BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//SF Bay Conservation & Development - ECPv6.16.5//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:SF Bay Conservation & Development
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for SF Bay Conservation & Development
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20230101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
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:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240909T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240909T183000
DTSTAMP:20241010T170314Z
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:20250227T233528Z
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:20240909T224817Z
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:20240910T181626Z
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:20240903T213227Z
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:20240826T165730Z
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:20240910T182134Z
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:20250227T224347Z
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:20240729T183241Z
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:20240716T173413Z
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:20240729T155140Z
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:20240717T214720Z
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:20240709T203459Z
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:20240729T174526Z
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:20240703T200421Z
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:20240717T211157Z
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
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240712T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240712T150000
DTSTAMP:20240910T182356Z
CREATED:20240627T204823Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240910T182356Z
UID:10000183-1720789200-1720796400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 12\, 2024 Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group
DESCRIPTION:Join the meeting via ZOOM \nhttps://bcdc-ca-gov.zoom.us/j/85242441227?pwd=cvLg32wxpb1sszECxNgjXF3mbHzdLX.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers(888) 278-0296(214) 765-0479Conference Code 900680 \nMeeting ID852 4244 1227 \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				\nWelcome and IntroductionsPatricia Showalter (Chair) will open the meeting and conduct commissioner roll-call.\n Context SettingStaff will review the agenda and meeting ground rules. They will give a general overview of the catalysts behind the current sand mining studies and Commissioner Working Group meetings\, including project permitting\, history\, and management questions the studies would be addressing.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nFindings ReportIndependent Science Panel (ISP) members will review the findings of the ISP Sand Mining Summary Report as they pertain to Regional and Local Scale impacts of sand mining in the Bay.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation // Mining representatives concerns on sand budget\nCommission Question 1 – Is the Bay Sand Relic or in Transport?Review findings of University of Texas at Austin Fingerprinting Study and its relevance to this question\, and policies questions related to this finding.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nPublic Comment\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting recording\n				\n \n\nTranscript\n\nYes. \nWell\, I see there’s a lot of people joining us. \nThat’s great. \nIt looks very hot where Ben is. \nThey do not yet see Greg up. \nThere’s Greg\, and it looks like Andy Gunther’s having a little \ntrouble connecting. \nOh\, he’s connected now. \nHe got connected. \nLooks like Barry’s there. \nSo I think we have Erica. \nBill\, There’s Bill. \nOK\, Bill\, it feels so long since I’ve seen you saw him yesterday \nand the day before. \nOK\, I think we should probably go ahead and get started. \nWe got a pack schedule. \nSo Pat\, if you’d like to open the meeting. \nYes\, Well\, welcome everybody. \nMy name is Pat Showalter and I’m the chair of the Sand Studies \nCommissioner Working Group. \nAnd we are here to review some really new information that has \nbeen put together and\, and\, and kind of ask questions and\, and \nabsorb as much of it as we possibly can so it can be used \nin the policy making process. \nAnd I\, I wanna extend a\, a just a warm welcome and thank you to \neveryone for taking part and particularly to the scientists \nwho have made this information come together. \nI know it’s having worked in the Bay for many\, many years. \nI know that understanding of the sand budget has has not been \nsomething that there’s a lot of information on over the years. \nAnd so I’m really excited to\, to to be here to learn more about \nthis. \nSo with that\, I think the next item is to just have a roll call \nof our\, the commissioners who are official members\, members of \nthis group. \nWe’d really\, we’re we’re glad for everybody else to be here \nand we\, you know\, depending on how it works\, we’ll run this \nfairly informally so everybody can ask questions as we go \nalong. \nIf it if that doesn’t work\, we’ll we’ll have to change to a \npublic comment period\, but I I doubt that’ll be necessary\, but \nwe’ll see how it goes. \nAnyway\, I’m Pat Showalter and let’s have a roll call for the \nother commissioners\, Commissioner Barry Nelson. \nBarry Nelson\, Commissioner and member of the working group. \nCommissioner Andrew Gunther. \nHi\, Andy Gunther. \nI’m a member of the working group and now in BCDC because \nI’m a member of the regional Mariapoli Control Board and \nchair Pat Showalter here. \nAll commissioners are present. \nEight. \nOK. \nAnd we’ll just quickly introduce the BCDC staff. \nAnd I think what we will also do is since there’s a fairly large \ngroup of folks\, if you can\, oh\, the BCDC staff and if everybody \nelse can put their name and affiliation in the chat\, that \nwould be really helpful. \nYes\, I think if we went to individual introductions\, that \nmight take us a while. \nAnd so I’m Brenda Gaten\, I’m the sediment program manager for \nBCDC. \nGreg\, you want to go next? \nSure. \nI’m Greg Scharf. \nI’m general counsel for BCDC. \nHarriet. \nI’m Harriet Ross\, the regulatory director. \nPascal\, good afternoon. \nI’m Pascal Samoy and I work in dredging and sediment \nmanagement. \nAnd then Jaime\, looks like you are also here. \nYeah. \nHi everybody. \nI’m Jaime and I’m also working with the sediment team here. \nGreat. \nAnd then Kat\, of course. \nHi\, I’m Kat. \nI support the sediment team. \nI’m also running the Zoom today\, so if you have any technical \ndifficulties\, please feel free to message me. \nYeah\, and Kat is our main communicator on a lot of these \nthings\, so if you see emails from Kat on this subject\, please \nopen them. \nOK\, so everyone else\, if you can put your name and affiliation in \nthe chat as a way of saying hello to your colleagues\, that \nwould be great. \nI’m sure we’ll hear from many of you during the meeting today. \nWe have a couple of independent science panel members here with \nus and some members of the S TAC\, the SANTAC Technical \nAdvisory Committee. \nWe have the Sand Miners industry representative as well as \nmembers of the public. \nOh\, and I also missed Mark Zapatella\, who’s with BCDC. \nSorry\, Mark. \nYou’re on mute\, my friend. \nOK. \nHe’s Mark Zapatello. \nHe is one of our legal counsel emeritus and still working with \nus at BCDC. \nThank you\, Mark\, for being here. \nOK\, so there’s there’s a problem with the link I can’t get on. \nIt says another meeting’s under progress\, and that is our friend \nJim McGrath. \nTry leaving the meeting and rejoining. \nJim. \nI’ve done that. \nOh\, I will. \nKat\, can you e-mail? \nDo you have Jim’s e-mail? \nYes. \nYeah\, But you are currently in the meeting\, so I think it looks \nlike you’re here on our end. \nYeah\, I’m. \nI’m there on phone\, but I can’t get on on the Zoom call. \nOK\, I’ll reach out to you. \nYeah. \nHang tight\, Jim. \nWe’ll see if we can get you into the actual meeting. \nThank you. \nAnybody else having problems? \nNo. \nOK\, OK\, So just I’m gonna briefly give a presentation at \nthe moment to kind of set the context for this commissioner \nworking group and for the public\, because I recognize that \nnot everybody came to the last commissioner’s Commission \nmeeting where we did present briefly on what our plan is \nhere. \nBut this commissioner working group is to dig into the science \nand understand what we’ve learned over the last three to \nfive years and give the opportunity for the \ncommissioners and the public to kind of catch up with the \ndifferent studies and hear more in depth from the scientist and \nthe Independent Science panel what they did to find this \ninformation\, What it what implications it has for the Bay \nsand system and also potentially for sand mining in the future. \nWe anticipate having permit applications for additional sand \nmining in 20 end of 2024 through 2025. \nTheir state lands is on the phone and they’re doing a sequel \ndocument currently for the same. \nSo we’re trying to make sure everybody has an opportunity to \nreally learn about this new and very interesting science. \nWhat this is not\, this is not a meeting about permitting. \nIt is not a meeting where we’re really focusing on the mining \nactivity itself\, but really the studies to make sure that we’re \nall on the same same page to the best of our ability. \nSo if you do have questions or thoughts about these different \nkinds of science that’s been done\, we do encourage folks to \nask questions because we want everybody to feel like they \nunderstand. \nWell. \nAnd so with that\, I’m going to start with my presentation. \nAnd I also I’m having a little bit of an allergy attack today. \nSo if I’m a little foggy or scratchy\, I apologize\, but let \nme go ahead and share my screen. \nLet’s see. \nCome on baby\, let’s share the screen. \nOK? \nAnd should be there 1 moment. \nWe’ll get into presenter mode. \nMaybe we will\, maybe we won’t. \nOK\, and now I can’t see you. \nSo Kat\, if you can work for hands for me\, that’d be really \nhelpful. \nSo I oh\, this is anyways\, I’m going to share the screen. \nWe’ll just excuse the notes. \nSo sediment program manager for BCDC\, basically there’s a bit of \na project history here on sand mining. \nSo mining has occurred in San Francisco Bay at least back to \nthe 1930’s. \nThe BCDC has records on sand mining back through the 1970s. \nBCDC was created in 1965 S Prior to that we really didn’t have \nany permitting or reports in on what type of mining was taking \nplace or where. \nIn the early days of sand mining\, prior to the 1990s\, \nthere were multiple small sand mining companies throughout the \nsandy areas of San Francisco Bay. \nIn the 90s\, they were consolidated into three \ncompanies. \nSo Martin Marionetta at that time was Hanson Aggregates. \nThey consolidated most of the lease areas in the central San \nFrancisco Bay. \nLind Marine was Morris Tug and Bard’s\, also Jericho products\, \nbut they have taken over or changed names. \nReincorporated\, not sure exactly which Bill can clarify\, but they \nare mining primarily in Sassoon and then Sassoon Associates is a \njoint venture of the two companies. \nThroughout the history where we have documentation from reports \nof sand mining from the miners themselves through the 19 four \nfrom the nineteen\, 1974 through 2023. \nThis is basically a histogram of all of the mining that we have \ndocumentation of. \nThere was some mining off of lease areas that wasn’t \nreported\, so this may not be all of it\, but this is generally \nwhat we have in the reported record. \nAnd you can see that the highest level of mining took place in \nthe early 2000s\, which is primarily the.com years\, where \nthere was a very large amount of construction going on in and \naround San Francisco Bay. \nIt dipped very significantly in the mid 2000s due to the Great \nRecession and the change in construction happening. \nBut also as we’ve noted at other times\, there was permitting \ngoing on between 2000 and two\, 2013 and 2015 that there was \nsome related reduction as those permits were getting close to \nexpiring. \nAnd then you see the sand mining coming up again through 2018 and \nstarting to drop off again in the last few years. \nIt’s really important to note that sand is mined in San \nFrancisco Bay primarily for construction and so construction \naggregates. \nSo you see a trend that follows the construction industry \nbecause that’s what this material is used for. \nIn 2013\, the miners requested 2.2 million cubic yards of \nmining total from the different agencies and they submitted 4 \napplications\, one from Central Bay\, one for Sassoon Bay Channel \nwhich is the Sassoon Associates\, one at Middle Ground Shoal by \nLind Marine and one at Middle Ground Shoal for Martin \nMarionetta and the request for his 410 year permits. \nIn 2015\, the Commission along with the Water Board\, State \nLands Commission\, the Army Corps of Engineers all issued permits \nfor sand mining. \nBCDC and the Army Corps permits are the most aligned because \nBCDC acted third in the in the ranking of the permits being \nissued in the Army Corps acted after BCDC. \nSo we worked very hard with the minors over a three-year and \nnegotiated a reduction in volume\, but the reduction in \nvolume\, so it came out to 1.42 million total throughout the \nregion. \nBut there is an allowance within BCD CS permit that if the miners \ndo not mine their total amount in any given given year\, they \ncan do additional mining within that volume in the following \nyear. \nThat has not occurred. \nWe issued the Commission issued 3 permits\, one for Central Bay \nto mark Marionetta at 1.14 million\, one to Sassoon \nAssociates for 185\,000 cubic yards and the last to Lend \nMarine at 100\,000 cubic yards. \nYou know\, you’ll note that the one for Martin Marionetta for \nMiddle Grand Shoal was not issued because that permit was \nwithdrawn. \nThere was application was withdrawn. \nThere was no mining that had taken place on Middle Grand \nShoal for over 10 years. \nAnd so it was determined that that lease\, a permit was not \nnecessary. \nThe issues the permits were issued for 10 years as \nrequested. \nThey required studies which included water quality \nmonitoring to make sure there wasn’t an impact to the water \nquality from mining\, a benthic habitat study and the studies \nthat are subject of this Commissioner working group\, \nwhich is the sand transport sand budget and the potential impacts \nof mining to the sand system within the Bay. \nThe miners contributed $1.2 million towards these studies\, \nwhich is a remarkable amount and really did allow for us to do \nthis\, pardon the pun\, deep dive into the sand transport and \nbudget within the region. \nThe permits did require mitigation\, which included \nremoval of a specific amount of Bay fill to make up for impacts \nto the subtitle area\, but also to address essential fish \nhabitat issues with NOAA Fisheries installation and use \nof fish screens on the intake\, water intake lines to the system \nand a reduction in volume at 2. \nTwo of the lease sites. \nAnd I’ll speak to that in just a minute. \nSo the Central Bay lease areas are these and there’s basically \n4 leases\, but there’s nine parcels. \nSo some of the parcels\, if you look closely you’ll your screen\, \nyou will see that some say for example\, seven O 9 N and there’s \nanother which is seven O 9 S. \nSome parcels make up one lease 3 parcels will make up one lease \narea. \nFor example\, this area is deeper than the other two areas. \nAnd the mining here takes place in depths up to 90 feet. \nThis area right here\, this triangle piece. \nI think you guys can see my my arrow is considered raccoon \nstraight. \nThere is no mining that takes place in this area. \nI think that it’s probably too deep and too swift to actually \nhave mining activities taking place. \nThese are all state lands Commission leases and there’s \ntwo types of sand that are mined in this vicinity. \nThe coarse grain sand which you see on the left of the screen\, \nthat is coarser grain material which is often used in concrete\, \nand this finer grain sand which comes primarily from the \nPresidio Shoal area\, which is used more for backfilling of \ntrenches and other uses. \nWhen you break down that overarching graphic of the \nmining that’s taken place over time\, this shows what’s happened \nsince 2000. \nSo different time frame\, but 2000 to 2000. \nOh\, I’m sorry\, the numbers are wrong. \nNo\, the numbers are right\, 2000. \nSo the last 20 years of mining\, which is the most relevant. \nAt this point\, 2000 to 2023. \nAlso notice on the Y axis that the scale changes in the next \nthree graphs that I’ll show you\, but at 1.4 million is about the \nmaximum shown on this graph. \nAnd you can see the difference over time in that mining trend \nfor Central San Francisco Bay. \nAnd again\, the maximum allowed for mining here is 1.4 million \nas of 2015\, which is about here. \nI put it. \nProbably should have put a dash line on there for you. \nMoving over to Sassoon Channel\, the primary area that’s mined in \nthis area in this lease is here. \nIt’s also important to note that BCDC does not have jurisdiction \nover this part of the lease area. \nSo we would not have reports on this\, but I don’t believe mining \nis occurring in this area. \nSo in this area\, that’s a little shallower mine\, mining happens \nin two depths of up to 45 feet. \nThese are again a lease by State lands made-up of two parcels and \nthis is primarily fine grain sand. \nAnd here’s the histogram for this and notice again\, 22\,000 to \n2023. \nthe Y axis now is gosh is a little different. \nBut what we’re seeing here is the trend changing. \nSo this low point during the the permitting. \nAnd I think this lease was almost out of volume during the \npermitting. \nBut then it ticked up again. \nAnd you’ll notice that this is higher than it is at Sassoon. \nYou’ll I mean middle ground. \nYou’ll see middle ground has dropped off quite a bit. \nAnd the reason for this is not only are they the same kind of \nsand\, there’s more volume authorized on this permit \n185\,000 per year\, but also because middle ground Shoal\, \nit’s shallower and considered potentially a more sensitive \nhabitat\, the agencies adjusted the volumes to be more volume \navailable to be mined and Sassoon channel versus middle \nground Shoal. \nSo here’s middle ground Shoal and this this smaller lease \narea\, I always think it looks a little bit like a bird head. \nOne of the important things to note about this lease is that \nwhile it’s a large lease area\, you know when you look at it \nvisually\, the mining really only happens in the southern portion \nof the lease because part of it is actually intertidal or even \nsuper tidal. \nSo the area that’s deep enough for the miners to mine is this \nsoutherly portion. \nSo in this area I think we have up to 30 feet deep\, but actually \nmuch shallower in some locations. \nIt’s an adjacent to an island. \nThis graphic doesn’t show the island\, but it’s right here. \nThis is a privately held lease\, not part of State Lands leasing\, \nbut State Lands has analyzed it as part of the Sequa NEPA\, the \nSequa document. \nAnd then again\, it’s that fine grain sand very similar to \nSassoon channel. \nAnd here you see the permitting 2015 and the significant \nreduction in the mining volume at middle ground less than \n50\,000 in the last several years. \nAnd a lot of that is due to the pushing the operation more to \nSassoon associates to deal with this potential effect to that \nshallower habitat which has potential to be spawning grounds \nfor smelt. \nSo briefly moving on to the mining equipment. \nThere are two sets of mining equipment\, Lindh Marines. \nTheir barge holds about 1400 cubic yards of sand and Martin \nMarionetta is more closer to 2100 cubic yards of sand. \nJust gonna quickly run through this. \nThe sand is pumped up onto the the mining equipment through a \ndrag head. \nThis is Hanson’s equipment. \nThis is the drag head. \nIt has a fish screen on it to reduce entrainment of fish from \nthe water being pulled in. \nThe sand is pumped across the chute running down the middle of \nthe barge and sand is self sorted and comes off over the \nside of the chute into the barge and area and sand that is too \nlarge or larger pieces is is pushed off the barge back into \nthe Bay. \nHere is a close up of the Martin Marionetta barge or equipment. \nSo here’s the hydraulic head again with the fish screen right \nthere mounted on the pump coming on board. \nHere’s the drag head with the grid across the bottom. \nThese are approximately 6 inches by 6 inches\, which helps keep \nlarge items out of the drag head. \nThis drag head is put 18 to 3 feet into the sand. \nThis is Lynn’s suction pipe. \nSo this is more of a stationary dredge where the pipe is \ninserted down into the sand. \nHere’s the fish screen. \nAnd I always think of this more as kind of like if you’re \ndrinking a chocolate malt and you drink with a straw\, the the \nsand kind of goes in like your chocolate malt into that straw. \nVersus this is a little bit more like a vacuum cleaner being \ndragged until it hits this type of sand that’s desired. \nAnd then the barge does stay stationary for a period of time \nto collect that sand. \nSo some quick notes about the the mining activities for those \nof you who are really familiar with navigation dredging\, I just \nwant to note a few differences. \nSo mining here again is for construction aggregate. \nIt’s not for navigation\, although Sassoon channel \ndredging or mining does happen adjacent to and I believe \npartially within the federal navigation channel. \nThat’s not normally dredged for navigation\, but it is within a \nfederal navigation channel. \nIt’s not generally considered beneficial reuse under the LTMS \nlexicon because it’s not a waste product being reused as disposal \nof dredge sediment is\, but in fact a resource being mined for \nits specific use. \nDifferent than navigation dredging mining occurs year \nround. \nThere’s no work windows for sand mining\, but there are fish \nscreens on the intake pumps to reduce impact to listed species \nand that was per biological pinions from Noaa’s Fisheries \nand US Fish and Wildlife Service with an incidental take permit \nfrom California Department of Fish and Wildlife. \nThe mining location is based on the leases and the mining \nactivity is based on the grain size of sand desired. \nAnd again\, as I mentioned earlier\, Central Bay is \nprimarily coarse grain sand with some fine grain and certain \nShoals and it’s most appropriate for use in concrete and asphalt. \nAnd then Sassoon and middle ground are fine grain and \nappropriate mostly for trench filling and other uses. \nAnd then mining doesn’t occur to like a specific depth or area \nlike navigation drudging does. \nBut the mining does occur often and regularly in the same area \nbecause of the the selection of the grain size that is located \nin the lease areas in those areas based on sand transport \nand the sand system and what is is bound where to make it \nsimple\, just a quick couple of quick slides from some of the \nstudies which you’ll hear more about I think another day. \nBut you can see here’s 1997 version looking at some \nbathymetry. \nAnd this is the area that was examined for one portion of the \nstudy. \nAnd what you see here in the same area is a bed lowering. \nAnd this is point knock Shoal by 2019. \nAnother quick look\, here’s another example in 1997. \nHere’s your examined area 3. \nAnd then here’s the examined area again\, bed lowering and \nShoal disappearance was the result of one of the bathymetric \nchange analysis. \nBut it is important to note that as I said in the previous slide\, \nsand tends to sand mining tends to occur in the same area \nrepeatedly. \nAnd so you would expect to see these localized\, excuse me\, \neffects where that grain size can be found. \nI think I’m almost done here. \nSo on our study process\, just real quickly switching gears\, \nthe funds were provided that $1.2 million. \nWe have the SAN technical advisory committee who developed \nmanagement questions\, study scopes\, worked on a request for \nproposals and reviewed proposals. \nAnd then our independent science panel members who reviewed the \nproposals\, reviewed revised scopes\, worked with the teams to \nreally hone their study development and then reviewed \nthe completed studies and the findings and they developed the \nfindings report with Santech who wrote the report with them. \nThe questions that the I just put the questions up for this \nfrom the Sand Technical Advisory Committee\, which was the main \nfocus of these studies. \nSo is sand mine\, is sand mining in existing areas at permitted \nlevel\, permitted levels having measurable or demonstratable \nimpact on sediment transport or supply within San Francisco Bay? \nThere’s a question which is what’s a sustainable number\, \nwhich I believe is about sustainable number of mining and \nwhat is substantial depletion considered. \nThe second main question that was asked is what are the \nanticipated physical effects of sand mining at the permitted \nlevels on sand transport and and supply within San Francisco Bay \nand the outer coast? \nWhat is the impacts to active sands and the consequences to \nbeaches and tides that it feeds? \nWhat’s the impact to relic sand\, which is how much is the volume \nand where is it? \nAnd are there other feasible sand mining approaches to \nconsider in San Francisco Bay? \nAnd should there be a modification of a volume and \nsite and site and conditions\, sort of a three Fer question. \nSo the folks who’ve been involved for the last several \nyears\, which I will be eternally grateful to because this has \nbeen taking a village and a lot of people’s really good strong \nthinking on this work. \nThe state Coastal Conservancy managed the studies and tracks \nand the funds\, which I can’t ever thank them enough. \nBCDC was a member of the SANTAC and worked with the Coastal \nConservancy to keep the process on track. \nThe Coastal Commission\, State Lands\, Army Corps\, Water Board\, \nNational Marine\, Fisheries\, Cal. \nDepartment of Fish and Wildlife\, Bay Keeper Martin Marinetta and \nand Marine. \nWe’re all members of the technical advisory committee\, \nthe Independent Science Panel. \nWe have a couple of the members here today who will present \nnext\, which included Bob Battaglio from Environmental \nSciences\, Craig Jones from Integral\, Jean Lazier from UC \nDavis\, Dave Schulhammer\, USGS\, and Paul Work from USGS. \nSo great group of folks doing some really good thinking here. \nAnd lastly\, our research teams\, I’m not gonna read all the \nnames\, but there are three majors\, the sand budget\, supply \nand morphological chain and transport analysis. \nBig team there from actually international team. \nSo you can see the organizations that were involved with that \none\, the sand transport modeling and the sand Providence work. \nWe have sand Providence where Zach is here today\, as is \nMatthew. \nAnd they’ll talk to you today about that project or that \nstudy. \nAnd I’m gonna stop pretty much there because Next up after me \nis the independent science panel members introducing their key \nfindings. \nAnd with that\, I’m gonna stop sharing my screen. \nThat was a quick\, quick\, quick tour. \nWell\, thanks\, Brenda. \nHey\, this is Bob Vitaglio. \nI’m one of the ISP members that I think are up next\, and we’re \ngonna try to move fast. \nHey\, Dave Schulhamer\, are you online? \nAm I supposed to share the presentation or are you? \nAnd while you’re working on that\, what’s that? \nI’m sorry\, we’re working on that. \nI’ll share it. \nOK\, Pat\, go ahead. \nCommissioners\, do you have any questions or any items that you \nwanted to ask while I ran through that very quickly\, I \nknow you saw a version of it a couple of weeks ago. \nBrenda\, I do have one question. \nI\, I’ve been reading the\, the briefing documents you sent our \nway and one of those key\, and maybe this is maybe this is \nsomething that Bob’s gonna get to. \nBut that briefing document you talked about rates of \nreplenishment\, but it didn’t have time frames for that \nreplenishment. \nAnd you\, your some of your slides kind of got to that. \nBut I was just trying to get a handle on what the annual \nreplenishment rates were and I didn’t get that from all the \nparts of that document. \nSo if we’re gonna get to that later\, fine. \nBut I thought I’d throw that question out now. \nYeah\, I think the answer is it is variable depending on the \ndifferent locations. \nAnd that will be the subject of another meeting when we bring \nsome other folks in. \nAlthough I don’t know if Bob or Dave\, you want to respond to \nthat at this point. \nI’m sorry. \nI was trying to figure out how to load my presentation. \nSo I missed the question. \nI\, I\, I think Dave is\, was probably listening and Kat\, I’m \ngoing to need help becoming presenter. \nI don’t\, I don’t think I can do that on my end. \nI think I’m not in control. \nIf\, if you look at the bottom and see share screen\, it’s a \nlittle green box. \nThat’s\, that’s all you have to do. \nOK\, starting off very embarrassing. \nNow you’ll know why we don’t know which way the sand’s \nmoving. \nI\, I\, I was\, I just had a quick question about really the \ndifference between fine sand and coarse sand. \nHow and\, and generally not\, not just obviously there’s a size \ndifference\, but in terms of the deposit\, the the deposit size\, I \nwould just assume that there’s a lot more fine sand and there is \ncoarse sand. \nBut I just wondered about that. \nYeah\, I\, I don’t know if you want us to jump in and I\, Barry\, \nI’m sorry\, I didn’t catch your question\, but I think that’s \nright\, Pat\, that\, that we have more of the finer sands. \nThe beach sands are kind of in the middle between the two \nimages that Brenda showed\, which I really appreciate. \nIt’s it’s nice to see those pictures. \nBrenda\, we\, you showed a know if you wanna show it again\, the\, \nthe coarse and the fine. \nBut\, you know\, the course is really old. \nI think the that really coarser stuff. \nI I don’t think it’s moving that much through the Golden Gate. \nThat’s my opinion anyway. \nBeach sands are smaller than that. \nYeah\, I’m not gonna show it again right now. \nI can pull it up again later. \nI see Dave’s got his hand up. \nAnd also if the miners want to answer that question from their \nperspective too\, I think that’s also welcome. \nYeah\, Dave\, I was going to go back to Barry’s question about \nthe recovery rates. \nThey’re expressed\, I believe\, as in a percentage of recovery\, \nessentially how much of the remove sand is returned during \nthe period of time between where we had the bathymetric surveys. \nBasically\, I think this was done just because there’s sort of \naveraging over that period. \nNow those numbers could go back to the raw data the \ninvestigators had and come up with an actual number of\, you \nknow\, cubic yards per year on average of going back into the \nmining area for each of the lease areas\, I believe and the \nway the day is presented\, but I don’t recall it being in the \nreport\, but the results could be presented that way. \nI think we were looking more at the percentages\, the rates of \nrecovery as relative to how much is coming in and how much is \ngoing out to compare it that way. \nYeah. \nAnd I will also just add for reference that we have I think 5 \ndepending on the lease area\, 5 Series of bathymetric surveys. \nSo we started\, maybe there’s only four\, we started requiring \nthem in 2004 and they’re required every five years. \nSo we have a series of five year surveys and then we did one \nsurvey between 19 or excuse me\, 2018 and 2019 because we have \nthis really interesting water year while we were working. \nI think that was the right time frame where we did one in a very \nspecific set of bethematry to do a quick analysis at the request \nof the independent science panel. \nI want to make sure that the miners also have an opportunity \nto ask questions. \nSo are there any questions at this point from from the minors? \nI will just I will just this is Eric Aguera with Marty Marietta. \nAnd I will just act a little bit of as a moderator because we \nhave a big group here and I think it would be good if we \nhave Mike Bishop from Marty Marietta basically expanding a \nlittle bit more on your question on the grain size and what we \nuse that sand for. \nSo Mike\, hi everybody. \nSo\, yeah\, so the fine sand is is typically mined off Presidio \nShoals on the South side of the Bay. \nAnd as Brenda said\, it’s\, it’s typically used in foundation and \ntrench backfill. \nIt’s a very\, it’s a very uniform sized sand. \nAnd and I I describe it as soft and on the north side of the \nBay\, which is point NOx etcetera is there is\, is our coarse sand \nwhich predominantly as Brenda said goes into into concrete. \nYou know\, there there the the difference in size is really on \nthe top end of of the sand fraction and on the on the \nbottom end\, which is what you know would be silts and and fine \nsediment. \nNeither neither\, neither sand has much of that. \nYou know\, we measure it on\, on graduation sieves and the 100 \nmesh is\, is still a fairly large Staley fairly large sieve at at \n70 microns\, 75 microns\, something like that. \nAnd you know the the these two sand deposits just don’t have \nthat really fine fraction that is silts and which\, which \ngenerally is\, is is dredged in maintenance dredging. \nYeah\, the two sands are quite different if if just to the \nnaked eye and hopefully that will answer your question. \nYeah. \nSo it sounds like what you’re saying is that the\, as somebody \nmentioned earlier\, the\, the\, the sands\, the fine sands that \nyou’re\, you’re mining are very well sorted so that they’re \nalready ready for a specific use in construction ’cause I know \nyou use different\, I don’t know too much about this\, but I do \nremember that you use\, you use different grain size for \ndifferent uses and sorting sands into different grain sizes is\, \nis expensive. \nSo\, so I get the impression from what you’re saying that that \nthese\, these are sort of pre sorted\, these are very well \nsorted. \nSo that’s\, you know\, that makes them valuable. \nIs that\, do I get that right? \nThat is that is very correct. \nMother Nature does a great job at at sorting out this sand and \nthe coarse sand basically is a is comes out at a concrete \nspecked sand. \nWe have to do very little of it processing onshore and and \nfundamentally really onshore. \nAll we do is is give it a bit of a wash with some fresh water to \ntry and lower the salt content. \nOf the sea water that we mine it out of. \nBut you know\, and and that really lends itself to where we \nmine is physically where the currents etcetera allows this \nsand to drop out and or to have dropped out in the past. \nSo you know\, there\, there is particularly with the coarser \ngrain which is the concrete sand\, which is\, is\, is the \nhigher demand of sand is is very specific where we where we can \nget that sand from. \nWe can’t get it from just anywhere in the Bay. \nYeah\, no\, OK\, thank you. \nYou know that does that’s a great answer. \nI appreciate it. \nAny are there any other questions? \nI’m kind of looking for hands raised and not seeing them. \nI I think Ben Butler from the Marine. \nYeah. \nAnd we’re about 10 minutes behind schedule now. \nSo\, Bill\, if you can be brief\, please. \nOh\, OK. \nSorry\, Rinda. \nHave I ever been anything but brief? \nYeah. \nSo thanks. \nBill Butler with Lynn Marine. \nSo thanks\, Mike\, for your description on the sands. \nI would just also like to add as far as uses are concerned\, the \nthe fine sands while while they are indeed a little smaller size \non the top of them\, they’re still very clean as Mike \nindicated and used not only just for backfill\, but our stands \nthat we mined out of the Sassoon area are used quite extensively \nin\, in asphalt. \nIt’s\, I think it’s just also important to point out too that\, \nyou know\, not not all sand is\, is the same. \nFor example\, this isn’t like beach sand that we’re mining. \nWhen you go to the beach and you see\, see sand like that\, that’s\, \nthat’s very different than than this sand. \nOur sand contains a range of sizes that\, that make it \nvaluable for construction as well as being\, you know\, \ndurable\, durable and and fairly clean. \nSo I just wanted to make that distinction as well. \nThank you. \nOK. \nAnd I see Richard Gunther has a question. \nThanks. \nDo we know how much sand in these different categories is \nused in the Bay Area? \nCommissioner Gunther\, I’m going to have to ask you to hold on \nthat question because this is really about the science and \nwe’re behind and I would like us to continue and not get into the \nuse of the sand right now if we can\, please. \nOK\, that sounds good. \nWhy don’t you keep going? \nSo who’s next? \nI would like to introduce Dave Schulhammer and Bob Battaglio. \nOK\, I think that’s my prompt. \nIf it’s OK\, then I will push the green button and share my \npresentation. \nYes. \nOK. \nHopefully I can do this. \nThis is kind of OK. \nWhere’s my presentation? \nHere it is. \nLet me go back to the first slide and you’re all set. \nThere we go. \nOK\, OK. \nAnd so as Bob and I agreed to a few minutes ago\, I will start \noff here. \nThis is Dave Schollhammer of the Independent Science Panel and \nI’ll take care of the first few slides. \nBasically\, my role here is to be the warm up act for Bob. \nWe’ll finish up the presentation. \nSo on the next slide\, Bob\, the Independent Science Panel is \ncomposed of five of us\, myself\, Bob\, who is a expert in coastal \nsediment transport and has been working in San Francisco Bay for \na long time\, as have really all of us. \nCraig Jones\, another coastal engineer\, has done quite a bit \nof work over the decades with sediment transport and some \nmodeling work. \nJohn Largier at UC Davis\, who’s really the\, the\, the expert at \nwhat’s going on\, especially at\, at\, at the Golden Gate myself\, \nmy background has primarily been studying fine sediment transport \nthe the finer material\, but with some sand thrown in. \nAnd finally\, Paul Work\, another coastal engineer with the \nformerly with the Geological Survey\, who also has spent\, \nspent a career studying sand transport. \nSo we are the members of the Independent Science Panel who \nall contributed to developing the studies. \nWe’ll be talking about and writing the summary report that \nBob will be talking about on the next slide. \nBob\, we have the list of the studies that’s already been \nmentioned and we’re gonna go through these briefly. \nSo this is sort of an outline of the rest of what you’re going to \nhear from us. \nThe SAN budget study and modeling studies. \nI will explain and then Bob will very briefly mention the \nfingerprinting study cause Zach and Matt are here to describe \nthat study in more detail. \nAlso with these studies\, the USGS provided a tremendous \namount of support in various ways to all three of these \nstudies and Deltares also provided some support through \nsome analysis that they did for different parts of these studies \nalso sort of as subcontractors. \nOnce these studies were completed\, we\, the ISP\, wrote a \nsummary report that described the studies briefly and tried to \nsort of do a sort of a synopsis of the studies and what we felt \nit meant in terms of some overall findings on the data \ngaps we observed and some suggestions for the next steps. \nSo those are the list of the studies. \nI’ll start in next on the SAN budget presentation. \nThink you need to click something else there\, Bob? \nThere you go\, one more OK\, it’s right back one OK. \nSo for the sand budget\, this was largely to address the first \nmanagement question that Brenda had mentioned about is the sand \nmining having a measurable or demonstrable impact on the \nsediment transport and supply within the Bay. \nThis was primarily done by the San Francisco Estuary Institute \nwith Lester McKee as the lead\, though as was previously shown\, \na number of people helped with this study and also the USGS and \nDeltares. \nOn the next slide\, one more Bob\, we have the show a picture of \nwhat the basic components of a sand budget and that we take a \nvolume of the Bay or you can think of this as a bubble. \nEngineers give it a fancy word\, a control volume\, and we look at \neverything\, all of the sand that flows into that volume and all \nthe sand that flows out of that volume. \nAnd with the principle of conservation of mass\, we can’t \ncreate mass out of thin air. \nWe know that the change in the storage of sand on the bed must \nequal the inflow minus the outflow. \nSo this is the basic idea of a sand budget and how we can \naccount for all the factors affecting sand transport and \nsand supply. \nOne note is on the bottom here. \nThis equation is based on conservation of mass. \nLater we’ll be talking some about uncertainty\, but there is \nno uncertainty in this equation. \nYou know\, mass must be conserved and this equation essentially \nexpresses that. \nOK. \nBob on the next slide\, one more please. \nFor doing the sand budget\, generally speaking\, we have \nability to quantify what the inflows that they are through \nthe tributaries as the VI did a tributary watershed modeling for \nthis. \nAnd we can also quantify other outflows. \nFor instance\, the sand mining is an out in this sand budgeting\, a \nsand mining is an outflow and we can also quantify the change in \nthe storage with the that bathymetry work that the USGS \ndid to look at the change in bathymetry over time generally. \nWell\, in all cases for our work here\, what we don’t know is the \noutflow of sand toward the ocean. \nSo we can take the equation I showed previously and rearrange \nit to actually be able to solve that equation for what the \noutflow toward the ocean is. \nSo what Sfei and others did is they estimated what all the \nvalues of the inflows were\, what all the other outflows are\, and \nthen also estimated what the change in storage was to compute \nwhat the outflow toward the ocean is for San Francisco Bay \nand for some of the seven payments. \nAnd again\, I think the analogy here is on the an analogy would \nbe that this is very similar to being like a checking account. \nYou write checks\, you have an outflow\, you make deposits\, you \nhave an inflow and the balance in your checking account changes \nover time depending on the outflows and the inflows. \nSo on the next slide\, Bob\, one more I believe OK\, we have the \nsome some highlights from the budget. \nSo SFVI did this for all the major sub embayments in the Bay \nand for the entire Bay. \nWhat I’m showing here is the sand budget for Central Bay that \nshows all of the inflows that were determined and the \noutflows\, the change in storage\, all to essentially balance the \nsand budget for Central Bay. \nAnd they looked at various things\, some of which are very \ninsignificant and some of which are very significant as shown by \nthe size of the arrows. \nWhat they found was that the San mining was a essentially a very \nlarge term that does in fact\, in fact the budget. \nAnd in fact here in this particular case it’s the largest \nterm hit the one more push Bob\, I believe another question that \nwe frequently had was the sand transport out at the Golden \nGate. \nThat is what we would call an uncertain number. \nThe sand budget came up with a value of .25 million metric tons \nper year\, which is about 200\,000 cubic yards per year of outflow. \nBut there are there is uncertainty and one of the ways \nthat as if I evaluated that uncertainty is they took all the \ninflows and outflows and the change in storage that they did \ncalculate for each of those. \nThey have a range of what the possible numbers could be. \nAnd they took those then and sort of set them to their \nmaximum or minimum possible values to see what the biggest \npossible inflow to the Bay is\, what the biggest possible \noutflow to the Bay of Sand is. \nAnd wound up with a range of .66 to in to 1.1 out of sand \ntransport at the Golden Gate with the best value being .25 \nmillion metric tons per year. \nSo that’s one way of evaluating the uncertainty is we know these \nnumbers\, assuming they won’t be pegged to their minimum or \nmaximum values will be between somewhere between the .66 and \nthe in and the 1.1 number out. \nAnd the best estimate there is .25 out. \nSo that’s one of the one of the results of the sand budget \nagain\, it’s you know 100 page report with lots of results \npacked in there. \nLet’s go on Bob to the next slide. \nAnd I think that’s it. \nSo the numerical modeling study\, the second of the major studies \nthat was supported in this effort. \nGo ahead and click once more. \nBob actually addressed that first management question about \nthe demonstrable impact on sediment transfer in the Bay and \nit also looked at at at addressed the second management \nquestion about the anticipated physical effects of sand mining \nwithin the Bay. \nThis study was done by Anchor QAA\, Michael McWilliams and \nAaron Beaver and were the folks doing the modeling here. \nSo let’s move on to the next slide\, next one\, and click a \ncouple more times to fill up the right side text. \nThe numerical model they used is called the untrimmed model. \nThis is again his numerical computer model. \nIt’s a 3 dimensional model\, so it covers what you see here and \nthe depth within the Bay. \nIt models the tides\, wind\, waves\, salinity. \nFor the sediment modeling\, they use 4 grain sizes. \nThe tributary inflows that SFDI calculated for the sand budget \nwere used in this model so that they’re comparable results. \nThe model has previously been calibrated by Aaron and Michael \nto water level\, salinity and suspended sediments. \nI know Craig Jones\, one of the ISP members\, told the RMP \nrecently that he thought this was the\, he’s actually \ndeveloping a contaminant model for the RMP and he thought this \nwas one of the best models for San Francisco Bay. \nWhat Aaron and Michael did to look at the effects of sand \nmining is they simulated low and high flow years where there’s \neither a little or a lot of freshwater flow into the Bay and \nthey simulated them with and without sand mining. \nEssentially\, the sand mining was a term removing sand from the \nlease areas as the information from BCDC on those rates. \nAnd they simulated the Bay with and without the sand mining to \nbe able to compare those results\, take the difference and \nsee what the effect of the sand mining was. \nOK\, So the next slide\, Bob\, we have some highlights here. \nOne is that the net sand transport at the Golden Gate was \ntoward the ocean at about 80\,000 cubic yards per year\, which was \na little less than what the budget came up with\, if you \nrecall\, about 200\,000 cubic yards per year. \nNow we have a number of 80\,000 and 200\,000 in the\, you know\, \nstudying sediment. \nThere’s a lot of uncertainty looking at sediment transport \nthat as scientists we get used to. \nThese numbers actually I’d say in the segment world are fairly \nclose. \nThe joke we would have in the science circles was if you \nagreed within a factor of 2\, you should go publish a journal \narticle about it because that’s good agreement. \nSo that was one of the highlights here. \nAnother on the second bullet is that up in Sassoon Bay they \nmodeled these for one year and the effects of sand mining \nthrough the Bay were really limited to the vicinity of the \nmining areas. \nIn other words\, it the effect of the mining dispersed very \nrapidly with distance from the mined area up in Sassoon Bay and \nit was somewhat true also with Central Bay. \nOver down in Central Bay\, they found that the total transport \nof sand out of the Golden Gate\, they predict a decrease by 59 \nand 32% because of the sand mining during the high outflow \nand low outflow years was one of the numerical modeling results \nthat they came up with. \nSo those are just some of the highlights from the numerical \nmodeling study. \nAgain\, it’s a very lengthy detail. \nI think that was a 200 page study with all the figures that \nhas a lot more results in it that you can read up there. \nSo let’s go look at the next slide\, Bob. \nAnd here’s where I’ll turn it over to Bob. \nThanks\, Dave. \nAre there any objections for me to complete the presentation? \nDoes does anyone want to ask Dave questions about what he \njust said? \nWhile we’re at this pause\, I\, I\, yeah\, Barry Nelson here. \nJust one simple question where I’m not sure I successfully \nunderstood one of the lines. \nThere was a note there about .25 metric tons per year and \ntransport out the Golden Gate and that that translated to \n200\,000 cubic yards per year. \nI’m just trying to get the that that’s the slide and I’m just \ntrying to get those numbers to line up. \nThat’s not that\, that’s metric ton. \nWhat’s that’s £550 quarter of a metric ton\, 550 lbs or so. \nWell\, it’s actually the the capital M stands for a million \nthat OK. \nAnd\, but it is a metric ton and\, and the conversion we’re using \nis the one that SFEI used for sand deposits like those mined \nby the miners. \nThere were different conversions\, you know\, density \nconversions. \nI think the number is\, is right around 180 or maybe 160\,000. \nIt’s about 200\,000 cubic yards round numbers. \nI\, I\, I suspected that’s\, that was that I misread the M Thank \nyou. \nBob\, if I could ask one question\, this might be\, you \nknow\, the kind of somebody who knows just enough to be \ndangerous here. \nAnd we don’t only go down a rabbit hole\, but it’s my \nunderstanding that measuring net transport at the Golden Gate is \na really\, really difficult thing to do. \nNow\, I’m getting the impression from what you’re presenting that \nnet transport on the bed is not as difficult as net transport of \nthings that are floating back and forth with the tide. \nIt’s actually the opposite. \nThe the bed load transport is well\, I don’t know\, maybe I \nshould let was\, I would say the bed load transport is a bigger \nquestion mark. \nThe suspended transport you can get from you know\, taking \nsamples or doing kind of a remote sensing it. \nBut I guess aren’t we dealing with trying to\, we’re measuring \na huge number\, which is the transport in during any tidal \ncycle and then we’re trying to net out a very small number. \nYeah\, right. \nSo to your point\, the net is an estimate of the average over a \ntime period calculated as the difference between what’s \ncalculated one way added up and minus what’s calculated the \nother way added up. \nAnd so the net is small and less certain. \nYeah. \nSo if we go back into the last go\, just go forward this to the \nlast slide and then I just wanna then ask you about. \nYeah\, here we go. \nSo\, so at the top here\, we’re estimating this with one \nsignificant figure. \nAnd as Dave said\, you know\, hey\, that’s pretty close\, which I \nunderstand that. \nBut then when we say we’re talking about 59% and 32% in \ndifferent years\, I’m\, I\, I guess I’m trying to get a header at my \nheader on how we know\, know the numbers that accurately. \nI’ll let Dave answer that. \nThat was from the modeling and you know\, they’re precise \nanswers within uncertainty. \nSo\, but it it\, it does show that\, I mean that was the \nconclusion. \nWhether it’s 59% or 72% or 32% or 21 percent is is unknown. \nBut but this was the finding. \nBut Dave\, would you like to jump in on that? \nYeah\, as Bobby did an excellent job of answering that. \nThe last\, the 59 and 32% numbers are from the numerical modeling \nwhere all those bell that back and forth transport\, they can \nadd up and calculate a precise number. \nNow how accurate that is\, if it’s\, you know\, 70% or 40%\, you \nknow\, that could be argued and debated perhaps\, but they are \nable to calculate the more precise numbers with the \nnumerical modeling. \nIn terms of the transport of the gate\, remember that 200\,000 \ncubic yard per year number is basically taking the sum of \neverything else and moving it down to the Golden Gate because \nthat’s the number that’s actually being calculated by the \nsand budget. \nThere is no measurement showing 200\,000 cubic yards per year \ngoing out the Golden Gate or 80\,000 cubic yards per year \ngoing out the Golden Gate. \nThat’s the result of that equation I showed earlier of \ncalculating what that outflow is based on the inflows\, all of the \nother outflows and the change in bathymetry\, right? \nAnd so as long as you’re sure you\, you know\, all the sources \nof gain and loss\, then you get this is this number is derived. \nI\, I get that. \nSo\, so I guess what I’m just trying to get my head around\, \nDave\, is when\, and maybe this is just for going forward when we \nneed to be thinking about precision and when we need to be \nthinking about accuracy in\, in terms of understanding the \npolicy implications of these results. \nFor\, for the\, for the last thing here\, for the 59%\, the real \nquestion is not if it’s 59% or 55%\, but whether it’s 60% or \npoint O 6%. \nI mean that there’s\, there’s and\, and I’m just\, I guess I’m \njust still a little\, I’m not sure I have my head around\, \naround how well we know some of these things. \nAnd\, and\, and that’s the thing that I want to be. \nI\, I would really appreciate your help with. \nI mean\, if\, if the model produces a number that’s 60% and \nwe report that\, that’s fine. \nBut it’s\, there’s a lot of uncertainty in that number. \nAs I understand it. \nYes\, there is uncertainty in the\, you know\, quantification of \nthe inflows\, the quantification of the outflows\, the \nquantification of the change in the bathymetry and all of that \nkind of adds down to the uncertainty in the number going \nout\, say the Golden Gate. \nThe reports themselves detail those uncertainties since this \nis something we worry about a lot on the ISP about the \nuncertainties here. \nSo I think our summary report that Bob’s about to describe and \nthe individual reports that discuss the uncertainty delve \ninto the details of how well these numbers are known. \nGreat\, thank you. \nBecause it’s hard to answer\, give you a one off answer on \nthat very good question you’re asking. \nThank you. \nI will just add that the numbers that were included in the sand \nbudget on the navigation\, dredging\, in the sand mining \nnumbers were actual numbers reported for the last 20 years. \nAnd this this the sand budget exercise was from 2000 to 2020 \nwas the 20 years that were looked at and the dredging\, \nnavigation\, dredge mining data were actual reported numbers. \nSo there is some certainty in those numbers. \nWell\, there is pretty good certainty in those numbers and I \nsaw that there was another hand up. \nWe have time for one more quick question. \nMcGrath has a question. \nYeah\, it’s actually a a comment. \nFirst of all the the science I’ve I’ve read these reports and \nthe science is great. \nThere’s two other data sources that I\, I’d like to to give you \nthat\, that tend to support this. \nAnd I don’t know that the panels look at it. \nWhen I was at the Coastal Commission\, we regulated the \nCorps of Engineers dredging of the bar and\, and the bar had a a \nremarkably narrow band of grain size\, all about point 2.21 \nmillimeters. \nAnd our conclusion on that or our theory on that was at the \ndepth of the bar that was about the maximum grain size that \nwould be disturbed by the waves passing overhead using \nconventional wave theory. \nAnd\, and that’s the material I think that that moves around. \nAll of that data of course is available. \nSo that’s the first source that that tends to augment the \nquestions that were asked earlier about fine grained \nsediment and why it’s in the Presidio Shoal. \nThat’s what’s disturbed. \nThere’s an Eddy current. \nThere’s another source that we give you some insight into the \nrate of transport in that Eddy current. \nWhen the restoration efforts occurred at Crissy Field\, there \nwas no refilling of the inside bar and the outside bar. \nAnd over a period of I think it was five years\, about 35\,000 \ncubic yards of material collected there. \nSo that gives you some augmentation that you should \nprobably look at to\, to\, to give a\, some real measurement about \nwhat the the countercurrent was. \nSo I just thought I’d throw that out there before you got to \nprofits. \nThanks. \nThanks\, Jim\, really appreciate that. \nI\, I yes\, thank you. \nShould should I\, I’ve been thinking about this stuff for a \nwhile. \nYeah\, no\, I I really appreciate you being on the call too. \nActually\, that’s\, that was very helpful perspective. \nI have similar perspectives. \nShould I proceed? \nYeah\, I think you should. \nOK. \nThank you. \nNo\, that was a great discussion. \nI\, I\, I could have said some things\, but I’m going to move \non. \nWe can talk later if we have time. \nSo this is the\, the third study that Dave Schulhammer and I\, \nthis is Bob Battaglio of the ISP are presenting basically big \npicture. \nWe’re doing a brief summary of each of the SAN studies and then \nwe’re going to provide the independent science panels kind \nof distilled findings\, if you will briefly. \nSo this is just going over the fingerprinting study which is \ngonna be presented. \nI think I’ll just go through this quickly and then I think \nZach is gonna present their study\, which is is good because \nit’s a little complicated for a lot of us. \nBut basically the the fingerprinting study looked at \nmineralogy\, which gives you an idea of which mountain range the \nsediment came from. \nIt looks like at a component zircon\, which can be analyzed to \ntell you how old the deposit is\, which also can help you \nunderstand where it came from. \nAnd then there’s this thing called luminescence\, which is a \nreaction emanation\, if you will\, from the grains that the sand \ngrains that can be detected that tells you how long since it’s \nbeen it was daylighted subject to sunlight. \nI think I have that right. \nI’m sorry. \nI want to go back and just show you this image from the study. \nThe orange is coarser sand. \nThe the tan is medium sand and the\, the light tan is\, is finer \nsand. \nThe Gray is mud. \nSo you can see the sand mining’s up here around Sussoon Bay and \nthen down in Central Bay\, and you can kind of see where this \nis exposed\, where there’s strong hydraulics and out here waves \nand the like. \nThis little dotted line is the estimated shoreline of 14\,000 \nyears ago\, and then this line is around 10\,000 years ago. \nThe idea being that this was a river\, sea level rose and now \nit’s a drowned river. \nDelta’s way up here and this is the tidal exchange area. \nSecond slide of the fingerprinting study. \nManagement question Tier 21B. \nWhat is the source of mine sand in the lease areas? \nSussoon Bay deposited from local coast range drainages. \nCentral Bay eroded from outer Pacific Coast\, previously from \nSierran Range and coastal range. \nManagement Question Tier 21B. \nIs it relic sand or new sand transferred in the system? \nSand is relic. \nSome relic sand is exposed to hydraulic forcing. \nIt is in transit. \nSome relic sand is below the Bay floor and it’s not in transit. \nSo this is something that I think a lot of us could easily \nget stuck on. \nRelic means it’s not being supplied now\, but that doesn’t \nmean that it’s not moving around and it’s not being mined or\, or \nit is being mined. \nIt’s it’s relic and moving around and relic and not moving \naround. \nThis is a\, a conceptual model of\, of low sea level stand that \nI described before and you have the Central Valley rivers going \nthrough what is now the Bay and discharging out in a delta \nsomewhere around the Farallon Islands. \n3rd slide\, last slide on the fingerprinting study management \nquestion\, Tier 21 E\, Does mining in leased areas have the same \neffects on sand transport pathways? \nShould these areas be examined separately? \nThey can be treated separately\, we think different sand sources \nand spatial connections. \nAnd I’ll go over this figure in a minute. \nWell\, here we go. \nSassoon Bay is in the red. \nThe mining area is up here. \nThe red indicates the sand transport vicinity and pathways \nthat are conceptually interpreted from the mineralogy \nanalysis\, fingerprinting analysis. \nAnd it’s seems to\, you know\, link to San Pablo Bay\, maybe \nNorth Central Bay. \nCentral Bay is the blue and the sand seems to link very much \nwith the ocean and\, and the Bay and the ocean beaches. \nWe’ve got tidal exchange going back and forth and then there’s \nwave driven transport along the shore here. \nNext\, I want to talk about the USGS. \nThey did not author one of the three main studies\, but they \nsure did do a lot of work. \nAnd of course the US Geological Service\, our survey is well \nknown in the San Francisco Bay Area. \nThey’ve done a lot of great work in San Francisco Bay and on the \nPacific Coast\, including out at Ocean Beach\, etcetera. \nThey provided a a sediment transport boundary condition at \nthe upstream East End of Sassoon Bay. \nThey provided bathymetric change mapping and volume calculations. \nThis is a pretty heavy lift to\, to look at how the the Bay floor \nhas changed\, calculate how much the sand and mud and then Add \nall that up that\, that\, that was a\, a that’s a really big deal. \nAnd then they also provided they have a\, a\, a storehouse. \nThey have core\, sediment cores taken over decades and they \nprovided analysis and\, and grain size\, etcetera for mineralogy \nfor the fingerprinting study. \nThis graphic just shows where some of the cores were taken. \nThis graphic over here\, I hope you can see my cursor is shows \none of the cores from the top down. \nTop is younger\, bottom is older. \nAnd there’s some interpretation in terms of when the sediment \ndeposited and how quickly deposited between which periods. \nAnd this is just a generic grain size. \nWell\, actually it’s from the fingerprinting studies. \nSome of these are grab samples and not core samples\, but this \nthis shows you how some of the data were used. \nThe other major supporting entity is Deltauris\, world \nrenowned technical group out of Delft Institute in Netherlands. \nThey did what we called a more dynamic interpretation\, which \njust basically means how the sand moves and how the bed forms \nand and deposits change and how do you can interpret transport \ndirect pathways and and and at some points even rates from from \nthis kind of geomorphic analysis. \nWhat what we got out of that is the Central Bay sand transport \nis driven by tidal exchange to the Golden Gate with sand \nmigrating between the Bay mining areas\, flood tidal Shoals and \nthe San Francisco Bar ebtitle Shoals in the Pacific Ocean. \nAdditional sand transport waves along the shore into the Bay. \nSo this graphic here on the right\, the black and white one \nshows their interpretation of the main sand transport \npathways. \nThe thick black lines A is driven by ebb tidal flow\, B is \ndriven by flood tidal flow on the Oceanside. \nThis dashed line indicates where the San Francisco Bar is. \nThe waves push against the sand deposit by the tide\, so you get \na nice kind of horseshoe shaped feature where the two forces \ncollide and balance. \nOut on the Bayside you get a splay of of of tidal flood \ncurrent and a series of Shoals affected by the terrain and \ntopography. \nShoals behind Angel Island\, etcetera. \nThis is a blow up from the Delft. \nA larger image. \nThe Golden Gate is right here where the purple\, deep purple \ndepth is. \nThis is minus\, you know\, 80 meters or so\, 100 meters. \nAnd then this is Angel Island\, this white area which is over \nhere\, Alcatraz\, these black lines are the same as these \nblack lines over here. \nBut if you look closely\, you see little Red Arrows and you can \nalso see in this\, this is depth bathymetry. \nSo the tan is is up in the -20 meters or so and the blue is\, \nyou know\, much deeper around sixty\, 100 meters or 75 meters. \nAnd you can see these bed forms\, these sand waves\, which you can \ninterpret based on their asymmetry\, which way the net \nsand transport is moving. \nHere we have convergence\, which is kind of almost the definition \nof a Shoal\, if you will\, unless it’s eroding rapidly. \nAnd then so anyway\, they\, they analyzed all this and it was \nvery interesting and\, and we all looked at it\, it was great. \nSecond slide on Deltares bed changes in mining areas. \nSo the mining changes bed geometry. \nYou’re replacing natural bed forms like sand waves with \ndepressions and a lower bed elevation. \nYou see in this figure\, tan is is higher elevation bed of the \nBay and and blue is lower. \nSo the and the top is 1997 and the and the bottom is 2019. \nBrenda showed another version of this. \nHere’s the depth chart over here. \nWhat you can see in 1997 it was shallower\, the Tanner color and \nthen at by 2019 it’s deeper\, you know the bluer color. \nAnd you can also see\, you don’t really see these sand waves in \nhere. \nYou see these kind of irregular geometry\, localized geometry. \nSo what this tells us is that diffusion by currents and \nturbulence etcetera\, which would smooth the bed depressions is \nreally kind of limited within the time frame of the study. \nThese depressions seems to persist. \nInfill of the depressions is limited to less than 30%. \nSo this is the recovery rate if you will. \nSo in Sussoon Bay and North Central Bay\, there’s not much \nrecovery. \nThe the sand mining effects persist at least during the time \nframes and and locations we had data for and looked at except \nfor two Central Bay areas. \n1 is this one least 2036 point NOx Shoal and it\, it had a 55% \nrecovery between 2008 and 2019. \nSo that’s a different starting point than the 97. \nAnd then the Presidio Shoal\, which is the finer sand that \nthat was talked about earlier. \nI’m just used 100% that it was actually a little bit less and a \nlittle bit more depending on the time frame. \nSo that one’s really recovering. \nThis is very useful information. \nAnd this is an analysis that the ISP specifically asked for it. \nAnd just a little bit of an aside\, we talked about \nuncertainty. \nThere’s a lot of uncertainty in these analysis. \nBut if you look at how these studies were structured\, we have \na\, a sediment budget and a sand specifically also a sand budget. \nWe have a\, a numerical computer modeling based on computation to \nsand transport. \nAnd then we have this mineralogical historical \nanalysis\, source analysis tracking\, if you will. \nAnd then we also had this geomorphic analysis and all \nthese other things. \nSo these are different lines of evidence. \nAnd So what the ISP came up with is where we think these all kind \nof agree. \nAnd this is what I’m gonna present now\, a pretty distilled \none. \nOn the local scale\, depressions\, removal of sand waves and bed \nlowering occur where sand replenishment is low. \nThis is all of the mining areas in Suzun Bay and also the North \nCentral Bay mined areas where there’s 11 to 28% replenishment\, \nyou know\, precisely calculated. \nBut you see it’s say less than 30% reduced sand transport \noccurs we think where sand replenishment is high. \nAnd this is occurs in the South Central mined areas 709 S\, which \nwe talked about earlier\, the Presidio Shoal where there was\, \nyou know\, I said 100% in the prior slide. \nBut this is the range that was computed. \nAnd the idea is that if if there’s sand moving into through \nan area and you excavate that area and then that sand that \nmoves through fills it up or whatever drops out in that area \nto restore the bed form likely is a reduction to the sand that \nmoves through the area because the sand transport is thought to \nbe transport limited plus or minus. \nYou dig a hole\, sand deposits less sand goes out the other \nway\, and then the currents have to pick that sand up elsewhere. \nSo that’s an effect. \nThe Central Bayside I showed you again\, even with that depth \nchange\, we computed a 55% replenishment on the regional \nscale. \nSand mining exceeds sand supply. \nMine sand is relic delivered to the Bay thousands of years ago. \nSassoon Bay and Central Bay lease areas can be analyzed \nseparately due to the apparent limited sand transport \nconnection between them. \nA little bit of a surprise. \nSand is exchanged between the central Bay sand mining areas in \nthe sand Shoals and beaches on the Pacific side of the Golden \nGate. \nExchange is driven primarily by the ebb and flood of the tides \nwith contribution from wave driven sand transport into the \nBay along the shore. \nErosion of beaches due to sand mining was not investigated in \nthese studies. \nHere are the key data gaps. \nWe can discuss these if you want later\, but first\, the exchange \nof sand between the Bay and the Pacific Ocean. \nWe got some good information. \nI think we all feel like we could get into this a little \nfurther. \nIn particular\, understand what’s happening on the ocean side. \nWe kind of split this whole system in half or in parts and \nwe haven’t looked at the other side\, which would\, would help us \nunderstand what’s going on. \nSecondly\, the sand supply to Bay beaches is\, is of interest and \nwe\, we didn’t analyze that. \nI would say the sand supply to ocean beaches would would go \ninto item 1 sand transport pathways. \nWe\, we did\, we\, we did confirm and identify sand transport \npathways in these studies. \nBut within each of the\, let’s say sand budget sub embayments\, \nthere could be sand movement from say a source like say a\, a \nriver mouth or a Creek mouth that just recirculates landward \nand forms a beach and doesn’t propagate. \nYou know that sand may not propagate all the way through to \nthe\, to the ocean. \nSo those some refinement of the sand transport pathways and in \nparticular how the the beaches are linked to the deeper sand \noffshore sand supply. \n4th\, the variation of sand transport caused by grain size. \nThis is I guess one of the first\, certainly the most \nintense and detailed analysis of sand in San Francisco Bay at a \nBay level. \nAnd so there were some simplifying assumptions as we \ndiscussed at the beginning\, some of the questions grain size \nmatters with sand. \nAnd you know\, there may be different answers with the finer \nsands and the coarser sands. \nI’ll just leave it at that so that that’s something that could \nbe looked at further. \nOK\, I just\, I think we’re\, I’m done with the ISP presentation. \nHappy to for all of us to talk or answer questions. \nI just wanted to leave you with this picture that I took a \ncouple years ago thinking about this. \nThis is looking at\, you know\, the Golden Gate at the Presidio \nfrom Crissyfield Beach. \nYou can see some waves here coming in. \nThese are waves from the ocean. \nThey’re coming in through the Golden Gate and refracting \naround. \nYou can see this wave breaking. \nIt’s moving sand along the shore. \nThat’s called littoral transport and this is a beach with people \non it. \nAnd if we hung out here for a while\, we might see some birds \nand a few other things\, other animals. \nThis was not studied in the sand mining studies except based on \nthe limited available references and and Jim mentioned Chrissy \nfield deposition and I will\, I think I’ll just continue to \nshare. \nI don’t know if I did that or did somebody else do that\, but \nprobably me. \nBut are there any questions or should we go on to the \nstratigraphy study? \nWell\, I think what we need to do now and we are getting very \nshort of time. \nSo I don’t know if people have the ability to hang out for a \nlittle while after three. \nI’m hoping maybe they do. \nBut we do need to take down your slides for a SEC\, Bob. \nOK. \nAnd thank you so much\, Dave and Bob\, I think we need to have the \nopportunity for the sand miners to provide comments. \nYeah\, Sorry\, Pat\, if I stepped on your toes. \nNo\, that’s good. \nThat was one of the things I was going to say. \nAnd Brenda\, just a quick note. \nI have a hard stop. \nI have another Zoom call at three. \nOK\, we’ll try to move quickly because we want to get to the \nprovenance study. \nSo Erica\, I guess you’re still. \nYes\, we will have Aaron Holloway from GHC\, the consultant for the \nminers to present a couple of slides here. \nThank you. \nGreat. \nThanks. \nWelcome\, Aaron. \nHi. \nThanks for having me. \nLet me hold on a second. \nIt’s gonna be easier if I share a screen. \nSo our\, the\, the comments from the mining team are summarized \nin Appendix H Let’s see. \nSorry\, bear with me. \nThere you go. \nBut I would\, I just wanted to highlight kind of the sand \nbudget. \nYou know\, it\, it\, it was discussed quite a bit by Dave \nand\, and Bob and we recognize the value in the sand budget. \nBut as David said\, you know\, it’s really looking at inflows\, \noutflows in the change in storage. \nSo you know\, it’s transactions in a checking account\, but what \nit doesn’t include is\, you know\, the size of the savings account \nand the size of that sand reservoir. \nAnd we think that’s an important consideration in terms of how \nmuch sand is out there and available for mining. \nAnd so that’s\, that’s a key item that’s missing from the sand \nbudget. \nThe other one I think is\, was was was discussed\, but I feel \nlike is is not given enough attention is that the \nuncertainty in the direction at of sand flux at the Golden Gate\, \nit’s the most significant\, you know\, it has the highest\, it’s \nthe most uncertain term of the sand budget. \nBut I think a lot of the results we just saw\, you know\, jump to \nthe best guess that it’s\, you know\, oriented out and sand \nfluxes out toward the ocean. \nBut if you look at the uncertainty\, it could go either \nway. \nAnd and comments on the ISP report from Lester McKee\, you \nknow that I have quote from him at the bottom. \nDue to the\, the computation by difference and accumulative \nuncertainties\, the direction of flux at this location is \nuncertain. \nSo we would caution\, you know\, the\, the\, the commissioners from \nviewing that as a certainty. \nYou know\, it’s\, it’s not. \nAnd I think that’s\, that’s described in the studies. \nBut sometimes\, you know\, when trying to summarize things\, you \nknow\, we leap\, leap beyond this uncertainty. \nThe other concern we have in terms of the sand budget is the\, \nthe way mining was accounted for in addition to bathymetric \nchange. \nSo the USGS team studied the bathymetric change. \nTheir methods excluded the human disturbed act areas which were \nmining and dredging\, largely because those were going to be \naccounted for separately. \nYou know\, as as Brenda indicated\, there’s there’s \ndetailed volumes and records of the mining and the dredging. \nSo those were going to be accounted for separately in the \nbudget that so the bathymetry change should not have included \nthose areas. \nThat was the methods and that was kind of the the direction \nthat was shared by Bruce Jaffe during the quarterly review \nmeeting on this topic. \nBut when the SFEI team prepared their budget\, they included \nboth\, they included the mining areas in the bathymetric change \nvolume and then they accounted for them separately as well. \nSo while we acknowledge the sand mining is a large term in the \nsand budget\, to double count it\, you know\, is going to have \nsignificant error in the results. \nSo an example of that at Sassoon Bay here\, Sassoon Bay did not \nhave a lot of transport. \nYou could see the bathymetric change in this location outside \nof the mined areas is\, you know\, relatively shallow\, plus or \nminus half meter\, you know\, maybe 1m at most. \nBut the large black area there you see in that graphic\, this is \nthe mined area. \nSo that’s where a lot of the change is happening and the \nchange is due to mining. \nBut in the sand budget\, it’s accounted for once in the \nbathymetric change volume and it’s accounted for again as a \nmining volume\, essentially double counting it. \nSo that that ripple effect carries throughout the sand \nbudget because the sand budget assumes the system is all \nconnected. \nIf that is corrected and the sand budget bathymetric change \nis\, is kind of accounted for separately than the mining as \nintended by the USGS team\, the results are significantly \ndifferent. \nYou know\, we have a different direction and a much greater \nmagnitude of inflow of sand to the Bay. \nAnd then comparing the conceptual model that Bob \ndescribed from from the UT Austin team where we have sort \nof two distinct sources of sand somewhat disconnected that \ndoesn’t align well with the sand budget as currently presented. \nThe sand budget\, you know\, indicates this flow of sand \nthroughout the Bay\, which if that were the case\, you would \nexpect there to be some more consistencies between the the \ntype of sand and the source of sand. \nSo if the corrections are made in the way the mining is \naccounted for\, these arrows change significantly. \nSo Pacific Ocean becomes a source of sand for the central \nBay and then the flux between Sassoon Bay to San Pablo and the \nflux to central Bay become a lot lower. \nAnd that looks a lot\, a lot closer to the conceptual model \ndescribed here. \nSo we’ve got other comments about speculation of mining \nimpacts and\, and\, you know\, the lack of prior research \nconclusions that were brought in from the environmental teams\, \nbut I’m not gonna go into those. \nI’ll\, I’ll turn it back over to the team. \nThank you. \nDo the miner\, do the miners have anything else they wanted to \npresent or was that the end of it? \nNo\, Greg\, we’re\, we’re just keeping it brief in the interest \nof time. \nOh\, I totally appreciate that. \nI I wanted to say that I think that we should have any \ndiscussion and we can always do the next presentation at a \ndifferent meeting. \nI want to make sure that the commissioners get a chance to \ndiscuss anything they need to discuss or want a questions they \nhave at this point. \nAnd if there aren’t any\, then obviously we can move on to the \nnext presentation. \nBut I\, I did think that was probably the point of all of \nthis. \nYeah\, yeah. \nI would just want to say\, sorry to jump in\, out of place here\, \nbut we’re\, we’re very fortunate to have the\, the UT people \nonline. \nSo I think it would be a shame if after they did all this \nwithout getting paid that we didn’t let them speak. \nSo it wouldn’t be easy for them to speak at the next meeting. \nThey would have to\, need to speak now. \nAll right\, Well\, I don’t know. \nI\, I just\, that’s my opinion. \nFor what it’s worth. \nI\, I probably spoke out of turn\, But no\, no\, it’s a good question \n’cause obviously we want to hear from them. \nI was just thinking we could hear from them next. \nBut if that’s what that’s what we need to do\, yeah\, I’ll have \nto ask them. \nI’ll ask them indirectly\, I mean\, in the chat while you guys \ntalk. \nWell\, if there’s a question from the commissioners\, I was just\, I \nI do have a question. \nYeah. \nMy question is\, was anything\, did you look at what those \ndepressions were filled in with? \nWere they filled in with the same kind of sand grains that \nthey were taken or were they filled in with silt? \nI always think of this that the Bay is a very silt rich \nenvironment. \nSo So what were those holes filled in with? \nI’ll jump in on that and maybe Dave or somebody else can help \nme. \nThose areas are hydraulically too active to contain much mud. \nLet’s just use that. \nSilt would be the coarser side of that\, in my opinion. \nThere were some attempts to look at cameras and\, you know\, camera \nshots\, but it’s it’s a very active area. \nIt’s very hard to see. \nIt’s pretty deep. \nYeah. \nYou know\, if you are a hard hat diver with big heavy boots\, you \nprobably fall over and get buried. \nI’m not quite sure. \nI mean\, it’s a pretty tough place to to see\, but I don’t \nknow if anyone else has more\, you know\, better\, more specific \ninformation. \nDavid\, would you wanna help me out with that? \nDid I? \nDo you agree with me? \nYes\, I agree\, Bob. \nThe basic of the current pad\, the currents are so strong there \nthat the silts and the clay material does not settle there. \nSo it is the course of material settles in those depressions. \nThank you. \nThat that that’s what I wanted to know. \nAppreciate it. \nSo we can move on as are are there do any other commissioners \nhave a question? \nAndy Gunther. \nYeah\, I have a question. \nBut maybe we wanna push this discussion to the next meeting\, \nBrenda. \nBut but yeah\, I think well\, I think one of the important \nthings. \nLet me just pass up my question please. \nThe question is again about the uncertainty at the Golden Gate \nand the\, the and this I’m now unclear about the double \ncounting. \nI thought that we had a quote from he saying that we’re not \ngonna include the dredging site so there won’t be double \ncounting. \nBut it sounds like we have another presentation suggesting \nthere was double and therefore the numbers in terms of the \nNetflix at the gate look very different\, which again\, I \nthought was uncertain anyways. \nAnd so it’s a I\, I’m not sure how Brenda\, I’ll defer to you \nabout to how we\, we\, we work on this issue. \nBut I need some more time to kind of understand the debate \nhere and then its implications for how\, what what we we are \nthinking about in terms of permitting additional sand \nmining and and what the various benefits and risks are. \nYeah. \nAnd what I was going to say\, and I apologize\, apologize for the \ninterruption\, is that this was the ISP findings for findings \noverview. \nWe will have Lester McKee. \nHe’s agreed to come. \nI don’t have the date right now\, but he has agreed to present on \nthe SAN budget\, which perhaps where is where this conversation \nwould be better had because then Lester who developed the budget \nwould be here to have that conversation. \nBut yeah\, can I\, can I jump in real quick? \nSo the ISP was aware of the\, of the\, this comment and it’s our \njudgment that the\, the budget was done correctly. \nSeveral of us have a lot of experience with budgets and we \nfeel that it was done correctly. \nI would suggest that it’s great to get pushed back or you know\, \ncritical review. \nI\, I\, I\, I would suggest a process to reconcile these \nconcerns and then report back. \nI think there might be a need for additional study to\, to \nspecific analysis to reconcile these perspectives. \nAnd I think it’s a healthy process\, even though I know it’s \nfrustrating when you have to make a decision. \nWell\, no\, I mean\, I\, that would be my preference would be that \nyou and Mr. \nHolloway talk this over and\, and\, and help at least clarify \nfor me whether whether you have found areas of agreement and you \nstill have areas of disagreement or whatever. \nSo that\, that\, that I don’t have to take my limited knowledge of \nthis and somehow make my own faulty decision. \nYeah. \nAnd I and I\, you know\, Aaron and I know each other and we all \nknow. \nSo this\, this it’s fine. \nI don’t really feel bad about the\, the challenges and I\, I\, I \njust don’t right now. \nYou know\, we’ve been working on this for a while. \nSo everyone’s out of money except\, I don’t know\, maybe \nAaron has more money than the rest of us. \nBut yeah\, but I think we could all work together and\, and come \nback with this resolved. \nIn my opinion. \nI\, I\, I would prefer to do it that way rather than\, you know\, \nargue about it\, frankly that\, that I hopefully I didn’t speak \nout a line again. \nI’m sorry\, I’m getting older. \nNo\, not at all\, but I thought that was great that you spoke. \nThank you. \nI\, I can just wrap it up. \nI\, I agree. \nI think if we can talk with Lester and the team\, that’d be \nhelpful. \nThis comment was made sort of after all the quarterly meetings \nwere held. \nAnd so there wasn’t ever a venue to really kind of talk this \nthrough. \nSo the results that were prevented at the last quarterly \nmeeting were much different than this final version. \nAnd so part of it was we just haven’t had that chance to talk \nthat through\, ask our questions and and understand the rationale \nbehind the final budget. \nSo we look forward to that happening. \nThat sounds to me like a great suggestion. \nBrenda\, can you kind of help that happen? \nI can help that happen. \nI will note that I’ve been chatting with Zach\, our next \npresenter in chat\, and he does\, as does Matthew\, teach classes. \nAnd so our next several meetings are scheduled during periods \nwhere he is teaching. \nSo we have 20 minutes now we could have him do the \npresentation or I can try to. \nLet’s have him do the presentation. \nYeah\, let’s do that. \nThat sounds great. \nOK\, Zach\, with that\, you’re on. \nSorry for the. \nNo problem at all. \nThis is an important discussion. \nAnd hopefully what I have to\, to present here will will provide \nsome context as well. \nSo let me get my screen shared and OK\, yes\, presentation. \nYep\, OK\, everybody can see this. \nYes\, great. \nOK\, well\, again\, I’m very happy to to be able to to speak to you \nall about the research that we’ve been doing. \nAnd since we’re a little short on time\, I’ll just go ahead and \nhit the high points. \nI’ll also note that I’ve made my slides hopefully pretty \nself-explanatory. \nSo anybody that wants to look at them later\, please feel free to \ndo so. \nAnd then Matt and I have also\, we’re in the process of \npublishing a lot of this work as well. \nSo that will be available and we’ll make people aware when \nthings are published. \nSo we’re gonna have to start with some kind of sedimentology \n101 background here and explain what a fingerprinting study is. \nAnd so a sedimentary system is comprised of some source region \nwhere sediment is being produced by erosion\, some area where that \nsediment is being transported. \nSo for source regions\, think mountains\, transport regions\, \nthink rivers\, and then some area where that sediment is being \ndeposited either along the river or somewhere out in the coast. \nAnd so I’ve\, I’ve kind of conceptualized fingerprinting \nhere by illustrating blue source regions\, red source regions and \nyellow source regions. \nAnd if we go into any point in a sedimentary system and we take a \nsample of the sand\, we can use the composition of that sand \nthat’s inherited from the unique geology and its source region to \nsay something about where it came. \nSo we go here\, we see red here\, yellow here\, where they mix in a \ndelta combination of red and yellow. \nAnd so there’s many different ways that we can do this with \nnatural sediment and we use several different methods for \nthis study\, but I’m only gonna talk largely about one of them. \nSo it’s also important to note that processes like climate and \ntectonics can change where sediment comes from in the same \nsystem through time. \nSo\, you know\, maybe in our baseline here\, we’re producing \nmore red sediment out to this delta ’cause it’s raining more \non the red mountains. \nMaybe in time too\, we shift and we’ve got more rain in the \nyellow. \nMaybe we’ve diverted the blue into the into the red. \nAnd so now we go out to the delta and we see\, OK\, we’ve got \na combination of dominantly yellow\, red\, blue\, so on and so \nforth. \nSo processes can change where sediment is coming from in a \nsedimentary system on the scale of of thousands of years\, \nhundreds to thousands to 10s of thousands of years. \nAnd so if we have information both on the age of the \nsedimentary deposit that we’re that we’re looking at and we \nhave the sediment fingerprints\, we can develop kind of a from \nwhere and when model for the history of sediment sources in a \nspecific sedimentary system. \nAnd that’s what we’ve done for San Francisco Bay. \nSo it turns out that California geology is particularly well \nsuited to doing this kind of study. \nSo here on the right\, I’ve illustrated the Sacramento and \nthe San Joaquin catchments and their major tributaries. \nThese are the dominant sediment sources for most of the sediment \nat least over longer time scales into San Francisco Bay. \nAnd so up north\, we have volcanics\, metamorphic rocks\, \nwe’ve got granite and the Sierra Nevadas. \nDown here in the South\, we’ve got some metamorphic rocks\, \nmostly a lot of this granite. \nAnd then in the Coast Ranges\, we have a mix of sedimentary and \nvolcanic rocks. \nSo we have different source geologies in these different \nregions. \nThe sediment that is being produced by each of these \nregions is going to have a different compositional \nfingerprint that we can use to talk about where sediment is \ncoming from and how that might change through time. \nSo the specific method that I’m gonna talk about is using \nuranium\, lead aged dating of a mineral called zircon. \nAnd this is a particularly useful tool in California \nspecifically in large part because California was once a \nsubduction zone. \nSo 10s of millions\, hundreds of millions of years ago\, there was \nan oceanic plate subducting into California. \nIt was glomming on a bunch of metamorphic rocks here in the \nwater. \nNow the Sierra Nevada\, there was an active magnetic arc that was \nin placing all the granite that is now in the high Sierras. \nAnd so one of the minerals that forms in these settings is this \nmineral zircon. \nSo zircon is very important here because it incorporates a little \nbit of uranium into its crystal lattice. \nAnd so once that zircon crystallizes in cooling magma \nchamber down here that will eventually become granite\, we \nset a uranium lead age decay clock. \nAnd so we can we can examine the specific age of crystallization \nof that zircon. \nAnd that age of crystallization is gonna be different in \ndifferent places along the Sierra Nevadas. \nAnd so once those plutons get uplifted\, these zircon get \neroded and transported out into the rivers carried out in the \nSan Francisco Bay. \nWe can use these age dates to get a fingerprint that’s pretty \nunique to the source region from which sand is eroding at any \ngiven time. \nAnd so as a specific example of this\, we can look at Half Dome \nand Yosemite. \nSo Half Dome and Yosemite is made of granite that’s about \n84\,000\,000 years old. \nSo when a zircon erodes from Half Dome\, it falls into the \nMerced River. \nThe Merced River carries it out into the San Joaquin River\, that \ncarries it out into San Francisco Bay. \nSo if we go out into the sand to San Francisco Bay\, we separate a \nlot of zircon into the sand. \nWe analyze the ages. \nIf we see a lot of 8084 million year old zircon\, we know that \nthere’s a lot of sediment coming from this part of the Sierras. \nAnd so California is very good for this because a lot of these \nbasement\, a lot of these rocks have been dated. \nPeople have been studying Sierra Nevada geology for many\, many \ndecades now. \nSo we have a very good understanding of where zorcon of \ndifferent ages are coming and being fed into this system. \nAnd Matt and I have been working for 10/10/12 years or so at this \npoint on generating these uranium lead age spectre\, these \nfingerprints for different sediment sources that feed into \nSan Francisco Bay. \nAnd so the rivers that are carrying sand out of the \nnorthern Sierras up here in the Sacramento catchment are very \nenriched in this 140 ish million year old age beat. \nAnd So what I’m showing here is we took a sample of sand or we \ntook multiple samples of sand. \nWe separated a lot of zircon out of them. \nWe dated them individually. \nAnd this is the Spectra of ages that we got out of the zircon. \nSo the sand up here coming from the north has a lot of zircon of \nthis age. \nThe sand coming out of the South\, the San Joaquin catchment \nhas a lot of zircon of this 80 to 100 million year old age. \nAnd the sand that’s coming out of the Coast Range is here has \nkind of a mix of these ages\, but importantly it has a lot of \nthese younger zircon ages as well. \nAnd so these are coming from younger volcanic material in \nlike the Napa and Sonoma Valley. \nSo each one of these regions has a very distinct fingerprint that \nsand that is derived from that region is going to have\, is \ngoing to inherit. \nAnd so we can use that leverage to talk about where sand in \ndifferent parts of San Francisco Bay might be coming from. \nAnd so for this study\, we got dredge samples from the mining \ncompany. \nSo some of these in Sassoon Bay are actually dredged from the \nlease blocks. \nAnd we also got some older core samples from older academic \nstudies. \nSame here in Central Bay. \nWe got a dredge sample from the deeper part of Central Bay\, \ndredge sample from Presidio Shoal. \nWe also have some samples from Crissy Field. \nWe’ve got samples from the outer coast beaches. \nAnd then we’ve also got samples from the far offshore. \nAnd so we took all the sand from these samples. \nWe separated all the zircon out of it. \nWe dated those individuals zircon to look for those age \nfingerprints to say is it coming from the Northern Sierra\, \nSouthern Sierra Coast Range. \nAnd so this is what that looks like. \nAnd so here we’ve highlighted the Bay head. \nSo the Bay head here is the Sassoon and San Pablo Bay \nsamples shown here in blue. \nThe central Bay samples are those that are in the Golden \nGate Strait and Central Bay dredge blocks down here. \nAnd then the yellow samples from the outer coast beaches. \nAnd so very importantly from these fingerprints\, we see that \nthe Bay head samples are dominated by this 140 ish \nmillion year old age peak\, consistent with derivation from \nthe northern Sierras\, whereas Central Bay and the outer coast \nare much more strongly related to the southern Sierras. \nAnd so if you haven’t seen sediment fingerprint data like \nthis before\, maybe this seems like kind of a subtle \ndifference\, but we can we can very rigorously statistically \ndemonstrate that these two regions\, the Bay head region and \nthe central Bay and outer coast region cannot be derived from \nthe same source. \nThe the source of the sand that was depositing that sand that we \nsampled must have been different between those two regions. \nSo back to this conclusion figure. \nSo these are just the basic conclusions from this work from \njust that data. \nThese two regions have different sand sources. \nThe Bay head is probably largely northern siren derived with \nmaybe some local drainages. \nCentral Bay and the outer coast have a much stronger southern \nsiren affinity. \nAnd it’s also important to note that I’m talking about the \nzircon data here\, but this is also supported by other \nfingerprinting methods like sand photography and geochemistry. \nThe same\, the same trends hold. \nI’ll also note that these trends hold over grain size as well\, \nright? \nSo the the sample from Presidio Shoal is indistinguishable by \nthese methods from the sample in the deeper part of Central Bay \nand all of the samples across the Student Bay are \nstatistically indistinguishable from each other as well. \nOK. \nSo we don’t just have the fingerprint data here\, which is \nvery useful. \nWe also have some information about the likely age of the \nsand. \nAnd so when I’m talking about age of the sand here\, I’m not \ntalking about the age that that sand last moved. \nI’m talking about the age of when that sand came into the San \nFrancisco Bay system originally. \nSo not the last time tides moved it\, but the time at which it was \ncarried from the Sacramento\, San Joaquin drainage into the San \nFrancisco Bay system. \nAnd so we’ve been able to directly date that kind of \nresidence time in two places here. \nSo these are from dredge samples provided by the miners here in \nCentral Bay. \nSo these are optically stimulated luminescence age \ndates. \nSo the date the last time at which the sample was exposed to \nsunlight. \nAnd so that could be the time at which it got into water deep \nenough to block sunlight or the time at which it was buried by \nother sediments\, preventing it from being exposed to sunlight. \nAnd so very interestingly\, the the sand here in Central Bay \nseems to be younger than the sand here in Sassoon Bay. \nThis sand is three\, 4000 years old. \nThis sand is a couple 100 to maybe 1000 years old based on \nour preliminary results. \nAnd I’ll talk about how we can improve this going forward. \nThe other data that we have here is we know the history of sea \nlevel rise since the last Ice Age across this part of the \nsystem from independent work that was done on sediment cores. \nAnd so we know that the shoreline during the last Ice \nAge was somewhere out here at the at the what is now the \nmodern continental shelf. \nSlip break and sea level pushed what would have been a combined \nSacramento\, San Joaquin Delta from this position back across \nwhat is now the continental shelf through Golden Gate Strait \nand back to its modern position up here in the Bay Head over the \nlast 18\,000 years or so. \nSo from this we can interpret our kind of transport age into \nthe Bay. \nSo it looks like most of the sand\, at least the sand that \nwe’ve been able to date is somewhere between a few 1000 \nyears old to there is some new sand in Sassoon Bay. \nAnybody that’s been to the lower Sacramento River knows that \nthere is some sand still moving in the lower SAC. \nBut at least what we’ve dated from the dredge samples\, it’s \nprobably a couple of 1000 years old. \nThe sand out here in Central Bay and the outer coast was probably \nlargely originally transported into the system several thousand \nyears ago when sea level was much lower. \nAnd subsequently maybe it’s been reworked and sloshed back and \nforth by waves and tides. \nBut the original date that it was transported back into the \nsystem is several 1000 years. \nOK. \nSo we can combine all this into kind of a model for transport of \nsand into San Francisco Bay through time. \nSo 18\,000 years ago\, we’re in a global Ice Age. \nSea level is 150 meters lower than it is in the modern. \nAnd at this time\, a combined Sacramento\, San Joaquin Delta \nsits at the shelf edge. \nThis is largely sand that’s being derived predominantly from \nthe Southern Sierras based on the fingerprints. \nAnd it’s probably leaving kind of a blanket of sand in a delta \nthat’s sitting out here. \nAs global sea level begins to rise\, this delta gets pushed \nback across what is now the continental shelf\, probably \nleaving a blanket of largely southern Sierra and derived sand \nacross what will become the continental shelf. \nAs sea level continues to rise\, sometime between about 8 and \n6000 years ago\, this delta gets forced back through the Golden \nGate Strait. \nSimultaneous to this\, for climate reasons that we’ll talk \nabout in a second\, the dominant source of sand coming into the \nSan Francisco Bay system shifts to the northern Sierras and \nperhaps other smaller local drainages over the next couple \nthousand years. \nSea level continues to push the Delta back to its modern \nposition. \nThe Bay head delta was about here at Browns Island about 4000 \nyears ago\, which is consistent with our residents time dating \nthe ages from those dredge samples. \nAnd then out here we don’t have any active sand input from the \ndelta in all likelihood based on this residents time history and \non our fingerprints. \nInstead this sand is probably largely being kind of reworked \nrelic sand via tides and waves from sand that was carried \nseveral thousand years ago\, plus active coastal erosion. \nObviously sea cliffs all over California are eroding via wave \naction and so active coastal erosion is also probably \ninputting a little bit of sand here. \nBut largely by the time we get to a few thousand years ago\, we \nhave these two disconnected sand transport systems. \nOK\, so why does the source of San Francisco Bay sand shift \nfrom South to north of time? \nWell\, during the last Ice Age there was an Alpine ice sheet \nacross the southern Sierras. \nIt turns out having an ice sheet on top of granite is a very \nefficient way to mechanically erode sand. \nAnd so during the last glacial period up until about 13\,000 \nyears ago\, this ice sheet was probably doing a lot of work \nmechanically eroding and producing a lot of sand out of \nthe southern sea eras through natural climate cycles. \nOver the subsequent 13\,000 years or so\, and this is evidenced by \na number of other independent climate proxies\, the southern \nsear and ice sheet starts to melt. \nThe southern Sierras get warmer and drier and regional \nprecipitation patterns shift more moisture to the northern \nSierras. \nAnd so we start raining more on the northern Sierras. \nWe melt all the glaciers. \nWe dry up the southern Sierras and so this is likely the reason \nthat the sediment sources shift towards the northern Sierras \nover the last couple 1000 years. \nOK\, so back to the conclusions real quick. \nWe can come back to these in a second\, but there is one more \nthing that that I want to note in terms of this luminescence \ndating. \nAnd so this type of luminescence dating\, luminescence dating \nthese dredge samples from the sea floor was something that we \nhad thought from the literature was conceptually possible\, but \nthis was the first time that had been demonstrated to be \nparticularly effective. \nNo one had ever done this kind of thing before\, at least in \nterms of dredging up sand and trying to date\, you know\, sand \nin a sand mining lease block. \nAnd so we think that a broader expansion of this OSL dating \nwould be a very valuable thing to potentially add to future \nunderstanding of sand transport. \nIf we know things like how frequently is sand in Central \nBay being recycled through beaches? \nHow totally is sand that’s coming in from the river being \nbleached? \nHow long has sand in different parts of the system or different \ndepths within the subsea floor sand reservoir\, how long it’s \nbeen there? \nThat’s potentially a very valuable thing to understand to \nour broader understanding here. \nAnd so with that\, I’ll\, I’ll just stop. \nAnd I\, I will also end with a picture of Chrissy Field because \nwe also took a sample there. \nAnd I’m very happy to\, to answer any questions. \nAnd Matt Malkowski\, I think is still on the call too\, so he can \nadd some perspective if he wants. \nOK. \nSo do the miners have any comments at at this point that \nthey’d like to share? \nErica Yes\, just real quick\, we’re going to provide a couple \nof comments on this study and Aaron again will be doing that \nfor us. \nThank you. \nYeah\, thanks\, Erica. \nI\, I don’t\, I don’t have a whole lot to add to to the study. \nI think I’ll just use this time and let the commissioners ask \nquestions. \nI\, I didn’t see any major concerns or we don’t have any \nquestions or issues with the methods applied. \nOK\, well\, I do have a question and it’s\, I think this is just \none of those things for years I’ve heard about. \nIt’s sort of like the\, the\, you know\, the folk history of \nsediment in San Francisco Bay is that it all came from the gold \nrush. \nSo what happened to the sediments that worked through \nthe system into the gold rush? \nI remember reading an article by Patrick Bernard maybe 10-15 \nyears ago where he said they were all worked through\, but you \ndidn’t mention them. \nSo where do they fit in this? \nZach\, you’re\, you’re asking all the good questions today. \nYou’re nailing it. \nYes. \nSo that is definitely true. \nAnd there’s demonstrated evidence that the Bay floor rose \nparticularly with fine sediment after the gold rush. \nAnd so there’s a\, there’s a couple of\, there’s a couple of \nreasons. \nSo this is\, this was this was a question that we entertained and \nwe’re still entertaining. \nThere’s a couple of reasons why we don’t think that that is the \nspecific explanation for what we’re seeing here. \nThe most important of which is that this sediment at least a \nlot of what we’ve dated is thousands of years old or \nhundreds of years old based on the residents times. \nAnd so it’s way\, way\, way before the gold rush. \nAnd so this was something that we originally incorporated and \nhave incorporated into subsequent proposals about \ntaking sediment cores and actually seeing if we can see \nthat effect of gold rush sand coming in. \nBut from everything that we’ve seen in the sand size fraction\, \nthe sand that we’re looking at probably predates most of the \ngold rush. \nA lot of the sediment that was washed out and started to fill \nin parts of San Francisco Bay during the hydraulic mining. \nWas fine silt and mud. \nA lot of the sand that was produced there is still probably \nsequestered up in the upper parts of the Sacramento River \nand the tributaries. \nSome of it probably made it down. \nBut we think that the broader climate effect over the last \ncouple thousand years is what we’re seeing as opposed to the \nmuch shorter time scale effect of the hydraulic mining\, which \ndefinitely puts sediment into San Francisco Bay. \nBut everything that we see seems to indicate that the sediment \nthat we’re looking at is older than that. \nThank you. \nSo in other words\, the glaciers\, the machines of the glaciers \nwere just really what dominated the systems that you found. \nOK\, Great. \nCommissioner Gunther. \nYeah. \nFollowing up on that\, I wanted to ask a question about \ntransport and about the whether we know. \nSo for example\, in 1862 with the great flood\, do those\, does a \nwinter like that have the ability to pick up a whole bunch \nof that sand that’s still hanging out in the Sacramento \nRiver in the wherever the Merced River slows down and things drop \nout\, pick it up and throw it into Sassoon Bay in one fell \nswoop? \nI mean\, so that that that the horizontal transport across the \nlandscape can be very episodic. \nAnd so do we know anything about to be able to say something \nabout that? \nSo that the ’cause it would seem to me\, I guess I’m trying to \nunderstand whether there could be an overlay that’s on the \nscale of decades based upon major storm events against this \nthousand year story that you just told us\, right. \nYes. \nSo\, so that is definitely the case that there should be pulses \nof\, of sand sized sediment into the Bay. \nBut I\, I think the kind of perspective to take here is the \nfact that anything that does come into the Bay here is gonna \nbe mixed with anything that’s already there via title action. \nAnd what we’re talking about in terms of these time integrated \nthousand year time scale changes in sediment history is gonna \nswamp out any very short time scale introduction of new \ndifferent sand. \nAnd so the bulk of the sand that is sitting here seems to be \nprobably thousands of years old. \nIt’s been there\, it’s been there for quite a while. \nAnd so that’s thousands of years of volume of sand being in \nthere. \nThat if we’re looking at a dredge sample in particular\, \nthat’s not just sampling the upper\, you know\, couple \ncentimeters of the sea floor\, but it’s integrating\, you know\, \nmeters down deep. \nThat 1000 year integrated signature is not gonna pick up \nthose shorter time scale pulse events\, at least not with the \nthe methods that we’re using here\, right. \nBut if you’re facing questions about regulating or not \nregulating sand mining on the scale of\, of these activities\, \non a scale of a decade\, I’m very impressed by the fact that Fort \nKnox show you can dig a hole and it’s still there and you go down \njust over across the channel of the Presidio\, you dig a hole and \nit disappears. \nIt’s filled back in and\, and\, and it sounds like up at Sassoon \nBay\, we dig a hole and it stays there. \nBut does it stay there until we have a great flood and then it \nfills up completely? \nI’m trying to understand whether we can anticipate\, you’re right. \nHow does that this is the problem when you have biologists \ntalking sediment? \nIt’s like that the rate at which the change occurs in the \nenvironment is a key thing for us to understand and assess \nimpacts\, right. \nSo I\, I think that in part your question is probably better \nanswered by a sediment transport modeler. \nBut one thing that I will say is that when we were doing this \nstudy\, we actually had a really hard time finding sand in \nshallow cores in this area. \nAnd so a lot of the\, a lot of the cores that we had access to \nwere old USGS cores and maybe a meter\, maybe a little bit more \nthan a meter if we’re lucky in\, in total depth. \nAnd we had a really hard time finding near surface sand. \nAnd so the sand samples that we got here are dredge samples that \nwere provided from the lease blocks from the mining companies \nwhere they’re going\, you know\, deeper than what a three inch \naluminum pipe from the USGS was going\, you know\, a meter or so. \nWe were anecdotally surprised how little near surface sand \nthere was in these areas when we were trying to find samples of \nsand to analyze. \nThank you. \nHey Zach\, do you wanna take your slide down? \nMaybe? \nOh\, yeah\, yeah. \nThanks. \nSorry. \nWe can see you better that way. \nBrenda\, could I try to answer or\, or throw in my 2 bits for \nCommissioner Gunther’s question? \nI\, I\, I think that in the\, over the past few years\, and I forgot \nthe exact war year 2018-2019\, there was a very large\, you \nknow\, you’ve had some really large flow events during this \nsand mining study. \nThat have not filled in the Sassoon Bay mining areas with \nsand. \nNow some things have changed geologically very recently\, such \nas construction of lots of dams on the Central Valley rivers\, \nconstruction of\, you know\, the use of like the yellow bypass \nfor trapping sand or that’s the net effect of it. \nAnd also that the the the glaciers that Zach mentioned \nthat we’re producing a lot of the sand are no longer present \nin the Sierras. \nSo there have been some changes like that also. \nThat would all account for that now when we have. \nBut for us in our highly regulated Central Valley \nwatershed\, when we have a big flood event\, it just isn’t \ndelivering that sand anymore to to Sassoon Bay like it did \nperhaps 102 hundred\, 500 years ago. \nI don’t know if that helps. \nYeah\, obviously I’m being influenced as well by the \nchanges in the fines and how that’s affect the phodic depth. \nJust Wednesday at the water board\, we made a huge decision \nabout nutrient\, future nutrient treatment in the Bay because \nwe’re not getting the the we’re we’re getting a lot more \nproduction because we have a lot less turbidity in the system. \nSo\, but this then makes it so\, so I’m getting the impression \nthat that that\, you know\, sort of what we see is what we get on \non the scale of thousands of years that we’re not seeing \nshort term fluctuations. \nAnd and and and Zach\, I just got to say this was fascinating. \nThank you so much. \nI this is really great stuff. \nI I everything. \nEvery time I think I know something about the Bay\, I \nlearned something more. \nAnd thank you\, Brenda\, for putting this program together. \nIt’s really great. \nYeah. \nI’m just also going to to query the slides will be available on \nthe website or will they not be available on the website? \nWhat’s to do with the slides? \nYes\, so we\, I put it in the chat a little earlier. \nAll of the three presentations that were given today will be \ncombined in are combined into one PDF and they will be on the \nwebsite. \nWe actually tried to post them this morning. \nI looked\, they’re not there yet\, but if you go under the \nCommission tab and look for commissioner working group\, \nyou’ll find this sediment study or SAN studies Commissioner \nworking group. \nLook there\, that’s where they’ll be. \nAnd I just chatted Aaron separately and he said he would \nprovide his slides as well. \nSo we can add those to the available slides so that the \ncommissioners and members of the public\, other interested folks\, \nif you’re not a member of don’t know who you are and take a look \nat those slides as well and kind of compare apples to oranges. \nAnd as I\, as I mentioned\, we will do it. \nWe will likely have Lester McKee at one of the next meetings to \ntalk more about San budget and we can have a fuller \nconversation about that as well there. \nAnd then Brenda\, we will also have a chance in the future to \nlearn more about some of the nuts and bolts of what it means \nto mind sand from the Bay and hear more from the industry. \nYeah. \nSo what the\, what the plan for this working grip? \nIt’s a very short\, short lived. \nNow we’ve had the Providence report and we could time stamp \nthis commissioner working group. \nIt is scheduled to last through November. \nThere’s a total of 4 meetings. \nThe next one is August 21st and it’s a 11:50\, so not quite as \nlate in the day. \nThanks for everybody who’s hung out with us this long on a \nFriday. \nAnd the concept that we’re working with is the \ncommissioners asked a series of questions\, the studies responded \nto those questions\, also the management questions. \nAnd so we’re going to structure the agenda around having a study \nor two\, depending on the breadth of the study and what we think \nthe conversation will take over the next two meetings. \nThe fourth meeting that we have\, I think we’ll probably talk and \nI don’t have this all completely laid out\, but we’ll talk about \nsome of the Bay Plan policies. \nWe will\, I think\, get to some of the commissioners questions from \nthe Commission meeting and yours\, Andy\, like how much of \nthe sand is used in the Bay region? \nAre there alternatives\, some of that as long as we’re all \nefficient and get through the sand studies\, we’ll have those \nor at a meeting or something. \nAnyways\, so that’s the plan. \nWe’re going to hit the studies you grounded in the science and \nthen talk about broader. \nI’m going to say societal and policy issues. \nSo I also want to say\, commissioners\, that it is your \nworking group\, Yes. \nAnd if there are questions that you want answered and if you \nwanna have another meeting or are there topics that you think \nabsolutely have to be covered or needed to be covered. \nI mean\, I would definitely encourage you to tell staff \nbecause I view this as yours not run by staff. \nWell\, I for 1:00 AM really glad that we’re gonna have these \nslides to look at because particularly those graphs\, I \nneed to think about them some more before I finish with my \nlist of questions. \nSo I’m glad they’re going to be available and but they really \nare fascinating science. \nSo this is a wonderful opportunity for all of us. \nDo the minors. \nI know we want to make sure that that group is represented in \nquestions and comments. \nDo you have any things that you would like to share at this \npoint? \nWe’ve appreciated what you’ve had so far. \nNot not right now that I would be remiss to if I don’t say \nthat. \nYou know\, we also are very excited about a lot of the \nscience work that was done here and all the effort that was put \ninto all the\, the numerous\, numerous meetings and the \nnumerous discussions. \nSo you know what\, there are things that are still need to be \naddressed\, and that’s why we had those points\, you know\, being \npart of the appendix of the report. \nBut overall\, we feel very pleased with\, you know\, all the \neffort that was put into these. \nGreat. \nOK. \nWell\, I think that brings our meeting to a close. \nPat\, before that\, you need to just legally ask for public \ncomment. \nThat’s right. \nOf course we do\, yes. \nDo we have any public comment? \nIf there’s anybody who would like to make a comment at this \npoint\, please raise your hand and zoom and we will give you 3 \nminutes. \nSeeing none\, I’ll move to adjourn. \nAnd thank you everyone for your attention and for the great work \nthat you’re sharing with us. \nIt’s it’s much appreciated. \nOK\, bye. \nBye. \nThanks\, everybody. \nThank you. \nThank you so much. \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/july-12-2024-sand-studies-commissioner-working-group/
CATEGORIES:Sand Studies Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240711T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240711T120000
DTSTAMP:20240626T153112Z
CREATED:20240130T045258Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240626T153112Z
UID:10000137-1720690200-1720699200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240708T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240708T183000
DTSTAMP:20240702T183922Z
CREATED:20240130T034409Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240702T183922Z
UID:10000119-1720458000-1720463400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 8\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-8-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240704T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240704T170000
DTSTAMP:20240119T040242Z
CREATED:20240119T040242Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240119T040242Z
UID:10000100-1720098000-1720112400@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:July 4\, 2024 Commission Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/july-4-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240626T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240626T160000
DTSTAMP:20240917T204053Z
CREATED:20240130T055707Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T204053Z
UID:10000154-1719406800-1719417600@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 26\, 2024 Engineering Criteria Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Engineering Criteria Review Board 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\, Temezcal RoomSan Francisco\, CA415-352-3600 \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/86888186253?pwd=PmYnQAEdOAHShtgJ584SZQbVpgdc8u.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-50551 (816) 423 4282Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID868 8818 6253 \nPasscode559089 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review (5 minutes)\nStaff Updates (5 minutes)\nIItem of Discussion: Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Draft GuidelinesThe Engineering Criteria Review Board will hold its first review of BCDC’s draft Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) guidelines. When finalized\, 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]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio video\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON\, AND WELCOME TO THIS HYBRID\, IN-PERSON AND ONLINE ECRB MEETING. MY NAME IS ROD IWASHITA AND I’M THE CHAIR OF ECRB\, AND THIS MEETING WILL BE RECORDED. I’D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT BILL HOLMES HAS DECIDED TO RETIRE FROM THE ECRB AND NOTIFIED US LAST WEEK. HE HAS SPENT HIS 50-YEAR CAREER AS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND PRINCIPAL AT RUTHERFORD AND CHEKENE. HE WAS RECOGNIZED IN HIS STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND LEADERSHIP AND IMPROVING THE SEISMIC SAFETY OF BUILDINGS. HE HAS SERVED ON THE ECRB FOR 10 YEARS AND JENN WILL BE DRAWING UP A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE BCDC COMMISSION. AND I’D LIKE TO HAVE US ALL GIVE HIM A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR HIS SERVICE. THANK YOU\, BILL. [APPLAUSE] \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU ON THIS FOR THE LAST 10-ISH YEARS\, WHATEVER IT IS. \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: WE HAD SOME INTERESTING SITUATIONS. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. LET’S SEE. WE WILL BE WORKING ON A REPLACEMENT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO FILL BILL’S SPOT. PATRICK RYAN IS HERE IN HIS FIRST ECRB MEETING AS AN ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBER\, SO I’D LIKE TO INTRODUCE HIM TO EVERYONE. PATRICK IS A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND PRINCIPAL AND CO-FOUNDER OF RYAN JOYCE STRUCTURAL DESIGN\, A SAN FRANCISCO-BASED ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRM. WELCOME\, PATRICK. I THINK IT IS KIND OF FITTING THAT PATRICK AND BILL BOTH GOT RUTHERFORD CHEKENE ROOTS SO THAT’S KIND OF NEAT. I’D ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE MARGIE MALAN WHO HAS TAKEN GRACE’S PLACE FOR ASSISTING WITH THE RUNNING OF THE MEETING ON ZOOM. THANK YOU\, MARGIE. OKAY. OUR FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS TO CALL THE ROLL. BOARD MEMBERS\, PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELVES TO RESPOND AND THEN MUTE YOURSELVES AGAIN AFTER RESPONDING. JENN\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>JENN HYMAN: ROD IWASHITA\, CHAIR OF THE BOARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: JIM FRENCH\, VICE CHAIR.  \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: BOB BATTALIO. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: GYIMAH KASALI. NOT HERE. KRIS MAY. I HEARD THAT SHE MAY BE JOINING US LATER REMOTELY. RAMIN GOLESORKHI. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: NICK SITAR. HE’S OUT ON VACATION. GAYLE JOHNSON\, HE’S OUT SICK. THALEIA TRAVASAROU. DILIP TRIVEDI. JUSTIN VANDEVER. AND PATRICK RYAN. \n>>PATRICK RYAN: HERE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: AND I BELIEVE PROMOTING THE ALTERNATE MEMBER TO BOARD MEMBER TODAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A QUORUM OF FIVE — AT LEAST FIVE PEOPLE PRESENT. [INAUDIBLE] \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: ROD\, YOU’RE MUTED. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SORRY. I SHOULD KNOW THIS. THANK YOU\, BILL. I WANT TO START WITH SOME INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW WE CAN BEST PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SO THAT IT RUNS AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE. FIRST\, EVERYONE\, WHEN YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVE DISCUSSION\, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU HAVE YOUR MICROPHONE OR PHONE MUTED TO AVOID BACKGROUND NOISE. FOR BOARD MEMBERS\, IF YOU HAVE A CAMERA\, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ON DURING THE MEETING SO EVERYONE CAN SEE YOU. FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC\, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD THAT IS PART OF AN AGENDA ITEM\, YOU’LL NEED TO DO SO IN ONE OF THREE WAYS. IF YOU ARE HERE IN PERSON\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND SO WE CAN CALL ON YOU AT WHICH TIME YOU MAY COME FORWARD TO THE ELECT — FORWARD TO SPEAK. IF YOU ARE ON THE ZOOM PLATFORM\, PLEASE CLICK THE HAND AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN. THE HAND SHOULD TURN BLUE WHEN IT’S RAISED. AND IF YOU ARE ATTENDING VIA PHONE\, YOU MUST PRESS STAR NINE ON YOUR KEY PAD TO MAKE A COMMENT AND STAR SIX TO UNMUTE OR MUTE YOURSELF. WE WILL CALL ON INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE RAISED THEIR HANDS IN THE ORDER THEY ARE RAISED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. EVERY NOW AND THEN I MAY REFER TO THE MEETING HOST\, MARGIE\, WHO IS WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES TO ENSURE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY MOVES THE MEETING FORWARD SMOOTHLY AND CONSISTENTLY. AND PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH US IF IT’S NEEDED. OKAY. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AS SET FORTH IN BCDC’S REGULATIONS\, A MEMBER OF THE ECRB SHALL NOT HAVE ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN COMMUNICATION REGARDING A PROPOSED PROJECT OR OTHER MATTER THAT HAS BEEN NOTICED TO BE CONSIDERED AT AN ECRB MEETING WITH A PROJECT PROPONENT\, PROSPECTIVE APPLICANT OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC EXCEPT ON THE RECORD DURING AN ECRB MEETING. BOARD MEMBERS\, IN CASE YOU HAVE INADVERTENTLY FORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE THE STAFF WITH A NOTICE ON ANY WRITTEN OR ORAL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS\, I INVITE YOU TO REPORT ON ANY SUCH COMMUNICATIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME BY RAISING YOUR HAND AND UNMUTING YOURSELF. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD\, NO HANDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. OH\, NO\, I DO SEE ONE HAND. BILL HOLMES.  \n>>WILLIAM HOLMES: YES\, MR. CHAIR\, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO RETIRE. I AM GOING TO GO GET IN MY CAR AND DRIVE NORTH AS WE SPEAK. SO I HAVE APPRECIATED SERVING BCDC AND ENJOYED WORKING WITH EVERYONE AND WE’LL SEE YOU AROUND ENGINEERING ASSOCIATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, BILL.  \n>>JENN HYMAN: THANK YOU\, QUESTION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I HAVE A QUESTION\, QUICK. DO WE NEED BILL TO VOTE ON PATRICK OR DO WE LOSE A QUORUM? \n>>JENN HYMAN: NO. THERE’S NO VOTING ON PATRICK TODAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: OKAY. BILL\, DRIVE SAFE. HAVE FUN. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: HAPPY TRAILS\, BILL. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I THINK HE’S GONE. [LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. AND NOW WE’LL HAVE A STAFF UPDATE FROM SENIOR ENGINEER AND BOARD SECRETARY JENN HYMAN. TAKE IT AWAY\, JENN. \n>>JENN HYMAN: THANK YOU\, ROD\, CHAIR IWASHITA. I’D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT UPCOMING MEETINGS. WITH REGARD TO UPCOMING ECRB MEETINGS\, THERE ARE NO PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR THE JULY 24 OR THE AUGUST 21 MEETING\, BUT PLEADS KEEP THESE DATES OPENED ON YOUR CALENDAR IN CASE SOMETHING COMES UP AT THE LAST MINUTE. ON SEPTEMBER 25\, THE ECRB WILL HAVE ITS SECOND MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON THEIR SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT. CARGILL SALT SAID THEY’D LIKE TO ALSO RETURN TO THE BOARD TO ADDRESS THEIR QUESTIONS FROM THE LAST MEETING\, ALSO IN SEPTEMBER. WE ARE THINKING OF SCHEDULING A SEPARATE MEETING FOR THAT ON SEPTEMBER 11 TO ALLOW YOU TIME TO REVIEW THE MATERIALS FOR THESE TWO COMPLEX PROJECTS OR WE COULD HAVE BOTH THE S.F.O. MEETING AND THE CARGILL MEETING ON THE SAME DAY\, ALTHOUGH THAT COULD BE A VERY LONG MEETING\, POSSIBLY MORE THAN FOUR HOURS. I WANTED TO SEE A SHOW OF HANDS FROM PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHICH ONE YOU PREFER. SO SHOW OF HANDS OR SPEAK OUT IF YOU PREFER TO HAVE BOTH PROJECTS IN THE SAME MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 25? ONE PERSON. OH\, AND JIM. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT HAVING TWO DIFFERENT MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER\, TWO WEEKS APART? PATRICK\, ROD\, AND BOB. HMM. ALMOST A TIE. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT?  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: FROM ME? \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I’M FINE WITH ALLOWING IT FOR MULTIPLE MEETINGS THOUGH I VOTED FOR ONE. \n>>SPEAKER: I THINK ONE IS BETTER IN LIGHT OF THE FACT HE TOLD ME NOT TO BE AVAILABLE\, BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND BOTH\, SO I THINK IT’S BETTER TO HAVE ONE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAY BE A LONG MEETING\, BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY\, I THINK IT’S BETTER TO HAVE MORE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT THAN NOT. THANK YOU. \n>>JENN HYMAN: ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO HAVE FEELINGS ABOUT WHICH WAY TO DO IT? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SURE. I THINK BOTH OF PLEASE PROJECTS ARE PRETTY COMPLEX AND WE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR THEM\, FOR THE APPLICANTS THE LAST TIME WE MET AND I’M SURE THIS WOULD BE MORE THAN A FOUR-HOUR MEETING IF WE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH ON THE SAME DAY. AND NOTICING — \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: YOUR VOICE IS KIND OF FADING A LITTLE BIT. IF YOU COULD SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: AND JUST\, YOU KNOW\, TODAY’S — THE PARKING LOGISTICS HERE ARE SOMEWHAT\, YOU KNOW\, DIFFICULT. I’D RATHER — I THINK IT’S EASIER FOR SOME OF US TO COME IN TWO DAYS AND BE HERE FOR THREE HOURS\, SAY\, THAN COMING IN FOR ONE DAY AND BEING HERE FOR SIX HOURS BUT THAT’S JUST MY OPINION. \n>>JENN HYMAN: OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONCERN IS PEOPLE WON’T BE HERE ON THIS NEW DATE. MAYBE I COULD JUST SEE WHO’S AVAILABLE AND THEN WE CAN TAKE IT FROM THERE. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH\, SURE. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST MAYBE WE TAKE A POLL AND SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AVAILABLE AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION WHETHER ONE OR TWO. I DON’T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TWO. I JUST THINK THAT THERE COULD BE PARTICIPATION ISSUES. \n>>JENN HYMAN: OKAY. I’LL MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT PLAN\, THEN. AND THOSE ARE ALL MY ANNOUNCEMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE PRESENTATION\, ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS? RAISE YOUR HAND\, PLEASE. OKAY. I DON’T SEE ANY HANDS UP. SO LET’S SEE. LET ME TURN MY PAGE HERE. OKAY. NOW WE’RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE MAIN AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS THE PRESENTATION BY BCDC AND DISCUSSION ON THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN GUIDELINES\, ALSO KNOWN AS THE RSAP GUIDELINES FOR SHORT. FIRST UP\, DANA BRECHWALD\, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE — EXCUSE ME — CLIMATE ADAPTATION — FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ\, SENIOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLANNER\, WILL MAKE A 45-MINUTE PRESENTATION. DURING THE PRESENTATION\, IT IS FINE FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION\, WE WILL OPEN THE MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS BASED — RELATED TO THE PRESENTATION. AFTER HEARING ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC\, THE ECRB WILL RESUME THE DISCUSSION WITH THEIR QUESTIONS\, COMMENTS\, AND FEEDBACK ON THE RSAP GUIDELINES. AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION\, I WILL ASK FOR FINAL COMMENTS AND THEN CLOSE THE AGENDA ITEM. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS AND PRESENTERS TO PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERAS\, IF YOU CAN. RAMIN. FOR ANY DISCUSSION DURING OR AFTER THE PRESENTATION. I WOULD LIKE TO NOW TURN IT OVER TO THE BCDC PLANNING TEAM TO BEGIN THEIR PRESENTATION. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: BEAR WITH US\, WE’RE SHARING ONE COMPUTER BECAUSE IT’S EASIER TO NAVIGATE TO SHARE THE PRESENTATION. GREAT. HERE WE ARE. SO GOOD AFTERNOON\, BOARD MEMBERS. IT’S REALLY A PLEASURE TO SHARE WITH US — WITH YOU — FOR US TO SHARE WITH YOU TODAY WHAT WE’VE BEEN WORKING ON. WE LAST SPOKE TO YOU LAST — I THINK IT WAS JULY OR AUGUST LAST YEAR\, ABOUT A YEAR AGO\, AND WE WERE REALLY JUST STARTING ON SCOPING OUT WHAT THESE GUIDELINES WOULD LOOK LIKE SO WE’RE HAPPY TODAY TO SHARE WHERE WE ARE AND WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE THAT WILL GET US TO COMMISSION APPROVAL IN DECEMBER. SO WHEN JENN SENT OUT HER REPORT TO YOU\, SHE SENT YOU A DRAFT OF THE GUIDELINES AND ALSO POSED SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU CONTEMPLATE TODAY\, SO I’M JUST POSTING THEM HERE. I WON’T READ THEM OUT LOUD BUT JUST SETTING THIS UP AS A WAY OF FRAMING THE CONVERSATION THAT WE’RE HAVING TODAY. THERE ARE MANY COMPONENTS OF THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE THAT WE THINK YOU ALL CAN HAVE SOME PERSPECTIVE ON AND REALLY\, WHAT ALL THESE QUESTIONS ARE ASKING YOU FOR IS\, YOU KNOW\, IS THIS THE RIGHT LEVEL? ARE WE MISSING ANYTHING? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE FLAGGED AS BEING ESSENTIAL TO MOVING FORWARD WITH THE GUIDELINES? SO WE’RE GOING TO START\, ACTUALLY\, WITH A VIDEO THAT OUR CONSULTANT TEAM PUT TOGETHER FOR US\, AND THIS WILL REALLY HELP TO FRAME THE CONVERSATION AND SHOW YOU WHY WE’RE DOING THIS PROJECT TO BEGIN WITH. SO LET ME — HMM. OKAY. HOLD ON. TECHNICAL — STOP SHARING. SORRY. WE’RE HAVING ALL THESE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES BECAUSE WE LEFT AUDIO AND ALL THIS FUN STUFF. YOU’D THINK THE NUMBER OF TIMES WE HAVE DONE THIS PRESENTATION WE WOULD — WE WOULD — OKAY. NOW IT SHOULD — [LAUGHTER] QUICK QUESTION\, WERE THOSE OF YOU ON — CAN YOU MUTE THAT? WERE THOSE OF YOU ON VIDEO ABLE TO HEAR THAT VIDEO AS IT WAS PLAYING? \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I DO NOT HEAR. SORRY. IS THERE A WAY TO SHARE AUDIO? IT TAKES A VILLAGE\, PEOPLE. \n>>SPEAKER: IN THE SAN FRANCISCO REGION\, ONE THING CONNECTS US ALL\, THE BAY. IT’S WHERE WE GATHER TOGETHER FOR FRESH AIR\, FOR EXERCISE\, FOR THE STUNNING VIEWS. WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES ARE HOMES TO — HOME TO BIRDS AND FISH. THE BAY TRAIL LEADS US TO VISIT ONE ANOTHER. WHERE WATERLINES AND POWERLINES PROVIDES CRUCIAL SERVICES. IT’S WHERE WE LIVE\, WORK\, AND PLAY\, MAKING THE BAY AREA A ONE OF A KIND PLACE TO CALL HOME. \n>>SPEAKER: BUT ALL OF THAT IS AT RISK\, AS CLIMATE CHANGE CAUSES THE WATER IN THE BAY AND GROUNDWATER BENEATH US TO RISE. WITHOUT ACTION\, THOSE RISING WATERS WILL AFFECT ALL OF OUR DAILY LIVES. THE WAY WE TRAVEL TO SCHOOL OR TO THE GROCERY STORE\, EVEN FLUSHING OUR TOILETS WILL BECOME LESS RELIABLE. AIRPORTS\, BART\, AND UTILITIES ARE ALL VULNERABLE. WE ALL WILL FEEL THE EFFECTS EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE IN A BAYSIDE COMMUNITY. SOME OF THOSE EFFECTS ARE ALREADY HERE. IN RECENT YEARS\, RISING GROUNDWATER AND MAJOR STORMS HAVE LED TO TRANSIT STATION CLOSURES AND FLOODED HOMES. OUR SHORELINE IS CHANGING. OUR COMMUNITIES ARE AT RISK. AND SO HOW WE COEXIST WITH OUR ENVIRONMENT ALSO NEEDS TO CHANGE. IT’S A CHALLENGE OF IMMENSE IMPORTANCE. IF WE DON’T ACT\, 190\,000 JOBS\, 83\,000 HOMES\, AND 20\,000 ACRES OF WETLAND ARE THREATENED WITHIN THE NEXT 40 YEARS. \n>>SPEAKER: BUT WE’VE DONE TOUGH WORK TOGETHER BEFORE. IN THE 1960’S\, WHEN THE BAY’S NATURAL AREAS WERE BEING FILLED FOR DEVELOPMENT\, CONCERNED COMMUNITY MEMBERS LED THE WAY\, FOUNDING SAVE THE BAY AND LEADING TO THE CREATION OF THE BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. AND NOW\, THE BCDC IS ORGANIZING AROUND COLLECTIVE ACTION ONCE AGAIN\, CONVENING REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS WHO ARE ALREADY WORKING ON SEA LEVEL RISE ISSUES WHILE SUPPORTING OTHERS TO GET STARTED. \n>>SPEAKER: WORKING WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH NATURE WE CAN HAVE A NEW SHORELINE THAT SUPPORTS THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF EACH COMMUNITY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT CREATES NEW WALKING AND BICYCLE TRAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT ENSURES BAY NATURAL AREAS THRIVE INTO THE FUTURE. \n>>SPEAKER: AND SO MUCH OF OUR NEIGHBORS LIVE IN PLACES THAT ARE AT HIGHER RISK OR HAVE ALREADY ENDURED PREVIOUS HARM AND OUR DUTY IS TO MEET THEIR NEEDS FIRST. \n>>SPEAKER: BUT WE NEED EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING\, BECAUSE THIS WILL AFFECT ALL OF US\, EVEN IF WE DON’T LIVE NEAR THE SHORELINE.  \n>>SPEAKER: IT’S A CHALLENGE THAT CAN’T BE SOLVED IN A SINGLE GENERATION. WE NEED TO WORK OVER TIME TO PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD. AND NOW YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOU TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A FUTURE BAY THAT CAN SUPPORT ALL OF US FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. \n>>SPEAKER: TOGETHER FOR THE FRESH AIR\, FOR THE EXERCISE\, FOR THE STUNNING VIEWS. WHERE MARSHES AND BEACHES — \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: BEAR WITH US. I DON’T KNOW WHY IT’S PLAYING AGAIN. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: IT WAS GOOD ONCE. IT WILL PROBABLY BE BETTER TWICE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: OKAY. WE SHOULD BE GOOD. SO MANY THINGS TO CLICK ON. OKAY. SO AS YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO AND YOU’RE PROBABLY AWARE\, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO THE BAY AREA FROM SEA LEVEL RISE AND NOT JUST ALONG THE SHORELINE BUT ON THE SYSTEMS THAT WE RELY ON SO THIS IS JUST A SNIPPET OF SOME FACTS THAT WE SHARED IN OUR ART BAY AREA REPORT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN 2020 THAT TALKS ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO THINGS LIKE OUR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM\, THE AREAS THAT WE’RE PLANNING ON GROWING FOR HOUSING AND JOBS\, OUR SOCIALLY VULNERABLE RESIDENTS AND OUR NATURAL HABITATS. THE POINT OF THIS SLIDE IS REALLY TO SHOW YOU THIS IS REALLY AN EVERYBODY PROBLEM\, IT’S NOT YOUR A SHORELINE PROBLEM\, AND SO THAT’S WHY BCDC HAS BEEN TAKING THIS ON AT SUCH A REGIONALWIDE SCALE. OUR MAJOR EFFORT RIGHT NOW THAT IS HELPING TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE REGION IS OUR BAY ADAPT INITIATIVE WHICH WE BRIEFED YOU ON LAST YEAR AND THIS IS OUR CONSENSUS-DRIVEN STRATEGY THAT LAYS OUT THE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ADAPT THE BAY AREA TO RISING SEA LEVEL TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT. THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, WHICH WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY\, IS IMPLEMENTING SEVERAL TASKS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE JOINT PLATFORM. IT’S REALLY CRITICAL FOR US\, AS YOU SAW IN THE VIDEO\, AND THE SLIDES I SHARED TWO SLIDES AGO\, EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED IN THE BAY AND THAT’S WHY WE NEED TO APPROACH ADAPTATION FROM A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO A CITY-BY-CITY BASIS. WE NEED TO HAVE ADAPTATION PRACTICES AROUND THE REGION\, THAT WE’RE ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES AROUND THE REGION\, PARTICULARLY TO FRONTLINE COMMUNITIES AND THOSE LOST RESOURCE COMMUNITIES. WE ALL KNOW THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF THE WETLANDS IS NOT JUST PARCEL BY PARCEL BUT IT DEPENDS A LOT ON INTERCONNECTEDNESS AND ALSO SPEED. THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE NOW. WE KNOW THAT IT’S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO DO ALL OF THIS AND WE NEED TO BE REALLY STRATEGIC ABOUT HOW WE SPEND OUR DOLLARS AND IMPLEMENT PROJECTS AROUND THE REGION. WE WANT TO SET COMMON STANDARDS AND METHODS FOR ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE REGION. WE WANT TO ESTABLISH A PIPELINE OF FUNDING AND KNOW WHERE THAT FUNDING WILL GO AND LASTLY\, WE NEED TO TRACK ADAPTATION AS A REGION. WE ALSO ARE NOW — BCDC IS NOW MANDATED TO FULFILL S.B. 272. THIS BILL WAS PASSED LAST FALL AND STATES THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DEVELOP SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY PLANS AND BCDC IS THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE GUIDELINES THAT THOSE PLANS MUST FOLLOW AND THEN REVIEWING AND APPROVING OR DENYING PLANS BASED ON CONSISTENCY WITH THE GUIDELINES. THIS BILL ALSO STATES THAT WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE STATE FUNDING FOR THESE PLANS AND FOR THE PROJECTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE APPROVED PLANS AND THAT THESE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY BCDC BY THE END OF THIS YEAR\, WHICH IS WHY WE’VE BEEN WORKING SO HARD IN THE PAST YEAR SINCE YOU’VE SEEN US LAST. SO OUR ANSWER TO 272 IS THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, AND WE ACTUALLY STARTED WORKING ON THIS BEFORE S.B. 272 WAS PASSED AND S.B. 272 JUST STRENGTHENS THE WORK THAT WE’RE ALREADY DOING. THE SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IS A REGION-WIDE PLAN THAT CREATES — OF COORDINATED LOCALLY PLANNED SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT WORK TOGETHER TO MEET REGIONAL GOALS. SO WHEN WE SAY THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN\, THERE ARE ACTUALLY SEVERAL COMPONENTS THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT. THE FIRST IS REALLY THE WORK THAT WE’RE DOING BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THIS YEAR. WE DEVELOPED A VISION THAT WILL — THAT WE’RE LEANING ON TO GUIDE WHAT ADAPTATION IN THE REGION SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND WE’LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A FEW SLIDES. THIS IS REALLY GOING TO DIRECT WORK ON THE GROUND. AND THEN ANOTHER KEY COMPONENT\, AND THE COMPONENT THAT MAKES THIS REALLY TRULY REGIONAL IN NATURE IS WHAT WE CALL STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND THESE ARE AREAS THAT ARE CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF ADAPTATION AS A WHOLE\, SOMETHING BIGGER AS A REGION\, BUT ARE DEPENDENT UPON ACTION\, VERY SPECIFIC ACTION IN LOCAL — IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS. AND JACKIE WILL TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THESE ARE IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES. SO THIS IS THE WORK WE’RE DOING THIS YEAR\, AND\, YES\, IT’S A LOT OF WORK\, BUT WE ARE REALLY RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT THE MAJORITY — THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORK IS GOING TO HAPPEN AFTER WE ADOPT THE GUIDELINES AND ONCE THESE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS ARE ACTUALLY BEING DEVELOPED BY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THESE PLANS NEED TO BE FINALIZED BY JANUARY\, 2034\, ACCORDING TO S.B. 272\, ALTHOUGH WE ARE WORKING TO ENSURE CITIES AND COUNTIES DO THEM EARLIER SO THEY HAVE PLANS IN PLACE. AND OUR GOAL IS THEY WILL REALLY LEAD TO MEANINGFUL LAND USE CHANGES AND ADAPTATION PROJECTS ALONG THE SHORELINE. I’LL ALSO MENTION HERE THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING AN ONLINE MAPPING PLATFORM THAT WILL CONTAIN A LOT OF THE DATA LAYERS THAT JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DO THESE PLANS\, AND WE’RE ALSO DEVELOPING A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT WE’LL LAUNCH NEXT YEAR THAT WILL HELP US PARTNER WITH CITIES AND COUNTIES AS THEY INTERPRET THE GUIDELINES AND DEVELOP THESE PLANS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: DANA\, ARE YOU PROVIDING GUIDELINES IN TERMS OF\, LIKE\, A TEMPLATE FOR WHAT THEIR PLANS SHOULD BE LOOKING LIKE? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION. WE’RE ACTUALLY SCOPING OUT THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE LIMITED CAPACITY AT THIS TIME\, ALTHOUGH IT DOES LOOK LIKE IN OUR BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR\, FROM THE GOVERNOR’S BUDGET\, THAT WE’LL BE ABLE TO STAFF UP OVER TIME TO FULFILL S.B. 272. SO WE’RE — WE ARE AIMING FOR THINGS LIKE WORKSHOPS\, WEBINARS\, ONE-ON-ONE ASSISTANCE\, BUT WE ARE ALSO AIMING TO PROVIDE SOME TEMPLATES. THE GUIDELINES WILL LAY OUT WHAT THE PLAN SHOULD LOOK LIKE\, BUT ANY TEMPLATES AND JOB AIDS WILL ALSO BE HELPFUL. SO I THINK WE WILL BE DEVELOPING THOSE OVER TIME. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY\, THANK YOU. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: SO I’M SHARING HERE THE ONE — THE ONE BAY VISION THAT IS GUIDING THE PLAN AND THE GUIDELINES. I AM NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THING HERE BUT THERE IS A Q.R. CODE HERE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IF YOU’D LIKE TO READ IT ALL YOURSELF. BUT OUR OVERARCHING VISION AS SEA LEVEL RISE\, WE TRANSFORM HOW WE LIVE\, WORK\, PLAN\, ADAPT ALONG OUR CHANGING SHORELINES. WE ALSO HAVE THESE EIGHT TOPIC AREAS THAT ARE HOW WE’VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT ORGANIZING THE ASSETS AND THE — OUR RESPONSES IN EACH OF THESE EIGHT CATEGORIES\, AND WE ALSO HAVE A ONE BAY VISION — A SPECIFIC ONE BAY VISION GOALS FOR EACH OF THESE EIGHT TOPIC AREAS. SO IF YOU CLICK ON THE Q.R. CODE THAT WAS ON THE LAST SLIDE\, IT WILL TAKE YOU TO THE WHOLE COMPREHENSIVE ONE BAY VISION. AND WHAT THIS VISION DOES IS IT REALLY SETS OUR DESIRED END STATE FOR ADAPTATION AND HELPS US DRIVE WHAT WE’RE ASKING PEOPLE TO CONSIDER AND WHAT WE’RE ASKING PEOPLE TO DO IN THEIR LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS. SO THE GOAL IS REALLY AS EACH PERSON — AS EACH CITY AND COUNTY DEVELOPS THEIR OWN PLAN\, ALL OF THE ACTIONS IN THOSE PLANS WILL ADD UP TO MEETING THIS REGIONAL VISION. AND I’LL ALSO MENTION HERE\, WE HAVE SOME PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT OF HOW — HOW WE ACTUALLY CREATED THIS VISION. WE WENT TO 10 DIFFERENT POP-UP EVENTS AROUND THE REGION AND ASKED COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO PARTICIPATE AND ADOPT VOTING EXERCISE ON WHAT THEY CARED ABOUT NOW AND THE FUTURE AND WE ALSO HAD AN ONLINE SURVEY WHERE WE GOT RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC. AND THIS ALL HELPED US HONE IN ON WHAT THESE VISION STATEMENTS SHOULD BE. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT IS NOT DEFINED IN S.B. 272 BUT THAT WE ARE REALLY DIGGING INTO HERE IS\, WHAT ACTUALLY IS A SUBREGIONAL SHORELINE RESILIENCY PLAN OR A SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN? WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WE’RE CALLING IT QUITE YET\, ALTHOUGH WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT THIS MORNING. [LAUGHTER] OOPS. THESE ARE OUT OF ORDER. SO THE THREE BUCKETS WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON HERE WHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL PLAN\, WHAT DOES THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS LOOK LIKE? AT WHAT SCALE SHOULD THESE PLANS OCCUR AND WHO’S RESPONSIBLE? HOW DO THEY ALIGN WITH EXISTING PLANNING PROCESSES? YOU KNOW\, WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATES AND ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN? WHAT’S IN A SUBREGIONAL PLAN? THERE ARE CERTAIN VERY MINIMAL\, LEGAL MINIMUMS THAT S.B. 272 LAYS OUT. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO YOU A LOT TODAY IS THE PLAN GUIDANCE AND THE GUIDELINES THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING. AND THEN\, ALSO\, YOU KNOW\, HOW DO WE LEVERAGE AND EXPAND UPON EXISTING PLANS PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY DONE? AND LASTLY\, HOW IS A PLAN SUBMITTED\, ADOPTED\, AND IMPLEMENTED? HOW DOES IT GET APPROVED LOCALLY? HOW DOES BCDC REVIEW AND APPROVE IT? HOW DO WE TRACK PROGRESS AND IMPLEMENTATION ON THE PLANS? SO WE’LL TALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THESE HERE. WE’RE STILL WORKING THROUGH A LOT OF THIS\, PARTICULARLY IN THAT THIRD BUCKET HERE. THIS IS A NONREGULATORY PLAN. IT DOESN’T REALLY GIVE BCDC ANY ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES ON THE PERMITTING SIDE. THIS IS REALLY JUST A PLAN. AND SO WE’VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF INTERNAL THINKING ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT INCORPORATE THIS INTO OUR POLICIES AND INTO THE BAY PLAN IN THE FUTURE AND WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE COMMISSION WOULD NEED TO TAKE ON\, WHAT SORT OF PROCESSES WE NEED TO GO THROUGH? RIGHT NOW IT’S SEPARATED FROM THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: DANA\, SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING AGAIN. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: YEAH. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: IT SOUNDS LIKE BCDC WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE — IN HELPING IN THE EVALUATION OF THE PLANS OR IS THAT CORRECT? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: I MEAN\, WE HAVEN’T ACTUALLY ADDRESSED THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. I DON’T THINK THERE IS A FORMAL ROLE FOR THE ECRB IN EVALUATING THE PROJECTS IN THE PLANS. OUR — THE AUTHORITY THAT WE’RE GIVEN WE CAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PLANS BASED ON THE GUIDELINES THAT WE PUT OUT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: RIGHT.  \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: AND SO PRIMARILY I THINK WHAT WE’LL BE DOING IS CHECKING FOR COMPLETENESS OF THE PLANS AND ENSURING THEY’VE KIND OF CHECKED ALL OF THE BOXES. BUT NOT NECESSARILY REVIEWING INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE PLANS AND APPROVING OUR DENYING BASED ON THAT. THAT WOULD OCCUR\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS. BUT WE DON’T REALLY HAVE A LEGAL MECHANISM AT THE MOMENT TO DO THAT IN THE PLAN ITSELF. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. AND JUST ONE QUESTION THAT I’M THINKING ABOUT IS — WHAT IF ADJACENT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DIFFERING VISIONS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THEY’RE NOT COMPATIBLE\, SAY — DOES THAT GET ADDRESSED LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: A LITTLE BIT. WE’LL ADDRESS IT IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. IT’S A GREAT QUESTION. IF WE DON’T ADDRESS IT TO YOUR SATISFACTION\, FEEL FREE TO BRING IT UP AT THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. ONE ANYTHING TO NOTE IS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, A LOT OF THIS — EVEN THOUGH IT’S LEGALLY MANDATED\, IT’S REALLY INCENTIVE-DRIVEN. THERE’S NO CONSEQUENCE IF A CITY OR COUNTY DOESN’T DO A PLAN. SO A LOT OF WHAT WE’RE REQUIRING IN THE GUIDELINES\, LIKE\, WORKING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS\, SHOWING THAT YOUR ADAPTATION PATHWAYS ARE COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS\, WE’RE REALLY RELYING ON THE GOODWILL OF PEOPLE TO DO IT AND TO SHOW US THAT THEY’VE DONE IT\, BUT WE DON’T HAVE ANY FORMAL LEGAL TOOLS TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO DO THAT ASIDE FROM WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE SHARING IN THE GUIDELINES\, WHICH WE SHARED WITH YOU BEFORE AND THAT JACKIE CAN TALK LIEU A LITTLE BIT. — TALK THROUGH A LITTLE BIT. ONE OF THE WAYS WE’RE HANDLING THIS IS THE SCALE OF THE PLAN. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS THERE ARE TWO SCALES OF PLANS\, A COUNTY PLAN THAT COVERS THE UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF THE COUNTY. WE’RE ALSO HOPING THAT THE COUNTY WILL COORDINATE AND ORGANIZE — WILL TAKE LEAD IN COORDINATING AND ORGANIZING LOCAL PLANS. THEN\, LOCAL PLANS WILL COVER\, OBVIOUSLY\, LOCAL JURISDICTIONS\, AND WE’RE OFFERING THE OPTION TO DO A SINGLE JURISDICTION LOCAL PLAN. SO THIS IS FOR\, YOU KNOW\, LARGE OR HIGH-CAPACITY JURISDICTIONS OR THOSE THAT ALREADY HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE AND DON’T WANT TO REDO IT. BUT WE’RE ALSO REALLY HIGHLY RECOMMENDING THAT CITIES DO A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL PLAN. SO THESE COULD BE EVERY CITY WITHIN AN OPERATIONAL LANDSCAPE UNIT OR THAT HAVE A SHARED LANDSCAPE FEATURE LIKE A WATERSHED OR SHORELINE REACH OR SOMETHING LOGICAL THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO PLAN TOGETHER. WE ALSO THINK THIS IS SUITABLE FOR SORT OF SMALLER JURISDICTIONS WITH LESS CAPACITY BECAUSE THEY CAN GO IN ON A CONSULTANT CONTRACT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WHAT WE’RE REALLY ENCOURAGING IS FOR THE COUNTY AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DO THEIR PLAN TOGETHER. WE’VE BEEN GOING OUT TO ALL THE COUNTIES\, BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS AND TALKING TO ELECTED OFFICIALS AND A LOT OF WHAT WE HEARD IS PEOPLE ARE QUITE INTERESTED IN COMBINING THEIRS ALL INTO ONE. AND THIS IS A MODEL WE’VE ALREADY SEEN IN MANY AREAS FOR LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS. THEY’LL DO A COUNTY PLAN WITH LOCAL ANNEXES. SO WE’RE HOPING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE THAT ON AND THAT WOULD HELP WITH THE COORDINATION ACROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. WE EVEN HEARD SOME COUNTIES MAY WANT TO PARTNER WITH ANOTHER COUNTY. SO THAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN THE NORTH BAY WHERE THE SCALE OF THE LANDSCAPE IS LARGE AND IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO PLAN OVER MULTIPLE COUNTIES. THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN UPDATES. SO THIS IS A CYCLE. PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO KEEP UPDATING THEIR ADAPTATION PLANS. ADAPTATION IS NOT STAGNANT. THERE’S SO MUCH WE DON’T KNOW THAT’S GOING TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE\, IN THE SCIENCE\, AND HOW WE SEE THAT SHORELINE PROTECTIONS FUNCTION OVER TIME. SO WE’LL BE ASKING PEOPLE TO DO — AFTER THEIR INITIAL ADOPTION\, THEY’LL DO A FIVE-YEAR LIMITED UPDATE THAT WILL ACCOUNT FOR UPDATED SEA LEVEL RISE SCIENCE OR PROJECTIONS\, CHANGES TO MAJOR PLANS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL THAT WOULD IMPACT EITHER DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE SHORELINE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IF THERE’S ANY NEW LEGISLATION OR MANDATES\, WE CERTAINLY ANTICIPATE S.B. 272 IS NOT THE END OF WHAT’S GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF THE STATE. NEW TRIGGERS OR THRESHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN CROSSED. AND PROGRESS ON PROJECTS. AT THE 10-YEAR MARK\, EACH CITY WILL DO A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY WHERE THEY’LL UPDATE EVERY ELEMENT OF THE PLAN AND THAT WILL TRIGGER THIS CYCLE ONCE MORE. SO I’M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JACKIE NOW AND SHE’S GOING TO TALK YOU THROUGH THE ACTUAL ELEMENTS OF THE GUIDELINES. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: GREAT. THANK YOU\, JACKIE PERRIN-MARTINEZ. SO DANA PROVIDED A NICE OVERVIEW OF BAY ADAPT AND KIND OF WHERE WE’RE STARTING FROM IN TERMS OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN AND ITS COMPONENTS. I NOW WANT TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME KIND OF AN OVERVIEW HIGH LEVEL THROUGH THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU ALL RECEIVED. SO YOU ALL RECEIVED WHAT WE’RE CALLING DRAFT ONE OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN. AND WHAT YOU’RE SEEING ON THE SLIDE IS WHAT THAT DRAFT LOOKED LIKE. WE’LL HAVE MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF THIS BEFORE WE BRING THIS TO COMMISSION — BCDC’S COMMISSION FOR VOTE ON ADOPTION IN DECEMBER. AND THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THESE DRAFT GUIDELINES WITH A VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE WE’RE DEVELOPING THEM APPROPRIATELY TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS AND REALLY RESPONDS TO THE RISKS. SO IN THIS FIRST DRAFT\, WE REALLY ASKED OUR STAKEHOLDERS AND ADVISORS TO FOCUS ON THE SECOND HALF OF THIS DRAFT BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE THE NEWEST CONTENT IS. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THIS\, WE’RE GOING TO BE CONTINUING TO REFINE THE INTRODUCTION AS WELL AS FURTHER DEVELOP OUR PRIORITIES. WE WERE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THE SUBREGIONAL ADAPTATION PLAN SO SOME OF THE CONTENT THAT DANA JUST SHARED ON THE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES WHICH I’LL GO OVER AT A HIGH LEVEL AS WELL AS OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH REALLY SUPPORT THE PLAN GUIDELINES AND PROVIDE MORE DEAL ON HOW TO ACHIEVE THOSE GUIDELINES. SO TO JUST HELP ORIENT YOU TO THIS DOCUMENT\, WE HAVE AN INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT. WE WILL BE UPDATING THAT IN FUTURE — IN THE FUTURE. INCLUDED IN THIS DRAFT ARE ONE BAY VISION WHICH DANA TALKED ABOUT. WE SHARED THIS WITH BCDC’S COMMISSION BACK IN FEBRUARY AND GOT KIND OF THEIR SUPPORT THAT THESE SERVED AS REALLY IMPORTANT LANGUAGE TO DRIVE THE REST OF OUR WORK. WE WILL KIND OF BE IN OUR FINAL ITERATIONS\, LOOKING BACK ON THIS VISION AS WE DEVELOP THE GUIDELINES THAT THEY LINE UP APPROPRIATELY. THERE MAY BE SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS TO THIS BUT WE FEEL LIKE THIS STANDS AS OUR REMAINING GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THIS WORK. AND THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES\, DANA MENTIONED\, AND I HAVE A FEW MORE SLIDES TO FURTHER ELABORATE WHAT THOSE ARE. IN THE DRAFT YOU RECEIVED\, IT WAS A BIT OF A LIGHT TOUCH ON WHAT THESE ARE BECAUSE WE SPENT SOME TIME SINCE THAT FIRST DRAFT REFINING THEM FURTHER. BUT IN CONCEPT\, THEY’RE REALLY AREAS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO IDENTIFY REGIONALLY\, KEY ASSETS AND LOCATIONS WHERE WE THINK ADAPTATION SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED AND THESE ARE LOCAL PLACES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO A REGIONAL GOAL OR A REGIONAL SYSTEM. AND THE WAY THEY FIT INTO THE GUIDELINES\, IF A JURISDICTION CONTAINS ONE OR MORE OF THESE\, WE ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THAT REGIONAL PRIORITY IS BEING ADDRESSED IN THE LOCAL PLANS. TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ACHIEVING THAT REGIONAL VISION FOR THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES. IN TERMS OF THE SECTIONS THAT WE ASKED FOR THE MOST FEEDBACK ON\, AGAIN\, WE’VE ALREADY GONE OVER THIS\, BUT REALLY THIS SECTION\, CHAPTER 4\, DEFINES\, YOU KNOW\, WHAT IS A SUBREGIONAL PLAN\, WHO LEADS IT AND WHAT’S BCDC’S PROCESS FOR APPROVAL AND SUBMISSION? THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES THEN REALLY DEFINE WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THESE LOCAL PLANS. SO TO YOUR POINT EARLIER\, IN SOME WAYS THIS IS A BIT OF A TEMPLATE IN TERMS OF THE CONTENT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PLAN. AND THIS IS THE TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED AND SUBMITTED IN YOUR PLAN. WE ALSO HAVE A CHAPTER CALLED MINIMUM STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\, AND YOU CAN KIND OF THINK OF THIS AS AN EXTENSION OF THE GUIDELINES AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE LOOKED AT IT\, YOU SEE THAT THE MINIMUM STANDARDS ARE REFERENCED WITHIN GUIDELINES. THEY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DETAILS NECESSARY FOR HOW TO MEET THE GUIDELINES. SO HOW TO MEET — WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF THERE ARE CERTAIN GUIDELINES THAT MIGHT ASK FOR A REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPING EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT PLAN THAT MUST MEET OUR EQUITABLE ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS AND THAT LANGUAGE LIVES IN THE SECOND CHAPTER. IT PROVIDES MORE DETAIL. IN TERMS OF THE OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES\, I THINK WE’VE COMMUNICATED THIS PRETTY WELL ALREADY BUT\, AGAIN\, THEY ARE REGIONALLY IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES. WE’VE IDENTIFIED ONE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY FOR EACH OF OUR EIGHT TOPIC AREAS\, AND THEY REALLY THEN ALLOW BCDC TO SET SOME PRIORITIES OF WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ARE ELEVATED AND INCLUDED IN THESE LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS. OUR CHAPTER 5 ON THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES REALLY PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO WORK THROUGH A SET OF ISSUES AND THEIR LOCAL VULNERABILITIES AND IDENTIFY LOCAL PRIORITIES. SO WE PROVIDE A LOT OF GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT ON HOW LOCAL JURISDICTION MIGHT IDENTIFY THEIR OWN PRIORITIES. WE\, THEN\, ADD ON THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES\, AND THEY ARE ALL SPATIAL. SO IN THIS WAY WE’RE ENSURING IF A LOCAL JURISDICTION DIDN’T\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IDENTIFY ONE OF THESE AS THEIR PRIORITY\, WE’RE ENSURING THAT IT’S A PRIORITY THROUGH THE WAY THAT WE’VE MAPPED THEM. SO REALLY\, THE IDEA IS A LOCAL PRIORITY IS SET AND THEN WE OVERLAY OUR REGIONAL PRIORITIES SO THAT IN THESE LOCAL SUBREGIONAL RESILIENCY PLANS\, AGAIN\, WE’LL REFINE THE LANGUAGE\, WE HAVE BOTH.  \n>>SPEAKER: MARGIE\, COULD I ASK YOU ONE OF THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND — \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: I HAVE THE FULLEST. SO I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THEM AND I WILL NOTE WE ARE ALL HAVING THIS MEETING WITH YOU KIND OF IN OUR TURNING POINT FROM DRAFT ONE TO DRAFT TWO. WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT IS STILL DRAFT ONE AND WE’VE ADVANCED THESE FURTHER IN OUR OWN INTERNAL TEAMS AND WE WILL BE SHARING DRAFT TWO IN THE COMING WEEKS. BUT THEY’RE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT. JUST A CONTINUED REFINEMENT OF THEM. SO AN EXAMPLE\, WE CAN JUST USE THE FIRST ONE. WE HAVE A TOPIC AREA ON CRITICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. OUR VISION IS THAT CRITICAL SERVICES ARE RELIABLE AND OUR STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY IS WE CAN IDENTIFY AND PROTECT REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT’S VITAL TO THE REGION’S PUBLIC HEALTH AND ECONOMY. THAT ONE MAY BE MORE OF AN OBVIOUS ONE. THE NEXT ONE I CAN MENTION IS HEALTHY ECOSYSTEMS. AS DANA MENTIONED\, SOME SYSTEMS ARE NETWORKED SYSTEMS AND THEY RELY ON AREAS THAT CROSS JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. AND HABITATS I THINK IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THAT. HEALTHY BAY REQUIRES HABITATS ACROSS THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE. AND SO IN THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY WE WANT TO ENHANCE AND ACCELERATE WETLAND RESTORATION AND HABITAT CONNECTIVITY. SO WHAT WE’VE DONE IN OUR FURTHER ITERATION OF THIS WHICH KIND OF GOES BEYOND WHAT YOU SAW IN YOUR DRAFT GUIDELINES\, IS WE’VE IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC DATA LAYERS FOR EACH OF THESE\, WE MAPPED EACH OF THESE. FOR A LOT OF THESE WE’RE ALSO TRYING TO WORK WITH PARTNERS. SO FOR THE HABITAT ONE IN PARTICULAR\, THERE’S A LOT OF WORK THAT THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE HAS DONE. THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURES. WE’VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ABOUT HOW TO MAKE SURE ALL THE WORK YOU’RE DOING IS REFLECTED HERE AND THAT WE’RE ALIGNING THESE REGIONAL GOALS? SIMILARLY\, WE’VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH M.T.C. ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD AND REALLY WORKING — MAKING SURE WE ALIGN WITH THE GROWTH GEOGRAPHIES. SO FOR TIME SAKE I WON’T CONTINUE TO READ THROUGH THESE BUT YOU ARE WELCOME TO. OH\, GO FASTER. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE DRAFT GUIDELINES SECTIONS LOOK LIKE. SO YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THIS IN THE DRAFT YOU RECEIVED. AND THEN AS I MENTIONED\, WE ALSO HAVE A LIST OF OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS. AND THESE\, AGAIN\, ARE — THEY SET REQUIREMENTS FOR HOW THEY MEET THE GUIDELINES AND THEY PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE TO SHARE HOW WE STRUCTURE THE GUIDELINES. SO DANA MENTIONED THE LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN\, AND WE’VE REALLY LOOKED AT THE WAY THEY LAID OUT THEIR GUIDELINES AND SEEN IT AS A BIT OF A MODEL. SO THIS REPLICATES THEIR APPROACH IN SOME WAYS. WE HAVE A MAIN GUIDELINE. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE. THIS IS THE EXAMPLE A-4 AND THAT’S WHAT WE’RE ASKING FOR IN THIS EXAMPLE IS INCLUDE A ROBUST EQUITABLE PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND SUMMARIZE YOUR ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS. BELOW EACH GUIDELINE WE THEN HAVE SOME SUBCOMPONENTS\, AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE TO SHARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT WE’VE INCLUDED. IN SOME CASES\, WE — DANA MENTIONED THE ONLINE MAPPING PLATFORM. WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE TO HELP LOCAL JURISDICTIONS UNDERSTAND WHERE TO ACCESS DATA AND INFORMATION. SO ANYWHERE IT’S POSSIBLE\, WE TRY TO DIRECT THEM TO\, YOU KNOW\, THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE YOU TO DO AND HERE’S A PLACE YOU CAN GO TO FIND THAT INFORMATION. AND IF WE HAVE THAT DATA\, WE ARE SHARING IT. THOUGH\, WE’RE ALSO ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY THAT IF YOU HAVE BETTER DATA OR YOU WANT TO USE SOMETHING DIFFERENT\, THAT’S ALL RIGHT AS WELL. WE ALSO HAVE THIS — THIS NEXT EXAMPLE\, AS YOU CAN SEE HOW GUIDELINE RELATES TO A STANDARD. SO IN ORDER TO MEET THAT GUIDELINE IN THIS A-4-B\, IT SAYS THIS PLAN NEEDS TO MEET THIS STANDARD. YOU CAN SEE THE R AT THE END OF THESE SO WE’RE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT’S REQUIRED\, WHAT YOU MUST DO VERSUS\, HERE’S SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE’RE CONSIDERING AS THE MINIMUM\, YOU KNOW\, BASELINE STANDARDS. THAT’S WHAT THIS LAST EXAMPLE HERE IS. WE REALLY WANT TO KEEP INFORMATION THAT IS GOOD PRACTICES CLOSE BY AS WELL AS PROVIDE SOME EASY WAYS TO ACCESS\, YOU KNOW\, HOW YOU MIGHT ACHIEVE THAT IF YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW BUT IT’S NOT A REQUIREMENT. SO THAT LAST SUBCOMPONENT IS NOT REQUIRED AND JUST AN EXAMPLE OF THE TYPES OF INFORMATION WE’RE TRYING TO PUT INTO THESE GUIDELINES. ALL RIGHT. SO MY NEXT FEW SLIDES REALLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS. FOR TIMING\, I WON’T GO THROUGH THEM IN GREAT DETAIL. AND WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO THESE. THEY KIND OF SERVE AS A REFERENCE TO US. ELEMENT A INCLUDES FOUR GUIDELINES REALLY AROUND SOME OF THE KEY COMPONENTS OF HOW YOU MIGHT PLAN\, WHO ARE YOUR PARTNERS\, WHAT IS THE AREA\, HOW ARE YOU COORDINATING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS SO THAT POINT WITH THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION PROCESS\, WE’RE ASKING FOR A DESCRIPTION OF THAT. AND THEN\, OF COURSE\, ENGAGEMENT. WE ALSO HAVE A CHAPTER ON EXISTING CONDITIONS. YOU KNOW\, WE KNOW A LOT OF WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE IS BASED ON EXISTING ADAPTATION PLANS. WE REALLY WANTED TO BUILD ON WHAT WAS WORKING WELL IN THE REGION\, AND SO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS\, OF COURSE\, NECESSARY FOR MAKING THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS SO WE INCORPORATED A LOT OF THAT\, HOW YOU MIGHT BUILD ON EXISTING PLANS\, WHAT IS THE PHYSICAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS\, WHAT IS THE POPULATIONS AND ASSETS IN YOUR AREA AND WHAT ARE THE EXISTING CAPACITIES SO THESE GUIDELINES SHOW WHAT WE WANT TO ENSURE IN ALL THESE PLANS. WE HAVE AN ELEMENT ON THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. AGAIN\, BUILDING ON BEST PRACTICES NOW WE ARE STANDARDIZING THEM INTO THESE GUIDELINES. SO THIS INCLUDES LOOKING AT EXPOSURE\, CREATING A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS MAKING SURE\, THEN\, TO PRIORITIZE WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING AT IN GREATER DETAIL. AND SO WE HAVE A QUESTION HERE FOR THE ECRB THAT WE CAN COME BACK TO ON\, ARE THERE TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING SEA LEVEL RISE IMPACTS THAT NEED TO BE IN HERE? AND WE CAN THINK OF THE LEVELS OF INPUT OF WHAT’S REQUIRED\, WHAT MUST EVERYBODY DO AND WHAT IS GOOD INFORMATION OR GUIDANCE THAT WE SHARE THAT MAY NOT BE APPLICABLE EVERYWHERE BUT ON STANDARDIZING ADAPTATION PLANNING. AND THEN WE HAVE ELEMENT D\, OUR BIGGEST ELEMENT. AND THIS IS REALLY ABOUT IDENTIFYING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AS WELL AS ADAPTATION PATHWAYS. OKAY. GOOD. THAT DOESN’T SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN. SO HERE\, WE REALLY HAVE A — AND AS I MENTIONED\, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING TWEAKS IN THIS VERSION SO THIS WILL BE PAIRED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN OUR NEXT I HAD RATION. — PARED DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN OUR NEXT ITERATION BUT IT WILL FOLLOW THE SAME FLOW WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A LOCAL VISION THAT REALLY KIND OF TAKES THE REGIONAL ONE BAY VISION AND LOCALIZES IT AND REALLY KIND OF ADDS WHAT’S THOSE LOCAL PRIORITIES THAT DON’T CONFLICT WITH THE REGIONAL VISION BUT ADD THAT SPECIFICITY TO HELP DRIVE WHAT THE LOCAL ADAPTATION RESPONSES WILL BE. WE HAVE THIS GUIDELINE ON DEVELOPING CRITERIA. ALTHOUGH WE THINK WE WON’T NECESSARILY REQUIRE A SPECIFIC WAY TO EVALUATE IN OUR NEXT ITERATION\, BUT WE WILL WANT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO EVALUATE ADAPTATION\, BUT WE MAY NOT DICTATE EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS ABOUT IDENTIFYING SHORELINE REACHES AND START THINKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL AREAS IN WHICH ADAPTATION IS MOST SUITABLE. DEVELOPING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND ALTERNATIVES THAT REALLY RESPOND TO THE RISKS THAT THEY IDENTIFIED PREVIOUSLY. AND STARTING TO THINK ABOUT ADAPTATION PATHWAYS. SO HOW MIGHT YOUR STRATEGIES CHANGE TO RESPOND TO INCREASING FLOOD HAZARD RISKS THAT ARE PROJECTED WITH SEA LEVEL RISE? WE WILL REQUIRE EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES\, AND THEN\, WE WANT TO SEE SOME ACTUAL CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT ARE THE PREFERRED STRATEGIES\, ACKNOWLEDGING THERE MIGHT BE A PERIOD OF EXPLORATION OF THAT’S WHAT KIND OF THIS GUIDELINE D-4 IS EVALUATE AND EXPLORE WHAT’S FEASIBLE AND LOOK AT VARIOUS OPTIONS. EVALUATE THOSE OPTIONS AND THEN TELL US WHAT YOUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ARE. IN THESE\, THROUGHOUT THIS GUIDELINE SECTION IS REALLY THEN WHERE WE POINT TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS AND THOSE REALLY PROVIDE A FURTHER DIRECTION ON HOW WE WANT TO GUIDE WHAT ADAPTATION CHOICES ARE IDENTIFIED LOCALLY TO ENSURE THAT WE’RE — WHEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR THIS\, THEY HAVE REALLY GOOD INFORMATION IN MIND TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES. SO WE HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS HERE AS WELL. ARE WE ASKING CITIES AND COUNTIES TO CONSIDER THE RIGHT QUESTIONS WHEN THEY’RE IDENTIFYING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES? AND I THINK THAT WILL COME OUT MORE AS WE GET TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS. HOW CAN CITIES AND COUNTIES EVALUATE STRATEGIES TO COME UP WITH PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES? IN THE DRAFT YOU SAW\, WE LISTED EVALUATION CRITERIA BUT WE’RE NOT QUITE SURE WE NEED TO REQUIRE HOW EXACTLY THEY EVALUATE. HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE ADDRESS THIS EVALUATION OF STRATEGIES? AND THEN\, SOMETHING THAT WE’VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT IS\, YOU KNOW\, HOW DETAILED DO WE WANT THESE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO BE? HOW DO WE GO FROM THIS CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF LANDSCAPE SCALE STRATEGIES TO PROJECTS? AND WHAT’S THE LINE — HOW FAR ALONG DO WE WANT TO SEE PROJECTS IN THESE PLANS? HOW FAR ALONG IS APPROPRIATE? SO WE’D BE CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS\, AS WELL\, ABOUT GETTING INTO THAT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. AND THEN CONTINUING OF THIS QUESTION HERE IS\, WHAT ARE THE KEY PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT JURISDICTIONS NEED TO IDENTIFY TO GET TO IMPLEMENTATION? YOU’LL SEE IN THE NEXT FEW ELEMENTS THAT WE ASK FOR SOME PROJECT DETAILS AND IMPLEMENTATION NEXT STEPS\, AND WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT DO — WHAT DO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO HELP THEM GET FROM PLANNING SCALE TO IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSTRUCTION? THE NEXT ELEMENT IS THE PROJECT LIST. ONLY ONE GUIDELINE HERE AND THAT’S INCLUDE A PRIORITY PROJECT LIST THAT SUMMARIZES THE PRIORITY ADAPTATION PROJECTS IN YOUR KIND OF SHORT AND MEDIUM TERM. WE ALSO ASK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES. AND SO WE REALLY WANT TO ENSURE THAT AS JURISDICTIONS ARE THINKING ABOUT PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE CHANGES\, THEY’RE ALSO THINKING ABOUT ASSOCIATED POLICY CHANGES AND WHAT MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO FACILITATE THOSE EITHER ACROSS THE WHOLE CITYWIDE SCALE POLICY OR EVEN ZONING CHANGES OR\, YOU KNOW\, ACTUAL — HOW MIGHT WE THINK HOW STRATEGIES WILL EVOLVE AND WHAT TYPES OF POLICIES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THAT? AND THEN\, LASTLY WE HAVE AN ELEMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN. AGAIN\, THIS IS GETTING TOWARDS THE SECOND HALF OF PLANNING. WE’RE REALLY STARTING TO THINK ABOUT\, WHAT ARE THE PROJECTS\, AND HOW DO WE ADVANCE THOSE\, AND HOW DO WE FUND THEM? MAKING SURE FOLKS ARE INCLUDING MONITORING AND WE’RE ACTUALLY PUTTING INTO PLACE THE RIGHT MECHANISMS TO TRACK HOW WELL ADAPTATION IS DOING AS WELL AS THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT MIGHT TRIGGER A DIFFERENT PATHWAY APPROACH. AND THEN A STRATEGY FOR PLAN UPDATES. SO THIS IS JUST A DIAGRAM OF ALL OF THE PLAN ELEMENT GUIDELINES. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE’S THE OVERVIEW. WE KIND OF THOUGHT ABOUT WHERE SOME OF THESE CONNECT THE MOST EXISTING CONDITIONS\, VULNERABLE ASSESSMENT\, ADAPTATION STRATEGIES AND D\, E\, AND F ARE OUR IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENTS. NEXT\, I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE AND I’LL ONLY DO A SELECT FEW NUMBER OF THE MINIMUM STANDARDS\, BUT JUST AS A REMINDER THAT GUIDELINES SET OUT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PLAN AND WHAT WE WANT TO BE SUBMITTED AND THE STANDARDS PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON HOW WE WANT THAT TO OCCUR. SO THIS IS OUR FULL LIST IN DRAFT ONE OF OUR MINIMUM STANDARDS. I WON’T GO INTO DETAIL IN ALL OF THESE\, AND EVEN THE ONES I’LL SHARE\, I’LL KEEP IT HOPEFULLY HIGH LEVEL. TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE WHOLE LIST\, WE’VE MADE ADJUSTMENTS WE HEARD IN THE FIRST ROUND\, WE HAVE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS AND IT’S — IT CAN BE VERY CHALLENGING SO WE’RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE CAN REDUCE SOME PRESCRIPTIVENESS BUT PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT MORE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY IN HOW WE ACHIEVE THAT. WE KNEW THAT WAS IMPORTANT BUT IN THIS FIRST DRAFT WE HEARD WE NEED TO MAKE SOME FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO IT. IN TERMS OF OUR COASTAL AND FLOOD HAZARD STANDARDS\, SO WE’RE LAYING THIS OUT TO VERY CLEARLY DEFINE\, WHAT ARE THE HAZARDS WE WANT TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS PLAN? OUR FIRST DRAFT\, WE HAVE THESE THREE HAZARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED. SEA LEVEL RISE\, WHICH REFERS TO THE CHANGES IN THE TIDAL INUNDATION. 100-YEAR TIDES\, SHALLOW GROUNDWATER ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED. AND THEN WE HAVE A SERIES OF RECOMMENDED HAZARDS HERE TO MAKE SURE THESE ARE ISSUES OF RISK BUT THEY MAY BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO ASSESS AT SCALE\, AT MORE MAYBE PROJECT OR DESIGN-LEVEL SCALES OR THE DATA MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE. SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ADVISORY GROUP IS TO PUT IT IN THE RECOMMENDED CATEGORY\, BUT IF YOU HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS\, WE’D BE GLAD TO HEAR THEM. THIS IS A BIT OF A BUSY TABLE\, BUT THIS REALLY REPRESENTS OUR TIME HORIZONS AND HAZARDS SCENARIO STANDARDS. AND\, AGAIN\, WE WANT TO PROVIDE SOME CONSISTENCY IN HOW LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR THIS RISK SO THAT WE’RE NOT PLANNING FOR VASTLY DIFFERENT VALUES OR NUMBERS. ALTHOUGH\, AGAIN\, IT’S A TRICKY BALANCE BETWEEN STANDARDIZING AND ALLOWING FOR SOME LOCAL FLEXIBILITY. SO THESE NUMBERS HERE REFLECT THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. SO CALIFORNIA’S BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE ON SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS AND WHEN THEY’RE MOST LIKELY TO OCCUR. AND THAT GUIDANCE ALSO PROVIDES RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND WHAT WE’RE DOING IS WE’RE TAKING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FURTHER AND HAVING THESE STANDARDS AND THESE MINIMUM STANDARDS. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT WE HAVE A TIME HORIZON WITH THE HAZARD SCENARIO THAT COMES FROM THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL. THE INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO\, THERE IS INTERMEDIATE HIGH AND HIGH SCENARIO FOR EACH OF THESE TIME HORIZONS. AND SO EACH KIND MUCH HAZARD SCENARIO IS OUR THREE REQUIRED. SO YOU CAN SEE IN THIS THIS TABLE HERE WE’VE GOT SEA LEVEL RISE\, SHALLOW GROUNDWATER RISE AND STORM SURGE. AND THE ACTUAL CORRESPONDING NUMBERS. WE THEN HAVE CREATED REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WE WANT TO BE LOOKED AT IN A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. AND THIS IS BUILDING ON THE OCEAN PROTECTION GUIDANCE TO LOOK AT THE 2050 ONE-FOOT SCENARIO WHICH IS LIKELY TO OCCUR AND ALSO AT THE 2100\, THOSE ARE THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. THEY CORRESPOND TO THESE WATER LEVELS AND SO WE REQUIRE THESE BE EVALUATED FOR VULNERABILITY. WE THEN HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF STANDARDS FOR ADAPTATION\, RECOGNIZING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’RE ASSESSING VULNERABILITY ACROSS A WIDER RANGE OF WATER LEVELS BUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY PLAN FOR SHOULD BE BASED ON THE VULNERABILITY STANDARD AND THAT RISK. AND SO HERE WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS — AND THIS GOES BACK TO THAT GUIDELINE THAT SAYS\, SHOW US YOUR PLANS\, YOUR STRATEGIES AT THIS ONE-FOOT 2050 SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO AS WELL AS THE 2100 KIND OF INTERMEDIATE. SO THAT’S ON THE LOWER RANGE HERE. THAT’S A 3.1-FOOT SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIO. AND THEN IN THE FIRST DRAFT YOU ALL SAW\, WE INCLUDED A 2150 REQUIREMENT AND THE REQUIREMENT\, THOUGH\, IS THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION ON HOW MIGHT THESE STRATEGIES CONTINUE TO SUPPORT FLOOD RISK REDUCTION IN THIS TIME HORIZON AND THE INTENTION HERE WAS TO REALLY MAKE SURE AS JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE\, THEY’RE CONSIDERING AND UNDERSTANDING THAT SEA LEVEL RISE ISN’T STOPPING AT 2100. WE OFFER TALK ABOUT THIS AS AN ISSUE THROUGH 2100\, BUT THE WATER WILL CONTINUE TO RISE BEYOND THAT. SO HOW ARE WE ENSURING THAT THE DECISIONS WE MAKE TODAY HAVE THAT UNDERSTANDING IN MIND ABOUT THE INCREASED FLOOD RISK? IN OUR NEW ITERATIONS\, WE’RE ANYTHING ABOUT REDUCING THAT REQUIREMENT ON 2150. WE HEARD THAT’S REALLY FAR OUT. AND SO WE MIGHT INSTEAD TRY TO STILL ACHIEVE THAT SIMILAR TYPE OF INFORMATION BUT THROUGH THE 2100 HIGH SCENARIO. THAT MIGHT BE MORE DETAILED THAN YOU’RE HOPING. \n>>SPEAKER: THE 2150\, IT’S REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE ADAPTATION PATHWAYS\, BUT IT’S NOT REQUIRED FOR THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. SO THAT SEEMS — SEEMS UNFORTUNATE TO CHECK TO SEE WHAT’S — \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: SO THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION. IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE NUMBERS HERE. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THIS. THE 2100 HIGH OF 6.5 FEET IS QUITE SIMILAR TO THE 2150 INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO OF SIX FEET\, AND SO THAT’S WHERE WE’RE THINKING OF MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO REALLY REQUIRE THAT KIND OF WORST-CASE SCENARIO DESCRIPTION AT THE 2100 LEVEL. AS YOU SAID\, THEN\, THERE WILL BE A VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND IT’S A LITTLE GUESSWORK OF WE’RE NOT ASKING YOU\, THEN\, TO DO A FOURTH VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS ON THE 6.5 VERSUS THE 6.0. OH\, SURE. THE QUESTION WAS — WE HAD THIS REQUIREMENT TO ASSESS ADAPTATION FOR 2150 INTERMEDIATE BUT WE DID NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO ASSESS THE VULNERABILITY OF THAT SAME WATER. AND THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THE VALUES FOR 2100 HIGH ARE — HALF OF A FOOT OFF FROM THE 2150\, BUT WE’RE GOING TO IN OUR NEXT ITERATION MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT SO THERE’S NOT A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN IT. YES. \n>>SPEAKER: I AM A LITTLE SURPRISED BY THE ONE FOOT BY 2150. I’M HEARING THE BAY HAS RISEN ANYWHERE FROM SIX INCHES TO EIGHT INCHES ALREADY. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: IS THAT A REAL NUMBER? IS THIS A PLACEHOLDER? ARE THEY GOING TO BE REVISED? \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: THAT’S IN THE NEW GUIDANCE FROM O.P.C. AND IT’S FROM A YEAR 2000 BASELINE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: SO IT’S A FOOT FROM THE YEAR 2000 TO 2050. AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT’S SET UP THAT WAY IS THAT THE TIDE — MOST OF THE TIDAL DATA WE HAVE RIGHT NOW ARE ACTUALLY CALCULATED FOR ALSO ABOUT THE YEAR 2000. SO WHEN YOU ADD SEA LEVEL RISE ONTO THAT\, THE TIDAL DATUMS\, THEN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE TIDE IS IN THE FUTURE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? \n>>SPEAKER: THIS IS AN INTERESTING — \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: BOB\, I WANT TO ASK YOU TO TALK DIRECTLY IN THE MICROPHONE. I THINK SOME OF THE ONLINE PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING TO HEAR.  \n>>BOB BATTALIO: THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION AND ONE THAT IS GOING TO KEEP GOING. ONE MY — YOU KNOW\, REALLY WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE MEDIAN PROJECTION OF A BUNCH OF MODELS\, WHICH SOMETIMES PEOPLE CALL PROBABILITIES. BUT I THINK NOW IT’S JUST\, YOU KNOW\, A DISTRIBUTION OF OUTPUTS WITH A LOT OF JUDGMENT\, WHICH IS ALL GOOD STUFF. BUT THE QUESTION IS REALLY HOW RISK-AVERSE ARE WE? AND THAT’S WHERE I THINK A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION IS ON WHAT VALUES TO USE. SO I’LL JUST — WHILE WE’RE ON THIS TOPIC\, MY RECOLLECTION OF HOW WE’VE BEEN HANDLING THIS ON THE ECRB SINCE I’VE BEEN ON THE BOARD IS SOMEWHAT OUTDATED BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE MID-CENTURY — AND WE’RE ALREADY IN THE 2020’S. YOU KNOW\, I’D LIKE THE FACT YOU WENT TO 2150 AND ALL THAT. BUT THE ELEVATOR SPEECH WAS DESIGNED FOR AT LEAST THREE FEET. AND HAVE AN ADAPTATION PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST SIX FEET AND THAT WAS MID CENTURY\, END OF CENTURY. BUT IT’S ALSO A RECOGNITION THAT A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE — IF NOT ALL THE PROJECTS THE ECRB REVIEW ARE BIGGER PROJECTS WITH A LONGER PROJECT LIFE\, MORE RISK\, YOU KNOW\, MAYBE A HIGHER RISK CATEGORY FROM THE ASCE PERSPECTIVE. AND HENCE\, YOU’RE TALKING AT LEAST 2070. YOU KNOW\, 2050 IS — YOU KNOW\, IF YOU’RE BUILDING A NEW WHARF OR SOMETHING\, YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING BEYOND 2050. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS MORE LATER\, BUT I THINK THAT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND BEFORE I SHUT OFF HERE\, I DON’T KNOW — MAYBE WE SHOULD LET THEM CONTINUE. I SHOULD LET THEM CONTINUE\, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JENN AND THEN ALSO FOR THE BOARD BEFORE WE GET INTO THEIR QUESTIONS. I CAN’T REMEMBER HOW THIS MEETING IS — IS ORGANIZED. IS THAT THE WAY WE DO IT HERE?  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS NOW\, CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. ONCE THE PRESENTATION IS OVER\, I BELIEVE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND THEN\, AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED\, THEN\, WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD. AND I THINK ASKING. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: AND IF I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR JENN\, CAN I DO THAT LATER? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. I WILL SAVE IT WHEN WE COME BACK TO THE QUESTIONS. SO THERE’S A LOT OF CONTENT ON THE SLIDE. I AM NOT GOING TO READ IT ALL OVER BUT WE ADDITIONALLY HAVE SOME INFORMATION ON VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT STANDARDS AND FOR ASSETS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED LOCALLY\, REGIONALLY OR IN THE NEAR TERM IF THERE IS A RISK OF FLOODING\, WE ASK FOR MORE ASSESSMENT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT’S GETTING FUNNELED DOWN THROUGH THE LOCAL RISK AND LOCAL PRIORITIES AND THIS NEAR TERM ONE-FOOT FLOODING. THIS PROVIDES MORE INFORMATION WHAT WE ASKED FOR IN THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. WE ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON A SUBSET OF THOSE ASSETS FOR SENSITIVITY\, ADAPTIVE CAPACITY\, AS WELL AS CONSEQUENCES. SO IF YOU HAVE — AND THIS IS AN AREA\, TOO\, WE’RE KIND OF WORKING TO REFINE TO SEE WHERE CAN WE PULL OUT REQUIREMENTS VERSUS WHERE CAN WE MOVE THIS INTO RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE TO MAKE THIS PROCESS AS CLEAN AND GETTING TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WHILE PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION IN A REALLY ACCESSIBLE PLACE. SO IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS\, WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. WE THEN HAVE THIS SECTION ON ADAPTATION EVALUATION STANDARDS. SO AS MENTIONED\, WE’RE PULLING THIS OUT AS AN ADDITIONAL SECTION. IN THE NEXT SECTION WE HAVE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS WHICH DO SOMETHING SIMILAR. FOR THE PURPOSES OF REALLY CONSOLIDATING AND\, AGAIN\, MAKING THINGS CONCISE\, WE’RE GOING TO LOOK THROUGH THIS LIST AND MAKE SURE ANY KEY CONCEPTS HERE ARE WELL REPRESENTED IN OUR ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS. IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON THIS WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR IT. THIS IS THE FULLEST IN THE DRAFT GUIDELINES YOU HAVE. WE GET TO THE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AND PATHWAYS STANDARDS WHICH WE THINK IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS WORK BECAUSE THIS IS GETTING TO\, WHAT ARE THE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES? EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED TO HELP YOU GET TO THIS POINT\, TO GET YOU TO RESPOND TO LOCAL RISKS AND SET UP GOOD ADAPTATION PLANNING IN THE FUTURE. HOW WE SET UP THIS SECTION CURRENTLY — AND WE ARE OPEN TO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS — IS SETTING UP SOME REQUIRED ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS THAT ALL JURISDICTIONS NEED TO GO THROUGH AS THEY’RE DEVELOPING. AND YOU’LL SEE A LOT OF THE LANGUAGES LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THIS. WE DON’T ANYWHERE MANDATE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WHERE BUT WE TRY TO PROVIDE A LOT OF HELPFUL INFORMATION TO HELP LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MAKE THOSE CHOICES. WE THEN HAVE A SECTION ON ADAPTATION STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC IF YOU HAVE A STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY. SO AS I MENTIONED\, WE ARE GOING TO BE IDENTIFYING REGIONALLY SOME KEY ASSETS AND KEY ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE THAT IN YOUR LOCAL JURISDICTION\, WE THEN SAY\, WE WANT TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW YOU ARE RESPONDING TO THAT RISK AND WE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. SO THAT STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY SECTION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IF YOU HAVE ONE OR MORE OF THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES. WE THEN ALSO ORGANIZE THIS INTO ADAPTATION DESIGN STANDARDS. WE’RE NOT SURE IF THOSE SHOULD BE COMBINED. AS I SAID\, WE’VE REALLY BEEN THINKING THROUGH THE SCALE AT WHICH THIS IS HAPPENING. THERE’S THIS CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE LEVEL ABOUT THINKING OF ADAPTATION AND THERE ARE MORE SITE-SPECIFIC PROJECT SCALE CONSIDERATIONS. AND WE DON’T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE LINE IS BETWEEN THOSE TWO. IT CAN BE TRICKY. AND SO WE\, FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT\, WE TOOK A STAB AT SEPARATING THEM OUT BECAUSE MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE TO THINK ABOUT THEM DIFFERENTLY BUT IF THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO KIND OF BRING THOSE TOGETHER\, THEN WE’RE HAPPY TO DO THAT AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT MIGHT MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE WHEN YOU SEE THE ACTUAL STANDARDS. SO I’M GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO THE OTHERS IN THAT I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE. MAYBE I’LL JUST GIVE A COUPLE JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THESE ARE IF YOU HAVEN’T ALREADY READ THEM. AGAIN\, AS WE ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO GO THROUGH IDENTIFY ADAPTATION OPTIONS WE SAY THAT PREFERRED ADAPTATION STRATEGIES THAT YOU SELECT HAVE TO MEET THESE STANDARDS. AND SO THESE STANDARDS ARE\, YOU KNOW\, WHERE POSSIBLE\, FIRST LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO AVOID FUTURE HARM AND REDUCE THE NEED FOR NEW ADAPTATION PROTECTIONS. THIS\, WHAT YOU’RE SEEING HERE\, IS THE FIRST LINE OF EACH OF THE STANDARDS. AND THEN\, THERE’S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND CONTEXT BELOW. THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE IDENTIFY AND INCORPORATE NATURE-BASED ADAPTATION SUITABLE TO THE LANDSCAPE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT FEASIBLE BEFORE USING NEW APPROACHES. TRY TO DO THIS FIRST\, THAT’S HOW WE TRIED TO FRAME A LOT OF THESE. AND SO WE HAVE — WE’VE TRIED AS WELL TO INCORPORATE SOME OF BCDC’S CORE MANDATES IN THERE. STANDARD A-6 SAYS UTILIZE APPROACHES THAT AVOID\, MINIMIZE\, AND REDUCE BAY FILL. AND SO THERE’S 15 OF THESE ADAPTATION STRATEGY STANDARDS NOW AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THESE\, AGAIN\, THROUGH A NEW LENS FOR THIS NEXT ITERATION. BUT FOR A NEW FEW EXAMPLES\, SOME OF THE STANDARDS ARE LOOK TO INCLUDE MULTIPLE BENEFITS THROUGH ADAPTATION WHEN POSSIBLE. AGAIN\, IT’S ADVANCING GOOD PRACTICES AND TO LOOK FOR THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FIRST TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE THE OUTCOMES THAT WE CAN GET FROM THESE CHOICES. SO THAT IS THE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES THAT EVERYONE IS BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT AND A LOT OF WHAT WE’RE ASKING IS DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU TRIED TO ACHIEVE THIS AND IF YOU COULDN’T\, TELL US WHY. WE THEN HAVE A SET OF STRATEGY STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE REGIONAL PRIORITIES. I WON’T READ THROUGH ALL OF THESE BUT MAKE SURE WE HAVE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITIES ARE INCORPORATED IN THE PLANNING. AND I WAS SAYING THIS LEVEL — WE ONLY HAVE FOUR OF THESE — THAT WE THOUGHT WERE MORE SPECIFIC TO DESIGN BUT MAYBE THEY DO BELONG IN THE BROADER ADAPTATION STANDARDS. YOU ALSO NOTICE THIS DOESN’T HAVE A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE\, AGAIN\, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW FAR WE CAN GET REQUIREMENTS TO A PROJECT SCALE\, HOW APPROPRIATE IT IS. WE HAD THIS INFORMATION. WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE IT. WE HAVEN’T BEEN SURE EXACTLY WHERE YET. BUT THIS IS THINGS LIKE INCORPORATE\, YOU KNOW\, FREE BOARD ABOVE FEMA. AGAIN\, THIS IS ONE WE’RE THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN PROVIDE A BIT MORE LOCAL FLEXIBILITY AND MAYBE NOT DESIGNATE A NUMBER CONSIDERING A SETBACK\, INTEGRATING CERTAIN FEATURES. SO\, AGAIN\, SOME OF THIS INFORMATION THAT WE FEEL IS A LITTLE BIT MORE PROJECT-SPECIFIC. OKAY. SO THAT CONCLUDES MY OVER — OUR OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN IS\, WHAT’S IN THIS DRAFT AND WHAT IS IN THE STANDARDS. I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION. WE CAN GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION. WE CAN GO BACK TO THE SLIDES OR MOVE THE CONVERSATION FORWARD AS NEEDED. I’LL LEAVE THESE HERE. I DON’T THINK I NEED TO READ THROUGH THEM. SO THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU\, JACKIE. THANK YOU\, DANA. SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT THE BOARD HERE\, BE LOOKING AT THESE QUESTIONS AND MAYBE COMMENTING ON THEM AT THIS POINT OR — \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: YEAH\, I THINK THE INTENTION IS TO HELP SERVE AS A FRAMING. I THINK WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP OTHER TOPICS THAT STAND OUT TO YOU\, THIS IS REALLY NEEDING TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK. THIS IS A WAY TO DIRECT YOUR THINKING ON IT BUT WE’RE HAPPY TO HEAR FEEDBACK ON THESE QUESTIONS OR OTHERWISE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: ROD\, I’D LIKE TO RECOMMEND WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT NOW. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OH. \n>>JENN HYMAN: AND ACTUALLY\, KRIS MAY JOINED THE MEETING. AND I BELIEVE WE’LL PROBABLY BE PROVIDING HER COMMENTS AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SINCE SHE’S NOT HERE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL THEN\, LET ME GET BACK ONTO THE SCRIPT AND SAY THANK YOU\, DANA AND JACKIE. AT THIS POINT OF THE MEETING\, WE’D LIKE TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT\, SPECIFIC TO THE PRESENTATION. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND WHEN CALLED UPON. YOU WILL BE UNMUTED SO YOU CAN SHARE YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND AFFILIATION AT THE BEGINNING OF YOUR REMARKS. YOU HAVE A LIMIT OF THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. AS IN ANY PUBLIC MEETING\, PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS RESPECTFUL. WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN TO EVERYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE MEETING. BUT AS ALWAYS\, WE ASK 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 WHO EXCEEDS THE ESTABLISHED THREE-MINUTE LIMIT WITHOUT PERMISSION WILL BE MUTED. OKAY. SO MARGIE\, ARE THERE ANY HANDS RAISED? \n>>MARGIE MALAN: WE HAVE ONE HAND RAISED BY GITA DEV.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. SORRY. KRIS MAY. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF. OH\, WAIT. IT’S GITA. SORRY. GITA DEV\, WE CAN HEAR YOU. \n>>GITA DEV: I SEE MY CONNECTION IS UNSTABLE. APOLOGIZE. WE CAN SEE THE SEE THE — THERE WERE SO MANY SLIDES. I WROTE THAT ONE DOWN. OKAY. SUBREGIONAL PLAN ELEMENT DIAGRAM. THIS IS A NICE SIMPLE DIAGRAM. SO I SHOULD SAY\, FIRST\, I’M GITA DEV. I AM WITH THE SIERRA CLUB’S BAY ALIVE CAMPAIGN WHICH IS A CAMPAIGN FOR THE SIERRA CLUB FOR THE BAY WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND REALLY — I’M REALLY\, REALLY PLEASED TO SPEAK WITH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW GROUP BECAUSE I’M AN ARCHITECT. I WORK WITH ENGINEERS. AND I THINK DIFFERENTLY THAN A LOT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE SIERRA CLUB. SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE BAY ITSELF IS AS MUCH AT RISK WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AS\, YOU KNOW\, THE INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND IT. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT I THINK A LOT OF US DON’T REALIZE. AND THE OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL DOES EVERY FIVE YEARS PUTS OUT THIS SEA LEVEL RISE DATA. YOU KNOW\, THEY KEEP REVISING IT AND SHOWING IT ACCELERATING. WHAT I WANT TO BRING UP WITH OUR GROUP HERE IS THAT WHEN\, YOU KNOW\, YOU’RE LOOKING AT 2050 AND 2100\, I THINK 2075 IS ACTUALLY A RATHER KEY DATE. BECAUSE 2050 IS ONLY 25 YEARS AWAY AND BONDS THAT WE’LL HAVE TO PASS IN ORDER TO GET — YOU KNOW\, GET PUBLIC — YOU KNOW\, PUBLIC VOTES ON BONDS\, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT THEY ARE MORE THAN 25 YEARS SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF A 2075 AND I LIKE PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS\, ALSO\, THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WANT IT TO KNOW THERE IS A SURE FIRE\, YOU KNOW\, LIKE A ONE AND DONE. YOU’VE DONE THIS BOND\, AND WE ARE DONE FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. SO ONE SHORELINE OPERATES VERY MUCH LIKE THAT. THEIR ESTIMATES HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE’RE SHOWING IN THESE — IN THESE SLIDES. THE OTHER THING THAT I’M REALIZING IS THAT IN OUR CITIES AND COUNTIES\, THE PUBLIC WORKS IS WHAT DEALS WITH THIS ISSUE OF SEA LEVEL RISE. AND THEY ARE MOSTLY CIVIL ENGINEERS. CITIES AND COUNTIES ONLY HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY. THEY DON’T HAVE WATER USE AUTHORITY. SO THEY CAN’T DEAL WITH ISSUES AND THEY CAN’T APPROVE ISSUES WITHOUT FISH AND WILDLIFE\, REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD\, A NUMBER OF AGENCIES CONTROL THE WATER AND THE MARSHES AND THE EEL GRASS AND ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT ARE SO IMPORTANT IN YOUR GUIDELINES. SO NUMBER TWO GUIDELINE IS THE BAY ECOLOGY IS ONE OF THE NUMBER TWO ITEMS IN YOUR LISTING OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. WELL\, THERE’S NO WAY A CITY COUNCIL OR A COUNTY CAN COMMENT ON ISSUES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF LAND USE. THEREFORE\, THERE’S A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS DIAGRAM WHERE\, YOU KNOW\, THE PURPLE — THE PINK ONCE SAYS ELEMENT D\, PROJECT LIST\, AND ELEMENT E\, LAND USE PLAN AND POLICIES. BECAUSE IF NATURE-BASED IS PART OF OUR PLAN\, THEN IT’S NOT ONLY LAND USE BUT WATER USE ALSO. SO I THINK THAT’S THE MAJOR FALL IS I IN — FALLACY OF THIS BEAUTIFUL PLAN WHICH I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING. I THINK YOU’VE DONE FANTASTIC WORK\, BY THE WAY\, BCDC STAFF. THIS IS THE PLACE\, THE STUMBLING BLOCK\, BECAUSE CITIES AND COUNTIES ONLY HAVE LAND USE AUTHORITY. THEY DON’T HAVE WATER USE AUTHORITY. AND A LOT OF THE SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLANS HAVE TO INVOLVE ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN THE WATER\, MARSHES\, AND SO FORTH. FISH\, WILDLIFE HABITAT\, ALL OF THAT\, SO SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO REFIGURE THIS PARTICULAR DIAGRAM SO THAT — YOU KNOW\, THE AGENCIES THAT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THOSE ARE ALSO PART OF THIS FINAL APPROVAL PROCESS BECAUSE HONESTLY\, WHEN I TALK TO CITY COUNCILMEMBERS\, THEY ARE CLUELESS ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING IN THE WATER. AND WHEN I TALK TO THE ENGINEERING STAFF OF THE PUBLIC WORKS\, THEY ALSO SAY\, HEY\, LOOK\, THAT’S FISH AND WILDLIFE. WE CAN’T GO THERE. SO YOU KNOW\, I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE MAJOR FALLACIES THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AS WE GO FORWARD. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMENTS THAT I HAVE\, BUT I WANT THE ENGINEERING GROUP TO THINK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WHEN WE WORK ON PLANS\, WE WORK ON IT ON THE GROUND. WE DON’T WORK ON THEM IN THE WATER. SO OYSTER REEFS\, YOU KNOW\, WE WOULDN’T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT. SO SOMEHOW THE TEAM HAS TO INCLUDE THOSE KIND OF CONSULTANTS WHO HAVE SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUNDS AND BIOLOGY BACKGROUNDS. AND THEN\, THE PLANS — THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THE PLANS THAT INVOLVE NATURE INVOLVE MONITORING OVER TIME CERTAIN MEASURE OF UNCERTAINTY AND HOW DO WE GET THAT ACROSS WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO PASS BONDS THROUGH THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU. \n>>MARGIE MALAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU\, MARGIE. YEAH\, KRIS MAY HAS HER HAND UP. \n>>KRIS MAY: HI\, THIS IS KRIS. SINCE I’M NOT THERE\, I’M CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC\, BUT MY QUESTIONS ARE KIND OF COMING FROM MY BOARD MEMBER HAT. AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT I STRUGGLE WITH THE TERM OF ADAPTATION DESIGN STANDARDS BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF DESIGN STANDARDS WHEN WE’RE DESIGNING ADAPTATION PROJECTS. SO IT’S — I HAVE A HARD TIME THINKING ABOUT SEPARATING\, LIKE\, ALL OF THE DESIGN CODE STANDARDS THAT WE NEED TO THINK OF. WHEN WE’RE THINKING OF ADAPTATION AND DESIGN STANDARDS\, I THINK IT’S REALLY CRITICAL THAT THEY INCLUDE THE WAVE CLIMATE AND RIGHT NOW CONSIDERATION OF WAVES IS NOT REQUIRED THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. I THINK THAT’S ONE OF MY BIGGEST COMMENTS IS THAT I THINK CONSIDERATION OF WAVE HAZARDS\, THE WAVE CLIMATE\, THE WAVE RUN-UP\, IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED. I DON’T THINK WE CAN DO ANY ADAPTATION PLANNING APPROPRIATELY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WAVE CLIMATE. PARTICULARLY IF WE’RE LOOKING AT STRATEGIES ALONG THE SHORELINE. AND I SEE IT AS A BIG PROBLEM. WHEN I’M WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES\, PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU’RE LOOKING AT NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS\, UNDERSTANDING THE WAVE HAZARDS IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THE STRATEGIES. IT’S ALSO\, OF COURSE\, INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR WHEN YOU’RE DESIGNING GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE. I KNOW\, LIKE\, WAVE DATA\, WE LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT IT’S HARD TO GET\, BUT I DON’T THINK YOU CAN DO JUSTICE ON ADAPTATION STRATEGIES WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING YOUR WAVE CLIMATE. AND THEN MY LAST COMMENT IS\, YOU KNOW\, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING ADAPTATION STRATEGIES\, WHICH MAY INCLUDE BAY FILL IN PART OF THE STRATEGIES. A LOT OF THE COMMUNITIES I WORK WITH ARE LOOKING AT BAY FILL AS ONE OF MANY DIFFERENT STRATEGIES OR PART OF THE STRATEGY. SO IF THEY’RE SUBMITTING A PLAN THAT BCDC IS APPROVING AND SOME OF THESE STRATEGIES ARE INCLUDING BAY FILL\, IT SEEMS LIKE IT CROSSES OVER INTO THE PURVIEW OF THE ECRB. AND I’M JUST — IT COULD GET\, LIKE\, CONFUSING ABOUT\, YOU KNOW\, YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT’S ACCEPTED. YOU KNOW — I DON’T KNOW HOW IT’S JUST GOING TO GO\, LIKE\, ACROSS THE ECRB AND PERMITTING IF THESE THINGS ARE ACCEPTED AS PART OF A PLAN. BUT THEY MIGHT NOT BE PERMITTABLE OR THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THE ECRB REVIEW. SO THOSE ARE KIND OF THE COMMENTS I HAVE FROM THE ECRB TYPE OF PERSPECTIVE. \n>>MARGIE MALAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL\, THANK YOU. THANK YOU\, MARGIE. \n>>SPEAKER: AM I ALLOWED TO FOLLOW-UP WITH KRIS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I HAVE A QUESTION OF WHETHER KRIS IS A PUBLIC MEMBER OR BOARD MEMBER. I AM NOT IN A BOARD MEMBER AND I AM A REGULAR BOARD MEMBER AND I THINK KRIS IS EITHER.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SO MARGIE\, DO YOU — WAS THERE — IS IT BECAUSE KRIS WASN’T — IS NOT HERE OR IS IT THAT SHE WAS LATE? \n>>MARGIE MALAN: WELL\, I KIND OF — \n>>JENN HYMAN: I KIND OF MADE THAT DECISION BECAUSE IN THE PAST BOARD MEMBERS HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE REMOTELY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: NO\, THAT’S ONLY BEEN — I THINK\, JENN\, THAT’S ONLY TRUE IF PEOPLE ARE PRESENT THAT HAVE A CONFLICT LIKE ROD I THINK ONE TIME HAD A CONFLICT AND HE SPOKE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. BUT I THINK WE HAD REMOTE MEETINGS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN MEMBERS. \n>>JENN HYMAN: I APOLOGIZE. IT’S A GRAY AREA THAT I’M NOT SURE THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT HONESTLY\, SO — \n>>SPEAKER: I MOVE WE ALLOW KRIS TO JOIN THE DISCUSSION AND THAT WE ALL TALK WHEN WE ALL TALK. WITH KRIS AND MAYBE EVEN JIM.  \n>>JENN HYMAN: THAT’S FINE WITH ME SINCE IT DOESN’T INVOLVE ANY PERMITS OR ANYTHING. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. SO WE DON’T EVEN NEED TO — \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION IF IT’S AN ORDER. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THAT’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO AVOID\, JIM. I’M TRYING TO AVOID A VOTE. \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE NEED A MOTION. I COULD BE WRONG.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: NO\, NO. I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION IS — IS GOOD. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: YOU ARE GETTING QUIET AGAIN A LITTLE BIT\, ROD. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OH\, OKAY. I AGREE WITH BOB. I WOULD PREFER THAT IF WE’RE HAVING A BOARD DISCUSSION THAT JIM AND KRIS ARE ABLE TO TALK FREELY AND CONTRIBUTE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: SOUNDS GOOD.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. \n>>MARGIE MALAN: SHARE IWASHITA\, WE HAVE ONE MORE — CHAIR IWASHITA\, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>MANU CHOPRA: MY QUESTION IS — HOW DO [INDISCERNIBLE] HAVE PATHWAYS DEVELOP CRITERIA IN THE WORKFORCE OR THE WORKING [INDISCERNIBLE]? \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: I’M SORRY. I DON’T THINK WE UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION. CAN YOU REPEAT IT? \n>>MANU CHOPRA: OKAY. HOW DOES ADOPTION HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE IN FOSTER HOMES OR FOSTER CARE? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ADAPTATION PLANS AND STRATEGIES? YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT FOLKS WHO ARE IN FOSTER CARE? \n>>MANU CHOPRA: YEAH. I THINK IN FOSTER HOMES. LIKE\, WHEN THEY DON’T HAVE A HOUSE TO LIVE IN OR — AND THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO STAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SO THIS IS ABOUT ADAPTING THE SHORELINE. I THINK THE IDEA IS ADAPTING THE SHORELINE TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER RISE\, IT IS NOT ABOUT FAMILY — NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT FOSTER HOMES OR — YEAH. IT’S NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT FOSTER HOMES. \n>>MANU CHOPRA: OH\, OKAY. OKAY. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION AND CONCERN. \n>>MANU CHOPRA: THANK YOU.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY MORE — MARGIE\, ARE THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? \n>>MARGIE MALAN: NOPE. THAT’S ALL WE HAVE\, CHAIR. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. LET’S CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND NOW LET’S GET TO BOARD DISCUSSION. LET’S SEE. YEAH. BOB\, DO YOU HAVE — YEAH\, LET’S GO DOWN THE LINE HERE. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH\, I ACTUALLY HAD A COMMENT OR A QUESTION FOR JENN AND YOU\, ROD\, AS CHAIR\, AND THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. BUT FIRST FOR JENN. YOU KNOW\, AFTER THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING\, I SENT AN EMAIL TO DANA AND MARGIE\, RIGHT? JACKIE. WHY DID I SAY MARGIE? OH\, SORRY\, JACKIE. WE JUST MET AT THE LAST MEETING. I SENT MY EMAIL. I MEANT TO SEND IT TO YOU AS WELL. I THINK DANA GOT IT. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP. AND IT HAD SOME COMMENTS ON IT. AND I SENT IT TO YOU\, JENN\, AND ALSO ASHLEY. I DON’T KNOW IF THOSE COMMENTS — THEY’RE NOT REALLY BOARD COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T GO THROUGH THE BOARD PROCESS. BUT I’M WONDERING IF THOSE COMMENTS COULD BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS WITHOUT VIOLATING ALL OF OUR COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS OR RESTRICTIONS. AND YOU DON’T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. I’M NOT GOING TO SEND THEM TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS BECAUSE I DON’T WANT TO VIOLATE ANY KIND OF HATCH ACT OR WHATEVER IT IS. BUT THAT LEADS TO MY OTHER QUESTION WHICH I THINK IS FOR BOTH JENN AND ROD AND OTHERS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ALL OF THIS EVENTUALLY FUNNELS DOWN TO PROJECTS AND THE PLANNING THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT DOES GET CLOSER TO PUBLIC WORKS. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THE ECRB\, AS A GROUP OF ENGINEERS\, ETC.\, TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE STAFF ON THIS PLAN FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. AND I’M WONDERING IF OTHER PEOPLE AGREE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD DEVELOP SOME SORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE OR PROCESS BY WHICH THE ECRB COULD PROVIDE\, YOU KNOW\, KIND OF A THOUGHTFUL INPUT. AND I DON’T KNOW IF THEY — DANA AND JACKIE WANT THAT OR NOT\, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE — YOU KNOW\, I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY AND I KIND OF — I’M TRYING TO DECIDE\, SHOULD I JUST COMMENT AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR GO THROUGH THESE BOARDS? I DON’T KNOW. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: WELL\, DANA OR JACKIE\, DO YOU — I MEAN\, I HAVE MY THOUGHT\, TOO\, WHICH IS THAT I BELIEVE WE GET ANOTHER BITE OF THE APPLE HERE\, RIGHT? LIKE\, YOU SENT OUT THE DRAFT. RSAP ALREADY. AND WE\, AS ECRB MEMBERS\, WE’VE BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW IT. WE CAN GIVE OUR COMMENTS NOW\, BUT I THINK THERE’S NOTHING WRONG\, BOB\, WITH US SENDING QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO DANA AND JACKIE AND JENN AFTER WE HAD TIME TO DIGEST OUR STAFF GUIDELINES. \n>>JENN HYMAN: WELL\, SO\, A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DID TALK TO MICHAEL\, BCDC COUNCIL\, BEFORE THIS MEETING AND HE DID SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A POLICY DISCUSSION\, THAT DISCUSSION ON IT SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE WITH MORE THAN A FEW ECRB MEMBERS TOGETHER BECAUSE THEN IT’S — OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING. SO THOSE RULES WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THIS DISCUSSION. SO BOB\, I THINK THE BEST — THE BEST THING WOULD BE TO MAYBE HIGHLIGHT YOUR KEY COMMENTS IN THIS MEETING ON THE GUIDELINES SO THAT EVERYONE COULD HEAR THEM AND DISCUSS THEM. AND IF YOU’RE ALSO — IF YOUR QUESTION SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS ALSO TOUCHING ON WHAT ROLE WOULD THE ECRB PLAY IN REVIEWING THE S.B. 272 PLANS\, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE ALSO TALKING ABOUT?  \n>>BOB BATTALIO: NOT NECESSARILY. I WAS THINKING THAT THE ECRB COULD PROVIDE A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STAFF FOR THEIR USE IN FINALIZING OR FURTHER DEVELOPING THE PLAN. AND IF NOT\, THEN I KNOW THAT MY COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF THIS MEETING WILL BE PERSONAL COMMENTS. AND THEN\, I’LL JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT. BUT I DO THINK THE ENGINEERING END POINT IS IMPORTANT\, AND I THINK THE ECRB HAS A LOT OF CAPABILITIES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ECRB HELP BCDC IN THIS VERY IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR. IT WOULD SEEM LIKE A MISSTEP TO NOT DO SO\, IN MY OPINION.  \n>>JENN HYMAN: ONE OF THE THINGS YOU COULD ALSO CONSIDER IS ASKING DANA AND JACKIE TO COME BACK YET AGAIN FOR ANOTHER MEETING. I KNOW THEY’RE SUPER BUSY\, AND I’M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD FIT INTO THE SCHEDULE BUT MAYBE THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I’M GETTING SOME RESISTANCE AND I DON’T NEED TO BELABOR IT. I FEEL THE WAY I FEEL. IF BCDC DOESN’T WANT THE ECRB TO PROVIDE COLLECTIVE COMMENTS OR THE BOARD DOESN’T WANT TO DO THAT\, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT’S A DECISION AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ANOTHER TIME IF YOU WANT OR YOU CAN JUST ISSUE YOUR DECISION. \n>>JENN HYMAN: YEAH. I AM NOT AWARE OF A WAY FOR THE ECRB TO PUT TOGETHER JOINT\, LIKE\, ONE SET OF JOINT COMMENTS BUT I CAN LOOK INTO THAT AFTER THIS MEETING.  \n>>BOB BATTALIO: OKAY. WE CAN PROVIDE THEM TO YOU AND YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM AS WE DO FOR PROJECTS OR NOT. I’M FINE EITHER WAY BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GET SOME CLARITY. I DON’T THINK THESE MEETINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO GET INTO THE DETAIL. AND I THINK THERE’S MORE OF A DISCUSSION RATHER THAN EACH OF US TALKING TO EACH OTHER IN SHORT BLIPS. THAT’S MY OPINION. I’M NOT — I’LL LEAVE IT THERE. I DON’T MEAN TO BE — YOU KNOW\, THE FUNNY THING IS\, WE CAN’T SAY ANYTHING TO ANYONE UNTIL WE SHOW UP TO THESE MEETINGS SO I THOUGHT I WOULD BRING IT UP AND SORRY I DIDN’T GIVE YOU A HEAD’S UP ON IT. YOU KNOW WHERE I’M COMING FROM. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: AND MAYBE I’LL JUST SAY THAT I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH YOU PROVIDING COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO JENN AND JACKIE AND DANA AND THEN\, YOU KNOW\, HOPEFULLY THESE GET COLLATED AND COLLECTED AND IF WE ARE LUCKY TO HAVE ANOTHER SESSION HERE\, I’M SURE WE WOULD GO THROUGH THEM. THEIR RESPONSES. \n>>JENN HYMAN: YES\, THAT’S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YOU CAN DEFINITELY GIVE US ANY COMMENTS IN ANY FORMAT YOU HAVE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. I’M ASSUMING THAT THE LINE-UP IS LEFT TO RIGHT AND SO JIM FRENCH\, YOU ARE NEXT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I THINK JUST FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT BOB WAS SAYING AND JENN WAS SAYING\, WE CAN SEND COMMENTS TO STAFF AND THE STAFF HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEHOW IN THE PROCESS OF RESPONDING TO BOB’S COMMENT\, IF YOU INCORPORATE — THAT’S SIMILAR TO WHAT JIM WROTE TO YOU\, ALSO — NOT THAT I HAD WRITTEN ANYTHING YET — IF THERE BECOMES A POTENTIAL MAJORITY OF BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE PART OF THAT CONVERSATION\, EVEN IF IT’S CONNECTED\, NOT DIRECTLY\, BUT ONLY CONNECTED VIA JENN\, THEN IT GETS TRICKY. JENN\, TALK TO — THE NAME YOU JUST SAID — YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL ABOUT WHAT WE’RE DOING. AND I THINK WHEN BOB PROVIDES COMMENTS HE’S PROVIDING COMMENTS AS ECRB. I DON’T THINK IT TRIES TO MAKE SENSE — MAKE SENSE HE’S NOT ECRB WHEN HE PROVIDES COMMENTS BUT — TALK TO YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL. I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE TRICKY IF YOU TAKE TOO MUCH INPUT FROM US. I HAD A FEW COMMENTS THAT WERE NOT VERY TECHNICAL\, I GUESS. A COUPLE QUESTIONS. FIRST THAT ARE SORT OF RELATED TO EACH OTHER. ONE SORT OF FAMILY OF QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANY PLACE — I MEAN\, SEA LEVEL RISE IS HAPPENING AROUND THE WORLD. IS THERE ANYPLACE ELSE IN CALIFORNIA OR EVEN THE U.S. WHO’S DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WELL\, S.B. 272 APPLIES TO THE OUTER COAST AS WELL. THE COASTAL COMMISSION IS MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THEIR LCP PROCESS TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF S.B. 272 AND WE’VE BEEN MEETING WITH THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS. OBVIOUSLY\, OUR PROCESSES ARE VERY DIFFERENT. THEY HAVE THE LCP. WE DON’T. SO WE’RE STARTING A PLAN FROM SCRATCH. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT’S LCP? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. THEY ISSUE PERMITS ON THE OUTER COAST\, BUT THEY ALLOW LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO DO A MORE SPECIFIC PLAN LOCALLY AND THEY CEDE THE PERMITTING PROCESS BASICALLY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION ONLY SEES PROJECTS ONLY WHEN THEY’VE BEEN ELEVATED — WHEN THEY BASICALLY THINK THE LOCAL JURISDICTION HAS NOT MADE THE CORRECT DETERMINATION ON THE SHORELINE PERMIT. SO THAT’S VERY DIFFERENT FROM BCDC AND THE OUTER COAST. SO THE WAY THAT S.B. 272 IS BEING IMPLEMENTED ON THE OUTER COAST AND IN BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS FAIRLY DIFFERENT BUT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY’RE COMPATIBLE\, ESPECIALLY FOR COUNTIES THAT HAVE BOTH BCDC AND COASTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WOULD IT BE SIMILAR TO PLANS REQUIRED FOR THE — WHATEVER DO YOU CALL THOSE? THE OUTBOARD COAST? \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. NO. BECAUSE THE PLANS FOR THE OUTER COAST ARE REGULATORY IN NATURE. SO LIKE I SAID\, INSTEAD OF THE COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEWING EVERY SINGLE PROJECT ALONG THE OUTER COAST THE WAY THAT BCDC DOES ALONG OUR BAY SHORELINE\, THEY BASICALLY GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. SO WHEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TURN IN A LOCAL COASTAL PLAN\, IT’S REGULATORY IN NATURE. WHEREAS\, OUR SHORELINE — LOCAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLANS ARE NOT REGULATORY IN NATURE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT I’M THINKING THEN\, WHAT YOU’RE ASKING CITIES AND COUNTIES AND OTHER JURISDICTIONS TO DO IS TO WRITE UP A PLAN THAT MAYBE HAS NEVER BEEN DONE ANYPLACE IN THE WORLD BEFORE? \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: WELL\, I MEAN\, WHAT WE’RE DOING IS ACTUALLY I WOULD SAY A REALLY SIMILAR MODEL IS LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN. IT’S DIFFERENT\, FEDERAL. BUT THOSE ARE NOT REQUIRED PLANS\, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE A PLAN THAT FOLLOWS FEMA’S GUIDELINES\, YOU ARE THEN ELIGIBLE FOR FEMA FUNDING. SO THAT’S ACTUALLY NOT TOO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ARE DOING IN THIS. WE ARE DEVELOPING GUIDELINES THAT IF A LOCAL JURISDICTION FOLLOWS OUR GUIDELINES AND HAS AN APPROVED PLAN\, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE FUNDING. SO I WOULD SAY THAT’S THE CLOSEST ANALOGUE. AND THESE LOCAL ADAPTATION PLANS ARE HAPPENING AROUND THE BAY AREA AND ELSEWHERE AND A LOT OF WHAT’S IN OUR GUIDELINES IS THOSE BEST PRACTICES\, TRYING TO BALANCE\, YOU KNOW\, WE WANT GOOD ADAPTATION BUT WE WANT TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE TO JURISDICTIONS OF DIFFERENT CAPACITIES SO WE’RE TRYING TO SET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS BUT ALSO PROVIDE\, WHAT DOES GOOD ADAPTATION LOOK LIKE? SO LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE PLANNING IN THE BAY AREA\, ON THE OUTER COAST\, USING DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND MODELS AND WE’RE TRYING TO STANDARD THAT AND PUT THOSE BEST PRACTICES TOGETHER. AND THEN\, OUR GUIDELINES IS KIND OF A LAYER ABOVE THAT TO STANDARDIZE HOW ALL OF THAT PLANNING WORKS. COASTAL COMMISSION\, AS DANA SAID\, IS DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR\, BUT THEIR LAW IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PLAN FOR ALREADY IS BROADER THAN OURS. SO THEY’RE SIMILAR BUT NOT EXACTLY THE SAME BECAUSE OUR ENABLING LEGISLATION IS DIFFERENT.  \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: WHAT I’M TRYING TO GOT AT MAYBE IS JUST IF I WAS WORKING WITH THE JURISDICTION THAT NEEDED TO DEVELOP A PLAN\, IF I HAD NOT EVER SEEN A PLAN BEFORE\, IT’S — I’M JUST NOT SURE EXACTLY. DO WE NEED PH.D. LEVEL DISSERTATION KIND OF PROJECT OR DO WE NEED SOME SORT OF — JUST A MINOR EXPANSION ON FILL IN\, EXPAND THE OUTLINE MORE OR LESS WHAT YOU’VE GIVEN OR WHATEVER? MY SUGGESTION\, WHAT MIGHT BE USEFUL — I DON’T KNOW HOW PRACTICAL THIS IS. IF YOU COULD WRITE A HYPOTHETICAL PLAN FOR A — MAYBE A COMPOSITE TYPE OF JURISDICTION THAT INCLUDES SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAYWARD HAS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SAUSALITO HAS AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT SAN FRANCISCO HAS OR WHATEVER\, I MEAN\, YOU COULD MAKE IT AN ENORMOUS EFFORT FOR YOURSELVES\, BUT IF I COULD SEE\, THIS IS WHAT A PLAN OUGHT TO LOOK LIKE IN DRAFT LEVEL — IN DEVELOPING A PLAN LIKE THIS\, IF I WAS JUST IN MY OFFICE AND I HAD A TEAM WORKING ON THIS ASSIGNED BY A JURISDICTION OR IF I WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A JURISDICTION\, I WOULD DEVELOP AN OUTLINE AND THEN I WOULD BOUNCE THE OUTLINE BACK AND FORTH AROUND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AND THEN I WOULD — WE’D START TO FILL IN SOME PARAGRAPHS AND START TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CALCULATIONS AND WHAT FIGURES AND WHAT TABLES ARE NEEDED AND SO ON\, IT TAKES A LOT OF EFFORT. AND YOU’RE GOING TO RECEIVE THAT AND YOU’RE GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH WHAT I’VE PRODUCED OR — NOT HAPPY WHAT I PRODUCED. AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING — MAKE IT SORT OF LIKE THIS\, I THINK IT WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT OF WORK FOR YOU TO DEVELOP THIS SAMPLE PLAN BUT I THINK IN THE LONG RUN IT MIGHT MAKE LIFE A WHOLE LOT EASIER FOR YOU IF YOU START SEEING REPORTS A LOT LIKE WHAT YOU ALREADY ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO FILL IN. THERE’S LOTS THAT HAS TO BE FILLED IN. WHAT HAPPENS IN MY LOCAL — YOU KNOW\, THE LITTLE STREAMS THAT ARE COMING UP — WATER COMING UP CREEKS OR WE HAVE — BERKELEY HAS HIGHWAYS THAT ARE GOING TO BE — WAVES ARE GOING TO OVERTOP HIGHWAY 80 GOING THROUGH BERKELEY WHICH IS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY. IF YOU CAN DO AN EXAMPLE LIKE THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS — A FINAL COMMENT. ALONG SORT OF THESE LINES\, IT SEEMS LIKE A PARALLEL TYPE OF — AN ANALOGOUS TYPE OF PROJECT IS THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER ACT IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY — I GUESS IT’S NOT CENTRAL VALLEY BUT PRIMARILY CENTRAL VALLEY WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO STANDARDIZE AND ALL THE DIFFERENT GROUNDWATER BASINS NEED TO DEVELOP A PLAN FOR NOW THEY’RE USING IT. I KNOW I HAVEN’T BEEN VERY INTIMATELY INVOLVED WITH THIS EXCEPT FOR EIGHT YEARS AGO\, I GUESS\, I WAS WORKING FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL AND LOOKING AT GROUNDWATER AND HOW TO FIX WITH HIGH-SPEED RAIL. AND IT WAS A WIDE OPEN BROAD THING AND PEOPLE ARE KIND OF CONFUSED. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO. IT’S REALLY HARD TO GET STARTED. AND HOW DO YOU HIRE A CONSULTANT? HOW DO YOU HAVE A SCOPE FOR WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? YOU MAY NEED TO TALK TO PEOPLE IN SACRAMENTO THAT ARE MANAGING THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE MAYBE AN ANALOGOUS TO WHAT YOU HAVE FOR THE BAY HERE. JUST SEE IF THEY HAVE ANY GUIDELINES. SEA LEVEL RISE IS DIFFERENT THAN GROUNDWATER. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGULATIONS AND POLICIES AND GUIDELINES MIGHT BE PRETTY ANALOGOUS TO THE WAY YOU’RE HAVING — HAVING TO TRY AND JUGGLE ALL OF THIS COMPLICATED STUFF. I THINK IT’S GOING TO BE\, YOU KNOW — THE TECHNICAL STUFF IS CHALLENGING ENOUGH\, AND I THINK THAT’S WHAT ECRB IS PRIMARILY SUPPOSED TO BE FOCUSED ON. BUT I THINK THE WHOLE POLICY STUFF IS REALLY GOING TO BE TANGLY. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO HELP FIX THAT. AND I THINK IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO WRITE A DRAFT — EVEN IF IT NEVER SEES THE LIGHT OF THE PUBLIC\, JUST FOR YOU TO SEE\, THIS IS WHAT IT’S LIKE TO TRY TO FOLLOW THE OUTLINE THAT YOU’VE GIVEN\, I THINK YOU’LL REWRITE YOUR GUIDELINES IF YOU TRY TO — TRY TO WRITE IN RESPONSE AS IF YOU ARE RESPONDING TO YOUR GUIDELINES. I THINK — NOT BECAUSE THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG\, JUST BECAUSE THE HUMAN PROCESS\, GOING THAT STEP BETWEEN WHERE YOU HAVE NOW AND AN ACTUAL REPORT ORGANIZATION IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF THE TIME INVOLVED AND YOU’LL MAKE A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS MORE EFFICIENT IN GETTING PRODUCTS TO YOU THAT WILL MAKE YOU HAPPY. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANKS\, JIM. RAMIN. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: THANK YOU. I’LL LOWER MY HAND. IS IT THE PLAN\, IS IT A GUIDELINE\, IS IT STANDARD? I THINK IF I HEAR JIM AND KRIS\, WE ARE — MAYBE MYSELF\, IT SEEMS\, IT’S CONFUSING. IT NEEDS TO BE DIRECT. IT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR. AND IT NEEDS TO BE A REQUIREMENT. STANDARD IS A REQUIREMENT. I GIVE YOU AN ANALOGY\, AN EXAMPLE. AFC-7\, WHICH IS A STANDARD FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCTURES\, IS A STANDARD WHICH IS NOT A CODE TECHNICALLY\, BUT IT’S A REFERENCE STANDARD. SO IT HAS EVERYTHING IN THERE. AND THEN THE CODE CYCLE TAKES IT AND MAKES IT INTO A CODE. AND THEN\, IT’S ENFORCED BY JURISDICTIONS AND STATES\, ETC. SO I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE A — THE DEFINITION OF THIS DOCUMENT NEEDS TO BE VERY CLEAR. BECAUSE TO ME WHEN YOU CALL SOMETHING GUIDELINES\, IT’S NOT A POLICY. YOU CAN TAKE IT OR YOU CAN LEAVE IT. THAT’S A GUIDELINE. STANDARD\, THIS IS HOW YOU SHOULD DO IT. MAYBE IT’S NOT AT THE LEVEL OF A REQUIREMENT OR A CODE\, BUT IT GETS YOU THERE. SO I THINK IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THIS DOCUMENT BECOMES A LOT MORE CLEAR IN TERMS OF WHAT IT’S INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH. AND BY THE WAY\, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. IT WAS GREAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU\, RAMIN. YEAH\, DILIP\, I WILL CUT IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A MINUTE HERE. I AGREE WITH WHAT RAMIN IS SAYING\, THAT WE NEED TO BE — BUT WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT THIS IS — THERE’S NOT — I THINK YOU SAID THERE IS NOT REALLY TEETH\, A REGULATORY AUTHORITY BEHIND THIS. YOU EITHER ARE SAYING YES TO A PLAN OR NO TO A PLAN. AND SO THERE’S THIS\, YOU KNOW\, POTENTIALLY ITERATIVE — LONG-TERM ITERATION ON THE PLAN. GETTING DOWN INTO ACTUAL DESIGN\, THAT’S — I THINK THAT’S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF — THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS PLAN\, RIGHT? AND SO THAT’S WHERE ECRB WOULD COME IN WHEN THEY GET DOWN TO AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT AND THEY’RE LOOKING AT DESIGN CRITERIA\, THAT’S — THAT’S WHERE WE — THAT’S WHERE THE BOARD WOULD COME IN. AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AND PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN IF ONLY TO KIND OF HELP PROTECT OURSELVES OR MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE DETAILED INDIVIDUAL PROJECT LEVEL. OKAY. JUST KIND OF — OH\, BOB\, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I’D LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS. SO I THINK I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID\, ROD\, AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN. I THINK THE REALITY IS\, THIS IS KIND OF SOMETHING THAT WILL EVOLVE A BIT. AND WE’VE HAD SOME EXPERIENCE ON THE PACIFIC COAST. WE\, INCLUDING THE COASTAL COMMISSION\, AND FRANKLY\, I THINK THERE’S A LOT OF COLLECTIVE LEARNING GOING ON AS THE PLANS WERE DEVELOPED AND IS STILL HAPPENING. AND I KNOW BCDC IS AWARE OF THAT BASED ON OUR PRIOR MEETING THAT THEY’RE CONNECTED WITH THOSE FOLKS. BUT I THINK THERE IS SOME NEED NOT TO BE OVERLY SPECIFIC RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW\, I THINK I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. WHERE IT ENDS UP\, I DON’T KNOW\, BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW I THINK THAT’S PART OF THE ISSUE. I’M NOT SURE\, BUT I THINK THAT’S PART OF THE ISSUE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH. MY COMMENTARY TO THAT IS\, YEAH\, IF WE’RE COASTAL ENGINEERING IS A VERY UNIQUE DISCIPLINE. AND MAYBE NOT ALL OF THE SOLUTIONS THAT\, YOU KNOW\, NEED TO BE THERE ARE ACTUALLY DEFINED YET OR THERE’S CERTAINLY NOT A DESIGN STANDARD FOR SOME OF IT. I THINK THAT THAT IS RIGHT. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH. JUST TO — I THINK THIS MAY BE MY ENTREE TO MAKE PUBLIC MY COMMENTS THAT I SENT TO JENN AND TO ASHLEY. ASHLEY BEING THE SECRETARY FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. I SUGGESTED THAT THESE GUIDELINES REFER MORE SPECIFICALLY TO COASTAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AS DEFINED BY THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM\, FEMA\, WHICH HAS LINKAGES TO HAZARD MAPS\, INCLUDING HIGH HAZARD ZONES\, YOU KNOW\, AND LESSER HAZARD ZONES. UNFORTUNATELY\, THE FEMA MAPS ARE BASED ON EXISTING OR RECENT HISTORICAL CONDITIONS THAT DON’T INCLUDE ELEMENTS LIKE LONG-TERM EROSION AND SEA LEVEL RISE. BUT THE OVERALL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCT IS LINKED TO ASCE-7\, FOR EXAMPLE\, THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED\, AND A LOT OF BUILDING CODES. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT EVENTUALLY PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE AND ENGINEERS HAVE TO DEAL WITH. MORE IMPORTANTLY\, THESE GUIDELINES EFFECT PLANNING. IF YOU ARE IN A HIGH-VELOCITY ZONE\, YOUR STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE ON A FOUNDATION THAT CAN HANDLE THAT\, AND THAT’S TYPICALLY ON PILINGS WITH YOUR FIRST FLOOR ABOVE THE FLOOD LEVEL. SO I THINK IT IS WORTH CONSIDERING SOME LINKAGE TO THOSE GUIDELINES\, AND I THINK THERE IS INTEREST IN EXPANDING THOSE GUIDELINES TO ADDRESS FUTURE CONDITIONS\, PHYSICAL CONDITIONS SUCH AS SEA LEVEL RISE AND COASTAL EROSION. UNFORTUNATELY\, IT IS PRIMARILY A CALIFORNIA INTEREST BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IS WAY AHEAD OF A LOT OF OTHER STATES WHO ARE NOT. SO I THINK THEY MAY HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THIS BECAUSE IT’S NOT A NATIONAL ISSUE. ROD\, YOU KNOW BETTER THAN I DO\, I THINK\, ON THAT ONE\, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN’T THINK AHEAD A LITTLE BIT. SO THAT’S KIND OF THE SUMMARY OF MY COMMENTS. I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS BUT I JUST — I WROTE THAT UP WITH SOME REFERENCES AND SENT AN EMAIL IN CASE ANYONE WANTS TO SEE IT\, THEY CAN ASK JENN. I AM NOT GOING TO SEND IT TO ANYONE ELSE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, BOB. DILIP.  \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEP. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: GREAT. I DID HAVE AN — I’LL BE BRIEF. I HAD ABOUT THREE COMMENTS. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS BASED ON ME ATTENDING AT LEAST ONE OF THE EVENTS OF THE RSAP. AND THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT IS THAT THIS IS AN UNREGULATORY DOCUMENT. IT IS A GUIDANCE FOR THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THE PLANS WHO MAY HAVE STANDARDS BUILT INTO THOSE DOCUMENTS OR THEY MAY BE — BCDC PROVIDED STANDARDS SEPARATELY IN THE BAY PLAN OR AN ADDENDUM TO THE BAY PLAN ABOUT WHAT SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTIONS OR WHAT TIME HORIZONS TO LOOK AT. SO JUST SORT OF A COMMENTARY UPFRONT. IT’S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THESE RSAP GUIDELINES ARE REALLY TO HELP SHORELINE JURISDICTIONS TO DEVELOP THOSE PLANS. THEY WILL BE DEVELOPING THEM — THEY WILL BE USING THE APPROPRIATE GUIDANCE. THEY WILL BE USING FEMA. THEY WILL BE USING\, YOU KNOW\, ANY OTHER\, YOU KNOW\, NOAA AND FISH AND WILDLIFE\, ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA. RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT. ALL OF THAT WILL BE DONE BY THE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THE PLAN. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE — AND JACLYN\, CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG. BUT THIS IS THAT GUIDANCE WHICH IS GIVING THEM WHAT ELEMENTS TO LOOK AT AND ENSURING THAT THEY DON’T ONLY LOOK AT FLOODING. THEY LOOK AT OTHER ASPECTS\, NATURE-BASED SHORELINES\, THEY LOOK AT COMMUNITY RESILIENCE. THEY LOOK AT\, YOU KNOW\, ALL OF THAT. SO THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. THE COMMENTS I HAD\, THERE’S THREE SPECIFIC ONES. YOU KNOW\, I THINK THIS HAPPENS TO BE AN OPPORTUNE TIME WHEN BCDC WAS PUTTING TOGETHER THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DOCUMENT OR INITIATIVE. THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNE TIME\, BY HAPPENSTANCE\, THAT S.B. 272 HAPPENED AT THE SAME LEVEL. THIS DEALS WITH SEA LEVEL RISE AND GROUNDWATER AND NOT LOOKING AT THE OTHER ASPECTS OF SHORELINE PLANNING. THE PRIMARY INFLUENCE IS THAT WE ARE SEEING AS A PRACTITIONER OUT IN THE INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW ARE NOT SEA LEVEL RISE. THEY ARE SEA LEVEL RISE INDUCED\, BUT THEY ARE THE STORMWATER FLOODING. SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE AT THE FOREFRONT. ALL OF THE FLOODING THAT YOU HEAR AFTER A RAINFALL IS HAPPENING BECAUSE OF THE WATER NOT BEING ABLE TO GET OUT. IT’S NOT BECAUSE OF — IF IT ISN’T ONE INCH TODAY\, RIGHT\, SO I THINK THERE IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY HERE FOR BCDC AS A REGIONAL SHORELINE AGENCY\, WHICH OVERSEES THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT TO NOT INCLUDE SOME OF THE OTHER HAZARDS. I WILL SECOND WHAT KRIS MAY SAID. IT’S NOT JUST LONG-TERM INUNDATION WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. IT IS WAVE RELATED. OVERTOPPING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. AND SO THE GUIDELINES CAN AT LEAST ADDRESS IT AND SAYS\, AS YOU DEVELOP THE PLAN\, YOU SHALL ALSO INCLUDE OTHER HAZARD COMPONENTS SUCH AS URBAN FLOODING. WHEN YOU ADDRESS URBAN FLOODING\, THESE ARE THE METHODS AND THESE ARE THE MECHANISMS YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. THAT’S ONE. THE SECOND ONE — I’LL\, AGAIN\, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT BOB SAID\, WHAT GITA DEV SAID\, LOOKING AT 75 YEARS FROM NOW AND NOT LOOKING AT THE DESIGN LIFE WHICH IS 50 YEARS\, FOR MOST OF US AS ENGINEERS\, WE DESIGN SOMETHING TO A 50-YEAR DESIGN LIFE. IN HAVING A 75\, I DON’T THINK THEY ARE GIVING ENOUGH GUIDANCE TO THEM TO START THINKING ABOUT THE REAL LEVEL WHEN IT IS GOING TO BE AT THE END OF THEIR PROJECT LIFE CYCLE ITSELF. AND THEN THE THIRD — LAST COMMENT HERE IS\, GIVEN THE NATURE OF HOW PROJECTIONS HAVE CHANGED AND WILL CHANGE — I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT. I THINK I WENT INTO THAT\, WHAT\, 15 YEARS AGO AS WE STARTED DOING TREASURE ISLAND. THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE. SO WE DECOUPLE THE TIME\, THE YEAR FROM THE PROJECTION. AND I THINK THEY ARE CONSISTENTLY SEEING THAT HAPPEN OVER TIME. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING\, YOU KNOW\, 3.1 FEET BY 2075 OR SOMETHING\, LET’S LOOK AT REAL PLANNING HORIZONS WHICH ARE — GIVE YOU SIMPLE NUMBERS AS TWO\, FOUR\, AND 60. WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS. WE KNOW THAT TWO FEET IS GOING TO OCCUR PROBABLY SOMETIME IN THE 2060 TIME RANGE OR 2070. FOUR FEET MIGHT OCCUR AT THE END OF THE CENTURY AND SOMETHING BEYOND THAT WILL HAPPEN BEYOND 2100. THE GUIDELINES DON’T HAVE TO BE MODIFIED WHEN THE PROJECTIONS ARE DIFFERENT. SO THOSE ARE MY OVERALL COMMENTS. BUT I THINK THIS IS A GREAT — THIS IS A START OF A REGIONAL STRATEGY FOR THE BAY. I THINK IT’S A FANTASTIC MOVE. I DO THINK WE SHOULD NOT LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY AND JUST FOCUS ON\, YOU KNOW\, TWO COMPONENTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE WHEN WE ARE MISSING OUT ON DROUGHT AND WE ARE MISSING OUT ON FLOODING\, WE ARE MISSING OUT ON WAVES\, EARTHQUAKE. WE ARE NOT EVEN LOOKING AT SEISMIC. WE KNOW THAT PROBABILITY OF A SEISMIC EVENT MIGHT BE EVEN HIGHER IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS THAN 2100\, YOU KNOW. \n>>JENN HYMAN: DO YOU THINK I COULD JUMP IN AND ASK A QUESTION AS A FOLLOW-UP? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SURE. \n>>JENN HYMAN: SO DILIP\, YOU POINT OUT THAT STORMWATER FLOODING\, WHICH IS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE\, YOU KNOW\, STORMS HAPPEN IN THE WINTER\, WHICH IS ALSO WHEN KING TIDES HAPPEN AS WELL IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. SO THE WORST FLOODING THAT WE’RE GOING TO START SEEING RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE IS KING TIDES AND STORMS WHEN THEY HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME. WE’RE ALREADY SEEING THAT\, ESPECIALLY IN SAN RAFAEL. IT’S TYPICAL FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS TO HAVE A TYPICAL STORM THAT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE TO MODEL\, AND ONE OF THE NUMBERS I SAW\, JACKIE\, WAS A 10-YEAR STORM. AND I’M CONCERNED THAT TRADITIONALLY THE WAY THIS IS USED BY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS IS GOING TO BE INADEQUATE CONSIDERING\, AM IN ONE\, STORMS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE FREQUENT\, COULD BE MORE SEVERE. AND I GUESS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS FOR ALL YOU IS\, ARE YOU AWARE OF PREDICTIONS FOR HOW TO MODEL STORMS IN THE FUTURE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SEA LEVEL RISE? ARE THERE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS ON THAT THAT WE CAN REFER TO? \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: YOU HAVE THE LADY WITH THE HAND UP\, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: SOME OF THE FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES\, COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ARE AWARE OF THE LIKELIHOOD OR THE FORECAST\, INCREASED PRESCRIPTION INTENSITY WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. AND ARE ALREADY PROVIDING GUIDELINES ON HOW MUCH HIGHER IN TERMS OF PRESCRIPTION INTENSITY OR FLOW RATE A 10-YEAR EVENT MIGHT BE IN 2100 OR WHATEVER. AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS FUNDED GUIDANCE OR MODELED RUNS THAT PROVIDE THESE NUMBERS. SO I THINK THIS WOULD FIT\, IN MY MIND\, INTO A COASTAL FLOODPLAIN — BECAUSE COASTAL FLOODPLAINS INCLUDES GROUNDWATER. THERE ARE FLOODPLAINS OF MULTIPLE SOURCES. AND THE OTHER COMMENT I THINK I MADE IN THE DRB MEETING WAS TO COMMUNICATE WITH COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGENCIES AND BRING SOME ENGINEERS INTO THE FOLD EITHER\, YOU KNOW\, THROUGH ECRB OR OTHERWISE. BECAUSE THIS IS BECOMING MORE STANDARD. I’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN A NUMBER OF THOSE STUDIES FROM THE NATURE CONSERVANCY\, AS PART OF THE COASTAL RESILIENCE. AND WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA BASED ON WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS HOW — THE DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIAL PERCENT INCREASES IN PRESCRIPTION AND FLOW RATE ARE. SO IT’S NOT HARD TO PICK A NUMBER WITH SOME JUDGMENT\, IN MY VIEW. I DON’T KNOW IF OTHERS HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: YEAH\, IF I COULD ANSWER AT LEAST SOME PART OF THIS BEFORE KRIS HAS DONE WORK ON HOW RAINFALL INTENSITY IS LIKELY GOING TO CHANGE. AGAIN\, KEEPING IN — YOU KNOW\, KEEPING IN SYNC WITH WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDELINE DOCUMENT IS\, IT’S A GUIDELINE FOR LOCALS\, MAY BE DOING SOMETHING THAT FEMA AND OTHERS HAVE DONE WHICH IS\, GIVE THE LIBERTY TO THE PLAN PREPARERS BUT GIVE THEM DIRECTION THAT RISK-BASED METHOD SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS OF JOINT PROBABILITIES OF RAINFALL AND KING TIDES\, OF DROUGHT CONDITIONS AND WILDFIRES OR THINGS LIKE THAT\, RIGHT? THE BIGGEST — I THINK LIKE I SAID\, THIS IS A GOOD START BUT YOU ONLY START WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS 100 FEET WITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, WHEREAS THE WORK IS GOING TO BE MILES UP INTO THE WATERSHED. RIGHT. I THINK THIS IS A CATALYST\, I WILL SAY. AND I THINK IF YOU GET THIS RIGHT BY ADDRESSING ALL OF CLIMATE CHANGE-RELATED HAZARDS\, THEN I THINK IT WILL BE REALLY A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT FOR OTHERS TO START BUILDING UPON THE EMISSIONS\, THE AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENTS\, ALL OF THOSE HAVE A FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT WHICH IS A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR COMMUNITIES IN THE BAY. KRIS. \n>>KRIS MAY: THANKS\, DILIP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS — I MEAN\, MOST OF US WORKING ON\, YOU KNOW\, STORMWATER\, WHEN WE’RE LOOKING AT INTENTION\, WE LOOK AT NOAA ATLAS 14 WHICH LOOKS AT HISTORICAL CLIMATE TO DEVELOP THESE I.D.F. CURVES. BUT DEVELOPING THE FUTURE-LOOKING ONES HAS BEEN A BIG DATA GAP. NOAA IS WORKING ON ATLAS 15. YOU KNOW\, THE FUNDING WAS CUT DURING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. SO HAVING THOSE COME OUT FOR PEOPLE TO USE IS PROBABLY STILL FIVE YEARS AWAY. SO WE COMPLETED A STUDY WITH LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LAB DOING REGIONAL CLIMATE MODELING FOR THE BAY AREA SO THAT\, YOU KNOW\, YOU CAN USE THIS STUDY TO TAKE THE NOAA ATLAS 14 I.D.F. CURVES AND PROJECT THEM INTO A FUTURE CLIMATE. YOU CAN DO YOUR FIVE-HOUR\, THREE-HOUR\, YOU CAN DO YOUR 10-YEAR\, 24-HOUR. AND IT’S REALLY SCARY BECAUSE THE PRESCRIPTION CHANGES THAT ARE COMING ARE POTENTIALLY\, LIKE\, REALLY BIG. BUT I AGREE WITH DILIP’S COMMENT. IF WE’RE DOING A PLAN TO GET FEMA ACCREDITATION OR WE’RE WORKING WITH THE ARMY CORPS ON A PROJECT\, WE DON’T NEED TO LOOK AT THE SHORELINE DESIGN. THEY WANT US TO LOOK AT THE IMPACT WILL BE ON STORMWATER FLOODING AND DO THAT INTO YOUR DRAINAGE MODEL. SO IT’S NOT JUST THE WAVES. IT’S LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE SOURCES OF FLOODING. AND THAT EXTREME PRESCRIPTION STUDY IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A REALLY GREAT RESOURCE FOR PEOPLE TO USE TO UNDERSTAND HOW OUR LOCAL PRESCRIPTION HERE IS GOING TO CHANGE. BECAUSE I THINK THE FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE STILL A WAYS OFF. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, KRIS. RAMIN\, I SEE YOUR HAND’S UP. SURE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: KRIS\, THIS IS DANA. I AM NOT ON CAMERA. I AM SITTING NEXT TO JACKIE. THERE YOU GO. I THINK THIS CONVERSATION IS FANTASTIC. WE’RE GOING TO BE INCLUDING A LOT OF LINKS TO DATA LAYERS OR RESOURCES ON HOW TO APPLY DATA WHENEVER POSSIBLE. SO ANYTIME YOU HAVE — LIKE\, FOR EXAMPLE\, BACK WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT WAVE — WAVE CONDITIONS\, WHAT WE — IF YOU CAN TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE AND WHAT DATA WE CAN POINT THEM TO\, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE’RE INCLUDING IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THE DATA IS INCONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE AND SO WE DON’T WANT TO REQUIRE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN’T DO\, BASICALLY. BUT WE DO WANT TO PROVIDE AS MANY RESOURCES. AND IF YOU LOOK ON ONE OF THE SLIDES\, ON SLIDE 32\, WE HAVE A TON OF RECOMMENDED DATA LAYERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO ALSO INCLUDE. AND THE MORE WE CAN PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND LINKS TO DATA\, THEN THE MORE LIKELY PEOPLE ARE TO ACTUALLY INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT\, ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: GREAT. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: SORRY. ON THAT POINT\, TOO. WE’VE BEEN THINKING A LOT WHAT HAZARDS TO BE INCLUDED AND WHAT’S REQUIRED AND WHAT’S NOT AND SOME OF THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN\, WHAT’S NECESSARY TO DO AT A\, LIKE\, LANDSCAPE SCALE VERSUS WHAT’S MORE SUITABLE FOR A SHORELINE REACH PROJECT LEVEL DESIGN? AND SEWS THAT — AND SO THAT’S WHY IT HAS MOVED DOWN TO RECOMMENDED. WE ARE NOT SURE IF WAVE RUN-UPS\, WE DON’T HAVE THAT EXPERTISE\, BUT WHO WE TALKED TO IN OUR ADVISORY GROUP\, THIS IS MORE SUITABLE TO A DIFFERENT SCALE. SO EVEN LETTING US KNOW\, MAYBE THERE’S RECOMMENDATION — REQUIREMENTS AT THAT SCALE BUT\, AGAIN\, THAT KIND OF COMES BACK TO THIS QUESTION\, HOW FAR DO WE REQUIRE PROJECTS TO GO? SO REALLY GOOD TOPIC AND WE’RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT WAY TO HAVE AN OVERARCHING ANALYSIS VERSUS MORE WHAT’S APPROPRIATE. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: WHO IS THE CONSULTANT? THE WORK THEY HAVE DONE WITH THE ADAPTATION ATLAS WILL ANSWER A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT — SO THEY LOOKED AT THE LANDSCAPE SCALE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: THEY ARE OUR DATA AND MAPPING CONSULTANTS SO THEY ARE PLAYING A HUGE ROLE IN ENSURING WE’RE UTILIZING THE BEST DATA THAT THEY KNOW. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: I WILL BE 91 BY 2050 OR PROBABLY DEAD FOR A FEW YEARS\, BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THESE MODELS THAT SAYS IF IT RISES — IF IT RISES X NUMBER OF FEET IT’S GOING TO BE OUT THERE\, DOES THAT MEAN — I DON’T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE A LAND GRAB BUT THAT MEAN YOUR BCDC JURISDICTION IS INCREASING NOW? AND IF THAT IS THE CASE\, THEN YOU HAVE A MUCH GREATER ROLE TO PLAY. IT SEEMS TO ME. AND EVERYBODY’S LOOKING — PEOPLE ARE ASKING ME\, BECAUSE I AM ON THE BOARD\, WHAT IS BCDC’S REQUIREMENT FOR SEA LEVEL RISE? AND I THINK YOU ARE IN A VERY UNIQUE POSITION TO TAKE THAT LEADERSHIP ROLE AND DRIVE THE BUS\, SO TO SPEAK.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: AS WE UNDERSTAND IT\, IT’S PEGGED\, TOO. I MEAN\, HIGH TIDE. SO IF HIGH TIDE CHANGES — WHEN IT CHANGES\, NOT IF — WHEN IT CHANGES THE JURISDICTION ROLLS UP. WHEN MARSHES EXPAND INWARD\, JURISDICTIONS ROLL UP. FIVE FEET ABOVE\, YOU KNOW\, ABOVE SEA LEVEL. SO\, YES\, IT DOES CONTINUE GROWING.  \n>>JENN HYMAN: THAT IS CORRECT. I HAVE TRIED TO — MEAN HIGH WATER RIGHT NOW IS DETERMINED BY NOAA ON AN EPIC-BY-EPIC BASIS. SO OUR MEAN HIGH WATER WILL JUMP IN A FEW YEARS WHEN NOAA REDOES THE STATISTICS ON TIDES. AND THAT’S WHEN OUR JURISDICTION WILL CHANGE. BUT IT IS — IT WILL MOVE WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: I’M SORRY. DOES THAT MEAN YOU POTENTIALLY ARE CAPTURING WAY MORE INFRASTRUCTURE? LIKE\, DRAINAGE AND ALL OF THAT\, THAT RIGHT NOW ISN’T IN JURISDICTION BUT — \n>>JENN HYMAN: WELL\, IT WILL MOVE UP VERY SLOWLY. SO — SO IN 2050 IN THEORY WHEN SEA LEVEL RISE IS CLOSE TO A FOOT\, YOU KNOW\, IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SLOPE OF THE SHORELINE. IF IT’S STEEP IT WON’T CHANGE THAT MUCH. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: IT HAS BEEN A PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO MARSH RESTORATION\, BAYLANDS. THAT HAS MOVED IT HUNDREDS OF FEET\, THOUSANDS OF FEET IN WHEN WE ARE DOING\, YOU KNOW\, PROJECTS LIKE SOUTH BASALT PONDS AND NORTH BASALT PONDS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU\, DILIP. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS AND I THINK HOUSING. IS THERE A DEFINITION — IS THERE GOING TO BE A DEFINITION OR IS THERE A DEFINITION THAT’S ALREADY OUT THERE THAT\, YOU KNOW\, LETS YOU — IF YOU’RE GOING TO USE A G.I.S. MAP OR SOMETHING\, KIND OF MAP THAT WITH SOME SORT OF\, YOU KNOW\, DEFENSIBLE — YEAH\, DEFINITION? \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: YEAH\, I COULD RESPOND TO THAT. WE ARE REALLY KIND OF ACTIVELY WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE — OUR SENIOR MANAGER FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROGRAM IS HELPING US TO — THERE ARE DEFINITIONS THAT EXIST. SO THERE’S DEFINITIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE\, AND THERE’S ALSO DEFINITIONS — THEN\, FOR THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL PRIORITY\, ONE THING WE’RE LOOKING AT IS CONTAMINATION WITHIN — IN OR NEAR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES AS A PRIORITY TO MAKE SURE THOSE GET LOOKED AT AND REALLY INCORPORATE INTO PLANNING. AND SO WE’VE BEEN TALKING TO THE WATER BOARD STAFF ABOUT HOW THEY LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES. THEY USE SOME CAL ENVIRON SCREENS. WE LOOK HOW THAT CAN BE INCLUDED? WE HEARD JURISDICTIONS NEED TO DEFINE THEM FOR THEMSELVES. THERE IS LOTS OF DIFFERING OPINION. WE ARE NOT EXACTLY SURE THE APPROACH. WE SET OUT A DEFINITION. AGAIN\, IF IN OUR NEXT VERSION WE NEED TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY BEYOND THAT\, MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A — AGAIN\, I’M CAUTIOUS NEED TO USE THE WORD “STANDARD” BUT HAVE A STARTING POINT AND MAYBE HAVE SOME DEVIATION FROM IT. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. RYAN. PATRICK\, SORRY. EVERYBODY GOES BY FIRST NAMES HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? \n>>PATRICK RYAN: I DO. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. \n>>PATRICK RYAN: I LIKE JIM’S SUGGESTION OF SORT OF A TEMPLATE OR AN EXAMPLE PLAN BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD REALLY — YOU WANT TO SET THE JURISDICTIONS UP FOR SUCCESS IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP A LOT IN DOING IT. IF YOU FIND THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT\, OR EVEN IF YOU DO\, ANOTHER THING YOU MIGHT DO TO SORT OF BRING THE THING TO LIFE A LITTLE BIT WOULD BE TO WORK SOME EXAMPLES INTO THE ACTUAL TEXT. THERE’S A LOT OF JARGON AND A LOT OF ABSTRACT THOUGHTS BY NECESSITY. IT’S ALL VERY GOOD STUFF. YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB. BUT YOU DO START TO TRY TO — YOU TRY TO — YOU START TO LOSE TRACK OF WHAT’S ACTUALLY MEANT. SO\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IN SECTION A-7\, WHICH IS ON PAGE 62\, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT UPZONING\, AND THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH THERE IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOUSING. I’M LEFT WONDERING\, DO THEY REALLY JUST MEAN HOUSING OR COULD IT BE A LOT OF OTHERS? SO IF YOU WERE TO WORK INTO THAT PARAGRAPH\, YOU KNOW\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IN FOSTER CITY\, UPZONING MIGHT MEAN THIS\, OR IN SAN FRANCISCO\, MAYBE IT’S NOT A VIABLE OPTION. THOSE SORT OF THINGS I THINK WOULD HELP TO BRING THE THING TO LIFE A LITTLE BIT. WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT CATEGORIES AND ASSETS\, THERE’S A TABLE ON PAGE 55 WERE YOU LIST THINGS AND SOME OF THEM ARE VERY SPECIFIC WHEN WE’ TALKING — WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOOD CONTROL AND INFRASTRUCTURE. IT’S LEVEES\, PUMPS\, DRAINS\, CULVERTS\, THAT SORT OF THING. IN SOME OTHER AREAS IT SEEMS A LOT LESS SPECIFIC. MAYBE THAT’S INTENTIONAL. BUT I’M TAKING A WALK DOWN THE SAN FRANCISCO WATERFRONT IN MY MIND AND I’M — YOU KNOW\, I’M THINKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL\, OFFICE\, RESTAURANT\, MUSEUM\, TOURISM. AND I CAN’T REALLY FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE WOULD BE IN THE TABLE OR WHETHER THEY’RE REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED. SO\, YOU KNOW\, THERE IS A SEAPORT WHICH MAYBE COULD COVER A LOT OF THAT BUT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE IT’S WHAT’S INTENDED. THERE’S JOB SPACES WHICH IS REQUIRED. THERE’S ALSO WATER-ORIENTED RECREATION WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED. MARINAS\, ARE THEY REQUIRED? YOU MAY CONSIDER MORE SPECIFICITY IN THAT TABLE AND WHAT’S REQUIRED AND WHAT’S NOT REQUIRED. AND THEN\, I GUESS\, AS I WAS READING THROUGH IT\, I KEPT WANTING TO HAVE A MAP. AND YOU’VE MENTIONED THERE’S SOME MAPPING CONSULTANTS AND THERE’S A LOT OF G.I.S. AROUND. I GUESS I’M WONDERING\, JUST STARTING WITH THE BASIC JURISDICTIONS\, IS THERE A MAP THAT OVERLAYS THE BCDC JURISDICTION WITH THE CITIES AND COUNTIES? AND IF THAT EXISTS\, SHOULD THAT BE HERE? BECAUSE INEVITABLY\, SINCE THE BURDEN HERE IS ON THE INDIVIDUAL JURISDICTIONS\, THERE’S GOING TO BE GAPS BETWEEN THEM\, IT SEEMS LIKE. AND SO ONE\, SEEMS LIKE BCDC’S LOGICAL — A LOGICAL ROLE FOR BCDC TO MAKE SURE THOSE GAPS ARE FILLED\, BASICALLY. BUT THEN\, YOU KNOW\, MORE THAN JUST THE JURISDICTIONS\, I’M CURIOUS. I THINK ABOUT DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY 80 TOWARDS THE BAY BRIDGE GOING THROUGH EMERYVILLE COMING AROUND THE CURVE. WETLANDS ON THE RIGHT. I’M ON THE HIGHWAY. AND I HAVE HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL ON THE LEFT. SO CALTRANS I THINK IS NOT A JURISDICTION THE WAY THAT EVERYTHING IS WRITTEN. SO NOT REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE\, UNCLEAR IF THEY CAN BE ELIGIBLE FOR STATE FUNDING OR NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE NORTH PART OF IT. BUT THE JURISDICTION THAT’S THERE\, THE CITY OR COUNTY\, WHETHER IT’S EMERYVILLE OR WHOEVER IT IS\, THAT’S A BIG PART OF THEIR PLAN IS PROBABLY. SO I THINK IT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE BCDC SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND MAP EVERY HOSPITAL\, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT SHOULD BE THE LOCAL JURISDICTION. BUT SOME OF THESE VERY REGIONAL\, YOU KNOW\, ASSETS\, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED AND BE ON A MAP JUST TO GET PEOPLE ALL HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: CAN I JUMP IN ON THAT? \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: SURE. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: WE’VE SEEN THAT A LOT. FOR EXAMPLE\, OUT AT OCEAN BEACH\, THE BIG — IN SAN FRANCISCO\, THE BIG ISSUE IS THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES. SO THE INFRASTRUCTURE ORGANIZATION THAT HAS ASSETS CLOSEST TO THE SHORE\, WHETHER IT’S A ROAD OR RAILROAD OR WASTEWATER\, WHATEVER\, TEND TO BE KIND OF DRAGGED IN TO SHORE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY. AND SO THOSE ASSETS HAVE A LOT OF DENSITY. LIKE INERTIA IN TERMS OF PLANNING SO I THINK THAT’S A GREAT COMMENT THAT WAS MADE. SOMETHING WE’VE SEEN. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT YOU WILL START SEEING IT EVERYWHERE. \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE’VE BEEN WORKING WITH LARGE WASTEWATER DISTRICTS. THEY ARE ALL INTERESTED. I CAN’T SPEAK FOR ALL OF THEM. BUT WE ARE — SINCE THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO A PLAN BUT THEY ARE SO CRITICAL BECAUSE THEY OWN ASSETS AND IN MANY CASES THEY’RE LANDOWNERS ALONG THE SHORELINE AS WELL\, I THINK THERE’S MUTUAL INTEREST. THERE’S INTEREST IN THE CITIES ENGAGING THEM IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY AND IN A WAY THAT ISN’T AS AD HOC IN AN ORGANIZED WAY. THEY’RE ALSO INTERESTED IN ENSURING THAT THE PLANNING THAT THEY’RE DOING IS ALIGNING WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SO WE HAVEN’T FIGURED OUT EXACTLY HOW WE’RE GOING TO MAKE THAT MATCH YET. WE’RE REALLY AWARE OF IT AND TRYING TO\, YOU KNOW\, FIGURE OUT HOW TO EASE THAT CONNECTION. AND ALSO RECOGNIZING THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS ALONG THE SHORELINE THAT LOCAL JURISDICTIONS MAY NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER BECAUSE THEY’RE OWNED BY ANOTHER LANDOWNER\, A LARGE LANDOWNER. AND SO HOPING THAT — HOPING THAT PEOPLE CAN GET\, YOU KNOW\, ENGAGEMENT AND BUY-IN\, BUT IF NOT POSSIBLE\, RECOGNIZING THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE HAVE SHOWN THEY’VE TRIED TO ENGAGE — LIKE\, WE’RE NOT GOING TO DENY A PLAN BECAUSE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK — OR THE RAILROADS. THE RAILROADS ARE A BETTER EXAMPLE BECAUSE THEY DON’T PARTICIPATE. YEAH\, IT’S AN EXCELLENT POINT. I THINK WE’RE GOING TO BE CONTINUE WORKING ON IT OVER TIME AND LEARN HOW THE ADAPTATION PLANNING IS ACTUALLY GOING ONCE THE GUIDELINES ARE COMPLETED. LIKE YOU SAID\, THIS IS SO ITERATIVE. WE ARE GOING TO BE LEARNING HOW TO DO THESE PLANS FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. I WON’T BE AROUND THEN\, BUT — \n>>BOB BATTALIO: AND WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK EVERYONE IS RECOGNIZING THAT. GOING BACK TO THE LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WASTEWATER IN PARTICULAR\, THE WASTEWATER GROUPS — AND THEY’RE KIND OF LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. SOON AS THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO UPGRADE\, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PERMITTING PROCESS. AND THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS FREQUENTLY REQUIRING AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION AS WELL AS ON THE PACIFIC COAST IS REQUIRING CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT IT’S SUSTAINABLE OR HOVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL\, ACTUALLY OF PERMITTING. SO THERE ARE SOME — THESE FACILITIES DO HAVE SOME SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION PLANS\, BUT IT’S HARD FOR THEM TO DO IT ON THEIR OWN\, I THINK\, GIVEN THEIR INERTIA\, MASS\, EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I THINK JOINT PLANNING WILL — GOING BACK TO YOUR GUIDELINES\, IT MAY BE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS A SPECIAL STUDY OR A DATA GAP IN THE LONG TERM. THE RAILWAYS AND ROADS CROSSINGS OF THE BAY DO PROVIDE A FLOOD PATHWAY. AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED. YOU COULD ADDRESS IT WITHOUT SOLVING IT\, BUT PERHAPS HAVING A SPECIAL STUDY\, YOU KNOW\, IN YOUR ADAPTIVE FRAMEWORK IS WHAT I’VE SEEN HAPPEN OR START TO HAPPEN ANYWAY.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, BOB. I MAYBE JUST ADD I THINK IT’S IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO USE THIS AS KIND OF THE CATALYST. I AGREE. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: AND IN CALIFORNIA\, THEY REALLY HAVE TO. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YEAH. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I MEAN\, IT’S NOT EASY FOR ANYONE\, BUT I THINK — YES\, I THINK WILL WORK TOGETHER ON IT.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: GREAT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE BY THE BOARD? \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT. YOU KNOW\, I THINK I MENTIONED THIS IN THE D.R.B. MEETING\, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES IS DEALING WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK YOU HAVE SOME GOOD LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT. I HAVEN’T STUDIED IT IN DETAIL\, BUT I NOTICE THE CHANGES IN ZONING AND\, YOU KNOW\, KIND OF THE ABILITY TO ADAPT LAND USE AT THE — TO ACCOMMODATE OR OTHERWISE ADAPT TO SEA LEVEL. BUT I THINK THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IS KIND OF A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE UNTIL SOMEBODY DECIDES THEY NEED A PERMIT OR THEY TRY TO DO — I MEAN\, WHAT’S THE HOOK? HOW DO THEY DO IT? ESPECIALLY SOME PEOPLE\, ENTITIES ARE IN VERY DIFFICULT SITUATIONS. THIS IS SOMETHING THEY DIDN’T PLAN FOR\, SO I THINK THAT’S PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE HARDEST PIECE OF THIS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: THANK YOU\, BOB. I SEE JIM WITH HIS HAND UP. \n>>V. CHAIR\, JAMES FRENCH: I WAS JUST GOING TO SUGGEST — THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A TRANSITIONAL COMMENT. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF PUBLIC UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT SEA LEVEL RISE MEANS TO ME OR WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO MY LOCALE OR WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO THE BAY TRAIL THAT I RIDE MY BIKE ON? AND YOU GUYS HAVE JUST THIS AWESOME TOOL IN THE BAY SHORELINE FLOOD EXPLORER\, I THINK IT’S CALLED\, MAYBE. AND IF YOU CAN GET THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND IF PEOPLE START TO SEE\, HEY\, THIS IS WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE TALKING ABOUT AND KIND OF WHAT DILIP WAS TALKING ABOUT\, I GUESS\, WHERE YOU TIE THE NUMBER OF FEET INTO WHAT THE EFFECTS ARE RATHER THAN A SPECIFIC YEAR\, BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS ARGUE\, IS TWO FEET GOING TO HAPPEN 2050\, 2075\, 2080? BUT PEOPLE START TO SEE\, HEY\, THERE ARE REAL NUMBERS. I CAN THEN IMAGINE — AND THERE IS NOT A HUGE LEVEL OF UNCERTAINTY OF WHAT 24 INCHES\, HOW THAT EFFECTS THE BAY. THERE’S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY EXACTLY WHAT YEAR IT WILL HAPPEN. WHETHER IT’S — THERE’S SOME UNCERTAINTY. BUT 24 INCHES IS PRETTY EASY TO DO G.I.S. AND YOU GUYS HAVE THAT REALLY AWESOME TOOL. IF YOU GET IT INTO NEWSPAPERS AND HAVE PUBLIC PEOPLE GO ON THEIR COMPUTERS AND CLICK THAT BUTTON AND PLAY WITH IT\, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT OVER THE WATERCOOLER OR ZOOM MEETINGS. PEOPLE DON’T GO TO WATERCOOLERS BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS WORKING FROM HOME. WHEREVER THAT HAPPENS\, I THINK IF YOU CAN GET SEA LEVEL RISE TO BE PART OF\, NOT THIS VAGUE POLITICAL QUESTION\, IS SEA LEVEL RISE HAPPENING OR NOT\, BUT START MAKING IT CONCRETE AND SAY\, THIS IS WHAT 24 INCHES MEAN. THIS IS WHAT ONE FOOT MEANS. THIS IS WHAT THREE FEET MEANS. YOU NEED TO SELL IT SO PEOPLE VISCERALLY CARE ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON HERE. WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF AWESOME INFORMATION THAT’S REALLY HARD FOR MOST PEOPLE TO WADE THROUGH ALL THAT BUT THE MAP YOU HAVE WILL CONNECT WITH PEOPLE’S VISCERA AND STARTS TO MEAN SOMETHING. AND THEN\, THEY CAN START TO SAY\, OH\, I SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THIS\, THEN\, AND THEY CAN START READING THE TEXT THAT TAKES MORE EFFORT. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: AS A FOOTNOTE THAT\, LIKE I KEEP SAYING\, THERE’S BEEN SO MUCH EMPHASIS ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, PLANNING ITSELF OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS AND WE PAID LESS ATTENTION TO THE HAZARDS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH BEFORE SEA LEVEL RISE. AND WE ARE DEALING WITH THOSE RIGHT NOW ON AN ANNUAL BASIS EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN ATMOSPHERIC RIVER EVENT\, EVERY TIME WE HAVE A SUPER STRONG SOUTH WIND. AND SO THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE RESULTING IN PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR ABATEMENTS AND SHORELINES AND SEA WALLS. IT IS NOT SEA LEVEL RISE. IT IS ALL OF THOSE NEW CULVERTS AND NEW PUMP STATIONS BECAUSE OF URBAN FLOODING THAT IS RESULTING IN THE PROJECT PERMITS THAT ARE COMING IN. SO I THINK A LITTLE MORE — AND\, AGAIN\, IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE BCDC. I THINK OTHERS HAVE DONE IT. FINDING THE RIGHT — AND I THINK WE AS A BOARD CAN LIKELY HELP YOU WITH FINDING THE RIGHT DATA SOURCES FOR\, YOU KNOW — WAVE HEIGHTS HAVE INCREASED OR THE FREQUENCY OF WHAT WE CALL 25 YEARS HAS NOW CHANGED TO 10 YEARS. THOSE ARE RESULTING IN ISSUES. THERE ARE SOME SOURCES OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE CAN PROBABLY — INFORMATION THAT WE CAN PROBABLY HELP YOU WITH PUTTING INTO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT FORMAT. I DON’T KNOW WHERE WE ARE WITH THE BAY ADAPT. IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED? IS IT GOING TO BE FINALIZED AND ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION OR IS THIS — YOU KNOW.  \n>>DANA BRECHWALD: WE HAVE A TIMELINE WE CAN SHARE TO WRAP UP. AND I WILL GIVE THE BAY ADAPT SUMMIT ON AUGUST 8 WHICH WILL BE AT THE EXPLORATORIUM AND HUGE SHOUT-OUT TO KRIS MAY WHO IS ONE OF OUR AWARDEES AND SHE WILL BE HONORED AT THAT EVENT. SO THAT IS ONE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN ENGAGE WITH REALLY A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. WE HAVE C.B.O.’S COMING AND PROFESSIONALS LIKE KRIS AND ALL OF YOU. SO THAT’S ONE WAY WE CAN START TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. AND WE’LL HAVE PRESS THERE AS WELL. \n>>BOB BATTALIO: I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN. USING SEA LEVEL RISE AS A THRESHOLD IN THE ADAPTATION PLAN\, THE AMOUNT OF SEA LEVEL RISE OR THE SEA LEVEL I THINK IS A GOOD ONE. IT’S SOMETHING THAT RECENTLY PACIFICA USES THAT APPROACH. CITY OF PACIFICA HAS THAT NOW\, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I THINK\, AGAIN\, GOING BACK TO MY COMMENT ABOUT THE ELEVATOR DESIGNED FOR THREE TO SIX AND IF YOU DESIGN FOR LESS THAN SIX FEET OF SEA LEVEL RISE\, HAVE AN ADAPTATION PLAN TO DEAL WITH THAT HIGHER AMOUNT. I THINK GOING BACK TO YOUR NEAR-TERM PLANNING\, I THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO SPLIT THAT BETWEEN SOMETHING OF GREATER RISK TOLERANCE LIKE A TRAIL OR SOMETHING AND WHAT YOU HAVE THERE SEEMS ONE FOOT OF SEA LEVEL RISE LOOKS PRETTY REASONABLE OR EVEN LESS\, YOU KNOW\, DEPENDING. BUT THEN\, WHEN YOU GET INTO A PROJECT THAT COSTS MORE\, IS MORE SENSITIVE OR WHATEVER\, HAS ANY KIND OF LIFE SAFETY COMPONENT\, THEN\, YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO WITH TWO FEET\, FOR EXAMPLE\, AT LEAST\, OR THREE IF IT’S GOING TO GO OUT TO 2070. I THINK IT’S PROBABLY GOOD TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE A LITTLE BIT. AGAIN\, THOUGH\, THIS COMES DOWN TO RISK TOLERANCE AND\, YOU KNOW\, HOW MUCH FAITH YOU HAVE IN THE MEDIAN AND IT’S A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE\, AND I THINK IT’S ALSO A MATTER OF RESPONSIBILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY. SO A LOT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IS BASED ON\, YOU KNOW\, SHORTER TERM THINKING\, PERHAPS. SO I THINK THAT’S WHY THE STATE IN THE PAST HAS BEEN RISK-AVERSE\, KNOWING YOU DON’T WANT TO BE AT THE MEDIAN BECAUSE THE IMPLICATION OF A ROLL OF THE DICE OR 50/50 IS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. THAT’S MY PERSPECTIVE ON WHY THIS STATE HAS BEEN A LITTLE MORE CONSERVATIVE IN THE SENSE OF BEING RISK-AVERSE. I DIDN’T MEAN TO SAY CONSERVATIVE. I THINK THAT’S A BAD WORD. I’M NOT SURE. BUT ANYWAY\, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: WELL\, AND MAYBE I’LL — I WANT TO JUST COMMENT ON THAT. PUBLIC FUNDS\, CITIES\, RESOURCES ARE LIMITED. YOU KNOW\, YOU’RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST YOU CAN WITH WHAT YOU GOT. AND SO I AGREE. IF YOU CAN BUILD MORE RESILIENCE INTO YOUR SYSTEM\, BY ALL MEANS YOU SHOULD BE DOING IT. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THIS OTHER\, YOU KNOW\, CURVE OF HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE OR WHAT RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE. AND THAT KIND OF IS THE COUNTERPOINT TO THE RISK. SO — \n>>BOB BATTALIO: NO\, I AGREE. A DOLLAR TODAY IS WORTH MORE THAN A DOLLAR TOMORROW. AND THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT I THINK\, YEAH\, ARE HARD TO DECIDE HERE. GOING BACK TO SOMETHING THAT DILIP SAID. I THINK THE ECRB COULD HELP WITH SOME OF THE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS AND THE DATA SOURCES. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED IF THAT’S JUST THE JUMP BALL WITH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN PUBLIC MEETINGS. I THINK THE BOARD DOES HAVE SOME EXPERTISE AND IT MIGHT BE USEFUL. YOU KNOW. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED BY BCDC\, THE BOARD WILL HAVE INPUT ON IT. BUT\, YEAH\, I’M ALL FOR US BEING ABLE TO SHARE OUR EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE UPFRONT IN THE GUIDANCE BUT IN THE END\, IT WILL BE THE BOARD\, I THINK\, THAT HELPS SAY YEA OR NAY ON A PERMIT. IS THIS A SAFE DESIGN? IS THIS A REASONABLE DESIGN? OR IS IT — \n>>BOB BATTALIO: YEAH\, I THINK YOU’RE RIGHT. FOR THE BIGGER ONES ON NEW BAY FILL. GOING BACK TO THE FOSTER CITY PROJECT\, WE DIDN’T REVIEW THAT BECAUSE IT WAS — I DON’T THINK THE ECRB REVIEWED THAT\, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY\, BECAUSE IT WAS ON OLD BAY FILL. IT WASN’T PART — IT DIDN’T FALL INTO THE ECRB PURVIEW. THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DID LOOK AT IT. THAT WASN’T REALLY — THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DOESN’T HAVE THE SAME ENGINEERING — THEY WEREN’T PROVIDING ENGINEERING COMMENTS\, REALLY. SO I THINK THERE IS A GAP HERE. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN\, NOT NEW FILL INTO THE BAY\, NECESSARILY. YEP. THANKS. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. WELL\, SEEING AS HOW I HAVE A 4:00 DEADLINE WITH MY PARKING\, I THINK WE’VE ASKED — WE’VE KIND OF ASKED AND MADE OUR COMMENTS. ONE OF THE NOTES HERE — ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS WHETHER A FOLLOW-UP IS CALLED FOR. DANA\, JACKIE\, I KIND OF THINK IT IS. BUT I’LL LEAVE IT TO YOU AND JENN TO\, YOU KNOW\, DECIDE. I THINK THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF GREAT INPUT\, A LOT OF GREAT QUESTIONS HERE TODAY. AND\, YEAH\, I’M EXCITED TO SEE THE NEXT DRAFT. WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN IT’S\, YOU KNOW\, GOING TO BE IN A STATE THAT’S SHAREABLE WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES WHO MAY HAVE MORE INPUT. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: WE ARE NOT APPROVING THIS\, RIGHT? I DON’T SEE A MOTION — THERE’S NO MOTION OR ANYTHING. IT’S AN INFORMATIONAL — \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: YES. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: BUT I THINK THE MORE FOLKS IN THE ENGINEERING COMMUNITY WHO KNOW ABOUT WHAT’S HAPPENING AND WHAT’S GOING ON HERE THE BETTER. SO I THINK THERE WAS A NOTE TO NOT SHARE THE RSAP GUIDELINES NOW\, BUT WHAT MY COMMENT WAS ABOUT WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THAT IS — WHEN IT IS SHAREABLE\, WHEN IT’S IN A STATE TO BE SHAREABLE. I GOT COLLEAGUES WHO THEY KNOW WE’RE — I’M ON THE BOARD HERE. THEY WANT — THEY WANT SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AS WELL. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: I’M HOPING BEFORE THE FINAL DRAFT THAT WE HAVE A JOINT — I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S DOABLE. BUT A JOINT ECRB AND D.C.B. THERE IS A HEAVY COMPONENT THAT’S BEING LOOKED AT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE ENGINEERING PRACTITIONERS AND WE ARE LOOKING AT IT WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE PLANNERS AND THE COMMUNITY PLANNERS AND THE LANDSCAPE\, YOU KNOW\, ARCHITECTS. SO SOMETIMES MAYBE THAT’S A DISCUSSION INTERNALLY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE WITH YOU\, JENN\, TO SEE IF IT’S — IF IT’S POSSIBLE\, IF IT’S A GOOD IDEA. I’M THINKING ABOUT HOW THE PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO\, OUR DESIGN COMMITTEE DOES IT WITH THE D.R.B. FOR CERTAIN ASPECTS\, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GOOD? AND SECONDLY\, I’M HOPING WITH THE NEW RELEASE OF THE 2024 THAT I THINK THERE WILL HAVE TO BE CHANGES WITH THE WAY WE’RE LOOKING AT PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. INTERNALLY\, MAYBE WE HAVE AN ECRB MEETING DEDICATED TO WHAT ARE THE NEW STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD BE USING FOR PERMIT REVIEW? RIGHT NOW\, IT’S VERY SIMPLE. MID CENTURY\, YOU KNOW\, MID CENTURY\, ADAPTABLE TO END OF CENTURY\, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. ADAPTABLE TO THE END OF THE CENTURY\, SO IT’S AN INTERNAL THING. I’D LIKE TO BRING IT UP TO JENN. AND THE BOARD. \n>>KRIS MAY: YEAH. THIS IS KRIS. I MEAN\, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT AS WELL. IT’S GOING BACK TO BOB’S COMMENT NEAR THE BEGINNING. I THINK IT’S A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HARNESS THE BRAIN TRUST OF THIS ECRB AND DIALOGUE TO SUPPORT THIS PLAN BEFORE IT GOES OUT TO THE BROADER ENGINEERING COMMUNITY AND TO ALLOW US TO BE ABLE TO TALK AND DO SOME INPUT TOGETHER. AND I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT COULD HAPPEN BUT I FEEL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT AT SOME PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE HOW WE CAN COMMENT ON THINGS RELATED TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND THINGS RELATED TO\, LIKE\, THE FOSTER CITY PROJECT AND THIS PLAN. SO IF THERE’S A WAY TO MAKE THAT KIND OF DIALOGUE HAPPEN\, I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. THANK YOU\, KRIS. SO I SEE NODDING HEADS\, JACKIE AND DANA. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: I’M HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE AND MAYBE THAT CAN HELP SUPPORT WHAT THE NEXT STEPS AND ENGAGEMENT OF YOUR GROUP MIGHT BE. WE HAVE A TIMELINE GRAPH UP HERE. WE HAVE FINISHED DRAFT ONE. SO YOU HAVE ALL SEEN THAT. THE OTHER THING WE DIDN’T KIND OF EXPLICITLY NOTE IN THIS MEETING BUT SOME MAY BE AWARE. WE HAVE AN ADVISORY GROUP WHO HAS BEEN SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT FROM THE BEGINNING. IT’S ABOUT 40-PLUS FOLKS. A DIVERSE RANGE OF EXPERTISE. WE HAVE COASTAL ENGINEERS\, PLANNERS\, HABITAT RESTORATION SPECIALISTS\, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. KIND OF THE WHOLE SPAN OF TOPIC AREAS IS KIND OF HOW WE HAVE IDENTIFIED ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND THEY KIND OF SPAN THE BAY AREA GEOGRAPHIC-WISE. SO WE — OBVIOUSLY\, YOUR INPUT IS HIGHLY VALUABLE AND IMPORTANT\, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO ENSURE THAT FEEDBACK HAS BEEN INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT. AND I JUST NOTE THAT BECAUSE THAT’S ON THIS LIST. SO WE CALLED OUR FIRST DRAFT THE ADVISORY GROUP DRAFT BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO GET AN INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM THOSE FOLKS. AND THAT WAY WHEN WE’RE SHARING IT ADDITIONALLY\, WE’RE ABLE TO REFINE IT FURTHER AND MAKE SURE WE’RE PUTTING OUT OUR BEST QUALITY WORK. WE ALSO HAD A SERIES OF COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION WORKSHOPS. DILIP ATTENDED ONE IN EAST OAKLAND AND IT WAS OUTDOORS. I WON’T TALK TOO MUCH TO THOSE. THAT WAS TO GET INITIAL FEEDBACK ON OUR DRAFT GUIDELINES WHICH WE’VE ACTUALLY BEEN INCORPORATING. THIS IS A SHORT TIMELINE\, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE. WE ARE VERY RAPIDLY TURNING AROUND A SECOND DRAFT. THIS WILL GO TO OUR ADVISORY GROUP FOR A TWO-WEEK REVIEW PERIOD IN JULY. SO IN THE NEXT COUPLE WEEKS. WE’RE ALSO PLANNING ON HOLDING A PRACTITIONER WORKSHOP. REALLY KIND OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE PUBLIC WORKSHOPS ON THIS BEFORE THAT IS A LITTLE BROADER BUT WE NEED TO GET THESE GUIDELINES AND PRACTITIONERS — IN FRONT OF PRACTITIONERS. THOSE IN PUBLIC WORKS. WE HAD FOCUS GROUPS ON SUBREGIONAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT DANA PRESENTED EARLIER SO WE HAD A SERIES OF FOCUS GROUPS FOR CONSULTANTS AS WELL AS THE NONJURISDICTIONAL GROUPS SO WE INTEND TO ENGAGE THOSE FOLKS AGAIN IN DRAFT TWO REALLY GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE GUIDELINES AND THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME SELECT ECRB MEMBERS TO ATTEND. THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING TOO MANY FOLKS. THAT’S KIND OF THE NEXT INPUT OPPORTUNITY. WE WILL THEN TURN AROUND THOSE COMMENTS TO HAVE A PUBLIC DRAFT. DRAFT THREE FOR A ONE-MONTH PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENT. SO THAT IS REALLY THE FIRST PUBLIC VERSION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT WE’LL HAVE OUT. AND AROUND THAT WE’LL HAVE A COMMISSION BRIEFING. BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL HAVE A COMMISSION HEARING. AND WE WILL BRING THIS FOR COMMISSION VOTE AND HOPEFUL ADOPTION IN DECEMBER. \n>>JENN HYMAN: JACKIE MENTIONED THERE IS A PRACTITIONER WORKSHOP. THAT’S NOT A PUBLIC MEETING. AND UP TO FOUR ECRB MEMBERS CAN ATTEND THAT. IT HAS TO BE SORT OF LESS THAN HALF OF THE BOARD NUMBERS. [LAUGHTER] \n>>JENN HYMAN: AND YOU CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: I NEED TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THAT ONE. THE WHOLE BOARD GOES ON A BIKE RIDE AND BAY TRAIL\, DOES THAT STOP US FROM DOING A LOT OF THINGS? [LAUGHTER] \n>>JENN HYMAN: UNLESS YOU’RE JUST ATTENDING AS A PRACTITIONER. AND NOT A BOARD MEMBER. BUT YEAH. \n>>JACLYN PERRIN-MARTINEZ: WE’LL HAVE A FOLLOW-UP\, I BELIEVE. WE HAVE NOT PUT OUT OUR SAVE THE DATES YET. IT’S TENTATIVELY JULY 23. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES TODAY’S PRESENTATION OF THE — CONSIDERATION OF THE REGIONAL SHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN DRAFT GUIDELINE. AND SO LET’S MOVE TO ADJOURNMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IS THERE — ADJOURN. \n>>RAMIN GOLESORKHI: I MOTION TO ADJOURN.  \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? \n>>SPEAKER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ROD IWASHITA: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSES AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. I THANK YOU\, ALL\, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. \n>>DILIP TRIVEDI: THANK YOU SO MUCH. JACLYN AND DANA\, THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. \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/june-26-2024-engineering-criteria-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Engineering Criteria Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240626T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240626T120000
DTSTAMP:20240614T174432Z
CREATED:20240130T045205Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240614T174432Z
UID:10000136-1719394200-1719403200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 26\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-26-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240620T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240620T170000
DTSTAMP:20260417T001635Z
CREATED:20240119T035654Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260417T001635Z
UID:10000099-1718888400-1718902800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 20\, 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 Meeting Location – Note room correction as of June 18Metro Center375 Beale Street\, Board Room (previously noticed for Temazcal Room)San Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \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\nRichmond City Council Office: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, Richmond\, CA 94804\nSouth San Francisco City Hall: 400 Grand Ave.\, 2nd Floor Mayor’s Office\, South San Francisco\, CA 94080\n715 P Street\, 20th Fl\, “Trestles” Conf. Rm.\, Sacramento\, CA 95814\n1084 Clarendon Cres\, Oakland\, CA 94610\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\nMarin County Civic Center: 3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Ste. 326\, San Rafael\, CA 94903\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\nMountain View City Hall: 500 Castro St.\, Mountain View\, CA 94041\n197 Palmer Ave.\, Falmouth\, MA 02540\n550 White Oak Dr.\, Santa Rosa\, CA 95409\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/89218927634?pwd=kvqpZrDiA7uoYLcfKI0Z_5FLkcylZQ.MIEgBAAX7rDilulJ \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID892 1892 7634 \nPasscode394882 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\n\n\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nConsent Calendar\n\nApproval of Minutes for June 6\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nProposed Adoption of Revised Stipulated Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. 2022.001.01 (224 Sea Cliff Ave\, SF)Section V.D of CCD No. 2022.001.00 requires the purchaser of 224 Sea Cliff Avenue in San Francisco to work with BCDC staff and present a stipulated CCD for Commission adoption without civil administrative liability. Staff proposes that the Commission adopt revised stipulated CCD No. 2022.001.01\, the terms of which have been agreed to by the respondent (new owner) and BCDC staff.(Michael Ng) [415/352-3610; michael.ng@bcdc.ca.gov]Recommended Enforcement Decision  // Presentation\n\n\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nBriefing on Bay Sand Budget\, Transport\, and Provenance Studies and Potential Effects of Sand MiningAs required by Commission permits for sand mining in Central and Suisun Bay in 2015\, the studies on the Bay’s sand budget\, transport patterns\, provenance\, and potential effects of mining are complete. A Commission selected Independent Science Panel has reviewed the studies\, deliberated on them\, and made findings regarding this new information and the potential effects of mining on this part of the Bay sediment system. The sand mining companies\, Martin-Marietta and Lind Marine will provide a short presentation on mining activities and staff will provide a presentation on the findings report. The report and several appendices were mailed to the Commission on June 7\, 2024\, for its review.(Brenda Goeden) [415/352-3623; brenda.goeden@bcdc.ca.gov]San Francisco Bay Sand Budget\, Transport\, Provenance\, and Bathymetric Change Studies and Potential Physical Effects of Sand Mining ActivitiesAppendix A // Appendix B // Appendix C // Appendix D // Appendix E // Appendix F // Appendix G // Appendix HStaff presentation // Presentation\nBriefing on Sediment Management Workshops and Action PlanCommission staff will provide a briefing on the Sediment for Wetland Adaptation Project\, a coordination effort and potential Bay Plan Amendment\, to increase the availability and use of Bay sediment\, fluvial sediment\, and construction soils to restore and adapt wetlands to rising sea levels. Working with its partners—US Environmental Protection Agency\, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board\, State Coastal Conservancy\, San Francisco Bay Joint Venture\, and San Francisco Estuary Institute—the Commission hosted a two-day in-person workshop on January 23rd and February 13th\, 2024\, to review and discuss potential changes to sediment management and an implementation action plan with partners and stakeholders who investigate\, collect\, manage\, use\, dispose\, and regulate sediment\, and manage and restore wetlands around San Francisco Bay. The Commission will receive an update on the outcomes of the workshop and a preview of the action plan.(Maya McInerney) [415/352-3646; maya.mcinerney@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Delta AdaptsDelta Stewardship Council staff members Jeff Henderson\, Planning Director\, and Morgan Chow\, Program Manager\, will present on the Delta Adapts Adaptation Strategy. Delta Adapts is a climate change adaptation study for the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh the includes strategies to improve the resilience of the region to climate change hazards including sea level rise.(Cory Copeland) [415/352-3644; cory.copeland@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\nThis 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 \nThere have been no administrative permit applications filed. \nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCalifornia Department of Water Resources1416 9th StreetSacramento\, CA 95814 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.004.00-RWP-1\n \n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay and Shoreline Band\, at three exterior levees at Chipps Island\, within the eastern Suisun Marsh\, in unincorporated Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay and Shoreline Band: \nRepair three exterior breaches to exterior levees: \n\nBreach 1: Place approximately 30 linear feet of sheet pile and 216 square feet (21 cubic yards) of soil (to be removed late 2025);\nBreach 2: Place approximately 30 linear feet of sheet pile and 216 square feet (21 cubic yards) of soil (sheet pile to be removed late 2024; soil as permanent repair); and\,\nBreach 3: Place a water filled cofferdam over approximately 1\,170 square feet of the existing levee (to be removed late 2025).\n\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\nKarl Johannsmeier5 Blanding LaneBelvedere\, CA 94920 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2022.009.00-RWP-4 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the 100-foot shoreline band\, at 5 Blanding Lane\, in the City of Belvedere\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConstruct an approximately 11-foot-long and 5-foot-tall steel mesh fence (after-the-fact). \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\nCity of Alameda Public Works Department950 West Mall Square\, Room 110Alameda\, CA 94501 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.006.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nAlameda West Lagoon System Outfall\, which perpendicularly intersects Bayview Drive starting from the Bayview Weir in Lagoon 5\, in the City and County of Alameda. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct culvert and outfall maintenance\, including removal of: \n\nApproximately 31 cubic yards of rip-rap and sediment from the box culvert;\n98 cubic yards of rip-rap and sediment from the concrete channel;\n110 cubic yards of unembedded rip-rap from areas adjacent to the concrete channel (approximately 1\,917 square feet);\nShaping the boundary between the end of the concrete channel and the natural substrate channel it leads to a 5:1 slope for a gradual transition to existing ground;\nReplacing the metal culvert gate at the end of the RCB; and\nDewatering and transportation of all dredged material to an upland landfill site such as the Recology Hay Road Landfill.Contact: Rose An; 415/352-3654 or rose.an@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nRichardson Bay Regional Agency \n3501 Civic Center Dr.\, Room 308San Rafael\, CA 94903 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2024.002.00-RWP 3 \n\n\n\nLocation\nIn the Richardson Bay in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the bay: \n\nAffix habitat protection signage to nine existing pilings; and\nDeploy four new galvanized steel Helix anchors for demarcating anchorage areas that weight 7.7 pounds and measure 31.5 inches tall and 6 inches in diameter\, or equivalent.\n\nContact: Julie Garren; 415/352- 3624 or julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Approved 6.20.2024 Commission Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting recording & transcript\n				\n \n \n\nMeeting transcript\n\nCOMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC. \nWELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION \nAND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. AND \nWELCOME TO OUR HYBRID\, BUT \nTODAY\, ALMOST FULLY VIRTUAL BCDC \nCOMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS \nREBECCA EISEN\, I AM THE VICE \nCHAIR OF BCDC\, I AM CHAIRING \nTHIS MEETING BECAUSE CHAIR \nWASSERMAN IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, BUT \nNECESSARILY ABSENT TODAY. \nI AM GRATEFUL TO SEE \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON PETERS ON \nMY SCREEN BECAUSE SHE HAS AGREED \nTO BE OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY IN \nTHE EVENT WE HAVE AN INTERNET \nPROBLEM. SO I’M HOPEFUL WILL \nNOT HAPPEN. OUR FIRST ORDER IS \nTO CALL THE ROLL AND SIERRA IS \nGOING TO HELP ME OUT HERE \nBECAUSE I CAN’T SEE ALL OF YOU \nON MY SCREEN AT ONCE SO SHE’S \nGOING TO LET ME KNOW IF YOUR \nHAND IS RAISED OR IF YOU WANT TO \nSPEAK. \nFOR NOW\, PLEASE BE SURE YOUR \nCAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE \nMEETING\, AND UNMUTE YOURSELF FOR \nTHE ROLL CALL. AND THEN ONCE \nYOU HAVE RESPONDED\, MUTE \nYOURSELVES ONCE AGAIN. \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nAMBUEHL? BUELL AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKERLY? COMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GILLMOR? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER HASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nCOMMISSIONER EISEN. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OH\, \nAPOLOGIES\, VICE CHAIR EISEN. \n[LAUGHTER] \nI HAVE A TOTAL 16 PRESENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM \nPRESENT. SO WE ARE DULY CONS \nCONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT \nBUSINESS. \nNEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. IF ANYONE WANTS TO \nADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY \nMATTER ON WHICH THE COMMISSION \nEITHER HAS NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC \nHEARING OR IS IN THE ON TODAY’S \nAGENDA\, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES \nTO DO SO. SIERRA\, ARE THERE ANY \nINDIVIDUALS IN THE BUILDING WHO \nWISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THERE \nIS NO ONE PRESENT IN THE \nBUILDING\, BUT THERE IS A HAND \nRAISED ONLINE. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. YOU MAY CALL ON THEM. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nMR. BRUCE BEYERT. YOU MAY \nUNMUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES \nWE CAN. \n>>SPEAKER: MY NAME IS BRUCE \nBEYERT TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND \nACTION COMMITTEE I’M HERE TO \nANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED \nAFTER THE BRIEFING LAST MONTH ON \nTHE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \nPILOT PROGRAM THE QUESTION ASKED \nABOUT HOW USAGE OF BAY TRAIL \nACROSS RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL \nBRIDGE COMPARED WITH OTHER BAY \nAREA BRIDGES. THE BAY TRAIL \nTRAVERSETRAVERSES BENICIA \nSTRAITS RICHMOND CENTER FAIR \nBRIDGE OF COURSE THE BAY BRIDGE \nEAST SPAN AS WELL AS THE \nDUMBARTON BRIDGE. \nUC BERKELEY’S PARTNER FOR \nADVANCED TRANSPORTATION \nTECHNOLOGY IN THE REPORT SAID \nTHE FOLLOWING IN THE MOST RECENT \nPEAK SEASON BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON \nTHE BRIDGE WAS HIGHEST OF ALL \nSTATE OWNED TOLL PASS INCLUDING \nSAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND BAY \nBRIDGE. TO BE — END OF QUOTE \n— TO BE MORE SPECIFIC\, DURING \nTHE LAST 45 DAYS\, \nWEEKEND BICYCLE TRIPS ON THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WERE \n324 PER DAY VERSUS 206 ON THE \nBAY BRIDGE. ON WEEKDAYS\, \nBICYCLE TRIPS AVERAGE 132 ACROSS \nTHE RSR BRIDGE\, VERSUS 128 ON \nTHE BAY BRIDGE. PEDESTRIAN \nUSAGE IS VERY LOW ON THE \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE \nBECAUSE THE PILOT WAS DESIGNED \nFOR TRANSPORTATION\, THAT IS \nBICYCLISTS AND NOT FOR \nRECREATION AND TO BE PEDESTRIAN \nFRIENDLY. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE \nARE NO RESTROOMS ON EITHER END \nOF THE BRIDGE AND THERE ARE ONLY \nA HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES. \nTHIS CONTRASTS DRAMATICALLY WITH \nTHE BAY BRIDGE WHICH HAS A VERY \nLARGE USER FRIENDLY PARKING AREA \nWITH RESTROOMS AT THE BRIDGE \nYARD IN OAKLAND. OF COURSE\, \nNONE OF THE STATE OWNED BRIDGES \nCAN COMPARE WITH THE ICONIC \nGOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WHICH IS \nINTERNATIONAL TOURIST \nDESTINATION AND LITERALLY \nCRAWLING WITH PEOPLE ON FOOT AND \nBICYCLE. SO THE BAY BRIDGE IS \nMOST HEAVILY USED BY BICYCLES OF \nALL STATE OWNED BRIDGES. \nFINALLY CALTRANS LAST MONTH IN \nAPRIL ACTUALLY FILED REQUEST TO \nEXTEND RICHMOND CENTERVILLE \nBRIDGE PILOT AND TRACK SUPPORT \nAND ASK TO BE EXTENDED \nADMINISTRATIVELY TO THE END OF \n2025 AS THE BAY AREA TOLL \nAUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED THIS \nWILL CLEAR THE DECKS THE \nEXTENSION WILL BE SETTLED AND \nYOU WILL BE IN GOOD POSITION TO \nADDRESS THE PROPOSAL COMING \nLATER TO SHUT DOWN THE BAY TRAIL \nRICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE FOUR \nDAYS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR BREAK \nDOWN LANE FOR AUTOMOBILES WHICH \nOF COURSE I THINK IS A TERRIBLE \nIDEA. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nFURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THAT \nCONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT \nPERIOD. WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC \nCOMMENT ABOUT ANY ITEM THAT IS \nON OUR AGENDA WHEN WE ARE \nCONSIDERING THAT ITEM. \nA FEW THINGS FOR THE CHAIR \nREPORT\, WE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY \nVIRTUAL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE \nFIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE \nMETRO CENTER. BUT OUR STAFF \nTELLS US THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION \nIS ON SCHEDULE. AND IF THAT \nREMAINS THE CASE\, WE CAN HOPE \nAND EXPECT THAT WE WILL REGAIN \nUSE OF BOTH THE BOARDROOM AND \nTHE YERBA BUENA ROOM FOR OUR \nMEETING NEXT MONTH\, WHICH WILL \nBE ON JULY 18TH\, AS ONE OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS NOTED\, WE WILL NOT \nHAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH. OUR \nSTAFF WILL KEEP US INFORMED \nREGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE \nCONSTRUCTION\, AS THEY START \nPLANNING FOR THAT MEETING. \nTODAY IS THE FIRST MEETING WHERE \nWE WILL CONSIDER A CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AND I KNOW MOST OF \nTHE COMMISSIONERS ARE FAMILIAR \nWITH CONSENT CALENDARS FROM THE \nVARIOUS BOARDS THEY HAVE SAT \nON. \nIDEALLY\, A CONSENT CALENDAR \nHELPS US TO CUT THROUGH RED TAPE \nREGARDING NON-CONTROVERSIAL \nMATTERS\, AND GIVES US MORE TIME \nTO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND \nTO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND OUR \nPRESENTATIONS. \nSO\, WE’RE GOING TO GIVE IT A TRY \nAND SEE HOW THAT GOES. \nWE WILL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHEN WE \nGET TO IT\, IN A MINUTE\, AND WE \nWILL ALSO NEED TO TAKE A ROLL \nYOU CALL VOTE TO MAKE SURE WE \nHAVE A MAJORITY VOTE APPROVING \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE \nRISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP \nIS GOING TO BE MEETING AT THE \nSAME DAY AT OUR NEXT MEETING\, \nJULY 18TH\, BUT IN THE MORNING. \nSO WILL THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORKING GROUP. THOSE \nMEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE \nSCHEDULED BACK TO BACK\, SO THAT \nEVERYBODY CAN ATTEND ALL OF \nTHEM. AND THEY WILL BE LISTED \nON OUR BRAND-NEW \nWEB SITE’S BRAND-NEW CALENDAR\, \nAND LARRY IS GOING TO TELL US \nABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO HIS \nREPORT. FINALLY\, AS I SAID\, OUR \nNEXT MEETING WILL BE JULY 18TH. \nI DO HOPE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A \nSAFE AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY\, IT \nSOUNDS LIKE PAT HAS WONDERFUL \n4TH OF JULY PLANS. \nAT OUR MEETING ON MAY 18TH WE \nMAY TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING \nMATTERS\, ONE\, A PUBLIC HEARING \nAND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE \nRESTORATION OF CHIPPS ISLAND\, \nWHICH IS IN THE DELTA. A \nBRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED \nORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN \nFOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISORS\, AND\, FINALLY\, AN \nUPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF BCDC’S \nENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE \nPROGRAMS. \nEX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IF A \nCOMMISSIONER HAS INADVERTENTLY \nFORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE OUR STAFF \nTO WITH EX PARTE WRITTEN OR ORAL \nEXPERT COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY \nREPORT ON THEM AT THIS POINT BY \nRAISING YOUR HAND. PLEASE \nREMEMBER YOUR WRITTEN REPORT \nSHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH FOR \nTHE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE \nCONVERSATION’S MAIN TOPICS BUT \nYOUR ORAL REPORT SHOULD NOT BE \nLONGER THAN TWO MINUTES. SIERRA \nIS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO \nHAS RAISED HIS OR HER HAND? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON\, OR VIRTUALLY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGREAT. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS \nUS TO OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nREPORT. LARRY? \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nCHAIR EISEN. SUMMER TIME AND AS \nTHE GEFSH WIN BROTHERS WROTE \nLIVING IS EASY TODAY IS SUMMER \nSOLSTICE LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR \nIF YOU PLAN TO GO TO THE BEACH \nTHIS WEEKEND JUST REMEMBER IN \nJULY 1975 JAWS WAS RELEASED WITH \nSTAR WARS BELIEVING RELEASED \nMEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND THREE YEARS \nLATER THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WAS \nFOREVER CHANGED. SUMMER TIME \nISN’T JUST A TIME TO HANG OWL \nWE’RE WORKING HARD IN SHORELINE \nPLAN GUIDELINES DISCUSSIONS \nENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PERMIT \nREQUESTS AND BUDGET NEWS AFTER \nALL THAT HARD WORK WE’LL BE \nREADY FOR ICE CREAM. THERE IS \nONLY ONE STAFFING ANNOUNCEMENT \nTO BE MADE TODAY. TODAY IS \nSTEVE GOLDBECK’S FINAL STAFF \nMEETING AS A FULL-TIME PERMANENT \nSTATE EMPLOYEE. STEVE JOINED \nBCDC AS A VOLUNTEER 38 YEARS AGO \nAND WAS HIRED A YEAR LATER AS A \nCOASTAL PLANNER. AMONG HIS MANY \nROLES AT BCDC HE WROTE THE \nCOMMISSION’S FIRST WATER QUALITY \nPOLICIES AND A FEW YEARS LATER \nWAS PRINCIPLE STAFF MEMBER IN \nCHARGE OF FIRST CREATING AND \nTHEN IMPROVING BCDC’S DREDGING \nAND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM. \nINITIATED AND LED THE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE STUDIES WHICH WAS START OF \nTHE REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nPROGRAM IN THE BAY AREA AND \nESTABLISHED THE LONG-TERM \nMANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROGRAM HOW \nTO MANAGE DREDGE MATERIALS. HE \nHAD A CENTRAL ROLE IN BCDC’S \nEFFORTS TO RESTORE BAYLANDS \nTIDAL WETLANDS HAMILTON TIDAL \nACTION AND WAS THE MOVE ERR \nBEHIND CREATING DREDGED \nMATERIALS MANAGEMENT OFFICE. \nOTHER EFFORTS WAS AWARDED ROGER \nJONES AWARD EXCELLENCE COASTAL \nMANAGEMENT AND RECEIVED \nCOMMENDATION FROM PRESIDENT AL \nGORE’S PART OF VP NATIONAL \nAWARD FOR BETTERING GOVERNMENT \nPROGRAM. WE HAVE ASKED STEVE TO \nCOME BACK AS A RETIRED \nAFTER A RESTFUL PERIOD AWAY \nFROM US. \nCRUCIAL IN TRAINING AND \nMENTORING STAFF TEN YEARS IN \n2024 AND EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO HAS \nSTARTED WORKING ON CREATING \nTRAINING PROGRAM FOR OUR STAFF. \nHE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS \nPARTNER. HE AND BRAD McCRAY \nBROUGHT ME UP DURING MY FIRST \nYEARS WHEN I KNEW LITTLE ABOUT \nCOASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. HE \nKNEW QUICKLY HOW I INTEND TO \nWORK WHICH IS MOST DIFFICULT \nTOING IF OUT WHEN YOU GET A NEW \nBOSS. HE CREATED GREAT INTRO TO \nANY DISCUSSION THAT GOES LIKE \nTHIS\, QUOTE\, LARRY\, WE HAVE AN \nISSUE\, BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING \nYET.” WE SHALL MISS STEVE \nWANDERING AROUND THE OFFICE \nSCOPING OUT PROJECTS \nPROOFREADING REPORTS AND \nEVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE DOES BUT \nAT LEAVE THE WE’LL HAVE HIM AS A \nRETIRED ANUITANT FOR A WHILE AND \nI CAN ASSURE HIM WE KNOW HIS \nTELEPHONE NUMBER WHEN WE NEED \nADVICE. STAFF HAD A BUR TOW \nLUNCH WITH SOME GREAT CAKE \nBEFORE TAO TODAY’S MEETING. WE \nHOPE STEVE WILL CONTRIBUTE SOME \nOF HIS GREAT RED WINE FOR THAT \nOCCASION. STEVE I AM SURE YOU \nWOULD LIKE TO SAY JUST A FEW \nWORDS? \n>>STEVEN GOLDBECK: THANK YOU\, \nLARRY. I HAVE A 20 MINUTE \nPOWERPOINT AND THEN A 10 MINUTE \nMOVIE TO SHOW. NO. I CALL BCDC \nTHE JOB \nTHATLLED MY CAREER IT’S BEEN \nINTERESTING AND NEVER GOT \nBORING. WELL\, MAYBE THERE WAS A \nMEETING OR TWO THAT DIDN’T MEET \nTHE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERALL \nIT’S BEEN AN AMAZING TIME\, AND I \nHAVE ENJOYED ALL OF THE WORK \nTHAT THE BCDC DOES\, AND WORKING \nWITH ALL THE STAFF. I FEEL LIKE \nI CAN RETIRE NOW HAVING ACHIEVED \nSOME INTERESTING THINGS\, IN \nADDITION TO WORKING ON THE \nCLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES\, AS THE \nFIRST IN THE NATION\, IT’S \nSOMETHING I’LL ALWAYS TREASURE. \nAND I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL \nTWO 72\, AS WELL. \nBUT IT’S REALLY BEEN \nPARTNERSHIPS THAT HAVE ALWAYS \nMADE ME ENJOY WORKING AT BCDC \nWITH THE STAFF\, AS I TOLD THEM \nTODAY AT OUR LITTLE \nLUNCH ON\, BUT ALSO WORKING WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS. I HAVE BEEN \nREALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONERS WE HAVE HAD AT \nBCDC\, ALWAYS IMPRESSED WITH \nCOMMISSIONERS WHO COME TO BCDC \nFROM WHARF BACKGROUND OR \nAPPOINTMENT\, BUT ALWAYS TOOK ON \nTHE ROLE OF BEING A REGIONAL \nBCDC COMMISSIONER. AND THAT’S \nHOW BCDC HAS PROSPERED\, SO\, I \nWANT TO SAY IT’S BEEN AN HONOR \nAND A PLEASURE WORKING WITH BCDC \nSTAFF AND NEW COMMISSIONERS\, AND \nI LOOK FORWARD TO MY NEW ROLE. \nSO\, THANKS SO MUCH. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: TWO THINGS \nTO FOLLOW THAT UP. FIRST WE \nHAVE TO LOOK FOR A NEW MEMBER OF \nSENIOR STAFF TO THIS DEPARTURE. \nYOU RECEIVED TWO WEEKS AGO LINKS \nTO THE JOB AND WILL GET IT AGAIN \nTODAY IN THE COMMISSION SUMMARY \nPLEASE DISTRIBUTE THEM TO \nANYBODY YOU BELIEVE SHOULD \nRECEIVE THEM. PERHAPS LATE \nBREAKING NEWS EVENT BCDC’S BOCCE \nTEAM WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN \nKNOWN AS THE MEAN HIGH TIDES\, \nHAS NOW CHANGED ITS NAME AT \nLEAVE THE FOR THE NEXT SEASON TO \nSTEVIE G AND THE SHORELINE \nBAND. \nSO\, WE DO THAT\, BECAUSE STEVE \nHAS BEEN A — I THINK\, STEVE\, \nYOU WERE A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE \nBOCCE GROUP\, AND REMAINS A \nSTALWART\, AND THE BYLAWS OF THE \nBOCCE RULES LEAGUE SAY THAT \nRETIRED ANNUITY ANTS CAN \nPARTICIPATE IN BOCCE GAMES\, JUST \nSO YOU KNOW. WITH THAT\, I HAVE \nONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CHAIR \nEISEN NOTED. THE MAJOR NEWS AT \nBCDC DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS \nIS THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR NEW WEB \nSITE. THANKS TO A GREAT EFFORT \nBY A NUMBER OF STAFF\, MOST \nESPECIALLY REYLINA\, ELSA\, AND \nETHAN\, AND VARIOUS OTHER STATE \nSTAFF AND A VERY GOOD CONSULTANT \nTEAM\, OUR NEW WEB SITE IS BOTH \nEASIER TO USE\, AND CAN BE \nEXPANDED TO CREATE GREATER \nFUNCTIONALITY. MOST IMPORTANT \nFOR THE PUBLIC\, IT IS MUCH \nBETTER ORGANIZED\, AND WE ARE \nWORKING HARD TO FULFILL ONE OF \nOUR STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES BY \nUSING AS MUCH PLAIN LANGUAGE AS \nPOSSIBLE. PLEASE CHECK IT OUT. \nLOOK AT THE NEW CALENDAR \nFUNCTION\, ESPECIALLY\, THAT \nCONTINUES TO MAKE ME SMILE. AND \nWE’RE STILL TINKERING WITH IT \nAND WILL BE FOR MANY MONTHS. \nAND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nYOUR COMMENTS. IF YOU FIND \nSOMETHING OR DON’T FIND \nSOMETHING THAT YOU EITHER LIKE \nOR DON’T LIKE\, PLEASE LET US \nKNOW. \nTHAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR \nEISEN\, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY \nQUESTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR LARRY? \nWELL\, LET ME SAY\, STEVE\, THAT \nWAS UNBELIEVABLE AND STUNNING \nLIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AND ON \nBEHALF OF A VERY GRATEFUL \nCOMMISSION\, WE’RE GOING TO MISS \nYOU\, AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD \nTO THE\, I THINK LARRY CALLED IT \nA SEND-OFF\, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE \nIT’S JUST A TRANSITION. ALL \nRIGHT. WE’RE NOW AT THE \nEXCITING GRAND NEW CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AT THIS POINT IN \nTHE AGENDA\, WE’RE GOING TO \nCONSIDER THAT THERE ARE TWO \nITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE \nMINUTES FOR OUR JUNE 6TH \nMEETING\, AND THE SECOND IS THE \nPROPOSED ADOPTION OF A REVISED \nSTIPULATED CEASE AND DESIST AND \nCIVIL PENALTY ORDER FROM THE \nENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. AND THAT \nREGARDS A PROPERTY IN SAN \nFRANCISCO AT 224 SEA CLIFF \nAVENUE. ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE \nCHAIR MARIE GILMORE HAS ALREADY \nCONCURRED IN THE INCLUSION OF \nTHIS ORDER IN THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. SO\, FIRST\, SIERRA DO \nWE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT \nREGARDING THE CONSENT CALENDAR? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. SO\, THEN\, AS INDICATED\, \nWE DO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH \nRESPECT TO THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \nMAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND \nTO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR? \nSIERRA\, LET ME KNOW WHO MOVES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nAPPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AND PAT \nSHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I’LL BE \nGLAD TO SECOND THE CONSENT \nCALENDAR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: ECKLUND \nMOVES SHOWALTER SECONDS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nSIERRA PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? IS \n. \n>>SPEAKER: /*. \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? ANN AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I THINK THAT \nCOUNTS. WE SEE IT. \n>>DAVID AMBUEHL: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK \nYOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER \nECKERLY? \n>>JENN ECKERLE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGILLMOR? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGIOIA? \n>>JOHN GIOIA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nGUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES . \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nHASZ? \n>>KARL HASZ: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR \nEISEN? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE \nI MISSED ANYONE? \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH \n16 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO \nABSTENTIONS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. \nALL RIGHT. WELL\, WE DO NOT HAVE \nAN ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING TODAY\, \nBUT COMMISSIONER GUNTHER ASKED \nAT OUR LAST MEETING THAT OUR \nSTAFF EXPLAIN HOW THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS \nWORKS AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM \nOTHER TYPES OF PERMITTING \nAPPROVALS. SO\, HARRIET ROSS WHO \nIS OUR REGULATORY DIRECTOR HAS \nPREPARED A RESPONSE FOR THE \nCOMMISSION. BUT BEFORE WE GET \nTO HARRIET’S RESPONSE\, DO WE \nHAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS \nREGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. HARRIET\, YOU CAN \nPLEASE EXPLAIN TO US OUR \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS? \n>>HARRIET ROSS: YES. GOOD \nAFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. AGAIN\, I’M \nHARRIET ROSS. FIRST OF ALL\, \nBCDC HAS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF \nPERMITS\, AS YOU ALL HAVE \nNOTICED\, I’M SURE. WHEN THE \nCOMMISSION HEARS A PROJECT OR \nVOTES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID \nLAST MONTH IN MAY\, 505 BAYSHORE\, \nTHAT’S CONSIDERED A MAJOR \nPERMIT. BUT THE COMMISSION’S \nRULES HAVE DEDICATED AUTHORITY \nTO REVIEW AND ACT ON SOME OTHER \nPERMITS TO ITS EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. SO\, THE PERMITS THAT \nAPPEAR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE \nLISTINGS ARE CONSIDERED MINOR \nREPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND \nTHAT’S DEFINED BY THE \nCOMMISSION’S REGULATIONS AND BY \nTHE COMMISSION ITSELF. THERE \nARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nPROJECTS INCLUDED IN THIS \nDEFINITION OF MINOR REPAIRS AND \nIMPROVEMENTS. SOME EXAMPLES TO \nGIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE \nTALKING ABOUT CAN BE SINGLE BOAT \nDOCKS LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET \nSHORELINE PROTECTION THAT WOULD \nFILL LESS THAN 10\,000 FEET OF \nTHE BAY ROUTINE REPAIRS THAT \nDON’T INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT \nENLARGEMENT OR CHANGES. JUST TO \nNAME A FEW. \nDIRECTOR ASKED TO ISSUE OR \nTO PERMIT REQUIRED ACTIONS TO \nTHE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC. THE \nLIST IS SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND \nPROPOSED AGES BY STAFF. IF THE \nCOMMISSION AGREES WITH THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nCLASSIFICATION THAT A PROJECT IS \nINDEED CONSIDERED A MINOR REPAIR \nOR IMPROVEMENT\, THEN NO ACTION \nIS NEEDED AND THAT’S TYPICALLY \nWHAT HAPPENS. I HAVE BEEN HERE \nFOR NINE MONTHS NOW\, AND I THINK \nWE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT \nPROCESS EVERY MEETING WITHOUT \nANY FANFARE. THEN THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR WILL ACT ON PENDING \nAPPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MANDATED \nDEADLINES. SO ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS OR PERMITS DON’T REQUIRE \nA PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY BE \nISSUED WITHIN A SHORTER TIME \nFRAME. NOW\, HOWEVER\, IF THE \nCOMMISSION — AND YOU ALL HAVE \nTHE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S \nDETERMINATION THAT A PROJECT IS \nINDEED A MINOR REPAIR OR \nIMPROVEMENT AND IF THAT’S THE \nCASE WE’LL HOLD A HEARING TO \nDISCUSS IF THAT — IF THE \nPROJECT DOESN’T FIT THE \nDEFINITION OF THE COMMISSIONER’S \nVOTE ON THIS TYPE OF PERMIT — \nSORRY\, IF IT DOESN’T MEET THE \nDEFINITION OF THIS PERMIT THEN \nWE VOTE AS A COMMISSION ON THE \nTYPE OF PERMIT IT SHOULD BE. IF \nTHE COMMISSION VOTES THE TYPE \nIS NOT THE RIGHT PERMIT THE \nCOMMISSION VOTES THEN \nADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT WHICH \nWOULD INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nCOMMISSION VOTE. \nSO THAT’S THE MAIN \nADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT INCLUDED \nIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING WE \nALSO LIST OTHER PERMITS SUCH AS \nREGION-WIDE ON A REGULAR BASIS \nAND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO GO \nOVER THAT IN DETAIL AT FUTURE \nTRAINING. THAT’S JUST THE \nBASICS OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING AND HOW \nTHAT’S DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJOR \nPERMITS THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER \nFROM TIME TO TIME. ANY \nQUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nQUESTIONS OF HARRIET? \nCOMMENTS? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. THANK YOU HARRIET. \nAND YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE COULD \nREMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE \nADMINISTRATIVE LISTING IF WE \nWISHED REMINDED ME THAT THAT IS \nALSO TRUE OF OUR CONSENT \nCALENDAR. AND I FORGOT TO \nMENTION THAT IF AT ANY POINT IN \nTIME SOMEBODY WANTED TO LIFT \nSOMETHING ALL THE COMMISSION — \nI MEAN THE CONSENT CALENDAR\, AND \nHAVE A REGULAR\, SORT OF\, ITEM \nFOR THAT MATTER\, THAT CAN BE \nDONE. SO\, I NEGLECTED TO \nMENTION THAT. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: I WANTED TO ADD \nTO THAT CHAIR EISEN IT TAKES TWO \nCOMMISSIONERS. IF ONE \nCOMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO IT\, IT \nTAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SAY \nWE’RE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM \nTHE CONSENT CALENDAR. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU GREG. FIND A PARTNER \nIF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING \nFROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE THREE \nBRIEFINGS NOW. THE FIRST ONE IS \nWITH RESPECT TO SAND MINING \nISSUES. IT’S A BRIEFING BY THE \nBCDC STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES \nOF THE SAND MINING INDUSTRY. \nIT’S GOING TO BE WITH REGARD TO \nISSUES THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED \nBY THE COMMISSION’S TEMPORARY \nSAND MINING COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP\, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED \nRECENTLY. AND THEY’RE GOING TO \nBE CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES \nDURING THE REMAINDER OF THE \nYEAR. LAST WEEK\, BCDC \nDISTRIBUTED RESEARCH STUDIES ON \nISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY OUR \nCOMMISSION DURING THE SAND \nMINING PERMIT PROCESS BACK IN \n2015. THAT RESEARCH WAS \nREVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT \nSCIENCE PANEL. SO\, TODAY\, BCDC \nSTAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE A \nSHORT PRESENTATION ON THE \nRESEARCH AND THE FINDINGS \nPROCESS\, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF \nTHE SANDS MINING COMPANIES ARE \nGOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT \nPRESENTATION ON MINING \nACTIVITIES. SO\, THE PURPOSE \nOF THIS BRIEFING IS TO HIGHLIGHT \nTHE TOPICS THAT THE WORKING \nGROUP IS GOING TO CONSIDER. SO\, \nCOMMISSIONERS SHOULD WAITE THAT \nWORK BEFORE WE EXPRESS ANY \nOPINIONS WE HAVE ON THE STUDIES \nOR THE POSSIBILITY OF \nCONSIDERING A PERMIT FOR FUTURE \nSAND MINING ACTIVITIES. \nTODAY WE’RE GOING TO HEAR THE \nSHORT PRESENTATIONS. AND OF \nCOURSE\, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR \nANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT \nCOMMISSIONERS HAVE. OKAY. \nDO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON \nTHIS ITEM BEFORE WE BEGIN? I’M \nSORRY. \n[LAUGHTER] \nLET’S HAVE THE PRESENTATION \nBEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. \nBRENDA IS GOING TO MAKE THE \nPRESENTATION. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. YOU CAN ALL SEE MY \nSCREEN? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nYES. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS I’M PLEASED TO \nPRESENT FINDINGS ON THE NEW \nSIGNS ON SAND IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AN OVERLOOKED AREA OF THE \nSEDIMENT SYSTEM THIS NEW SCIENCE \nIS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE \nCOMMISSION’S REQUIREMENTS IN ITS \n2015 SAND MINING PERMITS. MY \nPRESENTATION AS CHAIR EYES \nMENTIONED WILL BE TO REVIEW THE \nHISTORY OF SAND MINING IN THE \nBAY\, THE COMMISSION’S PERMITTING \nSAND ACTIVITIES IN 2015 PROCESS \nAND ORGANIZATION FOR IDENTIFY \nTHE STUDIES AND RESEARCH AND \nFINDINGS THEN INDEPENDENT \nSCIENCE PANEL ON RESEARCH AND \nFINALLY PATH FORWARD IN THE NEXT \nSEVERAL MONTHS. \nAND MY SCREEN IS NOT \nFORWARDING. \nSO\, LET ME JUST DO IT THIS WAY. \nOKAY. SO\, AS SOME OF YOU ARE \nAWARE\, MINING IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY HAS OCCURRED FOR ALMOST A \nCENTURY\, VIA SMALL COMPANIES \nTHAT BEGAN AROUND THE 1930S\, AND \nPERHAPS BEFORE THAT. THE \nCOMMISSION’S RECORDS OF THIS \nACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE \nDOCUMENTED SAND MINING FROM \nVARIOUS PERMITS OF THESE SMALL \nCOMPANIES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN \nTHE 1970S. OVER TIME\, THE SMALL \nCOMPANIES WERE CONSOLIDATED. \nAND ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE \n1990S\, SEVERAL OF THE SMALL \nCOMPANIES\, ALONG WITH THE STATE \nLAND LEASES\, OR PRIVATE — OR \nPRIVATE LEASES WERE CONSOLIDATED \nUNDER HANSON AGGREGATES\, WHICH \nIS NOW MARTIN MARIETTA\, AND\, \nALSO\, LIND MARINE. ALSO NOTE A \nTHIRD SAND MINING COMPANY\, \nSUISUN ASSOCIATES WHICH IS A \nJOINT EFFORT — GIANT COMPANY OF \nLIND MARINE AND MARTIN \nMARIETTA. \nIN THIS GRAPHIC\, YOU SEE HERE\, \nIN THE UPPER RIGHT\, THERE IS A \nVERY SMALL MAP\, BILL BUTLER WITH \nLIND MARINE WILL SHOW YOU A \nBETTER MAP SHORTLY BUT THE \nSAND — CENTRAL \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY AND SUISUN \nCHANNEL IN BAY AREA CALLED \nMIDDLE GROUND SCHOELL SUISUN \nCHANNEL ITSELF PERMITS REPORTED \nBY MINING COMPANIES BETWEEN \n1970S AND 2023 HAS BEEN \nVARIABLE. SIGNALED MINING IS \nDONE PARTICULARLY TO PROVIDE \nAGGREGATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION \nINDUSTRY IN THE BAY REGION. \nIT’S NOT THE ONLY SAND THAT’S \nPROVIDED TO THE CONSTRUCTION \nINDUSTRY\, THERE IS ALSO IMPORTED \nSAND FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA AND \nSAND TRUCKED IN FROM VARIOUS \nQUARS IN THE REGION. BUT THE \nMINERS WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT \nTHAT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. \nBUT YOU WILL NOTE THAT DURING \nTHE EARLY 2000s WAS THE PEAK OF \nTHE SAND MINING AND THAT WAS \nAROUND THE.COM PERIOD WHEN THERE \nWAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF BUILDING \nGONE ON IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nYOU WILL ALSO SEE A DIP AROUND \n2018 AND 2014 WHICH MARKS A \nSIGNIFICANT RECESSION IN THE \nREGION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BACK THEN \nDECLINING OVER TIME AND IT TENDS \nTO TREND ALONG WITH THE \nCONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK AND \nWE’LL SEE HOW IT CONTINUES IN \nTHE FUTURE. \nIN 2015\, THE COMMISSION HEARD \nFOR THE FIRST TIME THREE MAJOR \nPERMITS IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND \nVOTE. AND THEY ISSUED THREE \nPERMITS. THE FIRST PERMIT WAS \nFOR CENTRAL BAY FOR 1.4 PER \nCUBIC YARDS OF SAND OVER \nMULTIPLE LEASE PARCELS ISSUED TO \nHANSON AGGREGATES NOW MARTIN \nMARIETTA. SUISUN BAY HAD A \nPERMIT ISSUE FOR 185\,000 CUBIC \nYARDS ANNUALLY AND THAT WENT TO \nSUISUN ASSOCIATES AND LIND \nMARINE HAD A SPECIFIC PERMIT \nISSUED ON A PRIORITY LEASE FOR \n100\,000 CUBIC YARDS AROUND \nMIDDLE GROUND SCHOELL. PERMITS \nARE FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD AND \nTHEY DIFFERENT STUDIES TO \nMITIGATE AND BETTER UNDERSTAND \nIMPACTS OF SAND MINING SO THE \nCOMMISSION ALONG WITH THE WATER \nBOARD REQUIRED WATER QUALITY \nMONITORING STUDY AND REQUIRED \nBENTHIC HABITAT STUDY THEN MOST \nRECENT WORK REQUIRED STUDY OF \nSAND TRANSPORT AND SAND BUDGET \nPOTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE MINING \nOF THE SAND\, AND PHYSICAL \nPROCESS IN THE BAY AND IN THAT \nACTION THE COMMISSION REQUIRED \nTHE MINERS TO CONTRIBUTE $1.2 \nMILLION TO THESE EFFORTS. \nTHERE WAS MITIGATION REQUIRED AS \nPART OF THESE PERMITS\, INCLUDING \nREMOVAL OF SOME BAY FILL WHICH \nWAS PRIMARILY UNDERTAKEN AT \nCROCKETT AND MARINA\, A DEFUNCT \nMARINA NEAR THE CITY OF \nCROCKETT NEAR THE BENICIA BRIDGE \nINSTALLATION OF FISH SCREENS ON \nALL OF THE EQUIPMENT ALL OF THE \nPUMPING EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE \nENTERTAINMENT OF FISH FROM THE \nWATER BEING PUMPED ON THE \nDREDGES TO SLURRY THE SAND. AT \nTHAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF \nCONCERN ISSUES RAISED AROUND \nSAND MINING THIS WAS THE FIRST \nTIME THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING \nIN THAT REGARD AND THE \nCOMMISSION SPECIFICALLY HAD A \nNUMBER OF QUESTIONS\, INCLUDING \nHOW MUCH SAND IS IN THE BAY \nWHAT’S THE VOLUME AND WHERE IS \nIT\, WHAT AREAS ARE IN TRANSPORT \nWHAT AREAS ARE RELIC SANDS IS \nTHE SAND BEING MIND AND \nTRANSPORT FOR RELIC AND WHAT ARE \nTHE IMPACTS OF MINING RELIC SAND \nAND IMPACTS TO ACTIVE SANDS\, AND \nCONSEQUENCES OF THAT MINING TO \nBAY BEACHES AND TIDES THAT IT \nFEEDS. QUESTIONS CAME UP WITH \nWHETHER YOU DIG A BIG HOLE AND \nSOME SEDIMENTS COME DOWN FROM \nTHE DELTA THAT FILL THE HOLE \nRATHER THAN GOING TO BAY \nBEACHES. THE QUESTION ASKED \nWHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE \nMODIFICATION OF MINING VOLUME AT \nDIFFERENT SITES OR SITES \nTHEMSELVES UNDER WHAT CONDITION \nSHOULD WE ALLOW MINING OR NOT \nAND WHAT’S SUSTAINABLE VOLUME \nFOR MINING AND SUBSTANTIAL \nDEPLETION\, COMMISSION AT THE \nTIME SUGGESTED MONITORING FOR \nIMPACTS OF EXTRACTION OF RELIC \nSAND AND SAND TRANSPORT WAS \nIMPORTANT ALSO WANTED TO \nUNDERSTAND BETTER BCDC’S AUTHOR \nAND JURISDICTION IN RELATIONSHIP \nTO SAND MINING AND LASTLY THE \nQUESTION CAME UP AROUND IMPACTS \nTO BENTHIC LIFE IN THE BAY BUT \nTHAT’S NOT A SUBJECT OF TODAY’S \nPRESENTATION SO THAT UPGRADE \nWENT OUT. AFTER THE PERMIT’S \nWERE ISSUED IN APRIL 2015 WE \nWENT AWAY FROM THAT HEARING AND \nBEGAN TO WORK WITH MINORS AND \nTHE COMMISSION REQUIRED $1.2 \nMILLION TO SUPPORT THE SAND \nSTUDIES THAT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED \nINTO THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY’S COASTAL TRUST FUND \nOVER FOUR YEARS SO WE ALLOWED A \nPERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT MONEY TO \nBUILD UP. ONCE THAT DEPOSIT WAS \nCOMPLETE THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AND BCDC BEGAN TO \nWORK TOGETHER WITH A SELECTED \nSAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE WHO DEVELOPED FURTHER \nTHE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE \nMANAGE SAND MINING\, WHAT THE \nIMPACTS OF MINING ARE. THEY \nWORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP \nSCUDDY SCOPES WE REQUESTED \nREQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WERE \nLISTED AT THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY’S WEB SITE AND \nPROPOSALS REVIEWED BY THE THE T \nTECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN \nADDITION DURING THE LATTER PART \nOF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE’S MAIN WORK AND \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nFORMALIZE THEY REVIEWED THE \nSCOPES AND REVIEWED PROPOSALS \nTHAT CAME IN THEY IDENTIFIED AND \nINTERVIEWED SAND SCIENCE TEAMS \nAND WORKED WITH TEAMS TO CREATE \nAND APPROPRIATE STUDIES TO BEST \nANSWER MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS AND \nWHEN STUDIES WERE COMPLETED THEY \nREVIEWED FINDINGS AND DEVELOPED \nA FINDINGS REPORT WITH THE SAND \nTECH CONSULTING FIRM. JUST SO \nYOU KNOW WHO IS ON THESE \nGROUPS. \nTHE SAND TECHNOLOGY \nIMPLEMENTATION OFFICE STEERING \nCOMMITTEE CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE \nINCLUDED CONSERVANCY\, BCDC\, \nCOASTAL COMMISSION\, STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS WATER BOARD NATIONAL \nMARINE FISHERIES AND COW FISH \nAND WILDLIFE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nKEEPER NON-PROFIT HIGHLIGHT \nINTERESTED IN WORKING AND MARIN \nM REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS \nCONSULTING FIRM ASSISTED IN THE \nWORK\, DEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nINCLUDED FIVE DISTINGUISHED \nSCIENTISTS\, BOB BA TAG LIA FROM \nENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\, DR. \nCRAIG JONES FROM INTERVAL AND \nSALT CONSULTING AND DR. JOHN \nFROM UC DAVIS AND DAVID USGE \nEMERITUS DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF \nFOLKS WORKING ON DEVELOPING \nTHESE STUDIES AND REVIEWING \nTHEM. THERE WE GO. AS I \nMENTIONED\, THE SAND TECHNICAL \nADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKED TO \nREFINE THE COMMISSION’S \nQUESTIONS AND ADD SOME OF THEIR \nOWN QUESTIONS ON WHAT KINDS OF \nINFORMATION WE WANTED OUT OF \nTHESE SAND STUDIES. THE \nQUESTIONS AS DEFINED INCLUDED \nSAND MINING AT EXISTING AREAS AT \nPRIMITIVE LEVELS HAVING \nMEASURABLE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT \nON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY \nWITHIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASKED \nWHAT’S THE SUSTAINABLE NUMBER \nAND SUSTAINABLE DEPLETION MUCH \nLIKE THE COMMISSION DID\, THEY \nASKED WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED \nPHYSICAL EFFECTS OF SANDS MINING \nAT PERMITTED LEVELS ON SAND — \nAND SUPPLY WITHIN THE BAY AND \nOUTER COAST AND ACTIVE SANDS \nCONSEQUENCES TO BEACHES AND \nTIDES IMPACT TO RELIC SANDS. SO \nSIMILAR BUT MORE SPECIFIC THAN \nTHE QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION \nASKED DURING THE PUBLIC \nHEARINGS. THE RESEARCH TEAMS \n— I’M NOT GOING TO READ ALL \nTHESE FOLKS NAMES BUT I FELT IT \nWAS IMPORTANT TO PUT THE \nAGENCIES ORGANIZATIONS AND \nSCIENTISTS UP FOR YOU TO SEE \nBECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS A \nDISTINGUISHED GROUP OF \nSCIENTISTS WHO WORKED VERY HARD \nON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STUDIES \nTO HELP THE COMMISSION \nUNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF SAND \nMINING AND UNDERSTAND THE SAND \nTRANSPORT SYSTEM A LOT BETTER \nTHAN WE DID TEN YEARS AGO. WE \nLOOKED AT SAND BUDGET\, SAND \nSUPPLY\, MORPHOLOGICAL CHAINS IN \nTRANSPORT ANALYSIS. WE ALSO HAD \nSOME SAND TRANSPORT MODELING \nTHAT WAS DONE\, AND SAND \nPROVIDENCE\, OR ALSO KNOWN AS \nFINGERPRINTING UNDERSTANDING THE \nORIGIN OF WHERE THE SAND CAME \nFROM AND MULTIPLE DIFFERENT \nFOLKS FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES \nWORKING TOGETHER ACROSS THESE \nDIFFERENT STUDS TO INTEGRATE \nTHIS WORK. \nSO\, HERE IS THE KEY FINDINGS. \nAND THIS IS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS \nIN THE FINDINGS REPORT.. THESE \nARE THE OVERARCHING FINDINGS. \nTHERE ARE ALSO REGIONAL FINDINGS \nTHAT I’M NOT INCLUDING IN MY \nPRESENTATION TODAY\, AND THE \nSTUDIES THEMSELVES ARE ALSO \nINCLUDED IN APPENDIX G WITH EVEN \nMORE INFORMATION ARE IF YOU ARE \nINTERESTED IN DIVING IN DEEP. \nSO\, THE KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE \nTHAT THE VOLUME OF MIND SAND IS \nSIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE \nBAY’S SAND BUDGET IT REPRESENTS \nLARGEST OUTFLOW OF SAND IN THE \nBAY INCLUDING NET SAND DISCHARGE \nTO THE OCEAN. ADDITIONALLY SAND \nIS MIND FASTER THAN IT IS BEING \nREFRESHED AND THEREFORE SAND IS \nA NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE OVER \nTHE LONG-TERM. SUISUN BAY SAND \nIS NOT BEING REPLENISHED AND \nTHUS A FINITE RESOURCE AND THE \nBED IS BEING LOWERED AND \nSYMMETRIC MODELING AND BUDGET \nSTUDIES ALL SUPPORT FINDING SAND \nMINING AFFECTS AND IN \nHIGHLY LOCALIZED EFFECTS \nDIMINISHING WITH DISTANCE AND \nLOCATION\, NEGLIGIBLE SAND \nTRANSPORT SUCH AS SUISUN BAY \nWHERE DEPRESSIONS CAUSED BY \nMINING PERSIST IN THE BED OVER \nTIME. NEXT FINDINGS\, CENTRAL \nBAY SAND IS RELIC MEANING IT WAS \nDEPOSITED BETWEEN 20\,060\,000 \nYEARS AGO AS SEA LEVELS ROSE AND \nTHE RIVER DISCHARGE POINT \nMIGRATED THROUGH THE BAY TO \nPRESENT LOCATION IN THE DELTA \nPART OF THE LARGE BAY OCEAN \nRESERVOIR SANDS FROM THE \nWATERSHED OF SACRAMENTO AND SAN \nJOAQUIN RIVERS ARE NO LONGER \nSIGNIFICANT SOURCE TO THE BAY \nOCEAN AND LARGE VOLUMES OF SAND \nDO NOT MOVE THROUGH THE SYSTEM \nDURING TIMES OF HIGH FLOW IE WET \nWINTERS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY \nASSUMED EFFECTS OF MINING TO \nBEACHES ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT \nREMAIN UNQUANTIFIED. IN EACH \nTIDAL CYCLE SAND IS TRANCE \nPORTED BETWEEN THE BAY AND THE \nOCEAN EFFECTIVELY LINKING THE \nTWO SAND DEPOSITS INTO A SHARED \nPOOL. THE SIZE OF THE SHARED \nPOOL OF SAND AND THUS THE \nSIGNIFICANCE OF THE REDUCTION \nDUE TO MINING IS UNKNOWN. \nSO\, THAT IS THE HIGH-LEVEL \nFINDINGS\, OVERARCHING FINDINGS \nOF THE IN THE SCIENCE \nPANEL. \nWE’LL FURTHER DIG INTO THIS \nINFORMATION AND FURTHER CODIFY \nWHAT IT MEANS FOR MINING \nACTIVITIES AND PERMITTING IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. GOING \nFORWARD\, WE HAVE TODAY’S \nBRIEFING AND ALL THE SCIENCE \nTHAT HAS GONE INTO IT\, INTO THAT \nFINDINGS REPORT WHICH IS 35 TO \n40 PAGES LONG. NOT TOO LONG OF \nA READ. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY \nREAD IT AND THESE ARE THE \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nFINDINGS. WE’LL TAKE THE \nINFORMATION AND DIG THROUGH IT \nIN THE COMMISSION ARE WORKING \nGROUP WHICH I’LL TALK ABOUT IN A \nMINUTE. WE’LL USE THE \nCOMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED \nQUESTIONS WE’LL STUDY IN REVIEW \nAND HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT \nWHAT THIS ALL MEANS. THE STATE \nLANDS COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY IN \nA CEQA REVIEW PROCESS SO WE’RE \nANTICIPATING OVER THE NEXT FEW \nMONTHS THAT STATE LANDS WILL BE \nREVIEWING DRAFT CEQA DOCUMENT. \nAND BCDC’S ROLE IN THAT IS TO \nREVIEW AND COMMENT ON IT ALONG \nWITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE \nAGENCIES. \nLATE THIS YEAR\, WE’RE \nANTICIPATING PERHAPS DECEMBER\, \nWE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE SAND \nMINING COMPANIES SUBMITTING \nTHROUGH NEW APPLICATIONS FOR \nADDITIONAL SAND MINING IN THE \nFUTURE. AND LASTLY\, PROBABLY \nAROUND EARLY SPRING\, APRIL 2025\, \nWE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE \nCOMMISSION HEARING AND VOTING \nONCE AGAIN ON SAND MINING \nACTIVITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, \nAS PROPOSED BY THE MINERS. \nSO\, THE SAND STUDIES \nCOMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. WE \nHAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO \nHAVE GRACIOUSLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, \nAGREED TO SIT ON A COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP AND HELP STAFF DIG \nTHROUGH IMPORTANT INFORMATION \nTHAT WILL INFLUENCE HOW WE \nPERMIT AND THINK ABOUT POLICY \nAPPLICATION WHEN WE GET THE \nPERMIT APPLICATION. SO\, IT WILL \nBE CHAIRED BY PAT SHOWALTER\, AND \nANDY GUNTHER\, AND BARRY NELSON \nWILL BE THE TWO COMMISSIONERS ON \nTHE WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE FOUR \nMEETINGS PLANNED AND SCHEDULED. \nAND PLEASE COME TO THESE \nMEETINGS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. \nBECAUSE THEY WILL BE FASCINATING \nAND WE’LL HAVE DIFFERENT \nPRESENTERS HERE TO HELP EXPLAIN \nSOME OF THE SCIENCE. SO\, THE \nFIRST ONE IS IN MID-JULY. IT’S \nAN AFTERNOON MEETING. \nAUGUST 21ST\, AND SEPTEMBER AND \nNOVEMBER ARE ALL MORNING \nMEETINGS. THEY’RE GOING TO BE \nTWO HOURS IN LENGTH\, AND THEY \nWILL BE VIRTUAL. SO EASY TO \nATTEND. AGAIN\, THEY WILL BE \nFULLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND I \nTHINK WITH THAT\, THAT IS MY \nPRESENTATION. WE CAN PROBABLY \nHOLD QUESTIONS FOR MY \nPRESENTATION UNTIL AFTER THE \nMINERS — THE MINING \nREPRESENTATIVES GIVE THEIR \nPRESENTATION\, UNLESS THERE ARE \nSOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nDO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS NOW BEFORE WE MOVE TO \nTHE MINERS PRESENTATIONS? \nIT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER \nJOHN-BAPTISTE HAS HER HAND UP. \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: I HAD A \nCLARIFYING QUESTION YOU CAN \nEXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY SAND \nBUDGET\, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: IF YOU THINK \nABOUT IT LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT \nTHERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF \nSAND WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY COMING IN AND OUT SOME OF \nTHAT IS HAPPENING IN A NATURAL \nPROCESS ACCUMULATING OVER TIME \nTHEN THE SAND LEAVING THE OCEAN \nTHERE’S ALSO HUMAN EXTRACTION OF \nSAND EITHER THROUGH NAVIGATING \nDREDGING OR MINING ACTIVITIES. \nSO\, IT’S A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IN \nWHICH SCIENTISTS DO THE BEST \nTHEY CAN TO BOUND THE AMOUNT OF\, \nIN THIS CASE\, SAND THAT IS \nPRESENT\, IN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT \nLAYERS\, THEN BALANCE OUT WHAT \nTHEY BELIEVE IS COMING IN AND \nOUT TO GET A MASS OF EQUILIBRIUM \nIT’S NOT WEIGHT OF VOLUME OF EK \nLIB RUM OR WEIGHT\, IT’S ACTUALLY \nMASS THAT IS DEFINITELY \nSOMETHING WE WILL BE TALKING \nMORE ABOUT AT THE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP BECAUSE IT’S A \nTECHNICAL BUT STANDARDIZED \nSCIENTIFIC PROCESS. \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nADDITIONAL CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS? \nOR SHALL WE TURN TO THE MINERS \nPRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: OKAY. I HAVE \nING IF OUT. STOP SHARING. \nPROUD TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY \nBILL BUTLER OF LIND MARINE\, \nERICA GERA AND MICHAEL BISHOP OF \nMARTIN MARIETTA WHOLE TELL YOU \nMORE ABOUT SAND MINING AND THEIR \nPERSPECTIVES. THANK YOU. AND \nWELCOME\, BILL\, ERICA\, AND \nMICHAEL. \n. \n>>BILL BUTLER: THANK YOU I’M \nNOT SURE WHO IS GOING TO SHARE \nTHE PRESENTATION. GOOD \nAFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN MEMBERS OF \nTHE COMMISSION MY NAME IS BILL \nBUTLER I AM VICE PRESIDENT WITH \nLIND MARINE. PRESENTING THE \nSAND MINING OVERVIEW ON BEHALF \nOF BOTH LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA \nTHIS AFTERNOON. JOINING ME \nAVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS \nBRENDA INDICATED\, IS ERICA GERA \nAND MIKE BISHOP FROM MARTIN \nMARIETTA\, WE ALSO HAVE AARON \nHOLLOWAY AND NICK FROM GHG WHO \nARE COASTAL ENGINEERING \nCONSULTANTS FOR THE SAND MINERS \nAND ALSO CLEFTIAN MARSH FROM \nCOUNCIL DOWNEY BRAND THEY’RE \nAVAILABLE TO HAVE QUESTIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE. SOME OF YOU MAY \nRECALL DETAILS ABOUT SAND MINING \nFROM THE COMMISSION IN ACTIVITY \nNINE YEARS AGO. I’LL TAKE THIS \nMOMENT TO REFRESH OVERVIEW OF \nBAY SAND MINING. I’M GOING TO \nBRIEFLY COVER THESE TOPICS. WHY \nSAND MINING HAPPENS\, WHO IS \nINVOLVED AND WHERE\, WHEN\, HOW\, \nAND HOW MUCH THAT IT HAPPENS. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THE PURPOSE OF SAND MINING \nIS TO OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL GRADE \nAGGREGATE THAT IS USED FOR \nPUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION\, \nGOING INTO CONCRETE\, ASPHALT\, \nAND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS \nTHAT ARE USED TO BUILD THE \nHOMES\, SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, \nROADS\, AND INFRASTRUCTURE \nPROJECTS AROUND THE BAY. MARINE \nSAND IS A KEY COMPONENT IN BAY \nAREA RESTORATION AND RESILIENCE \nPROJECTS\, AS WELL. ALL OF THESE \nTHINGS WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE \nQUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ENJOY \nHERE IN THE BAY AREA. UTILIZING \nA LOCAL RESOURCE FOR OUR LOCAL \nNEEDS IN THE REGION THAT’S \nTRANSPORTED VIA WATERWAYS TO \nSITES WHERE THE RESOURCE IS \nUTILIZED AND IN LARGE LOADS THAT \nEQUAL ROUGHLY 100 TO 140 TRUCK \nLOADS OF MATERIAL\, ALL HELP TO \nREDUCE THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL \nEFFECTS. AND ALSO PROVIDE \nREGIONAL JOBS FOR OUR LOCAL \nRESIDENTS. \nNOW IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE \nTHAT NOT ALL SAND IS COMMERCIAL \nGRADE SAND. IT NEEDS TO BE \nDURABLE\, CLEAN\, WELL \nGRADED\, AND OF THE RIGHT SIZE. \nTHE BAY SANDS WHERE MINING \nOCCURS\, MEET THESE CRITERIA. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nSO\, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF \nLOCAL PROJECTS THAT ARE \nUTILIZING BAY SANDS. AND THEY \nRANGE FROM\, AS I SAID\, \nCONSTRUCTING SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING\, REBUILDING \nFROM WILDFIRE DAMAGE\, TO \nENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION \nPROJECTS\, LIKE AT HUNTERS POINT\, \nAND BEACH RESTORATION\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, AT CROWN BEACH IN \nALAMEDA\, WHICH WAS DONE FOR \nRESILIENCE AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nDEFENSE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, AS BRENDA INDICATED EARLIER\, \nTHERE ARE TWO ACTIVE SAND MINING \nCOMPANIES OPERATING IN THE BAY. \nMARTIN MARIETTA\, FORMERLY \nHANSON\, AND LIND MARINE\, AS WELL \nAS THE JOIN VENTURE ENTITY THAT \nIS FORMED BY THESE TWO \nCOMPANIES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHESE FIGURES ILLUSTRATE WHERE \nSAND MINING TAKES PLACE IN THE \nBAY. THING IF ON THE LEFT IS \nTHE CENTRAL BAY LEASES. THEY \nSPAN 2600 ACRES CONSISTING OF \nNINE PARCELS LEASED FROM THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE LANDS \nCOMMISSION. MARTIN MARIETTA\, \nEXCLUSIVELY MINES THESE AREAS\, \nAND THIS IS WHERE THE BULK OF \nSAND MINING TAKES PLACE. \nTHE MIDDLING IF IS\, I GUESS\, \nFITTINGLY MIDDLE GROUND LEASE \nAREA\, A 367 ACRE PRIVATE PARCEL \nIN SUISUN BAY\, AND LIND MARINE \nEXCLUSIVELY MINES THIS \nLOCATION. \nAND THEN FINALLY\, ON THE RIGHT\, \nTHE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE\, \nWHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS IN \nTHE SUISUN CHANNEL AT THE EAST \nEND OF SUISUN BAY. AND THIS 938 \nACRE LEASE AREA IS LEASED FROM \nSTATE LANDS TO THE SUISUN \nASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE\, MADE \nUP OF MARTIN MARIETTA AND LIND. \nAND LIND MARINE HAS CONDUCTED \nTHE MINING HERE OVER THE PAST \nTEN YEARS. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ARE \nGOING TO HELP DESCRIBE \nHOW THE SAND IS MIND. THE TWO \nCOMPANIES EACH OPERATE A SAND \nMINING BARGE THAT’S LIND \nMARINE’S ON THE LEFT AND MARTIN \nMARIETTA’S ON THE RIGHT. THESE \nARE SIMILAR IN HOW THEY OBTAIN \nSAND FROM OUR \nRESPECTIVE. THEY USE A TUGBOAT \nTO MOVE THE LARGES TO THE MINING \nLOCATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. AT \nTHE MINING LOCATIONS\, THE BARGE \nIS FILLED BY PUMPING A SAND \nWATER SLURRY FROM THE BAY \nFLOOR. \nON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS THE SAND \nPIPE ON THE BARGE WHICH IS \nLOWERED INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND \nA PUMP ON BOARD THE BARGE PUMPS \nTHE SAND WATER MIXTURE INTO A \nLOADING CHUTE THAT RUNS THE \nLENGTH OF THE BARGE\, ILLUSTRATE \nIN THING IF ON THE LEFT. THE \nSHOOT IS EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL \nSCREENED GATES THAT ALLOW SAND \nAND WATER TO FLOW INTO THE BARGE \nHOPPER. ANY MATERIALS LARGER \nTHAN SIGNALED FLOW OVER THE \nSCREENS AND THEN ARE DISCHARGED \nBACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH A PIPE \nAT THE END OF THE SHOOT THAT \nEXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. NOW\, AS \nTHE SAND AND WATER MIXTURE FILLS \nTHE BARGE\, WATER\, WHICH ALSO \nCONTAINS SOME FINE MATERIAL\, \nDECANTS FROM THE TOP OF THE \nHOPPER\, AND IS ALSO DISCHARGED \nBACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH PIPES \nTHAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. \nPUMPING CONTINUES UNTIL THE BARK \nHOPPER IS FILLED WITH WET SAND \nAND ONCE IT’S FILLED\, THE BARGES \nARE TRANSPORTED TO A NUMBER OF \nSITES AROUND THE BAY WHERE THE \nSAND IS OFF-LOADED\, STOCKPILED\, \nAND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO \nCUSTOMERS. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nTHESE FIGURES SHOW A COUPLE OF \nTHE DIFFERENCES IN THE SAND \nMINING BARGES. AND THEY SHOW \nTHE END OF THE SAND MINING \nPIPES. ON THE LEFT\, MARTIN \nMARIETTA’S BARGE IS EQUIPPED \nWITH A SUCTION DRAG HEAD THAT IS \nPLACED ABOUT TWO FEET INTO THE \nBAY SUBSTRATE WHEN IT’S LOWER. \nTHE TUGBOAT KEEPS THE BARGE AS \nSTATIONARY AS POSSIBLE\, BUT THEN \nMOVES TO NEW LOCATIONS\, AS \nNECESSARY\, TO CONTINUE THE \nSLURRY. IN THE SUISUN BAY \nLOCATIONS\, LIND MARINE SUCTION \nPIPE ILLUSTRATED THERE ON THE \nRIGHT\, IS PUSHED FIVE OR SIX \nFEET INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND THE \nBARGE IS ANCHORED TO LIMIT \nMOVEMENT DURING MINING. \nBOTH BARGES ARE EQUIPPED WITH \nTHOSE CYLINDRICAL SCREENS THAT \nYOU CAN SEE FOR THE SLURRY WATER \nTO PREVENT ENTRAINMENT OF FISH \nINTO THE PIPES. IN OF THE \nCENTRAL BAY\, MARTIN MARIETTA \nMIND SAND FROM DEPTHS RANGING \nBETWEEN 60 AND 90 FEET. IN \nSUISUN BAY LIND MINES IN AREAS \nTHAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 22 TO 40 \nFEET DEEP. \nNEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. \nNOW THESE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES \nILLUSTRATE THE LEVELS OF MINING \nACTIVITY OCCURRING IN THE THREE \nAREAS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL \nYEARS. BRENDA SHOWED A VERY \nSIMILAR SLIDE TO THIS\, WHICH WAS \nTHE SUMMATION OF ALL OF THESE \nFIGURES. THIS PARTICULARING IF \nSHOWS THE ACTIVITY ON THE \nCENTRAL BAY LEASES FROM 2\,000 TO \n2023. AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE \nVARIABILITY OF MINING TO MEET \nTHE DEMAND THAT BRENDA TALKED \nABOUT\, THE HIGHER DEMAND FOR \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OCCURS \nGENERALLY WHEN THE ECONOMY IS \nSTRONG AND MANY CONSTRUCTION \nPROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY. WHEN THE \nECONOMY SLOWS DOWN\, CONSTRUCTION \nACTIVITY DECREASES AND SO DOES \nTHE DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION \nMATERIALS. NOW THESE ECONOMIC \nCYCLES CAN ALSO BE INFLUENCED BY \nEXTERNAL FACTORS\, YOU KNOW? \nLIKE NATURAL DISASTERS OR EVEN \nTHE UPCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE \nADAPTATION THAT WE’RE DEALING \nWITH. I’LL MENTION IT’S \nIMPORTANT TO HAVE PERMIT LIMITS \nTHAT RECOGNIZE THIS VARIABLE AND \nHIGH ENOUGH TO OFFER FLEXIBLE TO \nMEET THESE CHANGES IN DEMAND. \nNEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. \n— AVAILABLE BY PERMITTED \nVOLUMES IN THE LOW PERIODS THERE \nIN 2012 AND 2014 THEN WHEN \nMINING WAS REAUTHORIZED IN 2015\, \nTHERE WAS AN INCREASE IN \nPERMITTED VOLUMES THAT WERE \nSHIFTED TO THIS LEASE FROM THE \nMIDDLE GROUND LEASE. NEXT \nSLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT \nREDUCED VOLUME THERE IN THE \nLATER YEARS\, IN THE LAST TEN \nYEAR PERIOD\, WHEN THESE VOLUMES \nWERE SHIFTED TO THE SUISUN \nASSOCIATES LEASE AREA. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, WHAT’S NEXT? BRENDA DID A \nGOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THIS \nPROCESS EARLIER. AND WE’RE NOW \nHERE AT AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE. \nTHIS REPORT IS THE LAST MAJOR \nPERMIT CONDITION TO BE FULL FIT \nIN OUR CURRENT PERMITS. AND \nTHIS REPORT REALLY BUILDS ON A \nHOST OF OTHER STUDIES AND \nINFORMATION COMPILED THROUGH THE \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES \nTHAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OVER \nTHE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE PRIOR \nROUNDS OF CEQA ANALYSIS AND \nPRIOR ROUNDS OF PERMITTING AND \nSTUDY. \nAND MANY OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS \nREPORT REAFFIRM THE FINDINGS \nFROM THESE PAST STUDIES\, \nINCLUDING SOME OF THE \nDEMONSTRABLE IMPACTS ON SEDIMENT \nTRANSPORT AND SUPPLY BEYOND \nLOCALIZED AREAS WITHIN THE \nLEASES\, WEREN’T REALLY \nIDENTIFIED. \nWE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE \nOPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO BE \nPART OF THE SEDIMENT \nATTACK\, AND STUDIES DEVELOPED \nAND AT THE END ALSO APPRECIATE \nTHE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS. \nWE DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND \nISSUES ON THESE REPORTS THAT \nREMAIN OUTSTANDING. \nAND THOSE COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED \nIN THE REPORT’S APPENDICES WHICH \nYOU ALL SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF\, \nAND WE ENCOURAGE TO YOU TAKE A \nLOOK AT THOSE. YOU KNOW\, \nFINALLY\, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO \nTAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A \nBIG THANK YOU TO THE SEDIMENT \nTECH\, MEMBERS\, AND BCDC AND \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY STAFF\, THE \nINDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL \nMEMBERS AND THE STUDY AUTHORS \nFOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS VERY \nCOMPLEX ISSUE. IT WAS A HUGE \nTASK\, AND THE WORK IS VERY MUCH \nAPPRECIATED. AND\, SO\, WITH \nTHAT\, I — WE’RE AVAILABLE TO \nANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, BILL. \nBRENDA DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING \nADDITIONAL? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: NO. WE’RE \nREADY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND/OR \nCOMMISSION QUESTIONS AND \nDISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY \nWHY DON’T WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT \nFIRST. SIERRA\, DO WE HAVE ANY \nMEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH \nTO COMMENT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nDO\, CURRENTLY HAVE ONE HAND \nRAISED. JIM McGRATH. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. MY \nNAME IS JIM McGRATH. SOME OF \nYOU KNOW WHO I AM. I JUST WANT \nTO SAY\, FIRST\, THAT THIS IS A \nSTUNNINGLY GOOD BIT OF SCIENCE. \nI DIDN’T READ EVERY SINGLE \nWORD. \nBUT I SKIMMED EACH ONE OF THE \nREPORTS. THE KEY CONCLUSION \nHERE IS THAT THE SEDIMENT THAT’S \nIN MOTION AT THE MOUTH OF THE \nBAY IS RELIC SEDIMENT. AND THAT \nDOESN’T REALLY SURPRISE ME. I \nCAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IN \nMONTEREY BAY AT THE MOUTH OF THE \nSALINAS RIVER. THAT MEANS IT’S \nNOT REFRESHED IN THE SAME \nNATURE. BUT UNLIKE MONTEREY \nBAY\, YOU FACE A VERY DIFFERENT \nSITUATION HERE. WHILE THE LOSS \nOF SEDIMENT TO MINING MAY BE \nDIRECTLY INVOLVED\, A LOSS OF \nSEDIMENT THAT EVENTUALLY MAKES \nIT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO AND \nMARIN COUNTY BEACHES\, THERE IS A \nHUGE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT INVOLVED \nIN THAT TRANSPORT SYSTEM. AND \nTHE AMOUNT IS RELATIVELY SMALL\, \nSIGNIFICANT\, I THINK\, IS THE \nCONCLUSION. BUT THE THING I \nWANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS \nTHAT\, WELL\, IT MAY BE THAT THIS \nEXACERBATES FUTURE EROSION \nSTOPPING SAND MINING PROBABLY \nNOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT \nON THE NEED FOR ADAPTATION ALONG \nTHE BEACHES SO IT’S A \nCOMPLICATED QUESTION THAT YOU’RE \nGOING TO FACE IN THE FUTURE. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL STOP. I’LL TRY \nTO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS \nOF THE COMMITTEE\, THE \nSUBCOMMITTEE. JUST ONCE AGAIN \nWANT TO SAY\, JUST \nREALLY EXCELLENT WORK BY THE \nSTAFF OF THE SCIENTIFIC \nCOMMUNITY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. ANY — I SEE AT \nLEAVE THE ONE MORE HAND RAISED. \nSIERRA\, DO YOU SEE THAT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I \nDO. \nBRENDA I WANT TO CLARIFY\, IS \nNICK PART OF THE PRESENTATION\, \nBRENDA? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SO\, NICK IS \nWITH THE CONSULTING FIRM HIRED \nBY THE SAND MINERS. NICK\, I \nDON’T KNOW IF YOU MAYBING A \nPUBLIC COMMENT OR IF YOU ARE \nTRYING TO COMMENT AS PART OF THE \nSAND MINING PRESENTATION? BUT \nMAYBE \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. THE MINING \nTEAM ASKED IF I COULD MAKE \nPUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: DEAR VICE CHAIR AND \nMEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY \nNAME IS NICK S\, SENIOR COASTAL \nSCIENTIST WITH GHD ENGINEERING \nCONSULTANTS TO THE MINING TEAM \nEXPERTISE IN COASTAL SEDIMENT \nAND TRANSPORT HERE TO PROVIDE \nOBSERVATIONS OF THE SAND SCIENCE \nSTUDIES AND ISP PROCESS AND \nAPPRECIATION FOR THE PROCESS AND \nCHALLENGE OF GENERATING \nCOMPILING RESEARCH ON A \nCOMPLICATED ISSUE\, COMMEND THE \nHARD WORK OF RESEARCH TEAMS AND \nISP STUDIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY \nCOMMITTEE THE NEW RESEARCH \nBUILDS ON SIGNIFICANT WORK ON \nSAND TRANSPORT PATHWAYS \nREAFFIRMING A NUMBER OF \nFINDINGS\, MINING HAS LOCALIZED \nEFFECTS SHOULD BE EXAMINED AT \nINDIVIDUAL LEASE AREA SCALE\, \nCONSISTENT WITH PRIOR RESEARCH \nIN AREAS OF INACTIVE SAND \nTRANSPORT. REPORT ALSO \nCONSISTENT WITH THE STATES 2012 \nEIR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RESOURCE \nIS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY BCDC \nCOMMISSIONERS ISP REPORT \nACKNOWLEDGES MIND SAND IS RELIC \nDEPOSITED. IMPORTANTLY THE \nSTUDIES AND SUMMARY REPORT DO \nNOT IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC \nMEASURABLE OR IMPACT BEYOND \nLEASE AREAS THEMSELVES INSTEAD \nREPORT FINDINGS BEYOND LEASE \nAREAS ARE UNKNOWN WE CONTINUE TO \nHAVE CONCERNS REGARDING REPORTS \nAND BUDGET ANALYSIS SHARED \nCONCEPT MODEL CAPTURED AND \nWRITTEN COMMENT LETTER SUBMITTED \nBY LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA. \nDOUBLE COUNTING OUTFLOWS CAUSED \nBY MINING AND DREDGING \nACTIVITIES BOTH DREDGE VOLUMES \nAND SAND OUTFLOWS. RESULTING IN \nDRAMATIC OVERESTIMATE OF SAND \nOUTFLOWS FROM THE BAY \nADDITIONALLY SAND BUDGET STUDIES \nACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE GOLDEN \nGATE BRIDGE FLUX SAND FLOWS INTO \nOR OUT OF THE BAY REMAINING \nHIGHLY UNCERTAIN. THE ISP \nREPORT PROVIDES SEVERAL \nOVERGENERALIZES FOR EXAMPLE\, \nDETERMINATION THAT SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AND PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE A \nCOMMON POOL OF SAND IS OVER \nGENERALIZED AS THESE ARE LARGE \nBODIES OF WATER WITH COMPLEX \nPROCESSES\, TRANSPORTING AND \nCLIMATE\, AND I URGE STUDIES FOR \nDETAILED NUANCED FINDINGS. WE \nLOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING \nWITH BCDC STAFF ON THE UPCOMING \nWORKING GROUP PROCESS AND \nBELIEVE THAT CONTINUED DIALOGUE \nCAN BE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL \nPUBLIC COMMENT? I CAN SEE \nCOMMISSIONERS DO WANT TO ASK \nQUESTIONS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I SEE \nNO OTHER HANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AS \nWE SAID AT THE BEGINNING\, THIS \nIS A LONG PROCESS AND CLARIFYING \nQUESTIONS NIPT TIME ARE \nCERTAINLY WELCOME. SO\, I THINK \nPAT SHOWALTER\, I SAW YOUR HAND \nUP FIRST\, \nSIERRA WILL CALL ON FOLKS AS \nTHEY RAISE THEIR HAND. \n>>SPEAKER: CHAIR EISEN IS IT IS \nTHIS TIME FOR COMMENTS AS WELL \nAS QUESTIONS? OR SHOULD I JUST \nASK THE QUESTIONS? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nWELL\, I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST \nASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE’LL SEE \nHOW IT GOES. OBVIOUSLY — \n>>SPEAKER: OKAY. SURE. I WILL \nJUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS \nREALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR ABOUT \nTHE REDUCTION OF GHGS. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: BECAUSE \nOF THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT \nDOESN’T OCCUR BECAUSE OF THIS. \nAND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO \nLEARNING MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT. \nI DO NOT REALLY EXPECT AN ANSWER \nTO THAT. BUT I JUST DISH WANT \nTO BRING THAT UP AS A REAL \nQUESTION THAT I HOPE TO LEARN \nMORE ABOUT. AND I’LL BE GLAD TO \nMAKE A FEW COMMENTS LATER. \n>>SPEAKER: PAT I’M NOT SURE \nTHAT’S REALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE \nOF THIS MEETING. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. I \nDIDN’T KNOW. \n>>GREG SCHARFF: THANK YOU\, \nGREG. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, \nI DO SEE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS\, YOU \nARE NEXT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, SIERRA. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR \nTHE REPORT. SO\, I GUESS IT’S \nCLEAR THAT SAND SUPPLIES ARE A \nLIMITED RESOURCE. MY QUESTION \nIS TO WHAT EXTENT OTHER \nALTERNATIVE MATERIALS FOR \nCONSTRUCTION USE MIGHT BE \nCONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WORK \nFOR THIS TASK FORCE? AND AS AN \nEXAMPLE\, I USE THE FACT THAT \nWE’RE USING RECYCLED \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN OUR \nROAD PROJECTS\, AS ROAD BASE\, SO \nWE’RE REGRINDING CONCRETE AND \nASPHALT TO USE\, AND THIS \nWOULDN’T BE SUITABLE FOR \nEVERYTHING. BUT I DO THINK WE \nNEED TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES AND \nOPTIONS TO A LIMITED SAND \nSUPPLY. I JUST WONDER IF THAT’S \nSOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES IT’S \nCERTAINLY SOMETHING I THINK WE \nCOULD BRAIN IN THE COMMISSIONER \nWORKING GROUP. THANK YOU FOR \nTHE QUESTION. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I \nWOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOMEONE CAN \nTELL ME\, WHAT IS THE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER — \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: — PERCENT OF \nTHE SAND USED WEEKLY IN \nCONSTRUCTION. HOW MUCH OF THAT \nSAND DOES THE SAND FROM THE MIND \nBAY COMPOSE. WHAT PERCENT OF \nTHE OVERALL DEMAND FOR SAND? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: I DON’T THINK \nWE’RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT \nQUESTION TODAY. WE DID HAVE AN \nECONOMIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY \nTHE SAND MINERS IN 2015\, THAT I \nTHINK THOSE NUMBERS WOULD HAVE \nTO BE REANALYZED. AND THE \nDEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND \nMINES AND GEOLOGY WOULD PROBABLY \nBE A GOOD SOURCE TO HELP \nUNDERSTAND THE AGGREGATE USE IN \nTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND \nLOCALLY\, BUT WE’RE NOT PREPARED \nTO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU \nTODAY\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SO WE CAN \nJUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA OF THE \nWORKING GROUP? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SURE. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: OKAY. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA WE’LL GO TO \nYOU NEXT THEN WE’LL MOVE TO \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON IN ROOM. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: MY CLASSMATE \nBARRY NELSON’S HAND WAS UP \nFIRST. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT \nWAS FIRST WE’RE TAKING VIRTUAL \nFIRST THEN QUESTIONS IN THE \nROOM. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: I THINK I HEARD \nTO COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S \nQUESTION\, BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME \nAS MINE\, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT \nTO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SAND \nTHAT’S MIND FROM THE BAY WHERE \nIS IT USED? IS IT USED ALL \nAROUND THE BAY OR IS IT EXPORTED \nTO AREAS OUTSIDE FOR USE SO END \nUSE OF THE SAND THAT’S MIND IN \nTHE BAY. I REALIZE YOU DON’T \nHAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW BUT I \nTHINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT \nPART OF THE WORK GROUP \nANALYSIS. \nAND SECOND\, WHAT ARE THE \nALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR SAND? \nAND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nOR ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF \nTHOSE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS? \nSO\, OTHER SOURCES\, IN OTHER \nWORDS. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YEAH. I \nBELIEVE YOUR QUESTION IS — YOUR \nFIRST QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY \nDIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER \nGUNTHERS\, WHICH IS\, I THINK\, THE \nPERCENTAGE OF BAY SANDS IN \nCOMPARISON TO ALL SANDS USED IN \nTHE REGION. YOURS IS A LITTLE \nDIFFERENT WHICH IS\, IS THE BAY \nSAND USED LOCALLY. I THINK THE \nANSWER TO THAT IS\, YES\, THE BAY \nMIND SAND IS USED LOCALLY. I \nBELIEVE BILL AND ERICA WILL \nCONFIRM THAT. BUT IT IS A VERY \nLOCAL RESOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION \nMATERIALS. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: IT WOULD BE \nUSEFUL TO KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF \nIT\, IF ANY\, IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE \nTHE BAY AREA FOR USE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. WE CAN \nGET YOU THAT NUMBER. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: AND I AGREE WITH \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION \nOF\, WHAT PERCENT OF MIND BAY \nSAND IS USED IN THE AREA VERSUS \nOTHER AREAS AND THE ALTERNATIVE \nSOURCES OF SAND IF SAND WERE \nLESS AVAILABLE FROM THE BAY AND \nWHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND \nECONOMIC FACTORS RELATED TO \nIMPACTS OF THAT. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES THAT WOULD \nBE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO \nRESEARCH AND PROVIDE AS PART OF \nTHE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP \nAND WE’LL PUT THAT ON THE LIST \n. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: YOU SEEM TO BE \nCLEAR THAT THERE IS SAND IS NOT \nSUSTAINABLE HAVING DIVISION \nQUANTITY\, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO \nFURTHER UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF \nTHIS SAND MINING ON BAYSHORE AND \nBEACHES? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SO IN EACH OF \nTHE — L IN THE FINDINGS REPORT \nIN EACH OF THE STUDIES\, THERE \nARE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT CAN \nHELP US GET AT THOSE QUESTIONS. \nONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN US \nUNDERSTANDING THE QUANTITY OF \nSAND THAT IS IN SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY WAS THE MERE COST OF TAKING \nTHREE DEEP CORES TO UNDERSTAND \nTHE DEPTH OF THE SAND VOLUME \nTHAT WAS DEPOSITED BACK AT THE \nTURN OF THE ICE AGE. SO\, WE \nCOULD HAVE SPENT $1.2 MILLION \nON THAT ONE STUDY BUT WE CHOSE \nNOT TO BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE \nGOTTEN US FAR LESS INFORMATION \nAND FRANKLY THE AMOUNT OF SAND \nBEING MIND IS IN THE UPPER PART \nOF THAT. THAT WAS AN APP \nQUESTION. WE DID NOT HAVE \nENOUGH FUNDS TO GO AND TRY TO \nMAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE \nSAND IN THE SYSTEM AND IT \nGETTING TO BEACH TRANSPORT. \nTHAT’S A FULLY DIDN’T \nDIFFERENT STUDY SO THERE ARE A \nNUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES \nTHAT WE COULD DO IF ADDITIONAL \nFUNDS WERE PROVIDED\, BUT $1.2 \nMILLION IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY \nWHEN YOU ARE STUDYING DEEP WATER \nSYSTEMS THAT ARE QUITE LARGE. \nI’LL LEAVE IT AT. WE COULD GO \nON\, BUT THAT’S THE SHORT ANSWER. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: COMMISSIONER \nMOULTON-PETERS MENTIONED \nALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF \nCONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND IT \nMAY BE FOR SOME KIND OF PROJECTS \nTHERE ARE\, OTHERS THEY’RE NOT\, \nARE YOU GOING TO BE LOOKING MORE \nAT THAT? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: WE CERTAINLY \nCAN. WE HAVE TO MEET WITH OUR \nWORKING GROUP CHAIR TO DEFINE \nBETTERA EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING \nTO BE LOOKING@EACH OF THE \nWORKING GROUPS BUT WE CAN \nREQUIRE THAT AS PART OF THE \nINFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE \nFEASIBILITIES OF SAND MINING IN \nTHE BAY AND ALTERNATIVES TO SAND \nMINING IN THE BAY. I SEE BILL’S \nHAND UP MAYBE I’LL TURN IT OVER \nTO HIM TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT \nALTERNATIVES. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU. \n>>BILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. \nCOMMISSIONER GIOIA THANK YOU FOR \nTHOSE QUESTIONS. I CAN CONFIRM \nTHAT THE BAY SAND MIND FROM THE \nBAY STAYS VERY REGIONAL WITHIN \nTHE BAY AREA. IT DOESN’T REALLY \nGO FOR USES OUTSIDE OF THE BAY. \nREGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCES OF \nMATERIAL\, ABSOLUTELY\, I THINK \nTHAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN \nLOOK AT A LITTLE HARDER\, GOING \nFORWARD. AS I MENTIONED BRIEFLY \nIN THE PRESENTATION\, YOU KNOW\, \nWHEN I SAID THAT ALL SAND IS NOT \nCONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND. AND \nEVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION GRADE \nSAND\, ALL SAND IS NOT CREATED \nEQUAL FOR THAT EITHER. SO \nYOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT FOR \nDIFFERENT USES\, ALTERNATIVE \nMATERIALS\, THERE IS DIFFERENT \nALTERNATE MATERIAL THAT CAN BE \nSUITABLE FOR THAT. BUT THAT’S \nCERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN \nADDRESS AND GET YOU THE ANSWER \nTO GOING FORWARD. \n>>JOHN GIOIA: THANKS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: \nTHANKS. I’LL TURN THAT OFF NOW. \nTHAT IS NOT OFF. \nOKAY. WE’RE WORKING? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>BARRY NELSON: \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU. SO\, JUST A COUPLE OF \nQUESTIONS. SOME COMMISSIONERS \nHAVE ASKED SOME OF THE OTHER \nQUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK. \nFIRST IS\, IT’S PRETTY CLEAR FROM \nTHIS WORK THAT WE’RE MINING \nRELIC SAND\, WHICH MEANS THAT \nTHIS ONGOING EXTRACTION ISN’T \nSUSTAINABLE. YOU CAN PUT A \nLITTLE TIME FRAME AROUND THAT? \nARE WE TAKING A 10th OF A \nPERCENT EVERY YEAR? TAKING A \n20th PERCENT EVERY YEAR. I’M \nTRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT \nTHE TIME FRAME IS AROUND THE \nNON-RENEWABILITY OF THAT \nRESOURCE. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: I CAN’T \nBECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TOTAL \nVOLUME OF SAND. WE DON THAT \nSAND IS NO LONGER COMING IN FROM \nTHE DELTA AND WE KNOW THAT THE \nSAND FROM THE WATERSHEDS IS NOT \nBEING SUPPLIED TO THE BEDS BEING \nMIND. WE DO SEE AREAS WHERE THE \nBED IS BEING LOWERED AND WE CAN \nSHOW PICTURES OF THAT IN THE \nCOMMISSION WORKING GROUP. THE \nOTHER THING IS WE DID VERY \nSPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF VERY \nLOCALIZED MINED AREAS\, AND THERE \nIS A LIMITED PORTION OF THOSE \nMINED AREAS WHERE SAND IS IN \nTRANSPORT. WHERE IT IS IN \nTRANSPORT MAXIMUM AMOUNT \nIN THOSE AREAS REFRESH I \nBELIEVE WAS 55% AND THERE ARE \nOTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT BEING \nREFRESHED. THERE IS VARIABLE \nWITHIN THE SITES DETAILED \nWITHIN SOME OF THE STUDIES WE \nOPTED NOT TO GET INTO LOTS OF \nDETAILS TODAY ABOUT THE STUDIES \nWITH THE FULL COMMISSION. \n>>BARRY NELSON: WE CAN TALK \nABOUT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS \nLATER THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT \nWE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ON THAT \nLATER ON. THE OTHER QUESTION \nWAS THE CONCLUSIONS ENACT THAT \nTHE IMPACTS ON BEACHES AND \nSHORES AREN’T QUANTIFIED I WOULD \nLOVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IT \nWOULD TAKE TO ANSWER THOSE \nQUESTIONS BUT AGAIN MAYBE THAT \nWAITS FOR OUR WORKING GROUP. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: DEFINITELY \nSOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE IDEAS \nWITH TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER IN \nTHE WORKING GROUP. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: — \n>>SPEAKER: I’M ASSUMING THE \nBEACHES ARE GIVING SOME OF THAT \nSAND BACK IN TO FILL THE HOLE. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: IT’S ALREADY \nBEEN ASKED. THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU. \nI THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS I \nHEARD WAS REGARDING \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS \nASSOCIATED WITH THE SAND MINING \nAND I THINK BRENDA MENTIONED \nTHAT WOULD BE PUT ON THE LIST \nFOR DISCUSSION DURING ONE OF THE \nWORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AND I \nWANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET \nSOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. \nWOULD THAT BE IN THE CONTEXT OF \nWHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESPONSIBLE \nAGENCY IN THE CONTEXT OF CEQA? \nOR KIND OF LIKE WHAT’S BEING \nASKED AND WHAT WOULD BE ON THE \nWORKING GROUP AGENDA AS IT \nRELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL \nIMPLICATIONS AND HOW DOES THAT \nRECONCILE WITH CEQA? \n>>SPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE \nHAVE FLUSHED OUT EXACTLY WHAT’S \nGOING TO BE IN ALL OF THE \nWORKING GROUPS YET I THINK WE’RE \nSTILL DECIDING AND LOOKING AT \nTHAT GETTING INPUT FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS AND FROM THE \nWORKING GROUP THEMSELVES. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: OKAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER \nPEMBERTON I’LL NOTE FOR YOU THAT \nCHRIS HEWITT WHO I UNDERSTAND IS \nIN THE CEQA LEAD HAS BEEN \nPARTICIPATING IN ALL OF THESE \nMEETINGS AND HAS ALL OF THE \nDOCUMENTS SO HE’S WELL AWARE OF \nTHE STUDIES AND FINDINGS. \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU \nBRENDA. I APPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I WASN’T SURE HOW TO \nRAISE MY HAND\, SINCE I’M \nIN-PERSON. ACTUALLY\, I HAVE A \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT. \nBECAUSE THE COMMENT THAT WAS \nMADE IS THAT THE — I CALL IT\, \nLIKE\, A VACUUM CLEANER\, AND YOU \nHAVE A SCREEN ON IT TO PREVENT \nFISH FROM COMING IN\, WHAT \nABOUT THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS \nTHAT ARE IN THE SAND? HAVE \nTHERE BEEN ANALYSIS OF THE \nIMPACT TO THE ORGANISMS WHETHER \nTHEY’RE SUCKED UP WITH THE SAND? \nDO YOU ACTUALLY SEE THEM? I’M \nKIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THE \nPRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS VACUUM \nCLEANER\, AND THIS SUCKING UP THE \nSAND AT THE BOTTOM. \nYOU CAN HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND \nWHAT THAT MECHANISM IS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO\, \nTHERE IS TWO MECHANISMS. ONE \nIS\, LIKE\, THE VACUUM CLEANER \nHAD THAT YOU SAW\, BELIEVE IT \nHAS A SIX BY SIX INCH OPENING \nGREAT\, AND SO ANYTHING — PLEASE \nCORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BILL \nERIK OR MIKE\, ANYTHING SMALLER \nTHAN SIX BY SIX \nGREAT COULD GO THROUGH THE DRAG \nHEAD ITSELF AND THE SCREEN IS ON \nTHE PUMP THAT BRINGS IN THE \nWATER AND THE SCREEN WILL NOT \nSCREEN SOUGHT NICHE BUT NOT \nPLANK TON AND LARVAE. THE DRAG \nHEAD ITSELF WOULD LIKE TAKE THE \nMATERIAL\, THE ANIMALS IN THE TOP \nOF THE SAND INTO AND THE PUMP \nTHROUGH THE SYSTEM MANY OF THOSE \nANIMALS ARE SOFT-BODIED AND \nWOULD NOT BE SEEN IN THE SAND \nBECAUSE OF THE ROUGHNESS OF THE \nSAND THROUGH THE PIPE. WE DID \nDO A BENTHIC STUDY I CAN’T \nREMEMBER THE YEAR\, I FEEL LIKE \nIT WAS 2017 OR 18\, AND THERE ARE \nSOME CONCLUSIONS THAT\, LIKE\, THE \nCRITTERS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE \nSAND ARE EARLY COLONIZERS \nBECAUSE THE SAND ITSELF IS SUCH \nA MOVING SYSTEM THAT YOU DON’T \nGET\, LIKE\, SOLID BUILT UP \nBENTHIC COMMUNITIES LIKE YOU \nMIGHT FIND IN FINE SAND\, BUT YOU \nWOULD ASSUME THAT THE CRITTERS \nARE BEING SUCKED UP IN THAT \nVACUUM-LIKE HEAD. AND THEN ON \nTHE OTHER TYPE\, WHICH YOU SAW\, \nWHICH LIND MARINE USES\, IT’S \nMORE OF A — I EQUATE IT TO\, \nLIKE\, A STRAW IN THE SAND. \nAND\, SO\, IT IS DOWN DEEPER\, \nPOTENTIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE YOU \nDON’T HAVE INVERTEBRATES \nLIVING. \nBECAUSE IT’S DEEP UNDER THE \nSAND. SO\, THERE MAY BE SOME \nDIFFERENCES. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE \nA STUD BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF \nMINING\, TO THE BEST OF MY \nKNOWLEDGE\, AGAIN\, PLEASE CORRECT \nME IF I’M WRONG. THAT GETS TO \nBE A VERY CONCLUSIVE STUDY. BUT \nTHERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF WORK \nAMONG THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY \nSIMPLY BECAUSE IT’S DEEP AND \nVERY DIFFICULT TO PLACE A \nMONITOR ASIDE FROM TWO STUDIES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO\, ARE WE GOING \nTO BE DOING ANY FUTURE WORK ON \nTHE IMPACT OF THE BENTHIC \nORGANISMS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THERE MAY BE \nSOME AS PART OF THE CEQA \nDOCUMENT\, BUT HONESTLY I DO NOT \nKNOW WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE \nANY REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXISTING \nPERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO \nTHE BIIOTA. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THE OTHER \nQUESTION I HAD IS THERE WAS \nMENTION OF A PRIVATE PARCEL. I \nTHINK IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE \nGROUND. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME TO \nUNDERSTAND WHY IS THERE A \nPRIVATE PARCEL IN THE BAY? AND \nARE THERE OTHER PRIVATE PARCELS \nTHAT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD \nABOUT YET? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO THAT \nPARCEL WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY \nTHE NAVY. IT IS NOW THE \nGROSSLY \nFAMILIES IT’S A PRIVATE PARCEL \nI WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO \nPARTICIPATE IN THE SUBTIDAL \nHABITAT GOALS PROJECT IN 2010 AS \nPART OF THAT PROJECT WE LOOKED \nAT THE OWNERSHIP OF SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY BOTTOM WHICH IS A \nLOT OF IT OWNED BY THE STATE\, \nTHERE ARE SOME OWNED BY PRIVATE \nIMPORTANT OWNERS AND IF YOU WANT \nTO SEE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE \nBOTTOM OF THE BAY\, YOU CAN GO TO \nTHE SUBTIDAL GOALS HABITAT \nPROJECT ON THE WEB AND LOOK AT \nBAYLAND OWNERSHIP MAP. AND IT \nWILL SHOW YOU THE PRIVATE PUBLIC \nOWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nIT’S QUITE FASCINATING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I’M VERY \nINTERESTED IN THAT PART OF IT. \nTHE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS \nTHAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOME \nOF THE SAND IS USED FOR \nRESTORATION OF BEACHES. SO\, \nWHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SAND THAT \nIS ACTUALLY USED IN THE \nCONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES VERSUS \nRESTORATION PROJECTS. DO WE \nKNOW WHAT THAT IS? \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: WELL\, I CAN \nTELL YOU WHAT I KNOW AND BILL \nCAN ADD. SO\, ONE PROJECT\, \nALAMEDA CROWN BEACH\, THERE IS \nACTUALLY A FLOOD PROTECTION \nPROJECT THAT WAS BUILT MANY\, \nMANY YEARS AGO TO REDUCE EROSION \nON THAT FRONT\, AND APPROXIMATELY \nEVERY 20 YEARS\, ABOUT 80\,000 \nCUBIC YARDS OF SAND IS PLACE ON \nTHAT BEACH TO REFRESH THE BEACH \nSAND THAT’S ERODED OVER THAT 20 \nYEAR PERIOD. AND I BELIEVE THE \nLAST TIME WE PLACED THAT AMOUNT \nOF SAND ON THAT BEACH WAS \n2013. \nTHE RAMBREW ISLAND TOOK SOME \nSAND DOLLAR’S A SMALL \nRESTORATION PROJECT AT \nRAMBRU ISLAND THAT TOOK MAYBE \n2\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND AND \nTHAT CAME OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO \nMARINA WEST SOME OF THE LARGER \nPIECES OF SAND MATERIAL I THINK \nFROM HANSON\, CORRECT ME IF I AM \nWRONG\, MARTIN MARIETTA\, FROM \nTHEIR YARD WHERE THEY HAVE A\, \nSORT OF\, TAILINGS SAND THAT \nTHEY’RE NOT USING FOR THE \nCONCRETE MATERIALS AND THEN \nTHERE IS ANOTHER SMALL \nRESTORATION PROJECT I BELIEVE \nAROUND PEER 94 THAT SAN \nFRANCISCO IS USING MOSTLY \nTAILINGS FROM THE HANSON MARTIN \nMARIETTA I DON’T KNOW THE VOLUME \nTHOSE ARE PRIMARY SAND FROM THE \nMINING FOR RESTORATION AND I’M \nHAPPY TO HEAR FROM \nMINERS FOR \nMORE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ACKNOWLEDGED \nWRITTEN IN THE REPORT RELEASED \nTHURSDAY. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SPECIFICALLY \nTHAT IS NOT ON THE RESTORATION \nOF THE SAND BUT COULD QUANTIFY \nTHAT FOR YOU. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: WHAT PERCENTAGE \nCURRENTLY BEING USED FOR FUTURE \nREFRESHED AND WHAT THE NEED IS. \nTHANK YOU. INTERESTING \nPRESENTATION. HAVING BEEN ON \nTHE HOPPER DREDGE DECADES AGO\, I \nSEE A LOT OF RELATIONSHIP TO \nTHIS ACTIVITY. SO\, THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE \nCHAIR EISEN. THERE ARE NO MORE \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL \nRIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I \nWANT TO THANK YOU\, BRENDA FOR \nYOUR WONDERFUL PRESENTATION. \nAND FOR THE MINER’S \nPRESENTATION. AND I \nSPECIFICALLY WANT TO THANK PAT\, \nANDY\, AND BARRY\, WHO CAN SEE \nMAYBE NOT REGRETTING THAT THEY \nVOLUNTEERED FOR THIS WORKING \nGROUP COMMITTEE. BUT CAN SEE \nTHAT THIS IS QUITE A TASK. AND \nI APPRECIATE ALL OF THE \nCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. BECAUSE \nI THINK THAT REALLY HELPS OUR \nWORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE \nDOING SO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING ON \nTHIS TO\, SORT OF\, SEE WHAT THE \nCOMMISSION IS GOING TO BE \nINTERESTED IN KNOWING AND \nUNDERSTANDING BEFORE WE GET DO \nTHIS PERMIT PROCESS. SO\, THANKS \nTO ALL OF YOU. \nWE NOW HAVE — \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: VICE CHAIR \nEISEN\, YOU CAN ASK ONE THING? \nWE MAY BE LOSING A PERSON OR \nTWO\, DEPENDING ON PHONE CALLS\, \nET CETERA\, WHO MAYBE COMING \nBACK\, ET CETERA AND SO O IT \nMIGHT BE GOOD FOR YOU TO SAY THE \nCOMMISSION WILL GO INTO \nCOMMITTEE IF THAT HAPPENS\, AND \nJUST IN THE FUTURE\, JUST TO MAKE \nSURE THAT THAT’S ON THE RECORD. \nTHERE ARE NO VOTES SCHEDULED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. YES. WE DON’T HAVE \nANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO VOTE O \nBUT IF WE LOSE OUR QUORUM\, WE \nWILL GO INTO COMMITTEE\, AS YOU \nPUT IT. IS THAT — DOES THAT DO \nIT\, LARRY? \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: AWESOME. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. SO\, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR \nAGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE \nPROGRESS MADE BY THE SEDIMENT \nFOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. \nAND THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROJECT \nIS TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY \nAND USE OF SEDIMENTS AND SOILS \nTO RESTORE AND ADAPT WETLANDS TO \nRISING SEA LEVELS. \nOUR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKING \nGROUP WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY \nTO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. AND \nBCDC HOSTED A TWO-DAY IN-PERSON \nPUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC IN \nJANUARY AND IN FEBRUARY. SO\, \nMAYA MCLERNEY OF OUR STAFF IS \nGOING TO BEGIN THE BRIEFING ON \nTHIS PROJECT. THANK YOU\, MAYA. \n>>MAYA MCLERNEY: ALL RIGHT. \nTHANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON VICE \nCHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. \nMY NAME IS MAYA MCLERNEY\, AND I \nAM A PROJECT MANAGER FOR \nSEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION \nPROJECT I WORKED CLOSELY WITH \nBRENDA GODEN AND ERIK BEE MAN ON \nTHIS PROJECT. I’LL PROVIDE A \nBRIEFING ON SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT \nWORKSHOPS THAT WE HELD EARLIER \nTHIS YEAR AND BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN THAT WE’RE \nDEVELOPING RIGHT NOW. BEFORE I \nGET INTO THAT I WANT TO TALK \nABOUT WETLANDS AND SEDIMENT FOR \nWETLAND ADAPTING A PROJECT MORE \nGENERALLY. YOU LIKELY ALREADY \nKNOW THIS BUT WETLAND WILL NOT \nBE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH SEA \nLEVEL RISE WITHOUT OUR HELP WE \nNEED TO ACT NOW TO HELP WETLAND \nBE ABLE TO ADAPT BY RAISING \nELEVATIONS AND SUPPORTING THE \nESTABLISHMENT OF PLANS AND \nECOSYSTEMS. THERE HAS BEEN A \nLOT OF WORK DONE IN THE AREA OF \nSEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN OUR \nREGION SPECIFICALLY AND WE’RE \nBRINGING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER \nTHROUGH OUR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND \nADAPTATION PROJECT. OUR PROJECT \nGOAL IS TO INCREASE THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL FOR WETLAND HABITAT \nRESTORATION RESILIENCE SEA LEVEL \nRISE ADAPTATION IN THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY AREA. PART OF \nTHIS PROJECT\, AS PART OF THAT \nPROJECT\, BCDC IS DEVELOPING A \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN \nBASED ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS \nTHAT WE CONDUCTED EARLIER THIS \nYEAR. THIS IS A REGIONAL CALL \nTO ACTION WITH TASKS THAT WILL \nBE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH INCREASED \nCOLLABORATION WITH AND AMONG \nSTAKEHOLDERS AND ENTITY NOT ONLY \nBCDC WHO WILL SHARE IN THE GOAL \nOF INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE \nIN WETLAND TO HELP ADAPT TO \nRISING SEAS. BCDC WILL \nUNDERTAKE POLICY CHANGES LATER \nTHIS YEAR AND DEVELOP FINANCIAL \nSTRATEGY TO SUPPORT BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. WHAT EXACTLY IS \nBENEFICIAL REUSE YOU MAY BE \nASKING. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT \nRECOGNIZING SEDIMENT AND SOIL AS \nA VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE \nNECESSARY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTING A AND SHIFTING MINDSET \nFROM TREATING IT AS A WASTE \nPRODUCT TO BE DISPOSED OF TO \nSEEING AS A RESOURCE THAT CAN BE \nOFFICIALLY REUSED TO SUPPORT \nGREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND \nNATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS LIKE \nMARSH RESTORATION AND HABITAT \nREHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT \nALONG THE EDGE OF THE BAY. \nWE’RE TALKING ABOUT SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL FROM DREDGED NAVIGATION \nCHANNELS\, STREAMS AND FLOOD \nPROTECTION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE \nMATERIALS AND EXCESS \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS. SO SEDIMENT \nWETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT SWAP \nFOR SHORT FOCUSED ON ENSURING \nTHAT THESE MATERIALS ARE REUSED \nFOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSE \nSPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT WETLAND \nSO THE TIMELINE FOR THE SWAP IS \nSHOWN HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. \nWE’RE IN PHASE ONE CURRENTLY OF \nTHE THREE FACE\, THREE YEAR \nPROJECT. THIS PHASE IS ALL \nABOUT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AT \nTHE END OF THE FIRST PHASE WE’LL \nHAVE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION \nPLAN FOR THE REGION AND WILL \nINCLUDE TASKS FOR ALL \nSTAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN \nSEDIMENT NOT JUST BCDC AND WE’LL \nHAVE A COALITION OF STAKEHOLDERS \nTO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF \nTHIS ACTION PLAN. PHASE ONE \nWILL WRAP UP IN 2024 PRETTY SOON \nIN 2024\, AND WITH PHASE 2 AND 3 \nTAKING PLACE FROM THE END OF \n2024 THROUGH 2025. AND THIS \nPHASES 2 AND 3 WILL INCLUDE A \nPOTENTIAL BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AND \nFINANCING STRATEGY TO ASSESS \nCOSTS AND FEASIBILITY AND \nFUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE AND \nPART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN \nINCLUDES MEETINGS WITH OUR \nSEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE \nCOMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP SOME \nOF WHOM ARE IN THE ROOM. AND WE \nARE ALSO MEETING WITH — YEAH \nWE’RE GOING TO BE MEETING ALSO \nWITH OUR CORE TEAM. MEETING \nWITH A BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING \nGROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE GUIDING \nOUR STAFF WORK ON THE PROJECT \nAND IS GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY \nIMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY AS WE GET \nINTO THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PART \nOF THIS PROCESS. \nAND COLLABORATION IS AT THE \nHEART OF THIS. YOU KNOW\, AS WE \nMEET REGULARLY WITH OUR CORE \nTEAM\, WE’RE GOING TO BE GOING \nTHROUGH THE — \n[LAUGHTER] \nSO\, ALONG WITH BCDC\, OUR CORE \nTEAM IS MADE UP OF THE REGIONAL \nWATER BOARD\, THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY\, THE SF ESTUARY \nINSTITUTE\, SF JOINT VENTURE AND \nUS EPA\, THESE GROUPS ARE \nASSISTING IN CONCEPT AND CONTENT \nDEVELOPMENT. WE’RE GRATEFUL TO \nTHESE AND ALL PARTNERS IN THE \nPROJECT. TOGETHER WITH THE CORE \nTEAM AND OUR SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP \nWE DESIGNED AN INFORMATIONAL \nBRIEFING SERIES THAT WAS ROLLED \nOUT AT THE WORKING GROUP \nMEETINGS IN 2023. \nSO\, THE COMMISSIONER WORKING \nGROUP INVITED EXPERTS TO COME \nAND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS \nON THE WORKING GROUP AND \nINTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC \nTO DESCRIBE THE SEDIMENT \nPROCESSES AND CHALLENGES AND \nBRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED ON \nTHE ISSUES. THESE INFORMATIONAL \nBRIEFINGS WERE INTENDED TO \nPREPARE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE \nBAY PLAN AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS \nTO COME AND TO PREPARE \nSTAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR \nCONVERSATIONS HELD AT THE \nWORKSHOP EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE \nBRIEFINGS COVERED SF BAY \nSEDIMENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM\, THE \nPROCESS OF NATURAL SEDIMENT \nSUPPLY TO BAY MARSHES\, SEDIMENT \nCONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES \nAND WETLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECTS\, NAVIGATION DREDGING AS \nA SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AS WELL AS \nFLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS AS A \nSOURCE OF SAID AMOUNTED AND \nCONSTRUCTION AND UPLAND SOURCES \nOF SEDIMENT AND SOILS. WE \nWRAPPED UP THE SERIES OF \nBRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR \nALL PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE \nON THE COMMISSION’S WEB SITE. \nAND THEN IN JANUARY WE TURNED \nOUR ATTENTION TO THE SEDIMENT \nMANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER \nWORKSHOP. \nTHIS WAS A TWO-DAY WORKSHOP THAT \nWAS HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND \nIT WAS A CHANCE FOR STAKEHOLDERS \nTO COME TOGETHER AS A \nCOMMUNITY. \nWE HAD OVER 50 AGENCIES AND \nORGANIZATIONS IN ATTENDANCE TO \nSUPPORT CHANGES IN HOW SEDIMENT \nIS MANAGED IN THE BAY AREA. \nTHIS WORK BUILDS ON AND WIDENS \nTHE COALITION OF INTERESTED \nPARTIES IN THIS ARENA A WE \nBELIEVE THIS GROUP CAN AND WILL \nMAKE REAL CHANGES OVER THE \nYEARS TO COME. THE WORKSHOP HAD \nBREAKOUT SESSIONS TO DISCUSS \nISSUES AND PERCEIVED BARRIERS \nAND WE PRESENTED POTENTIAL \nSOLUTIONS. NOW\, THE ISSUE OF \nHOW INCREASED BENEFICIAL — OR \nINCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE AND \nPOTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THIS HAS \nALREADY BEEN PREVIOUSLY \nDISCUSSED IN A NUMBER OF FORUMS \nBY MOST STAKEHOLDERS WHO \nATTENDED THE WORKSHOP BUT WE \nNEVER COLLECTED EVERYONE \nTOGETHER TO REACH CONSENSUS AND \nFORMALIZE INFORMATION UNTIL NOW\, \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR BARRIERS \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL REUSE AND \nGAINED CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF \nIDEAS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING \nACTIONS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS \nTO HELP GET THE PROPOSED WORK \nDONE THE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED MAKE \nUP SUBSTANCE OF BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY \nBEING DRAFTED WITH AND WILL BE \nRELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nSOON. THE ACTION PLAN \nSTRUCTURED IN A STRAIGHT FORWARD \nWAY WE BELIEVE A STATEMENT OF \nPURPOSE SECTION THAT INTRODUCES \nISSUES AND NEEDS TO INCREASE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE\, BACKGROUND\, \nGOALS\, PRINCIPLES GOALS ARE \nPRIMARILY TO HELP ORGANIZE \nACTIONS AND PRINCIPLES FIND HOW \nTHE COALITION WILL WORK TOGETHER \nTO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN TASKS. \nSEDIMENT WETLAND SECTION COVERS \nTHREE MAIN SOURCES OF SEDIMENT \nSOIL CONSTRUCTION NAVIGATION \nFLOOD CONTROL DREDGING SECTION \nDETAILS ISSUES IN EACH SECTOR TO \nGET MATERIAL FROM THE SOURCE TO \nTHE PLACEMENT OF THE SITE. \nLASTLY THE FOCUS WHERE THE MEAT \nOF THIS DOCUMENT LIES WHERE WE \nPRESENT THE APPROXIMATELY 80 \nTASKS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE \nREGION BUT BEFORE I WANT TO \nPRESENT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF \nTHE ACTION PLAN FIRST GOAL IS TO \nSTRENGTHEN THE EXISTING REGIONAL \nPARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT INCREASED \nSOIL REUSE AND EXPAND AND \nIMPROVE COORDINATION AMONG \nGOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY \nSTAKEHOLDERS TO FILL \nCOLLABORATION GAPS AMONG SECTORS \nINVOLVED IN SEDIMENT AND SOIL \nMANAGEMENT SECOND GOAL IDENTIFY \nAND PREPARE SITES FOR BENEFICIAL \nREUSE BY SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT \nOF NEW EXISTING RESTORATION \nSITES TO PREPARE TO RECEIVE \nSEDIMENT AND THIRD GOAL \nCOORDINATE SEDIMENT AND SOIL \nSUPPLY RESTORATION NEEDS TO \nFACILITATE TIMELY DELIVER OF \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL. FOURTH GOAL \nIMPROVE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS \nIDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING \nPOLICY AND REGULATORY \nIMPROVEMENTS ACROSS AGENCIES AND \nENCOURAGE MORE BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. \nFINAL GOAL OF THE ACTION PLAN TO \nDEVELOP FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES \nEXPAND AND SECURE FEDERAL\, \nSTATE\, REGIONAL AND PRIVATE \nFUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. \nPRINCIPLES LISTED IN THE ACTION \nPLAN HELP DEFINE HOW BCDC AND \nTHE CORE TEAM INTEND TO WORK \nTOGETHER AND WITH THE COALITION \nTO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION PLAN \nTHIS WILL BE DONE WITH FOCUS ON \nCOORDINATION\, COMMUNICATION AND \nCOLLABORATION TO ORGANIZE THE \nMANY ENTITIES WORKING IN THIS \nSPACE. AND THROUGH EQUITY TO \nENSURE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF \nSEDIMENT IN THE REGION AND TO \nPRIORITIZE COMMUNITY INPUTS\, AS \nWELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL \nSTEWARDSHIP TO SUPPORT EXISTING \nWETLANDS AND SEA LEVEL RISE \nRESILIENCY. AND IT CAN’T BE \nDONE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY TO \nENSURE THAT ALL ARE ABLE TO \nTRACK PROGRESS AND GIVE INPUT\, \nAND SPEED AND AGILITY IS A \nCRITICAL PRINCIPLE DUE TO \nLIMITED TIME WE HAVE TO MAKE \nCHANGES OUTLINED IN THE ACTION \nPLAN AND TO GET AHEAD OF SEA \nLEVEL RISE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE \nTHANKFULLY THERE ARE MANY OTHER \nGROUPS DOING GREAT WORK IN THE \nSPACE AND THE COALITION SHOULD \nBE CAPITALIZING ON EXISTING WORK \nAND BUILDING OFF OF IT. EIGHT \nFOCUS AREAS OF BENEFICIAL REUSE \nACTION PLAN ARE GOVERNANCE\, \nREGIONAL COORDINATION\, REGIONAL \nPLANNING RESEARCH\, FEDERAL AND \nSTATE REGIONAL POLICIES AND \nCOMMUNICATION\, REGULATIONS AND \nPERMITTING PILOT PROJECTS\, \nSEDIMENT AND SOIL QUALITY AND \nTIMING AND AVAILABILITY OF \nMATERIALS AND PLACEMENT AND \nCOSTS OF FUNDING. WITHIN EACH \nOF THESE FOCUS AREAS THERE ARE \nSPECIFIC ACTIONABLE TASKS THAT \nWILL NEED LEAD ORGANIZATIONS \nTHAT WILL CARRY OUT SOME OF THE \nWORK PRESCRIBED IN THE TASKS. \nSPECIFIC TASKS DEVELOPED THROUGH \nCONVERSATIONS AND INTERVIEWS \nWITH PARTICIPANTS\, BRAINSTORMING \nINTERNALLY\, CORRELATED ACTIONS \nAND TASKS INTO A MATRIX WE HAD \n140 POTENTIAL TASKS LISTED IN \nTHE MATRIX\, TWO WORKSHOP DAYS \nWERE A GREAT WAY TO EXPLORE THEM \nTASKS FURTHER\, AND PHOTOS FROM \nTHE WORKSHOPS\, WE TOOK COMMENTS \nGATHERED THROUGH THOSE \nBREAKOUT SESSIONS AND SIFTED \nAND SORTED CONSOLIDATED TASKS \nFURTHER TO GET OUR 80 OR SO \nTASKS. TO BE IN THE FINAL \nACTION PLAN THE TASK HAD TO BE \nFOCUSED ON INCREASING BENEFICIAL \nREUSE OF SEDIMENT SOIL\, \nACHIEVABLE IN 1 TO 5 YEARS\, HAVE \nAN IDENTIFIABLE CHAMPION AND \nHAVE REGIONAL SUPPORT MOST OF \nTHE WINNING PROCESS INVOLVED \nCONSOLIDATING THESE IDEAS WE \nCREATED A LOT FOR TASKS AND \nTHINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THE \nPROCESS WHY THEY DIDN’T MAKE THE \nCUT. WHAT’S NEXT? WE’RE \nWORKING TO RELEASE THE \nBENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN IN \nTHE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND BE POSTED \nTO THE WEB SITE COLLECTING \nCOMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR \nABOUT A MONTH LOOK OUT FOR THAT \nIF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN \nREVIEWING TASKS AND POTENTIALLY \nCOMMENTING ON THE ACTION PLAN \nAFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL \nFINALIZE THE DOCUMENT AND POST \nTO OUR WEB SITE WE’LL SWITCH \nGEARS ONCE THAT’S WRAPPED UP AND \nCOME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION \nWHEN WE ARE READY TO INITIATE \nTHE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROSLATER \nTHIS YEAR TO ADDRESS NECESSARY \nUPDATES REGARDING SEDIMENT AND \nBENEFICIAL REUSE RAMPING UP \nDISCUSSIONS WITH THE FINANCING \nFUTURE WORKING GROUP DEVELOPING \nSUPPORT FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE \nWE’RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS WORK\, \nSUPPORTING WETLAND AND ENSURING \nTHEY ARE STILL HERE PROVIDING \nMANY BENEFITS FOR 50 TO 100 \nYEARS AND BEYOND. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND I \nWOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS \nABOUT THE PROJECT \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, MAYA\, DON’T GO AWAY. \nFIRST WE’LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT \nTHEN GET TO COMMISSIONER \nQUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nHAVE NO ONE IN THE ROOM AND NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>SPEAKER: I HAVE SOME. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE’LL \nHAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS\, \nOBVIOUSLY\, BUT NO PUBLIC \nCOMMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M SORRY. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nWORRIES. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO \nWE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT\, \nRIGHT\, SIERRA? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nRIGHT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nWE’RE READY FOR COMMISSIONER \nQUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCORRECT. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nLOOKS LIKE — \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE \nCAN START WITH COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: START WITH ME? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. I’M VERY HONORED THAT I \nGET TO GO FIRST HERE. I HAVE \nBEEN INVOLVED IN REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT\, OBVIOUSLY\, FOR WETLAND \nRESTORATION. ALSO\, IN SOME \nWETLAND RESTORATION\, I DON’T \nKNOW IF IT’S STILL BE DONE OR \nNOT\, SOMETIMES DEMOLITION DEBRIS \nHAS ALSO BEEN USED. IS THAT \nSTILL HAPPENING? OR IS IT \nPRIMARILY JUST SEDIMENT AND \nSOIL? \n>>SPEAKER: FOR THIS ONE WE’RE \nLOOKING AT EXCAVATED SOILS FROM \nPROJECTS SUCH AS PARKING\, \nSUBGRADE PARK LOTS AND WHAT \nNOT. \nYEAH. I THINK THAT’S ANOTHER \nTOPIC OF A POTENTIAL USE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OH OKAY. REUSE \nOF DEMOLITION DEBRIS? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. SPECIFICALLY\, \nI DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT IS \nUSED\, OR REGULATED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY. I KNOW \nTHAT’S BEEN USED IN THE PAST FOR \nSOME WETLANDS RESTORATION. \n>>SPEAKER: >>BRENDA GOEDIN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THIS IS \nBRENDA AGAIN. WE’RE NOT \nSPECIFICALLY TARGETING \nCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. WE’RE \nLOOKING AT UPLAND ACCESS \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS LIKE WHAT’S \nBEING DUG UP FOR BASEMENTS. I \nDON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A \nPROHIBITION OF USING CLEAN \nCONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. I KNOW \nHAMILTON WAS ONE THAT USED \nCONCRETE IN THE DEEP PARTS OF \nTHE BAY OR SITES THAT DIDN’T \nINHIBIT DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND. \nWE’RE JUST NOT TRYING RIGHT NOW \nTO SOURCE THAT MATERIAL. IT \nWOULD BE\, SORT OF\, A WHOLE OTHER \nWORLD OF ISSUES THAT WE WOULD \nHAVE TO ADDRESS. SO IT’S NOT \nCURRENTLY IN THE PLAN. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. THAT’S \n— \nI WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE \nHAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION \nPROJECT. NOT ONLY AS AN EPA \nEMPLOYEE\, BUT ALSO AS A RESIDENT \nAT THAT TIME. THE DREDGE \nMATERIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING \nDREDGED IN THE BAY BY THE ARMY \nCORP OF ENGINEERS AND OTHER \nDREDGING OPERATIONS HAVE WE \nQUANTIFIED WHAT THAT IS AND DO \nWE NEED MORE THAN WHAT’S \nCURRENTLY BEING DREDGE IN ORDER \nTO KEEP OUR SHIPPING INDUSTRY \nSTILL ACTIVE? OR ARE WE GOING \nTO NEED MORE SOIL ELSEWHERE \nIN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO ARE YOU ASKING \nABOUT IF THERE IS ENOUGH \nSEDIMENT SUPPLY ON THE \nNAVIGATION DREDGE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. FROM THE \nNATURAL — FROM THE DREDGE \nTHAT’S OCCURRING IN THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY AREA\, TOTAL\, AND \nIF IT ISN’T SUFFICIENT\, ARE WE \nLOOKING ALSO FOR REUSE OF SOIL \nFROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT\, AS \nWELL? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, WE ARE \n— \nTHERE IS THE LTMS MANAGES YOU \nKNOW\, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT \nDREDGE MATERIAL\, AND THERE IS A \nGOAL TO 40% OF IT BENEFICIALLY. \nAND THAT HAS BEEN MET\, I THINK \nIN THE LAST — I’M LOOKING AT \nBRENDA ON THE SCREEN\, SHE IS OUR \nLTMS REP BUT I’LL LET HER JUMP \nIN. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER \nECKLUND\, THE COMMISSION FOR \nSEDIMENT REPORT ESTIMATED WE \nNEED 50 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF \nSOIL SEDIMENT SPECIFICALLY TO \nHELP SEA LEVEL RISE. WE DREDGE \nBETWEEN 2 AND 3 MILLION ‘S \nANNUALLY\, ARMY CORP\, PRIVATE \nPORTS\, MARINAS REFINERIES\, ET \nCETERA. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH THEY \nTHINK IT REPRESENTS 50 TO 60% \nOVER TIME. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT \nTHE UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, \nSOUTH BAY SALT PONDS SHORELINE \nARE CURRENTLY IMPORTING \nCONSTRUCTION SOILS CLEAN SOILS \nTO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT \nRESTORATION. THERE IS \nADDITIONAL MATERIAL\, ALTHOUGH \nMUCH SMALLER AMOUNT IN THE LOCAL \nFLOOD PROTECTION AND STREAM BED \nMAINTENANCE MATERIALS. BUT THE \nGENERAL CONSENSUS IS WE DO NOT \nHAVE ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING \nTHAT WE’RE HOPING TO DO AND KEEP \nUP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WHICH IS \nONE OF THE REASONS WE’RE PUSHING \nVERY HARD TO GET AS MUCH OF IT \nGOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS \nPOSSIBLE. THEN THERE IS A \nFURTHER FIELD OF SOURCES SUCH AS \nRESERVOIRS WHICH ARE A DIFFERENT \nSUPPLY MUCH MORE CHALLENGING TO \nGET INTO BUT WE’RE STARTING HERE \nWITH THIS ONE TO A FIVE-YEAR \nPROJECT TO TRY TO FREE UP AS \nMUCH OF THE MATERIAL GETTING IT \nTO THE RIGHT PLACE AS POSSIBLE \nTO GET RID OF SOME OF THE \nBARRIERS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I GUESS \nTHE ISSUE THERE IS THAT SINCE IT \nISN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH THEN \nWE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE \nOUT HOW WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE \nTO COLLECT SOME OF THE SOIL THAT \nIS EXCAVATED NOT ONLY FOR MAJOR \nCONSTRUCTION\, BUT ALSO MAYBE \nEVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL\, AS WELL. \nI KNOW THAT THERE’S A LOT OF \nCHANGING OF THE BUILDINGS\, FOR \nAN EXAMPLE\, FROM OFFICE TO \nRESIDENTIAL. AND\, SO\, A LOT OF \nTHAT — SOME OF THE BUILDINGS \nWILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. \nAND\, SO THAT’S GOING TO BE A LOT \nOF DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT MAY \nBE AVAILABLE IF WE’RE GOING TO \nFIGURE OUT HOW TO COLLECT IT AS \nA SOCIETY OR HERE IN CALIFORNIA \nOR EVEN IN THE BAY AREA SAME \nWITH SOIL FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS \nTOO. JUST HAVING A RECENT \nEXPERIENCE OF HAVING SOME SOIL \nWE NEEDED TO GET RID OF\, I WAS \nSHOCKED THAT THERE WASN’T A \nPLACE THAT I COULD TAKE IT TO. \nAND FOR IT TO BE REUSED\, BECAUSE \nIT WAS CLEAN\, AND SO IT HAD \nTO BE THROWN AWAY IN THE \nGARBAGE\, WHICH YOU DO NOT WANT \nTO FILL UP THE LANDFILL WITH \nGOOD SOIL OR GOOD DEMOLITION \nDEBRIS WHEN IT COULD BE USED \nELSEWHERE. SO\, THIS IS MAYBE \nSOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO GET \nSOME OF THE STATE AGENCIES \nINVOLVED IN THAT REALLY PROMOTE \nRECYCLING OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT \nMATERIALS. ANYWAY\, I JUST \nREMEMBER FROM MY DAYS WITH THE \nARMY CORP AND WITH EPA THAT WE \nDID NOT HAVE ENOUGH DREDGE \nMATERIAL. AND I JUST WANT TO \nSEE IF THAT WAS STILL THE CASE. \nWHICH IT IS. AND I’M JUST \nREALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE \nPOSSIBILITY OF EVEN MAYBE \nCHANGING HOW WE DEAL WITH \nCONSTRUCTION COMPANIES\, AS WELL \nAS INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND HOW \nWE CAN REUSE THAT MATERIAL \nTHAT’S SO VALUABLE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER SHOWALTER. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH. I \nJUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO \nTHANK THE STAFF FOR THE WORK \nTHAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE. I\, \nSORT OF\, VIEWED THIS AS THEM \nSUPPLYING US WITH A CLASS OF \nSEDIMENT 101. WE HAVE REALLY \nHAD AMAZING SPEAKERS COME TALK \nTO US ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND\, \nSORT OF\, THE OPERATION OF \nSEDIMENT REMOVAL IN SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY. AND IT’S JUST \nGIVING US\, WE GOT A GREAT \nFOUNDATION\, AND THEN WE HAD THE \nWORKSHOPS. SO\, I THINK IT WAS \nKIND OF THE BEST WAY WE COULD \nPOSSIBLY GET A STAKEHOLDER GROUP \nTOGETHER\, GET THEM ALL ON THE \nSAME PAGE\, AND THEN HAVE THEM \nBRAINSTORM. SO\, I REALLY ENJOY \nTAKING PART IN THIS. AND I LOOK \nFORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, THE NEXT \nFEW STEPS YOU COME UP WITH\, AND \nI’M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE \nLIST IS NEAR 80 NOW. SO\, THANK \nYOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO ADD \nMY THANKS TO THE STAFF AND OUR \nCOMMITTEE FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE \nDONE. AND JUST TO SAY THAT I’M \nREALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, BRINGING ALL THE AGENCIES \nON BOARD WITH THIS BENEFICIAL \nREUSE. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE\, I \nHAVE A PROJECT AT McGINNIS MARSH \nWHERE WE HAVE GALENA’S CREEK \nRIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT WE ARE \nGOING TO DREDGE AND WE ARE \nAWAITING TO GET APPROVAL FROM \nNUMEROUS AGENCIES TO PUT THEM ON \nTHE MARSH AND IT’S TAKING AN \nAGONIZING LONG TIME SO I LOOK \nFORWARD TO THE PROCESS WHEN IT \nTHE RIGHT THING TO DO. THANK \nYOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY \nADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: REBECCA\, I HAD \nHAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE COST. \nIF THE SEDIMENT ITSELF IS THAT \nOF THE QUALITY THAT WE NEED FOR \nPARTICULAR WETLAND\, HAS IT BEEN \nDISCUSSED ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THE \nCLEAN UP OF THAT MATERIAL? OR \nWHETHER IT’S NOT EVEN JUST USED \nTHEN? THANK YOU. \n>>BRENDA GOEDIN: SURE. THAT \nONE WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH ALL \nOF THE COSTS AND FUNDING \nSITUATIONS AND SCENARIOS YET. \nSO WE’LL PROBABLY SUBJECT KIND \nOF LEAVING THAT ONE TO TALK \nABOUT LATER ON. \n>>MAYA MCLERNEY: — \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nGREAT. THANK YOU MAYA. THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. \nTHANK YOU TO ALL THE \nCOMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY \nTHOSE WHO ARE ON THE WORKING \nGROUP WHO ARE DEALING WITH ALL \nOF THESE ISSUES ON OUR BEHALF. \nI APPRECIATE IT. \nWE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION ON \nDELTA ADAPT. THAT IS A CLIMATE \nCHANGE ADAPTATION STUDY\, WHICH \nHAS BEEN CREATED AND MANAGED BY \nTHE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL. \nAND IT’S DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE \nDELTA’S RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE HAZARDS\, INCLUDING\, OF \nCOURSE\, SEA LEVEL RISE. THE \nBRIEFING WILL BE PROVIDED BY \nCORY COPELAND WHO IS BCDC’S \nCHIEF SCIENTIST AND ALSO A \nFORMER DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL \nSTAFF MEMBER. SO\, THANK YOU\, \nCORY FOR THE PRESENTATION YOU’RE \nABOUT TO GIVE US. \n>>CORY COPELAND: YEAH. I \nACTUALLY WON’T BE GIVING T I’LL \nBE INTRODUCING THE STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO \nMUCH CHAIR EISEN AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. I’M REALLY \nPLEASED TO BE INTRODUCING THIS \nITEM. AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, \nI HAD OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON \nTHIS DURING MY TIME AT THE DELTA \nSTEWARDSHIP COUNCIL BEFORE \nJOINING BCDC AS THE ADAPTING TO \nRISING TIDESRISING TIDES IN \nSCIENCE MANAGER. \nDELTA ADAPTS IS THE STATE \nCLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTING A PLAN \nFOR SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN AND \nUPPER ESTUARY OF SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY DELTA I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH \nSIDES OF THE COLLABORATION BCDC \nAND DELTA STEWARDSHIP WORK \nAROUND CLIMATE ADAPTATION. FOR \nCONTEXT THE FUNDING INVESTMENT \nFRAMEWORK THAT HELPED US \nIDENTIFY A $110 BILLION NEED FOR \nINVESTMENT IN SEA LEVEL RISE \nADAPTATION IN THE BAY AREA FOR \nCERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE \nANALYSIS\, USED HYDROLOFICIC WORK \nTHAT WAS DONE FOR DELTA ADAPT \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT. WITH \nTHAT INNER RELATIONSHIP IN MIND\, \nI’M REALLY GLAD TO HAVE A COUPLE \nOF FOLKS FROM THE DELTA \nSTEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HERE TO \nPRESENT ON THEIR ADAPTATION PLAN \nTHAT IS COMING OUT SOON. SO\, \nHERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ARE JEFF \nHENDERSON\, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR \nFOR THE STEWARDSHIP ARE COUNCIL\, \nAND MORGAN C\, FORMER BCDC \nEMPLOYEE WHO IS NOW THE MANAGER \nOF CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT THE \nDELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL WHO \nWILL GIVING A PRESENTATION THAT \nI WILL BE SHARING. \nˆ >>JEFF LEVIN: \nˆ >>JEFFREY TUMLIN: \nˆ >>JEFFREY LEVIN: \nˆ >>JEFF MCKAY: \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: THANK YOU \nCORY. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT \nSLIDE. \n>>SPEAKER: DOES THAT LOOK \nCORRECT? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT \nLOOKS GOOD IN THE BOARDROOM. \n>>SPEAKER: THAT LOOKS GOOD \nCORY. \n>>SPEAKER: IT LOOKS GOOD \nONLINE. \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: ALL RIGHT. \nGOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. \nIT’S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE ON \nBEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT \nON OUR DELTA ADAPT CLIMATE \nCHANGE INITIATIVE. THIS \nINITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT WE \nHAVE BEEN LEADING SINCE 2018\, \nWITH A GOAL TO BETTER UNDERSTAND \nSPECIFIC RISKS FACED BY THE \nDELTA AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO \nPREPARE ACCORDINGLY. \nTO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, IT’S THE FIRST \nOF ITS KIND FOR THE ENTIRE DELTA \nREGION THAT CUTS ACROSS MULTIPLE \nTOPICS. THERE HAVE BEEN \nADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED AT THE \nLOCAL LEVEL\, OR ADAPTATION PLANS \nPREPARED TO ADDRESS A SINGLE \nTOPIC SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY OR \nECOSYSTEM OR FLOODING OR \nAGRICULTURE. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, \nTHIS IS THE FIRST AT SCALE THAT \nADDRESSES MULTIPLE SECTORS AND \nTOPICS ACROSS THE FULL REGION OF \nTHE DELTA ITSELF. WE’RE ABOUT \nTO RELEASE OUR ADAPTATION PLAN\, \nJUST PUTTING FINAL TOUCHES ON IT \nAND COMPLETING SOME FINAL \nREVIEWS AND WE’RE EXCITED TO \nRELEASE THAT. BECAUSE IT SHOWS \nHOW FAR WE HAVE COME THROUGHOUT \nTHE PROJECT’S PROCESS. HOW MUCH \nWE HAVE LEARNED\, AND IT SETS A \nFRAMEWORK FOR MAKING A LOT OF \nMUCH NEEDED ADAPTATION ACTIONS \nHAPPEN WITHIN THE REGION. IT’S \nTHE RESULT OF MANY YEARS OF \nCONVERSATIONS ACROSS PROBABLY \nTHE MOST DIVERSE GROUP OF \nINTERESTS AND EXPERTISE THAT THE \nCOUNCIL HAS ENGAGED TO DATE. \nTHE WORK RECOGNIZES A LOT OF \nGREAT PROGRESS IN PROTECTING THE \nDELTA THUS FAR. BUT\, ALSO\, \nPOINTS OUT ALL THE AREAS WE \nSTILL NEED TO AMPLIFY OUR WORK \nTO BE MORE INNOVATIVE\, TO \nPROVIDE AND PRIORITIZE \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO KEEP UP \nWITH THE IMPACTS THAT WE’RE \nALREADY SEEING. THE WORK IS \nBEING LED BY THE COUNCIL WHICH \nWAS CREATED TO HELP SAFEGUARD \nDELTA ASSETS. AND \nCRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO \nACHIEVING OUR MISSION\, WE HAVE \nIDENTIFIED NEEDS RESOURCES \nPARTNERSHIPS AND IMPORTANTLY \nLEADERS THAT ARE NEEDED AS MUCH \nOF THE PLAN RELIES ON A \nCOLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONG A \nNUMBER OF AGENCIES. OUR \nPRESENTATION TODAY MORGAN IS \nGOING TO PROVIDE A PREVIEW OF \nSOME OF OUR APPLICATION \nSTRATEGIES. WE’RE INTERESTED TO \nHEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AROUND \nCLARITY OF STRATEGIES AND ANY \nPRIORITIES OR APPLICATIONS \nOUTLINED FOR BCDC TO HELP INFORM \nTHE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN. \nNEXT SLIDE. AGAIN JUST TO \nORIENT THIS IS A MATCH DELTA \nWHICH IS ON THE RIGHT WITH THE \nSAN WAN KEEN RIVER DARK BLUE AND \nWHAT’S BEEN MARKED IN THE \nCENTER\, IDENTIFIED AS OUR \nOVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS BCDC \nTHAT’S THE MIDDLE AND SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY ON THE LEFT THIS \nIS IN THE SPIRIT OF MANAGING THE \nONE BAY DELTA ESTUARY WHERE \nACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN THE BAY \nAFFECT THE DELTA AND THOSE THAT \nTAKE PLACE IN THE DELTA AFFECT \nTHE BAY. NEXT SLIDE\, CORY. \nTHE FIRST PHASE OF OUR PROJECT \nBEGAN IN 2018\, IT WAS A \nVULNERABLE ASSESSMENT IN WHICH \nWE IDENTIFIED AT RISK SYSTEMS \nFROM CLIMATE CHANGE HEAVILY \nRELY ON NATURAL AND PHYSICAL \nSCIENCES AND PRIMARY AND \nSECONDARY RESEARCH. WE FOUND \nTHE FOLLOWING\, FLOOD RISK IS ONE \nOF THE MOST PRESSING THREATS TO \nTHE DELTA AND IT’S GOING TO \nCONTINUE TO WORSEN IN THE FUTURE \nWITH CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL\, \nPRECIPITATION\, HYDROLOGY AND \nTEMPERATURE THESE ARE NOT ALL \nGOING TO IMPACT THE DELTA \nRESIDENTS IN THE SAME WAY OR IN \nAN EQUITABLE WAY AND WILL AFFECT \nTHE CENTRAL SOUTHERN DELTA MOST\, \nCONCENTRATION IN THE STOCKTON \nAREA THIS MEANS MANY OF THE \nRESIDENTS EXPOSED TO FLOODING \nMAY HAVE HIGHER SENSITIVITY TO \nFLOOD IMPACTS AND LOWER CAPACITY \nTO ADAPT. WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT \nHOW FLOOD RISK IS DIFFERENT IN \nTHE DELTA THAN IN THE BAY WHEN \nWE COVER OUR STRATEGIES. \nPARTICULARLY THOSE RELATED TO \nFLOOD RISK REDUCTION. TWO\, \nDELTA WATER EXPORTS WILL BE LESS \nRELIABLE IN THE FUTURE DUE TO \nCLIMATE CHANGE. DELTA’S \nEXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM \nDOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH STORAGE \nTO CAPTURE ANTICIPATED INCREASES \nIN RUNOFF DUE TO MORE VARIABLE \nPRECIPITATION. IT’S WORTH \nPAUSING TO NOTE THAT IN THE \nDELTA\, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE \nHAVE FOUND OUT FROM THE \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT IS THAT \nTHE DELTA SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE \nAFFECTED BY ANTICIPATED CHANGES \nIN RIVERING FLOWS\, FROM THE \nSACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN\, \nBASED ON ADJUSTED\, OR — THE \nSITUATION OF MORE PRECIPITATION \nAND FALLING AS RAIN AND LESS AS \nSNOW\, THEN THE REGION IS \nAFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE. SO\, \nSEA LEVEL RISE AND RIVERING \nINFLOW ARE BOTH COMPONENTS OF \nTHE VULNERABILITY\, THE RIVERING \nAND THE FLOW ASPECT SEEMS TO BE \nMUCH MORE DIRECTING THE OUTCOMES \nIN THE DELTA. \nIN TERMS OF WATER QUALITY\, IN \nDELTA WATER USERS MAY BE \nTHREATENED BY WATER QUALITY \nDECLINES\, FUTURE DROUGHTS\, AND \nALL OF THAT EXPOSING MORE ACRES \nOF DELTA AGRICULTURE\, TO MORE \nSALINE WATER THAN HAS \nHISTORICALLY OCCURRED. DELTA \nAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION TRENDS \nWILL SHIFT DUE TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE\, INCREASING TEMPERATURES \nAND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT \nDAYS\, ARE BOTH PROJECTED TO \nREDUCE YIELDS FOR MANY DELTA \nCROPS. AND THE NUMBER OF \nEXTREME HEAT DAYS WILL INCREASE \nTHROUGHOUT THE DELTA AND \nCOMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AS MOST \nVULNERABLE TO THAT EXTREME HEAT \nARE LOCATED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE \nCITIES OF STOCKTON AND TRACY. \nAND I’LL ASK MORGAN TO JUMP IN \nAND GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON OUR \nUPCOMING ADAPTATION PLAN. THANK \nYOU. \n>>MORGAN CHAU: THANKS\, JEFF. \nAND GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN \nAND COMMISSIONERS. I’M HAPPY TO \nBE HERE PRESENTING TO YOU. AS \nCORY MENTIONED\, I USED TO WORK \nAT BCDC\, I WAS IN PERMITS\, \nANALYST IN SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT \nUNIT. SO IT’S NICE TO BE BACK. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, PHASE TWO IS REALLY THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THE ADAPTATION \nPLAN THAT WE’RE SPEAKING ABOUT \nTODAY\, WHICH IT INCLUDES A RANGE \nOF ACTIONS TO IMPROVE REGIONAL \nRESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR \nTHE DELTA. SO\, THIS GRAPHIC \nREALLY JUST SHOWS OUR PROCESS \nAND HOW WE LEANED ON\, REALLY\, AS \nJEFF MENTIONED\, PROBABLY THE \nMOST DIVERSE SET OF INTERESTS \nTHAT’S ON HAVE ENGAGED WITH AT \nTHE COUNCIL\, AS WELL AS OUR \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT \nFINDINGS TO EXPLORE ADAPTATION \nNEEDS\, PRIORITIES\, AND DEVELOP \nSTRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE. WE \nWORKED ACROSS FOUR FOCUS AREAS \nFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE \nPLAN. \nAGRICULTURE\, FLOOD RISK \nREDUCTION\, ECOSYSTEM\, AND WATER \nSUPPLY RELIABILITY OVER THE LAST \nTWO AND A HALF YEARS\, WORKING TO \nINTEGRATE EQUITY THROUGH THE. \nWE ALSO WORKED ACROSS \nINTERDISCIPLINARY GROUP WHERE WE \nBROUGHT TOGETHER THOSE FOCUS \nGROUPS SEVERAL TIMES. OUR \nENGAGEMENT FOR SCOPING THE PLAN \nREALLY BEGAN IN 2021\, AND WE \nCOHOSTED A WORKSHOP SERIES WITH \nSEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS \nIN STOCKTON WHICH IS A HIGHLY \nSOCIALLY VULNERABLE CITY IN THE \nDELTA\, AND THIS ENGAGEMENT WITH \nTHIS GROUP OF COMMUNITY \nORGANIZATIONS CONTINUED. AND \nTHEY HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE \nINFORMED OTHER COMPONENTS OF OUR \nWORK INCLUDING OUR TRIBAL AND \nENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK. WE \nHAVE ALSO INCORPORATED SEVERAL \nTRIBAL CONSULTATIONS INTO THE \nPLAN\, AT INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH \nOTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE\, \nLOCAL\, AND FLOOD AND WATER \nAGENCIES. COUNCIL HOLDS MANY \nCOLLABORATIVE FORUMS THAT HAVE \nBEEN TOPICALLY RELEVANT FOR \nADAPTATION THAT HAVE BEEN \nINCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. AND \nANOTHER CRITICAL COMPONENT IS \nFOR THE FIRST TIME\, FOR THE \nCOUNCIL\, REALLY REACHING AND \nHEARING DIRECTLY FROM DELTA \nFARMERS AND GROWERS WE’RE \nHEARING FIRSTHAND ABOUT \nCHALLENGES THEY’RE CURRENTLY \nGRAPPLING WITH\, HOW THEY’RE \nADAPTING AND WHAT THEY NEED TO \nFURTHER ADAPT. LASTLY\, WE HEARD \nA LOT FROM INTERVIEWS\, BOTH \nTHROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nJUSTICE WORK AND ALSO RESULTS \nFROM THE REGION’S FIRST \nREPRESENTATIVE SURVEY OF DELTA \nRESIDENTS THAT HAS INFORMED OUR \nWORK. AS WE APPROACH HAVING \nPUBLIC DRAFT OF THE PLAN WE HAVE \nBEEN SPENDING A LOT OF CONCERTED \nEFFORT IN THREE CITIES IN THE \nDELTA THAT HAVE SCORED \nPARTICULARLY HIGH IN TERMS OF \nSOCIAL VULNERABLE CLIMATE \nIMPACTS FROM INDEX DEVELOPED IN \nPHASE ONE\, THOSE ARE FRO \nANTIOCH\, PITTSBURG\, AND \nSTOCKTON\, ANTIOCH AND PITTSBURG \nHAVE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION \nREALLY OVER THE EDGE OF BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION AND OURS. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, WE’RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE \nWE ARE PROPOSING OUR SET OF \nSTRATEGIES IN OUR PLAN\, THEY’RE \nBOTH PHYSICAL AND MANAGEMENT \nLEVEL STRATEGIES THAT WILL \nREALLY BE REALIZED DIFFERENTLY \nACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC \nLOCATION IN THE DELTA. AND OUR \nFOCUS REALLY WITH THE \nSTRATEGIES\, IS TO MAINTAIN \nFLEXIBILITY AND TO BE ABLE TO \nINCORPORATE NEW CLIMATE DATA AS \nIT BECOMES AVAILABLE\, REALLY \nPRIORITIZING PROJECTS THAT OFFER \nMULTIPLE BENEFITS IN AN \nEQUITABLE MANNER. SO\, JEFF \nTOUCHED ON THIS\, BUT EACH \nSTRATEGY BEFORE I GET INTO THEM\, \nHAS A RECOMMENDED LEAD ACCORDING \nTO THE AGENCY THAT MAKES THE \nMOST SENSE TO LEAD. NOT \nNECESSARY LEANLY BY REGULATORY \nAUTHORITY\, AND SEVERAL PROPOSED \nPARTNERS. WE ALSO WORKED TO \nHIGHLIGHT STRATEGIES THAT WE \nFEEL\, ACCORDING TO COST\, AND \nORDER OF OPERATIONS\, THAT REALLY \nSHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST OR \nNEAR-TERM. WE HAVE DONE\, CORE \nMENTIONED SOME OF OUR ANALYSIS \nPREVIOUSLY\, BUT WE HAVE \nWORKED TO DEVELOP ADAPTATION \nCOSTS FOR THESE BIG PROJECTS \nCOMPARE THOSE TO VALUE OF ASSETS \nAT RISK WHICH WAS PART OF OUR \nPHASE ONE\, STRATEGIES AND \nRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR \nEXISTING DELTA PLAN WHICH IS OUR \nLONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR \nDELTA RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER \nSTATE REGIONAL RESOURCE SPECIFIC \nPLANS AS WELL AS CASE STUDIES \nTHAT EXEMPLIFY TYPES OF \nSTRATEGIES WE WANT TO SEE MOVING \nFORWARD. \nOKAY. NEXT SLIDE. \nTOUCH BRIEFLY ON HOW WE ARE \nINCLUDING EQUITY THROUGH THE ALL \nOF OUR STRATEGIES. IT REALLY\, \nEQUITY IS A COMPONENT IN\, I \nTHINK\, THREE MAIN WAYS. FIRST \nIN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIONAL \nJUSTICE. SO\, IN A LOT OF THE \nPROPOSED ACTIONS IN OUR PLAN\, WE \nARE REALLY WORKING AND RECOGNIZE \nIT’S INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT TO \nHAVE DECISIONS AND THE \nDECISION-MAKING BODIES THAT \nREPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE \nSERVED SO THAT COMMUNITIES ARE \nBOTH INFORMED REPRESENTED AND \nINVOLVED IN THESE PLANNING \nPROCESSES. ANOTHER IS THROUGH \nPRIORITIZATION OF INVESTMENTS \nTHAT’S CONTINUING TO WORK TO \nUNDERSTAND WHO FACES MOST RISK \nAND WHO NEEDS INVESTMENT FOR \nADAPTATION THE MOST. LASTLY \nHEARD ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR \nDISCUSSIONS WAS NEED TO CONTINUE \nTO IMPROVE AND AMPLIFY RISK \nCOMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION\, AND \nREALLY PRESENT WHAT WERE OUR \nFINDINGS FROM PHASE 1 AND 2\, TO \nTHE MOST SOCIALLY VULNERABLE \nCOMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION. NEXT \nSLIDE. \nSO\, NOW TO THE STRATEGIES. THIS \nIS OUR FIRST OF OUR FOUR FOCUS \nAREAS IS FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, \nWHICH HAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN \nTHE DELTA\, AS JEFF MENTIONED. \nWE HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL \nPROGRESS\, BUT A LOT MORE NEEDS \nTO BE DONE TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE \nCHANGE. THESE GRAPHICS WE’LL \nHAVE FOR EACH FOCUS AREA FROM \nLEFT TO RIGHT SHOWS SUMMARY OF \nVULNERABILITIES\, AN ILLUSTRATIVE \nSUMMARY OF OUR TYPES OF \nSTRATEGIES WE’RE PROPOSING\, AND \nEXAMPLE ACTIONS. SO\, ON THE \nLEFT\, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE FOUND \nRELATED TO FLOOD VULNERABLE\, WE \nKNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY \n— WILL REALLY AFFECT THE ENTIRE \nSYSTEM FROM ALL DIRECTIONS IN \nTHE DELTA. SO THAT’S \nRIVERING INFLOWS\, FLOOD CONTROL \nWATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS. AS \nJEFF MENTIONED\, BRIEFLY \nDISTINCTION FROM HOW BCDC \nAPPROACHES FLOOD RISK WHICH IS \nMORE FOCUSED ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, \nWE’RE LOOKING AT FLOOD RISK AND \nRIVERING\, AND LEVEES \nOVERTOPPING. WHILE THERE IS \nSUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR \nLEVEES IN PAST DECADES THERE IS \nSTILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN OUR \nSTRATEGY OUTLINING WHAT’S NEEDED \nTHROUGH A WELL ROUNDED APPROACH \nTO ADDRESSING BOTH HYDROLOGICAL \nVARIABILITY\, AND CHALLENGES \nPOSED BY CLIMATE OUR DELTA PLAN \nDOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR \nADDRESSING A LOT OF THESE \nSTRATEGIES FOR FLOOD RISK WE \nHAVE POLICIES RELATED TO HOW WE \nINVEST IN LEVEES AND SUPPORT \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNED USE \nDECISIONS. THE STRATEGIES GO \nBEYOND AND WE HAVE A FEW \nEXAMPLES\, STRATEGIES THAT \nTOUCHES ON SPECIFIC FLOOD \nMODELING NEEDS AND COLLABORATION \nAND COMMUNICATION ON THAT \nTOPIC. \nAND\, REALLY\, CONTINUING TO WORK \nON OUR DELTA LEVEE INVESTMENT \nSTRATEGY. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A \nMORE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURE IS \nTO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE \nIMPORTANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE\, \nIN THE DELTA REGION THERE\, IS A \nVERY LOW\, DESPITE THE FLOOD \nRISK\, THERE IS A VERY LOW \nPERCENTAGE OF FOLKS THAT \nACTUALLY HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nTHE SECOND FOCUS AREA IS \nECOSYSTEM. SO\, THE DELTA \nECOSYSTEM REALLY PROVIDES \nHABITAT FOR FUNERALING A \nMIGRATORY PATHWAYS\, WE ALSO \nKNOW THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM AS A \nBUFFER FROM IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE \nCHANGE WE KNOW FROM \nVULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT THAT \nTHE ECOSYSTEMS AND DELTA WILL \nCONTINUE TO BE STRESSED AND HAVE \nLIMITED ROOM TO MIGRATE. AGAIN \nTHE DELTA PLAN WE HAVE POLICIES \nAND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO \nPROTECTING THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM \nWE HAVE ACTUAL SPECIFIC TARGETS \nFOR THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WE \nWANT TO RESTORE AND OUR \nSTRATEGIES HERE ALIGN WITH AND \nGO BEYOND WHAT IS IN OUR DELTA \nPLAN. IN A FEW THINGS WE CALL \nOUT CO-BENEFITS RELATED TO \nRESTORATION\, THAT’S RECOGNIZING \nREDUCED FLOOD RISK THAT CAN BE \nBROUGHT FROM PROJECTS\, AND THE \nIMPORTANCE OF IMPROVING ACCESS \nTO GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACES\, \nAND THE CULTURAL VALUE AND THE \nNEED TO WORK ALONGSIDE TRIBES \nIN THESE RESTORATION PROJECTS. \nANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM OUR \nSTRATEGIES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF \nHALTING AND REVERSING SUBSIZE \nSIDANCE\, DONE IN SEVERAL WAYS \nDEPENDING ON THE LAND OWNERSHIP\, \nAND FEASIBILITY SO IT COULD BE \nTHROUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF \nRESTORATION BUT ALSO THROUGH \nPLANTING CROPS SUCH AS RICE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nNEXT IS OUR AGRICULTURE FOCUS \nAREA AND\, \nREALLY\, AGRICULTURE IN THE DELTA \nIS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE \nDELTA’S CULTURE\, HISTORY\, AND \nECONOMY\, IT’S REALLY THE \nECONOMIC ENGINE OF THE REGION IT \nPROVIDES JOBS AND SIGNIFICANT \nANNUAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT HOWEVER \nAGRICULTURE WE KNOW FROM OUR \nPHASE ONE REALLY FACES A LOT OF \nCHALLENGES WITH CLIMATE\, \nINCLUDING VARIABLE \nPRECIPITATION\, SALT WATER \nINTRUSION\, WATER QUALITY \nDECLINE\, FLOODING\, EXTREME HEAT\, \nAND REDUCED CHILL HOURS WHICH \nALL COMPOUND TO IMPACT BOTH CROP \nYIELD AND QUALITY. SO\, AGAIN \nOUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY \nFOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING \nAGRICULTURE AND NEEDS FOR \nADAPTATION. WE HAVE SEVERAL \nRECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE \nAGENCIES TO REALLY ADAPTIVELY \nMANAGE AGRICULTURE LANDS AND \nALSO TO PROVIDE HABITAT \nCONDITIONS FOR FEASIBLE NATIVE \nSPECIES. OUR STRATEGIES ARE \nDIVERSE HERE. WE HAVE \nSTRATEGIES RELATED TO \nACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR AN \nEQUITABLE REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM. \nSO THIS INCLUDES THINGS LIKE \nLABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT \nFOR FARMS. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW \nACTIONS THAT SUPPORT CLIMATE \nSMART FARMING PRACTICES. SO\, \nTHESE ARE ACTIONS SUCH AS \nIRRIGATION\, EFFICIENCY\, BUILDING \nSOIL HEALTH\, PEST MANAGEMENT\, \nOTHER THINGS LIKE THAT\, \nRECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF \nDIVERSIFYING INCOME AND REVENUE \nFOR FARMS. SO\, SUPPORT FOR AGRO \nTOURISM\, CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES\, \nFUNDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL \nCREDITS\, LIKE CARBON CREDITS AND \nTHEN WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FARMING. \nAND THEN WHERE FEASIBLE IDENTIFY \nWHERE LAND MIGHT NEED TO BE \nRETIRED OF THERE ARE OTHER USES \nTHAT WOULD BE OF HIGH VALUE. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, THIS IS OUR LAST. FOCUS \nAREA\, WATER SUPPLY\, \nRELIABILITY. \nTHE DELTA WATERSHED PROVIDES A \nPORTION OF WATER SUPPLY FOR \nAPPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION \nCALIFORNIANS. AND WE KNOW FROM \nCLIMATE CHANGE FROM OUR PHASE \nONE THAT OUR WATER SUPPLY WILL \nLIKELY DECREASE WITH DEMAND AND \nINCREASED — SORRY — WITH\, AS \nDEMAND INCREASES\, AND WE \nEXPERIENCE MORE VARIABLE PE \nSIPTATION AND DECREASED SNOWPACK \nAS JEFF ALREADY MENTIONED\, OUR \nINFRASTRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE AT \nRISK TO SEVERAL CLIMATE \nIMPACTS. \nSO\, AGAIN\, THE STRATEGIES HERE \nREALLY GO BEYOND THE \nFOUNDATIONAL POLICIES IN THE \nDELTA PLAN WHICH DOES REQUIRE \nSUPPLIERS TO REDUCE RELIANCE ON \nTHE DELTA. AND OUR STRATEGIES\, \nWE HAVE FIVE STRATEGIES. AND \nTHE FIRST IS REDUCING RELIANCE \nON THE DELTA. SO THERE ARE \nSEVERAL ACTIONS HERE\, SUCH AS \nFUNDING PROJECTS THAT REALLY \nPROMOTE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL \nWATER CONSERVATION\, OR RECYCLED \nWATER. WE HAVE A STRATEGY \nRELATED TO INCREASING LOCAL \nSTORAGE OF SURFACE AND \nGROUNDWATER SUPPLIES\, BOTH NORTH \nAND SOUTH OF THE DELTA. A \nSTRATEGY RELATED TO MODIFYING \nRESERVOIR OPERATIONS TO BE \nADAPTABLE TO CHANGING CLIMATE \nCONTINUES. AND THEN\, LASTLY\, A \nSTRATEGY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER \nMODIFYING WATER QUALITY \nSTANDARDS SO THAT THERE ARE \nOBJECTIVES THAT PROVIDE FOR \nSEVERAL BENEFICIAL USES OF \nWATER\, SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL\, \nFISHING\, RECREATIONAL TRIBAL AND \nOTHER HUMAN BENEFICIAL USES OF \nWATER. SORRY. OUR LAST ONE IS \nTO REALLY IMPROVE OR MODIFY \nINFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DELTA TO \nMINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THROUGH \nDELTA CONVEYANCE. NEXT SLIDE. \nOUR PLAN HAS A GOVERNANCE \nCHAPTER THAT REALLY ADDRESSES \nTHE UNIQUE HISTORY\, CHALLENGES\, \nAND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR \nADAPTATION GOVERNANCE IN THE \nDELTA. AS REALLY GOVERNANCE \nDOES DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR \nFUNDING\, PLANNING AND \nIMPLEMENTING ALL OF THESE \nACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE TALKING \nABOUT THIS GRAPHIC THAT IS ON \nTHIS SLIDE WAS DEVELOPED BY A \nDELTA SCIENCE FELLOW\, TARA \nPOSEY\, AND UC DAVIS PH.D. \nCANDIDATE WHO IS DOING NETWORK \nMAPPING TO UNDERSTAND HOW \nCLIMATE COLLABORATIVES ARE \nCONNECTED AND JUST TO SHOW OUR \nPROJECT CONNECT MAPS AND \nUNDERSTANDING HOW CLIMATE \nCOLLABORATIVE ARE CONNECTED AND \nSHOWS IN OUR PROJECT COMPARATIVE \nEFFECTIVENESS IN THE REGION. \nTHIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT \nWORKING TO HAVE PROCEDURAL \nJUSTICE\, ACROSS DECISIONS TO \nPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT WE \nSERVE WE INCLUDE PRACTICES \nPARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE \nADAPTADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WE HAVE \nWORKING DOUBLE ON CONDITIONAL \nKNOWLEDGE THAT CAN HAVE A BETTER \nROLE IN DECISION-MAKING. JUST \nTO WRAP UP\, WE WANTED TO SHARE A \nLITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ROLE MOVING \nFORWARD ALREADY TOUCHED ON THESE \nCOMPONENTS WHAT’S IMPORTANT FOR \nUS IS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE \nREPRESENTAL JUSTICE ADAPTATION \nDECISIONS THROUGH INCREASED \nCOMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND \nRELATIONSHIPS\, TO CONTINUE TO \nUSE RESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS \nTO AMPLIFY BETTER \nCOMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE A \nSCIENCE PROGRAM THAT FUND A LOT \nOF RESEARCH IN THE REGION \nWORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM TO \nADDRESS A LOT OF THE RESEARCH \nGAPS THAT CAME OUT OF THESE \nCONVERSATIONS. I TOUCHED ON THE \nTRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE WORK AND \nTHEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW \nTO FUND ALL OF THIS. IF THIS IS \nAN AREA WHERE WE REALLY LEARN \nAND TO COLLABORATE WITH THE \nPLANNING STAFF IS JUST THINKING \nABOUT REGIONAL FUNDING FOR \nADAPTING A AND LASTLY WORKING \nTHROUGH EXISTING REGULATORY \nAUTHORITY FOR OUR COVERED ACTION \nAUTHORITY\, JUST CONTINUING TO \nPROMOTE LAND USES THAT ENHANCE \nDELTA RESILIENCE HALTING REVERSE \nSUBSIDENCE AND REDUCE RISK \nOVERALL. \nNEXT SLIDE. THAT’S ALL FOR ME. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING \nUS HERE. AS WE’RE GETTING VERY \nCLOSE TO HAVING A DRAFT OUT FOR \nPUBLIC REVIEW. WE APPRECIATE \nYOUR TIME FOR LETTING \nUS PRESENT TODAY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU\, MORGAN. BEFORE WE \nGET TO QUESTIONS FROM \nCOMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY \nPUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS \nAGENDA ITEM? \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE \nIN-PERSON. AND NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY\, \nJEFF\, AND MORGAN FOR THAT VERY \nIN-DEPTH PRESENTATION. AND I’M \nGOING TO LOOK — OR SIERRA IS \nGOING LOOK FOR ME TO TELL ME IF \nTHERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT \nWANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR COMMENT \nON YOUR PRESENTATION. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO \nHANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY. BUT YOU \nDO HAVE COMMISSIONER ECKLUND \nHERE IN-PERSON. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nOKAY. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR ALLOWING HE TO ASK AND \nQUESTIONS. YOU HAVE COME A LONG \nWAYS\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN ADDRESSING A \nLOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE \nCONFRONTING THE DELTA. A COUPLE \nOF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. HAS THE \nRATE OF SUBSIDENCE INCREASED \nOVER TIME? \nOR DO WE KNOW? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: I DON’T ACTUALLY \nKNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RATE OF \nSUBSIDENCE. I THINK IT \nMIGHT — \nYEAH IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE \nWHOLE DELTA\, IT MIGHT \nINTERESTING\, IS A LOT ACTIVE \nWORK TO ADDRESS THOSE EXPOSED \nPEAT SOILS. WE CAN GET BACK TO \nYOU. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GO AHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: I WAS GOING TO SAY \nFOR MOST OF THE DELTA\, THE \nPEAT SOIL IS SO DEEP SO \nTHAT ANYWHERE THERE IS \nTRADITIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT IT’S \nKIND OF SUBSIDING AT A FAIRLY \nCONSISTENT RATE THROUGH THE TIME \nTHERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO \nDO SUBSIDENCE HALTING OR EVEN \nSUBSIDENCE REVERSE ACTIVITIES I \nKNOW THOSE ARE ENCOURAGED IN THE \nDELTA\, AN EXAMPLE\, \nWETLANDS\, AND CARBON \nSEQUESTRATION AT THOSE SITES\, \nTHEY HAVE USED ICE TO MANAGE \nSUBSIDENCE. IT’S A MAJOR TOPIC \nBUT IT HASN’T BEEN VERY — \nAT THIS POINT IT’S ALL \nUNIVERSALLY TAKEN AS LAND \nMANAGEMENT IN THE REGION BUT I \nKNOW THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO \nPROMOTE IT MORE. \n>>CORY COPELAND: >>PAT \nECKLUND: \nSO THE RATE MAY HAVE SLOWED DOWN \nIN SOME AREAS BECAUSE OF THE \nREVERSAL THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING \nSO HARD TO TRY TO EMBRACE\, \nCORRECT? \n>>CORY COPELAND: YEAH\, THOUGH\, \nI WILL SAY THOSE ARE RELATIVELY \nLIMITED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: LIMITED? \n>>CORY COPELAND: — PROJECTS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I THINK \nTHE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE\, FROM \nWHAT I KNEW YEARS AGO\, WAS \nINCREASING QUITE A BIT. AND \nTHERE WAS A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY \nTO REDUCE IT. BUT I KNOW THAT \nTHAT’S STILL A MAJOR ISSUE. THE \nCOMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT FLOOD \nINSURANCE. FLOOD INSURANCE\, I \nKNOW\, IS REALLY SUPER EXPENSIVE\, \nA LOT OF FOLKS THAT I KNOW IN \nTHE DELTA THAT MANAGE A LOT OF \nTHOSE ISLANDS\, OR WHATEVER\, THEY \nMAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE \nFUNDS. IS THERE ANY FINANCIAL \nSUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL OR \nSTATE GOVERNMENT TO HELP \nSUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THAT \nINSURANCE FOR THEM? ESPECIALLY \nIF THEY’RE DOING MORE PUBLIC \nWORK OR WHATEVER ON THEIR LAND \nMANAGEMENT. ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR \nFINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON THAT? \nIT’S A POOR REGION. \n>>MORGAN CHAU: YEAH. THAT’S A \nREALLY GOOD QUESTION AND POINT. \nAND I WILL — SO\, WE KNOW — I \nTHINK IT’S A LITTLE BIT AROUND \n20% OF RESIDENTS HAVE FLOOD \nINSURANCE. SO IT IS REALLY \nLOW. \nAND IT’S EXPENSIVE. WE TRACK \nFEMA’S PROGRAMS. I KNOW FEMA \nDOES HAVE THE COMMUNITY RATING \nSYSTEM. SO THAT’S AT A \nCOMMUNITY SCALE. YOU CAN \nUNDERGO A LOT OF DIFFERENT \nACTIVITIES TO GET LOWER RATES. \nI DON’T KNOW ABOUT A LOT OF \nOTHER PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL \nLEVEL. BUT WE ARE ALSO — WE \nARE ALSO TRACKING SOME OTHER \nSMALLER SCALE EFFORTS TO GET \nCOMMUNITIES MORE PROTECTED. \nKATHY SHAFER\, WHO I THINK SHE IS \nA POST DOC\, MAY BE A PH.D. AT \nUC DAVIS\, DOES A LOT OF RESEARCH \nRELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE AND\, \nLIKE\, FLOOD PREPAREDNESS IN THE \nDELTA\, AND SHE HAS BEEN WORKING \nWITH THE COMMUNITY ISLETON THEY \nCREATED A GEOLOGIC HAZARD \nABATEMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS A \nWAY YOU CAN ACCESS MORE FUNDS TO \nHELP WITH PREPAREDNESS SO IT’S \nNOT JUST INSURANCE BUT INSURANCE \nCOULD BE A COMPONENT OF THAT. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: ARE THERE \nRESTORATION OF THE LEVEES ACTIVE \nEFFORTS TO HELP STRENGTHEN AND \nRESTORE THOSE LEVEES AS THERE \nWAS IN THE PAST? OR HAS IT \nDIMINISHED? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: I’LL LET JEFF \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: THERE ARE \nONGOING EFFORTS THAT CONTINUE\, \nTHE STATE IS CONTINUING TO FUND \nWHAT’S KNOWN AS THIS SUBVENTIONS \nPROGRAM THAT PROVIDES MECHANISM \nFOR MAINTENANCE AND \nREHABILITATION OF THE LEVEES. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. \nI’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. \nTHE CANAL S THERE AN EFFORT TO \nLIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT \nGOES DOWN THE CANCEL TO SOUTHERN \nCALIFORNIA? SORE IS THAT \nSOMETHING THAT’S PRETTY MUCH SET \nIN STONE? OR DO YOU KNOW? \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WHO \nWANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION? \n>>CORY COPELAND: WELL\, DO YOU \nWANT ME TO HOP IN? I SUSPECT \nTHEY DON’T WANT TO COMMENT ON IT \nBECAUSE IT’S LIKELY TO COME \nTHROUGH THERE OFFICE AS \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: CORY\, GO \nAHEAD. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I IMAGINE IT’S A \nCONFLICTING QUESTION. \n>>CORY COPELAND: THE CANAL IS \nNOW THE DELTA BAY PROJECT BEING \nPROPOSED BY DWR AND AS I \nUNDERSTAND IT IS AROUND \nENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW. \nI SUSPECT AT SOME POINT THAT \nWILL GO BEFORE THE STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL TO BE REVIEWED. AT THIS \nPOINT IT’S TO BE REVIEWED \nPHASE. \nSOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE \nOPERATIONS ARE\, LIKE\, HOW MUCH \nWATER WOULD BE YIELD — I DON’T \nTHINK WE CAN COMMENT — \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PROBABLY SHOWS \nMY AGE. THANK YOU FOR \nADDRESSING THAT. MY LAST \nQUESTION YOU TALK ABOUT THE \nCHANGE OF LAND USE\, I KNOW THAT \nGIVEN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN \nTHE DELTA IS THAT THERE IS A LOT \nOF FAMILIES THAT\, YOU KNOW\, SORT \nOF\, PASS ON THE PROPERTY DOWN \nTHROUGH THE DIFFERENT \nGENERATIONS. HOW IS THAT BEING \nENCOURAGED? IS INCENTIVES OF \nBUYING THEIR PROPERTY ONE OF THE \nISSUES? OR YOU HAVE REALLY \nIDENTIFIED OTHER MECHANISMS \nWHERE YOU CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE \nTHE — CHANGING THE USE WHICH IS \nGOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR A \nLOT OF HOMEOWNER — LANDOWNERS? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: YEAH I CAN START \nMAYBE JEFF AND CORY CAN ADD. \nTHE DELTA’S AN INTERESTING PLACE \nESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE BAY\, \nWHICH IS URBAN. PRIMARILY THE \nDELTA HAS A LOT OF STRONG \nDEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS A LOT \nOF THE LAND USE CHANGES THAT WE \nEXPLORE FOR DELTA ADAPTS IS \nLOOKING AT WHERE THERE IS \nPOTENTIALLY FARMLAND OR \nABANDONED FARMLAND THAT IS NOT \nACTIVE ANYMORE. LIKE YEAH IS \nTHERE LAND USE INCENTIVES FOR IT \nTO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. SO \nLIKE PEAT SOILS THAT ARE EXPOSED \nAND OXIDIZING\, SUBSIDING\, LIKE \nIS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AN \nOPTION TO WET THAT LAND\, CAN IT \nBE MANAGED\, LIKE\, COULD YOU GROW \nRICE THERE. I THINK THOSE ARE \nSOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE \nBEEN EXPLORED FROM THE \nCONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH \nFARMERS THROUGHOUT THE DELTA \nEVEN YOU KNOW DIFFERENT PARTS OF \nTHE DELTA HAVE THEIR DIFFERENT \nCHALLENGES\, SPECIFICALLY WITH \nFARMING\, FARMERS — SOME FARMERS \nARE OPEN TO\, YOU KNOW\, EXPLORING \nDIFFERENT LAND USES. IT REALLY \nIS A QUESTION OF FINANCIAL \nFEASIBLE AND SOMETIMES WANTING \nMORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. WE \nPARTNERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF \nFOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE \nINTERVIEWS THAT WE CONDUCTED \nBECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THESE \nINCENTIVE PROGRAMS THEY PROVIDE \nTO GROWERS\, TO HELP THEM BE MORE \nFINANCIALLY PROFITABLE. YEAH \nTHAT’S SOME OF THE TOPICS WE \nHAVE EXPLORED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: GREAT. THANKS. \nI REALLY APPRECIATE THE \nPRESENTATION\, AND REALLY \nAPPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN \nABLE TO DO IN THE DELTA P THE \nDELTA\, FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT \nKNOW\, THE DELTA IS A VERY \nSPECIAL PLACE. AND\, REALLY \nENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET TO KNOW \nIT. BECAUSE IT DOES DEFINITELY \nHAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE \nWHOLE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND\, \nSO\, JUST REALLY WANT TO \nCOMPLIMENT EVERYBODY WHO HAS \nBEEN INVOLVED IN THIS. AND MY \nHAT’S OFF TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS \nTHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO \nMAKE. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHANK YOU. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR EISEN\, \nCAN I ASK A QUESTION? THIS IS \nLARRY. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OF \nCOURSE. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MORGAN AND \nJEFF GREAT TO SEE YOU\, OF \nCOURSE. THE PROGRESS YOU ALL \nHAVE MADE ON DELTA ADAPT IS \nMARVELOUS. WE ALL LOOK AT IT \nFROM THE WEST SIDE AND YOU’RE \nFROM THE EAST SIDE\, AND \nTHANKFULLY BETWEEN\, WE HAVE \nGRAPPLED WITH OVER THE LAST \nCOUPLE OF YEARS HOW YOU TAKE THE \nSTRATEGY AND START GETTING \nTRACTION ON THE GROUND. WE HAVE \nBAY ADAPT AND WE NOW HAVE THIS \nTHING CALLED SB272 WHICH REALLY \nGIVES US A REAL PUSH TO ENSURE \nWHAT BAY ADAPT DOES REALLY HAS \nSOME REAL MAJOR IMPACT AND CAN \nGET TRACTION. HOW HAVE YOU ALL \nSTARTED LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING \nTHIS AND WORKING THROUGH THE \nPROCESS OF HAVING TO WORK WITH \nTHE HEAVY WEIGHTS LIKE DWR AND \nFOOD AND AG\, AS WELL AS THE \nINCREDIBLY WELL ENTRENCHED AND \nWELL MEANING FOLKS WHO HAVE \nOWNED LAND IN THE DELTA SINCE\, \nYOU KNOW\, THE MID-1800’S\, FOR \nHEAVEN’S SAKE\, AND THE LIKE. I \nMEAN\, THE NUMBER OF INTERESTS \nTHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH \nIS CERTAINLY AT LEAVE THE AS \nLONG AS OURS. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: \nTHAT’S A BIG QUESTION\, \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: YEAH. I’M \nSTILL THINKING. NO. THANK YOU\, \nLARRY. WE’RE JUST AT THE \nINITIAL STAGES OF BEGINNING TO \nTHINK ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION\, AND \nARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO LEARN AS \nMUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM THE \nPATHWAYS THAT YOU ALL HAVE \nCHARTED. I THINK ONE OF THE \nOTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE \nHAVE DISCUSSED IS REALLY \nENLISTING THE DELTA PLAN \nINTER-AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION \nCOMMITTEE OR DPIIC WHICH IS \nESSENTIALLY A COMMITTEE FORMED \nAND LARRY SITS ON THIS \nCOMMITTEE\, ON BEHALF OF BCDC\, AS \nWELL. IT’S A COMMITTEE FORMED \nAT THE AGENCIES THAT ARE CHARGED \nIN THE DELTA PLAN WITH VARIOUS \nDIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR \nIMPLEMENTATION. AND WE’RE \nREALLY LOOKING TO USE THE DPIIC \nAS A PLACE TO BRING AND OF THESE \nRECOMMENDATIONS AND START \nUNPACKING THEM. AND LOOKING TO \nWORK WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL \nAGENCIES TO IDENTIFY WHAT \nRESOURCES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO \nBRING TO THE TABLE\, WHAT LESSONS \nLEARNED THAT THEY HAVE FROM \nVARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES\, \nAND REALLY TO USE THAT AS A \nPLACE TO CONSOLIDATE THE \nIMPLEMENTATION OF DELTA ADAPT. \nTHAT’S SOME OF OUR EARLY \nTHINKING\, IN COMBINATION WITH\, \nTHEN\, MOVING TOWARD A BIT MORE \nOF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nSTRUCTURE THAT REALLY HELPS TO \nSOLIDIFY THE ROLES AND \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS \nAGENCIES\, AS THEY RELATE TO THE \nSPECIFIC STRATEGIES. MORGAN\, IS \nTHERE MORE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD \nTO THAT? \n>>MORGAN CHAU: NO. YEAH. I \nTHINK OUR REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH \nBCDC\, SINCE WE’RE DOING SIMILAR \nN A LOT OF WAYS\, ADAPTING A WORK \nWE’RE OPERATING WITH DIFFERENT \nACTORS AND DIFFERENT SETTINGS \nBUT WE CAN LEARN A LOT FROM EACH \nOTHER\, JUST I THINK THE OTHER \nTHING ABOUT THE DELTA WE HAVE \nIDEAS FOR THE \nMOU STRUCTURE AT THE DPIIC LEVEL \nBUT ALSO THERE ARE THINGS LIKE \nISLETON MODEL FOR FLOOD RISK AND \nPREPAREDNESS THAT CANNOT BE DONE \nYOU KNOW AROUND ISLETON IDEAS \nTHAT CORE MENTIONED SHERMAN I \nLAND EXPERIMENTS AND \nEXPERIENCE AROUND SOMETHING \nLIKE THAT WE REPLICATE THINGS \nTHAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING IN \nOTHER LEVEL AS YOU KNOW AT THE \nHIGHER LEVEL. \n>>CLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: \n>>SPEAKER: WANTED TO FOLLOW UP \nON A COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATED \nI ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN \nTHE BAY A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT \nARE CLEAR TO ME WITH DELTA \nPLANNING AND DIFFERENT \nADAPTATION IN THE BAY PLAN THE \nTWO ARE DIFFERENT FIRST IS THE \nDELTA IS A DIFFERENT WATER \nSUPPLY SOURCE FROM OTHER PARTS \nOF THE STATE THAT MEANS THAT \nWATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO \nCAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF A \nDELTA ADAPTATION STRATEGY. \nTHAT’S NOT EASY. IT’S ALSO TRUE \nTHAT THE FLOOD RISK IN THE DELTA \nIS DRIVEN TO A SUBSTANTIAL PART \nBY FLOOD COMING IN FROM AND \nWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES\, \nUPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA. THE SO \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT UPSTREAM FROM \nTHE DELTA IS AN IMPORTANT PART \nOF PROTECTING COMMUNITIES LIKE \nSTOCKTON. I WANT TO ASK HOW \nYOU’RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE \nBOUNDARY CHALLENGES. ON THE ONE \nHAND ARE YOU INCLUDING UPSTREAM \nFLOOD MANAGEMENT MULTI-BENEFIT \nPROJECTS UPSTREAM AS A FLOOD \nADAPTATION STRATEGY IN THE DELTA \nAND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU GOING \nTO BE FOCUSING ON THE PHYSICAL \nSAFETY OF THE DELTA\, DELTA \nAGRICULTURE AND SO FORTH \nCOMPARED TO WATER MANAGEMENT \nBENEFITS WHERE THE DELTA COUNCIL \nMAY HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING THE \nNEEDLE? IT’S A DIFFERENT \nPICTURE AND MORE COMPLICATED IN \nSOME WAYS THAN THE WORK WE’RE \nDOING IN THE BAY. \nMORTGAGE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD POINT \nESPECIALLY FOR FLOOD RISK \nREDUCTION PROPOSED STRATEGIES \nAND AROUND WATER SUPPLY \nRELIABILITY A LOT OF WHAT NEEDS \nTO HAPPEN IN THE DELTA TOUCH ON \nYOU KNOW UPSTREAM DON STREAM \nACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY \nHEALTH SAFETY AND WELL-BEING \nTHAT’S A LITTLE BIT FOCUSED TO \nCOMMUNITIES THAT LIVE WITHIN OR \nADJACENT TO OUR DELTA BOUNDARIES \nYOU MAKE A GOOD POINT AND IT’S \nINCLUDED IN OUR STRATEGIES. \nRIGHT NOW THE DRAFT PLAN IT DOES \nIN SOME WAYS LOOK LIKE IT \nMASSIVE MENU OF STRATEGIES. WE \nHAVE DONE SOME — INITIAL \nPRIORITIZATION IN TERMS OF\, LIKE \nI SAID\, LIKE WHAT WE REALLY FEEL \nNEEDS TO HAPPEN FIRST\, WHAT \nCOULD HAPPEN WITH EXISTING FUNDS \nTHEN THERE IS ALSO THAT FILTER \nWHERE IT COMES IN AND GOES WELL \nWHEN’S FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR \nCONTROL WHAT CAN WE LEAD WHAT \nARE OUR PARTNERS WILLING TO \nLEAD\, WHAT ARE WE TRACKING THAT \nIS ALREADY KIND OF HAPPENING BUT \nWE WANT TO HAPPEN MORE. SO\, I \nTHINK THERE IS A LOT OF \nDIFFERENT LEVELS AT WHICH WE CAN \nENGAGE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE \nTALKING ABOUT STRATEGIES OUTSIDE \nOF THE DELTA. BUT\, YEAH\, SO \nIT’S CHALLENGING IT MAKE GOOD \nPOINT AND WE’RE TRYING TO THINK \nABOUT IT TO THE BEST OF OUR \nABILITIES. JEFF DID YOU WANT TO \nADD? \n>>JEFF HENDERSON: COMMISSIONER \nNELSON\, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT \nBOUNDARY ISSUES MADE ME — AS DO \nA NUMBER OF THINGS\, REMINDED ME \nTHAT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP \nCOUNCIL IS ACTUALLY A STATEWIDE \nAGENCY THAT REPRESENTS STATEWIDE \nINTERESTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE \nDELTA. SO\, YES\, WE DO NEED TO \nBE CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE WATER \nCONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO\, AND \nHOW THAT AFFECTS\, IN TURN\, THE \nAMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED THROUGH \nTHE DELTA\, AND IN TURN\, THE \nAMOUNT OF WATER STORED IN A \nRESERVOIR UPSTREAM. SO\, THESE \nARE THINGS THAT WE ARE VERY \nAWARE OF. I THINK\, DELTA \nADAPT ITSELF DOES PAY A \nCONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION \nTO THE DELTA ITSELF\, AND IF WE \nHAD ONE OF OUR OWN \nSELF-CRITIQUES OF THE WEEK IS \nPROBABLY THAT IT DOESN’T DO AS \nMUCH AS IT COULD TO ADDRESS SOME \nOF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE \nHAPPENING OUTSIDE OF DELTA TO \nAFFECT THE HEALTH IN THE DELTA. \nI DO\, THOUGH\, UNDERSTAND THAT \nTHE STRATEGIES\, AS MORGAN \nMENTIONED\, THE STRATEGIES\, WHERE \nPOSSIBLE\, DO RECOMMEND \nACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR UPSTREAM \nOR DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DELTA\, \nTHAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE \nCLIMATE BENEFITS THAT WE’RE \nSEEKING IN THE DELTA. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: \n>>SPEAKER: JUST ONE LAST \nTHOUGHT GIVEN THE BREADTH OF \nADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT ARE \nRELEVANT TO THE DELTA IT’S GOING \nTO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE CAN ONLY \nTO THINK THROUGH THE AREAS WHERE \nYOU FOLKS REALLY ARE GOING TO \nDRIVE THE DEBATE FORWARD AND \nREALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE THAT \nYOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY \nBIG BROAD ADAPTATION LIST. \nOR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE \nDELTA ADAPT PRESENTATION? ALL \nRIGHT. \nTHANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED \nME GET THROUGH THIS ALMOST \nENTIRELY VIRTUAL PRESENTATION. \n>>V. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND \nCOMMISSION MEETING. WE ONE \nOTHER ITEM. AND THAT IS \nADJOURNMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION \nTO ADJOURN? BARRY\, 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/june-20-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240611T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240611T120000
DTSTAMP:20240607T234532Z
CREATED:20240130T045115Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240607T234532Z
UID:10000135-1718098200-1718107200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 11\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-11-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240610T170000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240610T193000
DTSTAMP:20240607T234422Z
CREATED:20240130T034300Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240607T234422Z
UID:10000118-1718038800-1718047800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 10\, 2024 Design Review Board Meeting
DESCRIPTION:This Commission meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format in accordance with SB 189 (2022). To maximize public safety while maintaining transparency and public access\, members of the public can choose to participate either virtually via Zoom\, by phone\, or in person at the location listed above. Physical attendance at Metro Center requires that all individuals adhere to the site’s health guidelines including\, if required\, wearing masks\, health screening\, and social distancing. \nMetro Center375 Beale StreetSan Francisco\, CA415-352-3600 \nBoard Member Stefan Pellegrini will participate remotely in the meeting. \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/87310947591?pwd=OggytxR04SUpD7jhO7cG4mbB89Lnbo.1 \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (816) 423-42821 ( 866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID873 1094 7591 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order and Meeting Procedure Review\nApproval of Draft Review Summary for the March 11\, 2024 DRB Meeting\nStaff Update\nPublic Comment Period\nBay Adapt Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan; First ReviewThe Design Review Board will hold its first review of the Draft Adaptation Strategy and Pathway Standards\, a section of BCDC’s developing 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.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment.\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Learn How to Participate\n				Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act\nAs a state agency\, the Commission is governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act which requires the Commission to: (1) publish an agenda at least ten days in advance of any meeting; and (2) describe specifically in that agenda the items to be transacted or discussed. Public notices of Commission meetings and staff reports (as applicable) dealing with matters on the meeting agendas can be found on BCDC’s website. Simply access Commission Meetings under the “Public Meetings” tab on the website and select the date of the meeting. \nHow to Provide Comments and Comment Time Limits\nPursuant to state law\, the Commission is currently conducting its public meetings in a “hybrid” fashion. Each meeting notice will specify (1) where the meeting is being primarily held physically\, (2) all teleconference locations\, which will be publicly-accessible\, and (3) the ZOOM virtual meeting link. If you would like to comment at the beginning of the meeting or on an item scheduled for public discussion\, you may do so in one of three ways: (1) being present at the primary physical or a teleconference meeting location; (2) emailing comments in advance to public comment until 10 a.m. on the day of the meeting; and (3) participating via ZOOM during the meeting. \nIf you plan to participate through ZOOM\, please use your ZOOM-enabled device and click on the “raise your hand” button\, and then wait to speak until called upon. If you are using a telephone to call into the meeting\, select *6 to unmute your phone and you will then be able to speak. We ask that everyone use the mute button when not speaking. It is also important that you not put your phone on hold. Each speaker may be limited to a maximum of three minutes or less at the discretion of the Chair during the public comment period depending on the volume of persons intending to provide public comment. Any speakers who exceed the time limits or interfere with the meeting may be muted by the Chair. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members in advance of the meeting for review. You are encouraged to submit written comments of any length and detailed information to the staff prior to the meeting at the email address above\, which will be distributed to the Commission members. \nQuestions and Staff Reports\nIf you have any questions concerning an item on the agenda\, would like to receive notice of future hearings\, or access staff reports related to the item\, please contact the staff member whose name\, email address and direct phone number are indicated in parenthesis at the end of the agenda item. \nCampaign Contributions\nState law requires Commissioners to disqualify themselves from voting on any matter if they have received a campaign contribution from an interested party within the past 12 months. If you intend to speak on any hearing item\, please indicate in your testimony if you have made campaign contributions in excess of $250 to any Commissioner within the last year\, and if so\, to which Commissioner(s) you have contributed. Other legal requirements govern contributions by applicants and other interested parties and establish criteria for Commissioner conflicts of interest. Please consult with the staff counsel if you have any questions about the rules that pertain to campaign contributions or conflicts of interest. \nAccess to Meetings\nMeetings are physically held in venues that are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance or have technical questions\, please contact staff at least three days prior to the meeting via email. We will attempt to make the virtual meeting accessible via ZOOM accessibility capabilities\, as well.
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-10-2024-design-review-board-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Design Review Board
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240606T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240606T170000
DTSTAMP:20240917T220500Z
CREATED:20240119T035417Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240917T220500Z
UID:10000098-1717678800-1717693200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 6\, 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. \nMeeting starting time 1:00 P.M. \nPrimary Physical Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale Street\, Board RoomSan Francisco\, CA 94105415-352-3600 \nTeleconference Locations \n\nRichmond City Council Office: 440 Civic Center Plaza\, Richmond\, CA 94804\n675 Texas St.\, Ste. 6002\, Fairfield\, CA 94533\n890 Osos St.\, Ste. H\, San Luis Obispo\, CA 93401\nDepartment of Transportation: 111 Grand Ave.\, Oakland\, CA 94612\n2379 Sheffield Dr.\, Livermore\, CA 94550\n1084 Clarendon Cres\, Oakland\, CA 94610\n400 County Center\, Redwood City\, CA 94063\n176 E. Blithedale Ave.\, Mill Valley\, CA 94941\nSanta Clara County Government Center: 70 W Hedding St\, 10th Floor\, Clerk’s Conf. Rm.\, San Jose\, CA 95110\n11780 San Pablo Ave.\, Ste. D\, El Cerrito\, CA 94530\nFront Porch at 112 Trellis Dr.\, San Rafael\, CA 94303\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/87214727080?pwd=XpHUp0iSwZMfdyPKA6OaiUhlJcg9Ew.L5fNYRJW34IrS-62 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 1472 7080 \nPasscode506054 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]Public comment\nApproval of Minutes for May 16\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Consideration and Possible Vote on Authorization of Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan Technical and Policy Assistance Program Development ContractThe Commission will consider and possibly vote on authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a $200\,000 contract to provide a Technical and Policy Assistance work plan and resource toolkit for local governments as they develop rising sea level adaptation plans in compliance with SB 272.(Dana Brechwald) [415/352-3656; dana.brechwald@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nCommission Strategic Plan Progress ReportSenior Staff will present an update on the progress associated with the Commission’s 2023-2025 Strategic Plan.(Larry Goldzband) [415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov]Presentation\nBriefing on Misson-Based ReviewThe Commission will hear a briefing from Department of Finance staff on the outcomes of a Mission-Based Review it conducted of BCDC’s permitting program\, at the request of BCDC. Staff will also discuss how the results of the review will feed into strategies for improving the permitting program.(Ethan Lavine) [415/352-3648; ethan.lavine@bcdc.ca.gov]Staff presentation // Presentation\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 \nThe following administrative permit applications have been filed and are presently 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. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nEast Bay Regional Parks District2950 Peralta Oaks CourtOakland\, CA 94605 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2019.001.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nMay 24\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nAugust 22\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, from Point Molate to past Castro Point (north of the east span of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge)\, in the City of Richmond\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nConduct the following activities to construct a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail: \n\nIn the Bay:Repair revetment by placing 67 cubic yards of riprap along 191 linear feet of shoreline as part of the repairs to the Northern Revetment Area.\nWithin the 100-foot Shoreline Band:\n\n\n\nPrepare the site by removing and regrading areas where asphalt\, concrete pad and platforms\, vegetation (including invasive species) currently exist within the Bay Trail alignment.\nRepair revetment by placing 768 cubic yards of riprap along the Revetment Areas. Where the trail is at-grade\, the repairs will consist of placing rock slope protection fabric\, riprap and earthen backfill\, and an erosion control blanket with hydroseed.\nReplace a damaged 18- by 41-foot-long corrugated metal pipe culvert with a 9-foot-wide\, 85-foot-long channel containing a 4-foot-wide\, 12-inch-deep rock-lined\, low-flow channel and 2.5 feet of gravel on either side\, totaling approximately 34 total cubic yards of new riprap. This work will include restoring and revegetating the area with native riparian species to create 0.017 acres of new ephemeral stream habitat.\nReplace an existing dilapidated wooden staircase to the beach with a concrete beach access ramp\, reinforced with 59 cubic yards of new riprap.\nConstruct\, use\, and maintain a new 2.5-mile-long Bay Trail segment.\nInstall 385 linear feet of 6- to 8-foot-high chain link fencing and 4\,714 linear feet of 3.5-foot-high wooden fencing at various locations along the trail to ensure user and habitat safety as well as prevent unauthorized access to restricted access areas.\nInstall 6-foot-tall manually operated chain-link gates at both ends of the trail segments\, two benches\, and wayfinding and coastal access signage.\nConstruct\, use\, and maintain in-kind ADA access from the Point Molate Beach Park parking lot to and from the Bay Trail.\n\n\n\nAt the time of this listing\, East Bay Regional Parks District and the City of Richmond (co-applicant) are still finalizing easement agreements with the underlying property owners for the Bay Trail extension and has provided a letter demonstrating the property owners’ intent to execute the agreements. Permit conditions will include a requirement to submit copies of the final executed easements to BCDC prior to commencing work. \n\n\n\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\n\nRecommend Approval with Conditions. Pierce Abrahamson; 415/352-3607 or pierce.abrahamson@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSeecon Financial and Construction Company\, Inc.4021 Port Chicago HighwayConcord\, CA 94520 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.007.00md \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 19\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 18\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Primary Management area of the Suisun Marsh\, at Duck Club 122\, in Solano County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRegrade two duck club ponds on the interior of a managed wetland by removing an 18\,000 cubic foot interior levee and placing the fill material in an adjacent pond\, to join two ponds. The project will increase the area of the managed pond habitat and will not involve any permanent or temporary impacts to tidal sloughs or marshes outside of the managed pond. \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\nRegionwide Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following regionwide permits since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nBallena Bay Townhouse Associationc/o Common Interest Management315 Diablo Road\, Suite 221Danville\, CA 94526 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.011.00-RWP-3 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay\, at 80 townhomes located at 1201-1237 Ballena Boulevard\, 300-354 Tideway Drive\, and 401-465 Cola Ballena\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReplace 40 sets of sets and landings\, including the following activities: \n\nTemporarily install access scaffolding;\nTemporarily detach and store 40 existing ramps by securing them to the top of the existing docks;\nRemove existing stairs and landings and install new wooden stairs and landings with stainless steel handrails and mounting hardware within the same footprint;\nRe-install the existing ramps; and\nRemove the access scaffolding.Contact: Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\nCity of Alameda Public Works Department950 W. Mall SquareAlameda\, CA 94501\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.018.00-RWP-5 \n\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s 100-foot shoreline band\, at 1250 and 1300 Eastshore Drive\, in the City of Alameda\, Alameda County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair a sinkhole\, including the following activities: \n\nRemove an existing 6-foot-high\, 10-foot-wide fence and install a new 6-foot-high\, 10-foot-wide double gate;\nFill a 15-foot-wide\, 7-foot-deep sinkhole with 100 square feet of controlled low strength material (flowable fill); and\nConstruct a 9-foot-wide\, 6-foot-high\, 3- to 4.5-foot-deep gabion wall.\n\nContact: (Katharine Pan; 415/352-3650 or katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of San Mateo330 West 20th AvenueSan Mateo\, CA 94403 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.019.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nIn the Bay\, near the San Mateo Bridge\, at 37°34’53.20”N\, 122°15’18.32”W. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair an existing 54-inch-diameter outfall pipe by: \n\nRemoving approximately 34 cubic yards of sediment from the final 100 feet section of the pipe; and\nReplacing two broken lifting lugs to restore the stopgate function.Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nContra Costa Water District1331 Concord AveConcord\, CA 94520 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.020.00-RWP-2 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nNear 5050 Imhoff Road in the City of Martinez\, Contra Costa County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\nUse Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to install a 638-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline and a 656-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline 60-80 ft below ground surface;\nTemporarily construct eight five-foot-deep and one-foot-diameter monitoring wells that will be removed after project construction\n\nIn the 100-foot Shoreline Band: \n\nUse Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) to install a 233-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline and a 222-linear-foot\, 36-inch-diameter HDPE pipeline 60-80 ft below the ground surface over a 1\,861 square-foot area\, and three permanent monitoring wells;\nTemporarily use 38\,698 square-feet of upland areas for construction staging and access roads; and\nTemporarily construct up to 15 five-foot-deep\, one-foot-diameter monitoring wells that will be removed after project construction.Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nGiselle Shepatin and Gregg Doyle31 Sandy Beach RdVallejo\, CA 94950 \n\n\nRegionwide Permit No. NOI2023.022.00-RWP-7 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\n31 Sandy Beach Road\, Vallejo CA 94950. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nIn the Bay: \n\nInstall five 16-inch-diameter concrete pilings and one 12-inch-diameter concrete piling (after-the-fact); and\nReplace one four-inch-by-12-inch redwood beam under an existing pile supported single-family residence (after-the-fact).Contact: Rowan Yelton; 415/352-3613 or rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\n\nEmergency Permits \nThe Executive Director has issued the following emergency permit since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nCity of Redwood City1017 Middlefield RoadRedwood City\, CA 94063 \n\n\nEmergency Permit No. E2024.002.00 \n\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay and 100-foot shoreline band jurisdictions\, at Redwood Shores community\, in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nSignificant erosion was reported April 22\, 2024\, and upon inspection\, a cavity was observed to be forming under the pedestrian trail atop the levee. The trail was immediately closed\, and City Public Works crews coordinated with the Engineering Division to investigate the cause. The situation was monitored continuously\, and the pedestrian controls were improved to keep the public safe. Additional investigations found that a previously unknown culvert had been buried under the levee with an inflatable pipe plug. Evidence suggests that the plug had come loose\, allowing tidally influenced flows to scour and erode the adjacent levee banks. The plan is to isolate the repair area with water-filled cofferdams\, dewater as necessary to perform the repair work\, and backfill the eroded section to restore the levee structure. The adjacent levee slopes are vegetated\, and the work area will be restored in-kind. Given the limited access to the site\, there is no estimated timeline for construction at this point. Once the repair plan is finalized\, a complete project description will be prepared for use in the permitting process. The City has already engaged a geotechnical firm to provide design and construction assistance and will be retaining a biological monitor to be onsite during all construction activity. \nContact: Julie Garren; 415/352- 3624 or julie.garren@bcdc.ca.gov \n\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				Articles about the Bay and BCDC \n\n100+ easements for one flood wall?\nRichmond\, San Rafael bridge limits access to cyclists and pedestrians\nInundation district is a feature-length film about the implications of one city’s decision to ignore the threats posed by climate change and spend billions of dollars on building a new waterfront district — on landfill\, at sea level.\nCartoonist Eddie Ahn draws on community\, environmental justice in new memoir\nThe drowning south where seas are rising at alarming speed\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\n \n \n\nTranscript\n\nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. AND WELCOME TO OUR HYBRID\, BUT TODAY\, ALMOST FULLY VIRTUAL BCDC COMMISSION MEETING. MY NAME IS REBECCA EISEN\, I AM THE VICE CHAIR OF BCDC\, I AM CHAIRING THIS MEETING BECAUSE CHAIR WASSERMAN IS\, UNFORTUNATELY\, BUT NECESSARILY ABSENT TODAY. I AM GRATEFUL TO SEE COMMISSIONER MOULTON PETERS ON MY SCREEN BECAUSE SHE HAS AGREED TO BE OUR VICE CHAIR TODAY IN THE EVENT WE HAVE AN INTERNET PROBLEM. SO I’M HOPEFUL WILL NOT HAPPEN. OUR FIRST ORDER IS TO CALL THE ROLL AND SIERRA IS GOING TO HELP ME OUT HERE BECAUSE I CAN’T SEE ALL OF YOU ON MY SCREEN AT ONCE SO SHE’S GOING TO LET ME KNOW IF YOUR HAND IS RAISED OR IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK.  FOR NOW\, PLEASE BE SURE YOUR CAMERA IS ON THROUGHOUT THE MEETING\, AND UNMUTE YOURSELF FOR THE ROLL CALL. AND THEN ONCE YOU HAVE RESPONDED\, MUTE YOURSELVES ONCE AGAIN. SIERRA?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?  \nSPEAKER: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: AMBUEHL?  \nDAVID AMBUEHL: HERE.  AHN?  \nEDDIE AHN: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: ECKERLY? COMMISSIONER ECKLUND?  \nPAT ECKLUND: PRESENT.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GILMORE?  \nMARIE GILMORE: HERE.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GIOIA?  \nJOHN GIOIA: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GORIN?  \nSUSAN GORIN: PRESENT.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?  \nANDREW GUNTHER: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER HASZ?   \nKARL HASZ: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE?  \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: MOULTON-PETERS?  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON?  \nBARRY NELSON: HERE.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON?  \nSHERI PEMBERTON: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER?  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA?  \nCESAR ZEPEDA: HERE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE I MISSED ANYONE?   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: COMMISSIONER EISEN.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: OH\, APOLOGIES\, VICE CHAIR EISEN. [LAUGHTER] I HAVE A TOTAL 16 PRESENT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. SO WE ARE DULY CONSTITUTED TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PUBLIC COMMENT.  IF ANYONE WANTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER ON WHICH THE COMMISSION EITHER HAS NOT YET HELD A PUBLIC HEARING OR IS IN THE ON TODAY’S AGENDA\, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO DO SO. SIERRA\, ARE THERE ANY INDIVIDUALS IN THE BUILDING WHO WISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THERE IS NO ONE PRESENT IN THE BUILDING\, BUT THERE IS A HAND RAISED ONLINE.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY CALL ON THEM.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: MR. BRUCE BEYERT.  YOU MAY UNMUTE.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON VICE CHAIR EISEN. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. CAN YOU HEAR ME?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES WE CAN.  \nSPEAKER: MY NAME IS BRUCE BEYERT TRACK TRAILS RICHMOND ACTION COMMITTEE I’M HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU ASKED AFTER THE BRIEFING LAST MONTH ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE PILOT PROGRAM THE QUESTION ASKED ABOUT HOW USAGE OF BAY TRAIL ACROSS RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE COMPARED WITH OTHER BAY AREA BRIDGES.  THE BAY TRAIL TRAVERSES BENICIA STRAITS RICHMOND CENTER FAIR BRIDGE OF COURSE THE BAY BRIDGE EAST SPAN AS WELL AS THE DUMBARTON BRIDGE. UC BERKELEY’S PARTNER FOR ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE REPORT SAID THE FOLLOWING IN THE MOST RECENT PEAK SEASON BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON THE BRIDGE WAS HIGHEST OF ALL STATE OWNED TOLL PASS INCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO OAKLAND BAY BRIDGE. TO BE — END OF QUOTE — TO BE MORE SPECIFIC\, DURING THE LAST 45 DAYS\, WEEKEND BICYCLE TRIPS ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE WERE 324 PER DAY\, VERSUS 206 ON THE BAY BRIDGE. ON WEEKDAYS\, BICYCLE TRIPS AVERAGE 132 ACROSS THE RSR BRIDGE\, VERSUS 128 ON THE BAY BRIDGE. PEDESTRIAN USAGE IS VERY LOW ON THE RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE BECAUSE THE PILOT WAS DESIGNED FOR TRANSPORTATION\, THAT IS BICYCLISTS AND NOT FOR RECREATION AND TO BE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. FOR EXAMPLE\, THERE ARE NO RESTROOMS ON EITHER END OF THE BRIDGE AND THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES. THIS CONTRASTS DRAMATICALLY WITH THE BAY BRIDGE WHICH HAS A VERY LARGE USER FRIENDLY PARKING AREA WITH RESTROOMS AT THE BRIDGE YARD IN OAKLAND.  OF COURSE\, NONE OF THE STATE OWNED BRIDGES CAN COMPARE WITH THE ICONIC GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WHICH IS INTERNATIONAL TOURIST DESTINATION AND LITERALLY CRAWLING WITH PEOPLE ON FOOT AND BICYCLE. SO THE BAY BRIDGE IS MOST HEAVILY USED BY BICYCLES OF ALL STATE OWNED BRIDGES. FINALLY CALTRANS LAST MONTH IN APRIL ACTUALLY FILED REQUEST TO EXTEND RICHMOND CENTERVILLE BRIDGE PILOT AND TRACK SUPPORT AND ASK TO BE EXTENDED ADMINISTRATIVELY TO THE END OF 2025 AS THE BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY HAS REQUESTED THIS WILL CLEAR THE DECKS THE EXTENSION WILL BE SETTLED AND YOU WILL BE IN GOOD POSITION TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSAL COMING LATER TO SHUT DOWN THE BAY TRAIL RICHMOND SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE FOUR DAYS A WEEK TO PROVIDE FOR BREAK DOWN LANE FOR AUTOMOBILES WHICH OF COURSE I THINK IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK YOU. NO MORE HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU.  THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE WILL TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT ANY ITEM THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING THAT ITEM. A FEW THINGS FOR THE CHAIR REPORT\, WE ARE ALMOST ENTIRELY VIRTUAL TODAY BECAUSE OF THE FIRST FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AT THE METRO CENTER. BUT OUR STAFF TELLS US THAT THAT CONSTRUCTION IS ON SCHEDULE. AND IF THAT REMAINS THE CASE\, WE CAN HOPE AND EXPECT THAT WE WILL REGAIN USE OF BOTH THE BOARDROOM AND THE YERBA BUENA ROOM FOR OUR MEETING NEXT MONTH\, WHICH WILL BE ON JULY 18TH\, AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS NOTED\, WE WILL NOT HAVE A MEETING ON JULY 4TH. OUR STAFF WILL KEEP US INFORMED REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION\, AS THEY START PLANNING FOR THAT MEETING. TODAY IS THE FIRST MEETING WHERE WE WILL CONSIDER A CONSENT CALENDAR.  AND I KNOW MOST OF THE COMMISSIONERS ARE FAMILIAR WITH CONSENT CALENDARS FROM THE VARIOUS BOARDS THEY HAVE SAT ON. IDEALLY\, A CONSENT CALENDAR HELPS US TO CUT THROUGH RED TAPE REGARDING NON-CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS\, AND GIVES US MORE TIME TO ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT AND TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND OUR PRESENTATIONS. SO\, WE’RE GOING TO GIVE IT A TRY AND SEE HOW THAT GOES. WE WILL ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHEN WE GET TO IT\, IN A MINUTE\, AND WE WILL ALSO NEED TO TAKE A ROLL YOU CALL VOTE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE APPROVING THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE RISING SEA LEVEL WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO BE MEETING AT THE SAME DAY AT OUR NEXT MEETING\, JULY 18TH\, BUT IN THE MORNING. SO WILL THE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORKING GROUP. THOSE MEETINGS ARE GOING TO BE SCHEDULED BACK TO BACK\, SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN ATTEND ALL OF THEM.  AND THEY WILL BE LISTED ON OUR BRAND-NEW WEB SITE’S BRAND-NEW CALENDAR. AND LARRY IS GOING TO TELL US ABOUT THAT WHEN WE GET TO HIS REPORT. FINALLY\, AS I SAID\, OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE JULY 18TH. I DO HOPE THAT EVERYBODY HAS A SAFE AND HAPPY 4TH OF JULY\, IT SOUNDS LIKE PAT HAS WONDERFUL 4TH OF JULY PLANS. AT OUR MEETING ON MAY 18TH\, WE MAY TAKE UP THE FOLLOWING MATTERS\, ONE\, A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON THE RESTORATION OF CHIPPS C-H-I-P-P-S ISLAND\, WHICH IS IN THE DELTA. A BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ADVISORS\, AND\, FINALLY\, AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF BCDC’S ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.  IF A COMMISSIONER HAS INADVERTENTLY FORGOTTEN TO PROVIDE OUR STAFF TO WITH EX PARTE WRITTEN OR ORAL EXPERT COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY REPORT ON THEM AT THIS POINT BY RAISING YOUR HAND. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR WRITTEN REPORT SHOULD BE DETAILED ENOUGH FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE CONVERSATION’S MAIN TOPICS BUT YOUR ORAL REPORT SHOULD NOT BE LONGER THAN TWO MINUTES. SIERRA IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO HAS RAISED HIS OR HER HAND?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN-PERSON\, OR VIRTUALLY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GREAT. THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT.  LARRY?  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU CHAIR EISEN. SUMMER TIME AND AS THE GERSHWIN BROTHERS WROTE LIVING IS EASY TODAY IS SUMMER SOLSTICE LONGEST DAY OF THE YEAR IF YOU PLAN TO GO TO THE BEACH THIS WEEKEND JUST REMEMBER IN JULY 1975 JAWS WAS RELEASED WITH STAR WARS BELIEVING RELEASED MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND THREE YEARS LATER THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WAS FOREVER CHANGED. SUMMER TIME ISN’T JUST A TIME TO HANG OWL WE’RE WORKING HARD IN SHORELINE PLAN GUIDELINES DISCUSSIONS ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND PERMIT REQUESTS AND BUDGET NEWS AFTER ALL THAT HARD WORK WE’LL BE READY FOR ICE CREAM. THERE IS ONLY ONE STAFFING ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE TODAY. TODAY IS STEVE GOLDBECK’S FINAL STAFF MEETING AS A FULL-TIME PERMANENT STATE EMPLOYEE. STEVE JOINED BCDC AS A VOLUNTEER 38 YEARS AGO AND WAS HIRED A YEAR LATER AS A COASTAL PLANNER.  AMONG HIS MANY ROLES AT BCDC HE WROTE THE COMMISSION’S FIRST WATER QUALITY POLICIES AND A FEW YEARS LATER WAS PRINCIPLE STAFF MEMBER IN CHARGE OF FIRST CREATING AND THEN IMPROVING BCDC’S DREDGING AND SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. INITIATED AND LED THE BENEFICIAL REUSE STUDIES WHICH WAS START OF THE REGIONAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE BAY AREA AND ESTABLISHED THE LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY PROGRAM HOW TO MANAGE DREDGE MATERIALS. HE HAD A CENTRAL ROLE IN BCDC’S EFFORTS TO RESTORE SONOMA BAYLANDS AND HAMILTON WETLANDS AND WAS THE MOVER BEHIND CREATING DREDGED MATERIALS MANAGEMENT OFFICE\, FIRST MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATION IN THE BAY AREA AS A RESULT OF THESE AND OTHER EFFORTS WAS AWARDED ROGER B. JONES AWARD EXCELLENCE COASTAL MANAGEMENT AND RECEIVED COMMENDATION FROM PRESIDENT AL GORE’S AS PART OF VP NATIONAL AWARD FOR REINVENTING GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. HE’S BEEN BCDC’S CHIEF DEPUTY SINCE 2010 AND ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. WE HAVE ASKED STEVE TO COME BACK AS A RETIRED ANNUITANT AT SOME POINT AFTER A RESTFUL PERIOD AWAY FROM US. HE HAS BEEN CRUCIAL IN TRAINING THAN MENTORING OUR STAFF WHOSE OVERALL TENURE IS FAR LESS IN 2024 THAN EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO. AND HE HAS STARTED WORKING ON CREATING TRAINING PROGRAM FOR OUR STAFF.  MOST IMPORTANT\, HE HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS PARTNER. HE AND BRAD McCRAY PROPPED ME UP DURING MY FIRST YEARS WHEN I KNEW LITTLE ABOUT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS. HE KNEW QUICKLY HOW I TEND TO WORK\, WHICH IS MOST DIFFICULT THING TO OUT WHEN YOU GET A NEW BOSS. HE CREATED GREAT INTRO TO ANY DISCUSSION THAT GOES LIKE THIS\, QUOTE\, "LARRY\, WE HAVE AN ISSUE; BUT DON’T DO ANYTHING YET." WE SHALL MISS STEVE WANDERING AROUND THE OFFICE SCOPING OUT PROJECTS\, PROOFREADING REPORTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HE DOES. BUT AT LEAST WE’LL HAVE HIM AS A RETIRED ANNUITANT FOR A WHILE. AND I CAN ASSURE HIM WE KNOW HIS TELEPHONE NUMBER WHEN WE NEED ADVICE. STAFF HAD A BURRITO LUNCH WITH SOME GREAT CAKE BEFORE TODAY’S MEETING.  WE PLAN TO HAVE A LOW-KEY SEND-OFF FOR STEVE THIS SUMMER\, AND WE HOPE STEVE WILL CONTRIBUTE SOME OF HIS GREAT RED WINE FOR THAT OCCASION. SO\, STEVE\, I AM SURE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY JUST A FEW WORDS?  \nSTEVEN GOLDBECK: THANK YOU\, LARRY. I HAVE A 20-MINUTE POWERPOINT AND THEN A 10 MINUTE MOVIE TO SHOW. NO. I CALL BCDC THE JOB I CALLED MY CAREER\, AND IT’S BEEN INTERESTING RIDE. AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT I WOULD GO OFF AND DO SOMETHING ELSE WHEN THINGS GOT BORING HERE; BUT THEY NEVER GOT BORING.  WELL\, MAYBE THERE WAS A MEETING OR TWO THAT DIDN’T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. [LAUGHTER]. BUT OVERALL\, IT’S BEEN AN AMAZING TIME\, AND I HAVE ENJOYED ALL OF THE WORK THAT THE BCDC DOES\, AND WORKING WITH ALL THE STAFF. I FEEL LIKE I CAN RETIRE NOW HAVING ACHIEVED SOME INTERESTING THINGS\, IN ADDITION TO [INDISCERNIBLE] WORKING ON THE CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES\, AS THE FIRST IN THE NATION\, IT’S SOMETHING I’LL ALWAYS TREASURE. AND I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 272\, AS WELL. BUT IT’S REALLY BEEN PARTNERSHIPS THAT HAVE ALWAYS MADE ME ENJOY WORKING AT BCDC WITH THE STAFF\, AS I TOLD THEM TODAY AT OUR LITTLE LUNCHEON\, BUT ALSO WORKING WITH COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE BEEN REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS WE HAVE HAD AT BCDC\, ALWAYS IMPRESSED WITH COMMISSIONERS WHO COME TO BCDC FROM WHATEVER BACKGROUND OR APPOINTMENT\, BUT ALWAYS TOOK ON THE ROLE OF BEING A REGIONAL BCDC COMMISSIONER. AND THAT’S HOW BCDC HAS PROSPERED\, SO\, I WANT TO SAY IT’S BEEN AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE WORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND NEW COMMISSIONERS\, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MY NEW ROLE.  SO\, THANKS SO MUCH.  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: TWO THINGS TO FOLLOW THAT UP. FIRST WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR A NEW MEMBER OF SENIOR STAFF TO THIS DEPARTURE. YOU RECEIVED TWO WEEKS AGO LINKS TO THE JOB AND WILL GET IT AGAIN TODAY IN THE COMMISSION SUMMARY PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THEM TO ANYBODY YOU BELIEVE SHOULD RECEIVE THEM. PERHAPS LATE BREAKING NEWS EVENT BCDC’S BOCCE TEAM WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN KNOWN AS THE MEAN HIGH TIDES\, HAS NOW CHANGED ITS NAME AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT SEASON TO STEVIE G. AND THE SHORELINE BAND. SO\, WE DO THAT\, BECAUSE STEVE HAS BEEN A — I THINK\, STEVE\, YOU WERE A CHARTER MEMBER OF THE BOCCE GROUP\, AND REMAINS A STALWART\, AND THE BYLAWS OF THE BOCCE RULES LEAGUE SAY THAT RETIRED ANNUITY ANTS CAN PARTICIPATE IN BOCCE GAMES\, JUST SO YOU KNOW. WITH THAT\, I HAVE ONE MORE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT CHAIR EISEN NOTED.  THE MAJOR NEWS AT BCDC DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS IS THE DEPLOYMENT OF OUR NEW WEB SITE. THANKS TO A GREAT EFFORT BY A NUMBER OF STAFF\, MOST ESPECIALLY REYLINA\, ELSA\, AND ETHAN\, AND VARIOUS OTHER STATE STAFF AND A VERY GOOD CONSULTANT TEAM\, OUR NEW WEB SITE IS BOTH EASIER TO USE\, AND CAN BE EXPANDED TO CREATE GREATER FUNCTIONALITY. MOST IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC\, IT IS MUCH BETTER ORGANIZED\, AND WE ARE WORKING HARD TO FULFILL ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES BY USING AS MUCH PLAIN LANGUAGE AS POSSIBLE. PLEASE CHECK IT OUT. LOOK AT THE NEW CALENDAR FUNCTION\, ESPECIALLY\, THAT CONTINUES TO MAKE ME SMILE. AND WE’RE STILL TINKERING WITH IT AND WILL BE FOR MANY MONTHS. AND WE CERTAINLY LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR COMMENTS.  IF YOU FIND SOMETHING OR DON’T FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU EITHER LIKE OR DON’T LIKE\, PLEASE LET US KNOW. THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT\, CHAIR EISEN\, I’M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY QUESTIONS FOR LARRY? WELL\, LET ME SAY\, STEVE\, THAT WAS UNBELIEVABLE AND STUNNING LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AND ON BEHALF OF A VERY GRATEFUL COMMISSION\, WE’RE GOING TO MISS YOU\, AND WE’RE LOOKING FORWARD TO THE\, I THINK LARRY CALLED IT A SEND-OFF\, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT’S JUST A TRANSITION. ALL RIGHT. WE’RE NOW AT THE EXCITING BRAND NEW CONSENT CALENDAR.  AT THIS POINT IN THE AGENDA\, WE’RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR OUR JUNE 6TH MEETING\, AND THE SECOND IS THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A REVISED STIPULATED CEASE AND DESIST AND CIVIL PENALTY ORDER FROM THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. AND THAT REGARDS A PROPERTY IN SAN FRANCISCO AT 224 SEA CLIFF AVENUE. ENFORCEMENT COMMITTEE CHAIR MARIE GILMORE HAS ALREADY CONCURRED IN THE INCLUSION OF THIS ORDER IN THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SO\, FIRST\, SIERRA DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE CONSENT CALENDAR?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO ONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT.  SO\, THEN\, AS INDICATED\, WE DO TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MAY I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT THE CONSENT CALENDAR? SIERRA\, LET ME KNOW WHO MOVES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU.  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: AND PAT SHOWALTER.  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: I’LL BE GLAD TO SECOND THE CONSENT CALENDAR.   \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: ECKLUND MOVES SHOWALTER SECONDS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. SIERRA\, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO?  \nMARK ADDIEGO: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER AHN?  \nEDDIE AHN: AYE.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER AMBUEHL? [LAUGHTER]  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: I THINK THAT COUNTS. WE SEE IT.  \nDAVID AMBUEHL: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER ECKERLY?  \nJENN ECKERLE: YES.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: ECKLUND?  \nPAT ECKLUND: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GILMORE?  \nMARIE GILMORE: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GIOIA?  \nJOHN GIOIA: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: GUNTHER?   \nANDREW GUNTHER: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HASZ?  \nKARL HASZ: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS?  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON? COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON?   \nSHERI PEMBERTON: AYE.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER?  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ZEPEDA?  \nCESAR ZEPEDA: YES.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CHAIR EISEN?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: HAVE I MISSED ANYONE? THE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES WITH 16 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ZERO ABSTENTIONS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, SIERRA. ALL RIGHT. WELL\, WE DO NOT HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING TODAY\, BUT COMMISSIONER GUNTHER ASKED AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT OUR STAFF EXPLAIN HOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS WORKS AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM OTHER TYPES OF PERMITTING APPROVALS. SO\, HARRIET ROSS WHO IS OUR REGULATORY DIRECTOR HAS PREPARED A RESPONSE FOR THE COMMISSION. BUT BEFORE WE GET TO HARRIET’S RESPONSE\, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM?   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN PERSON\, AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. HARRIET\, YOU CAN PLEASE EXPLAIN TO US OUR ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING PROCESS?  \nHARRIET ROSS: YES. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. AGAIN\, I’M HARRIET ROSS. FIRST OF ALL\, BCDC HAS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF PERMITS\, AS YOU ALL HAVE NOTICED\, I’M SURE.  WHEN THE COMMISSION HEARS A PROJECT OR VOTES SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID LAST MONTH IN MAY\, 505 BAYSHORE\, THAT’S CONSIDERED A MAJOR PERMIT. BUT THE COMMISSION’S RULES HAVE DEDICATED AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND ACT ON SOME OTHER PERMITS TO ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. SO\, THE PERMITS THAT APPEAR IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTINGS ARE CONSIDERED MINOR REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS AND THAT’S DEFINED BY THE COMMISSION’S REGULATIONS AND BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THIS DEFINITION OF MINOR REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS. SOME EXAMPLES TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CAN BE SINGLE BOAT DOCKS LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET SHORELINE PROTECTION THAT WOULD FILL LESS THAN 10\,000 FEET OF THE BAY\, ROUTINE REPAIRS THAT DON’T INVOLVE SIGNIFICANT ENLARGEMENT OR CHANGES IN USE. JUST TO NAME A FEW THINGS. NOW\, BEFORE THE DIRECTOR ASKED TO ISSUE OR DENY A PERMIT\, THEY’RE REQUIRED TO ADVERTISE ACTIONS TO THE COMMISSION AND PUBLIC.  WE DO THIS BEFORE EVERY MEETING\, THERE IS A LISTING OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS ITEM AT THE BEGINNING OF COMMISSION MEETINGS. SUMMARY OF PROJECTS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS BY THE STAFF. IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S CLASSIFICATION THAT A PROJECT IS INDEED CONSIDERED A MINOR REPAIR OR IMPROVEMENT\, THEN NO ACTION IS NEEDED. AND THAT’S TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR NINE MONTHS NOW\, AND I THINK WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS EVERY MEETING WITHOUT ANY FANFARE. THEN THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILL ACT ON PENDING APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE MANDATED DEADLINES. SO\, THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS OR PERMITS DON’T REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAY BE ISSUED WITHIN A SHORTER TIME FRAME.  NOW\, HOWEVER\, IF THE COMMISSION — AND YOU ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION THAT A PROJECT IS INDEED A MINOR REPAIR OR IMPROVEMENT AND IF THAT’S THE CASE WE’LL HOLD A HEARING TO DISCUSS IF THAT — IF THE PROJECT DOESN’T FIT THE DEFINITION OF THE COMMISSIONER’S VOTE ON THIS TYPE OF PERMIT — SORRY\, IF IT DOESN’T MEET THE DEFINITION OF THIS PERMIT THEN WE VOTE AS A COMMISSION ON THE TYPE OF PERMIT IT SHOULD BE. IF THE COMMISSION VOTES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT IS NOT THE RIGHT PERMIT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED BY THE COMMISSION RULES TO DENY THE APPLICATION. THEN THE APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE REAPPLIED AS A MAJOR PERMIT\, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION VOTE. VOTES THEN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT\, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMISSION VOTE. SO\, THAT’S THE MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT INCLUDED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING. WE ALSO LIST OTHER PERMITS SUCH AS REGION-WIDE ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO GO OVER THAT IN DETAIL AT FUTURE TRAINING.  THAT’S JUST THE BASICS OF WHAT GOES ON IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING AND HOW THAT’S DIFFERENT FROM THE MAJOR PERMITS THAT YOU ALL CONSIDER FROM TIME TO TIME. ANY QUESTIONS?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY QUESTIONS OF HARRIET? COMMENTS?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. THANK YOU HARRIET.  AND YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE COULD REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE LISTING IF WE WISHED REMINDED ME THAT THAT IS ALSO TRUE OF OUR CONSENT CALENDAR. AND I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IF AT ANY POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY WANTED TO LIFT SOMETHING ALL THE COMMISSION — I MEAN THE CONSENT CALENDAR\, AND HAVE A REGULAR\, SORT OF\, ITEM FOR THAT MATTER\, THAT CAN BE DONE. SO\, I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT.  \nGREG SCHARFF: I WANTED TO ADD TO THAT CHAIR EISEN IT TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS. IF ONE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO IT\, IT TAKES TWO COMMISSIONERS TO SAY WE’RE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU GREG. FIND A PARTNER IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE SOMETHING FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR.  WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THREE BRIEFINGS NOW. THE FIRST ONE IS WITH RESPECT TO SAND MINING ISSUES. IT’S A BRIEFING BY THE BCDC STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SAND MINING INDUSTRY. IT’S GOING TO BE WITH REGARD TO ISSUES THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION’S TEMPORARY SAND MINING COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP\, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED RECENTLY. AND THEY’RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. LAST WEEK\, BCDC DISTRIBUTED RESEARCH STUDIES ON ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY OUR COMMISSION DURING THE SAND MINING PERMIT PROCESS BACK IN 2015. THAT RESEARCH WAS REVIEWED BY AN INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL. SO\, TODAY\, BCDC STAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON THE RESEARCH AND THE FINDINGS PROCESS\, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SAND MINING COMPANIES ARE GOING TO PROVIDE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON MINING ACTIVITIES.  SO\, THE PURPOSE OF THIS BRIEFING IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE TOPICS THAT THE WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO CONSIDER. SO\, COMMISSIONERS SHOULD AWAIT THAT WORK BEFORE WE EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS WE HAVE ON THE STUDIES OR THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING A PERMIT FOR FUTURE SAND MINING ACTIVITIES. TODAY WE’RE GOING TO HEAR THE SHORT PRESENTATIONS. AND OF COURSE\, THERE WILL BE TIME FOR ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONERS HAVE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE BEGIN? I’M SORRY.  [LAUGHTER] LET’S HAVE THE PRESENTATION BEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. BRENDA IS GOING TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU VICE CHAIR EISEN. YOU CAN ALL SEE MY SCREEN?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: YES.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M PLEASED TO PRESENT FINDINGS ON THE NEW SIGNS ON SAND IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AN OVERLOOKED AREA OF THE SEDIMENT SYSTEM THIS NEW SCIENCE IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE COMMISSION’S REQUIREMENTS IN ITS 2015 SAND MINING PERMITS.  MY PRESENTATION\, AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, WILL BE TO REVIEW THE HISTORY OF SAND MINING IN THE BAY\, THE COMMISSION’S PERMITTING SAND ACTIVITIES IN 2015 PROCESS AND ORGANIZATION FOR IDENTIFY THE STUDIES AND RESEARCH AND FINDINGS THEN INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL ON RESEARCH AND FINALLY PATH FORWARD IN THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS. AND MY SCREEN IS NOT FORWARDING. SO\, LET ME JUST DO IT THIS WAY. OKAY. SO\, AS SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE\, MINING IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY HAS OCCURRED FOR ALMOST A CENTURY\, VIA SMALL COMPANIES THAT BEGAN AROUND THE 1930S\, AND PERHAPS BEFORE THAT. THE COMMISSION’S RECORDS OF THIS ACTIVITIES ARE LIMITED TO THE DOCUMENTED SAND MINING FROM VARIOUS PERMITS OF THESE SMALL COMPANIES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN THE 1970S. OVER TIME\, THE SMALL COMPANIES WERE CONSOLIDATED. AND ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE 1990S\, SEVERAL OF THE SMALL COMPANIES\, ALONG WITH THE STATE LAND LEASES\, OR PRIVATE — OR PRIVATE LEASES WERE CONSOLIDATED UNDER HANSON AGGREGATES\, WHICH IS NOW MARTIN MARIETTA\, AND\, ALSO\, LIND MARINE.  ALSO NOTE A THIRD SAND MINING COMPANY\, SUISUN ASSOCIATES WHICH IS A JOINT EFFORT — GIANT COMPANY OF LIND MARINE AND MARTIN MARIETTA. IN THIS GRAPHIC\, YOU SEE HERE\, IN THE UPPER RIGHT\, THERE IS A VERY SMALL MAP\, BILL BUTLER WITH LIND MARINE WILL SHOW YOU A BETTER MAP SHORTLY\, BUT THE SAND — CENTRAL SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND IN SUISUN CHANNEL IN BAY AREA CALLED MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL AND SUISUN CHANNEL ITSELF. THE MINING\, AS RECORDED BY PERMITS\, BY MINING COMPANIES BETWEEN 1970S AND 2023 HAS BEEN VARIABLE. IT GOES UP AND DOWN AND TRACKS THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK. SAND MINING IS DONE PARTICULARLY TO PROVIDE AGGREGATE TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IN THE BAY REGION. IT’S NOT THE ONLY SAND THAT’S PROVIDED TO THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. THERE IS ALSO IMPORTED SAND FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA AND SAND TRUCKED IN FROM VARIOUS QUARRIES IN THE REGION.  BUT THE MINERS WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION. BUT YOU WILL NOTE THAT DURING THE EARLY 2000s WAS THE PEAK OF THE SAND MINING AND THAT WAS AROUND THE DOT COM PERIOD WHEN THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF BUILDING GONE ON IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. YOU WILL ALSO SEE A DIP AROUND 2018 AND 2014 WHICH MARKS A SIGNIFICANT RECESSION IN THE REGION AND ACKNOWLEDGE BACK THEN DECLINING OVER TIME AND IT TENDS TO TREND ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY’S WORK AND WE’LL SEE HOW IT CONTINUES IN THE FUTURE. IN 2015\, THE COMMISSION HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME THREE MAJOR PERMITS IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE. AND THEY ISSUED THREE PERMITS. THE FIRST PERMIT WAS FOR CENTRAL BAY FOR 1.4 PER CUBIC YARDS OF SAND OVER MULTIPLE LEASE PARCELS ISSUED TO HANSON AGGREGATES NOW MARTIN MARIETTA. SUISUN BAY HAD A PERMIT ISSUE FOR 185\,000 CUBIC YARDS ANNUALLY AND THAT WENT TO SUISUN ASSOCIATES AND LIND MARINE HAD A SPECIFIC PERMIT ISSUED ON A PRIORITY LEASE FOR 100\,000 CUBIC YARDS AROUND MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL.  PERMITS ARE FOR A TEN YEAR PERIOD AND THEY DIFFERENT STUDIES TO MITIGATE AND BETTER UNDERSTAND IMPACTS OF SAND MINING SO THE COMMISSION ALONG WITH THE WATER BOARD REQUIRED WATER QUALITY MONITORING STUDY AND REQUIRED BENTHIC HABITAT STUDY THEN MOST RECENT WORK REQUIRED STUDY OF SAND TRANSPORT AND SAND BUDGET POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE MINING OF THE SAND\, AND PHYSICAL PROCESS IN THE BAY AND IN THAT ACTION THE COMMISSION REQUIRED THE MINERS TO CONTRIBUTE $1.2 MILLION TO THESE EFFORTS. THERE WAS MITIGATION REQUIRED AS PART OF THESE PERMITS\, INCLUDING REMOVAL OF SOME BAY FILL WHICH WAS PRIMARILY UNDERTAKEN AT CROCKETT AND MARINA\, A DEFUNCT MARINA NEAR THE CITY OF CROCKETT NEAR THE BENICIA BRIDGE INSTALLATION OF FISH SCREENS ON ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT ALL OF THE PUMPING EQUIPMENT TO REDUCE ENTERTAINMENT OF FISH FROM THE WATER BEING PUMPED ON THE DREDGES TO SLURRY THE SAND. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN ISSUES RAISED AROUND SAND MINING THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THAT REGARD AND THE COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY HAD A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS\, INCLUDING HOW MUCH SAND IS IN THE BAY WHAT’S THE VOLUME AND WHERE IS IT\, WHAT AREAS ARE IN TRANSPORT WHAT AREAS ARE RELIC SANDS IS THE SAND BEING MIND AND TRANSPORT FOR RELIC AND WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF MINING RELIC SAND AND IMPACTS TO ACTIVE SANDS\, AND CONSEQUENCES OF THAT MINING TO BAY BEACHES AND TIDES THAT IT FEEDS. QUESTIONS CAME UP WITH WHETHER YOU DIG A BIG HOLE AND SOME SEDIMENTS COME DOWN FROM THE DELTA THAT FILL THE HOLE RATHER THAN GOING TO BAY BEACHES. THE QUESTION ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE MODIFICATION OF MINING VOLUME AT DIFFERENT SITES OR SITES THEMSELVES UNDER WHAT CONDITION SHOULD WE ALLOW MINING OR NOT AND WHAT’S SUSTAINABLE VOLUME FOR MINING AND SUBSTANTIAL DEPLETION\, COMMISSION AT THE TIME SUGGESTED MONITORING FOR IMPACTS OF EXTRACTION OF RELIC SAND AND SAND TRANSPORT WAS IMPORTANT ALSO WANTED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER BCDC’S AUTHOR AND JURISDICTION IN RELATIONSHIP TO SAND MINING AND LASTLY THE QUESTION CAME UP AROUND IMPACTS TO BENTHIC LIFE IN THE BAY BUT THAT’S NOT A SUBJECT OF TODAY’S PRESENTATION SO THAT UPGRADE WENT OUT. AFTER THE PERMIT’S WERE ISSUED IN APRIL 2015 WE WENT AWAY FROM THAT HEARING AND BEGAN TO WORK WITH MINORS AND THE COMMISSION REQUIRED $1.2 MILLION TO SUPPORT THE SAND STUDIES THAT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED INTO THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY’S COASTAL TRUST FUND OVER FOUR YEARS SO WE ALLOWED A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT MONEY TO BUILD UP. ONCE THAT DEPOSIT WAS COMPLETE THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY AND BCDC BEGAN TO WORK TOGETHER WITH A SELECTED SAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO DEVELOPED FURTHER THE QUESTIONS AROUND HOW WE MANAGE SAND MINING\, WHAT THE IMPACTS OF MINING ARE.  THEY WORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP SCUDDY SCOPES WE REQUESTED REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WHICH WERE LISTED AT THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY’S WEB SITE AND PROPOSALS REVIEWED BY THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. IN ADDITION DURING THE LATTER PART OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE’S MAIN WORK AND INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL FORMALIZE THEY REVIEWED THE SCOPES AND REVIEWED PROPOSALS THAT CAME IN THEY IDENTIFIED AND INTERVIEWED SAND SCIENCE TEAMS AND WORKED WITH TEAMS TO CREATE AND APPROPRIATE STUDIES TO BEST ANSWER MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS AND WHEN STUDIES WERE COMPLETED THEY REVIEWED FINDINGS AND DEVELOPED A FINDINGS REPORT WITH THE SAND TECH CONSULTING FIRM. JUST SO YOU KNOW WHO IS ON THESE GROUPS. THE SAND TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE STEERING COMMITTEE CAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE INCLUDED CONSERVANCY\, BCDC\, COASTAL COMMISSION\, STATE LANDS COMMISSION ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS WATER BOARD NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES AND COW FISH AND WILDLIFE SAN FRANCISCO BAY KEEPER NON-PROFIT HIGHLIGHT INTERESTED IN WORKING AND MARIN M REPRESENTATIVES AS WELL AS CONSULTING FIRM ASSISTED IN THE WORK\, DEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL INCLUDED FIVE DISTINGUISHED SCIENTISTS\, BOB BATTAGLIO FROM ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\, DR. CRAIG JONES FROM INTERVAL [INDISCERNIBLE] IN CONSULTING AND DR. JOHN LAJIER FROM UC DAVIS AND DAVID SHOLHAMER\, USGS EMERITUS\, AS WELL AS DR. PAUL [INDISCERNIBLE]\, USGS EMERITUS.  A DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF FOLKS WORKING ON DEVELOPING THESE STUDIES AND REVIEWING THEM. THERE WE GO. AS I MENTIONED\, THE SAND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORKED TO REFINE THE COMMISSION’S QUESTIONS AND ADD SOME OF THEIR OWN QUESTIONS ON WHAT KINDS OF INFORMATION WE WANTED OUT OF THESE SAND STUDIES. THE QUESTIONS AS DEFINED INCLUDED SAND MINING AT EXISTING AREAS AT PRIMITIVE LEVELS HAVING MEASURABLE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACT ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY WITHIN SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASKED WHAT’S THE SUSTAINABLE NUMBER AND SUSTAINABLE DEPLETION MUCH LIKE THE COMMISSION DID\, THEY ASKED WHAT IS THE ANTICIPATED PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF SAND MINING AT PERMITTED LEVELS ON SAND TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY WITHIN THE BAY AND OUTER COAST AND IMPACT TO ACTIVE SANDS CONSEQUENCES TO BEACHES AND TIDES\, IMPACT TO RELIC SANDS AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO MINING THE BAY. SO SIMILAR BUT MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION ASKED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE RESEARCH TEAMS — I’M NOT GOING TO READ ALL THESE FOLKS NAMES BUT I FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PUT THE AGENCIES ORGANIZATIONS AND SCIENTISTS UP FOR YOU TO SEE BECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS A DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF SCIENTISTS WHO WORKED VERY HARD ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STUDIES TO HELP THE COMMISSION UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF SAND MINING AND UNDERSTAND THE SAND TRANSPORT SYSTEM A LOT BETTER THAN WE DID TEN YEARS AGO. WE LOOKED AT SAND BUDGET\, SAND SUPPLY\, MORPHOLOGICAL CHAINS IN TRANSPORT ANALYSIS.  WE ALSO HAD SOME SAND TRANSPORT MODELING THAT WAS DONE\, AND SAND PROVIDENCE\, OR ALSO KNOWN AS FINGERPRINTING UNDERSTANDING THE ORIGIN OF WHERE THE SAND CAME FROM AND MULTIPLE DIFFERENT FOLKS FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES WORKING TOGETHER ACROSS THESE DIFFERENT STUDS TO INTEGRATE THIS WORK. SO\, HERE IS THE KEY FINDINGS. AND THIS IS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IN THE FINDINGS REPORT. THESE ARE THE OVERARCHING FINDINGS. THERE ARE ALSO REGIONAL FINDINGS THAT I’M NOT INCLUDING IN MY PRESENTATION TODAY\, AND THE STUDIES THEMSELVES ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN APPENDIX G WITH EVEN MORE INFORMATION ARE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN DIVING IN DEEP. SO\, THE KEY FINDINGS INCLUDE THAT THE VOLUME OF MIND SAND IS SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE BAY’S SAND BUDGET IT REPRESENTS LARGEST OUTFLOW OF SAND IN THE BAY INCLUDING NET SAND DISCHARGE TO THE OCEAN. ADDITIONALLY SAND IS MIND FASTER THAN IT IS BEING REFRESHED AND THEREFORE SAND IS A NON-RENEWABLE RESOURCE OVER THE LONG-TERM.  SUISUN BAY SAND IS NOT BEING REPLENISHED AND THUS A FINITE RESOURCE AND THE BED IS BEING LOWERED AND SYMMETRIC MODELING AND BUDGET STUDIES ALL SUPPORT FINDING SAND MINING AFFECTS AND IN HIGHLY LOCALIZED WITH EFFECTS DIMINISHING WITH DISTANCE FROM THE EVENT LOCATION. THE EFFECT IS PRONOUNCED IN AREAS OF NEGLIGIBLE SAND TRANSPORT SUCH AS SUISUN BAY WHERE DEPRESSIONS CAUSED BY MINING PERSIST IN THE BED OVER TIME. THE NEXT FINDINGS\, CENTRAL BAY SAND IS RELIC\, MEANING IT WAS DEPOSITED BETWEEN 20\,000 AND 6\,000 YEARS AGO AS SEA LEVELS ROSE AND THE RIVER DISCHARGE POINT MIGRATED THROUGH THE BAY TO PRESENT LOCATION IN THE DELTA PART OF THE LARGE BAY OCEAN RESERVOIR OF SAND. SANDS DERIVED FROM THE WATERSHED OF THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVERS ARE NO LONGER A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE TO THE BAY OCEAN AND LARGE VOLUMES OF SAND DO NOT MOVE THROUGH THE SYSTEM DURING TIMES OF HIGH FLOW\, I.E.\, WET WINTERS AS WAS PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED EFFECTS OF MINING TO BEACHES ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT REMAIN UNQUANTIFIED. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE SAND\, AND IN EACH TIDAL CYCLE SAND IS TRANSPORTED BETWEEN THE BAY AND THE OCEAN EFFECTIVELY LINKING THE TWO SAND DEPOSITS INTO A SHARED POOL. THE SIZE OF THE SHARED POOL OF SAND AND THUS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REDUCTION DUE TO MINING IS UNKNOWN. SO\, THAT IS THE HIGH-LEVEL FINDINGS\, OVERARCHING FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENCE SCIENCE PANEL.  WE’LL FURTHER DIG INTO THIS INFORMATION AND FURTHER CODIFY WHAT IT MEANS FOR MINING ACTIVITIES AND PERMITTING IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. GOING FORWARD\, WE HAVE TODAY’S BRIEFING AND ALL THE SCIENCE THAT HAS GONE INTO IT\, INTO THAT FINDINGS REPORT WHICH IS 35 TO 40 PAGES LONG. NOT TOO LONG OF A READ. YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY READ IT AND THESE ARE THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL FINDINGS. WE’LL TAKE THE INFORMATION AND DIG THROUGH IT IN THE COMMISSION ARE WORKING GROUP WHICH I’LL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. WE’LL USE THE COMMISSIONER IDENTIFIED QUESTIONS WE’LL STUDY IN REVIEW AND HAVE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THIS ALL MEANS. THE STATE LANDS COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY IN A CEQA REVIEW PROCESS SO WE’RE ANTICIPATING OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THAT STATE LANDS WILL BE REVIEWING DRAFT CEQA DOCUMENT.  AND BCDC’S ROLE IN THAT IS TO REVIEW AND COMMENT ON IT ALONG WITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES. LATE THIS YEAR\, WE’RE ANTICIPATING PERHAPS DECEMBER\, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE SAND MINING COMPANIES SUBMITTING THROUGH NEW APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SAND MINING IN THE FUTURE. AND LASTLY\, PROBABLY AROUND EARLY SPRING\, APRIL 2025\, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE THE COMMISSION HEARING AND VOTING ONCE AGAIN ON SAND MINING ACTIVITIES IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY\, AS PROPOSED BY THE MINERS. SO\, THE SAND STUDIES COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE GRACIOUSLY\, ONCE AGAIN\, AGREED TO SIT ON A COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP AND HELP STAFF DIG THROUGH IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT WILL INFLUENCE HOW WE PERMIT AND THINK ABOUT POLICY APPLICATION WHEN WE GET THE PERMIT APPLICATION. SO\, IT WILL BE CHAIRED BY PAT SHOWALTER\, AND ANDY GUNTHER\, AND BARRY NELSON WILL BE THE TWO COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP. WE HAVE FOUR MEETINGS PLANNED AND SCHEDULED.  AND PLEASE COME TO THESE MEETINGS IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. BECAUSE THEY WILL BE FASCINATING AND WE’LL HAVE DIFFERENT PRESENTERS HERE TO HELP EXPLAIN SOME OF THE SCIENCE. SO\, THE FIRST ONE IS IN MID-JULY. IT’S AN AFTERNOON MEETING. AUGUST 21ST\, AND SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER ARE ALL MORNING MEETINGS. THEY’RE GOING TO BE TWO HOURS IN LENGTH\, AND THEY WILL BE VIRTUAL. SO EASY TO ATTEND.  AGAIN\, THEY WILL BE FULLY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK WITH THAT\, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION. WE CAN PROBABLY HOLD QUESTIONS FOR MY PRESENTATION UNTIL AFTER THE MINERS — THE MINING REPRESENTATIVES GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION\, UNLESS THERE ARE SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, DO WE HAVE ANY CLARIFYING QUESTIONS NOW BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE MINERS PRESENTATIONS? IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE HAS HER HAND UP.  \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: I HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY SAND BUDGET\, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SAND WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY COMING IN AND OUT SOME OF THAT IS HAPPENING IN A NATURAL PROCESS ACCUMULATING OVER TIME THEN THE SAND LEAVING THE OCEAN THERE’S ALSO HUMAN EXTRACTION OF SAND EITHER THROUGH NAVIGATING DREDGING OR MINING ACTIVITIES.  SO\, IT’S A SCIENTIFIC PROCESS IN WHICH SCIENTISTS DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO BOUND THE AMOUNT OF\, IN THIS CASE\, SAND THAT IS PRESENT\, IN THE ACTIVE TRANSPORT LAYERS\, THEN BALANCE OUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS COMING IN AND OUT TO GET A MASS OF EQUILIBRIUM IT’S NOT WEIGHT OF VOLUME OF EQUILIBRIUM OR WEIGHT\, IT’S ACTUALLY MASS THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE WILL BE TALKING MORE ABOUT AT THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP BECAUSE IT’S A TECHNICAL BUT STANDARDIZED SCIENTIFIC PROCESS.  \nALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY ADDITIONAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS? OR SHALL WE TURN TO THE MINERS PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: OKAY. I HAVE FIGURE OUT.  STOP SHARING. PROUD TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY BILL BUTLER OF LIND MARINE\, ERICA GERA AND MICHAEL BISHOP OF MARTIN MARIETTA WHO WILL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT SAND MINING AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES. THANK YOU. AND WELCOME BILL\, ERICA\, AND MICHAEL.  \nBILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I’M NOT SURE WHO IS GOING TO SHARE THE PRESENTATION.  GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR EISEN MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY NAME IS BILL BUTLER. I AM VICE PRESIDENT WITH LIND MARINE. PRESENTING THE SAND MINING OVERVIEW ON BEHALF OF BOTH LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA THIS AFTERNOON. JOINING ME AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS BRENDA INDICATED\, IS ERICA GERA AND MIKE BISHOP FROM MARTIN MARIETTA\, WE ALSO HAVE AARON HOLLOWAY AND NICK FROM GHG WHO ARE COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FOR THE SAND MINERS AND ALSO CHRISTIAN MARSH FROM COUNCIL DOWNEY BRAND THEY’RE AVAILABLE TO HAVE QUESTIONS. NEXT SLIDE. SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL DETAILS ABOUT SAND MINING FROM THE COMMISSION IN ACTIVITY NINE YEARS AGO. I’LL TAKE THIS MOMENT TO REFRESH OVERVIEW OF BAY SAND MINING.  I’M GOING TO BRIEFLY COVER THESE TOPICS. WHY SAND MINING HAPPENS\, WHO IS INVOLVED AND WHERE\, WHEN\, HOW\, AND HOW MUCH THAT IT HAPPENS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THE PURPOSE OF SAND MINING IS TO OBTAIN A COMMERCIAL GRADE AGGREGATE THAT IS USED FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION\, GOING INTO CONCRETE\, ASPHALT\, AND OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE USED TO BUILD THE HOMES\, SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, ROADS\, AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AROUND THE BAY. MARINE SAND IS A KEY COMPONENT IN BAY AREA RESTORATION AND RESILIENCE PROJECTS\, AS WELL. ALL OF THESE THINGS WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE ENJOY HERE IN THE BAY AREA. UTILIZING A LOCAL RESOURCE FOR OUR LOCAL NEEDS IN THE REGION THAT’S TRANSPORTED VIA WATERWAYS TO SITES WHERE THE RESOURCE IS UTILIZED AND IN LARGE LOADS THAT EQUAL ROUGHLY 100 TO 140 TRUCK LOADS OF MATERIAL\, ALL HELP TO REDUCE THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.  AND ALSO PROVIDE REGIONAL JOBS FOR OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS. NOW IT’S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE THAT NOT ALL SAND IS COMMERCIAL GRADE SAND. IT NEEDS TO BE DURABLE\, CLEAN\, WELL GRADED\, AND OF THE RIGHT SIZE. THE BAY SANDS WHERE MINING OCCURS\, MEET THESE CRITERIA. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO\, HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF LOCAL PROJECTS THAT ARE UTILIZING BAY SANDS. AND THEY RANGE FROM\, AS I SAID\, CONSTRUCTING SCHOOLS\, HOSPITALS\, AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, REBUILDING FROM WILDFIRE DAMAGE\, TO ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION PROJECTS\, LIKE AT HUNTERS POINT\, AND BEACH RESTORATION\, FOR EXAMPLE\, AT CROWN BEACH IN ALAMEDA\, WHICH WAS DONE FOR RESILIENCE AND SEA LEVEL RISE DEFENSE.  NEXT SLIDE. SO\, AS BRENDA INDICATED EARLIER\, THERE ARE TWO ACTIVE SAND MINING COMPANIES OPERATING IN THE BAY. MARTIN MARIETTA\, FORMERLY HANSON\, AND LIND MARINE\, AS WELL AS THE JOIN VENTURE ENTITY THAT IS FORMED BY THESE TWO COMPANIES. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THESE FIGURES ILLUSTRATE WHERE SAND MINING TAKES PLACE IN THE BAY. THING IF ON THE LEFT IS THE CENTRAL BAY LEASES. THEY SPAN 2600 ACRES CONSISTING OF NINE PARCELS LEASED FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION.  MARTIN MARIETTA\, EXCLUSIVELY MINES THESE AREAS\, AND THIS IS WHERE THE BULK OF SAND MINING TAKES PLACE. THE MIDDLING IF IS\, I GUESS\, FITTINGLY MIDDLE GROUND LEASE AREA\, A 367 ACRE PRIVATE PARCEL IN SUISUN BAY\, AND LIND MARINE EXCLUSIVELY MINES THIS LOCATION. AND THEN FINALLY\, ON THE RIGHT\, THE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE\, WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO PARCELS IN THE SUISUN CHANNEL AT THE EAST END OF SUISUN BAY. AND THIS 938 ACRE LEASE AREA IS LEASED FROM STATE LANDS TO THE SUISUN ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE\, MADE UP OF MARTIN MARIETTA AND LIND. AND LIND MARINE HAS CONDUCTED THE MINING HERE OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ARE GOING TO HELP DESCRIBE HOW THE SAND IS MIND.  THE TWO COMPANIES EACH OPERATE A SAND MINING BARGE THAT’S LIND MARINE’S ON THE LEFT AND MARTIN MARIETTA’S ON THE RIGHT. THESE ARE SIMILAR IN HOW THEY OBTAIN SAND FROM OUR RESPECTIVE AREAS. IN BOTH CASES\, THE SAND MINERS USE TUGBOATS TO MOVE THE SAND TO THE MINING LOCATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. AT THE MINING LOCATIONS\, THE BARGE IS FILLED BY PUMPING A SAND WATER SLURRY FROM THE BAY FLOOR. ON THE RIGHT IT SHOWS THE SAND PIPE ON THE BARGE WHICH IS LOWERED INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND A PUMP ON BOARD THE BARGE PUMPS THE SAND WATER MIXTURE INTO A LOADING CHUTE THAT RUNS THE LENGTH OF THE BARGE\, ILLUSTRATE IN THING IF ON THE LEFT. THE SHOOT IS EQUIPPED WITH SEVERAL SCREENED GATES THAT ALLOW SAND AND WATER TO FLOW INTO THE BARGE HOPPER.  ANY MATERIALS LARGER THAN SAND FLOW OVER THE SCREENS AND THEN ARE DISCHARGED BACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH A PIPE AT THE END OF THE SHOOT THAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. NOW\, AS THE SAND AND WATER MIXTURE FILLS THE BARGE\, WATER\, WHICH ALSO CONTAINS SOME FINE MATERIAL\, DECANTS FROM THE TOP OF THE HOPPER\, AND IS ALSO DISCHARGED BACK INTO THE BAY THROUGH PIPES THAT EXTEND UNDER THE BARGE. PUMPING CONTINUES UNTIL THE BARK HOPPER IS FILLED WITH WET SAND AND ONCE IT’S FILLED\, THE BARGES ARE TRANSPORTED TO A NUMBER OF SITES AROUND THE BAY WHERE THE SAND IS OFF-LOADED\, STOCKPILED\, AND THEN DISTRIBUTED TO CUSTOMERS. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. THESE FIGURES SHOW A COUPLE OF THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SAND MINING BARGES. AND THEY SHOW THE END OF THE SAND MINING PIPES. ON THE LEFT\, MARTIN MARIETTA’S BARGE IS EQUIPPED WITH A SUCTION DRAG HEAD THAT IS PLACED ABOUT TWO FEET INTO THE BAY SUBSTRATE WHEN IT’S LOWER.  THE TUGBOAT KEEPS THE BARGE AS STATIONARY AS POSSIBLE\, BUT THEN MOVES TO NEW LOCATIONS\, AS NECESSARY\, TO CONTINUE THE SLURRY. IN THE SUISUN BAY LOCATIONS\, LIND MARINE SUCTION PIPE ILLUSTRATED THERE ON THE RIGHT\, IS PUSHED FIVE OR SIX FEET INTO THE SUBSTRATE\, AND THE BARGE IS ANCHORED TO LIMIT MOVEMENT DURING MINING. BOTH BARGES ARE EQUIPPED WITH THOSE CYLINDRICAL SCREENS THAT YOU CAN SEE FOR THE SLURRY WATER TO PREVENT ENTRAINMENT OF FISH INTO THE PIPES. IN OF THE CENTRAL BAY\, MARTIN MARIETTA MIND SAND FROM DEPTHS RANGING BETWEEN 60 AND 90 FEET. IN SUISUN BAY LIND MINES IN AREAS THAT ARE ANYWHERE FROM 22 TO 40 FEET DEEP. NEXT SLIDE\, PLEASE. NOW THESE NEXT SEVERAL FIGURES ILLUSTRATE THE LEVELS OF MINING ACTIVITY OCCURRING IN THE THREE AREAS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS.  BRENDA SHOWED A VERY SIMILAR SLIDE TO THIS\, WHICH WAS THE SUMMATION OF ALL OF THESE FIGURES. THIS PARTICULAR FIGURE SHOWS THE ACTIVITY ON THE CENTRAL BAY LEASES FROM 2\,000 TO 2023. AND IT ILLUSTRATES THE VARIABILITY OF MINING TO MEET THE DEMAND THAT BRENDA TALKED ABOUT\, THE HIGHER DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OCCURS GENERALLY WHEN THE ECONOMY IS STRONG AND MANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE UNDERWAY. WHEN THE ECONOMY SLOWS DOWN\, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DECREASES AND SO DOES THE DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. NOW THESE ECONOMIC CYCLES CAN ALSO BE INFLUENCED BY EXTERNAL FACTORS\, YOU KNOW? LIKE NATURAL DISASTERS OR EVEN THE UPCOMING CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION THAT WE’RE DEALING WITH. I’LL MENTION IT’S IMPORTANT TO HAVE PERMIT LIMITS THAT RECOGNIZE THIS VARIABLE AND HIGH ENOUGH TO OFFER THE FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THESE CHANGES IN DEMAND. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.  THIS FIGURE SHOWS ACTIVITY ON THE SUISUN ASSOCIATE’S LEASE OVER THE SAME 23-YEAR PERIOD. IT SHOWS A DIFFERENT CURVE. BECAUSE HERE\, THE VARIABILITY WAS IMPOSED BY AVAILABLE BY PERMITTED VOLUMES IN THE LOW PERIODS THERE IN 2012 AND 2014 THEN WHEN MINING WAS REAUTHORIZED IN 2015\, THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN PERMITTED VOLUMES THAT WERE SHIFTED TO THIS LEASE FROM THE MIDDLE GROUND LEASE. NEXT SLIDE. HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT REDUCED VOLUME THERE IN THE LATER YEARS\, IN THE LAST TEN YEAR PERIOD\, WHEN THESE VOLUMES WERE SHIFTED TO THE SUISUN ASSOCIATES LEASE AREA. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, WHAT’S NEXT?  BRENDA DID A GOOD JOB OF DESCRIBING THIS PROCESS EARLIER. AND WE’RE NOW HERE AT AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE. THIS REPORT IS THE LAST MAJOR PERMIT CONDITION TO BE FULL FIT IN OUR CURRENT PERMITS. AND THIS REPORT REALLY BUILDS ON A HOST OF OTHER STUDIES AND INFORMATION COMPILED THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE PRIOR ROUNDS OF CEQA ANALYSIS AND PRIOR ROUNDS OF PERMITTING AND STUDY. AND MANY OF THE FINDINGS OF THIS REPORT REAFFIRM THE FINDINGS FROM THESE PAST STUDIES\, INCLUDING SOME OF THE DEMONSTRABLE IMPACTS ON SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND SUPPLY BEYOND LOCALIZED AREAS WITHIN THE LEASES\, WEREN’T REALLY IDENTIFIED. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO BE PART OF THE SEDIMENT ATTACK\, AND STUDIES DEVELOPED AND AT THE END ALSO APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS. WE DO HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND ISSUES ON THESE REPORTS THAT REMAIN OUTSTANDING.  AND THOSE COMMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT’S APPENDICES WHICH YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF\, AND WE ENCOURAGE TO YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE. YOU KNOW\, FINALLY\, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO THE SEDIMENT TECH\, MEMBERS\, AND BCDC AND COASTAL CONSERVANCY STAFF\, THE INDEPENDENT SCIENCE PANEL MEMBERS AND THE STUDY AUTHORS FOR ALL THEIR WORK ON THIS VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. IT WAS A HUGE TASK\, AND THE WORK IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. AND\, SO\, WITH THAT\, I — WE’RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, BILL. BRENDA\, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL?  OR ARE WE —  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: NO. WE’RE READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND/OR COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY WHY DON’T WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. SIERRA\, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO COMMENT?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE DO\, CURRENTLY HAVE ONE HAND RAISED. JIM McGRATH.   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JIM McGRATH. SOME OF YOU KNOW WHO I AM. I JUST WANT TO SAY\, FIRST\, THAT THIS IS A STUNNINGLY GOOD BIT OF SCIENCE. I DIDN’T READ EVERY SINGLE WORD. BUT I SKIMMED EACH ONE OF THE REPORTS.  THE KEY CONCLUSION HERE IS THAT THE SEDIMENT THAT’S IN MOTION AT THE MOUTH OF THE BAY IS RELIC SEDIMENT. AND THAT DOESN’T REALLY SURPRISE ME. I CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION IN MONTEREY BAY AT THE MOUTH OF THE SALINAS RIVER. THAT MEANS IT’S NOT REFRESHED IN THE SAME NATURE. BUT UNLIKE MONTEREY BAY\, YOU FACE A VERY DIFFERENT SITUATION HERE. WHILE THE LOSS OF SEDIMENT TO MINING MAY BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED\, A LOSS OF SEDIMENT THAT EVENTUALLY MAKES IT TO THE SAN FRANCISCO AND MARIN COUNTY BEACHES\, THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT INVOLVED IN THAT TRANSPORT SYSTEM. AND THE AMOUNT IS RELATIVELY SMALL\, SIGNIFICANT\, I THINK\, IS THE CONCLUSION.  BUT THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO YOU IS THAT\, WELL\, IT MAY BE THAT THIS EXACERBATES FUTURE EROSION STOPPING SAND MINING PROBABLY NOT HAVE AN APPRECIABLE EFFECT ON THE NEED FOR ADAPTATION ALONG THE BEACHES SO IT’S A COMPLICATED QUESTION THAT YOU’RE GOING TO FACE IN THE FUTURE. WITH THAT\, I’LL STOP. I’LL TRY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE\, THE SUBCOMMITTEE. JUST ONCE AGAIN WANT TO SAY\, JUST REALLY EXCELLENT WORK BY THE STAFF OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. ANY — I SEE AT LEAST ONE MORE HAND RAISED. SIERRA\, DO YOU SEE THAT?   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I DO. BRENDA I WANT TO CLARIFY\, IS NICK PART OF THE PRESENTATION\, BRENDA?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SO\, NICK IS WITH THE CONSULTING FIRM HIRED BY THE SAND MINERS. NICK\, I DON’T KNOW IF YOU MAKING A PUBLIC COMMENT OR IF YOU ARE TRYING TO COMMENT AS PART OF THE SAND MINING PRESENTATION? BUT MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY?  \nSPEAKER: YEAH. THE MINING TEAM ASKED IF I COULD MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GO AHEAD.  \nSPEAKER: DEAR VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MY NAME IS NICK S\, SENIOR COASTAL SCIENTIST WITH GHD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO THE MINING TEAM EXPERTISE IN COASTAL SEDIMENT AND TRANSPORT HERE TO PROVIDE OBSERVATIONS OF THE SAND SCIENCE STUDIES AND ISP PROCESS AND APPRECIATION FOR THE PROCESS AND CHALLENGE OF GENERATING COMPILING RESEARCH ON A COMPLICATED ISSUE\, COMMEND THE HARD WORK OF RESEARCH TEAMS AND ISP STUDIES TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THE NEW RESEARCH BUILDS ON SIGNIFICANT WORK ON SAND TRANSPORT PATHWAYS REAFFIRMING A NUMBER OF FINDINGS\, MINING HAS LOCALIZED EFFECTS SHOULD BE EXAMINED AT INDIVIDUAL LEASE AREA SCALE\, CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR RESEARCH IN AREAS OF INACTIVE SAND TRANSPORT. REPORT ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE STATES 2012 EIR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT RESOURCE IS PREVIOUSLY RECOGNIZED BY BCDC COMMISSIONERS ISP REPORT ACKNOWLEDGES MIND SAND IS RELIC DEPOSITED THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO\, IMPORTANTLY THE STUDIES AND SUMMARY REPORT DO NOT IDENTIFY ANY SPECIFIC MEASURABLE OR IMPACT BEYOND LEASE AREAS THEMSELVES INSTEAD REPORT FINDINGS BEYOND LEASE AREAS ARE UNKNOWN WE CONTINUE TO HAVE CONCERNS REGARDING REPORTS AND BUDGET ANALYSIS SHARED CONCEPT MODEL CAPTURED AND WRITTEN COMMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY LIND AND MARTIN MARIETTA. DOUBLE COUNTING OUTFLOWS CAUSED BY MINING AND DREDGING ACTIVITIES BOTH DREDGE VOLUMES AND SAND OUTFLOWS. RESULTING IN DRAMATIC OVERESTIMATE OF SAND OUTFLOWS FROM THE BAY ADDITIONALLY SAND BUDGET STUDIES ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE FLUX SAND FLOWS INTO OR OUT OF THE BAY REMAINING HIGHLY UNCERTAIN. THE ISP REPORT PROVIDES SEVERAL OVER- GENERALIZATION FOR EXAMPLE\, DETERMINATION THAT SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND PACIFIC OCEAN SHARE A COMMON POOL OF SAND IS OVER GENERALIZED AS THESE ARE LARGE BODIES OF WATER WITH COMPLEX PROCESSES\, TRANSPORTING AND CLIMATE\, AND I URGE STUDIES FOR DETAILED NUANCED FINDINGS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO COLLABORATING WITH BCDC STAFF ON THE UPCOMING WORKING GROUP PROCESS AND BELIEVE THAT CONTINUED DIALOGUE CAN BE ADDRESSED.  THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT? I CAN SEE COMMISSIONERS DO WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: I SEE NO OTHER HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AS WE SAID AT THE BEGINNING\, THIS IS A LONG PROCESS AND CLARIFYING QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT IN TIME ARE CERTAINLY WELCOME. SO\, I THINK PAT SHOWALTER\, I SAW YOUR HAND UP FIRST\, SIERRA WILL CALL ON FOLKS AS THEY RAISE THEIR HAND.   \nSPEAKER: CHAIR EISEN\, IS IT IS THIS TIME FOR COMMENTS AS WELL AS QUESTIONS? OR SHOULD I JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WELL\, I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST ASK YOUR QUESTIONS AND WE’LL SEE HOW IT GOES. OBVIOUSLY —  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. SURE. I WILL JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS REALLY INTERESTED TO HEAR ABOUT THE REDUCTION OF GHGS. BECAUSE OF THE TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT DOESN’T OCCUR BECAUSE OF THIS.  AND I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING MUCH MORE ABOUT THAT. I DO NOT REALLY EXPECT AN ANSWER TO THAT. BUT I JUST DISH WANT TO BRING THAT UP AS A REAL QUESTION THAT I HOPE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT. AND I’LL BE GLAD TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS LATER.  \nSPEAKER: PAT I’M NOT SURE THAT’S REALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS MEETING.  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. I DIDN’T KNOW.   \nGREG SCHARFF: THANK YOU\, GREG.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO\, I DO SEE —  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS\, YOU ARE NEXT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, SIERRA.  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. SO\, I GUESS IT’S CLEAR THAT SAND SUPPLIES ARE A LIMITED RESOURCE. MY QUESTION IS TO WHAT EXTENT OTHER ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS FOR CONSTRUCTION USE MIGHT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE WORK FOR THIS TASK FORCE?  AND AS AN EXAMPLE\, I USE THE FACT THAT WE’RE USING RECYCLED CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IN OUR ROAD PROJECTS\, AS ROAD BASE\, SO WE’RE REGRINDING CONCRETE AND ASPHALT TO USE\, AND THIS WOULDN’T BE SUITABLE FOR EVERYTHING. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS TO A LIMITED SAND SUPPLY. I JUST WONDER IF THAT’S SOMETHING WE COULD ENTERTAIN. THANK YOU.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES IT’S CERTAINLY SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD BRAIN IN THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER?   \nANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF SOMEONE CAN TELL ME\, WHAT IS THE —  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GUNTHER —  \nANDREW GUNTHER: — PERCENT OF THE SAND USED WEEKLY IN CONSTRUCTION. HOW MUCH OF THAT SAND DOES THE SAND FROM THE MIND BAY COMPOSE. WHAT PERCENT OF THE OVERALL DEMAND FOR SAND?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: I DON’T THINK WE’RE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION TODAY. WE DID HAVE AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE SAND MINERS IN 2015\, THAT I THINK THOSE NUMBERS WOULD HAVE TO BE REANALYZED. AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND MINES AND GEOLOGY WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD SOURCE TO HELP UNDERSTAND THE AGGREGATE USE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND LOCALLY\, BUT WE’RE NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU TODAY\, COMMISSIONER GUNTHER.   \nANDREW GUNTHER: SO WE CAN JUST ADD IT TO THE AGENDA OF THE WORKING GROUP?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SURE.  \nANDREW GUNTHER: OKAY.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER GIOIA WE’LL GO TO YOU NEXT THEN WE’LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER NELSON IN ROOM.  \nJOHN GIOIA: MY CLASSMATE BARRY NELSON’S HAND WAS UP FIRST.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT WAS FIRST WE’RE TAKING VIRTUAL FIRST THEN QUESTIONS IN THE ROOM.  \nJOHN GIOIA: I THINK I HEARD TO COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION\, BECAUSE IT’S THE SAME AS MINE\, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SAND THAT’S MIND FROM THE BAY WHERE IS IT USED?  IS IT USED ALL AROUND THE BAY OR IS IT EXPORTED TO AREAS OUTSIDE FOR USE SO END USE OF THE SAND THAT’S MIND IN THE BAY. I REALIZE YOU DON’T HAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE WORK GROUP ANALYSIS. AND SECOND\, WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR SAND? AND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL OR ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS OF THOSE ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS? SO\, OTHER SOURCES\, IN OTHER WORDS.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YEAH. I BELIEVE YOUR QUESTION IS — YOUR FIRST QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S\, WHICH IS\, I THINK\, THE PERCENTAGE OF BAY SANDS IN COMPARISON TO ALL SANDS USED IN THE REGION.  YOURS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHICH IS\, IS THE BAY SAND USED LOCALLY. I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS\, YES\, THE BAY MIND SAND IS USED LOCALLY. I BELIEVE BILL AND ERICA WILL CONFIRM THAT. BUT IT IS A VERY LOCAL RESOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.  \nJOHN GIOIA: IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO KNOW WHAT PERCENT OF IT\, IF ANY\, IS EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE BAY AREA FOR USE.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. WE CAN GET YOU THAT NUMBER.   \nJOHN GIOIA: AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GUNTHER’S QUESTION OF\, WHAT PERCENT OF MIND BAY SAND IS USED IN THE AREA VERSUS OTHER AREAS AND THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF SAND IF SAND WERE LESS AVAILABLE FROM THE BAY AND WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS RELATED TO IMPACTS OF THAT.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE TO RESEARCH AND PROVIDE AS PART OF THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP AND WE’LL PUT THAT ON THE LIST.  \nJOHN GIOIA: YOU SEEM TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE IS SAND IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HAVING DIVISION QUANTITY\, WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO FURTHER UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF THIS SAND MINING ON BAYSHORE AND BEACHES?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SO IN EACH OF THE — WELL IN THE FINDINGS REPORT IN EACH OF THE STUDIES\, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH THAT CAN HELP US GET AT THOSE QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IN US UNDERSTANDING THE QUANTITY OF SAND THAT IS IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY WAS THE MERE COST OF TAKING THREE DEEP CORES TO UNDERSTAND THE DEPTH OF THE SAND VOLUME THAT WAS DEPOSITED BACK AT THE TURN OF THE ICE AGE. SO\, WE COULD HAVE SPENT $1.2 MILLION ON THAT ONE STUDY BUT WE CHOSE NOT TO BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE GOTTEN US FAR LESS INFORMATION AND FRANKLY THE AMOUNT OF SAND BEING MIND IS IN THE UPPER PART OF THAT. THAT WAS AN OPEN QUESTION.  WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO GO AND TRY TO MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SAND IN THE SYSTEM AND IT GETTING TO BEACH TRANSPORT. THAT’S A FULLY DIDN’T DIFFERENT STUDY SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES THAT WE COULD DO IF ADDITIONAL FUNDS WERE PROVIDED\, BUT $1.2 MILLION IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY WHEN YOU ARE STUDYING DEEP WATER SYSTEMS THAT ARE QUITE LARGE. I’LL LEAVE IT AT. WE COULD GO ON\, BUT THAT’S THE SHORT ANSWER.  \nJOHN GIOIA: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS MENTIONED ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND IT MAY BE FOR SOME KIND OF PROJECTS THERE ARE\, OTHERS THEY’RE NOT\, ARE YOU GOING TO BE LOOKING MORE AT THAT?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: WE CERTAINLY CAN. WE HAVE TO MEET WITH OUR WORKING GROUP CHAIR TO DEFINE BETTER EXACTLY WHAT WE’RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT EACH OF THE WORKING GROUPS BUT WE CAN REQUIRE THAT AS PART OF THE INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE FEASIBILITY OF SAND MINING IN THE BAY AND ALTERNATIVES TO SAND MINING IN THE BAY.  I SEE BILL’S HAND UP MAYBE I’LL TURN IT OVER TO HIM TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT ALTERNATIVES.  \nJOHN GIOIA: THANK YOU.  \nBILL BUTLER: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GIOIA THANK YOU FOR THOSE QUESTIONS. I CAN CONFIRM THAT THE BAY SAND MIND FROM THE BAY STAYS VERY REGIONAL WITHIN THE BAY AREA. IT DOESN’T REALLY GO FOR USES OUTSIDE OF THE BAY. REGARDING ALTERNATE SOURCES OF MATERIAL\, ABSOLUTELY\, I THINK THAT’S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT A LITTLE HARDER\, GOING FORWARD.  AS I MENTIONED BRIEFLY IN THE PRESENTATION\, YOU KNOW\, WHEN I SAID THAT ALL SAND IS NOT CONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND. AND EVEN FOR CONSTRUCTION GRADE SAND\, ALL SAND IS NOT CREATED EQUAL FOR THAT EITHER. SO YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT FOR DIFFERENT USES\, ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS\, THERE IS DIFFERENT ALTERNATE MATERIAL THAT CAN BE SUITABLE FOR THAT. BUT THAT’S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS AND GET YOU THE ANSWER TO GOING FORWARD.  \nJOHN GIOIA: THANKS.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON?  \nBARRY NELSON: THANKS.  I’LL TURN THAT OFF NOW. THAT IS NOT OFF. OKAY. WE’RE WORKING?  \nSPEAKER: YES.  \nBARRY NELSON: [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. SO\, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.  SOME COMMISSIONERS HAVE ASKED SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK. FIRST IS\, IT’S PRETTY CLEAR FROM THIS WORK THAT WE’RE MINING RELIC SAND\, WHICH MEANS THAT THIS ONGOING EXTRACTION ISN’T SUSTAINABLE. YOU CAN PUT A LITTLE TIME FRAME AROUND THAT? ARE WE TAKING A 10th OF A PERCENT EVERY YEAR? TAKING A 20th PERCENT EVERY YEAR. I’M TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE TIME FRAME IS AROUND THE NON-RENEWABILITY OF THAT RESOURCE.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: I CAN’T BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE TOTAL VOLUME OF SAND.  WE DON THAT SAND IS NO LONGER COMING IN FROM THE DELTA AND WE KNOW THAT THE SAND FROM THE WATERSHEDS IS NOT BEING SUPPLIED TO THE BEDS BEING MIND. WE DO SEE AREAS WHERE THE BED IS BEING LOWERED AND WE CAN SHOW PICTURES OF THAT IN THE COMMISSION WORKING GROUP. THE OTHER THING IS WE DID VERY SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF VERY LOCALIZED MINED AREAS\, AND THERE IS A LIMITED PORTION OF THOSE MINED AREAS WHERE SAND IS IN TRANSPORT. WHERE IT IS IN TRANSPORT MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN THOSE AREAS REFRESH I BELIEVE WAS 55% IN THAT AREA. AND THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT BEING REFRESHED. THERE IS VARIABLE WITHIN THE SITES DETAILED WITHIN SOME OF THE STUDIES WE OPTED NOT TO GET INTO LOTS OF DETAILS TODAY ABOUT THE STUDIES WITH THE FULL COMMISSION.  \nBARRY NELSON: WE CAN TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS LATER THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ON THAT LATER ON.  THE OTHER QUESTION WAS THE CONCLUSIONS ENACT THAT THE IMPACTS ON BEACHES AND SHORES AREN’T QUANTIFIED I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BUT AGAIN MAYBE THAT WAITS FOR OUR WORKING GROUP.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: DEFINITELY SOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE IDEAS WITH TALK ABOUT THAT FURTHER IN THE WORKING GROUP.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: —  \nSPEAKER: I’M ASSUMING THE BEACHES ARE GIVING SOME OF THAT SAND BACK IN TO FILL THE HOLE.  \nCESAR ZEPEDA: IT’S ALREADY BEEN ASKED. THANK YOU.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON.   \nSHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU. I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS I HEARD WAS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SAND MINING AND I THINK BRENDA MENTIONED THAT WOULD BE PUT ON THE LIST FOR DISCUSSION DURING ONE OF THE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS. AND I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WOULD THAT BE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS A RESPONSIBLE AGENCY IN THE CONTEXT OF CEQA? OR KIND OF LIKE WHAT’S BEING ASKED AND WHAT WOULD BE ON THE WORKING GROUP AGENDA AS IT RELATES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS AND HOW DOES THAT RECONCILE WITH CEQA?  \nSPEAKER: I DON’T THINK WE HAVE FLUSHED OUT EXACTLY WHAT’S GOING TO BE IN ALL OF THE WORKING GROUPS YET I THINK WE’RE STILL DECIDING AND LOOKING AT THAT GETTING INPUT FROM COMMISSIONERS AND FROM THE WORKING GROUP THEMSELVES.  \nSHERI PEMBERTON: OKAY.   \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER PEMBERTON I’LL NOTE FOR YOU THAT CHRIS HEWITT WHO I UNDERSTAND IS IN THE CEQA LEAD HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING IN ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND HAS ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS SO HE’S WELL AWARE OF THE STUDIES AND FINDINGS.  \nSHERI PEMBERTON: THANK YOU BRENDA. I APPRECIATE THAT.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND?  \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WASN’T SURE HOW TO RAISE MY HAND\, SINCE I’M IN-PERSON. ACTUALLY\, I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION TO THAT.  BECAUSE THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IS THAT THE — I CALL IT\, LIKE\, A VACUUM CLEANER\, AND YOU HAVE A SCREEN ON IT TO PREVENT FISH FROM COMING IN\, WHAT ABOUT THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS THAT ARE IN THE SAND? HAVE THERE BEEN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT TO THE ORGANISMS WHETHER THEY’RE SUCKED UP WITH THE SAND? DO YOU ACTUALLY SEE THEM? I’M KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THE PRACTICAL ASPECT OF THIS VACUUM CLEANER\, AND THIS SUCKING UP THE SAND AT THE BOTTOM. YOU CAN HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MECHANISM IS?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO\, THERE IS TWO MECHANISMS.  ONE IS\, LIKE\, THE VACUUM CLEANER HAD THAT YOU SAW\, BELIEVE IT HAS A SIX BY SIX INCH OPENING GREAT\, AND SO ANYTHING — PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BILL ERIK OR MIKE\, ANYTHING SMALLER THAN SIX BY SIX GREAT COULD GO THROUGH THE DRAG HEAD ITSELF AND THE SCREEN IS ON THE PUMP THAT BRINGS IN THE WATER AND THE SCREEN WILL NOT SCREEN SOUGHT NICHE BUT NOT PLANK TON AND LARVAE. THE DRAG HEAD ITSELF WOULD LIKE TAKE THE MATERIAL\, THE ANIMALS IN THE TOP OF THE SAND INTO AND THE PUMP THROUGH THE SYSTEM MANY OF THOSE ANIMALS ARE SOFT-BODIED AND WOULD NOT BE SEEN IN THE SAND BECAUSE OF THE ROUGHNESS OF THE SAND THROUGH THE PIPE. WE DID DO A BENTHIC STUDY I CAN’T REMEMBER THE YEAR\, I FEEL LIKE IT WAS 2017 OR 18\, AND THERE ARE SOME CONCLUSIONS THAT\, LIKE\, THE CRITTERS THAT ARE LIVING IN THE SAND ARE EARLY COLONIZERS BECAUSE THE SAND ITSELF IS SUCH A MOVING SYSTEM THAT YOU DON’T GET\, LIKE\, SOLID BUILT UP BENTHIC COMMUNITIES LIKE YOU MIGHT FIND IN FINE SAND\, BUT YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT THE CRITTERS ARE BEING SUCKED UP IN THAT VACUUM-LIKE HEAD. AND THEN ON THE OTHER TYPE\, WHICH YOU SAW\, WHICH LIND MARINE USES\, IT’S MORE OF A — I EQUATE IT TO\, LIKE\, A STRAW IN THE SAND. AND\, SO\, IT IS DOWN DEEPER\, POTENTIALLY IN AN AREA WHERE YOU DON’T HAVE INVERTEBRATES LIVING. BECAUSE IT’S DEEP UNDER THE SAND. SO\, THERE MAY BE SOME DIFFERENCES.  BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A STUD BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF MINING\, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE\, AGAIN\, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG. THAT GETS TO BE A VERY CONCLUSIVE STUDY. BUT THERE HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF WORK AMONG THE BENTHIC COMMUNITY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT’S DEEP AND VERY DIFFICULT TO PLACE A MONITOR ASIDE FROM TWO STUDIES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: SO\, ARE WE GOING TO BE DOING ANY FUTURE WORK ON THE IMPACT OF THE BENTHIC ORGANISMS?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THERE MAY BE SOME AS PART OF THE CEQA DOCUMENT\, BUT HONESTLY I DO NOT KNOW WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXISTING PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL IMPACTS TO THE BIOTA.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS THERE WAS MENTION OF A PRIVATE PARCEL. I THINK IT WAS IN THE MIDDLE GROUND.  CAN SOMEONE HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND WHY IS THERE A PRIVATE PARCEL IN THE BAY? AND ARE THERE OTHER PRIVATE PARCELS THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT YET?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: YES. SO THAT PARCEL WAS ORIGINALLY OWNED BY THE NAVY. IT IS NOW THE GROSSLY FAMILIES IT’S A PRIVATE PARCEL I WAS LUCKY TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SUBTIDAL HABITAT GOALS PROJECT IN 2010 AS PART OF THAT PROJECT WE LOOKED AT THE OWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY BOTTOM WHICH IS A LOT OF IT OWNED BY THE STATE\, THERE ARE SOME OWNED BY PRIVATE IMPORTANT OWNERS AND IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BOTTOM OF THE BAY\, YOU CAN GO TO THE SUBTIDAL GOALS HABITAT PROJECT ON THE WEB AND LOOK AT BAYLAND OWNERSHIP MAP. AND IT WILL SHOW YOU THE PRIVATE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY. IT’S QUITE FASCINATING.   \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I’M VERY INTERESTED IN THAT PART OF IT. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS THAT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOME OF THE SAND IS USED FOR RESTORATION OF BEACHES. SO\, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE SAND THAT IS ACTUALLY USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES VERSUS RESTORATION PROJECTS. DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT IS?  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: WELL\, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I KNOW AND BILL CAN ADD. SO\, ONE PROJECT\, ALAMEDA CROWN BEACH\, THERE IS ACTUALLY A FLOOD PROTECTION PROJECT THAT WAS BUILT MANY\, MANY YEARS AGO TO REDUCE EROSION ON THAT FRONT\, AND APPROXIMATELY EVERY 20 YEARS\, ABOUT 80\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND IS PLACE ON THAT BEACH TO REFRESH THE BEACH SAND THAT’S ERODED OVER THAT 20 YEAR PERIOD.  AND I BELIEVE THE LAST TIME WE PLACED THAT AMOUNT OF SAND ON THAT BEACH WAS 2013. THE RAMBRU ISLAND TOOK SOME SAND THERE’S A SMALL RESTORATION PROJECT AT RAMBRU ISLAND THAT TOOK MAYBE 2\,000 CUBIC YARDS OF SAND AND THAT CAME OUT OF SAN FRANCISCO MARINA WEST SOME OF THE LARGER PIECES OF SAND MATERIAL FROM\, I THINK\, FROM HANSON\, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG\, MARTIN MARIETTA\, FROM THEIR YARD WHERE THEY HAVE A\, SORT OF\, TAILINGS SAND THAT THEY’RE NOT USING FOR THE CONCRETE MATERIALS AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER SMALL RESTORATION PROJECT I BELIEVE AROUND PEER 94 THAT SAN FRANCISCO IS USING MOSTLY TAILINGS FROM THE HANSON MARTIN MARIETTA I DON’T KNOW THE VOLUME THOSE ARE PRIMARY SAND FROM THE MINING FOR RESTORATION AND I’M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM MINERS FOR MORE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: ACKNOWLEDGED WRITTEN IN THE REPORT RELEASED THURSDAY.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: SPECIFICALLY THAT IS NOT ON THE RESTORATION OF THE SAND BUT COULD QUANTIFY THAT FOR YOU.  \nPAT ECKLUND: WHAT PERCENTAGE CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR FUTURE REFRESHED AND WHAT THE NEED IS. THANK YOU. INTERESTING PRESENTATION. HAVING BEEN ON THE HOPPER DREDGE DECADES AGO\, I SEE A LOT OF RELATIONSHIP TO THIS ACTIVITY.  SO\, THANK YOU.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: VICE CHAIR EISEN. THERE ARE NO MORE HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WANT TO THANK YOU\, BRENDA FOR YOUR WONDERFUL PRESENTATION.  AND FOR THE MINER’S PRESENTATION. AND I SPECIFICALLY WANT TO THANK PAT\, ANDY\, AND BARRY\, WHO CAN SEE MAYBE NOT REGRETTING THAT THEY VOLUNTEERED FOR THIS WORKING GROUP COMMITTEE. BUT CAN SEE THAT THIS IS QUITE A TASK. AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT REALLY HELPS OUR WORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE DOING SO MUCH HEAVY LIFTING ON THIS TO\, SORT OF\, SEE WHAT THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING BEFORE WE GET DO THIS PERMIT PROCESS. SO\, THANKS TO ALL OF YOU. WE NOW HAVE —  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: VICE CHAIR EISEN\, YOU CAN ASK ONE THING?  WE MAY BE LOSING A PERSON OR TWO\, DEPENDING ON PHONE CALLS\, ET CETERA\, WHO MAYBE COMING BACK\, ET CETERA AND SO ON\, IT MIGHT BE GOOD FOR YOU TO SAY THE COMMISSION WILL GO INTO COMMITTEE IF THAT HAPPENS\, AND JUST IN THE FUTURE\, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT’S ON THE RECORD. THERE ARE NO VOTES SCHEDULED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. YES. WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON\, BUT IF WE LOSE OUR QUORUM\, WE WILL GO INTO COMMITTEE\, AS YOU PUT IT. IS THAT — DOES THAT DO IT\, LARRY?  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: AWESOME.   \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. SO\, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS AN UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS MADE BY THE SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROJECT IS TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY AND USE OF SEDIMENTS AND SOILS TO RESTORE AND ADAPT WETLANDS TO RISING SEA LEVELS. OUR SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP WAS CREATED SPECIFICALLY TO MEET THIS CHALLENGE. AND BCDC HOSTED A TWO-DAY IN-PERSON PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THIS TOPIC IN JANUARY AND IN FEBRUARY. SO\, MAYA MCLERNEY OF OUR STAFF IS GOING TO BEGIN THE BRIEFING ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU\, MAYA.   \nMAYA MCLERNEY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON VICE CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MAYA MCLERNEY\, AND I AM A PROJECT MANAGER FOR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT I WORKED CLOSELY WITH BRENDA GODEN AND ERIK BEE MAN ON THIS PROJECT. I’LL PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS THAT WE HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN THAT WE’RE DEVELOPING RIGHT NOW. BEFORE I GET INTO THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WETLANDS AND SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTING A PROJECT MORE GENERALLY. YOU LIKELY ALREADY KNOW THIS BUT WETLAND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WITHOUT OUR HELP WE NEED TO ACT NOW TO HELP WETLAND BE ABLE TO ADAPT BY RAISING ELEVATIONS AND SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANS AND ECOSYSTEMS.  THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE IN THE AREA OF SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT IN OUR REGION SPECIFICALLY AND WE’RE BRINGING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER THROUGH OUR SEDIMENT FOR WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT. OUR PROJECT GOAL IS TO INCREASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT AND SOIL FOR WETLAND HABITAT RESTORATION RESILIENCE SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. PART OF THIS PROJECT\, AS PART OF THAT PROJECT\, BCDC IS DEVELOPING A BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN BASED ON STAKEHOLDER PROCESS THAT WE CONDUCTED EARLIER THIS YEAR. THIS IS A REGIONAL CALL TO ACTION WITH TASKS THAT WILL BE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH INCREASED COLLABORATION WITH AND AMONG STAKEHOLDERS AND ENTITY NOT ONLY BCDC WHO WILL SHARE IN THE GOAL OF INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE IN WETLAND TO HELP ADAPT TO RISING SEAS. BCDC WILL UNDERTAKE POLICY CHANGES LATER THIS YEAR AND DEVELOP FINANCIAL STRATEGY TO SUPPORT BENEFICIAL REUSE. WHAT EXACTLY IS BENEFICIAL REUSE YOU MAY BE ASKING. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT RECOGNIZING SEDIMENT AND SOIL AS A VALUABLE NATURAL RESOURCE NECESSARY FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTING A AND SHIFTING MINDSET FROM TREATING IT AS A WASTE PRODUCT TO BE DISPOSED OF TO SEEING AS A RESOURCE THAT CAN BE OFFICIALLY REUSED TO SUPPORT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS LIKE MARSH RESTORATION AND HABITAT REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT ALONG THE EDGE OF THE BAY.  WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SEDIMENT AND SOIL FROM DREDGED NAVIGATION CHANNELS\, STREAMS AND FLOOD PROTECTION CHANNEL MAINTENANCE MATERIALS AND EXCESS CONSTRUCTION SOILS. SO SEDIMENT WETLAND ADAPTATION PROJECT SWAP FOR SHORT FOCUSED ON ENSURING THAT THESE MATERIALS ARE REUSED FOR BENEFICIAL PURPOSE SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT WETLAND SO THE TIMELINE FOR THE SWAP IS SHOWN HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE. WE’RE IN PHASE ONE CURRENTLY OF THE THREE FACE\, THREE YEAR PROJECT. THIS PHASE IS ALL ABOUT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AT THE END OF THE FIRST PHASE WE’LL HAVE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN FOR THE REGION AND WILL INCLUDE TASKS FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN SEDIMENT NOT JUST BCDC AND WE’LL HAVE A COALITION OF STAKEHOLDERS TO SUPPORT IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACTION PLAN. PHASE ONE WILL WRAP UP IN 2024 PRETTY SOON IN 2024\, AND WITH PHASE 2 AND 3 TAKING PLACE FROM THE END OF 2024 THROUGH 2025. AND THIS PHASES 2 AND 3 WILL INCLUDE A POTENTIAL BAY PLAN AMENDMENT AND FINANCING STRATEGY TO ASSESS COSTS AND FEASIBILITY AND FUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE AND PART OF THE PROJECT DESIGN INCLUDES MEETINGS WITH OUR SEDIMENT BENEFICIAL REUSE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP SOME OF WHOM ARE IN THE ROOM. AND WE ARE ALSO MEETING WITH — YEAH WE’RE GOING TO BE MEETING ALSO WITH OUR CORE TEAM. MEETING WITH A BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP WHO IS GOING TO BE GUIDING OUR STAFF WORK ON THE PROJECT AND IS GOING TO BE INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY AS WE GET INTO THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PART OF THIS PROCESS.  AND COLLABORATION IS AT THE HEART OF THIS. YOU KNOW\, AS WE MEET REGULARLY WITH OUR CORE TEAM\, WE’RE GOING TO BE GOING THROUGH THE — [LAUGHTER] SO\, ALONG WITH BCDC\, OUR CORE TEAM IS MADE UP OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD\, THE STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY\, THE SF ESTUARY INSTITUTE\, SF JOINT VENTURE AND US EPA\, THESE GROUPS ARE ASSISTING IN CONCEPT AND CONTENT DEVELOPMENT. WE’RE GRATEFUL TO THESE AND ALL PARTNERS IN THE PROJECT. TOGETHER WITH THE CORE TEAM AND OUR SEDIMENT AND BENEFICIAL REUSE WORKING GROUP WE DESIGNED AN INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING SERIES THAT WAS ROLLED OUT AT THE WORKING GROUP MEETINGS IN 2023. SO\, THE COMMISSIONER WORKING GROUP INVITED EXPERTS TO COME AND PRESENT TO THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE WORKING GROUP AND INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO DESCRIBE THE SEDIMENT PROCESSES AND CHALLENGES AND BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED ON THE ISSUES. THESE INFORMATIONAL BRIEFINGS WERE INTENDED TO PREPARE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT CONVERSATIONS TO COME AND TO PREPARE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC FOR CONVERSATIONS HELD AT THE WORKSHOP EARLIER THIS YEAR. THE BRIEFINGS COVERED SF BAY SEDIMENT TRANSPORT SYSTEM\, THE PROCESS OF NATURAL SEDIMENT SUPPLY TO BAY MARSHES\, SEDIMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND CHALLENGES AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTS\, NAVIGATION DREDGING AS A SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AS WELL AS FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS AS A SOURCE OF SEDIMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND UPLAND SOURCES OF SEDIMENT AND SOILS. WE WRAPPED UP THE SERIES OF BRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER LAST YEAR ALL PRESENTATIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE COMMISSION’S WEB SITE.  AND THEN IN JANUARY WE TURNED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP. THIS WAS A TWO-DAY WORKSHOP THAT WAS HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR AND IT WAS A CHANCE FOR STAKEHOLDERS TO COME TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY. WE HAD OVER 50 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IN ATTENDANCE TO SUPPORT CHANGES IN HOW SEDIMENT IS MANAGED IN THE BAY AREA. THIS WORK BUILDS ON AND WIDENS THE COALITION OF INTERESTED PARTIES IN THIS ARENA A WE BELIEVE THIS GROUP CAN AND WILL MAKE REAL CHANGES OVER THE YEARS TO COME. THE WORKSHOP HAD BREAKOUT SESSIONS TO DISCUSS ISSUES AND PERCEIVED BARRIERS AND WE PRESENTED POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS. NOW\, THE ISSUE OF HOW INCREASED BENEFICIAL — OR INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN A NUMBER OF FORUMS BY MOST STAKEHOLDERS WHO ATTENDED THE WORKSHOP BUT WE NEVER COLLECTED EVERYONE TOGETHER TO REACH CONSENSUS AND FORMALIZE INFORMATION UNTIL NOW\, OPPORTUNITIES FOR BARRIERS SEDIMENT AND SOIL REUSE AND GAINED CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF IDEAS RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ACTIONS AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS TO HELP GET THE PROPOSED WORK DONE THE ACTIONS IDENTIFIED MAKE UP SUBSTANCE OF BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DRAFTED WITH AND WILL BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT SOON. THE ACTION PLAN STRUCTURED IN A STRAIGHT FORWARD WAY WE BELIEVE A STATEMENT OF PURPOSE SECTION THAT INTRODUCES ISSUES AND NEEDS TO INCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE\, BACKGROUND\, GOALS\, PRINCIPLES GOALS ARE PRIMARILY TO HELP ORGANIZE ACTIONS AND PRINCIPLES FIND HOW THE COALITION WILL WORK TOGETHER TO IMPLEMENT ACTION PLAN TASKS.  SEDIMENT WETLAND SECTION COVERS THREE MAIN SOURCES OF SEDIMENT SOIL CONSTRUCTION NAVIGATION FLOOD CONTROL DREDGING SECTION DETAILS ISSUES IN EACH SECTOR TO GET MATERIAL FROM THE SOURCE TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE SITE. LASTLY THE FOCUS WHERE THE MEAT OF THIS DOCUMENT LIES WHERE WE PRESENT THE APPROXIMATELY 80 TASKS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS IN THE REGION BUT BEFORE I WANT TO PRESENT GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE ACTION PLAN FIRST GOAL IS TO STRENGTHEN THE EXISTING REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP TO SUPPORT INCREASED SOIL REUSE AND EXPAND AND IMPROVE COORDINATION AMONG GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS TO FILL COLLABORATION GAPS AMONG SECTORS INVOLVED IN SEDIMENT AND SOIL MANAGEMENT SECOND GOAL IDENTIFY AND PREPARE SITES FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE BY SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW EXISTING RESTORATION SITES TO PREPARE TO RECEIVE SEDIMENT AND THIRD GOAL COORDINATE SEDIMENT AND SOIL SUPPLY RESTORATION NEEDS TO FACILITATE TIMELY DELIVER OF SEDIMENT AND SOIL. FOURTH GOAL IMPROVE POLICIES AND REGULATIONS IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING POLICY AND REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS AGENCIES AND ENCOURAGE MORE BENEFICIAL REUSE. FINAL GOAL OF THE ACTION PLAN TO DEVELOP FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES EXPAND AND SECURE FEDERAL\, STATE\, REGIONAL AND PRIVATE FUNDING FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE. PRINCIPLES LISTED IN THE ACTION PLAN HELP DEFINE HOW BCDC AND THE CORE TEAM INTEND TO WORK TOGETHER AND WITH THE COALITION TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION PLAN THIS WILL BE DONE WITH FOCUS ON COORDINATION\, COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION TO ORGANIZE THE MANY ENTITIES WORKING IN THIS SPACE. AND THROUGH EQUITY TO ENSURE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SEDIMENT IN THE REGION AND TO PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY INPUTS\, AS WELL AS ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP TO SUPPORT EXISTING WETLANDS AND SEA LEVEL RISE RESILIENCY. AND IT CAN’T BE DONE WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY TO ENSURE THAT ALL ARE ABLE TO TRACK PROGRESS AND GIVE INPUT\, AND SPEED AND AGILITY IS A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE DUE TO LIMITED TIME WE HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES OUTLINED IN THE ACTION PLAN AND TO GET AHEAD OF SEA LEVEL RISE.  WE ACKNOWLEDGE THANKFULLY THERE ARE MANY OTHER GROUPS DOING GREAT WORK IN THE SPACE AND THE COALITION SHOULD BE CAPITALIZING ON EXISTING WORK AND BUILDING OFF OF IT. EIGHT FOCUS AREAS OF BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN ARE GOVERNANCE\, REGIONAL COORDINATION\, REGIONAL PLANNING RESEARCH\, FEDERAL AND STATE REGIONAL POLICIES AND COMMUNICATION\, REGULATIONS AND PERMITTING PILOT PROJECTS\, SEDIMENT AND SOIL QUALITY AND TIMING AND AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS AND PLACEMENT AND COSTS OF FUNDING. WITHIN EACH OF THESE FOCUS AREAS THERE ARE SPECIFIC ACTIONABLE TASKS THAT WILL NEED LEAD ORGANIZATIONS THAT WILL CARRY OUT SOME OF THE WORK PRESCRIBED IN THE TASKS. SPECIFIC TASKS DEVELOPED THROUGH CONVERSATIONS AND INTERVIEWS WITH PARTICIPANTS\, BRAINSTORMING INTERNALLY\, CORRELATED ACTIONS AND TASKS INTO A MATRIX WE HAD 140 POTENTIAL TASKS LISTED IN THE MATRIX\, TWO WORKSHOP DAYS WERE A GREAT WAY TO EXPLORE THEM TASKS FURTHER\, AND PHOTOS FROM THE WORKSHOPS\, WE TOOK COMMENTS GATHERED THROUGH THOSE BREAKOUT SESSIONS AND SIFTED AND SORTED CONSOLIDATED TASKS FURTHER TO GET OUR 80 OR SO TASKS. TO BE IN THE FINAL ACTION PLAN THE TASK HAD TO BE FOCUSED ON INCREASING BENEFICIAL REUSE OF SEDIMENT SOIL\, ACHIEVABLE IN 1 TO 5 YEARS\, HAVE AN IDENTIFIABLE CHAMPION AND HAVE REGIONAL SUPPORT MOST OF THE WINNING PROCESS INVOLVED CONSOLIDATING THESE IDEAS WE CREATED A LOT FOR TASKS AND THINGS THAT CAME UP DURING THE PROCESS WHY THEY DIDN’T MAKE THE CUT. WHAT’S NEXT? WE’RE WORKING TO RELEASE THE BENEFICIAL REUSE ACTION PLAN IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AND BE POSTED TO THE WEB SITE COLLECTING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FOR ABOUT A MONTH LOOK OUT FOR THAT IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN REVIEWING TASKS AND POTENTIALLY COMMENTING ON THE ACTION PLAN AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WE’LL FINALIZE THE DOCUMENT AND POST TO OUR WEB SITE WE’LL SWITCH GEARS ONCE THAT’S WRAPPED UP AND COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION WHEN WE ARE READY TO INITIATE THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS LATER THIS YEAR TO ADDRESS NECESSARY UPDATES REGARDING SEDIMENT AND BENEFICIAL REUSE RAMPING UP DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FINANCING FUTURE WORKING GROUP DEVELOPING SUPPORT FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE WE’RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS WORK\, SUPPORTING WETLAND AND ENSURING THEY ARE STILL HERE PROVIDING MANY BENEFITS FOR 50 TO 100 YEARS AND BEYOND.  THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, MAYA\, DON’T GO AWAY. FIRST WE’LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT THEN GET TO COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIERRA?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE HAVE NO ONE IN THE ROOM AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nSPEAKER: I HAVE SOME.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE’LL HAVE COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS\, OBVIOUSLY\, BUT NO PUBLIC COMMENT.  \nSPEAKER: I’M SORRY.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO WORRIES.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: SO WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT\, RIGHT\, SIERRA?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: RIGHT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WE’RE READY FOR COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: CORRECT.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: LOOKS LIKE —  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: WE CAN START WITH COMMISSIONER ECKLUND.   \nPAT ECKLUND: START WITH ME?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: YES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I’M VERY HONORED THAT I GET TO GO FIRST HERE. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN REUSE OF SEDIMENT\, OBVIOUSLY\, FOR WETLAND RESTORATION. ALSO\, IN SOME WETLAND RESTORATION\, I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S STILL BE DONE OR NOT\, SOMETIMES DEMOLITION DEBRIS HAS ALSO BEEN USED. IS THAT STILL HAPPENING?  OR IS IT PRIMARILY JUST SEDIMENT AND SOIL?  \nSPEAKER: FOR THIS ONE WE’RE LOOKING AT EXCAVATED SOILS FROM PROJECTS SUCH AS PARKING\, SUBGRADE PARK LOTS AND WHAT NOT. YEAH. I THINK THAT’S ANOTHER TOPIC OF A POTENTIAL USE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: OH OKAY. REUSE OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS?  \nSPEAKER: YES.  SPECIFICALLY\, I DON’T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT IS USED\, OR REGULATED.  \nPAT ECKLUND: OKAY. I KNOW THAT’S BEEN USED IN THE PAST FOR SOME WETLANDS RESTORATION.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THIS IS BRENDA AGAIN. WE’RE NOT SPECIFICALLY TARGETING CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. WE’RE LOOKING AT UPLAND ACCESS CONSTRUCTION SOILS LIKE WHAT’S BEING DUG UP FOR BASEMENTS. I DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS A PROHIBITION OF USING CLEAN CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS.  I KNOW HAMILTON WAS ONE THAT USED CONCRETE IN THE DEEP PARTS OF THE BAY OR SITES THAT DIDN’T INHIBIT DEVELOPMENT OF WETLAND. WE’RE JUST NOT TRYING RIGHT NOW TO SOURCE THAT MATERIAL. IT WOULD BE\, SORT OF\, A WHOLE OTHER WORLD OF ISSUES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS. SO IT’S NOT CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN.  \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. THAT’S — I WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THE HAMILTON WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT. NOT ONLY AS AN EPA EMPLOYEE\, BUT ALSO AS A RESIDENT AT THAT TIME.  THE DREDGE MATERIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DREDGED IN THE BAY BY THE ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS AND OTHER DREDGING OPERATIONS HAVE WE QUANTIFIED WHAT THAT IS AND DO WE NEED MORE THAN WHAT’S CURRENTLY BEING DREDGE IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR SHIPPING INDUSTRY STILL ACTIVE? OR ARE WE GOING TO NEED MORE SOIL ELSEWHERE IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.  \nSPEAKER: SO ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT IF THERE IS ENOUGH SEDIMENT SUPPLY ON THE NAVIGATION DREDGE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. FROM THE NATURAL — FROM THE DREDGE THAT’S OCCURRING IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA\, TOTAL\, AND IF IT ISN’T SUFFICIENT\, ARE WE LOOKING ALSO FOR REUSE OF SOIL FROM THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT\, AS WELL?  \nSPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, WE ARE — THERE IS THE LTMS MANAGES\, YOU KNOW\, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT DREDGE MATERIAL\, AND THERE IS A GOAL TO 40% OF IT BENEFICIALLY.  AND THAT HAS BEEN MET\, I THINK IN THE LAST — I’M LOOKING AT BRENDA ON THE SCREEN\, SHE IS OUR LTMS REP BUT I’LL LET HER JUMP IN.  \nBRENDA GOEDIN: COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, THE SEDIMENT FOR SURVIVAL REPORT PUT OUT BY SFEI SAYS THAT BETWEEN NOW AND 2100 WE NEED 450 MILLION TO 650 MILLION CUBIC YARDS OF SEDIMENT OR SOIL\, FOR THE WETLANDS\, SPECIFICALLY\, TO HELP RESTORE AND KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE. CALCULATION AROUND NAVIGATION DREDGING\, WE DREDGE BETWEEN 2 AND 3 MILLION ‘S ANNUALLY\, ARMY CORP\, PRIVATE PORTS\, MARINAS REFINERIES\, ET CETERA. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. THEY THINK IT REPRESENTS 50- TO 60% OVER TIME. SO\, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, SOUTH BAY SALT PONDS SHORELINE ARE CURRENTLY IMPORTING UPLAND CONSTRUCTION SOILS\, CLEAN SOILS\, TO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT RESTORATION. THERE IS ADDITIONAL MATERIAL\, ALTHOUGH MUCH SMALLER AMOUNT IN THE LOCAL FLOOD PROTECTION AND STREAM BED MAINTENANCE MATERIALS.  BUT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS IS WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE’RE HOPING TO DO AND KEEP UP WITH SEA LEVEL RISE WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE’RE PUSHING VERY HARD TO GET AS MUCH OF IT GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AS POSSIBLE. THEN THERE IS A FURTHER FIELD OF SOURCES SUCH AS RESERVOIRS WHICH ARE A DIFFERENT SUPPLY MUCH MORE CHALLENGING TO GET INTO BUT WE’RE STARTING HERE WITH THIS ONE TO A FIVE-YEAR PROJECT TO TRY TO FREE UP AS MUCH OF THE MATERIAL GETTING IT TO THE RIGHT PLACE AS POSSIBLE TO GET RID OF SOME OF THE BARRIERS.  \nPAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I GUESS THE ISSUE THERE IS THAT SINCE IT ISN’T GOING TO BE ENOUGH\, THEN WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE’RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT SOME OF THE SOIL THAT IS EXCAVATED\, NOT ONLY FOR MAJOR CONSTRUCTION\, BUT\, ALSO\, MAYBE EVEN FOR RESIDENTIAL\, AS WELL. I KNOW THAT THERE’S A LOT OF CHANGING OF THE BUILDINGS\, FOR AN EXAMPLE\, FROM OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL. AND\, SO\, A LOT OF THAT — SOME OF THE BUILDINGS WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. AND\, SO THAT’S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DEMOLITION DEBRIS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE IF WE’RE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO COLLECT IT AS A SOCIETY OR HERE IN CALIFORNIA OR EVEN IN THE BAY AREA SAME WITH SOIL FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS TOO.  JUST HAVING A RECENT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING SOME SOIL WE NEEDED TO GET RID OF\, I WAS SHOCKED THAT THERE WASN’T A PLACE THAT I COULD TAKE IT TO. AND FOR IT TO BE REUSED\, BECAUSE IT WAS CLEAN\, AND SO IT HAD TO BE THROWN AWAY IN THE GARBAGE\, WHICH YOU DO NOT WANT TO FILL UP THE LANDFILL WITH GOOD SOIL OR GOOD DEMOLITION DEBRIS WHEN IT COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE. SO\, THIS IS MAYBE SOMETHING WE MAY WANT TO GET SOME OF THE STATE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN THAT REALLY PROMOTE RECYCLING OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT MATERIALS. ANYWAY\, I JUST REMEMBER FROM MY DAYS WITH THE ARMY CORP AND WITH EPA THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH DREDGE MATERIAL. AND I JUST WANT TO SEE IF THAT WAS STILL THE CASE. WHICH IT IS. AND I’M JUST REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF EVEN MAYBE CHANGING HOW WE DEAL WITH CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES\, AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTS AND HOW WE CAN REUSE THAT MATERIAL THAT’S SO VALUABLE.  THANK YOU.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER SHOWALTER.  \nPATRICIA SHOWALTER: YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE HERE. I\, SORT OF\, VIEWED THIS AS THEM SUPPLYING US WITH A CLASS OF SEDIMENT 101. WE HAVE REALLY HAD AMAZING SPEAKERS COME TALK TO US ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND\, SORT OF\, THE OPERATION OF SEDIMENT REMOVAL IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND IT’S JUST GIVING US\, WE GOT A GREAT FOUNDATION\, AND THEN WE HAD THE WORKSHOPS. SO\, I THINK IT WAS KIND OF THE BEST WAY WE COULD POSSIBLY GET A STAKEHOLDER GROUP TOGETHER\, GET THEM ALL ON THE SAME PAGE\, AND THEN HAVE THEM BRAINSTORM.  SO\, I REALLY ENJOY TAKING PART IN THIS. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, THE NEXT FEW STEPS YOU COME UP WITH\, AND I’M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT THE LIST IS NEAR 80 NOW. SO\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS?  \nSTEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO ADD MY THANKS TO THE STAFF AND OUR COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE. AND JUST TO SAY THAT I’M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO\, YOU KNOW\, BRINGING ALL THE AGENCIES ON BOARD WITH THIS BENEFICIAL REUSE.  JUST AS AN EXAMPLE\, I HAVE A PROJECT AT McGINNIS MARSH WHERE WE HAVE GALENA’S CREEK RIGHT NEXT DOOR THAT WE ARE GOING TO DREDGE AND WE ARE AWAITING TO GET APPROVAL FROM NUMEROUS AGENCIES TO PUT THEM ON THE MARSH AND IT’S TAKING AN AGONIZING LONG TIME SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PROCESS WHEN IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS?  \nPAT ECKLUND: REBECCA\, I HAD HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE COST. IF THE SEDIMENT ITSELF IS THAT OF THE QUALITY THAT WE NEED FOR PARTICULAR WETLAND\, HAS IT BEEN DISCUSSED ABOUT WHO PAYS FOR THE CLEAN UP OF THAT MATERIAL? OR WHETHER IT’S NOT EVEN JUST USED THEN? THANK YOU.   \nMAYA MCLERNEY: SURE. THAT ONE WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE COSTS AND FUNDING SITUATIONS AND SCENARIOS YET. SO WE’LL PROBABLY SUBJECT KIND OF LEAVING THAT ONE TO TALK ABOUT LATER ON.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: GREAT. THANK YOU MAYA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU TO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE ON THE WORKING GROUP WHO ARE DEALING WITH ALL OF THESE ISSUES ON OUR BEHALF.  I APPRECIATE IT. WE HAVE ONE MORE PRESENTATION ON DELTA ADAPT. THAT IS A CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STUDY\, WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED AND MANAGED BY THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL. AND IT’S DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE DELTA’S RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE HAZARDS\, INCLUDING\, OF COURSE\, SEA LEVEL RISE. THE BRIEFING WILL BE PROVIDED BY CORY COPELAND WHO IS BCDC’S CHIEF SCIENTIST AND ALSO A FORMER DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL STAFF MEMBER. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY FOR THE PRESENTATION YOU’RE ABOUT TO GIVE US.  \nCORY COPELAND: YEAH.  I ACTUALLY WON’T BE GIVING IT. I’LL BE INTRODUCING THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. I’M REALLY PLEASED TO BE INTRODUCING THIS ITEM. AS CHAIR EISEN MENTIONED\, I HAD OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON THIS DURING MY TIME AT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL BEFORE JOINING BCDC AS THE ADAPTING TO RISING TIDES IN SCIENCE MANAGER. DELTA ADAPTS IS THE STATE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTING A PLAN FOR SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN AND UPPER ESTUARY OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY DELTA I HAVE BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE COLLABORATION BCDC AND DELTA STEWARDSHIP WORK AROUND CLIMATE ADAPTATION. FOR CONTEXT THE FUNDING INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK THAT HELPED US IDENTIFY A $110 BILLION NEED FOR INVESTMENT IN SEA LEVEL RISE ADAPTATION IN THE BAY AREA FOR CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE ANALYSIS\, USED HYDROLOGIC WORK THAT WAS DONE FOR DELTA ADAPT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT.  WITH THAT INNER RELATIONSHIP IN MIND\, I’M REALLY GLAD TO HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS FROM THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL HERE TO PRESENT ON THEIR ADAPTATION PLAN THAT IS COMING OUT SOON. SO\, HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT ARE JEFF HENDERSON\, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE STEWARDSHIP ARE COUNCIL\, AND MORGAN C\, FORMER BCDC EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOW THE MANAGER OF CLIMATE ADAPTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL WHO WILL GIVING A PRESENTATION THAT I WILL BE SHARING.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: THANK YOU CORY. LET’S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.  \nSPEAKER: DOES THAT LOOK CORRECT?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: IT LOOKS GOOD IN THE BOARDROOM.  \nSPEAKER: THAT LOOKS GOOD CORY.   \nSPEAKER: IT LOOKS GOOD ONLINE.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. IT’S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO PRESENT ON OUR DELTA ADAPT CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE. THIS INITIATIVE IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN LEADING SINCE 2018\, WITH A GOAL TO BETTER UNDERSTAND SPECIFIC RISKS FACED BY THE DELTA AND PROPOSED STRATEGIES TO PREPARE ACCORDINGLY. TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, IT’S THE FIRST OF ITS KIND FOR THE ENTIRE DELTA REGION THAT CUTS ACROSS MULTIPLE TOPICS. THERE HAVE BEEN ADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL\, OR ADAPTATION PLANS PREPARED TO ADDRESS A SINGLE TOPIC SUCH AS WATER SUPPLY OR ECOSYSTEM OR FLOODING OR AGRICULTURE.  TO OUR KNOWLEDGE\, THIS IS THE FIRST AT SCALE THAT ADDRESSES MULTIPLE SECTORS AND TOPICS ACROSS THE FULL REGION OF THE DELTA ITSELF. WE’RE ABOUT TO RELEASE OUR ADAPTATION PLAN\, JUST PUTTING FINAL TOUCHES ON IT AND COMPLETING SOME FINAL REVIEWS AND WE’RE EXCITED TO RELEASE THAT. BECAUSE IT SHOWS HOW FAR WE HAVE COME THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT’S PROCESS. HOW MUCH WE HAVE LEARNED\, AND IT SETS A FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING A LOT OF MUCH NEEDED ADAPTATION ACTIONS HAPPEN WITHIN THE REGION. IT’S THE RESULT OF MANY YEARS OF CONVERSATIONS ACROSS PROBABLY THE MOST DIVERSE GROUP OF INTERESTS AND EXPERTISE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ENGAGED TO DATE. THE WORK RECOGNIZES A LOT OF GREAT PROGRESS IN PROTECTING THE DELTA THUS FAR. BUT\, ALSO\, POINTS OUT ALL THE AREAS WE STILL NEED TO AMPLIFY OUR WORK TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE\, TO PROVIDE AND PRIORITIZE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES TO KEEP UP WITH THE IMPACTS THAT WE’RE ALREADY SEEING.  THE WORK IS BEING LED BY THE COUNCIL WHICH WAS CREATED TO HELP SAFEGUARD DELTA ASSETS. AND CRITICAL CONSIDERATIONS TO ACHIEVING OUR MISSION\, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED NEEDS RESOURCES PARTNERSHIPS AND IMPORTANTLY LEADERS THAT ARE NEEDED AS MUCH OF THE PLAN RELIES ON A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT AMONG A NUMBER OF AGENCIES. OUR PRESENTATION TODAY MORGAN IS GOING TO PROVIDE A PREVIEW OF SOME OF OUR APPLICATION STRATEGIES. WE’RE INTERESTED TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK AROUND CLARITY OF STRATEGIES AND ANY PRIORITIES OR APPLICATIONS OUTLINED FOR BCDC TO HELP INFORM THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN JUST TO ORIENT THIS IS A MATCH DELTA WHICH IS ON THE RIGHT WITH THE SAN WAN KEEN RIVER DARK BLUE AND WHAT’S BEEN MARKED IN THE CENTER\, IDENTIFIED AS OUR OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS BCDC THAT’S THE MIDDLE AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY ON THE LEFT THIS IS IN THE SPIRIT OF MANAGING THE ONE BAY DELTA ESTUARY WHERE ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE IN THE BAY AFFECT THE DELTA AND THOSE THAT TAKE PLACE IN THE DELTA AFFECT THE BAY. NEXT SLIDE\, CORY.  THE FIRST PHASE OF OUR PROJECT BEGAN IN 2018\, IT WAS A VULNERABLE ASSESSMENT IN WHICH WE IDENTIFIED AT RISK SYSTEMS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE HEAVILY RELY ON NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES AND PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH. WE FOUND THE FOLLOWING\, FLOOD RISK IS ONE OF THE MOST PRESSING THREATS TO THE DELTA AND IT’S GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORSEN IN THE FUTURE WITH CHANGES IN SEA LEVEL\, PRECIPITATION\, HYDROLOGY AND TEMPERATURE THESE ARE NOT ALL GOING TO IMPACT THE DELTA RESIDENTS IN THE SAME WAY OR IN AN EQUITABLE WAY AND WILL AFFECT THE CENTRAL SOUTHERN DELTA MOST\, CONCENTRATION IN THE STOCKTON AREA THIS MEANS MANY OF THE RESIDENTS EXPOSED TO FLOODING MAY HAVE HIGHER SENSITIVITY TO FLOOD IMPACTS AND LOWER CAPACITY TO ADAPT. WE’LL TALK MORE ABOUT HOW FLOOD RISK IS DIFFERENT IN THE DELTA THAN IN THE BAY WHEN WE COVER OUR STRATEGIES. PARTICULARLY THOSE RELATED TO FLOOD RISK REDUCTION. TWO\, DELTA WATER EXPORTS WILL BE LESS RELIABLE IN THE FUTURE DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE. DELTA’S EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH STORAGE TO CAPTURE ANTICIPATED INCREASES IN RUNOFF DUE TO MORE VARIABLE PRECIPITATION. IT’S WORTH PAUSING TO NOTE THAT IN THE DELTA\, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE FOUND OUT FROM THE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT IS THAT THE DELTA SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE AFFECTED BY ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN RIVERING FLOWS\, FROM THE SACRAMENTO AND SAN JOAQUIN\, BASED ON ADJUSTED\, OR — THE SITUATION OF MORE PRECIPITATION AND FALLING AS RAIN AND LESS AS SNOW\, THEN THE REGION IS AFFECTED BY SEA LEVEL RISE.  SO\, SEA LEVEL RISE AND RIVERING INFLOW ARE BOTH COMPONENTS OF THE VULNERABILITY\, THE RIVERING AND THE FLOW ASPECT SEEMS TO BE MUCH MORE DIRECTING THE OUTCOMES IN THE DELTA. IN TERMS OF WATER QUALITY\, IN DELTA WATER USERS MAY BE THREATENED BY WATER QUALITY DECLINES\, FUTURE DROUGHTS\, AND ALL OF THAT EXPOSING MORE ACRES OF DELTA AGRICULTURE\, TO MORE SALINE WATER THAN HAS HISTORICALLY OCCURRED. DELTA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION TRENDS WILL SHIFT DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE\, INCREASING TEMPERATURES AND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT DAYS\, ARE BOTH PROJECTED TO REDUCE YIELDS FOR MANY DELTA CROPS. AND THE NUMBER OF EXTREME HEAT DAYS WILL INCREASE THROUGHOUT THE DELTA AND COMMUNITIES IDENTIFIED AS MOST VULNERABLE TO THAT EXTREME HEAT ARE LOCATED PREDOMINANTLY IN THE CITIES OF STOCKTON AND TRACY. AND I’LL ASK MORGAN TO JUMP IN AND GIVE THE PRESENTATION ON OUR UPCOMING ADAPTATION PLAN. THANK YOU.  \nMORGAN CHAU: THANKS\, JEFF.  AND GOOD AFTERNOON\, CHAIR EISEN AND COMMISSIONERS. I’M HAPPY TO BE HERE PRESENTING TO YOU. AS CORY MENTIONED\, I USED TO WORK AT BCDC\, I WAS IN PERMITS\, ANALYST IN SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT UNIT. SO IT’S NICE TO BE BACK. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, PHASE TWO IS REALLY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADAPTATION PLAN THAT WE’RE SPEAKING ABOUT TODAY\, WHICH IT INCLUDES A RANGE OF ACTIONS TO IMPROVE REGIONAL RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE FOR THE DELTA. SO\, THIS GRAPHIC REALLY JUST SHOWS OUR PROCESS AND HOW WE LEANED ON\, REALLY\, AS JEFF MENTIONED\, PROBABLY THE MOST DIVERSE SET OF INTERESTS THAT WE HAVE ENGAGED WITH AT THE COUNCIL\, AS WELL AS OUR VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT FINDINGS TO EXPLORE ADAPTATION NEEDS AND PRIORITIES AND DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THOSE.  WE WORKED ACROSS FOUR FOCUS AREAS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN. AGRICULTURE\, FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, ECOSYSTEM\, AND WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY OVER THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS\, WORKING TO INTEGRATE EQUITY THROUGHOUT. WE ALSO WORKED ACROSS INTERDISCIPLINARY GROUP WHERE WE BROUGHT TOGETHER THOSE FOCUS GROUPS SEVERAL TIMES. OUR ENGAGEMENT FOR SCOPING THE PLAN REALLY BEGAN IN 2021\, AND WE COHOSTED A WORKSHOP SERIES WITH SEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN STOCKTON\, WHICH IS A HIGHLY SOCIALLY VULNERABLE CITY IN THE DELTA\, AND THIS ENGAGEMENT WITH THIS GROUP OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS CONTINUED. AND THEY HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE HAVE INFORMED OTHER COMPONENTS OF OUR WORK INCLUDING OUR TRIBAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK. WE HAVE ALSO INCORPORATED SEVERAL TRIBAL CONSULTATIONS INTO THE PLAN AT INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH OTHER AGENCIES AT THE STATE\, LOCAL\, AND FLOOD AND WATER AGENCIES. THE COUNCIL HOLDS MANY COLLABORATIVE FORUMS THAT HAVE BEEN TOPICALLY RELEVANT FOR ADAPTATION THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN.  AND ANOTHER CRITICAL COMPONENT IS FOR THE FIRST TIME\, FOR THE COUNCIL\, REALLY REACHING AND HEARING DIRECTLY FROM DELTA FARMERS AND GROWERS. SO\, WE’RE HEARING FIRSTHAND ABOUT CHALLENGES THEY’RE CURRENTLY GRAPPLING WITH\, HOW THEY’RE ADAPTING AND WHAT THEY NEED TO FURTHER ADAPT. LASTLY\, WE HEARD A LOT FROM INTERVIEWS\, BOTH THROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE WORK AND ALSO RESULTS FROM THE REGION’S FIRST REPRESENTATIVE SURVEY OF DELTA RESIDENTS THAT HAS INFORMED OUR WORK. AS WE APPROACH HAVING PUBLIC DRAFT OF THE PLAN\, WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF CONCERTED EFFORT IN THREE CITIES IN THE DELTA THAT HAVE SCORED PARTICULARLY HIGH IN TERMS OF SOCIAL VULNERABLE CLIMATE IMPACTS FROM INDEX DEVELOPED IN PHASE ONE\, THOSE ARE FRO ANTIOCH\, PITTSBURG\, AND STOCKTON\, ANTIOCH AND PITTSBURG HAVE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION REALLY OVER THE EDGE OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION AND OURS. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, WE’RE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING OUR SET OF STRATEGIES IN OUR PLAN\, THEY’RE BOTH PHYSICAL AND MANAGEMENT LEVEL STRATEGIES THAT WILL REALLY BE REALIZED DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFIC LOCATION IN THE DELTA. AND OUR FOCUS REALLY WITH THE STRATEGIES\, IS TO MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY AND TO BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE NEW CLIMATE DATA AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE\, REALLY PRIORITIZING PROJECTS THAT OFFER MULTIPLE BENEFITS IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER.  SO\, JEFF TOUCHED ON THIS\, BUT EACH STRATEGY BEFORE I GET INTO THEM\, HAS A RECOMMENDED LEAD ACCORDING TO THE AGENCY THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO LEAD\, NOT NECESSARILY ONLY BY REGULATORY AUTHORITY\, AND SEVERAL PROPOSED PARTNERS. WE ALSO WORKED TO HIGHLIGHT STRATEGIES THAT WE FEEL\, ACCORDING TO COST AND ORDER OF OPERATIONS\, THAT REALLY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED FIRST OR NEAR-TERM. WE HAVE DONE\, AS COREY MENTIONED SOME OF OUR ANALYSIS PREVIOUSLY\, BUT WE HAVE WORKED TO DEVELOP ADAPTATION COSTS FOR THESE BIG PROJECTS COMPARE THOSE TO VALUE OF ASSETS AT RISK WHICH WAS PART OF OUR PHASE ONE. WE’RE CAREFUL TO NOTE THE STRATEGIES AND RELATIONSHIP TO OUR EXISTING DELTA PLAN\, WHICH IS OUR LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DELTA RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STATE REGIONAL RESOURCE SPECIFIC PLANS AS WELL AS CASE STUDIES THAT EXEMPLIFY TYPES OF STRATEGIES WE WANT TO SEE MOVING FORWARD. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. TOUCH BRIEFLY ON HOW WE ARE INCLUDING EQUITY THROUGH THE ALL OF OUR STRATEGIES.  IT REALLY\, EQUITY IS A COMPONENT IN\, I THINK\, THREE MAIN WAYS. FIRST IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATIONAL JUSTICE. SO\, IN A LOT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS IN OUR PLAN\, WE ARE REALLY WORKING AND RECOGNIZE IT’S INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE DECISIONS AND THE DECISION-MAKING BODIES THAT REPRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT ARE SERVED SO THAT COMMUNITIES ARE BOTH INFORMED REPRESENTED AND INVOLVED IN THESE PLANNING PROCESSES. ANOTHER IS THROUGH PRIORITIZATION OF INVESTMENTS THAT’S CONTINUING TO WORK TO UNDERSTAND WHO FACES MOST RISK AND WHO NEEDS INVESTMENT FOR ADAPTATION THE MOST. LASTLY HEARD ACROSS THE BOARD IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS NEED TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE AND AMPLIFY RISK COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION\, AND REALLY PRESENT WHAT WERE OUR FINDINGS FROM PHASE 1 AND 2\, TO THE MOST SOCIALLY VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION. NEXT SLIDE. SO\, NOW TO THE STRATEGIES.  THIS IS OUR FIRST OF OUR FOUR FOCUS AREAS IS FLOOD RISK REDUCTION\, WHICH HAS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE DELTA\, AS JEFF MENTIONED. WE HAVE SEEN SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS\, BUT A LOT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE CHANGE. THESE GRAPHICS WE’LL HAVE FOR EACH FOCUS AREA FROM LEFT TO RIGHT SHOWS SUMMARY OF VULNERABILITIES\, AN ILLUSTRATIVE SUMMARY OF OUR TYPES OF STRATEGIES WE’RE PROPOSING\, AND EXAMPLE ACTIONS. SO\, ON THE LEFT\, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE FOUND RELATED TO FLOOD VULNERABLE\, WE KNOW THAT CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY — WILL REALLY AFFECT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM FROM ALL DIRECTIONS IN THE DELTA. SO THAT’S RIVERING INFLOWS\, FLOOD CONTROL WATER SUPPLY OPERATIONS. AS JEFF MENTIONED\, BRIEFLY DISTINCTION FROM HOW BCDC APPROACHES FLOOD RISK WHICH IS MORE FOCUSED ON SEA LEVEL RISE\, WE’RE LOOKING AT FLOOD RISK AND RIVERING\, AND LEVEES OVERTOPPING. WHILE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN OUR LEVEES IN PAST DECADES THERE IS STILL A LOT OF WORK TO DO IN OUR STRATEGY OUTLINING WHAT’S NEEDED THROUGH A WELL ROUNDED APPROACH TO ADDRESSING BOTH HYDROLOGICAL VARIABILITY\, AND CHALLENGES POSED BY CLIMATE OUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING A LOT OF THESE STRATEGIES FOR FLOOD RISK WE HAVE POLICIES RELATED TO HOW WE INVEST IN LEVEES AND SUPPORT FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND PLANNED USE DECISIONS.  THE STRATEGIES GO BEYOND AND WE HAVE A FEW EXAMPLES\, STRATEGIES THAT TOUCHES ON SPECIFIC FLOOD MODELING NEEDS AND COLLABORATION AND COMMUNICATION ON THAT TOPIC. AND\, REALLY\, CONTINUING TO WORK ON OUR DELTA LEVEE INVESTMENT STRATEGY. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A MORE NON-STRUCTURAL MEASURE IS TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FLOOD INSURANCE\, IN THE DELTA REGION THERE\, IS A VERY LOW\, DESPITE THE FLOOD RISK\, THERE IS A VERY LOW PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. NEXT SLIDE. THE SECOND FOCUS AREA IS ECOSYSTEM. SO\, THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM REALLY PROVIDES HABITAT FOR [INDISCERNIBLE] MIGRATORY PATHWAYS\, WE ALSO KNOW THE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM AS A BUFFER FROM IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE WE KNOW FROM VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT THAT THE ECOSYSTEMS AND DELTA WILL CONTINUE TO BE STRESSED AND HAVE LIMITED ROOM TO MIGRATE. AGAIN THE DELTA PLAN WE HAVE POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PROTECTING THE DELTA ECOSYSTEM WE HAVE ACTUAL SPECIFIC TARGETS FOR THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WE WANT TO RESTORE AND OUR STRATEGIES HERE ALIGN WITH AND GO BEYOND WHAT IS IN OUR DELTA PLAN.  IN A FEW THINGS WE CALL OUT CO-BENEFITS RELATED TO RESTORATION\, THAT’S RECOGNIZING REDUCED FLOOD RISK THAT CAN BE BROUGHT FROM PROJECTS\, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPROVING ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACES\, AND THE CULTURAL VALUE AND THE NEED TO WORK ALONGSIDE TRIBES IN THESE RESTORATION PROJECTS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM OUR STRATEGIES IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HALTING AND REVERSING SUBSIDENCE THAT THE DELTA EXPERIENCES. THAT CAN BE DONE IN SEVERAL WAYS DEPENDING ON THE LAND OWNERSHIP AND FEASIBILITY SO IT COULD BE THROUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESTORATION BUT ALSO THROUGH PLANTING CROPS SUCH AS RICE. NEXT SLIDE. NEXT IS OUR AGRICULTURE FOCUS AREA AND\, REALLY\, AGRICULTURE IN THE DELTA IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE DELTA’S CULTURE\, HISTORY\, AND ECONOMY\, IT’S REALLY THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF THE REGION IT PROVIDES JOBS AND SIGNIFICANT ANNUAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT HOWEVER AGRICULTURE WE KNOW FROM OUR PHASE ONE REALLY FACES A LOT OF CHALLENGES WITH CLIMATE\, INCLUDING VARIABLE PRECIPITATION\, SALT WATER INTRUSION\, WATER QUALITY DECLINE\, FLOODING\, EXTREME HEAT\, AND REDUCED CHILL HOURS WHICH ALL COMPOUND TO IMPACT BOTH CROP YIELD AND QUALITY. SO\, AGAIN OUR DELTA PLAN DOES LAY FOUNDATION FOR ADDRESSING AGRICULTURE AND NEEDS FOR ADAPTATION. WE HAVE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STATE AGENCIES TO REALLY ADAPTIVELY MANAGE AGRICULTURE LANDS AND ALSO TO PROVIDE HABITAT CONDITIONS FOR FEASIBLE NATIVE SPECIES.  OUR STRATEGIES ARE DIVERSE HERE. WE HAVE STRATEGIES RELATED TO ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR AN EQUITABLE REGIONAL FOOD SYSTEM. SO THIS INCLUDES THINGS LIKE LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FOR FARMS. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW ACTIONS THAT SUPPORT CLIMATE SMART FARMING PRACTICES. SO\, THESE ARE ACTIONS SUCH AS IRRIGATION\, EFFICIENCY\, BUILDING SOIL HEALTH\, PEST MANAGEMENT\, OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT\, RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSIFYING INCOME AND REVENUE FOR FARMS. SO\, SUPPORT FOR AGRO TOURISM\, CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES\, FUNDING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CREDITS\, LIKE CARBON CREDITS AND THEN WILDLIFE FRIENDLY FARMING. AND THEN WHERE FEASIBLE IDENTIFY WHERE LAND MIGHT NEED TO BE RETIRED OF THERE ARE OTHER USES THAT WOULD BE OF HIGH VALUE.  NEXT SLIDE. SO\, THIS IS OUR LAST. FOCUS AREA\, WATER SUPPLY\, RELIABILITY. THE DELTA WATERSHED PROVIDES A PORTION OF WATER SUPPLY FOR APPROXIMATELY 27 MILLION CALIFORNIANS. AND WE KNOW FROM CLIMATE CHANGE FROM OUR PHASE ONE THAT OUR WATER SUPPLY WILL LIKELY DECREASE WITH DEMAND AND INCREASED — SORRY — WITH\, AS DEMAND INCREASES\, AND WE EXPERIENCE MORE VARIABLE PRECIPITATION AND DECREASED SNOWPACK AS JEFF ALREADY MENTIONED\, OUR INFRASTRUCTURE WILL ALSO BE AT RISK TO SEVERAL CLIMATE IMPACTS. SO\, AGAIN\, THE STRATEGIES HERE REALLY GO BEYOND THE FOUNDATIONAL POLICIES IN THE DELTA PLAN WHICH DOES REQUIRE SUPPLIERS TO REDUCE RELIANCE ON THE DELTA. AND OUR STRATEGIES\, WE HAVE FIVE STRATEGIES.  AND THE FIRST IS REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE DELTA. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL ACTIONS HERE\, SUCH AS FUNDING PROJECTS THAT REALLY PROMOTE URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION\, OR RECYCLED WATER. WE HAVE A STRATEGY RELATED TO INCREASING LOCAL STORAGE OF SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES\, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE DELTA. A STRATEGY RELATED TO MODIFYING RESERVOIR OPERATIONS TO BE ADAPTABLE TO CHANGING CLIMATE CONTINUES. AND THEN\, LASTLY\, A STRATEGY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER MODIFYING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS SO THAT THERE ARE OBJECTIVES THAT PROVIDE FOR SEVERAL BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER\, SUCH AS AGRICULTURAL\, FISHING\, RECREATIONAL TRIBAL AND OTHER HUMAN BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER. SORRY. OUR LAST ONE IS TO REALLY IMPROVE OR MODIFY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE DELTA TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS OF THROUGH DELTA CONVEYANCE.  NEXT SLIDE. OUR PLAN HAS A GOVERNANCE CHAPTER THAT REALLY ADDRESSES THE UNIQUE HISTORY\, CHALLENGES\, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADAPTATION GOVERNANCE IN THE DELTA. AS REALLY GOVERNANCE DOES DETERMINE THE PROCESS FOR FUNDING\, PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THIS GRAPHIC THAT IS ON THIS SLIDE WAS DEVELOPED BY A DELTA SCIENCE FELLOW\, TARA POSEY\, AND UC DAVIS PH.D. CANDIDATE WHO IS DOING NETWORK MAPPING TO UNDERSTAND HOW CLIMATE COLLABORATIVES ARE CONNECTED AND JUST TO SHOW OUR PROJECT CONNECT MAPS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW CLIMATE COLLABORATIVE ARE CONNECTED AND SHOWS IN OUR PROJECT COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS IN THE REGION. THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT WORKING TO HAVE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE\, ACROSS DECISIONS TO PRESENT COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE WE INCLUDE PRACTICES PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT WE HAVE WORKING DOUBLE ON CONDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT CAN HAVE A BETTER ROLE IN DECISION-MAKING. JUST TO WRAP UP\, WE WANTED TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR ROLE MOVING FORWARD ALREADY TOUCHED ON THESE COMPONENTS WHAT’S IMPORTANT FOR US IS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE REPRESENTATIONAL JUSTICE ADAPTATION DECISIONS THROUGH INCREASED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS\, TO CONTINUE TO USE RESOURCES WITH OUR PARTNERS TO AMPLIFY BETTER COMMUNICATIONS. WE HAVE A SCIENCE PROGRAM THAT FUND A LOT OF RESEARCH IN THE REGION WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THE RESEARCH GAPS THAT CAME OUT OF THESE CONVERSATIONS. I TOUCHED ON THE TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE WORK AND THEN REALLY THINKING ABOUT HOW TO FUND ALL OF THIS.  IF THIS IS AN AREA WHERE WE REALLY LEARN AND TO COLLABORATE WITH THE PLANNING STAFF IS JUST THINKING ABOUT REGIONAL FUNDING FOR ADAPTING A AND LASTLY WORKING THROUGH EXISTING REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR OUR COVERED ACTION AUTHORITY\, JUST CONTINUING TO PROMOTE LAND USES THAT ENHANCE DELTA RESILIENCE HALTING REVERSE SUBSIDENCE AND REDUCE RISK OVERALL. NEXT SLIDE. THAT’S ALL FOR ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE. AS WE’RE GETTING VERY CLOSE TO HAVING A DRAFT OUT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME FOR LETTING US PRESENT TODAY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU\, MORGAN.  BEFORE WE GET TO QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS AGENDA ITEM?  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NONE IN-PERSON. AND NO HANDS RAISED.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY. SO\, THANK YOU\, CORY\, JEFF\, AND MORGAN FOR THAT VERY IN-DEPTH PRESENTATION. AND I’M GOING TO LOOK — OR SIERRA IS GOING LOOK FOR ME TO TELL ME IF THERE ARE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR COMMENT ON YOUR PRESENTATION.   \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: NO HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY. BUT YOU DO HAVE COMMISSIONER ECKLUND HERE IN-PERSON.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OKAY.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING HE TO ASK AND QUESTIONS. YOU HAVE COME A LONG WAYS\, OBVIOUSLY\, IN ADDRESSING A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE CONFRONTING THE DELTA. A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. HAS THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE INCREASED OVER TIME?  OR DO WE KNOW?  \nMORGAN CHAU: I DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE. I THINK IT MIGHT — YEAH IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE DELTA\, IT MIGHT INTERESTING\, IS A LOT ACTIVE WORK TO ADDRESS THOSE EXPOSED PEAT SOILS. WE CAN GET BACK TO YOU.  \nSPEAKER: YEAH.  \nPAT ECKLUND: GO AHEAD.  \nSPEAKER: I WAS GOING TO SAY FOR MOST OF THE DELTA\, THE PEAT SOIL IS SO DEEP SO THAT ANYWHERE THERE IS TRADITIONAL LAND MANAGEMENT IT’S KIND OF SUBSIDING AT A FAIRLY CONSISTENT RATE THROUGH THE TIME THERE ARE CERTAIN LOCATIONS TO DO SUBSIDENCE HALTING OR EVEN SUBSIDENCE REVERSE ACTIVITIES I KNOW THOSE ARE ENCOURAGED IN THE DELTA\, AN EXAMPLE\, WETLANDS\, AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION AT THOSE SITES\, THEY HAVE USED ICE TO MANAGE SUBSIDENCE.  IT’S A MAJOR TOPIC BUT IT HASN’T BEEN VERY — AT THIS POINT IT’S ALL UNIVERSALLY TAKEN AS LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE REGION BUT I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF EFFORT TO PROMOTE IT MORE.  \nPAT ECKLUND: SO THE RATE MAY HAVE SLOWED DOWN IN SOME AREAS BECAUSE OF THE REVERSAL THAT PEOPLE ARE WORKING SO HARD TO TRY TO EMBRACE\, CORRECT?  \nCORY COPELAND: YEAH\, THOUGH\, I WILL SAY THOSE ARE RELATIVELY LIMITED.  \nPAT ECKLUND: LIMITED?  \nCORY COPELAND: — PROJECTS.  \nPAT ECKLUND: YEAH. I THINK THE RATE OF SUBSIDENCE\, FROM WHAT I KNEW YEARS AGO\, WAS INCREASING QUITE A BIT.  AND THERE WAS A LOT OF EFFORT TO TRY TO REDUCE IT. BUT I KNOW THAT THAT’S STILL A MAJOR ISSUE. THE COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT FLOOD INSURANCE. FLOOD INSURANCE\, I KNOW\, IS REALLY SUPER EXPENSIVE\, A LOT OF FOLKS THAT I KNOW IN THE DELTA THAT MANAGE A LOT OF THOSE ISLANDS\, OR WHATEVER\, THEY MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE FUNDS. IS THERE ANY FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF THAT INSURANCE FOR THEM? ESPECIALLY IF THEY’RE DOING MORE PUBLIC WORK OR WHATEVER ON THEIR LAND MANAGEMENT. ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON THAT?  IT’S A POOR REGION.  \nMORGAN CHAU: YEAH. THAT’S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION AND POINT. AND I WILL — SO\, WE KNOW — I THINK IT’S A LITTLE BIT AROUND 20% OF RESIDENTS HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. SO IT IS REALLY LOW. AND IT’S EXPENSIVE. WE TRACK FEMA’S PROGRAMS.  I KNOW FEMA DOES HAVE THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM. SO THAT’S AT A COMMUNITY SCALE. YOU CAN UNDERGO A LOT OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES TO GET LOWER RATES. I DON’T KNOW ABOUT A LOT OF OTHER PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. BUT WE ARE ALSO — WE ARE ALSO TRACKING SOME OTHER SMALLER SCALE EFFORTS TO GET COMMUNITIES MORE PROTECTED. KATHY SHAFER\, WHO I THINK SHE IS A POST DOC\, MAY BE A PH.D. AT UC DAVIS\, DOES A LOT OF RESEARCH RELATED TO FLOOD INSURANCE AND\, LIKE\, FLOOD PREPAREDNESS IN THE DELTA\, AND SHE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY ISLETON THEY CREATED A GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT WHICH IS A WAY YOU CAN ACCESS MORE FUNDS TO HELP WITH PREPAREDNESS SO IT’S NOT JUST INSURANCE BUT INSURANCE COULD BE A COMPONENT OF THAT.  \nPAT ECKLUND: ARE THERE RESTORATION OF THE LEVEES ACTIVE EFFORTS TO HELP STRENGTHEN AND RESTORE THOSE LEVEES AS THERE WAS IN THE PAST?  OR HAS IT DIMINISHED?  \nMORGAN CHAU: I’LL LET JEFF TAKE THAT ONE.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: THERE ARE ONGOING EFFORTS THAT CONTINUE\, THE STATE IS CONTINUING TO FUND WHAT’S KNOWN AS THIS SUBVENTIONS PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION OF THE LEVEES.  \nPAT ECKLUND: THAT’S GREAT. I’M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THE CANAL\, IS THERE AN EFFORT TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT GOES DOWN THE CANCEL TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA? SORE IS THAT SOMETHING THAT’S PRETTY MUCH SET IN STONE?  OR DO YOU KNOW?  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT QUESTION?  \nCORY COPELAND: WELL\, DO YOU WANT ME TO HOP IN? I SUSPECT THEY DON’T WANT TO COMMENT ON IT BECAUSE IT’S LIKELY TO COME THROUGH THERE OFFICE AS A COVERED ACTION.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: CORY\, GO AHEAD.  \nPAT ECKLUND: I IMAGINE IT’S A CONFLICTING QUESTION.  \nCORY COPELAND: THE CANAL IS NOW THE DELTA BAY PROJECT BEING PROPOSED BY DWR AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS AROUND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RIGHT NOW.  I SUSPECT AT SOME POINT THAT WILL GO BEFORE THE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL TO BE REVIEWED. AT THIS POINT IT’S TO BE REVIEWED PHASE. SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS ARE\, LIKE\, HOW MUCH WATER WOULD BE YIELD — I DON’T IT’S FULLY RESOLVED\, BUT PROBABLY OF INTEREST.  \nPAT ECKLUND: PROBABLY SHOWS MY AGE. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING THAT. MY LAST QUESTION YOU TALK ABOUT THE CHANGE OF LAND USE\, I KNOW THAT GIVEN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IN THE DELTA IS THAT THERE IS A LOT OF FAMILIES THAT\, YOU KNOW\, SORT OF\, PASS ON THE PROPERTY DOWN THROUGH THE DIFFERENT GENERATIONS. HOW IS THAT BEING ENCOURAGED?  IS INCENTIVES OF BUYING THEIR PROPERTY ONE OF THE ISSUES? OR YOU HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED OTHER MECHANISMS WHERE YOU CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE THE — CHANGING THE USE WHICH IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR A LOT OF HOMEOWNER — LANDOWNERS?  \nMORGAN CHAU: YEAH I CAN START MAYBE JEFF AND CORY CAN ADD. THE DELTA’S AN INTERESTING PLACE ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE BAY\, WHICH IS URBAN. PRIMARILY THE DELTA HAS A LOT OF STRONG DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS A LOT OF THE LAND USE CHANGES THAT WE EXPLORE FOR DELTA ADAPTS IS LOOKING AT WHERE THERE IS POTENTIALLY FARMLAND OR ABANDONED FARMLAND THAT IS NOT ACTIVE ANYMORE. LIKE YEAH IS THERE LAND USE INCENTIVES FOR IT TO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. SO LIKE PEAT SOILS THAT ARE EXPOSED AND OXIDIZING\, SUBSIDING\, LIKE IS IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AN OPTION TO WET THAT LAND\, CAN IT BE MANAGED\, LIKE\, COULD YOU GROW RICE THERE.  I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN EXPLORED FROM THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH FARMERS THROUGHOUT THE DELTA EVEN YOU KNOW DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE DELTA HAVE THEIR DIFFERENT CHALLENGES\, SPECIFICALLY WITH FARMING\, FARMERS — SOME FARMERS ARE OPEN TO\, YOU KNOW\, EXPLORING DIFFERENT LAND USES. IT REALLY IS A QUESTION OF FINANCIAL FEASIBLE AND SOMETIMES WANTING MORE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. WE PARTNERED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN THE INTERVIEWS THAT WE CONDUCTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF THESE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THEY PROVIDE TO GROWERS\, TO HELP THEM BE MORE FINANCIALLY PROFITABLE. YEAH THAT’S SOME OF THE TOPICS WE HAVE EXPLORED.  \nPAT ECKLUND: GREAT. THANKS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION\, AND REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE DELTA.  THE DELTA\, FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW\, THE DELTA IS A VERY SPECIAL PLACE. AND\, REALLY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GET TO KNOW IT. BECAUSE IT DOES DEFINITELY HAS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT ON THE WHOLE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. AND\, SO\, JUST REALLY WANT TO COMPLIMENT EVERYBODY WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS. AND MY HAT’S OFF TO ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE. THANK YOU.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THANK YOU.   \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR EISEN\, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? THIS IS LARRY.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: OF COURSE.  \nLARRY GOLDZBAND: MORGAN AND JEFF GREAT TO SEE YOU\, OF COURSE. THE PROGRESS YOU ALL HAVE MADE ON DELTA ADAPT IS MARVELOUS. WE ALL LOOK AT IT FROM THE WEST SIDE AND YOU’RE FROM THE EAST SIDE\, AND THANKFULLY BETWEEN\, WE HAVE GRAPPLED WITH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HOW YOU TAKE THE STRATEGY AND START GETTING TRACTION ON THE GROUND. WE HAVE BAY ADAPT AND WE NOW HAVE THIS THING CALLED SB272 WHICH REALLY GIVES US A REAL PUSH TO ENSURE WHAT BAY ADAPT DOES REALLY HAS SOME REAL MAJOR IMPACT AND CAN GET TRACTION.  HOW HAVE YOU ALL STARTED LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING THIS AND WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HAVING TO WORK WITH THE HEAVY WEIGHTS LIKE DWR AND FOOD AND AG\, AS WELL AS THE INCREDIBLY WELL ENTRENCHED AND WELL MEANING FOLKS WHO HAVE OWNED LAND IN THE DELTA SINCE\, YOU KNOW\, THE MID-1800’S\, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE\, AND THE LIKE. I MEAN\, THE NUMBER OF INTERESTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS CERTAINLY AT LEAST AS LONG AS OURS.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: THAT’S A BIG QUESTION\, LARRY.  \nJEFF HENDERSON: YEAH. I’M STILL THINKING. NO. THANK YOU\, LARRY.  WE’RE JUST AT THE INITIAL STAGES OF BEGINNING TO THINK ABOUT IMPLEMENTATION\, AND ARE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO LEARN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM THE PATHWAYS THAT YOU ALL HAVE CHARTED. I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IS REALLY ENLISTING THE DELTA PLAN INTER-AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE OR DPIIC WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A COMMITTEE FORMED AND LARRY SITS ON THIS COMMITTEE\, ON BEHALF OF BCDC\, AS WELL. IT’S A COMMITTEE FORMED AT THE AGENCIES THAT ARE CHARGED IN THE DELTA PLAN WITH VARIOUS DIFFERENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION. AND WE’RE REALLY LOOKING TO USE THE DPIIC AS A PLACE TO BRING AND OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND START UNPACKING THEM. AND LOOKING TO WORK WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES TO IDENTIFY WHAT RESOURCES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO BRING TO THE TABLE\, WHAT LESSONS LEARNED THAT THEY HAVE FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES\, AND REALLY TO USE THAT AS A PLACE TO CONSOLIDATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DELTA ADAPT. THAT’S SOME OF OUR EARLY THINKING\, IN COMBINATION WITH\, THEN\, MOVING TOWARD A BIT MORE OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING STRUCTURE THAT REALLY HELPS TO SOLIDIFY THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES\, AS THEY RELATE TO THE SPECIFIC STRATEGIES. MORGAN\, IS THERE MORE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT?   \nMORGAN CHAU: NO. YEAH. I THINK OUR REGULAR CHECK-INS WITH BCDC\, SINCE WE’RE DOING SIMILAR IN A LOT OF WAYS\, ADAPTING A WORK WE’RE OPERATING WITH DIFFERENT ACTORS AND DIFFERENT SETTINGS BUT WE CAN LEARN A LOT FROM EACH OTHER\, JUST I THINK THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE DELTA WE HAVE IDEAS FOR THE MOU STRUCTURE AT THE DPIIC LEVEL BUT ALSO THERE ARE THINGS LIKE ISLETON MODEL FOR FLOOD RISK AND PREPAREDNESS THAT CANNOT BE DONE YOU KNOW AROUND ISLETON IDEAS THAT CORE MENTIONED SHERMAN ISLAND EXPERIMENTS AND EXPERIENCE AROUND SOMETHING LIKE THAT WE REPLICATE THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY HAPPENING IN OTHER PLACES WHILE TRYING TO GET ALIGNMENT\, AS YOU KNOW\, AT THE HIGHER LEVEL.  \nCLERK\, SIERRA PETERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON?  \nBARRY NELSON: WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON A COMMENT THAT I APPRECIATED I ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BAY COMPARED TO THE DELTA. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT ARE CLEAR TO ME WHERE DELTA ADAPTATION IS DIFFERENT ADAPTATION IN THE BAY PLAN\, MORE COMPLICATED AND CHALLENGING. URBANIZATION WITH HUGE IMPLICATIONS WITH FINANCING.  THE TWO MORE THAT ARE VERY DIFFERENT FIRST IS THE DELTA IS A IMPORTANT WATER SUPPLY SOURCE FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE. THAT MEANS THAT WATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO CAN BE CONSIDERED PART OF A DELTA ADAPTATION STRATEGY. THAT’S NOT EASY. IT’S ALSO TRUE THAT THE FLOOD RISK IN THE DELTA IS DRIVEN TO A SUBSTANTIAL PART BY FLOOD COMING IN FROM\, AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES\, UPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA. SO FLOOD MANAGEMENT UPSTREAM FROM THE DELTA IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF PROTECTING COMMUNITIES LIKE STOCKTON. I WANT TO ASK HOW YOU’RE THINKING ABOUT THOSE BOUNDARY CHALLENGES. ON THE ONE HAND ARE YOU INCLUDING UPSTREAM FLOOD MANAGEMENT\, MULTI-BENEFIT PROJECTS UPSTREAM AS A FLOOD ADAPTATION STRATEGY?  IN THE DELTA AND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU GOING TO BE FOCUSING ON THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF THE DELTA\, DELTA AGRICULTURE AND SO FORTH\, COMPARED TO WATER MANAGEMENT BENEFITS WHERE THE DELTA COUNCIL MAY HAVE A HARD TIME MOVING THE NEEDLE? IT’S A DIFFERENT PICTURE AND MORE COMPLICATED IN SOME WAYS THAN THE WORK WE’RE DOING IN THE BAY.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD POINT ESPECIALLY FOR FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROPOSED STRATEGIES AND AROUND WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY A LOT OF WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE DELTA TOUCH ON YOU KNOW UPSTREAM DON STREAM ACTIVITIES IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH SAFETY AND WELL-BEING THAT’S A LITTLE BIT FOCUSED TO COMMUNITIES THAT LIVE WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO OUR DELTA BOUNDARIES YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT AND IT’S INCLUDED IN OUR STRATEGIES. RIGHT NOW THE DRAFT PLAN IT DOES IN SOME WAYS LOOK LIKE IT MASSIVE MENU OF STRATEGIES. WE HAVE DONE SOME — INITIAL PRIORITIZATION IN TERMS OF\, LIKE I SAID\, LIKE WHAT WE REALLY FEEL NEEDS TO HAPPEN FIRST\, WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITH EXISTING FUNDS THEN THERE IS ALSO THAT FILTER WHERE IT COMES IN AND GOES WELL WHEN’S FEASIBLE WITHIN OUR CONTROL WHAT CAN WE LEAD WHAT ARE OUR PARTNERS WILLING TO LEAD\, WHAT ARE WE TRACKING THAT IS ALREADY KIND OF HAPPENING BUT WE WANT TO HAPPEN MORE. SO\, I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT LEVELS AT WHICH WE CAN ENGAGE ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALKING ABOUT STRATEGIES OUTSIDE OF THE DELTA. BUT\, YEAH\, SO IT’S CHALLENGING IT MAKE GOOD POINT AND WE’RE TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES.  JEFF DID YOU WANT TO ADD?  \nJEFF HENDERSON: COMMISSIONER NELSON\, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BOUNDARY ISSUES MADE ME — AS DO A NUMBER OF THINGS\, REMINDED ME THAT THE DELTA STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY A STATEWIDE AGENCY THAT REPRESENTS STATEWIDE INTERESTS AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE DELTA. SO\, YES\, WE DO NEED TO BE CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE WATER CONSERVATION IN SAN DIEGO\, AND HOW THAT AFFECTS\, IN TURN\, THE AMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED THROUGH THE DELTA\, AND IN TURN\, THE AMOUNT OF WATER STORED IN A RESERVOIR UPSTREAM. SO\, THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE ARE VERY AWARE OF. I THINK\, DELTA ADAPT ITSELF DOES PAY A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ATTENTION TO THE DELTA ITSELF\, AND IF WE HAD ONE OF OUR OWN SELF-CRITIQUES OF THE WEEK IS PROBABLY THAT IT DOESN’T DO AS MUCH AS IT COULD TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF DELTA TO AFFECT THE HEALTH IN THE DELTA. I DO\, THOUGH\, UNDERSTAND THAT THE STRATEGIES\, AS MORGAN MENTIONED\, THE STRATEGIES\, WHERE POSSIBLE\, DO RECOMMEND ACTIVITIES THAT OCCUR UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM FROM THE DELTA\, THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE CLIMATE BENEFITS THAT WE’RE SEEKING IN THE DELTA.  \nSPEAKER: JUST ONE LAST THOUGHT TO FOLLOW UP ON LARRY’S COMMENT.  GIVEN THE BREADTH OF ADAPTATION ACTIONS THAT ARE RELEVANT TO THE DELTA\, IT’S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNCIL TO THINK THROUGH THE AREAS WHERE YOU FOLKS REALLY ARE GOING TO DRIVE THE DEBATE FORWARD AND REALLY MOVE THE NEEDLE THAT YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY BIG BROAD ADAPTATION LIST. OR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DELTA ADAPT PRESENTATION? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO HELPED ME GET THROUGH THIS ALMOST ENTIRELY VIRTUAL PRESENTATION.  \nSPEAKER: WE LOVE A GOOD CHALLENGE.  \nSPEAKER: GOOD LUCK.  \nV. CHAIR\, REBECCA EISEN: AND COMMISSION MEETING.  WE ONE OTHER ITEM. AND THAT IS ADJOURNMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? BARRY\, THANK YOU. SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? SEE YOU ON JULY 18TH. \nADJOURNED \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/june-6-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240605T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240605T140000
DTSTAMP:20240528T223031Z
CREATED:20240528T222905Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T223031Z
UID:10000178-1717592400-1717596000@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:June 5\, 2024 Environmental Justice Working Group
DESCRIPTION:Environmental Justice Commissioner Working Group Meeting Notice
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/june-5-2024-environmental-justice-working-group/
CATEGORIES:Environmental Justice Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240521T093000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240521T120000
DTSTAMP:20240528T212536Z
CREATED:20240130T045033Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T212536Z
UID:10000134-1716283800-1716292800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 21\, 2024 Enforcement Committee Meeting (Cancelled)
DESCRIPTION:
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-21-2024-enforcement-committee-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Enforcement Committee
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240517T100000
DTEND;TZID=America/Los_Angeles:20240517T120000
DTSTAMP:20240528T225149Z
CREATED:20240528T224810Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240528T225149Z
UID:10000180-1715940000-1715947200@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 17\, 2024 Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
DESCRIPTION:Meeting Notice
URL:https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/may-17-2024-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner-working-group/
CATEGORIES:Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20240516T130000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20240516T170000
DTSTAMP:20250321T215637Z
CREATED:20240118T081327Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250321T215637Z
UID:10000097-1715864400-1715878800@www.bcdc.ca.gov
SUMMARY:May 16\, 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 Meeting Location \nMetro Center375 Beale St.\, Temazcal Conference 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/88105137697?pwd=vbbiJ6slOT960Wiv4z9juBdKuZbMvZ.1 \nLive Webcast \nSee information on public participation \nTeleconference numbers1 (866) 590-5055Conference Code 374334 \nMeeting ID872 1472 7080 \nPasscode506054 \nIf you call in by telephone: \nPress *6 to unmute or mute yourselfPress *9 to raise your hand or lower your hand to speak  \n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Tentative Agenda\n				\nCall to Order\nRoll Call\nPublic Comment Period(Each speaker is limited to three minutes) A maximum of 15 minutes is available for the public to address the Commission on any matter on which the Commission either has not held a public hearing or is not scheduled for a public hearing later in the meeting. Speakers will be heard in the order of sign-up\, and each speaker is generally limited to a maximum of three minutes. It is strongly recommended that public comments be submitted in writing so they can be distributed to all Commission members for review. The Commission may provide more time to each speaker and can extend the public comment period beyond the normal 15-minute maximum if the Commission believes that it is necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to hear from all members of the public who want to testify. No Commission action can be taken on any matter raised during the public comment period other than to schedule the matter for a future agenda or refer the matter to the staff for investigation\, unless the matter is scheduled for action by the Commission later in the meeting.(Steve Goldbeck) [415/352-3611; steve.goldbeck@bcdc.ca.gov]\nApproval of Minutes for May 2\, 2024 Meeting(Sierra Peterson) [415/352-3608; sierra.peterson@bcdc.ca.gov]\nReport of the Chair\nReport of the Executive Director\nCommission Consideration of Administrative Matters(Harriet Ross) [415/352-3615; harriet.ross@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.002.00 The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program for existing gas and electrical transmission structures throughout the Commission’s jurisdiction\, excluding the Suisun MarshApplication Summary Staff PresentationApplicant Presentation  (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on PG and E Programmatic Operations and Maintenance Permit 2023.003.00mdThe Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a five-year operations and maintenance program of existing gas and electrical transmission structures in the Suisun Marsh.Application Summary (Rowan Yelton) [415/352-3613; rowan.yelton@bcdc.ca.gov]\nPublic Hearing and Possible Vote on 505 East Bayshore Road Permit Application The Commission will hold a public hearing and possibly vote on an application by Regis Homes Bay Area\, LLC\, to redevelop an approximately 2.54-acre industrial parcel with a new residential project consisting of 56 for-sale townhouses\, as well as shoreline public access and open space areas\, within the Bay and 100-foot shoreline band at 505 East Bayshore Road in the City of Redwood City\, San Mateo County.Application SummaryLetter of Support Letter of SupportStaff PresentationApplicant Presentation (Katharine Pan) [415/352-3650; katharine.pan@bcdc.ca.gov]\nCommission Authorization of an Interagency Flooding and Sea Level Rise Memorandum of Understanding The Commission will receive a briefing and consider authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BCDC and the member agencies of the Bay Area Regional Collaborative (BARC). The purpose of the MOU is to coordinate efforts to address the threats of flooding and sea level rise the San Francisco Bay Area. Attachment APresentation (Jessica Fain) [415/352-3642; jessica.fain@bcdc.ca.gov]\nAdjournment\n\n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Listing of Pending Administrative Matters\n				\nThis 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\nJ&M Paradise Properties LLCP.O. Box 2099Mill Valley\, CA 94941 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.029.0\n \n\n\nFiled\nApril 25\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 24\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\nWithin the Commission’s Shoreline Band jurisdiction\, at 2088 Paradise Dr.\, Tiburon\, in Marin County.\n\n\nDescription\n\nRenovate and remodel a single-family home through the following activities: \n\nInstall a new 600-square-foot parking deck and driveway;\nConstruct a new\, approximately 1\,000 square-foot ADU residence with an approximately 410-square-foot deck;\nExpand the second-floor residence from 650 square feet to approximately 1\,047 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nExpand the first-floor residence from 639 square feet to approximately 786 square feet\, and replace a 162 square-foot deck in-kind;\nReduce the size of the crawl space area from 584 square feet to 575 square feet;\nExpand the basement floor patio from 145 square feet to 220 square feet; and\nReplacing the existing outdoor staircases and landings\, reducing the footprint from 512 square feet to 305 square feet. The project will take place entirely within the Shoreline Band and will not result in any Bay fill. The applicant will submit an amendment request at a later date for a proposed overwater deck and boat dock. There are no existing public access requirements in the vicinity\, and no new improvements are proposed as part of this project.\n\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\nCity of Sausalito420 Litho StreetSausalito CA 94965 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2024.004.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 4\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 3\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at 466 Bridgeway\, in the City of Sausalito\, Marin County. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nReinstall a historic sea lion sculpture\, which was originally installed in 1958\, and damaged by a storm in 2023. This project would reinstall the statue on a new concrete pedestal. The project will result in approximately 1.2 cubic yards of new fill over an approximately25-square-foot area of the Bay. Construction of the project will require a temporary detour of a sidewalk for fewer than five days. \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\nApplicant\n\n\n\nNational Park ServiceLower Fort Mason Center – Building ESan Francisco\, CA 94123 \n\n\nBCDC Consistency Determination No. C2024.003.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 23\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJun3 22\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Bay and the Commission’s Coastal Zone\, at the Sea Scout Base of San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRepair the existing deteriorated system of walkways\, docks\, and piers at the Sea Scout base\, through the following activities. Remove the existing: \n\n20-foot-long walkway between the concrete platform and elevated wooden pier;\n12-foot-long by 8-foot-wide portion of the existing elevated wooden pier;\n21-foot-long by 8-foot-wide metal gangway; and\nfloating 40-foot-long by 8.75-foot-wide dock. Install a new 40-foot-long by 10-foot-wide floating dock\, consisting of wood planking on floats; and a new 42-foot-long by 4-foot-wide metal gangway with metal guardrail.\n\nNo existing pilings will be removed\, and new pilings will not be installed. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay Resources and public access in the vicinity during construction. The project will result in no solid fill in the Bay. \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\nThe Commission has received the following minor amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program for certification since the last listing. \n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nSuisun Resource Conservation District2516 Grizzly Island RoadSuisun City\, CA 94585 \n\n\nMinor Amendment to the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (BPA 1-23) \n\n\n\nDescription\nOn March 11\, 2022\, the Commission certified a major amendment to the Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) Component of the Suisun Marsh Local Protection Program (LPP). The amendment included 121 updated Individual Ownership Adaptive Habitat Management Plans (IOAHMPs) for each privately-owned managed wetland within the Primary Management Area of the Suisun Marsh. To ensure these plans remain current\, SRCD tracks modifications to operations and updates plans on an ongoing basis. Annually\, SRCD will submit these minor amendments to the LPP for Commission certification. This listing is to notify the Commission that the Executive Director intends to certify a minor amendment to the SRCD component to the LPP\, submitted on April 19\, 2024. The amendment submitted by SRCD includes updates to facilities and operations on 10 privately-owned managed wetlands. Examples of activities described in the minor amendment include\, but are not limited to\, repairs\, replacements\, or upgrades to water control structures\, such as flaps and pipes. The activities described in the minor amendment consist of minor repairs and improvements to privately-owned managed wetland facilities and meet the requirements of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Sections 11210-11215.\n\n\nTentative Staff Position\nRecommend Certification. Erik Buehmann; erik.buehmannbcdc.ca.gov\n\n\n\nApplicant\n\n\n\nPort of San FranciscoPier 1\, The EmbarcaderoSan Francisco\, CA 94111 \n\n\nBCDC Permit Application No. M2023.019.00 \n\n\n\nFiled\nApril 5\, 2024\n\n\n90th Day\nJuly 5\, 2024\n\n\nLocation\n\nWithin the Commission’s Bay jurisdictions\, at Wharf J9\, Pier 47\, in the City and County of San Francisco. \n\n\n\nDescription\n\nRemove and replace the existing dilapidated Wharf J9 mooring piles and construct a temporary floating dock\, through the following actions: \n\nRemove fifteen existing timber piles;\nInstall twelve steel piles;\nInstall a 12-foot by 270-foot floating dock;\nInstall an 8-foot by 16-foot aluminum access platform; and\nInstall an 8-foot by 12-foot steel platform with a 4-foot by 80-foot aluminum gangway connecting to the floating dock.\n\nThe dock will accommodate up to six vessels\, and allow public access to off-boat fish and crab sales. The Project is an interim action\, and is part of the Port’s longer-term Waterfront Resiliency Program redevelopment project of Wharf J9. The new floating dock would remain in place for approximately two to five years until the Wharf J9 Redevelopment project is permitted and implemented. The project will result in a net total of 3\,479 square feet of overwater fill and 5.22 cubic yards of solid fill. The project will be conditioned to minimize impacts to Bay resources and to public access in the area during construction. \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				\n				\n				\n				\n				Supplemental Materials\n				\nArticles about the Bay and BCDC \nChina Basin revealed: How a ‘complicated land-use deal’ yielded a new gem by the bay \n Will Travis Obituary \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Meeting Minutes\n				Minutes \n			\n				\n				\n				\n				\n				Audio Recording & Transcript\n				\nAudio recording \n \n\nTranscript\n\nCHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? AHN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>SPEAKER: PRESENT. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nECKLUND? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGILLMOR? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nGUNTHER? \nGUN HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HASZ? \n>>V. CHAIR\, KARL HASZ: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: KIM \nBAIL? \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nHERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? RAN. \n>>SPEAKER: HERE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: HAVE WE \nMISSED ANYONE? \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONER \nJOHN-BAPTISTE. \n>>CLERK\, REYLINA RUIZ: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN\, YOU HAVE \nA QUORUM. THANK YOU FOR THOSE \nOF YOU WHO ARE HERE VIRTUALLY \nWHO ARE MEETING OUR STATUTORY \nREQUIREMENT TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN \nTHE BUILDING. WE ARE NOW AT \nITEM THREE PUBLIC COMMENT SIERRA \nDO WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE \nSIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT \nTHIS IS TO ADDRESS MATTERS THAT \nARE NOT ON OUR AGENDA TODAY FOR \nWHICH WE DO NOT HAVE A HEARING. \nYOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THERE ARE \nNO COMMENTS IN-PERSON AND NO \nHANDS RAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \n— OH I’M SORRY. THAT BRINGS US \nTO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF \nMAY 2ND\, 2024. WE HAVE BEEN ED \nDRAFTS OF THOSE MINUTES DO I \nHAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO \nAPPROVE? \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: I MOVE \nAPPROVAL\, PAT EKLUND. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I’LL \nSECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nMOVED BY COMMISSIONER ECKLUND\, \nSECOND BY COMMISSIONER \nKISHIMOTO. ARE THERE ANY \nOBJECTIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE \nMINUTES? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GILLMOR ABSTAINS. \n>>SPEAKER: I WILL WILL BE AB \nSTAINING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: TWO \nABSTENTIONS. THE MINUTES ARE \nAPPROVED. THAT BRINGS US TO MY \nREPORT I WANT TO START BY \nTHANKING THE GOVERNOR\, LARRY \nWILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILIS \nWANT TO RECOGNIZE ON BEHALF OF \nTHE COMMISSION THAT THE \nGOVERNOR’S MAY BUDGET DOES \nINCLUDE FUNDING TO START \nIMPLEMENTING SB272. AND IN THIS \nVERY DIMPLE BUDGET YEAR\, WE NEED \nTO THANK HIM FOR DOING THAT AND \nHIS COMMITMENT TO SHORELINE \nRESILIENCE AND OUR — AND THIS \nIS A VERY BROAD OUR\, \nA VERY BIG TENT — ABILITY TO \nSTART DISSEMINATING THESE \nGUIDELINES AND START \nIMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY WE THEM \nAND PROJECTS TO SAVE US ALL FROM \nTHE INUNDATION THAT IS COMING. \nI WAS PLEASED IN A NUMBER OF \nWAYS ON TUESDAY BAY \nPLANNING COALITION HOSTED THEIR \nSPRING SUMMIT FOCUSED ON \nFINANCING ADAPTATION TO RISING \nSEA LEVEL. \nTHEY HAD A FULL ARRAY OF \nSPEAKERS AND PANELISTS TALKING \nABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING HAPPEN \nAND THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS. WE \nWERE KICKED OFF WITH A KEYNOTE \nBY FORMER MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF OF \nOAKLAND\, WHOSE THEME WAS HOPE\, \nCHANGE\, ACTION. AND SOME OF THE \nTHEMES THAT WE’RE STATED \nTHROUGHOUT THE VARIOUS SPEAKERS \nWERE\, WE DO NEED TO WORK \nTOGETHER. WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE \nTHAT WE CAN ONLY ADDRESS THIS AS \nA REGION\, THAT IT’S GOING TAKE\, \nAS WE WELL KNOW\, SOURCES\, FUNDS \nFROM MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES TO \nMEET THE COST\, THE ESTIMATED \n$110 BILLION COST\, AND WE ALL \nTHAN’S A LOW FIGURE\, A SCARY \nFIGURE\, BUT LOW FIGURE. THERE \nWAS ALSO SOME EMPHASIS ON THE \nIMPORTANCE OF STORY TELLING\, \nBOTH FOR OURSELVES AND AS WE \nCOMMUNICATE OUR ISSUES TO \nELECTED LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS \nAND TO THE PUBLIC THAT\, WE NEED \nTO KEEP IN MIND STORY THAT \nCONVEY BOTH WHAT MAY HAPPEN\, AND \nTHE WAY IN WHICH WE CAN\, IN \nFACT\, ADAPT AND FUND \nADAPTATION. \nI HAD THE CHALLENGE OF \nSUMMARIZING SOME FIVE HOURS OF \nPRESENTATIONS IN TEN MINUTES. \nAND I THINK I ROSE TO THE \nCHALLENGE. BUT IT WAS A VERY \nGOOD CONFERENCE. I WANT TO \nTHANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS AT THE \nMETRO CENTER TWO WEEKS AGO. OUR \nABILITY TO MEET TOGETHER\, I \nTHINK\, DOES ENHANCE OUR ACTIONS \nAS A COMMISSION. RECOGNIZING \nTHAT FOR MANY\, THE CONVENIENCE \nOF BEING ABLE TO ATTEND BY ZOOM \nIS IMPORTANT\, AND \nENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL. \nNONETHELESS N DOING THIS WORK\, \nWHICH IS NOT EASY\, HAVING PEOPLE \nMEET TOGETHER AND BE ABLE TO SEE \nEACH OTHER AND TALK OFFLINE A \nBIT\, IS ALWAYS VERY HELPFUL. \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER HAS ASKED \nFOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO \nCOMMENT ON THE SEA LEVEL RISE \nPRESENTATION THAT WE HEARD AND \nHE NOW HAS THE FLOOR. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THANK YOU MR. \nCHAIRMAN. JUST VERY BRIEFLY\, I \nWANT TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY \nTHAT IN THINKING ABOUT BEN \nHAMILTON’S PRESENTATION\, AND THE \nFACT THAT THE HIGH SCENARIO FOR \nSEA LEVEL RISE IS NOW LOWER\, AND \nTHAT WE WON’T SEE — WE REALLY \nDON’T HAVE A CHANCE\, ACCORDING \nTO THEIR NEW PROJECTIONS OF \nSEEING THREE METERS OF SEA LEVEL \nRISE UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF THE \n22nd CENTURY\, THAT MEANS \nEVERYTHING THAT WE’RE DOING NOW\, \nPARTICULARLY THE WETLANDS \nRESTORATION IS GOING TO RESULT \nIN ANOTHER HALF OR MAYBE A FULL \nCENTURY OF BENEFITS TO THE \nREGION BEFORE THEY’RE FINALLY \nINUNDATED. AND THE SAME THING \nGOES THROUGH FOR ANY HARD \nSTRUCTURES WE PUT IN THERE. SO\, \nI THINK IT AD ADDS TREMENDOUS \nFRAME OF THE VALUE OF WHAT WE DO \nIN THE PRESENT DAY. THAT BEING \nSAID\, I ALSO WANT TO SHARE THAT \nTHE WHOLE PROCESS OF ICE SHEET \nCOLLAPSE\, WHICH IS THE MECHANISM \nTHAT’S DRIVING THAT HIGH \nSCENARIO\, IS STILL VERY\, VERY \nUNCERTAIN. AND I HAVE A \nCOLLEAGUE LOOKING AT THESE \nISSUES FROM A CONCERNED \nSCIENTIST BOARD AND SHE SHARED \nWITH ME THAT HE THINKS IT’S A \nLITTLE TOO EARLY TO PUT THE IDEA \nIN OUR POCKET THAT WE’RE NOT \nGOING TO SEE ONE OF THESE REALLY \nEXTREME SCENARIOS. SO\, WITH \nTHAT PROVISO\, I THINK THE \nINFORMATION THAT WE GOT INFORMS \nTHE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE’RE DOING \nTODAY PARTICULARLY TO \nRESTORATION BECAUSE IT’S GOING \nTO PAY OFF FOR THE FUTURE OF THE \nREGION THAN WE THOUGHT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. IT’S AN IMPORTANT \nREMINDER THAT AS WE FOCUS OUR \nEFFORTS ON THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE \nIN ORDER TO PREPARE FOR A FUTURE \nTHAT IS MODERATELY FAR OFF\, THE \nTHINGS WE DO WILL BENEFIT US IN \nBETWEEN\, AS WELL. OUR NEXT \nMEETING WILL OCCUR IN TWO WEEKS\, \nON JUNE 6TH\, THE MEETING WILL BE \nHELD IN THE METRO CENTER\, AND \n— \nSORRY\, I’M PAUSING BECAUSE I \nNEED TO SWITCH BETWEEN \nDOCUMENTS. WE EXPECT THAT WE \nWILL HAVE PRESENTATIONS ON — \nSORRY. THE AGENDA WILL INCLUDE \nA PRESENTATION BY THE DEPARTMENT \nOF FINANCE DESCRIBING THE \nMISSION BASED REVIEW OF BCDC’S \nPERMITTING PROCESS AND SYSTEMS \nCONTRACT TO DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND \nTHIRD UPDATE ON PROGRESS ON THE \nCOMMISSION’S STRATEGIC PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO EX \nPARTE MATTERS. IF THERE IS ANY \nCOMMISSIONER WHO WISHES TO \nREPORT ON A COMMUNICATION \nCONCERNING A COMMISSION MATTER\, \nTHAT THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY PUT \nON THE RECORD\, NOW IS THE TIME \nTO SHARE THAT.   THIS IS ON \nADJUDICATORY MATTERS\, NOT \nMISCELLANEOUSLY MATTERS OF \nPOLICY\, AND YOU DO NEED TO FILE \nSOMETHING IN WRITING. BUT NOW \nIS THE TIME TO SPEAK\, AND I SEE \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND HAS HER \nHAND UP. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: NOT EX \nPARTE I WANTED TO QUESTION YOU \nSAID IT WAS AT THE METRO CENTER \nWE CAN COME INTO THE OFFICE OR \nINTO THE MEETING ROOMS THAT WAS \nYOUR POINT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU FOR HELPING ME \nEMPHASIZE PARTICULARLY AS WE \nTALK ABOUT THE STRATEGIC PLAN I \nTHINK HAVING AS MANY THERE AS \nPOSSIBLE MAKES IT A PRODUCTIVE \nMEETING. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANKS \nFOR CLARIFYING THAT. WASN’T \nQUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO \nTHE REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: THANK YOU \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, JUST TO LET \nPEOPLE KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER \nGILMORE IS HAVING SOME TECHNICAL \nISSUES SO SHE’LL BE TRYING TO \nGET BACK IN IF SHE’S NOT HERE \nNOW. FIRST I WANT TO APOLOGIZE \nTO THE COMMISSION\, AND AGAIN TO \nSTEVE GOLDBECK FOR HAVING TO \nVACATE THIS BUILDING TWO WEEKS \nAGO 15 MINUTES PRIOR TO THE \nCOMMISSION MEETING\, WHICH MEANS \nTHAT STEVE HAD TO SIT IN MY \nCHAIR UNEXPECTEDLY AND I MISSED \nHIS ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS \nRETIREMENT. I HAD ALREADY JUST \nA FEW MINUTES EARLIER THAT MY \nWIFE HAD TESTED FOR COVID SO I \nFIGURED YOU ALL WOULD BE MUCH \nHAPPIER IF I LEFT THE OFFICE AND \nBEGAN TO ISOLATE. THAT I DID\, \nALTHOUGH I HAD TO TAKE BART TO \nGET HOME SO I WE’RE A MASK. \nWHILE LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT \nBART I SMILED AT HOW FAST I \nCOULD GET TO OUR HOME OVER 20 \nMILES AWAY. NOT ALWAYS THE CASE \nOF COURSE LINOLEATE HAS IT ON \nTHIS DAY MAY 18th FIRST \nREGULARLY SCHEDULED MISSISSIPPI \nSTEAMBOAT HEADED SOUTH LIKELY AT \nFOUR MILES PER HOUR. A GREAT \nCOINCIDENCE 134 YEARS LATER ON \nTHIS DATE THE FIRST REGULARLY \nSCHEDULED AIRPLANE SERVICE \nBETWEEN NEW YORK AND LONDON \nBEGAN JUST AS TRAVEL TIMES \nCONTINUE TO GET SHORT YOU CAN \nGET STUCK IN A 90 MINUTE TRAFFIC \nJAM JUST TO GET TO THE BAY \nBRIDGE AS WE DID ON SUNDAY AFTER \nTHE GIANTS GAME. WITH REGARD TO \nBUDGET AND STAFFING BCDC HAS \nSELECTED ALYSSA PLEASE TO JOIN \nKATHARINE PAN SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITTING TEAM AS A \nCOASTAL PROGRAM ANALYST ALYSSA \nIS A GOLDEN BEAR HAVING EARNED \nHER UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM \nCAL LANDSCAPE TECHNICAL \nENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING JOINS \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND \nGENERAL PLAN POLICY DEVELOPMENT \nRELATED TO COASTAL PLANNING \nCLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY. \nGREATER NEWS CHAIR WASSERMAN \nGOVERNOR NEWSOME’S MAY REVISE \nBUDGET PLAN INCLUDES FULL \nFUNDING FOR BCDC AND THE COASTAL \nCOMMISSION TO HIRE STAFF TO \nIMPLEMENT SB272 LEGISLATION \nAUTHORED BY SENATOR JOHN LAIRD \nREQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO \nCREATE RISING SEA LEVEL \nADAPTATION PLANS THAT EITHER WE \nOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION WILL \nNEED TO APPROVE. YESTERDAY I \nSPENT THE DAY IN SACRAMENTO \nWATCHING ASSEMBLY AND SENATE \nBUDGET HEARINGS\, AND I THINK \nTHAT I’M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT \nNONE OF THE QUESTIONS FROM THE \nMEMBERS DEALT AT ALL WITH RISING \nSEA LEVEL FUNDING\, LEADING US\, \nPERHAPS TO HOPE THAT NOBODY WILL \nQUESTION ITS IMPORTANCE. \nLEADERSHIP OF THE RESOURCES \nAGENCY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE \nOF THE SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDING \nIN THE GOVERNOR’S PLAN AND I \nKNOW THEY WILL BE WORKING ON OUR \nBEHALF. MORE INFORMATION TO \nCOME WHEN WE RECEIVE IT. \nNOW FOR SOME NOT SO GREAT BUDGET \nNEWS\, AS PART OF THE BUDGET PLAN \nBCDC AND ALL OTHER STATE \nORGANIZATIONS WILL FAIRS FACE A \nGENERAL FUND CUT OF SOMETHING \nLIKE 8% NEXT YEAR WE HAVE \nSTARTED TO PLAN FOR IT AND WILL \nKEEP YOU UPDATED ON \nRAMIFICATIONS. GOOD NEWS\, MANY \nOF OUR STAFF ALONG WITH \nCOMMISSIONER AHN TO MY RIGHT \nPARTICIPATED IN A WORKSHOP WITH \nOUR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nADVISERS LAST WEEK AS PART OF \nTHE ORGANIZATIONALITY \nDEVELOPMENT CONSULTING CONTRACT \nTHAT AIMS TO INCREASE \nCOMMUNICATION AND ALIGNMENT \nBETWEEN BCDC AND OUR ADVISERS. \nEACH OF US WHO ATTENDED HAVE \nREALTY POSITIVE THOUGHTS ABOUT \nTIME SPENT TOGETHER AND WE HAVE \nTALKED AT LENGTH HOW TO BEST \nWORK AS COLLAB RURALITYS I AM \nSURE WE’LL HAVE MORE TO REPORT \nIN THE FUTURE. I’M RELATIONSHIP \nTO REPORT THAT THE SEAPORT PLAN \nYOU APPROVED LAST NOVEMBER HAS \nBEEN APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA’S \nOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW \nTHIS PAST TUESDAY THEREFORE THE \nNEW SEAPORT PLAN IS NOW IN \nEFFECT. GREAT NEWS GOVERN ALL \nTHE WORK THAT CORY AND THE TEAM \nPUT INTO IT STARTING\, REMEMBER\, \nWITH THE HOWARD TERMINAL ISSUE. \nFULL OF GOOD NEWS TODAY \nESPECIALLY TO MY LEFT AS \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH WATCHES. \nTHIS WEEK THE U.S. ARMY CORP OF \nENGINEERS 2024 WORKPLAN WAS \nRELEASED AND WE’RE EXCITED TO \nNOTE THAT THE CORP HAS RECEIVED \nFUNDING TO INCLUDE THE BEL MARIN \nKEYS UNIT INTO THE HAMILTON \nWETLANDS PROJECT WHICH WILL \nBRING THE TOTAL HABITAT \nRESTORATION TO 26\,000 ACRES AS A \nRESULT OF OUR 2016 COALITION \nTHAT SPURRED CHANGES TO THE \nAUTHORIZING LEGISLATION THE CORP \nWILL SPEND ANOTHER $7 MILLION TO \nINCREASE BENEFICIAL REUSE OF \nSEDIMENT IN THE BAY DURING THE \nNEXT YEAR. TWO FINAL NOTES\, \nFIRST PERHAPS SOMETHING OF AN \nANTIDOTE TO THE GIANT’S \nDISAPPOINTING FIRST QUARTER OF \nBASEBALL\, I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT — I URGE TO YOU STRONGLY \nVISIT THE NEW CHINA BASIN PARK \nACROSS McCOVEY COVE FROM THE \nBALLPARK I WAS POSITIVELY \nTHRILLED TO ASK TO SPEAK AT THE \nGRAND OPENING LATE LAST MONTH \nAND IT’S TREMENDOUS. AT THE \nBCDC PERMIT THERE IS AN AUDIO \nTOUR OF THE SHORELINE FROM THE \nFERRY BUILDING DOWN TO MISSION \nROCK NOW KNOWN AS CHINA BASIN \nPARK THAT IS NOW LIVE IT’S A FEW \nYEARS LATE\, A DIFFERENT FORM OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS THAN WHAT BCDC \nNORMALLY REQUIRES FOR SURE AND \nWE’RE WORKING WITH GIANTS TO \nMAKE SURE IT’S PUBLICIZED WELL. \nFINALLY ANOTHER NOTICE FOR THE \nBCDC BOOK CLUB. COMMISSIONER \nAHN’S NEW BOOK ENTITLED \nADVOCATE\, A GRAPHIC MEME WHAT OF \nFAMILY\, COMMUNITY\, AND THE FIGHT \nFOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IS NOW \nAVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE. IT’S \nABSOLUTELY SUPERB AND IF YOU \nFOLLOW COMMISSIONER AHN ON \nSOCIAL MEDIA\, YOU WILL KNOW WHY\, \nAND WE ALL RECOMMEND IT HIGHLY. \nIN ADDITION THE COMMISSIONER HAS \nASSURED US THAT HE IS MORE THAN \nHAPPY TO SIGN ALL AVAILABLE \nCOPIES AT A SMALL PRICE. WITH \nTHAT\, CHAIR WASSERMAN\, I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. \n[LAUGHTER] \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ANY \nQUESTIONS FOR LARRY? \n>>EDDIE AHN: A QUICK COMMENT \nFROM COMMISSIONER AHN. THERE IS \nNO PRICE. IT WILL BE DONE \nABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE \n[LAUGHTER] \nTHANK YOU\, THOUGH. VERY MUCH \nAPPRECIATE YOUR PRAISE FOR THE \nBOOK. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nWELL\, THERE IS A PRICE\, YOU NEED \nTO BUY THE BOOK\, AND YOU \nSHOULD. \nBUT NO PRICE FOR THE SIGNATURE. \nI WAS ACTUALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT \nWE ARE NOT ALL TOGETHER\, BECAUSE \nI HAVE MY BOOK AND HOPE TO GET \nHIM TO SIGN T BUT I WILL \nHOPEFULLY DO THAT AT OUR NEXT \nMEETING. \nONE OF THE THINGS SAID REMINDS \nME OF ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE\, \nTHERE WAS A REPORT IN THE SAN \nJOSE MERCURY LAST WEEK ABOUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL SETTLEMENT\, THE \nSETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM BY \nPACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION AND \nOTHERS AGAINST BCDC REGARDING \nOUR ACTIONS\, AND THERE WAS A \nSTATEMENT IN THAT ARTICLE THAT \nWE HAD IN THAT SETTLEMENT\, MADE \nA DEAL AND CHANGED THE TERMS OF \nWHAT WAS GOING ON TO PUT THE \nHOWARD TERMINAL BACK INTO THE \nSEAPORT PLAN. THAT IS NOT \nACCURATE. WE MADE NO CHANGE IN \nTHE DEAL. WE SIMPLY DISMISSED \n— AGREED TO DISMISS THE \nLAWSUIT. STATE LAW WHICH \nAUTHORIZED THE USE BY THE AS OF \nHOWARD TERMINAL\, HAD AN \nEXPIRATION DATE IN IT WHEREBY IF \nTHE PORT AND THE A DESERT NOT \nREACH A BINDING AGREEMENT\, BY A \nDATE\, WHICH I THINK WAS SOMETIME \nTHIS YEAR\, SOMEBODY MAY CORRECT \nME ON THAT — IT — THE \nEXCLUSION OF THE PROJECT\, FROM \nTHE TIDE LANDS TRUST\, OR THE \nDETERMINATION THAT THAT USE WAS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE TIDE LANDS \nTRUST WOULD EXPIRE\, WE DID NOT \nMAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT WE WILL \nCONVEY THIS TO THE MERCURY. I \nKNOW THE PORT OF OAKLAND KNOWS \nTHAT\, BUT WE WILL MAKE THAT \nCLEAR\, AS WELL. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN\, \nCONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE \nMATTERS. WE HAVE RECEIVED THE \nADMINISTRATIVE — THE DRAFT OF \nADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS. \nARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS \nON THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIST? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. I SEE \nNOTHING FROM COMMISSIONERS. SO\, \nONCE AGAIN\, DIRECTOR ROSS GETS \nOFF WITHOUT BEING GRILLED. \nONE OF THESE DAYS\, YOU MAY FIND \nYOU’RE GETTING GRILLED. THAT \nBRINGS US TO ITEMS 8 AND 9\, \nWHICH WE ARE GOING TO COMBINE \nAND HEAR AS ONE ITEM. THEY ARE \nVERY SIMILAR. THEY INVOLVE TWO \nDIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS\, BUT \nTHE ISSUES ARE ESSENTIALLY \nSUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. THESE \nARE HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE VOTES \nON PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nAPPLICATION FOR NEW FIVE-YEAR \nPROGRAMMATIC OPERATIONS \nMAINTENANCE PERMIT EXISTING \nELECTRIC TRANSMISSION STRUCTURES \nTHROUGHOUT THE COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION OUTSIDE SUISUN \nMARSH AND INSIDE SUISUN MARSH \nWHERE WE DO HAVE SOME \nJURISDICTION. THE PRESENTATION \nWILL BE — SO\, WE’RE HAVING ONE \nPUBLIC HEARING TO COVER BOTH OF \nTHESE ISSUES. ROWAN YELTON OF \nOUR STAFF WILL MAKE THE STAFF’S \nINTRODUCTION AND THEN INTRODUCE \nSPEAKERS FROM PG&E. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. IS THAT SHOWING UP? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nIT’S SHOWING UP WITH YOUR NOTES \nWHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GOT \nIT. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: MY NAME IS \nROWAN YELTON\, I AM A COASTAL \nPROGRAM ANALYST ON THE BAY \nRESOURCES TEAM. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: FOR YOU ALL \nWHO ARE ONLINE THERE IS \nCONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE METRO \nCENTER THAT’S MAKING IT HARD FOR \nUS TO HEAR. I’M LOOKING AT YOU \nALL SO I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU CAN \nHEAR\, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. \nIF YOU CAN’T HEAR — ALL RIGHT\, \nROWAN\, YOU’RE GOING TO NEED TO \nYELL INTO THAT MICROPHONE. USE \nYOUR OUTSIDE VOICE. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: OKAY I’LL USE \nMY OUTSIDE VOICE. I’M \nPRESENTING TWO PERMIT \nAPPLICATIONS FOR OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAM PROPOSED BY \nTHE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC \nCOMPANY. APPLICATIONS ARE FOR \nFIVE YEARS PROGRAMS OF \nMAINTENANCE REPAIR REPLACEMENT \nREMOVAL RETIREMENT AND \nMODIFICATION OF PG&E FACILITIES \nACTIVITIES WOULD BE LIMITED TO \nEXISTING FACILITIES AND \nSTRUCTURES AND WOULD NOT RESULT \nIN PERMANENT NET BAY FILL THOUGH \nSOME TEMPORARY FILL WOULD BE \nINSTALLED FOR SITE ACCESS. \nTHERE WOULD NOT BE PERMANENT \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO PUBLIC \nACCESS. \nBASED ON THE APPLICATION\, WE \nEXPECT THAT HUNDREDS OF PROJECTS \nWILL BE CONDUCTED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT EACH YEAR. MOST PROJECTS \nINVOLVE REPAIRS TO ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS AND POLES SUCH AS \nREPAIRING CRACKS AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS TRIMMING VEGETATION \nNEAR TOWERS AND LINES AND \nREPLACING DAMAGED HARDWARE \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF TOWERS \nAND POLES. LESS FREQUENT \nACTIVITIES INCLUDE REPLACEMENT \nOF ENTIRE STRUCTURES SUCH AS \nTOWERS AND PIPELINES. THE \nPROGRAM WOULD INCLUDE ACTIVITIES \nIN ALL NINE COUNTY BAY AREAS\, \nBCDC’S BAY SHORELINE BAND\, WATER \nWAYS SALT PONDS AND MANAGED \nWETLANDS JURISDICTIONS THE \nPROGRAM SPLIT INTO TWO \nAPPLICATIONS ONE FOR ACTIVITIES \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF THE \nSUISUN MARSH AND FOR ALL OTHER \nLOCATIONS THE TWO PERMITS WOULD \nHAVE IDENTICAL AUTHORIZATIONS \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND ONLY \nDIFFER IN FINDINGS. BCDC \nPREVIOUSLY ISSUED TWO PERMITS \nFOR SIMILAR OPERATION AND \nMAINTENANCE PROGRAMS IN 1987 AND \n1989. THESE PERMITS WERE \nREPEATEDLY AMENDED AND EXTENDED \nAND WILL BOTH EXPIRE ON MAY \n30TH\, 2024. IN 2021\, PG&E \nAPPLIED FOR FIVE-YEAR EXTENSIONS \nTO BOTH PERMITS. WHEN \nAPPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED BCDC \nSTAFF REVIEWED THE EXISTING \nPERMITS AND DETERMINED THAT THEY \nWERE OUTDATED FOR THE FOLLOWING \nREASONS: AUTHORIZATIONS WERE NO \nLONGER SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL \nOF PG&E’S ACTIVITIES AND SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS NEEDED SIGNIFICANT \nCHANGES TO BRING THEM UP-TO-DATE \nWITH CURRENT BCDC LAWS AND \nPOLICIES\, ENGINEERING CODES AND \nSTANDARDS\, CURRENT STATE OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT\, AND OUR \nSCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE \nBAY ENVIRONMENT. \nSO\, THE PREVIOUS PERMITS WERE \nPERMITTED ADMINISTRATIVELY\, BUT \nAT THIS TIME WE ARE LOOKING TO \nISSUE MAJOR PERMITS \nFOR THEM BECAUSE ALTHOUGH EACH \nINDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY QUALIFIES AS \nMINOR REPAIRS OR IMPROVEMENTS \nTHE PERMITS WOULD COVER A LARGE \nNUMBER OF PROJECTS OVER THE \nENTIRE BAY AREA OVER FIVE YEARS \nTHEY CANNOT BE REASONABLY \nCONSTRUED AS A SINGLE ACTIVITY \nAND SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED \nADMINISTRATIVELY. WHEN WRITING \nTHE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OUR \nCONCERN WAS ENSURING THAT THE \nPROJECTS WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANT PERMIT IMPACTS OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS ADDRESSING CONCERNS TO \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS INCLUDED \nREQUIRE PERMITTEE TO RESTORE \nCONSTRUCTION SITES TO ORIGINAL \nCONDITION OR BETTER WHERE \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nAVOID MINIMIZE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS BEST MANAGEMENT OF \nPRACTICES IN MARSHES IN THE BAY \nAND SENSITIVE HABITATS COMPLY \nWITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS BY \nTHE RESOURCE AGENCIES SPECIAL \nCONDITION LIMIT TO ALLOW \nACTIVITIES THAT DO NOT RESULT IN \nINCREASE TO BAY FILL DURATION OF \nTEMPORARY FILL LESS THAN 180 \nDAYS PER PROJECT LIMIT \nRELOCATION AND REDECISION OF \nSTRUCTURES AND DISALLOW \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. PROPOSAL REVIEW \nPROCESS ALL ACTIVITIES REQUIRE \nBCDC STAFF APPROVAL BEFORE THEY \nCAN BE CONDUCTED EXCEPT FOR \nLIMITED CATEGORY ACTIVITIES THAT \nWOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nDO NOT INVOLVE ANY WATERWORKS. \nSOME EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES \nINCLUDE REPLACING MINOR \nSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND \nEQUIPMENT\, PAINTING AND \nVEGETATION TRIMMING. FOR ALL \nACTIVITY WHICH IS COULD RESULT \nIN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE BAY OR \nENVIRONMENT OR PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nWOULD INVOLVE WATERWORKS THE \nPERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO \nSUBMIT ACTIVITY PROPOSAL BASED \nON FORM INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT TO \nTHE PERMIT BCDC STAFF WOULD THEN \nREVIEW ACTIVITY FOR CONSISTENCY \nWITH THE PERMIT YOU \nAUTHORIZATION AND CONDITIONS IF \nSTAFF FIND THE PROJECT IS NOT \nCONSISTENT WITH PERMITS AND PG&E \nWILL HAVE TO SUBMIT AN \nINDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS ALSO INCLUDED \nTO REQUIRE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT \nANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITIES \nCONDUCTED OVER THE PAST YEAR \nCUMULATIVELY SINCE PERMIT WAS \nISSUED AND IF THE ACTIVITY IS \nPROJECTED FOR UPCOMING YEAR \nFIVE-YEAR PROJECTED WORKPLAN FOR \nREPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF \nELECTRICAL TOWERS IN BCDC \nJURISDICTION. AS YOU LEARN MORE \nABOUT THIS PROGRAM FROM THE PG&E \nSTAFF PRESENTATION\, \nTO KEEP IN MIND TIDAL \nFLATS\, FISH\, AQUATIC ORGANISMS\, \nWILDLIFE MITIGATION PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SHORELINE BAND \nAND MARSH PLANS LAND USE AND \nMARSH MANAGEMENT POLICY THE \nCOMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER \nWHETHER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT APPLICABLE TO \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN POLICIES \nSPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE FILL \nRESULTS IN RESULTING PROJECTS \nUPON CONSISTENT WITH REGULATIONS \nSECTION 66605 AND THAT FILL IS \nMINIMUM NECESSARY AND DESIGNED \nTO MINIMIZE HARM RECALL EFFECTS \nOF THE FILL. AND WHETHER \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ARE \nAPPROPRIATE TO AVOID MINIMIZE \nADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE PUBLIC \nACCESS AND BAY ENVIRONMENT. \nTHAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF \nPRESENTATION AND I’LL NOW \nINTRODUCE KYLE STAPLE MAN\, TIM \nANDREWS\, JOHN WILCOX FROM PG&E F \nTHEIR PRESENTATION OF THE \nPROGRAM. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS ROWAN. \n>>SPEAKER: GO AHEAD JOHN. \n>>JON WILCOX: ARE YOU ABLE TO \nRUN THE PRESENTATION? WE DIDN’T \nWORK OUT THE LOGISTICS WITH \nBCDC. \n>>SPEAKER: I’M PULLING UP THE \nPRESENTATION NOW\, IF YOU CAN \nCONFIRM YOU SEE IT? \n>>JOHN WILCOX: I SEE T I’LL \nKICK US OFF. THANK YOU\, FIRST \nOF ALL\, CHAIR WASSERMAN AND THE \nCOMMISSIONERS\, TO LOOK AT OUR \nPERMIT APPLICATION. AS ROWAN \nSAID\, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE \nHAVE BEEN WORKING ON FROM THE \n’80s OFF A PREVIOUS PERMIT THIS\, \nIS SOLELY FOR OUR OWN ACTIVITIES \nIN AND AROUND THE BAY SO WE LOOK \nFORWARD TO GETTING THIS NEW \nPERMIT PUT IN PLACE\, GETTING \nPROCESSES IN PLACE AND WORKING \nTO\, YOU KNOW\, A GOOD FUTURE WITH \nUS\, WITH BCDC AS WE HAVE THIS \nPERMIT ACTIVE IN THE FUTURE. \nWITH THAT\, I’LL INTRODUCE TIM \nANDREWS WHO IS THE MANAGER OF \nOUR WATER PROGRAM. TIM\, ARE YOU \nABLE TO PRESENT? SORRY. WE \nHAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE ON \nOUR SIDE. PG&E DOESN’T \nNECESSARY HE ALLOW US TO USE \nZOOM SO WE’RE TRYING TO DO IT \nVIA PHONES FOR SOME FOLKS. \n>>SPEAKER: TIM SAID SAID HE MAY \nNOT — HE’S RUNNING INTO \nTECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. I CAN \nTAKE IT OVER FOR HIM. GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSION STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS TYLER \nSTAPLE MAN. \n>>JON WILCOX: TYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER YOU’RE A \nLITTLE QUIET. CUYLER \n. \n>> CUYLER: CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY \nNAME IS CUYLER STAPLE MAN\, \nPLANNER AT PG&E I HAVE BEEN \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF AND PG&E \nSTAKE R STAKEHOLDERS ON THE \nDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PERMIT FOR \nTHE PAST COUPLE OF YEAR OR SO \nTODAY IS THE BIDAY AND LOOKING \nFORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AFTER \nTHE PRESENTATION. I WANT TO DO \nA QUICK OVERVIEW OF OUR AGENDA \nTOPICS HERE IN THIS \nPRESENTATION. I’M GOING TO GO \nOVER PROGRAM NEED AND PURPOSE \nBACKGROUND OF OUR WORK\, \nACTIVITIES WE’RE SEEKING TO GET \nAUTHORIZED BY THESE PERMITS\, \nEXAMPLES OF WHAT THOSE \nACTIVITIES ARE\, AND THE ACTIVITY \nCLASSES THAT HAVE BEEN \nINCORPORATED INTO THIS PERMIT\, \nAND OVERVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL \nIMPACTS AND THE SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS THAT WE WILL BE \nIMPLEMENTING DURING OUR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPROGRAM. I REALIZE SOME OF THIS \nIS — MAY BE REPETITIVE FROM THE \nINFORMATION THAT WAS JUST \nPRESENTED\, SO\, I’LL TRY TO \nSTREAMLINE WHERE POSSIBLE. \nPG&E’S MISSION IS TO DELIVER \nCLEAN SAFE RELIABLE AFFORDABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS\, THIS \nMEANS WE MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT \nMAINTAIN AND OPERATE OUR \nFACILITIES TO ACHIEVE THAT \nGOAL. \nWE FEEL THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS \nO&M PLAN IS TO MAINTAIN THE \nENERGY TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES TO \nDELIVER THAT ENERGY TO OUR \nCUSTOMERS. AND IN DOING SO\, AND \nMAINTAINING SAFE AND RELIABLE \nFACILITIES\, WE’LL BE DOING OUR \nPART IN BEING GOOD STEWARDS TO \nTHE BAY ENVIRONMENT AND THE \nRESOURCES UNDER BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION. \nPG&E HAS BEEN CONDUCTING ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE WORK \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION UNDER \nPERMITS THAT WERE INITIALLY \nEFFECTIVE IN 1987. THEY HAVE \nBEEN EXTENDED NUMEROUS TIMES IN \nTHE CURRENT EXTENSIONS EXPIRE \nMAY 31ST OF THIS YEAR. UNDER \nTHESE NEW PERMITS WE PROPOSE TO \nCONTINUE THAT OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE PLAN WITH NEW \nSPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nNOTIFICATION AND REPORTING \nPROCEDURES WITH BCDC. \nSO\, AGAIN THIS\, PERMIT WOULD \nAUTHORIZE PG&E TO PERFORM THIS \nROUTINE WORK FOR A PERIOD OF \nFIVE YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO \nRENEW AT THE END OF THE TERM. \nAND THIS O&M WORK WILL BE \nCONDUCT THE UNDER TWO SEPARATE \nPERMITS\, ONE FOR SUISUN MARSH \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA\, AND THE \nOTHER PERMIT FOR ALL OTHER \nPORTIONS OF BCDC’S JURISDICTION\, \nALONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY. \nAGAIN\, THE ACTIVITIES WE’LL BE \nPERFORMING WILL BE SIMILAR TO \nACTIVITIES WE HAVE BEEN \nPERFORMING UNDER EXISTING \nPERMITS WITH NEW SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS. \nSO\, THE FOLLOWING MAPS SHOW THE \nLOCATIONS OF PG&E WORK THAT WE \nCONDUCTED UNDER THE EXISTING \nPERMITS IN 2022 AND 2023\, AS \nWELL AS WORK WE’RE PLANNING FOR \n2024 AND 2025. I WANT TO \nBRIEFLY POINT OUT SOME ITEMS ON \nTHIS LEGEND IN THE FOLLOWING \nMAPS BCDC’S JURISDICTION IS \nSHADED IN A PURPLE COLOR\, AND \nTHE PROJECTS FROM 2022 TO 2025 \nARE SHOWN AS POINTS. ONE THING \nTO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT THE \nDISTINCTION BETWEEN TRANSMISSION \nAND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES. \nSO\, WHEN PG&E TALKS ABOUT OUR \nFACILITIES THERE\, IS TWO MAJOR \nCATEGORIES THAT THINK WE OF\, \nTRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION. \nAND TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE \nIT’S REALLY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN \nMIND THAT ENERGY ISN’T ALWAYS \nCONSUMED WHERE IT’S PRODUCED. \nSO\, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT \nTRANSMISSION FACILITIES\, THESE \nFACILITIES TRANSMIT ENERGY \nRESOURCES OVER LONG DISTANCES\, \nBETWEEN THE LOCATIONS ITS \nPRODUCED AND WHERE IT’S \nCONSUMED. ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION \nSYSTEM MAY BE HIGHER VOLTAGE \nWITH LARGER POLES\, AND A GAS \nTRANSMISSION SYSTEM HAS A LARGER \nDIAMETER PIPELINE. FOR \nDISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS\, THESE \nSYSTEMS DELIVER ENERGY DIRECTLY \nTO THE END USER\, OUR \nCUSTOMERS. \nDISTRIBUTION POLE\, ELECTRIC \nDISTRIBUTION POLE ARE THOSE \nYOU’RE LIKELY TO SEE IN YOUR \nCOMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD\, AND A \nGAS DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE IS \nGENERALLY SMALLER. \nTO GIVE PG&E STAFF AND \nCOMMISSIONERS A SENSE OF THE \nAMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE HAVE \nIN THE JURISDICTION\, I \nRAN SOME NUMBERS WITH OUR GIS \nDEPARTMENT AND WANT TO SHARE \nTHOSE WITH YOU TODAY. WE HAVE \nOVER 520 MILES OF ENERGIZED \nELECTRICAL CONDUCTOR WITHIN YOUR \nJURISDICTION AND THOSE \nCONDUCTORS ARE SUPPORTED BY 829 \nTOWERS\, AND OVER 4\,900 POLES AND \nSIMILAR SUPPORT STRUCTURES. \nTHOSE 829 TOWERS MAY BE ACCESSED \nBY OVER 180 MILES OF BOARDWALK \nIN THE BAY AND WE ALSO HAVE OVER \n65 MILES OF NATURAL BAS \nPIPELINE. ALL OF THESE ASSETS \nMUST BE INSPECTED\, MAINTAINS AND \nOPERATED TO ENSURE FAY OUR \nFACILITIES PROVIDE SAFE RELIABLE \nENERGY TO OUR CUSTOMERS. \nTHE ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED BY \nTHESE PERMITS ARE THOSE THAT WE \nROUTINELY PERFORM TO MEET OUR \nGOALS. UNDER THIS PERMIT\, THESE \nACTIVITIES WILL BE LIMITED TO \nTHE MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING \nFACILITIES RATHER THAN THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITIES. \nTHE PERMIT WILL CATEGORIZE OUR \nOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE \nACTIVITIES INTO FOUR CLASSES\, \nWHICH WE’LL DISCUSS IN A FEW \nMORE SLIDES. BUT I WANTED TO \nNOTE THAT THE PERMIT WAS WRITTEN \nWITH BROAD LANGUAGE INTENDED TO \nCOVER MOST OF OUR ROUTINE \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nWORK. \nHOWEVER ANY ACTIVITY THAT \nDOESN’T FALL WITHIN THESE \nACTIVITY CLASSES OR WITHIN THE \nAUTHORIZED ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS\, \nPG&E WILL SEEK SEPARATE \nAUTHORIZATION FROM BCDC. EXCUSE \nME\, SO\, THE MAJORITY OF \nACTIVITIES WE EXPECT TO PERFORM \nUNDER THIS PERMIT ARE WHAT WE \nREFER TO AS OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWHICH CONSIST OF REPLACING \nOR REPAIRING OR REPLACING OF \nEQUIPMENT AT TOP OF UTILITY \nPOLES AND TOWERS ACTIVITIES \nDON’T REQUIRE ANY GROUND \nDISTURBANCE OR EXCAVATION ON THE \nGROUND\, ACTIVITIES OVERHEAD MAY \nINCLUDE REPLACING \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND HANGING \nPLATES THAT SUSPEND ELECTRIFIED \nCONDUCTORS FROM TOWERS AND POLES \nAS WELL AS REPAIRING HIGH WIRES\, \nVOLTAGE SIGNS AND REPLACING \nBOLTS THESE ARE DEMON MOUSE \nCLASS ACTIVITIES MENTIONED ON \nTHE SLIDE EXPECTING TO PERFORM \n500 OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES DURING \nTHE FIVE-YEAR PERMIT TERM. IN \nADDITION TO OVERHEAD ACTIVITIES \nWE’RE EXPECTING TO REPLACE 25 \nMILES OF BOARDWALK REPLACE 50 \nPOLES\, TOWERS\, AND TOWER \nFOUNDATIONS AND REPLACE SECTIONS \nOF FIVE GAS PIPELINES OVER THE \nNEXT FIVE YEARS. \nSO PERMITS INCLUDE FOUR ACTIVITY \nCLASSES WITHIN WHICH PG&E WILL \nHAVE SPECIFIC REVIEW\, \nNOTIFICATION\, AND REPORTING \nREQUIREMENTS TO FOLLOW. IN \nGENERAL\, ACTIVITIES WITH LESS \nENVIRONMENTAL RISK WILL BE \nREVIEWED AND AUTHORIZED MORE \nQUICKLY THAN ACTIVITIES THAT \nHAVE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PUBLIC \nACCESS OF BAY RESOURCES. CLASS \nONE ACTIVITIES DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY IMPACTS TO PUBLIC ACCESS OR \nTHE BAY\, AND DO NOT INVOLVE ANY \nIN WATERWORKS. THESE ARE THOSE \nOVERHEAD ACTIVITIES I PREVIOUSLY \nREFERRED TO. \nPG&E WILL BE PROCEEDING WITH \nTHIS WORK AT OUR DISCRETIONARY \nDURING — UNDER — DURING THIS \nPERMIT\, HOWEVER WE’LL BE \nREPORTING TO BCDC ANNUALLY\, A \nSUMMARY OF CLASS ONE ACTIVITIES \nPERFORMED. \nTHE SECOND ACTIVITY CLASS IS \nCLASS TWO AND WITHIN CLASS TWO\, \nTHERE ARE TWO SUBTYPES. CLASS \nTWO. A AND 2B. CLASS TWO \nACTIVITIES WILL OCCUR IN THE \nSHORELINE BAND\, THEY MAY INVOLVE \nSMALL AMOUNTS OF FILL AND \nEXTRACTION. THEY DO NOT INVOLVE \nANY WATERWORKS. NOW\, THE \nDIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2A AND 2B IS \nCLASS 2A IS LIMITED TO WORK THAT \nDOES NOT IMPACT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nWHEREAS CLASS 2B MAY INCLUDE \nTEMPORARY PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPACTS. \nCLASS THREE ACTIVITIES ARE THE \nROUTINE OPERATIONS AND \nMAINTENANCE ACTIONS THAT HAVE \nPOTENTIAL TO RESULT IN IMPACTS \nTO BAY RESOURCES INCLUDING FISH \nAND WILDLIFE AND TIDAL MARSHES \nHOWEVER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT AND PG&E \nPROGRAMMATIC MAINTENANCE PERMITS \nWITH RESOURCES AGENCIES \nSIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES WILL NOT OCCUR FROM \nIMPLEMENTATION OF CLASS THREE \nACTIVITIES. CLASS THREE \nACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE REPLACING \nOF CONCRETE FOOTING OF AN \nEXISTING STEEL TRANSMISSION \nTOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH THAT \nMAY INVOLVE EXCAVATION OR GROUND \nDISTURBANCE WITHIN THE TIDAL \nMARSH. \nTHIS SLIDE IS BRIEFLY \nSUMMARIZING THE IMPACTS THAT MAY \nRESULT FROM PG&E’S OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES UNDER \nTHIS PERMIT. AS ROWAN \nPREVIOUSLY MENTIONED\, WE DO NOT \nEXPECT ANY SIGNIFICANT NET \nINCREASE IN BAY FILL. WHILE \nPG&E EXPECTS TO REPLACE OVER 100 \nCUBIC YARDS PLACE OVER \n140 CUBIC QUARTERS OF FILL \nWITHIN BCDC’S JURISDICTION THIS \nFILL WILL BE OFFSET BY REMOVAL \nOF EXISTING FILL OF ROUGHLY \nEQUAL AMOUNTS\, FOR EXAMPLE\, IF \nWE REPLACE A POLE WE’LL INSTALL \nAND REPLACE POLE NEW POLE AND \nBASE STAYS AT ROUGHLY ZERO. \nPERMIT ALSO LIMITS PUBLIC ACCESS \nSCENIC VIEW IMPACTS FROM PG&E \nFACILITIES PROJECTS WITH \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO BAY \nRESOURCES  PUBLIC ACCESS WILL \nNOT BE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT. \nTO BRIEFLY MENTION PREVIOUSLY\, \nTHESE PERMITS WILL REQUIRE PG&E \nTO EMPLOY A STANDARD OF BEST \nMANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHILE \nPERFORMING ALL AUTHORIZED \nACTIVITIES. ADDITIONALLY THE \nPERMIT HAS A NUMBER OF \nCONDITIONS THAT PG&E MUST FOLLOW \nTO AVOID OR MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO \nRESOURCES REGULATED BY BCDC. \nSUCH AS FISH\, WILDLIFE\, AND \nTIDAL MARSH. \nFURTHERMORE\, PG&E’S BIOLOGISTS \nWILL BE REVIEWING MAINTENANCE \nWORK WITH POTENTIAL TO IMPACT \nBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TO IDENTIFY \nSPECIFIC RESOURCES PROTECTION \nMEASURES NEEDED TO AVOID IMPACTS \nTO RESOURCES DURING WORK \nEXECUTION THESE PROJECTS \nSPECIFIC MEASURES WILL BE \nDOCUMENTED IN A BIOLOGICAL \nREPORT SENT TO BCDC’S WITH THE \nWORK NOTIFICATION PACKAGE. \nTHE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO POINT \nOUT IS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRED BY THIS PERMIT ARE \nCONSISTENT WITH THE RESOURCE \nAGENCY PERMITS PG&E HAS FOR \nOPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPLANNING INCLUDING THE BAY AREA \nHABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN \nAUTHORIZED BY THE OFFICIAL \nWILDLIFE SERVICE\, THE BAY AREA \nINCIDENTAL PERMIT BY DEPARTMENT \nOF FISH AND WILDLIFE AS WELL AS \nOUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE \nPERMIT PERFORM FROM REGIONAL \nWATER QUALITY BOARD AND U.S. \nARMY CORP. WITH THAT SAID \nTHAT’S THE END OF THE \nPRESENTATION. I’LL TURN IT BACK \nTO BCDC F QUESTIONS AND \nDISCUSSION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: DO \nWE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE \nPUBLIC OR COMMENTS FROM THE \nPUBLIC. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NO HANDS \nRAISED IN-PERSON OR ON ZOOM. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND \nJUST TO BE VERY CLEAR\, BECAUSE I \nSHOULD HAVE DONE IS THAT BEFORE\, \nWHAT I JUST DID\, WE STILL HAVE \nNOBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING \nTO COMMENT\, IS THAT CORRECT \nSIERRA? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THAT’S \nCORRECT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nDO HAVE TWO COMMISSIONER HANDS \nRAISED\, COMMISSIONER ECKLUND. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: THANK YOU \nVERY MUCH\, CHAIR. \nMY QUESTION IS THAT YOU \nINDICATED THAT THERE WOULDN’T BE \nANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PUBLIC \nVIEWS OR WHATEVER. BUT IS THERE \nANY OPPORTUNITIES WHERE WE CAN \nIMPROVE THE PUBLIC ACCESS AND \nVIEWS BY MAKING SOME CHANGES? \nTHAT’S MY FIRST QUESTION. MY \nSECOND QUESTION IS — \n>>SPEAKER: [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \nTHAT’S WHY I GOT FEEDBACK. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: PARDON \nME? OVERDOES AND THE \n— THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE \nIS YOU SHOWED THE BIG TOWERS ARE \nTHERE ANY TOWERS THAT ARE GOING \nTO BE REPLACED? IF YOU COULD \nCLARIFY THAT? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES WE ARE GOING \nTO REPLACE TOWERS AND WILL \nPROVIDE A PLAN OVER THE NEXT \nFIVE YEARS TO BCDC OF THOSE \nTOWERS THAT WILL BE REPLACED \nWE’RE GOING THROUGH THAT\, THAT’S \nTHE BIG DRIVER FOR RENEWING THIS \nPERMIT. BECAUSE THOSE TOWERS \nARE SITTING IN SALT WATER\, THEY \nGET BEAT UP PRETTY BAD\, AND THEY \nNEED TO BE REPLACED EVERY NOW \nAND THEN. WITH REGARDS TO THE \nOTHER ONE ABOUT IMPROVEMENT\, SO\, \nWE ARE DOING THINGS OF APPROVING \nOR LINING SOME BOARDWALKS TO \nBETTER LOCATIONS THAT MAKE LESS \nIMPACTS THAT’S OUT THERE\, THIS \nIS REALLY AT THE HEART OF \nO&M TO HANDLE THE EQUIPMENT AND \nFACILITIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN \nPLACE THAT WOULD TRIGGER OTHER \nTHINGS LIKE RIGHT OF WAY\, \nACCESS\, AND OTHER PERMITS THAT \nWOULD BE NEEDED ABOVE AND BEYOND \nOF JUST FIXING THE ASSETS THAT \nARE CURRENTLY IN THAT LOCATION. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: OKAY. \nAND THEN\, I GUESS THAT \nCLARIFICATION ON THOSE METAL \nTOWERS\, YOU SAID THAT THEY WOULD \nBE REPLACED\, BUT ARE — YOU SAID \nTHAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE A \nSEPARATE PERMIT APPLICATION TO \nBCDC? WAS THAT CORRECT? \n>>JON WILCOX: NOT A SEPARATE \nPERMIT IT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN \nTHE REPORT WE’RE PROVIDING TO \nBCDC THAT’S WHAT’S CREATED UNDER \nTHIS NEW PERMIT. \n>>PATRICIA SHOWALTER: SO ARE \nYOU GOING TO BE COORDINATING \nWITH CITIES AND COUNTIES ON \nGETTING A PERMIT? BECAUSE I \nJUST HAD AN SPECIALTY RECENTLY \nTHAT PG&E WAS GOING TO BE \nWORKING ON A PARTICULAR \nTELECONFERENCE POLE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: APPARENTLY THEY \nFORGOT TO GET A PERMIT. DO YOU \nHAVE A DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE \nTHAT PERMITS ARE APPLIED FOR AND \nRECEIVED BEFORE WORK IS ACTUALLY \nIN THE SHADED\, OR LETTERS GO OUT \nTO FOLKS? \n>>JON WILCOX: YES THAT’S ALL OF \nOUR PERMIT PLANNING PROCESS IT’S \nNOT JUST CITIES AND COUNTIES WE \nHAVE STATE AGENCIES AND THERE IS \nOVERLAY. WE HAVE A PROCESS\, \nPRESIDENT MATTICS\, WITH THE FEDS \nAND STATE THAT REQUIRE \nREPORTING\, BEST MANAGEMENT \nPRACTICES\, OR AVOIDANCE MEASURES \nTHAT WE PUT IN PLACE\, AS WELL. \nSO\, THAT’S IN THERE AND THERE IS \nA CHECK PROCESS THAT GOES \nTHROUGH OUR ENVIRONMENTAL \nPLANNING GROUP TO TAKE CARE OF \nTHINGS AS FAR AS CITIES AND \nCOUNTIES THAT’S A DIFFERENT \nGROUP CALLED EPWC BUT THEY \nHANDLE THE — IN THIS CASE\, IF \nYOU HAVE TO GET A PERMIT TO SHUT \nDOWN A ROADWAY FROM THE CITY AND \nCOUNTY ENCROACHMENT TYPE PERMITS \nTHEY WORK ON THAT AS WELL. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I UNDERSTAND I \nWORKED FOR THE ARM I CORP OF \nENGINEERS AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL \nPROTECTION AGENCY FOR 43 YEARS \nSO I UNDERSTANDS ALL OF THAT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR \nANSWERING MY QUESTION. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>SPEAKER: TO ANSWER THE \nQUESTIONS ABOUT THE ELECTRICAL \nTOWERS\, THE PERMIT IS — \nRESTRICTS THE ACTIVITIES TO \nPROJECTS THAT WOULDN’T REQUIRE \nANY ADDITIONAL COMPENSATORY \nMITIGATION. SO\, WHEN PG&E WOULD \nPROPOSE SOMETHING LARGE AND \nIMPACTFUL LIKE A TOWER \nREPLACEMENT\, OUR STAFF WOULD USE \nTHE ACTIVITY REVIEW PROCESS\, \nWHICH IS SPECIAL CONDITION OF \nTHE PERMIT TO ASSESS WHETHER \nTHAT ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PERMIT AUTHORIZATION \nAND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND \nWHETHER THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nARE SUFFICIENT TO PREVENT \nPERMANENT ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT \nWOULD REQUIRE COMP PENS TORE \nMITIGATION. SO THERE MIGHT BE \nSOME CASE WHERE IS A SPECIFIC \nTOWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT WOULD \nREQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT. \nHOWEVER\, THERE ARE SOME CASES \nWHERE PG&E\, I BELIEVE\, IS \nPLANNING ON REPLACING TOWERS IN \nDIFFERENT LOCATIONS\, AND THIS \nWOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS \nPERMIT WHEN THE RELOCATION OF \nTHE TOWER WOULD MOVE THE TOWER \nOUT OF BCDC JURISDICTION\, \nENTIRELY\, WILL MOVE THE TOWER \nFROM THE BAY JURISDICTION INTO \nTHE SHORELINE BAND\, OR THE \nMOVEMENT WOULD RESULT IN \nSIGNIFICANTLY LESS BAY FILL OR \nSIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED PUBLIC \nACCESS OR VIEWS. AND THE \nRELOCATION WOULD NOT HAVE \nSIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ADVERSE \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMPARED \nTO REPLACING THE TOWER IN THE \nSAME PLACE. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH FOR CLARIFYING THAT. THAT \nWAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I \nHAD. SO\, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? YOU’RE \nMUTED\, BARRY. \n>>BARRY NELSON: I’M GETTING AN \nECHO\, I’M NOT SURE WHY. \nCAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: TWO \nQUESTIONS. THE FIRST IS\, IT \nSOUNDS AS THOUGH THERE ARE A \nCOUPLE OF WAYS IN WHICH THIS \nPERMIT COULD PRODUCE PUBLIC OR \nENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS \nRELOCATING THE TOWERS AS ROWAN \nJUST MENTIONED\, POTENTIALLY\, \nOUTSIDE OF OUR BAY JURISDICTION\, \nAND EVEN TO OUR SHORELINE BANNER \nUPLAND JURISDICTIONS\, AND \nREDUCTION IN BAY FILL FROM \nCONSOLIDATED OR REMOVING BOARD \nWALKS\, GIVEN THERE ARE 25 MILES \nOF BOARD WALKS TO REPLACE\, \nTHAT’S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT \nNUMBER. SO I’M ASKING IF THE \nREPORTING PROCESS IN THIS PERMIT \nWILL HELP US UNDERSTAND THOSE \nBENEFITS OVER TIME\, IF THERE ARE \nINDEED THOSE KINDS OF \nSIGNIFICANT BENEFITS GIVEN THE \nSCALE OF OPERATIONS OVER THE \nLENGTH OF THIS PERMIT\, IS THE \nREPORTING GOING TO ALLOW US TO \nDETECT THOSE BENEFITS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. FOR ALL OF \nTHE LARGER PROJECTS THAT ARE \nREQUIRED\, THE REVIEWS IN THE \nCLASS TWO OR CLASS THREE\, SUCH \nAS THE REPLACEMENT OF \nSTRUCTURES\, REMOVAL\, REPLACEMENT \nOF BOARD WALKS\, THAT KIND OF \nTHING\, THE ANNUAL REPORTS WOULD \nBE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON THOSE \nPROJECTS BOTH THAT ARETIVELY\, \nAND WITH THE RAW DATA OF THINGS \nLIKE\, HOW — WHAT THE NET FILL \nDIFFERENCE WAS. SO THAT OUR \nSTAFF CAN REVIEW HOW THIS \nPROGRAM IS GOING AND SEE IF \nTHERE ARE UNEXPECTED BENEFITS OR \nTHINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO \nCHANGE THE NEXT TIME THE PERMIT \nCOMES UP FOR RENEWAL. \n>>BARRY NELSON: SECOND \nQUESTION. GIVEN — IF THIS WAS \nA LAND PERMIT F THIS WERE A \nCAPITAL PERMIT OF THIS SIZE AND \nSCALE AND SCOPE\, I AM CERTAIN \nTHAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRING \nSIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nOUR REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE \nMAXIMUM PUBLIC ACCESS CONSISTENT \nWITH A PROJECT. BUT THIS IS AN \nO&M PERMIT\, NOT A CAPITAL \nPERMIT. SO\, CAN YOU HELP US \nUNDERSTAND\, GIVEN THE SIZE OF \nTHIS PERMIT\, HOW STAFF HAS \nTHOUGHT ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS\, \nJUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE — \nWE DON’T WANT TO DOUBLE DIP\, IF \nTHERE WERE CAPITAL — IF THERE \nWERE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS REGARDING FOR SOME OF \nTHESE PROJECTS WHEN THEY WERE \nORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED WE DON’T \nWANT TO DOUBLE DIP BUT AT THE \nSAME TIME WE WANT TO MAKE SURE \nWE’RE APPROPRIATELY THINKING \nABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS \nFOR BIG LONG-TERM O&M PROJECTS. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. SO\, AS WE \nWERE GOING THROUGH THE \nAPPLICATION PROCESS\, WE \nSERIOUSLY CONSIDERED WHETHER WE \nWOULD BE — WHATEVER THIS \nPROGRAM WOULD REQUIRE PUBLIC \nACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. AND THE \nFACT IS THAT THE PROGRAM WOULD \nONLY INVOLVE ACTIVITIES ON \nEXISTING STRUCTURES. IT \nWOULDN’T INVOLVE ANY INCREASES \nIN USE OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN \nUSES. AND THERE WOULDN’T BE ANY \nPERMIT PUBLIC ACCESS IMPACTS. \nSO STAFF DETERMINED THAT THERE \nWASN’T AN APPROPRIATE NEXUS TO \nREQUIRE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS. \n>>BARRY NELSON: ARE THERE OTHER \nEXAMPLES OF LONG-TERM \nPERMITS LIKE THIS THAT DON’T \nHAVE PUBLIC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. WE HAVE \nSEVERAL LONG-TERM O&M PERMITS \nWITH  DIFFERENT PUBLIC \nAGENCIES\, CALTRANS\, SANTA CLARA \nVALLEY WATER\, EAST BAY \nPARK DISTRICT\, CARGILL. THERE \nARE A LOT OF THEM. AND I DON’T \nBELIEVE THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE \nPUBLIC ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS \nREQUIRED. \n>>BARRY NELSON: THAT’S ALL. IF \nI COULD — \n>>SPEAKER: — [INDISCERNIBLE]\n \n>>SPEAKER: APP UP AGAIN. \n>>BARRY NELSON: CAN YOU HEAR \nME? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERM FOCUS IN \nPUBLIC ACCESS A LOT OF FOCUS IS \nACTUALLY AVOIDING IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS DURING THESE KINDS \nOF WORK THAT PG&E NEEDS TO KEEP \nELECTRICITY AND THE GAS \nFLOWING. \nTHAT’S REALLY WHAT THE PERMIT \nPROVIDES FOR IS MAKING SURE \nTHERE AREN’T SIGNIFICANT \nLONG-TERM IMPACTS TO THE \nEXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS WITH THE \nPROJECT WE ARE THINKING ABOUT \nPUBLIC ACCESS BUT IT WAS MORE IN \nTHAT LIGHT\, WE REALIZE THE \n99\, I DON’T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT \nMOST OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY \nSMALL LIKE REPLACING RESISTORS \nOR THINGS LIKE THAT\, THAT AREN’T \nPHENOMENAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: MY QUESTION \nIS ABOUT MAYBE THE LARGER \nPROBLEMS. YOU CAN TALK A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THE STAGING AREAS THAT \nMIGHT BE REQUIRED? I GUESS \nTHERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT \nTHAT THERE. BUT YOU TALK ABOUT \nBOARDWALKS\, BUT — WHAT KIND OF \nHEAVY EQUIPMENT DO YOU \nPOTENTIALLY NEED FOR\, LIKE\, THE \nWORK ON THE LARGER TOWERS? AND \nHOW MANY LARGE STAGING AREAS DO \nYOU ANTICIPATE HAVING TO BUILD \nAND POTENTIALLY MITIGATE FOR? \n>>CUYLER STAPLEMANN: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR QUESTION. I CAN JUMP IN \nHERE. A LOT OF OUR ELECTRIC \nTRANSMISSION TOWERS ARE IN THE \nBAY. THEY DO HAVE BOARDWALK \nACCESS. BUT WE PERFORM A LOT OF \nWORK ON THOSE TOWERS\, ESPECIALLY \nAT THE TOPS OF THOSE TOWERS\, BY \nHELICOPTER. SO IMPORTANT — \nTHERE IS LOTS OF RESTRICTION \nWHERE IS WE CAN SAFELY FLY \nSPECIFIC DISTANCES WE CAN’T \nCROSS PUBLIC ROADS WITHOUT \nTRAFFIC CONTROL WE TRY TO \nLOCATION THOSE HELICOPTER \nLANDING ZONES AS CLOSE TO THE \nWORK LOCATIONS AS POSSIBLE IT’S \nA SAFETY ISSUE FOR OUR WORKERS \nAS WELL AS THE PUBLIC I CAN’T \nREALLY SPEAK TO THE VOLUME OF \nLANDING ZONES\, ZONES MAY BE \nREQUIRED PER YEAR BUT GENERALLY \nTHEY ARE LOCATED ON EXISTING \nPAVED SURFACES \nLOTS\, DISTURBED AREAS THEY’RE \nSTAGE A COUPLE OF POLES AND \nINSTIGATEULARITIES AND SLIDE \nTHEM OUT TO THE WORK LOCATIONS\, \nIN THE CASE OF LARGER TOWER \nPROJECT THERE WOULD BE \nADDITIONAL TEMPORARY \nCONSTRUCTION EASTMENT OR WORK \nAREAS OUTSIDE OF OUR RIGHT OF \nWAY THAT WOULD NEED\, SORT OF\, A \nTEMPORARY RIGHT FROM THE \nPROPERTY OWNER\, AND THOSE WOULD \nGENERALLY BE LOCATED IMMEDIATELY \nIN THE VICINITY OF THE TOWER DUE \nTO A TOWER IN THE TIDAL MARSH\, \nTHOSE WORK AREAS YOU WOULD\, \nAS SMALL AS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE \nIMPACTS AND WE CAN’T ACCESS BY \nBARGE OFTENTIMES WE’LL HAVE \nEQUIPMENT ON BARGES AND THROW \nTHEM RIGHT UP TO THE TOWERS. \nBUT IN RARE OCCASIONS WE WILL \nNEED TO PLACE MATTING SOME REVE \nEQUIPMENT. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH THAT \nHELPS EITHER HELICOPTER OR BARGE \nBECAUSE YOU COULDN’T BRING HEAVY \nEQUIPMENT ALONG THE BOARDWALK. \nTHAT’S IT. \n>>SPEAKER: THE PERMITS WOULD \nALSO INCLUDE SPECIAL CONDITION \nREQUIRING RESTORATION OF \nTEMPORARY IMPACTS TO TIDAL MARSH \nIF THEY’RE EXPECTED IN A \nPROJECT. AND THESE ACTIVITIES \nTHAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THIS \nPERMIT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THOSE \nTHAT PG&E EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO \nBE PASSIVELY RESTORED WITHIN TWO \nYEARS. SO\, SOME OF THE LARGER \nTOWER REPLACEMENTS THAT WOULD \nREQUIRE MORE VEGETATION \nCLEARING\, MORE MATTING\, THOSE \nMIGHT BE KICKED OUT OF THIS \nPERMIT AND REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL \nPERMIT IF THE RESTORATION WOULD \nBE EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER\, OR \nTHERE WOULD BE PERMIT IMPACTS. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN GUYS \nHEAR ME? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SPEAK UP A LITTLE \nBIT. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: CAN YOU HEAR \nME NOW? \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: IT’S THE \nSETTINGS. CAN YOU HEAR ME? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: WE’RE GETTING \nSOME FEEDBACK HERE. QUICK \nQUESTION. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF \nTHE DETAIL IN YOUR \nPRESENTATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nCAN BARELY HEAR YOU ANDY. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YOU CAN \nDESCRIBE HOW YOU ARE \nCONSIDERING\, AS YOU PREPARE AND \nUPGRADE FACILITIES\, I ASSUME YOU \nARE THINKING ALSO ABOUT THE \nFUTURE CLIMATE IN WHICH THESE \nFACILITIES WILL NEED TO BE \nOPERATED. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE \nBIT ABOUT THAT? AND WHETHER AS \nWE’RE WORKING TO IN THE AREA \nAROUND THE BAY WHETHER THERE ARE \nPOSSIBILITIES OF\, SORT OF\, \nMULTI-BENEFIT KIND OF WORK THAT \nYOU CAN DO — BECAUSE I KNOW YOU \nDON’T GO OUT TO THESE SITES \nREALLY THAT OFTEN. \n>>JON WILCOX: WE HAVE TEAMS \nLOOKING AT SEA LEVEL RISE AND \nIMPACT. WE HAVE SUBSTATIONS \nTHAT ARE CLOSE\, RAVENSWOOD IN \nPARTICULAR\, THINGS THAT ARE \nTRIGGERED FOR SEA LEVEL RISE WE \nSPEND A LOT OF TIME IF TOWERS \nNEED TO BE RAISED\, TO ADDRESS \nTHAT\, AND THOSE ISSUES OCCUR. \nWE HAVE A BIG TEAM AND THEY’RE \nDEFINITELY SPENDING TIME \nREVIEWING THAT. AND SOME OF THE \nPROJECT WORK YOU’RE GOING TO SEE \nIS PROTECTING SEA LEVEL RISE \nTHOSE ARE PROJECTS COMING \nTHROUGH RIGHT NOW\, TO YOUR \nQUESTION ABOUT MULTI-BENEFIT\, I \nTHINK THAT’S GOING TO GO TO EACH \nPROJECT WHAT WE CAN DO. WE WORK \nCLOSELY WITH THE JOINT VENTURE \nAND A LOT OF GROUPS SEEING WHAT \nWE CAN DO TO WORK TOGETHER. WE \nDIDN’T — WE HAVE THESE OTHER \nPROGRAMMATICS AS I MENTIONED \nBEFORE AND THOSE TRIGGER A LOT \nOF MITIGATION OUT THERE\, LIKE \nFISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND \nCFW AND WE’RE WORKING WITH THEM \nTO CREATE LARGE-SCALE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO POSTAGE \nSTAMP STUFF DONE BEFORE \nHISTORICALLY THOSE ARE THINGS WE \nCAN DO TO WORK WITH JOINT \nVENTURE AND BOTH FEDS AND STATE \nAGENCIES AND LAND AGENCIESES TO \nCREATE BENEFITS RESTORATION \nOPPORTUNITIES. THERE ARE AREAS\, \nWE’RE WORKING WITH A MITIGATION \nBANK DEVELOPER WHERE WE’RE \nSWITCHING AN EASEMENT TO AN \nARIEL EASEMENT THAT WOULD NEVER \nPUT ANYTHING DOWN\, DON EDWARDS \nREFUGE RIGHT NOW THOSE ARE THE \nTHINGS COMING UP\, BUT BENEFICIAL \nASPECTS SEA LEVEL RISE ARE HIGH \nIN OUR MIND WE HAVE ASSETS THAT \nARE IN THE MIDST OF BEING \nIMPACTED. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: THAT’S KIND \nOF WHAT I FIGURED AND I WANT TO \nMAKE SURE ONCE YOU’RE OUT THERE \nTOUCHING THESE FACILITIES THAT \nEVERYTHING — ALL THE CAPITAL WE \nINVEST IN THIS COMMUNITY NOW \nNEEDS TO BE DONE IN THAT \nMANNER. \nTHAT’S GREAT. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I HAD A QUICK \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION FOR JON\, YOU \nREFERRED TO SOMETHING CALLED A \nJOINT VENTURE\, JON\, AND I WAS \nCURIOUS WHAT THAT WAS WITH \nREGARD TO THE MITIGATION \nPROJECTS THAT YOU DO. \n>>JON WILCOX: IT’S THE SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY JOINT VENTURE\, WE \nSIT ON THAT BOARD AS WELL — I’M \nSORRY\, THE BAY AREA JOINT \nVENTURE PROGRAM\, THAT WE SIT ON\, \nWE’RE EXPLORING WITH THEM \nOPPORTUNITIES FOR RESTORATION \nTHAT EXIST OUT THERE CURRENTLY \nRIGHT. WE CAN LEVERAGE\, FOR \nEXAMPLE\, WE HAVE PROPERTY CALLED \nANTIOCH DUNES THAT WAS PART OF \nTHE REFUGE\, WE DONATED THAT BACK \nTO THE REFUGE TWO YEARS AGO IT’S \nA BIG EXPANSION. WEIGH DO WHAT \nWE CAN AS FAR AS WORKING \nTOGETHER\, THE BENEFITS ON \nMITIGATION SIDE\, BUT ALSO \nBENEFITS WHAT WE’RE CAN DO AND \nPUT INTO A REFUGE TYPE SITUATION \nOR RESTORATION\, RIGHT THOSE ARE \nTHE THINGS WE’RE LOOKING AT. \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nGREAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nDON’T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS \nRAISED. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nAPPROVE TO CLOSE — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: PARDON ME. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. I MOVE \nTO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. AND I HAVE A SECOND \nFROM COMMISSIONER \nMOULTON-PETERS. THANK YOU. IS \nTHERE ANY OPPOSITION TO CLOSING \nTHE PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING \nNONE. IT IS CLOSED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO TO BEGIN THE \nDISCUSSION\, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHAT’S WHAT’S COMING UP \nNEXT. \nGO AHEAD\, RON. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO\, I MOVED IT. \nIS THERE A SECOND? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nNO. \nWE NEED TO HAVE IT BEFORE \nYOU GO AHEAD \nROWAN. \n>>ROWAN YELTON: STAFF \nRECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF \nCONDITIONS OF PROPOSED PERMANENT \nAPPLICATION NUMBER 202300200 FOR \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR OPERATIONS \nAND MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRICAL \nGAS TRANSMISSION AND \nDISTRIBUTION FACILITIES \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA \nINCLUDING SPECIAL CONDITIONS \nREQUIRING ACTIVITY PROPOSAL FOR \nSTAFF REVIEW INCLUDING ANNUAL \nREPORTING SPECIES PROTECTION \nINCLUDING RESTORATION TEMPORARY \nDISTURBANCES COMPLIANCE WITH \nAPPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL WORK \nWINDOWS AND COMPLIANCE WITH \nAGENCY PROGRAMMATIC PERMITS AND \nINDIVIDUAL PERMITS CONDITIONS \nREGARDING AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION \nMITIGATION TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO \nPUBLIC ACCESS. THE STAFF \nBELIEVE THAT THE PROJECT IS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS \nOF THE MCATEER-PETRIS AND THE \nSAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: MAY I ADD \nSOMETHING ROWAN\, WHICH IS THIS \nRECOMMENDATION IS FOR ITEM \nEIGHT\, NOT ITEM NINE. SIMPLY \nFOR ITEM EIGHT\, WHICH IS — IS \nTHAT CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: RIGHT. NUMBER \nNINE IS DIFFERENT. I WOULD LIKE \nTO MOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOR THIS PERMIT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IS \nTHERE A SECOND? \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nAND I ASSUME THE APPLICANT \nACCEPTS THE CONDITIONS. BUT I \nWOULD LIKE TO HEAR AFFIRMATION. \n>>ION WILCOX: WE DO. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND\, ZACK\, I \nWOULD LIKE TO THANK FOR THEIR \nTHOROUGHNESS\, IN DEVELOPING \nTHOSE CONDITIONS\, AS SOMEONE WHO \nWAS IN CHARGE OF THE NPDS \nPERMITTING PROGRAM FOR EPA MANY \nYEARS AGO\, I KNOW WRITING THESE \nPERMITS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT’S \nEASY\, AND I ALSO WANTED TO THANK \nPG&E FOR AGREEING TO NOT ONLY \nMAINTAIN WHAT YOU HAVE GOT BUT \nTRY TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND VISUAL ASPECT \nOF IT\, AS WELL. THIS IS THE \nTIME WHEN WE SHOULD BE DOING \nTHAT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE \nTWO COMMENTS VERY MUCH. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN TAKE THE SLIDE DOWN SO THAT \nI CAN SEE THE \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. I WOULD \nASK FOR A MOTION ON THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I MOVED IT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. TECHNICALLY WE NEED \nTO MAKE THE MOTION AFTER IT \nCOMES IN. IS THERE A SECOND FOR \nTHE MOTION? COMMISSIONER GORIN \nSECONDS. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE \nIS NO FURTHER COMMENTS\, SIERRA\, \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL ON THIS \nQUESTION ON ITEM EIGHT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION PER HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nMOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPATA? CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n14 YESES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. I \nWOULD NOW ASK \nFOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON \nITEM NINE. \n>>SPEAKER: THE STAFF RECOMMENDS \nAPPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OF THE \nPROPOSED PERMIT APPLICATION \nNUMBER 202300300MD FOR THE \nFIVE-YEAR PROGRAM OF OPERATION \nAND MAINTENANCE ELECTRICAL AND \nGAS TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION \nFACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE \nPRIMARY MANAGEMENT AREA OF \nSUISUN MARSH THE PERMIT WOULD \nINCLUDE THE SAME SPECIAL \nCONDITIONS AS 2023002. THE \nSTAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROJECT \nIS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nREQUIREMENTS OF THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT. SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY PLAN\, SUISUN MARSH \nPROTECTION ACT\, AND SUISUN MARSH \nPRESERVATION ACT\, AND THE SUISUN \nMARSH PROTECTION PLAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. \nTHEN WILL YOU TAKE DOWN THE \nSLIDE\, PLEASE? IS THERE A \nMOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION ON ITEM NINE? \nCOMMISSIONER PINE\, I BELIEVE \nYOUR HAND IS US. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AND I’LL SECOND \nTHE MOTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO FURTHER \nCOMMENTS\, SIERRA\, PLEASE CALL \nTHE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSION ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER AHN? \n>>EDDIE AHN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: HASZ? \nCOMMISSIONER LESKOVITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER. \n>>DAVE PINE: PINE YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZAPATA? \nWASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: TOTAL OF \n15 YESES ZERO NOS AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU ALL AS FOR ALL YOUR \nWORK. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THIS \nGOING FORWARD. ITEM TEN PUBLIC \nHEARING AND POSSIBLE VOTE ON \nAPPLICATION FROM REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA LLC TO REDEVELOP \nAPPROXIMATELY 2.54 ACRE NEW \nRESIDENTIAL PROJECT CONSISTING \nOF 56 FOR SALE TOWNHOUSES AS \nWELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS \nOPEN SPACE AREAS WITHIN THE BAY \nAND 100 FEET OF SHORELINE BAND \nAT 505 EAST BAY SHORELINE ROAD \nREDWOOD CITY\, BCDC SHORELINE \nDEVELOPMENT PERMITS MANAGER WILL \nMAKE THE PRESENTATION AND \nINTRODUCE THE APPLICANT \nSPEAKERS. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: BE RIGHT \nTHERE WE’RE DOING A \nTECHNOLOGICAL FIX. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: WE’RE \nWORKING ON SOME SOUND IN THE \nROOM. GIVE US ONE MINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON \nCOMMISSIONERS I’M KATHARINE PAN \nSHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM \nMANAGER AT BEA R BCDC I’LL BE \nPROVIDING A BRIEF SUMMARY OF \nTHIS NEXT APPLICATION NUMBER \n2023005 FOR RESIDENTIAL \nDEVELOPMENT AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD IN REDWOOD CITY SAN \nMATEO COUNTY I’LL INTRODUCE \nREGIS HOMES WHO WILL SHARE THE \nDETAILS. \n>>SPEAKER: THEIR PROJECT WITH \nYOU. SUMMARY FOR THIS PROJECT \nWAS MAILED ON APRIL 5TH\, 2024 \nAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nFOLLOWED ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. \nALL RIGHT.   TO ORIENT YOU\, \nTHE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN \nREDWOOD CITY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY \nNEARBY LANDMARKS INCLUDE BEAR \nISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE AND \nSMITH SLEW TO THE NORTH AND PORT \nOF REDWOOD CITY CARGILLS REDWOOD \nCITY SALT PLANT NEAR THE EAST \nBEAR ISLAND ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nPART OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN \nDESIGNATED WILDLIFE PRIORITY \nUSED R USE AREA BUT ITSELF IS \nNOT PART OF PRIORITY AREAS. THE \nHALF ACRE SITUATED JUST OFF \nWHIPPLE AVENUE OVERPASS \nOFF-HIGHWAY 101 PREVIOUS USE OF \nTHE SITE WAS FOR METAL RECYCLING \nSUPPLY OPERATION DATING BACK TO \n1963 THERE ARE NO EXISTING BCDC \nPERMITS ON THE SITE. TO THE \nSOUTH IS FORMER TOYOTA 101 \nDEARLISHIP AND EAST 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD CURRENTLY VACANT \nMOVIE THEATRE COMPLEX IN THE \nPROCESS OF REDEVELOPMENT. THE \nPROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORING \nDEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED BY THE \nCOMMISSION IN JUNE OF LAST \nYEAR. \nNOTABLE FEATURES TO THE NORTH OF \nTHE SITE WE FREQUENTLY REFERENCE \nIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nIMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH IS A \nTIDALING INFLUENCE DITCH WITH \nMUTED TIDAL MARSH HABITAT PART \nOF THE JURISDICTION’S NORTHED \nOF THAT IS PAVED TRAIL THE LEVY \nTRAIL RECOMMENDATION AND NORTHS \nOF THAT IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS \nTHE UNNAMED SLEW WHICH IS A \nTRANSCRIBETARY OF SMITH SLEW AND \nNORTH OF THAT IS THE BAY AREA \nISLANDS TRAIL SEGMENT THE TIDAL \nDITCH IS CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING \nMUTED TIDESAL MARSH HABITAT \nLIMITED DUE TO SIZE AND \nISOLATION PROVIDING SUITABLE \nHABITAT FOR MARSH HARVEST MOUSE \nAND SHOE\, BEAR \nISLANDS ECOLOGICAL RESERVE \nNORTH ARE BOTH BIOLOGICAL \nHABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF SPECIAL \nSTATUS SPECIES\, IMAGINES OF THE \nSITE TAKEN AT HIGH AND LOW TIDE. \nREGIS HOMES BAY AREA LLC IS \nPROPOSING TO REMEDIATE AND \nREDEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD WITH \nRESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME PROJECT \nCONSISTING OF 56 TOTAL UNITS \nINCLUDING EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS \nAS WELL AS SHORELINE PUBLIC \nACCESS OPEN SPACE AREAS 1.39 \nACRES OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE \nWITHIN THE COMMISSION’S BAY \nSHORELINE BAN JURISDICTION \nINCLUDING THREE TOWNHOME \nBUILDINGS IN A PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA IN SHORELINE TRAIL. DUE TO \nTHE PRESENCE OF TIDAL MARSH IN A \nDITCH THE BAY SHORELINE IN THIS \nAREA IS CONSIDERED THE UPLAND \nEDGE OF MARSH VEGETATION UP TO \nFIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA LEVEL \nTHE DIAGRAM YOU CAN SEE IT IN \nRED. THE PROJECT WILL INVOLVE \n600 FRIEFR FEET OF NEW BAY FILL \nCAN I HAVING OF SMALL PORTIONS \nOF NEW SHORELINE TRAIL OVERLOOKS \nCAN’T LEVERED OVER THE DITCH \nFROM A RETAINING WALL SITUATED \nIN THE SHORELINE BAND MAYBE HARD \nTO SEE HERE THE PARTS CAN’T \nLEVERING CROSS OVER THE BAY \nJURISDICTION. DEDICATED OPEN \nSPACE TO MAINTAIN A VISUAL \nCONNECTION TO BEAR ISLANDS \nWITHIN THE SHORELINE BAND THE \nSITE WILL INCLUDE SITE \nPREPARATION REMOVING ALL \nEXISTING SITE FEATURES \nREMEDIATING PCB CONTAMINATED \nSOILS RAISING ELEVATIONS \nAPPROXIMATELY 5 TO 7 FEET THE \nPROJECT WILL INCLUDE A FEW 550 \nFOOT RETAINING WALL ALONG THE \nDITCH 3\, 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL \nBUILDINGS WITH 20 TOWNHOME UNITS \nASSOCIATED CIRCULATION AREAS AND \nAPPROXIMATELY 16\,560 FEET OF \nPROJECT PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS TAKING PLACE \nOFF-SITE ON PUBLICLY OWNED \nPROPERTY. THE PROJECT WILL \nPROVIDE APPROXIMATELY 18\,800 \nSQUARE FEET OF DEDICATED \nPUBLICLY OWNED PUBLIC ACCESS IN \nAN AREA WHERE PUBLIC ACCESS \nDOESN’T CURRENTLY EXIST THIS \nINCLUDES 14\,250 SQUARE FEET OF \nDEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nBAY AND SHORELINE BAND AND 180 \nFOOT OF DEDICATED PUBLIC ACCESS \nOUTSIDE OF COMMISSION’S \nJURISDICTION. IMPROVEMENTS IN \nTHE PUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL \nINCLUDE A TEN FOOT WIDE CONCRETE \nPATH WITH 210 FOOT SHOULDERS ON \nEACH SIDE THAT WILL CONNECT \nROADWAY TO PLAN IMPROVEMENTS AT \n557 EAST BAY SHORE OVERLOOKS \nOBSERVATION DECK DELIVERED OVER \nTHE TIDAL DITCH WITH VIEWS \nTOWARD THE BEAR ISLANDS AND \nPLAZA AT THE TRAIL ENTRANCE\, \nPERMIT IS FIVE FEVEN EAST BAY \nSHORE SITES TIDESAL TO \nFACILITIES ON THE SIDE. IN \nADDITION PROJECT WILL PROVIDE \n4\,550 TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF \nPUBLIC ACCESS\, INCLUDING NEW \nTRAIL PLAZA SIDEWALK CONNECTION \nTO THE BEAR ISLAND TRAIL HEAD \nAND SIDEWALK ALONG THE EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD LEADING TO FIVE NEW \nPUBLIC SHORE PARKING SPACES IN \nTHE RIGHT OF WAY S CONTAMINATION \nIN THE SOIL AND SEDIMENT ON THE \nSITE IN THE TIDAL DITCH THE \nWATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD IS \nCONDUCTED THROUGH SEPARATE \nRELATED REMEDIATION PROJECTS \nINCLUDING RENEEDIATION OF THE \nON-SITE AREA SHOWN HERE IN \nPURPLE OR BLUE THIS WORK BASED \nON-SITE CLEAN UP PLAN DEVELOPED \nUNDER OVERSIGHT ASSIST WATER \nBOARD INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION OF \nTHE RETAINING WALL EXCAVATING \nCONTAMINATED SOIL AROUND THE \nPLAN UTILITY LINES AND GRADING \nAND CAPPING CONTAMINATED SOIL \nUNDER GEO TEXTILE AND IMPORTING \nCLEAN SOIL. IN ADDITION ANOTHER \nPROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED BY A \nDIFFERENCE APPLICANT TO \nREMEDIATE THE SITE BANK IN \nYELLOW AND ORANGE SITES IN AREAS \nBELOW THE RETAINING WALL AND \nDITCH MEETING REMEDIATION \nPROJECTS COMPLETED TO THE \nCONSTRUCTION OF ANY HOUSING OR \nPUBLIC ACCESS COMPONENTS THE \nPROJECT SITE BANK AREA WILL \nBECOME DEDICATED OPEN SPACE. \nTHE PROJECT WILL ELEVATE THE \nENTIRE SITE TO 5 TO 7 FEET ABOVE \nEXISTING GRADE FINISHED GRADE OF \n13 FEET AND VD88 EXCEPT FOR THE \nNORTHWEST CORNER PORTION OF THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS ELEVATIONS \nDECREASE TO AROUND 11 FEET TO \nCONFORM WITH EXISTING GRADES IN \nTHE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY. \nSTORM TIDAL LEVEL PROJECTS AND \nCONTRACTS WITH PROPOSED GRANT \nAWARDS OVERED TO RISE 12.SKWIEN \nFEET 88 FROM CURRENT LEVELS OF \n10.69 FEET ON HIGH EMISSIONS \nSCENARIO PROVIDED BY THE \nOCEANARY PROTECTION COUNCIL \nUNDER 2018 SEA LEVEL RISE \nGUIDANCE. AT THE PROPOSED \nELEVATIONS MOST PROJECT AND \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA WILL BE \nRESILIENT TO FLOODING FROM THE \n100 YEAR STORM TIED IN 2050 \nUNDER MEDIUM HIGH RISK HIGH \nEMISSION SCENARIO WITH EXCEPTION \nOF IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NORTHWEST \nPART OF THE SITE. \nHOWEVER THE 100 YEAR STORM TIME \nIS PROJECTED TO REACH 13.6 FEET \nBY 2060 AND 14.5 FEET BY 2070 \nMEANING PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS \nWOULD BE AT RISK OF FLOODING \nBEFORE THE END OF THE CENTURY. \nGROUNDS WATER LEVELS POTENTIAL \nTO COMPROMISE PROJECT STORM \nDRAINS BY 2050 AND PROJECTED TO \nBE AT OUR ABOVE GROUNDS LEVEL BY \n2100. THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT \nTHAT WILL LOOK LIKE BASED ON \nCURRENT CONDITIONS NEARLY ALL OF \nTHE SURROUNDING AREA WOULD BE \nFACING IMPACTS BY THIS TIME. \nTHE APPLICANTS CONTEMPLATED \nADAPTATION STRATEGIES DURING THE \nDESIGN PHASE INCLUDING RAISING \nTHE EDGE CHATTY RETAINING WALL \nAND ELEVATES THE MULTI-USE TRAIL \nBUT HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO A \nSINGLE ADAPTATION STRATEGY AT \nTHIS TIME STAFF HAS AGREED TO \nMONITOR THE SITE AND ENGAGE IN \nAN ADAPTATION PLANNING PROCESS \nTHAT WILL BEGIN BY 2050 OR AT \nANY EARLY STAGES OR ANY SIGNS \nMUCH FLOODING TO REASSESS SITE \nCONDITIONS USING BEST AVAILABLE \nSCIENCE AT THE AND DEVELOP AND \nIMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE ADAPTATION \nMEASURES TO AVOID IMPACT ON THE \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA BECAUSE THE \nPROJECT INVOLVES SALE OF TOWN \nHOMES AND EXPECT PERMIT TO BE \nTAKEN OVER BY HOMEOWNERS \nASSOCIATION REQUIRES NOTICE TO \nBUYERS THAT CLEARLY INDICATES \nRESPONSIBILITIES OF THE \nPERMITTEE TO MAINTAIN AND ADAPT \nPUBLIC ACCESS AREA FOR THE LIFE \nOF THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION \nFOR CONTENTS OF THAT NOTICE IS \nINCLUDED IN APPENDIX C OF THE \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION. ACCORDING \nTO THE COMMISSION’S VULNERABLE \nMAPPING TOOL THE PROJECT SITE IS \nLOCATED WITHIN A BLOCK \nIDENTIFIED AS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY GIVEN INDUSTRIAL \nCOMMERCIAL NATURE OF SURROUNDING \nDEVELOPMENT MUCH OF THE AREA \nSHOWS HAVING LOW SOCIAL \nVULNERABILITY ALSO IDENTIFIED IS \nHIGHEST CONTAMINATION VULNERABLE \nWHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH NEARBY \nHAZARDOUS CLEAN UP ACTIVITIES \nGROUNDS WATER THREATS HAZARDOUS \nWASTE FACILITIES AND SOLID WASTE \nFACILITIES. PROJECT DESIGN \nAPPLICANT CONDUCTED OUTREACH TO \nCOMMUNITY GROUPS TO IDENTIFY \nENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL EQUITY \nCONCERNS\, DESIRES FOR AFFORDABLE \nHOUSING AND COMMUNITIES IMPROVED \nSHORELINE ACCESS TO TRAIL \nCONNECTIONS AND PARKING ISSUES \nAPPLICANTS PROPOSING TO MAKE \nOFFSITE PUBLIC ACCESS \nIMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SEGMENTS \nALONG EAST BAY SHORE ROAD AND \nFIVE DESIGNATED PUBLIC SHORE \nPARKING SPACES. THE PROJECT HAS \nBEEN DESIGNED TO INCLUDE EIGHT \nBELOW MARKET RATE UNITS THAT \nWILL BE AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS \nMAKING UP TO ONE HUNDREDS 20% OF \nTHE AREA MEDIAN INCOME WHICH IS \nAPPROXIMATELY 21\,000 FOR A \nFAMILY OF FOUR. RELEVANT POLICY \nISSUES RAISED BY PROJECT INCLUDE \nWEATHER PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE CONSISTENT \nWITH THE PROJECT OTHERWISE \nCANNOT WITH MCATEER-PETRIS\, BAY \nPLAN IN TERMS OF BAY FILL \nAPPEARANCE AND DESIGN SCENIC \nVIEWS WATER QUALITY MITIGATION \nFISH AND WILDLIFE AND CLIMATE \nCHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE \nAND SOCIAL EQUITY. WITH THAT I \nWOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE KRYSTA \nHEINS VICE PRESIDENT FOR \nDEVELOPMENT AT SEARS REGIS HOMES \nBAY AREA TO PRESENT THE \nPROPOSAL IN GREATER DETAIL \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: I WANT TO \nREMIND FOLKS THAT WE ARE CLOSE \nTO A QUORUM. SO\, PLEASE WE NEED \nYOU TO STAY. THANK YOU VERY \nMUCH. \n>>SPEAKER: THANKS \nKATHARINE. \nAPPRECIATE THAT. I’M CHRIS \nDEHAN WITH REGIS HOMES JOINED BY \nJEFF SMITH ALSO WITH REGIS HOMES \nAND OUR DESIGN TEAM. REGIS \nHOMES IS A LOCAL HOME BUILDER \nAND DEVELOPER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO. GREAT. THANK YOU. \nREGIS HOME BUILDER BASED IN SAN \nMATEO WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS \nFOR 30 YEARS WE HAVE A LONG \nTRACK RECORD DELIVERING HOUSING \nTHROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA AND HERE \nIN REDWOOD CITY INCLUDING THE \nTHREE PROJECTS YOU SEE ON THE \nSCREEN BEFORE YOU. WE’RE REALLY \nEXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT. \nHERE TO TELL YOU MORE ABOUT OUR \nHOUSING PROPOSAL AT 505 EAST BAY \nSHORE ROAD. I WOULD LIKE TO \nSTART BY THANKING BCDC STAFF WHO \nHELPED US GET HERE TODAY\, \nINCLUDING KATHARINE\, YURIE\, \nJESSICA\, TONY\, ANDREA\, ETHAN\, \nAND SO MANY MORE. IT’S BEEN A \nHUGE TEAM. THANK YOU\, ALL. 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE IS A SMALL BUT \nIMPORTANT HOUSING PROPOSAL \nTHAT’S A BROADER TRANSFORMATION \nOF THE BEAR ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD \nTHAT STARTED WITH CITIES GENERAL \nPLAN UPDATE BACK IN 2010 THE \nVISION IS MIXED USE WATERFRONT \nNEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTING OF \nHOUSING OF MIXED USES\, \nDEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITIES LIKE \nBLUE HARBOR VILLE AS MARINA AND \nOF COURSE THE APPROVAL OF 480 \nUNIT PROJECT NEXT DOOR AT 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE WE’RE PART OF \nTHAT TRANSFORMATION. OUR \nPROJECT SITE IS THE GATEWAY TO \nTHAT NEIGHBORHOOD\, YOU GET OFF \nAT WHIPPLE AND COME ON TO \nBAYSHORE ROAD THE SITE IS \nWALKABLE TO DOWNTOWN\, AND \nINCLUDES RESOURCES TO BEAR \nISLANDS AND WILDLIFE REFUGE. \nTHIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TODAY \nTHERE ARE NO TREES NO \nAPPEAL\, THE BUILDINGS ARE AGING. \nIT’S LACKING BASIC PUBLIC \nACCESS AND SAFETY MEASURES LIKE \nA SIDEWALK STREET TREES\, \nPARKING\, NOTHING CHATTY KIND. \nSO TODAY WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTRANSFORM THIS SITE. NOT ONLY \nCAN WE BUILD NEW HOUSING\, WE CAN \nALSO BEAUTIFY THE ENTRANCE TO \nTHE NEIGHBORHOODS\, WE CAN CREATE \nNEW PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE BAY \nFRONT\, AND ADD MUCH NEEDED \nSAFETY FEATURES TO THE GATEWAY \nSITE. I WANT TO FILL IN A FEW \nGAPS HERE. \nJUST OVER TWO AND A HALF ACRES \nTHIS\, IS A SMALL SITE IN THE \nGRAND SCHEME OF THINGS WE’RE \nEXCITED AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO \nTURN IT INTO 56 NEW HOMES \nINCLUDING THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE \nHOMES THAT KATHARINE MENTIONED. \nLET’S SEE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE \nDITCH AND LEVY TRAILS. SO\, I \nWON’T GO THROUGH THAT. I WANT \nTO MENTION FEATURES OF THE SITE \nDESIGN. WE HAVE BROKEN UP THE \nHOMES INTO NINE BUILDINGS ACROSS \nTHE STATE TO AVOID CREATING TOO \nMUCH MASS. WE HAVE PASEOS \nRUNNING THROUGH THE SITE TO \nENHANCE VIEWS TO CREATE VIEW \nCORRIDORS AND ENHANCE CONNECTION \nTHROUGH TO THE BAY. WE MAXIMIZE \nLANDSCAPING ACROSS THE SITE YOU \nCAN SEE THAT HERE AND INCLUDED A \nMODEST PRIVATE OUTDOOR AMENITY \nSPACE FOR RESIDENTS IN THE LOWER \nRIGHT HAND CORNER BUT TRIED TO \nMAKE MOST OF THIS AS PUBLIC AS \nPOSSIBLE. I’LL SHARE \nARCHITECTURE NEXT. HOMES ARE \nTHREE STORY TALL\, ARCHITECTURE \nIS CONTEMPORARY WITH MIX OF \nMATERIALS PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE\, \nTHREE LEVELS\, ABOVE GRADE THAT \nWAS EXCEPTIONAL BECAUSE WE \nWANTED THE PUBLIC SPACE ALONG \nTHE TRAIL TO FEEL PUBLIC SO WE \nELEVATED THE PRIVATE OUTDOOR \nSPACES. HERE IS A VIEW OF THE \nTRAIL WITH THE DITCH IN THE \nFOREGROUND AND THE BAY AND \nWILDLIFE REFUGE IN THE \nBACKGROUND WE’RE PROUD TO OFFER \nA FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH BAY TRAIL \nSECTION HERE THAT CONSISTS OF \nTEN FOOT CENTER WALKWAY WITH TWO \nFOOT SHOULDERS ON EITHER SIDE \nFOR MULTI-MODAL USE\, WE HAVE \nCAN’T LEVERED OVERLOOKS WE CALL \nNODES WITH INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE \nAND PERFORMINGS TO ENHANCE THE \nPUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND USE OF THE \nTRAIL. WE HAVE PASEOS RUNNING \nTHROUGH AND EMPHASIS AND \nCONNECTION THROUGH THE BAY\, \nPRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACES \nDELINEATED WITH LANDSCAPING AND \nNOT FENCES TRYING TO CREATE AN \nOPEN EXPERIENCE. SO IN ADDITION \nTO HELPING ADDRESS THE HOUSING \nSHORTAGE THIS PROJECT OFFERS A \nNUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITY \nBENEFITS INCLUDING THE \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE \nTALKED BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT \nTHAT’S 15% OF THE OVERALL HOMES \nAT THE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nTHAT WAS AN INCREASE FROM OUR \nRIM REQUIREMENT OF 10%. THE NEW \nPUBLIC ACCESS AND OPEN SPACE \nEASEMENTS TOGETHER ARE OVER \n20\,000 SQUARE FEET MORE THAN 18% \nOF OUR SITE AREA NOT INCLUDING \nOFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS I’LL TALK \nABOUT NEXT. WE’RE EXCITED TO \nOFFER SIGNIFICANT BIKE \nPEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS \nADAPTATION FOR SEA LEVEL RISE \nAND MORE THAT I’LL OUTLINE IN \nACKNOWLEDGE SLIDES AND NEW \nDEVELOPMENT WILL BRING \nSIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT AND \nINFRASTRUCTURE FEES AND OF \nCOURSE ENHANCED PROPERTY TAX \nREVENUE TO THE CITY TO FURTHER \nSUPPORT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE \nAREA. \nI WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THESE ARE \nFOR SALE HOMES WHICH IS GOING TO \nHELP THE CITY MEET ITS GOAL OF \nINCREASING OWNERSHIP HOUSE STOCK \nAS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW THERE \nHAS BEEN DEVELOPMENT IN REDWOOD \nCITY LION SHARE OF WHICH IS \nAPARTMENT HOMES THIS IS A BADLY \nNEEDED UNDERSERVED SEGMENT OF \nTHE MARKET THOSE AFFORDABLE \nUNITS WILL ALSO BE OFFERED FOR \nSALE WHICH IS FAIRLY RARE. AT \nTHE MODERATE INCOME LEVEL \nPERFECT FOR FIRST SPONSORED AND \nESSENTIAL MEMBERS OF THE \nCOMMUNITY AT MARKET RATE HOMES \nSIZE AT THIS PRICE POINT TOWN \nHOMES ARE PERFECT FOR FIRST TIME \nHOME BUYERS WHICH ARE\, SORT OF\, \nMOST UNDER SERVED SEGMENT OF THE \nMARKET. I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE \nTRAIL AND HOW WE DESIGNED IT. \nWITH THE GOAL OF MAXIMIZING \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHILE MINIMIZING \nANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THE BAY \nOLDER IN OUR DESIGN PROCESS WE \nENGAGED BROADLY TO COMPLETE A \nBIOLOGICAL STUDY TO LOOK AT THE \nDITCH AND TIDAL VEGETATION IN IT \nAND COMPLETED A JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WITH THE ARMY CORP \nBASED ON THAT JURISDICTIONAL \nDETERMINATION WE RECONFIGURED \nOUR SITE PLAN\, UNDERSTANDING \nWHERE THE DITCH AND BAY IS AND \nDESIGN EVERYTHING AROUND THAT \nRATHER THAN PUSHING INTO IT. \nWORKING WITH BCDC STAFF WE ADDED \nA CAN’T LEVER ALONG THE TRAIL TO \nACHIEVE THE FULL 14 FOOT WIDTH \nBAY TRAIL SECTION WHILE AVOIDING \nPHYSICAL IMPACTS INTO THE \nDITCH. \nWE’RE AWARE OF THE RISK SEA \nLEVEL RISE POSES TO THE \nCOMMUNITY AND WE’RE COMMITTED TO \nDOING OUR PART TO PREPARE THE \nCOMMUNITY FOR FUTURE CONDITIONS \nOUR PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEA \nWALL ALONG THE DITCH TO HELP US \nBUILD UP THE SITE ENABLING US TO \nADD NEW PUBLIC ACCESS WHILE \nMAINTAINING FEASIBLE UNIT COUNT \nTHE SEA WALL WAS PIVOT ALL TO \nOUR SITE PLAN AND ENABLING US TO \nRAISE THE SITE UP BETWEEN 5 AND \n7 FEET ACROSS THE SITE PROVIDING \nPROTECTION OF 2100 MEDIAN HIGH \nWATER ALIGN AND ADAPTABLE TO 100 \nYEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS IF NEEDED \nIN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO \nCLARIFY CONTEXT\, BEYOND THE \nDRAINAGE DITCH WE TALKED ABOUT\, \nTHE LEVEE AND SLEW AT BUYER BARE \nISLANDS REFUGE THERE IS AN \nEXISTING BAY TRAIL SEGMENT IN \nGREEN HERE IN BLUE I WANT TO \nPOINT OUT THE OTHER PUBLIC \nACCESS WALK WAYS LIKE THE PG \nLEVEE TRAIL AND WALKWAYS FROM \nOTHER NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE \nAREA AND THEN IN YELLOW YOU CAN \nSEE THE NEW TRAIL SEGMENTS FROM \nOUR PROJECT SITE AND 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE ROAD COMBINED HERE. \nSO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT \nTHEY’RE ADDITIVE TO AN EXISTING \nNETWORK OF PUBLIC ACCESS IN THE \nAREA. SPEAKING OF CONTEXT\, I \nWANTED TO ZOOM IN ON AN EXISTING \nFLAW AND A PRETTY SERIOUS ONE \nABOUT THIS NETWORK OF PUBLIC \nACCESS. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE \nINTERSECTION AT WHIPPLE ROAD AND \nBAYSHORE AT THE FRONT OF OUR \nSITE WHERE THE EXISTING BAY \nTRAIL HEAD IS LOCATED. AS \nTHINGS STAND TODAY YOU CAN SEE \nTHE INTERSECTION IS INCOMPLETE \nAND UNSAFE THERE IS NO SIDEWALK\, \nNO PARKING\, NO SAVE PEDESTRIAN \nACCESS AT ALL TO THE BAY TRAIL\, \nTRAIL HEAD THEN THE CROSSWALK TO \nNOWHERE WHICH DEAD ENDS INTO A \nCHAIN LINK FENCE TODAY IN \nADDITION TO BUILDING MUCH NEEDED \nNEW HOUSING WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY \nTO FIX THIS PROBLEM. OUR \nPROPOSAL INCLUDES ING WHY BEYOND \nOUR PROPERTY LINE WITH \nSIGNIFICANT OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS \nTO CREATE A SAFER CONNECTION TO \nTHE TRAIL SYSTEM INCLUDING A NEW \nSIDEWALK WITH RAISED LANDSCAPE \nPLANTERS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED \nPEDESTRIAN PROTECTION. THIS \nJURISDICTION CREATES OPPORTUNITY \nFOR A NEW TRAIL HEAD WE’RE \nCALLING IT A PLAZA WITH SEATING \nELEMENTS\, A DRINKING FOUNTAIN\, \nSIGNAGE\, AND A MICRO-MOBILITY \nSTATION OR THE CITY’S BIKESHARE \nAND/OR SCOOTER SHARE PROGRAM AND \nOF COURSE WE GET TO COMPLETE THE \nCROSSWALK TO NOWHERE. \nALL RIGHT. AS MANY OF THE \nCOMMISSIONERS MAY RECALL THE 557 \nEAST BAY SHORE ROAD SITE WAS \nAPPROVED WITH PACKAGE OF PUBLIC \nACCESS AMENITIES HOWEVER THEY’RE \nCOMPLETELY ORPHANED AND \nINACCESSIBLE BY THE PUBLIC \nWITHOUT TRAVERSING THROUGH THE \nSITE FROM BAYSHORE ROAD WE \nPROVIDE A DIRECT CONNECTION FROM \nTHE SITE THROUGH OURS TO THE \nTRAIL HEAD CREATING A CONTINUOUS \nPATHWAY. WE’RE PROUD OF HOW \nSUSTAINABLE THIS PROJECT WILL BE \nTHESE HOMES WILL BE ALL ELECTRIC \nNO NATURAL GAS PLUMBED TO THE \nPROPERTY NO TAIL PIPES TO THESE \nHOMES THEY WILL HAVE SOLAR PV \nPANELS INSTALLED AS WELL AS EV \nCHARGING OUTLET’S PART OF ALL \nELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES \nHEAT PUMP WATER HEATING WHICH \nINCLUDES TECHNOLOGY YOU’RE GOING \nTO HEAR A LOT ABOUT IN THE FIGHT \nAGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE PURPLE \nPLUMBING FOR IRRIGATED RECYCLED \nWATER AND SO MUCH MORE. AS ALL \nOF US IN THIS INDUSTRY KNOW IT \nCAN BE QUITE A JOURNEY TO GET \nNEW HOUSING APPROVED I WON’T GO \nTHROUGH IN DETAIL BUT WANT TO \nMENTION WE’RE REALLY EXCITED TO \nBE HERE TODAY. WE WERE APPROVED \nBY THE CITY ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND \nPRIOR TO THAT WE WENT THROUGH \nFOUR ROUNDS OF DESIGN REVIEW TWO \nWITH THE CITY AND TWO WITH BCDC \nWE COMPLETED A FULL \nENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND \nCONDUCTED EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY \nOUTREACH. AND WE ARE ASKING FOR \nYOUR APPROVAL THIS AFTERNOON. \nSPEAKING OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH\, \nPART OF OUR PROCESS OF REGIS \nHOMES IS TO MEET WITH AS MANY \nSTAKEHOLDERS AS POSSIBLE \nINCLUDING STAKEHOLDERS BUT FOLKS \nIN THE CITY MORE BROADLY AND IN \nTHE BAY AREA. NOT ONLY DO WE \nMEET WITH GROUPS THAT SUPPORT \nHOUSING WE TRY TO MEET WITH AS \nMANY GROUPS AS WE CAN THAT MAY \nSEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY THAN \nWE DO THIS IS A LIST OF GROUPS \nWE HAVE MET WITH THROUGH THE \nYEARS IMPORTANTLY MENTION \nSUPPORT OF THE BEAR ISLAND \nNEIGHBORHOOD\, BOOSTER\, AND WE \nSAT DOWN WITH CITIZENS COMMITTEE \nTO COMPLETE THE REFUGE AND \nSIERRA CLUB TO HEAR ABOUT THEIR \nCONCERNS WE MADE A FEW CHANGES \nIN \nRESPONSE. AND WITH THAT WE’RE \nPROUD TO HAVE THE ENDORSEMENT OF \nTHESE FINE GROUPS HERE AND THANK \nYOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON \nI’LL \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nI’LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. \nDO WE HAVE PUBLIC SPEAKERS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: HOW \nMANY? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CURRENTLY \nTHREE HANDS RAISED VIRTUALLY\, \nAND NONE IN-PERSON. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nLET’S CALL THEM. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: LUIS — \nPARDON ME FOR YOUR LAST NAME\, \nMIRANTE\, YOU’RE UP FIRST\, \nFOLLOWED BY GITA \nD. LUIS? \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>SPEAKER: HELLO MR. CHAIR\, \nMEMBERS\, MY NAME IS \nLUISMIRANTE YOU NAILED MY LAST \nNAME LIKE AN OLYMPIC GYM \nAND-A-HALF CONGRATULATIONS THANK \nYOU I’M HERE TODAY PROUD TO \nSUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nON BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA \nCOUNCIL ALL WITH THE GOAL OF \nMAKING THE BAY AREA THE BEST \nPLACE IN THE COUNTRY TO LIVE AND \nWORK. THE HOUSING CRISIS THE \nBAY AREA FACES IS AS YOU KNOW \nOBVIOUSLY ONE OF THE MOST \nIMMENSE CHALLENGES THAT OUR \nEMPLOYERS AND OUR RESIDENTS IN \nTHIS REGION FACE TODAY SO WE’RE \nPROUD TODAY TO BE A PART OF \nHELPING SUPPORT THIS PROJECT \nWHICH IS A SMALL BUT MIGHT \nCONTRIBUTION TO REDUCE YOU THE \nINTENSITY OF THAT CRISIS. OUR \nPROJECT ENDORSEMENT COMMITTEE \nREVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND \nUNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO SUPPORT IT \nIN PART BECAUSE THE PROJECT \nALIGNS WITH OUR GOALS OF \nEXPANDING AFFORDABLE \nHOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS IN A JOB \nMARKET THAT SO CLEARLY NEEDS \nTHEM AND BECAUSE THE PUBLIC \nBENEFITS AND RESILIENCY EFFORTS \nTHAT THE PROJECT UNDERTOOK GO \nABOVE AND BEYOND IN OUR OPINION \nIN TERMS OF CONTRIBUTING VALUE \nTO THE PUBLIC. SO\, WHEN LOOKING \nAT THIS PROJECT\, I HOPE THAT YOU \nSEE IT’S NOT JUST A HOUSING \nPROJECT BUT ALSO ONE THAT \nIMPROVES THE REGION’S RESILIENCY \nHOWEVER SLIGHTLY\, AND IS PART OF \nA BIGGER PICTURE THAT WE NEED TO \nMEET TO GET TO OUR CLIMATE GOALS \nAND TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR REGION \nCAN ADAPT TO AND BE RESILIENT TO \nCLIMATE CHANGE W THAT I’M HAPPY \nTO ANSWER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE \nABOUT OUR SUPPORT LETTER WHICH \nWAS TRANSMITTED TO YOU YESTERDAY \nAND OTHERWISE URGE YOUR SUPPORT \nFOR THIS STERLING PROJECT. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. GITA \nDEV. YOU ARE NEXT. \n>>SPEAKER: CAN YOU HEAR ME. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YES WE \nCAN. \n>>SPEAKER: YOU CAN GO TO SLIDE \nNUMBER 14 AND THEN WE COULD \nSTART THE CLOCK? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nKATHARINE\, CAN YOU SHARE SLIDE \n14? THANK YOU. WHICH \nPRESENTATION WAS IT? OUR STAFF \nPRESENTATION OR THE APPLICANT’S \nPRESENTATION? \n>>SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT WAS THE \nAPPLICANT’S PRESENTATION\, THE \nLAST ONE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ONE \nMINUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: 14 OR 17. EITHER \nONE WILL DO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: IS THIS \nTHE CORRECT SLIDE? \n>>SPEAKER: IT ACTUALLY SHOWED A \nSITE PLAN. MAYBE TRY 17. \nJUST THE PREVIOUS ONE. JUST GO \nBACK TWO. ONE MORE. \nYEAH. I THINK THIS WILL BE \nFINE. THIS WILL BE FINE. THANK \nYOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: YOUR TIME \nIS NOW RUNNING. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. I’M GITA \nDEFINITELY\, I’M WITH THE SIERRA \nCLUB ALIVE CAMPAIGN. I \nAM APPRECIATIVE THAT REGIS \nHOMES PROJECTS\, HOWEVER I WANT \nTO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SIERRA \nCLUB DID NOT MEET WITH REGIS \nHOMES ON THIS PROJECT THEY DID \nREACH OUT AND WE DECLINED ALSO I \nWOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT \nCITIZEN’S COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE \nTHE REFUGE IS ADAMANTLY OPPOSED \nTO THIS PROJECT THERE WERE ALSO \nCOMMUNITY BENEFITS BUT SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE NOT BENEFITS SOME OF \nTHOSE ARE REQUIRED FEES. SO\, \nGIVEN THAT\, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO \nPOINT OUT IS FOR\, I ASSUME THAT \nALL YOU COMMISSIONERS REALIZE \nTHAT THE FRONT ROW OF TOWN HOMES \nTHAT ARE SHOWN IN THIS SITE PLAN \nARE ALL WITHIN THE BCDC 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. AND WITH GIVEN \nSEA LEVEL RISE\, YOU CAN SEE THAT \nWE REALLY NEED THAT 100 FEET. \nYOU CAN SEE THAT THE PROJECT \nNEXT TO IT IS RESPECTING THAT \n100 FOOT SET BACK WITH ITS \nHOMES. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT \nTHAT THIS SEGMENT OF WHAT \nTHEY’RE CALLING THE BAY TRAIL IS \nREALLY AN ISOLATED SEGMENT THAT \nIS REALLY FOR THE ENJOYMENT \nENJOIMENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO \nLIVE IN THESE HOMES BECAUSE \nTHERE IS NO CONNECTION BACK TO \nTHE BLUE LINE WHICH IS USED AS A \nPUBLIC TRAIL\, AND I AM VERY \nFAMILIAR WITH IT. I DO ACCEPT \nALL OF THE POINTS ABOUT HOW \nDIFFICULT THE CONNECTION IS TO \nBEAR ISLAND\, AT THE WILL LOW\, AT \nTHE WHIPPLE ROAD. HOWEVER\, I \nREALLY THINK THIS WOULD BE THE \nWRONG TIME TO ENCROACH TO ALLOW \nENCROACHMENTS INTO THIS 100 FOOT \nSET BACK BAND. ONE SHORELINE\, \nAS YOU ALL KNOW\, CAME BEFORE US \nAND SAID THAT IT IS THEIR POLICY \nTO TRY TO MAINTAIN A 100 FOOT \nSET BACK IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR \nTHE BAY TO STAY ALIVE. TO NOT \nHAVE SEA WALLS RIGHT UP AGAINST \nTHE BAY. \nAND YOU CAN TELL IF YOU HAD \nANYTHING TO DO WITH \nCONSTRUCTION\, THAT DOING \nCONSTRUCTION INTO THE BAY\, INTO \nTHAT SLOUGH\, INTO THAT DITCH \nWHICH HAS ENDANGERED SPECIES \nYOU’RE GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE \nOFF THAT DITCH IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO DRAIN IN ORDER TO BE \nABLE TO PULL THAT STUFF \nUNDERGROUND. I WOULD SAY ONE \nTHING\, AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, THIS \nIS NOT THE PLACE TO PUT \nHOMEOWNER AFFORDABLE HOUSING\, \nTHEY’RE GOING TO GET HIT UP WITH \nA LOT OF COSTS WHEN THE SEA \nLEVELS IN 2050. THE STORM \nDRAINS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE \nREDONE THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO \nLOCATE HOUSING AND PARTICULARLY \nAFFORDABLE HOUSING. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK YOU \nFOR YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT YOUR \nTIME HAS NOW FINISHED. \n>>SPEAKER: THANK YOU. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOVING ON \nTO KEVIN CHAN. YOU MAY NOW \nUNMUTE. \n>>SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON \nMEMBERS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION MY NAME IS KEN CHAN \nAND I AM THE SENIOR ORGANIZER \nWITHIN THE HOUSING LEADERSHIP \nCOUNCIL SAN MATEO COUNTY WE WORK \nWITH COMMITTEES AND THEIR \nLEADERS TO PRODUCE AND RESERVE \nQUALITY AFFORDABLE HOMES \nAPPRECIATION TO STAFF FOR THE \nHARD WORK ON TODAY’S \nPRESENTATION\, ON BEHALF OF HCL \nOUR LETTER I WOULD LIKE TO \nEXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR 505 \nBAYSHORE TOWNHOME PROJECT REGIS \nHOMES BAY AREA AS YOU MAY \nALREADY KNOW CREATING OWNERSHIP \nOF AFFORDABLE HOMES IN OUR STATE \nIS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF LACK OF \nAVAILABLE FUNDING. THIS IS WHY \nWE SUPPORT THE EIGHT AFFORDABLE\, \nTWO BEDROOM AND 4 TO 8 MARKET \nRATE HOMES THAT THE CITY \nDISPARATELY NEED\, FAMILIES WILL \nGET STABILITY THEY NEED TO \nTHRIVE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES \nWHERE THEY WILL NO LONGER WORRY \nABOUT QUALITY OF AFFORDABLE \nHOMES AND ALSO BE ABLE TO LIVE \nNEAR THEIR PLACES OF WORK \nREDUCES STRESS ON THE BAY AREA \nINFRASTRUCTURE AND DECREASE BOTH \nTHEIRS AND YOUR TIME ON THE ROAD \nLEAVING TIME FOR HEALTH FAMILY \nAND COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR \nYOUR CONTINUED LEADERSHIP AND WE \nURGE YOU TO APPROVE THE 505 \nEAST BAY SHORE TOWNHOME \nPROPOSAL. \nTHANK YOU SO MUCH. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. CHAIR WASSERMAN THERE IS \nNO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. \n>>SPEAKER: I WOULD ENTERTAIN A \nMOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC \nHEARING. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. AND \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON SECONDS. \nTHERE IS NO OBJECTION. THE \nPUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. \nCOMMISSIONER QUESTIONS AND \nCOMMENTS? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: — UH — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES\, THANK \nYOU. LET’S SEE. I WAS GOING TO \nASK IF EITHER STAFF OR THE \nAPPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT \nON THAT — THE COMMENT ABOUT THE \n100 FOOT SET BACK AND — JUST \nGIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE \nCONTEXT ABOUT THAT? \n>>SPEAKER: HAPPY TO. I HOPE \nCAN YOU HEAR ME. KATHARINE\, I \nACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT SLIDE 14 \nWAS REALLY HELPFUL FOR THIS \nSUBJECT. I’M HAPPY TO COMMENT \nON THAT. THE SHORT ANSWER IS \nTHIS IS A SMALL SITE PUTTING A \n100 FOOT SET BACK WOULD MAKE \nTHIS UNDEVELOPABLE THAT’S WHY \nWE’RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE AMOUNT \nOF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT WE CAN \nOFFER TO THE SITE UNDERSTANDING \nWE CAN’T GET TO THE FULL 100 \nFEET ALSO MENTION TO LOOK AT THE \nOTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA \nIF WE CAN GET THE SLIDE UP HERE \nIF YOU LOOK AT THE VILLAS\, BLUE \nHARBOR\, MARIN A NONE HAVE 100 \nFOOT SET BACK SOME HAVE A \nSIMILAR SEA WALL WITH SMALLER \nSIDEWALK. OUR TRAIL SECTION IS \n14 FEET PLUS LANDSCAPING SETI \nWENT OUT TO BLUE HARBOR VILLE AS \nAND MEASURED EIGHT FOOT AND TEN \nFOOT SIDEWALKS SO THIS IS A HUGE \nINCREASE COMPARED TO THE LARGER \nSITES. I HOPE THAT’S HELPFUL. \nTHE 557 EAST BAY SHORE SITE NEXT \nTO US IS LARGER IT HAS 480 \nUNITS APARTMENT COMPLEX A \nDEVELOPMENT THAT’S LARGE THEY’RE \nCAN SUPPORT MORE PUBLIC BENEFITS \nLIKE THIS. \nGREAT. THANK YOU. IF YOU LOOK \nTO THE TOP RIGHT HERE YOU CAN \nSEE THE DEVELOPMENTS I’M TALKING \nABOUT AND IF YOU SQUINT\, ONE \nPARTICULAR MARINA VERY LIMITED \nSET BACK OURS IS MUCH LARGER AND \nWE’RE PROUD OF THAT. \n>>SPEAKER: AND I ALSO WANT TO \nJUST CLARIFY\, SO\, BCDC’S \nJURISDICTION IS THE 100 FOOT \nSHORELINE BAND THAT JUST MEANS \nTHAT WE HAVE PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY WITHIN THAT AREA. \nIT’S NOT A SET BACK. IT \nDOESN’T\, SORT OF\, PRECLUDE THIS \nTYPE OF DEVELOPMENT IN IT. SO\, \nI WANT TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE \nBETWEEN OUR PERMITTING \nJURISDICTION AND THE CONCEPT OF \nA SET BACK. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU \nHAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. \n>>SPEAKER: YES\, WELL\, THAT’S \nHELPFUL. BUT\, SO\, ARE THE ONE \nSHORELINE AND THE OTHER POLICIES \nWE HAVE. SO THEY RECOMMEND  . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: UP TO\, YOU \nKNOW\, THE 100 FOOT SET BACK OR \nMAXIMUM SET BACK\, BUT THEY LEAVE \nIT UP TO BCDC DISCRETION\, IS \nTHAT RIGHT? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \n— CAN WE GET CLARIFICATION \nEITHER FROM KATHARINE OR FROM \nLEGAL ON WHAT OUR JURISDICTIONAL \nAUTHORITY IS WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE BAND? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: AND POLICY \nRECOMMENDATIONS\, YEAH. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WE DON’T HAVE \nANY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT \nNOT BUILDING WITHIN THE 100 FOOT \nBAND. OUR AUTHORITY\, BASICALLY\, \nUNDER — SORRY. IT’S HARD UNDER \n— UNDER 66632.4 \nIS BASICALLY PUBLIC ACCESS. IT \nSAYS BASICALLY THE COMMISSION \nMAY DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A \nPERMIT OR FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT \nONLY ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE \nPROJECT FAILS TO PROVIDE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS WITHIN \nTHAT SHORELINE BAND. IN FACT\, \nOUR REGULATIONS ENVISION THAT WE \nWILL BUILD WITHIN THAT SHORELINE \nBAND. THAT’S PRETTY CLEAR. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. GO AHEAD\, \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO. . \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: OKAY. LET \nME THINK ABOUT THAT. AND I \nGUESS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I \nHAVE IS LIGHTING\, I GUESS THERE \nIS NO LIGHTING\, PLAN FOR THAT \nWALKWAY OR ADDING LIGHTING TO \nTHAT AREA? \n>>SPEAKER: OF COURSE\, YEAH\, \nTHERE IS LOW BALLARD LIGHTING\, \nALL ALONG\, WE HAVE CONDITIONS \nAPPROVAL FROM THE CITY RELATED \nTO DARK SKY ORDINANCE BUT THE \nPATHWAY WILL BE LIT. I THINK \nTHAT’S YOUR QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YEAH. \nOKAY. WELL\, I’M SURPRISED\, I \nWOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT \nTO MINIMIZE LIGHTING\, BECAUSE OF \nWILDLIFE ISSUES. BUT THAT’S NOT \nWITHIN OUR SET OF \nRECOMMENDATIONS OR GUIDELINES \nEITHER? \n>>SPEAKER: SO WE DIDN’T INCLUDE \nWITHIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION \nANY CONDITIONS RELATED TO \nLIGHTING. I MIGHT. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: I DON’T KNOW \nIF OUR BAY DEVELOPMENT ANALYST \nHAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS BUT \nWITH LIGHTING\, I KNOW ESPECIALLY \nWITH PUBLIC ACCESS AS IT GETS \nLATER INTO THE EVENING THAT \nTHERE IS ALSO A SAFETY CONCERN \nRELATED TO LIGHTING\, SO I DON’T \nKNOW IF WITHIN THE EIR\, THAT \nTHERE WAS ANY SPECIFICATION TO \nLIKE THE INTENSITY OF THE \nLIGHTING THAT WAS ALLOWED. BUT \nI’LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO \nTHAT. \n>>SPEAKER: NOT THAT I RECALL \nAND I’LL ADD I THINK LIGHTING \nFOR WALKWAYS MIGHT BE A BUILDING \nCODE ISSUE I’M NOT SURE\, SO I’M \nNOT SURE YOU CAN’T LIGHT A \nPATHWAY IN THIS SITUATION BUT WE \nALSO HAVE LOW LIGHTING TO TRY TO \nMITIGATE T I HOPE THAT’S \nHELPFUL. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: WELL\, LOW \nLIGHTING IS BETTER THAN TOO MUCH \nLIGHTING. BUT\, YES\, I — I \nMEAN\, I WOULDN’T — I WOULD HOPE \nTHAT BCDC LOOKS AT THAT LIGHTING \nISSUE. BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE \nTHAT IT WOULD HAVE SOME IMPACT \nON THE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE. \nSO\, THAT’S — I GUESS THAT’S THE \nCOMMENT I’LL MAKE AT THIS \nPOINT. \nTHANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I DO \nAPPRECIATE ALL THE OTHER \nSUSTAINABILITY FEATURES AND \nSUCH\, BUT THERE’S — BUT IT IS \nAT A SENSITIVE LOCATION. SO\, I \nAPPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ZAPEDA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU \nCHAIR. WOULD STAFF BE ABLE TO \nPUT UP THE SLIDE AGAIN? ONE OF \nTHOSE INFAMOUS SLIDES THAT HAS \nBEEN PRESENTED. PAGE 14 OR 12 I \nDON’T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT IS \nTHE ONE THIS’S LOOKING AT THE \nNEXT DOOR PROPERTY\, THAT’S \nALREADY BEEN APPROVED. I HAVE A \nQUESTION ON THIS ONE. THANK \nYOU. JUST\, HISTORY\, AND FOR ME \nTO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE — TO BE \nCONSISTENT IN OUR RESPONSES WITH \nANY PROPERTY. SO\, THE PROPERTY \nRIGHT NEXT DOOR\, I SEE THE 100 \nFOOT LINE\, AND I’M IMAGINING \nTHE LINE THERE BASED ON ONE OF \nTHE OTHER SLIDES THAT DREW THE \nLINE IN THERE ON THE YELLOW \nSQUARE. \nSO THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR THAT \nWAS ALREADY APPROVED BY BCDC I’M \nASSUMING\, IN PRIOR MONTHS OR \nYEARS\, I’M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS \nPROVED\, BUT IF STAFF IS ABLE TO \nTELL US — HOW THEY  THE \nDECISION FOR HAVING THAT GREEN \nAREA BE GREATER THAN WHAT WE’RE \nREQUESTING THIS PROJECT? AND IF \nTHERE IS A RHYME OR REASON WHY \nONE WOULD HAVE IT BUT THE OTHER \nWOULD NOT OTHER THAN THE SPACE \nIS SMALLER AND EVERYTHING IS \nNEEDED TO BUILD MORE HOUSING? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, FOR THE 557 EAST \nBAY SHORE PROJECT THAT WAS \nAPPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ABOUT \nTHIS TIME LAST YEAR\, IT REALLY \nDOES\, SORT OF\, COME DOWN \nPROBABLY TO SIZE. YOU KNOW\, THE \nQUESTION FOR US — OR THE \nQUESTION BEFORE THE COMMISSION \nIS THIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT AND SO FOR THAT PROJECT \nIT’S\, AS YOU CAN SEE IT’S \nSIGNIFICANTLY LARGER. WE PUSHED \n— OR WE WORKED WITH THEM TO \nENSURE THAT AS MUCH OF THAT \nSHORELINE BAND BE DEDICATED \nPUBLIC ACCESS AS POSSIBLE. IT \nWAS SOMETHING THEY WERE ABLE TO \nACCOMMODATE BASED ON THEIR \nPROJECT. FOR THIS ONE — AND \nYOU CAN SEE PRETTY MUCH\, LIKE\, \nWHERE THAT GREEN SPACE ENDS. \nPART OF THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING \nDOES CROSS OVER INTO THE SHORE \nLINER BAND\, BUT THAT PRETTY MUCH \nCORRESPONDS TO THE SHORELINE \nBAND. SO IF YOU CONTINUE ACROSS \nON TO THIS SITE YOU CAN SEE THAT \nPRETTY MUCH CUTS THIS SITE IN \nAND A HALF. AND SO\, I THINK\, IN \nTERMS OF FEASIBILITY\, THAT’S \nMORE FOR THE PROJECT PROPONENT \nTO SPEAK TO THE DETAILS OF \nTHAT. \nBUT YOU KNOW\, THE QUESTION IS\, \nLIKE\, FOR A PROJECT TO MOVE \nFORWARD\, WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THAT \nTHEY’RE ABLE TO PROVIDE\, AND IN \nTHIS CASE\, YOU KNOW\, WE DID DO A \nCOMPARISON WITH SOME OTHER \nPROJECTS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND IT — IT’S IN \nTHE BALLPARK OF PERCENTAGES OF \nTHE SITE\, BUT OF COURSE THAT IS \nTHE QUESTION BEFORE THE \nCOMMISSION. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: DO WE HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT? I KNOW WE HAVE \n100 FEET BCDC JURISDICTION BUT \nDO WE HAVE A MINIMUM AMOUNT THAT \nHAS TO BE GIVEN TO PUBLIC \nACCESS? BECAUSE HERE\, THE 100 \nLINE\, THERE IS ANOTHER ONE\, I \nTHINK IT WAS THE SECOND TO LAST \nLINE THAT HAS THE BCDC \nJURISDICTION LINE WHICH IS RIGHT \nWHERE — I BELIEVE IS RIGHT \nWHERE THE HOMES\, I THINK THIS IS \nTHE PURPLE LINE IS THE BCDC \nDINE? SO\, IT’S PRETTY — LIKE \nYOU WERE SAYING IT’S PRETTY MUCH \nHALF OF THE PROPERTY. SO\, FOR \nCONSISTENCY PURPOSES\, AND I’M \nSURE THIS WON’T BE THE ONLY \nPROPERTY THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE \nREVIEWING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF \nYEARS\, BECAUSE WE NEED MORE \nHOUSING\, WHAT IS THE MINIMUM \nREQUIREMENT WITHIN THE 100 \nFEET? \nAND IS IT BASED ON WHAT THEY’RE \nTELLING US THAT THEY CAN GIVE \nUS? OR BASED ON A NUMBER THAT \nWE HAVE THAT SAYS\, IN OUR 100 \nFEET\, WE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF \nX? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO NOT HAVE A \nMINIMUM AMOUNT\, WHETHER THAT’S \nIN TOTAL ACREAGE OR SQUARE \nFOOTAGE OR PERCENTAGE OF A SITE \nTHAT’S REQUIRED BY A LAW OR \nPOLICY TO BE DEDICATED OR \nIMPROVED AS PUBLIC ACCESS. IN \nTHE STAFF REPORT\, YOU KNOW\, THIS \nIS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE \nTAKE SUCH GREAT PAINS WITH THAT \nSECTION OF FINDINGS\, TO GO \nTHROUGH WITH COMPARISONS WITH \nPAST COMMISSION DECISIONS AND \nTHEN LOOKING AT OF COURSE THE \nWAY THAT THAT PUBLIC ACCESS AREA \nIS ACTUALLY PRESENTED AND \nIMPROVED\, LIKE HOW USEABLE IS T \nWHAT ACTUAL BENEFITS IS IT \nPROVIDING WHAT’S CONNECTSTIVITY\, \nHOW ACCESSIBLE IS IT\, ALL OF \nTHOSE ASPECTS ARE\, SORT OF\, \nDETAILED IN OUR POLICY. YOU \nKNOW\, WE DO WANT PUBLIC ACCESS \nTO BE USABLE WE WANT IT TO BE \nACCESSIBLE\, WE WANT IT TO SERVE\, \nLIKE\, YOU KNOW\, A WIDE RANGE OF \nPOPULATIONS\, ET CETERA. SO \nTHOSE ARE THE SORTS OF THINGS \nTHAT WE LOOK AT OR THAT WE \nLOOKED AT IN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. BUT AS FOR THE \nACTUAL AMOUNT\, THAT’S ONE OF THE \nTHINGS THAT THE POLICIES AND \nLAWS DON’T PROVIDE. THAT’S — \nTHAT IS\, LIKE\, THE DISCRETIONARY \nPART OF THIS APPROVAL. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. AND \nDO WE HAPPEN TO KNOW\, OUT OF ALL \nTHE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE \nAPPROVED IN THE PAST\, WHICH ONE \nIS THE ONE THAT HAS THE LEAST \nAMOUNT OF PUBLIC ACCESS? THIS \nONE HAS A 14 FOOT TRAIL. DO WE \nKNOW IF WE HAVE ANY WITH LESS? \nJUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT \nBECAUSE WITH EVERY VOTE WE SET \nNEW PRECEDENCE AND I WANT TO \nKNOW HOW WE’RE SETTING IT. \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, WITHOUT TAKING \nTHE SLIDE DOWN AND\, SORT OF\, \nOPENING UP THE STAFF RACK\, I \nCOULDN’T TELL YOU SPECIFICALLY\, \nBUT I — WHAT CHRIS WAS SAYING \nABOUT THE BLUE HARBOR \nDEVELOPMENT\, FOR EXAMPLE\, YOU \nKNOW\, THAT TRAIL IS SMALLER. \nINITIALLY\, I THINK THIS PROJECT \nCAME IN WITH A SIMILARLY\, SORT \nOF\, NARROW TRAIL AREA THAT ENDED \nUP BECOMING EXPANDED AS WE \nTALKED THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH \nTHEM. OR AS THEY MADE THEIR WAY \nTHROUGH THE PROCESS. SO\, THERE \nARE\, CERTAINLY\, PROJECTS WITHIN \nTHE COMMISSION’S JURISDICTION \nWITH LESS PUBLIC ACCESS \n[LAUGHTER] \nBUT I WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO \nIMMEDIATELY POINT THOSE OUT TO \nYOU\, AND I WOULDN’T NECESSARILY \n— YOU KNOW\, EVERY PROJECT \nSHOULD BE KIND OF CONSIDERED ON \nITS OWN MERIT\, AND SO THAT’S\, \nSORT OF\, THE OTHER REASON WHY \nTHE COMPARISON IS DIFFICULT. \nBECAUSE YOU DO JUST — JUST \nBECAUSE ANOTHER PROJECT HAS LESS \nDOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT \nTHIS IS BETTER. IT IS LIKE\, A \nPROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS. KIND \nOF ENCOURAGE TO YOU LOOK AT IT \nTHAT WAY. \n>>JEFF SMITH: CAN I ADD ANOTHER \nPIECE OF INFORMATION THIS IS \nJEFF SMITH THE APPLICANT WITH \nREGIS. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: GO \nAHEAD. \n>>SPEAKER: TWO PIECES OF \nINFORMATION IF YOU COULD GO BACK \nTO THE SLIDE THAT KIND OF SHOWS \nTHE GENERAL AREA. AND I KNOW \nTHIS BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY \nCLOSELY WITH 557 ON THEIR \nDESIGN. IN FACT WE HAVE THE \nSAME CIVIL ENGINEER THE SAME \nLANDSCAPE ENGINEER\, WE HAVE THE \nSAME ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS \nAND WE KNOW THE ARCHITECT. THE \n557 PROPERTY\, IF YOU REMEMBER \nBACK\, IT WAS THE OLD THEATRE\, \nAND WHEN THEY BUILT THAT \nTHEATRE\, THEY ACTUALLY GAVE BCDC \nAN EAST EASEMENT\, A 50 \nFOOD EASEMENT BACK IN THE DAY \nIT’S OVER 50 YEARS OLD THAT WAS \nTHE PRIMARY REASON THEY DECIDED \nTO ORIENTED SITE AS THEY DID \nTHAT’S WHY THIS SITE LOOKS \nDIFFERENT IN ADDITION TO THE \nFACT THAT IT’S SEVEN TIMES \nBIGGER. I WANT TO ALSO POINT \nOUT THE BLUE HARBOR PROJECT \nWHICH WAS IN THE UPPER RIGHT \nHAND CORNER WHICH DOES HAVE A \nBCDC PERMIT WITH A SMALL WALK. \nWE DID PUSH OUR BUILDINGS BACK \nTO MAINTAIN THE DESIRED WALKWAY \nAND SET BACK THAT BCDC STAFF \nASKED US TO THAT GIVES CONTEXT \nOF THE THREE PROJECTS IN THE \nAREA. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU. MY \nLAST YE IS DO WE REQUIRE SOME \nKIND OF SIGNAGE THAT SAYS THIS \nIS PUBLIC ACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: WE DO. SO\, THAT IS \nPART OF THE\, YOU KNOW\, MAKING IT \nUSEABLE\, MAKING IT WELCOMING\, SO \nTHERE IS WITHIN THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AT LEAST SOME \nREQUIREMENTS AROUND WAYFINDING \nAND SIGNAGE.   AND THERE IS \nKIND OF A STANDARD PUBLIC SHORE \nACCESS SIGN THAT YOU SEE AROUND \nTHE BAY AREA. AND THAT’S\, SORT \nOF\, LIKE I CAN’T BRANDING THAT \nWE REQUIRE. \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: THANK YOU SO \nMUCH. NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: CAN \nI HAVE THE FULL SCREEN BACK\, \nPLEASE? THANK YOU. \nI DON’T SEE ANY OTHER \nQUESTIONS. \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: THANK YOU CHAIR \nWASSERMAN. SO\, I UNDERSTAND \nWHERE THE 100 FEET PUTS IT \nWITHIN THE PROJECT\, BUT ARE WE \nSTARTING AT THE SLOUGH\, OR ARE \nWE STARTING AT THE DITCH? WHEN \nWE MEASURE OUT THE 100 FEET? \n248 STARTS AT THE DITCH. SO\, \nTHAT TIDAL DITCH\, IT’S \nTIDALLY INFLUENCED SO THIS IS \nSOMETHING WE DISCUSSED WITH THE \n557 APPLICANT BUT THE BAY TIDAL \nINFLUENCED THE WATER BODY AND \nALSO BECAUSE THERE IS MARSH \nVEGETATION WITHIN THE DITCH \nTHAT\, SORT OF\, CHANGES LIKE HOW \nWE WOULD NORMALLY SAY THE BAY \nSHORELINE IS MEAN HIGH WATER BUT \nIN THE AREAS OF TIDAL MARSH IT \nMAKES IT EDGE EVER TIDAL MARSH \nUP TO FIVE FEET ABOVE MEANS SEA \nLEVEL SO THAT’S THE LINE THAT \nTHEY’RE GOING FROM AS BAY \nSHORELINE THAT’S MARSH \nVEGETATION FIVE FEET ABOVE SEA \nLEVEL MARK. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: IT’S \nINTERESTING IT’S CALLED A DITCH \nI ASSUME AT ONE POINT IT WAS \nCALLED A DRAINAGE DITCH WHEN IT \nWAS ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES \nTHEN IT BECAME PART OF THE MARSH \nOVER TIME BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T \nMAINTAIN THE DITCH AND THE FLOW \nOF WATER OFFSITE. \n>>SPEAKER: YEAH. MY \nUNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS \nONCE WAS A TIDAL GATE IN THAT \nAREA BUT AT SOME POINT IN THE \nPAST IT MALFUNCTIONED AND \nACCORDING TO OUR REGULATIONS\, IT \nTURNED THAT AREA BACK INTO BAY. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: OKAY. THANK \nYOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nJEFF\, DID YOU WANT TO SAY \nSOMETHING? \n>>SPEAKER: JEFF SMITH: JUST \nFOR CONTEXT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE \nBEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SO LONG \nAND JUST A BIT OF HISTORY THAT’S \nEXACTLY THE CASE COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO THERE IS ONE SMALL PIPE \n12 INCH PIPE THAT CONNECTS THE \nDITCH TO THE SLOUGH IT WASN’T A \nDRAINAGE DITCH AND ALLOWED WATER \nTO GO OUT IT DID NOT ALLOW WATER \nTO GET BACK IN AND UNFORTUNATELY \nAT SOME POINT SOMEONE FAILED TO \nMAINTAIN THAT AND MADE \nCONNECTION BUT IF YOU HAVE TO GO \nBACK OUT TO THE SLOUGH IT WOULD \nMOVE THE LINE NORTH 60 TO 70 \nFEET THAT WAS INITIAL DISCUSSION \nWE SAID RATHER THAN FIGHT OVER \nTHE LINE LET’S WORK TOGETHER \nTHAT WAS SIX YEARS AGO\, WORKING \nWITH THE CITY AND BCDC STAFF AND \nTHEN THE COMMISSION SO \nAPPRECIATE THAT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: I HAVE ONE \nFOLLOW-UP QUESTION\, SINCE THE \nARGUMENT IS IT’S SUCH A \nRELATIVELY NARROW PARCEL OR \nSMALL PARCEL\, SO JUST GOING BACK \nTO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE \nHISTORY OF THE PARCEL WAS OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, BUT I MEAN\, \nWHEN IF IT WAS SUBDIVIDED\, OR \nWHEN IT WAS SOLD\, I MEAN\, IT WAS \nSOLD WITH THAT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTION LINE IN MIND. IS \nTHAT CORRECT? OR IS THAT \nSOMETHING THAT BCDC HAS\, OR THE \nCITY WOULD HAVE ANY — GIVES ANY \nCONSIDERATION TO? \n>>SPEAKER: WOULD YOU MIND \nREPHRASING THAT QUESTION. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: JUST KIND \nOF LOOKING AT THE VIABILITY OF \nTHAT PARCEL AS COMMERCIAL PARCEL \nFOR EITHER HOUSING OR COMMERCIAL \nUSE AND IF YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THERE \nIS THAT IMPORTANT 100 FOOT \nJURISDICTIONAL AREA\, WOULD THEY \nHAVE SUBDIVIDED IT WITH — OR \nSOLD IT WITH THAT FULL \nUNDERSTANDING? \nI MEAN\, IF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT \nIT IS THAT THE PEARLS IS TOO \nNARROW TO GIVE THE FULL \nCONSIDERATION FOR PUBLIC \nACCESS? \n>>SPEAKER: SO\, THAT HISTORY IS \nNOT SOMETHING THAT I’M AWARE \nOF. \nI WILL SAY OUR JURISDICTION HAS \nHAD THE SAME DESCRIPTION SINCE \nTHE MCATEER-PETRIS ACT WAS \nPASSED\, AND\, SO\, ANYONE DOING \nDUE DILIGENCE ON PROPERTY ALONG \nTHE BAY FRONT SHOULD BECOME \nAWARE THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS \nSUBJECT TO BCDC PERMITTING \nAUTHORITY. WHAT I WILL SAY\, \nTHOUGH\, JUST TO GIVE WHOEVER \nORIGINALLY SUBDIVIDE THAT AREA\, \nTHE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT\, YOU \nKNOW\, AS JEFF WAS SAYING AT SOME \nPOINT\, THAT AREA ACTUALLY WENT \nSUBJECT TO BCDC JURISDICTION THE \nSAME WAY BECAUSE THAT DITCH \nDIDN’T — WASN’T ALWAYS PART OF \nOUR BAY JURISDICTION. \n>>SPEAKER: COMMISSIONERS\, I \nTHINK I WANT TO BE REALLY \nCLEAR. \nOUR JURISDICTION HERE IS MAXIMAL \n— MAXIMUM PUBLIC — MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS IN OUR \nSHORELINE BAND. THAT’S WHAT \nWE’RE — \n>>SPEAKER: CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT. \n>>SPEAKER: YES CONSISTENT WITH \nTHE PROJECT. STAFF DOES A \nPROCESS\, THEY GO LOOK AT THE \nPROJECT AND THEY DETERMINE WHAT \nIS MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS. THAT’S WHAT WE’RE \nCALLED UPON TO DO HERE. THERE \nIS NO 100 FOOT SET BACK. THAT \nIS A MISNOMER THAT. IS \nNOTHING. \nIT DOES NOT EXIST. SO WHEN \nPEOPLE BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY \nTHAT IN OUR SHORELINE BAND\, IT’S \nNOT THAT THEY EXPECT TO MOVE THE \nPROPERTY 100 FEET OFF THAT. IS \nNOT — THIS IS NOT AN EASEMENT \nFOR PUBLIC ACCESS. WHAT WE DO \nIS WE DETERMINE WHAT IS MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT THAT \nIS THERE. THAT’S — AND I WANT \nTO BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT \nBECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE’RE \nGETTING OFF ON A TANGENT HERE \nAND MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THE \nPROCESS IS. THE PROCESS IS \nSIMPLY\, IS THIS THE MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS GIVEN \nWITH THIS PROJECT\, GIVEN THE \nCONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE. WE’RE \nGIVEN A PARTICULAR SITE\, DECIDE \nWHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE \nSITE HOW DO YOU PROVIDE MAC MUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS THERE ARE \nMANY PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME \nBEFORE BCDC AND A LOT OF THOSE \nARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECTS \nSO IF SOMEONE HAS A \nSINGLE-FAMILY HOME PROJECT WE \nSAY WHAT’S THE MAXIMUM FEASIBLE \nPUBLIC ACCESS WHICH MAY BE ZERO \nWITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME \nBECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT PEOPLE \nWANDERING INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY \nHOME SO THERE IS NO PUBLIC \nACCESS IN THE SHORELINE BAND ON \nTHAT OR IT MAY HAPPEN THERE MAY \nBE ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOME \nSTAIRS DOWN THERE OR SOMETHING \nWE LOOK AT EACH PROJECT AND MAKE \nCASE BY CASE DETERMINATION AND \nFROM IS NO SET BACK IT JUST \nDOESN’T EXIST AS A CONCEPT \nWITHIN OUR REGULATIONS I THINK \nIT’S IMPORTANT THAT WE \nUNDERSTAND THAT THE COMMISSION \nCAN APPROVE OR DENY THE PROJECT \nBUT IT’S GOT TO BE BASED ON \nMAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS \nAND STAFF HAS PROVIDED \nCONSISTENT WITH THE PROJECT — \nYES LARRY KEEPS \nSAY CONSISTENT WITH THE \nPROJECT\, HE’S CORRECT WE LOOK AT \nTHE PROJECT\, LOOK AT THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND SAY HAS THE \nAPPLICANT PROVIDED MAXIMUM \nFEASIBLE PUBLIC ACCESS. \nSTAFF BELIEVES THEY HAVE GIVEN \nTHE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROJECT \nTHE QUESTION IS\, DO YOU THINK \nTHEY HAVE\, AND THAT’S WHAT \nYOU’RE VOTING O REALLY NOTHING \nELSE. I MEAN\, THE CITY OF \nREDWOOD CITY HAS GONE INTO THE \nOTHER ISSUES\, YOU KNOW\, THAT’S \nOUR JURISDICTION\, THAT’S OUR JOB \nTODAY. \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. I — \nOKAY\, POINT TAKEN. I UNDERSTAND \nTHAT. YEAH\, ARE THE ONLY POINT \nI WOULD MAKE IS \nPERHAPS BEYOND TODAY A \nDISCUSSION IS WHEN IN THE LONGER \nTERM WHEN CITIES DO LOOK AT \nZONING FOR AREAS ALONG THE \nSHORELINE AS WE HOPE THAT THEY \nALLOW\, YOU KNOW\, ZONE WITH — \nWITH SEA LEVEL RISE\, ET CETERA\, \nIN — AS ONE OF THE \nCONSIDERATIONS. SO\, THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nHAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND A \nREQUEST/SUGGESTION. I WANT TO \nREEMPHASIZE WHAT GREG SAID. THE \n100 FEET SHORELINE BAND IS \nWITHIN OUR JURISDICTION UNDER \nSTATE LAW\, UNDER THE \nMCATEER-PETRIS ACT FOR PURPOSES \nOF MAXIMUM FEASIBLE PUBLIC \nACCESS WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF \nTHE PROJECT. THERE IS A \nSEPARATE OVERLYING PIECE\, WHICH \nI THINK WE WILL GET TO IN THE \nFUTURE\, COMING FROM OUR \nGUIDELINES TO JURISDICTIONS \nUNDER SB272 OF HOW TO RESPOND\, \nTHAT MAY HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE \nACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 100 \nSHORELINE. BUT THE PRIMARY \nJURISDICTION OVER WHAT GOES \nTHERE\, ACCEPT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS \nIS UP TO LOCAL JURISDICTION NOT \nTHIS AGENCY. \nMY SUGGESTION REQUEST IS \nWHETHER WE CAN HAVE A CONDITION \nTHAT THE — THAT THE CONDITIONS \nIN THE EXISTENCE OF PERMIT IS \nRECORDED. \nWE HAVE HAD OCCASIONAL \nDISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS THERE IS \nA CONDITION HOMEOWNERS BE GIVEN \nNOTICE BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE \nWAY DO THAT NOTICE IS RECORDING \nTHE PERMIT SO THAT SHOWS UP IN \nTHE RECORD AND IT’S PARTICULARLY \nOUT FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH IS \nFOR SALE PROJECT SO THAT THE \nINDIVIDUAL OWNERS AND SUCCESSORS \nAND BUYERS WOULD THEN CLEARLY \nHAVE NOTICED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE \nIN THE RECORD AND TITLE REPORT I \nPOSE THAT TO STAFF AND THEN \nASSUMING THAT’S OKAY WE’LL POSE \nTO SEE WHETHER IT’S ACCEPTABLE \nTO THE APPLICANT \n>>SPEAKER: QUICKLY THERE IS \nALREADY ONE CONDITION WITHIN THE \nPERMIT SO IT’S IN ADDITION TO \nTHE NOTICE TO BUYERS ANY TIME WE \nHAVE DEDICATION CONDITION WITHIN \nA PERMIT IT’S TYPICAL WHERE WE \nWOULD REQUIRE RECORDING AS WELL \nTHE TIMING ON THIS ONE IS \nSLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THAT IT’S \nREQUIRED AT THE TIME OF CLOSE OF \nSALE OF THE PROPERTY. \n>>KATHARINE PAN: BECAUSE THE \nPERMITTEE CURRENTLY DOES NOT \nACTUAL LE OWN THE PROPERTY\, THEY \nHAVE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE. BUT \nIT IS IN THERE THAT AT THAT \nTIME\, WHEN THEY’RE READY TO MOVE \nFORWARD WITH THE PROJECT\, THAT \nIT WILL BE RECORDED. \nI THINK AT THIS POINT IT’S NOT. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: NO\, \nYEAH\, I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT \nUNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES\, YOU \nCAN’T RECORD THE PERMIT UNTIL IT \nCOMES INTO THE APPLICANT’S HANDS \nTHAT\, MAKES PERFECT SENSE. I \nJUST WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF IS \nSATISFIED THAT WE’RE FULLY \nPROTECTED. NO DISRESPECT AT ALL \nTO THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WILL \nBE DONE. SO\, IT’S THERE. \nTHAT’S FINE. I’M SATISFIED. \n>>LARRY GOLDZBAND: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A \nSECOND. CAN I PLEASE ASK ALL \nCOMMISSIONERS TO TURN ON YOUR \nCAMERAS\, ALL COMMISSIONERS ON \nTHE CAMERA AT ALL TIMES WE NEED \nTO MAKE SURE WE’RE KEEPING \nQUORUM AND THE ONLY WAY WE CAN \nTELL IS IF WE CAN SEE YOU. \nTHANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: IF \nTHERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS THEN \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION\, PLEASE. \nOH I’M SORRY. WE DID CLOSE THE \nPUBLIC HEARING\, DIDN’T WE? \nTHANK YOU. STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION\, \nPLEASE. \n>>SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. SO THIS \nSTAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS MAILED \nTO YOU ON MAY 10TH\, 2024. IN \nHERE I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A \nMOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THAT A LOT \nOF THE HARD WORK ON THE STAFF \nANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION WAS \nACTUALLY COMPLETED BY JESSICA \nFINKEL ONE OF OUR EXCELLENT \nPERMIT ANALYSTS WHO RECENTLY \nWENT ON PLAN LEAVE AND SO \nCOULDN’T BE HERE TO PRESENT THE \nITEM TO YOU TODAY I WANT TO \nPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR HER \nEFFORTS BECAUSE IT MADE IT \nPOSSIBLE FOR US TO CARRY IT THE \nREST OF THE WAY. WITH THAT \nSTAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE \nCOMMISSION APPROVE THE PERMIT \nAPPLICATION WITH SEVERAL \nCONDITIONS AMONG THEM ARE \nDEDICATION OF THE ON-SITE PUBLIC \nACCESS AREAS AND IMPROVEMENTS \nWITHIN THE TOTAL PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREA INCLUDING IN THE CALTRANS \nREDWOOD CITY RIGHTS OF WAY \nPRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PROCESS \nENSURING FEASIBILITY AND \nCONSISTENCY OF FINAL DESIGN \nSUBMITTING PROPERTY INTERESTS \nFOR WORK ON LANDS THAT ARE NOT \nCURRENTLY OWNED BY PERMITTEE \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK \nSUBMITTING APPLICABLE WATER \nQUALITY CERTIFICATIONS OR WASTE \nCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE \nWATER BOARD PRIOR TO BEGINNING \nWORK DOCUMENTING COMPLETION OF \nON-SITE AND OFFSITE REMEDIATION \nPRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK ON \nINHABITABLE SPACES MEASURES TO \nPROTECT BAY RESOURCES \nCOMPENSATORY MITIGATION FOR THE \nHABITAT IMPACTS OF NEW BAY FILL\, \nMONITORING AND ADAPTATION \nPLANNING TO ENSURE CONTINUED \nVIABILITY PUBLIC ACCESS NOTICING \nFUTURE HOME BUYERS ABOUT \nRESPONSIBILITIES UNDER PERMIT \nINCLUDING REQUIREMENTS TO \nMAINTAINS ADAPT PUBLIC ACCESS \nAREAS STAFF CONSISTENT WITH THE \nCOMMISSIONS LAWS AND POLICIES \nRECOMMENDS THAT YOU ADOPT \nRECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTAKE DOWN THE SLIDE SO YOU CAN \nSEE THE SCREEN PLEASE. IS THERE \nA MOTION? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE THE \nSTAFF — \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I’M \nRECOGNIZING COMMISSIONER \nADDIEGO. \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: I WOULD LIKE TO \nMOVE APPROVAL OF THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION PATTED PAT EKLUND \nI’LL SECOND. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nECKLUND SECONDS. IF THERE ARE \nNO FURTHER QUESTIONS SIERRA \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GILMORE? \n>>MARIE GILMORE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KIMBAL? \n>>SPEAKER: ABSTAIN. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: IT’S A \nTOUGH ONE\, BUT\, YES\, I GUESS SO. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: I HAVE A \nTOTAL OF 14 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND \nONE ABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: THE \nMOTION PASSES. THANKS ALL OF \nYOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK \nAND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION \nFOR THE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS. \nTHAT BRINGS US TO ITEM TEN\, WE \nWILL RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND \nCONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING OUR \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG BCDC AND THE MEMBER \nAGENCIES OF THE BAY AREA \nREGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, BARC. \nTHE PURPOSE OF THE MOU IS TO \nCOORDINATE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \nJESSICA FAIN OUR PLANNING \nDIRECTOR WILL INTRODUCE THE \nISSUE THEN INTRODUCE ALLISON \nBROOKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE \nLEADER OF THIS EFFORT TO DRAFT \nAND ADOPT THE MOU. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: GOOD AFTERNOON \nCHAIR WASSERMAN AND GOOD \nAFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS I’M \nPLEASED TO BE HERE AT THE END OF \nTODAY’S MEETING WITH YOU TO \nPRESENT AND SEEK YOUR \nAUTHORIZATION FOR OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO AN \nINTER-AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF \nUNDERSTANDING ON FLOODING AND \nSEA LEVEL RISE. I’M JOINED \nTODAY BY ALLISON BROOKS THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE WHO \nHAS HELPED SPEARHEAD THIS EFFORT \nAND WHO IS GOING TO BE \nCOPRESENTING WITH ME TODAY. SO \nIF SOMEONE CAN PULL UP THE \nPRESENTATION\, WE CAN GET GOING. \nTHANK YOU. SO\, THE COMMISSION \nIS WELL AWARE THAT SEA LEVEL \nRISE IS HAPPENING AND THAT AS A \nREGION IT WILL FUNDAMENTALLY \nCHANGE THE WAY THAT WE WILL \nLIVE\, WORK\, AND RECREATE ALONG \nOUR BAY SHORELINE. NEXT SLIDE \nPLEASE. IT WILL ALSO COST A LOT \nOF MONEY. HERE IS A SLIDE FROM \nA RECENT REPORT THAT BCDC AND \nMTC ABAG RELEASED LAST SUMMER \nTHAT MAPS OUT THE $110 BILLION \nTHAT IS ESTIMATED\, THAT IT WILL \nCOST THE REGION TO ADAPT TO \nRISING SEA LEVEL BY \nMID-CENTURY. \nAND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS $110 \nBILLION ESTIMATE\, ABOUT HALF \nTHOSE COSTS ARE BASED ON WHAT WE \nKNOW OR OUR PLANNED PROJECTS\, IF \nYOU LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE RIGHT \nTHOSE ARE THE BLUE SPACES AS \nWELL AS WHAT WE CALL PLACE \nHOLDER PROJECTS GREEN LINES \nWHERE NO PROJECT EXISTS BUT WE \nKNOW SOMETHING WILL HAVE TO \nHAPPEN THERE. WHILE THIS IS A \nLOT OF MONEY IT APPEALS IN \nCOMPARISON TO THE ESTIMATED $231 \nBILLION IN \nANTICIPATED DAMAGES SHOULD WE \nDO NOTHING. \n$230 BILLION ARE BASED ON \nACCESSED PROPERTY VALUES AS WELL \nAS TRANSPORTATION ASSETS. THE \nREPORT INDICATED THERE IS \nCONSIDERABLE UNEVENNESS ACROSS \nTHE REGION IN TERMS OF PROJECT \nTYPES HOW FAR ALONG PLACES ARE \nAS WELL AS ABILITY OF LOCAL \nGOVERNMENTS AND OTHER PLACES TO \nRAISE FUNDS THERE ARE EQUITY \nIMPLICATIONS TO THIS WORK AS WE \nLOOK ACROSS THIS REGION TO TRY \nTO ADAPT AS A REGION. \nADDITIONALLY IT’S WORTH NOTING \nTHERE IS A WIDE RANGE OF \nACTIVITIES THAT ARE NEEDED BOTH \nTHE RESTORATION OF OUR BAY \nWETLANDS\, AND OTHER NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES. BUT WE ALSO KNOW \nTHAT A VARIETY OF GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES ARE \nNEEDED IN OTHER PLACES. SO \nWHILE A LOT OF THE WORK THAT A \nLOT OF OUR REGIONAL AND STATE \nAGENCIES ARE FOCUSED ON NOW \nACCELERATING NATURE-BASED \nSTRATEGIES THERE IS NOT A \nSIMILAR ANALOG FOR GRAY \nINFRASTRUCTURE WHERE \nNATURE-BASED STRATEGIES ARE NOT \nFEASIBLE AND BOTH OF THESE TYPES \nOF SOLUTIONS ARE REQUIRED. NEXT \nSLIDE PLEASE. \nSO THIS REPORT AS WELL AS BCDC’S \nWORK THROUGH OUR BAY ADAPT \nPROGRAM HAVE REALLY IDENTIFIED \nTHE NEED TO NOT JUST IDENTIFY \nTHIS BIG FUNDING GAP\, BUT THAT \nWE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO \nIDENTIFY HOW WE CAN IDENTIFY \nLEADS WHO CAN SPEARHEAD AND HELP \nFILL THE GAPS WITH SOME OF THESE \nFUNDING HOLES. THE BAY ADAPT \nJOINT PLATFORM FOR EXAMPLE\, \nCALLS FOR A REVENUE GENERATION \nAND DISTRIBUTION PLAN AND \nACCOMPANYING GOVERNANCE \nSTRUCTURE TO RAISE AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDS AND THIS REPORT \nWE RELEASED LAST YEAR LIKEWISE \nCALLS FOR ESTABLISHING AND \nDEVELOPING BETTER LEAD ROLES FOR \nORGANIZING HOW WE FUND THIS \nWORK. THE BAY AREA REGIONAL \nCOLLABORATION HAVE ROLLED UP \nTHEIR SLEEVES TO DEVELOP THE SEA \nLEVEL RISE MOU IT IS ATTACHED IN \nYOUR MEETING PACKAGE TODAY\, \nATTACHMENT A\, AND I’LL TURN IT \nOVER TO ALLISON TO TALK US \nTHROUGH IT. \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: THANKS \nJESSICA\, AND THANKS FOR HAVING \nME HERE TODAY. I CAN SIT DOWN? \n[LAUGHTER] \nGREAT. THANKS JESSICA. IT’S \nGREAT TO BE WITH YOU TODAY \nCOMMISSIONERS. NEXT SLIDE. A \nQUICK RECAP OF WHAT IS THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATION. IT \nWAS CREATED THROUGH STATE \nSTATUTE. WE HAVE FOUR MEMBER \nAGENCIES WRITTEN INTO THE \nLEGISLATION. THE TOP $4\, \nINCLUDING BCDC\, AND THEN WE HAVE \nTHE EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THREE \nAGENCIES THAT PARTICIPATE \nREGULARLY IN OUR EFFORTS\, AND \nTHEY ARE SIGNATORIES OF THIS \nMOU\, AS WELL. AND THEY’RE ALL \n— WE’RE MAKING OUR WAY THROUGH \nGETTING THEIR APPROVAL\, EACH \nAGENCY’S APPROVAL TO HAVE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS \nSIGN THE MOU. EACH ARE KIND OF \nAPPROACHING IT IN THEIR OWN WAY\, \nBUT YOU’RE THE FIRST ONE TO \nBRING — YOU’RE THE FIRST ENTITY \nTHAT WE’RE BRINGING IT FORWARD \nTO\, SO THAT’S EXCITING. NEXT \nSLIDE\, PLEASE. \nSO\, WHAT IS — WHAT’S IN THE \nMOU? WHAT IS THE MOU\, IF YOU \nHAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO POUR \nOVER IT QUITE YET\, WELL\, ITS \nPURPOSE IS TO ALIGN EFFORTS \nEXPERTISE AND CORE FUNCTIONS \nACROSS THOSE SEVEN AGENCIES TO \nACCOMPLISH SOME KEY GOALS\, \nACCELERATE PROJECT \nIMPLEMENTATION\, INCREASE THE BAY \nAREA’S COMPETITIVENESS FOR \nFUNDING SO HOW CAN WE WORK \nTOGETHER TO GO AFTER \nINCREASINGLY MORE SCARCE \nRESOURCES AT THE STATE LEVEL AND \nAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO SUPPORT \nSOME OF OUR BIG ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD \nAROUND THE REGION. ANOTHER GOAL \nIS TO ESTABLISH STRUCTURES \nCOORDINATION AND PROJECT \nPRIORITIZATION\, SUPPORT \nMULTI-JURISDICTIONAL \nPARTNERSHIPS\, AND SUPPORT CITIES \nAND COUNTIES\, AND WORK WITH YOU \nALL TO EXPAND YOUR CAPACITY TO \nFUND AND IMPLEMENT ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL\, \nBECAUSE WE KNOW THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD. \nSO\, I’LL QUICKLY GIVE A BRIEF \nSUMMARY OF EACH OF THE FIVE \nTOPIC AREAS WHICH YOU’RE SEEING \nON THE SLIDE HERE THAT ARE \nCOVERED IN THE MOU\, THESE CORE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS WHERE WE HAVE \nIDENTIFIED LEADS WHERE\, AS MUCH \nAS POSSIBLE. SO\, ON THE \nPLANNING SIDE\, PREPARING FOR SEA \nLEVEL RISE AND FLOODING RISK\, \nTHAT FOCUSES ON PLANS\, POLICIES \nAND PROJECT PRIORITIES TO FOSTER \nAN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT FOR WIDE \nSCALE ADVANCEMENT OF EQUITABLE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECTS. THE FIRST MAIN ITEMS \nINCLUDED IN THAT ARE BCDC \nDEVELOPING YOUR REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN FOR \nSENATE BILL 272\, WHICH IS OFF \nAND RUNNING\, AND THE SECOND IS \nTO DEVELOP A SEA LEVEL RISE \nFUNDING AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY \nTHAT’S BEEN GOING TO BE LED BY \nBCDC AND MTC ABAG TO REALLY \nPRIORITIZE PROJECTS AND FUNDING \nSTRATEGIES WHICH WILL THEN BE \nINCLUDED IN PLANNED BAY AREA. \nSO\, WE HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES \nWORKING TOGETHER OVER THE YEARS \nTO REALLY START TO INTEGRATE \nTHESE EFFORTS AND I THINK IT’S \nSHOWING UP HERE REALLY NICELY. \nON THE FUND MANAGEMENT SIDE\, IT \nDESCRIBES HOW THE AGENCIES WILL \nCOLLABORATE TO SEEK\, SECURE\, AND \nDISTRIBUTE FUNDING TO SUPPORT \nTHE DELIVERY OF PROJECTS THAT WE \nHAVE IDENTIFIED THE STATE \nCOASTAL CONSERVANCY IS THE LEAD \nFOR FUNDING PROPOSALS TO FEDERAL \nAGENCIES\, THE STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY WITH BARC WILL TRACK \nWITH STAFF AND COORDINATE \nFUNDING PROPOSALS AND THERE ARE \nROLES IN THERE FOR SAN FRANCISCO \nESTUARY PARTNERSHIP\, MTC AND \nABAG AND CALTRANS TO RAISE \nFUNDS\, ALIGN AND DISTRIBUTE \nFUNDING\, AS WELL AS COORDINATE \nON LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY AND \nREGIONAL FUNDING MEASURES. THIS \nSECTION ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE \nFOCUSES ON HOW REGIONAL AGENCIES \nCAN BEST SUPPORT PROJECT \nDEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY THROUGH \nA REGIONAL TA PROGRAM. THIS IS \nINTENDED TO AUGMENT THE CAPACITY \nOF LOCAL GOVERNMENT\, SPECIAL \nDISTRICTS AND LOCAL \nORGANIZATIONS. OF COURSE\, \nREALLY BRINGING THIS TO THE \nSCALE\, I THINK WE ALL WOULD \nBENEFIT FROM AND REALLY WHAT WE \nNEED IS \nGOING TO NEED IS MORE FUNDING. \nTHERE IS A LOT TO START WITH AND \nMANY INVOLVED IN THIS SPACE \nWE’RE WORKING TOGETHER TO FOCUS \nON HOW WE CAN ORGANIZE OURSELVES \nAND POTENTIALLY EXPAND AND MEET \nTHE NEEDS OF THE REGION \nPROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. \nTHE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT SECTION \nIS FAIRLY SHORT BUT WE COMMIT \nTHE AGENCIES TO WORK TOGETHER \nAND WITH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY \nTO CONTINUALLY IMPROVE THE \nPERMITTING PROCESS TO FACILITATE \nMULTI-BENEFIT CLIMATE ADAPTATION \nPROJECT DELIVERY WHILE \nMAINTAINING IMPORTANT \nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS\, AND \nFINALLY THE COORDINATION SECTION \nFOR COLLABORATIVE \nDECISION-MAKING DESCRIBES THE \nPROCESS AND FORUMS FOR \nCOLLABORATION AND \nDECISION-MAKING. AND IT’S WORTH \nNOTING\, THINGS CHANGE. WE KNOW \nTHINGS — THERE IS A LOT OF \nCHANGE IN THE WORLD. SO\, THE \nMOU DOESN’T SUPERSEDE OR CHANGE \nANY AUTHORITIES OR JURISDICTIONS \nOF INDIVIDUAL AGENCIES. IT \nDOESN’T LOCK US INTO THIS \nRELATIONSHIP MOVING FORWARD\, IT \nALLOWS FOR CHANGES TO OCCUR \nMOVING FORWARD. IT’S EXCITING \nTHE AGENCIES ARE COMMITTING TO \nREALLY KIND OF FIGURING OUT HOW \nTO SYNC OF AND ALIGN THESE \nEFFORTS AROUND THESE FUNCTIONS. \nNEXT SLIDE PLEASE. \nHERE IS A QUICK ROLES AT A \nGLANCE SUMMARY SHEET WE HAVE \nPREPARED THAT IDENTIFY THE PRIME \nENTITIES FOR THE DIFFERENCE \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS THE CORE AGENCY \nIS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM AND \nESSENTIALLY EVERYBODY’S INVOLVED \nIN EVERYTHING ON THIS NEXT \nSLIDE. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? \nWHY DOES THIS MATTER? WELL\, WE \nHAVE NEVER DONE SOMETHING LIKE \nTHIS BEFORE IT’S INTRODUCING A \nCOORDINATED REGIONAL STRATEGY TO \nFUND AND DELIVER PROJECTS WHICH \nREALLY HASN’T BEEN UNDERTAKEN. \nIT IS SIGNIFICANT AND THERE IS A \nLOT OF WORK TO DO TO REALLY \nOPERATIONALIZE THIS BUT IT IS \nOUTLINING RULES AND \nRESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS \nFUNCTIONAL AREAS TO ACHIEVE \nTHESE SHARED GOALS. I THINK WE \nHAVE ALL BEEN WORKING ON THIS\, \nAND I THINK THIS IS A PRETTY BIG \nDEAL\, AND I’LL HAPPENED IT OVER \n— WE HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE? I \nTHINK THAT’S IT. THAT WOULD BE \nIT. OH\, YEAH\, I CAN HAND IT \nOVER TO JESSICA NOW. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: SORRY. IN CASE \nTHIS SOUNDS SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR TO \nYOU OR ANY OF THESE CONCEPTS\, IT \nREALLY SHOULD. MUCH OF THIS \nCOMES FROM THE BAY ADAPT JOINT \nPLATFORM THE CONSENSUS DRIVEN \nROADMAP FOR REGIONAL SEA LEVEL \nRISE ADAPTATION LED BY BCDC \nADOPTED IN 2021 THE MOU SPECIFIC \nCALLS OUT FOR EXAMPLE\, SOME OF \nOUR BAY ADAPT GROUPS LIKE THE \nIMPLEMENT BAY ADAPT \nIMPLEMENTATION COORDINATING \nGROUP OUR LEADERSHIP GROUP TO BE \nA FORUM THAT’S TO HELP MOVE THAT \nMOU FORWARD RELIES ON REGIONAL \nSHORELINE ADAPTATION PLAN \nBACKBONE TO SUPPORT THAT BCDC IS \nPROVIDING TO HELP MOVE IT \nFORWARD AS L LASTLY THE MOU \nADVANCING SEVERAL OF BCDC’S \nSTRATEGIC PLAN GOALS NAMELY GOAL \nONE LEADING REGIONAL PLANNING \nEFFORTS THAT RESULT IN \nSUCCESSFUL EQUITABLE ADAPTATION\, \nGOAL TWO IMPROVING OUR \nREGULATORY PLANNING FUNCTION IN \nA UNIFIED REGIONAL SCALE \nAPPROACH AND GOAL THREE \nEMBEDDING EQUITY INITIATIVES AND \nPRACTICES THROUGH THE OUR \nPROGRAMS. NEXT SLIDE. \nSO\, OUR NEXT STEPS\, AS ALLISON \nMENTIONED\, EACH OF THE AGENCIES \nIS WORKING THIS THROUGH THEIR \nOWN SYSTEM WE LIKE TO BE FIRST \nLIKE ALL THINGS RELATED TO SEA \nLEVEL RISE\, PAVING THE WAY\, THEN \nTHE IDEA IS THAT THE BARC \nGOVERNING BOARD MEETING IN JULY\, \nHOPEFULLY THE FULL BOARD WILL \nAPPROVE THIS\, THEN THE HARD WORK \nBEGINS AS WE START TO REALLY \nDIVE INTO THE WORKPLAN THAT \nWE’RE DEVELOPING AND MOVING \nTHESE PIECES FORWARD. \nNEXT SLIDE. \nI’LL READ THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION AND THEN PERHAPS \nWE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR \nDISCUSSION. BUT\, WE’RE ASKING \nYOU TODAY TO AUTHORIZE THE \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO \nA MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING \nAMONG THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY \nCONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT \nCOMMISSION AND THE ASSOCIATION \nOF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS\, ALSO \nHOST SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY \nPARTNERSHIP\, THE BAAQMD\, THE BAY \nAREA REGIONAL COLLABORATIVE\, THE \nCALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY\, THE CALIFORNIA \nDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION \nDISTRICT FOUR\, THE METROPOLITAN \nTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION\, AND \nTHE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER \nQUALITY CONTROL BOARD\, SAN \nFRANCISCO BAY REGION. TO \nCOORDINATE EVERYDAYS TO ADDRESS \nTHE THREATS OF FLOODING AND SEA \nLEVEL RISE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO \nBAY AREA. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: WE \nTHANK ALL OF THE PRESENTERS. I \nWILL HAVE SOME REMARKS IN A \nBIT. \nDO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NONE \nIN-PERSON AND NO HANDS RAISED\, \nCHAIR WASSERMAN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU. COMMENTS OR \nQUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? \nCOMMISSIONER JOHN-BAPTISTE? \n>>ALICIA JOHN BAPTISTE: THANKS \nCHAIR WASSERMAN\, AND THANKS TO \nALLISON AND STAFF FOR THE \nPRESENTATION. JUST WANT TO \nCONGRATULATE YOU ALL ON GETTING \nTO THIS POINT. I KNOW IT’S \nGOING TO BE COMPLEX TO FIGURE \nOUT HOW TO WORK ACROSS SO MANY \nDIFFERENT AGENCIES BUT HAVING A \nSHARED UNDERSTANDING OF WHO IS \nDOING WHAT AND WHAT THE PURPOSE \nIS IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL AND I \nTHINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A \nVALUABLE TOOL. SO\, \nCONGRATULATIONS FOR THAT. I HAD \nONE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT MAYBE \nALLISON CAN SPEAK TO. I NOTED \nIN THE WRITE-UP THAT YOU HAVE A \nLEAD IDENTIFIED FOR SEEKING AND \nSECURING FEDERAL FUNDING. I \nDIDN’T SEE ANY REFERENCE TO THE \nSAME THING ON THE STATE LEVEL. \nBUT THAT’S — I ASSUME THE \nPATHWAY THAT WE’LL NEED TO \nPURSUE AS WELL\, AND I WONDER IF \nYOU COULD SPEAK TO THE APPROACH \nTHAT’S PLANNED THERE? \n>>ALLISON BROOKS: YEAH. THAT’S \nA GREAT QUESTION. IT’S PART OF \nTHE COORDINATION THAT WE’RE \nDOING\, WHERE WE’RE HAVING A \nSUBCOMMITTEE OF THE KEY AGENCIES \nAROUND THE FUND-RAISING TO\, \nFIRST\, IDENTIFY — WE’RE GOING \nTO HAVE A LIST AND IDENTIFY ALL \nTHE ACTIVE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES \nTHAT ARE COMING FORWARD\, AND \nTHROUGH OUR WORK TOGETHER AND \nCOORDINATION\, WE’LL IDENTIFY WHO \nTHE APPROPRIATE LEAD IS FOR A \nSPECIFIC GRANT OPPORTUNITY AS \nTHEY COME FORWARD BASED ON WHO \nIS BEST POSITIONED TO GO AFTER \nIT. AND THEN THROUGH THAT\, \nWE’LL IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR \nJOINT PROPOSALS THAT MAY COME \nFORWARD. BUT\, REALLY\, I THINK \nIT’S HELPFUL TO JUST SAY WE’RE \nGOING TO START WITH THE COASTAL \nCONSERVANCY AS THE KIND OF MAIN \nENTITY. BUT THERE WILL BE \nOPPORTUNITIES WHICH WE RECOGNIZE \nFOR STATE GRANTS AND OTHERS \nWHERE ANOTHER APPLICANT CAN \nPROBABLY BETTER SUITED TO GO \nAFTER IT. SO\, THAT’S REALLY \nWHERE THE COORDINATION AND THE \nSYSTEM WE’RE SETTING UP TO \nREGULARLY BE ON TOP OF THESE \nOPPORTUNITIES WILL KICK N FOR \nSURE.   . \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: A QUESTION \nABOUT FINANCE. I’M REALLY \nPLEASED TO SEE THE DISCUSSION \nWITH INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN \nPLANNING\, NUMBER ONE\, BUT UNDER \nNUMBER TWO\, I HAVE A QUESTION\, A \nLOT OF THE DISCUSSION AS STAFF \nWAS JUST TALKING ABOUT\, IS ABOUT \nA LOT OF LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT \nSEEKING FUNDING FROM STATE \nGRANTS FEDERAL GRANTS AND \nREGIONAL SOURCES. WE HAVE \nTALKED MANY TIMES ABOUT THE \nPOTENTIAL FOR A REGIONAL — A \nREGIONAL BALLOT MEASURE\, LIKE \nMEASURE AA\, THAT WOULD BE \nSUBSTANTIALLY LARGER\, FINANCE \nADAPTATION\, I KNOW 2H DISCUSSES \nTHAT POTENTIAL\, BUT IT SAYS \nLEAVING INSTRUCT BE DETERMINED \nFOR THAT ITEM\, THAT IDEA IS \nCRITICAL THERE MAY BE ANALOGOUS \nIDEAS THAT ARE JUST NOT QUITE \nTHAT BUT SOMETHING ELSE CREATIVE \nALONG THOSE LINES. I WANTED TO \nASK WHY 2H IS LEFT UNRESOLVED \nAND WHETHER THIS MOU ADEQUATELY \nCAPTURED OTHER POTENTIAL \nCREATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS? \nBECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO \nCOME UP WITH THOSE \nMECHANISMS. \n>>JESSICA FAIN: I CAN TRY TO \nANSWER THIS\, I DON’T THINK \nANYONE IS JUMPING TO LEAD THE \nFUNDING MEASURES AT THIS POINT\, \nAND CERTAINLY\, WOULDN’T WELL \nSUITED\, BCDC IS NOT GOING TO \nLEAD A REGIONAL FUNDING MEASURE \nFOR EXAMPLE\, MTC AND ABAG ARE \nOCCUPIED RIGHT NOW WITH OTHER \nBALLOT MEASURES INCLUDING \nHOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION WHICH \nHAVE RESILIENCY COMPONENTS AS \nWELL BUT AREN’T SPECIFIC ON THIS \nTOPIC. I THINK THIS IS \nIMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THIS IS A \nCONCEPT WE DON’T WANT TO LOSE \nIT’S KNOWN IT’S IMPORTANT TO BE \nDISCUSSED FOR A LONG TIME THAT \nWE’RE COMMITTING TO BUT I THINK \nTHERE IS MORE TO BE DONE IN \nTERMS OF FIGURING OUT EXACTLY \nTHE RIGHT LEAD ON HOW TO MOVE \nTHAT FORWARD. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: ONE \nOF THE DIFFICULTIES IS THIS MOU \nIS REALLY AIMED AT THESE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND WHILE \nGOVERNMENT AGENCIES WERE \nINVOLVED IN AA\, THEY WERE NOT \nTHE LEAD AND THAT MAY BE THE \nCASE AGAIN. BUT WE WILL \nCERTAINLY BE VERY INVOLVED IN \nNOT ONLY THINKING ABOUT IT\, BUT \nMAKING SURE IT STAYS AT THE TOP \nOF EVERYBODY’S ATTENTION. \nCOMMISSIONER MOULTON-PETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nTHANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK \nJESSICA AND ALLISON AND ALL OF \nTHE AGENCIES. I HAVE BEEN \nFOLLOWING THIS AND VERY \nGRATIFIED TO SEE ALL THE \nPROGRESS IT’S MADE. I WANT TO \nOFFER A FURTHER THOUGHT ALONG \nTHE LINES THAT COMMISSIONER \nNELSON JUST OFFERED\, AND THAT \nIS\, I KNOW THE FOCUS HERE IS ON \nCOORDINATING GRANT APPLICATIONS \nFOR FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING\, I \nTHINK IT’S ALSO IMPORTANT TO \nREALIZE THAT THE PRIVATE AND \nNON-PROFIT SECTORS WILL PLAY A \nROLE IN FUNDING IN THE KIND OF \nMITIGATION ACTIVITIES THAT WE’RE \nLOOKING FOR. AND SO WHILE IT \nDOESN’T TOTALLY FIT WITHIN THE \nGRID AND TABLE THAT WE SAW\, I \nTHINK THE AGENCIES\, AND BARC\, \nWANT TO CONSIDER IN THE FUTURE \nHOW WE WOULD INCORPORATE THE \nPRIVATE AND NGO SECT ON WERES \nWHO WILL INEVITABLY GET INTO THE \nPICTURE AND HOW WE LEVERAGE \nTHOSE DOLLARS ALONG WITH THE \nSTATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING. SO \nJUST WANTED TO THROW THAT INTO \nTHE POT FOR FUTURE \nCONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: I \nWANT TO JOIN IN THANKING \nEVERYBODY. WHEN I WAS INVOLVED \nIN A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS \nLEADING UP TO THIS MOU\, AND \nTHERE WAS INITIALLY A LOT OF \nSKEPTICISM\, NOT ABOUT DOING IT\, \nBUT HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE\, \nOR NOT\, AND HOW QUICKLY WE COULD \nDO IT. AND I THINK WE ARE \nBEATING PEOPLE’S EXPECTATIONS. \nI SHARE JESSICA’S PRIDE IN OUR \nBEING FIRST AGENCY TO APPROVE \nIT\, AND I THINK IT WILL MOVE \nALONG WITH ALL OF THE AGENCIES\, \nBUT IN PART BECAUSE THIS CLEARLY \nWAS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT. NOT \nALWAYS WILLINGLY\, BUT EVERYBODY \nUNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF \nDOING THIS AND TAKING THIS \nAPPROACH. AND A LOT OF THE \nFOCUS IS ON FINANCING\, BUT THE \nMOU GOES BEYOND THAT AND TALKS \nABOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND \nMOVING TOWARDS IMPLEMENTATION. \nSO\, I WOULD — IF THERE ARE NO \nFURTHER QUESTIONS\, WELCOME \nSOMEONE MAKING THE MOTION TO \nAPPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT \nWE AUTHORIZE OUR EXECUTIVE \nDIRECTOR. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN\, I BELIEVE YOU NEED TO \nCLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? \nNEVER MIND. I STAND CORRECTED. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: OKAY\, I WOULD \nLIKE TO MOVE THE STAFF \nRECOMMENDATION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES. \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: SECOND. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: AND \nCOMMISSIONER GUNTHER SECONDS. \nIF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS\, SEER A \nPLEASE CALL THE ROLL. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CAN I \nCONFIRM THAT WAS ECKLUND AND \nGUNTHER\, CORRECT? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: YES. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: THANK \nYOU. COMMISSIONER ADDIEGO? \n>>MARK ADDIEGO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ECKLUND? \n>>PAT ECKLUND: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GORIN? \n>>SUSAN GORIN: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: GUNTHER? \n>>ANDREW GUNTHER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: KIMBALL? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER KISHIMOTO? \n>>YORIKO KISHIMOTO: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER LEFKOZITZ? \n>>SPEAKER: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: MOULTON \nPETERS? \n>>STEPHANIE MOULTON-PETERS: \nYES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: NELSON? \n>>BARRY NELSON: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nPEMBERTON? \n>>SHERI PEMBERTON: AYE. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER PINE? \n>>DAVE PINE: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER RANDOLPH? \n>>SEAN RANDOLPH: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: ZEPEDA? \n>>CESAR ZEPEDA: YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: \nCOMMISSIONER BEACH? \n>>JUSTINE BEACH: ABSTAIN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: YOU \nCAN THROW IN A REGRETFUL. \n>>SPEAKER: VERY REGRETFULLY\, \nPERSONALLY SUPPORT. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: CHAIR \nWASSERMAN? \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nVERY HAPPILY\, YES. \n>>CLERK OF THE BOARD: A TOTAL \nOF 15 YESES\, ZERO NOS\, AND ONE \nABSTENTION. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nTHANK YOU\, ALL VERY MUCH. I \nAPPRECIATE THIS. I APPRECIATE \nYOUR ATTENTION AND EFFORTS\, AS \nALWAYS. \nAND WITH THAT\, I WOULD \nENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN \n>>PAT ECKLUND: I’LL MOVE TO \nADJOURN. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \nCOMMISSIONER ECKLUND MOVES TO \nADJOURN AND COMMISSIONER NELSON \nSECONDS. \n>>PAT ECKLUND: SO WE’RE ON OUR \nWAY NOW TO ABAG. \n>>CHAIR\, ZACHARY WASSERMAN: \n[LAUGHTER] \nIF THERE AREN’T NO OBJECTIONS \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/may-16-2024-commission-meeting/
CATEGORIES:Commission
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR