nYerba Buena SX80: Resource regulatory integration team. So they concentrate on \nYerba Buena SX80: habitat restoration projects \nYerba Buena SX80: that receive measure\, Aa funding\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: their objective is much more \nYerba Buena SX80: restoration of the Bay resources and wetlands. And then how the public access kind of fits into that\, without that well or in light of that wildlife compatibility\, requirement. \nYerba Buena SX80: I also thought it was a well written report that \nYerba Buena SX80: went into a lot of detail. And so I was using that as the end of the spectrum of like. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know that the permit analyst spent a lot of time on that report. \nYerba Buena SX80: and so just highlighting what sections may \nYerba Buena SX80: be essential or like \nYerba Buena SX80: may not be as essential\, and the 13 0. 1 Shoreway was an example of the Life Science Campuses in San Mateo that we’ve seen \nYerba Buena SX80: numerous examples of over the last few years\, and so it was just another example of that. And then the 3rd project was from 2\,008\, and it was the exploratorium\, and it was an example of one of the staff reports that were written before the climate change and social equity or environmental justice\, social equity policies came online. And so it was much briefer. I believe it was 8 pages no\, maybe even shorter than that. After I did the formatting. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so \nYerba Buena SX80: I wanted to use that as an example of what had been done in the past\, and see if you had a reaction of whether or not that report gave you guys sufficient information to have \nYerba Buena SX80: like a quality assessment and review of it. Yup. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, that’s that’s that’s good. That’s helpful. And for the benefit of everyone who’s online. And some of the newer members of the Board. The comment that was submitted by Andrea Gaffney. Andrea is not necessarily really known to everybody. So maybe you can just put Andrea in context what her role was\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know she made some\, I think\, quite clear points that I think are worthwhile \nYerba Buena SX80: taking into consideration. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, so for those newer members of the board\, Andrea Gaffney is the former Dr. B. Secretary. She was on staff from 2016 till 2022\, I think\, she finished up in at the end of 2022 \nYerba Buena SX80: and she helped initiate some of the report or the \nYerba Buena SX80: new template for the stock reports to incorporate those new policies of climate change and the social equity and the community community vulnerability sections because she thought it \nYerba Buena SX80: fleshed out \nYerba Buena SX80: the background of what was informing the designs\, or where we could ask questions\, and probably or and respond and provide feedback in the context of the greater planning effort. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, thanks for that. And just before we open it up\, I’m just being a bit of a hog here. But just so everyone can understand \nYerba Buena SX80: the level of \nYerba Buena SX80: effort required for a report. You said that one of the reports\, the staff put deployment analysts put a lot of time. Into what? What do you mean by a lot of time\, is it? You know? A couple of days\, or \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it is a couple of days. So I think on so for me\, personally\, on average\, to draft a page of text kind of no matter what it is\, it’s probably at least an hour. But in addition to that\, there’s like the review of the exhibits\, there’s also the research depending on the site. The complexity can vary from like project to project\, I would say\, like \nYerba Buena SX80: like a pretty straightforward project on like a site with not a long permit. History. Is like a much quicker experience than something like\, say\, the ferry building\, where we had to sort through like 10 different permits. And try to like find the records of like the exhibits. And what happened in which cases\, and coordinate with the permit. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, with the permitty to like\, make sure that we were on the same page about what different things! Said and then \nYerba Buena SX80: on top of that\, there’s like the reviewing between\, like\, you know\, once Staff is like drafted something. Then their supervisor\, and and Ashley\, the Board secretary\, like\, will review provide comments\, and so on. So it is like \nYerba Buena SX80: I would say I don’t know. \nYerba Buena SX80: probably like at least like a week’s worth of just like solid work. But then you would expect that to be interspersed among like a number of other obligations. They have. No\, that’s very helpful. And and then I think\, Andrew mentioned that the report itself is something that then helps you as you’re writing up the permit. So the content of that report is useful for \nYerba Buena SX80: for the \nYerba Buena SX80: further work you know that you need to do. Yeah. The best case scenario is that we can take the project description \nYerba Buena SX80: from \nYerba Buena SX80: the report. And like some of the research that we’ve done and like copy that for the most part into our like project description and the permit. \nYerba Buena SX80: So it is nice when\, like kind of the structure can parallel like what we need to use it for without having to like\, do a lot of doctoring and like. Sometimes\, you know\, the project does change between the time\, you know\, we describe it to you. And then the time that we’re going to describe it to commission but ideally like those changes are like pretty easy to target. \nYerba Buena SX80: We also use the the meeting summaries to help with a little bit of that discussion about what the board covered. But I think that’s not what we’re talking about right now. Yeah\, that’s super helpful. Thank you. Can I? Can I follow up on that? Yes\, it leads into a question I had. One of the things I’m wondering is \nYerba Buena SX80: the the information that the project applicant or proponent \nYerba Buena SX80: provide? Is it \nYerba Buena SX80: typically sufficient\, or is there a lot of time bringing them up to speed \nYerba Buena SX80: to get you what you need? \nYerba Buena SX80: I would say. It’s usually the impet. It varies even in like kind of the best cases where they provide a lot of information. You know\, the details are all there. But it’s not \nYerba Buena SX80: presented in a way that we would present it to you. You know it is like a little bit more. You know the way that they think about. It is different from the way that Staff would think about it\, and the way that they might describe something might be maybe a little bit more like positive\, or like flowery\, or like marketing sort of speech. And that is like kind of\, you know\, just the way that a lot of developers in particular\, like will approach. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, sharing information about a project. And so a lot of times like\, even if they have provided a lot of really good information. We have to kind of winnow through and kind of pull out any sort of like \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess \nYerba Buena SX80: is language and then also kind of formatted into kind of a more like regulatory framework. And and what about the the recent add ons the climate change\, seal\, verizon adaptation\, social equity\, environmental justice\, for the\, I think\, are the ones \nYerba Buena SX80: I I would expect that some people. \nYerba Buena SX80: applicants and their consultants may or may not be totally up to speed on \nYerba Buena SX80: the sea level rise scenarios\, or you know\, anyway\, the where I’m going with that is \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, as Andrea’s Gaffney’s comments pointed out. It seems that there\, there are a lot of extra things that have to be addressed\, and some of these are kind of new \nYerba Buena SX80: to everyone. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so I think it’s understandable that it takes time to go through all that. \nYerba Buena SX80: Before it gets to us. And I I think that’s really useful \nYerba Buena SX80: for for me\, anyway? \nYerba Buena SX80: and it but I am I? My question then\, more specifically\, would be\, is there a way to \nYerba Buena SX80: provide some sort of checklist or kind of example\, or excuse me\, example\, or something like that for applicants. \nYerba Buena SX80: so that they can get you what you need in in a better format that that’s more work that nobody has time to do. But I’m just wondering if \nYerba Buena SX80: if that’s anyway\, you don’t have to answer your question. Yeah\, I mean\, I would say that. I I do know that there are some staff who have\, like kind of done their best to provide just the template to the applicants and just ask them to like. Put in your version of what this says like of like a previous staff report or something like that. One of the things that like for me when I\, \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, read something like that\, I do sometimes wonder\, you know\, is this covering all the unique aspects of this project like\, if we had kind of come towards this with like a little bit of a blank\, more like a blank slate mentality like\, how would we like? How would we have pulled out what the key information was like? How might we have prioritized the information for you versus how they? I appreciate that. That’s a good Qc\, kind of yeah. You want to make sure you \nYerba Buena SX80: you’ve looked at it yourself. Yeah\, no\, I appreciate it\, thank you. Well\, what I’d suggest is\, maybe we could bring those questions up that you pose. But I’d like to maybe structure this by having each person \nYerba Buena SX80: provide \nYerba Buena SX80: their perspective on how they\, how useful\, what what parts of the reports are most useful\, I mean\, the reports are very useful documents. I mean\, they’re great. We put a lot of work into them\, and we really appreciate it. But you know what are the parts of the documents that are most helpful to you\, and also given the context that you have a proponent \nYerba Buena SX80: presentation as well that you know you take into account. But and I thought I’d just like to start. This is great because we have some newer board members\, and we’ve got some people who’ve been around for a long time\, so I think it might be very helpful to just go through the \nYerba Buena SX80: old timers first\, st because they’ve lived these reports for many years\, and you can be really honest about \nYerba Buena SX80: how you know how\, what the parts of the reports you tend to focus on. Gary. I’m going to ask you to start\, Tom\, follow Stefan to follow that\, and then we’ll go to Larry. Patricia. Cody\, you know. Then\, of course\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re sort of in the middle\, Bob\, I sort of think of you as a newer member. Yeah\, okay\, okay. So Gary. \nYerba Buena SX80: hey\, Gary\, if you want to just provide your reflections on the material that’s being presented tonight. Yeah\, okay? Sure. Yeah. I I think the staff reports are fantastic. I’ve never thought that they were overdone or boring\, or there are parts that were not useful. I think sometimes it takes \nYerba Buena SX80: 30 or 45 min to go through them\, but I wouldn’t go through them. If I thought\, you know that \nYerba Buena SX80: I could skip over it. I think there is some redundancy in going through the rules. There are certain things that recur in every report\, and that’s that’s fine. I think it’s a good reference. That’s the only redundancy I can think of\, which is\, which is super minor. I \nYerba Buena SX80: so just some of the things that have been mentioned\, the pre-development history \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s crucial. You know\, I like to go back to redevelopment times\, because we really want to know whether that site was at one time in the bay. \nYerba Buena SX80: or whether it was on a creek with a culvert underneath\, or now or I mean\, when you’re looking at a site\, you just\, you know\, a parking lot or a you know\, a office complex on on the bay\, surrounded by parking \nYerba Buena SX80: you. You need to know about the hydrology and the soils\, I think\, in order to evaluate what’s being presented. \nYerba Buena SX80: So \nYerba Buena SX80: along with that\, the you know\, the social vulnerability aspect\, I think it’s kind of the same thing. I mean. You can say\, Oh\, this is their social vulnerability here\, based on these kind of objective standards. But you know\, I think\, having some context and some history about what that neighborhood was traditionally\, and how it’s evolved is also really important in evaluating the vulnerability. You know whether these are long time residents\, whether this is a new community which has just popped up in the last\, you know\, 10 or 15 years or something. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s really good. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll comment on Depave Park. I thought that was exemplary. \nYerba Buena SX80: Obviously it was a huge site in a really prominent location. \nYerba Buena SX80: so it was deserving of a of a lot of work. I mean\, I don’t think it was overdone at all. You had \nYerba Buena SX80: great site\, a great applicant\, a great client\, and and a great design team who is at their best on this type of site\, and that seems like an opportunity that was seized to\, you know\, really demonstrate a precedent setting project. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I really enjoyed that. I just thought there was no left in that at all. And we did go on for a couple of hours at least on that. And I. And that’s because there was an incredible amount of useful information there\, I mean\, \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of how long it takes to write a staff report. I mean\, I couldn’t imagine writing one of those reports in a couple of days. I thought you were. Gonna say\, you know\, one to 2 weeks or something. I think it depends on\, you know\, when I write something you have to cross check\, you know. Sometimes it takes 20 min to write a sentence\, because you have to\, you know\, check the terminology and make sure what you’re writing is truly accurate\, and get on chat gpt\, and all that. So \nYerba Buena SX80: seems efficient. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I think that. There’s an interesting point to cover the unique aspects of the project\, instead of those that are applicable to all projects which you just kind of get to know after a while. \nYerba Buena SX80: So. \nYerba Buena SX80: in terms of the questions that you put forward\, I think the questions that we’re supposed to address are pretty much the same on every project I think they could be should be different\, for every project they could be more pointed\, they could be more focused. And you know the \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, the repetitive stuff will probably pick up. \nYerba Buena SX80: Interesting. You mentioned the exploratorium\, which was I was on for 10 years\, and it’s an epic project that deserved a lot of attention. And you’re saying that the staff reports were were very brief or we were. You’re looking at. One report in \nYerba Buena SX80: in particular\, are \nYerba Buena SX80: It was the 1st review of the new exploratorium\, I mean\, there were many\, many\, and there were probably a lot before I ever attended\, but that was an incredibly complex \nYerba Buena SX80: project\, deserving of\, of probably more more attention than it got. I thought the approvals sailed through pretty easily\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know how much time was spent on what was going on below the deck \nYerba Buena SX80: of the exploratorium. Here there are massive\, massive \nYerba Buena SX80: pile caps\, an unbelievable amount of concrete that was poured in the 4 corners of Pier 15. In order to stabilize that site. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think hundreds and hundreds of pilings\, each one with a with a name and a personality\, and a and a renovation schedule \nYerba Buena SX80: for it\, and and that you know\, I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s probably a lot more that the Board could have dug into there\, maybe in terms of how it affected the bay\, and you know\, I think there’s a lot of things that I never discussed\, but like I said I missed. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know I wasn’t there for everything. \nYerba Buena SX80: and that was a long time ago\, right? That was opened in 2013. I think so started in \nYerba Buena SX80: 1990. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know \nYerba Buena SX80: 5 or something like that. So. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that’s pretty much it. I think the sea Level Rise information is really really good projecting to the 100 year scenario. \nYerba Buena SX80: Always look at that very carefully. So \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s it for me. Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: Good call. \nYerba Buena SX80: Tom. Yeah\, I have a question. Who has access to these reports besides Staff and Dr. B\, \nYerba Buena SX80: they’re posted to the website. Anybody can. Anyone can obtain them? They’re part of the public record. Has there ever been an instance of somebody disputing \nYerba Buena SX80: something in the report\, or having an issue or a problem \nYerba Buena SX80: for the left for the public or components\, it will occasionally come up with project components. When something has been reviewed \nYerba Buena SX80: 10 or 15 years before \nYerba Buena SX80: the site has changed and been developed over time. \nYerba Buena SX80: and then \nYerba Buena SX80: people will have a varied memory of what was considered and proposed in front of the Drb. And so we do revisit old staff reports and old exhibits to go back and excavate \nYerba Buena SX80: some of the rationale reasoning and decisions\, so forth\, as context to what they’re \nYerba Buena SX80: placing their judgments on top of \nYerba Buena SX80: correct\, got it? Got it? Okay? \nYerba Buena SX80: And then also\, in permit findings\, there will be some discussion sometimes about what the Dr. B. Discussed related to a project\, and what the priorities in the design were\, and if there is \nYerba Buena SX80: a disagreement on the significance of certain amenities or certain design decisions. We can go back to those findings as well. \nYerba Buena SX80: well\, especially for that reason\, I think\, is important to these \nYerba Buena SX80: reports to be complete\, and they are very complete\, and I don’t think I would want them to ever not \nYerba Buena SX80: be complete. \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: I think the only thing I would. \nYerba Buena SX80: Brace\, I guess I mean I I come out. I’m I’m always. I’ll be honest. The afternoon Monday afternoon comes\, and oh\, oh. \nYerba Buena SX80: I got about an hour and a half here. Better get to it right? So I’m only\, and I’m skimming through certain things\, and I’m reading carefully. Other parts seem significant. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then trying to get to the exhibits and then go back\, check back and forth\, and the parts that I don’t spend very much time on usually are when you have to cite a chapter in verse on policy. They they policy. I just take for granted that that \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I suppose I should register. \nYerba Buena SX80: I always look at the questions that are raised at the end. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I \nYerba Buena SX80: I guess\, the only possible. I think I think all the information that goes in there\, the facts that go into it are all essential \nYerba Buena SX80: to understanding. But is it possible to use\, make use of \nYerba Buena SX80: introductory paragraph \nYerba Buena SX80: with a list of bullet points out for more frequently\, I suppose\, and would it be possible at the beginning to have a paragraph that states the \nYerba Buena SX80: special significance \nYerba Buena SX80: on this project. What it is about this project that \nYerba Buena SX80: is different from from the other ones. You may have been seeing or seeing in this meeting \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of helps you get a \nYerba Buena SX80: get your teeth around what \nYerba Buena SX80: bite into. But \nYerba Buena SX80: so I only would suggest that maybe \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I think you’ve got to put the \nYerba Buena SX80: the policy chapters in there right? You can’t. You can’t just put a link \nYerba Buena SX80: to to go out to go off documents somewhere else\, so it needs to be there and \nYerba Buena SX80: whether it’s possible to do the whole report with introduction\, paragraph\, and a list of bullet points. \nYerba Buena SX80: whether it would save time over composing grammatically correct full paragraphs. I don’t know the question for you guys. \nYerba Buena SX80: And if you could scan through a \nYerba Buena SX80: through a list of bullet points. It might be quicker. \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know. I I think it’s more more important\, really\, that it’s it’s it’s working for you for staff. \nYerba Buena SX80: Honestly\, I mean\, I I know how I use these\, not probably not gonna change that much\, but \nYerba Buena SX80: I find them useful from that standpoint\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: this they gotta be complete if anybody’s gonna be researching for their proponents are going through looking for. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, inaccurate or incomplete \nYerba Buena SX80: aspects\, things. \nYerba Buena SX80: documents they’re going to subscribe to. \nYerba Buena SX80: That’s it. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, Stefan\, let’s \nYerba Buena SX80: go to you for your reflections. \nStefan Pellegrini: Thank you. \nStefan Pellegrini: Jacinta. \nStefan Pellegrini: I guess I’m an old timer now. \nStefan Pellegrini: I think \nStefan Pellegrini: just not to try to sort of repeat the things that Tom and Gary have mentioned\, but I think the \nStefan Pellegrini: the complexity of the staff reports \nStefan Pellegrini: is \nStefan Pellegrini: useful\, because primarily\, I think what we’re being asked to do \nStefan Pellegrini: is\, provide \nStefan Pellegrini: judgment \nStefan Pellegrini: around. \nStefan Pellegrini: I’ll say the sufficiency. \nStefan Pellegrini: or the adequacy\, or the appropriateness of the applicant’s response. \nStefan Pellegrini: And \nStefan Pellegrini: all of that\, I think it requires \nStefan Pellegrini: all the things that we’ve mentioned. \nStefan Pellegrini: an understanding of the background\, the history. \nStefan Pellegrini: the Ej issues now\, and the Slr issues \nStefan Pellegrini: that are sort of helping to inform this decision. And sometimes I think that has to do with \nStefan Pellegrini: is the project acceptable now \nStefan Pellegrini: and then. Sometimes we’re sort of asked to opine on \nStefan Pellegrini: what conditions of approval will make this project \nStefan Pellegrini: suitable in the future \nStefan Pellegrini: right? Because we sort of get into these situations of the shoreline\, shifting the public access\, changing over the life of the project. \nStefan Pellegrini: So I think that that our ability to make those decisions in one meeting \nStefan Pellegrini: kind of relies on a pretty extensive \nStefan Pellegrini: staff report. \nStefan Pellegrini: I can see a situation where \nStefan Pellegrini: we’ve an initial review would be more about us asking questions. To then figure out what judgment calls. We need to make. \nStefan Pellegrini: and that sort of \nStefan Pellegrini: the public piece of that getting stretched out longer in the absence of that sort of background information that staff is sort of providing upfront\, but I think the energy behind the staff report is what is \nStefan Pellegrini: allowing most \nStefan Pellegrini: most of these situations were able to provide direction \nStefan Pellegrini: on projects where\, if they are coming back. \nStefan Pellegrini: it’s to understand their ability to respond to our direction \nStefan Pellegrini: as opposed to saying\, You know\, just come back down the road again\, and let us look at it again when it’s more developed. \nStefan Pellegrini: with sort of a lack of sort of objective guidance. And I really think that sort of goes back to the \nStefan Pellegrini: The strength of the staff. Report. \nStefan Pellegrini: I will say that. \nStefan Pellegrini: I I don’t. \nStefan Pellegrini: because we are being asked to \nStefan Pellegrini: Peter. \nStefan Pellegrini: I’m gonna I’m gonna speak from like my perspective. I I think I’m the architect on the board or one of the architects on the board. So I think sometimes Staff is asking us. \nStefan Pellegrini: are there creative or alternative strategies to what the applicant is proposing \nStefan Pellegrini: that should be considered \nStefan Pellegrini: regarding these questions of \nStefan Pellegrini: sufficiency\, adequacy\, appropriateness. \nStefan Pellegrini: and I think we\, as designers\, understand how to respond to that. But we’re not always asked that directly. \nStefan Pellegrini: We’re sort of asked to kind of \nStefan Pellegrini: bring our professional expertise and perspective\, which is different for everyone on this board. \nStefan Pellegrini: To sort of providing that information. I think another thing that comes up in my mind often\, too\, is that \nStefan Pellegrini: there’s conditions on a lot of these projects where the priorities \nStefan Pellegrini: or the questions around. What should be prioritized is not clear. \nStefan Pellegrini: like different user groups. \nStefan Pellegrini: Where do you sort of tip the scale or way in terms of how space is being used and managed? \nStefan Pellegrini: And they’re asking for our judgment \nStefan Pellegrini: on that \nStefan Pellegrini: based on sort of our professional expertise. \nStefan Pellegrini: I think my experience has been that \nStefan Pellegrini: I had to learn \nStefan Pellegrini: what Staff was asking or what I thought they were really asking. \nStefan Pellegrini: because the questions come in the form of \nStefan Pellegrini: they come in the frame of planning policy. \nStefan Pellegrini: But we are asked. We are basically asked to answer in a language of design. \nStefan Pellegrini: and that for me\, I had to watch \nStefan Pellegrini: the my predecessors and understand how they were interacting with the board. And then I sort of picked up on that. And probably I think all of us have taken that in our own direction. \nStefan Pellegrini: But I think I’m most interested in how the newer board members \nStefan Pellegrini: sort of interpret these questions. \nStefan Pellegrini: and they are direct enough \nStefan Pellegrini: in terms of sort of asking the needs of sort of what they want to get out of them\, because I think from my perspective\, it came out of this like institutional. \nStefan Pellegrini: just repetition \nStefan Pellegrini: of being able to sort of infuse\, I think\, to Staff. I think sometimes you’ll see me ask you\, is this what you’re asking here? Because it’s sort of not 100% clear. But we have a process where \nStefan Pellegrini: that is actually all \nStefan Pellegrini: are workable. \nStefan Pellegrini: Right? We don’t run end up at an impasse\, or in a situation where we can’t ask those questions. And so I don’t see that as a problem \nStefan Pellegrini: a lot of this in my mind would \nStefan Pellegrini: like the other thing that would make the staff report simpler \nStefan Pellegrini: would be the application of more objective guidance. \nStefan Pellegrini: And so\, if the Bay plan\, if the if the if the public wrong policies were more objectively oriented. \nStefan Pellegrini: there would be less space for us to be actually \nStefan Pellegrini: inputting our judgment. \nStefan Pellegrini: But we have a situation where \nStefan Pellegrini: the design guidelines are very subjective. \nStefan Pellegrini: And so there’s there’s there’s a need for us to sort of do what we’re doing. \nStefan Pellegrini: The other layer. To that. I think that I think everybody recognizes that the things that are \nStefan Pellegrini: that we are asked to consider \nStefan Pellegrini: it is incredibly difficult for to objectify those things. \nStefan Pellegrini: and so we’re looking at questions of \nStefan Pellegrini: timing what we should weigh when there are environmental justice issues. This questions about adequacy in my mind are not objective. And so the Bay\, the the Desired View Board\, is \nStefan Pellegrini: providing a very useful \nStefan Pellegrini: role in sort of helping \nStefan Pellegrini: to direct that. \nStefan Pellegrini: and that all I think sort of goes back to the basis that’s provided \nStefan Pellegrini: the extensive basis is actually provided in the staff report. \nStefan Pellegrini: I’m gonna stop there. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, thanks\, Stefan. Super helpful. Let’s just keep going. I I just wanna make sure that everyone \nYerba Buena SX80: can provide some. Input. And then we can talk further. Leo\, why don’t we go to you? Yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: sure. Thank you. Maybe before I dive into\, I do have one follow up question\, which is\, it sounds like you’re using the report in other for other purposes. Writing permits other settings. Are there other uses of the report that are \nYerba Buena SX80: important. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, I guess it’s you know\, once it’s out there\, like as a public record\, there are\, like many different reasons why we might go back to look at a report. And so yeah\, yes\, we \nYerba Buena SX80: every with every staff report\, especially if we have multiple \nYerba Buena SX80: sessions on a single project. Like that\, information might get built upon\, built upon\, built upon\, so that we can use it to share information about the project with other people on staff. So if we do an internal presentation\, we might use some of that information again. To help bring other people up to speed. \nYerba Buena SX80: we might share some of this information with like partners or other agencies that are working on the same project\, so that they have the information that we have \nYerba Buena SX80: we might use it for the application summary that goes out to the commission ahead of the meeting where they consider the project\, and in the draft of the permit\, which is the staff recommendation that we share with them when they vote \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, as Ashley was saying\, when we go back \nYerba Buena SX80: to kind of see like well\, what was the intent behind like. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know? Why? Why do we think this condition was written this way or like\, why\, did this \nYerba Buena SX80: part of the project end up looking like this? Or you know that where there might be some questions later on\, might. Something feels a little vague like we use it for research\, and then also\, you know\, to train staff. I think one of the things. Maybe\, that we haven’t mentioned yet is that and this is very true for me personally is writing. The staff report is one of the ways that staff becomes really familiar with the project. \nYerba Buena SX80: because that is like maybe one of the 1st times that they’re really asked to sit down and explain it in detail to another person. And start actually thinking through some of the you know questions that they might have to answer. When you know they go up\, you know\, in front of our other staff\, or like other or the Commission\, and so on. So \nYerba Buena SX80: it does serve like a number of different \nYerba Buena SX80: purposes. I think everything we do. We try to \nYerba Buena SX80: multitask as much as possible. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. And and that might be something that \nYerba Buena SX80: might have not been fully considered when \nYerba Buena SX80: the drive for efficiency was being brought up was that there is actually a lot of uses for this which is terrific. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’ll maybe as as a sort of interim tenure person\, I’ll just say that\, having sat on other boards of public commissions\, etc. \nYerba Buena SX80: the thoroughness\, these reports are very\, very impressive\, and I as a new newer board member\, I found them incredibly helpful \nYerba Buena SX80: to \nYerba Buena SX80: focus in on what are the issues? What are the questions before us. I think one of the things that is perhaps unique about \nYerba Buena SX80: this particular design Review Board is that what we’re looking to is. \nYerba Buena SX80: in addition to overall design. Excellence\, I think\, is really a complex set of regulations and master plans and policies and guidelines. I mean\, there’s it’s not like we’re sitting down in front of the planning commission and referring to the planning code. \nYerba Buena SX80: Right? It’s there. There’s a lot of of underlying \nYerba Buena SX80: regulations and policies that we’re trying to make sure that the design solution is providing the best solution. For \nYerba Buena SX80: so I think \nYerba Buena SX80: the thoroughness of the report is incredibly helpful in that because it otherwise\, it’s it’s a lot of lot of information\, for I think anybody to try and sift through and organize and understand. \nYerba Buena SX80: that said\, I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the things is. There’s probably sort of 3 layers of information\, I think\, in the reports\, which is one are that are sort of the simple quantitative aspects of the project. Where is it? How big is it? What is it involved? Right? And then? The second\, what category might be the quantitative elements that are in the codes. So \nYerba Buena SX80: public access. How is that being supported? And then the qualitative ones that are perhaps harder to PIN down\, and really require judgment and experience and a particular design viewpoint. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s. And so for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: I do wonder if some of the \nYerba Buena SX80: basic facts of the project could be something that could be \nYerba Buena SX80: almost set into a form\, that is. \nYerba Buena SX80: every applicant is expected to fill out and put on Page one of their documents\, and we could read it. \nYerba Buena SX80: save that’s probably the easy part of the report for you guys\, so probably doesn’t save a lot of time. \nYerba Buena SX80: I do think that the idea of \nYerba Buena SX80: more of a intro paragraph and an outline. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, particularly when it comes to things like\, permit history and \nYerba Buena SX80: the the existing conditions. I think. You know\, those kinds of things are more factual. \nYerba Buena SX80: Again\, outline \nYerba Buena SX80: form probably be easier actually for you to produce and us to digest \nYerba Buena SX80: and then \nYerba Buena SX80: and then really focus on. I think\, the the analysis\, the regulatory analysis. I think that’s where I I have found the report to be most helpful that is in understanding what is being \nYerba Buena SX80: really what is being proposed? And does it meet the expectations. And and you know those where the questions often tied to so so you know\, I don’t know if there’s \nYerba Buena SX80: this is very specific. But you know\, for example\, there’s this proposed project \nYerba Buena SX80: descriptions. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then there’s the commission plans\, policies\, and guidelines\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: I almost \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean it. It’s so clear right now\, I’m sort of reluctant to suggest anything specific. But I am. I am curious at some point. Maybe \nYerba Buena SX80: if there are thoughts from those who write them \nYerba Buena SX80: of of areas that you think \nYerba Buena SX80: might be ways of streamlining the the writing without losing the content. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah. But \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I like\, I said\, I\, I’ve I’ve found this to be incredibly helpful. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks\, Larry. Okay\, let’s keep going here\, Patricia. I do want to. \nYerba Buena SX80: weigh in. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Yes. Hello\, everyone\, thank you. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: I do have a question before I start. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: in the examples provided and on the \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: on the reviews I’ve been on. There’s reference of the exhibits themselves. Are we to assume that those \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: are separate from \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: a staff report. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: or are you considering them as part of the staff report. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: I guess this is for Ashley or one of the staff members. \nYerba Buena SX80: They are both separate\, and the same \nYerba Buena SX80: report relies on the exhibits to be graphic representation of what the narrative is stating. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think most of the people in this room relate better to graphics than they do to long paragraphs. \nYerba Buena SX80: just an assumption on my part. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Throughout. \nYerba Buena SX80: But it it. The exhibits are produced by the project proponent\, and then\, when Staff are writing the reports where there is an exhibit that illustrates what the writing is trying to state. \nYerba Buena SX80: It will reference that exhibit. And usually there’s a link\, and it will go back and forth. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Right \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: right? And and my comment is very\, Oh\, go ahead. \nYerba Buena SX80: No\, I think\, keep going. Okay. Patricia. Yeah. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Yes\, my comment is very much related to that\, because as a reviewer\, I find myself obviously going back and forth between \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: the the written staff report and the exhibits themselves. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: there’s a question as to whether the graphics included are helpful\, and those\, I guess\, are technically. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: you know\, labeled as figures that are in the staff report itself not\, and they’re not directing the reviewer to go to the \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: to the exhibits. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: But I do wonder if \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: there are more key graphics that are included in the staff report as figures. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Because \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: you know by nature\, because it is a design review. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: then those graphics are essential. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: And \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: yes\, I’m I’m 1 of the newer members. And so I I do appreciate how much context is is given in the staff report and definitely agree with \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: lot of the comments made today about how thorough they are. I think my comments are. If if there is an interest in \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: finding efficiencies. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: then I would maybe suggest if some of the graphics or the exhibits themselves are doing the work. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: and so to consider whether the redundancy of the written \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: description of what the graphics are explaining is actually needed. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: again\, that’s assuming that the graphics from the proponent are very clear. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: and you know. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: thoughtfully developed. And so I can understand that maybe the description helps provide a little more. If if that’s not the case. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: and I I would also add that \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: I I agree with Tom on on also in the interest of of efficiency. If \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: if bullet points are \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: a really great way of being able to \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: force a summarized version of what goes in the staff report? \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: But really\, when you’re getting to maybe some of the items that are included in the exhibits. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Obviously the introduction of of the project and kind of there. There does need to be a narrative. That kind of sets the stage of the project. But perhaps\, as you progress in the staff report\, there’s an opportunity for more bullets. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: So I would. I would agree with that? \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Finally\, I do agree that the the questions are very helpful. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: and assuming that there’s \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: there’s kind of the cycle of newer members every once in a while. Then\, having kind of the the habit or the good practice of of \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: of the framing questions that help guide the conversation\, I think. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: are really really useful and and very helpful. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: but yeah\, I think a lot of a lot of comments that I had in mind were also already mentioned. \nYerba Buena SX80: Well\, thanks\, Patricia\, that’s actually really \nYerba Buena SX80: useful. Input I think the conversation between \nYerba Buena SX80: the exhibits\, the interaction between the exhibits and the report is is an important \nYerba Buena SX80: part of what we should be providing feedback on. Cody comments. \nCody Anderson: Yeah\, I’ll be. I’ll be brief \nCody Anderson: in. In my limited experience \nCody Anderson: on the board that the staff report is so \nCody Anderson: so integral to the process. It had not even occurred to me that it could be different. \nCody Anderson: and it is \nCody Anderson: absolutely what I rely on to understand the project in \nCody Anderson: thoroughly and concisely \nCody Anderson: so. I don’t really have any suggestions for improvements\, but I’ll also just mention\, you know\, times when I’ve been on the consultant side. \nCody Anderson: I think the \nCody Anderson: The staff report\, especially for \nCody Anderson: new or less experienced applicants. \nCody Anderson: establishes a \nCody Anderson: kind of a level of thoroughness and professionalism \nCody Anderson: that might be attention catching \nCody Anderson: for people who \nCody Anderson: maybe didn’t. \nCody Anderson: We’re under prepared \nCody Anderson: for the process of going through Bcbc. And in in that regard I think it’s it’s really positive to have such a you know\, such a complete document. That’s that’s publicly available. And \nCody Anderson: and I think that people sometimes view Bcdc. As \nCody Anderson: as an obstacle or as a opponent. \nCody Anderson: And \nCody Anderson: and I think it can help change the channel when they see that the approach that’s laid out through the whole process\, including the staff. \nYerba Buena SX80: Thanks. Cody. \nYerba Buena SX80: Bob\, why don’t you weigh in? Give \nYerba Buena SX80: some of your thoughts? Yes\, thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. I also\, for some reason\, didn’t think that the staff reports \nYerba Buena SX80: might be modified or should be changed. I kind of looked at them as \nYerba Buena SX80: the staff’s \nYerba Buena SX80: perspective on the project\, and that’s who I thought we were. I think that we’re \nYerba Buena SX80: here to help as well as well as the applicant \nYerba Buena SX80: and I also \nYerba Buena SX80: anticipated that there were discussions between the applicant and the staff\, and so that it was \nYerba Buena SX80: actually\, you know\, a really good thing for us to have\, and what was emphasized \nYerba Buena SX80: or not emphasized\, was \nYerba Buena SX80: in in a way\, guidance for us. \nYerba Buena SX80: even though you know I’m \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we all always look for things that might be missing\, or that kind of thing. So I actually like the reports. I think they’re good \nYerba Buena SX80: and I want to shift gears a little bit and actually suggest something that \nYerba Buena SX80: I would like to see in addition\, which is probably not what anyone wants to hear. But \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the things I’ve been struggling with is \nYerba Buena SX80: historically\, we’ve looked at fixed property lines and zonings and developments and stuff\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: but with sea level rise the bay is moving. The hazards are moving. \nYerba Buena SX80: The ecology\, the habitats are moving. \nYerba Buena SX80: and people are gonna move sooner or later\, or the other\, or upper end\, or something\, or do something. So. But the \nYerba Buena SX80: what? What I’m missing in these \nYerba Buena SX80: is\, what are the future conditions within the planning horizon? \nYerba Buena SX80: And \nYerba Buena SX80: we do get some of that. And I think the staff uses what’s available. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so I think the problem I have is is a bigger problem\, one that no one’s really provided. It’s you know\, the the shore atlas is helpful. The \nYerba Buena SX80: subtitle goals and wetlands\, goals and all the planning documents are helpful to the extent they’re looked at. \nYerba Buena SX80: And so we get what we can. But but fundamentally\, we have a problem where we’re looking at a site\, we have a hundred foot shore\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: if they don’t\, if the developer\, whoever doesn’t encroach on that 100 foot shore. \nYerba Buena SX80: they’re certainly going to try to put all the all the shore. Parallel access in there\, and the shore may be completely arbitrary. \nYerba Buena SX80: Have nothing to do with natural processes might just be something somebody did a hundred or 200 years ago\, and filled it with God knows what. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then\, if you put the bay trail there\, which is this concrete thing\, you have to armor it and protect it for a hundred year event and all that. So we’re basically we’re not adapting. \nYerba Buena SX80: really. And the adaptation plan is well\, we’ll build a wall higher\, and we’ll lift the trail\, or you know\, whatever somebody will fix it for us or I. So I I’m I’m not being negative. I don’t think but I’m just pointing out that I think the sea Level Rise \nYerba Buena SX80: component is \nYerba Buena SX80: a game changer\, and it it needs even more attention. \nYerba Buena SX80: Whereas I think the 7 public access objectives \nYerba Buena SX80: are not contrary to that\, but could all be informed by that \nYerba Buena SX80: the other\, the social access\, I mean social \nYerba Buena SX80: and other social issues\, I think\, kind of fall into that as well into that as well\, and and are in a way the sea level rise in climate change is an opportunity to kind of redevelop things. \nYerba Buena SX80: reimagine things \nYerba Buena SX80: hard to do on a parcel level. But then\, now we’re talking about this regional and sub regional \nYerba Buena SX80: planning. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’d like to see a little bit more about. What municipalities policies are. \nYerba Buena SX80: We’ve been confronted with that recently. \nYerba Buena SX80: With one or more cities that have sea level rise policies. And \nYerba Buena SX80: and then\, you know\, there’s 1 or more flood control agencies which usually our county\, which is different than the city \nYerba Buena SX80: that have \nYerba Buena SX80: policies and \nYerba Buena SX80: bigger projects and stuff. So there’s all this other policy stuff that you know we get a document. It’s like\, well\, this is the policy. This is how it’s there’s\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I would like to see a little bit more of that. I think that’s gonna come in. \nYerba Buena SX80: to as it becomes available as it’s addressed. As we’re all learning \nYerba Buena SX80: things that could be added. I think\, a little more specifically\, they are in there. \nYerba Buena SX80: and it’s gotten easier for me to review things. But \nYerba Buena SX80: is stuff like \nYerba Buena SX80: other pertinent information. \nYerba Buena SX80: the title datums in terms of a land datum like an Abd. \nYerba Buena SX80: there are different datums port of Oakland\, San Francisco. They all have different day\, whatever\, but that that’s been better\, and that’s really good. I I am interested in. And I think this is in there the ecology areas that are adjacent and \nYerba Buena SX80: the sure Atlas helps a little bit. But you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: the way I’ve always looked at things been trained to do is multiple objectives. So if a wetland exists in one place and seal rises. It’s going to want to move or it’s going to drown. \nYerba Buena SX80: so does the project accommodate that\, or is the net result of the project to \nYerba Buena SX80: doom the marsh to being drowned\, you know. And what \nYerba Buena SX80: is that considered? Is there a natural nature based \nYerba Buena SX80: option\, or something that could be considered by the designers. So I think again\, that the big picture is\, you have \nYerba Buena SX80: a built challenge because the base coming up\, and the water’s moving in. Groundwater’s coming up. \nYerba Buena SX80: There’s gonna be higher \nYerba Buena SX80: precipitation in Tennessee \nYerba Buena SX80: Creek flows combined\, flooding all this stuff. And then there’s erosion. There’s waves which really aren’t considered in the light at this level\, anyway\, at this. \nYerba Buena SX80: And I don’t really see the applicants tuned into that. I think they’re focused on\, and in their interest \nYerba Buena SX80: maximizing revenue on their development \nYerba Buena SX80: in their parcel. \nYerba Buena SX80: So I don’t know what all the answers are\, but I I think\, starting to talk about how things are changing. And there’s this fundamental conflict. \nYerba Buena SX80: which is a design challenge\, especially if we’re talking about being resilient. \nYerba Buena SX80: But also it’s an opportunity. I like to think of it as redevelopment\, if you will. \nYerba Buena SX80: So anyway\, I I just but I really like the staff reports\, and I’ve been doing this for a while\, so I can look at things\, have our access\, so I can kind of see stuff. \nYerba Buena SX80: But I think it would be good for the applicants. Just maybe there’s some questions that they could be asked\, and then maybe we can get the the San Francisco Bay \nYerba Buena SX80: through Rsap or otherwise\, to start providing this information in a format that is more accessible to the staff. \nYerba Buena SX80: So that we\, you know\, it’s just easier as we \nYerba Buena SX80: we learn. So those are my comments. Thank you. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, thanks\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: always really insightful. I’m just going to add a couple of things. I mean\, everything has basically been covered. But from \nYerba Buena SX80: from my standpoint\, I I just want to \nYerba Buena SX80: pick up on context for a minute psych context. I I would say\, over the years. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think. We’ve seen \nYerba Buena SX80: numerous projects where? \nYerba Buena SX80: Yeah\, the the Site plan basically ends\, of course\, at the property line. And yet the connections for public access are are \nYerba Buena SX80: not always well handled. And \nYerba Buena SX80: so we’ve talked about this in reviews over the years. But I just think the the window for \nYerba Buena SX80: those plans\, and the way in which the staff can perhaps make your life easier by making sure that the proponent probably dresses a little more context around the shoreline bands\, I think\, makes for a better review \nYerba Buena SX80: it. It makes it easier for everyone. But I would say the critical for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: and I have to say\, been on the board a long time\, and\, you know\, going back years when I was extremely busy with work\, I didn’t always get out to the site. But in recent years I always go to the site. And I I think the material that is included which is excellent. The social and environmental context. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, other material in the report is just so much easier to interpret if you just go and take it out on site and read the report on site. And so I just \nYerba Buena SX80: would encourage everyone. If you can find the time to get out onto the site and just spend\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: spend half an hour or an hour on site. It can. It can help a lot \nYerba Buena SX80: to sit through \nYerba Buena SX80: some quite complex materials \nYerba Buena SX80: up. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. I think the question of policy and design I would just come back to. You know the makeup of the board is intentionally \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, structured\, so that there are people who are a little more \nYerba Buena SX80: facile around policy people who are very strong on design. You know\, some people more technical. \nYerba Buena SX80: Certainly the engineering with with it’s just so great to have people like\, you know\, Bob and Cody. And you know\, it makes a big difference. And so because the issues are so complex. And what we’re looking at is challenging. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think it’s okay to say\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: a couple of the board members we know are going to really \nYerba Buena SX80: know that issue. So and own that issue so focus on the issues where we each have our strengths. And I think that makes for a really good review. When people do that\, we don’t all have to \nYerba Buena SX80: be on top of everything. But and for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: speaking personally\, you know\, I’ve always found the the policies are somebody I think you mentioned earlier. You know. The policies are are often. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, they’re not really specific. So you know\, when you’re trying to tie them down to the project\, it can be challenging\, so help from Staff\, you know. Maybe \nYerba Buena SX80: clarity as much clarity around. You know what policy might be particularly important to this particular project would would be helpful. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I’d say\, over the years the Board questions \nYerba Buena SX80: have varied in their helpfulness. Sometimes \nYerba Buena SX80: you’d sitting there\, as I think Stefan or somebody else mentioned\, really \nYerba Buena SX80: trying to compose the question. That’s behind the question that is actually written in the \nYerba Buena SX80: staff questions. And and \nYerba Buena SX80: and I think sometimes \nYerba Buena SX80: if if there may be some reason why it’s \nYerba Buena SX80: crafted that way. \nYerba Buena SX80: and certainly the board. I’ve seen many instances over the years where the the staff is quite passionate about some issue related to the project\, and the Board \nYerba Buena SX80: says\, you know\, that’s not a problem at all. And then\, you know\, that’s exactly how that \nYerba Buena SX80: process should work. And I don’t think that’s an issue at all. If if Staff put out something a little more specifically\, you know about what concern there may be\, you know\, in a question\, and then we \nYerba Buena SX80: can discuss it\, and you know\, come back\, come\, provide feedback. But if the questions are very clear. \nYerba Buena SX80: then we tend to just \nYerba Buena SX80: not give them much attention in the review\, I think\, you know\, and sometimes the questions just \nYerba Buena SX80: don’t seem to match what our impressions are of the project on the night\, too\, so \nYerba Buena SX80: that couldn’t. \nYerba Buena SX80: So sometimes they’re spot on\, and sometimes there’s\, you know\, some \nYerba Buena SX80: differences I think of. You know\, where we would see critical questions of what would have been brought up by the staff\, but regardless I’m just providing my reflections. But \nYerba Buena SX80: drafting the questions is really important. And so\, you know\, just making it as clear as possible in terms of the issues that you’re all concerned with. \nYerba Buena SX80: Very helpful \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, Bob\, to your point about \nYerba Buena SX80: the impact of sea level rise and we talk. As you know\, we’ve all talked about this. Gary\, I think\, was probably the 1st person to really become specific on this topic\, and years ago\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, I think \nYerba Buena SX80: if the proponents \nYerba Buena SX80: can be encouraged to \nYerba Buena SX80: dive a bit deeper on adaptation\, exactly what the options could be\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Could they? \nYerba Buena SX80: A trail \nYerba Buena SX80: move out of the 100 foot shoreline bands into their \nYerba Buena SX80: property? \nYerba Buena SX80: If that can work with a design\, you know. Is that why not? You know\, just to encourage. \nYerba Buena SX80: because you all talk to the proponents hopefully when there’s some flexibility in what they’re doing. So I you know\, I think\, being proactive on that \nYerba Buena SX80: topic\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: Have you considered adaptation? And of course\, with this new plan coming through\, I think you know\, we’ll they’ll there’ll be a lot more teeth\, a lot more material for proposed things out there. But \nYerba Buena SX80: you’re right at this time\, we’re basically\, you know\, putting up \nYerba Buena SX80: revetment more or less\, you know\, at the at the shoreline\, increasingly doing that. And \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s not really best practice for \nYerba Buena SX80: what we’re facing in the years to come. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can. Can we discuss this just for a second? Had a comment. So you know. So\, having worked on the Pacific coast quite a bit. One of the things that people work with \nYerba Buena SX80: on the on the Pacific coast is this idea of a setback. \nYerba Buena SX80: and usually the setback is a distance farther inland than you might think of \nYerba Buena SX80: constructing something now. And so you get into this concept of a maybe a rolling easement \nYerba Buena SX80: for the 100 foot shoreline ban. And\, in fact\, the so I understand it. I’m not a lawyer\, but the \nYerba Buena SX80: the high tide line \nYerba Buena SX80: defining \nYerba Buena SX80: these boundaries \nYerba Buena SX80: is a line that moves and blocking it from moving is \nYerba Buena SX80: not necessarily a way of preventing it from moving in a legal sense. So \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, nobody really wants to go there. Of course\, there’s lots of\, you know\, implications and angst with that kind of thing. But \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, I just say\, the idea of a setback which is actually in one of the old documents that I guess 19 \nYerba Buena SX80: 1998. Sea level rise report by Vcdc. Has a a chapter on \nYerba Buena SX80: design criteria for shore protection\, and it actually shows \nYerba Buena SX80: a setback from the edge of the protection for waves and and flooding \nYerba Buena SX80: before you. You build something. So there is some linkage in the past to this idea of \nYerba Buena SX80: providing space\, and that included \nYerba Buena SX80: the increase of sea level rise as part of the criteria. How you calculate that that’s more of an engineering thing. But \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s also a coastal floodplain management concept to consider future future encroachments because of the migration of \nYerba Buena SX80: of the hazard. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway\, I just said\, just throw that out there. I don’t \nYerba Buena SX80: think anyone’s prepared to \nYerba Buena SX80: necessarily talk about \nYerba Buena SX80: rolling easements and and migrating shoreline vans. \nYerba Buena SX80: but it is kind of a logical concept \nYerba Buena SX80: to consider as is as an option. I think so. I don’t know. So just throw that up there. \nYerba Buena SX80: No thanks\, Bob. \nYerba Buena SX80: I look just the final point Patricia brought up. You know\, the relationship between the proponent materials and the report\, and I I think that was an incredibly important point. And \nYerba Buena SX80: there’s no question that when we have better proponent materials more complete\, particularly in the in the\, as I find in the aspects of you know how to really understand how they have arrived at some of the solutions that they’ve arrived at. You know what what they \nYerba Buena SX80: what they have \nYerba Buena SX80: thought process has been in the context of Bcdc. And and \nYerba Buena SX80: of course we all know if you’re a proponent project proponent\, this is just yet another step in a very long\, complicated process\, and they have to come before the board\, and \nYerba Buena SX80: it can be pretty frustrating and annoying for them to have to produce all the material in a way that you need it. But you’re talking to them pretty early in the process. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, more often these days not always\, but more often. We’ve talked about all of that in the past as well\, but but I think encouraging the proponents to \nYerba Buena SX80: and and to even have a couple of examples of packages that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know. Address your. \nYerba Buena SX80: You know that. Go well. In terms of process\, because they \nYerba Buena SX80: have addressed these sorts of\, you know\, fundamental aspects that \nYerba Buena SX80: we’re looking for to be able to comment effectively. I mean\, I that could would be helpful to a proponent. I think. \nYerba Buena SX80: Maybe they \nYerba Buena SX80: find that material themselves\, but because I think that that’s often \nYerba Buena SX80: that relationship. It can be a very good written report. The narrative can be great\, but if the exhibits \nYerba Buena SX80: are a bit deficient\, I remember \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know. Maybe 18 months ago or so there was. \nYerba Buena SX80: It was \nYerba Buena SX80: a a corporate office project. But the design exhibits were so sort of vague\, even graphically\, that it was very hard to read them\, and that made the review quite\, quite difficult. So \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, just basic things like that. I could. And that is outside what we’re talking about specifically on the staff report. But these 2 \nYerba Buena SX80: things really do need to\, you know\, be locked in together to make your job easier. \nYerba Buena SX80: So look\, that’s I think that’s Gary. You want to add something just briefly\, the longest\, most difficult meetings we have are when the the exhibits are thin\, and then\, and the board is sitting here trying to figure out what’s going on\, and it takes a long time to get there. You have to interrogate\, you know. You have to ask a hundred questions. \nYerba Buena SX80: and we have like an hour of discovery sometimes before we get to the comments. So that’s the flip side of whatever it was that I think\, Stefan said\, that you know you need a really really detailed report in order to\, you know\, be able to give your response on a very important site within 5 min\, you know. Essentially\, we’re all speaking for 5 min. How do you condense all this information into this very concise statement? Yeah\, so very good. \nYerba Buena SX80: I’m sorry. Hmm. \nYerba Buena SX80: one question. \nYerba Buena SX80: I know there’s the. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think there’s a list of materials that’s recommended for submission. \nYerba Buena SX80: Does Staff ever \nYerba Buena SX80: say to the project \nYerba Buena SX80: applicant states. \nYerba Buena SX80: The materials are inadequate\, they they do not meet the standards\, and therefore please resubmit. \nYerba Buena SX80: Yes\, we do. Draft exhibits are usually due 45 days before the meeting. I take a week and a half to like\, really review them and like point them into what information needs to be better framed. And then they need to resubmit the exhibits. So they’re accessible. I will say we’ve used some Cmg exec packages few times as like exemplary examples\, especially with the like \nYerba Buena SX80: second and 3rd reviews. And how they’ve responded. I think Cmg. Did it really successfully in one of the burling game projects. And so I’ve used that and shown that to people a few times\, yeah\, great\, yeah\, great. Anyone else want to make some \nYerba Buena SX80: further comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: So yeah\, yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: it’s it feels a little. It feels a little inappropriate somehow to do this. But I guess this is a this is a different kind of meeting. But yeah\, I I had a few. These are not in any particular order. \nYerba Buena SX80: but I mean I I’ll just say for myself\, speaking personally for myself\, like as a person who’s who’s written? Any of these reports edited it and added to them\, \nYerba Buena SX80: along this \nYerba Buena SX80: the \nYerba Buena SX80: design analyst. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I often wonder you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah\, it it do. They make sense\, you know? Do they make sense to you as the reader? The public\, of course\, but also to the board. And are they facilitating the process? And how much of the how much of the discussion is facilitated by the report versus the exhibits\, and sort of what’s \nYerba Buena SX80: where’s you know? Where does your mind go as a reviewer first\, st I mean\, are you? Are you reading the report in full\, looking at the exhibits. You’re reading the exhibits 1st going back to the report\, and just sort of where the the real sort of bang for the buck is because I think that’s that’s part of the question we’re trying to answer \nYerba Buena SX80: and I like. I guess I’m happy to hear that no one\, no one\, at least no one\, was being very clever\, no one said. I find the reports confusing. You know. I can’t follow them sometimes the narrow descriptions of you know the geography of the site which are which are difficult to write for me\, at least. \nYerba Buena SX80: folks are able to read them\, or at least they’re able to read them in contact in the context of the exhibits. So that that’s good to know. \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: I \nYerba Buena SX80: think that \nYerba Buena SX80: the the the discussion on questions was really helpful for me. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think that as a staff we sort of are \nYerba Buena SX80: sometimes trying to telegraph specific concerns. We have and it’s it’s great to be able to do that directly. But sometimes we are. \nYerba Buena SX80: Also not trying to get in front of the board. We we really do want to hear your \nYerba Buena SX80: initial reactions and in in many cases you’re you’re bringing the expertise that that we either lack at the staff level or that we are looking to have greatly have the issues sort of greatly expanded for us. So I I it was interesting just to hear that conversation. And I’m not sure we’ll go with that exactly. And Ashley\, and you have ideas. But but that’s that’s just sort of to. I mean\, maybe answer sort of the \nYerba Buena SX80: the issue that you put out there that sometimes we are trying to get some pointed feedback\, and sometimes we are not trying to get too much in front of it\, because we want sort of the conversation to evolve. So it’s just interesting to think about that. And it sounds like\, maybe there’s some appetite for us to be a little bit more direct in in some cases. Really\, that’s the consensus. I think I was hearing \nYerba Buena SX80: and then this is really outside the box\, but\, \nYerba Buena SX80: A number of years ago we had a similar conversation for \nYerba Buena SX80: the Commission itself\, and we looked at the lengthy \nYerba Buena SX80: staff reports that we provided to them\, and actually made a decision to slow them down. Quite a bit. And I bring that up. Not not so much to to say that that’s what should happen here. But when we did it we brought in a urban planning professor who held a workshop for the commission and presented her research was on on orthodox ways to present staff present information for planning commissions \nYerba Buena SX80: and she was sort of discussing the the avant garde approaches to staff reports. And you know\, this was. \nYerba Buena SX80: I think\, 6 or 7 years ago now\, but one of those was more reliance on video. And \nYerba Buena SX80: that really made me think about the comment\, Justin\, today\, you made about well\, when I go out to the site and I have the staff report with me\, you know. That’s when it really kind of clicks. And I know that. One thing we’ve done\, Andrea Gaffney sort of pioneered this for us\, but we oftentimes get a sort of a rapid video of the site. And I think that really helps in the context of our meetings. It. It just occurred to me\, hearing that comment\, thinking about that sort of \nYerba Buena SX80: that that video that we prepare. I\, you know\, maybe there’s some. Maybe there’s something just as some idea to explore. Maybe there’s something that we could look at in terms of helping provide that site. Context? \nYerba Buena SX80: in a more \nYerba Buena SX80: video or or sort of a different form. Or we could ask applicants to produce some of the just some like different multimedia ways to sort of understand site conditions. Just just I don’t know if that’s that’s feasible. But I just just made me think. \nYerba Buena SX80: And then one last thing I wanted to say\, this is a response to to I think mostly your comments\, Bob\, but certainly others\, too\, that there’s there’s some things that you’d like to see\, either emphasize more that you definitely don’t want to lose\, or they even want to expand it in the staff reports\, and I think those are really helpful comments for us here\, too. Because I think that we’re hearing there’s some places where we could pull back a little bit and redirect staff resources to \nYerba Buena SX80: expanding. I think the conversations around. it sounds like there’s a strong desire for have some additional information about resilience and sea level rise conditions of the site\, but also \nYerba Buena SX80: I heard that with nature based solutions and sort of opportunities at the site\, too\, which I mean are something part of our discussions. But I don’t know that we’ve necessarily dedicated sections of the report to those before. So those strike me as interesting comments\, too. So \nYerba Buena SX80: that’s just my! Those are the things that pop out for me. Do you think it would \nYerba Buena SX80: would be worthwhile asking the applicant? If they’ve \nYerba Buena SX80: consider those or \nYerba Buena SX80: I don’t know. I’m just trying to think of a way \nYerba Buena SX80: to achieve that or get it started without being a big burden. Yeah\, I and maybe I should start talking and short\, Ashley. But I I think that’s kind of for particularly the you know\, that are pre application discussions. We really are. Having to have \nYerba Buena SX80: a kind of give and take relationship with the with the the applicant team. Because you know we don’t. We don’t have a formal application. We don’t have a record necessarily to build off of so absent going out and doing sort of independent research\, which is \nYerba Buena SX80: possible for some very limited questions. We don’t necessarily have the resources to to undertake that. So I think it’s gonna have to be that way if we if we do expand that. But I think that that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know that we have a lot of policy questions. That are part of our big plan that are really important. And you know\, that are newer\, and that might be an \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of shift in emphasis that that we need to make. Because those are. Those are certainly questions that come up later. And we know that a lot of the design decisions kind of get baked in this early stage. So I think that’s a so very insightful comment. \nYerba Buena SX80: yeah. \nYerba Buena SX80: okay\, Ashley. \nYerba Buena SX80: has this accomplished \nYerba Buena SX80: what you were looking for \nYerba Buena SX80: one of the customer today? \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean\, I I think so. It is a little bit of a question for you\, Ashley\, because I feel like you’re you’re kind of marshaling this conversation. But I think it gives us something to work with. I kind of for internal discussions\, I think\, for I mean for us. Obviously\, like you are our like primary audience for these staff reports. If they’re not serving a purpose for you. Then \nYerba Buena SX80: it\, you know\, we feel like we’re wasting our time like\, I think that’s the thing that we want to avoid right. So I think anything that requires time is fine. \nYerba Buena SX80: like we do want to like any. We in the end like we want our work to go towards something and accomplish like a goal. And so however much time it takes to do that\, I think\, is fair for us to spend. I do just like\, you know\, as somebody who \nYerba Buena SX80: who performs this work. You you do want to make sure that it is time well spent. That is like building on something that is like providing value for you know somebody else\, or and for the the process as a whole\, \nYerba Buena SX80: and just to kind of know. For me\, there’s always like this sort of series of like tensions and trade offs like when you’re writing a report like this like it does feel like very tempting to go with like kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: cookie cutter. Like presentation of information like you can. You can fly through that very quickly and move on to the next thing. But then also sometimes for me\, there’s like a sense that you’re losing\, like the ability to \nYerba Buena SX80: to highlight certain things\, or to take a more like bespoke approach to each project which has its own. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, like unique features. Like\, if you really like\, read down a lot of the projects that we bring\, like some of them\, are really \nYerba Buena SX80: like incomparable to like like one another. And so it it does feel like\, maybe sometimes like they require\, like a like fresh approach\, to like describe\, like what really is going on here and like that\, answering the question of like\, what is really happening like you \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of do have to like. \nYerba Buena SX80: sit down and and \nYerba Buena SX80: free yourself from like the outline. A little bit. \nYerba Buena SX80: But then. \nYerba Buena SX80: you know\, that does \nYerba Buena SX80: kind of like throw you off of the edge of a cliff a little bit like\, Okay\, where are we going with this? \nYerba Buena SX80: But yeah. So I think I I really appreciated hearing \nYerba Buena SX80: at \nYerba Buena SX80: that. This information is useful. And I think one of the things that we will be developing as we go\, especially like \nYerba Buena SX80: now that I’m thinking of our staff is coming\, and that’s like a whole new like source of like information and data coming in the future. \nYerba Buena SX80: like\, how do we \nYerba Buena SX80: take some of these sections which I think the ones that I struggle with the most are the ones that are like the most \nYerba Buena SX80: sort of like template oriented where we like aren’t doing a lot of like \nYerba Buena SX80: interpretation. Because we’re not maybe not as comfortable\, familiar with that information yet. \nYerba Buena SX80: And like developing like more of like \nYerba Buena SX80: a narrative at this point to me\, like the staff reports\, are all about presenting information so that other people can like take it \nYerba Buena SX80: to the the stage of interpretation. Because at this point it’s like\, early in the process\, we haven’t done all of the policy analysis that will ultimately do and so yeah\, \nYerba Buena SX80: like kind of \nYerba Buena SX80: thinking of like\, how do we present that information like kind of in the best\, like most objective but also \nYerba Buena SX80: useful way that you can actually build on \nYerba Buena SX80: like\, that’s 1 of the things I think that we’re gonna be talking about. \nYerba Buena SX80: Sorry. \nYerba Buena SX80: Can I actually say one more thing? Sorry. Just the comment of the the exhibits\, and how the you know good exhibits really make a big difference in the meeting. \nYerba Buena SX80: I I just want to sort of acknowledge Ashley and Yuri and and Andrea before them. Because I I feel like the the amount of time and effort that goes into kind of getting those exhibits just right where we can\, you know. Sometimes it’s you know you’re you’re pulling teeth. But where we can\, I think that that \nYerba Buena SX80: at least in my time at Bcdc. That that the sort of the the effort on that has has allowed us to get to the point. We’re having this conversation about\, how do we change our own reports? Because we’re not trying necessarily to fill in so many gaps? So I think we’ve gotten really good at working with applicants to get those to a much better place. So I just just wanted to kind of give you give you all a shout out\, because I I know that’s very behind the scenes. And and I think it’s gotten a lot more sophisticated. And I think it’s allowing \nYerba Buena SX80: to even have this discussion about what’s the world this text that accompanies them rather than having to worry so much about creating the perfect staff report\, and hopefully they’ll give us a few good exhibits to illustrate it. So I I think that’s a big shift. \nYerba Buena SX80: Very good. Look. I think that \nYerba Buena SX80: I think we’ve given you a lot of reaction comments. \nYerba Buena SX80: I mean just \nYerba Buena SX80: to say again what most of the Board has already said so. Well. I mean the work you were doing is excellent\, and you know we \nYerba Buena SX80: we rely on you all to which you’re doing\, you know to be absolutely on point for the technical side of the \nYerba Buena SX80: you know the the projects\, making sure that \nYerba Buena SX80: you know things are policy compliance\, you know. \nYerba Buena SX80: So all of that work is \nYerba Buena SX80: takes a lot of work. So thank you for the work that you all do on that making sure\, because our our job is is really to make sure that we’ve got sufficient information to be able to look at something with fresh eyes and provide some perspective to you all\, and you know that’s our job. So and I think the material I I don’t think wholesale. \nYerba Buena SX80: No one has said that there should be wholesale wholesale reconstruction of the reports. You know\, I think the the the the way they are currently structured is is clear and \nYerba Buena SX80: but anything you can do to make it more efficient for yourselves\, you know\, to we talked about\, you see\, a number of things that could maybe help it help us to\, you know. Be able to 0 in on the critical points. But you’re doing a great job so\, and and the reports are read. No one\, said they. Nobody \nYerba Buena SX80: said they didn’t read the reports. So \nYerba Buena SX80: so thank you very much. Last last question\, how are they expecting you to respond to them? The the Efficiency Committee. \nYerba Buena SX80: You all will be the guinea pigs when we come up with a new form. \nYerba Buena SX80: They’ll tell us if it’s working or not. \nYerba Buena SX80: They gotta tell you about. No\, you guys. Oh\, when we bring any changes to you\, I would hope that you can tell us if it’s effective way of communicating or no. You need to go back to the old way. Yeah. Oh\, we will\, we will. \nYerba Buena SX80: Okay\, well\, look\, thank you very much. I think that wraps the meeting\, thanks to everyone for getting online. And \nYerba Buena SX80: we have a meeting in October. So keep an eye out for that. So can someone move to close the meeting like to make a motion to adjourn? Thank you. Second\, thank you. Meeting adjourned. Have a good evening. Everyone. \nPatricia Fonseca Flores | CMG | she\, her: Thank you. Bye. Thank you. \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-9-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240905T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240905T170000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240127T064353Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250227T233528Z UID:10000105-1725541200-1725555600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 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. \nPhysical locationMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nTeleconference locations \n\n1028 Howard St.\, San Francisco\, CA\n100 Howe Ave.\, Ste. 100\, South Sacramento\, CA 95825\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\nCounty Executive Office: 1195 Third St.\, 3rd Fl\, Napa\, CA 94559\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\nMountain View City Hall Council Chambers: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n70 W. Hedding St.\,10th Fl. Conf. Rm.\, San Jose\, CA 95110\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/88956081193?pwd=Qi1H2dbQmezNQfP8acMCZU8u25rnSb.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID889 5608 1193 \nPasscode794788 \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 the August 15\, 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 the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Cargill\, Inc. Solar Salt System Maintenance and Operations Activities Project (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00)The Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Assessment to accompany the permit application by Cargill\, Inc. to continue existing its operations and maintenance (O&M) activities\, as well as implement limited new O&M activities\, for their Solar Salt System facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties\, primarily in the cities of Newark\, Fremont\, and Redwood City. The Solar Salt System is subject to BCDC jurisdictions in the Bay\, in the 100-foot Shoreline Band\, and in Salt Ponds.(Sam Fielding) [415-352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // Cargill’s presentation\nCommission Consideration and Possible Vote to Approve BCDC’s 2023 Annual ReportThe Commission will consider and possibly vote to approve the 2023 BCDC Annual Report.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3652; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Enforcement and Compliance ProgramsIn a joint presentation\, the Commission will receive a semi-annual progress report on the Enforcement Program’s activities during the first six months of 2024\, and a briefing on the work performed by BCDC’s Compliance Unit\, including how BCDC has brought into compliance non-compliant permittees.(Greg Scharff) [415/ 352-3655; greg.scharff@bcdc.ca.gov](John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Compliance presentation // Presentation \nBriefing on Environmental Justice Advisors Program Organizational Development ContractThe Commission will receive a briefing on the results of the Organizational Development Assessment of the Environmental Justice Advisors program conducted by MIG and Benchmarq Consulting. Sr. Manager for Climate Equity and Community Engagement Phoenix Armenta will present the findings from the final report and outline the next steps(Phoenix Armenta) [415/352-3604; phoenix.armenta@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // EJ Advisors Organizational Development Analysis Final Report  \nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSausalito Evergreen SPE\, LLC973 Avenida Encinas\, Suite 300Carlsbad\, CA 92008 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.031.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/03/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/03/2024\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot Shoreline Band jurisdictions at 215 Main Street. in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRenovate and repair an existing multi-family residential structure\, including the following activities.In the Bay \n\nRemove existing 36-inch-high wood guardrails on existing balconies and replace with new 42-inch-high guardrails\, and refinish approximately 1\,100 square feet of existing balcony surfaces.\nRepair roof and gutters on existing roof overhangs as needed.\nTemporarily install structure-supported scaffolding\, construction mesh\, and debris catchment system in an approximately 530 square feet footprint.\n\nIn the Shoreline Band \n\nRemove existing 36-inch-high painted wood guardrails from existing exterior walkways and replace them with 42-inch-high wood guardrails\, and refinish approximately 4\,990 square feet of existing exterior walkway and stair surfaces.\nRepair roof and gutters on existing roof as needed and install four new skylights.\nConstruct an approximately 813-square-foot portion of an expanded rooftop terrace.\nImprove the exterior courtyard\, involving removal of the existing 130-square-foot enclosed pool equipment building and replacement with a new 194-square-foot open pool cabana; removal of an approximately 2\,342-square-foot concrete area and replacement with planting beds\, concrete pavers\, and wood decking; construction of an approximately 49-square-foot pool equipment area; repair of non-structural wooden posts; and installation of approximately 162 linear feet of 5-foot-high wooden pool deck guardrails.\nImprove the southern side yard by replacing existing wood steps and retaining walls\, concrete slabs\, and metal storage shed with new timber steps\, new ground cover\, and new wood deck landings; installing a new foot washing station; and replacing two existing wood fences and gates with two new wood fences and gates\, approximately 6-foot high and 5-feet wide.\nInstall landscaping improvements\, including rebuilding an existing concrete planter on the Main Street frontage (north side of property).\nReconfigure the existing stormwater drainage to comply with Marin County’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.\nConduct interior renovations of existing apartment units.Note: A portion of the project on the Main Street frontage will take place within the City of Sausalito right-of-way and will require an encroachment permit from the City that has not yet been received. City Council approval of the encroachment permit was expected on July 30\, 2024\, but the item was pushed from the agenda due to time constraints. City of Sausalito staff has attested that the permit is likely to be approved and that the BCDC application could be filed pending the City Council resolution. The BCDC permit shall be conditioned to require that the final encroachment permit be submitted to BCDC prior to commencement of work on City of Sausalito property.\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Alyssa Plese; 415/352-3600 or alyssa.plese@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\nDW Burlingame I Owner\, LLCDW Burlingame II Owner\, LLCDW Burlingame III Owner\, LLC301 Howard Street\, Suite 2100San Francisco\, CA 94105\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.005.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/23/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n111/21/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at1200-1340 Old Bayshore Highway\, in the City of Burlingame\, San Mateo County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct demolition and site preparation activities\, involving. \n\nIn the Bay\n\nDemolish and remove existing pavement and landscaping over approximately 0.033 acres of previously filled area.\nGrade\, excavate\, and surcharge approximately 0.033 acres of previously filled area to elevations between 9 and 18 feet NAVD88 from existing elevations of between 9 and 12 feet NAVD88. Surcharging will involve placement of approximately 395 cubic yards of cellcrete or similar foamed concrete lightweight fill over 1\,215 square feet of the fill area\, and approximately 50 cubic yards of imported soils.\nPlace approximately 330 linear feet of 2-foot-tall silt fence with straw wattle fiber roll temporary protection barrier along the muted tidal wetland for the duration of site preparation activities.\nInstall approximately 20 linear feet of six-foot-tall chain link construction fencing with screening fabric along the perimeter of the project site for the duration of site preparation activities.\n\n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band\n\nDemolish and remove existing commercial and hotel structures\, pavement\, and landscaping over approximately 2.94 acres.\nShoring\, Excavation\, Dewatering\n\nExcavate approximately 9\,560 square feet of the total 48\,800-square-foot footprint of the Center Building to a depth of approximately 11 feet below elevation 11.5 feet NAVD88. Stabilize excavated area with temporary shoring and permanent Mass Soil Mixing (MSM) of in-situ soil with cement grout slurry without soldier beams or tiebacks\, dewater excavated areas\, and treat water before discharging to existing drainage systems.\nExcavate approximately 315 square feet of the total 53\,400-square-foot footprint of the proposed future South Parking Structure site to a depth of approximately 27 feet below elevation 11.4 NAVD88. Stabilize excavated area with temporary shoring and permanent Cutter Soil Mix (CSM) walls approximately 36” wide with steel soldier beams\, dewater excavated areas\, and treat water before discharging to existing drainage systems.\n\n\nGrade and surcharge approximately 2.94 acres of land to elevations between 13 and 26 feet NAVD88 from existing elevations between 8 and 12\, involving the placement of imported soils and cellcrete or similar foamed lightweight fill.The lightweight fill will be used over an approximately19\,176-square-foot area.\nStitch PiersAuger-cast rows made up of approximately 282 total 16-inch diameter sand/cement stitch piers spaced 5 to 7 feet apart along the eastern side of the site and on either side of Easton Creek to depths of approximately -21 feet NAVD88.\nConstruction Staging Utilize an approximately 162\,000-square-foot area north of Easton Creek and an approximately 49\,000-square-foot area north of the muted tidal wetland for construction staging and temporary stockpiling of excavated material.\nProtection Barriers\n\nPlace approximately 950 linear feet of 2-foot-tall silt fence with straw wattle fiber roll temporary protection barrier along both sides of Easton Creek for the duration of site preparation activities.\nPlace approximately 950 linear feet of 4-foot-tall temporary concrete block protection barrier along both sides of Easton Creek for the duration of site preparation activities.\nPlace approximately 320 linear feet of 2-foot-tall silt fence with straw wattle fiber roll temporary protection barrier along the muted tidal wetland for the duration of site preparation activities.\nInstall approximately 2\,930 linear feet of six-foot-tall chain link construction fencing with screening fabric along the perimeter of the project site for the duration of site preparation activities.\n\n\nShoreline Protection\n\nPlace approximately 80 cubic yards of riprap over an approximately 570-square-foot area on the north bank of the muted tidal wetland.\nConstruct a cobble berm over an approximately1\,750-square-foot area on the south bank of the muted tidal wetland consisting of approximately 190 cubic yards of rounded 4-inch by 8-inch cobble at a thickness of approximately 24 inches\, and cover with 18-inch-thick landscaping layer.\n\n\nPublic Access ImprovementsConstruct an approximately 0.27-acre public access area\, including an approximately 1\,228-square-foot amphitheater seating area; approximately 25 linear feet of 10-foot-wide sidewalk; approximately 125 linear feet of 20-foot-wide sidewalk; approximately 1\,348 square feet of pavement; and approximately 8\,680 square feet of landscaping (to replace 150 linear feet of10-foot-wide sidewalk and a 114-linear-foot and 12-foot-wide Bay Trail segment).\nStormwater Infrastructure\n\nConstruct a 997-square-foot bioretention area lined with an impermeable HDPE liner and containing a permeable rock layer\, biotreatment soil mix layer\, and planting.\nConstruct associated storm drain infrastructure\, including approximately 340 linear feet of storm drain pipe\, 50 feet of 4-inch slotted drain pipe\, four overflow inlets\, two cleanouts\, one catch basin\, three approximately 4-square-foot riprap aprons\, and one manhole.\n\n\n\n\n\nNote: The activities described above are part of a demolition and site-preparation project covering a total 12.5-acre project site\, with only approximately 3 acres taking place within the Commission’s jurisdiction. The applicants are the project proponents for the Peninsula Crossing project\, a proposed biotechnology and office project for which a future BCDC major permit application is anticipated. The Peninsula Crossing project has received local discretionary approvals\, including certification of an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act\, and is currently undergoing permitting with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for proposed work along Easton Creek. \nAs part of the Peninsula Crossing project\, the applicants plan to raise site elevations to account for potential sea level rise impacts\, which will require time for the site to settle before construction could begin. The applicants are seeking authorization for demolition and site preparation activities in advance of the major permit application in order to reduce the overall amount of time between future permit approvals (if received) and completion of the project\, including a number of public access improvements. The work associated with Application No. M2024.005.00 will result in the demolition of all existing site features\, excavations at the sites of the buildings proposed in the Peninsula Crossing project\, and the placement of lightweight fill and imported soils to raise site elevations. It will also create an expanded public access area adjacent to and replacing a portion of an existing Bay Trail segment. If a permit for this work is issued prior to Commission’s consideration of a major permit for the Peninsula Crossing project\, it would not preclude the Commission’s ability to seek changes to\, condition\, or deny the future major permit application\, including with respect to required maximum feasible public access\, associated with the project. \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\nEdward Dudensing224 Sea Cliff AvenueSan Francisco\, CA 94121 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.011.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/13/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/11/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 224 Sea Cliff Avenue\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove to the greatest extent possible the existing unpermitted concrete staircases\, retaining walls\, and landings\, including. \n\nDemolition by hand of all concrete structures other than those deemed by on-site geotechnical engineers\, geologists\,and structural engineers to be essential for cliff stability.\nReplacement in-kind of existing approximately 223-square-foot shotcrete soil protection between lower and upper patios.\nPlacing a new 8-by-10-foot wire mesh netting and 15-foot-long rock bolts or shotcrete as needed on cliff face near lower stairs to stabilize the rock\, as deemed by on-site geotechnical engineers\, geologists\, and structural engineers to be essential for cliff stability.\nPlace new concrete support wall measuring approximately 6 feet by 10 feet between existing pier and cliff face at concrete outcropping above lower stairs.\nAuthorize the following structures to remain for cliff stability (following removal of paint and hard edges):\n\nConcrete retaining walls and buttresses constructed before 2002\, including:\n\nSeven approximately 8-foot-high buttresses\, measuring 12”x6’8”\, 15”x5’\, 19”x5’6”\, 21”x11’4”\, 11”x2’\, 14”x3’3”\, and 16”x14’3”.\nTwo approximately 4-foot-high retaining walls\, measuring 27’x8’7” and 16’5”x3’7”.\n\n\nTwo approximately 6-inch-deep concrete landings constructed after 2002\, each measuring approximately 17’12”\, 6’8” and 10’3”x8’7”.\nThe base of the a stairway segment measuring approximately 14’9”x6’11”.\n\n\nAuthorize the following ancillary structures to remain:\n\nAn approximately 288-square-foot concrete lower patio.\nAn approximately 90-square-foot concrete staircase between the upper and lower patio.\nAn approximately 100-square-foot portion of the 172-square-foot concrete promenade attached to the lower patio\, following removal of approximately 24 square feet of the existing promenade and 19 feet of the existing eastern wall of the promenade.\n\n\nConstruct a new 3-foot-long and 3.5-foot tall barrier wall on the promenade.\n\nNote: This project is related to BCDC Enforcement Case ER2004.019.00. The project site includes a private parcel\, a parcel owned by the City and County of San Francisco\, and land leased from the State Lands Commission. The project will remove the majority of an unpermitted staircase and related concrete structures from the Commission’s jurisdiction. Some structures have been deemed necessary to remain in place to maintain stability of the cliffside and will be authorized for the minimum amount necessary\, to be determined by on-site geotechnical engineers\, geologists\, and structural engineers\, and approved by BCDC engineering staff. On private property\, some ancillary structures will also be authorized to remain. The portion of the project taking place on land owned by the City and County of San Francisco will require a permit from the San Francisco Department of Real Estate to allow the applicant to conduct work on public property\, which has not yet been received. The BCDC permit will be conditioned to require submission of the Department of Real Estate permit prior to commencing work on public property. The permit will also include conditions to ensure that any remaining structures are as physically and visually unobtrusive as possible. \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\nTown of Tiburon1505 Tiburon BlvdTiburon\, CA 94920 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.024.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/01/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n10/30/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and Shoreline Band jurisdictions\, at the junction of Main Street and Beach Road\, Tiburon\, in Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct repairs to the Tiburon Main Street Bridge to protect against further deterioration. Approximately 650 square feet of spalled concrete and corroded rebar will be removed and replaced and 7-foot-tall by 65-foot-long vertical steel trench plates embedded approximately four feet into the ground will be installed on the Bridge’s landward side to protect against scour caused by future wave run up. Existing riprap at the toe of the bridge will also be temporarily removed and replaced following construction. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay resources and to public access in the area during construction\, including all work to occur at the lowest tide during dry conditions\, use of debris mats\, and restoring all disturbed areas to pre-project conditions. During construction\, the southbound lane on Main Street will be closed for approximately four weeks and traffic will be controlled on the single open lane using flaggers and signage. \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\n\nSan Mateo County Parks Department455 County Center\, 4th floorRedwood City\, CA 94063 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2014.015.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/22/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/20/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at the Coyote Point Recreation Area at 1701 Coyote Point Drive\, in the City of San Mateo\, San Mateo County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct the following activities to repair a mudslide: \n\nSite preparation and demolition:\n\nRemove an existing walkway and re-grade to a 10-foot-wide pathway with an approximately 1.8-percent slope.\nGrub and re-grade an approximately 210-square-foot landscaped area between the walkway and the retaining wall to an approximately 5-percent slope for approximately 8 to 10 feet.The pre-existing tree on site will be maintained and protected during construction.\n\n\nConstruction\, repairs\, and installations:\n\nConstruct approximately 80 linear feet (80 square feet) of steel soldier pile and concrete lagging retaining wall that will range from approximately 3 to 10 feet in height.\nRepair an approximately 410-square-foot damaged segment of paved pedestrian walkway.\nRe-landscape an approximately 210-square-foot landscaped area.\nPlace approximately 3\,800 square feet of erosion control fabric down-slope of the retaining wall.\nPlace approximately 80 linear feet of cable fencing between the walkway and the retaining wall.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pierce Abrahamson\, Coastal Program Analyst; pierce.abrahamson@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nDepartment of Water Resources715 P Street\, 6th FloorSacramento\, CA 95814 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.020.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n08/20/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n11/29/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Managed Wetland and Bay jurisdictions\, at Property 631 Meins Landing on Montezuma Slough\, 5404 Birds Landing Road\, Birds Landing\, in Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall 825 linear feet of 20-foot-long steel sheet pile bulkhead walls to stabilize 24 exterior levee erosion sites of a managed wetland along Montezuma Slough (representing approximately 5.2% of the site’s full exterior levee). The work will be completed over two seasons: During the 2024 work season\, 553 linear feet of steel sheet pile bulkhead walls will be installed\, and 272 feet during the 2025 work season. The new sheet pile walls will be backfilled with approximately 1\,100 cubic yards of native material from the adjacent managed wetlands and cattail and tule root stock will be planted. The project will result in approximately 206.25 square feet of new fill within a managed wetland of the primary management area. The project will be conditioned to ensure the protection of tidal marsh habitat and Bay resources\, including construction to occur during low tides to minimize in-water work\, adhering to the environmental work window\, and only accessing project sites from land. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project. \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\nEmergency permitsThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\nCity of San Leandro835 E. 14th StreetSan Leandro\, CA 94577\n\nEmergency Permit No. E2024.003.00 \n\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the San Leandro Marina\, at 40 Mulford Point\, in the City of San Leandro\, Alameda County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nThe project involved demolition of the former Harbor Master’s Office\, a pile-supported structure at the San Leandro Marina\, which was damaged by a fire on December 27\, 2023. Demolition included removal of the burnt building structure\, the decking\, and the suspended gangway. The burned top portions of the deck piles will be removed\, but the undamaged portions of the deck piles will remain in place for removal at a later date as part of a separate project. Work was conducted from barges and involved use of a containment boom placed around the deck structure to catch any falling debris. The emergency authorization included requirements to follow best management practices to limit potential impacts to Bay resources. The work was authorized through the emergency permitting process on June 14\, 2024\, and work completed on June 20\, 2024. \nKatharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Meeting Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Video recording\n \nVideo recording \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-5-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240904T190000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240904T200000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104514 CREATED:20240820T163813Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240909T224817Z UID:10000191-1725476400-1725480000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 4\, 2024 Community Meeting for the Cargill Solar Salt System Draft EA DESCRIPTION:BCDC will hold a virtual public meeting on the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the application by Cargill\, Incorporated to continue existing operations and maintenance (O&M) activities\, as well as implement limited new O&M activities for their Solar Salt System facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties\, primarily in the cities of Newark\, Fremont\, and Redwood City. The meeting will have a slide presentation explaining the EA\, have a period at the end for public comments\, and Notice of include a channel for simultaneous Spanish translation. (BCDC Permit Application 2021.003.00). \nPresentation \n(Sam Fielding) [415-352-3665; sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov] \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM\nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/89566656284?pwd=zg1T7nzew7HpLFLieynnvJLKyXnED8.1 \nMeeting ID\n895 6665 6284\nPasscode\n344427 \n \n \n \n \n Meeting recording & transcript\n Meeting recording\n \nTranscript \nYeah. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Tony\, I think you just froze. Oh\, there we go! \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: Do you think I should put \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: the little \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: heads in the \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: screen. \nJenn Hyman | BCDC: or will? Can people see them. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: People will see them on their own screen if they have it set up that way. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Yeah. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: should we wait till 5 after? Or would you guys like to get started. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Can wait till kind of after. \nHarriet Ross | BCDC: Yeah\, I think we should wait. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Hey? Let’s get started. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Hello\, everyone! And welcome to the community meeting for the presentation on the Cargill Solar. \nspanish interpreter 1: Sea salt system\, maintenance and operation. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Permit and draft environmental assessment. \nspanish interpreter 1: But. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: My name is Phoenix Armenta\, with the San Francisco. \nspanish interpreter 1: Be. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Conservation and Development Commission or B. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cdc. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: This meeting has live translation in Spanish\, and this slide explains how to access the Spanish interpretation in Zoom \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: at the bottom of the screen in zoom. There should be a globe icon with the word interpretation under it. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: If you do not see this icon immediately\, it may be. \nspanish interpreter 1: Under this. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 3 dots. \nspanish interpreter 1: Labeled\, more. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Or \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: when you click on this you will have the option of selecting English or Spanish \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: choosing. \nspanish interpreter 1: Spanish. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Take you into a different channel with an interpreter translating. \nspanish interpreter 1: What is being said. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: English. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: If you’re having trouble with this\, please let us know by messing this. \nspanish interpreter 1: Message. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Us in the Q. And a. \nspanish interpreter 1: Area. \nspanish interpreter 1: I’ll give. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Folks a little time now. \nspanish interpreter 1: To figure this out. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I’d like to tell you about what we will cover in this meeting. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I want to 1st welcome everyone on this call\, and thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to participate in Bcdc’s work. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: We will next introduce you to the people in this presentation\, and provide an overview of Bcdc. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Then we will tell you about Cargill’s application for a permit from Bcdc. For operation and maintenance of their solar salt system and the environmental assessment document we have prepared on Cargill’s activities. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: At the end\, we will take questions and comments on the environmental assessment. The draft environmental. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Assessment can be down. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: From Bcdc’s website\, and is currently. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Help\, for public comment. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Our speakers tonight start with. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Myself. Phoenix Armenta. I’m the senior manager for climate\, equity\, and community engagement. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Following me will be Suzanne von Rosenberg of Gaia\, consulting. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The preparer of the environmental assessment. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Our Spanish translators. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: In the Spanish. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Armory. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And Christian from focus\, interpreting. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: On the Bcdc. Team. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Have Harriet Ross\, our Bcdc. Regular. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Tory director. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Julie. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Gary. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bcdc. Bay Resources Program Manager\, Sam Fielding\, BC. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: DC. Permit and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Analysts. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And Jen Hyman. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From a Bcdc. Scene. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Senior engineer. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Yeah. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: On the Cargill team. We have Connie Lee\, who’s a senior land management engineer. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Don Brown\, from? Who’s the lead? \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Andreese. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Sources\, manager. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And Matt Pitcher\, a solar plant manager. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: representatives from the BC. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Cdc. Per. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Student team. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And Cargill are. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Available\, following the presentation as needed to answer questions. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: The Mission of the San Francisco. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Go\, bay\, concert. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Development Commission is to Protect. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Fact and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Enhance San Francisco Bay and encourage. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bay is responsible and protective use for this and future generations. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: So what does Bcd. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: He do? \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bcdc. Is a. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Great agency with. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I’m reading. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Authority for projects in and. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Long. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The San Francisco Bay. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Cdc enforce. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Is the bait. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Plans. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pom\, pom. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Which records. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Guys the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Unique value of the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: All ponds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bcdc. And. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Forces\, other policy. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Policies\, include. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Including those that require projects. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To incorporate public access to the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bay\, sea\, level\, rise up. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Adaptation\, safety\, environmental justice\, and protection of natural. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Resource. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: This. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Bcdc. Has regular. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Tory. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Jurisdiction. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Over the bay itself. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 100. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Foot\, shoreline\, band \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: salt ponds\, and manage wetlands that cover. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 9 K. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Counties. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And over. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 40 cities that touch bay waters. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Outreach to adjacent community. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Is\, a. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Opponent. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The permitting process. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: In compliance. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: With the Bay plans. Environmental. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Justice\, and so. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Social equity policies. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: These maps show the vulnerable communities now. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Your car\, get. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Salt ponds\, which are filled. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Then in. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Like green. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The name. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Areas highlighted in purple. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Our communities\, of. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: High social vulnerability. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And high contamination. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: This includes parts of redwood. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: City \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: he’s called. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Which is adjacent to the pipeline. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And parts of. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Newark\, which are. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Indicated as socially vulnerable. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Took special care to reach out to community. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Organ. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Nations. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: These communities as well. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: As tribal\, representative. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: There was. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: They’re on our mailing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: List for the project. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: We have. We have added Spanish translation translators for our community meetings. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Specifically for these local communities. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Public outreach activities\, conduct. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To date\, and so. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Port of the Perm. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And applicant. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: In the environment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Mental assault. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Include. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Thinks. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Hoping notices for the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Draft of the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Ea. In the newspaper. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Direct Mailing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Said to call. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Argil neighbours. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: We conducted. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Tribal. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Reach to the list. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Provided by the native American. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Heritage. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Commission. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And in 2020 and 2024. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Year 4 tribes responded\, and we were. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Working on. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Up a meeting with one. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of the tribes. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: In 2\,021\, over. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 400 notices were sent out to get public comments on the draft. Ea \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Ecrb meetings have been. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Held in 23. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 2\, 2\,023\, and the 3rd is coming up on September. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: 11.th \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Next week. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Virtual community meetings are held. We’re held. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Similar to this one in 2\,023. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Few months ago over 2\,000 notices were sent out. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: For the research. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Related draft ea plus. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Emails. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: To an extent. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Interested party list. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: A virtual community meeting on the draft. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Ea was held last night. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Oh\, sorry this. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Meeting is. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Serving as a community. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Meaning\, to. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Receive. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: But comment \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: based on the. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Activity. We feel that Cargill has been a model. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: For what meaningful. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: We need engagement. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Look like \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: now for here. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: I will pass it. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To Suzanne. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Thank you\, Phoenix. I’m now going to talk a little. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bit about. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Argo. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Its activity. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the Ea process and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The findings of the Ea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo currently. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Produces salt. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The shores of San Francisco Bay cargo. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Current Maintenance. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And operations. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities are ready. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Regulated by a ten-year. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Issued by Bcdc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: In 19. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 95. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Permit has been amended. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And extended numerous times. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And is set to expire at the end. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And of 20. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 24\, \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill is seeking a new ten-year permit. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To authorize their. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Activities. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Under. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Application\, 2\,021. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Point. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 0\, 0\, 3. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Point 0 0. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Salt plant. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: salt pond policies or. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: I can’t know. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That salt production is an economically important and productive use of waters of the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and also that salt is. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Important product. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: For the permit. Renewal. These. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Cdc is required to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Evaluate the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Potential App. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Virus and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Mental effects. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Of the activities of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Authorized in the permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Is the sequel leading. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Agency. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Because no law. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Call this. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Questionnaire. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Approved. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Rules are required. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bcdc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A draft environmental assessment\, and Ea to comply with. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Ceqa. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Assessing\, potential impact. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From cargo. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Maintenance\, and operate. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Racial act. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Draft Ea. Was initially published in April of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 2\,021. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Following the 2\,021 preparation. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of the drafting. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There were several. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Changes to the price. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Description. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Has updated. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: At the draft Ea\, and is now. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Circular \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: drafty. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To allow the public to review the changes to the project. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Description. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As Phoenix mentioned earlier\, the recirculated draft eas. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Been published. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Can be done. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Loaded from the BC. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: DC website. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: you can also view a hard copy. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: At the Bcd. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: DC. Office. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and the 30 day. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Public comment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Period\, ends. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: September 21.st \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: I wanted to go over a couple of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Special terms that relate to salt ponds. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A berm is a raised soil\, and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Like me. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Used to enclose a salt. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Aunt \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Brian. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Salt water. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Concentrated in the salt\, making process \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bmp. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These are best management\, practice. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Practices\, for environmental protection. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Crap is rock \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and or repurposed\, concrete\, placed on. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The side slope of a berm to prevent erosion from. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Waves. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ceqa. The. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Umpital. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Quality Act requires the assessment of potential environment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Impacts of a project. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And O. And M. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Refers to operations and maintenance. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo\, solar\, salt system. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Occupied. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ties 3 areas \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: in the southern part of San Francisco Bay. These areas. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Are referred to as plants. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Newark planned\, one. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Into. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Are located. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: East side of the bay. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And the Redwood City plan is located. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: On the west side of the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill’s proposed Salt Pond maintenance\, activity. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Include adding replacement. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Seeing and repeat. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Pairing soil\, filter\, fabric. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And rip rap on limited sections of. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Firms. They also include adding soil. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To burn. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And grading the tops. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: So. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Address\, erosion adapt to sea level\, rise. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And improve drivability. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: They further include\, maintain. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And replacing. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And first.st \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Structures\, such as pumps\, tide gates\, and platforms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Removing sediment and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pumping. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Intakes\, and installing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Screw. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: On one\, or. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pumps at their main bay\, water in. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Take on Alameda Creek. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Which is referred to as the Koya. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Intake. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the recirculated draft Ea. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: You. It’s the potential impacts of. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These maintenance and operation. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ea covers a broader scope than the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Existing. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo maintenance\, and off. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Permit\, and includes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And now. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Else is. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Serve. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Enough. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Operations. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Including pump. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Water from the bay into the ponds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Truck trips in and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Out of the plants \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and storage of highly saline brine and ponds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Adjacent to the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Now I’d like to show you. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: A little bit more. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Or about O. And M. Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One of the most important. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activity. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Is maintaining and repairing\, burn. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Rooms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The photograph. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Off on the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Right\, shows. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Repurpose. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Concrete rip wrap placed on. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Outboard slope of a. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Sing\, Sam. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Princess. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Bay. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: the Federal. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Graph. On the left. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Left. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Shows a rip. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Rep. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Here\, and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Progress. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As you can see\, the soil on the berm. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Been graded a black material. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Curious. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Called a filter fabric was placed over the soil to protect it\, and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And concrete. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Repurpose\, concrete. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Being placed over the filter. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Fabric to hold it in place\, and put. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Protect the slope against wave erosion. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: This photograph shows a picture. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Oh! \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One of the platforms. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: That Cargill uses to access equipment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: This one. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Used for tide gates. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As mentioned earlier\, Cargill. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Replacing fish screens on. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One or more. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pumps and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Their main \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: water into. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Like \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: called the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Coyote\, intake. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The photo. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Graphs on the right show the location. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of the coyote intake. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Top photograph shows the intake. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Looking. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: South across Alameda Creek. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Towards the intake. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Photograph. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: On the bar. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bottom\, right. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shows a view from the intake. Looking north towards. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Alameda Creek. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the photograph. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Left. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: shows. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Chronicle fish\, screens. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: These fish screens in the picture are located in the North Bay\, but are very. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Likely to be. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: but Cargill’s fish greens are very. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Likely to be similar to these fish. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shown in the photograph. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There are multiple benefits. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Of maintaining the solar salt system. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It provides. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Its habitat for numerous species of fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And wildlife. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and supports millions of wintering and migratory seabirds. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shorebirds and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Waterfowl. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: in addition to various special. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Status be. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Issues. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It also protects. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Approximately 20 miles of public access trails. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And salt pronds serve as. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Buffer from bay waves and tide. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: During storms \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the solar salts. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: System per. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Juices\, food grade. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: An industrial salt. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Products through. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Sustain. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Whole process. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And it provides. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It’s hundreds of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Jobs and other economic benefits. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To the region. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Ea incorporates numerous and. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Environmental protection. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Measures in the Ea. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To address. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Safeguard maintenance and operate. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Prior to performing work. Biological monitoring is performed where needed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To determine if special status. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s our present \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: best management practices. Avoid and minimize impacts to special status\, wildlife. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Species. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And sensitive habitat present in and around the salt ponds \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: as many. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pray. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Obviously Cargill will install fish screens for at least one of. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: It’s part. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Set the main bay water intake on Alameda. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Creek. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo will also. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: So conduct\, monitoring to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Assess the need. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: For fish\, protection. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Measures at other. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Makes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To avoid potential impact. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To special status\, fish space. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: cargo will further evaluate risk to Msa. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Pond. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Burns from wave overtopping and berm keying. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Gaia is leading the environmental. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Consistent with Bcdc’s process for. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Environmental review under Ceqa. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As discussed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Previous. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Obviously the. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Circulated draft. Ea. Is currently posted on the BC. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: DC website and the 30 day. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Public comment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Period. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: We’ll conclude. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And September 21st \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: common. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Received on the research. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Draft Ea will be considered in the final Ea Doc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A commission hearing will be held to consider the permit. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: But application \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: and final environmental assessment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: In late 20. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: 24. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Ea may be used by other State. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Agency. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To support their related. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: I made a. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 4 volts. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The key issues in the environmental assessment. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Relate to the potential effect. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Of maintenance activities. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Various. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s in. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Sensitive. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Habits. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: That within an. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Jason to the cargo. Solar salts. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: System. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As well as to the place. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And of Rip\, rapid. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: New locations along the output. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Firm slopes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Facing the bay. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: They also relate. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: To the potential effects of sea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Will rise. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And seismic events on Ms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Us\, for. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Integrity. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Environmental assessment. Also. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Addresses. Potential effects of. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Water into. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Taken. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Sediment removed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Hold on! \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Special status. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Fish\, species. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And the potential effects of maintenance. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Activities on. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cultural and tribal. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Shoulder. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Resources. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Potential effects on Air Quality. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Greenhouse. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Gas Emissions Noise. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Track. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And water quality were also evaluated. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: And our General. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Lisa. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Similar to current. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Conditions. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There are some limited changes. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: From the current. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill is making \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: made a change. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Just to its current. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Operations\, including installing. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: The fish screens. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: One or more problems as we’ve discussed. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and Cargill is also increasing its use of amphibious equipment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: which may substantially reduce. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Perhaps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Assault. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Marsh\, habitat. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Changed Environmental Conditions. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Too threatened\, or. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Endangered fish. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Issues. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Were listed. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: After. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo obtained its current permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and these spears. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: She’s have the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Potential to be present. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: In\, the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Project area. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Environmental conditions have also changed because fish passage for threatened species has been restored in Alameda. \nMaría Cecilia Delfino – Spanish Interpreter: Creek. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Most potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 9 potentially significant impacts were identified in the Ea 4 related to biological resources\, 3 related to cultural and tribal cultural resources. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: one related to geology\, soils\, and seismicity\, and one related to hydrology and water quality. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The Ea concluded that all potentially significant impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level with the mitigation included in the Ea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the proposed mitigation measures for biological resources \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: include minimization of the potential for brine seepage\, avoidance minimization and mitigation of impacts associated with the use of bay water intakes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: minimization of potential hydroacoustic impacts due to impact pile driving which would be required for the installation of fish screens \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to state or federally protected wetlands and waters of the State. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The mitigation measures to address. \nspanish interpreter 1: Potential impacts to cultural and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Tribal Culture. \nspanish interpreter 1: Resources. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Consist of response processes. \nspanish interpreter 1: For inadvertent. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Encounter of undiscovered archaeological. \nspanish interpreter 1: To Congress. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Sources\, human. \nspanish interpreter 1: And or. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Tribal and cultural resources \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: for geology\, soils and size. \nspanish interpreter 1: The city\, the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Requires evaluation and mitigation of. \nspanish interpreter 1: Potential effects of worm Keying. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Respect to hydrology and water quality. \nspanish interpreter 1: The Ea. Requires evaluation of the Mss. Pond. Firms vulnerable. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Ability due to wave\, run up and overtopping during. \nspanish interpreter 1: Storm\, events. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The next steps in the Ea process is that. \nspanish interpreter 1: Bcdc. Will continue to receive public. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Comments\, there’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: September 21.st \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And we will then consider and respond to public comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: Prepaid. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Share\, the final Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: And the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Commission will review the final Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: Consider the new permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The comment review process incorporates a number of steps. We’re going to transcribe verbal comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: Comments\, from. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Meeting recordings. \nspanish interpreter 1: We’ll come back. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Pile verbal and written comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: Identify. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Common theme. \nspanish interpreter 1: Is. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And then evaluate the need for modifications to the project. \nspanish interpreter 1: And our mitigation measures. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As a result of the comments\, will revise and finalize. \nspanish interpreter 1: The Ea\, with Modifications. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As needed\, and we’ll provide a list. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thing of comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Responses. \nspanish interpreter 1: To\, the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Comments. \nspanish interpreter 1: As an appendix to the Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: Comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Provided in Spanish\, will be translated. \nspanish interpreter 1: To English\, and addressed in English. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So to reiterate the next steps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or the continuation of the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Recirc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Related. \nspanish interpreter 1: Draft\, ea. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Public comment period which. \nspanish interpreter 1: Ends on the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 21st of. \nspanish interpreter 1: September. \nspanish interpreter 1: will publish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The final Ea. \nspanish interpreter 1: December of 2\,024. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And the Bcdc. Commission will hold a hearing on. \nspanish interpreter 1: The permit up. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Occasion. \nspanish interpreter 1: And review. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You the final Ea also\, in December. \nspanish interpreter 1: 2\,024. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So now we’d love to hear your comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You can provide verbal comment. \nspanish interpreter 1: Today you can provide written comments. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Stood. \nspanish interpreter 1: In the Q. And a. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Can also provide written comments by 5 Pm. \nspanish interpreter 1: In on September. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 21st to Sam Field. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or by mail. \nspanish interpreter 1: To Bcdc. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cannot. \nspanish interpreter 1: Accept comments\, by telephone. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: There are additional opportunities for public. \nspanish interpreter 1: They call it. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Related to the pro. \nspanish interpreter 1: Process. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Or verbal comments on the proposed permit may be provided. \nspanish interpreter 1: To Sam Fielding at BC. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cdc. At any. \nspanish interpreter 1: Time. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Until the Commission’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: Consideration of the permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Bcdc. Engineering criteria review board meeting. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thing will be. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Held on September. \nspanish interpreter 1: 7th to this. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Us Mss. Part. \nspanish interpreter 1: On firms. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Stability issues. The public can attend and come. \nspanish interpreter 1: And at that meeting. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: As mentioned on the previous slide\, the Commission will meet to consider. \nspanish interpreter 1: The final Ea \nspanish interpreter 1: and permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: In December. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of 20. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: 24\, the public can attend and comment\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: That meeting as well. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You can also contact Sam Fielding at Bcdc. \nspanish interpreter 1: Did you get. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Put on. \nspanish interpreter 1: Interested. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Party list. \nspanish interpreter 1: To get like. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Electronic\, notice. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of all public meetings on the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargo permit. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Interpretation is available for individual. \nspanish interpreter 1: Preferring to comment. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: The language of the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Than inch. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And with that I’m going to turn it back over to Phoenix. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Okay\, so we are welcoming public comments now. If you would like. \nspanish interpreter 1: Like to give public comment. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: You have 3 min to speak. \nspanish interpreter 1: So in the zoom. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Can raise your hand\, or you can put your questions in the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Q. And a. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And if you are on the phone you can press Star 9\, \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: and I see we already have. \nspanish interpreter 1: One ring. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Is \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: so. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Oh\, I didn’t see who it was. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Was I wrong that somebody raised their hand. \nspanish interpreter 1: Oh\, looks like Karen! \nspanish interpreter 1: How did you. \nHarriet Ross | BCDC: Karen’s hand is raised\, or \nHarriet Ross | BCDC: that went down again. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alright. I see Karen Hi. \nCarin High: I’m I’m sorry the Q. And a function is not enabled. \nCarin High: and this may be more appropriate as a question I don’t have. I haven’t spent enough time with the Ea. To make any. \nspanish interpreter 1: It’s. \nCarin High: Public statements about it. I do have questions of clarification\, and I don’t know if that’s something. \nspanish interpreter 1: Should do directly with. \nCarin High: Sam\, or if I can ask them tonight. \nspanish interpreter 1: Right. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: You can ask them tonight\, and we’ll answer as best we can\, and we may have to follow up. \nCarin High: Okay. For example\, table 2. \nspanish interpreter 1: 8? Where? \nCarin High: You’re discussing. \nspanish interpreter 1: Projected annual average. \nCarin High: Maintenance\, activity. \nspanish interpreter 1: Quantity. \nCarin High: I just need to know what the range is\, because in some columns you have. \nspanish interpreter 1: 2 figures\, so. \nCarin High: Operated by a slow. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fashion. \nCarin High: Others\, you. \nspanish interpreter 1: Have 3. And so I’m trying. \nCarin High: To figure out what. \nspanish interpreter 1: Is\, the. \nCarin High: Figure. \nspanish interpreter 1: That you’re. \nCarin High: Actually. \nspanish interpreter 1: Drinking. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So the slashes actually are referring. \nspanish interpreter 1: To. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Different measurements\, so. \nspanish interpreter 1: We’ll have. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Linear\, feet. \nspanish interpreter 1: Square feet. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Read \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: well\, so we’ll usually have a. \nspanish interpreter 1: Distance\, or. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Iracy. \nspanish interpreter 1: You. So that’s. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Flashes referred to\, and they follow in the order that. \nspanish interpreter 1: But \nspanish interpreter 1: those. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Are listed all the on the left. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can call. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Of the table. \nCarin High: Okay. \nspanish interpreter 1: I see that now I slash. Lf\, yeah. \nCarin High: Okay? And so when you’re saying 390 linear feet. \nCarin High: Cubic Yards. \nspanish interpreter 1: How does? \nCarin High: That equate to the 390 Lin. \nspanish interpreter 1: Here. \nCarin High: 8. \nspanish interpreter 1: Are you saying. \nCarin High: That you can put all the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cubicy are. \nCarin High: I’m assuming. \nspanish interpreter 1: You’re not anticipating. \nCarin High: Baiting pudding on. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of that volume at this. \nCarin High: Locate. \nspanish interpreter 1: But I’m. \nCarin High: Not sure. \nspanish interpreter 1: How you look at the distribution and \nspanish interpreter 1: and it’s. \nCarin High: Important to us to under. \nspanish interpreter 1: Understand\, how. \nCarin High: Far out into the bay\, and how. \nspanish interpreter 1: Deep. You’re. \nCarin High: Going with the Riprap. So I’m just trying to get. \nspanish interpreter 1: And and. \nCarin High: Standing of that. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So for that we would we would probably be better off. \nspanish interpreter 1: Discussing that \nspanish interpreter 1: in. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Separately. \nspanish interpreter 1: Because we’re getting into. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Some detail\, press. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Quantities we provided. \nspanish interpreter 1: Your feet\, and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Volume of. \nspanish interpreter 1: Rip rap\, but we didn’t. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Specify a square footage. \nspanish interpreter 1: So we would. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: We’d have to go back. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That specifically with you. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: I don’t have that top of mind for all the different. \nspanish interpreter 1: Items. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So\, okay. \nCarin High: And I guess the second question I’ll ask tonight\, and that may be it for tonight. \nspanish interpreter 1: Because I need. \nCarin High: Sit with. \nspanish interpreter 1: But. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish\, green. \nCarin High: Issue. \nspanish interpreter 1: Who. \nCarin High: Right now. \nspanish interpreter 1: The proposal\, as I understand. \nCarin High: And oh\, yeah. \nspanish interpreter 1: Actually have to. \nCarin High: Questions. \nCarin High: 1st of all\, difference between. \nspanish interpreter 1: Bay\, water\, pump. \nCarin High: And intake pump? Are they the same. \nspanish interpreter 1: And they’re just named different. \nCarin High: Currently for some reason. \nspanish interpreter 1: And are. \nCarin High: Do they does that. \nspanish interpreter 1: But. \nCarin High: Is that associated. \nspanish interpreter 1: With volume\, so. \nCarin High: Water pump. Why\, in the figures. \nspanish interpreter 1: Where we look at pump\, logo. \nCarin High: Along the sloughs are some labeled. \nspanish interpreter 1: Water\, pump. \nCarin High: And others intake pumps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: They would all be taking in bay water. So that that’s more of a labeling issue\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: How \nspanish interpreter 1: probably car. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Has referred to them traditionally. \nspanish interpreter 1: Okay\, and. \nCarin High: I \nCarin High: I’m just curious about how. \nspanish interpreter 1: It was a. \nCarin High: Arrived at that. \nspanish interpreter 1: But \nCarin High: The only significant impact to \nCarin High: fish in terms of fish screen. \nspanish interpreter 1: Would. \nCarin High: At Kai. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cody\, coyote. \nCarin High: Slew or the Alameda County Flood Control Channel. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That that’s actually not what the conclusion was\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So Cargill is committed to putting. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Screen\, on. \nspanish interpreter 1: Screens\, on. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: At least. \nspanish interpreter 1: Least one. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: At the coyote intake\, and then for the other. \nspanish interpreter 1: Intakes\, cargo \nspanish interpreter 1: will be conducting. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: A month. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Program. \nspanish interpreter 1: That will be. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Approved by the resource agencies to evaluate the need. \nspanish interpreter 1: 8. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Additional Food. \nspanish interpreter 1: Protect. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Measures. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So at this point. \nspanish interpreter 1: The Ea does not require additional. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Kiss. \nspanish interpreter 1: Because it hasn’t been established\, at least. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: She’s our present. \nspanish interpreter 1: At the other intakes. \nspanish interpreter 1: And so that’s. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Basically. \nspanish interpreter 1: What we’re looking for is more information. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And then the response. \nspanish interpreter 1: That’s appropriate to that additional information. That’s. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Gathered. \nCarin High: It’s just interesting\, because. \nspanish interpreter 1: The South Bay. It just seems like it’s almost assumed that there are going to. \nCarin High: Be. \nspanish interpreter 1: To fisheries when you have intake pumps\, and so. \nCarin High: So I was just trying to get a sense of how that was. \nspanish interpreter 1: To do. \nCarin High: But I guess we’ll have to. \nspanish interpreter 1: Put that into our. \nCarin High: Ments \nCarin High: and and. \nspanish interpreter 1: Is. \nCarin High: So you don’t have any feedback from nymphs or Cdfw. At this point. \nspanish interpreter 1: In time regarding the need for fish screens. \nCarin High: On! \nspanish interpreter 1: More. \nCarin High: The identified \nCarin High: pump intake areas. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So we have a detailed mitigation measure. That’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: Speaks to fish per. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Protection. \nspanish interpreter 1: At all of the intakes. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: the \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: so\, for in so effectively \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: for intakes that are on screen\, there are a series. \nspanish interpreter 1: Of steps. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That Cargill can implement in order to address. \nspanish interpreter 1: Potential and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Pats with the unscreened intakes. So Cargill can either provide documentation. \nspanish interpreter 1: That’s acceptable to their. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Resource agencies that \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: sensitive species are unlikely to be present at the time when. \nspanish interpreter 1: Water. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Taken in at those into. \nspanish interpreter 1: And that varies by intake. The pumping. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And is different. \nspanish interpreter 1: For some of the intakes. \nspanish interpreter 1: Alternative. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Lee \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: cargo. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can provide. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Okay\, so cargo can document that \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: fish. \nspanish interpreter 1: Not the. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Impacted also through showing. \nspanish interpreter 1: That sweep \nspanish interpreter 1: and. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That that the velocities related to the fish screens would not likely affect. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: That the velocities at the intakes would not be likely to entreat. \nspanish interpreter 1: Fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And then. \nspanish interpreter 1: If. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Cargill can’t demonstrate that either the. \nspanish interpreter 1: Species are unlikely to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Be present. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or that the velocity. \nspanish interpreter 1: Into. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Velocities are unlikely to affect the fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: then the last step is to either. \nspanish interpreter 1: Do additional fish? \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Protection\, with. \nspanish interpreter 1: Could be fish. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Trains\, but there could also be. \nspanish interpreter 1: Other options. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: And \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: or provide compensatory mitigation. So there’s a tier. \nspanish interpreter 1: Approach. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To addressing \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: fish impacts from unscreened intakes. We’re in. \nspanish interpreter 1: Not. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Suggesting. \nspanish interpreter 1: Nothing needs to. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: To be done by any means. \nspanish interpreter 1: Okay\, thank you. I don’t want a monopoly. \nCarin High: Place of time\, so \nCarin High: I’ll be in touch with Sam. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thank you. \nspanish interpreter 1: Sounds good. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Alright. I don’t see any more hands raised. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: Actually\, Karen\, Hi would like to speak again. \nCarin High: I just have a quick question\, and. \nspanish interpreter 1: And made. \nCarin High: Be. This isn’t appropriate here. But I had been seeing the bitter. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nCarin High: Brian transfer proposal with Ebda\, and that. \nspanish interpreter 1: Seems to be on a \nspanish interpreter 1: more delayed time track now. \nCarin High: I thought. \nspanish interpreter 1: But I. \nCarin High: Saw a figure\, and I. \nspanish interpreter 1: Can’t find. \nCarin High: It now where that was kind of called out. \nspanish interpreter 1: As a set. \nCarin High: Brit. \nspanish interpreter 1: Project\, but. \nCarin High: Are there still \nCarin High: maintenance activities that would be. \nspanish interpreter 1: Cover. \nCarin High: This project in terms of ensuring that you know the levies are going to. \nCarin High: Void\, they will be resistant to overtopping. \nspanish interpreter 1: And. \nCarin High: Spillage of bittern. Is that still a component of the O. And M. Or are you looking to. \nspanish interpreter 1: Address that more through the Epta Project. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: So that’s a really good question\, Karen. So the Epta Project is focused on removing the Ms. \nspanish interpreter 1: Assess from the ponds. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: This operations in May. \nspanish interpreter 1: Men’s pro. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: It is focused on maintaining the firms. That’s. \nspanish interpreter 1: Around the ponds. \nspanish interpreter 1: Okay\, I think that act. \nCarin High: That answers. \nspanish interpreter 1: Thank you! \nCarin High: Thank you. \nMargie Malan\, BCDC HOST: I believe that’s all we have\, Suzanne. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Alright. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Well\, with that \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: I’ll turn it back over to Phoenix to close the meeting. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Alright! Thank you all for joining us. \nspanish interpreter 1: This evening. We really appreciate. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: You! You’re. \nspanish interpreter 1: Tenants in your. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: Comment. \nspanish interpreter 1: It’s. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: And we. \nspanish interpreter 1: Up\, to. \nPhoenix Armenta | BCDC: See more. \nspanish interpreter 1: From you in the future. Thank you. \nSusanne von Rosenberg\, GAIA Consulting\, Inc.: Thanks. \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-4-2024-community-meeting-for-the-cargill-solar-salt-system-draft-ea/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240904T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240904T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240716T205250Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240910T181626Z UID:10000187-1725444000-1725451200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:September 4\, 2024 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting agenda \nUnderstanding impacts of bay sand mining on transport in San Francisco Bay presentation \nPublic comment letter \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting recording & transcript\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nLet everyone in\, OK? \nIt looks to me like we have our independent science panel \nmembers who were planning to be here and it looks like we have \nthe full just double checking complement of the sand mining \ncommunity members. \nSo and then we have quite a few members of the public interested \nparties. \nThank you all for joining. \nSo I think we are ready to get started when you are Pat. \nOK\, well\, I’m\, I’m certainly ready. \nMy name’s Pat Showalter\, and I’m ABCDC Commissioner and the chair \nof this sand mining subgroup. \nAnd I want to welcome everybody to this educational meeting and \nwe’re gonna hear 2 great presentations and also have time \nfor questions. \nSo with that\, I’ll I’ll let Brenda talk about our ground \nrules. \nYeah\, Thanks\, Pat\, and welcome everyone. \nSo for those of you who have been here before\, you know the \nground rules\, but basically this is a fairly open forum to \ndiscuss and learn about the sand mining studies that we’ve been \nworking on for the last\, I guess\, three to five years\, a \nlong time and are grateful for all the work that folks have \nbeen doing. \nSo if you want to join in the conversation\, you’re welcome to \ndo so. \nThe way the meeting will run is we’ll have a presentation\, we’ll \nhave a moment for the OR period of time for the sand miners to \nprovide comments on the presentations. \nWe will move to commissioner questions or thoughts. \nAnd at that point in time\, if you have things that you would \nlike to add or questions\, please feel free to raise your hand and \nwe’ll call on you. \nWe do have a schedule we’re trying to stick to so we can get \nto both presentations today\, but I think we have plenty of time \nand there is a public comment period at the very end if you’d \nlike to make a statement of public comment beyond just \ndiscussion and questions. \nAnd I’m going to quickly just jump into my very quick \nobligatory presentation for contact setting for folks who \nmay not have been here. \nI will do that hopefully quickly because I think most of you have \nseen this before\, but just to make sure everybody is on the \nsame page and\, and I just need to find my presenter mode real \nquick\, which\, ah\, there it is. \nIt’s moved. \nOK\, All right\, so we are here today. \nI’ve got the wrong date on my calendar on my cover sheet\, but \nwe are today on September 4th to talk about the sand mining \nstudies. \nWhere we’ve been so far is back in 2015 as part of the BCDC \npermitting process. \nLinden Martin Marionetta\, which was formerly Hanson Aggregates\, \nprovided $1.2 million to study sand mining impacts on the \ncommunity\, excuse me\, on the Bay\, not the community\, sorry. \nWe formed a Sand Technical Advisory Committee\, which was \nmade-up primarily of the regulatory and resource \nagencies. \nHowever\, Baykeeper and the Coastal Commission\, which is not \na Regulatory agency in this setting\, but a commenter\, joined \nthe group because of their high interest in the studies and \npotential effects of mining. \nSo that group looked at management\, develop management \nquestions\, did study scope development\, posted a request \nfor proposals and reviewed proposals. \nWe also have our very esteemed independent science panel\, which \nthree members are here today. \nSo we have Craig Jones from Integral\, we have Bob Battaglio\, \nformerly of Environmental Sciences Associate. \nWe have Dave Scholhammer\, USGS Emeritus. \nAnd we also had Paul Work\, who was also of USUSGS at the time\, \nand also John Lazier\, who’s the Director of Oceanography at the \nBodega Marine Lab\, University of Davis. \nThey reviewed the proposals\, revised the scope because \nthey’re\, as the proposals came in\, there was some clear ways \nthat we could make more efficient and coordinated \nstudies. \nWe identified this\, they identified the science teams and \nworked with the teams as they completed the studies. \nAnd then they developed the findings report with Santech. \nCurrently\, we are in a commissioner working group. \nWe’re on the third of four to try to help the commissioners \nground themselves in science and this group is providing \nleadership to the larger Commission. \nOur next steps are the Sequa NEPA process with State Lands \nCommission and potentially the Army Corps of Engineers on NEPA \nand then permitting through the various agencies. \nAnd so the study questions that we were working to address are \nlisted here. \nI’ll just read the overview questions of sand mining at \nexisting lease areas at permitted levels having a \nmeasurable or demonstratable impact on sediment transport and \nsupply within San Francisco Bay. \nWhat are the anticipated physical effects of sand mining \nat permitted levels on sand transport and supply within San \nFrancisco Bay in the outer coast? \nAnd are there other feasible alternatives to sand mining or \napproaches to consider in San Francisco Bay? \nThe studies focused on the physical processes. \nThe biological issues are associated with other studies \nand investigations\, some of which have been completed and \nothers are in the literature. \nAnd so I’ll just move on from here to our next slide. \nSo quickly just reminding us of the lease areas. \nSo Martin Marionetta is the primary or only minor within \nCentral San Francisco Bay. \nThe areas in purple are the lease areas. \nThere are four lease areas with 9 parcels. \nThis lease area in Raccoon Strait is not mined. \nThe leases are from State Lands Commission in this case and the \nmajority of the sand mined in this area is primarily coarse \ngrain. \nThere is also fine grain sand that is mined primarily here. \nPresidio Shoals area. \nAnd then the Sassoon lease is the other primary mining site in \nthis project. \nSo this is mined by Sassoon Associates\, which is a \ncombination of Martin Marianetta and Linda Marine. \nThe mining in this area is up to 45 deep feet deep. \nIt is again a lease from California State lands and it is \nprimarily fine grain sand. \nThat’s where most of the mining occurs. \nAnd the last lease area\, which has the smallest amount of \nmining at this point in time is Middle Ground Shoal lease area. \nIt is mined primarily by Linde Marine. \nThis area is up to 30 feet deep. \nIt’s adjacent to an island\, a very small island called Middle \nGround Island. \nIt’s a private lease. \nAnd this is\, again\, fine grain sand. \nThe equipment used is hydraulic dredging. \nSo Martin Maria has a suction dredge piece of equipment. \nHere is the drag head for Martin Marionetta’s equipment. \nAnd Linde Marine uses a suction pipe\, slightly different \nequipment\, both hydraulic and both are equipped with a fish \nscreen on the outside of the pumping mechanisms to reduce \nentrainment. \nIt’s important to frame the mining activities in that this \nmining is done primarily well\, actually 100% for construction \naggregate\, aggregate. \nIt is not done for navigation dredging. \nSo this is not a navigation. \nThese are not navigation projects. \nIt’s not generally considered a beneficial reuse because \nbeneficial reuse is generally considered a waste product \nthat’s being reused for other purposes. \nIt occurs year round and there are no work windows\, but the \nfish screens that I mentioned previously reduce entrainment \nwith the on the intake pumps. \nSo the mining basically occurs on an as needed basis in both or \nall three projects an order is filled with the grain size that \nis required for the jobs. \nAnd so in this industry\, the sand mining closely follows the \nconstruction industry and trends and mining tends to be repeated \nin the same areas\, in the same on the same lease areas because \nof this need for a specific grain size. \nIn the last two meetings\, we had four presentations. \nThe first one was the independent Science panel’s \nfindings report\, the overview of the findings. \nAnd then we had University of Texas at Austin provide San \nProvidence and Aging report. \nDelterra’s last meeting did a volumetric change analysis and \ntransport presentation and San Francisco Estuary Institute \nprovided a sediment and sand budget review of their work. \nToday we have basically two more. \nI think these are our final studies if I’ve got that \ncorrect. \nSo is sand mining at existing leases at permitted levels \nhaving a measurable or demonstratable impact on sand \ntransport with San within San Francisco Bay? \nSo Michael McWilliams\, formerly of Anchor QEA and Brian Beaver \nworked on this document and they have the sand transport modeling \nreport and presentation. \nAnd the second presentation today is same question but \nlooking at more or less sand supply and the changes within \nthe bethemetery of San Francisco Bay. \nAnd that will be presented by Bruce Jaffe\, formerly of US \nGeologic Survey and he is retired but back for on demand. \nI’ve had a few questions from folks about where to find past \ninformation\, so I just thought I’d try to briefly run you \nthrough where you can find this on the website. \nToday is September 4th. \nOur last planned meeting is November 22nd\, right before the \nThanksgiving holidays\, so we’ll hope you all be there. \nThis is a snapshot of BCD CS landing page on our website. \nTo find the old meetings\, you go to meetings and then you toggle \non down. \nIf I can get my computer to share it to the meeting area and \nyou can look at it in a list view or a calendar view\, but you \ngo to the date where the meeting was. \nAnd if you click on that\, that should get you to this page \nwhere you’ll find the agenda and the presentations. \nAnd for August 21st\, we don’t yet have the transcripts up\, but \nthere will be a transcript of all of the meetings. \nSo you can actually watch the meeting if you missed it. \nSo that is my quick context setting. \nI’m gonna stop sharing and turn it back over to you\, Pat. \nThank you. \nAll right\, so next\, do we have any? \nFirst of all\, do we have any questions related to this \ncontext setting from the commissioners? \nThis Andy or Barry\, do you have a question? \nOK\, seeing none what about other people who are participants? \nWe have 42 right now Wow\, that’s great wonderful interest. \nI’m looking for raised hands. \nOK. \nAnd I’m not seeing any. \nSo I think Kat\, is that correct? \nCorrect me if that’s not anyway. \nSo I think that what’s what that means is we want to go on to the \nmain presentations for this meeting. \nWhat are the impacts of sand mining on on sand and transport? \nAnd Michael McWilliams of Flow W is going to I know Michael \nMcWilliams is going to make a presentation and after that we \nwill hear from the sand miners. \nSo Michael\, would you like to get started? \nGreat\, thank you. \nPat\, let me share my screen here\, hopefully. \nOK\, does everybody see that? \nOK\, yes\, OK\, perfect. \nSo this is a study that I did a couple years ago while I was at \nAnchor QEA with Aaron Beaver\, and I’m just gonna give kind of \na high level summary of what we did with the hydrodynamic and \nsediment transport modeling. \nI think it’s really great that Bruce is following this \npresentation with some of his work looking at longer term \nbathymetric data sets because we’re both kind of asking and \ntrying to answer the same question with two different \nlines of evidence and really kind of looking at two different \ntime scales. \nSo the computer model is really looking at a one year time frame \nto understand\, you know\, what’s happening where the sediment’s \nmoving on a\, you know\, shorter time scale. \nAnd then\, you know\, we’ll see from some of the work that Bruce \nis gonna talk about with the longer term cumulative effects \nof that is looking at the longer term bathymetric change record. \nBecause from a\, from a modeling standpoint\, it becomes not as \ncomputationally feasible to look at\, say 30 years of change\, but \nwe can look at\, you know\, individual years of change. \nAnd so one of the things I think that was really great about \nthis\, the way the Stan study was structured in general\, is there \nwere a whole bunch of different scientific studies using \ndifferent approaches to try and answer different parts of the \nsame question. \nAnd then\, you know\, we can learn a lot from how those different \napproaches corroborate or or don’t corroborate each other. \nSo the\, the focus of the presentation today is going to \nbe on the sediment transport modeling that we did for\, for \nBCDC as part of this SAN studies. \nSo I’ll begin by reviewing the model scenarios and the analysis \napproach and then I’ll talk about the results both in \nSassoon Bay and Central Bay. \nAnd then I’ll give kind of a synthesis of what the the \nprimary findings of the the modeling are. \nSo first talking about the sediment transport model \nsimulation. \nSo we have a A3 dimensional hydrodynamic sediment transport \nmorphologic wave model that we’ve developed over the last \nalmost 25 years now of of San Francisco Bay that extends from \nPoint Reyes out here in the Pacific Ocean all the way \nthrough all of San Francisco Bay and the Delta. \nIt includes\, you know\, all of the main Delta tributary \ninflows. \nIt includes the temporary barriers and operable gates in \nthe in the Delta and includes all the different agricultural \ndiversions representative of agricultural diversions and \nreturn flows. \nAnd then as part of this study\, we used the work that SFBI had \ndone on looking at all the inflows to the Bay and we added \nall these blue arrows around the Bay or different small tributary \nwith sediment inflows that we added to the Bay because we \nwanted to incorporate all of the potential sediment sources. \nThe model runs with the tides at the ocean boundary and then we \nhave\, you know\, water and sediment coming in from from all \nof these these tributaries. \nWe have an initial sediment bed in the Bay that we’ve developed. \nI think there’s about 3000 or so different sediment samples \naround the Bay that we’ve spatially interpreted\, spatially \ninterpolated to get the initial grain size. \nAnd then we have used various different information on grain \nsize from the the tributaries to figure out and estimate what the \ngrain size of the sediment coming in from each of the \ntributaries are. \nAnd then lastly\, we looked at the data from the sand mining to \nunderstand what the\, the sediment properties of the sand \nfrom the sediment mining was. \nAs all this doc\, all this information is documented in \nthe\, the modelling report that we provided to BCDC and the\, \nthe\, the\, the sand mining panel. \nSo I think if you want any additional details on\, on some \nof this\, a lot of that is\, is documented in that\, in that \nreport. \nSo we run this model for with a 92nd time step. \nSo it cycles through\, you know\, every 90 seconds it calculates \nall of the\, the transport of water and salinity and sediment \nacross the whole Bay delta system. \nAnd then this incorporates the effect of winds and tides and \nall of that in into the model simulations. \nSo the goal of the model scenarios was to investigate how \nsand mining effects sand transport. \nAnd So what we did to do this is we developed basically 2 sets of \nparallel conditions. \nThe first is basically the existing bathymetry based on the \nsurveys we have from after the sand mining was completed. \nBasically all of the existing bathymetric surveys are \nrepresentative of the conditions with sand mining. \nAnd then we wanted to come up with an estimate of what the Bay \nwould look like if we didn’t have sand mining. \nAnd since we are simulating one year of simulations\, what we did \nis we developed a kind of an alternative condition where we \nadded back the amount of sediment equivalent to the \nannual volume of sand mined from the Central Bay and from Sassoon \nBay. \nSo essentially we got all the records from the sand mining for \nfor where the sediment was mined with the sediment material was \nand we basically added that material back into the Bay. \nAnd that does two things that\, that that affect the\, the \ntransport #1 any\, you know\, when you add that sand back\, any \ndepressions or\, you know\, deepened areas that are there \nbecause the mining occurred\, you’re putting sediment back \ninto that spot. \nAnd #2 you have that sediment then back on the surface of the \nbed\, which is able to move around. \nAnd so we wanted to look at specifically what happened to \nthat sediment that was mined when we put it back. \nWhere did it transport? \nAnd then\, so we tracked that sediment different from all the \nother sediment. \nAnd then we also wanted to just look at the total amount of sand \ntransport. \nBasically\, if we had that sand\, that sediment back in the Bay \nand we simulated a wet year and a dry year\, how how different is \nthe sand transport? \nAnd you know how big is the signal of where the transport is \ndifferent because you added that sediment back or\, or you or you \ndidn’t. \nSo you kind of have basically 2\, two different conditions. \nThat one is that it’s a little bit\, in some ways a little bit \ncounterintuitive to get to get your head around. \nBut the existing condition is with site and sand mining. \nAnd then the kind of the artificial condition that we \ndeveloped this scenario is the without\, without sand mining. \nAnd we tried as as much as we could to represent the grain \nsize and spatial distribution of the the sediment that we added \nback. \nSo by by running a wet year and a dry year with these two \ndifferent geometries\, which are only different by\, you know\, \nadding that sediment back into the central Bay and adding that \nsediment back into Sassoon Bay\, we can evaluate where that \nsediment that was mined was transported over that year. \nWe can compare changes in the in the\, the thickness of the \nsediment bed between the two scenarios. \nAnd we can also look at it any given cross section\, how much \nsediment passed through that cross section. \nSo if we put that sediment back into the mining area\, does it \nchange the transport of sediment\, you know\, upstream or \ndownstream from there? \nSo they’re kind of pretty focused questions looking at you \nknow on on the time scale of one year what what was happening. \nSo we looked at two different years. \nWe looked at a wet year and we looked at the period between \nJune 2018 to June 2019. \nAnd we looked at a critical year\, which is the driest of the \nfive water year classifications in California between June 14th \nand June 2014 and June 2015. \nAnd these periods were picked partly due to the availability \nof data on the sand mining that occurred in those years and \npartly just to to capture a wet year and a dry year. \nSo you can see here in the wet year this is showing the delta \noutflow in thousand CFS. \nWe see very high outflows in you know\, 175\,000 CFS in the the \nsummer and then in the dry year the the peak was just over \n50\,000 CFS and it was relatively small. \nSo we can see a very big difference in the total amount \nof of water flow in the wet year and in the dry year. \nAnd then you know\, there’s an associated difference in the \nsediment supply from those those two different years at all. \nSo for each of these conditions\, we simulated the baseline \ncondition\, which is basically you know how conditions are \nright now with the historic sand mining that happened in that \n2018-2019 and then the the baseline conditions for the 2014 \nto 2015. \nAnd then we have the equivalent scenarios for both of those \nwhere we’ve taken the the initial bathymetry and added \nback\, you know\, a one year annual amount of of settlement \nthat was mine. \nSo this shows the differences in the two scenarios. \nSo basically this is an estimate of the amount that was that was \nadded back for the mining. \nI think this is for the wet year. \nSo you can see basically here that just here in Central Bay \nadding sediment back primarily\, you know\, in in these these two \nareas here. \nAnd then there’s some sediment added back here along Ships \nIsland in Tassoon Bay and a tiny bit here at this middle ground \nShoal lease area. \nSo from a computer modelling standpoint\, everything about \nthese two scenarios is exactly the same. \nThe tides are the same\, the winds are the same\, the waves \nare the same. \nThe only difference is in one of them we’ve added back this \nadditional sediment to the to the model and the other one is\, \nis without that sediment. \nSo we can then run the this computer simulation for a year \nand we can understand how the transport of of sediment is \ndifferent whether or not that that sediment is put back in. \nSo we’ll go through the the two different areas separately\, \nfirst Sassoon Bay and then Central Bay. \nSo this is the the same kind of figure we just looked at here. \nFor Sassoon Bay. \nThis is showing the sand that’s added back into the model before \nthe initial simulation and then this shows at the end of the one \nyear. \nWhere that sand was transported. \nSo in the high outflow year\, we can see the sand that was \ninitially put here is largely transported\, you know\, back and \nforth in the the main ship channel there’s a little bit of \neastward transport. \nPast Chips Island\, there’s transport in Sassoon Bay and \nthen generally the\, there’s\, we weren’t seeing very much \ntransport at all of that sediment from Sassoon Bay past \nthe Bulls Head Shoal over here at\, at Carquena Straight. \nSo one of the things that that you do see\, you know\, there’s a\, \nthere tends to be a convergence area of sediment here because \nyou have the deeper\, the deeper area here in Carquena Straight\, \nyou get some gravitational circulation and\, and return \ncurrents near the bed. \nAnd then in the low out flow year\, the picture looks pretty \nsimilar. \nGenerally a lot less transport of that sediment away from the \nthe sand mining areas. \nBut one thing that you can see from this is that the\, you know\, \nthe effect of the sand mining in Sassoon Bay over this one year. \nIs pretty localized to\, you know\, this\, this main channel \narea of Sassoon Bay. \nIt’s not\, it’s not having an effect upstream very much and \nit’s not having an effect really past\, past pull central. \nWe can look at the predicted bed thickness across the entire \nSassoon Bay between the two scenarios at the end of the \nyear\, basically anywhere that’s white on this map. \nThis is for the high\, high outflow year is less than .1 \ncentimeter\, so like 1mm difference. \nSo basically what you see in most of Sassoon Bay\, you really \nhave very little effect of the sand mining that that’s showing \nup. \nThe biggest effects are\, you know\, really localized to the \nsand mining areas\, which which shows that that that the mining \nis not having a big effect on\, on deposition across the rest of \nof Sassoon Bay. \nAnd then if we look at the low outflow year\, it looks it’s a \npretty similar picture. \nMost of the Soon Bay we have virtually no difference in the \nthickness of the sediment bed at the end of the year. \nAnd the primary differences are\, are\, are still focused in these \nareas where the mining occurred. \nSo\, you know\, we put that sediment back in\, in the the no \nmining case and that sediment is still largely\, you know\, in that \narea and hasn’t moved that much. \nSo that’s telling us that the the effect of the mining is \nreally very localized into soon Bay to the to the mining areas. \nThen we also\, and this is pretty similar to the some of the work \nthat Mick van der Wagen and the the tires group probably showed \nat one of the previous meetings. \nWe wanted to look at the\, the sand transport vectors of the \ndirection and magnitude of sand transport from\, from the model \nsimulations. \nAnd so there are arrows on this figure here on the left showing \nthe sand transport during the high outflow year. \nAnd they’re color-coded based on the\, the direction. \nSo if they’re red\, they’re\, they’re basically pointing \nseaward. \nAnd if they’re blue\, they’re\, they’re\, they’re pointing \nlandward. \nAnd so one of the things you can see is there tends to be some \nlandward kind of back towards Sassoon Bay\, transport of \nsediment along the bed here in Karkina Strait. \nAnd this is one of the things that we we highlighted in our \nreport is you do get this convergent zone of sediment \ndeposition here at Bulls Head Shoal. \nThat could also be another place where you know\, there may be \npotential for for sand mining where where you have this \nalready build up of sediment that’s causing a need for fairly \nfrequent dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers in this \nBullhead Shoal region. \nBut it’s another area where the sand is is largely converting. \nWe can see here the predicted change in sand transport without \nmining. \nThis is basically just the difference in transport. \nWe can see the Red Arrows here along Chips Island and a little \nbit here in the the ship channel. \nThose are the areas where we’re seeing the biggest difference \nin\, in\, in sand transport. \nAnd then throughout the most of the rest of Sassine Bay\, you \nknow that you don’t really see much difference. \nAnd this is so real. \nThis is really telling us the same thing as what that other \npicture was showing\, which is that the effects of the sand \nmining at Chips Island here in Sassine Bay are relatively \nlocalized and they’re not having a big effect on on sand \ntransport in in the rest of Sassine Bay. \nSo we looked at a bunch of different cross sections in the \nWest here starting at Venetia Bridge and in the east\, the \nSassoon 1\, which is right at the edge of of Chips Island. \nAnd you can see here at the Sassoon cross sections 1-2 and \nthree\, which are the ones very long Chips Island. \nThere’s a pretty big difference in the amount of sand flux \nbetween the mining and without mining. \nIn particular at the Sassoon too\, which is right in the \nmiddle of the the mining area in Chips Island. \nThere was\, you know\, more downstream transport of sand at \nat that section in particular without mining than there was \nwith mining. \nThe percentage is very high and that’s partly because in the dry \nyear the the sediment flux was very\, very small in the baseline \ncondition. \nSo the magnitude of transport increased some\, but it ends up \nbeing a high percentage because the baseline value is like very \nclose to to 0. \nSo but what you do see here is that Sassoon 4-5 and Venetia \nBridge and Sassoon cut. \nSo in this whole rest of the portion of Sassoon Bay\, the \neffects of the sand mining on\, on sediment\, on sediment \ntransport on sand transport is\, is very small. \nSo all\, all these different ways of looking at it are really kind \nof showing the same thing for Sassoon Bay\, which is that the\, \nyou know\, the effects of the mining is pretty localized here \nalong Chips Island. \nAnd then the rest of the same Sassoon Bay doesn’t have as much \nfact effect of the of the sand mining on transport. \nSo we do the same analysis for Central Bay. \nThis is showing the regions where sediment was added back \ninto the the model to come up with the estimate of what the \nwithout sand mining conditions would look like. \nAnd then we can show basically where that sand that we put back \nwas transported after one year during a high outflow year and \nduring a low outflow year. \nSo that the sand that we we put back in Central Bay is largely \nstays within Central Bay. \nThere’s some transport of that sand out through the Golden \nGate. \nThere’s some transport of that sand\, you know\, a little bit \nupstream here along Angel Island and between Treasure Island and \nAngel Island. \nBut the effects are\, are pretty localized to the Central Bay and \nthen you know\, the\, the transport out out the Golden \nGate. \nIf we look at the predicted bathymetric difference between \nthe\, the\, the bed at the end of the one year in the two \ndifferent scenarios\, most of the difference kind of the red \ncolors that are up to 10 centimeters are focused in the \nareas where the mining occurred\, which which makes sense\, right. \nSo we put that sediment back into those areas. \nThere’s the sediment bed is still thicker at the end of one \nyear in those areas\, most of the areas are you know this white \ncolor is .1 centimeters\, so 1mm. \nSo anywhere that’s white\, we’re not really seeing any difference \nat the end of of one year. \nThe Gray is\, is .1 to 1 centimeters. \nAnd then so you can see generally the effect of the\, the \nsand mining is still focused in the\, in the the mining areas. \nBut we do see some\, some more sediment moving out the Golden \nGate here and a little bit moving up into this part of \ncentral Bay in\, in the high output year. \nAnd then a similar picture here for the\, this is for the low \noutput year. \nSo we can see in general the sediment staying pretty close to \nwhere we put it\, but there’s some of it is\, is being \ntransported out in the Golden Gate. \nIf we look at the maps of the the sand fluxes\, it’s it’s\, you \nknow\, it’s relatively complicated circulation \npatterns. \nWe see sediment fluxes from central Bay out the Golden Gate. \nWe also have these kind of return circulation cells along \nthe sides that I think you also can can see from some of the \nwork that that Deltares showed. \nAnd then the difference in in flux between the two different \nscenarios. \nThis is the high output year on the top and the low output year \non the bottom. \nThe biggest difference we’re seeing is that there’s a little \nbit more flux of sediment out through the Golden Gate in both \nof these conditions\, which is because we have more sand \navailability that we we put into the Bay for that year. \nWe’re seeing more transport out the Golden Gate. \nIf we look at it as a percentage without\, without sand mining\, we \ndo see a larger flux of Westford\, Westbrook\, westward \nsand transport out through the Golden Gate. \nIt was about 142% higher in the wet year and about 50% higher in \nthe the dry year in terms of the amount of sediment that that was \npredicted to move out through the Golden Gate. \nAnd without sand mining\, we see a little bit less sand transport \nthrough Raccoon Straight. \nSo there’s a there’s less of a net transport through Raccoon \nStraight in the scenarios where we have added back the sediment \nhere. \nAnd then there’s really not very much effect here at this line \nhere between Angel and Island and Treasure Island or across \nwhere the\, the Bay Bridge is. \nSo this is showing us that largely the biggest effect of \nthe mining that we’re seeing in the model is without sand \nmining. \nWe see a larger flux through the\, the Golden Gate and a a \nsmaller flux through Raccoon St. \nNow I’m gonna move on to just some of the the some of the \nprimary findings\, which is summarizing what we saw from the \nmodeling in the context of some of the other work that the \nstudies did. \nWhat we’re seeing in Sassoon Bay is largely episodic westward \nsand transport. \nSo when we have periods of very high elevated delta outflow\, \nthat appears to be responsible for most of the sand transport \nthrough Sassoon Bay to San Pablo Bay. \nThe sand mining reduced the predicted westward transport of \nsand\, but those effects were pretty limited to the area right \naround Chips Island. \nDuring the one year periods we looked at\, we didn’t see any \neffects of the mining in Sassoon Bay extending past Venetia \nBridge. \nThis could be\, this could be an artifact of the fact we are only \nlooking at one year. \nAnd if we had looked at\, you know\, simulating 2345 years that \ncould have propagated further West. \nBut across one year\, we largely didn’t see any effects of the \nSassoon Bay sand mining extending past Venetia Bridge. \nAnd part of that may be that there’s another\, you know\, \nthere’s a pretty high area of deposition here at at Bulls Head \nShoal where where you have the convergence of of sand \ndeposition. \nAnd that may be limiting the effect of the the sand transport \npropagating further downstream. \nBut it would probably require a longer multi year simulation to \ntry and understand how long it would take to propagate that \nthat mining effect further downstream. \nThis is the conceptual model from Bob Battaglio here showing \nthe the transport of sediment out the Golden Gate. \nAnd then you can kind of see these cells moving sediment back \nalong along the shoreline. \nWe had a net predicted sand flux from the model out of the Golden \nGate to the Pacific Ocean. \nWe also had these cells predicting some transport back \ninto the Bay in in some periods. \nWe saw that the sand mining was predicted to reduce the \ntransport of sand out of the Golden Gate and it didn’t have \nvery much effect\, you know\, east of the mining at either Angel \nIsland or\, or at the Bay Bridge. \nSo we\, the model is suggesting that that removing sand from \nfrom the central Bay potentially does reduce the sand available \nfor the San Francisco bar and the other beaches. \nBut because we’re only again looking at one year and the \ntransport times and distances are relatively big\, you know\, \nit’s hard for us within the model simulation to to come up \nwith it a direct relationship between the mine sand volumes \nand how that affects\, you know\, sand volumes that make it to \nOcean Beach. \nSo I think those are areas where some of the other lines of \nevidence such as the bed forms and the longer term bathymetric \nchange may be more more useful for for answering some of those \nkind of longer term morphologic changes. \nAnd that’s what we have for the presentation. \nBut I’m happy to take any questions that you have. \nOK. \nWell\, first we usually go with Commissioner questions. \nSo Commissioners\, do you\, do you have any questions? \nIf so\, please speak up. \nYeah\, Pat\, I’ve got a couple of questions. \nGreat. \nCan you find my digital hand here too raise it. \nSo thanks so much for this presentation. \nI’m first question is we flip back and forth in our language \nbetween sand and sediment and\, and I want to make sure that I \nunderstand that\, that when you’re using the term sediment \nin this presentation\, you were still referring to sediment of a \ngrain size that we would call sand. \nYeah\, yes\, that\, that was my probably sloppy language in that \ncontext. \nBut yes\, we\, we are modeling the full range of sediment sizes\, \nsilts and flocks and fine sediments. \nBut everything that we’re showing in this is only focused \non the sand grain material. \nThe one\, the one caveat I would say about that though is when \nwe’re looking at the thickness of the sediment bed and the \ndifference in the thickness of the bed that includes all the \nsediment\, but all of the transport is purely just the \nsand. \nOK. \nAnd then when you say that\, all things considered\, it looks like \nthere’s some small\, some reduction in the amount of sand \nthat would have moved out of the Golden Gate\, which kind of makes \nintuitive sense. \nBut that number\, while the percentage change seems large\, \nthat number relative to be a total amount of sand moved is \npretty small. \nAm I right saying that the the the change in sediment mass \ngoing out the Golden Gate relative to the total volume of \nsand mining is relatively small? \nIs that what you’re asking? \nYeah\, yes\, I think that’s\, I think that’s correct. \nOK\, great. \nAnd then lastly\, the\, the\, the picture of the model that you \npresented with all the inputs from all the different \ntributaries into the Bay is very impressive\, but it seems to me \nit opens up it\, it’s a huge challenge to try and like \nvalidate this thing. \nI mean\, I\, is there an underlying sensitivity analysis \nthat you’ve done to try and look at\, you know\, how variations in \nflow rates in some of these different inputs change the \noverall projections of the model? \nYeah. \nSo one and one of the tricky things for this\, the sand study \nspecifically is there’s not a lot of these repeated \nbathymetric data sets to be able to model\, you know\, what \nhappened. \nThe the place we do have those are in some of the the ship \nchannels and in some of the the harbors that get deepened. \nSo with this\, with this same model\, a couple of years prior \nto this study\, we did a\, a study for the Army Corps of Engineers \nlooking at the Port of Oakland\, which I think is pretty directly \nrelevant to\, you know\, to this\, the Central Bay Area in \nparticular. \nBecause we have\, we have pre and post dredge surveys across four\, \nI think 4 different years that we looked at for that project \nwhere we would\, we would set the bathymetry to what the post \ndredge survey was. \nAnd then we would simulate like one year until they did the next \npre dredge. \nAnd we would look at the amount of sediment that was deposited \nand we could look at that\, you know\, across wet years and dry \nyears. \nSo we did do a lot of validation of deposition in in Oakland \nHarbor. \nAnd I think one thing that that you know\, probably relevant to\, \nto this is that\, you know\, in the wet years we were seeing\, \nyou know\, more than twice as much sediment deposition at \nOakland Harbor than in the dry years. \nSo what we were trying to focus on in that study was what they\, \nthey had done the deepening from like 42 to 46 to 50 feet. \nAnd then and they were trying to understand how much the \ndeepening caused the amount of sediment deposition to go up. \nBecause as you kind of\, I mean\, it’s kind of also intuitive. \nIf you dig a hole\, nature’s going to kind of want to fill it \nin. \nSo as you deepen these harbors it\, it accelerates deposition. \nBut\, but it was really hard to see that signal because it was \nswamped by the signal of\, you know\, you have a wet year\, \nthere’s twice as much sediment that comes in. \nAnd\, you know\, the estimate of the\, the deepening\, you know\, \nwas a\, you know\, 20% change in\, in\, in shoaling rates. \nAnd you said there’s twice as much sediment coming in during a \nwet year. \nThat is a sediment of not that’s not just sand\, that’s all types. \nYes\, yeah. \nAnd\, and\, and if I understand it\, the amount of sand that’s \nmoving is\, is\, is small. \nSee\, I come from the kind of contaminant background where I \ndidn’t really care very much about sand moving because the \ncontaminants are moving in the finer grain material. \nBut\, but now I’m\, I’m trying to make sure I disconnect my\, my\, \nmy sediment thinking to really be focusing on the larger grain \nmaterials. \nAnd then my last question was about you mentioned that in Bull \nat Bull’s Head Shoal\, so that there is some need for dredging \nthere. \nBut again\, the dredging\, if I’m dredging for navigation in the \nBay\, I’m not pulling up material that can be commercially \nexploited as sand. \nIs that right? \nI guess it depends on what the grain size of the material is. \nI think there is some sand that builds up on that Bull’s head \nshoulder Brenda might actually have. \nYeah. \nSo yeah\, Andy\, the sand both in Sassoon channel\, which is a \nfederal navigation channel in a different part of Sassoon and \nBull’s Head reach is 95 to 99% sand. \nAnd it’s that very similar fine grained sand that is currently \nmined out of this other part of the reach. \nSo it’s an interesting question as to whether or not mining \ncould occur on Bulls Head Reach\, which actually causes emergency \ndredging episodes on a fairly regular basis because it starts \nto encroach on the navigation channel. \nBut it it is sand\, right. \nSo I guess just so\, so\, so one question I would have\, we don’t \nneed to answer it now\, but if the Corps of Engineers is \npulling up sand\, what are\, are they’re just disposing of it And \nthen we have the companies pulling up sand and selling it. \nAnd so it would seem to me that we that they’re sort of sort of \neconomic market questions here\, but I’d like us to think about \nthose a little more. \nIt seems we should only be extracting from the Bay that \nwhich is\, you know\, needed seems to me so OK\, thanks. \nI appreciate that. \nSo Commissioner Nelson has his hand up\, but after Commissioner \nNelson\, I’d like us to go to the sand miners to present their \ncomments. \nSure\, Commissioner Nelson. \nThanks\, Pat. \nI just want to make sure I’m not over interpreting the results \nhere. \nI don’t know if you can skip back to some of the slides that \nshow changes in sand transport in the Central Bay with and \nwithout mining. \nOne of the questions that\, yeah\, one of the one of the questions \nwe’re asking ourselves is whether there’s an impact of \nsand mining there. \nThere was one that called that that that showed flux and I \nwasn’t sure I understood the difference between flux and some \nof the other slides There\, there that one\, this one. \nYeah\, yeah. \nAnd and the previous one that shows the that shows the graphic \nthat that one right. \nAnd so the I’m looking at the the the two graphics on the \nright predicted changes to sand mining\, sand transport with \nwithout sand mining. \nOne of the things we’re asking ourselves is whether it’s \npotential that Central Bay sand mining could have an impact on \nbeaches. \nI I recognize that asking that question about beaches outside \nthe Golden Gate is pretty tough given our previous presentation\, \nthe last time we had this call. \nBut but the Marina Green\, the beaches\, beaches of the highly \nused beach along the Marina green is right there next to \nnext to the sand mining area. \nAnd this this sand transport corridor\, but where this shows \nmeasurable changes in sand transport\, it’s very much in the \ndeep channel. \nAnd as I look at that\, it doesn’t give any evidence any\, \ndoes any suggestion that there would be erosion off of the the \nbeach in northern San Francisco along the Marina Green caused by \nthat sand mining. \nAm I interpreting those that this\, this graphic correctly? \nYeah. \nI think that the difference is really the\, you know\, the\, in \nboth the low outflow and the high outflow year that we’re \nseeing\, the difference is these red\, these red vectors\, which \nmeans\, you know\, transport out. \nThere’s a little bit of blue\, you know\, along the shoreline\, \nwhich is a\, a reduction of\, of land with transport. \nBut the\, you know\, the conceptual model\, I think is \nlargely the sediments coming out through the Golden Gate. \nBut then there’s also these like recirculation\, you know\, more\, \nmore shore hugging transport back in\, in\, in that image from\, \nfrom Bob Batalo. \nI can\, I can show you. \nI\, I have a couple slides that I\, I\, I have here that\, that \nshow the\, the sand flux here at the Golden Gate for\, for the \ndifferent cases. \nSo I think if you look just kind of at this bottom panel\, this is \nshowing the blue is the the amount of sand flux going out \nthrough the Golden Gate across the year in the within the the \nbaseline. \nAnd then the green is the amount of sand flux that’s going out \nacross the year in the the with sand mining. \nAnd so that’s where that that’s where that percentage comes from \nat the end of the year. \nYou have\, you know\, this is the the net transport of sand flux \nin the baseline and this is the the net transport in the in the \nwithout sand mining. \nSo that’s how you end up getting the 100 and and something \npercent there and the the high output year. \nSo I’m just going to take a moment and note for folks that \nBCD CS jurisdiction goes from Point Bonita to Point Lobos. \nIt does not stop at the Golden Gate Bridge. \nAnd just as a reminder\, we do have a bit of jurisdiction in \nthe outer area of the Bay because I know not everyone on \nthe call knows that. \nBob\, are you on the same topic? \nYes\, I just wanted to clarify something for Commissioner \nGunther and while Michael McWilliams was on the line. \nIt’s my understanding that the model results that we’re looking \nat does not include longshore sand transport. \nWe call littoral transport driven by waves along the \nintertidal shore and that’s a a known thing and we we all \nunderstood that. \nThe other point I wanted to make is that it looks like there’s \nmore than one travel path. \nThere’s the ebb and flow\, ebb and flood exchange that \ntransports sand out and in\, out on the ebb and on the flood. \nBut there’s also a wave driven transport from Ocean Beach \naround Point Lobos\, past Baker Beach\, etcetera\, around Fort \nPoint and then along Crissy Field. \nSo the model didn’t show the transport along Chrissy Field or \nthe effect that the sand mining might have on this other \ntransport path. \nThanks\, Bob. \nYeah\, thank you. \nThanks\, Pat. \nDo you want to go to Aaron? \nYes\, Aaron Holloway is here and he is going to present some \ninformation from the miners. \nErin\, are you? \nThank you\, Pat. \nYeah\, I’m ready\, available. \nI’m gonna share my screen here. \nOK. \nThank you\, Michael\, for the presentation. \nI know that was quite an undertaking to model sand \ntransport throughout the Bay. \nSorry. \nLet me losing my navigation here. \nWhat I wanted to just talk about too is kind of linking the \nfindings from the anchor model to some of what you’ve already \nheard in the in the previous presentations. \nSo some of the key findings from the model was that there wasn’t \na consistent westward transport of sand from the delta through \nthe Bay and out out through the Golden Gate. \nSo that\, you know\, sort of consistent with the disconnected \nsystem that was presented by the stratigraphy team. \nAnd so that also sort of contrasts with what the sand \nbudget study looked at\, which was assuming kind of this whole\, \nall these embayments are connected and if you have a \nsurplus of sand in one area\, it’s going to flow to the next. \nSo we want to kind of bring attention to that. \nAnd then the other important finding we thought from the \nanchor modeling was that the sediment transport from local \ntributaries was negligible and that there wasn’t much sand \ntransport\, you know\, past the head of the tide from these \nlocal tributary sources. \nAnd that was a that’s a\, you know\, substantial source of sand \nto the Bay given that there’s not much coming from the delta \nanymore. \nAnd so in the sand budget\, the local inflows were\, you know\, \nthe 0.36 million metric tons per year is what went into the sand \nbudget. \nSo we just a quick comparison of\, you know\, on the left is the \nthe disconnected conceptual model presented by the strategic \nteam where you have kind of different sources in Central Bay \nversus Sassoon Bay and that\, you know\, they’re not necessarily \nconnected in terms of supplying sand to one another. \nBut then when the when the sand budget assumed all them payments \nare connected\, you get kind of this this flow of sand from \nSassoon Bay through San Pablo Central Bay and out. \nAnd so it seems to me the anchor model is implying a more\, you \nknow\, complicated sand transport system that’s not necessarily \nconnected\, you know\, from the delta through the ocean. \nAnd so we think that’s an important conclusion to \nhighlight. \nAnd then the second one is just talking about kind of the scale \nof impacts that I think Commissioner Gunther was hinting \nat is that\, you know\, the\, the effects of sand mining in \nCentral Bay were found to decrease\, you know\, if mining \nhad not occurred. \nSo the\, the order of magnitude there was\, you know\, 30 to \n40\,000 cubic yards. \nBut again\, there’s\, it’s a very complicated system and the model \nhas limitations. \nAnd so it’s important to to discuss those. \nAnd\, and I think that Michael and Aaron did a great job in \ntheir report. \nThey have a whole section on kind of model limitations. \nThey did the sensitivity analysis. \nSo there’s a lot that goes in to such a dynamic system and \nevaluating sand transport. \nSo I know they’re\, they’re not entirely confident in the \nmagnitudes\, but we think it’s\, it’s worth\, you know\, comparing \nthat to the prior numbers that we just talked about in the last \nworking group meeting with the sand budget. \nSo in looking at the flux at the Golden Gate again\, the the net \nflux predicted in the model is just a fraction of the total \nflux. \nSo with a large amount of sand moving each way\, the the net is \na much smaller amount of that you know. \nSo if the net goes in and out of the Bay in this predicted range \nfrom the sand budget\, the model result is a a net flux out of \nthe Bay of about 80\,000 cubic yards. \nSo less than the sand budget estimate of 2000 cubic yards a \nyear out of the gate. \nSo we just thought it’d be helpful to kind of bring the \nnumbers together from the different studies. \nAnd then the last or the some of the key limitations\, I think \nI’ve already been discussed\, but but there’s lack of data on sand \ntransport in these areas that make it difficult to to validate \nthe model. \nAnd then it\, the model doesn’t include simulation of ocean \nwaves and swell propagation through the Golden Gate\, which \nis obviously a key part of the dynamics in that system. \nAnd then the other item is the\, the mine sand was represented \nwith a single grain size. \nBut in the central Bay\, you know that we’ve demonstrated that \nthe\, there’s coarse sand fractions which are mined more \nextensively in the\, in the northern lease sites. \nAnd then the southern lease site\, which is a more dynamic \nsystem is a finer grain size\, the finer sand size. \nSo that’s as expected. \nBut our concern is that if you’re going to apply a fine \ngrain size where they’re mining coarse sand\, you’re going to see \na greater impact than may actually occur. \nSo that that’s could be one of the reasons why there’s\, there’s \nthis kind of distribution of sand\, you know\, in this central \nBay Area\, which is actually quite coarse and may not\, may \nnot behave the same way that the model predicts this other\, you \nknow\, this finer sand to move. \nAnd that’s\, that’s all for the\, the discussion we had. \nWell\, thank you. \nThat’s great. \nAppreciate that. \nSo I don’t see any more questions. \nSo I hope we don’t have we’ll have them toward the end of the \nmeeting. \nSo now we can go on to our next our next presentation which is \nfrom Bruce Jaffe and he is going to be answering the questions or \nworking on answering the questions. \nWhat are the impacts of sand mining on the Bay bottom? \nAnd we really appreciate Ruth coming out of retirement to \nshare these findings with him and take away Bruce right now. \nWell\, Bruce is sharing his screen. \nIf folks could take a minute and put their name in the chat just \nso we can make sure that you are captured for the interested \nparties list\, please. \nThank you. \nI’m still making some edits to my presentation. \nSo anyway\, let let me say that it’s a pleasure to be able to \nshare the work that that we did on this study. \nThe the key people I should say are Teresa Frigoso and Amy \nFoxgrover. \nAnd I just finished my edit so I can share. \nYou take the cake\, Bruce. \nI’m usually doing it the last 10 minutes. \nWell\, on Zoom\, you can do it as it’s going. \nNo\, it’s just. \nOK. \nSo let me see if I can share screen. \nYeah\, this should be the right. \nOh\, wait\, not that one PowerPoint share. \nWe can see it. \nIt’s not in presenter mode yet. \nThere you go. \nAll right. \nOK. \nAnd I’m gonna move some people off the screen. \nAll right. \nSo Lester McKee presented to an earlier working group meeting \nand about an approach to look at the effects of sand mining using \na sentiment budget and he showed this slide and circled in red is \nwhat our group contributed to that study. \nI will point out that we are also part of the stratigraphy \nstudy\, which is interesting on how they’re\, they do have \ndifferent approaches and different conclusions. \nSo let me let me tell you how we\, we came up with a number for \nthe\, the change in storage for for sand in the system and that. \nSo it was very fortuitous that we had just finished the study \non bathymetric change in the system and that it was in in \nlarge part funded by the the settlement work group for the \nBay and what’s shown here. \nLet’s see\, do you can you see my pointer or not? \nI don’t think so. \nOK\, Upper left is 1980s survey. \nIt’s color-coded by depth. \nYou can see the channels. \nLower left does 2010 surveys. \nSo this allowed us to do a time step that we hadn’t done. \nWe’ve been looking at historical changes from the 18\, mid 1800s \nto the 18 to the 1980s. \nAnd what’s shown is that the the areas where there’s erosion of \nthe bed and a potential source of sand to the system are in in \nblue colors. \nAnd the areas where there is deposition to the bed or gain in \nthe bed were areas where sand might be sequestered. \nSo pretty simple outline talk about the methods\, the results \nuncertainty analysis cause uncertainty’s key to to to \ndetermining whether you can trust what what the study \nresults are in a summary. \nAnd if time allows\, I could talk a bit of that said trails\, \nalthough Mike McWilliams talked a little bit about it on how \nit’s looking at the connections between different parts of the \nBay in terms of the sand transport. \nAnd that was a pilot study funded by USGS. \nOK\, So the methods gravity cores were taken\, this is not San \nFrancisco Bay in the picture. \nObviously there’s ice and we we’re not on such a big ship\, \nbut it shows the gravity core well where it’s just\, it’s like \na dart that has hundreds of pounds of weight on it that just \nfree falls and goes into the sediment. \nAnd these cores were taken between 1990 and 2016. \nAnd in total there were 186 cores. \nAnd the length of these cores varied from about 50 to 360 \ncentimeters. \nSo we’re looking at it collects sediment\, depending on what the \ndepositional and erosional history is\, that could be recent \nif it’s in a depositional area with some older scent beneath it \nor sediment that’s hundreds or even hundreds of years or even \nolder than that. \nAnd on the right you can see the distribution of the the the \ncores and you can also see in yellow where the mining areas. \nOK\, So with the as geologists\, what we do when we get the \ncores\, as we split them open\, we take a look at them and we log \nthem. \nAnd these are just a couple paper logs. \nThe symbol for sand are dots. \nSo you in in this with this\, the core log on the right\, you can \nsee lines of dots and we then took the information from these \ncores and that’s a paper log. \nThis is now interpreted. \nThese are published in open file reports and you can see the \nsymbols and again there is some sand in in this core in the blue \non the left. \nSo we take all this information and I won’t bore you with the \ntrying to describe this\, this slide. \nBut basically what we needed to do to be able to determine \nwhether the the bed of the Bay was a source or a sink of sand \nis we needed to to look in the the sediments to see whether or \nnot\, you know\, see where the sand was located. \nAnd we did this at 10 centimeter intervals and it involved \ncorrecting for the fact that when the core is collected so \nthat we we had a\, a common vertical datum and we shifted \nthem. \nAnd then this is all on the report the details. \nBut what what became apparent very\, very quickly was that the \ncores alone just didn’t have the coverage that we needed. \nSo we then augmented the the core data with surface samples \nand we evaluated what what the error introducer\, the \nuncertainty introduced by doing that. \nAnd surprisingly it wasn’t as large as we anticipated. \nIt’s about a 10% uncertainty by augmented\, but that allowed \nanother 700 locations where we could then create a 3D map of \nthe sand content or 3D model of the sand content of the \nsubsurface sediments. \nSo we had done something similar to this in Alviso Slough where \nwe use cores and instead of trying to estimate the sand \ndistribution in the in the subsurface settlement we we \nused\, we were looking at Mercury remobilization. \nThis was work with Amy Foxgrover published in 2019 and there’s \nMark Marvin Day bus quality was was lead on the Mercury part of \nthat. \nHe’s from the USGS as well. \nSo we did this approach where we created this\, the 3D model for\, \nfor the subsurface sand content and we did it in the embayment \nscale and it was a significant amount of work. \nAgain\, Teresa Fragoso and Amy Fox Grover did a fantastic job. \nEach of these sub embankment models had about 3010cm layers. \nAnd this is just an example of one layer\, 110cm layer. \nAnd it’s\, it’s actually an amalgamation of\, of different \nsub embankments and you\, you can see this is from zero to 10 \ncentimeters. \nAnd you can see the\, how heterogeneous the Bay is in \nterms of sand. \nThe more yellow\, the colors\, the higher the sand content. \nSo interesting pictures\, but that we have we have to analyze \nit then to get our answer whether the Bay is a source or a \nsink of sediment of sand. \nSorry\, I want to point out that Sassoon Bay because there were \nnot the themitry surveys there in all of 2010 and San Pablo Bay \nin the shallows. \nWe’re not when\, when I talk about the the Bay\, I’m talking \nabout the\, our study here\, which includes most of the Bay\, but \nnot the entire part of the Bay. \nAnd then I\, when we for initial analysis\, we excluded mining \nareas shown in yellow here\, dredging footprints and orange \nand disposal sites in a in a kind of a pinkish color. \nWe did go back later on and account for those separately in \na later phase of our analysis. \nSo the results different sub embayments were either a source \nor a sink of sediment of sand. \nSorry\, the blue shows the sub embayments that were a source. \nThese were places where there was sand in the\, in the bed that \nwas eroded. \nAnd so more sand is available then for other parts of the Bay \nor to go out the Golden Gate\, the red and it’s primarily \ncentral Bay is a place where there was deposition of sand so \nthat the bed was a sink. \nAnd Michael McWilliams talked about his his time scale of a \nyear limited by computational times. \nSo we normalize to a\, to a rate per year. \nAnd this is the normalized rates and the in total it was about \n1/4 of a million cubic meters of sand that was supplied by \nerosion of the bed per year. \nAnd this is for all the areas excluding where the human \nactivities were. \nSo might not be a surprise to anyone that the human activities \nwere significant. \nSo here’s a comparison of the rates of change and sand volume \nand the bed for the the two mining areas\, Central Bay and \nSassoon Bay. \nThese are the lease areas and Central Bay alone is quarter \nmillion cubic meters per year so soon as about a tenth of the \n1\,000\,000 cubic meter per year and all the other areas we’re \nabout a quarter million cubic meters per year. \nNow this is lost from the bed. \nObviously the mining material what’s been mine is a different \nbeast than the areas outside the human activities where it’s it’s \nnot gonna be available for other either to go out to Golden Gate \nor other parts of the Bay. \nAnd these are just from bathymetric change. \nSo the this does not account for the amount of my materials that \nwas reported in as mined. \nIt’s just from for that 1980s to 2000 tens. \nThere was a lowering of the bed in in these these two mining \nareas. \nSo uncertainty analysis\, I could go into this salon for quite a \nwhile\, but I won’t it’s in the report. \nSo the three sources of uncertainty that we addressing \nthe report was uncertainty from interpretation of the core logs\, \nuncertainty from augmenting core data with surface at sent and \nsamples and then uncertainty associated with bathymetric \nchange analysis. \nSo the first two uncertainties are easy to quantify. \nThe third is not the uncertainty interpretation core log. \nIt did change the magnitudes of the of the sand volume in the \nbed\, the rate of change the sand volume in the bed\, but it was it \non\, you know\, 20% change from going from conservative minimum \nsand content to our best estimate or from a maximum sand \ncontent to our best estimate. \nAugmenting with surface sentiment samples which assume \nthat it was a representative of the of the sentiment below did \nnot have a large effect. \nIt was about a 10% and like the interpretation of the core data \nof the core logs it it didn’t have an effect on the direction \nthat is the the bed in the areas away from human activities was \nstill a source of of sand. \nThe uncertain in the bathymetric change is potentially \nsignificant and so it depends on the degree of randomness and \nsurvey errors. \nSo if the survey errors are random\, they cancel out and the \nuncertainty is and mathematic change is low. \nSo\, and if the survey areas are systematic\, the uncertainty in \nbathymetric change could is is large for a large area? \nFor the small areas like sand mining leases which the \nuncertainty from bathymetric change is low. \nAnd So what we presented in the report was what the these \nuncertainties translated to. \nAnd then it’s really depending on what your use for the data is \nyou can\, you can and how random you think the survey errors are\, \nyou can assign a a value to it. \nSo in summary\, the question whether bed sediments in San \nFrancisco Bay are sources sand is answered. \nSo that’s this is the change in the storage. \nSo bed sediments are a source of sand\, not too surprising because \na lot of the Bay is eroding and so if sand is in the sediments\, \nit’ll be a source. \nBut it\, it\, it hadn’t been shown till this this study. \nAnd then how certain are we of this answer the interpretation \nof sand content in the core logs or from augmenting the data with \nsurface sediment sample data doesn’t affect our our \ncertainty. \nAnd the answer the the uncertainty of bathymetric \nchange could be potentially significant. \nSo additional studies could be made done on on how random this \nthis error is. \nFrom my experience\, random that the errors are random\, but I I \ncan’t rule out that there are systematic errors. \nBut the systematic errors would have to be systematic over many \ndifferent separate surveying events. \nSo in my way of thinking the likelihood of that is not as \ngreat. \nAnd then how does sand volume changes in mine years compared \nto areas without human activities? \nI’m just reiterating the result that that the sand volume change \nin the bed in the mining areas and this is from bed lowering as \na net I said is either greater than or similar to the sand \nvolume changing areas in the areas without human activities \nin the Bay. \nSo as I said before\, there’s publication Center\, publications \ngroup and there’s also two USGS data releases of the data used \nin the analysis. \nSo with that questions and discussion. \nThank you\, Bruce. \nSo first\, we’ll go to. \nI have a couple questions\, but first we’ll go to the other \ncommissioners. \nAndy or Barry\, do you have some questions here? \nNo\, no\, nor do I. \nOK. \nWell\, yeah\, I just wanted to reiterate Bruce that. \nSo basically as I understand your summary and thank you for \nbeing so clear about this that you know\, going to the question\, \nI think that’s always really helpful. \nSo basically you’re saying that that from the bathymetric \ninvestigation\, the change in the sand mining areas and the change \nin the other areas isn’t really statistically different. \nIs that what you’re saying? \nI wouldn’t be as as direct on statistically different\, but I \nwould say that there’s same order of magnitude\, same order. \nI said that’s what you said. \nYou’re right\, statistically. \nSo it’s just and I\, I would\, I’d say that this is not a a after \nall this work\, I would say it’s not a\, an earth shaking result. \nIt\, it fills in\, you know\, missing data and you know\, it \nallows a sediment budget to be calculated. \nBut to me that the results from the stratigraphy team\, those I \nthink are\, are more profound\, especially the results that the\, \nthe material being mined is\, is old order\, 1000 years old. \nAnd I’m glad that the\, you know\, that the study was able to \naccommodate them\, that the way they they were able to to date \nthe material. \nAnd the sand miners were incredibly helpful in\, in\, in \nallowing a collection of material on a moonless night \nwith no lights\, red lights\, so that they didn’t reset the the \nquartz screens for optically stimulated luminescent dating. \nSo I think that I think that’s a a very key\, key result. \nOK\, thank you. \nYeah\, I\, I think you’re right. \nSometimes confirming what everyone has theorized over many \nyears with real data. \nIt it it’s just very\, very important. \nAnd and that’s seems to be what this study that you’ve done has \ndone. \nWe people have talked about this for a long time\, but you’ve \nactually collected data to show that indeed the standard \nhypothesis is\, is is correct. \nSo that’s\, that’s a big\, at least from my point of view that \nthat’s a big contribution. \nOK. \nAnd that’s a perfect segue. \nYour comment about the sand miners being productive\, very \nproductive members of this investigation team is is really \nright on. \nSo we will go to Aaron Holloway. \nWould you is there anything you’d like to share with us \nright now\, Aaron? \nYeah\, sure I do. \nI have a question for Bruce. \nBut before I get there\, I wanted to bring up a topic that was\, \nyou know\, at I think Commissioner Gunther and Nelson \nasked it in the prior topic about sand transport and the \ncity of Golden Gate and in Bay beaches. \nAnd I just wanted to note that the\, the beaches that were in \nquestion\, I think Crissy Field Marina Green\, those have have \nbeen experiencing accretion. \nAnd so there’s a\, there’s a clearly a supply of sand \narriving at those beaches. \nAnd I don’t think that transport pathway was\, was resolved in the \nmodel\, but I think I think that was a point Bob was making as \nwell. \nBut just wanted to clarify that. \nMy question for Bruce is the in looking at the results in your \nreport and then the results from the stratigraphy team\, the one \nthing I noticed was that the strategic free team said that \nSan Pablo Bay was they had a hard time finding any sand when \nthey were looking at the cores throughout San Pablo Bay. \nBut I noticed in your study there’s quite a bit of sand\, you \nknow\, in the cores or the surface sample. \nSo I’m just wondering\, I assumed you were kind of looking at the \nsame cores\, but maybe not. \nDo you have any thoughts on why that kind of those different \nconclusions could be reached? \nWe were looking at the same cores. \nThe stratigraphy team’s ability to look at multiple cores was \nlimited\, as it’s the case in all scientific investigations\, but \nespecially in their case. \nSo\, yeah\, the\, the cores that we\, we were able to\, you know\, \nthese are course from 1990\, the course we were able to\, to\, to\, \nyou know\, look at did not have a lot of sand in them. \nSo it’s not\, it’s not that the result is not that the \nconclusions are different. \nIt’s just a matter of limitations of the study. \nIf\, if there was\, you know\, if there was a\, a desire to \ncontinue the studies\, the\, you know\, a better effort could be \nmade to\, to find those\, those cores with the sand. \nAnd I think one of the limitations of the study was as \nthey were doing it during COVID\, so they had very limited ability \nto be at USGS. \nSo I\, I know that COVID is starting to sort of feel like \nit’s in the rearview mirror a bit\, but it\, these studies were \nall ongoing during COVID. \nSo there was some challenges associated with the pandemic as \nwell as time limitations. \nThat’s entirely true. \nThis we had a it was even more limited because we were working \nat the USGS core facility and difficult to get access. \nSo during COVID. \nWell\, another thing I’d just like to thank you for is kind of \ntalking a little bit about the connection between the work you \ndid at Alvesa Slough related to deposition there. \nThat was that’s that\, you know\, that was really so revealing and \nhow we do the marsh restoration and it’s a it’s a really\, really \nlearned a lot from that. \nAnd you know\, we don’t often getting to do basic science \nassociated with these problems is is really important and \nyou’ve been part of that for a long time. \nBut so I just wanted to put a shout out again for the LV so \nslow work. \nIf we if we hadn’t done that LV so slow work\, we would have \nnever undertaken this work ’cause we developed techniques \nthere and and applied them here. \nOh\, well\, that makes me feel good because we did wrangle \nquite a while for that contract\, didn’t we? \nYes\, it was not a it was not an easy process administratively. \nOK\, well\, I think this\, this is my understanding is now we need \nto have questions from anyone who is interested. \nSo I would look forward to people\, participants raising \ntheir hands with questions. \nPlease use the raised hand. \nAnd I think if there’s no questions\, I’m kind of scrolling \nthrough myself. \nI don’t know\, Bruce\, if you wanted to share the said trail \nslides since we don’t have questions and we have half an \nhour unless people have questions\, of course. \nI\, I\, I get that\, that this type of study is different than \nwhat’s normally done. \nAnd perhaps if there’s questions that come up when\, when either \nlooking back over the presentation or the report\, feel \nfree to to contact me or Teresa Frigosa or Amy Fox River. \nSo let’s see. \nSo I just have a few slides on said tools\, said trails. \nSorry. \nSo this was a very late thought of of\, of something that could \nbe helpful for understanding sand mining and and its effects. \nSo had the leeway to do a pilot project it it this is so this is \na tool set trails. \nIt’s a tool developed by Deltares. \nThere’s a group there\, Mick van der Wagen\, floor rolls ink are \nare the two of the people who worked on this. \nAnd the\, the\, I think Pearson is the is the\, the set tool set \ntrails developer. \nSo it visualizes sediment transport pathways and \nconnections. \nAnd so it starts with a a model with model output\, which is \nhydrodynamic output and the models that Deltares uses Dell \n3D four and D4 little FM. \nAnd then that’s in Eulerian that that means the output is its \nfirst sells for fixed points. \nAnd then it uses formulations to get Eulerian sediment transport \nfields. \nAnd then it takes that data. \nAnd then instead of looking at the those\, those vectors in A at \na fixed point\, you go into the Lagrangian framework where it \nfollows points or follows particles and sees where they\, \nthey end up in a system like San Francisco Bay. \nIt’s\, it’s not intuitive because it’s\, it’s tidal. \nSo depending on when the particles started\, when the sand \ngrain here starts moving\, it could either go into the Bay or \nout of the Bay. \nAnd as well\, if there’s a flood event\, that’ll definitely have \nan effect. \nAnd then the part that and is was developed that I was \nparticularly interested in\, I mean the\, the\, the visual \nvisualizations of of sediment or sand pathways is I think it’s \nvery interesting. \nMichael McWilliams showed some of those from from his model\, \nbut they they’ve the people at Deltares have developed an \nassessment of sediment connectivity. \nSo I’m just gonna show one place in Central Bay where they did \nthis as part of the pilot study. \nThere is a memo on this and I can contact Mick Vanderwagen and \nand team about sharing that memo. \nI have no problem with sharing it. \nI think it’s a great tool and can be used in many different \napplications where modeling of particles is is is one of the \nparts of the study. \nSo here we go. \nSo this is for lease area 779 W and on the left are the \ntrajectories. \nSo these are of particles that are moving through the lease \narea. \nSo you can see that they come from different places and there \nare places where within the lease area where there’s more \nparticles moving through and places where they’re\, you know\, \nless\, less particles. \nAnd this was done for sand. \nSo I should say more sand or less sand on the right. \nI think it’s\, it’s another\, another application where the \nsand particles that were within the lease area where they go and \nyou can see it’s a different pattern\, but this tool and \nconnectivity\, it’s the same. \nThis is the\, I do believe it’s the same area\, mining area 1. \nAnd so for the\, the red circles is where the sand is coming from \nthat goes into that mining area. \nAnd the larger the\, the\, the larger the dot\, the larger the \ncircle\, the greater the strength of connectivity. \nAnd then on the right is let’s see. \nOh\, I see these are different title cycles\, 55 on the left and \n50 on the right. \nSo you can see there’s more connections. \nThe part the sand’s coming\, the red is it’s coming from farther \naway\, it’s entering the area and then the yellow dots are where \nthe sand leaving the area and and the connections are \nstrongest nearby and to the north\, which is interesting. \nThere’s not connections to the South as that are strong and the \nopen coast as well. \nSo just wanted to share that that this was this was a pilot \nproject. \nIt didn’t do the entire Bay and it wasn’t as sophisticated the \nmodels that can be applied. \nSo there’s limitations\, but it illustrates the concept. \nSo thanks\, Bruce. \nAnd if you do want to share that memo\, I think it would be great. \nWe could pop it up on the website for people to peruse. \nThe other thing I just want to note for the group is that in \nthe the Sand study reports are all in Appendix G of the Overall \nFindings document. \nOn our website\, however\, Bruce’s report is not in there. \nSo if you’re going to go look for it\, it’s not there. \nAnd that’s because USGS has not released it yet as final\, final \npeer reviewed. \nBut as soon as it gets released\, which I understand from Bruce is \ncoming very soon\, we will post it to the website. \nSure. \nOK. \nOK. \nSo thank you very much. \nBruce\, are there any questions from commissioners on Bruce’s \nlast few slides? \nOK. \nI don’t see any and any comment from Aaron\, the minor \nrepresenting the minors. \nNo\, no\, nothing else. \nPat\, thank you. \nOK. \nThank you very much. \nWell\, well\, Brenda\, we do have a few more minutes. \nAnd so I always like if there’s time to understand what the next \nsteps are. \nI know you went through that at the beginning\, but perhaps you \ncould refresh our memories. \nSo what’s happening next? \nSure. \nSo we’re taking a little break between this meeting and the \nnext. \nSo the next one is November 22nd\, which I believe is the \nweek before Thanksgiving. \nSo you all should still be in town\, hopefully\, fingers \ncrossed. \nAnd I believe at this point we’ve completed the suite of \nstudies\, the overview presentations of the studies. \nAnd so I haven’t developed the agenda for the next meeting. \nPat\, you and I will probably sit down and chat some more\, of \ncourse\, with Greg and talk about what we’d like to cover. \nThere’s a few options we can pull up in the policies. \nWe can pull some literature for biology pieces and or we can \nalso talk about some of the questions that the Commission \nhad at the Commission meeting\, which were more related to \neconomics and uses of sand. \nSo it’s to be determined what the next agenda item is. \nOur next agenda is for the next meeting. \nWe’ll probably do a little bit of pulling together of these \nstudies as well\, but we’ve got some time this time to pull \nthrough that. \nWell\, that’s excellent. \nAnd then after that\, we will be getting together information for \nthe policy question\, right? \nYeah. \nOK. \nSo briefly\, what’s the policy\, what’s going to come before the \nCommission? \nYes\, OK. \nWant to go over what that is real quickly\, What the policy \nquestion is. \nWell\, I don’t know that we’ll be asking the policy question of \nwhether or not to permit mining\, mining\, ’cause this is not that \nforum\, right? \nSo this forum has really been about providing the science to \nthe commissioners so that they can help support the other \ncommissioners. \nAnd understanding that\, I guess that’s what I was getting at\, is \nwhere that’s what really this is about. \nThis is about supplying the science so that we can make a \nmuch better informed decision. \nYeah. \nAnd that’s\, yeah\, if we do talk about policy\, we would just go \nover what policies apply to this world\, but we would not try to \nreach any conclusions or discuss the proposed project because we \ndon’t actually have the proposed project at this time for the \nnext. \nWell\, the other\, the other reason I bring that up is \nbecause the policies that BCDC has\, although some of them\, \nthey’ve been many of them have been around for many years. \nThey\, there’s a lot of them and so often so\, so understanding \nthe policy contact context of different issues is\, you know\, \nis\, is\, is not a a small task. \nSo that\, you know\, that will be kind of this scientific data \nwill be useful for us to do that. \nAnd I really appreciate everybody’s involvement in \ngetting this information. \nThis has been a huge effort and we we’ve gotten some very \nvaluable responses. \nOK\, so last call for then\, then I guess we\, we always have to \nhave in in these public meetings a public comment forum. \nSo formally\, I would like anyone who would like to make a public \ncomment who’s here on something. \nThese are typically things that are not on the agenda. \nBut if you’d like to make a public comment to this group\, we \nwould be glad to hear it. \nAre there any hands raised? \nI have Jen\, see you and I also have Andy\, Commissioner Gunther. \nSo maybe we go to Jen first\, then Commissioner Gunther next. \nGreat. \nThank you\, Brenda. \nThank you\, Commissioner. \nThese are amazing. \nThis is an amazing forum to learn more about science and I \nreally appreciate all the work. \nOf course\, I guess my question or my comment rather\, is I’d \nlove to see\, I’d love to know more about how the science is \napplicable to our outer coast areas. \nWe\, you know\, we did hear some and mention of Ocean Beach and \nthe main ship channel and\, and that there was a figure that was \nshown looking at transport. \nIt really there’s a lot of resiliency work that of course \nis happening and has been for a long time. \nI would really love to either get a list of the studies that \nhave been done that that\, you know\, would be helpful to figure \nout what’s happening on the coast or understand from these \nvery big brains what additional science is needed to to \nunderstand our our ocean transport\, you know\, the coastal \nsediment transport issues and littoral zone issues. \nI’ll stop at that. \nThank you. \nThank you. \nOK\, Andy. \nYeah. \nThanks\, Pat. \nSo two things I want to just congratulate the staff and the \nscience committee. \nThis is\, this is the right way for us to do things. \nI want to thank the\, the\, the industry developing this kind of \ninformation over the time we’ve had is gonna make our next \ndecision about permitting just so much more intelligent and\, \nand it it’s really important that we do this kind of thing. \nI really happy to see this. \nThis has been an approach that the Regional Water board has \nused with its permittees for years and years and it’s been \nreally\, really valuable for focusing our discussions. \nThat being said\, this is a lot to get our heads around and it’s \na very\, it’s very complex and the uncertainties are are \ndifficult to understand and and yet could have a profound \ninfluence on how we frame the the our findings to the full \nCommission. \nAnd so I would really look forward over the next couple of \nmeetings for those of us\, those who are the the experts to \nreally help pull together kind of where\, where the agreement \nis\, where we need to know more and how we might learn that it. \nIt wouldn’t surprise me to see a structure of a permit where \nthere’s\, you know\, there’s ongoing monitoring and invest \njoint investigation\, this sort of joint fact finding. \nI received a letter sent to Brenda by Jim McGrath\, who has \nstudied these issues for years. \nThat was really helpful to me. \nSo as we pull this stuff together\, I\, I think we need to \nbe\, we need to accept that there’s gonna be\, to really make \nthe most of it. \nWe’re going to\, we’re going to need to synthesize it in a way \nthat really gives a\, gives the full Commission an understanding \nof where we really think we’ve figured things out and where we \nthink there’s other questions. \nAnd\, and it’s incredibly valuable to have Bob and Bruce \nand others contributing in this way. \nAnd that’s going to be is hugely beneficial as well. \nSo\, so there’s just a lot here. \nAnd\, and I and I hope that we’ll be able to\, to organize it in a \nway that can really educate the full Commission when it comes to \nthat. \nAnd of course\, Brenda\, that’s your job. \nHey\, very well said\, Andy. \nWell\, I think that brings us to adjournment. \nOne last call for questions. \nOK\, seeing none. \nThank you everyone for your participation. \nI’ve been really impressed with how everyone involved in this \nhas stuck to it that I mean\, we still have pretty much the same \nnumber of people we did at the first meeting. \nAnd that tells me that the presentations have been \nfascinating and also that the material that is being shared is \ninformation that people are very anxious to get a hold of and and \nreally appreciate learning about. \nSo thanks. \nAnd with that\, the meeting is adjourned. \nWe will re adjourn on November 22nd. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/september-4-2024-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240828T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240828T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240130T045537Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240903T213227Z UID:10000140-1724837400-1724846400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 28\, 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. \nPhysical attendanceMetro Center\, Board Room375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, 415-352-3600 \nIf you have issues joining the meeting using the link\, please enter the Meeting ID and Password listed below into the ZOOM app to join the meeting. \nJoin the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/87554121048?pwd=bvHFxjj4knVLKlA7B7kRa96trp8IBI.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID 875 5412 1048 \nPasscode439578 \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. Public comment letter\nApproval of Draft Minutes from the April 24\, 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]\nBriefing on Oakland Alameda Estuary and Encampment Issue. The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor-outs in the Oakland-Alameda Estuary by BCDC staff and the Cities of Oakland and Alameda.(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment\nBriefing on Richardson Bay Regional Agency Settlement Agreement. The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on actions taken by Richardson Bay Regional Agency (RBRA) to meet deadlines outlined in the BCDC-RBRA Settlement Agreement.\n(John Creech) [415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\nBriefing on Implementation of BCDC’s Compliance Program. The Enforcement Committee will receive a briefing on implementation of BCDC’s Compliance Unit\, including briefing on ways in which this unit has returned out of compliant permittees to compliance.\n(Tony Daysog and John Creech) [415/352-3622 and 415/352-3619; john.creech@bcdc.ca.gov and anthony.daysog@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation \n\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting recording & transcript\n Meeting recording\n \nTranscript \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And I am. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I am the chair of this committee \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for Commissioners\, including those attending at Heale Street. Please ensure that your video cameras are always on\, and please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: The 1st order of business is to call the role Matthew. Please call the role\, and commissioners\, please unmute yourselves while he does this\, to respond\, and then mute yourselves. After responding. \nMatthew Trujillo: Commissioner\, Belan. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo: Commissioner\, Eisen. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo: Commissioner Vasquez. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Here. \nMatthew Trujillo: Chair\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Here \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: we have a quorum present\, and are duly constituted to conduct business. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: That brings us to item 3 on our agenda\, which is public comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in accordance with our usual practice\, and as indicated on the agenda\, we will now have general public comment on items that are not on today’s agenda. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and as of now\, we’ve received no public comments. Margie\, in advance of the meeting. \nBoardroom SX80: We did receive one general comment this morning. \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: it will be posted on our website. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending online. If you would like to speak \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: either during the public during the general public comment period\, or during the public comment period for an item on the agenda. Please raise your hand in the zoom application by clicking on the participants. Icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name is listed under attendees. Find the small palm icon on the left. If you click on that palm\, icon\, it will raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: or if you are joining this meeting by phone\, you must Dial Star 9 to raise your hand. Then Dial Star 6 on your keypad to unmute your phone. When the host asks you in order to make comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the meeting host will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they were raised. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: After you are called upon\, you will be unmuted\, so that you can share your comments. Please announce yourself by 1st and last name for the record before making your comment \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for members of the public attending in person. Please queue up at the speakers podium\, and wait to be called upon to speak. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Commenters are limited to 3 min to speak. Please keep your comments respectful and focused. We’re here to listen to any individual who requests to speak\, but each speaker has the responsibility to act in a civil and courteous manner. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: as determined by the chair. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will not tolerate hate\, speech\, direct threats\, indirect threats\, or abusive language. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We will mute anyone who fails to follow these guidelines. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Margie\, do we have any speakers. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair. Gilmore\, Commissioner Ranchott has joined us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Good morning\, and welcome. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Morning. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: And we do not have a public comment. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And nobody at any of the remote locations. \nBoardroom SX80: We do not. We have no public attendees in person. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. So then\, that means we are on to item number 4\, which is approval of the draft minutes for the last meeting. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: We’ve all been furnished. Draft me \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: draft minutes from our last meeting committee members. I would appreciate a motion and a second to approve these. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So moved. \nSanjay Ranchod\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Commissioner Eisen moves\, seconded by Commissioner Ranshot. If anybody objects\, please raise your hand. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I see no raised hands. The meeting minutes are approved. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: on to Item 5\, which is the Enforcement Report \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Enforcement program manager\, Matthew Trujillo will now update the Committee on the current status of the Enforcement programs. Activities. Matthew. \nMatthew Trujillo: Thank you. Good morning to the Commissioners and to all members of the public in attendance. Thank you for being here today. I have only 2 items to report out on today. The first\, st as usual\, is an update on our Caseload \nMatthew Trujillo: since this committee’s last meeting on April 24\, th \nMatthew Trujillo: we have opened 13 new cases. We’ve closed 23 new cases. I’m sorry we’ve closed 23 cases\, and the total number of cases in the queue\, as of this morning\, is 63. \nMatthew Trujillo: This represents a \nMatthew Trujillo: Well\, I would call it a new low\, except in June. We did get it down to the low fifties. \nMatthew Trujillo: but we’re making progress. That’s the great thing to report. \nMatthew Trujillo: The second item is on staffing. So \nMatthew Trujillo: between May 1st and August 1st \nMatthew Trujillo: I will report that the program was became critically understaffed. We had 3 vacancies\, 2 analysts\, and an Enforcement attorney vacancy\, and on May 1st Adrienne Klein took an extended personal leave\, and she’s expected to continue to be out until early October. At this point \nMatthew Trujillo: on August first\, st however\, we had 2 new Enforcement analysts that started \nMatthew Trujillo: Anne Usher and Isabel Chamberlain \nMatthew Trujillo: and our new Enforcement attorney\, Bella Castradial\, who’s here today with us\, has joined the team as well. So we are now fully staffed\, and in addition to a full complement of staff\, I brought on 2 interns\, Monica\, Opiano\, and Eric Miller. \nMatthew Trujillo: who are here to help us with some program development and modernization projects that have been in the works for some time and in exchange for their help. We are providing a training work experience and an opportunity to network. \nMatthew Trujillo: So\, thanks to the new personnel\, I’m happy to report that August has been a very productive month. Everyone is adjusting well\, and everyone is doing a very fine job\, and I’m gratified to report this in my conclusion. \nMatthew Trujillo: And I will be glad to take any of your questions at this time. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, Matthew. I I just have to comment on the fact that you guys have been incredibly productive\, especially during a period where\, as you pointed out\, you were critically low in staff\, and you still manage to keep the \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the the queue\, I guess I would call it gratifyingly low. So congratulations to you. And your staff. Anybody else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Matthew. A couple of quick questions are\, do you still have any vacancies that you’re trying to fill? And what is the total number of the Enforcement staff. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Now that you’ve filled a lot of those vacancies. \nMatthew Trujillo: So. No\, we don’t have any any further vacancies at this time. The total number of staff in terms of positions are 3 analysts. Then you have the myself\, the Enforcement program manager\, and then \nMatthew Trujillo: we consider part of the team. Of course\, Margie and the enforcement attorney\, Bella. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Okay. Great thanks. Matthew. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Anyone else. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you very much\, Matthew. And once again congratulations to the team. \nMatthew Trujillo: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Item 6 is a briefing on the Alameda Oakland estuary anchor out and derelict vessel issues. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So this committee will now receive a briefing on actions to taken to address abandoned and derelict vessels and anchor outs in the Oakland\, Alameda\, Oakland estuary by Ecdc. Staff and the cities of Alameda and Oakland. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: This committee may consider whether the cities are taking sufficient action to address these issues \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and may provide further direction to staff after deliberation on this matter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so I’m going to now invite John preach of our compliance unit to kick things off. John. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning\, Commissioners. \nBoardroom SX80: My name is John Creech. I’m on BCC’s compliance team. I’m here today to introduce\, item 6\, a briefing on the Oakland\, Alameda estuary. We will then hear from representatives from the cities of Alameda and Oakland\, on the status of the estuary\, and the work that they have done to clean up the estuary\, the shoreline band\, and their plans for preventing \nBoardroom SX80: further issues. \nBoardroom SX80: So the issues of shoreline encampments abandoned and derelict vessels or advs\, and anchor outs in and around the Oakland Alameda estuary in Alameda County\, was introduced at the February 23\, 2\,022 Enforcement Committee meeting \nBoardroom SX80: at that meeting\, Bcdc. And Cities agreed to continue to collaborate and regularly return to provide progress reports to the Enforcement Committee \nBoardroom SX80: to see if an agreeable resolution could be reached without initiating formal enforcement proceedings. \nBoardroom SX80: This collective issue was brought back to the Committee on February 20\, second\, 2\,023\, \nBoardroom SX80: where the committee suggested that Bcdc’s newly formed compliance team continue to work with cities to address the issue. \nBoardroom SX80: Bcdc. Staff have been hosting monthly check-in meetings with representatives from the cities of Oakland and Alameda. \nBoardroom SX80: The port of Oakland\, East Bay\, regional parks\, and others. \nBoardroom SX80: These meetings have been very beneficial to facilitate productive conversations\, and to keep that this issue at the forefront of people’s minds. \nBoardroom SX80: The committee last heard from the cities of Alameda and Oakland at the April 24\, th 2\,024 Enforcement Committee meeting \nBoardroom SX80: at the Enforcement Committee. Briefing in January of this year\, we learned that the estuary was successfully cleaned up of illegal vessels and anchor outs. Officer Kaleo Albino\, of Oakland’s Police Department\, briefed the Committee on the Task force that he assembled\, which resulted in over 400 h of Water patrol conducted a successful arrest made in response to illegal activity performed by anchor outs and 25 vessels being abated from the estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: The photo on the screen shows some abated boats that were piled in Jack London aquatic center parking lot\, where they were later loaded onto dump trucks and removed from Bcdc’s jurisdiction. \nBoardroom SX80: Moving forward Bcdc. Staff and city staff are committed to continue to regularly check in and monitor the status of the estuary. To ensure it remains cleaned up and free of illegal vessels and anch routes. Bcdc. Staff is pleased with the progress and collaboration Oakland and Alameda and other agencies have demonstrated over these years to work towards getting the estuary where it is today. \nBoardroom SX80: we realize that the job is not complete\, but we are happy with the partnership\, dedication\, and the progress. The cities continue to demonstrate. To resolve these complex issues. \nBoardroom SX80: It is important to pro that prevention remain a point of focus for everyone. \nBoardroom SX80: We look forward to hearing regular updates on how \nBoardroom SX80: they are keeping the estuary and the shoreline ban clean\, and ensuring that the cities are devoting the necessary resources to the shoreline and the estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: I will now introduce Jota vries of Oakland\, and Officer Colio Albino\, of Oakland Police Department\, and \nBoardroom SX80: a few others. Looks like we have a lot of people here today which is great. \nBoardroom SX80: Mr. Devries\, would you like us to promote? \nBoardroom SX80: Who else. \nBoardroom SX80: Jordan. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I think we’re fine for now. Yeah. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I think for the estuary anchor. I’ll update that. So good morning. Sorry. Deputy city Administrator. Joe Devries\, City of Oakland. Good to see you all again. Chair Gilmore\, and the team. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: Yeah\, very\, very happy to to report out I’m gonna just give a high level about some of the the future things that we’re looking forward to potentially in the fall\, and then I’ll I’ll turn it over to Officer Albino\, who can talk about more hands on some of the recent work that’s been done even since the last report. Because I think it’s all really good news. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: So on a high level\, you know. Again\, the the department has been using save Grant dollars and has continued to pursue boats. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: and I’ll leave that to Officer Albino. John preach mentioned the the need for prevention. We are waiting anxiously to find out. We’ve been told that the announcement will be made as to whether or not we were successful in getting a noaa marine debris removal\, grant\, I believe. September 5\, th and so I I wish I could have found out before this meeting. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: But certainly we we will find out if we’re successful in securing this grant. It will allow us to remove approximately 16 sunken vessels from the estuary which have been on the floor for a long time. But they’ll also allow us to perform about 4 annual major cleanups \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: in partnership with I heart Oakland Alameda estuary\, the nonprofit that does the kayak cleanups on the estuary. What? What’s exciting about those cleanups in the way they do them? And if any of you participated\, they’re getting out to places on the estuary that that we can’t typically get to from land. They also engage a lot of Oaklanders\, especially from our frontline communities \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: to get them out there volunteering. So they’re teaching young people about the importance of water quality and and the importance of of protecting our waterways. So it it has both a long term preventive beneficial effect\, as well as a short term\, immediate cleanup. Another portion of the grant that that we wrote in 2 portions. One is a proactive boat. Buy back program that we will model after other programs. We’ve looked at around the state. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: the the and we will have an outreach component\, so that we can have a team doing outreach at the Marinas to to grab boats that owners may not want anymore before they turn around and sell them to someone who doesn’t understand the regulations and the and the responsibility of owning a boat. And so we are hopeful that this buyback would be successful in helping us again in a preventive way\, getting boats out of the water before they become the the problems that we’ve seen in the past. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: The other part of it is to do some public education on prevention along the estuary\, through signage\, through outreach at the Marinas just to remind people of the importance of not you know\, impacting the the marine the estuary with marine debris. So \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: it’s a very comprehensive grant proposal. We feel that it’s very competitive and we’ll know in about a week. And of course we’ll share that with our Vcdc team. So that’s that’s looking forward\, and I’m I’m really excited. If we get it to to do that as far as the current work removing boats\, I’m going to turn it over to off Officer Albino\, because I think his team has been doing a phenomenal job\, and I’ll let him share. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: Thank you. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Hey? Good morning\, everyone. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Recently\, in the past couple of months\, we were able to utilize our save Grant from our grant from 2023\, \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and we expended about 95% of that recently removing about 17 boats at the beginning of July. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: What I really liked about this last cleanup is that we stopped using the Jack London aquatic center parking lot \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: as kind of a crushing site and then loading \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that crushed debris into transfer trucks\, and then transferring them over the road \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: through Oakland. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where we partnered with Lynn marine this time\, and they brought in a large barge\, a crane and heavy equipment. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and they were able to pick up the boats directly out of the water \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where me and my team would go out into the these 17 boats came out of Belmar\, Marina specifically on the Oakland side. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: And these were boats that have been. The tenants have walked away from\, or they stopped paying rent\, and the owners of the \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: marina were able to lean\, hold these boats. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and these were all identified \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: prior to the clean up\, and we also put our own 30 day boasting on them just in case. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: There was some ownership questions there. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: but we were able to go in with me\, and my team pulled these boats out of their slips in the Amar Marinas \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: towed them over to the barge\, where a large crane was able to lift them right out of the water and place them in the barge \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and sailed out of the estuary over to Mare Island\, near Vallejo. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: where they were crushed inside of the barge and disposed of in a lot \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: cleaner way than we have in the past. So I’m \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: hoping that we can continue our partnership with Lin Marine and move forward. With that \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I think those 17 boats that we pulled out brought our total number up\, since \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: kind of those start \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: of my relationship with Bcdc. Close to 50 to 55 vessels that we’ve either abated. They’ve left on their own. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: or we have physically removed and destroyed \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: as far as future planning goes. Back in April. And May I applied for a quarter 1 million dollar grant through the State. Another saved grant. Essentially \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that we’re still waiting to hear back from. And hopefully\, then \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: we get awarded all or some of that amount\, and we can continue. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: There was about 25 more vessels inside of the marinas \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: kind of the same deal where tenants have walked away from \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: the marina. Owners have lean hold of those boats\, and they’re just sitting there \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: rotting away\, in a sense\, inside of the marinas taking up a slip. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and my goal is to get at least get rid of all those \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: vessels that are just sitting there\, so they don’t become an anchor out. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: And that leads me into our anchor out problem. That always \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: seems to be there. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and we have last. I counted 2 days ago. We have 8 vessels now \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: that I’m working on abating those as well. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I’m being very patient with them and trying to come up with a plan for them to leave on their own. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: That \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: doesn’t seem likely\, with some that some of them \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: there’s about 3 that do seem like they will take alternative housing\, or they will seek an a different location to take their vessels to. I’m optimistic about that\, and I’m hoping to have no anchor outs in the estuary by November first.st \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: That’s kind of the date that I set on myself\, and I’m hoping I can be successful with them. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I think that’s it for my update on the estuary. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and thank you\, Joe\, for covering the large scale of everything. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: before we move on to the city of Alameda. I wanna give an opportunity \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for commissioners to ask questions. But 1st I want to say thank you very much. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to the city of Oakland representatives for coming here\, and thank you for the partnership that we’ve had with Bcdc. Over the last several years. I did have a question for Officer Albino\, I think\, in one of our prior updates. One of the issues you had was staffing \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you were trying to get more officers on the boat on the water\, and there was some \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: question as to whether or not the funding would be available in the city’s budget. Can you give us an update on that. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: I don’t have a specific update where we’re at with adding additional staff. Now\, I did have 3 officers assigned with me for 180 days. \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: and I can tell you that made a tremendous difference in the amount of work and the speed of work that I was able \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: to conduct \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: Our department right now is going through some tough times\, and I’m still hoping \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: to at least get some additional officers on a future loan\, and I’m trying to time those loans around \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: the Grant approval process. And by the time the grant I’m actually able to spend that money is when I would like to \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: essentially start those loans. So once I’m ready to actually go out in the estuary and do work with the money that’s ready there\, I think that will be \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: The best way to go about things\, for now\, until additional staffing can be \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: can be brought forth. I would \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: love any help that anyone’s able to \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: talk to their friends. Talk to my chain of command as well. I I would appreciate that. But \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: right now\, where I think we’re doing some good work with \nOfc. Kaleo Albino OPD: with what we have going on for. Now. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, thank you for clarifying that I appreciate it. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other committee members? Have any questions for the city of Oakland representatives. Oh\, I saw a hand! Where did it go? \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I I just but chair\, Gilmore. I just wanted to point out that \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: for that Noaa Grant. We did write cost of overtime shifts into it for Opd explicitly to see that Officer Albino would have that support. So if we are successful because we recognize that these shifts get filled often with with volunteer overtime slots\, the department staffing is is challenged\, and and those overtime slots can be hard to fill. But certainly\, if if we are successful\, there will be funding so that that eases the burden on the city a bit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Anybody else. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Marie\, this is John. I just want to say thank you to the city of Oakland. This has been a long. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: difficult task\, and they have stayed \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: in the game\, and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: the results are showing. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I. \nLetty Belin\, Commissioner: I I was thinking exactly the same. This is more encouraging than earlier times that I’ve seen. So thank you very much. It’s great. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Once once again\, thanks again to the city of Oakland\, and all your efforts. For the estuary\, and on everybody’s behalf. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So now I think we’re gonna move on to the city of Alameda. \nAPD T. Siebert: Good morning. It’s Tyson Siever\, with the city of Alameda police department. \nAPD T. Siebert: So currently\, as for an update for us\, we just recently closed out our save 22 grant. \nAPD T. Siebert: and we close that grant out by spending $56\,000 removing 4 sunken vessels that were along our south rock wall along the beachfront there. \nAPD T. Siebert: So we close that grunt out by removing those 4 sunken vessels. \nAPD T. Siebert: We are starting on our save 23 grant right now. Which we’ve been awarded $200\,000 within that grant. And we’re currently working just like Officer Albino\, currently working with our Marinas to remove the derelict vessels out of the Marinas\, so they don’t become anchor outs so far in our save 23 Grant. We’ve removed 4 vessels for the Fortman\, Marina\, Oakland\, Marina\, and the Marina village yacht harbor. \nAPD T. Siebert: Currently right now along our side of the estuary\, as of our last patrol date\, which was last weekend there were 0 anchor outs on our side that that we recognized. \nAPD T. Siebert: We have \nAPD T. Siebert: one vessel that’s illegally docked at our Grand Street\, Marina\, and that was a derelict vessel that got sold by the Grand Street\, Marina. \nAPD T. Siebert: And then he’s anchored out there at the public dock. So that’s the the one problem that we are dealing with right now\, as far as yes\, where is concerned. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Do we have? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank thank you for your update. Do we have any questions for the city of Alameda? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I don’t see any hands. I would just like to say Thank you both to both cities for the time and effort. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and not inconsiderable expense\, that has gone into cleaning up the estuary and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I know it matters to all of us who go out and do recreation on the estuary\, and I also want to point out. I believe we had some rowers from the estuary who did very well in the summer. Olympics. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I think that’s just sort of a nice bow on top of everybody’s efforts. So you know\, I think if we ever get discouraged\, we can just think about that that team\, and and probably the difference that this made in you know\, their training efforts. As sort of an inspiration to to keep going. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any other comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, well\, thank you very much\, everybody\, and keep up the good work. \nJoe DeVries City of Oakland: I just wanted to point out. I’m sorry to interrupt\, but you do have a hand raised from the Coast Guard in the chat in the attendee column. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Oh\, I’m sorry I can’t see that. So public! I forgot about public comment. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Alright. We have one hand raised rebecca Leesburg. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Hi! Good morning\, rebecca Schwartz\, Lasberg. Health policy solutions. Wanted to give you guys a lot of kudos for the hard work out there and improving conditions in the Oakland estuary. I know it’s not an easy task. I have 2 questions. I know that sometimes ability into questions during public comment is limited. I will throw them out there if you’d like to answer them. That would be great. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: My 1st question is\, I know it’s a little bit hard to quantify. Because boats are in a state of flux. Some are sunken\, some are at docks\, some are anchored out\, but and my apologies if I missed it. Do you have a general \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: sense of how many boats were out there\, and how many have been removed\, and how many are left. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: And again my apologies. If I missed that that number. And then my second question is. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: as you look towards opportunities for a vessel buyback program. Are you thinking something similar to what our Bra has been doing? Richardson Bay and do you have? I mean\, they they have their own ways that we’ve been working to fund that both through internal agency dollars. Looking at Grant funds. How are you guys thinking about trying to fund something like that. So those are my 2 questions. Thank you so much for all of your hard work. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you very much. Do we have any other public comments? \nBoardroom SX80: that’s all we have. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay? I I think. \nBoardroom SX80: Oh\, sorry. We have Brock de lab. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nBoardroom SX80: Hello! \nBrock de Lappe: Good morning\, Commissioners. I just want to reiterate what Officer Albino said about the use of Lind Marine for doing the July 1st Cleanup. \nBrock de Lappe: where they brought a large barge with a crane into the estuary. \nBrock de Lappe: and abandoned boats from Marinas were loaded onto the barge\, and they were taken up to the Lind shipyard at Mare Island for disposal. \nBrock de Lappe: This is \nBrock de Lappe: the ideal way of doing this work. It’s clean \nBrock de Lappe: doesn’t require any crushing of boats\, and the \nBrock de Lappe: in the Jlak parking lot. \nBrock de Lappe: and it gets rid of a lot of boats very quickly. \nBrock de Lappe: I just want to commend both \nBrock de Lappe: Oakland and Alameda for being proactive about removing abandoned boats from Marinas. \nBrock de Lappe: When people get tired of their boats and don’t want to make any effort to sell them \nBrock de Lappe: they just walk away from their boat\, and it’s left in the slip. The Marina has to go through a lengthy \nBrock de Lappe: Dmv. Lean process. The boat is eventually taken through a lean sale. Nobody shows up for that. It then becomes the property of the marina. \nBrock de Lappe: There’s no insurance on the boat. If it sinks in the slip \nBrock de Lappe: that becomes the Marina’s expense. \nBrock de Lappe: So \nBrock de Lappe: this is exactly what the Save Grant money is is earmarked for is to deal with people that just can’t afford to responsibly get rid of their boats\, and what we don’t want to do is for harbor masters to sell these boats for 50 bucks\, and say\, I don’t care what you do with it. Just get it out of my marina\, because that feeds the anchor out problem. \nBrock de Lappe: So by addressing this\, by removing these abandoned boats from Marinas. It prevents there being a source feeding the anchor outs. So \nBrock de Lappe: having been involved in the estuary for well over a decade\, I just want to say it’s cleaner and better than it’s ever been\, and while there’s still a few anchor outs on the Oakland side\, I’m sure that when Officer Albino gets the necessary funding to proceed. \nBrock de Lappe: He will. \nBrock de Lappe: and very soon we will have a completely cleared estuary. So thank you\, everybody for all the effort. It’s really it’s made a tremendous difference. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. Thank. \nBoardroom SX80: Hey\, Brock. \nBoardroom SX80: that’s all we have to go. Well\, actually\, Commissioner Vasquez would like to speak. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Did Brock? Did you leave? \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, I mean. \nBrock de Lappe: Here. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You know you over the years you’ve talked about the that whole process of doing the lean sale and the difficulty in that. And then the fact that somebody can pick up a boat for 50 bucks afterwards. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: You’ve given it a lot of thought. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Is is it a \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: A legislative issue that we have to work with\, because I’ve heard this for decades. This issue of you know\, the \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: get trying to get rid of the boats trying to sell the boats off and somebody buying them. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: If we know the problem\, why isn’t somebody come up with a solution? And I I’m asking you because you’re in the industry. You certainly have spoken many times\, and have always brought to our attention these these issues. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: any ideas. \nBrock de Lappe: Well\, it’s John. It’s an end of life matter. \nBrock de Lappe: Unfortunately\, we all face that. \nBrock de Lappe: and so do boats. \nBrock de Lappe: and the State doesn’t really have \nBrock de Lappe: any kind of a regional program set up to deal with that? \nBrock de Lappe: there has been talk about adding \nBrock de Lappe: a fee to annual registration \nBrock de Lappe: that could fund \nBrock de Lappe: regional recycling facilities. And that’s ideally what I think should happen. \nBrock de Lappe: But you know what people feel like about anybody raising their taxes. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Oh\, yeah. \nBrock de Lappe: It’s not very popular. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No. \nBrock de Lappe: But you know you can pay me now\, or you can pay me later. \nBrock de Lappe: And \nBrock de Lappe: those boats that sank off of the rock wall \nBrock de Lappe: on the the south west end of Alameda. \nBrock de Lappe: That was a very expensive recovery. \nBrock de Lappe: as will the recovery of the sunken boats that are still in the estuary. \nBrock de Lappe: Those are going to be much more difficult to deal with than the ones that they’re taking out of the marinas\, the ones that are in the marinas. \nBrock de Lappe: That was an extremely efficient day. I was \nBrock de Lappe: allowed to participate and and photograph \nBrock de Lappe: the operation. \nBrock de Lappe: and the boats were \nBrock de Lappe: removed from the marina. They were towed out to the barge. The crane on the barge lifted the boats up onto the barge. They were all neatly stacked up on the barge\, and by one o’clock in the afternoon that barge was on its way back up to Vallejo. \nBrock de Lappe: That will not be the case with these sunken boats. This is going to be \nBrock de Lappe: a much more \nBrock de Lappe: detailed and and lengthy operation\, so the sooner we can get to the boats that have been abandoned\, the less expensive it is. \nBrock de Lappe: And again\, that’s why I’m absolutely commanding both Alameda \nBrock de Lappe: and Oakland for using their save money to get these boats out of the Marinas\, because the Marinas simply don’t have \nBrock de Lappe: the funds to pay for people’s \nBrock de Lappe: abandoned boats. It’s it’s between a hundred $5\,200 a foot minimum. \nBrock de Lappe: So if you’ve got a 30 foot boat \nBrock de Lappe: you’re looking at\, you know. \nBrock de Lappe: 4\,000 $506\,000 to get rid of the boat. \nBrock de Lappe: and it’s far more than it’s\, you know\, than it’s worth. It’s not worth anything at that point. \nBrock de Lappe: So we do have a big problem with disposal of these end of life vessels\, and it’s not going to get any better. \nBrock de Lappe: I mean\, every every day\, every boats are getting older. \nBrock de Lappe: And here’s the other problem that I see\, and that is is that \nBrock de Lappe: living in the Bay Area \nBrock de Lappe: is tremendously expensive. \nBrock de Lappe: Generations coming up \nBrock de Lappe: are struggling to \nBrock de Lappe: make rent and simply live in the Bay Area. \nBrock de Lappe: They don’t have the the discretionary money for a recreational boating. \nBrock de Lappe: and so that depresses the market\, it reduces that recreational activity. \nBrock de Lappe: And \nBrock de Lappe: it’s just going to lead to more boats being abandoned. \nBrock de Lappe: and the best we can do is what’s being done right now. \nBrock de Lappe: which is using save grant money using noaa funding \nBrock de Lappe: whatever we can get \nBrock de Lappe: to stay on top of what will be an ongoing problem\, and \nBrock de Lappe: and unless the State \nBrock de Lappe: add some kind of fee to annual registration\, I don’t see any hope of anything changing. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Brock. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Marie\, for letting me ask that question. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Grace. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: No\, it’s so\, I said\, on the Delta Protection Commission\, also on the same issue\, is going on the Delta. We just had a presentation last month. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: about the average age of the boats in California is 35 years old. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: So\, to Brock’s point\, they\, they are reaching the Asia. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The end of their life. And they’re having more and more these kinds of issues\, and less and less people are recreating on boats. So less boats are being sold. So even trying to put a fee on new boats\, it’s not really going to solve the problem. We’re just. We’re coming up with \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: lots of old boats that people no longer want or can afford to keep. So they’re either going to be in the Delta or in the bay. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Any other Commissioner comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, I’m gonna close the public hearing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No other Commissioner comments. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So we are going to move on. Thank you\, everybody. It is a really tough issue\, but \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I do feel like the cities of Alameda and Oakland are making some real progress here. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but like with everything else\, we sort of have to keep at it\, and be somewhat patient\, and hope that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know the funding stream continues to be there. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: item number 7. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: It’s a progress report on the compliance with the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency and BC. DC. Settlement agreement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So the committee will now receive a briefing from the compliance staff and rbra staff on the current status of Rbra’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement that went into effect. In August 2021\, \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and the main objectives of the settlement agreement are to enforce compliance with the Richardson stay special area plan \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to ensure the removal of anchored out vessels from Richardson’s Bay to restore damaged eelgrass beds in the bay\, and to establish a long term protection and management plan for the eelgrass habitats. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I’m now going to invite John preach of our compliance unit to deliver his presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again John Creech here from Bcdc’s compliance team\, I’d like to introduce item 7\, a briefing on the status of the settlement agreement between Bcdc. And Richardson Bay Regional Agency or the Rbra. \nBoardroom SX80: We will then hear from representatives from the Rbra regarding the progress they have made towards compliance with the agreement and eelgrass restoration. \nBoardroom SX80: Enforcement case er 2010\, 0 3\, 8 was opened on August 31\, st 2\,010\, in response to allegedly 220 anchor outs\, living illegally on the anchorage in Richardson Bay\, in Marin County. \nBoardroom SX80: in 2\,012\, a census was conducted\, and determined that 165 individuals were living on the anchorage. \nBoardroom SX80: This Enforcement case was settled on September 8\, th 2\,021 has been amended twice\, allowing Rbra a couple of time extensions to meet deadlines as authorized under Section 12 of the agreement \nBoardroom SX80: our Bra. Agreed to develop and submitted their ten-year adaptive management plan for eelgrass restoration by the December 15\, th 2\,023 deadline. \nBoardroom SX80: and we will hear more about that from Rbras \nBoardroom SX80: representatives. After this introduction \nBoardroom SX80: per the terms of this agreement. By no later than October 15\, th 2\,026\, all occupied vessels. Their ground tackle\, and their moorings are to be removed from the anchorage. \nBoardroom SX80: Section 15. Of the agreement has certain reporting requirements that Rbra continues to successfully meet \nBoardroom SX80: each month. Our Bra. Submits to Bcdc. A comprehensive report which indicates how much progress they have made towards reaching compliance with the settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: Bcdc. Staff also meets virtually with Rbra each month to ensure we keep an open line of communication. \nBoardroom SX80: These reports\, are to include the following metrics. \nBoardroom SX80: vessel metrics\, eelgrass metrics\, housing metrics\, governance metrics just to name a few. This section of the agreement also stipulates that Rbra brief Bcdc’s Enforcement Committee each quarter on their progress\, and here they are today to meet that requirement. \nBoardroom SX80: Rbra will report on the following metrics in their report\, the number of vessels that remain on the anchorage\, the number of vessels that remain in the Eelgrush Protection Zone. The number of active enforcement cases involving vessels on the anchorage number of vessels in the safe and seaworthy program \nBoardroom SX80: number of vessels successfully removed through the vessel buyback program. \nBoardroom SX80: their housing\, success metrics and yieldgrass success metrics. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you very much. I would now like to introduce Brad Gross. He’s the executive director of the Richardson Bay Regional Agency\, James Malcolm. He’s harbour master at Rbra and Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg. She is President of the Coastal policy solutions. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, John. This is Brad Gross. Good morning\, chair. Gilmore. Commissioners Brad\, Gross\, executive director from Rbra. Am I able to share my screen so I can give you a the Powerpoint presentation that we’ve prepared for today. \nBoardroom SX80: That shouldn’t be a problem. Brad\, can you see this share screen button. \nBrad Gross: Got it. Yeah. \nBrad Gross: thank you for your patience. Everybody this is Brad\, Gross\, executive director. Rbra\, with me today I have Jim Malcolm\, our harbor master\, and Rebecca Schwartz Lesberg with our Rbra Hill grass expert and the President of Coastal policy solutions. It’s good to see everybody again today. The last time we were before this committee was in December. \nBrad Gross: We’re going to update you on the activities since that time\, and we’ll be ready to answer any questions you have at the conclusion of the presentation\, or\, if there are any questions you know\, feel free to jump in at any time to ask a question. \nBrad Gross: As usual\, we open with acknowledging our partners as all aspects of what we’re doing involve a very large team. \nBrad Gross: I’m gonna quickly quickly review. Let me try and get this moved over here. I’m gonna quickly review the milestones. Those that are highlighted with the dark blue have been accomplished. The others in the turquoise color are either underway or have future deadlines. \nBrad Gross: The 1st quote few bullet points we presented in the past. So I’m just going to jump to Bullet Point\, number 7\, the removal of all post 2\,019 vessels. We’ve made great progress on this\, and there will be more on that later in the presentation. \nBrad Gross: like to point out the final bullet point remove all floating homes illegally anchored off of Waldo Point. The last floating home was removed. Actually the illegally anchored vessels off Waldo Point that were identified in our agreement. I don’t want anybody to get the impression that we’re taking all the floating homes out of Waldo Point. \nBrad Gross: The last floating home was removed during this reporting period and disposed of by Rbra. So now all the floating homes and their ground\, their ground tackle\, identified in our agreement\, are now gone from Richardson Bay \nBrad Gross: more milestones. I’m gonna just move to slide number 3 here. No vessels in the eelgrass protection zone. By October 15\, th 2024. This is ongoing\, and there will be more again on this also. Later in the presentation. \nBrad Gross: the last 3 bullet points remove all occupied safe and seaworthy vessels\, remove all vessels and occupants\, and only transient seaworthy vessels in the anchor zone have due dates of October of 2026. \nBrad Gross: Very quickly our vessel buyback program\, this last reporting period\, the way these slides are set up. We have the previous reporting period on the left\, and then we will report on activities during this reporting period\, and and for the last reporting period. I’ll just read the numbers 5\, 1\, 8\, 39\,000 781\,721 vessels \nBrad Gross: for this reporting period. Those numbers are now 11 vessels and one floating home purchase\, 18 total vessels and floating homes properly disposed of. Since the reinstatement of the program in April of 2023\, \nBrad Gross: $120\,800 distributed since the reinstatement\, and $162\,800 distributed\, and 33 vessels disposed of since the program inception in 2\,022 \nBrad Gross: regarding our codes and ordinances\, we are constantly updating our codes and ordinances and the recent update which will go to our board in September for final approval\, and if approved\, this is just a new ordinance that will provide the harbor master with one more tool to efficiently remove vessels from the anchorage. \nBrad Gross: I’m going to move on to Eelgrass now and turn it over to Ms. Schwartz Lesberg. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Hello! Good morning again. Everybody. I have a couple of fun updates for you. I get to talk about the \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the environmental piece here\, so I’ll give you some updates about the Restoration. Grant that we have from EPA and some upcoming actions. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Oh\, I can’t enter damn slides next slide\, please. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So\, as a reminder\, Rbra was granted about 3 million dollars from us. EPA. San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund that supports or supported the development of the Restoration Adaptive Management Plan mentioned by John earlier\, which was submitted to Bcdc. Last December. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The Grant also funds the 1st 15 acres of eelgrass restoration in Richardson Bay specifically focused on the anchor scars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and our goal is to get those 15 acres planted by 2027. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The Grant supports ongoing adaptive management. And so what that means is that it’s paying for scientists and restoration ecologists to go out there. Monitor\, what’s going on under the water with the plants\, how they’re surviving\, if they need additional support\, how we can change things from year to year\, and how we’re putting plants in the ground and making sure that we’re learning from what we’re doing as we go along. The Grant also supports significant partner engagement and stakeholder outreach \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Since we were awarded the grant. All subcontracts and subawards have been executed\, and so that includes subcontracts to coastal policy solutions\, and to Merkel and associates Merkel and associates produced the figure on the left\, which I’ll explain more in a moment. It also includes sub awards to San Francisco State University and Audubon\, California. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This past. So each year we do water bird monitoring\, starting in November\, and it continues through April. So the 2023\, 2024 monitoring season completed since last time we talked. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and that includes 6 drone surveys of rafting water birds in Richardson Bay. So what that’s looking at is not necessarily species\, composition. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: or \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: but abundance\, but is really asking the question. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: where are birds gathering in large numbers to use the bay’s open waters? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The the other piece of a \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: we’re doing it out there. But \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: is the app \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: actual plan? \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Okay? So in 2024 we had 2 events is unstable. If I’m coming in and out my apologies. I can always take my video off if you’re having any issues hearing me. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: But we had 2 planting events\, one in May and one in June. Those restoration events happen during the summer or early summer\, late spring\, early summer\, specifically to coincide with the maximum maximum extent of the growing season for eelgrass. That’s also when we get some of our \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: okay\, I’ve got a note from Brad to kill my camera. My audio is shaking. Just turned off my camera\, and those planting events also coincide with when we have our extreme low tides. During the day \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: we got about 6 acres in this season with the EPA money as sort of a coda to that. There’s also other funds that are used to support restoration in Richardson Bay. So we got an additional 3 acres in the ground. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Using Costco busan mitigation dollars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Now\, what does that work include? It’s baseline data. So figuring out what is the current situation on the ground plan for where we’re going to be planting\, doing a donor site survey\, collecting the donor material\, active\, replanting\, and then also tagging marine debris. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: which I’ll talk about more in a moment. But to refer to this figure on the left. What we see here is an aerial photo or a base map\, basically of \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: the eelgrass bed in Richardson Bay. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: On the bottom is the shoreline of Sausalito. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The light green or sort of yellowish color is the distribution of eelgrass based on survey data taken in 2\,022. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: There’s\, of course\, now car alarm going on outside the green dots are eel grass that was planted in 2024\, using EPA Grant dollars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: The other color dots are eelgrass plantings that took place before this year. You are using cosmosan dollars. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: You can see that we’re really focusing on the northern portion of the eelgrass protection zone which coincides with where we see the maximum extent of vessel renewal. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: So if any folks have questions about \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: planting techniques\, surveying design\, anything like that\, happy to answer those \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: next slide. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: some upcoming actions. So this summer. Actually\, it’s probably already happened by now. We’ll be doing the aerial photography for our annual ill grass damage assessment. So that produces those really compelling photographs that shows the anchor scars from the air. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: This winter we’ll again be doing waterbird monitoring. Spring will start planting\, planning for next season’s restoration. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: and then next season will be. In addition to the Eelgrass restoration will be doing debris removal. There is a fair amount of \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: debris on the bay floor in the areas of these anchor scars. It’s not all specifically abandoned and derelict vessels on the bay floor\, but debris associated with them. So it’s things like skiffs or small boats that often sink and go unreported. General material that comes off the decks. There’s a lot of stuff down there. So Merkel. They they mapped and tagged a lot of that\, and they’ll be focusing on that for next year. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I do \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: have. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Well\, we can skip it. I have some photos of what the actual Restoration efforts look like. That\, Brad. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: if you would like me to share I and but we can always come back to that later. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Let’s. \nBrad Gross: Come back to that later. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yeah\, I was gonna say\, maybe we should come back to that later and keep the presentation moving. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Sounds good. I’m all done. Thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I believe this is now Brad or Jim. \nBrad Gross: Do we have the harbor masters promoted \nBrad Gross: over to Malcolm. This is his section. We can’t get him. I can cover it. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: I don’t see him as a participant. \nBrad Gross: Well\, in order to \nBrad Gross: keep things moving\, I’ll just jump in here. This was I. I am filling in for harbour\, Master Jim Malcolm \nBrad Gross: and he says he’s on\, and he’s here. If someone can please promote Jim Malcolm Rbra \nBrad Gross: cause. I’m sure there may be some questions for him. We can get him onto this presentation. \nBrad Gross: Jim\, pipe pipe in any time you get on board. \nBrad Gross: In the meantime I’ll keep going. \nBrad Gross: This is our \nRBRA: Hello! I’m here. I got a problem. \nBrad Gross: Alright sorry I was stalling. Thank you\, everybody. \nRBRA: Thank you very much. And good morning\, Commissioners. My name is Jim Malcolm. I’m the harbour master for the Rbra. This will be my small section of our presentation today. I’d like to start by like I said. The slide says vessel census title on the side says vessels and floating homes in Richardson Bay. As Brad’s already mentioned\, we have no more floating homes we just leave that in there as a pleasant reminder for a great work accomplished \nRBRA: from everyone. Our current vessel census now is down to 31 \nRBRA: as was\, as was mentioned earlier this slide only goes back to October 2021. This is when I started with the agency\, the very beginning of 2021\, we were at 100\, about 155\, and then going back as 2\,01720 18\, we were up at about 2 55. So this is this definitely displays a lot of good work that 31 represents. Both. You know\, vessels engaged in in our housing people on a path to housing as well as \nRBRA: vessels that are involved in active enforcement\, not necessarily with housing\, but active enforcement. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: similar to other slides. That we have seen. I’ll be addressing this as in a format of \nRBRA: milestones\, you know\, as milestones. In the agreement we know what the original milestone was\, what it was last updated\, and then what it is currently starting there on the left \nRBRA: our milestone was October 15\, th 2\,023\, all post 2\,019 vessels to be removed from the anchorage. \nRBRA: In August of 22 we were down to 14. December 23\, we were down to 7\, and as of this update. We now have 3 of those vessels remaining. 2 of those 2 of those 3 are engaged with our housing program on our path to housing. \nRBRA: and they will be surrendering their vessels once they’re housed. I the best you know\, as as far as the time it takes to get housed once they’re engaged. That that is really up to our housing component\, but usually runs anywhere from 2 weeks to a month before the vessel is actually removed\, so we’ll be down shortly. Be down to one. \nRBRA: Next was is the removal of all floating homes\, as been mentioned a couple of times. Now that has been accomplished. We have 0. \nRBRA: Next is the no vessels inside the Eelgrass protection zone. There were 53 in July of 2242 August of 23 \nRBRA: 35 at our last update we now have 29\, and I will. Our next slide will be. I’ll be kind of speaking to what our plan is for those remaining vessels. \nRBRA: Next is our all occupied removal of all of our occupied\, safe and seaworthy vessels. Vessels with that are that enrolled in the safe and seaworthy program back in 2\,019\, when that program was stood up. \nRBRA: there were 10 of those in June of 2022\, 7 in August of 2023 on. \nRBRA: and then I’ll as well. 7 \nRBRA: at our last update. We’re down to 6. The reason these numbers are dropping these vessels per per the milestone. In the agreement these vessels are actually not required to be removed until the end of the agreement. In 2026. These folks are either electing to take housing the vessels were safe and seaworthy are safe\, and are\, are\, you know\, were enrolled as safe and seaworthy. They can take\, and\, you know. \nRBRA: put them in a marina\, seal them away\, do whatever they like to do. These. The reduction in numbers that we’re actually seeing\, though\, is more\, people are electing to go for the housing program and actually surrendering their vessels through the vessel. Buyback. \nRBRA: lastly\, is total vessels on the water. There were 57\, as of July of 2022\, 48\, in August of 2343 at our last update in December. \nRBRA: and then 31. As of this update 2 on 2 on authorized 30 day permits \nRBRA: 6 vessels engaged in active enforcement\, and 2 of those vessels are under nuisance abatement removal. \nRBRA: Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: as I mentioned. For the folks that are within the Eelgrass protection zone. \nRBRA: this is what you’re seeing. On the right of the slide is a copy of the notice that we’ve been delivering \nRBRA: to the folks that are out on in the Eelgrass Protection zone that we will be relocating down into the authorized anchorage area. Once we close out the Eaglegrass Protection zone. Speaking to enforcement. \nRBRA: we’ve had this period. We’ve had 35 citations issued 3 4 initial. Basically\, somebody comes in drops the anchor. They can stay for 72 h \nRBRA: once they have\, exceeded that 72 h they get an initial citation\, and then we give it a 30 day period for the give them time to either appeal or pay the citation. If they’re still there. After 30 days they get a second \nRBRA: same scenario another 30 days\, and then after that they get a 3.rd \nRBRA: After they’ve received their 3rd citation\, and they’re still there. 30 days later they get a a nuisance abatement notice\, which is basically the rbra declaring their vessel public nuisance and giving them a period of time to remove their vessel from the anchorage \nRBRA: or face impound. \nRBRA: We’ve had 4 nuisance abatements issued\, resulting in 2 vessel removals and one abatement. 2 vessel removals\, and one of those base vessels has already been abated during the past reporting period. The other vessel is still in progress. \nRBRA: All vessels on Richardson Bay\, as I mentioned are required to relocate out of the Eelgrass protection zone of this October. They were issued a \nRBRA: it doesn’t say one year\, but they were issued a 1 year. They were issued a 9 month notice. They were issued a 6 month. Notice a 3 month notice. We’re in the process of issuing 2 month notices\, and then they’ll also be issued a 1 month notice\, giving them all due proper notice that says that they need to relocate out of the illgrass protection zone into the authorized anchorage area. Next slide\, please. \nRBRA: and as you can see\, the the chartlet on the right side of your screen the beige area kind of at below the green is will be the new authorized anchorage area where we’re going to be relocating folks out of those green. Anybody who’s anchored in that green area is going to be relocated down into that \nRBRA: Beige area which will be the new anchorage area. And how are they going to know the new anchorage area? Our planning is underway \nRBRA: for eelgrass\, protection\, zone and anchorage signage? 5 signs will be placed on existing piles\, installation of one new pile and 3 floating blue buoys. \nRBRA: Our plans have all been approved by Bcdc. Staff permits are pending with other agencies. \nRBRA: and\, as I’ve mentioned\, all vessels are going to be receiving those 2 month and one month notices with the intention of having everybody relocated out of the Eelgrass Protection zone and into the new anchorage by October of this year. \nRBRA: Anybody kind of preempting a preempting questions. Anybody who either does not \nRBRA: will not\, does not\, or just absolutely heck. No\, we won’t go will fall into the enforcement side \nRBRA: of the Enforcement side of our operation. \nRBRA: as I’ve mentioned before\, with the citations ramping up to eventual nuisance\, abatement. The citation\, however\, the citations for remaining inside the eelgrass protection zone are significantly heftier \nRBRA: than just the average citations that have been issued for exceeding the 72 h anchorage. So it’s it’s going to be a slightly slightly steeper enforcement slope for folks that don’t want to be move out of the Eelbras Protection zone. So that is all I have. I’m now going to send it back over to Brad to speak about some housing. \nBrad Gross: Thank you\, Jim. I appreciate that. We’re gonna move into the housing. Update \nBrad Gross: the temporary housing update. There are\, as I said in the past there are 4 components to the housing program funding. A 3 million dollar grant from the State \nBrad Gross: was received in fiscal year 23\, supported by Senator Mcguire. That was received on March 28\, th 2\,023. This allowed the program to begin on March 1st 2023\, and we’ve been at it for 15 months. Now we’ve expended just under $400\,000\, \nBrad Gross: temporary housing support. We’ve extended the agreement between Rbra and health and human services through June of 2025\, and in turn Hhs and Episcopal Community Service have also extended their agreement through the end of next fiscal year. \nBrad Gross: Finally\, we’ve contracted to have a 1 year review of the Rbra temporary Housing Support program conducted. It was published in the beginning of the summer. \nBrad Gross: and in a nutshell. The report cites the aspects of the program\, the placement of the placement of individuals in secure housing while removing illegally anchored vessels from the anchorage\, and and it basically highlights the successes and the challenges of the program. And actually it ended up being a very positive report. This report\, if anybody is interested in reviewing it is available all on our website. \nBrad Gross: Marinas\, there’s been no activity report during this past period on marinas. \nBrad Gross: This is the tracking of the post 2019 vessels\, and as we committed when we 1st began tracking these vessels we\, this slide was presented the last time we met just 2 months after the 1st extension was enact enacted\, and\, as you can see\, they we were well on our way. 4 vessels were gone\, 4 people were housed \nBrad Gross: and 8 people were engaged in the program. This is again\, this is from December. This is the current slide and the the there’s some dramatic progress that’s shown here. Those yellow\, highlighted lines are vessels that are gone. People have either moved on\, been housed\, or their vessels have all the vessels have left the acreage. \nBrad Gross: So with now we have 9 vessels gone\, and 14 total people. How housed. \nBrad Gross: and all but one is engaged\, and as as a reminder we committed to have all of these vessels on this list\, either gone or engaged by October 15th of 2024\, so that gives us about 7 more weeks to get that last holdout engaged. \nBrad Gross: So the the final recap on the housing program again\, all the numbers from the last report on the left there. 4\, 15\, 7\, and 4 important. But the current program covering the last 7 months highlights. Our recent successes. 14 people are now housed. 20 people are participating. 6 people are in queue\, and 17 people now have a voucher\, and 2 are pending\, and 7 more vessels have been purchased in the vessel buyback program. \nBrad Gross: I showed this slide at our last meeting in December. This slide’s a merger of the vessel and housing programs\, and it’s a visual depiction of the successes of the programs. \nBrad Gross: As I stand. In the last time I showed the slide I mentioned that at that time that the evidence of success will be obvious by the colored bars at the bottom\, eventually intersecting with those 2 top lines. Those 2 top lines represent vessels and the housing opportunities and various programs are along the bottom\, and that dark blue\, the gray\, light orange\, green\, and the Burgundy lines represent people housed \nBrad Gross: people in process\, vessels turned in or removed\, and the people with vouchers\, and all these lines were at that time beginning to trend up. \nBrad Gross: This is the slide. Now this is for the last reporting period starting in December\, and\, as you can see\, from December of 2023 to July 2024. Everything’s trending in the right direction. \nBrad Gross: and eventually we will see an intersection of those lines\, and the \nBrad Gross: the 2 lines at the top will go flat where the other lines that colors that I mentioned will head to the top of the of the chart. \nBrad Gross: As I start to wrap things up\, I just I just wanna I wanna thank our Bra. Staff for their hard work and and their and our partners\, including\, of course\, Vcdc. But the executive director\, the chief counsel and and the staff\, but but most importantly\, the the flexibility and the partnership \nBrad Gross: to this committee of this committee. It’s resulting in some constant and noticeable success. \nBrad Gross: I think this. This agreement between Rbra Bcbc may be unique. I’m not sure. I don’t know if it’s the 1st of its kind. But definitely some of the programs developed\, based on this agreement are and they’re working. It may be a little slower than we managed. We we 1st imagined when starting. But we’re working. \nBrad Gross: You know\, we’re working with a unique and and \nBrad Gross: willful population. I think that’s a great way to put it. But the consistent and methodical approach we’ve been taking to these solutions are working\, and we’re confident that we will ultimately be able to accomplish the final goal of the anchorage truly operating as a transient anchorage\, and\, as I said\, people are are taking note. This is just a quick list of some of the great press that we’ve received along with our partners\, and Bcdc. Over the last few months. \nBrad Gross: and with that I conclude my presentation. I apologize for having a video off during the presentation\, but I wanted to make sure that we were able to get this out information out\, and I’d be glad to take any questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Excuse me\, thank you very much for your presentation. It was \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: very concise and I’m happy to see the progress that the rbra is made even since the last reporting period. Do. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can you stop sharing your screen\, please\, because I can’t see anybody? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nBrad Gross: I’m sorry. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: No\, that’s okay. Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. Thank you for the presentations. 2 questions from your one of your initial slides. You reported that there are 31 vessels and \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: combined a number of 31 remaining to be removed or to move. It looks like if I go sort of back 31 vessels before that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: we had something like 62 vessels in in Richardson Bay\, back in. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I think it was \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: 2022 which suggests that it took about 2 years \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: to get 31 vessels out of there. So I’m wondering if that trajectory is \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: is what you expect to hold. In other words\, will it take another 2 years to get those remaining 31 vessels out? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: That’s question number one. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: and my second question for the harbor master. I appreciate your description of all of the notices that go out after a year and 6 months and 3 months and one month\, and then they get into a nuisance situation\, and then there are more notices. And \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: what is the inventive \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: for anyone getting these notices to do anything \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: up until the time it becomes a nuisance situation. I mean\, if \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: if you get a notice at one year \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: why not just sit there for a year. What! What \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: incentive is there to do anything before those notices expire? \nBrad Gross: Let let me \nBrad Gross: start with the answer to the 1st question. Thank you\, Commissioner\, for the question. \nBrad Gross: The 31 vessels includes vessels that have come into the anchorage as of late meaning. There’s a handful of vessels and harbormaster. Malcolm can give you the exact number that are in an Enforcement program right now. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And. \nBrad Gross: The the numbers that you stated. They’re rough numbers\, and and the numbers in the anchorage are always in flux because people are coming in and out. \nBrad Gross: but we can use those numbers\, and I would say that yes\, we’re probably on about for the last year the same number of reductions of vessels from the acreage that we’re expecting to take place for the next 18 months to 2 years. The reason for that\, Commissioner is that all of these vessels are occupied. \nBrad Gross: It was quicker when we had unoccupied vessels. They’re a little bit easier for us to remove and take action on. We don’t have people that respond. Therefore we can do a derelict vessel notice and and remove the vessel quicker. We have to make sure that we are giving the people on these vessels. Due process. Due process does take some time. That being said\, you asked the question\, and sorry. Jim\, I’ll I’ll just jump into the next one. You asked the question about enforcement and timing of Enforcement \nBrad Gross: person is allowed to come into the anchorage and anchor for 72 h\, not violation until after the 72 h. So if we project this out to 2026\, \nBrad Gross: and we still have vessels in the anchorage on October 15th of 2\,026. Ultimately\, our final day. Technically\, they’re not in violation \nBrad Gross: or 2 more\, or for 3 more days. \nBrad Gross: So let’s take a vessel that comes into the acreage. Now we’re making sure that we are taking all due process\, so that we are making sure that they have their ability to appeal. Though you write a citation\, the appeal process\, they have 30 days to appeal. They we do an appeal within 10 days. So it draws the timing out. \nBrad Gross: that being said\, as we get closer to our deadlines of October of 2024 for the illgrass protection zone\, October of 2025 for the remaining vessels. We are going to accelerate our notifications\, meaning instead of 10. This is the 1st that we’re announcing it. This has been in discussions with us and our attorneys. \nBrad Gross: We’re going to shorten that timeframe from \nBrad Gross: a citation appeal on 30 days. We’re to shorten that to 2 weeks\, so that in a matter of \nBrad Gross: a month to 6 weeks\, we will get to the nuisance abatement\, hearing which then\, if we’re successful\, gets us to a warrant which gives us 14 days to abate the nuisance. So we understand that it seems like it’s a long time right now. But we’re making sure\, basically\, that we’re trying to keep our \nBrad Gross: liability issues at a minimum. We’re a small agency. We don’t have a lot of money for these types of things. So we’re making sure that we can’t be successful. We get in front of a judge to get those warrants \nBrad Gross: and \nBrad Gross: and and all. \nRBRA: Also Commissioner to to answer another. Another of what I understood your question to be\, as far as the the motivation for somebody receiving a 6 month notice to go ahead and relocate out of the Eelgrass Protection zone. Historically\, vessels\, you know we had. If you take a look at those numbers\, as you pointed out on the slide. You know you had 66 vessels in 2022. Those vessels were spread out all over \nRBRA: basically the length of Richardson Bay. And as you look at that Chartlet\, you notice that you know\, the area of anchorage becomes significantly smaller. And so space\, you know\, for anybody who is who\, you know\, under under our agreement\, under our plans for housing individuals and the boats that can stay until 2025\, or can stay until 2026 space is at a premium. \nRBRA: and so for somebody who receives a 6 month notice \nRBRA: if they go ahead and they move\, or they receive a 2 month. Notice that area\, that new anchorage area right now\, as of my patrol yesterday only had about 4 boats in it. \nRBRA: We’re gonna have to take and fit if I still have. \nRBRA: Let’s say\, 23 boats that are authorized to be out there. Those are folks that are waiting for housing\, waiting for their turn at the housing program or waiting to waiting for the housing outreach to get to them. \nRBRA: That’s going to be 25 boats that need to move from the spread out region where they are now down into that finite anchor. So if they move sooner rather than later\, they’re not going to have to be further south\, further out into San Francisco\, you know\, closer to San Francisco Bay\, where it may not be quite as sheltered as being potentially closer. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I I’m not. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: I’m not fully understanding. So the incentive. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Is it a carrot or a stick that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: or both\, that will cause somebody who gets\, say\, a 6 months notice to move any sooner than 6 months. \nRBRA: It’s a carrot\, because if they move sooner than 6 months\, 6 months\, they could potentially be still inside the legal anchorage. And you know. \nRBRA: 1520\, \nRBRA: 6\,000 yards closer \nRBRA: to the public dock. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And that’s desirable\, I take it. \nRBRA: Yes\, it is. \nRBRA: Okay. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Alright. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Are there any other questions? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. I’m gonna open up the public comment. Margie\, do we have any but any public commenters. \nBoardroom SX80: I don’t see any hand raised. Cherry Elmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. I want to thank the Rbra representatives \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for coming and giving a very comprehensive update. And I want to say\, you know. Congratulations\, you guys are. Yeah\, I guess it’s slow and steady. Wins the race. Of course we’re always looking for a little bit faster\, but we understand the challenges with dealing with \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: you know\, occupied vessels as opposed to derelict. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: unoccupied vessels. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Does anybody else have any comments. Or one last call for questions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, remember to close the public comment. Public comment is closed. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And so thank you very much \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: for the update\, and we’ll see you\, I guess\, next quarter. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. \nBrad Gross: Thank you. \nRebecca Schwartz Lesberg – Coastal Policy Solutions: Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, that brings us to item number 8\, which is a briefing on the compliance unit units activities. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So I’m gonna invite John Creech and Tony Desog \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to deliver the presentation. \nBoardroom SX80: Good morning again\, Commissioners. I’m still John Creech\, still on the BC’s compliance team. I’m here with my counterpart\, Tony Desog. \nBoardroom SX80: Here’s an overview of our agenda. For this briefing we will discuss a few high level themes\, a bit of background on the compliance program\, and we’ll do our best to iterate how the compliance program works in practice. \nBoardroom SX80: In 2\,019 an audit resulted in the formation of the compliance program\, and it mentioned the 1st quote \nBoardroom SX80: which define the program as a systematic method of insurance\, of ensuring compliance with permit conditions to lessen risks that permit violations go undetected. \nBoardroom SX80: Another way to think about. The program is represented by the second quote\, which indicates that the compliance team takes over. After a new permit is issued some sort of enforcement resolution is reached or a report is submitted. \nBoardroom SX80: The point here is that prior to implementation of our units\, permits would get issued. Vcdc. Would address compliance matters in a reactive manner. Mostly when we would field inquiries from the public about permit violations. \nBoardroom SX80: So now\, when Bcdc issues a permit\, the compliance team acts as a liaison or a project manager to monitor deliverables required by the permits or orders\, and I’ll now pass it over to Tony. \nBoardroom SX80: Well\, thank you\, John. 1st off. It’s good to be here this morning. I will note that this is the 1st Enforcement meeting that I’ve attended. So it’s really good to be here. So let me quickly go over some of the background here. These 4 points John mentioned earlier\, the audit of 2\,019 \nBoardroom SX80: and \nBoardroom SX80: to reiterate\, reiterate. You know\, one important part of that audit was the belief that the Commission could prevent potential violations and as important decrease its enforcement workload through this compliance program. \nBoardroom SX80: Staff at the time expressed the view confirmed by the auditor that possibly 50% of violations were actually related to \nBoardroom SX80: noncompliance with permits such as failing to provide reports or blocking public access. Things like that. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, on the second point of the year 2\,022 new hires\, while both John and I were hired in August 2\,022\, the program really began in earnest. In January of 2\,023\, roughly\, 18 months ago. \nBoardroom SX80: John will later discuss our work since the inception of the compliance program. But for now let me just quickly mention 2 highlights over the 18 month period. One is having to do with having updated the compliance web page on Bcdc’s website. \nBoardroom SX80: and a special thank yous and kudos to Ethan Levine\, and also Raylena. Ruiz for their great assistance and helping us streamline. That website for the compliance program. So now it’s easy to use and follow for permittees or members of the public who might want to contact us about compliance related issues that they see\, or maybe permates might have questions. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, as for the internal procedures\, we are right now finalizing the internal procedures. When those procedures are finalized\, we will have on paper. The ways in which different programs of Bcdc. Such as the shoreline development program\, or such as the Bay Resources Program. \nBoardroom SX80: or even the Bcdc staff\, engineer or design analyst. You know\, we will have on paper the different ways in which programs of Bcdc interact with the compliant program and vice versa. \nBoardroom SX80: So let me now hand it over back to John\, who will start the discussion about how the compliance program works and has worked in the past 18 months. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks\, Tony. Here are a few examples and categories of compliance work that includes working on settlement agreements and orders. \nBoardroom SX80: new permit compliance \nBoardroom SX80: processing annual reports and technical reports and helping return noncompliant parties to compliance. \nBoardroom SX80: So prior to going to work as a compliance officer\, I was an enforcement analyst \nBoardroom SX80: with this enforcement\, experience and background. I tend to handle the lion’s share of resolved enforcement cases\, including settlement agreements and order compliance. \nBoardroom SX80: You just heard an example of an instance\, where Bcdc. Was able to get creative to avoid enforcement proceedings by successfully utilizing us. Bcdc’s new compliance team \nBoardroom SX80: with the Oakland Alameda estuary. There is no formal enforcement action taken\, however\, compliance staff regularly works with individuals from Oakland and Alameda staff\, among others\, to ensure no enforcement. Actions are necessary\, and to ensure that the cities continue to \nBoardroom SX80: prioritize\, maintaining a safe\, clean\, and healthy estuary. \nBoardroom SX80: You also heard the example of how Bcdc. Staff is continuing to work with Rbra staff to ensure that they remain in compliance with their settlement agreement. \nBoardroom SX80: This work includes regular meetings with rbra\, staff\, and positive communication to stay on top of deliverable deliverables due\, and ensure that there is a comprehensive understanding of the situation on the water. \nBoardroom SX80: Tony will now speak to some specific permitting compliance matters \nBoardroom SX80: great. Well\, thanks\, John. In. In the last slide John mentioned how? Based upon his prior background in the enforcement program\, that has resulted in him handling the lions work of the settlement agreements. \nBoardroom SX80: On behalf of this compliance program. Now\, as for myself\, prior to joining the compliance program\, my background was in Bcdc’s shoreline development program. Get getting great guidance from Ethan Levine as well as Katherine Pan. \nBoardroom SX80: And I think it’s because of this background that I’ve taken really to enjoying the processing of recently issued new permits processing these new permits for compliance related questions or or purposes. \nBoardroom SX80: And right now I’m going to discuss one example of a new permit that that the Commission had approved in late 2022\, December 2022\, and it was a permit that the former Staffer\, analyst\, Shruti Sinha\, had processed. And this has to do with the 200 Twin Dolphin Office\, R. And D. Project in Redwood City. \nBoardroom SX80: Just really quickly. This project involved the redevelopment of an office campus. Whose 5 story office R&D buildings were mostly outside of the shoreline band but whose public access areas within the public within the Bcdc’s jurisdiction were greatly expanded as a result of the of the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: So because of this\, we\, in compliance once\, Reina\, from the administrative Clerical Staff\, let us know about the issuance of of this new permit\, we went about in compliance\, our work. So \nBoardroom SX80: in particular\, in handling new permits that are issued. What one of the 1st things that we do is\, you know\, just creating a checklist of all the deliverables corresponding to special conditions in the permit. \nBoardroom SX80: And for those deliverables that have this very specific deadline due dates we create in Microsoft outlook calendars\, reminders\, reminder notices that ping us \nBoardroom SX80: in advance of the due dates\, or on or on the actual due dates itself. So at this point\, it’s really using something as basic as Microsoft outlook which is really at the heart of our proactive monitoring system that we have in place in terms of monitoring \nBoardroom SX80: new permits that you issue\, and getting them to deliver or transmit to us their deliverables in the time that they agreed. \nBoardroom SX80: But you know\, as important as with the checklist. It’s really about sending out that letter that that congratulations letter to the new permittees. Not only\, you know\, sharing with them. Oh\, hey! Here’s a checklist. We know that you’re the new permitee. We we know\, you know\, what your requirements are. But you know\, nonetheless. Here’s this letter. We want to congratulate you on this \nBoardroom SX80: on this new permit\, and here are the due dates and but indirectly\, what we’re also saying is\, Hey\, we’ve got a system in place. To basically monitor you to to keep you hopefully on top of in terms of submitting your deliverables. And next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: This is just obviously you can’t read this. But this is just an example of of an email a checklist that we send out. This is actually a follow up email\, a follow up to the initial checklist letter that we sent out. And basically\, we’re in the green. Indicates\, refers to a a deliverable subject to a special condition \nBoardroom SX80: that they that the permitee of 200 twin Dolphin had already submitted. So we’re saying\, Okay\, you submitted this. You submitted this. You submitted this. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, obviously you can’t read it\, but you can see yellow. The yellow indicates. Oh\, you know what you were supposed to do this deliverable by a certain timetable\, but we but we had not received it. So this is a a quick way of of reminding people. You need to get this into us. \nBoardroom SX80: You’ll also see at the bottom of this a bunch of deliverables where there is no color. That’s simply because a good number of deliverables\, as you well know. aren’t required to be trigger sent to us\, either. Not until a later point point in time\, down in the future. \nBoardroom SX80: or some deliverables such as sea level rise\, flooding reports of public access areas. They don’t need to be transmitted to us unless a certain triggering\, triggering event occurs. \nBoardroom SX80: So that’s just an example of how we follow up proactively and keeping people on their toes when in working with new permittees. But also in the compliance unit. You know\, we also want to work with existing permittees. You know\, people who’ve had permits either for several years\, or maybe even decades. And so next slide. \nBoardroom SX80: And so here we’re now going to talk about how the compliance program deals with existing permittees. When\, when we hear of situations where they are out of compliance. \nBoardroom SX80: In the situation of the Richmond Yacht Club. What triggered our review of the situation\, or the insertion of of the compliance unit. Into this situation was\, we received a complaint from a member of the public who who knew a lot of details about what was going on\, and the member of the public. Had\, you know\, let us know\, hey? \nBoardroom SX80: There’s been some unauthorized work that had been going on. You know\, make sure to take a look at this and we did. And so basically\, just really quickly. What the Richmond Yacht Club had done was \nBoardroom SX80: removed and replaced a beam that was underneath a wharf\, and the beam supports the wharf load the beam is called a glue lamb and so originally\, when we looked at the Permit history originally\, Richmond Yacht Club prior to\, you know\, getting the permit issued in August of 2023\, \nBoardroom SX80: only one year ago. Prior to getting the permit issued one year ago. They actually wanted to remove and replace the the glue lamb but as they started to do their work in September and October\, they decided\, or or no\, prior to the issuance of of the permit\, they said\, you know what we don’t need to remove the glue lamb. All we need to do is strengthen the pilings and that will support the wharf. adequately. \nBoardroom SX80: But as they did they\, as they received the permit in August of 2023\, and as they proceeded to do the work in September and October. They decided to remove the gluland in an event. And so you know\, someone in February someone let us know that that had been done. And so we went about. looking into the situation \nBoardroom SX80: and part and parcel of a compliance program is\, you know we want. I work with other staff members\, especially those who\, you know\, have the expertise to to analyze the situation in this case. staff Engineer Jennifer Hyman. \nBoardroom SX80: and we. Our conclusion was that yes\, you know the removal of the gluland and the replacement of it was an unauthorized activity. But our analysis of of the work was such that it it could be something that could be permitted on an after the fact basis. \nBoardroom SX80: So one of the things that I put together is a plan to what we call return to compliance plan. And and it’s basically\, you know\, the initial contact letter of the Icl that I I believe. You are familiar with and so \nBoardroom SX80: the icl had give and take with the permitee. They accepted the terms of of the Icl\, not only authorizing the glue lamp work on an after-the-act basis\, but they also did a few other minor work on an unauthorized basis\, having to do with the type of pilings that they also put in \nBoardroom SX80: and so we went about putting together a a letter that basically put a plan to get them back on track. And the letter itself then became the basis for Sam Fielding in the bay resources unit. Then to process a permit application? So that you know that that hopefully made things a a lot quicker in terms for \nBoardroom SX80: for Sam to process the after the fact permit which eventually was issued. You had issued it this past June. \nBoardroom SX80: So you know\, we found out about the situation in February\, and then we resolved it in June\, with the issuance of a new permit. But we still have to check up on it. You know we still have to check up\, you know. Are they doing the work in accordance with the with a permit that was issued the after the fact permit. \nBoardroom SX80: Now\, in the second case of a program at work is Innovation Point which is in Redwood City. And in this situation\, the permitee of Innovation Point\, which is an R&D office structure with a public access new shoreline and expanded. Public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: They were it was \nBoardroom SX80: It was April\, and they let us know that\, you know. Come\, May\, we will have finished. The project\, including the public access areas. And so at in May. At that time we will submit a notice of completion. \nBoardroom SX80: and so that then triggered. A review of because part and parcel of the notice of completion. Special condition. Is that? That then triggers a review of the of the Deliverables\, or the review of of all the conditions\, whether they’ve met it. And the notice receiving the notice of completion. Approval is important. \nBoardroom SX80: The permitees receiving of a notice of completion. Approval is important\, because that way the permitee\, then\, can use begin to use the authorized improvements. \nBoardroom SX80: So we looked through the the permit\, and lo and behold! We found several minor things that they can correct such as you know they didn’t. They didn’t update the Eco Atlas data entry that Todd Todd Halenbeck here at Bcdc works on and they also had failed to record the permit. So those were easily dealt with. \nBoardroom SX80: But there was one important glaring thing that they failed to do is so the permit says that prior to construction\, let alone prior to use\, and this is found in many permits. \nBoardroom SX80: the permitee is supposed to complete. and submit. A legal instrument dedicating the public access area as permanent public access area. And \nBoardroom SX80: so. And this is supposed to be done prior to construction\, and unfortunately they had not done that\, even though they were on the cusp of finishing everything already. So we went through a process by which\, \nBoardroom SX80: we put together a plan that would allow them to submit the notice of completion document. \nBoardroom SX80: Have Bcdc. Approve the document and and have our design analysts issue a a use permit so that they can begin to use the the improvements. And the theory being we want that we wanted to see people\, you know\, begin to use the the the the bay trail that was already mostly completed. \nBoardroom SX80: but as a side on a parallel path\, though by a certain date. By the end of July this year. They had to submit to us. The legal instrument dedicating the public access area as permanent public access area. And and they’d met that deadline. So so so that was good. \nBoardroom SX80: And one of the reasons why we also a lot\, you know\, went down this path is because this is a an amendment to a permit. And so the public act\, the original public access area. There was all there has always been in place a legal instrument\, dedicating the original public access area\, as as permanent public access area. \nBoardroom SX80: But by virtue of the new work\, because there was now 15\,000 square feet of new public access area because of the new public access area. They had to redo that whole \nBoardroom SX80: whole agreement. So what we said was\, you know\, there’s a there there is regardless. There’s still a public access. Dedication agreement in place. So so you know. So we can still you know\, move down the path of of \nBoardroom SX80: accepting the required new revamped public access area agreement after the completion of the construction. Because one is still in place. It’s just the\, you know\, the the slight modification. \nBoardroom SX80: So those are just 2 examples of recent examples of how we have worked in trying to resolve. An adult compliance situation with existing permittees. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Thanks\, Tony. Many permetees are also responsible for submitting regular reports such as various annual reports\, pre construction reports\, post construction reports\, habitat mitigation reports\, monitoring reports. \nBoardroom SX80: etc. \nBoardroom SX80: We receive file review\, and in some instances are responsible for their approval\, conditional approval or denial. \nBoardroom SX80: Some submitted reports require specific skill sets and training to respond comprehensively. In these instances we’ll act as liaison or project manager to collaborate with our colleagues inside Bcdc. To ensure a comprehensive complete response is returned. \nBoardroom SX80: In order to fully review these documents\, we 1st must review and understand the underlying permit and its conditions verify that the permitee does not have any outstanding deliverables. \nBoardroom SX80: By doing this we are able to include in the response letter a section where we remind the permitee of any deliverables that have yet to be submitted\, and help them understand the best way to come back into compliance with the terms of their permit. \nBoardroom SX80: As we work to develop and implement the compliance program\, we are continuing to look for programmatic improvements\, we are currently finalizing our procedures for internal use. A draft has been circulated internally for comment\, and we hope to finalize those soon. \nBoardroom SX80: Also\, we have identified a need for an internal database that can be utilized across departments at Bcdc. For internal project and record management to improve\, workflow and efficiency. \nBoardroom SX80: Thank you all very much for bearing with us. If you have any questions\, we’d be happy to do our best to answer them. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Great. Thank you\, John and Tony. This was a very comprehensive\, and now I feel like I have a a good idea of how the compliance program works. But but I do have a question\, though. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: the purpose of the compliance program is to \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: reduce the number of cases \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that are actually \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: reduce the number of cases that become enforcement actions. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: So my question for you is\, how do we measure the program? Success? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I mean\, how how do we measure? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: What could have been an Enforcement case but didn’t become an Enforcement case because of the compliance team? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And maybe maybe we don’t have enough data to do that yet\, because you guys\, have only been at it for 18 months. I mean\, I I get \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: everything that you’re doing is wonderful\, and it’s necessary. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: But \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I’m kind of wondering about this measurement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: right? I mean\, maybe it’s trying to prove a negative. I don’t know. But I’d like to hear your thoughts on that. \nMatthew Trujillo: I can speak to that chair. And the reason being is because \nMatthew Trujillo: when it comes to making \nMatthew Trujillo: compliance referrals from enforcement\, I I’m the one that basically manages that. \nMatthew Trujillo: I can kind of walk you through the process of how I do it. If you would like. \nMatthew Trujillo: Okay. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, yeah\, because I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I think that lets us know how effective the compliance program is being. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I mean\, for for that one measure. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: which is not to say that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: that the other things that the compliance program does those things are all very helpful. But I’m I’m curious as to this particular measure. \nMatthew Trujillo: Yes\, and I’ll speak to that. I’m glad you \nMatthew Trujillo: You made that qualification because I I just wanted to also \nMatthew Trujillo: basically state that \nMatthew Trujillo: I think that preventing enforcement \nMatthew Trujillo: issues\, you’re right. It’s it’s it’s 1 of the main goals. But they also work very closely with permits to ensure that permit is compliance\, which\, of course\, serves the same \nMatthew Trujillo: kind of kind of cool anyway\, when it comes to the way that we interact with them. \nMatthew Trujillo: so the public has one way of con contacting us when they have any concerns whatsoever\, and that’s through our Enforcement report form. \nMatthew Trujillo: And so what happens is that oftentimes\, you know\, I’m the one that monitors and and distributes and creates new cases. So when I see a complaint come in that doesn’t quite measure up or or indicate an actual violation\, which is what enforcement is meant to address. \nMatthew Trujillo: I will then \nMatthew Trujillo: tend to make a referral. I’ll either close the case. It’s not an issue\, or I’ll tend to make a referral for follow up at their discretion to compliance. \nMatthew Trujillo: And that has been \nMatthew Trujillo: I \nMatthew Trujillo: I don’t know that I can necessarily give you the numbers\, but that it is I would I would roughly put that at about a 50\, 50\, 60\, 40\, somewhere around there in terms of what? \nMatthew Trujillo: What number of cases come in\, and\, you know\, get channeled into enforcement versus channel into compliance. \nMatthew Trujillo: So they’ve been an extremely helpful \nMatthew Trujillo: a partner in keeping that caseload down and and helping us to reduce that caseload \nMatthew Trujillo: The other thing that they help with is when we issue an order or any kind of settlement. Our role in enforcement ends once that order or settlement is signed and issued\, and they move forward with compliance. And so\, therefore\, in theory\, though it hasn’t happened yet. \nMatthew Trujillo: They would handle such things as say\, referring a matter to the \nMatthew Trujillo: Attorney General’s office in the event that somebody violates an order issued by the Commission\, they would kind of handle that that route. So that also is a great relief in terms of the administrative burden on enforcement. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, thank you for that. I mean it. It’s very clear to me how handling settlement settlement agreements. Is something that I think the compliance program was definitely meant to do \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: and I can see how that is. Very beneficial for enforcement staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: where it kind of got a little bit murky for me is like\, say\, we get \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: a complaint that either somebody \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: didn’t post signage or the signage was there\, and it fell off\, or you know the benches are in disrepair. So that comes in\, something like that comes in\, and I assume that comes to you. And then so you make the decision as to whether or not it’s a compliance issue or whether or not it’s an enforcement issue. \nMatthew Trujillo: Generally speaking\, yes\, but that’s not to say that there is a conversation that happens around that\, and also generally I would say that when it comes to \nMatthew Trujillo: issues like you described where it’s a maintenance issue. With regard to a required piece of public access\, it’s actually built into. \nMatthew Trujillo: I would say\, almost all of our permits. \nMatthew Trujillo: A period of 30 days\, that a maintenance\, a a permitee\, has the opportunity to correct any maintenance\, deficiency after notification. \nMatthew Trujillo: and after such. And it’s not considered a violation. During those 30 days the phone becomes a violation once they fail to make the correction in the time allotted. \nMatthew Trujillo: But that’s how we kind of get into that. You know. Those weeds trying to figure out well\, is this associated with a permit? Is there a maintenance provision that would basically give them that that grace period. And if \nMatthew Trujillo: those questions \nMatthew Trujillo: if any\, if the answer to any of those questions is a no\, it means that there’s an actual violation \nMatthew Trujillo: right here right now that’s taking place. Therefore I will not give it to compliance. I will take it on in enforcement\, and make sure that those matters are addressed through our process. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, thank you. Rebecca. \nBoardroom SX80: Gilmore. \nBoardroom SX80: yeah. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Yes. Who? Who said that? \nBoardroom SX80: This is this is Tony! \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Thank you. \nBoardroom SX80: Chair\, Gilmore\, if I could take a stab at the answer to your question as well\, just really\, briefly\, because your question also indirectly gets at. You know\, the procedures we’re putting together in terms of how the compliance unit works with the enforcement unit. \nBoardroom SX80: And we we put together? In our draft procedures kind of 2 sets of question tests like questions. And in the second set of questions\, one of the questions that we raise among the second set is\, is there enough information to let us know that \nBoardroom SX80: an an an alleged unauthorized work is something that could be authorized under normal procedures. So\, for example\, in the case of the the Richmond glulam situation that that we discussed\, yes\, it was\, it was unauthorized work. But the information that was submitted suggested that it could be authorized\, and so that in in that sense. \nBoardroom SX80: then then it’s the compliance units can take over and and begin to kind of create that path to compliance. And then Jennifer\, then\, you know\, does her further review. Beyond\, you know\, the initial set of information that receive\, you know\, if further review in terms of actually doing site visits and and talking with whoever put together in this case? Whoever put together the glulam \nBoardroom SX80: and then\, you know\, once we get more information as a result of that that even improves the path to compliance\, and then we’re able to give it over to Sam. But the long and short of it\, though\, is that in our procedures we have draft steps. As to you know how to decide. \nBoardroom SX80: What is a possible\, what gets sent to us on an enforcement basis. What could possibly then be dealt with compliance? So because by virtue of those of those steps that we have in place. That’s how we can begin to measure. You know how how many things came to us down this route. That eventually we \nBoardroom SX80: dealt with successfully\, ie. Got them to comply. \nBoardroom SX80: or and or how many did we eventually have to kick back to Matthew? So that would be one way to to deal with measuring performance. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, thank you for that. And I think that’s something that you guys should keep in mind as you’re refining your procedures is\, how do we measure this? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, Rebecca. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Yeah. Thank you. So one of the things that we notice on the Enforcement Committee is\, there are \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: cases and issues that seem to have dragged on for a long time\, and they didn’t. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: They didn’t really come to our attention because the mechanisms for getting getting a non compliance issue to the Bcdc. Are are thin\, you know\, we have to rely on neighbors and whatnot. So at the end of each one of these enforcement matters. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: It seems like it would be worthwhile to do sort of a a little debrief. And maybe this is already happening. What could have happened differently to keep this out of the enforcement world. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: And I know that at least a couple of things have come up over the years one was an idea that we ask our permittees to certify. On some regular basis. I don’t know if it’s annually\, or whatever it probably depends on the permit. But certify to us. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: That they are in compliance. We. I’m remembering the situation where they built a bathroom that they were required to build on a near public access\, but then let it fall into disrepair\, which we never learned of\, or didn’t learn of it for many\, many years. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Isn’t it. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: So had they been required to certify to us that they were in compliance\, they would be either they would have had to review on their own what the requirements were\, and to say yes or no\, we’re still doing the things we’re supposed to be doing. So I don’t know what if anything ever happened with that idea \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: of inserting a certification requirement into our permits? \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: But to me you know that\, and to do sort of a lessons learned review of Enforcement actions to see if it can inform us \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: as to other things that we could be doing. I agree with Matthew\, that compliance and enforcement are basically\, they basically have the same goal. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: But obviously\, enforcement is a much more difficult step to take. So \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: doing\, that kind of a debriefing\, or\, you know\, lessons learned from enforcement actions. And then looking at this question of whether to add a certification requirement\, both of those things could be helpful. I there may be things about them that \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: make them unhelpful\, but you know I leave that to the experts to sort of figure out if that might benefit us. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you. John. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Thank you\, Marie\, just sitting here thinking about that audit \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: reliving it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Yeah\, 5 years ago. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and how far we’ve come? I mean a lot of these questions we’ve talked about\, and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Matthew was here\, and Adrian was here\, and who was the 3rd person Matthew \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: at that time. \nMatthew Trujillo: Skylar\, I believe. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Oh\, yeah. And so it was a very small group\, tasked with a whole lot of work. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: And you know\, over the last 18 months they’ve had more help. And the one thing the audit showed was that \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: that we were behind because we didn’t have enough help. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: and I think it kind of backfired on the person to call for it\, because it ended up getting us more people\, and they’re requiring us to look at our procedures \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: because the group was just trying to keep just treading along\, trying to keep up with\, as \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: The violations came in\, and it was termed everything was termed a violation. Not so much a\, you know. A minor issue such as a sign has fallen down\, or something like that. But the whole\, all those issues about making sure that there was a deed restriction on that. All that got all the compliance part\, all the follow up\, all came out of that and \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: you know\, I think good work came out of that because of that audit\, and I think you have a good team in place\, and as they move along over the next 18 months\, and they’ll begin to refine that process. And we\, I think we will find less and less cases coming to the committee\, they will be will be done with all the old cases. It was something like over 300 at 1 point. Yeah\, to be this far along. It’s pretty remarkable. And \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: having one been one of them that sat through all that\, I \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: I’m \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: very surprised and pleased that we got as far as we did. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: But that audit proved to be \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: difficult to deal with\, but also proved to show that we were trying to do the work. We just didn’t have the people to do it. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: anyway. Thank you. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Thank you\, John. As another person who was here during that audit. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I I have to say that I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it did not turn out the way the person who called for it came out. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: but I think in the long run it was very\, very beneficial to Bcdc. And particularly enforcement. As John said it\, it helped us get more staff and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: really kind of focus on what it was that we needed to do\, and I think Staff has responded \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: just incredibly well. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: to the findings from that that audit report\, and I think really took things to heart\, and \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: in a relatively short period of time for a government agency has done \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: remarkable job of getting us to where we are today. So I just want to say congratulations to staff \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: And before I forget\, do we have any public comments. \nBoardroom SX80: No hands raised. Here\, Gilmore. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, so that was the open and the close of the public comment period. Anybody else have any comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: I just. I just have one \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: sort of a comment question for Staff. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Can we? Once\, you guys finalize your internal procedures for the compliance program? Can we either see them\, or have a discussion on them\, because I think \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: it’s very helpful that we sort of understand\, for one of a better word\, the flow chart of how things kind of go from permit to compliance to enforcement. As we’re instituting these these new programs and procedures. \nBoardroom SX80: Sure thing. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay. Great. \nBoardroom SX80: 1. 1 more piece of good news that I don’t know has been shared with you yet. A lot of violations happen because Ecdc is relatively small agency\, and a lot of members of the public people have not heard of us. But we recently were able to get a. A new employee who will hopefully \nBoardroom SX80: proselytize and \nBoardroom SX80: help at the very least. Local communities understand? Bcdc and Bcdc’s authority and jurisdiction and hopefully \nBoardroom SX80: help \nBoardroom SX80: help. People understand how they can \nBoardroom SX80: prevent \nBoardroom SX80: enforcement cases by \nBoardroom SX80: staying in compliance. In the 1st place. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Well\, that is excellent news. So hopefully\, we will see that \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: as a result of all of these efforts\, a decrease in not only compliance cases\, but also enforcement cases which at the end of the day is what we all want. So \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: any other comments? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Okay\, seeing none. I’m going to entertain a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Nobody wants to leave. \nRebecca Eisen\, Commissioner: Move. \nJohn Vasquez\, Commissioner: Second. \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: All right. Any objections to that motion? By Commissioner Eisen\, and the second by Commissioner Vasquez? Any objections? \nMarie Gilmore\, Chair: Alright. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you\, everybody. Thank you. Staff. \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-28-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240821T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240821T170000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240726T162946Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240826T165730Z UID:10000189-1724245200-1724259600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 21\, 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\, Board RoomSan Francisco415-352-3600 \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/86491112881?pwd=3YOXXTdjvxMayJlEtfD9hhLU6eObn1.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID864 9111 2881 \nPasscode472668 \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 (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nItem of Discussion: Applying Sea Level Rise Science to San Francisco Bay Fill Projects BCDC permit analysts and permit applicants rely on the “best available science” for applying future sea level rise\, vertical land motion\, tidal datums\, and waves to the design of San Francisco Bay projects. The Engineering Criteria Review Board will discuss and provide guidance to BCDC on these sea level rise science topics. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.govStaff presentation\nItem of Discussion: Consideration of Levee and Floodwall SafetyThe ECRB is charged with reviewing the design criteria of proposed Bay fill for major flood control projects to confirm the safety of the proposed Bay fill and structures thereon. The ECRB may also examine and require submittals on construction and maintenance. Therefore\, staff request input from the ECRB on requirements that can maximize project safety during the full life of a floodwall or levee. Staff will present floodwall and levee safety requirements from FEMA and USACE and also present lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. The public may comment on the presentation at its conclusion.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.govStaff presentation\nAdjournment \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Recording\n Meeting recording\nPart 1\n \nPart 2\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-21-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting-2/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240821T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240821T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240716T205049Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240910T182134Z UID:10000186-1724234400-1724241600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 21\, 2024 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Meeting agenda \nPresentations \n\nSan Francisco Bay Sand Transport Study Ring Analysis\nSan Francisco Bay Sand Budget\n\n \n \n \n \n \n meeting recording & transcript\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nPerfect. \nThere we go. \nAll right\, here’s some. \nSee some more people. \nYesterday I was riding my back bike out to the Bay and I \nnoticed that there were all these trucks going back and \nforth on the road on sort of on the other side of a of a little \nslew and I realized it was trucking coming back and forth \nto deliver dirt to pond A to West where we are restoring a \nmarsh. \nYou know\, we’re\, there’s a pond there and we’re filling it in \nfor a marsh. \nSo that was very exciting to see. \nWe\, you know\, we’re working with dirt brokers to get the money \nfor\, I mean\, to get the dirt for free. \nAnd so it’s very much dependent on the construction cycle. \nBut the staff who were working on this project are making the \nmagic work. \nIt’s really exciting. \nAnyway\, I thought this group might care about that. \nYeah\, we are definitely caring about that and working on making \nit happen. \nYeah\, that’s our other commissioner working group. \nSo looks like we have Andy. \nPeople are still feeling filling in\, so I think I’m gonna. \nI’m wondering if I should unplug myself from the system or not. \nYou always wonder\, right When you have multiple screens going\, \nshould you be on three\, two or one? \nSo do we see Pat yet? \nYeah. \nI should be here. \nI’m sorry. \nI meant Barry. \nYou are here. \nOK? \nYeah. \nBrenda’s clearly losing her mind trying to keep it all together. \nOh\, there’s Barry. \nHe’s right in the middle of my screen. \nSo I think we have all the commissioners. \nWe have Bill Butler\, we have Aaron Holloway\, we have \nChristian Marsh. \nAnd I don’t see Erica yet. \nI’m here\, Brenda. \nOK\, good. \nThank you\, Erica. \nSo I think. \nOh\, and Mike\, so we have the sand miners and so we have the \ncommissioners\, we have the sand miners\, we have the independent \nscience panel members. \nI’ve got Elias\, one of our presenters I’m looking for. \nSorry\, there’s a million of you on the screen. \nThank you all for joining. \nI am looking for Lester and of course\, he’s in New Zealand. \nSo always a little bit of a lag and I think it’s early in the \nmorning for him still\, so we’ll give it another minute. \nAnybody got any good jokes? \nI think you just joined. \nThere’s Lester. \nOK. \nI think we have all of the people. \nAll of you are very important\, but we have all the people we \nneed to make this rock’n’roll. \nSo Pat\, I will turn it over to you. \nWell\, first\, I want to welcome everyone for taking part in this \nprocess. \nIt’s\, it’s very important that we do this as just one of the \ncomponents that we need to do to make the the region of San \nFrancisco Bay more resilient to climate change\, which I know we \nwere all very committed to. \nAnd we’re of course\, concentrating on being able to \nbuild sea level rise\, sea level rise protections\, and also just \nthe\, the\, the\, the functioning of the Bay as an economic and an \necological engine in our community. \nSo with that\, I’m going to start off with an informal roll call \nof the commissioners and\, and the staff. \nSo Catherine\, could you help us with that? \nYes\, Commissioner Nelson\, I’m here. \nCommissioner Gunther\, Chair Showalter here. \nAnd then BCDC staff who will be supporting this are Brenda \nGaiden here and Greg Scharf here. \nWe have everyone. \nThanks. \nOK\, thank you. \nAnd Brenda\, you’re going to go over some ground rules. \nYeah\, I’m going to just quickly remind folks that we’re all here \nin a collaborative effort to best understand the science of \nsand and sand transport in the Bay\, understanding that sand \nmining is an actor in this realm. \nWhen? \nSo we’re gonna have basically presentations\, We’ll have a \nmoment or a period for the sand miners who are the principals on \nthis issue to provide comments and then we’ll open the \ndiscussion for commissioner questions first. \nBut the audience is absolutely or the participants\, not \naudience participants of the commissioner working group are \nwelcome to raise their hand and join in. \nYou will call on folks in order. \nWe’re going to try to stick to a schedule\, but we have\, I think \nample time for discussion today hopefully. \nAnd if you want to put questions in the chat\, we’ll also try to \nmind the chat and have that as a place where people can put \nquestions if they are thinking of something and don’t want to \nforget before the time comes to chat. \nThere is a public comment period\, the last part of the \nmeeting. \nSo if you want to make a public statement\, that is the time to\, \nyou know\, make like a comment that’s overall versus discussion \nabout the studies. \nI do want to note that the independent science panel \nmembers\, our esteem group who have been overseeing these \nstudies for now\, gosh\, it’s been four or five years. \nBob Battaglio\, Dave Schulhammer and Craig Jones\, I believe are \nhere with us today. \nAnd then we also have Lester McKee who’s going to present \nfrom SFEI and Edwin Elias from Del Terrace. \nI’m gonna note that we these are both folks from the \ninternational community. \nDel Terrace is in Netherlands and Lester’s home base is New \nZealand. \nSo appreciate them spending weird times of the day. \nIt’s tomorrow for some of them with us. \nI know it’s not necessarily the best time of day for you all\, \nbut we appreciate you being here. \nAre there any questions on that? \nNo. \nOK\, I’m going to quickly\, quickly just do framing for the \ngroup and I will. \nYou’ll probably all disappear\, so hang tight. \nLet me get my screen up and running. \nOK\, Can you all see this? \nSomeone has to say yes ’cause I can’t see you anymore. \nCannot see it. \nOK\, I’m gonna try to escape back out. \nTry again. \nA new dub. \nTriple screens was a bad idea. \nOK\, how about now? \nCan you see that? \nOh\, here we go. \nSure. \nI have to hit the button twice. \nOf course we have to hit the button twice. \nNow we can see it. \nBrenda. \nOK\, excellent. \nThank you. \nThanks for pausing for my technical difficulties. \nOK\, so this is the BCDC stand Studies Commissioner working \ngroup. \nWe’re focused here on the science that we have learned \nover the last several years and I’m just going to give a high \nlevel overview for those who may be joining for the first time. \nSo the process that we’ve been engaged in for the last several \nyears is BCDC along with the water Board\, the EPA. \nNo\, not the EPA. \nThey don’t issue a permit. \nState Lands Commission leasing and the Army Corps of Engineers \npermitted sand mining in 2015 as part of BCD CS requirements. \nWe required that the arm that the sand miners provide $1.2 \nmillion towards the study of sand transport and issues around \nwhat it means to take sand out the sand system of the Bay. \nWe formed a technical advisory committee\, which had a host of \nthe agencies that are involved\, both regulatory and resource \nagencies\, as well as a few of the interested parties\, \nincluding the Coastal Commission because they’re interested in \nthe Outer Coast and Baykeeper. \nThe technical advisory committee formed management questions. \nThey helped develop study scopes\, they developed and \nrequests for proposals\, and they reviewed proposals as part of \ntheir process. \nWe selected and we’re honored to have an independent science \npanel of some very esteemed folks who’ve been working on \nsediment for most of their career of many decades. \nAnd so that includes\, as I mentioned\, Bob Battaglio\, Dave \nSchulhammer\, Craig Jones\, Paul Work\, and also John Legere\, two \nof which are not here with us today due to other commitments. \nBut their job was to help us review the proposals. \nThey helped revise some of the scopes. \nThey helped us identify the science teams\, identify and \nselect the science teams. \nThey worked with the science teams over a period of a couple \nof years\, two years to complete the studies and keep things \naligned. \nThere are multiple quarterly meetings and check insurance. \nAnd then they developed a findings report that summarizes \nthe work of across the studies. \nWe are now in the commissioner working group phase. \nSo we are here to discuss the study findings. \nWe had a first meeting in July on July. \nWe have this one one coming up on in September and then \nNovember. \nAnd our process is leading to the next stages\, which sequent \nNEPA is ongoing with state lands right now. \nI don’t know what’s happening with NEPA at the moment\, but \nwe’ll be looking at permitting in 2025. \nSo these were the study questions that were asked. \nThere are multiple tiered questions below\, but to not \noverwhelm everybody with questions on a slide\, the first \nmain question was\, is mining at existing lease areas at \npermitted levels having a measurable or demonstratable \nimpact on sediment transport and supply within San Francisco Bay? \nThere was questions about sustainability of this activity. \nWhat were the anticipated physical effects of sand mining \nat permitted levels on sand transport and supply within the \nBay and the outer coast? \nWhat’s that connection? \nAnd then the impacts to active sand and what’s feeding it\, \nwhether or not the sand was old or if it’s new sand. \nWe heard a little bit about that last time. \nAnd are there feasible alternatives or approaches to \nmining sand in San Francisco Bay? \nThe studies admittedly could not address all of these questions. \nWe had limited funds and limited time. \nThe independent science panel was able to kind of sift through \nthe studies to help us identify what we could answer with the \ninformation that we thought we could get through the studies \nand help direct the studies to focus them. \nSo these were the questions we started with. \nWe did not answer all the questions. \nWe’re perfectly clear and honest\, transparent about that. \nWe did what we could with the time and money that we had and \nwith the ability for us to understand this very large\, very \ncomplex system that is San Francisco Bay. \nJust a quick\, quick\, quick overview. \nSo the lease areas here is the Central San Francisco Bay lease \nareas. \nThe primary sand type is coarser grain material\, which is the \nleft pile in the slide. \nThere is some sand along Crissy Field\, the Presidio Shoal\, which \nis that finer grain sand that you see in the right part of the \nthe right pile in the slide. \nSassoon Channel lease area. \nThis is the lease area that we have up in the most eastern \nextent of the Bay and the sand is fine sand. \nOops. \nAnd then the last lease area that we have is middle ground \nShoal. \nIt is also fine grained sand\, just as a reminder of where the \nareas are that we’re talking about. \nThe equipment is hydraulic\, so hydraulic mining\, two different \ndrag head. \nWell\, one’s a drag head on the left\, which is the Martin \nMarionetta set up with a fish screen. \nThat silver tube that you see in both slides\, both pictures is \nthe fish screen to exclude fish and then lens suction pipe which \nis on the right. \nAnd just as a reminder of the framing of the mining \nactivities\, it is for construction aggregate. \nIt is not navigation dredging. \nAnd because this is mine specifically for the aggregate \nindustry\, it’s not really considered a beneficial reuse In \nthe LTMS lexicon. \nMining occurs year round. \nThere’s no work windows on mining. \nThere is a reduced period of time in which mining occurs in \nthe early\, I guess it would be late winter to to reduce impacts \nto our smelt lining. \nMining locations are based on the leases and the grain size. \nSo when the miners get an order for a particular type of sand \nthey reach\, they go to that area of their lease to retrieve that \ntype of sand and mining happens often in the same area. \nAnd you’ll see that in some of the meeting\, in some of the \npresentations that Edwin is going to provide today. \nAnd why am I not moving? \nOK\, there we go. \nLast. \nI think this is my last slide. \nWe’ll get you in just a second\, Jim. \nSo the questions that we looked at last meeting\, well what we \ndid at last meeting was we had the independent science panel \nmembers Dave Schulhamer and Bob Battaglio gave an overview of \nthe findings report\, which is on BCD CS website under the Sand \nMining Commissioner Working Group and the UT Austin folks. \nZach Sickman presented the provenance and aging work that \nthey did and that study is in Appendix G along with all the \nother studies. \nAnd then lastly\, the questions for today are listed in the \nagenda. \nBut how does relic sand is? \nHow does how does mining affect relic sand or sand in transport? \nAnd how much sand is there in the Bay? \nAnd how does mining affect the budget? \nAgain\, we cannot completely answer these questions\, but \nthese studies presented today by Edwin and Lester will look at \nvolumetric change analysis and what that tells us about sand in \ntransport or sand in place. \nAnd Lester will go over the sand budget. \nAnd I think that is my last slide. \nIt is. \nSo I’m going to do my best to stop sharing. \nAnd Jim\, I saw that you had a hand up. \nDid you want to quickly ask that question? \nAnd you’re on mute. \nI’m sorry\, I just must have bumped that button. \nI didn’t have a question. \nOh\, good\, thanks. \nSo that’s just a quick overview of where we are in case \nanybody’s new or has forgotten anything. \nAnd if there are any questions or thoughts at this time\, we’re \nhappy to entertain them. \nIf not\, we’ll turn the presentation over to Edwin. \nOK\, Edwin\, I think you Brenda. \nYep\, Sorry Brenda\, this is Jen CU at EPA. \nI do have a quick question and I’m haven’t really been involved \nin this conversation on the mining side more. \nI’m in the dredging world as you know why no work windows? \nWell\, the project proponents went through consultation with \nUS Fish and Wildlife Service\, NOAA Fisheries\, and they have an \nincidental take permit from California Department of Fish \nand Wildlife. \nAnd the biological pinions did not recommend work windows. \nThey did recommend fish screening\, but I think\, yeah\, I \nthink that’s that they did not find that it was necessary for \nthis activity and there is mitigation required of the \nminers to cover the incidental take of the mining activity. \nSo they did note there would be take\, but they did require \nmitigation. \nSo I think that is the best and simplest answer for now. \nThank you. \nWe can talk more later if you’d like. \nYou’re welcome. \nOK\, Edwin\, I think you are up. \nOK\, thank you. \nAnd let me try to get everything going here. \nOK\, we can see your slides and that’s in presenter view. \nDon’t know if you want to switch to full screen. \nOh\, how did I do that one? \nSo on my screen\, it’s full screen\, unfortunately. \nHey\, Edwin\, on the three dots\, the three dots on the right\, \nthere’s hide presenter view. \nThere you go. \nThat’s the one\, Marilyn. \nThank you. \nSo we always use Steam and not zoom in Europe. \nSo I guess that’s one of the differences between US and and \nEurope. \nI think you can all see the presentation now in\, in full \nscreen. \nYes\, thank you. \nWell\, let me first start with saying thank you for allowing us \nthis opportunity to present\, maybe explain some of the \nfindings we have. \nWe understood the\, the\, it’s\, it’s complex and we understand \nand we\, we also know that there are questions and hopefully we \ncan answer some. \nSo what I try to do is\, is just do a very general overview of \nthe work we’ve done\, the methods we used and also the reasoning \nbehind it because I think that’s the most important. \nThe work I’ve done is was done with a whole group of folks at \nDeltares with floor to Ruwink and myself being the principal \ninvestigators. \nYou may wonder why Deltares is involved because we are a Dutch \nbased well Research Foundation actually\, but we have a very \nstrong ties with San Francisco Bay. \nSo I was actually stationed there with uses for almost 11 \nyears doing a lot of work in the Bay Area and one of the first \nassignments I had with the sand waves in the Golden Gate region \nand it was maybe 15 years ago already. \nSo it’s a very interesting area and we’re very happy to \nparticipate in the research and hopefully we could contribute \nnicely to the cause. \nSo what I’ll present today is very briefly a our calls and \nobjectives. \nAnd well\, I’m not going to present the steady area\, you all \nknow it all too well. \nBut I will show you a little bit of the available data and then \nI’m going to jump to or I’m going to focus to the results \nfor West Central Bay. \nAnd that’s where I’m going to really try to explain the \nmethods and the the reasoning behind our analysis. \nAnd I’m going to run you through that for West Central Bay. \nAnd I also have some slides prepared for Sassoon Bay. \nBut that’s really the the findings. \nBut to make things a little bit more digestible\, because it’s a \nlot of different data\, a lot of different figures\, I try to \nfocus on West Central Bay to provide you with most of the \ninsights. \nSo let me just go to the next one. \nSo Brand already showed the overarching questions that were \nunderlying the research with the questions we were tasked to do \nwere actually 4 diff\, 4 different parts. \n1st is a very detailed analysis of the mining areas\, which we \ncall the ring analysis. \nSo I’m going to present the results of that one because I \nthink that will raise some questions from the descent \nminers specifically. \nSo I’m going to focus on those results quite a bit. \nThen we’re going to look into the bad forms\, bad for mobility \nbecause that allows us to tell to to maybe find relations \nbetween mining areas and the surrounding areas. \nThe same codes for larger scale base scale morpho\, morpho \ndynamic change. \nAn additional task we’ve done together with USDS was\, was from \nsediment transport pathway modelling. \nBut that’s not part of this research or at least not what I \npresent today. \nIf you look at the available data\, then we had\, we focus on\, \non basically two study sites. \nWe have West Central Bay and the Sassoon Bay and Middle Crown \nShoals. \nAnd the data we have is\, is actually five years of \nbathymetric surveys for West Central Bay between 1997 and \n2019. \nAnd in the Sassoon Bay and Middle Crown we had slightly \nless data. \nSo this is the data that we were able to work with. \nAnd so all of our findings\, all of our our real analysis is \nbased on this time frame. \nAnd if you really want to talk about base wide morphodynamic \nchange\, then of course this time frame is not long enough to \nresolve that. \nSo we need to do a lot of interpretation\, use expert \njudgement\, use other maybe other studies\, user experience in \nother systems to translate the findings from this from this \ndata to the overarching questions on what does this mean \nfor the overall settlement budget that Lester will present? \nOr also what does this mean in\, in the scope of sea level rise. \nThe data we have is is really\, really beautiful data. \nSo I really have to compliment you for the poor site in \nacquiring this data. \nIt’s not often that we have multi beam data available of \nsuch high resolution and quality that we can work with. \nAnd what you see on this screen is a is West Central Bay. \nSo the bathymetric maps based on that multi beam data that we \nmade in for the 1997 measurement that’s on the let me get a \npointer here. \nThat’s on the left panel. \nThis is the 1997 measurement. \nWhat you see here is the sea floor. \nIf you would drain the entire West central Bay. \nThe blue areas are the really deep areas and the yellow areas \nare the shallower areas\, the Shoals or the the rock \npinnacles. \nYou can see this in the 1997 bathymetry. \nYou can see this for the most recent bathymetry we have on the \nright. \nThat’s the 2019 bathymetry. \nAnd if you kind of look from a very broadly\, they look the \nsame. \nIt’s the same colour scheme. \nIt’s both blue\, it’s both yellow. \nIt’s\, but if you look in these maps\, you can also already see \nsome differences. \nOne of the one of the things you actually notice are for example\, \nthese really nice sand waves. \nSo that is the basis for our a platform analysis. \nAnd you can see these sand wave fields in both maps. \nSo it’s not that mining changed that system completely that sand \nwaves are not in the maps. \nBut you can also see some effects of mining. \nFor example\, if you look at these red dots\, those are mining \nlease areas\, and you can see that the bathymetry changed \nbetween 1997 and 2019. \nSo just looking\, glancing at these maps\, you can already see \nthat there is some effect of mining. \nBut what does this effect mean? \nWell\, to to really give you an answer\, that’s where we need a \nvery detailed analysis and it’s not as straightforward as you \nthink. \nIt’s not because you see that things change that you cannot \ncan automatically say it’s negative or positive. \nSo we need to be very objective in that just because it changed\, \nit doesn’t mean it’s a very negative thing. \nIt it all depends on what you want or what you yeah\, what you \nexpect from your from the mining effort. \nSo these maps are going to be\, you’re going to see them \nthroughout the presentation. \nSo if there are questions\, feel free to ask. \nBut I always use these colour schemes and kind of these \nvisualization techniques to show the data. \nSo Part 1 of the analysis that I’d like to explain is really \nthe local impact of mining. \nSo we’re going to focus on the lease areas and we’re going to \nreally try to quantify how much impact we have from mining on \nthe platform bathymetry. \nAnd to do this\, we use a method that was outlined by by E Track \nin back in 2018. \nThey called it the ring analysis. \nYou kind of see the principle in this plot where you see these \nlittle polygons around these bounding boxes\, around the \ndifferent lease areas. \nAnd in these bounding boxes you can compute the battimetric \nchange. \nSo based on the measurements\, we can compute how much battimetric \nchange we have based on the dredge record. \nWe can also compute how much was actually removed from these \nareas and the difference between the two. \nSo the ratio between the two\, that’s what we call the recovery \nfactor and that recovery factor that becomes really important in \nthe interpretation of the results. \nSo here are the ring polygons for West Central Bay and here \nyou in the bottom plot\, you can see that there is a similar \nanalysis for Sassoon Bay or for the Sassoon Channel. \nIf you look at the mind volumes within the lease areas in total \nover the 2000\, 8 to 2019 time frame\, we have 5 and a half \nmillion cubic cards of mining that takes place in the lease \nareas. \nBut unfortunately the ring polygons that we have our \nanalysis based on the ring polygons. \nIn the ring polygons we only observe 4.4 million of mining. \nSo it means that still within the lease area there is mining \noutside of the ring polygons. \nThat’s not a problem for in terms of the how do you call \nthat it’s\, it’s not a problem in terms of the mining. \nIt is within the lease areas. \nBut we were\, we were supposed or we were\, we were hoping to use \nthe ring polygons to quantify the chains. \nAnd we do this with two rings\, an inner and an outer ring. \nAnd that outer ring would help us define whether it’s a \ndiffusion effect where the mining will actually result in \nchanges outside the mined area. \nBut what we can see from these numbers is that the mining \ntracks actually go through these ring polygons. \nSo that analysis we couldn’t fully do the way we intended to \ndo. \nBut so we have five and a half million mined of which 4.4 \nmillion in those in the lease area according to the dredging \nrecords. \nIf you look at the mathematics\, we can do a similar exercise \nthat we take and I’ve tried to outline how we do this analysis. \nWe take the two bathymetries\, but this is for example the 1997 \nbathymetry\, again\, the 2019 bathymetry\, and then the \ndifference between these two bathymetries that gives us the \nvolumetric change within each of these rings. \nVolumetric change can be computed in two ways. \nWe can just look at the BET level difference between 2 maps \nor we can do something slightly different which we call a \nsediment thickness computation. \nAnd what we do is we take the the the whole sequence of maps. \nFrom these maps we create the minimum bathymetry\, so that is \nthe minimum depth observed throughout the time frame. \nAnd from that minimum depth\, we compute how much sediment is \nactually available in relation to that minimum bathymetry. \nAnd that’s what you see here. \nThat’s a sediment thickness map. \nThis is kind of a difficult topic. \nI think the most important thing to realize is that it does not \nmatter what method you use\, whether you just compute full \nmetric change based on that level change or whether you use \nthe method we did with sediment thickness. \nIt doesn’t matter for the end result\, the total change is \ncomplete is the same. \nThe only\, the only the reason why we use sediment thickness is \nbecause it gives us a little bit of more information. \nIt helps us to define not only the change\, but also how much \nsediment is actually present during that timeframe and where \nthe mining is a big portion or a small portion of the sediment \nthat was active in the total system. \nSo it gives us a little bit more information\, but it will not \nchange the findings of the volumetric analysis because of \nthat\, that mining that takes place outside of the ring \npolygons. \nWe used something we called an extended buffer analysis. \nWe use slightly larger areas to try to determine whether mining \nalso has a diffusive effect on the surroundings. \nSo if you do this analysis and now it’s a lot of numbers\, but \nthere are only two numbers that are really important. \nIf we do this analysis\, we can see that from the dredge records \nthere is 4.4 million mined in these different ring polygons. \nAnd from the bathymetric observations we observe a BET \nlevel change of 2.3 million. \nSo that means the BET lowered by 2.3 million\, but there was 4.4 \nmillion removed. \nSo there is approximately almost 50% recovery over all the lease \nareas. \nSo those holes that they dredge are filled in with sediments \neither from the ocean or its relic sand or its sand that’s \nalready in the system. \nBut there is recovery of those dredge\, the dredging of the \nmining areas. \nThe one thing you notice is if you look carefully in this table \nand over here you have the recovery rate. \nThis last column\, the recovery rate varies greatly between the \ndifferent lease areas. \nAnd what we observe is that there is a very different \nresponse between the northern lease areas versus the southern \nlease areas. \nSo the southern lease areas\, the ones on the procedure shall have \na very high recovery rate while the northern lease areas have a \nvery low recovery rate. \nAnd that becomes important in the interpretation of the \nresults. \nAnd I’m going to try to explain that very simplistic because I\, \nI always find it that this is sometimes this is this difficult \nconcept to grasp. \nSo what I’ve done here is I’ve just draw\, drew a box over San \nFrancisco Bay and I schematize that box into this vertical \ncolumn where I have water and where I have sediment. \nAnd if you have an inflow\, and this is a total hypothetical \ncase here\, this is not the segment budget that Lester will \npresent. \nBut if you have an inflow of 10 million cubic yards or just 10 \nas a number and we have an outflow of 10\, we can kind of \nschematize this in this box. \nAnd if there is an equilibrium state\, so if the bed level is in \nequilibrium to the water flow\, then if 10 comes in\, 10 will go \nout. \nThat’s kind of what this segment budget will tell you. \nSo what if we include mining? \nSo we still have 10 coming in\, but now we remove half of it \nthrough mining. \nWell\, we can actually have two responses. \nWe can have a bat lowering or we can have a reduced flow because \nthe total sum always needs to be the same. \nSo if we have bat lowering with no recovery\, so if the the \namount of mining results\, if you mine 5\,000\,000 cubic yards\, you \nremove 5 million from the bed and the bed lowers by 5 million\, \nthere is no recovery\, then the total sediment budget remains \nunchanged. \nSo there’s 10 coming in and there’s 10 going out. \nSo that’s important to realize. \nSo if you mine and there is no recovery\, the overall sediment \nbudget of the entire thing\, the amount of sediment moving to the \nocean in this case will not change. \nBut you have a local depth increase of the Bay. \nSo if you have high recovery\, for example if you have 100% \nrecovery\, you get the opposite response. \nSo there is still 10 coming in. \nYou remove 5. \nBut with 100% recovery the bet doesn’t lower. \nWhatever you removed is filled in by the sediment supply that \ncame in. \nSo that means that you’re going to change the sediment budget so \nless goes out. \nSo depending on the recovery\, you have a local impact\, you \nlower the BET or you have a large scale impact on the \nsettlement budget. \nSo that’s two very different responses and that’s important \nto realise whether and and you can base decisions on that. \nWhat do you think is important? \nIs this local depth increase? \nIs that important? \nThat’s well\, you can you can debate about that. \nIt’s not always the case. \nEven just because you have a local increase\, it doesn’t mean \nthat the system is negatively impacted. \nI’m going to try to explain that a little bit better in the next \nslides. \nSo if we zoom in on these protymetry\, so these are the \nexact same maps that I showed before\, Blue is still deeper\, \nyellow is still shallower. \nThis is Polygon one that is just South of Angel Island. \nThis is that Polygon 3. \nThis Polygon 1 is right over here. \nThis is spring Polygon 3. \nSo this is Angel Island is is located right here. \nBut if you look\, look in these two bathymetries where we have \nvery low recovery rates\, you can actually see that through \nbecause the mining and the spring Polygon\, the local bed \ndecreased in depth and it did not recover with sediments. \nSo now the question is\, is that important? \nWell\, if it’s not an important habitat\, if no one\, I don’t \nthink anyone will notice if you’re in -30 meters of water \ndepth\, if that depth increases by 1 meter\, is that a big impact \nor not? \nThat’s something you have to decide. \nIt’s not by definition a negative. \nIf it’s in the middle of the Bay\, you may say like OK\, that’s \nan acceptable loss or that’s an acceptable change. \nSo you have local bet loading\, but no or very low impact on the \nbase scale set in budget. \nIf you go to show to the lease areas on procedures sold\, for \nexample\, we see a completely opposite behaviour over here. \nWe see that you mine\, but you have a lot of recovery. \nAnd what you can see in these ring areas here is sometimes \nthese are all different observations through the \ndifferent\, different years. \nYou see that there is an impact of Miami. \nYou can see these little dredge holes\, but the next year they’re \nfilled in again. \nSo in this area\, the natural bat hardly is hardly affected. \nIf you kind of glance through your your eyes\, you can see that \nthe bat forms kind of move on. \nIt’s the same structure. \nThere is very small local impact\, but you did remove \nsediment from the system. \nSo that has an impact on the sediment budget. \nSo it’s a totally opposite reaction to sand mining. \nOK. \nSo that was the first part. \nI was just looking at very much in depth into the mining areas. \nAnd looking at how these mining areas respond differently with \nlow and high recovery rates\, but we also try to do see whether \nthe mining areas had an impact on the larger scale sediment \nbudget. \nAnd that’s where things become a little bit complicated because \nthe maps we have are really beautiful maps\, but they only \ncover a very small time span. \nAnd if you look on more for dynamic scales on larger areas\, \nit takes a long time for change to happen. \nSo often you cannot get directly get those effects from short \nterm data. \nBut we can look at all kinds of different indicators to see if \nwe can see impacts. \nOne of the things we did was an extended ring analysis. \nAnother thing we did was to quantify platforms and mobility \nand these platforms are really nicely illustrated here and we \ntry to understand the large scale settlement budget of West \nCentral Bay. \nAnd I’m going to go through these results very quickly. \nSo if there are questions please ask him or after the ask him \nafter the presentation. \nWe have a lot of different\, we performed a lot of different \nring analysis and we have lots and lots of plots. \nSo I’m only going to show one for and this is the one where we \nhad the most obvious results or the the result where we had the \nmost that we could analyse best. \nAnd that’s for ring Polygon one. \nSo the extended buffer analysis\, it basically just expands the \nthe ring Polycom that was drawn around the the mining area\, it \nexpands it with all the rings up to a distance of a kilometre \nalmost. \nAnd what you see in these colours\, the red colours are \nerosion. \nSo that’s bed loading and the green colours are accretion in \nthe bed. \nAnd what you can see in these\, in these maps and these are all \nthe different time intervals between the measurements\, you \ncan see that there is more erosion around the mining area \nsome. \nSo some of that limited recovery is probably a result of sand \nthat came in from the adiation shore. \nYou can see that here in most areas you have some red more \nredder colors around the the ring Polygon. \nBut we do have to state that the natural variability is probably \nreally large as well. \nAnd that will become apparent in the bathymetric change analysis \nthat the Bay itself responds yearly or the bat level in this \nin the Bay changes yearly depending on whether you had a \nhigh flow year or low flow year\, whether you had more wind or \nless wind. \nAnd there’s a lot of variability and you don’t fully capture that \nwith the six or the five parametric maps you had \navailable. \nSo we can say that there are indications that there is some \nsand moving around from the Shoal into the the area and that \ncontributes to that recovery. \nBut you cannot contribute all of the erosion you see to the \nmining activity. \nThat’s not a statement that we want to make. \nAnother aspect we we try to address is to see if platforms \ncan provide indications of of this larger scale effects. \nAnd what you can see is that here are the lease areas again\, \nbut you can see these really nice platform fields that are \nlocated close to the lease areas\, but close to a lease area \nis not in the lease area. \nSo unfortunately we can detect lots of platforms and that’s in \nthe next slide. \nWe can detect a lot of platforms throughout West Central Bay\, but \nnot exactly in the major lease areas. \nAnd part of that that this discrepancy is just because in \nthese major lease areas here. \nLet me just go back to this slide. \nIn this lease area you saw that the entire bed lowered because \nof the the mining\, there was less not a whole lot of \nrecovery. \nSo sand waves could not reform. \nSo we can get results for sand wave fields in the vicinity\, but \nnot directly in these lease areas. \nOver here we have a little bit more luck where the sand waves \nare overlapping with the the mining areas. \nSo we did a lot of analysis to compute the transport and \nmigration rates. \nAnd honestly the only real map that we can use to make \nstatistically meaningful correlations is the 2018 \nnineteen map because that’s the shortest interval between the \nmeasurements. \nIf you really may want to make these statistical correlations\, \neven though the maps you have are\, I know very costly to \nacquire\, it took a lot of effort to acquire\, but you would have \nto have a more frequent interval to really determine statistical \ncorrelations in the platform fields. \nBut even with those limitations\, we were able to derive the \nsediment transport directions and rates for quite a \nsubstantial portion of the Bay. \nAnd based on these platforms\, you can draw a couple of \nconclusions. \nWell\, I’ve tried to make this one here is that over here\, it \nbecomes quite difficult to link these platforms to these areas\, \nso I’m not going to do that. \nAnd you have these rock pinnacles separating the two. \nBut over here\, it becomes quite obvious that part of that high \nrecovery rate is probably because of these platform fields \nthat are from opposing directions\, which also mean that \nthere is a convergence of sediment. \nThere is a lot of sediment that will actually travel to that \nlocation and that explains why you have such high recovery in \nthis area. \nOK\, so in one last effort we try to do is to try to we try to \nlook at the larger scale segment budget based on these measures \nbetween 1997 and 2019 and try to link larger scale batymetric \nchange in relation to the mining areas and what you see in this \nplot. \nAll these little lines are artificial bounding boxes. \nFor each of these bounding boxes\, we computed the vertical \nchange\, and the vertical change is illustrated by these dots. \nThe larger dots show more vertical change. \nRed is negative\, that’s erosion\, and green is accretion. \nAnd what you can see that during a period of low mining \nintensity\, for example\, 2008\, 2014\, there was actually a \npositive\, mostly positive feedback of the bed. \nThe beds are created during a period of high mining intensity. \nAnd I’m\, the way I phrase it now is\, is I’m not suggesting \nanything. \nLet me\, I’m\, I’m going to come back to the words I’m going to \nsay now. \nBut during a period of high mining intensity\, we also see \nthat the entire West Central Bay was negative. \nThere was a lot of erosion and we are not going to jump to the \nconclusion that there is a link to the mining activity here. \nThe only thing we can say is that it’s very likely that \nthere’s a coincidence between this very high mining activity \nand during this time frame\, there was probably a very \nnegative balance of the Bay. \nSo maybe this was after major flood events or a dry period \nthat there was less sediment supply to the Bay\, but it’s not. \nWe cannot make the correlation between mining activity and \noverall response of the Bay. \nThat is just a coincidence that happens in these maps and we \ncannot make that. \nWe cannot conclude that that that there is a relation between \nthe two. \nI just wanted to make that clear because it’s very easy to \nmisread these figures in such a way. \nOK\, let me try to synthesize all of these results. \nI know it’s probably goes really fast and it’s a lot of \ninformation to digest. \nOne of the ways that I always use to try to\, to explain \nmorphodynamic change is using this sort of stepped approach \nwhere we\, we call this the scale cascade\, where we look at \ndifferent parts of the morphodynamics through time and \nspace. \nSo if we want to answer questions for the entire San \nFrancisco Bay\, well\, we cannot do that based on this study. \nWe need the settlement budget of lesser. \nYou need to do a full budget of the Bay and it’s going to take \ndecades to centuries to for the entire Bay to respond to morpho \ndynamic change. \nAnd what we’ve done is we analyzed mining events or a \ncouple of mining events. \nSo that’s completely on this spectrum of the Bay. \nBut through careful analysis and through expert judgment\, you can \nmake links from the smallest scale\, from the mining events to \nthe impacts on the large scale settlement budgets. \nSo one of the things we notice that on the smallest scale\, you \ncan always see the impact of mining in the form of potholes. \nThose always seem to appear and depending on the recovery those \nfill in very quickly procedures show for example or they don’t \nfill in at all. \nAnd what happens then is then with the reoccurring mining then \nthe all of the potholes combined cause a depression in the \nunderlying show that on the time scale we looked at could not \nrecover fully. \nSo that show for example\, in ring Polygon tree\, this feature \nover here that in our measurements that completely \ndisappeared because of the mining effects. \nBut maybe that’s not too bad that this Shoal is very far \noffshore in the middle of the Bay. \nSo the impact of a disappearing Shoal is very low. \nIf you deepen the Bay in this part\, maybe by half a meter\, it \nwill not affect the waves near San Francisco. \nIf you really deepen Presidious Shoal where we actually saw that \nthere was very high recovery\, then you would have an indirect \nimpact maybe on the shoreline. \nIf you deepen the shore the the Shoals\, then the waves that can \npropagate to the coast can actually become higher. \nSo the low versus high recovery is actually in a quite \nconvenient location in terms of indirect effects. \nDeepening something that’s already really deep is less \ncumbersome than deepening something that is shallow and \nactually shelters the the shoreline that’s been needed. \nSo in that respect\, the low versus high recovery seems to \nwork quite well. \nWell\, I think I covered most of the these these topics so on. \nSo depending on the recovery\, you can have an impact locally \nor you can have an impact on the larger scale. \nIf the recovery rates are low\, as I mentioned before\, then the \ntotal settlement budget is less influenced and but that’s all \nwithin reason. \nSo at some point\, if you keep stretching\, if you completely \ndeepen the entire Bay by meters and meters\, so you have much \nmore tidal volume going in and out\, then of course you’re going \nto change the tides in San Francisco Bay. \nSo at some point you’re going to reach a tipping point that it \nbecomes too deep and then it becomes a problem what that \ntipping point is. \nWell\, we can tell you you would need very careful modelling. \nBut I’m I can reassure you that the tipping point is probably \nnowhere not reached right now. \nAnd it’s very not even close to a tipping point because that’s \nthe the mining is too small scale for the the in relation to \nthe total sediment volume of the Bay to really have a major \nimpact on tidal propagation right now. \nIf you ask the same question in 100 years\, I may give you a \ndifferent answer if you continue operations because then you \nremoved 100 times that 5 million or 20 times the 5 million \nbecause it was a five year interval. \nSo\, but at the moment that all seems that to me that did not \nappear to be the biggest issue. \nSo if you remove sediments from an area that with high recovery \nrates and obviously you do you do impact the sediment transport \nsystems and then you can can create the sediment difference \ndifferent deficit somewhere else in the Bay or you may reduce the \nsediment supply to the to the outer coast. \nThis last point is maybe a little bit counterintuitive. \nWhat I tried to say here is that if you remove sand\, sometimes \nit’s not completely apparent because you create a hole and \nthat hole can be filled in with silt. \nSo then the sand budget remains unchanged. \nThe sediment budget of course remains negative because it’s \nfilled in with mud\, with a different material. \nAnd as mud shows a very strong or fast response that can all \nthat can that that process can happen quickly\, but you would \nalter the Bay floor composition\, which as a habitat may not be \nthe best or may may have and one wanted effect. \nI think that were the main points I wanted to make at West \nCentral Bay. \nMaybe maybe I should ask Brenda this one. \nWe can have a little pause for questions because I’m sure there \nare questions about the method and the the results. \nI also have some additional slides for the Sassoon channel \nnot displaying the method\, but just showing the pure results in \nterms of volume and butymetric change of the Sassoon channel. \nSo whatever you prefer. \nYeah\, thank you so much\, Edwin. \nThis was really helpful and I hope informative for everybody. \nI think we should probably turn now to questions and discussion \nfor a few minutes because it is almost 11. \nI think we got a little bit of a slow start this morning. \nSo I think I first need to do 2 things. \nOne\, if everybody could please take a minute and just add your \nname and affiliation in the chat because we do want to make sure \neverybody who has joined is on the is on the interested parties \nlist\, especially if you’re new to the group. \nSo please take a moment for that. \nSorry\, I meant mentioned earlier\, but in the meantime\, \nErica and Bill and Aaron\, did you have some comments you \nwanted to share at this time? \nAnd you’re all on mute. \nSo hi\, Brenda\, this is Erica. \nWell\, I guess Aaron\, do you want to step in? \nWell\, yeah\, I always think we’re just gonna say no\, no comments \nfrom us\, but we would like to see the results on Sassoon Bay \npresented because I think that’s important for Lynn Marine is \nthat the that’s where they do their mining. \nSo I think that’s where we’d like to see the the time spent. \nOK\, I think we do. \nWe have a fair amount of time for the the budget conversation. \nSo perhaps\, Edwin\, I don’t know how quickly you can do that \nwithout turning all of our heads around in a circle. \nBut maybe if you could take 5 minutes or so and just run us \nthrough so soon\, that would be very helpful. \nThank you. \nSure\, but the now I have to find the share button again. \nOh\, sorry. \nIt should be at the bottom of your screen. \nNo\, no\, no\, I I caught it. \nI got it. \nI caught it. \nYou can of course\, we’re going to run into the issue of the \npresenter mode\, but I think we resolved that better button. \nThree buttons again and then height. \nYep\, there you go. \nI should have left\, I should have left this on screen\, but my \napologies. \nSo this will be a very quick presentation because all the \nmethods and all the the techniques we did are the same. \nOne of the things you can clearly see in the Sassoon \nchannel is that is the the effect of mining you can see in \nthe we have we have less bathymetry. \nSee\, well\, what we’re looking at here is a 2014\, 18 and 19 \nbathymetry. \nAgain\, it’s the same colour scheme with blue with the deeper \nchannel\, and yellow is the shallower part of the channel. \nAnd you can also see these red lines or the outlines of where \nyou have the water versus dry land. \nYou can see that the multi beam doesn’t cover the entire reach \nof the river\, but what you can see in the mining area\, that’s \nthe red dot. \nLet me get the pointer. \nYou can see in 2014 it wasn’t mined a whole lot\, but in 2018 \nand 19 you can see the cumulative effects of potholing. \nBasically you can see all these little dots which are basically \nindividual mining events that create a depression in the bed. \nAnd if you subtract the two bathymetry\, so you do\, if you do \na 2019 minus the 2014 bathymetry\, you kind of get this \nresult where the light yellow colours are a small amount of \nerosion. \nAnd the darker it gets\, the higher the erosion value \nbecomes. \nSo you can see this depression\, you can clearly see it in the \nthe area. \nSo you see a deepening of the mining location\, but what you \ncan also see is that the entire channel deepens and it deepens \non both sides. \nSo it’s not. \nAnd from that observation alone\, you can already tell that mining \nis probably not the main factor in this overall deepening of the \nentire channel. \nIt’s not that you capture all the sediment in the mining area \nand that’s why the adjacent areas are depleted\, because then \nyou would have a bias to the upstream or downstream side. \nSo apparently the entire system is just has lowered because of \nthe probably the\, the\, the\, the amount of drainage from the \nSacramento River. \nAnd that was also one of the underlying arguments why we say \nthat in West Central Bay that overall lowering of the Bay is \nprobably not due to mining because we also saw it in the \nsystem channel. \nSo in the bathymetry’s you can kind of see that same response \nwith low recovery. \nSorry\, I need to go do this a bit faster. \nAnd that’s what was. \nIf you really zoom into that area\, so now I’m just going and \nI just went to the ring polygons\, you can really see \nthat potholing. \nYou can also see that the mining volumes\, which I summarized in \nthis table are a lot lower compared to the the volumes from \nCentral Bay. \nBut the vertical change in this ring Polygon was actually quite \nsubstantially\, almost 2 1/2 meters. \nUnfortunately\, in this area we could not identify bat forms \nvery close to the the mining area. \nWe did define some bat forms\, but they were quite far away. \nSo any bat form analysis in relation to the mining areas\, we \ncould not do in this. \nIn this area. \nFrom the pics you can see that the recovery rates are quite \nlow\, 1% actually between 2014 and 2019. \nAnd if you look at mining impact on a slightly larger scale\, we \ndid this extended ring analysis again. \nWell\, you can see that the ring Polygon itself\, it’s dark red. \nYou see that in the channel there is overall erosion. \nBut as I mentioned before\, the entire multi beam area actually \nshows erosion. \nSo we\, we can’t conclude that mining is the the main actor in \nthis erosional process. \nI think that are the results that I wanted to present quickly \nfor Sasume. \nOh\, actually I\, I\, I have one more slide. \nI guess I did not prepare the additional slides as thorough as \nthoroughly as I should have done. \nBut in this slide\, it’s the same sediment budget analysis as we \ndid for Central Bay. \nSo we looked at the ring polygons\, we identified other \nsimilar polygons\, computed the volumetric change and you can \nsee that everything is negative with the largest negative or the \nlargest vertical change in the mining areas. \nThe low recovery rates also suggest that\, OK\, it’s a large \nlocal impact\, but on the overall transport rates\, it’s probably \nit did not\, probably didn’t change too much because whatever \nyou took out\, that’s also the amount that bet lowered and you \ndid not. \nSo therefore you didn’t affect the overall settlement budget. \nAnd I think that were the main conclusions here. \nI hope that helps a little bit. \nThank you\, Edwin. \nOK. \nSo I think we can open it up to questions assuming Erin and \nErica and Bill that you don’t have anything further to say at \nthis time. \nYeah\, nothing further\, Brenda\, thank you. \nOK\, So being commissioners\, if you have questions\, you’re up \nfirst and the group beyond that will try to keep us moving just \nbecause we are a little over time. \nSo Andy Gunther\, it looks like you have your hand up first. \nThanks\, Brenda. \nYeah\, so I have two questions. \nThanks so much for this. \nA lot of information crammed into a a\, a\, a elegant \npresentation. \nFirst question is on the Sassoon end. \nSo as I understood that we take sand out and we see the hole \nthat we left and we also see that there are changes in the \nsymmetry there that happened across the whole system. \nSo I am familiar with the old saying from the river \ngeomorphologists\, which is that 5% of the flow carries 95% of \nthe sediment in the river. \nAnd So what I’m wondering is in a major event like the 9798 San \nJoaquin flood or something like that\, could we theoretically\, \nfrom what you understand\, kind of reform the whole bottom of of \nthat area so that in an essence the holes would fill in in one \nepisode of of or is that do we not move sand in that way \nthrough the system? \nI think your 5% is moved by the big storms analogy is quite \ngood. \nSo yeah\, if you have a major flood event\, you may be fill in \nthose holes. \nThere is\, there’s a lot of material moving around the major \nflood events\, but the scale of such events should be\, I don’t \nknow. \nI don’t know if that’s a one in 100 year flood or whether that’s \na one in a 10 year flood or whether the time frame we looked \nat because it’s a very limited time frame. \nAnd yeah\, I know your periods of drought and and maybe flooding \nevents are also on that same time scale. \nSo it’s possible that what we are looking at right now is just \na consequence of the five years of maybe low flow conditions and \nnot a whole lot of movement. \nSo I think your hypothesis could very well be be true\, I think. \nBut I\, I would say folks like Dave Schulheimer will probably \nknow a little bit better on how much how\, how much sediment is \nactually moved in suspension. \nBut yeah\, I wouldn’t\, I wouldn’t be surprised that during major \nflood events a lot of infill would occur. \nBut it seems to me as we’re working here in preparation of \ncoming before the Commission with another permit\, which \nBrenda has a term of 10 years. \nYeah\, it yes. \nWell\, the previous permit had a 10 year. \nSo\, so I\, I wanna be sure that we understand where we might be \njust looking at\, in our permit scale at\, at\, at A\, at trying to \nunderstand changes in the bed that actually happen on a \ndecadal\, decadal scales. \nAnd we shouldn’t just assume what we see is always gonna be \nthere. \nSo that\, that’s what was one response to the Sassoon. \nAndy\, can I also have Dave speak to this? \nBecause I think Dave does have some expertise and there have \nbeen some differences found from the river flow concept that I \nthink we’re looking forward deferring to Dave on questions \nlike this. \nAnd I’m happy to do so again. \nYes\, I think it’s important. \nAnd also note that 19/8\, the 2018 to 2019 bathymetry was \nspecifically done to try to capture those wet years because \nwe had a couple wet years. \nAnd also note that we have bathymetry from 1997 to 2023. \nSo we’ve got 2 decades in there. \nDave\, up to you. \nOK. \nThe short answer\, Commissioner Gunther\, is that in Sassoon Bay\, \nlooking at the total sediment supply\, not just sand but for \nall of sediment that the typical dry year or normal year\, there’s \na slight bit of sediment accumulation in Sassoon Bay \nbeing at the upper end of the estuary. \nBut during the really wet years\, the 2000 sixes and I think it \nwas 2017\, then we see a net export of sediment from Sassoon \nBay. \nSo it’s actually the large years move out the sediment \nessentially as the soon Bay becomes fresh and potentially \neven at Mallard Island anyway\, more like the river\, we lose \nsediment. \nSo most years there’s a small amount of total accumulation. \nAnd then in the really wet years\, we see some erosion \ntaking place\, Right\, right. \nBut as we’re thinking about the impact of the area that’s mined \nit\, it seems to me like we have a situation where as we dig \nthese holes\, those areas become much more hungry for sediment \nand sand. \nAnd you could have a situation with in a big year. \nAnd I see Lester’s telling me 2017 was already was a big year. \nAnd I\, I\, I\, I would\, I’m not exactly sure how the water flow \nrelates to the force that is coming through the Sassoon \nregion. \nBut we still could have a situation\, couldn’t we\, Dave? \nWhere you where these these holes we’ve dug fill in? \nEven though the total transport situation is as you describe\, \nthe velocity given that these holes question perhaps Edwin \ncould address is that given that these holes are in the channel\, \nthere may be sufficient velocity there to prevent them\, prevent \nthe finer sediments from filling in. \nMost of these sediments coming in during the high flows are \ngonna be very fine sediments\, not the sand. \nSo\, Edwin\, I don’t know if you my\, my\, my gut feeling is that \nthe currents in in those holes are large enough where you’re \nnot going to fill them up with a bunch of mud. \nThey’re gonna remain as holes for the fines. \nIndeed. \nYeah\, Yeah. \nAnd the and for the the core sands\, I\, I think if there’s \nsand that can be moved around\, then you create a large hole \nthat’s suitable for the position. \nTheoretically it could fill in\, but we did not see it in the \nlimited observations we had. \nAnd if it fills in\, of course\, then it’s an additional deficit \nto the Oval settlement budget. \nAnd I think also one of the observations from your work \nheadwind that was really key was just the really very few bed 4\, \nbut seemingly very little sand transport in Sassoon Bay\, which \nimplies that those holes are not going to fill in with sand. \nThere just isn’t much sand moving there. \nThey’re not gonna fill in easily\, not under the conditions \nthat we had during these measurements. \nSo I think that’s a very clear observation. \nAm I correct then that this would be a hypothesis we could \ntest with ongoing monitoring during the period that we might \nbe conducting mining? \nWe know where these holes are now we can go look and see \nwhat’s going on. \nOK. \nI want to move down to the Presidio Shoal where I have \nanother question\, which as as you described\, we have bed forms \ncoming in both directions and that seems to imply there’s \nmovement that fills up the holes we dig. \nSo as I understood what you said\, that would be very\, very \nimportant with regards to the wave regime on the shoreline \nthere. \nIf we if we dug holes and it just got deeper and deeper\, we \ncould influence the erosion. \nOK. \nSo that’s an important thing for us to understand that happens \nnow as the way I’m seeing it\, and this is\, I’m glad we have \nthese. \nI don’t have to do this kind of thing before the whole \nCommission. \nIf we didn’t mine\, the sand wouldn’t pile up there\, right? \nSo\, so in essence\, we are taking sand from somewhere. \nWe just don’t know where it would have gone if we hadn’t \npulled it out ourselves. \nOK\, thanks. \nCorrect. \nAnd if I can add a little bit to that 1\, So it’s a very active \nsediment regime over there\, a lot of sand moving around. \nYou take out a little bit and we cannot see any observations. \nWe cannot see a clear correlation that well\, we took \nsome out. \nSo now we see more erosion here. \nAnd that’s where that remarks comes in that you created the \ndeficit\, but it’s possible that that deficit is filled in by \nfine sediments in shallower regions. \nFor example\, if a lot of that sand was transported into South \nBay\, you create a deficit in South Bay. \nAnd then in South Bay is you have a very nice place where \nfines can settle. \nSo then that accommodation space can be filled in with fines \ndeposition for the overall settlement budget. \nThat’s still negative\, but you wouldn’t directly see it in the \nsand budget\, right? \nBut there’s right\, but there we are even if we’re changing the \nform of the Mass\, we’re still conserving Mass here. \nSo\, so it that there\, there if we did a hole and there’s no \nhole when we go back a year later\, then then we have the \nthat material that deposited there would have gone somewhere \nelse because it won’t pile up. \nYeah\, OK\, thanks. \nAnd I’ll just add that I think\, and I would look to Mike Bishop \nperhaps to give us a nod on this\, that it’s these areas are \nnot filling up with fines because they keep going back to \nget sand and they keep finding sand. \nThat’s why they keep going back to the same locations. \nSo we’re not to the best of my knowledge\, and again\, Mike\, \ncorrect me\, we are not seeing it go from sand to fines at this \ntime. \nThat would be correct. \nThank you. \nMike\, I understand what’s happening. \nPat\, I see your hand up. \nThank you\, Edward. \nI really appreciated this\, this presentation. \nAs Andrew said\, it was very elegant and and really helpful. \nThere was one slide you went over much too fast for me\, \nactually several\, but anyway\, particularly one that showed it \nhad some black lines. \nIt was over kind of the whole Bay Area\, the whole Bay sediment \nit had had some black lines. \nWhat do those black lines mean? \nI think the arrow transport is what you’re referring to. \nYeah\, I but I’m not sure what the arrow transport of what can \nyou go back to that? \nShould should I just share my screen quickly? \nYes\, please. \nYeah\, I think this is the slide. \nDo you figure you were referring to? \nThis is the one so\, but you can see in this figure\, I’m going to \ntry to blow it up a little bit. \nSo this is one of the figures you made to that in order to \nconceptually understand the sediment transports that are \ngoing on in relation to the platform fields and what these \nblack arrows mean. \nThese are the the high energetic tides that push in and out of \nthe Golden Cate and that are capable of transporting large \namounts of sediments if they are available. \nSo this whole area in the direct vicinity of the Golden Kate\, \nincluding this lease area\, is probably fed by sediments that \npush in and out of the Golden Kate. \nBut there isn’t a whole lot of sediment here. \nSo that may be one of the reasons why you don’t have a lot \nof refill in this area. \nWhat you can\, what you can see here are these major platforms\, \nthis entire Shoal area\, these platforms are likely linked to \nthe flow acceleration around Angel Island and that kind of \ncreates these platforms. \nBut these platforms do not link up with these these areas \nbecause they’re these are kind of linked to this process. \nAnd that’s the other reason why this sediment won’t travel\, at \nleast not in the time span of the observations to this area \nwithin the in our reports\, we try to conceptually describe \nthis. \nAnd I just pulled one of the figures. \nMy apologies for not explaining it too well. \nThis is a very oh\, no\, no\, that’s\, that’s that’s very \nhelpful. \nSo in other words\, in a\, in this year\, the transport was very \nmuch from the Golden Gate into the Bay. \nWell\, it’s always like that. \nYou always have on these flood deltas\, that’s the area we call \nhere that is directly influenced by the tides pushing in and out \nof the Golden Gate. \nThat’s the flood delta that’s always influenced by the \nsediment transport from the Golden Gate. \nBut apparently not. \nThere isn’t enough to refill this mining area completely. \nSo that part is on this these time scales\, it’s apparently \nlimited. \nAnd over here\, it’s a completely different story because this is \nhas both sediment transports tides pushing in and out of the \nGolden Gate. \nYou have the waves going along the along the coast. \nSo there’s a lot of littoral transport here. \nThere’s tides going back and forth into South Bay. \nAnd all of these combined give a lot of energy to the sediment \ntransport. \nSo you have a lot of movement and high recovery in this area. \nThat’s our conception. \nYou\, you can explain those differences. \nThank you. \nThat’s very helpful. \nRight. \nOK. \nI have Jim’s hand up and I think this is going to be our last \nquestion. \nSo we make sure we have time to get into the sand budget. \nI think we’re still OK\, but let’s try to wrap this piece up \nand move on\, please. \nThank you. \nThanks. \nFascinating stuff and I’ve been around this stuff for a while. \nI hope you’ve all seen my letter of July 14th. \nI did try to collect observations. \nI’ve got 2 augmentations here which are based on direct \nobservation. \nI\, I used to race windsurfers at\, at\, at in front of the Saint \nFrancis every other Friday night in between races. \nWe would kind of hang out on the\, on the submerged beach in \nfront of the seawall there. \nThere was sediment and\, and transport\, literal transport \ncooking by us at a remarkable rate. \nAnd there’s a\, there’s a difference between the transport \nmechanisms along the shoreline\, which are literal and are one \nway driven. \nAnd you can get a budget for that from the the tip Shoal \ndredging at the mouth of the Marina\, the time it took to \nrefill the sub aerial deposition when they opened a an increase \nin the tidal prism at the at\, at at the Golden Gate National \nRecreational Area\, Presidio shallow. \nPresidio Shoal is shallow enough and fed. \nAnd I think there’s ample background information to know \nthat you’ve got sediment coming in from the ocean and\, and it \ngoes in one\, One Direction. \nThat’s very different transport mechanism than in the center of \nthe basin. \nYou have to have a Shoal which is shallow enough for wave \nenergy to\, to disturb it and start it into the literal \nprocess. \nBut a fascinating presentation. \nThe the the one point I wanted to make is that the redeposition \nand refilling of the Presidio Shoal. \nDoesn’t surprise me at all. \nThere’s a lot of literal way of energy. \nThank you. \nThose observations are always the best. \nThe observations from the field and if they correspond with the \nfindings\, that’s even better. \nSo thank you for your remarks. \nOK\, Thank you so much\, Edwin. \nSo I just want to remind folks that if they want to read the \nfull study and you should because there’s a whole lot more \ninformation on it. \nIt is in Appendix G of the sand findings report. \nIt is the second study in order of Appendix G And I think with \nthat\, Edwin\, thank you so very much. \nWe appreciate all the work you’ve done on this front and \ncoming to present today. \nAnd I’m going to turn it over to Lester McKee. \nAnd while Lester is warming up\, I’ll just let folks know that \nour next meeting\, we will have Michael McWilliams presenting on \nsand transport modeling\, which will be even more information \nand fun. \nSo get ready for that. \nIt’s coming up soon. \nOK\, Lester\, we see your slides in presenter view. \nThank you. \nAnd you’re on mute. \nThe little microphone button should be at the bottom of your \nslides. \nGot it. \nYou’re off. \nHere you go. \nSo anyway\, I got the same problem as Edwin that that \nyou’re seeing or are you seeing it in the in the appropriate \nview? \nIt’s in the perfect view. \nYou’ve got it all straight. \nThanks\, Lester. \nOK\, great. \nWell\, thanks everybody. \nAgain\, my name is Lester McKee. \nI’m a senior scientist with San Francisco SG Institute. \nI’ve been studying sediments in the Bay and it’s watersheds now \nsince the year 2000. \nAnd it’s a pleasure to assist you in this conversation about \nhow sand moves around in the Bay. \nLet’s see\, can we advance the slide? \nHow do we do that? \nHere we go. \nSo just start off with a quick primer on what is a sediment \nbudget. \nIt’s a statement of the net quantity of sediment deposited \nor eroded in a system balanced against the sum of sources and \nexternal sinks. \nJust to remind you that mass must be conserved\, and I think \nEdwin made this point very clearly. \nThat is\, inflow minus outflow must equal the change in the \nstorage that we observe in the system. \nSo just repeating that again for a given control volume and \nperiod of time\, and we need to define both of those change in \nthe bed. \nFunctionally a change in elevation\, but it could also be \na change in density or grain size or other things. \nBut functionally a change in elevation must equal inflow \nminus outflow. \nSo it follows that if inflows are smaller than outflows\, then \nbed erosion must be observed in the system. \nI want to make this last point loud and clear. \nA sediment budget does not account for any sediment outside \nthe control volume. \nThat is all the sediment that’s stored in the Bay. \nThis is this other sediment is deemed permanently stored and \nnot dynamically in transport night\, not dynamically part of \nthe sediment budget. \nAnd I’ll make that point a few times more in the presentation. \nSo in our Bay\, we set up a conceptual model to describe the \ninflow terms\, the way sediment is coming into the Bay and to \ndescribe the way sediment is leaving the Bay\, the outflow \nterms\, and these are the listed inflow and outflow terms you can \nsee that includes sand mining and dredging and wetland reuse \nand wetland deposition and tidal flood control channel removal on \nthe outflows. \nAnd for inflows\, it’s the typical inflows we would see \ninto an estuary system inflow from our tributaries\, in this \ncase the broader Central Valley tributaries as well as local \ntributaries. \nAnd then as being discussed already\, this littoral transport \nthat occurs from what from wave forces along the beachfronts. \nWe also quantified the net change in the system that is the \nbaffinetric change and that was largely facilitated by work of \nBruce Jeff Jaffe and his team at USGS. \nAnd then there is a a transport mechanism they of moving \nsediment around by dredge materials disposal that is from \none pay part of the Bay to the other. \nBut in this case\, it’s not a loss or a gain term\, but rather \na just a movement of sediment from one place in inside the \ncontrol volume to another place inside the control volume. \nLet’s see if I can move. \nThere we go. \nSo in our case\, inflow and outflow and bed storage chains \nchange terms are all quantified such that we could rearrange the \nconservation of mass equation to estimate the exchange for the \nPacific Ocean boundary. \nWe had no a priori assumption that it would be either in or \nout\, but rather the the budget would determine the net \ntransport direction. \nSo that that term is an unknown term in the budget and is done \nby subtraction. \nIt’s the\, it’s the balance of the inflows and the outflows. \nI want to point out that there is very good certainty in the \nsand mining numbers that we received from the sand mining \ncommunity and also the dredging numbers that we get from the \nLTMS work. \nSo the disposal and beneficial youth numbers are all well \nquantified. \nHowever\, the other terms are less certain\, but we estimated \nthem using the best of\, say\, available science and the \nmethods and the results are well documented in the technical \nreports that have been produced either through the study or in \npast studies. \nSo I want to move now to just helping us to understand what a \nsettlement budget is lesser\, Never mind\, sorry\, I was going \nto say your slides weren’t moving\, but they just did. \nI apologize. \nOK\, so to help us understand how our Senate budget works\, let’s \ntake a hypothetical example. \nAnd this is actually similar to what Edwin described\, but let’s \njust run over it again. \nLet’s assume that as there’s zero inflows from our tributary. \nSo in our diagram there you see zero input from the inflows and \nlet’s assume that there’s half a million metric tons of outflow \nby sand mining or dredging. \nFrom a simple sand budget standpoint\, the Bay doesn’t \nreally care\, but there was some outflow that was caused by \noccurred from a removal. \nSo in our hypothetical example here\, if we measured 0 metric\, 0 \nmillion metric tons of sediment erosion from the bed\, then since \nmass must be conserved to develop to\, to balance this \nbudget\, there would need to be a half million metric tons flowing \nout through the Golden Gate\, sorry\, flow in through the \nGolden Gate from the Pacific Ocean. \nAnd so you can see there a simple budget. \nNow if we take the same hypothetical example and find \nthat in fact\, there had been some bed lowering during that \nsame. \nAnd let’s assume that it’s that it’s half a million as well\, \nsince mass must be conserved to balance the budget. \nNow there would need to be lesser amount flow in from the \nocean because that was accommodated by a bed reduction \nand the bed elevation. \nIn this hypothetical case\, the bed lowering balances the sand \nout flow by dredging or mining. \nAnd so there would be 0 in the exchange with the situation \nthrough the Golden Gate Bridge. \nAnd so that helps you perhaps to understand how the budget \nconservation and mass concept works. \nNow\, if we take the same hypothetical example and find \nthat in fact there is some additional supply from the \ntributaries\, and let’s just pretend it’s 0.25 million metric \ntons per year during that same period. \nSince mass must be conserved to balance this budget\, there would \nneed to be a greater amount flow to the ocean\, in this \nhypothetical case 0.25\, to balance out the budget\, and that \nwould flow out through the Golden Gate to the Pacific \nOcean. \nSo I hope these examples help you to understand how the \ninterim budget works. \nInflow or outflow through the Golden Gate from or to the \nPacific Coast as a result of the sum of all the inflow minus the \nsum of all the outflows. \nSo you can think of the outflow term as a Ledger\, an account of \nthe fate of the inflowing sediment in any sediment that is \neroded from the bed\, that is the total mass that’s in transport \nin this budget. \nTo note\, because there is no change of stand storage in the \nwater column\, that is we observed no trend in the \nconcentration during the budget period\, there is no partitioning \nof the changes in storage terms between the bed and the water \ncolumn. \nSo in our case\, our budget is actually a bed sediment budget. \nIt’s an accounting of the fate. \nThat is what happens to the bed sediment and that additional \ninflow from the watersheds during the budget period. \nSo now let’s talk about our assumptions for the budget. \nWe call this the control volume. \nIt’s the boundary contention and assumptions that set up the \nconstruct of the mathematical budget. \nSo the spatial scale and extent that we included was everywhere \ndownstream from the Meladon cross section\, essentially just \ndownstream from the the confluence of the Sacramento and \nSan Raquin River systems all the way through to the Golden Gate \nBridge. \nConceptually\, the cross section that’s underneath the Golden \nGate Bridge\, we included everything that is below head of \ntide\, that is everything that we think the tides are interacting \nand moving sentiment around. \nWe assumed in this case that wetland deposition is \npermanently stored and we are able to make that assumption \nbecause we’re talking about a net process and our observations \nin the Bay Area right now suggest that our wetlands are \nstill in the net depositional state. \nIn the future that could change. \nBut right now for this 20 year budget period\, we assumed that \nsentiment that moved into the wetlands is permanently stored. \nAnd the accounting. \nWe chose was the period where there’s the most and best \nquality data available which was 2001 to 2020. \nThat’s a 20 year. \nAnd the active bid is any sediment that is exposed to \nestrogen currents that is in transport at any time during the \naccounting. \nAnd so that’s what we call the active bid. \nThat is the part of the the bid landscape that is part of the \nbudget. \nSo now let’s move on to some results. \nYou can see now that we have different size arrows on this \ndiagram and those represent a relationship between the size of \ntransport for each of the different inflow and outflow \nterms. \nThey’re not actually ranked on the basis of mass\, they’re \nranked on the basis of order. \nSo don’t take this the actual areas of those areas to be \nperfect indication of mass\, but they give you a relative \nrelationship between the different inflow and outflow \nterms. \nWhat you can see from this diagram\, this is the hull based \nstand settlement budget is that the outflow is the the sand \nmining is the largest outflow and it’s the second largest term \nin the budget. \nI need to wharfed a little bit by the change in and best metric \nchange. \nIt is roughly equivalent to the other slightly larger term best \nmetric change. \nAnd so if we think about it\, there’s a temptation to explore \nwhat would happen to the budget if we were to turn off sand \nmining by making it zero if one were to do this for the 20 year \naccounting using the simple math\, it wood forest an increase \nin sediment outflow from the system. \nBut that assumes that there’s no other changes that would occur \nif such a event if we were to turn off the send mining. \nBut this may or may not actually occur. \nThe system could also respond by less space metric change as \nEdwin had discussed in the previous previous Pres Pres \npresentation. \nIn this case\, if we accounted for it all in a change change in \nthe bathymetric change\, then it would be just .13 million\, the \ndifference between 1.33 and 1.2. \nOr it may cause a requirement for navigational dredging \nsomewhere else. \nOr it might change the literal sand transport into the system \nfrom the Pacific Coast. \nOr it may also increase the sand supply to beaches. \nBut one cannot say from the budget\, but what one can say is \nas a large term and most certainly has an influence on \nthe system. \nIn contrast\, if we were to turn off one of the smaller terms\, \nfor example\, stop issuing permits with the flood control \nagencies to dredge their settlement locally\, we’d like to \nsee a net gain in elevation in the flood control channels. \nWe could see local flooding as a result. \nWe could see some supply to the changing supply to the mud flats \nlocally or to the wetlands locally\, but except at that very \nlocal temporal and spatial scale\, this would likely be \ndifficult to measure. \nBut mass must be conserved and so we would know that it would \nbe there somewhere. \nWe would rightly conclude that sediment removal by flood \ncontrol agencies has virtually no influence on the system wide \nor the large scale budget\, in stark contrast to the larger \nbudget term of sand mining\, which we can say most certainly \nhas a large influence from the budget. \nBut from a budget standpoint we can’t say exactly what that \ninfluence would be. \nSo now if we look at the sand mining\, sorry\, the sand \nsettlement budget for the Sun Bay\, we see a similar \nconclusion. \nSand mining is the largest term in the budget. \nWe can say it has a large effect but had not occurred during the \nbudget period. \nThere are a variety of options for the fate of that segment \nthat may have allowed bid gain to the bed to gain elevation. \nIt may have caused the need for more navigational dredging\, or \nit may have caused an increase in flux out to some Pablo Bay\, \nfor example. \nThat other very large arrow in this diagram we cannot say\, but \nwe can say it has a large influence in the budget\, unlike \nthe other smaller terms in the budget. \nNow if we look at the sand sediment budget that stands \nCentral Bay\, we we have a similar situation. \nSand mining is also the largest term in this budget. \nWe can say it has a large effect at the scale\, at the local scale \nof the mining leases where there were in some cases only partial \nreplenishment\, the bid level lowered by meters over the \ndecade with large morphologic\, morphologic disruption. \nSo that’s what Edwin described\, but if it had not occurred \nduring the budget\, there are a variety of options for the fate \nof that sediment. \nIt may have allowed the bed to gain meters of elevation in the \nlease areas or if averaged across the House of abatement \nand about 1.8mm of bed elevation gain could have occurred. \nOr it may have caused the need for more navigational dredging \nor may have caused a reduction in flux from San Pablo Bay or \nfrom the South Bay. \nYou can see there’s some large arrows on the top left hand side \nof this diagram that that potentially could have changed \nor it may have caused an increase in flux towards the \nPacific Ocean. \nWe cannot say from the budget\, but we can say it has a large \ninfluence on the budget\, unlike the smaller terms. \nSo now to the the questions that were asked in the primary for \nthis meeting. \nHow much sand is there in the Bay? \nDuring the 2001 to 2020 budget\, we can say that .545 million \nmetric tons per year of sediment came into the Bay from the \ntributaries and from littoral sand transport along the \nbeachfront in the Presidio\, and 1.33 million metric tons of sand \nwas sourced from the bed of the Bay. \nThe sum of the amount of sand that was in the Bay during this \n2001 period from the budget standpoint was the sum of those \ntwo terms .45 + 1.33 or 1.78 million metric tons. \nSo that is the that is the the sediment amount per year that \nthen needed to be accounted for that needed to be. \nWe need to determine what the fate of it was during the budget \nperiod. \nAnd all those arrows on the on the outflow terms on this \ndiagram show that the fate of that sediment\, this of course is \nthis slide here is talking about the whole Bay. \nThat last slide was just giving the central Bay example. \nI want to emphasize that we did not report legacy sediment that \nis outside of our control volume. \nThat is the sediment below the active bed stored in wetlands or \nin beach and dune deposits around the Bay. \nThese pools are in permanent storage from a budget \nstandpoint\, as we define the control volumes and not actively \ncontributing to the same transport in the budget. \nThe volumes in these pools are massive compared to the budget. \nI want to give an example of just how massive. \nIf we think about the surface area of the bed of the Bay\, it’s \nabout 1200 square kilometers\, square kilometers in that 1200 \nsquare kilometers in the 1m top 1 meter of that sediment\, \nthere’s about 300 million metric tons of sand and permanent \nstorage. \nFrom the standpoint of this budget\, if we assume an average \nbulk density of about 820 kilograms per meter cubed and \naverage sand content of about 30%. \nSo I want to if says again\, we did not include this and S&S \nand budget\, these volumes are massive compared to the amount \nof sand that’s in\, in movement in in the control volume. \nSo how does mining affect the budget? \nIt was the second question in the in the in the outline for \nthis discussion. \nToday\, sand mining is the largest term in the meta scale \nwhole Bay sand budget and in the macro scale the soon and central \npaid Bay budgets. \nMining undoubtedly has an influence on the Bay morpho \ndynamics at these scales. \nIf sand mining were to be turned off\, or maybe just a change\, a \nchange in the volumes either increase or decrease. \nSince sand mining is a large term\, there would be large \nchanges to other elements in the budget\, but which other elements \nwould change and the amount of change for each individual \nelement are unknown. \nBut mass must be conserved\, and so there would be. \nA concomitant amount of change in the other budget elements \nthat must add up to the change that we would would see from \neither turning off or changing the thin mining volumes. \nSo thanks very much. \nThat’s the summary of the SAN budget for the Bay. \nWith that I’m willing to take questions. \nThank you\, Lester. \nSo I guess at this point\, we will again open up the \npresentation to the sand miners. \nAnd Erica. \nAaron\, Bill\, Mike\, did you have comments you wanted to provide? \nThis is Bill. \nYeah\, I think Aaron\, Aaron has some comments that that he would \nlike to provide on behalf of the miners. \nThank you. \nSure. \nI’m going to go ahead and share my screen. \nCould you stop sharing Lester\, please? \nIt says I can’t share while someone else is sharing. \nThank you. \nYep\, there we go. \nOK\, I’m going to cover. \nLet me just click through a couple slides. \nWe just want to cover a few main points\, one of them Lester made. \nBut the important part we want to emphasize is that the sand \nbudget is really a balance of the sand that’s moving in and \nout of the system\, but it doesn’t include that large \nreservoir sand. \nSo you know you wouldn’t apply it like you would a a financial \nbudget and how much you’re going to spend this year and next year \netcetera. \nSo that for that exercise\, you need to take into account this \nsize of the large sand reservoir. \nAnd then the next key point we want to make has to do with the \nuncertainty. \nSo there is a lot of parameters that go into that sand budget \nand the conversation of mass and all those different inputs and \noutputs have their uncertainties. \nAnd so because of the methods applied and assuming it’s all a \nconnected system\, those uncertainties accumulate \nthroughout the Bay until you end up at that Golden Gate boundary \nflux. \nAnd so the the results at that Golden Gate boundary end up \nhaving\, you know\, a significant uncertainty between the upper \nand lower values. \nSo the lower\, lower end of the values is actually a flux into \nthe Bay of 0.66 million metric tons per year. \nThe upper estimate is 1.1 million metric tons out of the \nBay with the best estimate at 0.25. \nSo that’s an uncertainty of\, you know\, over 300%. \nSo the things that make up that uncertainty are described in \nLesser’s report. \nSo bathymetric change is the big one. \nSo there’s a lot of uncertainty and all the different surveys \nthat were used with different methods over different time \nperiods. \nSo we understand that in the methods applied\, the sand budget \nvariation or variability accounts for a 50% uncertainty \nin that bathymetric change. \nBut the USGS reports that\, oh\, it could be up to 100%. \nSo that’s the largest and most uncertain term in the budget and \nhas A and significantly influences the the results \nincluding the flux at the Bay. \nDry bulk density is another one. \nI think it was assumed that sand was a\, a single dry bulk density \nfor all the sand in the Bay\, which we think there’s\, it’s\, \nit’s probably more complicated than that. \nAnd then the other important point we want to make is that if \nthere’s a lot of sand moving in and out of the Bay\, you know\, \nit’s\, it was described in the strategic stratigraphy report in \nthe last working group that there’s a\, a large sand \nreservoir that extends\, you know\, on either side of the \nGolden Gate Bridge. \nAnd\, you know\, in Lesser’s report\, he highlights that \nbidirectional fluxes are 10 times greater than the net flux. \nSo we’re talking about a large amount of sand moving both ways. \nAnd what’s reported in the sand budget is kind of the net. \nSo the net is a fraction of what’s moving in and out of the \nBay. \nAnd given that uncertainty\, we don’t really know which way it’s \ngoing. \nSo on in\, you know\, the span of\, you know\, years to decades\, you \nknow\, that could fluctuate one way or the other given the \nuncertainties. \nAnd then the last point we want to make\, we appreciate the time \nwe got to spend with the researchers in the ISP \nunderstanding the methods a little better. \nBut one of the issues we have is that the bathymetric change and \nthe mining\, you know\, are are are linked and the studies point \nto\, you know\, both the Deltares maps we’re looking at here and \nthe USGS maps we’re looking at is that mining significantly \naffects the bathymetric change at the local scale. \nSo it’s not as simple as if you turned off mining\, you’d have \nall this extra sand\, you know\, going out elsewhere throughout \nthe Bay. \nYou know\, what would happen is that you’d have a lot less \nbathymetric change. \nSo it’s important that to highlight that a lot of this \nmining happens at at a depth that that sand would not \notherwise be mobilized. \nYou know\, a lot of that active sediment and change occurs\, you \nknow\, in the in the upper layers as you see throughout the Bay\, \nyou know\, plus or minus a meter\, whereas the mining areas are \ngoing down several meters deep into that layer of sand below \nthe active bed. \nSo we\, we think that’s an important point when you’re \nstarting to pick and choose which variables you’re adjusting \nin the sand budget. \nSo that wraps up our our comments on this study. \nOK\, maybe I don’t know\, Lester\, before we go to Commissioner \nquestions\, Lester\, if you wanted to respond to any of that or if \nBob or Dave wanted to respond or Craig\, we also have Craig here \nthis morning. \nSo if you’d like to respond\, feel free. \nAnd I see Lester\, your hand is up. \nYeah\, just quickly\, Aaron\, nothing you just said bothered \nme. \nI\, I don’t find any\, any\, any inaccuracies in what you just \nsaid. \nI do acknowledge that there is an uncertainty in the flux at \nthe Golden Gate. \nAnd what we did in our report was we gave a worst case \nscenario. \nAnd so I do agree that the air bands are very\, very large for \nthe worst case scenario. \nBut that was done through a sensitivity analysis\, not \nthrough an air analysis. \nAnd so the sensitivity analysis gives the worst case scenario. \nIt it assumes that all the inflow terms were maximized and \nall the outflow terms were minimized to give a worst case \nscenario. \nAnd then you do the opposite and you go through that process \niteratively determined that the potential range of the of the \nflux into and out of the system at that unknown term. \nI would submit that the uncertainty in that number is \nprobably a lot smaller than that\, but we just can’t quantify \nit because a classic error analysis could not be done. \nSo the .25 at is our best judgment of the of the of of the \ncentral tendency of the data. \nThe the best estimate that I do acknowledge that there is \nuncertainty that probably includes the potential for flux \ninto the system. \nBut it’s it’s it’s all well documented what we did. \nAnd and I and I do acknowledge that that’s the term that has \nall the uncertainty piled into it. \nThank you\, Lester. \nCraig\, did you want to comment? \nAnd yeah\, and maybe I just want to punt this a little bit to set \nEdwin up to answer this. \nYou made a statement there at the end\, Edwin or I’m sorry\, \nAaron\, that without mining we simply wouldn’t have a change\, \nwhich seems to suggest that you believe that definitively if \nthere was no mining\, It’s all relic sand and that control \nvolume. \nI think what we’re seeing is actually that that that mining \nof sand is on the order of what Lester is seeing for other \nsediment inflows. \nSo I\, you know\, I feel like that that final statement is a little \nbit of a definitive statement that might mischaracterize what \nwe know. \nWe don’t know if we stopped the mining\, what would happen to \nthat bathymetric change in the Bay. \nAnd we don’t know that without that mining\, it wouldn’t have \nany effect on the overall budget. \nI\, I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. \nAnd Edwin\, I think you\, you touched on that a bit of what we \ndo and don’t know regarding bathymetric change. \nSo I might unto you for that. \nI’m not sure if I can give you the right answer. \nI\, I\, I did like\, actually like\, I appreciated the comments of \nthe descent miners actually\, because we’re trying to\, to\, to\, \nmaybe to\, to\, to give an analysis that also kind of \nconfirms what they’re saying as well. \nSo if you just look at the mathematical settlement budget\, \nwhatever you take out is always negative. \nBut the mining also has a lot of positives. \nThere’s an economic value\, there’s the sand is a resource \nand you cannot just look at the negative and the sentiment \nbudget alone. \nYou also have to look at what is the impact maybe locally. \nSo locally mining has an impact. \nIf there’s no recovery\, it deepens the bed. \nBut as Aaron\, I think really nicely mentioned is that there \nis a huge amount of sediment available. \nAnd is that deepening of the bed such a negative effect that you \nactually think it’s a negative or is it just taking out a \nlittle bit of sediment that was already there? \nAnd it’s substantial if you look at the total bathymetric change \nbecause the\, the the Bay is relatively in equilibrium. \nSo whatever you take out\, you it stands out\, but it doesn’t mean \nthat you’re distorting the entire system. \nIt’s\, it’s in the amount that moves. \nIt’s substantial\, but it’s a huge reservoir of sand \navailable. \nAnd that’s also what we’re trying to or at least try to \naddress that depending on the location\, whether you have high \nor low recovery\, you have a slightly different impact that \nyou may or may not feel is important. \nAnd that that’s kind of the the reasoning I tried to outline in \nmy presentation. \nI’m not sure if that really helped answer Craig’s question. \nThanks\, Edwin. \nAnd I’m going to go to Bob and then Andy and Barry. \nSo I do see your hands. \nBut I’m gonna let the independent science panel \nrespond again first. \nBob. \nYeah. \nThanks\, Brenda. \nHopefully you can’t hear this rock’n’roll music at the coffee \nshop that I’m at. \nNope. \nYeah. \nI just wanted to say I put some comments in the chat. \nI wanted to point out that the ring analysis would be useful to \nidentify the local changes in the sand mining areas that \nCommissioner Gunther mentioned and I think if that can that was \nextended into the future that could help look at this question \nabout large slugs of deposition etcetera. \nSo I think that’s a good tool. \nSecondly\, Commissioner Schollwalter mentioned\, you know \nthe question about the big black arrows and I appreciated the \nclarification that we were only looking at part of the littoral \ncell the there. \nThe literature indicates that the sand that the Central Bay \nShoals and the mining areas occupy are part of a system that \nincludes the Ed bars outside of the Golden Gate and San \nFrancisco Bay all the way down to Pacifica. \nSo that’s if they’re all LinkedIn in a sense. \nThird\, we did correlate changes out at the San Francisco Bar in \nOcean Beach with changes at Chrissy Field indicating \nsomewhere around a 30 year lag in terms of a large slug input \nand accretion at Chrissy Field. \nAnd I\, I put in the chat a couple of papers that I’ve \nwritten on that topic. \nThank you. \nThanks\, Bob And I as I turn it over to Andy for his question. \nI also just want to remind folks that one of the reasons we did \nmultiple studies is to get multiple lines of evidence that \nhelp us understand what this all means\, right? \nOne study doesn’t answer at all. \nAnd so we are literally pulling information from different \nstudies to kind of get an understanding of the system. \nAnd if you think back to our meeting in July\, the provenance \nwork helped us understand that the Sassoon sand is separate \nfrom the Central Bay sand\, right? \nIt’s no longer connected. \nAnd so that speaks to some of what Bob just mentioned about \nthe outer coast connection to Central Bay because there is a \nstrong connection shown there in the Providence work and the \nProvidence work talked about Sassoon Bay having some \ndifferent origins at this point in time and age. \nAnd with that\, Andy\, thanks Brenda. \nOne question for Lester\, and it’s about the use of the word \nsand and the word sediment and the the OR and then sand \nsediment. \nAnd I verify that there was you were like when you refer to \nterms such as the material dredged by the flood control \nagencies\, you’re doing some kind of grain size correction there \nor something to just figure out the sand. \nThey’re taking that total sediment\, Yes. \nOK\, great. \nThanks. \nAnd I just want to thank everybody for the the \nparticularly the our our independent science panel \nmembers. \nThe there’s a lot of trying to make sense out of this is a \nchallenge. \nThis is a regular been a regular occurrence in my career. \nEvery time anyone studies anything at the Golden Gate\, \nwhether it’s the any movement of any particles there is \noverwhelmed by the\, the\, the daily versus the net transport. \nAnd it’s a very challenging topic. \nAnd I hope as we go forward here we can\, it seems to me we’re \nalready framing the\, the\, there are both short term impacts. \nThen there’s also things we have to watch for in maybe a two or \nthree permit frame at in order to make sure that we’re not \ncreating some kind of cumulative impact. \nAnd then also this idea that there are certain episodes might \nreset the system in\, in\, in a way. \nAnd that we\, these are their\, their\, I would like the staff to \nreally think about this as we go forward\, is that there are \nthings that we’re\, we’re identifying that we’re\, we’re \nreally not going to be able to make any kind of definitive \nstatements about. \nAnd\, and so\, so\, but we that doesn’t mean we will never know \nabout these things. \nAnd\, and any kind of work\, any kind of permit work permitting \ngoing forward should really try and hone in on how we can use \nongoing monitoring to\, to work on particular issues and not \nlose these questions\, you know\, 10 years hand. \nSo that we’re really refining our understanding as we go \nforward. \nThanks. \nThank you\, Andy. \nJust in response to that\, a brief response. \nSo on the big reset to the system\, there are other studies \nthat can help us understand that\, that are not in this \ncollection of the five to seven studies we did. \nSo if you were to look at Bruce Jaffe’s work on Babe Athemetery \nfrom 1850 to today\, right before he retired and left me\, I’m so \nsad You don’t see a big reset of the system. \nYou do see net erosional and net deposition\, but what you don’t \nsee is a big reset to the system. \nWhat he was able to tract was sediment moving out of the \nsystem from the gold rush. \nAnd so I think\, you know\, we need to be cognizant of other \ninformation that’s available. \nWhat we’re presenting in this set of series is the recent work \nthat was done\, which is the best and latest technology and \nability to study this work. \nI mean\, one of the reasons why Middle Ground Shoal only has two \nsurveys is because the technology had to catch up with \nbeing able to do bathymetry in shallow water at an affordable \nrate. \nWe can now do that. \nWe couldn’t do that before 2014 or so. \nSo but we will be looking to other lines of evidence as well \nto help us understand the context and what’s all which \nthese studies fit you citing Bruce’s work did did was he \ndifferentiating sediment and silt and mud and clay. \nIt’s\, it’s bathymetric change overall\, but you can see whether \nthe set the system is resetting through flooding. \nWe\, we know the areas where the sand is so we can\, we can look \nto those to help us understand if in\, you know\, those time \nframes we’re seeing resets of the system. \nIs it time to have the public comment? \nOh\, Pat\, you’re keeping track. \nThank you. \nYes. \nIs there any public comment? \nWait\, didn’t Barry have a comment? \nDid you guys hand down? \nI think you may be answered his question. \nOh\, actually I’m not sure how my hand dropped down. \nI just\, I don’t know. \nThank. \nThanks\, Brenda. \nI wanted to follow up on the exchange between Aaron and I \nthink it was Bob who responded about the\, the\, the\, the\, the \neffect of bathymity with regard to dredging. \nAnd I want to tie it. \nI want to tie it back to what we heard at our last meeting where \nwe learned that one of the the one of the things that’s clear \nabout the majority of the sand we’re dredging out of the system \nis that it’s relic sand. \nI assumed that that that reinforced Aaron’s conclusion \nthat most of the net effect of dredging is deepening of \nbathymetry. \nBob\, I think it was you who said that that wasn’t entirely clear \nfrom the\, the work we’re discussing today. \nAnd I just wanted to ask if you could tie those two threads of \nevidence together. \nWas that for me? \nI’m yeah\, it\, it was\, it was\, I think it was you who had that \nexchange with Aaron. \nWell\, actually I’m not sure\, but I’ll just say that we did have \na\, a discussion ISP sand miners and\, and lesser and GHD. \nAnd I think we addressed the question about the double \ncounting. \nAnd I don’t think that’s a question anymore\, although I \nthink it was a good question. \nAnd\, and I’m not sure what could\, could you repeat the \nother two questions that you had? \nOh\, I\, you know\, I\, I my one of the conclusion I\, I our \nconclusions I reached from our last meeting was that if most of \nwhat we’re dredging is relics\, and that that the net effect of \ndredging is gonna be deepening of bathymetry. \nAnd perhaps it wasn’t you\, Bob\, I apologize\, but someone said \nthat it wasn’t entirely clear that was the case. \nYeah\, I could address that and I’ll let someone else. \nThere is relic sand in the mining areas based on available \ninformation and the the certigraphy fingerprinting \nstudy\, but that there is also relic sand in motion through the \ngolden gates. \nSo one of the confusing aspects is that we have relic sand \nthat’s moving now. \nAnd so it’s not\, they’re not exclusive relic. \nAnd and in transport almost all the sand is relic essentially. \nBut I think the question is if you excavate sand from below the \nbed\, do you have no effect on the surface sands that are being \nin transport? \nAnd I think that’s a really good question. \nHowever\, where they’re sand mining\, we do see the bed \nlowering and changing. \nSo in our view\, the surface is being changed and I’ll just \nleave it at that that that and I don’t if anyone else wants to \njump in\, Edwin\, go ahead. \nSorry\, I couldn’t find the hand in the in the system. \nSo actually I do\, I do think that you have a point about \nrelic sand in terms of the lease number of lease areas. \nIt’s probably not evenly distributed. \nYou have number of lease areas where it’s very active\, but the \nthe etching volumes are quite a lot lower in those areas. \nThe areas with hydrates volume are probably in the areas with \nless sediment activity. \nSo you’re more likely to mine relic sand. \nSo in terms of the total volume\, you’re probably right. \nYeah. \nAnd Edwin\, just for your background with the provenance \nwork\, what the University of Texas\, Texas at Austin found was \nis that the age of the sand and its origins basically say that \nthe sand was laid down at the last Ice Age in Central Bay and \nis a pool between the ocean and Central Bay\, and it’s all that \nvery old sand. \nAnd then Sassoon has slightly newer but also very old sand and \nthere doesn’t seem to be recent sand being deposited. \nAnd I’m not gonna define recent off the top of my head\, but I \nthink the general conclusion was is that all of the sand is truly \nconsidered relic sand. \nAnd so we should probably step away from those terms and talk \nabout sand in transport versus sand in place\, movement versus \nnot movement\, I think would be a better way to think about it in \nour framing for the conversation now\, because I think we have \npretty fairly definitive information that says this is \nall very old sand. \nAnd I’m happy to hear disagreement with that. \nBut I think that’s what the study tells us at large. \nThanks\, Brenda. \nYep. \nOK\, public comment if any. \nI think we’ve stunned everybody into silence. \nOK\, so last call\, I don’t see any hands. \nSo thank you. \nYes\, sorry\, I just had a quick question actually for Lester and \nI’m I’m one of the permanent council for the sand miners and \nreally appreciate the presentation. \nThis has all been fantastic. \nIt’s\, you know\, a lot of information and\, and\, and solid \nanalysis. \nBut I did want to ask there seem to be\, and I think this is \ngetting to some of the questions from Barry and others last year. \nThere’s a slightly different statement that I thought I heard \nfrom\, from your presentation and from Edwin’s that Edwin was \nseemed to be saying that if you’re removing sand from the \nbed\, but it’s not an act of transport that it’s possible \nthat you’re really not affecting the budget. \nAnd then I’m hearing you instead say that that it has a\, it \ncould\, it would have a significant impact on the \nbudget. \nBut I’m wondering if you would comment on what does that mean \nto the to when you say significant impact on other \nterms of the budget\, I’m assuming that that means that \nfor example\, you could just simply have a change in \nbathymetry. \nIt doesn’t necessarily mean an adverse change elsewhere in the \nsystem. \nAnd I want wanted to just confirm that that’s what what \nyou mean by significant impact or significant effect on other \nterms. \nAnd I think you’re muted. \nYeah\, you’re muted. \nYou gotta unmute bottom left corner of your screen just it \njust depends on where. \nYeah. \nSo thanks for that question. \nI think it’s a question of scale and time. \nBut remember the settlement budget is a blunt tool\, it’s an \naverage annual tool and it’s a miss balance tool. \nSo it demands that if you change one term\, some other terms\, one \nor two terms must change. \nSo I think what we’re trying to say is that if you do change the \nthe volume or mass removed by one of the terms\, for example \nsand mining\, then it’s going to demand in the budget that some \nother terms change in the mass balance. \nI think it’s more likely that if you\, for example\, were to mine \nless sentiment from a\, from a mining lease area\, it’s more \nlikely that the\, that the immediate impact would be a \nchange in the symmetry in that lease area. \nBut over a 20 year. \nOr a 40 year. \nOr some other longer time period\, you could get a cascade \nof a six. \nThat is that you could initially have a change in one element \nthat then might translate into a change in another element. \nAnd the budget\, the the toolbox that’s called the budget is is \ntoo blunt to predict which other terms would change and when and \nby what magnitude. \nBut the budget does suggest that they would change\, but we can’t \nsay when and by how much and which terms exactly. \nSo does that\, does that help help to answer? \nYou would use other tools to to get those questions. \nThe type of tools that Edwin described or modeling tools are \nexamples. \nThe budget could also be refined to be a more\, to be a less blunt \ntool. \nFor example\, we could do if we had more detailed information\, \nwe could do budgets for shorter time periods or smaller spatial \nscales. \nAnd as Edwin described\, you know\, you can do a budget right \ndown to the to the the footprint of a mining event. \nSo\, so you could use a budget tool to to get down to some of \nthose more nuanced answers to the to the question\, how would \nthe system change? \nBut this annual average 20 year budget at a whole system scale \ndoesn’t tell you can’t tell you exactly what the changes would \nbe and when and how they would temporally and spatially \narrange. \nThat’s helpful. \nThank you. \nPat\, you’ve got your hand back up. \nYes\, I do. \nI just one thing I think might make it a little easier for us \nto understand sort of the magnitude of everything is for \nyou to put a number in that box of the approximate amount of \nsand that’s in the Bay total. \nBecause when we look at that\, we don’t really have a feel for \nwe’re just talking about the change\, right? \nWe’re not talking about how big the system is that that change \nis on. \nSo I think that’s another thing to fit for us to think about in \nthe future is\, you know\, how big is the the sediment storage box \nof the Bay total? \nAnd you mentioned that it was massive and you and you gave a \nfigure\, but I think making that a little more prominent would be \nuseful anyway. \nSo that’s\, that’s just a comment. \nMay I\, may I respond to that just by saying we would have to \nthen decide what we include. \nDo we include all the wetlands? \nDo we include all the same beaches? \nDo we include just the 1m depth of the Bay or is it 10 \ncentimeters depth of the Bay or is it 10 meters depth of the \nBay? \nAnd so you get into the OR\, or the whole earth because actually \nthe reality is that the\, the sediment and storage is\, is \nessentially the lithos lithosphere of the Earth. \nYou know\, how\, how do you have\, you know\, and I’m perhaps being \na little bit silly to point out that\, you know\, the\, the\, the\, \nthe\, the geologic substrate of the Bay is a big\, big volume \nnumber. \nAnd\, and I can’t remember that off the top of my head. \nHow much stand is deposited in the Bay? \nBut I think it’s\, I think there’s evidence that in some \nareas it’s literally 100 meters of\, of\, of\, of\, of mud\, sandy \nmud sitting underneath the Bay. \nSo\, so I couldn’t put a number on this figure without a lot of \ninput from the independent science panel panel and from the \nbroader sediment community. \nSo while I gave an example of 300 million\, it was just to show \nyou that it’s a big\, big\, big number. \nWell\, that’s great. \nAnd Lester\, I think that my question sort of as a policy \nmaker here and your answer as a scientist is really that really \ndemonstrates the difficulty of converting this information and \nmaking it honest and to information that we can use. \nAnd so that was one of the things I wanted to talk about as \nto close this meeting. \nWhat is being done here is actually very difficult \nintellectually and conceptually. \nAnd I really appreciate all of the effort that has gone into \nnot only collecting this information\, but massaging it \nand\, and analysing it and organizing it in ways that you \ncan explain it to people who are not part of your field because \nthat’s when it becomes\, you know\, so useful. \nAnd so anyway\, I appreciate you doing that. \nAnd\, and it’s good to find out why. \nWell\, that simple suggestion I had turns out to not be a good \nidea. \nOK\, good to know. \nBut I\, I didn’t say it wasn’t a good idea. \nRather\, I just said it’s a difficult number to give you \nwithout. \nThat’s that’s what I mean. \nBut it’s not\, it’s not something you can just\, you can just add\, \nyou know\, it’s a\, it’s a hard thing and it’s\, it’s probably \noutside of the scope of what we’re doing right now. \nSo that’s OK. \nI I mean\, it’s good for me to know that. \nSo for all I really need to know is it’s a massive amount. \nThat’s the answer really. \nI need to know it’s a massive amount. \nOK\, yeah. \nI don’t need to put a number on it. \nAnd\, and we did try to\, we looked at the concept of doing \ndeep sediment cores in the area of the sand mining activity to \nfigure out how deep it was and if it was sand layers or sand \nand mud layers. \nAnd that would have taken our entire $1.2 million budget just \nto get the cores. \nNot a good idea\, but we couldn’t do it. \nMaybe we’ll do it next time\, who knows? \nBut I also will just say Edwin and Lester and Bob and Dave and \nCraig\, they all make it look so easy\, right? \nThey do. \nAnd we all know that’s not true. \nThat’s not true. \nSo anyway\, with that\, I think we can\, I want to thank everybody \nagain for their contributions to this science and this and\, and \nanswering these real life questions for us. \nAnd we’ll look forward to our next meeting. \nDo we have a date for that\, Brenda? \nYeah\, it’s coming up really soon. \nWe have two close together. \nSo I believe it’s September 4th. \nIs it Kat is. \nThank you\, Kat\, for nodding your head. \nI believe it is also from 11:50. \nOK. \nSo we’ll see you back here in a matter of a couple of weeks \nafter Labor Day. \nAnd upcoming is if you think this was fun\, just wait for \nMichael McWilliams and sediment transport modeling. \nIt’s a\, it’s a what Evan Edwin did and more so\, so we can talk \nabout flow now. \nWell\, from my point of view\, this was both fascinating and \nfun because I was learning so much. \nSo thank you to everybody. \nAnd with that\, I think the meeting’s adjourned. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-21-2024-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240815T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240815T170000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240119T041656Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250227T224347Z UID:10000103-1723726800-1723741200@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 15\, 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. \nPrimary Physical Location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, 1st Floor 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\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\nCounty Executive Office: 1195 Third St.\, 3rd Fl\, Napa\, CA 94559\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\n197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\nSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority: 3331 N First St.\, Conf. Rm B104\, San Jose\, CA 95134\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/83520660896?pwd=Vfq5ejQeIC51ZaVwSr0U1hJBLcBB4I.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID835 2066 0896 \nPasscode794788 \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 \n Call 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]\n Report of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for June 20\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nResolution of Appreciation and Gratitude – William (Bill) Holmes\, Retired Engineering Criteria Review Board MemberThe Commission\, through this resolution\, recognizes the contribution of Board member and structural engineer Bill Holmes\, who recently retired from the Engineering Criteria Review Board after ten years of service.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov]\nStaff Recommendation: ECRB Membership Appointment and Promotion of Alternate to the BoardFollowing the retirement of Board member and structural engineer Bill Holmes\, the promotion of structural engineer Patrick Ryan from alternate to the Board is proposed as well as the appointment of structural engineer Bill Tremayne to the alternate seat vacated by the promotion of Patrick Ryan.(Jenn Hyman) [415/352-3670; jennifer.hyman@bcdc.ca.gov]\n\n\n Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3611; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote to Initiate Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Bay Plan Amendment (BPA No. 1-24)The Commission will conduct a public hearing and possibly vote to authorize BCDC staff to initiate Proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-24\, to update the San Francisco Bay Plan by establishing guidelines for the preparation of local subregional Sea Level Rise Plans pursuant to Senate Bill 272 (Laird\, 2023) and by updating and clarifying the Bay Plan’s climate change policies.(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment // Presentation\nBCDC Intern PresentationsBCDC’s five summer undergraduate interns will present to the Commission a summary of their internship accomplishments\, along with recommendations for BCDC’s internship program.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n This report lists the administrative permit applications that have been filed and are pending with the Commission. The Executive Director will take the action indicated on the matters unless the Commission determines that it is necessary to hold a public hearing. The staff members to whom the matters have been assigned are indicated at the end of the project descriptions. Inquiries should be directed to the assigned staff member prior to the Commission meeting. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife – Bay Delta Region2825 Cordelia Road #100Fairfield\, CA 94534 \n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.016.00md\n\n\nFiled\n07/31/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/29/2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Bay\, 100-foot shoreline band and managed wetland jurisdictions and within the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area.\n\n\nDescription\nConduct in-kind repair and maintenance along 11\,420 linear feet of exterior levees by placing sediment dredged from adjacent sloughs\, along the levee crown and backslope in seven locations of Joice Island State Game Refuge. The sediment used for the levee maintenance would be mechanically dredged and consists of: (1) 7\,233 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from three locations within the Suisun Marsh Habitat Management\, Preservation and Restoration Plan’s Region 2 “major slough;” and (2) 16\,454 cy of sediment from four “major slough” locations within Montezuma Slough; altogether totaling 23\,687 cy of dredged sediment from approximately 6.14 acres of tidal sloughs adjacent to Joice Island.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pascale Soumoy\, Environmental Scientist; 415/352-3660 or pascale.soumoy@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSteve ChappellLower Joice Island(Club #424)Suisun ResourceConservation District2544 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \n\n\nChris BessetteIsland Club(Club # 501)201 E. Wing TerraceSan Francisco\, CA 94118 \n\n\nDonnie ReeveGrizzly Club(Club #502)24961 North Bank RoadAcampo\, CA 95220 \n\n\n\n\nDoug BartmanCal Farms(Club #425) &Tip End(Club #426)1661 Castle Hill RoadWalnut Creek\, CA 94595 \n\nMike TempsMontezuma Duck Club(Club #503)12885 Alcosta Blvd. Suite ASan Ramon\, CA 9483\nClarke RosaFour Winds Duck Club(Club # 506)6357 Calle Montalvo CircleGranite Bay\, CA 95746\n\n\nSteve MarksteinBalboa Farms(Club # 525) &Delta King Ranch(Club # 527)60 Main AvenueSacramento\, CA 95838\nSteve AndersonPintail Ranch(Club # 625)1129 7th StreetRipon\, CA 95366\nMark MoragneGrizzly Hilton(Club # 634)360 Kingsley AvenuePalo Alto\, CA 94301\n\n\n\n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.017.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n07/24/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/22/2024\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Commission’s Bay\, 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, and managed wetland jurisdictions\, and within tidal areas of the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area.\n\n\nDescription\nOver three years\, remove\, clean\, and replace twelve fish screens; conduct maintenance dredging of the twelve fish screen basins; and use the dredged sediment for repair and maintenance of the managed wetland exterior levees. The fish screens are located adjacent to the exterior levees within the tidal areas of Suisun Marsh. The total sediment to be removed is 1\,220 cubic yards over a total of 0.55 acres\, with a project depth of no greater than 4 feet below the current mudline. The levee repair would total not more than 602 feet\, ranging between 50 and 180 feet per managed wetland. The sediment would be placed along the levee backslope and crown at eleven managed wetlands known as Lower Joice Island\, California Farms\, Tip End\, Island Club\, Grizzly Club\, Montezuma Duck Club\, Four Winds Duck Club\, Balboa Farms\, Delta King Ranch\, Pintail Ranch\, and Grizzly Hilton.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Brenda Goeden\, Sediment Program Manager; 415/352-3623 or brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSteve ChappellLower Joice Island(Club #424)Suisun ResourceConservation District2544 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585\nLeen MadsenVolanti Duck Club(Club #219)4600 E. Hidden Valley Dr.Reno\, NV 89502\nSteve CiariSunrise Island Duck Club(Club #405)1054 Elm Street\,San Jose\, CA 95126\n\n\nSteve ZehringAntioch Goldeneye(Club #420)1259 Olive Branch LaneSan Jose\, CA 95102\n\n  \nDoug BartmanCal Farms (Club #425)1661 Castle Hill RoadWalnut Creek\, CA 94595 \n\n\n  \nLarry NewhallJoice Island MallardsFarms (Club #220)1993 Rockville RoadFairfield\, CA 94534 \n\n\n\nAndrew BehrensMrs. Murphy’s Gun Club(Club #128)Cordelia Gun Club(Club #404)415 Mission Street\, Suite 4600San Francisco\, CA 94105\n\n\n\n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.018.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n07/31/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/29/2024\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, and managed wetland jurisdiction and within the Suisun Marsh Primary Management Area.\n\n\nDescription\nConduct in-kind repair and maintenance managed wetland exterior levees\, totaling 16\,355 linear feet\, through placement of dredged sediment along the levee backslope and crown at 8 managed wetlands known as Mrs. Murphy Gun Club\, Cordelia Gun Club\, Sunrise Island Duck Club\, Antioch Goldeneye\, Volanti Duck Club\, Joice Island Mallard Farms\, Lower Joice Island\, and California Farms.The sediment used for the levee maintenance shall be mechanically dredged and consists of: (1) 4\,451 cubic yards (cy) of sediment from multiple locations within the Suisun Marsh Habitat Management\, Preservation and Restoration Plan’s Regions 1 “minor sloughs;”(2) 1\,278 cy from two locations in Region 2 “major sloughs;” (3) 8\,332 cy of sediment from various areas within Regions 1 and 2 “Dredger’s Cut;”(4) 117 cy of sediment from one location within Montezuma Slough’s “Dredger Cut\,” altogether totaling 14\,178 cy of dredged sediment from approximately 8.79 acres of tidal sloughs adjacent to the managed wetlands.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n  Recommend Approval with Conditions. Jaime Lopez\, Environmental Scientist; 415/352-3648 or jaime.lopez@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nRich Island Gun Club562 Lyon CourtBenicia\, CA 94510 \n\n\nBCDC Marsh Development Permit Application No. M2024.022.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\n07/25/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n10/23/2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Managed Wetland and Bay jurisdictions\, at Rich Island Gun Club (SRCD parcel #802)\, Suisun City\, in Solano County.\n\n\nDescription\nInstall one exterior drain water control structure within the levee of a managed wetland in the Suisun marsh primary management area\, through the following actions: 1) excavate a trench across the crown of the levee; 2) place a pre-assembled water control structure consisting of one 36-inch diameter\, 53-foot-long high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drainpipe and a 36-inch-wide stainless-steel flap gate; and\, 3) backfill the trench. The purpose of the project is to improve the managed wetland water management capabilities through improved gravity drainage and circulation. The new drainage structure will be installed during low tide to minimize impacts to listed fish species in the project vicinity. The project will further be conditioned to ensure the protection of tidal marsh habitat and Bay resources. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project. The project will result in a net total of approximately 42 square feet (1.56 cubic yards) of new fill\, including 21 square feet (0.78 cubic yards) in a managed wetland of the primary management area and 21 square feet (0.78 cubic yards) in the Bay jurisdiction.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Approval with conditions.Sam Fielding\, Coastal Program Analyst; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nCalifornia lawmakers want to build more affordable housing on the coast.  Why it’s controversial\nRising Seas Already Flood Some Bay Area Schools. The Risk Will Only Get Worse\nThese Birds Have Their Own Beach.\nState\, Regional Agencies Join Forces to Prepare Bay Area for Sea Level Rise\, Increased Flooding\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Meeting Minutes\n Meeting Minutes \n \n \n \n \n \n Video Recording \n \n\n \n\nTranscript\n\nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nGOOD AFTERNOON\, ALL. AND \nWELCOME TO OUR\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nHYBRID BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. \nMY NAME IS ZACK WASSERMAN\, AND I \nAM THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION. \nI WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONERS \nHERE AT METRO CENTER HERE FOR \nATTENDING THE MEETING IN PERSON\, \nAS WELL AS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE \nWHO ARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY. \nOUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS \nTHE VIDEO. THAT’S WHAT IT SAYS. \n[LAUGHTER] \nROLL THE VIDEO. \n[RECORDED ANNOUNCEMENT]. \n"RECORDING STOPPED" \nONE MOMENT. \nA SLIGHT TECHNICAL GLITCH. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nWELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION \nAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \nTHIS MEETING WILL OPERATE AS A \nHYBRID MEETING UNDER THE \nTELECONFERENCE RULES ESTABLISHED \nBY THE BAGLEY-KEENE OPEN MEETING \nACT. COMMISSIONERS ARE LOCATED \nBOTH AT METRO CENTER AND \nPUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE VENUES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AS \nSPECIFIES ON THE MEETING NOTICE. \nTO PARTICIPATE VIRTUALLY WILL \nKEEP THEIR CAMERAS ON IF YOU \nWOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING \nPUBLIC COMMENT\, ITEM THREE ON \nTHE AGENDA OR PERIOD RESERVED \nFOR PUBLIC COMMENT DURING \nANOTHER AGENDA ITEM\, YOU WILL \nNEED TO DO SO IN 12 OF WAYS. IF \nYOU ARE ATTENDING VIRTUALLY ON \nZOOM\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IN \nZOOM. TO DO SO CLICK THE \nPARTICIPANT ICON AT THE BOTTOM \nOF YOUR SCREEN\, FIND YOUR NAME \nAND SMALL HAND TO THE LEFT AND \nCLICK ON THAT HAND. IF YOU ARE \nJOINING THE MEETING VIA PHONE \nYOU MUST PRESS STAR SIX ON YOUR \nKEY PAD TO MAKE A COMMENT. \nINDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED \nTHEIR HANDS WILL BE CALLED IN \nORDER THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RAISED \nTHEY WILL BE UNMUTED. THOSE \nMEETING IN-PERSON EITHER AT THE \nMETRO CENTER OR AT A NOTICED \nTELECONFERENCE LOCATION WHO WANT \nTO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION SHOULD \nFOLLOW THE PROTOCOL AT YOUR \nLOCATION. WHEREVER YOU CHOOSE \nTO ATTEND FROM\, PLEASE STATE \nYOUR NAME PRIOR TO PROVIDING \nYOUR COMMENTS. ALL MEMBERS OF \nTHE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED THREE \nMINUTES TO ADDRESS THE \nCOMMISSION AT THE DISCRETION OF \nTHE CHAIR. COMMENTS MUST BE \nRESPECTFUL AND FOCUSED AND EACH \nINDIVIDUAL HAS THE \nRESPONSIBILITY TO ACT IN A CIVIL \nMANNER WITHOUT USING HATE \nSPEECH\, DIRECT\, OR INDIRECT \nTHREATS\, AND/OR ABUSIVE \nLANGUAGE. BCDC HAS ALSO \nESTABLISHED AN E-MAIL ADDRESS TO \nCOMPILE PUBLIC COMMENTS. ITS \nADDRESS IS PUBLIC COMMENT AT \nBCDC.CA.GOV. E-MAILS RECEIVED \nBEFORE TEN THIS MORNING HAVE \nBEEN SHARED WITH COMMISSIONERS \nAND ANY RECEIVED SINCE THEN WILL \nALSO BE SHARED WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. \nWELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION \nAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n[RECORDED ANNOUNCEMENT] \n"RECORDING IN PROGRESS" 29:37 \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: OUR \nFIRST — WELL\, OUR SECOND ORDER \nOF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. \nCOMMISSIONERS\, PLEASE BE SURE \nYOUR CAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE \nMEETING IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING \nVIRTUALLY. AND FOR THOSE WHO \nARE PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY\, \nPLEASE DO UNMUTE YOURSELVES \nWHICH YOU RESPOND TO ROLL CALL\, \nAND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN. \nSIERRA\, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE \nROLL? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nMARK ADDIEGO: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \nDAVID AMBUEHL: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER BURT? \nPAT BURT: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \nJUSTINE KIMBALL: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTIST? \nALICIA JOHN-BAPTISTE: \nPRESENT. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS? \n LARRY GOLDZBAND: SIERRA\, \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS JUST TEXTED \nME AND SAID HER AUDIO IS NOT \nWORKING. SO\, I CAN SEE HER. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nSAYING SHE IS HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OKAY. \nI CAN COUNT HER. \nCOMMISSIONER RANCHOD? \nSANJAY M. RANCHOD: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nVAZQUEZ? \nJOHN VASQUEZ: HERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nHAVE MISSED ANYONE? PARDON ME. \nVICE CHAIR EISEN. \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nHERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AND \nCHAIR WASSERMAN? \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE \nMISSED ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO \nHANDS\, YOU HAVE A QUORUM \nPRESENT. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND THANK YOU\, ALL\, \nAGAIN\, FOR BEING HERE. NEXT \nORDER OF BUSINESS\, ITEM THREE IS \nPUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS THE \nTIME TO ADDRESS MATTERS THAT ARE \nNOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY\, AND \nTHEY’RE NOT SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC \nHEARINGS. IF ANYONE WISHES TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON \nGENERAL MATTERS\, NOW IS THE \nTIME. BUT WE WILL ALSO \nRECOGNIZE THAT COMMISSIONER \nRANDOLPH HAS JOINED US. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nNOTED. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY \nPUBLIC COMMENT IN THE CENTER \nHERE? IT APPEARS NOT. DO WE \nHAVE ANYONE VIRTUALLY? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nREGGIE CAN YOU TELL ME IF WE \nHAVE ANY HAND RAISED? I SEEM TO \nBE HAVING SOME TROUBLE WITH MY \nZOOM. WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL OUR \nSPEAKERS? \nSPEAKER: BRUCE BEYERT. \nSPEAKER: BRUCE BEYERT. CHAIR \nOF THE TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND \nACTION COMMITTEE I WOULD LIKE TO \nLET THE COUNCILS OF BOTH \nRICHMOND ALBANY HAVE ADOPTED \nRESOLUTIONS STATING THE SAN \nRAFAEL BRIDGE TRAIL SHOULD \nREMAIN OPEN 24 HOURS SEVEN DAYS \nA WEEK\, THE WEST CONTRA COSTA \nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION \nADOPTED RESOLUTION WILL BE KEPT \nOPEN 24/7 UNTIL THE OPEN ROAD \nTOLLING AND WILL BE AT LANE \nEXTENSION COMPLETED ON WESTBOUND \nI-580. BAY AREA COUNCIL FORUM \nE-MAILS FLOODING\, THE BRIMMING \nTRAIL IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY \nINCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON \n580 WESTBOUND. CALTRANS YOU SEE \nBERKELEY’S PARTNER’S ADVANCED \nTRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY GROUP \nAFTER STUDY MAY 8TH EVALUATING \nTHE IMPACT OF THE PILOT I QUOTE \nPEAK TRAVEL TIMES ACROSS THE \nBRIDGE ONLY INCREASED BY LESS \nTHAN ONE MINUTE DUE TO SLIGHT \nLOWER SPEED ON THE BRIDGE HAVE \nBEEN MORE VARIABLE DUE TO \nINABILITY TO DISABLED VEHICLES \nHOWEVER THESE IMPACTS HAVE NOT \nTRANSLATED INTO SIGNIFICANTLY \nINCREASED CONGESTION UPSTREAM OF \nTHE BRIDGE. [INDISCERNIBLE] \nTHERE IS NO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE \nTHAT THE BRIDGE MODIFICATIONS \nARE PRODUCING LONGER CRASH \nRELATED INCIDENTS OR CHANGING \nLOCATION WHERE CRASHES TEND TO \nOCCUR ON THE BRIDGE. THERE IS \nNO STATISTICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE \nMODIFICATIONS ARE INCREASING THE \nTIME NEEDED TO CLEAR CRASHES. \nFINAL [INDISCERNIBLE] VEHICLE \nEMISSIONS ON I-580 WEST\, \nDEPENDING UPON THE POLLUTANT \nSEASON\, REDUCTIONS IN EMISSIONS \nVARYING 0.2% AND 13% ESTIMATED \nRESULT FROM THE BRIDGE \nMODIFICATION PRIMARILY DUE TO \nREDUCTION IN SHARE OF VEHICLES \nTRAVELING ABOVE 60 MILES AN \nHOUR. STUDY DEMONSTRATES THAT \nBAY ACCESS PROVIDED BY THE TRAIL \nIS FEASIBLE. SHUTTING DOWN THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE TRAIL \nFOUR DAYS A WEEK WOULD BE \nPRECIPITOUS AND UNJUSTIFIED AND \nWOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR THE \nREQUIRED PERMIT AMENDMENT BY \nBCDC BECAUSE BAY TRAIL CLOSURE \nWOULD BE ANTITHETICAL TO BCDC’S \nLEGISLATIVE MANDATE OF ENSURING \nMAXIMUM FEASIBLE ACCESS TO SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME\, AND I’LL BE GLAD TO \nANSWER ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD YOU \nHAVE THEM. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nSPEAKER: NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER\, \nSCHUYLER\, GO AHEAD AND UNMUTE \nYOURSELF. \nSPEAKER: HI. THANK YOU. MY \nNAME IS SCHUYLER. I’M AN \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORGANIZER \nWITH GREENACTION FOR HEALTH AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. WHILE \nI’M EAGER TO READ THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IN \nSEPTEMBER THERE ARE CONCERNS I \nHAVE. I UNDERSTAND THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN HAS \nJURISDICTION OVER LOCAL \nGOVERNMENT IN THE BAY AREA \nBECAUSE OF SENATE BILL 272\, BUT \nNOT OVER PRIVATELY OR FEDERALLY \nOWNED LANDS\, WHICH IS A CONCERN \nFOR SITES LIKE HUNTERS POINT \nNAVAL SHIPYARD OWNED BY THE \nUNITED STATES NAVY. THE HUNTERS \nPOINT NAVAL SHIPYARD CONTAINS \nBURIED TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE \nWASTE THAT’S VULNERABLE TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER RISE. \nTHE NAVY’S LATEST FIVE-YEAR \nREVIEW REPORT RELEASED LAST \nMONTH CONTINUES TO USE CAPPING \nAND DURABLE COVER OF \nUNACCEPTABLE FORMS OF \nREMEDIATION IN MULTIPLE PARCELS \nOF THE SITE EVEN THOUGH THIS \nWILL LEAVE WASTE BURIED ALONG \nTHE SHORELINE. \nWILL THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN INCLUDE \nGUIDELINES OR STANDARDS \nPROHIBITING CAPPING WASTE ALONG \nTHE SHORELINE? AND IF NOT \nALREADY INCLUDED\, IT SHOULD BE \nAN ADDITION THAT I HOPE TO SEE \nIN THE FINAL DRAFT. AND\, ALSO\, \nHOW WILL WE ENSURE THAT AREAS OF \nTHE SHORELINE THAT DO NOT FALL \nUNDER THE JURISDICTION OF SENATE \nBILL 272\, SPECIFICALLY\, THE \nFEDERAL OWNED AND PRIVATELY \nOWNED LANDS WITH CONTAMINATION \nVULNERABLE TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND \nGROUNDWATER RISE TO BE \nPROTECTED\, INCLUDING THE \nSURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. THANK \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. NO OTHER PUBLIC \nSPEAKERS? \nSPEAKER: WE HAVE TWO MORE. \nHOLD ON. \nNEXT PUBLIC SPEAKERS\, \nJOHN JOHNSON. \nSPEAKER: HELLO MY NAME IS. \nJOHN JOHNSON\, AND I CAPTAIN A \nSAILBOAT OUT OF ALAMEDA AND I AM \nA FREQUENT USER OF CLIPPER COVE. \nAND\, WHICH IS REALLY A JEWEL IN \nTHE BAY. BUT RECENTLY THE — AN \nORGANIZATION FLOAT LABS HAS PUT \nIN AN EXPERIMENT MOVED IT FROM \nTHE MIDDLE HARBOR ON THE ESTUARY \nAND PLACED IT IN CLIPPER COVE \nAND WHILE MYSELF AND EVERYONE I \nKNOW AND ALL MY FRIENDS WHO USE \nCLIPPER COVE ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT \nTHE GOOD WORK THAT FLOW LABS IS \nDOING AND IMPORTANT RESEARCH \nTHAT’S GOING ON\, UNFORTUNATELY\, \nTHEY HAVE PLACED IT DIRECTLY IN \nTHE MIDDLE OF THE NORTH CHANNEL \nWHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS \nCLIPPER COVE. AT LOW TIDE \nCLIPPER COVE GETS DOWN TO TWO OR \nTHREE FEET. MY BOAT DRAFTS SIX \nFEET WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR A \nSAIL BOAT. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT \nHAVE REACHED OUT TO FLOAT LABS. \nTHEY INDICATED THAT IT WAS THIS \nCOMMISSION THAT SPECIFIED WHERE \nTHEY SHOULD PLACE IT. SO ON \nBEHALF OF MYSELF AND THE OTHER \nUSERS THAT FREQUENTLY USE \nCLIPPER COVE\, THE PEOPLE THAT \nHAVE TO GO IN AND OUT OF \nTREASURE ISLAND MARIN A I WOULD \nRESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THIS \nCOMMISSION WORK WITH FLOAT LABS \nTO FIND — THERE IS 100 OTHER \nPLACES THAT YOU COULD PUT THAT \nRESEARCH BE THING\, BUT THAT IS \nTHE ONLY — THE NORTH CHANNEL IS \nTHE ONLY PLACE THAT’S DEEP \nENOUGH FOR A LARGE MAJORITY OF \nTHE BOATS THAT USE THE COVE TO \nGET IN AND OUT. SO\, WHERE IT \nSITS RIGHT NOW\, IT’S A HAZARD TO \nNAVIGATION\, AND I THINK IT WOULD \nTRULY BE A TRAGEDY IF\, YOU KNOW\, \nA BOAT\, YOU KNOW\, TRYING TO \nAVOID IT\, YOU KNOW\, HIT THE \nEXPERIMENT\, COMPROMISED AND \nDAMAGED THE BOAT WHEN IT COULD \nHAVE BEEN PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE. \nI WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO WORK \nWITH FLOAT LABS TO MOVE IT TO \nFIND A DIFFERENT LOCATION THAT \nIS SAFER AND NOT A HAZARD AND \nNAVIGATION. THANK YOU. \nSPEAKER: NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER \nGLEN. \nSPEAKER: HI. MY NAME IS GLEN \nDESINSKI. I’M CALLING IN FOR \nTHE SAME REASON AS JOHN\, CALLING \nIN WITH REGARD TO THE FLOAT LAB \nEXPERIMENT. I ALSO OPERATE A \nSAILBOAT IN THE BAY AND USE \nCLIPPER COVE FREQUENTLY FOR \nANCHORING AND WANTED TO POINT \nOUT CONCERNS AROUND \nACCESSIBILITY OF CLIPPER COVE AS \nA RESULT OF THE EXPERIMENT \nITSELF AND ANCHOR LINES GOING \nOUT FROM IT BLOCKING THE DEEP \nCHANNEL. I WON’T GO ANY FURTHER \nI THINK JOHN PUT IT PRETTY WELL\, \nBUT SIMILARLY CONCERNED. THANK \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nSPEAKER: MAX\, YOU’RE NEXT. \nSPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. MY \nNAME IS MAX PEREZ\, I HAVE BEEN \nSPEAKING WITH THE DIRECTOR OF \nFLOAT LAB AND WANT TO REITERATE \nWHAT JOHN AND GLEN HAVE RAISED. \nWE DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE AIMS \nAND GOALS OF FLOAT LABS RESEARCH \nDEVICE\, JUST THAT IT DOES IMPACT \nTHE ONLINE CHANNEL IN AND OUT OF \nTHE CLIPPER COVE ANCHORAGE. AND \nI APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE \nDIRECTOR OF FLOAT LAB\, I \nBELIEVE\, IS WORKING WITH A \nREPRESENTATIVE OF BCDC AND THE \nCENTER TO COME UP WITH SOME \nSOLUTION. I APPRECIATE \nCOOPERATION TO RESOLVE THIS \nISSUE. THANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE \nWE SURE? THANK YOU. \nALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR \nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND \nBRINGS US TO MY REPORT. \nTHE FIRST MATTER THAT I WISH TO \nREPORT ON IS A REVIEW OF OUR \nFIRST BAY ADAPT SUMMIT HELD LAST \nTHURSDAY AT THE SAN FRANCISCO \nEXPLORATORIA. IT WAS A \nRESOUNDING SUCCESS. THERE WERE \n225 ATTENDEES\, AND 100 PEOPLE ON \nTHE WAIT LIST. SO\, CLEARLY\, IT \nIS A MATTER OF INTEREST AND \nCONCERN. I DO WANT TO THEY \nTHINK OUR PARTNERS\, THE STATE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY AND BARC FOR \nFUNDING\, AND THE GREENBELT \nALLIANCE FOR ORGANIZING THE \nAMAZING EVENT\, AND TO THANK THE \nEXPLORATORIA WHICH HOSTED US \nWITHOUT CHARGE IN THEIR \nOBSERVATORY WITH A WONDERFUL \nVIEW OF THE BAY. AND ACCESS TO \nTHE EXHIBITS. \nMORNING TOURS TO VARIOUS SITES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY WERE SOLD \nOUT. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nPANEL KICKED IT OFF WITH A RANGE \nOF INTERESTING COMMENTS AND \nOBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE CONCERNS \nOF IMPACTED AND UNDERREPRESENTED \nCOMMUNITIES WITH RISING SEA \nLEVEL. THERE ARE BREAKOUT \nSESSIONS ON A RANGE EVER TOPICS\, \nAND THE GENERAL COMMENTS I HEARD \nFROM ALL OF THEM WERE EXCELLENT. \nWE HAD BAY ADAPT AWARDS \nRECOGNIZING CLIMATE CHANGE \nLEADERS WHO ARE MAKING \nSIGNIFICANT STRIVES IN \nADDRESSING THE CRITICAL \nCHALLENGES POSED BY RISING SEA \nLEVELS. AND THE AWARD WINNERS \nWERE VIOLET SAENA\, WHO IS A \nBCDC’S EJ ADVISOR. AND \nDR. CHRIS MAY WHO HAS BEEN A \nPART OF MANY PERMITS AND STUDIES \nFOR US\, AND OUR OWN SUPERVISOR \nAND COMMISSIONER DAVE PINE. \nAND THERE WAS GOOD NETWORKING \nAMONGST PEOPLE AT THE BREAKS AND \nAFTERWARDS\, AND AT THE RECEPTION \nWHERE WE HAD SOME WONDERFUL \nNATURAL WINES FROM A WOMAN WHO \nIS FORMERLY WITH FEMA HERE IN \nTHE BAY AREA AND HAS A WINERY \nDOWN IN MEXICO\, AND A FEW STAYED \nON TO ENJOY AFTER DARK AT THE \nEXPLORATORIA\, WHICH MANY OF YOU \nHAVE NOT DONE. AND IT’S JUST \nFUN A FUN EVENING. IT’S ADULTS\, \nNOT KIDS\, PLAYING WITH THEIR \nARRAY OF EXHIBITS AND \nEXPERIMENTS. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT \nPROPOSITION FOUR ON THE NOVEMBER \nBALLOT PROPOSES TO ALLOCATE \n$10 BILLION TO HELP PREPARE THIS \nSTATE FOR THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE \nCHANGE. INCLUDED IN THE BOND \nARE PROVISIONS TO PROTECT WATER \nQUALITY\, INCREASE WATER \nSUPPLIES\, PREVENT WILDFIRES AND \nREDUCE FIRE IMPACTS\, AND HELP \nFRONTLINE COMMUNITIES ACCESS \nSAFE DRINKING WATER\, SHADE\, AND \nGREEN SPACE\, AND PROTECT AND \nEXPAND NATURAL HABITATS\, SUCH AS \nTHE WETLANDS THROUGHOUT THE BAY. \nWHILE BCDC AS AN ENTITY IS \nUNABLE TO TAKE A POSITION ON THE \nBALLOT PROPOSITION AS A STATE \nAGENCY\, I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU \nEITHER HAVE OR ARE CONSIDERING \nENDORSING THE BOND MEASURE AND \nCERTAINLY URGE YOU AS AN \nINDIVIDUAL TO SUPPORT THAT. IF \nYOU DO SO\, I REMIND YOU TO DO SO \nAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS A \nBCDC COMMISSIONER IN TERMS OF \nIDENTIFICATION. SO WE’RE NOT \nUSING STATE ASSETS IN SUPPORT OF \nA BOND MEASURE. \nI WANT TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT A \nCOUPLE OF MEETINGS THAT ARE \nCOMING UP THAT ARE LISTED ON OUR \nWEB SITE’S NEW CALENDAR \nFUNCTION. NEXT WEDNESDAY\, THE \nSAND MINING STUDIES COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP WILL MEET \nVIRTUALLY AT 10:00 A.M. TO \nCONTINUE THEIR REVIEW AND \nRESEARCH INTO MANY OF THE ISSUES \nTHAT LIKELY WILL ARISE DURING \nCONSIDERATION OF THE FUTURE SAND \nMINING PERMITS BY ALL OF US NEXT \nYEAR. COMMISSIONERS ARE WELCOME \nTO THAT AND THE LINK CAN BE \nFOUND ON THE WEB SITE. THE NEXT \nMEETING OF OUR RISING SEA LEVEL \nWORKING GROUP IS PROVISIONE \nSCHEDULED FOR THE MORNING OF \nTHURSDAY OCTOBER 17TH\, AND WE \nWILL BE TALKING TO STAFF AND THE \nPUBLIC ABOUT HOW THE DIFFERENT \nTYPES OF CHALLENGES THAT CAN BE \nFACED BY COMMUNITIES AND HOW \nTHEY RELATE TO OUR AUTHORITY AND \nJURISDICTION. WE WILL NOT HAVE \nA COMMISSION MEETING ON \nOCTOBER 3RD\, BECAUSE IT’S THE \nFIRST DAY OF ROSH HASHANAH. OUR \nNEXT MEETING WILL BE \nSEPTEMBER 5TH WHICH IS THE \nTHURSDAY MEDICAL FOLLOWING LABOR \nDAY. AT THAT MEETING WE EXPECT \nTO TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING \nMATTERS\, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE \nENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT \nASSOCIATED WITH FUTURE PERMIT \nAND POSSIBLE VOTE ON CARGILL’S \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPERMIT IN THE SOUTH BAY AND \nBRIEFING ON SAFETY MEASURES \nINTENDED TO PROTECT BRIDGES \nWITHIN THE BAY FROM VESSEL \nCOLLISIONS IN LIGHT OF THE \nBALTIMORE BRIDGE COLLISION\, AND \nI GUESS IT’S CALLED AN ALLISION \nBECAUSE IT DIDN’T HIT IT JUST \nBRUSHED. IS THAT THE \nDIFFERENCE? \nSPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT’S A \nNAUTICAL TERM\, SO\, A CAR IS \nCOLLIDE\, AND BOATS COLLIDE. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE MOST \nEXCITING PART OF OUR AGENDA EX \nPARTE COMMUNICATION. IF YOU \nHAVE RECEIVED AN EX PARTE \nCOMMUNICATION THAT’S OUTSIDE OF \nA COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT A \nMATTER THAT WE ARE GOING TO \nCONSIDER. YOU DO NEED TO REPORT \nTHAT\, YOU NEED TO REPORT IT IN \nWRITING. YOU MAY REPORT IT NOW. \nYOU DON’T HAVE TO. PLEASE \nREMEMBER THAT THE WRITTEN REPORT \nSHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH SO \nTHAT THE PUBLIC HAS SOME SENSE \nOF WHAT WAS COMMUNICATE TO YOU \nDURING THE CONVENTIONS. DOES \nANYONE HAVE AN EX PARTE? \nCOMMISSION ARE RANCHOD? \nSPEAKER: I PARTICIPATED IN \nMEETINGS REGARDING MTC’S \nAPPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF \nOPERATION OF THE BIKE PEDESTRIAN \nLANE ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL \nBRIDGE. THOSE WERE MEETINGS \nWITH BAY COUNCIL AND EAST BAY \nBICYCLE COALITION RESPECTIVELY \nFOR AND AGAINST THE APPLICATIONS \nPROPOSAL. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nOTHERS? PEMBERTON. \nSHERI PEMBERTON: I ALSO \nPARTICIPATED IN A COUPLE OF \nMEETINGS REGARDING THE \nAPPLICATION INVOLVING THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WITH \nPROPONENTS FOR THE ACTION AND \nALSO INDIVIDUALS IN OPPOSITION. \nTHANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nDON’T SEE ANY OTHERS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE REPORT OF \nTHE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WHO IS \nPARTICIPATING REMOTELY. AND MAY \nHAVE TO LEAVE A LITTLE EARLY\, \nWHICH IS WHY OUR GENERAL COUNSEL \nIS SEATED NEXT TO ME TO MAKE \nSURE YOU DON’T GO TOO FAR OFF \nSCRIPT. GO AHEAD\, LARRY. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: GOOD LUCK \nWITH THAT. THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. APPRECIATE IT. THE \nNOBLE PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST \nJOHN NASH WAS FOND OF SAYING \nTHAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE A \nMATHEMATICIAN TO HAVE A FEEL FOR \nNUMBERS. THIS DATE DEMONSTRATES \nTHAT AUGUST 15TH\, 1620\, 102 \nBRAVE SOULS BOARDED THE \nMAYFLOWER IN LONDON FOR THEIR \nTRIP TO THE NEW WORLD. 345 \nYEARS LATER ON AUGUST 15TH\, \n1965\, 55\,000 SCREAMING FANS \nPACKED SHAY STADIUM IN QUEENS TO \nSEE BUT NOT HEAR THE BEETLES. \nEXACTLY FOUR YEARS LATER 460\,000 \nPEOPLE BRAVE THE RAIN AND MUD \nAND BAD ACID TO PARTICIPATE IN \nWOODSTOCK MUSIC ART FAIR. I WAS \nREMINDED OF THIS LAST THURSDAY \nAT THE BAY ADAPT SUMMIT THAT \nCHAIR WASSERMAN DISCUSSED. NOT \nTHAT THERE WAS ANY BAD ACID BUT \nTHAT IF BCDC HAD ISSUED \nINVITATIONS TO A RISING SEA \nLEVEL SUMMIT SIX OR SEVEN YEARS \nAGO WE LIKELY COULD HAVE HOSTED \nIT IN OUR BACKYARD. ON THE \nOTHER HAND WE HAD 225 PEOPLE AT \nTHE EXPLORATORIA ON AN AND A \nWIGHT LIST OF 100 WHO COULDN’T \nATTEND. BAY AREA VOTERS \nCONCERNED ABOUT FLOODING\, I \nHESITATE TO SAY THAT BCDC IS \nRIDING A WAVE HERE BUT WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT MORE WAVES ARE \nCOMING IN OUR PROGRAMS ARE \nSTRIKING A CORD. I AM VERY \nHAPPY TO LET YOU KNOW THAT \nRYLAND GERVAIS HAS AGREED TO \nBECOME BCDC’S FIRST DIRECTOR AND \nLEGISLATIVE AND EXTERNAL OF \nCURRENT AFFAIRS IN THE SENIOR \nLEADERSHIP OF THE STATE \nDEPARTMENT WATER PROJECT AT THE \nDEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES \nWHERE HE MANAGES PROJECTS IN THE \nINTERSECTION OF ENGINEERING \nLEGISLATION AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS \nINCLUDING IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIC \nPLAN MANAGING PROJECT PUBLIC \nLEGISLATE I COMMUNICATIONS. \nEARNED HIS GRADUATE DEGREE FROM \nSACRAMENTO STATE\, AFTER WHICH \nTHE HORNET BECAME AN UNRUH \nASSEMBLY FELLOW AND WORKED THEN \nFOR ASSEMBLYMEMBER RON BONTA \nHANDLING A VARIETY OF \nLEGISLATIVE ISSUES. HE LEFT THE \nBUILDING AND SPENT TWO YEARS \nLOBBYING FOR THE CALIFORNIA \nSPECIAL DISTRICT AN ASSOCIATION \nPRIOR TO EARNING HIS \nGUBERNATORIAL APPOINTMENT TO \nDWR. RYAN WILL HANDLE BCDC’S \nLEGISLATIVE PORTFOLIO DEVELOP \nHAS SKILLS AS OUR PUBLIC \nINFORMATION OFFICER AND WORK \nCLOSELY WITH THE PLANNING AND \nREGULATORY DIVISIONS TO REACH \nOUT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND \nEDUCATE THEM ABOUT BCDC’S \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION. \nRYAN WILL START WITH US IN \nSEPTEMBER. PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE \nTHAT BCDC WILL HIRE BEN FOR OUR \nLONG RANGE PLANNING TEAM \nWATERFRONT PLANNER COMES FROM \nTHE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL \nWHERE HE’S A SEA GRANT FELLOW \nWORKING ON OPCS CLIMATE CHANGE \nPROGRAM ALSO HELPED LAUNCH THE \nOPCS RISING SEA LEVEL LOCAL \nGRANTS PROGRAM ASSISTED WITH \nDEVELOPING THE RECENT RISING SEA \nLEVELS GUIDANCE AND SERVED AS \nOPC REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGING WITH \nBCDC’S BAY ADAPT. HE IS A \nBANANA SLUG\, ONCE AGAIN\, WITH A \nDEGREE IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES. \nBEN WILL HELP SUPPORT OUR WORK \nWITH THE STATE LAND’S COMMISSION \nON THE FUTURE OF THE PUBLIC \nTRUST TO THE BAY AS WELL AS \nWORKING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO \nWATERFRONT PLAN PROPOSAL. A FEW \nOF US HAD A SUCCESSFUL SITE \nVISIT WITH FISHERMAN’S WHARF \nWITH THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nSTAFF AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON \nCOLLABORATION. \nALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT STEVE \nGOLDBECK’S RETIREMENT PARTY WAS \nORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE TODAY\, \nBUT IT’S BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR \nOCTOBER 17TH AFTER THE \nCOMMISSION MEETING. PLEASE SAVE \nTHE DATE. WE’LL REMIND YOU IN A \nMONTH OR SO. \nHOWEVER\, THE NEWS IS NOT PRETTY \nWHEN IT COMES TO STATE BUDGET. \nLIKE ALL DEPARTMENTS BCDC WAS \nREQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFINANCE TO LIST OUR UNOCCUPIED \nPOSITIONS AND THEN LOSE THE \nFUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. \nDUE TO GREAT WORK BY OUR \nMANAGERS AND A NEW NHR\, WE HAD \nONLY 1.2 TOTAL VACANT FTES WHICH \nRESULTED IN OUR LOSING LESS THAN \n$100\,000 IN ANNUAL FUNDING. \nHOWEVER\, IN ADDITION TO THE \nVACANCY SUITE EACH DEPARTMENT \nWILL LOSE ABOUT 8% OF ITS \nGENERAL FUND AND OTHER REVENUES \nTHIS YEAR. WE’RE AWAITING \nINSTRUCTIONS REGARDING HOW THIS \nCUT WILL WORK AND KEEP YOU \nINFORMED OF ITS RAMIFICATIONS. \nIT WAS GREAT TO SEE \nCOMMISSIONERS LAST THURSDAY AT \nTHE EXPLORATORIA WHERE WE HELD \nTHE FIRST EVER BAY ADAPT SUM \nTOYOTA HIGHLIGHT AND CELEBRATE \nALL GREAT WORK BEING DONE AROUND \nTHE REGION TO ADVANCE THE BAY \nADAPT JOINT PLATFORM. THE \nMORNING WAS FULL OF TOURS \nTHROUGHOUT THE REGION THE \nAFTERNOON PANELS AND BREAKOUT \nSESSIONS WERE TERRIFIC AND \nAWARDS CEREMONY WAS FANTASTIC \nAND THE DAY WAS CAPPED WITH \nAWESOME RECEPTION AND I WANT TO \nSEND THANKS TO THE GREENBELT \nALLIANCE AND STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY OF THE BAY AREA \nREGIONAL COLLABORATIVE AND \nEXPLORATORY. FINALLY AS NOTED \nIN FEBRUARY\, THIS YEAR NATIONAL \nOCEANIC ATMOSPHERIC AGENCIES FOR \nOFFICE FOR COASTAL MANAGEMENT \nREVIEWING CALIFORNIA’S COASTAL \nZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AS \nREQUIRED UNDER SECTION 312 OF \nTHE FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE \nMANAGEMENT ACT\, NOAA’S 312 \nEVALUATION OCCURS EVERY \nFIVE-YEARS AND ANALYZING \nOPERATIONS MANAGEMENT OF ALL OF \nCALIFORNIA’S THREE COASTAL ZONE \nMANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS. \nCOASTAL COMMISSION\, COASTAL \nCONVERSANCE AND BCDC. IT \nASSESSES PROGRAMS \nACCOMPLISHMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS \nAND IMPROVEMENTS. THIS YEAR’S \nEVALUATION WILL TAKE PLACE \nDURING LAST WEEK OF AUGUST. \nNOAA WILL ACCEPT WRITTEN \nCOMMENTS ON THE STATE OF THE \nPROGRAM AND WEEK’S EXAMINATION \nWILL INCLUDE A VIRTUAL PUBLIC \nMEETING ON WEDNESDAY \nAUGUST 28TH. BCDC WILL ANNOUNCE \nTHE DETAILS OF THE PUBLIC \nMEETING ON OUR WEB SITE AND \nPROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ALTERNATES. \nTHAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER \nANY QUESTIONS. I DO WANT TO \nADD\, HOWEVER\, THAT I WILL BE \nHAVING SOME KNEE SURGERY NEXT \nWEEK. I WILL BE OUT OF THE \nOFFICE THROUGH\, PROBABLY\, MOST \nOF SEPTEMBER\, BUT I WILL BE\, \nJUST LIKE WE DID IN THE \nPANDEMIC\, MANNING THE BCDC \nKITCHEN COUNTER HERE AT THE — \nHERE AT THE GOLDZBAND DIBERT \nHILTON EVERY DAY. SO\, I WILL \nCERTAINLY BE AVAILABLE. THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ARE \nTHERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR? \nSEEING NONE. THAT BRINGS US TO \nTHE NEXT ITEM\, THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. WE ARE USING THIS NEW \nPROCEDURE PUTTING A BUNCH OF \nNON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. AND TODAY \nTHOSE INCLUDE THE APPROVAL OF \nTHE MINUTES AS AMENDED FOR OUR \nJUNE 20TH\, 2024 MEETING\, FOR THE \nENGINEERING CRITERIA REVIEW \nBOARD\, A RESOLUTION OF THANKS TO \nFORMER ECRB MEMBER BILL HOLMES\, \nTHE NOMINATION OF PATRICK RYAN\, \nFORMERLY AN ALTERNATE\, TO A FULL \nPOSITION ON THE ECRB\, AND ON \nNOMINATION OF BILL TREMAYNE TO \nBECOME AN ECRB ALTERNATE. DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON\, AND NO HAND RAISED\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MAY \nI HAVE A MOTION TO ADOPT\, AND A \nSECOND\, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR? \nPAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVERS AND \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER SECONDS. \nSPEAKER: I WILL SECOND THE \nCONSENT CALENDAR. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nMARK ADDIEGO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \nDAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER BURT? \nPAT BURT: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \nSPEAKER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER RAMOS? OH\, WE HAVE \nNO AUDIO STILL\, I’M ASSUMING. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nSEE HER LIPS MOVING AND THUMB — \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WITH \nA THUMB UP WE’LL REGISTER AS YES \nFOR COMMISSIONER RAMOS. \nCOMMISSIONER RANCHOD? \nSANJAY M. RANCHOD: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRANDOLPH? \nR. SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nVAZQUEZ? \nJOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH 17 \nYESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO \nABSTENTIONS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. ITEM SEVEN \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS WE HAVE RECEIVED AN \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING ALTHOUGH \nADMINISTRATIVE REGULATORY \nDIRECTOR HARRIET ROSS IS OUT \nTODAY. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: SHE \nIS JOINING US VIRTUALLY\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: MY \nSCRIPT STANDS CORRECTED. ARE \nTHERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HARRIET? \nI SEE NONE. \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: ARE THERE \nANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. SHE WOULD HAVE \nCAUGHT ME. THANK YOU. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM EIGHT\, \nWHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND \nPOSSIBLE VOTE TO INITIATE A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT. \nTHIS AMENDMENT WOULD UPDATE THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN BY \nESTABLISHING GUIDELINES TO BE \nFOLLOWED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS\, \nAS THEY PREPARE THEIR \nSUBREGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE PLANS \nREQUIRED BY THE ENACTMENT OF \nSENATE BILL 272. THE PROPOSED \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO \nUPDATE AND CLARIFY THE BAY \nPLAN’S EXISTING CLIMATE CHANGE \nPOLICIES IN CERTAIN AREAS. \nJESSICA FAIN\, OUR DIRECTOR OF \nPLANNING WILL INITIATE THE \nBRIEFING. BUT BEFORE THAT\, I’M \nOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. \nJESSICA FAIN: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON ARE \nCOMMISSIONERS. I’M JESSICA FAIN \nDIRECTOR OF PLANNING HERE AT \nBCDC PLEASED TODAY TO INTRODUCE \nTODAY A PRESENTATION WHERE WE \nARE REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL TO \nINITIATE THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nPROCESS FOR THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. \nJOINED TODAY BY MY COLLEAGUES\, \nJACKIE MARTINEZ JOINING US \nVIRTUALLY AS WELL AS CORY MANN \nWHOLE PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE \nSTATUS OF THE RSAP AS WE LIKE TO \nCALL IT FOLLOWED BY OVERVIEW OF \nTHE PROCESS WE’RE HOPING TO \nENTER INTO THIS FALL. YOU MAY \nBE ASKING YOURSELF WHY ARE \nINITIATING THE RSAP NOW HAVEN’T \nWE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A \nWHILE THE ANSWER IS YES WE HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS PROCESS \nTHROUGHOUT THE PAST YEAR AND OUR \nTEAM HAS BEEN WORKING REALLY \nHARD WITH STAKEHOLDERS AROUND \nTHE REGION TO CRAFT THIS PLAN TO \nMAKE IT WORK. THE FOCUS OF THIS \nPRESENTATION AND THE ACTION \nBEFORE YOU IS NOT ON THE CONTENT \nOF THIS PLAN. THERE WILL BE \nPLENTY OF TIME TO DO THAT DURING \nTHE PUBLIC COMMENT AND REVIEW \nPERIOD THAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN \nTHIS FALL. RATHER\, IT IS TO \nSEEK YOUR APPROVAL TO INITIATE A \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS AND \nCIRCULATE A DESCRIPTIVE NOTICE \nTO DO SO AS REQUIRED BY A \nREGULATIONS. YOU HAVE RECEIVED \nA NUMBER OF THOUGHTFUL COMMENT \nLETTERS IN YOUR MEETING PACKET \nTODAY REST ASSURED THAT THOSE \nPUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN \nINTO ACCOUNT AS WE BRING THIS \nDRAFT IN FINAL VERSION OF THE \nRSAP TO YOU LATER THIS FALL. \nBEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO CORY I \nWANT TO PUT THE PLAN INTO \nCONTEXT. BCDC HAS BEEN DOING A \nLOT OF WORK ON SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION FOR QUITE SOMETIME \nBUT IT STARTED IN 2011 WHEN YOU \nADOPTED CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES \nINTO THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN \nWE WERE THE 50 COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT IN THE COUNTRY TO DO \nSO POLICIES GUIDING PLANNING AND \nPERMITTING WORK TO DATE. ONE OF \nTHESE POLICIES CALLS EXPLICITLY \nFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nSTRATEGY THAT HAS BEEN THE \nFOUNDATION FOR OUR BAY ADAPT \nEFFORTS AND THE REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN THAT \nWE’RE DISCUSSING TODAY. AS \nSHOWN ON THE TIMELINE BCDC HAS \nSUCCESSFULLY DEVELOPED A WIDE \nRANGE OF PROGRAMS\, RELATED \nPOLICY AMENDMENTS\, SUCH AS \nHABITAT AMENDMENT AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SOCIAL \nEQUITY AMENDMENTS\, RESOURCES AND \nTOOLS TO ADVANCE CIVIL RIGHTS \nADAPTATION PLANNING FOR THE \nREGION. THE RSAP FOLLOWS A \nDECADE OF WORK WHICH HAS \nCONSISTENTLY BEEN BASED ON \nCOLLABORATION\, DATA\, SCIENCE \nDRIVEN PLANNING\, AND \nINCREASINGLY INCLUDING BEST \nPRACTICES RELATED TO EQUITABLE \nENGAGEMENT\, AS WELL. OUR LATEST \nEFFORT TO BRING STRONG REGIONAL \nLEADERSHIP TO THE ISSUE OF CIVIL \nRIGHTS ADAPTATION AND HIGHLIGHT \nYOUR STRATEGIC PLAN WITH SB272 \nALSO NOW REQUIRED THAT BCDC \nCOMPLETE THIS WORK BY \nUNDERSTANDS OF THE YEAR. ALSO \nREMIND YOU THAT BAY ADAPT COMES \nFROM JOINT PLATFORM ADOPTED BY \nYOU AS WELL AS 50 OTHER PUBLIC \nAGENCIES NON-PROFITS AND OTHERS \nTHAT LAYS OUT THE CONSENSUS \nDRIVEN STRATEGY FOR HOW THE BAY \nAREA SHOULD ADAPT TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE. SO\, THE RSAP IS REALLY \nIMPLEMENTING FOUR KEY TASKS \nLISTED HERE THE JOINT PLATFORM \nCREATING LONG-TERM REGIONAL \nVISION ROOTED IN COMMUNITIES \nHABITATS AND ECONOMY\, PROVIDING \nINCENTIVES FOR COORDINATED \nADAPTATION PLANS\, THREE \nINCENTIVIZING PROJECTS THAT MEET \nREGIONAL GOALS AND FOR MEASURING \nREGIONAL PROGRESS. WITH THAT \nI’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO \nJACK WHOA IS GOING TO GIVE YOU \nCONTEXT ON THE RSAP AND \nDEVELOPMENT TO DATE. \nSPEAKER: I WANT TO REMIND US \nALL WHY A REGIONAL APPROACH TO \nTHIS CHALLENGE IS SO IMPORTANT. \nAS YOU ALL KNOW OUR REGION IS \nHIGHLY INTERCONNECT AND WE KNOW \nTHAT ADAPTATION OAR EVEN LACK OF \nADAPTATION IN ONE LOCATION CAN \nCAUSE MASSIVE DISRUPTIONS TO \nAREAS FAR BEYOND TO A SPECIFIC \nPLACE OF IMPACT. FOR EXAMPLE\, \nFLOODING AT ONE SECTION OF STATE \nROUTE 37 CAN LEAD TO TRAFFIC \nDELAYS THAT EXTEND THROUGHOUT \nTHE BAY NORTH BAY SIMILARLY \nDISRUPTION TO A WASTEWATER \nTREATMENT PLANT CAN CAUSE \nFLOODING NEAR AND FAR FROM THE \nSHORELINE AND THE WAY WE PLAN \nAND PREPARE FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nMUST BE DONE WITH THESE \nRELATIONSHIPS ACROSS OUR REGION \nIN MIND NOT ONLY TO AVOID WORST \nOF THESE RISKS BUT BECAUSE THERE \nARE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARISE \nWHEN WE COME TOGETHER. PLANNING \nREGIONALLY ENSURES ADAPTATION \nRESPONSES ARE COORDINATED \nPROVIDING PRIORITY RESOURCES TO \nFRONTLINE COMMUNITIES \nMAINTAINING LONG-TERM HEALTH OF \nHABITATS AND WETLANDS\, SUPPORT \nSTRATEGIC PROJECTS DEVELOP \nCOMMON STANDARDS AND METHODS FOR \nPLANNING DELIVER FUNDING TO THE \nPLACES THAT NEED IT MOST AND \nTRACK COLLECTIVE PROGRESS. IN \nON THE SIMPLE LEFT TERMS THE \nRSAP REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN REGION-WIDE PLAN \nFOR BAY AREA SHORELINE THAT \nGUIDES CREATION OF COORDINATED \nREGIONAL GOALS FUNDED BY THE \nOCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL AND \nSTATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY \nENVISIONED TO SERVE AS A MODEL \nFOR HOW OTHER REGIONS IN \nCALIFORNIA CAN COLLECTIVELY PLAN \nFOR CLIMATE IMPACTS. YOU HEARD \nUS TALK ABOUT SB272 OFTEN BUT \nIT’S WORTH A REMINDER ON WHAT \nTHIS BILL REQUIRES FOR BCDC AND \nHOW THE RSAP IS MEETING THESE \nREQUIREMENTS. LEGISLATION WAS \nPASSED IN OCTOBER LAST YEAR THAT \nREQUIRES LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO \nDEVELOP SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY \nPLANS AND FOR BCDC TO DEVELOP \nGUIDELINES THAT THESE PLANS MUST \nFOLLOW. BCDC HAS AUTHORITY TO \nAPPROVE OR DENY THESE PLANTS \nBASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE \nGUIDELINES. PLANS ARE ELIGIBLE \nFOR PRIORITIZED STATE FUNDING. \nFURTHER REQUIRES THAT BCDC ADOPT \nGUIDELINES BY DECEMBER 2024 AND \nFOR LOCAL PLANTS BE COMPLETED BY \nJANUARY 2034. WHEN WE WERE \nFUNDED TO INITIATE THE RSAP LAST \nYEAR THE PROJECT WAS FUNDED WITH \nTHIS BILL IN MIND. WE WERE WELL \nUNDERWAY BY THE TIME THIS BILL \nPASSED IN OCTOBER. THE RSAP \nCONTAINS GUIDELINES AS REQUIRED \nBY THIS BILL BUT GOES ABOVE AND \nBEYOND BY INCLUDING TASKS LISTED \nIN THE JOINT PLATFORM AND THE \nFOUNDATIONS OF BCDC’S CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICIES. THE BILL SETS \nMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT \nTHE GUIDELINES SHOULD CONTAIN\, \nINCLUDING BEING BASED IN BEST \nAVAILABLE SCIENCE\, HAVING A \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT WITH \nEMPHASIS ON VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES\, DEVELOPING \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES\, AND \nDESIGNATING IMPLEMENTATION \nLEADS\, AMONG OTHERS\, AND THESE \nASPECTS ARE ALL INCORPORATED \nINTO OUR GUIDELINES. THIS BILL \nAPPLIES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS \nWITHIN BOTH BCDC AND THE \nCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION’S \nRESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS\, SO \nAPPLIES TO BOTH OF THE AGENCY \nAND THE JURISDICTIONS WITHIN. \nAND WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH \nTHE CALIFORNIA COASTAL \nCOMMISSION STAFF REGULARLY TO \nENSURE THAT WE’RE AS ALIGNED AS \nPOSSIBLE. IT’S IMPORTANT TO \nNOTE THAT OUR AGENCY’S \nAPPROACHES TO MEETING THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THIS BILL LOOK A \nLITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. THE \nCALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION \nHAS DIFFERENT ENABLING \nLEGISLATION THAN WE DO\, AND THEY \nHAVE AN EXISTING LOCAL COASTAL \nPROGRAM. THEY’RE UPDATING THEIR \nEXISTING GUIDANCE AS A MECHANISM \nTO MEET THE BILL. OUR APPROACH \nIS TO INCLUDE THE GUIDELINES AS \nREQUIRED BY SB272 INTO THE \nREGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPLAN. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. I \nWOULD LIKE TO GIVE OVERVIEW OF \nTHE MULTIPLE PIECES OF THE RSAP \nAND DIRECT YOU TO THE SCOPE OF \nTHE PROPOSED BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS \nTHAT CORY WILL DISCUSS WITH YOU \nFURTHER. THIS IS THE CURRENT \nPHASE OF OUR WORK. WE HAVE BEEN \nSHARING UPDATES TO THE \nCOMMISSION ON THESE TWO PIECES. \nTHE FIRST IS THE REGIONAL \nAPPROACH WHICH REPRESENTS THE \nBIG PICTURE\, REGION-WIDE ONE BAY \nVISION FOR WHAT THE ADAPTATION \nALONG THE SHORELINE SHOULD LOOK \nLIKE AND IDENTIFIED STRATEGIC \nREGIONAL PRIORITIES FOR EACH \nVISION THAT IDENTIFIES A \nREGIONAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THAT \nMUST BE ADDRESSED IN LOCAL \nPLANNING TO ALIGN LOCAL AND \nREGIONAL PRIORITIES. WE SHARED \nONE BAY VISION WITH THE \nCOMMISSION BACK IN FEBRUARY THIS \nYEAR. AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING \nTO DEVELOP THE PLAN AND \nGUIDELINES AND MINIMUM \nSTANDARDS\, WHICH INCLUDE THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF SB 272. THE \nGUIDELINES LAY OUT A CONSISTENT \nPROCESS STANDARD FOR HOW TO \nCREATE SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE \nPLANS AND DEVELOP ADAPTATION \nSTRATEGIES THAT MEET MINIMUM \nCRITERIA AND ADVANCE THE \nREGION’S PRIORITIES AND OUTCOMES \nOF THE ONE BAY VISION. THESE \nTWO PARTS ARE WHAT WE INTEND TO \nBRING TO BCDC’S COMMISSION FOR \nADOPTION IN DECEMBER. FOLLOWING \nTHE ADOPTION OF THE GUIDELINES \nLOCAL JURISDICTIONS WILL THEN \nBEGIN THE HARD WORK OF \nCONDUCTING AND ADAPTATION \nPLANNING ALONG WITH THE \nSHORELINES WITH COMMUNITIES AND \nTHEIR NEIGHBORS. BCDC STAFF \nWILL TRANSITION TO PROVIDING \nTECHNICAL AND POLICY ASSISTANCE \nTO SUPPORT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS \nIN MEETING GUIDELINES. THERE \nARE A LOT MORE THAT NEEDS TO BE \nDONE TO ADVANCE AND IMPLEMENT \nTHESE STRATEGIES IN THESE PLANS \nFROM DEVELOPING REGIONAL \nINVESTMENT STRATEGY BUILDING \nROADMAP FOR PLANNING AND \nREGULATORY ALIGNMENTS AND MORE \nWE’RE INTENDING TO CONTINUE THE \nLEADERSHIP THAT BCDC PLAYS IN \nTHIS SPACE BY SUPPORTING \nADAPTATION REGION-WIDE. AND\, \nLASTLY\, ONE MORE BACK — JUST \nEMPHASIS THAT COMPONENTS IN THE \nPROPOSED BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nWOULD BE THE FIRST TWO PARTS\, \nTHE ONE BAY VISION AND THE PLAN \nGUIDELINES. LAST SIDE. NOTE \nBEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO CORY\, I \nWANT TO EMPHASIZE THE OUTREACH \nAND ENGAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE BEEN \nCONDUCTING AS PART OF THE RSAP. \nWE HAVE BEEN LEADING AN ADVISORY \nGROUP OVER 40 EXPERTS ACROSS THE \nREGION DEVELOPED AN EQUITY \nSTRATEGY THAT HAS GUIDED OUR \nEQUITABLE OUTREACH APPROACH\, \nPUBLIC AND LOCAL PLANNING \nPRACTITIONER WORKSHOPS\, HELD \nFIVE WONDERFUL IN-PERSON \nWORKSHOPS PARTNERSHIPS AND \nCOMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS \nWORKING WITH FOLKS ON THE GROUND \nMEETING WITH LOCAL ELECTED \nOFFICIALS ACROSS THE REGION TO \nENSURE THAT MANY FOLKS ARE AWARE \nOF THIS WORK AND MANY VOICES \nHAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE \nIT. THIS PRESENTATION TODAY IS \nON THE PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE \nRSAP AS A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AT \nA FUTURE MIGRATE WILL BE HAPPY \nTO SHARE MORE DETAILS ON THE \nCONTENTS OF OUR RSAP IN THE \nGUIDELINES THEMSELVES BUT FOR \nNOW I HOPE YOU HAVE GREATER \nSENSE OF THE PROJECT OVERALL. \nWITH THAT I’LL TURN IT OVER TO \nCORY. \nCORY MANN: I’LL TALK ABOUT \nTHE PROCESS FOR ESTABLISHING THE \nBAY PLAN AND TIMELINE FOR \nCOMPLETING THIS UPDATE BY THE \nEND OF 2024. I KNOW JACKIE \nSPOKE ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF \nSB272 AND THAT YOU HAVE HEARD \nABOUT IT AT VARIOUS TIMES IN \nLENGTH. I’LL START BY NOTING \nTHAT THE BILL DOESN’T ACTUALLY \nSPEAK TO THE PROCESS FOR THE \nCOMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE \nRSAP PLAN. BASED ON \nCONSULTATION WITH BCDC’S LEGAL \nCOUNSEL\, THE EXPECTATION IS THAT \nBCDC WILL USE ITS EXISTING LAWS\, \nREGULATIONS\, AND PLANS\, TO \nIMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF \nSB272. SO HERE IS AN OVERVIEW \nOF THOSE LAWS\, REGULATIONS\, AND \nPLANS. THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT \nCREATED BCDC TO LIMIT FILLING OF \nTHE BAY PROMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS TO \nITS SHORELINES AND TO CREATE THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. THE BAY \nPLAN IS A LIVING DOCUMENT IT \nCONTAINS FINDINGS AND POLICIES \nON A RANGE OF TOPICS FROM \nCOMMERCIAL FISHING TO MANAGED \nWETLANDS TO ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE AND SOCIAL EQUITY AND OF \nCOURSE ON CLIMATE CHANGE. \nPROJECTS THAT REQUIRE PERMITS \nFROM BCDC MUST BE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE POLICIES IN THE BAY \nPLAN. WHEN NEEDED\, THE BAY PLAN \nCAN ALSO INCORPORATE SPECIAL \nAREA PLANS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO \nCERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE \nSHORELINE\, OR OTHER PLANS \nADDRESSING ESSENTIAL NEEDS. FOR \nEXAMPLE\, YOU WILL RECALL THAT \nTHE SEAPORT PLAN HAS ITS OWN SET \nOF FINDING SAYS AND POLICIES FOR \nPORT AREAS. YOU CAN THINK OF \nTHESE PLANS AS EXTENSIONS OF THE \nBAY PLAN\, BUT ANY SPECIAL AREA \nPLAN\, THE SEAPORT PLAN\, ET \nCETERA\, AND THE BAY PLAN\, \nITSELF\, NEED TO BE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT IN \nORDER TO BE ENFORCEABLE. IF YOU \nTHINK OF ALL OF THAT AS THE \nCONTENT THAT WE WORK WITH\, THERE \nIS STILL THE HOW. SO\, THE \nSUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENTS UNDER \nTHE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT ARE \nFLESHED OUT THROUGH REGULATIONS \nTHAT THE COMMISSION HAS FORMALLY \nADOPTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE \nADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT AND \nSUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL BY \nOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. \nINCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM HOW AND \nWHEN THE COMMISSION MEETS TO \nPERMIT AND ENFORCEMENT \nPROCEDURES TO HOW WE’RE ALLOWED \nTO ADOPT NEW PLANS AND POLICIES. \nTHE QUESTION THEN IS WHERE DOES \nTHE RSAP AND THE SUBREGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS FIT \nINTO THIS FRAMEWORK. \nSO\, BCDC STAFF HAVE CONCLUDED \nAND RECOMMEND THAT THE STRAIGHT \nFORWARD APPROACH TO GIFT RSAP \nLEGAL EFFECT HAS ENVISION SAID \nUNDER SB272 IS TO ADOPT THE RSAP \nTHROUGH THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nPROCESS JUST AS BCDC WOULD ADOPT \nA SPECIAL AREA PLAN OR SEAPORT \nPLAN OR MORE SPECIFIC \nAPPLICATION OF THE BAY PLAN. AS \nMENTIONED ON THE LAST SLIDE \nBCDC’S EXISTING PROCEDURES \nPROVIDE ALLOWANCE FOR \nINCORPORATING MORE SPECIFIC \nPLANS LIKE THIS INTO THE BAY \nPLAN. IN ADDITION TO ADOPTING \nTHE RSAP AS A BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nSTAFF WILL RECOMMEND AMENDING \nSOME OF THE RELEVANT BAY PLAN \nCLIMATE CHANGE FINDINGS AND \nPOLICIES PARTICULARLY CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICY SIX\, THE EXISTING \nBAY PLAN CLIMATE POLICY SIX \nSTATES THE COMMISSION SHOULD \nDEVELOP A REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN SINCE THAT’S \nWHAT WE’RE DOING BY ESTABLISHING \nTHE RSAP REVIEWING AND TAKING \nACTION EVENTUALLY ON THE \nREQUIRED SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE \nPLANS WE’RE GOING TO SUGGEST \nUPDATING THE POLICY TO \nACKNOWLEDGE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS \nIN CLIMATE CHANGE SECTION OF THE \nBAY PLAN ALSO ALLOWING US TO \nDESCRIBE REQUIREMENTS OF THE \nSB272 AND HELP CONNECT \nLEGISLATION DIRECTLY TO THE BAY \nPLAN ITSELF THIS WILL TARGET \nUPDATE TO ADOPT AND INCORPORATE \nTHE RSAP RATHER THAN WHOLE \nREVISION OF THE BAY PLAN CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICIES THIS IS \nIMPORTANT\, THE RSAP AS A BAY \nPLAN AMENDMENT AT THE END OF \nTHIS YEAR WILL NOT ALTER \nPERMITTING PROCESS FOR \nINDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. THIS WOULD \nHAVE NO EFFECT ON HOW INDIVIDUAL \nPROJECTS ARE REVIEWED AND \nPERMITTED. \nBUT\, OF COURSE\, IMPLEMENTATION \nOF THE RSAP\, AS WELL AS BCDC’S \nREVIEW OF SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN IS GOING TO BE \nAN ONGOING PROCESS. THE PURPOSE \nOF AMENDING THE BAY PLAN IN THIS \nMANNER IS TO FORMALIZE THE \nCOMMISSION’S ADOPTION OF THE \nPLAN BUT BEYOND 2024 THERE IS \nSTILL SO MUCH TO DO. FIRST ONE \nTHING TO NOTE ABOUT THE BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT PROCESS IS THAT IT’S \nSOMEWHAT CUMBERSOME FOR WHEN \nUPDATES TO THE NEEDED. \nTHEREFORE\, AN IMPORTANT STEP TO \nSEEK LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT \nCOULD EXEMPT UPDATES TO THE PLAN \nFROM HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE \nENTIRE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT \nPROCESS TO GIVE THEM LEGAL \nEFFECT. SOME STATE AGENCIES \nHAVE LEGISLATIVE CARVE-OUTS THAT \nALLOW THOSE AGENCIES TO ISSUE \nGUIDANCE THAT’S NOT SUBJECT TO \nTHE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT \nOR REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW. AND WOULD \nSEEK A SIMILAR KIND OF \nLEGISLATIVE CARVE-OUT FOR \nUPDATES TO THE RSAP\, AND THAT \nWOULD PROVIDE US MORE \nFLEXIBILITY TO MAKE SURE WE CAN \nUPDATE THE PLAN REGULARLY WHEN \nNEEDED. WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR \nA LEGISLATIVELY APPROVED \nAPPROACH THAT WOULD BE \nSTREAMLINED AND PARTICIPATORY \nAND TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC. \nBROADLY BCDC WILL NEED TO ASSESS \nITS AUTHOR AND JURISDICTIONS TO \nCONSIDER HOW BEST TO LINK SEA \nLEVEL RISE PLANNING TO OUR \nREGULATORY PROGRAM. GOAL TWO \nOBJECTIVE ONE OF THE STRATEGIC \nPLAN IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER AND \nHOW BCDC REGULATORY AND PLANNING \nAUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION \nSHOULD EXPAND TO FOSTER LARGER \nSCALE ADAPTATION EFFORTS. THIS \nIS SOMETHING STAFF ARE ALREADY \nBEGINNING TO BRAINSTORM ON \nINTERNALLY. AND WE HOPE TO \nSTART A SERIES OF CONVERSATIONS \nABOUT THESE ISSUES WITH THE \nCOMMISSION AND STAKEHOLDERS \nACROSS THE REGION SOON. \nSO\, ADOPTING THE RSAP AT THE END \nOF THIS YEAR IS AN IMPORTANT \nSTEP BUT THIS IN ITSELF DOES NOT \nALTER BCDC’S PERMITTING PROGRAM \nOR UNDERLYING MCATEER-PETRIS \nAUTHORITY. SO WE’RE BEGINNING \nTO EXPLORE THESE POSSIBILITIES \nAND LOOK FORWARD TO DISCUSSING \nTHIS MORE AT FUTURE MEETINGS. \nTHESE INITIATIVES COULD END UP \nBEING INCLUDED IN FUTURE BAY \nPLAN AMENDMENTS OR FUTURE \nLEGISLATION OR LIKELY BOTH \nHOLISTICALLY INTEGRATING \nPERMITTING AND PLANNING FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE YEARS TO COME. \nTHOSE ARE THE THINGS STAFF ARE \nBEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT AND \nWANTED TO FLAG FOR YOU NOW NONE \nOF THE THINGS WE’RE DISCUSSING \nTODAY OR THAT ARE ON THIS SLIDE \nWOULD BE PART OF THE PROPOSED \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT. HERE IS \nCONCRETE INFORMATION ABOUT THE \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS AND \nTIMELINE. SO\, FIRST\, WE \nCIRCULATED A DRAFT DESCRIPTIVE \nNOTICE AND A BRIEF STAFF REPORT \nTO THE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 2ND \nIN ADVANCE OF TODAY’S PUBLIC \nHEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON \nWHETHER TO INITIATE THE BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT PROCESS. IF THE \nCOMMISSION VOTES TO INITIATE THE \nPROCESS\, THEN WE WILL MAIL THE \nFINAL DESCRIPTIVE NOTICE OUT \nWITH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO \nOUR LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES. \nTHEN IN MID-SEPTEMBER\, STAFF \nWILL CIRCULATE A STAFF REPORT \nWITH A PRELIMINARY \nRECOMMENDATION TO THE \nCOMMISSION. THAT’S GOING TO BE \nBIG. STAFF WILL HAVE SPECIFIC \nPOLICY LANGUAGE THAT WE SUGGEST \nAMENDING IN THE BAY PLAN CLIMATE \nCHANGE POLICIES ALONG WITH THE \nDRAFT REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN ITSELF. SO THAT \nDATE\, SEPTEMBER 13TH\, IS A BIG \nONE AND ALSO MARKS THE BEGINNING \nOF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD IN WHICH BCDC WILL \nRESPOND TO EVERY WRITTEN COMMENT \nRECEIVED. OF COURSE\, WE HAVE \nBEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO ENGAGE \nSTAKEHOLDERS THROUGH THE THIS \nENTIRE PROCESS\, INCLUDING \nHOLDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR \nPUBLIC COMMENT TODAY TO \nDETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO \nINITIATE THIS PROCESS. \nON OCTOBER 17TH\, WE WOULD HOLD A \nPUBLIC HEARING ON THE DRAFT RSAP \nAS WELL AS THE POLICY REVISIONS \nIN THE BAY PLAN THAT I JUST \nMENTIONED\, AND THE OFFICIAL \nPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WOULD \nLIKELY CLOSE AT THE END OF THAT \nMEETING\, AND AFTER THAT STAFF \nWOULD MAKE REVISIONS BASED ON \nPUBLIC AND COMMISSIONER INPUT \nPRIOR TO CIRCULATING A FINAL \nRECOMMENDATION AND A COMMISSION\, \nAND ANOTHER MEETING WITH A \nCOMMISSION VOTE ON WHETHER OR \nNOT TO ADOPT THE RSAP AND THOSE \nRELATED CHANGES TO THE BAY PLAN\, \nTENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR \nDECEMBER 5TH. LIKE ANY BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT\, UPDATING THE BAY PLAN \nREQUIRES A 2/3 AFFIRMATIVE VOTE \nOF THE TOTAL COMMISSION\, SO\, 18 \nCOMMISSION — 18 POSITIVE VOTES. \nAND THIS TIMELINE WILL ENSURE \nTHAT BCDC FINALIZES THE \nGUIDELINES FOR THE RSAP BY THE \nEND OF THE YEAR PER THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF SB272. IF THE \nCOMMISSION VOTES TO ADOPT THE \nAMENDMENT STAFF WOULD THEN NEED \nTO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT FOR \nREVIEW BY THE STATE OFFICE OF \nADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND WE MAY \nALSO SUBMIT THE AMENDMENT TO \nNOAA TO INCORPORATE THE \nAMENDMENT INTO BCDC’S FEDERAL \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. LAST THING TO \nMENTION\, BRIEFLY\, IS THAT IN \nCONTRAST TO THE 2/3 VOTE \nREQUIREMENT FOR ADOPTING A BAY \nPLAN\, THE COMMISSION\, THE \nCOMMISSION ONLY NEEDS A MAJORITY \nVOTE TO INITIATE THE BAY PLAN \nAMENDMENT PROCESS. OF COURSE\, \nBEFORE I READ THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, I WILL STOP AND \nWE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY \nQUESTIONS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nWE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. WE CURRENTLY \nHAVE TWO HAND RAISED. KAREN \nHIGH\, YOU MAY UNMUTE YOURSELF. \nSPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. CAN \nYOU HEAR ME? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES\, \nWE CAN. \nSPEAKER: I MEAN GOOD \nAFTERNOON \n[LAUGHTER] \nKAREN HIGH\, CITIZEN’S COMMITTEE \nTO COMPLETE THE REFUGE THANK YOU \nFOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE \nCOMMENTS WE SUPPORT THE ADOPTION \nOF THE NOTICE TO INITIATE THE \nPROCESS TO AMEND THE BAY PLAN TO \nINCLUDE THE RSAP SINCE 2010 CCCR \nHAS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE \nCLIMATE CHANGE AMENDMENT\, \nADAPTING TO RISING TIDES AND BAY \nADAPT PROCESSES AND WE ARE \nCURRENTLY ON THE RSAP ADVISORY \nGROUP. WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE \nHIGHER-LEVEL COMMENTS REGARDING \nHOW WE ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. \nONE\, HABITATS OF THE BAY ARE \nVULNERABLE\, ARE THREATENED BY \nSEA LEVEL RISE\, NOT JUST \nCOMMUNITIES. BAY HABITATS \nPROVIDE VITAL BENEFITS FOR \nCOMMUNITIES\, INCLUDING SEA LEVEL \nRESILIENCE AND SHOULD BE \nCONSIDERED IMPORTANT NATURAL \nINFRASTRUCTURE IN OUR EFFORTS TO \nPLAN FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION. A HOLISTIC APPROACH \nTO PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nRESILIENCE THAT INCLUDES \nPROTECTION OF THE BAY’S EXISTING \nAND FUTURE HABITATS IS CRUCIAL \nFOR BAY AREA COMMUNITIES. AND \nWITH RESPECT TO THE RSAP\, WE \nSUPPORT LANGUAGE FOR STRATEGIC \nREGIONAL PRIORITIES PERTAINING \nTO ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND \nRESILIENCE AND WE URGE THAT \nECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY \nHABITATS BE INTEGRATED AS A \nTHREAD THAT WEAVES THROUGH THE \nRSAP GUIDELINES LANGUAGE. THE \nDOCUMENT THAT WILL BE USED MAY \nNOT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO THE \nCONCEPT OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES \nAND THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF \nNATURAL INFRASTRUCTURE BAY \nHABITATS PLAYS IN PROVIDING \nCLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE. IT \nIS IMPORTANT THAT THE \nVULNERABILITY AND CRUCIAL \nRESILIENCE FUNCTIONS OF THE \nBAY’S HABITATS IS CLEARLY \nIDENTIFIED\, AS WELL AS THE NEED \nTO PROTECT THESE FUNCTIONS \nMOVING INTO THE FUTURE. AND \nTHAT THIS BE WOVEN THROUGHOUT \nTHE RSAP. WE LOOK FORWARD TO \nCONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THIS \nVERY IMPORTANT REGIONAL PROCESS\, \nAND OUR APPRECIATION GOES OUT TO \nSTAFF WHO ARE DEALING WITH THIS \nVERY COMPLEX ISSUE. THANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU. AND NEXT WE HAVE HANNAH. \nYOU MAY UNMUTE YOURSELF. \nSPEAKER: HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR \nME? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nCAN BUT YOU ARE A LITTLE QUIET. \nSPEAKER: OKAY. WELL\, GOOD \nAFTERNOON. I’M HANNA O’KOREEH \nON BEHALF OF SHAH\, YODER\, AND \n[INDISCERNIBLE] AND RANGE. \nTHANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nPROVIDE COMMENTS A QUICK \nQUESTION THE DRAFT GUIDELINES DO \nNOT ALLOW SPECIAL DISTRICTS TO \nSUBMIT SEA LEVEL RISE PLANS OR \nPROJECTS CURRENTLY ONLY CITIES \nOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE ABLE \nTO EXERCISE AUTHOR WHAT \nABILITIES DO SPECIAL DISTRICTS \nHAVE IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING SEA \nLEVEL RISE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES \nIS THERE ROOM FOR AMENDING THE \nGUIDELINES TO INCLUDE SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS? \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. I \nSEE NO OTHER HANDS RAISED AT \nTHIS TIME CHAIR WASSERMAN. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMENTS OR \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH\, \nCHAIR. GREAT PRESENTATION\, AND \nA LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION. I \nGOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. \nACTUALLY\, IT’S A SERIES OF \nQUESTIONS. FIRST ALL\, HAVE THE \nLOCAL JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE \nGOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP \nTHIS PLAN BEEN NOTIFIED THAT \nTHEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SO? \nAND THAT THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE \nGONNA BE ESTABLISHED TO HELP IN \nDETERMINING WHETHER THE PLAN \nWILL BE APPROVED OR NOT BY BCDC \nAND THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS \nGOING TO BE DECIDED UPON BETWEEN \nNOW AND DECEMBER? THE REASON I \nASK THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE I \nWOULD — I WOULD ASSUME THAT ANY \nCITY OR COUNTY THAT HAS ANY — \nTHAT TOUCHES THE BAY AT ALL\, \nWOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP A PLAN. \nSO\, THE CITY\, MY CITY\, CITY OF \nNOVATO\, HAVE NOT NOTIFIED THE \nCOUNCIL THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nREQUIRED TO DEVELOP A PLAN. SO \nJUST KIND OF CURIOUS AS TO WHAT \nLEVEL OF CONTACT WE HAVE HAD\, \nAND HOW — WHERE THE LOCALS ARE \nRELATIVE TO THIS PROCESS. \nSPEAKER: I CAN START WITH \nTHAT ONE. SO WE HAVE BEEN \nTRYING OUR HARDEST TO WORK WITH \nAS MANY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS AS \nPOSSIBLE. THERE IS 41 CITIES \nAND NINE COUNTIES THAT TOURISTS \nTHE BAY. SO THAT’S ABOUT 50 \nJURISDICTIONS. \nWE HAVE DONE THIS IN A VARIETY \nOF WAYS SO FAR. WE HAVE BEEN \nDOING OUTREACH MEETINGS\, MAYOR’S \nCONFERENCES THROUGHOUT THE \nREGION. I THINK WE HAVE HIT \nEIGHT OF THE NINE COUNTIES AT \nTHIS POINT. SO\, WE HAVE USED \nTHAT AS A FORUM TO TRY TO GET \nTHE WORD OUT. A FEW WEEKS AGO \nWE HOSTED A WORKSHOP WITH \nPLANNING DIRECTORS. WE REAPED \nREACHED OUT TO EVERY PLANNING \nDIRECTOR IN THE BAY AREA SUBJECT \nTO THIS AND INVITED THEM TO \nPARTICIPATE IN THE WORKSHOP\, A \nCHANCE FOR THEM TO LEARN ABOUT \nTHE PROCESS AND ALSO FOR US TO \nLEARN FROM THEM AND UNDERSTAND \nHOW THIS CAN WORK IN THEIR \nCOMMUNITIES. ALSO HAVE ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEES AND OTHER FORUM WHERE \nIS MANY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS \nPARTICIPATED BUT WOULDN’T SAY \nALL NECESSARILY. OPPORTUNITY \nFOR US TO FORMALLY MAKE SURE \nTHAT EVERYONE IS ON NOTICE SO \nTHAT’S SOMETHING WE CAN DO. \nPAT ECKLUND: CAN WE GET A \nLIST OF THOSE 41 CITIES? I \nWOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHICH ARE IN \nTHE AREA THAT I REPRESENT. SO I \nCAN MAKE SURE THAT THOSE \nJURISDICTIONS ARE AWARE OF IT. \nSPEAKER: SURE. HAPPY TO \nSHARE THAT. \nPAT ECKLUND: AND SO\, ARE \nTHESE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT ARE \nGOING TO BE HAVING TO DEVELOP A \nPLAN\, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY \nFUNDING FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO \nDEVELOP THAT PLAN? \nSPEAKER: SO\, FUNDING IS \nCURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR CITIES \nTHROUGH THE OP\, THE OCEAN \nPROTECTION COUNCIL’S SB1 GRANT \nPROGRAM. AND JUSTIN COMPANY \nKIMBALL IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER \nSPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT \nGRANT PROGRAM BUT IN SHORT \nFUNDING AVAILABLE NOW IT’S OPEN \nON A ROLLING BASIS. SO THERE IS \nQUARTERLY GRANT APPROVAL \nPROCESSES. IT’S A \nNON-COMPETITIVE GRANT\, SO IF YOU \nDO ALL THE THINGS YOU’RE \nSUPPOSED TO DO\, THEY WILL FUND \nIT AND SEVERAL BAY AREA CITIES \nHAVE ALREADY RECEIVED IT\, AND IN \nANTICIPATION OF THIS FUNDING\, \nAND USING THAT PROGRAM. I WOULD \nSAY IF THAT’S SOMETHING YOU’RE \nCITY NEEDS\, LOOK INTO THAT\, \nWE’RE HAPPY TO CONNECT YOU WITH \nTHOSE FOLKS AT OPC\, AS WELL. \nPAT ECKLUND: SINCE THERE IS \nONLY 41 CITIES OUT OF THE 488 — \nWELL\, I DON’T KNOW HOW MANY ARE \nIN THE BAY AREA — SO THERE’S \nONLY 41 CITIES\, THEN NOT EVERY \nCITY THAT HAS CONNECTION TO THE \nBAY IS REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A \nPLAN. IS THAT CORRECT? \nSPEAKER: THAT’S CORRECT. \nONLY ONES WITHIN BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. \nPAT ECKLUND: THAT ARE IN \nBCDC’S JURISDICTION. OKAY. GOT \nIT. IS NOVATO SUBJECT TO THIS? \nI JUST — \nSPEAKER: YES. \nPAT ECKLUND: WE ARE? \nINTERESTING. I REALLY WOULD \nLIKE A LIST OF THE 41 CITIES AS \nSOON AS POSSIBLE\, SO THAT I CAN \nMAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT \nARE AT THE GOVERNANCE LEVEL HAVE \nSOME IDEA THAT THIS IS BEING \nREQUIRED. AND\, SO\, I REALLY \nWOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT AS SOON \nAS POSSIBLE. BECAUSE THIS \nWHOLE\, YOU KNOW\, HAVING WORKED \nFOR EPA FOR OVER 35 YEARS\, WE \nDEVELOPED GUIDELINES AND WE WERE \nVERY CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT \nALL THE JURISDICTIONS THAT HAD \nTO COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES \nWERE GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THEM. I \nDEPARTMENT KNOW MY CITY WAS \nGOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO THIS \nPLAN. MAYBE MY FAULT\, BUT \nREGARDLESS WHOSE FAULT IT IS\, \nIT’S JUST WE REALLY NEED TO GET \nUP TO SPEED QUICKLY. ESPECIALLY \nIF THEY’RE SUPPOSED TO BE \nAPPROVED BY THE END OF THE \nCALENDAR YEAR\, JUST SORRY — \nSPEAKER: OUR GUIDELINES THAT \nARE REQUIRED TO BE BY THE END OF \nTHE YEAR\, CITIES HAVE UNTIL \n2034. \nPAT ECKLUND: 2034. I \nUNDERSTAND THAT BUT THE \nGUIDELINES ARE GOING TO BE \nCRITICAL TO DIAGRAM HOW THE \nCITIES DEVELOP THEIR PLAN. SOME \nCITIES DON’T HAVE THAT \nEXPERTISE. LIKE OUR CITY\, WE \nHAVE AN ANNUAL DEFICIT OF 3 \nMILLION\, MINIMUM SO WE DON’T \nNECESSARILY HAVE ALL THE \nRESOURCES THAT WE NEED\, AND \nOTHER CITIES ARE IN THE SAME \nCONDITION AS WE ARE. I’M JUST \nREALLY ANXIOUS TO GET THAT \nINFORMATION\, SO THAT THEN I CAN \nHELP START SPREADING THE WORD SO \nTHAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT OUR \nCITIES ARE PREPARED AND ARE \nINVOLVED EACH STEP OF THE WAY. \nAND ARE WE GOING TO BE NOTIFIED \nOF ALL OF THE PUBLIC VENUES \nWHERE WE’RE GOING TO BE \nDISCUSSING THE GUIDELINES? OR \nCOULD WE BE NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE \nSO WE CAN PUT IT ON OUR \nCALENDARS AND FOLLOW THE \nPROCESS. \nSPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY. YES. \nPAT ECKLUND: OKAY GREAT. \nBECAUSE THAT’S A VERY \nINTERESTING PROCESS TO ME\, \nHAVING BEEN AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL \nFOR SO LONG\, IT’S GOING TO BE \nFUN PARTICIPATE WITH BCDC. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: MY UNDERSTANDING\, \nBCDC HAS DONE SOME OUTREACH I \nKNOW WE MADE A PRESENTATION AT \nCONTRA COSTA\, STAFF AND BCDC \nSTAFF AT THE CONTRA COSTA \nCONFERENCE A COUPLE OF MONTHS \nAGO\, EMBARKING ON REACHING OUT \nTO COUNTY MAYORS CONFERENCES\, \nYOU HAVE BEEN DOING THAT. \nSPEAKER: YES EIGHT OR NINE OF \nTHE COUNTIES\, THE COUNTY WE HAVE \nREACHED OUT TO WE HAVE GONE TO \nMAYOR’S CONFERENCE\, AND MARIN\, \nALAMEDA\, CONTRA COSTA\, NAPA\, \nSONOMA\, SALON OH I THINK WE HAVE \nSAN MATEO AND STILL HAVE SANTA \nCLARA. \nJOHN GIOIA: RIGHT. I BELIEVE \nIT’S UP TO THE MAYORS FROM THOSE \nCITIES WHO ARE AT THESE \nCONFERENCES TO REPORT BACK TO \nTHEIR JURISDICTIONS ABOUT THIS \nREQUIREMENT. ARE YOU GOING TO \nBE DOING ANY MAILING AS WELL? \nMY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CITIES\, \nYOU HAVE HELD REGIONAL MEETINGS \nTO GET INPUT ON ALL OF THIS? \nSPEAKER: YES WE HAD A NUMBER \nOF REGIONAL MEETINGS\, AS I \nMENTIONED\, THE PLANNING \nDIRECTOR’S MEETING WE HELD A FEW \nWEEKS AGO AND WE’LL CONTINUE AS \nWE ENTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT \nPHASE AND CONTINUE TO DO THAT \nOUTREACH AS WE ENTER THIS FORMAL \nPART OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. \nJOHN GIOIA: AND YOU HAVE BEEN \nTAKE INPUT FROM THESE PUBLIC \nMEETINGS INCLUDING FROM CITIES? \nSPEAKER: CORRECT. \nJOHN GIOIA: ALL RIGHT. IT’S \nGETTING DUE DILIGENCE THERE. \nTHANK YOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nOTHER — COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER\, \nAND THEN COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH\, I \nAM GOING TO FOLLOW UP ABOUT THE \nSPECIAL DISTRICTS. REALLY WHAT \nSEA LEVEL RISE IS\, IS COASTAL \nFLOOD PROTECTION. WE USED TO \nCALL IT COASTAL FLOOD \nPROTECTION\, AND FRANKLY LITTLE \nWAS DONE\, AND NOW WE CALL SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, AND WE’RE DOING LOTS \nWHICH IS GREAT. FLOOD \nPROTECTION IT’S COVERED BY A \nPATCHWORK QUILT OF AGENCIES \nHERE\, NOT ALL DONE BY THE \nCITIES. SO\, I THOUGHT THE IDEA \nOF CREATING THE SPECIAL RELEVANT \nDISTRICTS\, PARTICULARLY SANTA \nCLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT IS \nREALLY GERMANE\, IT SEEMS LIKE \nALL THE THINGS I WORKED ON WITH \nBCDC\, WE HAVE BEEN VERY OPEN TO \nTHAT\, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT. \nSO\, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM \nTHAT INDEED WE WERE — YOU KNOW\, \nWE WERE REALLY REACHING OUT \nEVERYBODY TO WHO IS IN THE FLOOD \nPROTECTION SPACE. IS THAT \nRIGHT? \nSPEAKER: THAT’S CORRECT. THE \nLEGISLATION\, ITSELF\, SAYS THAT \nLOCAL JURISDICTIONS MUST ADOPT \nTHESE SUBREGIONAL PLANS. SO \nTHAT’S IN THE LEGISLATION. BUT \nAS WE’RE DEVELOPING THESE \nGUIDELINES\, WE KNOW WHO MANAGES \nOUR SHORELINE IS DIVERSE\, IT’S A \nMIX OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS\, AND \nFLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS\, AND \nPRIVATE PROPERTIES\, AND A WHOLE \nMESS OF DIFFERENT ENTITIES THAT \nARE RESPONSIBLE AND OWN AND \nMANAGE THAT LAND GUIDELINES ARE \nTRYING TO CALL OUT HOW WE MAKE \nSURE THOSE COORDINATE WITH ONE \nANOTHER AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS \nARE CALLED OUT AS THE KEY \nENTITY. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: THAT’S \nIMPORTANT. AND MY OTHER \nQUESTION IS WHERE PLANS ARE \nGOING TO BE WRITTEN I THINK \nTHAT’S 2034 THAT’S A NUMBER WE \nSHOULD ALL KEEP IN OUR HEADS. \nIT’S ONE THING TO GET THE \nGUIDELINES\, BUT YOU KNOW\, THAT’S \nTEN YEARS TO THINK ABOUT IT. \nTHAT’S REALLY A LONG\, LONG TIME. \nI’M HOPING THAT WE CAN PROVIDE \nINCENTIVES TO GET THOSE PLANS \nDONE MUCH FASTER. AND I \nWONDERED IF YOU HAD A FEW WORDS \nOF WISDOM ABOUT INCENTIVES WE \nMIGHT PROVIDE? \nSPEAKER: SURE. AND I THINK \nOF THE LEGISLATION\, THAT’S \nPROBABLY THE PART OF IT THAT \nMAKES US A LITTLE UNHAPPIEST. \nBUT THAT IS WHAT THE \nLEGISLATIONS SAYS. BUT WE THINK \nAND HOPE THAT WE CAN RALLY THE \nBAY AREA TO DO THESE PLANS \nFASTER. A LOT OF CITIES ALREADY \nHAVE PLANS AND WE WANT TO MAKE \nTHAT PROCESS EASY FOR THEM. WE \nALSO ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING \nA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM \nAS\, SORT OF\, THE NEXT PHASE OF \nTHIS. SO THAT WILL BE A WAY WE \nCAN WORK WITH CITIES AND HELP \nPUSH THESE ALONG. AS I \nMENTIONED\, THE OPC FUNDING IS \nAVAILABLE\, AND HOPEFULLY THAT \nINCENTIVIZES FOLKS. AND LASTLY \nTHE LEGISLATION ITSELF SAYS THAT \nCITIES WHO HAVE THESE PLANS IN \nPLACE THAT ARE APPROVED BY BCDC \nAND THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL \nBE PRIORITIZED FOR STATE FUNDING \nAND THAT’S WHERE THE REAL \nDOLLARS ARE IN TERMS OF PROJECT \nIMPLEMENTATION. HOPEFULLY WE \nCAN GET THE MESSAGE SOONER IF \nYOU GET THE PLANS IN PLACE\, THE \nSOONER YOUR PROJECTS CAN BE \nINCENTIVIZED FOR THAT BIGGER \nTICKET. \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: I KNOW IN \nMOUNTAIN VIEW\, WE ARE GOING TO \nSIGN UP AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. \nBECAUSE THE MONEY IS AN ISSUE. \nWE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF \nBUILDING A SEA LEVEL RISE \nPROJECT. WE HAVE 14 PROJECTS IN \nIT. YES. I TOLD YOU. WE’RE \nREALLY BUSY BUILDING THEM. BUT \nTHEY GET MORE EXPENSIVE EVERY \nYEAR. SO\, THE MONEY WILL BE \nVERY\, VERY ENTICING. THANK YOU \nSO MUCH. THIS IS VERY\, VERY \nVALUABLE WORK. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \nANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU\, \nMR. CHAIRMAN. JESSICA\, I WANT \nTO CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR VERY \nFIRST SLIDE\, WHICH SET THAT \nCONTEXT FOR HOW LONG WE HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE. AND \nI THINK THAT’S REALLY IMPORTANT\, \nA DRUM TO BEAT CONSTANTLY. IT \nGOES BACK EARLIER THAN THAT\, \nBECAUSE TRAV WAS WORKING ON IT \nEARLIER THAN THAT. AND I THINK \nAS TIME GOES ON IT’S GOING TO \nBECOME MORE AND MORE IMPRESSIVE \nAND IT CAN BECOME A VALUABLE \nPIECE OF INFORMATION FOR \nCONVINCING PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE \nTHOUGHT THIS OUT AND THAT — \nTHAT IT’S — I MEAN\, WE’RE \nVIRTUALLY AT THE FIRST \nGENERATION ALREADY RETIRING IN \nTHE NEXT GENERATION PICKING THIS \nUP. AND I — I HAVE BEEN VERY\, \nVERY INFLUENCED BY TONY \nLAZAROWITZ’S REFERENCES TO \nCLIMATE ADAPTATION LIKE \nCATHEDRAL BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE \nAGES\, AND THE PEOPLE WHO BUILT \nTHE FOUNDATIONS KNEW THEY WERE \nNEVER GOING TO SEE THE COMPLETED \nSTRUCTURE\, BUT THAT DIDN’T \nMATTER. THAT WAS PART OF WHAT \nTHEY WERE SIGNING UP FOR. AND I \nREALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO \nBUILD THIS INTO EVERYTHING WE \nDO\, EVEN IF IT’S HALF A SENTENCE \nIN THE MEMO YOU WROTE\, REFERRING \nBACK TO 2011 OR 2008\, OR \nWHEREVER YOU WANT TO PICK UP THE \nSTORY\, BUT SOMEWHERE BACK THERE. \nYOU CAN START WHEN ZACK ASKED ME \nTO COME AND TALK TO THE \nCOMMISSION ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE\, \nWHENEVER THAT WAS\, IN 2007 OR \nSOMETHING. \nAND SECONDLY\, I WANT TO VERIFY \nTHAT TODAY IS NOT THE DAY FOR ME \nTO BE BEATING THE DRUM ABOUT \nSOMETHING THAT I WANT IN THE \nRSAP. THERE WILL BE TIME FOR \nTHAT SERENADE AT A LATER MOMENT. \nI HAVE SOME FUNDAMENTAL \nTHOUGHTS\, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I \nGET IN ON THE GROUND FLOOR WITH \nSTAFF WITH IDEAS TO THROW AT \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES\, THANK \nYOU. I WANTED TO WEIGH IN A BIT \nON THIS QUESTION ABOUT OUTREACH. \nBECAUSE AS ALWAYS\, IN CITY AND \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES KNOW\, \nOUTREACH IS SO DIFFICULT TO \nREACH EVERYONE TO GET THEIR \nATTENTION. AND IT IS TRUE. I \nMEAN\, REACHING EVERY COUNTY IS \nDIFFERENT FROM ACTUALLY REACHING \nEACH COUNCIL MEMBER — EACH CITY \nCOUNCIL\, AND CITY. SO IT MIGHT \n— YEAH\, I DO DISAGREE IT’S KIND \nOF WORTH A LITTLE OUTREACH IN A \nLIMITED NUMBER OF CITIES TO \nCONTACT EACH CITY SPECIFICALLY. \nAND THEN ON THE SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS\, ACTUALLY\, I SERVE ON \nTHE BOARD OF MID-PEP OPEN SPACE. \nAND THEN THERE IS VALLEY WATER\, \nOF COURSE\, AND SUCH\, AND\, SO — \nEVEN I’M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT \nWHAT OUR ROLE FOR THE SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS IS\, BECAUSE WE DO OWN \nTHE LAND ON THE SHORE\, ACTUALLY. \nAND\, SO\, IT’S WORTH\, AT LEAST — \nARE YOU GOING — MAYBE THE \nQUESTION WOULD BE\, ARE WE GOING \nTO HAVE AT LEAST FAQ ON THERE \nFOR\, YOU KNOW\, WHICH ENTITY ARE \nGOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE\, YOU \nKNOW\, WHAT IS — AND ALSO THE \nCOST OF DOING THESE — WELL\, \nDOING THE PLAN\, AND THEN\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE RESOURCES FOR\, YEAH\, \nGETTING THE FUNDING FOR ACTUALLY \nDOING THE ACTUAL PROJECTS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I JUST WANTED TO THANK \nSTAFF\, AGAIN\, FOR ALL THE WORK \nTHAT YOU’RE DOING ON THIS. I \nTHINK SINCE THERE IS ONLY 41 \nCITIES OUT OF THE 401 IN THE BAY \nAREA\, I THINK PERSONAL CONTACT \nMAY BE VERY HELPFUL. AND I WILL \nDEFINITELY GO BACK AND FORM ALL \nTHE CITIES IN MARIN AND SONOMA \nAND SOLANO AND NAPA AS SOON AS I \nGET THE LIST. I WILL PERSONALLY \nCONTACT THEM\, SO THEY CAN MAKE \nSURE THAT THEY ARE AWARE THAT \nTHERE IS AN ACTUAL PLAN THAT \nNEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED. I THINK \nTHAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE’RE \nWORKING ON BAY ADAPT AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, BUT I’M NOT SURE HOW \nMUCH IT SUNK IN THAT WE ACTUALLY \nHAVE TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT \nMEETS STATE GUIDELINES\, BCDC’S \nGUIDELINES. AND THAT THERE IS \n— MAY OR MAY NOT BE FUNDING \nAVAILABLE. SO\, I THINK THAT’S \nIMPORTANT. SO\, THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH\, IN ADVANCE. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nTHINK ALL OF THESE COMMENTS ARE \nIMPORTANT. I WOULD ALSO NOTE \nTHAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY ON \nSTAFF OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS \nTO INFORM. AND IT’S A LOT OF \nTHE EFFORT THAT WE HAVE MADE \nTHAT\, OUR STAFF HAS MADE\, IS \nREACHING OUT TO STAFF. IT’S NOT \nEXCLUSIVELY THAT\, AS HAS BEEN \nPOINTED OUT. THERE HAVE BEEN \nMEETINGS WITH THE MAYOR’S \nCOUNCILS IN EACH OF THE \nCOUNTIES. IT’S NOT FOCUSING \nSIMPLE LE ON COUNTY\, BUT TRYING \nTO LIMIT THE JURISDICTION SO \nTHAT YOU CAN EFFECTIVELY \nCOMMUNICATE\, AND AS COMMISSIONER \nGIOIA INDICATED\, WE HAVE ALSO \nFOR THOSE MAYOR’S COUNCILS\, DONE \nA WIDER REACH FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY \nBE AVAILABLE. I THINK THE \nSPECIAL DISTRICT DISCUSSION IS \nAN IMPORTANT ONE. STAFF HAS \nCERTAINLY BEEN AWARE OF THAT AND \nREACHING OUT TO THEM. THEY’RE \nNOT REQUIRED TO HAVE PLANS \nPURSUANT TO 272. AT THE SAME \nTIME\, PARTICULARLY SOME FLOOD \nCONTROL DISTRICTS AND SOME OTHER \nSPECIAL DISTRICTS\, DO HAVE \nSIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITIES. I \nWOULD BE WILLING TO WAGER THAT \nTHOSE WHO HAVE THOSE \nRESPONSIBILITIES ARE AT LEAST IF \nNOT MORE AWARE OF THIS THAN SOME \nCITY STAFF. BUT OUTREACH HAS \nBEEN SIGNIFICANT AND IT WILL \nCONTINUE TO BE. \nSEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS\, WILL \nYOU PUT UP THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE? \nSPEAKER: SO THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION \nVOTE TO ADOPT THE NOTICE TO \nINITIATE THE AMENDMENT TO THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN TO \nESTABLISH THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN OR RSAP \nINCLUDING GUIDELINES FOR THE \nPREPARATION OF SUBREGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS BY \nLOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN BCDC \nJURISDICTION AS REQUIRED BY \nSENATE BILL 272 SEA LEVEL RISE \nPLANNING AND ADAPTATION AND BAY \nPLAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING \nTO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED \nAMENDMENT. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nI HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nAPOLOGIZE COMMISSIONER WASSERMAN \nDO WE NEED TO CLOSE OUR PUBLIC \nHEARING. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: OF \nCOURSE WE DO. NO APOLOGY \nREQUIRED. \nPAT ECKLUND: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMAKE A MOTION. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nBEFORE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: MOTION. \nSPEAKER: SECOND. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMOTION MADE BY KISHIMOTO AND \nSECONDED BY COMMISSIONER \nGUNTHER. IS THERE OBJECTION TO \nCLOSING THE HEARING? THE \nHEARING IS CLOSED. NOW GO AHEAD \nYOU MAY MAKE YOUR MOTION. \nPAT ECKLUND: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMOVE THE MOTION BUT ALSO HAVE \nTHAT MOTION INCLUDE THAT EVERY \nCITY AND COUNTY WHO IS SUBJECT \nTO DEVELOPING A PLAN\, BE GIVEN A \nCOPY OF THE NOTICE TO INITIATE \nTHIS AMENDMENT BUT THE ELECTED \nOFFICIALS AND THE CITY MANAGER. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nPAT\, I’M GOING TO ASK YOU NOT TO \nDO IT TO ALL THE ELECTED \nOFFICIALS\, BECAUSE I THINK \nTHIS’S GOING TO PUT A BURDEN ON \nSTAFF. CERTAINLY SOMEONE AT THE \nCITY MAY BE REASONABLE. \nSPEAKER: YEAH. \nPAT ECKLUND: OKAY. THE CITY \nMANAGER. \nSPEAKER: STAFF CAN REVIEW OUR \nINTERESTED PARTIES LIST PRIOR TO \nMAILING THE DESCRIPTIVE NOTICE\, \nAS WELL AS THE DRAFT PLAN WHEN \nIT GETS — \nPAT ECKLUND: THAT’S PERFECT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IS \nTHERE A SECOND. \nCOUNSEL: LET’S CLARIFY THE \nMOTION EXACTLY WHAT’S UP HERE \nAND WE JUST AGREED TO THAT STAFF \nWILL DO THAT\, RIGHT? THERE IS \nNO CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL MOTION. \nPAT ECKLUND: NO CHANGES TO \nTHE MOTION. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nR. SEAN RANDOLPH: SECOND. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nSORRY. COMMISSIONER RANDOLPH \nBEAT YOU TO IT. THANK YOU. \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH SECOND. \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \nMARK ADDIEGO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? \nDAVID AMBUEHL: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: BURT? \nPAT BURT: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \nPAT ECKLUND: AYE. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGILMORE? \nMARIE GILMORE: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGIOIA? \nJOHN GIOIA: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \nANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKIMBALL? \nSPEAKER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nKISHIMOTO? \nYORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nPEMBERTON? \nSHERI PEMBERTON: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRAMOS? ARE WE STILL ON THE \nTHUMB’S UP THEORY HERE. SORRY I \nHAVE TO MOVE SCREENS. THUMB’S \nUP. ALL RIGHT. AMAZING. SORRY \nABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER \nRANCHOD? \nSANJAY M. RANCHOD: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRANDOLPH. \nR. SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nSHOWALTER? \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nVAZQUEZ? \nJOHN VASQUEZ: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR EISEMAN? \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: 17 \nYESES\, ZERO ABSTENTIONS AND ZERO \nNOS. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT WILL MOVE US \nFORWARD TO IMPORTANT PROCESS \nBRINGS US TO 9A BRIEFING FOR US \nBY THE BCDC SUMMER UNDERGRADUATE \nINTERNS THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO \nHAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF \nTHIS SUMMER THIS IS BCDC’S \nFOURTH SUMMER COHORT AND I AM \nSURE YOU WILL AGREE THAT HOSTING \nAND PAYING INTERNS IS AN \nIMPORTANT PART OF ANY AGENCY’S \nPUBLIC PARTICULARLY TO HELP \nTRAIN AND ENCOURAGE FUTURE \nPUBLIC SERVANTS. I WOULD LIKE \nTO NOW HAND THE MICROPHONE OVER \nTO THE INTERNS. \nSPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON\, \nCOMMISSIONERS. WE ARE BCDC’S \nSUMMER 2024 INTERNS. AND WE ARE \nVERY PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY AT \nTHE COMMISSION MEETING. SO\, WE \nHAVE\, TODAY\, A PRESENTATION \nCULMINATING THE END OF OUR \nINTERNSHIP HERE\, TALKING ABOUT \nSUMMER PROJECTS WE HAVE WORKED \nON\, AS WELL AS GOING OVER OUR \nINTERNSHIP HIGHLIGHTS\, \nSTRENGTHS\, AND RECOMMENDATIONS\, \nAS WELL. SO WE’LL GO AROUND \nFIRST WITH OUR NAMES. MY NAME \nIS JASMINE CASSIE. \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS BET \nWITTOCK. \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS GABRIELA \nCIAO. \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS OLIVIA \nLAMB. \nSPEAKER: I’M OTESSA SHERVANI. \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU\, JASMINE\, \nFOR THE INTRODUCTION. \nTHANK YOU SIERRA. THIS SUMMER I \nHAVE BEEN ADAPTING TO RISING \nTIDES INTERN\, TO THE DATA AND \nSCIENCE TEAM LED BY CORY C\, AND \nI HAVE RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF \nHELP FROM KATIE FALLON I WOULD \nLIKE TO GIVE HER SOME \nACKNOWLEDGMENT AS WELL\, I AM A \nFOURTH YEAR AT UC BERKELEY STUDY \nCONSERVATION AND RESOURCE \nSTUDIES\, MINOR IN GIS MY \nINTERESTS ARE PRIMARILY NATURAL \nRESOURCE MANAGEMENT \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AS WELL \nAS ECONOMICS\, OUTSIDE OF WORK \nAND SCHOOL\, I’M A JAZZ PIANIST\, \nI PLAY GUITAR\, DJ A LITTLE BIT\, \nI REALLY ENJOY HIKING AND \nCAMPING. I LOVE OUTDOORS\, AND \nPARTIALLY THAT’S WHY I’M HERE. \nOVER THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER I \nHAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON BUILDING \nAN INVENTORY OF SEA LEVEL RISE \nPOLICIES FOUND IN GENERAL PLANS \nFROM ACROSS 55 CITIES IN ALL \nNINE BAY AREA COUNTIES. PAST \nINVENTORIES CREATED BY BCDC AND \nOTHER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE \nCONSIDERED VULNERABILITY \nASSESSMENTS\, AS WELL AS OTHER \nPLANNING DOCUMENTS IN PURSUIT OF \nADAPTING TO SEA LEVEL RISE. \nHOWEVER\, OUR INVENTORY\, WE \nCOVERED SPECIFICALLY GENERAL \nPLANS\, BECAUSE OF THE BROAD \nFOCUS IN SUBJECT MATTER THAT \nTHEY TEND TO COVER BY CALIFORNIA \nLAW. \nTHE INVENTORY LOOKED AT \nINDIVIDUAL POLICIES\, AS WELL AS \nTHE DIFFERENT SORTS OF \nSCIENTIFIC OUTCOMES THAT EACH \nCITY IS PLANNING FOR. AND THE \nWAY THAT WE CONDUCTED THIS WORK \nIS REALLY BASED OFF OF PRIOR \nSTUDIES FROM UC DAVIS\, AS WELL \nAS A CURRENT STUDY BEING \nCONDUCTED BY THE OCEAN AND \nCOASTAL POLICY CENTER AT UCSB \nWHO WE HAVE DIRECTLY INTERFACED \nWITH MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE \nSUMMER AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD \nTO THEIR WORK PRODUCT FINALLY \nBEING RELEASED IN SEPTEMBER. IT \nCOVERS A LOT OF THE SAME SUBJECT \nMATTER THAT WE DO\, EXCEPT FOR ON \nTHE — FOR THE ENTIRE STATE\, FOR \nTHE ENTIRE COAST. \nFOR EACH POLICY\, THEY WERE \nSORTED BOO ONE OR MORE POLICY \nCATEGORIES\, IF ANYWHERE \nAPPLICABLE TO THE POLICY\, YOU \nCAN SEE A LITTLE GRAPHIC\, A \nLITTLE SCREENSHOT OF THE \nMONSTROUS SPREADSHEET I WAS \nEDITING FOR MOST OF THE SUMMER. \nLARRY CAUGHT ME A COUPLE OF \nTIMES LOOKING AT THAT\, AND HE \nWAS TAKEN ABACK A LITTLE BIT. \nTHESE POLICY CATEGORIES ARE \nDEVELOPED FROM THE WAY BAY \nVISION\, A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT \nFORTUNATE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN AND ULTIMATELY \nTHESE WILL BE USED TO GENERATE \nMETRICS FOR THE DATA DASHBOARD \nWHICH WILL BE RELEASED LATER \nTHIS YEAR AND ALLOW RESIDENTS \nAND JURISDICTIONS IN THE BAY \nAREA ALIKE TO LOOK AND SEE HOW \nTHEIR JURISDICTION\, COUNTY\, IS \nDOING ADAPTING TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE. AND A LARGE COMPONENT HOW \nWE COMMUNICATE THAT IS THROUGH \nVISUALIZATIONS LIKE THESE MAPS I \nHAVE CREATED ON THE LEFT. THE \nDIFFERENT SORTS OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE PROJECTIONS THAT CITIES ARE \nUSING WITHIN THEIR GENERAL PLAN \nSPECIFICALLY TO THINK AND \nCONSIDER WHILE THEY’RE CREATING \nSEA LEVEL RISE POLICIES. ON THE \nRIGHT\, AS WELL\, YOU SEE \nSPECIFICALLY THE POLICIES\, THE \nDIFFERENT SORTS OF ADAPTATION \nSTRATEGIES THAT CITIES ARE \nLAYING OUT WITHIN THEIR GENERAL \nPLANS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ALL \nTHE OTHER ELEMENTS OF CITY \nGOVERNANCE AND CITY PLANNING \nTHAT JURISDICTIONS HAVE TO \nCONSIDER WHILE CREATING THESE \nGENERAL PLANS. WHAT ARE THE \nDIFFERENT SORTS OF ADAPTATION \nPATHWAYS THAT THEY’RE \nCONSIDERING\, ARE THEY \nCONSIDERING GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE \nSUCH AS SEA WALLS\, ARE THEY \nATTEMPTING TO RESTORE TIDAL \nMARSHES\, TIDAL WETLANDS\, OR ARE \nTHEY DOING A MIX OF BOTH. YOU \nCAN SEE GREAT DISPARITIES \nBETWEEN JURISDICTIONS IN BOTH \nTHE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF \nPLANNING\, AS WELL AS DIFFERENT \nPATHWAYS THAT THEY’RE SELECTING. \nAND WITH THAT\, I’LL HAND IT OVER \nTO GABRIELA. \nSPEAKER: AWESOME. THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH. MY NAME IS GABRIELA \nI WAS ON THE BAY RESOURCES TEAM \nIN THE SUMMER REGULATORY UNIT \nAND MY TEAM LEADS WERE ASHLEY\, \nAND JULIE CONSERVATION RESOURCE \nSTUDIES AT BERKELEY\, ACADEMIC \nINTERESTS INCLUDE INDIGENOUS \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND ALSO \nOUTSIDE OF SCHOOL\, I LIKE TO \nREAD\, PAINT\, AND HIKE I LOVE \nREPTILES THAT’S A PICTURE OF MY \nGECKO. THIS SUMMER MY PROJECT \nWAS TO CREATE SPECIAL STATUS \nSPECIES REPORTS WHICH ARE \nBASICALLY ANY SPECIES THAT MIGHT \nBE IMPACTED BY DIFFERENT PERMITS \nAND COULD HAVE HABITAT OR \nCONSERVATION CONCERNS AND I ALSO \nCREATED A TEMPLATE OUT OF WHAT \nYOU SEE ON THE RIGHT IN WORD SO \nTHAT OTHER SPECIES THAT’S COME \nUP IN THE FUTURE CAN BE ADDED TO \nTHE FILE. AND THE MAIN PURPOSE \nOF THIS PROJECT WAS SO THAT \nPERMIT ANALYSTS AND OTHER STAFF \nAT BCDC HAVE A ONE-STOP-SHOP FOR \nCHECKING THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nCONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS THAT \nDIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS \nOR PERMITS CAN HAVE ON ENDANGERS \nSPECIES OR SPECIES OF CONCERN IN \nSOME OTHER WAY AND SOME OF THE \nTHINGS THAT THESE SHEETS \nHIGHLIGHTED INCLUDE BASIC \nINFORMATIONS IN THE SIDE BAR ON \nTHE RIGHT SO THAT INCLUDES \nCURRENT ENDANGERED OR THREATENED \nSTATUS OF THE SPECIES\, A BIT \nABOUT APPEARANCE AND LIFE \nHISTORY OF THE SPECIES ALSO \nRANGE AND HABITAT THEN I ALSO \nFOCUSED ON WORK WINDOWS AND \nMITIGATION RATIOS FOR DIFFERENT \nDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE PAST \nAND PULLED OUT SOME OF THE \nRELEVANT POLICIES IN THE BAY \nPLAN AND SUISUN MARSH PLAN. \nAND THEN MY SECONDARY PROJECT \nWAS TO WORK WITH BAY RAT WHICH \nIS A GIS TOOL USED BY BCDC STAFF \nTO ACCESS PERMIT INFORMATION AND \nJURISDICTIONAL INFORMATION AND \nMY GOAL WITH THAT PROJECT WAS \nBASICALLY JUST TO INPUT ANY OF \nTHE MISSING PERMITS OR \nAMENDMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY \nBEEN ISSUED TO KEEP THE MAP \nACCURATE AND UP-TO-DATE ALSO \nADDED MISSING LOCATIONS AND U ON \nRAILS TO CLEAN UP THE DATA AND \nMAKE IT MORE ACCESSIBLE AND \nTHROUGH THIS I WAS ABLE TO \nFAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH PERMIT \nSTRUCTURE AND APPLICATION OF GIS \nMAPPING TOOLS AND POLICY \nORGANIZATION. \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU GABRIELLA. \nHI. MY NAME IS JASMINE CASSIDY\, \nI AM PART OF ADOPTING TO RISING \nTIDES TEAM. MY SUPERVISOR WAS \nTODD HOLLENBECK. AND I ALSO GOT \nA LOT OF HELP FROM MY MENTOR \nKATE LYONS. I AM ALSO PART OF \nTHE CSU COAST INTERNSHIP PROGRAM \nAS WELL AS BEING AN INTERN AT \nBCDC. COAST STANDS FOR COUNCIL \nOCEAN AFFAIRS SCIENCE AND \nTECHNOLOGY. THIS WAS A \nCOMPETITIVE INTERNSHIP PROGRAM \nFOR STUDENTS THAT ATTEND THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY \nSYSTEM. SO\, I WAS SELECTED TO \nBE ONE OF THE 21 INTERNS THIS \nSUMMER. AND A BIT ABOUT MYSELF\, \nFOURTH YEAR AT CAL POLY SAN LUIS \nOBISPO. I AM AN ENVIRONMENT \nMANAGEMENT PROTECTION MAJOR \nMINOR IN SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT \nSOME OF MY INTERESTS INCLUDE \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING URBAN \nRESILIENCE RELATED TO SEA LEVEL \nRISE HOBBIES INCLUDE HIKING \nTRAVELING VON VOLUNTEERING \nLEARNING ABOUT GEOGRAPHY\, YOU \nCAN SEE PICTURES ON THE RIGHT OF \nME HOLDING MY PET BUNNY BRONCO. \nHE IS MASSIVE. MY PROJECT THIS \nSUMMER WAS TO HELP MOVE ALONG \nTHE SHORELINE ADAPTATION PROJECT \nMAP ALSO KNOWN AS SAP MAP \nCOMPILATION OF ONGOING AND \nCOMPLETED SHORELINE ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS BCDC JURISDICTION SETS \nNINE COUNTIES IN THE BAY AREA \nAND MY PROJECT WAS TO USE \nDATABASE ONLINE PUBLICLY \nACCESSIBLE DATABASE CALLED ECO \nOUTLETS\, I WAS ABLE TO USE A \nTOOL THROUGH ECO OUTLETS CALLED \nPROJECT TRACKER\, AN EXAMPLE OF \nPROJECT TRACKER ON THE RIGHT \nTHAT’S WHAT THE DASHBOARD LOOKS \nLIKE AND THIS WAS A PROJECT I \nADDED IT’S THE REDWOOD CITY \nFERRY TERMINAL PROJECT. SO\, I \nUSED DATA THAT WAS COLLECTED IN \nEARLY 2024 FROM LOCAL OUTREACH \nTHAT WAS IN COLLABORATE WITH \nMTC’S PLANNED BAY AREA PROJECT. \nAND I ALSO DID SOME RESEARCH TO \nCREATE ALL OF THE PROJECT \nABSTRACTS FOR THE NEW PROJECTS. \nAND THIS DATA WAS STORED IN A \nSPREADSHEET THAT I MANAGED TO \nTRACK ALL THE PROGRESS AND\, \nALSO\, KEEP TRACK OF ALL MY \nQUESTIONS FOR REVISITING \nPROJECTS. AS WELL AS THIS\, I \nFACILITATED COMMUNICATION WITH \nOTHER ENTITY IN THE BAY. THIS \nIS SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT \nVENTURE\, SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nRESTORATION AUTHORITY\, CALTRANS\, \nAND THE WATER BOARD\, AND I \nHELPED THEM UPDATE ANY OTHER \nPROJECTS\, AND JUST KEEPING IN \nCLOSE COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. \nAND THE REASON WHY THIS PROJECT \nIS IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT’S \nCENTRAL INPUT FOR BCDC’S MAJOR \nPROJECTS\, THE RSAP\, AS WELL AS \nTHE FUNDING INVESTMENT STRATEGY. \nAND THE LAST MAP IS BCDC’S SAP \nMAP PROJECT. ALL OF THE ONGOING \nAND COMPLETED ONES ARE ORGANIZED \nBY SITE STATUS. ALL THE ONES IN \nGREEN ARE COMPLETED\, AND JUST TO \nGIVE A SCOPE OF MY INPUT\, I \nADDED 66 NEW PROJECTS AND \nUPDATED 21 EXISTING PROJECTS. \nSO\, THAT IS WHAT I DID THIS \nSUMMER. \n[LAUGHTER] \nAND\, SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS \nAND HIGHLIGHTS OF MY SUMMER WAS \nI GOT TO GO ON A FIELD TRIP TO \nTHE BAY MODEL IN SAUSALITO. IT \nWAS MY FIRST TIME GOING AND GOT \nTO LEARN ABOUT THE BAY’S \nHISTORY\, AND I WENT WITH THE \nADAPTING TO RISING TIDES AND \nDATA SCIENCE SO I GOT TO NETWORK \nWITH THEM AND GET TO KNOW THEM. \nAND TODAY ABOUT BEFORE THIS \nCOMMISSION MEETING I ATTENDED \nTHE ECO ATLAS PROJECT TRACKER \nAND DATA ADMINISTRATOR’S USER \nWALK WORKSHOP. SO I USED THE \nPROJECT TRACKER THE ENTIRE \nSUMMER. SO\, IT WAS GREAT TO \nATTEND THIS MEETING. AND HELPED \nRUN THE WORKSHOP SMOOTHY. I \nMANAGED A JAM BOARD TOOK NOTES. \nTHEN LASTLY AS A COAST INTERN\, I \nHAD PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nWORKSHOPS\, HAD OPPORTUNITY TO \nNETWORK WITH PANELISTS FROM \nNOAA\, AGENCIES NGOS AND GRAD \nSTUDENTS. TOMORROW\, I’LL \nPRESENT AT THE SECOND ANNUAL \nCOAST SYMPOSIUM. SO THAT THE \nOTHER COAST INTERNS\, SUPERVISORS \nOR ANYONE THEY INVITE CAN HEAR \nWHAT WE WORKED ON THIS SUMMER. \nHERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE \nBAY MODEL\, THE FERRY TO \nSAUSALITO\, THEN SCREENSHOT FROM \nONE OF THE COAST MEETINGS. I’LL \nPASS IT ON TO OLIVIA LAMB. \nSPEAKER: THANK YOU JASMINE. \nMY NAME IS OLIVIA LAMB. I WAS \nWORKING WITH THE PUBLIC ACCESS \nTEAM UNDER REGULATORY UNIT AS \nSHORELINE DEVELOPMENT INTERN \nWITH ASHLEY AND VICTORIA I AM A \nSENIOR AT LOYOLA MARY MOUNT \nUNIVERSITY LOS ANGELES WHERE I’M \nWORKING TOWARDS DEGREES IN \nENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND \nPOLITICAL SCIENCE INTERESTED \nRELATE TO INTERSECTION BETWEEN \nPOLICY AND ENVIRONMENT\, \nSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. I LOVE \nTRAVELING\, I SPENT ABOUT FIVE \nMONTHS BEFORE COMING TO BCDC \nLIVING IN LONDON\, TRAVELLING AND \nSTUDYING IN EUROPE THAT WAS \nAMAZING. I ALSO LOVE SINGING\, \nCOOKING\, READING AND \nPHOTOGRAPHY. SO\, THE BULK OF MY \nSUMMER I SPENT ANALYZING A SET \nOF PERMITS WITH SPECIAL EVENTS \nPROVISIONS CONTRACTING \nINFORMATION WHETHER EVENTS ARE \nCOURT ORDER\, UNCONTROLLED \nPRIVATE EVENTS AND HOW OFTEN OR \nFREQUENT EVENTS ARE ALLOWED TO \nTAKE PLACE AND TRENDS FOR FUTURE \nPERMITTING. OVER HALF OF THE \nPERMITS THAT WERE ANALYZED HAVE \nMULTIPLE SPACES FOR EVENTS. AND \nBY HAVING MULTIPLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS\, IT \nENSURES THE SAME PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACES ARE NOT CONTINUOUSLY USED \nFOR SPECIAL EVENTS. AND GOING \nFORWARD WE SHOULD AIM TO FIND \nADDITIONAL SPACES FOR EVENTS \nWHEN AUTHORIZING SPECIAL EVENTS \nIN PERMITS. THE REASON THIS IS \nRELEVANT IS BY HAVING CONSTANT \nSHUTDOWNS OF PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACES IT MAY DETER PUBLIC FROM \nUTILIZING AND CIRCULATING WITHIN \nACCESS SPACES. 33% HAVE HIGHER \nLEVELS OF PUBLIC IMPACT\, SOME \nAVERAGE PROPERTIES THAT ARE \nSMALLER IN TERMS OF ACREAGE BUT \nALSO AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS \nSPACE ON THEIR PROPERTIES THIS \nMEANS THAT PROPERTIES WITH LESS \nPUBLIC ACCESS SPACES CLOSURES \nARE LIKELY LESS DETRIMENTAL TO \nPUBLIC CIRCULATION ABILITY GOING \nFORWARD IN THE FUTURE WE MAY BE \nABLE TO USE SIZE OF PROPERTY TO \nDETERMINE THE LEVEL OF IMPACT \nTHEY SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO \nHAVE AS WRITTEN IN THEIR \nPERMITS. I HAVE BEEN WORKING \nWITHIN BAYRAT AND GIS KEEPING \nUP-TO-DATE\, THIS ENTAILS MAPPING \nPUBLIC ACCESS SPACE PRESIDENCY \nASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING PERMITS \nAS SEEN IN THE TOP IMAGINE\, AND \nADDING NEW AND MISSING PERMITS \nRELATED TO PUBLIC ACCESS. THIS \nIS HELPFUL FOR BCDC STAFF IT \nHELPS MAKE INFORMATION \nACCESSIBLE SO THEY DON’T HAVE TO \nSEARCH THE INTERNAL DATABASE TO \nEXTRACT EACH PERMIT TO FIND \nGENERAL INFORMATION. I’M GOING \nTO HAND IT OVER TO TESSA. I’M \nOTESSA. I WAS THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE INTERN WITH BCDC THIS \nSUMMER WORKING WITH PHOENIX \nARMENTA. I AM AN INCOMING \nSOPHOMORE AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY \nPLANNING ON MAJORING IN EARTH \nSYSTEMS MY INTEREST INCLUDE \nCLIMATE JUSTICE HEALTH EQUITY \nWATER MANAGEMENT CLIMATE \nCOMMUNICATION AND MY FREE TIME I \nLOVE ALL THINGS OUTDOORS ENJOY \nPHOTOGRAPHY AND READING AND \nPADDLE BOARDING. THIS SUMMER MY \nMAIN PROJECT WAS RUNNING BCDC’S \nINSTAGRAM MY MAJOR GOALS WERE TO \nPROMOTE COMMUNICATION AND \nEDUCATION ABOUT THE AGENCY AND \nSEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES. MY POST \nFELL INTO THREE BUCKETS. I DID \nSOME EDUCATIONAL POSTING WHICH \nINCLUDED INFORMATION ON \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, BCDC’S \nPERMITTING ACTIVITIES AND THINGS \nLIKE THE SOCIAL VULNERABILITY \nMAPPING RESOURCE AS WELL\, AND I \nALSO DID ANOTHER BUCKET \nINTRODUCTIONS TO NEW STAFF AT \nBCDC\, WHICH WAS REALLY FUN. I \nREACHED OUT TO NEW STAFF AND \nPOSTED LITTLE BLURBS ABOUT \nTHEMSELVES WITH PHOTOS. THEN\, \nTHE LAST IS MISCELLANEOUS. I \nINCLUDED REELS ABOUT WHAT WAS \nHAPPENING AT BCDC\, HIGHLIGHTS \nFROM VARIOUS SITE VISITS. \nJASMINE DID A DAY IN THE LIFE \nREEL\, WHICH WAS AWESOME. I \nHIGHLY RECOMMEND WATCHING. AND \nI CAN PLAY THIS VIDEO HERE\, JUST \nSCROLLING THROUGH. I PERSONALLY \nDO NOT HAVE INSTAGRAM\, SO OF ALL \nOF THE GEN Z THAT BCDC COULD \nHAVE CHOSEN FOR THIS ROLE\, YEAH\, \nINTERESTING CHOICE. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI LEARNED A LOT. OKAY. \nIT’S LAGGING. THERE WE GO. \nOKAY. SO\, I ALSO DID A VARIETY \nOF SMALLER PROJECTS THIS SUMMER. \nSEVERAL OF THESE ARE ON THE \nSLIDE. SO\, ONE THESE WAS I \nINTERVIEWED AND VISITED SOME OF \nTHE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISORS FOR BCDC\, WHICH WAS A \nGREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN MORE \nABOUT THEIR ROLES BOTH INSIDE \nTHE AGENCY AND OUTSIDE. I ALSO \nDID A STAFF TRAINING TEACHING \nABOUT THE HISTORY OF \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. I \nSUPPORTED THE REGIONAL SHORELINE \nADAPTATION PLAN AND THE RACIAL \nEQUITY ACTION PLAN\, AND THEN AS \nBCDC IS PLANNING ON DOING A \nCOUPLE OF SHORELINE LEADERSHIP \nACADEMIES IN THE UPCOMING YEAR\, \nI HELPED WITH THE OUTREACH. I \nWATCHED THE PREVIOUS TRAININGS \nFROM THE PILOT PROGRAM AND \nHELPED WITH A GLOSSARY FOR THAT \nACADEMY. \nSO\, NOW WE’RE GOING TO MOVE INTO \nTHE NEXT PHASE OF OUR \nPRESENTATION\, PROGRAM \nRECOMMENDATIONS THAT INTERNS \nCAME UP WITH. SO\, MOST OF THESE \nHAVE TO DO WITH ONBOARDING. THE \nFIRST ONE\, WE ALL NOTICED THAT \nAS A STATE AGENCY\, BCDC USES A \nLOT OF ACRONYMS AND TECHNICAL \nTERMS\, AND THAT KIND OF MADE A \nBIT MORE OF A CHALLENGE TO GET \nINTO THE PROGRAM. SO\, WE WOULD \nHAVE REALLY APPRECIATED A \nSTRONGER ONBOARDING PROCESS WITH \nACRONYM DEFINITIONS AND HELP\, \nKIND OF\, UNDERSTANDING THE \nLANGUAGE OF A GOVERNMENT AGENCY. \nWE ALSO NOTICED THAT IT’S KIND \nOF HARD WHEN YOU ARE FIRST \nSTARTING OUT TO REALLY \nUNDERSTAND THE BIGGER PICTURE OF \nA LOT OF WHAT BCDC IS WORKING ON \nAND WHY OUR SPECIFIC PROJECTS \nWERE IMPORTANT. \nSO\, YOU KNOW\, COMMUNICATION \nABOUT WHY MEETINGS ARE \nIMPORTANT\, AND THEN\, ALSO\, OUR \nOWN PROJECTS AND THE ROLE THAT \nTHEY HAVE IN THE BAY AND IN THE \nAGENCY\, WOULD HAVE BEEN SUPER \nHELPFUL. WE ALSO HAD TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, DO A LOT OF POLICY \nMATERIAL READING\, ESPECIALLY AS \nPART OF OUR ONBOARDING. SO\, \nMORE GUIDANCE ON HOW TO READ \nPOLICY WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY \nGREAT. AND SOME TIME TO ASK \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS WE DIDN’T \nUNDERSTAND. AND LASTLY\, WE ALL \nREALLY LOVED OUR SITE VISITS\, \nAND WE ALL\, KIND OF\, DID THOSE \nSEPARATELY. SO\, I THINK IN THE \nFUTURE\, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF ALL \nOF THE INTERNS COULD\, KIND OF\, \nTAG ALONG WITH EACH OTHER ON ALL \nOF THE SITE VISITS TO\, KIND OF\, \nLEARN WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING AND \nGET TO SEE WHAT BCDC IS DOING \nOUTSIDE OF THE OFFICE\, AS WELL. \nSO\, WITH THAT. \nSPEAKER: AWESOME. SO\, NOW\, I \nWILL BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT \nABOUT THE STRENGTHS OF THE \nPROGRAM. THE FIRST THING THAT \nALL OF US REALLY APPRECIATED WAS \nTHAT ALL OF THE STAFF\, \nREGARDLESS WHETHER THEY WERE \nPART OF OUR TEAM\, WERE SUPER \nWILLING TO MEET AND TALK ABOUT \nTHEIR WORK AND A LOT OF US HAVE \nINTERESTS THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF \nJUST OUR PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO \nANY INTERSECTIONS THAT WE \nNOTICED THAT OTHER STAFF HAD \nPROJECTS THAT WE WERE ALIGNED W \nTHEY WERE WILLING TO TALK TO US \nABOUT\, PEER DEVELOPMENT AND HOW \nTHEIR JOB WORKS AND ROLE IN THE \nORGANIZATION. THAT LEADS TO OUR \nSECOND STRENGTH OF THE PROGRAM \nWHICH WAS THAT EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR LARRY GOLDZBAND DID A \nLOT OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT \nWITH US. HE HELPED US LOOK \nTHROUGH OUR RÉSUMÉS AND FIGURE \nOUT WHAT OUR CAREER GOALS MIGHT \nBE BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE WE \nCAME WITH AND ALSO WHAT WE LIKED \nABOUT THE INTERNSHIP THAT WE \nDID. THEN ALSO HELPED US \nCONSTRUCT ELEVATOR PITCHES\, \nWHICH CAN BE DIFFICULT TO \nARTICULATE WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT \nYOU HAVE BEEN DOING FOR TEN \nWEEKS IT GOES SO QUICKLY IT WAS \nUSEFUL TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT \nHOW WE WANT TO PRESENT OURSELVES \nIN THE FUTURE. THEN LAST \nSTRENGTH WAS THE WORKDAY WAS \nFLEXIBLE AND MEETINGS WERE \nFLEXIBLE. CHECK-INS WITH \nSUPERVISORS COULD BE MOVED TO \nALLOW US TO GO TO AS MANY EVENTS \nAS POSSIBLE\, A LOT OF US ENDED \nUP GOING AND SEEING WHAT THE \nCOMPANY DOES OUTSIDE OF THE \nOFFICE IN A PRACTICAL SENSE \nWHICH WAS INTERESTING FOR ALL OF \nUS. \nSPEAKER: I’M GOING TO BE \nSPEAKING ABOUT OUR PROGRAM \nHIGHLIGHTS AS SEEN THROUGH THESE \nLOVELY PHOTOS. SO\, FIRSTLY WE \nWERE ABLE TO ATTEND COMMISSIONER \nEDDIE AHN’S BOOK TALK TO LEARN \nABOUT HIS NON-PROFIT WORK AND \nCREATIVE PROCESS TO CREATING HIS \nGRAPHIC NOVEL "ADVOCATE." WE \nWERE ALSO ABLE TO LEARN ABOUT \nHIS WORK AS A COMMISSIONER AND \nSIMILARLY LEARN FROM OTHER KEY \nFIGURES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nLANDSCAPE THROUGH INTERN LED \nINTERVIEWS WITH VARIOUS AGENCIES \nINCLUDING CNRA\, NRDC\, THE DOJ\, \nAND\, OF COURSE\, BCDC. WE WERE \nABLE TO ATTEND SEVERAL SITE \nVISITS THAT ENABLED US TO HAVE \nFIRSTHAND HANDS ON EXPERIENCES \nON BEING OUT IN THE FIELD AND \nSEE THE REAL LIFE OUTCOMES IN \nTHE WORK WE HAVE BEEN HELPING \nWITH OVER THE LAST TEN WEEKS. \nSEVERAL OF OUR INTERNS HAD THE \nOPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND AND \nVOLUNTEER DURING BAY ADAPT \nSUMMIT AND MEET PEOPLE OUTSIDE \nOF BCDC WORKING ON IN THIS \nFIELD. ULTIMATELY ABLE TO \nPARTICIPATE IN ONE OF BCDC’S \nMOST SIGNIFICANT EVENTS. \nSPEAKER: WE WOULD LIKE TO \nTAKE THE TIME TO THANK \nCOMMISSIONERS FOR LISTENING TO \nOUR PRESENTATION\, THANK YOU TO \nBCDC STAFF AS WELL FOR BEING \nHERE AND GIVING US GUIDANCE AND \nSUPPORT THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER. \nIT’S BEEN AN HONOR FOR ALL OF US \nTO HAVE WORKED HERE AND GROWN \nHERE AND LEARNED FROM AWFUL IF \nYOU. AND\, YEAH\, THANK YOU\, ONCE \nAGAIN FOR LISTENING IN. YOU CAN \nFIND OUR CONTACT INFORMATION \nOVER HERE. THAT’S GREAT. AND \nIF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS \nABOUT OUR EXPERIENCES THIS \nSUMMER\, OR ANYTHING ELSE WE \nSAID\, FEEL FREE TO ASK AWAY. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS? \nCOMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? \nDID I HEAR A BEEP? \nSPEAKER: NO. THAT WAS ME. \nOTHER SIDE. THANK YOU\, CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. \nSPEAKER: HI\, EVERYBODY. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT \nPRESENTATION. IT WAS SUPER \nINFORMATIVE. AND\, YEAH\, \nEVERYBODY CAN COME UP. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE \nYOU ON THE QUALITY OF THIS WORK. \nHAVING WORKED IN ORGANIZATIONS \nFOR MANY\, MANY YEARS WHERE \nINTERNS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN ON \nDIFFERENT CYCLES. IT’S ACTUALLY \nSOMETIMES HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT \nTHE WORK THAT THE INTERNS ARE \nDOING IS BOTH SOMETHING THAT’S \nDEVELOPMENTAL FOR YOU ALL\, AS \nWELL AS USEFUL TO THE \nORGANIZATION\, AND JUST FROM THE \nBASIS OF YOUR PRESENTATION\, IT’S \nCLEAR THAT A LOT OF THOUGHT WENT \nINTO THE PROJECTS THAT YOU \nEXECUTED AND IT WAS REALLY HIGH \nQUALITY AND IT LOOKS VERY MUCH \nLIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BCDC \nSTAFF WILL BE ABLE TO \nINCORPORATE IN. SO JUST WANT TO \nCONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON WHAT \nAPPEARS TO BE A JOB WELL DONE. \nAND HOPE THAT WE WILL SEE YOU \nALL IN THESE POLICY SPACES IN \nTHE YEARS TO COME. MAKE ME VERY \nEXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE. THANK \nYOU. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. I WANT TO SHARE \nALYSHA’S COMMENTS AND COMPLIMENT \nYOU ALL ON THE WORK YOU HAVE \nDONE ALSO WANT TO COMPLIMENT \nSTAFF ON THE WORK THEY DO WITH \nTHE INTERNS BECAUSE IT’S A VERY \nIMPORTANT PART OF THE PROCESS. \nAND I WOULD NOTE THAT ASSUMING \nRECOMMENDATION \nARE FOLLOWED\, A LIST OF ACRONYMS \nAND ABBREVIATIONS WOULD PROBABLY \nBE VERY USEFUL FOR \nCOMMISSIONERS\, AS WELL. \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU. GO FORTH AND DO \nWELL. \n[LAUGHTER] \nALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO \nADJOURNMENT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN \nA MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT. \nSPEAKER: SO MOVED. \nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER MOVES. \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO SECONDS. \nANYBODY OPPOSED? YOU MAY STAY. \nWE ARE ADJOURNED. \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/august-15-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240808T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240808T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240130T045439Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240729T183241Z UID:10000139-1723109400-1723118400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 8\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-8-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240805T170000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240805T183000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240130T034501Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240716T173413Z UID:10000120-1722877200-1722882600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 5\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-5-2024-design-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Design Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240801T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240801T170000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240119T040548Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240729T155140Z UID:10000102-1722517200-1722531600@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:August 1\, 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 August 1\, 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 prior to August 1\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after August 15\, 2024. \nAdministrative Permit Applications \n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nPacific Gas and Electric Company300 Lakeside DriveOakland\, CA 94612 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.009.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n05/28/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n08/26/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the mouth of Gallinas Creek\, in the City of San Rafael\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove two 178-foot-tall steel lattice electrical towers and associated access boardwalks and install two new 134-foot-tall steel lattice electrical towers and access boardwalks. The towers and boardwalks are located in tidal marsh on either side of Gallinas Creek. To access the site for construction\, the applicant would construct a temporary floating bridge across Gallinas Creek\, and temporarily install construction matting for site access and staging\, and temporary fencing to exclude wildlife from the site during construction. The project is expected to result in temporary adverse impacts to tidal marsh\, and the applicant would be required to restore the impacted areas within five years of construction completion. The project is not expected to result in any significant permanent or temporary adverse impacts to public access. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nPacific Gas and Electric Company300 Lakeside DriveOakland\, CA 94612 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.006.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n06/28/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n09/26/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at the mouth of the San Rafael Creek\, in the City of San Rafael\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove a 226-foot-tall steel lattice electrical tower and associated access boardwalks and install a new 288-foot-tall steel lattice electrical tower and access boardwalks. The towers and boardwalks are located in tidal marsh south of San Rafael Creek. To access the site for construction\, the applicant would temporarily install construction matting for site access and staging\, and temporary fencing to exclude wildlife from the site during construction. The project is expected to result in temporary adverse impacts to tidal marsh\, and the applicant would be required to restore the impacted areas within five years of construction completion. The project is not expected to result in any significant permanent or temporary adverse impacts to public access. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicants\n\n\n\nIV1 1411 Harbour Way South Owner LLC2030 Main StreetIrvine\, CA 92614 \nCity of Richmond450 Civic Center PlazaRichmond\, CA 94804+ \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.008.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n05/14/2024\n\n\n90 Day\n08/12/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, within a Bay Plan-designated Port Priority Use Area\, at 1411 Harbour Way South\, also known as Terminal 3\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct work within BCDC’s jurisdiction related to the Portside Commerce Center project\, which includes additional work such as the demolition of an existing warehouse and construction of a new warehouse\, manufacturing\, and office space outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. \n\nIn the Bay\, the project will involve:\n\nRepaving approximately 85\,534 square feet of the existing wharf.\nInstalling approximately 107 linear feet of new 8-foot-tall security fencing on the northern edge of the wharf.\nInstalling approximately 1\,006 linear feet of new 12-inch storm drain below the wharf.\n\n\nWithin the shoreline band\, the project will involve:\n\nRegrading and repaving an approximately 113\,489-square-foot area between the existing wharf and a proposed new building and repaving an additional 5\,171-square-foot area along the wharf.\nConstructing an approximately 6\,054-square-foot portion of a 14\,263-square-foot required public access area\, which will include:\n\nAn approximately 1\,809-square-foot paved outlook areawith two benches\, two seatwalls\, five umbrella tables\,two drinking fountains\, waste receptacles\, a minimum of two interpretive panels\, and a cable guardrail; and\nA landscaped decomposed granite pathway connecting the outlook to Harbour Way South.\n\n\nRemoving approximately 80 linear feet of existing fencing along the southern property line and installing approximately 131 linear feet of new 8-foot-tall fencing northwest of the proposed new building and 448 linear feet of new fencing between the proposed new building and the new public access area.\nConstructing 21 private parking spaces west of the proposed new building.\nInstalling approximately 172 linear feet of new 12-inch storm drain and approximately 3\,297 linear feet of new water service infrastructure.\n\n\n\nNote that the authorization for the use of this site will be conditioned to be temporary through December 31\, 2034\, as it is an interim use within a Port Priority Use area. The authorization may be extended at that time through a permit amendment if the permittee can demonstrate that the continued use would not impair the region’s ability to meet cargo demands according to the policies of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. \nThe authorization will also be conditioned to require that the full 14\,263-square-foot public access area\, including areas outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction\, be provided and maintained for the life of the project. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position:\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nMicheal Thompson and Johanna Thompson410 Tuolumne StreetVallejo\, CA 94590 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.027.00-RWP#7 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, along two sections of Interstate 80\, from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza in the City of Oakland to Buchanan Street in the City of Albany\, Alameda County; and over the Carquinez Strait on the westbound and eastbound Carquinez Bridge spans. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\n(After-The-Fact) Install five new 12-inch-diameter concrete piers;\n(After-The-Fact) Repair one existing 12-inch-diameter concrete pier by encasing the pier with 24-inch-diameter concrete and rebar casings;\n(New work) Install one new 12-inch-diameter concrete pier;In the 100-foot Shoreline Band:\n(After-The-Fact) Install 19 new 12-inch-diameter concrete piers;\n5. (After-The-Fact) Repair two existing 12-inch-diameter concrete piers by encasing the piers with 24-inch-diameter concrete and rebar casings; and\n6. (New work) install one new 12-inch-diameter concrete pier.\n\nRowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Transportation111 Grand AvenueOakland\, CA 94623\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.015.00-RWP#2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay and within the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, along two sections of Interstate 80\, from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Toll Plaza in the City of Oakland to Buchanan Street in the City of Albany\, Alameda County; and over the Carquinez Strait on the westbound and eastbound Carquinez Bridge spans. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall utility infrastructure associated with the installation of a fiber optic trunk line along Interstate 80\, by conducting the following activities: \n\nIn the Bay:\n\nInstall a total of approximately 6\,344 linear feet of fiber optic cable within the deck of the westbound Carquinez (Al Zampa) Bridge and underneath and on the side of the eastbound Carquinez Bridge;\nOn the westbound Carquinez Bridge\, install two utility cabinets and associated cable connections within the bridge girder\, neither extending beyond the bridge deck nor physically obstructing the public path on the bridge; and\nOn the eastbound Carquinez Bridge\, at two locations\, install a closed-circuit television camera and a utility cabinet (measuring up to approximately 67 inches high\, 24 inches wide and 30 inches deep)\, with associated cable connections\, supported by an approximately 22-square-foot platform\, extending approximately 1.5 feet beyond the bridge deck over the Bay\, and including a loop detector embedded in the road.\n\n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band:\n\nInstall approximately 888 linear feet of underground cable to eight existing utility cabinets\, and a total of approximately 400 linear feet of fiber optic cable on the westbound and eastbound Carquinez Bridge;\nInstall up to eight modular cabinet additions\, measuring36 inches high\, 21 inches wide\, and 18 inches deep each\, to the sides of the existing cabinets and replace pull boxes associated with the existing cabinets; and\nTemporarily install environmental fencing to be removed upon completion of authorized construction activities.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\nPierce Abrahamson; 415/352-3607 or pierce.abrahamson@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSan Francisco Public Utilities Commission525 Golden Gate Ave\, 9th FloorSan Francisco\, CA 94102 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.005-RWP#2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nAt six locations in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \nIntersection of Laguna Street and Marina BoulevardRepair an existing riprap revetment at an existing outfall by placing 400 cubic yards of Class V\, VI and VII rock over 400 square feet. \nIn the 100-foot Shoreline Band: \nIntersection of Laguna Street and Marina Boulevard \n\nRehabilitate 190 linear-feet of 6-foot-diameter concrete sewer pipe with a carbon fiber wrap.\nRehabilitate 60 linear-feet of 6-foot-diameter concrete sewer pipe with a cured-in-place fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) coating.\n\nIntersection of Howard Street and Steuart StreetRehabilitate 100 linear-feet of 7-foot-diameter reinforced concrete sewer pipe with spray mortar. \nIntersection of 3rd Street and Berry StreetRehabilitate 100 linear-feet of a 30-inch by 45-inch concrete and brick sewer pipe with spray mortar. \nThe Intersection of 4th Street North and Berry StreetRehabilitate 100 linear-feet of 78-inch-diameter concrete and brick sewer pipe with spray mortar and a carbon fiber wrap. \nThe intersection of 4th Street South and Berry StreetRehabilitate 150 linear-feet of 30-inch by 45-inch concrete sewer pipe with spray mortar and a carbon fiber wrap. \nIntersection of 6th Street South and Channel StreetRehabilitate 60 linear-feet of 42-inch by 63-inch reinforced concrete sewer pipe with spray mortar and a carbon fiber wrap. \n\n\n\n \n\nRowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nRichmond Yacht Club351 Brickyard CoveRichmond\, CA 94801 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.007.00-RWP#3 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Commission’s Bay and Shoreline Band jurisdictions\, at the Richmond Yacht Club\, 351 Brickyard Cove\, Richmond\, in Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Shoreline Band: \n\nRemove an existing 26-inch thick and approximately 80-linear feet glulam beam;\nReplace with temporary steel I beams and a 30-inch thick and approximately 80-linear feet glulam beam\, composed of three 7-inch-wide by 30-inch-tall beams spliced together with steel straps; and\nRepair and maintain decking of the marginal wharf\, including concrete work used to hold up stringers.\n\nAfter-the-fact: \nIn the Bay: \n\nInstall ten 14-inch steel pilings attached to the interior of the glulam beam;\nInstall one 14-inch steel piling at the end of a finger pier; and\,\nReroute water line and electric conduits\n\nSam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant \n\n\n\n\n210 Beach LLCCaroline JettP.O. Box 29627San Francisco\, CA 94129 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.009.00-RWP#4 \n\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction\, at 210 Beach Road\, in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nComplete an interior remodel of approximately 1\,266 square feet of an existing single-family residence\, including replacing a portion of the existing roof and constructing approximately 190 square feet of a new approximately 337-square-foot dormer. \nKatharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant \n\n\n\n\nCalifornia College of the Arts\, Architectural Ecologies Lab1111 8th StreetSan Francisco\, CA 94107 \nTreasure Island Sailing Center698 California Avenue\, Building 112San Francisco\, CA 94130 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.014.00-RWP#3 \n\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Bay\, at 698 California Avenue\, in the City and County of San Francisco (approximately 150-300 feet offshore near the Treasure Island Sailing Center).\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the bay: \nPlace a 14.4-foot-long by 9.67-foot-wide contoured\, fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite floating structure\, approximately 30-inches above water and extending approximately 4-feet into the water column\, with underwater temperature and turbidity sensors\, and above-water video equipment. \nSam Fielding; 415/352-3665 or sam.fielding@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nHomeless paradise on Oakland beach to meet its end after worries over trash and access\nUnprecedented numbers of gray whales are visiting San Francisco Bay\, and nobody quite knows why\nThe Beaches of the Future Are Going to Surprise Us\nRichmond’s Point Molate on track to becoming parkland thanks to $40 million deal\nSizing Up Progress on Nature-Based Infrastructure – KneeDeep Times\nABAG General Assembly convenes at Oakland Museum of California\nA RISING FORTRESS IN SINKING LAND URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/august-1-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240724T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240724T170000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240130T055851Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240717T214720Z UID:10000155-1721826000-1721840400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 24\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-24-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240724T093000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240724T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240130T045344Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240709T203459Z UID:10000138-1721813400-1721822400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 24\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled) DESCRIPTION: URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-24-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240719T100000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240719T120000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240709T152859Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240729T174526Z UID:10000185-1721383200-1721390400@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 19\, 2024 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:July 19\, 2024 meeting notice \nPresentation URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-19-2024-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240718T130000 DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240718T170000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240119T040408Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240703T200421Z UID:10000101-1721307600-1721322000@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 18\, 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 July 18\, 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 prior to July 18\, 2024. In the absence of such a request\, the listed matters will be executed administratively on or after August 1\, 2024. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nWheeler Island Land Company -Property #807300 Victorian LaneDanville\, CA 94526 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.008.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\n06/24/2024\n\n\n90th Day\n09/22/2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh\, in the Commission’s Bay and managed wetland jurisdictions\, at SRCD parcel # 807\, in Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nInstall four 53-linear-foot 24-inch-diameter HDPE drainpipes with stainless steel and HDPE flap gates\, and four 15-linear-feet steel sheet pile bulkheads with a top elevation of eight feet in existing exterior levees. The purpose for installing the drainpipes is to improve Wheeler Island’s ability to control its managed wetland water. The pipes will not be used for filling the managed wetland\, and will only export water from the wetland into the outer slough. The purpose for installing the bulkheads is to stabilize and strengthen sections of the existing exterior levee around the drainpipes. \n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Supplemental Materials\n Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\nIn the Name of Eelgrass\nSIZING UP PROGRESS ON NATURE-BASED INFRASTRUCTURE\nUSACE ANNOUNCES SIGNING OF CHIEF’S REPORT FOR OAKLAND HARBOR TURNING BASINS STUDY\nCalifornia Coastal Commission responds to report it worsens housing crisis: ‘Disgraceful’\nCome Hell or High Water: Flood Management in a Changing Climate URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-18-2024-commission-meeting/ CATEGORIES:Commission END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240718T103000 DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240718T123000 DTSTAMP:20260627T104515 CREATED:20240703T224612Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240717T211157Z UID:10000184-1721298600-1721305800@www.bcdc.ca.gov SUMMARY:July 18\, 2024 Rising Sea Level Commissioner Working Group DESCRIPTION:Join the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/83400645773?pwd=FQcn2exEl6MNyqh1UMcmCAm6RVolGS.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 900680 \nMeeting ID834 0064 5773 \nPasscode767485 \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 \n Call to Order\n Roll Call\n Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) Guidelines Draft Update BCDC has developed a draft of the plan guidelines and minimum standards that will be used by local jurisdictions as they develop Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plans under SB 272’s mandate. BCDC staff will provide an update on the draft and summarize feedback heard from our Advisory Group members to date. Staff will also provide an introduction to the Strategic Regional Priorities and their role in advancing local and regional outcomes for sea level rise adaptation.(Jaclyn Perrin-Martinez) [415/352-3631; jaclyn.perrin-martinez@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Adoption of the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan GuidelinesStaff will provide a brief overview of the timeline and process the Commission will undertake to adopt the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan guidelines as an amendment to the Bay Plan this fall.(Cory Mann) [415/352-3649; cory.mann@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Learn How to Participate\n Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well. URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-18-2024-rising-sea-level-commissioner-working-group/ CATEGORIES:Rising Sea Level Working Group END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR